RAF Harrier - Is it worth it?

[Skeleton]

With defence cuts seemingly close, is the Harrier worth keeping on our inventory?

What has it achieved in conflict after the Falklands, other than hovering?

Discuss.

[jindabyne]

Skeleton

Why are you taking up unnecessary bandwidth when you've already raised this very old chestnut on another active thread? Namemaking?

[FJJP]

Ask the troops in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan.....

[nigegilb]

Ask the Taleban

[L J R]

So long as the Harrier is in Afghanistan, I'm not. Yes I support this aircraft!

[althenick]

I'll bite..
With defence cuts seemingly close, is the Harrier worth keeping on our inventory?
What has it achieved in conflict after the Falklands, other than hovering?
Discuss.
Skeleton
Whose inventory do you mean? The RAF's or the RN's? if it means the RN budgeting for it then fair enufski. But to get rid of it altogether? Not a good idea methinks. What will we do when Antony B'Liar sends the lads and lasses somewhere there is no HNS?

[maxburner]

The jet is doing a real job in some ****ty hell hole as we sit and type in the comfort of our homes. Seems to me it's doing a great job!

[SASless]

Doing a very limited job....and very, very, vulnerable to Manpads and other anti-aircraft missiles.

[Widger]

SASless, sometimes I sit agast at your sweeping statements. What research have you conducted to come to the conclusion of that last statement. I KNOW that you are wrong and it seems that you are obviously bored and being deliberately inflamatory. Whilst the excellent work of our RN and RAF colleagues in the GR7A is getting limited publicity, the support they are providing in very welcome to Percy sat in his dugout!

[SASless]

Widger,

No offense intended....just saying it like it is.

The Harrier is very limited in the mission it can accomplish when compared to other Attack Aircraft such as the Tornado, A-10, F-16,F-15E, A-6, F/A 18. With JDAM we even can include the B-1, B-2, and B-52 as well.

The Harrier had a loss rate to Manpads/Sam's double that of other similar aircraft during the Gulf Wars.

The USMC Harriers only made token sorties in Afghanistan. That is well documented in Horner's, Glosson's, and other books about those wars.

The Harrier is obsolete and far too expensive when compared to other attack aircraft.

If you limit it to the unique ability it has...vstol or vertical takeoff and landing then it has a place in the inventory. As long as full size carriers and airfields are available the Harrier is excess to need.

I realize the British have a special love of the Harrier but the reality is it is a waste of money especially during a period of tight funding. The RAF would be far better off to buy off the shelf A-10's,F-16's or F-18's for the CAS mission or deploy the Typhoon as soon as possible. It would help if the Typhoon had an operable gun system to go along with it's bomb dropping capability.

[Widger]

SASLess, and which beautifully prepared, pool table surface would you like your F16, F18 and Typhoon to operate from then? There was a reason the Harrier was part of the NATO force in germany during the cold war and that was because it could operate from "unprepared" sites. It still is a very useful aircraft with some good ordnance and flown by well trained and very capable pilots!

[The Helpful Stacker]

I'd love to see some of those 'off the shelf' a/c SASless mentions flying out of the same places as Harriers do in Afghanistan.

How much are a pair of F15 engines these days?:rolleyes:

[SASless]

Stacker....perhaps we are talking about different Afghanistans here? Seems Haj flights operate out of there too....10,500 foot paved runway....real Harrier turf!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/kandahar_afld.htm


In Afghanistan, coalition aircraft flew 24 close-air-support missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. They included support to coalition and Afghan troops, reconstruction activities and presence route patrols.

Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs provided close air support to coalition troops in contact with enemy forces near Jalalabad.

Seven Air Force ISR aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Afghanistan.

Air Force C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster IIIs provided intratheater heavy airlift support, helping sustain operations throughout Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. They flew 185 airlift sorties, delivered 535 tons of cargo and transported 2,490 passengers.

Coalition C-130 crews from Australia and Canada flew in support of either OIF or OEF.

On April 15 Air Force and RAF tankers flew 36 sorties and off-loaded almost 2.6 million pounds of fuel.

