We're selling 72 Harriers to the US
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15876745
For spare parts! I know we need to make cuts, but flogging one of the greatest bits of British Engineering to the Americans to use as spares is pretty dire. Plus are the US likely to use them as target practice? Just seems a sad end for a truly great jet. Turns out USMC still use them, but I'd imagine they'll be obsolete pretty soon as they bring in some of the next generation stuff.
ETA: "Only" £116m for 72 Harriers? If I'd won the Euromillions I'd have bettered that offer! Would take a bit of explaining to the OH, Landlord etc
For spare parts! I know we need to make cuts, but flogging one of the greatest bits of British Engineering to the Americans to use as spares is pretty dire. Plus are the US likely to use them as target practice? Just seems a sad end for a truly great jet. Turns out USMC still use them, but I'd imagine they'll be obsolete pretty soon as they bring in some of the next generation stuff.
ETA: "Only" £116m for 72 Harriers? If I'd won the Euromillions I'd have bettered that offer! Would take a bit of explaining to the OH, Landlord etc
Good Lord. It seems like only last week we were discussing the very same thing.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
DanB7290 said:
flogging one of the greatest bits of British Engineering to the Americans to use as spares is pretty dire.
I dare say EricMc will be along in a minute to correct me.AFAIK the Brits built a dinky little VSTOL aircraft called the Harrier and made it work. The Americans had been playing about with their own ideas but never really got them to work. USA bought the rights to build Harriers and developed a newer/better/larger version in conjunction with the Brits which became the universal "Harrier" AV8B or some such name.
I suspect what UK is selling back to USA are essentially spares for the later Americanised version - not the jingoistic "British" original.
Ozzie Osmond said:
I dare say EricMc will be along in a minute to correct me.
AFAIK the Brits built a dinky little VSTOL aircraft called the Harrier and made it work. The Americans had been playing about with their own ideas but never really got them to work. USA bought the rights to build Harriers and developed a newer/better/larger version in conjunction with the Brits which became the universal "Harrier" AV8B or some such name.
I suspect what UK is selling back to USA are essentially spares for the later Americanised version - not the jingoistic "British" original.
I believe that after the GR3 we sold the rights to the US so were in effect building the Harrier under licence from the US from GR5 onwards. AFAIK the Brits built a dinky little VSTOL aircraft called the Harrier and made it work. The Americans had been playing about with their own ideas but never really got them to work. USA bought the rights to build Harriers and developed a newer/better/larger version in conjunction with the Brits which became the universal "Harrier" AV8B or some such name.
I suspect what UK is selling back to USA are essentially spares for the later Americanised version - not the jingoistic "British" original.
eharding said:
Good Lord. It seems like only last week we were discussing the very same thing.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
A week is a long time in politics. And also on PH it seems http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
DanB7290 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15876745
For spare parts! I know we need to make cuts, but flogging one of the greatest bits of British Engineering to the Americans to use as spares is pretty dire. Plus are the US likely to use them as target practice? Just seems a sad end for a truly great jet. Turns out USMC still use them, but I'd imagine they'll be obsolete pretty soon as they bring in some of the next generation stuff.
With JSF slipping further and further to the right and the STOVL version of the aircraft under probation after experiencing so many problems, the USMC were extremely keen to get hold of our Harriers as it will ensure they can keep their own fleet running into the future. Given the issues with the STOVL JSF and the uncertainty over whether or not it may get canned they made a pretty smart move.For spare parts! I know we need to make cuts, but flogging one of the greatest bits of British Engineering to the Americans to use as spares is pretty dire. Plus are the US likely to use them as target practice? Just seems a sad end for a truly great jet. Turns out USMC still use them, but I'd imagine they'll be obsolete pretty soon as they bring in some of the next generation stuff.
Bertie W
Mr GrimNasty said:
The Harrier became an Anglo-American development years ago (McDonnell Douglas mid-1970s), so hardly a fresh flogging of British engineering is it!
The US had a hand in the Harrier almost from the very beginning - so there always has been an American influence in how it developed. And the original concept came from a Frenchman.I was of the understanding we sold off pretty much all of our military hardware once we'd finished with it?
Whether it's selling to the US for spares or selling a warship to the Indonesian Navy to enter their fleet, surely what matters is getting the most we can for it within acceptable ethical boundaries regarding whom we sell it to?
Whether it's selling to the US for spares or selling a warship to the Indonesian Navy to enter their fleet, surely what matters is getting the most we can for it within acceptable ethical boundaries regarding whom we sell it to?
Eric Mc said:
The US had a hand in the Harrier almost from the very beginning - so there always has been an American influence in how it developed. And the original concept came from a Frenchman.
Maybe, but I still feel it's absolutely fair to say it was the Brits who made the concept work. The Soviets copied it with their Yak38 (?) but the power to weight ratio was all wrong (due to multiple engines) and the aircraft's ability to carry weapons was severely compromised. The Swedes, who like to disperse their planes and use stretches of road as runways, wisely dropped the "V" element from their design requirements and developed STOL instead in the form of a couple of Saabs. Amongst other benefits STOL is massively more fuel efficient since at vertical take-off a Harrier has to lift itself as well as all the fuel and weapons on board. In other words the VTO element comes at the worst possible part of the misssion! Hence it's turned out to be a technological dead end. Much better to get the wing moving through the air at high speed before you try to lift anything - otherwise known as a helicopter....Ozzie Osmond said:
Maybe, but I still feel it's absolutely fair to say it was the Brits who made the concept work. The Soviets copied it with their Yak38 (?) but the power to weight ratio was all wrong (due to multiple engines) and the aircraft's ability to carry weapons was severely compromised. The Swedes, who like to disperse their planes and use stretches of road as runways, wisely dropped the "V" element from their design requirements and developed STOL instead in the form of a couple of Saabs. Amongst other benefits STOL is massively more fuel efficient since at vertical take-off a Harrier has to lift itself as well as all the fuel and weapons on board. In other words the VTO element comes at the worst possible part of the misssion! Hence it's turned out to be a technological dead end. Much better to get the wing moving through the air at high speed before you try to lift anything - otherwise known as a helicopter....
The concept was originated my a Frenchman named Wilbault. Bristol Siddeley had an engine in development in the mid 1950s that provided the thrust characteristics that suited his concept so he contacted them and Hawkers at Kingston. Hawker urged Bristol Siddeley into refining the concept.Once Hawkers had built the prototype P1127, the US government (from pressure exerted by the US Marines who were extremely enthusiastic about the aircraft - much more than the RAF or the Royal Navy) helped fund the development of the P1127 into the Kestrel by providing money through a NATO aid scheme.
Neither the RAF nor the Royal Navy were keen on the P1127/Kestrel. The UK government were more keen on an advanced aircrft using P1127 principles called the P1154. The RAF and RN weren't even that keen on the P1154.
It was only when the P1154 was cancelled and RAF pilots had some experience of flying Kestrels in a semi-operational test squadron, that the British military began to realise that the concept was valid.
To me, the US Marines have always been the main heroes in the Harrier story.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff