Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Hate to say this, but:
The next stage of the game: Does the F-35B survive? (Appropriate question given Dempsey's comments about the affordability of all three versions.) If it does not, how long does the C outlive the B, with Boeing, GE, Raytheon and the Hornet Mafia gunning for it?
What about the RN, you ask? Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the binning of Skybolt...
The next stage of the game: Does the F-35B survive? (Appropriate question given Dempsey's comments about the affordability of all three versions.) If it does not, how long does the C outlive the B, with Boeing, GE, Raytheon and the Hornet Mafia gunning for it?
What about the RN, you ask? Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the binning of Skybolt...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what the deal DOES do is prove the lie to all those who said the Harrier fleet was old/outdated/unserviceable/unsupportable.
It just makes all the anti-Harrier rhetoric even more obviously a total load of political rubbish, with commentators here and elsewhere posting incorrect statements in attempts to save their jobs / scrap their mates job.
Its clear from this purchase, and the statements that come from it, that the UK Harrier Force was a viable, maintainable fleet, which was capable - if serviced and maintained - of carrying out the expeditionary role required for the support of our land forces.
Otherwise why would the USA be spending the money?
It just makes all the anti-Harrier rhetoric even more obviously a total load of political rubbish, with commentators here and elsewhere posting incorrect statements in attempts to save their jobs / scrap their mates job.
Its clear from this purchase, and the statements that come from it, that the UK Harrier Force was a viable, maintainable fleet, which was capable - if serviced and maintained - of carrying out the expeditionary role required for the support of our land forces.
Otherwise why would the USA be spending the money?
The decision was all about the number of frames funded to maintain the "required" FE@R and this is where it all gets silly and also where it is deadly serious.
FE@R is essentially a funding assumption which drives a lot of budget line items under the DLODS. There is a tendency among those in MB and elsewhere to believe that FE@R is somehow more than this, something that is set in stone, which it was never intended to be - it has grown out of the old Defence Planning Assumptions - and can be changed.
However, changing it requires funding and that is where it gets deadly serious, if you end up driven to the lowest sustainable FE@R value (which JFH had been). I don't know if anyone actually looked at the relative FE@R provision between the GR7/9 and GR4 forces and whether they could be rebalanced for an affordable solution across the capability requirements. However, once the argument became about losing a "fleet", then the fleet with the smallest FE@R was always in trouble. Anything that got in the way of saving money was going to be doomed under SDSR.
As far as the USMC are concerned, good luck to them. The fact that there are no AV8 in AMARC suggests that there are some very tired frames out there which will probably go to AMARC as our "low-time" frames go through a regeneration phase at D-M. If they think they're really going to replace some FA18D in the force structure, they may have a nasty surprise coming.....
FE@R is essentially a funding assumption which drives a lot of budget line items under the DLODS. There is a tendency among those in MB and elsewhere to believe that FE@R is somehow more than this, something that is set in stone, which it was never intended to be - it has grown out of the old Defence Planning Assumptions - and can be changed.
However, changing it requires funding and that is where it gets deadly serious, if you end up driven to the lowest sustainable FE@R value (which JFH had been). I don't know if anyone actually looked at the relative FE@R provision between the GR7/9 and GR4 forces and whether they could be rebalanced for an affordable solution across the capability requirements. However, once the argument became about losing a "fleet", then the fleet with the smallest FE@R was always in trouble. Anything that got in the way of saving money was going to be doomed under SDSR.
As far as the USMC are concerned, good luck to them. The fact that there are no AV8 in AMARC suggests that there are some very tired frames out there which will probably go to AMARC as our "low-time" frames go through a regeneration phase at D-M. If they think they're really going to replace some FA18D in the force structure, they may have a nasty surprise coming.....
JD - I suspect that the starting point was the UK decision to dump the F-35B, probably because of a lack of confidence that it would ever enter service, due to a combination of technical, economic and doctrinal factors in the US.
This removed JFH's role as a "bridge" to the F-35B, which had been very important. Removing one FJ fleet was seen as a major cost savings. Typhoon was unthinkable. GR4 had done CAS, and other things like Raptor and Storm Shadow depended on it completely, and consequently...
This removed JFH's role as a "bridge" to the F-35B, which had been very important. Removing one FJ fleet was seen as a major cost savings. Typhoon was unthinkable. GR4 had done CAS, and other things like Raptor and Storm Shadow depended on it completely, and consequently...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
what the deal DOES do is prove the lie to all those who said the Harrier fleet was old/outdated/unserviceable/unsupportable.
Given the budgetry constraints placed upon HM Forces, compared to those that the US military operate under, the last two bits were an issue and were very much inter-linked. All things are not equal, the fact the US have decided they can afford to operate them does not mean they were affordable for the UK to operate.