In Afghanistan April 15, coalition air support for Operation Mountain Lion continued. An Air Force B-52 Stratofortress and A-10s provided close air support to coalition troops in contact with enemy forces near Jalalabad.

The A-10s successfully expended cannon rounds and rockets against enemy troops positioned on a hillside, causing them to flee the area. The A-10s also successfully struck several enemy troops out in the open with cannon rounds and rockets. The B-52 and the A-10s successfully expended general-purpose 500-pound bombs and precision guided JDAMs against a cave complex housing insurgents.

In total, coalition aircraft flew 24 close-air-support missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. They included support to coalition and Afghan troops, reconstruction activities and presence route patrols.

Five Air Force ISR aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Afghanistan.

Air Force C-130s and C-17s provided intratheater heavy airlift support, helping sustain operations throughout Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. They flew 165 airlift sorties, transported 2,800 passengers and delivered 415 tons of cargo including 20 tons of troop re-supply air-dropped in Afghanistan.

Coalition C-130 crews from Canada and South Korea flew in support of either OIF or OEF.

On April 14 Air Force and RAF tankers flew 35 sorties and off-loaded almost 2.4 million pounds of fuel.

In Afghanistan April 14, Air Force A-10s provided close air support to coalition troops in contact with enemy forces near Jalalabad during Operation Mountain Lion. The A-10s fired their cannons in two strafing passes against an enemy force in armed conflict with coalition and Afghan National forces, bringing the engagement to an end.

In total, coalition aircraft flew 26 close-air-support missions for Operation Mountain Lion and in other support missions for Operation Enduring Freedom. An Air Force B-52 and RAF Harrier GR7s provided close air support to coalition troops in contact with enemy forces near Kandahar.

Six Air Force ISR aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Afghanistan.

Air Force C-130s and C-17s provided intratheater heavy airlift support, helping sustain operations throughout Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. They flew 200 airlift sorties, delivered 500 tons of cargo and transported 3,700 passengers.

Coalition C-130 crews from Australia and Canada flew in support of either OIF or OEF.

On April 13 Air Force and RAF tankers flew 38 sorties and off-loaded almost 2.9 million pounds of fuel.




http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/images/kandahar-2001042306195200000011627935.jpg

[SSSETOWTF]

SASLess,

No offence intended, just telling it like it is:

Your theories appear to be obsolete and should be ignored.

Cutting and pasting a satellite photo is supposed to prove your point I suppose? Are you so absurdly ignorant to have not heard about the FOD issue at that airfield? And your cut and paste article which lists C130 and C17 - short field operators - actually justifies a STOVL aircraft like the Harrier. We'd love to put Tornado or Jag in there; they can't operate off that runway in its current condition. Similarly the US would love to put F16 or F18 in there; but they can't.

Please, before you post even more drivel, go and dig out some facts - preferably ones that support your argument instead of undermining it - and stop making tosh up.

:ok:

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[LateArmLive]

SASLess
It seems a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing :hmm:

[SASless]

Just what was it hauled the Haj folks in and out of the airfield then?

[NURSE]

and how many B52's are operating out of Afganistan? Interestingly the USAF seems always to try and get rid of the A10 and replace it with F16 so pre the current unpleasentness it was being sent to the ANG!!!!!

[My Dad's Little Boy]

The RAF would be far better off to buy off the shelf A-10's,F-16's or F-18's for the CAS mission or deploy the Typhoon as soon as possible.

How can the RAF buy A-10's when they've been out of production for the last 25 years? The USAF are hardly going to let the ones they've got left go.

The Harrier is very limited in the mission it can accomplish when compared to other Attack Aircraft such as the Tornado, A-10, F-16,F-15E, A-6, F/A 18.

A little bit out of date with the A-6's as well. Neither the US Navy or the USMC use the Intruder any longer any haven't done so for quite a few years. As far as I know, most of them have been sunk to form an artificial reef in the Pacific.


SASLess
It seems a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing :hmm:


I couldn't have put it better myself.:E

[Chateau Ver de Fleur]

SASless,

Having thoroughly enjoyed these posts for years, you are the first to actually prompt me to get off my a*se and start typing! Before I get reminded that this is a 'rumour' network and get banter for biting (as I have seen many others hilariously do over the years), I confess to being a little concerned that you actually believe the cr*p you're coming out with.

Quote -

"The Harrier is very limited in the mission it can accomplish when compared to other Attack Aircraft such as the Tornado, A-10, F-16,F-15E, A-6, F/A 18. With JDAM we even can include the B-1, B-2, and B-52 as well."

I would have thought that the only RAF jet to offer mixed loads, digital JRP, and integrated DAS in one, the Harrier would be ideally suited? How do you consider JDAM to be a better alternative to a combined GPS/Laser EPWII? My experience of JDAM in that theatre was of the majority being sprayed somewhere around the tgt due to dodgy GPS coords. At least the EPWIIs went where the TIALD was pointing.

Quote -

"The Harrier had a loss rate to Manpads/Sam's double that of other similar aircraft during the Gulf Wars."

Don't remember losing any of ours.

Quote -

"Seems Haj flights operate out of there too....10,500 foot paved runway....real Harrier turf!"

Didn't stop a number of them running off the end/side with shredded tyres.

Seeing as I'm quoting, here's one from a US Infantry Staff Sgt in a comms relay back to his operating base after snatching 12 Taliban from a house downtown

".....Yeah, we got the dudes. Looking a bit hot at one point - getting a lot of resistance before we went in. Just as we kicked the f**king door down, the Harriers came right down the f**cking high street - bang on time!"

".....No way!"

".....Those guys fly low man, I mean really low!......Give me a choice between an A-10 and a Harrier, I'll take the Harrier every time!"

I've known US SF teams who've got back into camp after 2-3 weeks out on patrol (having lost up to 3 of their team) go straight to Ops to thank the crews before they even go back to their accom.

Is the Harrier worth it? Ask them.

[SASless]

CVDF,

When your house is on fire....one does not question who is throwing water at it.

Whenever would a Spam use the expression "right down the high street..."?

[WILL DER NESS]

Chateau Ver de Fleur is quite correct in his testimony that the GR7a is providing more than its weight in gold. If memory serves the boys are providing something like 10% of current OEF CAS as well as providing a pair on GCAS for circa 10 hours per day.

The only thing the GR7a is lacking is a gun and an advanced targetting pod such LITENING or SNIPER. Combine these with ROVER III terminals for the JTAC on the ground and boy you'd have one hell of a great CAS platform.

Oh SASLess, better get your fact right about the state of Kandahar's runway before posting outdated, misinformed info.........................

[The Helpful Stacker]

What about this runway SASless, do you think the sweeper will sort it?
http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050224ca.jpg

I'm of no doubt the 96th Heavy Bomb and Curry Delivery Service Squadron will be operating off it tomorrow.:rolleyes:

[SASless]

Must be a bit odd to have the Backhoe digging a wider river channel like that! This where the new CVF is headed if it gets built?:E

[Skeleton]

The point was what has Harrier given us?

Yes its working off a shortened strip. Are there FARPs out there? Or is it just working off a short runway carrying little load.

Once a proper airhead is established, the Harriers can return to there normal guise of doing little.

And let the real aircraft get on with the fighting.

[Blacksheep]

I'm a bit worried about all those manpadded Harriers. How come the B52s never get hit? I've never heard of any Typhoons being downed by one, either. Maybe Sasless has a point. Maybe we should bring on a few them thar B52s for a bit of pinpoint, low level close air support. :hmm:

[Reach]

When your house is on fire....one does not question who is throwing water at it.



and "one" gives the firefighters a bit of respect.

Books and Google are no substitute for being there SASless.

[SSSETOWTF]

Skeleton,

Do you recall when the current Afghanistan operation began? In the interim 5 years of waiting for the 'proper airhead' to be established there has been a frequent requirement for on-call CAS. The only strike aircraft that can operate from the airfields available even to this day are the Harrier and A-10. Do I have to join the dots for you, or can you see that your point actually supports the requirement for the Harrier?

FARPs aren't used in Afghanistan, but they were used by the AV8B very successfully in OIF and the Hornet bubbas were very jealous of the capability when the AAR was scarce - go read about them.

