Harriers sold to the US for £110m

HAVE YOUR SAY

24 November 2011

Sell your car - make a few grand and save up for a Porsche 911 which you can now probably afford in ten years. And when you get to work two hours late because the bus didn't show, your boss won't mind. Pretty much the same principle - we are now reliant on everyone else to deliver strike capability to many parts of the world - so when our troops' air support doesnt arrive in time because its flying in from some far away friendly airfield this is why. No harriers and carriers - what a shambles.
Mike Rocksteady - Bebop-on-Thames

24 November 2011

As I said previously, USMC have got the bargain of the Century. £110m for all the airframes engines and spares isn't even the cost of 1 F-35. Utter catastrophy. Cameron, Osborne Hammond etc should be ashamed.
AW Employee - Yeovil

24 November 2011

Total BS

The way it is going the Navy will be a fishery protection force in a decade (don't hold your breath for the QE carriers - with or without aircraft).

The right wing head bangers in the Tory party have sculpted the UK armed forces to be little more than a fig leave for US led gun boat diplomacy - with a token army and air force input from the UK (forget the RN the way it is going) despite there being no UK interest.

We are also very helpfully for the US operating their submarines and ballistic missiles with RN crew at our expense in a pathetic effort to keep our seat on the UN security council.

John Nott and his ilk have finally got what they wanted.

The UK has lost its manufacturing base, is being swamped by mass immigration on the altar of flexible labour markets and our countryside is being concreted over with housing estates to keep spivs in the property business happy and roads serving massive logistics warehouses for all the foreign goods we import.

What is the point, something has to give.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

24 November 2011

As I have already been branded a 'disgrace' for my remarks re this aircrafts removal,I might as well carry on.
Can you all now get it off your chests,and let's see an outpouring of your feelings against the government and MOD and anyone else you can think of.
Then perhaps we can discuss the really important matters of where our armed forces go in the future.
Harrier is history for the UK,forget it.
michael - notts

24 November 2011

Well Said Michael - Notts.

Time to move on, Harrier was worthless in storage.
We now need to work on how we represent forces interest.
We need to mimmick pensioners (:-)
Last Night I caught a little of Nich Robinsons`s program on government spending.
He BTW seems to only see defence as a waste as well, but he did make an interesting comment about the fact that students can riot and create merry hell about Univ fees but its the Grannies that the government is frighted of as they have time on hands and inclination to lobby.
As Michael says we need to create the forum to get a lobbying vehicle so we can shout our disgust at the government louder than others are shouting. That is the only way forwards, otherwise we will decline and fade into the west......
Degradable - UK

24 November 2011

I like your point of view Michael, too much subjectivity and not enough objectivity in a lot of the posts on here in my view...

Any political party would have had to make as many cuts to all services as the current coalition has done to balance the books. The only party which has stated that cuts would not have to be made was UKIP in their manifesto (paid for by pulling out of the EU). Labour's only rhetoric is that the cuts have been made too quickly, whilst at the same time not providing any demonstrable alternative route/policy...with a debt as bad as ours, it is a wonder that we retain our AAA credit rating when Europe is falling like cards, even Germany cannot sell its own bonds; Osbourne deserves some slack in my opinion.
Laskovar - UK

24 November 2011

michael - notts

"... Then perhaps we can discuss the really important matters of where our armed forces go in the future."
I'd say S**t Creek without a paddle or log canoe".

I know the harrier is history - but it doesn't mean we have to like it or meekly follow along like a herd of sheep! Let's just hope the Germans, French & US are there to bail us out when we need them in a few years time.
AW Employee - Yeovil

24 November 2011

michael - notts and Degradable;

What happened to Harrier was and IS important. It highlights a lack of thought and strategy in the government. So while some might ask for us to forget it I don't think it is that simple. If a child cannot do his times table a maths teacher doesn't go "well you've tried them, can't do them... forget it now!".

So yes we must lobby, create an effort to make the government aware of our displeasure at the treatment of the forces. For that to succeed though we need examples of what they have done wrong and what we AS THE PUBLIC wish from our defence.

