No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Thanks for your response.
Do you know if research was carried out on variable pitch stators with variable pitch rotors, an infinitely variable gearbox and a variable inlet with respect to the Harrier?
I know that Pegasus 5 onwards had variable inlet guides.
I do know GE had variable pitch stators on the J-79
I am thinking about if the whole lot were looked at together.
Thanks for your response.
Do you know if research was carried out on variable pitch stators with variable pitch rotors, an infinitely variable gearbox and a variable inlet with respect to the Harrier?
I know that Pegasus 5 onwards had variable inlet guides.
I do know GE had variable pitch stators on the J-79
I am thinking about if the whole lot were looked at together.
Originally Posted by Teeringhead
P1154...cancelled in 1965
Anyway, the RN version was going to be two seat, so would never have been acceptable to that Ward bloke. I guess, in a way, it lost out to the Phantom. Oh, well.
At the end of the day, none of this will change the F-35 at this stage.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day, none of this will change the F-35 at this stage.
Maybe the B would have to lose some Lo capability and perhaps even it's supersonic capability too, but that must be pretty limited already. Bit of a bugger that STOVL requirements had already complicated the conventional variants, but we are where we are.
Lowe Flieger is a bear of very limited technical brain, so if this is either hokum, or has already been commented by someone with greater knowledge, apologies for the interruption. And to Mr Farley, thank you for a very clear, concise explanation which even I could follow.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to go down the route of alternative Harrier developments, take a look at this list of "what might have beens"
Kingston Projects
These two look interesting
Kingston Projects
These two look interesting
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
The carriers are not going to 'cripple the Defence budget for years’. Let’s look at some NAO figures. Last cost to completion for QE2 class carriers was £5.1bn.
- refit every 2 - 3 years?
- Compatible aircraft and crews (Many Ppruners stressing how much training is needed to keep carrier current and how you can't have a break in it)
- Ships crew and other FAA staff
- thorough training to make it
- facilities large enough to dock and refit
- Escort ships, support ships and a sub (This will be target number 1 for any naval adversary)
- Additional maintenance of operating near salt water?
- Rescue helicopters
- Attrition is a hazardous environment
- etc.
£5.1 billion is the new starting figure, not the final cost.
I am a strong supporter of the RN and understand the value of deployed ships and the capabilities they can provide, but I think the new carriers will create an unbalanced force and divert money from where the RN should be spending it, we have only really needed the capability once in the last 50 or 60 years. Especially as the Carriers look rather weak in some areas of defence due no doubt to deleting items due to cost overruns.
Back to the F-35, IF we assume the B and C will work (given a blank cheque) the only reason for going B is because there is not enough deck to fly C from? The B compromises payload and performance and is for smaller Assault Carriers or those "Helicopter" Carriers you have just sneaked past your parliament
Why pay all that money to keep that much floating real estate where you want it and not provide the best bang for buck? If you have a day one strike aircraft surely you want to be able to reach all those day one targets which may well be further away, or move the ship closer to the threat
The company and various interested parties promise comic book capabilities and ignore any facts that don't suit the program, e.g: It will be a quantum leap in ISTAR and do the job of x, y and z. Question, what will do it for the other 23 hours of the day? It relies on LO to survive against emerging threats which will out speed, range, payload and manoeuvre it already. Question, to be useful after day 1 it needs an external fit increasing signature and further restricting speed and manoeuvre? (If the LO survives embarked Ops). The single pilot will have massive amounts of information, but it is fine the computer will do everything. Question, really? data fusion is never simple but always looks good on the sales video and in the Sim.
If they were at all realistic in what it was and where it fitted in I might trust them, but it seems the answer is F-35 we just need to write the requirement.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
is this a PR campaign to prepare the ground for cancellation of the B and large curbacks in orders?
Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster
Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster
Hmm, doesn't look good, does it? I do like the use of the term, 'Safety Woes'. I can definitely see a military application as in:
Boss, I've got some safety woes to share with you = I just crashed one of your aircraft.
The MoD announced new Tristar safety woes this week = the fleet is grounded
XV234, Sir? Just some safety woes in the red lines = You probably won't make it back.
