How much to build new Harriers? Could it be viable?
Discussion
With all the costs and questions being raised about teh F35 and F35B, would it not be more cost effective to build the next generation of Harriers with proven technology?
They must be suitable for the type of interdiction that we are looking to carry out nowadays leaving the super complex high speed stuff to do their different role. I used to fly an AV8B fairly regulary with some sucess but never got the hang of landing. - Great old computer game invading East Timor...
So who could build a Harrier nowadays and for how much?
They must be suitable for the type of interdiction that we are looking to carry out nowadays leaving the super complex high speed stuff to do their different role. I used to fly an AV8B fairly regulary with some sucess but never got the hang of landing. - Great old computer game invading East Timor...
So who could build a Harrier nowadays and for how much?
If it's next generation, it's not going to be proven technology....
Ultimately, if you want to improve your technology / capaility, it costs. Just got to decide what the right cost / capability balance is (and stick to it, because the best way to make technology realllly expensive is to keep changing what you want!)
Ultimately, if you want to improve your technology / capaility, it costs. Just got to decide what the right cost / capability balance is (and stick to it, because the best way to make technology realllly expensive is to keep changing what you want!)
Much more than anyone initially thinks, is the answer. The thing about building stuff where people expect not to be killed by faults etc is that they need to be properly engineered and tested to make sure they work properly. Something as utterly boring as a tiny electronic chip that's now obsolete and not available anywhere anymore turns into a big multi-discipline engineering exercise to find a replacement and then make 100% sure it works exactly as intended in all foreseeable circumstances.
The fact of the matter is that you just couldn't dig out the drawings and build new Harriers. I have no idea whether the tooling for the metal and plastic bits still exists or not, but if not, it'll be as expensive as tooling for a new aeroplane. All the avionics and crappy little bits nobody thinks of are where all the difficulty will lie. There are components of Typhoons which are obsolete now - innocuous but essential little bits and bobs which were in the Maplin catalogue when first designed but by the time it's been through all the prototyping, testing and roll-out have been replaced by a new component and you can't get the originals any more. Thus you're back to square one for that component and everything it interfaces with if you want to simply "build more".
The fact of the matter is that you just couldn't dig out the drawings and build new Harriers. I have no idea whether the tooling for the metal and plastic bits still exists or not, but if not, it'll be as expensive as tooling for a new aeroplane. All the avionics and crappy little bits nobody thinks of are where all the difficulty will lie. There are components of Typhoons which are obsolete now - innocuous but essential little bits and bobs which were in the Maplin catalogue when first designed but by the time it's been through all the prototyping, testing and roll-out have been replaced by a new component and you can't get the originals any more. Thus you're back to square one for that component and everything it interfaces with if you want to simply "build more".
Eric Mc said:
Maybe they should revisit the P1154.
Yep, having nearly sorted out the technical hurdles of the F35, why not start again with a whole heap of new technical hurdles just to get something without the stealth, range, supercruise, situational awareness or economies of scale of the F35? 
IanMorewood said:
Cost would largely be down to how many you actually build. As almost everyone using s/vtol will buy the f35 once it's a proven technology your market for a GR10 Harrier is what 20 units? As such your cost per unit is probably £100m.
Optimistically assuming you could build the aircraft themselves for £50M each, that leaves £1Bn for the development costs. You are not going to design and build a new fighter aircraft for £1Bn. Maybe £20Bn, so that makes the amortised development cost for each GR10 £1Bn. Will it be better than an F35 at £100M each? Mave said:
Yep, having nearly sorted out the technical hurdles of the F35, why not start again with a whole heap of new technical hurdles just to get something without the stealth, range, supercruise, situational awareness or economies of scale of the F35?
I wouldn't be rushing to say that the technical problems for the F-35 are 'nearly sorted', 'still a nightmare' may be closer. I know there are still problems to be fixed, but they are now the fixable kind aren't they? Rather than the fundamental "don't know if this technology will work" kind. Every fighter has problems as it starts getting ready for service, not sure if F35 is any worse or better than, say, the F14, F18, or F111? At least they haven't lost one yet...
Mave said:
Are you suggesting the P1154 is "more nearly" ready for effective operational service than the F35?
Of course not. I was being humourous. It's just that 50 years ago Hawker Siddeley were working hard on a supersonic VTOL fighter/bomber. No one has built an operational one - yet.It's always been a tricky decision between building a small number of massively superior but expensive and complex fighters verses a much larger number of simple aircraft. Up till now, the fact that it would be political suicide to send large numbers of pilots to their deaths has meant we generally have always erred for option 1. But, with the advance of pilotless aircraft, suddenly option two might gain some advocates again i suspect?
Mave said:
Optimistically assuming you could build the aircraft themselves for £50M each, that leaves £1Bn for the development costs. You are not going to design and build a new fighter aircraft for £1Bn. Maybe £20Bn, so that makes the amortised development cost for each GR10 £1Bn. Will it be better than an F35 at £100M each?
It wouldn't be a new aircraft at all more an evolution of the previous versions and no it wouldnt be a patch on what an f35 should be able to do.Mave said:
Eric Mc said:
Maybe they should revisit the P1154.
Yep, having nearly sorted out the technical hurdles of the F35, why not start again with a whole heap of new technical hurdles just to get something without the stealth, range, supercruise, situational awareness or economies of scale of the F35? 
Mojocvh said:
Mave said:
Eric Mc said:
Maybe they should revisit the P1154.
Yep, having nearly sorted out the technical hurdles of the F35, why not start again with a whole heap of new technical hurdles just to get something without the stealth, range, supercruise, situational awareness or economies of scale of the F35? Yertis said:
I have the feeling that the manned jet fighter as we know it is obsolete as the bi-plane was at the beginning of World War Two.
I like the way that humans have become obsolete in warfare. Now that they are, it should be pretty easy now to deploy a few 1970's mega-weapons by autonomous systems to sort out any future disputes... Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff