Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Surplus USMC AV-8B - Article Suggesting Taiwan May Acquire

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Surplus USMC AV-8B - Article Suggesting Taiwan May Acquire

Old 6th Oct 2022, 22:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,601
Received 39 Likes on 26 Posts
Surplus USMC AV-8B - Article Suggesting Taiwan May Acquire

Nothing official but nevertheless interesting technical detail on upgrades the USMC AV-8Bs got - now down to 58 in the active fleet.

The Time For Taiwan To Adopt Surplus AV-8B Harriers Is Now (thedrive.com)
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2022, 01:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,939
Received 139 Likes on 84 Posts
The UK could probably use some of those to supplement their carrier F-35Bs.
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2022, 05:16
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 13 Posts
As nice as they once were I think the world has moved on from these somewhat.


Last edited by typerated; 7th Oct 2022 at 07:45.
typerated is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2022, 11:05
  #4 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,951
Received 856 Likes on 256 Posts
The AV-8B is a excellent complication to confound attackers of an area such as Taiwan. It still has relevance for making it impossible to strike all defence assets in a single preemptive attack. Worth it's weight in gold I would think. Yes, F-35B's are great, but if there is a single critical defense system that is prone to groundings... it is nice to have a backup.
fdr is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2022, 16:29
  #5 (permalink)  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,702
Received 286 Likes on 129 Posts
The more difficult part for Taiwan is probably the spare parts and other logistics to keep them flying year after year.
T28B is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2022, 17:50
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,280
Received 491 Likes on 205 Posts
Joli,

After ridding themselves of the Harrier....to go back on that would require many very senior persons having to admit they were quite wrong on several decisions....that is not going to. happen.
SASless is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2022, 20:04
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,939
Received 139 Likes on 84 Posts
Gotcha. Spoken in the knowledge of how it might bruise egos, etc.

Even so, if I were a carrier captain, I’d be happy to fill up my half-empty decks with some of those beauties, especially if they are from the ‘help-yourself’ bin. With Harrier DNA and updated capabilities, and virtually free to boot, what’s not to like?

PS Sharing them out with Taiwan, of course!

Last edited by jolihokistix; 7th Oct 2022 at 21:08.
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2022, 21:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 494
Received 36 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
Gotcha. Spoken in the knowledge of how it might bruise egos, etc.

Even so, if I were a carrier captain, I’d be happy to fill up my half-empty decks with some of those beauties, especially if they are from the ‘help-yourself’ bin. With Harrier DNA and updated capabilities, and virtually free to boot, what’s not to like?
PS Sharing them out with Taiwan, of course!
Absolutely nothing.........

In any event those airships that made the original mindbogglingly stupid decision to axe them, have probably long since retired. Anyone making the decision to bring them back can say "well I would not have got rid of them in the first place".

WB627 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2022, 23:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overseas
Posts: 446
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
What's not to like? Lack of spares, logistics, trained pilots and trained maintainers. Lack of infrastructure. Lack of money.
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2022, 01:28
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,076
Received 51 Likes on 32 Posts
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
What's not to like? Lack of spares, logistics, trained pilots and trained maintainers. Lack of infrastructure. Lack of money.
All of which can be overcome, especially if the acquisition price in negligible. If Taiwan wants the F35, I suspect they’ll get it, making the Harrier a stopgap till then.
West Coast is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2022, 05:23
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overseas
Posts: 446
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Everything can be overcome with the right amount of cash, but this would be a lot of cash for an obsolete capability.
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2022, 07:55
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,809
Received 94 Likes on 67 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Joli,

After ridding themselves of the Harrier....to go back on that would require many very senior persons having to admit they were quite wrong on several decisions....that is not going to. happen.
The lack of ILS was a problem sometimes as was the lack of steps to access the cockpit.
I fortunately had a stepladder handy the last time one arrived at Farnborough.
chevvron is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2022, 07:55
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: York
Posts: 624
Received 23 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
What's not to like? Lack of spares, logistics, trained pilots and trained maintainers. Lack of infrastructure. Lack of money.
Like buying an big petrol engined 80/90s saloon. Almost free but an absolute fortune to run and keep on the road.
Some of those gr9 airframes were knackered post Afghan campaign.
dctyke is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2022, 09:50
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
I was very much on the periphery of RAF Harrier, but very close to SHAR from 85-93. Long before I left it was obvious to me the RN didn't give a stuff about it. The tipping point (to me) was when I asked DGA(N) HQ why they'd not made any bids for avionic support funding in LTC90. I was told in no uncertain manner, by an officer I knew very well, that it was quite deliberate so best to butt out and let it run down. I'm not sure front line agreed. Not one officer I spoke to there agreed, and most didn't realise there was something going on.