Just a couple of safety woes there, Bloggs = You've failed your IRT.
The MoD announced new Tristar safety woes this week = the fleet is grounded
XV234, Sir? Just some safety woes in the red lines = You probably won't make it back.
Just a couple of safety woes there, Bloggs = You've failed your IRT.
ORAC - Looks like a hatchet job to me 
.
CM - American journos are trained to write like that, as well as using terms like "beleaguered", "troubled" or "embattled". I have often attempted to gauge whether those denote different degrees of severity. I did see a reference to "embattled golfer Tiger Woods", suggesting that the word is also a synonym for "horny".
Milo - The aft-swept twin-boom design is the P.1216, which has become an icon among fighter-tech geeks:
LF - A few people (myself included) dragged up the idea of an "Airbus concept" for JSF, at a point when both X-planes were in trouble: that is, a lot of common subsystems, materials and processes, and a shared supply chain, but with airframes tailored to what was needed.
It was never considered with any seriousness because (1) the UK and Marines were agin it, because it would reveal how much STOVL would really cost, and (2) LockMart and the JPO were telling sweet, sweet porky-pies about how cheap and easy the whole thing would be to develop. build and operate.
.CM - American journos are trained to write like that, as well as using terms like "beleaguered", "troubled" or "embattled". I have often attempted to gauge whether those denote different degrees of severity. I did see a reference to "embattled golfer Tiger Woods", suggesting that the word is also a synonym for "horny".
Milo - The aft-swept twin-boom design is the P.1216, which has become an icon among fighter-tech geeks:
LF - A few people (myself included) dragged up the idea of an "Airbus concept" for JSF, at a point when both X-planes were in trouble: that is, a lot of common subsystems, materials and processes, and a shared supply chain, but with airframes tailored to what was needed.
It was never considered with any seriousness because (1) the UK and Marines were agin it, because it would reveal how much STOVL would really cost, and (2) LockMart and the JPO were telling sweet, sweet porky-pies about how cheap and easy the whole thing would be to develop. build and operate.
Last edited by LowObservable; 22nd Mar 2012 at 14:34.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am the first to accept the age of the Harrier is over... It is gone, it is deceased, It is an ex aircraft but by God there should be a serious, and honest inquiry into its removal from service. The biggest order for the F-35B is the US Marine Corps, and that organisation clearly saw issues with that aircraft and decided it is not going to arrive anytime soon so what do they do? They BUY our Harrier fleet at an embarrassing give away price. This was done just so they could keep an air presence. WHO IS ADVISING OUR GOVERNMENT MINISTERS regarding this fiasco???
Last year I stated I could not see us having an OPERATIONAL carrier complete with air wing before the early 2030's. that was said very much tongue in cheek but by crikey it is looking a more realistic date by the hour and I also ask do we still believe we will get ANY type of fast fixed wing jets for these carriers? I am just hoping all this hype, the journalistic frenzy is just hot air but if just 25% of what we read is true, then this is a huge cluster mistake... I do not believe for one milli-second that the software issue is only applicable to one model.
Last year I stated I could not see us having an OPERATIONAL carrier complete with air wing before the early 2030's. that was said very much tongue in cheek but by crikey it is looking a more realistic date by the hour and I also ask do we still believe we will get ANY type of fast fixed wing jets for these carriers? I am just hoping all this hype, the journalistic frenzy is just hot air but if just 25% of what we read is true, then this is a huge cluster mistake... I do not believe for one milli-second that the software issue is only applicable to one model.
There will be no buyback of Harrier, or Harrier replacement. Given yesterday's budget, it would be the pensioners who seem to want it who will be asked to pay for it. Careful what you wish for. Mind you, that might be better than pensioners paying for George's mates' next bottle of bubbly.
Frankly, what happens to the B model is as likely to depend on US election PR as anything else this year - Obama has just pushed building half the XL pipeline whilst visiting Oklahoma having cancelled all of it to keep the Montana treehuggers happy. Given the state of US finances, I think the B model is dead.
