I’ll be paying a visit when she docks. It’s a shame it’ll be her last time…

…Well done Tories, you and your tea boys have already messed up the British Armed Forces as well as our Police force and security, what ever next….I bet your personal security has nothing to worry about.

Anyway rant over…

[FONT=”Times New Roman”][SIZE=”3″]

This is not borne out by reality.

In the 1991 Gulf War, the attrition[INDENT] rate of AV-8B Harriers was 1.5 planes for every 1,000 sorties flown compared with a rate of 0.5 for the A-10 Thunderbolt. The F-16 Falcon had an even lower rate, 0.2, and the USMC F/A-18 Hornet suffered no losses. The jump jet’s hot exhaust nozzles near the heart of the fuselage were magnets for heat-seeking SAMs. A hit in the midsection was fatal; it always made the Harrier crash. Several F/A-18s were also hit by IR missiles, but all of them landed safely because the SAM exploded in the less vulnerable tailpipe area.

In a 2003 Pulitzer Prize winning study on the safety record and combat value of the Harrier, retired USAF General Chuck Horner was quoted to say: “trying to justify it based on the Gulf War is tenuous at best,” adding that “in terms of payload, range and suitability for close air support, the A-10 is a much better platform.” Some his USMC peers agreed. “The Harrier wasn’t a failure, but it wasn’t a great success,” said retired Lt. Gen. Charles H. Pitman, chief of Marine aviation from 1988 to 1990. “I don’t think they did anything spectacular.”

At that time, the Harrier also had the unwanted distinction of having a lifetime accident rate nearly five times higher than the A-10 Warthog, more than 3 1/2 times the rate of the F/A-18 Hornet, and more than twice that of the F-16 Fighting Falcon. It was also noted that during the 1990s, RAF versions of the Harrier most similar to the AV-8B had a worse accident rate than the U.S. Marines.

That’s the US version and their thoughts of it, and that was then. It might not had served the US well but it certainly served the British well.

In the Falklands war, RAF Harriers on strike operations completed just 126 sorties but the squadron still managed to lose three aircraft to all causes. Not a very inspiring piece of advertising for “a CAS platform”.

Those were the GR3’s, they were quite basic for what they did.

And anyway, I’m talking about the GR9 not the older versions. It’s probably a way better version than any other mark of the Harrier. I’m sure if the GR9 had been around during the Falklands then it would’ve notched up more than “126” sorties. The GR3 was an older, way less advanced version and it wasn’t the only one performing A/G sorties, the FRS-1 did too although not as often. And just to add for good measure, IIRC it has more A/A kills than an F-18 & F-14.

Which records are you referring to?

The ones the RAF & RN have achieved. Plenty of sources around that are quite easy to find. Have a look for yourself.

Sorry … I shall miss the Harrier, particularly its shows at Old Warden, but its days have gone.

I’ll buy that assessment when the F-35 is operationally ready. Until then, there is a gap. Despite the fact that the F-35C is now what the U.K. is going for, the F-35B would have never existed had the Harrier not so consistently proven itself over the years. It has its limitations for sure, but the fact that the F-35B even exists is proof that it has been a great airplane and its true replacement won’t have come along until the F-35B is ready.

Well said.

Every aircraft has limitations. The Typhoon has, the F-22 has, the F-35 will have, Rafale has, Harrier, Tornado, F-15, F-16 you name it, they all have them.

But theres one area where the Harrier doesn’t have such limitations, and that’s in the CAS support role. The Tornado GR4 in it’s current form is probably better but it doesn’t mean the Harrier is a bad platform. It’s done a fine job and is more than capable of operating in the CAS environment. Saying it’s days have gone is rather a bit silly.

“On the right surface F-35B is a STOVL, it is just not a “operate anywhere aircraft” that is suited for operating from unprepared airstrips”.

Then it looks like that ‘B’ version is a waste of money then. That was pretty much the point of V/STOL or STOVL aircraft, (i.e the Harrier) to operate on unprepared airstrips.

And F-35B has a higher exhaust temprature and a stronger downwash, so that it won´t be able to operate from gras fields, paking lots or unpreprared aristrips with out spcial high performance concrete being laid.

It’s not really a “True” STOVL aircraft then is it.

In theory, any one of us can drive a Formula 1 car to it’s max performance…But we can’t really when it comes to actually having a go at it.