Ironically, the chap who fought hardest for SHAR in the aircraft project office was a superb Group Captain logistician, who'd spent some time in Germany on Tornado and had a penchant for a certain Swiss restaurant in Rose Street in Edinburgh. He and his bosses were gobsmacked at the indifference, not least because the Mid Life Upgrade to FRS2 was ongoing. I remember him asking me why they (RN) would not want to support a brand new radar that's costing them £xM a pop. It was a very odd period.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2022, 00:30
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overseas
Posts: 446
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by dctyke
Like buying an big petrol engined 80/90s saloon. Almost free but an absolute fortune to run and keep on the road.
Some of those gr9 airframes were knackered post Afghan campaign.
The airframes were not stressed much at all by HERRICK. The FI from normal daily training ops at home was far greater.
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2022, 01:24
  #16 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,951
Received 856 Likes on 256 Posts
Originally Posted by T28B
The more difficult part for Taiwan is probably the spare parts and other logistics to keep them flying year after year.
The beauty of such an aircraft is simple, like a submarine, Team X has to consider their effect whether they exist or not. A distributed force of F-35B and AV-8Bs around the rock makes for a major complication to the other side of the net. Whether the aircraft are fit for purpose or their statistics on that have to be assumed, so just having them in hiding but announced is a pause to the other player. Now Russia went a bit far with their "mighty military machine!", there are limits to how much you can remove from the program and not ending up looking silly.
fdr is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2022, 04:47
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by tucumseh
I was very much on the periphery of RAF Harrier, but very close to SHAR from 85-93. Long before I left it was obvious to me the RN didn't give a stuff about it. The tipping point (to me) was when I asked DGA(N) HQ why they'd not made any bids for avionic support funding in LTC90. I was told in no uncertain manner, by an officer I knew very well, that it was quite deliberate so best to butt out and let it run down. I'm not sure front line agreed. Not one officer I spoke to there agreed, and most didn't realise there was something going on.

Ironically, the chap who fought hardest for SHAR in the aircraft project office was a superb Group Captain logistician, who'd spent some time in Germany on Tornado and had a penchant for a certain Swiss restaurant in Rose Street in Edinburgh. He and his bosses were gobsmacked at the indifference, not least because the Mid Life Upgrade to FRS2 was ongoing. I remember him asking me why they (RN) would not want to support a brand new radar that's costing them £xM a pop. It was a very odd period.
Yes, spot on. Many don’t realise that Sea Harrier crumbled from within. The lack of support for it, the dwindling numbers of airframes and people (pilots and techies) all led to its demise. Also, within, the FAA failed to keep the churn of its pilots going and their demographic turned into another factor where they simply hadn’t refreshed their cadre with younger bods. The move to Joint Force Harrier was inevitable in the end.

Then the big affordability questions of SDSR10 sealed the fates of the GR9 and the “through deck cruisers”. Neither of the Services could afford either and so made the decision to scrap both to maintain other capabilities, knowing that QE/POW and F35 was coming and was going to need that money.

Of course there were howls of anguish by the VSTOL bearded aviator community. Blaming so-called “Crab Air”, but actually in reality the fleet had rotted from the inside out and the final chop was a purely financial decision to protect the new boats and the Gen 5 fighters that would fly from them. Even then, the vertical take off and landing loons had their way by insisting on the most inferior of the 3 variants in the F35B - so yet again, they committed one last act of self-frag that we live with today. Everyone knows that the C model with cats and traps was the choice of champions, but that decision too hangs around the necks of the SHar/Har gang.

PS. Also, to add, that the more capable C is “buy 15 and get one free”, compared to the B too…
The B Word is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2022, 07:16
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overseas
Posts: 446
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by The B Word
Yes, spot on. Many don’t realise that Sea Harrier crumbled from within. The lack of support for it, the dwindling numbers of airframes and people (pilots and techies) all led to its demise. Also, within, the FAA failed to keep the churn of its pilots going and their demographic turned into another factor where they simply hadn’t refreshed their cadre with younger bods. The move to Joint Force Harrier was inevitable in the end.

Then the big affordability questions of SDSR10 sealed the fates of the GR9 and the “through deck cruisers”. Neither of the Services could afford either and so made the decision to scrap both to maintain other capabilities, knowing that QE/POW and F35 was coming and was going to need that money.

Of course there were howls of anguish by the VSTOL bearded aviator community. Blaming so-called “Crab Air”, but actually in reality the fleet had rotted from the inside out and the final chop was a purely financial decision to protect the new boats and the Gen 5 fighters that would fly from them. Even then, the vertical take off and landing loons had their way by insisting on the most inferior of the 3 variants in the F35B - so yet again, they committed one last act of self-frag that we live with today. Everyone knows that the C model with cats and traps was the choice of champions, but that decision too hangs around the necks of the SHar/Har gang.

PS. Also, to add, that the more capable C is “buy 15 and get one free”, compared to the B too…
So true. The decision to buy the B model (and not enough of them) was a flawed decision. Personally, I would have gone for the most capable A model for the RAF, and let the RN fight over whether they wanted B or C. Sure, two C model carriers would have been more expensive, but cat and traps affords so much more capability as a fighting force than a pair of boats that can't embark any meaningful integrated capability. But, at the end of the day, it came down to money, in-fighting and politics.
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2022, 08:30
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,795
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
As yet has there been any occasion when the vertical capabilities of the F-35B have shown a clear advantage over conventional aircraft?

SHAR 2 with 4 x AMRAAM and Link 16 was a pretty capable carrier borne aircraft. But GR9 without any radar and only eyeball missiles...??
BEagle is online now  
Old 10th Oct 2022, 09:15
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Received 47 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
As yet has there been any occasion when the vertical capabilities of the F-35B have shown a clear advantage over conventional aircraft?
They can fit on a tiny Wasp class assault ship . . .
Ohrly is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.