Remember those RAF Harriers that were obsolete wrecks we didn't need (although carrier based jet tank busters might have been quite handy over Libya) well Dave is selling them to the US Marines, so perhaps they weren't that bad after all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by britishtrident
Remember those RAF Harriers that were obsolete wrecks we didn't need (although carrier based jet tank busters might have been quite handy over Libya) well Dave is selling them to the US Marines, so perhaps they weren't that bad after all?

---

I thought we were buying american planes to go on the carriers .............. except they couldn't vtol due to a risk of the heat from the engine melting the deck.

Oh and just to be certain, we can't build any more NEW Harriers, because we sold the rights to the good old US of A. Another one of Tony & Gordon's find cash to run the country schemes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HowardB

quote:

---

Originally posted by britishtrident
Remember those RAF Harriers that were obsolete wrecks we didn't need (although carrier based jet tank busters might have been quite handy over Libya) well Dave is selling them to the US Marines, so perhaps they weren't that bad after all?

---

I'd buy the bloody lot, and then wait till we need them and sell them back,....

RANT ALERT,...

What kind of defence review can decide that we need no carriers, no harriers, and then when we get some new carriers we'll have no planes,... NUTS


RANT OVER,...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jollygreengiantAnother one of Tony & Gordon's find cash to run the country schemes.

---

I bet gordon has a facepalm moment everytime he sees the price of gold

Likely the US Marines will end up with the short end of the stick.
Canada certainly did when we bought a few 'slightly used; RN Submarines. Which immediately upon recieipt, Proved to be Utter Shit. One even caught fire and killed crew members on it's 'ferry' voyage across the Atlantic.
Reffiting is still not complete on these... 8 years on as 'everything' was unreliable crap and the cost is already much more than buying decent machines brand new. Even more pathetically a couple are now 'depth limited' as their pressure vessels are of well below par construction.
Don't be waving Patriotic Flags too energetically.

As Much as I love the Harrier, they did need replacing (something to do with airframes and total flight times, I don't really understand that part) and if the design rights had already been sold to the US maybe it would cost more to buy new ones.

The new carriers are completely different to the old ones. In 07 I went to a Marine engineering conference at the Clydesbank Hotel (I think thats what it was called, the room was round with a sunken centre) to see what these new ships would be like and I was under the impression we were going to buy European planes built as an EU partnership. Faster planes that will be more adaptable and more useful than the harriers. Warfare changes and with it so must equipment, I believe we use Helicopters for the role the US marines use Harriers for and as for use in Libya, from what I've read we could have use Hawker sea Furies or Typhoons as France did most of the work (And the US had Harriers there anyway).

They've got to be worht more as planes than scrap.

I believe they were sold at more or less scrap value to the USA who are largely going to use them as parts donors for the ones they still have in service. if they end up flying the UK will have been thoroughly ripped of as usual!

Caber

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bare
Likely the US Marines will end up with the short end of the stick.
Canada certainly did when we bought a few 'slightly used' RN Submarines. Which immediately upon recieipt, proved to be too complicated for us. One even caught fire and killed a crew member on it's 'ferry' voyage across the Atlantic when the inexperienced crew left a hatch open allowing water to contact electrical systems. Luckily the British navy were on hand to effect a rescue of the stricken vessel.
Reffiting is still not complete on these... 8 years on as 'everything' was unreliable crap and the cost is already much more than buying decent machines brand new. Even more pathetically a couple are now 'depth limited' as their pressure vessels are of well below par construction. The canadian MOD now have egg on their faces for not doing their homework prior to purchase.
Don't be waving Patriotic Flags too energetically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bare
Likely the US Marines will end up with the short end of the stick.
Canada certainly did when we bought a few 'slightly used; RN Submarines. Which immediately upon recieipt, Proved to be Utter Shit. One even caught fire and killed crew members on it's 'ferry' voyage across the Atlantic.
Reffiting is still not complete on these... 8 years on as 'everything' was unreliable crap and the cost is already much more than buying decent machines brand new. Even more pathetically a couple are now 'depth limited' as their pressure vessels are of well below par construction.
Don't be waving Patriotic Flags too energetically.

---

The 2400 series submarines where (and still are) the most advanced diesel/electric sub designs in the world. It still annoys me we sold them off to the Canadians. Considering what was spent on HMS Dolphin to base them and the cost of the boats themselves the Canadians got them cheap.

Diesel Electric boats are capable of silent operation close into shore which is something Nuke boats simply can't do especially close inshore. Complete waste of taxpayer money and a significant loss of capability. But there is nothing new here as the RN gets systematically raped by successive goverments so that we can fight a war in Afghanistan and Iraq. God forbid that we are an Island nation and may need something, which once was the most powerful military force in world and shaped the country as it is today, again.

I come from a long line who have served in the RN going back 250 years and it depresses me everyday at the state of the modern Navy

Jeff

Ex-POWEA(AD)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeR
I thought we were buying american planes to go on the carriers .............. except they couldn't vtol due to a risk of the heat from the engine melting the deck.

---

The UK never bought Starfighters. You have to remember the Harrier wasn't and isn't a good carrier aircraft. If you have the money you would operate large carriers with fixed wing jets without VTOL capability. The RN had Harriers simple because of the size of carriers they where allowed. Any VSTOL aircraft will be limited on range and capability compared to a conventional aircraft. The only advantage to VSTOL is the short field/vertical take off and landing.

The F35 VSTOL variant which the US Marines are going to buy to replace their AV8 Harriers cannot land on, vertically, with all its weapon load on board. This is the primary reason for the UK in decided to go with normal variant of the F35 and use catapults rather than the VSTOL.

The F4K variant of the US Phantom (US plane with UK engine) had a very successful service life as the air defense fighter for the RN.

Remember this...since the ending of 2nd World War all aircraft shot down by UK aircraft have been carrier launched. The RAF haven't shot down anything in nigh on 70 years.