Harrier Farewell – Wittering 9th December 2010

The Bump – They had circa late last year probably something like forty aircraft in an airworthy state . Whilst there was a Squadron cut I dont believe the airworthy number of aircraft between Wittering and Cottesmore has declined that rapidly to stop a sixteen aircraft formation being easily possible! As for the Boscombe two seater she was scheduled for the Reduce to Produce scheme – I doubt she has had a reprieve in any way.

Thanks for clearing that up David, when the poster mentioned the single seater leaving the other day, I wondered if it was earmarked for the flypast.

The Bump – They had circa late last year probably something like forty aircraft in an airworthy state . Whilst there was a Squadron cut I dont believe the airworthy number of aircraft between Wittering and Cottesmore has declined that rapidly to stop a sixteen aircraft formation being easily possible! As for the Boscombe two seater she was scheduled for the Reduce to Produce scheme – I doubt she has had a reprieve in any way.

Thanks bazv. I thought it may have been something like that. I just wondered because being near Yeovilton I’ve heard many stories of operating the SHARS in rough conditions and some of the old Harrrier footage shows landings at rough airstrips with all kinds of dust and crap flying around. I suppose they could cope if they have too but avoid it if possible.

You would not normally stovl into an icy runway due to the risk of ice ingestion (engine),and ice particle damage (airframe) which could be caused by engine nozzle/RCS nozzle blast…and you would still have to taxy on an ice rink !!
The airfield would have been closed and no a/c movements allowed

This may seem a stupid question but why did an icey runway stop them landing at Cottesmore? I thought the point of a Harrier was that it didn’t need a runway or are these particular Harriers STOL and not VTOL? Sorry to say I’m a bit ignorant on this modern stuff.

The last single seater from Boscombe Down flew out today !
One 2 seater (653) remains,but not sure if she will fly out or trailer out (she is airworthy !)
There is 1 more single seater – she was trailered in for a servicing just prior to the announcement and will be trailered away in due course.

Is the last single seater going to be included in ‘the’ flypast? They must have a job on their hands rustling up enough airframes for it………the Tories brought the curtain down on the Harrier in the RAF but dont forget it was Labour that cut JFH down to a level making any future Afghan deployments difficult to sustain and an easy target for cutbacks.

The last single seater from Boscombe Down flew out today !
One 2 seater (653) remains,but not sure if she will fly out or trailer out (she is airworthy !)
There is 1 more single seater – she was trailered in for a servicing just prior to the announcement and will be trailered away in due course.

I believe there is a 16 ship being put up from Cott this week, doing a fly past of a few RAF Stations.

Perhaps it is also time to properly consider whether UK should have nuclear capability, and whether we can honestly justify such luxurys as the Red Arrows, or indeed three distinctly individual armed services?

Anything nuclear is expensive – get rid of it. The Red Arrows is a good example of what disciplined individuals can achieve – what they represent is more important than what they actually do.

Three services? Oh….just look at it as one huge job scheme with a choice of one of thee training providers!

Has anyone sought to create a link to the BBC Look East programme? It was a moving report – They said it was the last but sure I saw 3/4 other Harrier lined up.

Nice video of the Harriers arriving in Cottesmore..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP23TzJ5bJQ

I personally think we have to stop buying from BAE Systems and buy off-the-shelf.

Why does everybody think that ‘buying-off-the-shelf’ will always be cheaper? The only way this is possible is to buy foreign equipment and in that case almost every penny that is spent will end up in a foreign worker’s pocket, get spent in a foreign shop and all the tax will end up in a foreign exchequer…

…if you want to ruin Britain that’s the fastest way to accomplish it!

If we need a nuclear deterrent then the delivery system must be affordable, which means handing over the launch keys to the RAF/FAA (The USAF expect the F35 to be able to carry nuclear weapons). That will save 90% of the cost of replacing Trident.

Merging the three armed services doesn’t work and has never been proven to be cost effective – all it does is undermine morale.

The problem is that BAE Systems are so tightly joined to the MoD at the hip that the tax-payer pays for some of BAE Systems overheads (even before we pay for such luxuries as weapons and weapon delivery systems). We are told that we are building two large aircraft carriers because it would be too expensive to cancel – what rubbish. If the government really wanted to save money they could have put a gun to the head of BAE Systems (hypothetically speaking) and we would have been able to walk away from these two expensive carriers – paying for work already undertaken. I personally think we have to stop buying from BAE Systems and buy off-the-shelf.

I would rather have the MoD design a hybrid destroyer/aircraft carrier that would be smaller than HMS Ark Royal but larger than the Type 45 Destroyer. It would carry the same weapon systems, but be able to carry around eight harriers/F35s and two to four helicopters. And for the price of just one giant aircraft carriers and four Type 45s we could have built six hybrid warships as described above.