Frankly, what happens to the B model is as likely to depend on US election PR as anything else this year - Obama has just pushed building half the XL pipeline whilst visiting Oklahoma having cancelled all of it to keep the Montana treehuggers happy. Given the state of US finances, I think the B model is dead.
QUOTE]but I think the new carriers will create an unbalanced force and divert money from where the RN should be spending it, we have only really needed the capability once in the last 50 or 60 years. [/QUOTE]
Ivan Rogov,
I am afraid you are twisting the truth a bit here. The reason that the RN (FAA) have not been in more action since 1979, when HMS Ark Royal was de-commisioned, was due to the compromised capability of CVS.
Falklands Conflict - FAA heavily involved
First Gulf War - FAA contribution compromised due to performance of SHAR operating in hot weather conditions off a short deck
OP Deny Flight Bosnia - FAA Heavily involved including SHAR where the aircraft flew CAP, RECCE, CAS - Compromised operation due to capacity of the CVF (numbers of aircraft it could carry). FAA fully contributed to the NATO effort, particularly when shorebased assets were cancelled due to fog.
Sierra Leone - FAA haevily involved
Second Gulf War - FAA heavily involved in assault on Al-Faw. HMS Ark Royal spent 190 days at sea. Harrier Force limited involvement due, once again compromise of capability when operating off a short deck, in hot conditions with limited numbers.
Afghanistan - FAA heavily involved but as land bases were available, quite rightly operated ashore. USN regularly provided support from a Carrier stationed west of Pakistan (up to 30%). CVS capability compromised.
Libya - FAA involved except for fixed wing as capability had been removed thereby removing the ability to CONTRIBUTE to the combined effort.
There are other examples. The RN has, learnt over the last 30 years the cost of not having a large enough deck to operate aircraft off. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are attempts to correct that situation. Whilst the Invincible class through deck cruisers were a good attempt to make the best of a bad job, they were and are, compromised because of their size. Those who argue that replacement of these assets with something of a similar size are missing the point.
If the RN is, in the future, to contribute towards the UK's strategic and operational objectives, it has to have the tools to exert influence, which does not just include boots on the ground or the Red Arrows.
QE and POW, with whatever jet (plus MASC and lift) will be able to:
Exert Defence Diplomacy
Provide the UK with the ability to exert pressure without actually setting foot in a country and exert that influence over a long period of time.
Promote UK trade and Business
Make a full contribution to NATO and our other allies
Improve interoperability particularly with the French
Protect those little bits of rock we still have around the world that are surrounded with Oil/Gas/Fish etc.
Protect troops on the ground
Provide a platform for future UAV operations
Conduct Ship to objective manouvre (over long distances)
Provide engineering, medical and support facilities
Support the RAF ashore
Help retain the UK's claim to British Antarctic Territory
Provide disaster relief
Provide non combatant evacuation
Support other nations with whom we have strategic agreements.
Etc Etc Etc
No other UK asset will be able to fulfill all these tasks, some can individually but, QE and POW will be a huge asset for the UK in both peace and war. When all that is considered, those ships will be very much well worth the investment. The only question is:
WHAT AIRCRAFT CAN WE AFFORD TO OPERATE?
Ivan Rogov,
I am afraid you are twisting the truth a bit here. The reason that the RN (FAA) have not been in more action since 1979, when HMS Ark Royal was de-commisioned, was due to the compromised capability of CVS.
Falklands Conflict - FAA heavily involved
First Gulf War - FAA contribution compromised due to performance of SHAR operating in hot weather conditions off a short deck
OP Deny Flight Bosnia - FAA Heavily involved including SHAR where the aircraft flew CAP, RECCE, CAS - Compromised operation due to capacity of the CVF (numbers of aircraft it could carry). FAA fully contributed to the NATO effort, particularly when shorebased assets were cancelled due to fog.
Sierra Leone - FAA haevily involved
Second Gulf War - FAA heavily involved in assault on Al-Faw. HMS Ark Royal spent 190 days at sea. Harrier Force limited involvement due, once again compromise of capability when operating off a short deck, in hot conditions with limited numbers.