Harrier is a perfect example of what went wrong (£1.1 billion saved/made with this deal... Libya is costing over £1.5 billion!!!!!).

So no, quite frankly it was a disgrace, and it is a disgrace and in my mind it shows perfectly the risks of NOT having maritime aircraft.

That said, it's not coming back. Just like so much the RN/RAF/Army has lost. It's all getting a bit much, no CBG, no FRE, no MPAC, less artillery, less tanks, reduced RFA, heavily cut RAF, Sentinel going...

On one hand you want to fight for what you believe, on the other you see the armed forces run into the ground, the police subject to cuts and red tape that stops them doing their job, the NHS incapable of dealing with patients... Meanwhile offenders with 50 previous sentences get unpaid work as punishment for crimes against other members of public, MPs abuse expenses, people steal, vandalise and intimidate but get away with it. Young people terrorise teachers and make it impossible to actually mould them into decent adults.

Get to wondering if there is any point in trying to plug another hole in the hull when it's so riddled that it's an almost pointless effort.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

24 November 2011

£110! Shockingly cheap.

Degradable:
I caught "Your money and how they spend it", certainly puts
things into prospective doesn't it.
With reducing MoD budget, expensive wars, and increasing procurement costs, I just can't see how we'll be an effective fighting force in the future.
Armchair Admiral - UK

24 November 2011

For me the importance of this decision is that the government of the UK (or rather the civil service) has decided that the UK is not to have an indigenous capability to make aircraft. At the moment I am unclear why this decision has been reached and what the long term implications are.

I understand of course that designing and building aircraft is not a cheap business but in the past we were able to gain economies of scale through large export sales (Hunter; Hawk and... er... Harrier) on the back of a resolute determination to manufacture for the home forces. One does look at Taranis and Mantis but somehow these don't quite have the same emotional value (or frankly sales value) of practical and effective aircraft.

Our pursuit of the very highest technological solutions has cost us dear; I feel certain there is a global market for products less sophisticated than JSF but which cna still pack a punch.

In terms of the deal being "good value" for both the US and the UK. No it isn't. The Americans could see we didn't want the jets and could therefore pay whatever price they wanted.

Oh well, what next? Our land is littered with factories of international renown now left empty on the altar of government complacency. If the government is serious about manufacturing it needs to start making proper decisions and, above all, sticking to them (like scoping 12 Type 45s, ordering 12 Type 45s and buying 12 Type 45s at the price of 12 Type 45s).
Michael - Hertfordshire

24 November 2011

Neil Kinnocks (when PM) remark about fighting any invaders of our shores in the hills is starting to sound more realistic than ever, shame it won't be by the useless MP's ( of all parties) to do the dying.
JC - UK

24 November 2011

FFS wake up and sniff the coffee!
Harrier was retired early in order to try and save the defence budget. The 70 or so airframes with a very high proportion of carbon fibre would cost a fortune to scrap. Any Air Arm that was interested in buying them had their chance, the Americans have got a good deal, but at least we are rid of them and the massive costs associated with storing and or scrapping them!

By the way, the two airframes reserved for the museums are going to Hendon and Yeovilton.
XHARRIERPLUMBER - Wittering

24 November 2011

They could have been exchanged for 12 Orions.
John Cassford - Arundel

25 November 2011

Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

None of us disagree with you regarding the decision being a disgrace, the tipping point was Libya.

Once the decision to use land based aircraft over Libya had been made and not return Ark and Harriers into service that was it. We were never going to see them returned to service. The way we are going we will still be whinging about this after the QE class eneter service.

You know I agree with you on virtually everything in fact a few people are now using a comment I made back last October after the SDSR, "defence does not buy politicians votes", Laptops for skip licking chavs who have never done a days work in their life does. I have to agree with Michael, Degradable and Laskovar, it is time to move on from this.
Rob - Telford

25 November 2011

For some reason the BBC News is MUCH MUCH more concerned with the England rugby team than this, or any of our navy/military issues such as the ridiculous cost of F-35 etc. More RFU than FAA by a factor of about ten million. I've lost count of how many people have apologised for rugby players DRINKING! Who'da thunk it!!! Nobody's apologised for the SDSR yet, or flushing our economy down the toilet.