If you want to open another can of worms - consider a USN LHD equipped with 24 Amraam, JDAM & Litening capable AV8Bs (+1000 USMC grunts). Park that off the coast of anywhere you feel like and you have a very powerful tool of foreign policy at significantly lower cost than having to send a CVN and associated battle group.

If you read the aviation press at all, you will have seen that the USAF are considering trading in some F-35A models to get some of the -Bs. Do you think that might say something about the utility of STOVL as a concept - or do you know more than them?

:) Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Gainesy]

successfully expended general-purpose 500-pound bombs
Don't you just love PR bullsh!t? Where does it say they hit the target(s)?

[stickmonkeytamer]

Joint Force Handbags (ah, the joy of Jointry!) is in Afghanistan because no-one else can do the job in it's entirety, encompassing assets available, footprint on the ground, runway type/ length/ state of disrepair in use, ordinance carried, capability, small amount of people needed, etc. The Harriers are the first request from all of the Allies in theatre on the ground because it is the best available to them from all of the options there.

Ever seen a B52 inverted through a pass at 100 feet???

If you are stuck on the ground in a tight spot in a valley in a fire fight- a puffer-jet is the best thing you could hope to see above (or below!) your position. :E

SMT

[Skeleton]

Provided said puffer jet can find a runway to take off from. If its saving you it has not taking off vertically, if it has then its darn close to you.

[rudekid]

SSSETOWTF

What about the Vipers out of Kabul? Long smooth runway, 25 minutes from the fight...

Harrier boys doing a great job, absolutely no doubt, but there would be other options if we had the political will to make it work.:*

[Bismark]

Clearly no-one has the political will to make it work, otherwise there would be GR4s etc in Afghanistan.

Will Typhoon ever deploy? If so any idea of a date? And on that date how many C-17 loads will be required to get it into theatre, operating and supported?

[orca]

One might be so bold as to suggest that aircraft like the Harrier are what we should be spending the lion's share of our money on.

Given that all of our defence policy (that i personally don't agree with) seems to be that we will always fight as a (small) part of a coalition, why bother with the 'mainstream' roles?

By having 'niche' capabilities up our sleave we can actually contribute meaningfully.

Incidentally, those JFH boys are doing a fantastic job. I doff my cap in their general direction.

[RileyDove]

Fleur - The RAF did not use the Harrier in GW1 . It was blooded over the years in various other Operation 'this and thats' which seem to have sprung up in the 1990's. The second Gulf War saw the Harrier see action . Whether it's the wonderful machine that people believe remains to be seem. Certainly it's ideally suited for systems integration but weight is always going to be an issue. As for the much vaunted ability to deploy anywhere - it's pretty much a myth that anyone is really going to want to field deploy with the type if they have the opportunity to deploy somewhere with long runways and good security instead.
Interestingly the U.S is exploring the servicability of a wide range of types which were developed either during or just after the Vietnam war.
Fighting a fairly unsophisticated puts the onus decidedly on pilot survival and not on stealthy first strike ability. The years ahead will see interesting choices for our future combat aircraft the Harrier is carrying out a role which is incredibily similar to what the Hunter FGA.9 did in the 1960's in the Middle East - whether the demands for weapons advancements is that valid when
survivability to small arms fire is a major issue remains to be seen.
In terms of the Harrier itself - it would be far nicer to have a twin jet with greater endurance and payload but we havn't .It's very much a British case of having to make the best of what we have!

[SSSETOWTF]

RileyDove,

How much more does an aircraft have to do to satisfy you? The Harrier's been coming up with the goods all over the globe for 30+ years. I'm curious about this field deploying 'myth' - what about the field site set up in the Falklands, what about USMC Harriers landing on roads just behind the FLOT in GW1, what about the FARPs used in GW2, what about the total lack of ramp space in GW2 and the Harrier's unique ability to operate off small flat decks that can actually get into the shallow waters close to shore, what about flying off the short serviceable strip in the current op in Afghanistan? If the capability to operate from austere sites and short strips has been used repeatedly over 25 years, how does that make it a 'myth'? The Hornet bubbas that I met at AJ were jealous as hell of the Harrier FRPs in Iraq - especially when the ATO went to a ball of chalk and the AAR got a bit scarce.