Afghanistan - FAA heavily involved but as land bases were available, quite rightly operated ashore. USN regularly provided support from a Carrier stationed west of Pakistan (up to 30%). CVS capability compromised.
Libya - FAA involved except for fixed wing as capability had been removed thereby removing the ability to CONTRIBUTE to the combined effort.
There are other examples. The RN has, learnt over the last 30 years the cost of not having a large enough deck to operate aircraft off. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are attempts to correct that situation. Whilst the Invincible class through deck cruisers were a good attempt to make the best of a bad job, they were and are, compromised because of their size. Those who argue that replacement of these assets with something of a similar size are missing the point.
If the RN is, in the future, to contribute towards the UK's strategic and operational objectives, it has to have the tools to exert influence, which does not just include boots on the ground or the Red Arrows.
QE and POW, with whatever jet (plus MASC and lift) will be able to:
Exert Defence Diplomacy
Provide the UK with the ability to exert pressure without actually setting foot in a country and exert that influence over a long period of time.
Promote UK trade and Business
Make a full contribution to NATO and our other allies
Improve interoperability particularly with the French
Protect those little bits of rock we still have around the world that are surrounded with Oil/Gas/Fish etc.
Protect troops on the ground
Provide a platform for future UAV operations
Conduct Ship to objective manouvre (over long distances)
Provide engineering, medical and support facilities
Support the RAF ashore
Help retain the UK's claim to British Antarctic Territory
Provide disaster relief
Provide non combatant evacuation
Support other nations with whom we have strategic agreements.
Etc Etc Etc
No other UK asset will be able to fulfill all these tasks, some can individually but, QE and POW will be a huge asset for the UK in both peace and war. When all that is considered, those ships will be very much well worth the investment. The only question is:
WHAT AIRCRAFT CAN WE AFFORD TO OPERATE?
I've just been watching the Politics show and Tim Collins and Andy Murphy have both been on speaking admirably of the need for aircraft carriers and with the original B variant JSF; because, as Jim Murphy says, the Harrier is seen as a traditional carrier design and then spoke disparagingly about the SDSR move toward, a he sees it, Top Gun American style conventional carrier operated F35Cs. Colonel Collins, a strong believer in an Expeditionary Army being maintained and seemingly forever more in Afghanistan, also thinks that carriers are indispensible. This is the same Tim Collins, who back in 2006 called for the disbandment of the R.A.F.
FB
FB
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
You have extolled the virtues of a UK carrier capability. I would love for us to be able to return to the days of my youth when we had proper fighters launched from proper carriers, capable of doing the things you've expounded.
The question is, can we afford to do carrier capability and do it justice? There is already comment in this thread about the supporting capabilities and assets necessary to screen and protect your carrier from all the venom that will be focused on it in a hostile situation: from aircraft, missiles, ships large and small, submarines and everything else the bad guys have available. So even if the capital and sustainment costs of the carrier are manageable when spread over 40+ years, what about the MPA, AEW, EW, destroyers, frigates, submarines, support ships, crews and so on? Can we afford enough, capable, offensive and defensive airframes (estimated 12 F35s by 2025 e&oe)?
If we have the money and political will to fund the full suite of carrier capabilities, I'm with you all the way.
If we don't (which is the miserable reality) let's not risk valuable lives and expensive kit by sending them into danger with half the capability needed to effectively project and self-protect. We may get away with it if acting in concert with someone who can fill the gaps, but if we're on our own, any missing capabilities could be disastrous.
Right now, we are at very real risk of a carrier (singular) with no fighters, or none in the foreseeable future, that can do the job that is a carrier's primary reason for being there.
Since the carriers were first a twinkle in Gordon's (electorate-focussed) eye, I have held the view that I will turn up my toes long before I am in any danger of stubbing them on a fully capable, full-sized, fixed-wing, operational British aircraft carrier. 14 years on, and I am closer to one of these eventualities. It is with a heavy heart and a deep sigh that I am not considering buying protective footwear, so I am being totally truthful when I say I want to be very, very wrong, very, very much.