Also, dont forget someone's been through Hugh Grant's bins and the woman who wrote Harry Potter reckons some fella listened to her phone calls.

This is the problem that needs to be fixed. Media bias crap. Tittle tattle and entertainment stories over and above all else.
Mike Chesterfield - Derbyshire

25 November 2011

As a couple of posters have mentioned the loss of our MPA assets,perhaps you might like to look at this little gem.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111124
/text/111124w0003.htm#11112476000043

If you then scroll down to the question on the 'Seedcorn Initiative' you may find it rather interesting. I must admitt that it is something that I was not aware of. It does however back up my belief that as soon as a decent length of time has passed in regards to the MRA4 debacle,that we will be ordering Poseidon.

3
michael - notts

25 November 2011

I hope that we order Poseidon P8 Michael, it looks like it will be a thoroughly modern and capable aircraft, to replace Nimrod. Let's hope that the money is there one day...
Laskovar - UK

25 November 2011

michael - notts

I hope that's what happens but to be honest the government is atrocious at any kind of planning!!
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

25 November 2011

Laskovar-UK,
Well it wasn't long after MRA4 was scrapped that a unit was set up in the MOD headed by the RN,to look into the future MPA requirements of the UK.
That says to me they recognised the need for such an aircraft.
I would not be at all surprised if preliminary talks had not already taken place with the US in regards to Poseidon.
I am confident that we will get an MPA in the not too distant future be it Poseidon or another platform.
michael - notts

26 November 2011

It seeems to me the more wars we fight the more severe the cutbacks to the armed forces will be - to balance the budget!
Will a poltician in the MOD answer this one?
We get weaker militarily while everyone else stands by and watches, at least get some cash from the bystanders to support the UK's armed forces!
Richard - Patriot - TAMWORTH

27 November 2011

110 million Pounds - now that will come in handy. That's about what the UK pays into the EUSSR coffers every two days. Always look on the bright side of life!
Malcolm Greenwood - Kyneton Australia

27 November 2011

Michael - Notts

Looked at the link you provided and the following would indicate medium or long term the P-8A is a strong possibility.

"USA: Military Aircraft

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the US Navy on the training of Royal Air Force personnel on the P-8 Poseidon aircraft. [81670]

Mr Gerald Howarth: Discussions are progressing with the US Navy on an exchange initiative for fully qualified RAF aircrew to support the US P-8 Poseidon programme."

Also I wonder if a UAV like scavenger could also be a candidate if not in place of the P-8A then possibly alongside it.
Graham - High Wycombe

28 November 2011

Graham-High Wycombe,
I completely agree in regards to P8,reading between the lines 'seedcorn' seems a lot of effort otherwise. As I have said previously I would not be surprised if talks had not already taken place in regards to this aircraft with the US.
Scavenger I am not as sure about although a good idea.
The UK and France are now talking about 2020 for it to fly,it seems France is in the same boat as the UK defence finance wise and their recent decsion to purchase MRTT is putting the UAV programme behind schedule.I dont know if I'm correct on that.
The other thing that worries me about UAV's at the moment is there reliance on satelites. We have read that the Chinese are working on anti satelite systems,it has been suggested they have tested them out successfully. I am not very well up on this sort of technology,but if we could have a completely autonomous UAV,programmable to carry out it's mission and fight its way out of trouble by use of onboard systems? or am I too far ahead of myself.
michael - notts

28 November 2011

People forget promises to fund new stuff by scrapping "old". The reason given for scrapping the Sea Harriers was to fund reengining the Harrier GR9, which would form the Naval Strike Wing. In the event, only one RN squadron was formed, and I would be very surprised if the money saved from scrapping NSW Harriers was used to form a new 801 sqdn with F.35. Still, what's in a badge? Could make RN responsible for A/S and M.R. RAF for fixed wing strike.
j.cassford - Arundel

29 November 2011

How much did the hotel bill alone for personnel involved in the operations in Libya cost ? I voted for this government and they havn't made a single correct decision on defence yet !!! Totally useless, selling the Harriers to the US is good deal for the US and for any country where we pay hotel bills as we no longer have a flexible force !!!
Chris Bollen - Southsea/England/UK Voter

30 November 2011

Its all right saying that we are to save money but how much and how late was the Eurofighter? How long did it take to get the spares whilst some remained grounded also to train the new pilots, which have also been cut? I can only finish with this thought; getting new aircraft is one thing, getting the people to fly these extremely maneuverable aircraft without killing themselves is another. To me a bad decision, we should have purchased either the F16 or F15, a proven aircraft from the Americans and scrapped the Eurofighter instead, either that or get rid of the Red Arrows...
KG - Lincoln

02 December 2011

Michael - notts

Well I hope a P-8 purchase goes ahead we need a dedicated maritime surveillance aircraft.

The reason I mentioned UAV's is their endurance. Which is why I can see them being complimentary in this role.

Yes correct, UAV's are very dependent on satellites particularly remotely piloted ones like Reaper which is their Achilles heel. Not only does China and Russia have satellite killing capabilities but it would only take a small nuclear device detonated in the outer atmosphere to disable vast numbers of them with EMP which will be within the means of a number of nations in the future not least Iran. This is why manned aircraft with laser INS are going to be around for a long time yet despite what some pundits may say.
Graham - High Wycombe

02 December 2011

I think the UK should have kept the harriers until 2015. But this is a good deal for USA. I hope the US will fly the aircraft and not just use them for spares. The USMC should use them and forget the JSF. What happened to the UK Sea Harriers? Were they already scrapped or are they included in the deal?
Obongo - USA

19 December 2011

Getting rid of the Harrier GR9 was a big mistake it's the only jet that could hover and it's highly adaptive to combat it's such a robust jet. well I hope your proud of yourselves for getting Amercan made jets we won't have them until 2020
Roach

21 December 2011

If scrapping the Harrier fleet saved £1bn, how much would scrapping the Tornadoes have saved?

Just what is this "more modern and capable mixed fast jet fleet" that the UK is going to invest in?

Are we really expected to believe that simultaneous operations in Libya and Afghanistan could not have been carried out by 72 Harriers?

Scrapping the Harrier and keeping a two-seat, twin engined supersonic bomber, to save money was a perverse decision as was cancelling the STOVL F-35B order in favour of the catapult launched/arrestred landing F-35C. The latter requires very expensive changes to the carriers and will entail a continuous and costly taining programme.
CJ Farara - Guildford/England/retired.

10 January 2012

Why have none been kept for the RAF museum ???
Real Liney - Lincoln

10 January 2012

Another way in which the US have taken a golden opportunity to shaft the UK and good old Britain bends over backwards and takes it up the s&@%#^r!!!!! Again!!!
Chris Bosh - Newport / UK / Ministry Of Ofense!! (MOO)

23 March 2012

The decision was complete negligence
we have no means of sea borne military action, or carriers to take land based aircraft. somebody should be sacked.
Just how much this has cost Britain I hope someone will give us a figure.
When putting matters right-
A new generation of Harrier with radar invisible lines a new engine and other improvements, built in the UK, will be far more acceptable than the F35C that uses all that capacity to cart around a big hoover fan. when it could carry missiles.
An umbilical cord facility. for vertical take off improvement. And some work for our undervalued skilled engineers and pilots, that have been so carelessly and recklesly thrown aside in the name of economy, when if fact there is no economy, just stupid waste of front line defence, - the whole fleet!!!
George Manser - Southampton

04 June 2012

Don't forget how, with the delays to the f35c the mod wants to go back to the f35b jump jet variant. Which means we could of; no should of stayed with the harriers as our main carrier fighting aircraft which would have saved us tens of billions. Well done MOD chiefs well done.
Ben - Portsmouth, England