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) |
The UK could probably use some of those to supplement their carrier F-35Bs.
|
As nice as they once were I think the world has moved on from these somewhat.
|
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.
|
The more difficult part for Taiwan is probably the spare parts and other logistics to keep them flying year after year.
|
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. |
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! |
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
(Post 11309812)
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! 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". |
What's not to like? Lack of spares, logistics, trained pilots and trained maintainers. Lack of infrastructure. Lack of money.
|
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
(Post 11309873)
What's not to like? Lack of spares, logistics, trained pilots and trained maintainers. Lack of infrastructure. Lack of money.
|
Everything can be overcome with the right amount of cash, but this would be a lot of cash for an obsolete capability.
|
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11309758)
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. I fortunately had a stepladder handy the last time one arrived at Farnborough. |
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
(Post 11309873)
What's not to like? Lack of spares, logistics, trained pilots and trained maintainers. Lack of infrastructure. Lack of money.
Some of those gr9 airframes were knackered post Afghan campaign. |
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. |
Originally Posted by dctyke
(Post 11309986)
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. |
Originally Posted by T28B
(Post 11309728)
The more difficult part for Taiwan is probably the spare parts and other logistics to keep them flying year after year.
|
Originally Posted by tucumseh
(Post 11310047)
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. 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…:ugh: |
Originally Posted by The B Word
(Post 11310791)
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…:ugh: |
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...?? |
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 11310870)
As yet has there been any occasion when the vertical capabilities of the F-35B have shown a clear advantage over conventional aircraft?
|
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 11310870)
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...?? |
Originally Posted by MJ89
(Post 11311350)
The US (and all other) models actually had a radar left in. Sure they could be wired for meteor let alone latest AMRAAM+
|
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
(Post 11311455)
It's still a subsonic launch platform with no real survivability against a peer state adversary. Yes, you could make it worth with huge cash investment, or you could continue investing in current capabilities.
|
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
(Post 11311455)
It's still a subsonic launch platform with no real survivability against a peer state adversary. Yes, you could make it worth with huge cash investment, or you could continue investing in current capabilities.
Originally Posted by frodo_monkey
(Post 11311640)
Couldn’t agree more - yes you could ‘bolt it on’ relatively easily, but proper integration takes a lot of time and a huge amount of cash; at the end you’d still only be left with a BVR-equipped Harrier. Better to spend the money on more F35s.
|
Originally Posted by frodo_monkey;[url=tel:11311640
11311640[/url]]Couldn’t agree more - yes you could ‘bolt it on’ relatively easily, but proper integration takes a lot of time and a huge amount of cash; at the end you’d still only be left with a BVR-equipped Harrier. Better to spend the money on more F35s.
|
Originally Posted by Stitchbitch
(Post 11312428)
The AV8B+ is already a AMRAAM equipped BVR- Harrier. It’s no F35 but it would be a cheap readily available force multiplier whilst more F35s/F16s are produced to meet demand.
|
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
(Post 11312480)
Nobody is disputing that. The article mentions upgrading the old USMC jets with AESA and modern weapons. It would be a huge expense for a modest increase in capability. This is for a China vs Taiwan scenario - 50 Harriers won't make a difference (and that's once you've thrown good money at buying, upgrading and training your Air Force to operate a capability that's brand new to them). It's a complete red herring IMO.
If China prosecutes the first few hours of a conflict in a way that resembles the way the west would, Taiwan won’t have the runways to operate from. That’s where the value of the Harriers comes into play. |
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 11312584)
If China prosecutes the first few hours of a conflict in a way that resembles the way the west would, Taiwan won’t have the runways to operate from. That’s where the value of the Harriers comes into play.
:ok: It doesn't seem to matter that the AV8 may not be effective against PRC CAP, they will have their hands full dodging MANPADS and similar. What is valuable is the opportunity to go and do some CAS from FOBs that are essentially unprepared. The distribution of the air assets allows them to last long enough to be an impediment to the beach heads. There is possibly more value in buying gallons of DJI drones, or amping up drone production in Taiwan, Alibaba's orderbooks are probably going to be full or limited to rogue regions, and more MANPADS than PRC has air assets. |
How many F-35's will the RAF/RN have with full complement?
Far more capable than the Harrier....but then don't sheer numbers matter when it comes to all out War? |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11312743)
How many F-35's will the RAF/RN have with full complement?
Far more capable than the Harrier....but then don't sheer numbers matter when it comes to all out War? |
Originally Posted by MJ89
(Post 11313044)
Plus you can buy 12 harriers+ for 1 f35. and afford combat losses. as long as the pilot can punch out, and fight another day. There's more harriers to take their place. (the RAFs loss is there gain)
|
Originally Posted by T28B
(Post 11313046)
But, can you afford to find and train 11 extra pilots?
sure something could be arranged. |
Originally Posted by fdr
(Post 11312654)
where is that like button?
:ok: It doesn't seem to matter that the AV8 may not be effective against PRC CAP, they will have their hands full dodging MANPADS and similar. What is valuable is the opportunity to go and do some CAS from FOBs that are essentially unprepared. The distribution of the air assets allows them to last long enough to be an impediment to the beach heads. There is possibly more value in buying gallons of DJI drones, or amping up drone production in Taiwan, Alibaba's orderbooks are probably going to be full or limited to rogue regions, and more MANPADS than PRC has air assets. |
CAS shoot and scoot tactics would be basically the maverick and rockets in a real war, maverick 2 max 4 load out. we could offer brimstone integration and make it into a 600kt Apache.
just think.. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0d50bcc736.png Quantity does have a quality of its own. |
Originally Posted by MJ89
(Post 11313054)
CAS shoot and scoot tactics would be basically the maverick and rockets in a real war, maverick 2 max 4 load out. we could offer brimstone integration and make it into a 600kt Apache.
just think.. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0d50bcc736.png Quantity does have a quality of its own. |
Originally Posted by MJ89
(Post 11313054)
CAS shoot and scoot tactics would be basically the maverick and rockets in a real war, maverick 2 max 4 load out. we could offer brimstone integration and make it into a 600kt Apache.
just think.. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0d50bcc736.png Quantity does have a quality of its own. |
Originally Posted by fdr
(Post 11312654)
where is that like button?
:ok: It doesn't seem to matter that the AV8 may not be effective against PRC CAP, they will have their hands full dodging MANPADS and similar. What is valuable is the opportunity to go and do some CAS from FOBs that are essentially unprepared. The distribution of the air assets allows them to last long enough to be an impediment to the beach heads. There is possibly more value in buying gallons of DJI drones, or amping up drone production in Taiwan, Alibaba's orderbooks are probably going to be full or limited to rogue regions, and more MANPADS than PRC has air assets. |
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
(Post 11313264)
Much as I enjoy nostalgia, if anyone thinks 50, or even 100 Harriers will make a difference to Taiwan in the event of a conflict with China... I suggest you haven't been paying attention.
and the handful of western picked aircraft have kept them in the fight re CAS, su25- hinds.etc sure NLAWs and Javs were a bigger part. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.