Harrier jump-jets sold “for peanuts”Dozens of British Harrier jump jets are to be sold to the United States Marine Corps for £34 million after more than £1 billion has been spent on them in the last decade. By Con Coughlin, and Thomas HardingThe Telegraph 7:14AM BST 15 Jun 2011 The Ministry of Defence finalised the deal with the Americans last night but the move has been described by Royal Navy officers as “crass” and a “shocking waste”. One officer said the U.S. was getting the aircraft for “peanuts” after the millions spent on them. It is also likely that instead of being flown that the Harriers will be broken up for spares despite having seven years of flying life left. The details of the deal have emerged just a day after Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, stirred up the defence debate saying the Harrier would have made the Libya mission more effective, faster, and cheaper. He also warned that the Navy would not be able to sustain its operations in Libya for another three months without making cuts elsewhere. It is understood that the majority of the 40 serviceable Harrier GR.7 and GR.9s will be sent to America where their engines and general hardware such as cockpits and flaps will be used to service USMC aircraft. The fleet of ageing U.S. Harrier AV-8Bs has to remain in service for several years longer than planned because their replacement, the jump jet variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, is years behind schedule. Admiral Sir John “Sandy” Woodward, the commander of the Falklands Task Force described the decision as “crass beyond belief”. “The Americans have got themselves a bargain as our Government does not know what it’s doing. This is a shocking waste of taxpayers money. These Harriers should be flying off a Navy aircraft carrier today bombing Libya and bringing the campaign to a quick conclusion, but instead they are being flogged for scrap.” A total of 70 Harriers were upgraded in the last decade, but only 40 were still serviceable to fly when the Joint Force Harrier, run by the Royal Navy and RAF, was axed under the defence review last year. The aircraft had been extremely successful in Afghanistan particularly the GR.9 version which had powerful Rolls Royce engines, new weapon installations, targeting pods, and helmet-mounted displays. A Ministry of Defence insider said, “If we are going to do anything with them, sell the Harriers to the U.S. is not a bad option in terms of cooperation.”
By: David Burke - 18th June 2011 at 09:06
Badger – the F-35 hasnt entered service with the RN so all talk of payload and stealth is irrelevant. The RN didnt at any stage say they wanted an aircraft carrier with no aircraft to go on it -the status they have now!
By: Bager1968 - 18th June 2011 at 00:06
Well said David!
I remember reading an article last year about the furture of the Navy etc and it was said it would prefer to keep the more than capable Harrier over getting the F35. It mentioned that the ideal procurement would be to buy off the shelf F18’s and keep a limited Harrier force thus having a very broad capability! The Navy did not like the idea of the F35 being so heavy and not being able to carry as much payload as the Harrier which was stated as a much more needed capability over stealth.
Sigh.
Even the F-35B can carry more than the Harrier… and take off with it too.
The F-35C carries bigger weapons internally than the F-35B (and thus a higher total warload), but both can carry the same weapons externally.
This is the standard tactic of F-35 detractors… comparing max warloads of other aircraft to internal-only warloads of the F-35.
The F-35 with external load is every bit as capable as the F/A-18, F-16, etc… and has the option of carrying a smaller warload stealthily… something none of the other aircraft can do.
No… the RN didn’t want to keep Harrier… it wanted F-35… and will get it (although the “cat&trap” F-35C rather than the STOVL F-35B).
There have been lots of “talking heads” claiming this or that… and most of them have been “speaking from their derriere”!
By: Phantom Phil - 17th June 2011 at 20:15
Harrier – A Force to be taken seriously!
Well said David!
I remember reading an article last year about the furture of the Navy etc and it was said it would prefer to keep the more than capable Harrier over getting the F35. It mentioned that the ideal procurement would be to buy off the shelf F18’s and keep a limited Harrier force thus having a very broad capability! The Navy did not like the idea of the F35 being so heavy and not being able to carry as much payload as the Harrier which was stated as a much more needed capability over stealth.
By: David Burke - 17th June 2011 at 18:40
The aircraft were not passed their ‘sell by’ dates . In some cases the airframes had consumed a half of their allotted life -indeed Mod 553 reinforced the frame 19 join which was effectively a life extension mod .
Added to this in the last year of the JUMP programme there was embodiment of HMCS and clearance done for Paveway IV and Sniper pod .
Effectively the aircraft were due to be drawn down to half fleet size circa 2018 with the rest capable of carrying on to 2023. Despite the daft stories of the aircraft being ‘worn out ‘ they were a far more capable aircraft than the machine that entered service and the Afghan servicability rate backs
this up.
In the year they were withdrawn they were due to receive a CAP update which would have introduced LINK 16 and a few other bits that would have made them even more deadly. This was jointly with BAe and Mod.