You have extolled the virtues of a UK carrier capability. I would love for us to be able to return to the days of my youth when we had proper fighters launched from proper carriers, capable of doing the things you've expounded.
The question is, can we afford to do carrier capability and do it justice? There is already comment in this thread about the supporting capabilities and assets necessary to screen and protect your carrier from all the venom that will be focused on it in a hostile situation: from aircraft, missiles, ships large and small, submarines and everything else the bad guys have available. So even if the capital and sustainment costs of the carrier are manageable when spread over 40+ years, what about the MPA, AEW, EW, destroyers, frigates, submarines, support ships, crews and so on? Can we afford enough, capable, offensive and defensive airframes (estimated 12 F35s by 2025 e&oe)?
If we have the money and political will to fund the full suite of carrier capabilities, I'm with you all the way.
If we don't (which is the miserable reality) let's not risk valuable lives and expensive kit by sending them into danger with half the capability needed to effectively project and self-protect. We may get away with it if acting in concert with someone who can fill the gaps, but if we're on our own, any missing capabilities could be disastrous.
Right now, we are at very real risk of a carrier (singular) with no fighters, or none in the foreseeable future, that can do the job that is a carrier's primary reason for being there.
Since the carriers were first a twinkle in Gordon's (electorate-focussed) eye, I have held the view that I will turn up my toes long before I am in any danger of stubbing them on a fully capable, full-sized, fixed-wing, operational British aircraft carrier. 14 years on, and I am closer to one of these eventualities. It is with a heavy heart and a deep sigh that I am not considering buying protective footwear, so I am being totally truthful when I say I want to be very, very wrong, very, very much.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A. The size of a carrier is driven by the required daily sortie generation rate. The higher the SG rate the bigger the carrier and more catapults are needed, vv is true. SG rate drives deck size (for parking, launch and recovery), hangar size for re-generation, magazine size and lift etc etc. There is no special reason for the QE class being 65000 tons excepting the planned SGR.
B. What is the point in having a ship the size of QE if you can't operate allied a/c as well as your own?
C. If we revert to Dave B there is no Plan B. Stick with Dave C and Plan B can be Rafale, F-18 etc etc.
D. Vulnerability of QE is a red herring espoused usually by non-naval types.
E. The alternative of shore based FW is at least as great and expensive - assuming you have permission to operate in the first place, it is also unlikely to be a day 1 capability unless weeks/months of preparation have happened. QE will offer day 1 capability without the politics. Why else does the USN see the CVN as the most important capability in their arsenal.
B. What is the point in having a ship the size of QE if you can't operate allied a/c as well as your own?
C. If we revert to Dave B there is no Plan B. Stick with Dave C and Plan B can be Rafale, F-18 etc etc.
D. Vulnerability of QE is a red herring espoused usually by non-naval types.
E. The alternative of shore based FW is at least as great and expensive - assuming you have permission to operate in the first place, it is also unlikely to be a day 1 capability unless weeks/months of preparation have happened. QE will offer day 1 capability without the politics. Why else does the USN see the CVN as the most important capability in their arsenal.
I suspect its "here wego again" with the F35 (whichever variant you choose). Here's hoping my memory doesn't fail me. Back in the very early 60s when I was a veryyoung SAC air radar mechanic (E) skill, (anyone remember them?) on a days dutytrip to the manufacturers airfield recovering black boxes from a Mk1 Vulcan thatwas going to be upgraded to a Mk1A. By sheercoincidence the then leader of the opposition ( well known for the "poundin your pocket" statement some years later) assured the workers at therally that was being held at the same time and same airfield (I was lurking inthe background with the rest of the team) that the then, under development,TSR2 (much enhanced and capable Canberra replacement I believe) would not becancelled should the electorate vote his party into power at the up and comingelection. Indeed he added "Thecancellation of the TSR2 has not been discussed by my party and there are noplans to terminate its development". Well we all know what happened next.
