Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse the slight thread drift but thought this might be of interest.
"Helicopters, artillery, light armoured vehicles and Harrier jump-jets are expected to be eventually stationed in Australia as part of what is known as a Marine Air-Ground Task Force." (In total about 2500 Marines).
From a previous article it said the following would also be stationed here - FA18's, B52's and Air to Air Refueling aircraft.
I never thought I'd see another Harrier fly but now I might get the chance.
"Helicopters, artillery, light armoured vehicles and Harrier jump-jets are expected to be eventually stationed in Australia as part of what is known as a Marine Air-Ground Task Force." (In total about 2500 Marines).
From a previous article it said the following would also be stationed here - FA18's, B52's and Air to Air Refueling aircraft.
I never thought I'd see another Harrier fly but now I might get the chance.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always, there is a lot of guff on this thread from our armchair experts. The Harrier had excellent serviceability at home and away on ops right to the end; spares weren't much of an issue; we rarely had jets stuck on the ground as D states; the airframes had about 10 years of life left in them; and they weren't significantly fatigued after 5 years of hard graft in Afghan. Now compare this to the serviceability figures of GR4 and Typ, both at home, in Herrick and Libya and you should get a better idea of the picture. You only have to look at the final 16-ship that took place nearly 12 months ago - approx 30 jets on the line, 16 plus a whip were launched and no spares required! Sadly though the fat lady started singing several months ago and the only consolation for the taxpayer is the US are going to buy the jets off us and we don't have to scrap them at considerable cost. If only Libya had started a year earlier...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gave me a shock the last time I saw (or rather felt) any flying - I was at a Whoop Hall near Kirkly Lonsdale and (I think it was ) thirteen came over at very low level in five minutes, heading up the Lune Valley. Made the old building shake, along with everybody in it. This was just a week or so before the closure announcement - somebody was going out with a bang and trying to prove a point. .
I'd not felt anything like that in years. And I mean literally - felt
I'd not felt anything like that in years. And I mean literally - felt
Braking Stop,
They managed to put large numbers of Tornados and Typhoons in the air for the 90th Anniversary Flypast at Fairford and a month earlier a 16-ship formation of GR4s flew over Buckingham Palace among a sizeable number of other aircraft. Arguments like just how good the Harrier serviceability rate was may well be admirable, but that of the other two pointy grey beasts isn't that bad either. Furthermore, there's more of them, they can go faster, carry more stuff further and the Typhoon can shoot other planes down far more easily. Not to mention its development potential!
If the Harrier was retained and one or both of the other two dismissed, then quite frankly, someone would need their head reading.
The point has been made no end of times, that nobody wanted the Harrier to go, yes it was indeed a valuable close support fighter and with a recently added longer range attack capability. But no way should it have survived, in its tiny number, as the sole means of delivering ordinance from the air in both defensive and offensive roles, simply because it can land and take off vertically and nod at the crowdline at airshows and because its a riveting example of British know how. However, grand these features are!
FB
They managed to put large numbers of Tornados and Typhoons in the air for the 90th Anniversary Flypast at Fairford and a month earlier a 16-ship formation of GR4s flew over Buckingham Palace among a sizeable number of other aircraft. Arguments like just how good the Harrier serviceability rate was may well be admirable, but that of the other two pointy grey beasts isn't that bad either. Furthermore, there's more of them, they can go faster, carry more stuff further and the Typhoon can shoot other planes down far more easily. Not to mention its development potential!
If the Harrier was retained and one or both of the other two dismissed, then quite frankly, someone would need their head reading.
The point has been made no end of times, that nobody wanted the Harrier to go, yes it was indeed a valuable close support fighter and with a recently added longer range attack capability. But no way should it have survived, in its tiny number, as the sole means of delivering ordinance from the air in both defensive and offensive roles, simply because it can land and take off vertically and nod at the crowdline at airshows and because its a riveting example of British know how. However, grand these features are!
FB
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"delivering ordinance from the air"
Is that a bit like dropping bibles and prayer books rather than bombs?
Or maybe Hansard?
As for "that nobody wanted the Harrier to go"
I for one really don't believe that.