In essence the aircraft sitting at Cottesmore are not obsolete -they
represent millions of pounds spent in life extension and are still seriously capable combat aircraft . Whilst its easy to discount it as old technology the aircraft is still in service with the USMC -Italian Navy and Spanish Armada which tends to make me believe they are still viable!
By: Bruce - 17th June 2011 at 16:01
Why, to keep the employment figures artificially high of course! Tongue in cheek, but governments have done similar things for years….
Bruce
By: SADSACK - 17th June 2011 at 13:22
re;
if an a/c was supposed to be past its sell by date (a ridiculous PR term) why would they spend billions upgrading it?
By: Arabella-Cox - 17th June 2011 at 12:57
He bosses at cot were left in no doubt that the only museun likely to get one were national museums and not to entertain the prospect of gifting to anyone, then any sales would then be back to the problem they have now there are a number of items that are ITAR restricted by the us government effectivl they have a veto on any customers the uk can find for them hence them being the only customer
By: 611 Squadron - 17th June 2011 at 12:35
Well I fervently hope that at least some of those being “disposed” of are offered to interested parties for preservation. It would be nice to see one fast taxing at Bruntingthorpe for instance and I’d happily accommodate one in my front garden if they have one going spare:D
By: TwinOtter23 - 17th June 2011 at 11:14
Sale denied over here! :confused:
By: GATEGUARD - 17th June 2011 at 11:11
“…the Harriers were fast approaching ‘their’ sell by date.” According to whom?
Absolutely….very well put Steve
By: Steve Bond - 17th June 2011 at 10:29
“…the Harriers were fast approaching ‘their’ sell by date.” According to whom?
By: dailee1 - 17th June 2011 at 10:29
GR9s sold to USA
When I suggested in an earlier thread that the Harrier force was being offered for sale to the USMC I was shot down in flames with scorn
I feel somehat vindicated now
By: cypherus - 17th June 2011 at 10:17
Sold a pup more like!
The disposal piecemeal of the Harrier fleet and it’s carriers was always going to be a contentious in the extreme, that this story has ‘Leaked’ should be of no surprise really, not as a tool for the so called ‘Harrier Admirals’ but in the governments favor as they can now once again lay down the terms that led them to order the disposal and correct things they feel they need to, or rather ‘Spin’ this one again if required.
Truth be known the Harriers were fast approaching there sell by date but did not need to be withdrawn in the manner they were, little thought was apparently given to obtaining replacement assets equal to the job the Harrier fleet undertook so very well and anyone that for a moment believes that replacement Carriers and Aircraft will come of this shake up are sadly deluded.
If the UK government was serious about having a Blue water air capability then it would have obtained replacements and had them in service long before the Harriers were withdrawn, as it stands this country is going to be hard pressed to cover it’s NATO/International armed forces commitments and will be forced to withdraw effective current forces due to lack of resources in the very near future citing lack of money as the cause.
Leaves one wondering who actually voted this bunch in and what mandate they are working to, not one I recognize anyway.
By: pagen01 - 17th June 2011 at 09:41
TT that is absolutely brilliantly put!
By: FoxVC10 - 17th June 2011 at 08:27
Sensible question, but what would the cost be to the taxpayer to get rid of all that carbon fibre?
Ive heard rumours of a million squid an airframe. If that is the case then this deal is a bargin.
By: Toddington Ted - 16th June 2011 at 20:48
Messrs Coughlin and Harding of the Telegraph are usually pretty good at telling it how it is but I believe they may have been fed a line this time. The Harrier is today classed as an “old, complex” type to operate (that doesn’t diminish its capability in most people’s eyes except our political lords and masters of course) and most nations would not want to operate it, good though it is. We may well see an about turn but, as each day goes by, disposal seems more likely. Remember that the MOD is charged to get as much as it can for assets that are no longer used and, like my Dad’s 1990s Ford Escort, they work perfectly well but cost more to keep running than theyre worth to sell. Of course, Ford Escorts don’t defend our national and international interests!
By: pagen01 - 16th June 2011 at 17:53
The whole thing really dosen’t matter anyway, either sell them to a foreign force for parts (great if you can get £36 million for them), or store and scrap them here.
By: Bruce - 16th June 2011 at 17:45
They are no more than spare parts anyway – they couldnt be used by the USMC as they are; they are too different!
Bruce
By: mmitch - 16th June 2011 at 16:13
The M.O.D is now denying it. There is a theory doing the Internet rounds that the story was put out so the M.O.D would have to deny it. It would give a bit more time for the ‘Save the Harrier’ Admirals. 🙂
mmitch.
Sign In
June 16, 2011 at 3:00 pm