As an alternative to the now scrapped TSR2 the new governmentpromised that as a replacement the RAF would get the American F111 which, when,entering squadron service would be cheaper and more capable than the defunctTSR2. The F111 was under development inthe US. It was the first major swing wing aircraft tobe developed and the Americans werehaving problems with it, a couple had crashed and costs were escalating. The pound in your pocket government then gota severe attack of cold feet, cancelled the F111 and bought the Phantom. Incidentally, a surviving TSR2 is on displayat the museum at Cosford (and a beautiful mean machine she looks to). The F111 proved a most capable multi roleaircraft and is still in service with the USAF 40/50 years later having seenactive service from the Vietnam war onwards . The Phantom is long gone.
Fast forward to the next century and son of pound in yourpockets government announces that the RN is to get two 60,000 aircraft carriers(I looked across my desk at a serving wing commander, shook my head, andmuttered well that will never happen, he agreed). We then go through a period of costescalations, timescale amendments, one carrier or two questions, cats and trapsand VTOL/STOL? All very predictable andtrue to form. Then just when I thought I'd seen it, done it and heard it allthe successor of pound in your pocket government (lets call it "grandsonof never had it so good government") withdraws the Harriers and sells themto the USMC who I now suspect have an insurance policy should the F35B programmego the same way as the TSR2.
Predictions:-
a. Should the RN receive the two 60,000 aircraft carriers (which I very much doubt) they will be without cats & traps.
b. The F35B will be cancelled.
c. The USMC having further upgraded the ex British harriers refuses a lend lease agreement unless the British acknowledge that it was the US alone that broke the Enigma code and manned Bletchley Park.
d. The two carriers will (thanks to the miracle of politics) overnight become the long awaited and planned helicopter/commando carriers.
Alternative Prediction:-
The Indian and Spanish navies will each acquire a new Harrier capable flagship.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo, this is an honest question - why do we need any kind of enquiry in the removal of the Harrier? It's rubbish that it's gone but it was one or the other & it went.
What would an enquiry hope to achieve?
What would an enquiry hope to achieve?
I am NOT using hind sight when I make this comment, the F-35B was having problems LONG before we sold these aircraft the B was on probation because of problems but we sold those Harriers at a give away bargain basement price!! Hence my comment to perhaps have a re-look at this sale
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Course_profile
I have tried to keep my answer on topic regarding issues with the F-35 program as I am in TOTAL agreement with these wise words.
From a solely fiscal position could it be suggested that these assets were a gold mine whose value might only RAPIDLY increase? We get fobbed off with claims that these aircraft were old, or they were only going to be used as spares but the reality is:
Compare the UK version of the sale to the US version
UK
Compared to the US who purchased this major source of spares for the US Marine Corps
The reported price we got for those SEVENTY TWO (72) aircraft plus alleged hangers full of spare parts varies from between £34m to £116m and is that a good return or any type of value for money?
Yes I do have views on keeping those aircraft but as I say that has been flogged to death and is over....
APOLOGIES for the thread drift and back to the F-35B
I have tried to keep my answer on topic regarding issues with the F-35 program as I am in TOTAL agreement with these wise words.
Isn't there enough 'bring back the Harrier that did make it into service' without starting on one that didn't?
Compare the UK version of the sale to the US version
UK
Mr Luff told parliament: "We have agreed the sale of the final 72 Harrier aircraft frames and associated parts which will be used as a major source of spares for the US Marine Corps Harrier AV-8B fleet of aircraft."
The sale of the Harriers is bound to raise fresh questions about the wisdom of retiring the much-admired aircraft, which the Americans intend to use until 2025.
Speaking to the NavyTimes, Rear Admiral Mark Heinrich, chief of the US Navy's supply corps, said buying the Harriers made sense because many of the jets had been recently upgraded, and the US already had pilots who could fly them.
"We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them," he said. "It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it. These are very good platforms."
Speaking to the NavyTimes, Rear Admiral Mark Heinrich, chief of the US Navy's supply corps, said buying the Harriers made sense because many of the jets had been recently upgraded, and the US already had pilots who could fly them.
"We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them," he said. "It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it. These are very good platforms."
Yes I do have views on keeping those aircraft but as I say that has been flogged to death and is over....
APOLOGIES for the thread drift and back to the F-35B