Is that a bit like dropping bibles and prayer books rather than bombs?
Or maybe Hansard?
As for "that nobody wanted the Harrier to go"
I for one really don't believe that.
jamedevice,
When the arguments get down do spelling competitions its clear that those taking matters in that direction have conceded.
And I for one certainly did not want to see another aircraft type go from the inventory of the R.A.F. or R.N. or the Army for that matter, without a suitable replacement being found. I'm not entirely convinced the decision to axe them is going to make a thumping great difference to just what level of debt we are saddled with. Who knows, the way Angela Merkel is carrying on, we might need a greatly expanded military budget just around the corner to defend ourselves against the whole of the Euro Zone, or Germany as we are told it is now called! We might be able to get a deal on buying back the Harriers from the USMC then. Just like when we bought those old steamers which the USN didn't want anymore, provided we handed over various territories in return.
FB
FB
When the arguments get down do spelling competitions its clear that those taking matters in that direction have conceded.
And I for one certainly did not want to see another aircraft type go from the inventory of the R.A.F. or R.N. or the Army for that matter, without a suitable replacement being found. I'm not entirely convinced the decision to axe them is going to make a thumping great difference to just what level of debt we are saddled with. Who knows, the way Angela Merkel is carrying on, we might need a greatly expanded military budget just around the corner to defend ourselves against the whole of the Euro Zone, or Germany as we are told it is now called! We might be able to get a deal on buying back the Harriers from the USMC then. Just like when we bought those old steamers which the USN didn't want anymore, provided we handed over various territories in return.
FB
FB
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't trying to pick on your spelling - it just amused me. The thought of bombing people with treatises and good words......How much damage would a Bible from 3000 feet cause if it landed on your head???
And I appreciate that YOU may not have wanted the Harriers scrapped, but I'm certain that an element among the self-serving ranks of the RAF and their MOD acolytes did - at the expense of the Navy and expeditionary forces
And I appreciate that YOU may not have wanted the Harriers scrapped, but I'm certain that an element among the self-serving ranks of the RAF and their MOD acolytes did - at the expense of the Navy and expeditionary forces
Guest
Posts: n/a
A thought; I know it says that they have been held at minimum maint - does that mean they are still flyable or will they be spannered at Cott (and by whom?) and carted off in bits? Can you get a C-17 or Galaxy or Antonov or whatever in to EGXJ?
No problems James old pprune, I'm sure, though, that the air staff didn't want to get rid of anymore of their toy collection, even the ones they have to share with the other children!
By the by, a Bible dropping on one's head from about 3,000' would hurt. It would hurt sufficiently, perhaps, to be rated as a weapon of war.
FB
By the by, a Bible dropping on one's head from about 3,000' would hurt. It would hurt sufficiently, perhaps, to be rated as a weapon of war.
FB
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Propos Nothing ...
I stumbled on this wet jet on a kebab run circa 2006 - near LCA/LCLK. I've ... err ... skilfully chopped the tail number off to keep it schtumm.
PS: Back on thread, don't worry, the Argentinians won't spot any of this.
PS: Back on thread, don't worry, the Argentinians won't spot any of this.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conspiracy theorist
Jamesdevice,
Your opinion about the senior leadership and the scrapping of harrier is ludicrous. The idea that the higher ups WANTED to scrap one of their only FJ types, and WANTED to put their own pilots out of a cockpit(as well as RN pilots) is also a conspiracy theory.
Prove your utter lies or retract your frankly ridiculous opinion...
Your opinion about the senior leadership and the scrapping of harrier is ludicrous. The idea that the higher ups WANTED to scrap one of their only FJ types, and WANTED to put their own pilots out of a cockpit(as well as RN pilots) is also a conspiracy theory.
Prove your utter lies or retract your frankly ridiculous opinion...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
high spirits
Nuts
I retract nothing, and yes I believe there was a conspiracy to close down naval fixed wing aviation
PS - I believe the same is happening quietly behind the scenes regarding the Commando Helicopter Force. Does anyone really believe they are going to get any converted Merlins?
Nuts
I retract nothing, and yes I believe there was a conspiracy to close down naval fixed wing aviation
PS - I believe the same is happening quietly behind the scenes regarding the Commando Helicopter Force. Does anyone really believe they are going to get any converted Merlins?
Last edited by jamesdevice; 17th Nov 2011 at 09:46.
GICASI,
The Sea Harrier is serial ZH808. Images from inside the scrap yard at the following link.
Target Lock: Sea Harrier : ZH808 on Cyprus
Delivered to RN 18 Dec 1997. Made emergency landing at RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus in Mar 2005 after fuel leak caught fire. Declared Cat 5 in May 2005 and sold to local scrap dealer. Now at Kalo Chorio near Larnaca.
Target Lock: Sea Harrier : Production : Royal Navy
The Sea Harrier is serial ZH808. Images from inside the scrap yard at the following link.
Target Lock: Sea Harrier : ZH808 on Cyprus
Delivered to RN 18 Dec 1997. Made emergency landing at RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus in Mar 2005 after fuel leak caught fire. Declared Cat 5 in May 2005 and sold to local scrap dealer. Now at Kalo Chorio near Larnaca.
Target Lock: Sea Harrier : Production : Royal Navy
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEEEJ
Great links. Many thanks for that.
If my sums are correct (often not the case) that amounts to a 48% loss rate for single seaters and 60% for T Birds. There were an awful lot of friends in the red entries in your link.
Bless 'em all.
If my sums are correct (often not the case) that amounts to a 48% loss rate for single seaters and 60% for T Birds. There were an awful lot of friends in the red entries in your link.
Bless 'em all.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finningley Boy,
I post only infrequently here, but I have to respond to your earlier post. It's a good example of reframing the question to give the answer you want, and also some judicious exaggeration.
The Harrier fleet was not 'tiny' - it's FE@R had been artificially reduced, but 70 odd jets is no way 'tiny'.
The choice did not have to be scrap one entire FJ fleet. if that WAS the only choice, then 'bigger fleet survives' is indeed a no-brainer. But it wasn't. Other options were available, and looked at.
The main point is that the Harrier was not just one of a range of RAF FJ attack aircraft. It was the RAF's best CAS aircraft by some margin - and by that I mean a real, designed for the job, CAS aircraft. Was it the best deep strike platform? No. That's Tornado. Best CAS? You bet. And it was also the only aircraft that could do maritime strike. When it came to the push, the RAF were not willing to trade anything away to preserve that last capability, and that's the sticking point for many of us. We know CDS played a 'lone hand' in the closing stages of SDSR, and diod so wearing a light blue hat. Good luck to the RAF for having their man in the job, but don't complain when the other Services draw the obvious conclusions.
As ever, no slight intended to the very many RAF people who did a great job on ELLAMY, to the credit of their Service.
Best Regards
Engines
I post only infrequently here, but I have to respond to your earlier post. It's a good example of reframing the question to give the answer you want, and also some judicious exaggeration.
The Harrier fleet was not 'tiny' - it's FE@R had been artificially reduced, but 70 odd jets is no way 'tiny'.
The choice did not have to be scrap one entire FJ fleet. if that WAS the only choice, then 'bigger fleet survives' is indeed a no-brainer. But it wasn't. Other options were available, and looked at.
The main point is that the Harrier was not just one of a range of RAF FJ attack aircraft. It was the RAF's best CAS aircraft by some margin - and by that I mean a real, designed for the job, CAS aircraft. Was it the best deep strike platform? No. That's Tornado. Best CAS? You bet. And it was also the only aircraft that could do maritime strike. When it came to the push, the RAF were not willing to trade anything away to preserve that last capability, and that's the sticking point for many of us. We know CDS played a 'lone hand' in the closing stages of SDSR, and diod so wearing a light blue hat. Good luck to the RAF for having their man in the job, but don't complain when the other Services draw the obvious conclusions.
As ever, no slight intended to the very many RAF people who did a great job on ELLAMY, to the credit of their Service.
Best Regards
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 17th Nov 2011 at 16:03. Reason: Spellcheck
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
I'm interested to know (no sarcasm) what you are using to measure your statement of the Harrier being the best CAS platform by some margin? Yes, it may have been designed for that in its previous life as GR3/5, but the way CAS is done today?