Also worth bearing in mind is that the USMC's replacement for the Harrier may not even turn up and since STOVL a/c are a major part of USMC operational planning it suddenly becomes "which is cheaper, operating some more Harriers or completely re-writing the entire way the USMC does business"?
On your first two-points though, I'm not sure many have stated that they were 'out-dated' (cue cut and paste quotes) but they most certainly were not old, as stated by some, given the age of other a/c operated by the HM Forces.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By unserviceable/unsupportable.I was specifically referring to the continuously stated view here that the airframes were life-expired, not realistically repairable.and incapable of sustained use.
Given the USA comment "It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it" then those statements can be seen to be total fabrications.
Given the USA comment "It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it" then those statements can be seen to be total fabrications.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
You're not comparing like with like.
What I'm sure many of the posters who made remarks with reference to the Harrier's servicability were speaking about is it's serviciability within the given constraints of the MoD budget.
Lets not beat about the bush here, the MoD has never taken through-life and spares support to a/c seriously, indeed the lack of support is seemingly excused using the "well something new will be along soon" excuse, though such avoidance leads to situations like that of the Bucc and F3 fleets, whereby they were extremely long in the tooth due to waiting for the next best thing to replace them.
Now I'm well aware that the Harrier was rather expensively upgraded not too long before they were retired but the spares situation didn't improve. Lovely upgraded a/c need spares as much as knackered old ones do and given previous by the MoD is it any wonder doubt was cast over the practicality of operating the Harrier going forward. The continious operations of the Harrier in Afghanistan for so long exacerbated the issue, meaning that once they were replaced by the Tornado the writing was on the wall.
Now why would the US wants them? Well unlike the UK they are a country that has a long history of wringing all it can out of an airframe, the expected OOS date of the B-52 and the upgrade program its been through is a good example. The existance of lines upon lines of a/c parked in the desert also gives a clue to the US mentality towards spares support and 'what if?'
Bottom line, what the US DoD and UK MoD considers 'supportable' and are often two very different things.
What I'm sure many of the posters who made remarks with reference to the Harrier's servicability were speaking about is it's serviciability within the given constraints of the MoD budget.
Lets not beat about the bush here, the MoD has never taken through-life and spares support to a/c seriously, indeed the lack of support is seemingly excused using the "well something new will be along soon" excuse, though such avoidance leads to situations like that of the Bucc and F3 fleets, whereby they were extremely long in the tooth due to waiting for the next best thing to replace them.
Now I'm well aware that the Harrier was rather expensively upgraded not too long before they were retired but the spares situation didn't improve. Lovely upgraded a/c need spares as much as knackered old ones do and given previous by the MoD is it any wonder doubt was cast over the practicality of operating the Harrier going forward. The continious operations of the Harrier in Afghanistan for so long exacerbated the issue, meaning that once they were replaced by the Tornado the writing was on the wall.
Now why would the US wants them? Well unlike the UK they are a country that has a long history of wringing all it can out of an airframe, the expected OOS date of the B-52 and the upgrade program its been through is a good example. The existance of lines upon lines of a/c parked in the desert also gives a clue to the US mentality towards spares support and 'what if?'
Bottom line, what the US DoD and UK MoD considers 'supportable' and are often two very different things.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I'm well aware that the Harrier was rather expensively upgraded not too long before they were retired but the spares situation didn't improve. Lovely upgraded a/c need spares as much as knackered old ones do and given previous by the MoD is it any wonder doubt was cast over the practicality of operating the Harrier going forward. The continious operations of the Harrier in Afghanistan for so long exacerbated the issue, meaning that once they were replaced by the Tornado the writing was on the wall.
If they think they're really going to replace some FA18D in the force structure, they may have a nasty surprise coming.....
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helpful (and others)
I see what you are all saying, but to my way of thinking these are just excuses for incompetence within the MOD supply chain planning.
Or if not incompetence, then deliberate malfeasance in an attempt to degrade a UK military asset
I see what you are all saying, but to my way of thinking these are just excuses for incompetence within the MOD supply chain planning.
Or if not incompetence, then deliberate malfeasance in an attempt to degrade a UK military asset
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Just to confirm we are saying that the Harriers serviceability requirements were greater than the Tornado..............................
What is being said is that there isn't/wasn't much money sloshing about for spares/support and that there is a difference between what the UK MoD considers affordable and the US DoD does.
Helpful (and others)
I see what you are all saying, but to my way of thinking these are just excuses for incompetence within the MOD supply chain planning.