Personally, I just don’t see India selecting the GE F414 for the LCA MK2. Then turn around an purchase Typhoons for the MMRCA.

Why not? Yes it’d make a lot of sense to go for the F-18 because that particular engine has been chosen for LCA, but it’s not the end of the world for the MMRCA competitors, I mean currently, the RAF have 3 different types of engines for it’s Tornado’s, Harrier’s & Typhoon’s and they seemed to manage okay, actually, how many types of engines do the USAF/USN/USMC have for their fighter/bombers. Or even, if India go for Typhoon or Rafale, how many will they have with their Sukhoi’s, PAK FA’s, LCA’s etc etc.

Personally I don’t think it’s much of a big deal. Yes, for example, it’d be rather handy, cost effective to have one type of engine for an air force that has around 300 aircraft of about 3 different types, but if a fault is found with an engine which could result in the entire aircraft being grounded until they find out whats up with it, then they’re going to have very little or no protection in the air. Especially in this day and age.

If I had my own navy & airforce, I’d want at least 2 different types of engines fitted to various kinds of my fighter aircraft.

Been quite quiet without you around, scooter. Good to see you back. lol 😉

UK closes in on $11bn fighter deal

Here’s the recent Telegraph article – I didn’t see anyone linking to it directly.

The decision now before India is interesting. In terms of cost, does it want to go for something cheaper up front or something that might be cheaper in the long-run? Does it want a 4th or 4.5th generation fighter? How much weight does it put on the technical comparisons?

When is the deal due to be made again? Early next year? I’m sure it was mean’t to be around this time?…

I hope that the Typhoon wins, great plane IMHO

X2. Like I’ve always said, and always will say, it’s the best deal available.

Edit: Reuters have also mentioned this as well. A bit more of a credible source than the Telegraph I think.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6A605T20101107

According to that article.

The only thing new was a official making the comment that India should not be made a full partner, as that will take away from European high tech. jobs, only the software backend to be shipped off to India, you know the outsourcing model to cut down on costs.

Some partnership offer :D.

The bigger picture has got to be looked at. The Typhoon is not the only thing Europe produces for it’s military, so theres plenty of other projects for jobs & what not etc etc etc…

As far as I know, officially, India are being offered to be the 5th member in the consortium.

I still say Eurofighter have the best deal in this competition, it’s alright some people saying the US types are “mature” but so what, just means they’re old and have very, very little potential left and even then theres the US sanctions on top of that, and cheap too, well theres reasons for that…An awful deal IMO. Like I say, Eurofighter offer the better deal and if India don’t go with that, well, silly mistake. But we all know politics play a major role no matter how good or bad an aircraft is.

Still; Typhoon all the way IMO.

This very topic was mentioned on Channel 4 news (UK) a few hours ago, nothing much new, just went into a little more detail about partnership in future weapons projects etc, a former Sea Lord from the RN mentioned he wasn’t particularly happy about the cooperation saying what if Britian is involved in a Falklands like scenario and France isn’t & they don’t support it and we need one of the Aircraft Carriers or vice-versa etc…

…It’s early days but, I think these things can be sorted out and agreed with over the time it’s being thought of, like I say, still early days.

Just a personal thought, if this cooperation is serious as it’s made out to be, and it’s something thats mean’t to last for at least the next 50 years according to Channel 4 news, would it be worth while for the UK just to go with the Rafale rather than the F-35? It’ll probably be much cheaper and easier to operate, training for pilots, ground crews, weapons fit etc as far as commonality is concerned.

And, on another personal thought; I think Britain seems wanting to, if you like, move away from the Americans and more towards France/Europe. Not a bad thing of course, I’d support it.

To partially answer your last sentence, EELightning,
let me just say that i’m not sure in my nearing half-century
to have read quite as many comments about England being
our sister nation/likeminded/more trustworthy than the rest…

I guesss one can venture that the window of opportunity is
so wide open govt-to-govt that it has been squarely taken
off its hinges for the great Franco-British relations summer, LOL.

Well we’ve got to get along somehow sooner or later, might as well be now and besides, personally, I’d want you lot on my side if something kicked off, you’re quite a good bunch as far as your armed forces is concerned. And you have no idea how much it hurts me saying that. LOL 😉