I'm interested to know (no sarcasm) what you are using to measure your statement of the Harrier being the best CAS platform by some margin? Yes, it may have been designed for that in its previous life as GR3/5, but the way CAS is done today?
Yes, I would be interested in your backing that statement up with fact (as opposed to opinion), especially now that we have some evidence from the GR4's performance in Afghanistan. Not meant to be sarcastic or taunting.....genuinely interested.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jamesdevice,
I only asked you to prove your conspiracy theory....which you can't. I ask again, why would a rationally sane person in charge WANT to reduce his FJ fleet as you suggested. He would reduce the influence of his own Service and the number of cockpits for his own pilots. As for Merlin, the plan as it stands is for it to go to the RN. I would quite rightly see the RAF getting cheesed off about going from 3 helo fleets down to one if Puma 2 gets the chop. What would they have gotten from 10 years in JHC?? Job losses, fewer promotion opportunities and 2 less helo types than when they started...
I only asked you to prove your conspiracy theory....which you can't. I ask again, why would a rationally sane person in charge WANT to reduce his FJ fleet as you suggested. He would reduce the influence of his own Service and the number of cockpits for his own pilots. As for Merlin, the plan as it stands is for it to go to the RN. I would quite rightly see the RAF getting cheesed off about going from 3 helo fleets down to one if Puma 2 gets the chop. What would they have gotten from 10 years in JHC?? Job losses, fewer promotion opportunities and 2 less helo types than when they started...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foghorn and others,
Where I'm coming from is the definition of 'CAS' that was used when the AV-8B (GR5/7/9) was designed. I'm talking about the ability of an aircraft to get airborne with a good weapons load (normally from a forward strip) and loiter in the close vicinity of the FEBA to provide reactive ground strike in close proximity to ground forces.
That led to designs like the A-10 and AV-8B, characterised by excellent pilot visibility, good endurance and very high low speed manoeuvrability, plus lots and lots of weapon stations.
I'm fully aware that the RAF (and others) have redefined 'CAS' to allow the role to be claimed by jets like F-16 and Tornado - and the redefinition is accompanied by the use of air power in new and doubtless effective ways. But it's not CAS as I understood the job. The way the USMC use the AV-8B - now that's what I mean by CAS.
I'm absolutely not going to get into a Harrier/Tornado slanging match here - it runs the risk of belittling the achievements of our airmen whatever they fly. What I know (from friends who have served there) is that Tornado required a different method of tasking and a heap more support (not to mention a wedge of new concrete and some sporty takeoff limitations) to operate in the Stan. That doesn't make it a bad jet - it's a good one. But it's being used in a role it was not designed for, and will only be as effective as it can be within those limitations.
Supporting our crews whatever they fly wherever they fly as ever,
Best regards
Engines
Where I'm coming from is the definition of 'CAS' that was used when the AV-8B (GR5/7/9) was designed. I'm talking about the ability of an aircraft to get airborne with a good weapons load (normally from a forward strip) and loiter in the close vicinity of the FEBA to provide reactive ground strike in close proximity to ground forces.
That led to designs like the A-10 and AV-8B, characterised by excellent pilot visibility, good endurance and very high low speed manoeuvrability, plus lots and lots of weapon stations.
I'm fully aware that the RAF (and others) have redefined 'CAS' to allow the role to be claimed by jets like F-16 and Tornado - and the redefinition is accompanied by the use of air power in new and doubtless effective ways. But it's not CAS as I understood the job. The way the USMC use the AV-8B - now that's what I mean by CAS.
I'm absolutely not going to get into a Harrier/Tornado slanging match here - it runs the risk of belittling the achievements of our airmen whatever they fly. What I know (from friends who have served there) is that Tornado required a different method of tasking and a heap more support (not to mention a wedge of new concrete and some sporty takeoff limitations) to operate in the Stan. That doesn't make it a bad jet - it's a good one. But it's being used in a role it was not designed for, and will only be as effective as it can be within those limitations.
Supporting our crews whatever they fly wherever they fly as ever,
Best regards
Engines