Or if not incompetence, then deliberate malfeasance in an attempt to degrade a UK military asset
I see what you are all saying, but to my way of thinking these are just excuses for incompetence within the MOD supply chain planning.
Or if not incompetence, then deliberate malfeasance in an attempt to degrade a UK military asset
I'm not saying it is right or that lessons shouldn't have been learnt but bear in mind that the MoD has to operate under regulations put in place by the Treasury a few years back that effectively punishes the MoD if it holds anymore spares than it can justify, using justification terms laid down by said Treasury. Same said orgainsation also forbids large-scale 'contingency funds' among government departments, so the MoD can't even put money aside to pay for spares it may need in a hurry in the event of a sudden need.
Then of course you have the fact that because the MoD can't place regular orders for irregularly required spares and store them (Treasury regs again) the companies who make those spares often end up going out of business.
Its not solely an MoD issue, its a complete lack of joined up government issue. Government departments fining government departments, money sloshing from one ministers brief to another
Last edited by The Helpful Stacker; 14th Nov 2011 at 20:52.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Just over the road from Bicester airfield
Age: 80
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The Harrier
Maybe not buying them back but, imagine in a few years time, possibly at RIAT how galling would it be to see our Harriers in US markings with US pilots performing before the crowds, just a thought !, Paul H.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bit of a circular argument though isn't it? Because the FE@R was low, the spares provision was low - and not enough to sustain the actual demand on the fleet - so degrading the fleet further
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR9s would quite easily replace F18 D in the short term, especially in terms of range and serviceability.
AN/APG-73 springs to mind, as a starter for 10.
Justanopinion
Absolutely nothing to do with capability. My point was that the AV8B force probably has quite a few high-time frames which will probably be replaced by GR7/9 rebuilds. Doesn't leave many available frames to go and replace the Bug-Deltas.......
Absolutely nothing to do with capability. My point was that the AV8B force probably has quite a few high-time frames which will probably be replaced by GR7/9 rebuilds. Doesn't leave many available frames to go and replace the Bug-Deltas.......
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More info on the Harrier sale here
MoD and USMC To Confirm RAF Harrier Sale: Armed Forces Int. News
According to this article the sale could be completed by the end of the month
MoD and USMC To Confirm RAF Harrier Sale: Armed Forces Int. News
According to this article the sale could be completed by the end of the month
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky news:
Britain's decommissioned Harrier jump-jets are to be sold for around £34m to the US Marines.
The 74 Harriers were mothballed last year as part of the Defence Review following the General Election and they have been stored at the RAF's base at Cottesmore where they are looked after at minimum fleet maintenance.
Now, the planes will be used by the US Navy in a move that is expected to provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
The plan is to strip the planes of their British systems and replace them with Marine gear, Harrier expert Lor Nordeen told defensenews.com.
The Americans could take advantage of the money Britain had spent on the planes - reported at around £1bn - which would make it like buying a car which had only done 15,000 miles, he explained.
"I would see this as a good bargain to extend the operational utility of the Harrier II fleet, no matter what," he said.
The decision to take them out of service was hugely controversial, as was the decision to abandon the Navy's aircraft carriers from which the Harriers operated.
Opponents of the move suggest the Harriers had been scrapped so that the RAF could keep the Tornado bomber force intact.
They point out that it was jets lifting off from decks off the Libyan coast that had the success in that conflict, rather than the pricier Tornados and Eurofighters which were expensive to run and required a huge amount of air-to-air refuelling.
The 74 Harriers were mothballed last year as part of the Defence Review following the General Election and they have been stored at the RAF's base at Cottesmore where they are looked after at minimum fleet maintenance.
Now, the planes will be used by the US Navy in a move that is expected to provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
The plan is to strip the planes of their British systems and replace them with Marine gear, Harrier expert Lor Nordeen told defensenews.com.
The Americans could take advantage of the money Britain had spent on the planes - reported at around £1bn - which would make it like buying a car which had only done 15,000 miles, he explained.
"I would see this as a good bargain to extend the operational utility of the Harrier II fleet, no matter what," he said.
The decision to take them out of service was hugely controversial, as was the decision to abandon the Navy's aircraft carriers from which the Harriers operated.
Opponents of the move suggest the Harriers had been scrapped so that the RAF could keep the Tornado bomber force intact.
They point out that it was jets lifting off from decks off the Libyan coast that had the success in that conflict, rather than the pricier Tornados and Eurofighters which were expensive to run and required a huge amount of air-to-air refuelling.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lincs
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard a rumour that allocations of Harriers to museums have been withdrawn so that they can sell the whole shooting match, lock stock and barrel. Looks like a scorched earth policy - nothing at all left to remind anyone of what has happened (aka MRA4).
allocations of Harriers to museums