While it would be nice to have 2 engines, more weapons and more fuel, it's not necessarily the answer - then you could end up with an F3, and spend 20 odd years never even firing a shot in anger (;) ) The Harriers have been busy enough over the years and really don't need even more capability to prove either the aircraft or the concept. But as the launch platform for PW4, we're getting even more, and before anyone else.

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Skeleton]

Were back then to the old question of it's actual ability.
The FARP concept was a nice idea, but that meant lack of security for the jets, lack of manpower for guards etc, but from what I saw was never believed in once the CO of the secret Rutland base made it quite clear the plan did not include getting the troops out once the jets had gone. I may be wrong but now its finally become an operational bona fida jet the FARP concept has not been used.
The question of its ability to carry any load, GR9 or not, will always be asked about the Harrier. Yes it can match a lot of aircraft but it needs a runway to do it which kind of defeats its purpose.
As a platform I can see its limited uses, but IMHO what a waste of money - If had been any good it would have seen action in GW1, it didn't because there was no need for it to be there. Instead of jazzing up a tired old aircraft now, lets cut our losses, bin it and get something that can do the job.
You can keep 1 or 2 for airshows - it was always good at that.!! :=

[Skeleton]

SSE what FARP's in GW2?

They were not FARP's, the jet was working off a runway, therefore no FARP.

[Chesty Morgan]

And let the real aircraft get on with the fighting.


Tornado? Jaguar?


Har har har!

[Skeleton]

Tornado? Jaguar?
Har har har!


Yup both of them, instead of a Harrier, would do nicely thank you.

[SSSETOWTF]

Skeleton old chap,

You seem to be lacking a few fundamental facts:

There were a shed-load of USMC Harriers flying in GW1. Yes they got shot up quite a bit, but that's because they were down and dirty over the battlefield. If you recall, our Tornados also got pretty badly shot up at low level too, so it wasn't exactly a flaw in the aircraft, perhaps more in the tactics.

The FARP concept is still a nice idea and was used in GW2. There were 2 of them within 100nm of Baghdad, complete with a nice ring of grunts and Patriots for security - none of which got left behind. For the UK there's always the Falklands FARP at San Carlos - or does that not count either? And to reiterate a point from earlier in the thread, just because the satellite photo of Kandahar shows a huge long runway does not mean that the useable strip on that airfield is 10 000ft long - otherwise other fast jets would be able to use it. It's 25 min transit time closer to the current fighting than Bagram, so Kandahar itself isn't terribly far removed from the FARP concept either.

There were very good reasons why the UK GR5 didn't get involved in GW1 - it was brand new at the time and had extremely limited weapons clearances (a bit like the Typhoon now). But that bears no reflection on the capability of the aircraft today. In addition, we were sending just about every other serviceable fast jet airframe and it's not always sensible to put all your eggs in one basket is it?

So you admit that in some scenarios it's a match for other small fast jets, when operating off runways (usually much shorter ones than anyone else). At the same time it has additional unique capabilities - and that's an argument for scrapping it? Where's the logic in that? And as for your last point - it is doing the job right now, and has been for years. In which case, there's no justification whatsoever to 'bin it'. IMHO your opinion is totally irrational - did a Harrier mate spill your pint once? If so, I'm sure he's very sorry. Now get over it.

:ok: Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[FJJP]

Skeleton, you clearly don't understand the concept of the FARP. It's a Forward Arming and Refuelling Point. It has to be somewhere where the ac can land and be re-supplied without the need to transit back to to main base - it's all about fast turnround to get them back to where they're needed - fast. There is also the ALARP, which depends on another ac fitted with refuelling kit and tanks, be it a C130 or Chinook or whatever to act as a fuel source.

The fact that the FARP is next to a runway is irrelevant - it could easily be a road, dirt strip, etc.

[A good headin]

My Mum likes the Harrier because it always bows to her at airshows. She says the pilots are nice and sexy too and she always smiles at them when she sees them in Stamford High Street. She always wants to mother them because they look so young she says.

Therefore, I suggest we keep the Harrier to keep my Mum happy.

There sorted.

[LateArmLive]

I think I know your mum.............