End of the Harrier?

[expat]

A

[Craig.]

The sticking point for the RAF is that only half of the 150 British JSF are likely now to be ordered with the Navy getting the majority. This would mean the RAF would struggle to get a full replacement for fourth generation Eurofighter Typhoon leaving them without a cutting edge aircraft

#
I'm sorry, but if the Tranche 3 typhoon ever gets pushed through, then it is more than a match for any use the JSF will have. The Airforce are just upset that they wont have a shiny new toy to play with, forgetting that Typhoon with thrust vectoring, upgraded weapons and various other bits and bobs would be more than enough.

[C]

Losing the Harrier now(ish) makes more sense than most other options, whoever it upsets.

[ozzy72]

Once again cutting back our Forces in then expecting them to do more with less.... welcome to the dark world that is Britain under New Labour....

[expat]

Losing the Harrier now(ish) makes more sense than most other options, whoever it upsets.

But Charlie, if we where to lose the Harrier Now-ish and then wait until the what ever it is we get to replace it to go on the when ever we get it new carriers, there will be a huge gap in experience of (I say in the loosest of terms) carrier operations. We would be starting from fresh and not just with pilots, deck personal too. I know that having four fifths of bugger all is not much, but to keep up training and holding onto some experience is better then nothing. After all money can only buy experience after a very long run up. Fine in civilianStrasse, but not so good in the military environment.

Matt

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Saving money would be great, but after what I learned about the Falklands war, the AV-8 was the only thing to provide a much needed Air Arm down there. So replacing them to save money, sure thing....but only after they do receive at least flying squadron to replace one harrier squadron.

After all the USAF gave up the F-117A to the F-22A to save money, and will have to give up the A-10C and F-16C for the F-35A to save money and have a more modern fleet.

[C]

Losing the Harrier now(ish) makes more sense than most other options, whoever it upsets.

But Charlie, if we where to lose the Harrier Now-ish and then wait until the what ever it is we get to replace it to go on the when ever we get it new carriers, there will be a huge gap in experience of (I say in the loosest of terms) carrier operations. We would be starting from fresh and not just with pilots, deck personal too. I know that having four fifths of bugger all is not much, but to keep up training and holding onto some experience is better then nothing. After all money can only buy experience after a very long run up. Fine in civilianStrasse, but not so good in the military environment.

Matt

Yes and no. The JSF will probably be a completely different kettle of fish, and in the meantime it may be possible to negotiate some more exchange posts with the USMC/USN. As for Harrier carrier ops, I don;t know when they last embarked.

Saving money would be great, but after what I learned about the Falklands war, the AV-8 was the only thing to provide a much needed Air Arm down there. So replacing them to save money, sure thing....but only after they do receive at least flying squadron to replace one harrier squadron.

Of course there is now a permanent base and presence in the area should that ever rear its ugly head.

[Mictheslik]

As for Harrier carrier ops, I don't know when they last embarked.

Quite recently I believe.....it was certainly in Aircraft Illustrated in the last couple of months....nice picture of the VAAC T4 doing circuits aswell

A question regarding JSF - I assume the new tankers will have to have booms installed for the F35, but is there a way of attaching a hose/drogue to the end of a boom to still get the maximum fuel flow (i.e. not through outer pods)

Would be a shame to see the harrier go, but it would be madness to axe it without a replacement....

.mic

[C]

As for Harrier carrier ops, I don't know when they last embarked.

A question regarding JSF - I assume the new tankers will have to have booms installed for the F35, but is there a way of attaching a hose/drogue to the end of a boom to still get the maximum fuel flow (i.e. not through outer pods).

The RAF won't. Any F-35 for the UK and export market will be fitted with a probe; remember the USN and USMC are also probe and drogue users. As for the boom, yes, it's called a BDA (Boom Drogue Attachment), and is often fitted to both KC-135s and KC-10s.

Would be a shame to see the harrier go, but it would be madness to axe it without a replacement....

.mic

Depends on what you mean by a replacement. In current theatres for the immediate future (there or therabouts when the JSF/JCA will appear), other aircraft could fit the role, as the GR4 will be doing soon in the 'Stan.

Sadly, budgets are constricting, and in the big scheme of things, Harrier is next to go (after the F3, which has a planned OSD in the very adjacent future anyway).

[ManuelL]

I have to admit I am a little biased against the Harrier since one cought fire and crashed down in flames only 20 meters in front of me when I was a kid. It is a quite old design and it is about time it gets replaced.

[expat]

I have to admit I am a little biased against the Harrier since one cought fire and crashed down in flames only 20 meters in front of me when I was a kid. It is a quite old design and it is about time it gets replaced.

They only entered service 20 years ago, so in military aircraft terms, they are quite young. Depending on how old you are it could have been a GR3 or a GR5 or 7 that crashed. The difference between the Gr3 and the GR5 (Harrier II) is like comparing a VW Polo Mk1 and a Golf GTI Mk5. Also in complexity terms, the Harrier's mechanics are a childs toy in comparison to how the F35 does the same tricks. No computers in the Harrier, the flight controls and the nozzel actuation are all mechanical, though it does has SAAHS (Stability Augmentation and Atitude Hod), but this is more of a basic auto pilot than a flight control system.

Matt