USMC Harrier GR9A Squadron
 

Does anybody have any reliable information on the rumour that the USMC are about to stand up a GR9A squadron?

John,

Did you mean to substantiate the Daily Mail story?

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ount-usmc.html

MoD tried to cover up selling Harrier jets to Americans for knock-down price of £112m after £600m refit | Mail Online

The Wiki page about the Harrier cites a reference for their comment as being the March edition of Air Forces Monthly magazine, page 5.

I have found a reference on BritModeller forum (? :ugh:) that 9s & 9As might be used to replace a couple of D Hornet squadrons, whilst the 7s & 7As would be cannabilised.

I haven't found anything on the USMC news sites.

I wonder if GreenKnight has heard anything?

This is an alleged quote from way back in November 2011:

If they are doing this then would it not be prudent to put the worn out F-18s into one squadron and then simply replace them with the Harrier?

Really? Why, I wonder?

Now that's what I call a fly-past: US Navy F18 streaks past apartment block

All I saw online was this

U.S. To Buy Decommissioned British Harrier Jets | Defense News | defensenews.com

I haven't been able to confirm anything either way.

I have seen reports citing "unidentified sources" from both the USN and USMC saying that the ex-RAF Harriers "are for parts only and will never fly" and others saying "2 squadrons will be transitioned to Harrier GR.9As"... also from both the USN and USMC, and also refusing to be named. More have used the vague "no current plans to fly them" evasion.

Both the USN and the USMC have yet to officially say anything either way... they have been asked by the news media, but would not comment.


I suspect that they are taking a hard look at what it would take (and cost) to bring a squadron or two's worth of GR.9As into service, and are comparing that to the cost of keeping the F/A-18s operating (and for how long they can be continued).

I believe the final decision will combine those assessments as well as any further IOC slippages of F-35B.


So we can't say for sure yet yes or no.

Much talk of GR7 and GR9 but the only difference between them is the software and 1760 wiring to all pylons (GR7 to 9 upgrade involved some excellent software improvements, part of the reason the USMC were impressed with them in the last Red Flag they took part in).

Genuine question; will the US use the same software IF they decide to fly the aircraft? My understanding is that they would not be able to.

What was the breakdown of 7s to 9s in the end?

AFAIK the GR7(A) was withdrawn from service prior to the SDSR announcement i.e. all flying GRs were converted.

NoD

Thanks chaps.

Perhaps the failure to talk to the press suggests more than them being just used for spares. I am reasonably certain that the past Red Flag performance of their kit did impress some locals.

We shall have to wait and see.

JF

Given that there are no AV8B at AMARC, I'd be astonished if they weren't looking at using some of the frames. The hours on some of the USMC ones must be terrifying.

All,

It may be romantic to think that GR9 could be getting airborne again in USMC colors but it is worth considering the significant numbers of physical differences between a GR9 and AV8.

There is a logic to seeing what would be required - and it would be significant - to convert the UK to US version and see if that would cost less than the $30 million a copy to extend the life of the FA-18 a few years.

Doctrinally, if the conversion of GR9 to AV8 standard was cost effective it would blend nicely with the transition to F-35B.

Mark 9 had engine improvements too.

what will they be named under US serivce?
AV-8D?
AV-9A?

Only in that it had the improved engines as seen in the 7, making 9A as the 7 had 7A.

FB11
 

I don't think it has anything to do with romance. Neither has anyone suggested converting UK aircraft to AV-8B standards. That would as you suggest be expensive and largely pointless.

The issue has arisen because of the very up do date equipment fit of the GR9 aircraft which aroused some envy among Red Flag teams. As the title of the thread indicates I was asking about a GR9 standup.

Thanks John,

In order for the USMC to operate the GR9A they would need BAE to become the Release To Service Authority and continue to support the CAP E software wouldn't they?

If so, BAE would need to re-hire the entire Harrier team they've redistributed wouldn't they?

I'm not quite sure why you reacted to the word romantic as you did; my post came after yours but that doesn't mean it was about your post.

Now that I'm away from my tiny smart phone, I have a keyboard to speed things up.

Here's why I believe the USMC will not operate GR9A as a GR9A:

1. The aircraft has diverged so much from AV-8B standard It would need to be operated under a UK RTSA (or take years to transfer across at significant $$$)
2. It has a UK EW system that would need to be supported and Pre Flight Messages produced. Releasability and technical transfer issues abound.
3. It has a different cockpit layout.
4. It has a mission planning system that is unique to the UK and would need to be fired up and supported.
5. The aircraft only has 2 buckets for expendables as opposed to 6 in the AV-8B; does this mean the US is now committed to the TERMA pod weighing 600lbs - unlikely as this pretty much precludes the carriage of anything else (such as a weapon) at sea.
6. There's no gun and no piping for it.

What was is exactly that impressed the US at Red Flag? Was it the aircraft or the capability (HMCS; Sniper; PW4)

If the latter, it would be much cheaper to cut up the GR9s into parts to support a higher AV-8B FE@R or assure a better AV-8B FE@R for a longer period of time and pay the much smaller cost (than items 1-6 above) of integrating better capability.

FB11
 

You may be right with all your comments. I simply don't know how the USN/USMC do things today

In my time they grabbed Russian aircraft from places various, picked a few good personnel (who knew what they were doing on the ground and in the air) and operated them - for a long time.