The problem with the Harrier is that it never really evolved. My understanding it that originally the aircraft was to have been supersonic but the government said NO, so if we are to retain a V/STOL aircraft it has to be the F35.

While the Harrier was designed to be used in Europe from makeshift woodland clearings, it was ideal for carrier operations using much cheaper and smaller ships. It’s use also in recent conflicts was also valuable – then again maybe a squadron of turbo-powered Spitfires would have just been as effective against men with spears (okay, AK47s and IEDs).

Goodbye Harrier. Goodbye Nimrod MR4. Goodbye Britain. Maybe we should have left the Germans to have over the country in 1940 or the Russians in the 1950/60/70s – can’t see ’em doing any worse.

Any truth to the rumor some of them will live on the the US?

For what it’s worth – and please understand I’m not trying to intentionally upset people here – does UK actually NEED the Harrier any more?

I appreciate that Harrier has been a useful tool, but if this country has to save money, the military seems as fair a place as any to look. And fairer than say….the NHS.

I was part of the RAF when it was big and powerful, and globalisation hadn’t been heard of, and the cold war’s existance required such an air force. But times have changed, and the retirement of Harrier seems to be accompanied by a tendancy to look at the situation with flag waving indignance, instead of hard headed reality.

As I see it, the future does not lie with UK being a big global military power, and the sooner we all swallow that very bitter pill, the sooner we will have the opportunity to spend our money more wisely, and not, (by virtue of our military muscle), feel obliged to send our young men and women to fight and die in far flung parts of the globe.

RIP Harrier. You have served this country with distinction – but the time has come for you to bow out.

Perhaps it is also time to properly consider whether UK should have nuclear capability, and whether we can honestly justify such luxurys as the Red Arrows, or indeed three distinctly individual armed services?

We surely must also learn lessons from a contract to build two aircraft carriers, which includes a clause making it more expensive to cancel them than to continue building them. 😡

None of this means I’m right; just my views on a changing world and UK’s place within it.

Neverthless, a heartfelt thank you to Harrier, and all who were part of that amazing aircraft.

Tim.

We cannot afford to have both Harrier and Tornado.*
We are lucky to still have what we have believe me.
I left the RAF this year after 32 years service. Am I glad I have left? Yes.
Did I enjoy it? Yes.
Do I feel sad that the Harrier is going so soon? yes.

I left school around 28 years ago and have done little with my life. Do I wish I had joined the RAF? Yes.
Would I have enjoyed it? Even if I had joined for three years in the British Army I would have enjoyed it, and become a better person.
Do I feel sad that the Harrier is going so soon? My blood is boiling. In the end this county will have a nuclear deterrent – towed behind horses. That’s what is important to the unmentionables of Whitehall – horses (for Troop in the Colour) and nuclear weapons. Everything else is surplus against traditional and ill-conceived mindset.

Now having gone off on one, and to keep the Forum MODs happy: Daddy or Chips?

Or rather what would you sacrifice to retain the Harriers or Nimrod MR4 – BBMF or Red Arrows?

Personally I wish you hadn’t posted these excellent images. I’m so ruddy disgusted at what is happening to the RAF. I’m ashamed to be British. We invented the Harrier! 🙁

Apologies if this post upsets a few people.

We cannot afford to have both Harrier and Tornado.*
We are lucky to still have what we have believe me.
I left the RAF this year after 32 years service. Am I glad I have left? Yes.
Did I enjoy it? Yes.
Do I feel sad that the Harrier is going so soon? yes.

*However, the interpretation of what we can and cannot afford of course is down to Govt decisions influenced by the public, who will always vote for whoever gives them the most largesse resulting in an unaffordable state – hence the theory that democracy is always replaced by tyranny!

Fatboy’s post is actually quite insulting to many, but luckily absolutely senseless aswel.

Fat Boy wrote

Their contribution in the Falklands was negative and totally useless, not to mention expensive.

I expect you are referring to the Black Buck missions? You do realise that RAF Harrier GR3s also took part in the Falklands? Some 25% of the Sea Harrier Pilots during the Falklands were RAF. The Sea Harrier pilot with the most Argentine aircraft kills was RAF.

Were the following RAF units also ‘useless’?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/rafau.html

TJ

Fat Boy

I think your getting your Sea Harriers (Royal Navy) and Harriers (Royal Air Force) mixed up ?

.

Fat Boy – The RAF were very keen to retain the Harrier hence why a new mod programme was close to being signed. Aircrat carriers have their uses but with the likes of Afghanistan unless the country physically moved substancially closer to the sea there would be little point in deploying carrier aviation.