Tornados or Harrier, which to scrap?

[Lefty]

Funnily enough, the navy reckon we should be ditching the Tornados and keeping the Harriers. Presumably on the basis that the Typhoon can fullfil most of the Tornado role?

[Eric Mc]

Neither.

They both have a part to play.

Scrap Tax Credits (£2 billion written off EVERY year since they came in due to ERRORS - that's about £12 billion so far)

[mrmaggit]

Eric Mc said:

Neither.

They both have a part to play.

Scrap Tax Credits (£2 billion written off EVERY year since they came in due to ERRORS - that's about £12 billion so far)

I'm with Eric on this one.

[Eric Mc]

mrmaggit said:

Eric Mc said:

Neither.

They both have a part to play.

Scrap Tax Credits (£2 billion written off EVERY year since they came in due to ERRORS - that's about £12 billion so far)

I'm with Eric on this one.

You could get quite a few Harriers and/or Tornados with £12 billion.

[DieselGriff]

Or two brand new aircraft carriers and some aircraft to fly off of them

[Lefty]

I'm not suggesting that the money couldn't or shouldn't be saved in other ways.

This is from the LHC thread (2010 UK public spending):

Pensions	117
Health Care	120
Education	86
Defence	44
Welfare	109
Protection	35
Transport	22
General Government	25
Other Spending	84
Interest	31
TOTAL	673

If it were my choice I would find the savings elsewhere but not enough people would vote for me...


Anyway, the RAF are presumably happier that Sea harriers are being binned and the Navy reckon we should keep them (to help protect the Falklands) and ditch the Tornados.

Tornado Gr4 - Ground attack
Tornado F3 - Interceptor (?)

I would have thought that ther Typhoon could replace the role of the F3 and the Harrier GR7/9 could do the ground attack bit.

Edited by Lefty on Wednesday 10th November 12:31

[bad company]

Keep both and reduce overseas aid.

[digger_R]

Tornado has to go for sure, keep Harriers until JSF is proven

[Eric Mc]

Lefty said:

I'm not suggesting that the money couldn't or shouldn't be saved in other ways.

BUT, the RAF are presumably happier that Sea harriers are being binned and the Navy reckon we should keep them (to help protect the Falklands) and ditch the Tornados.

Tornado Gr4 - Ground attack
Tornado F3 - Interceptor (?)

I would have thought that ther Typhoon could replace the role of the F3 and the Harrier GR3(?) could do the ground attack bit.

Harriers are versatile in that they do not need landing strips.
However, there are performance penalties due to the S/TOVL requirements.

As a pure ground attack aircraft, the Tornado GR4 is more capable.

The current Harriers in Royal Navy/RAF service are GR9s, which are not fighters. They are a bomber with very limited self defence capability. They are NOT Sea Harriers, which were proper fleet defence fighters. The Sea Harrier were retired four years ago.

[ApexJimi]

Lefty said:

I would have thought that ther Typhoon could replace the role of the F3 and the Harrier GR7/9 could do the ground attack bit.

That would have been my logic too.

[Eric Mc]

ApexJimi said:

Lefty said:

I would have thought that ther Typhoon could replace the role of the F3 and the Harrier GR7/9 could do the ground attack bit.

That would have been my logic too.

The RAF wants to hang on to their GR4s.

[Mojocvh]

The Harriers that are left are knackered (note NOT Sea Harriers as someone said earlier the last lot got rid of those) from the hard service in AFG, are less flexable in their load-out, Tornado has TWO crewmwmbers to help stop any blue/blue and Raptor.

Oh and TWO engines. That's ALWAYS a plus when one donkey goes lossie...............

Oh and with the newly developed Brimstone XXXXX head

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/23/22...

they can "do" Taliban "murder holes" before our lads get too close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5uPsUCU7Nk&fea...



Edited for the Duh! effect.

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 10th November 14:02

[Fume troll]

ApexJimi said:

Lefty said:

I would have thought that ther Typhoon could replace the role of the F3 and the Harrier GR7/9 could do the ground attack bit.

That would have been my logic too.

I'd have thought so. The Harrier just seems a more versatile tool, and given that we don't really know what we'll use any of it for, that seems like a good idea.

Cheers,

FT.

[Munter]

Shirly we could just outsource our air defence.

Dear Mr USA,
In exchange for a large sum of money, you will ensure no hostile aircraft enter our airspace. Failure to do so will result in 2x large some of money and Sovereignty of Texas passed to the UK.

Regards
Bob in Accounts
UK PLC

[Eric Mc]

Fume troll said:

ApexJimi said:

Lefty said:

I would have thought that ther Typhoon could replace the role of the F3 and the Harrier GR7/9 could do the ground attack bit.

That would have been my logic too.

I'd have thought so. The Harrier just seems a more versatile tool, and given that we don't really know what we'll use any of it for, that seems like a good idea.

Cheers,

FT.

The RAF has alweays been a bit ambiguous towards the Harrier. As I said earlier, its STOVL capability compromises other aspects of its mission.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Aside from the fact that the Harriers are pretty worn out, less capable than Tornado, and unable to fully support the current NATO and Afghanistan commitments, we have 8 Sqns of GR4s, with an OSD of 2025 and 3 Sqns of GR7/9 with an OSD of 2018.

If we have to reduce capability (and I certainly do not agree with CMD here), binning 8 Sqns 15 years early so as to keep 3 Sqns that could only last another 8 years seems very logical, NOT!

[TEKNOPUG]

How many Mosquitoes can we have for £12billion

[Fume troll]

Eric Mc said:

The RAF has alweays been a bit ambiguous towards the Harrier. As I said earlier, its STOVL capability compromises other aspects of its mission.

Maybe we should get rid of the RAF.

Cheers,

FT.

Edited by Fume troll on Wednesday 10th November 15:06

[Eric Mc]

Fume troll said:

Eric Mc said:

FT.

The RAF has alweays been a bit ambiguous towards the Harrier. As I said earlier, its STOVL capability compromises other aspects of its mission.

Maybe we should get rid of the RAF.

Cheers,

FT.

Why?

[Fume troll]

Because for my money the armed forces need to be about projecting power, and then holding ground. A The altered Navy and Army could achieve these without the RAF.

Cheers,

FT.