If you were gonna buy a 1/48 Harrier, Which One Would it Be?

Valkyrie? Concorde?

(kim)

If you look at the numbers for the buy, the Navy has the fewest (really few), then the Marines, then the Air Force. I'm speculating that JSF won't make it at all for a number of reasons - mainly being the lead time it will take to field it, and the fact that there are several viable alternatives in the marketplace NOW. And then there's the growing spectrum of UCAVs...

Not to mention that the project is heavily dependent upon foreign sales/participation - it was an X program and not a Y program; Y programs are Congressionally mandated and funded, X programs are far easier to cancel if required...and that's an indicator. All it would take is for any of the foreign operators to pull out and choose to spend their money on Typhoon, Grippen, Super Hornet, Falcon, or F-15E (or Mig-29, or Su-27...) in order to meet immediate need and that would be that.

...if they build it. It's not that I'm not a fan, it could go either way, but I just can't see the where the money is going to come from in the end game. So from a purely business/cost standpoint, I'm skeptical about it.

...X vs Y.

The UK is already desperately trying to find ways of pulling out of the programme. Mind you, us Brits seem to make a habit of that sort of thing.

I can't blame you, and that just strengthens my point - you were the second largest portion of the buy. But as heavily invested in Typhoon as the Brits (and their EU partners) are I'd have a hard time seeing the funds available for buying JSF. It's more than likely time for the current VSTOL jet fleet to just sunset anyway, just like it was time for the Tomcat.

A navalised Typhoon is being touted as an alternative to the F-35, especially as the forthcoming Queen Elizabeth class carriers are said to be large enough to operate CATOBAR aircraft. Rather than having the balls to honestly say that they would prefer to give the work to BAe rather than Lockheed Martin, the mealy-mouthed MOD is kicking up a fuss about "technology transfer".

Personally, I doubt whether the QE carriers will ever be built.

As for the naval VSTOL fleet, its capability has already been badly degraded. The Harriers in use no longer have any long-range air-to-air capability as the GR7s and GR9s do not carry radar. The Sea Harrier F/A2s which were used for air defence were withdrawn and replaced by... er... well... nothing. The British fleet currently relies on shipboard SAMs and ground-attack Harriers with Sidewinders. Pathetic.

Yeah - the "technology transfer" argument was used to kill the F-20 on this side of the pond, re: the engine...Congress said "we'll sell you the airplane, but we won't sell you the engine". Which makes me laugh, because that F-20 engine tech is now onboard Gripen under license...

Sounds like the same old story...but with a British accent. I guess some political games are universal.

I'd been around Harrier operations and training long enough to realize a long time ago that trying to turn a Harrier into a "fighter" of any stripe is a complete waste of effort - yeah, it's one of the best close air support and/or attack aircraft of all time, but it's not a fighter and never will be...and interceptor, hmmmnnn...maybe. It's advantage is in-close, and everything in a fighter pilot's approach is NOT to get in-close...shoot 'em as quickly as possible, or make 'em turn around, but avoid having to merge.

I hadn't thought about RM and RN Fleet need...yeah, I suppose they do need something...and right now, as I've pointed out. I'd think a two-seat, navalized Gripen might make a pretty interesting sort of interceptor. I'm sort of developing the opinion that VSTOL, like stealth, is also becoming highly over-rated...

I don't really need a history lesson on the DOD pulling the plug on aircraft procurement programs. My father lost his job when I was a kid over such a program. The Air Force NGT ( next generation trainer ) is a perfect example. Vought ( where my father worked ) lost the bid to Fairchild. Fairchild won with it's T-46 " Eaglet ". The Air Force ended up pulling the plug on the T-46 WAY LATE into the program. Fairchild went out of business after that. Vought lost out .... Fairchild went out of business .... the Air Force was stuck with the T-37 for years after that until JPATS got up and running.

The whole thing was a freaking mess.

Chris

So now it's not the single engine that's the issue ... it's the cost ?

Chris

Oh yeah ... by the way ... I can understand that whole thing about how the enemy not being able to see you on radar is overrated. ( huh ? )

Chris

Good thing the RN didn't follow that advise in the Falklands huh ?

Chris

Some countries (including mine) are simply refusing to contribute to the ever escalating development costs. How that affects the overall program I'm not sure?

(kim)

On the contrary... during the Falklands War, the Sea Harrier was used as a pure interceptor. Old-fashoned dogfights were specifically avoided. The Sea Harrier may well have been able to prevail against Mirages and Daggers in a turning fight, but the pilots of these aircraft avoided combat as far as possible. The Argentine A-4s were a different kettle of fish. They would no doubt have caused major problems for the Sea Harriers in a turning fight. Luckily, all the Argentine aircraft were operating at the limits of their endurance and so their pilots were concentrating on getting in, delivering their ordnance and getting the hell out.

As far as I'm aware the only non-missile engagement by a Sea Harrier was a gun kill on a C-130.

All the aviation fans in Britain are now jumping up and down and screaming. You might as well have said "Avro Arrow" to a Canadian, or "Ni" to an old woman, you very naughty person. :-)

Pat

"Bounder" bomber?

Pat

Don't get me started about the Avro Arrow. The RAF should have bought that as well!

No, it's both - you can't just look at it from one angle. The overall costs associated with standing up the logistics and infrastructure for a completely new platform are one consideration, operational safety is another, and mission requirement vs program schedule and platform availability is yet another. And there's even more than that to consider...that's just a thumbnail.

It's not just a simple case of "yeah, but it's a cool, capable airplane".

...I got that directly from a Top Gun Instructor...and yeah, it's more complicated than that.

Different senario, and like the man said - "you go to war with the force you have". If they'd been fighting F-15s they'd have gotten slaughtered

- seen that proven at Nellis.