Head of Royal Navy made last minute plea to save Harriers from scrap-heap

The Telegraph ^ | 11/15/2010 | Andrew Gilligan

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The highly-controversial cut to the Harrier force – condemned last week by several former heads of the service as "perverse" and risking "national humiliation" – was decided only three days before the final announcement of the defence review, sources said.

Until then, the plan had been to scrap the RAF's Tornado fleet, the oldest strike aircraft currently in service.

In a tense meeting, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, told Mr Cameron that he "could not endorse as his military advice" the decision to axe the Harriers and considered it a "political, not military decision."

[freedumb2003]

It strikes me he Harrier’s mission profile was vastly different than the Tornado — and I don’t see how the Typhoon replaces both.

What, they want to turn the Typhoon to be an overweighted, mission-creeped, useless POS like the new, “improved” JSF?

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The British made a commitment to purchase the F-35 since they are co-developers of the plane.The United Kingdom is the sole “Level 1” partner, contributing $2.5 billion, which was about 10% of the planned developent costs under the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding that brought the UK into the project.Basically they are stuck because they signed the Memorandum of Understanding.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Memorandum of Understanding can have the binding power of a contract.

[freedumb2003]

>>Memorandum of Understanding can have the binding power of a contract.<<

Oh, I know that. If course, I didn’t even bring up the Typhoon vs. JSF.

In trying to be all things to all clients, the F-35 has become a mouse built to Government Specifications (A camel).

Too bad.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The British should added a clause to the Memorandum stating that they had reserved the right to leave if they were late in delivering the product.

[freedumb2003]

>>The British should added a clause to the Memorandum stating that they had reserved the right to leave if they were late in delivering the product.<<

That just doesn’t seem to be the way of Government Contracts anywhere.

The idea of allowable Cost Overruns should be eliminated from ALL procurement, be it toilets or Air Craft Carriers.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I agree with you 100 percent. I do not like it when any weapon systems are late. I believe that the company producing that particular product(weapon system) should be penalized.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Harrier Boom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF06XZ3_cww

[JRandomFreeper]

, the First Sea Lord, told Mr Cameron that he "could not endorse as his military advice"

Granted, it's a new world, but being the First Sea Lord, giving advice to the Crown. One would have to be honest and frank about it. I happen to agree with him.

I'm a Texas boy, but those guys have a system, and it's worked for almost a thousand years.

/johnny

[screaminsunshine]

The Brits are building Camel Carriers.

[Oztrich Boy]

It strikes me he Harrier’s mission profile was vastly different than the Tornado

It is. Victim of rationalization - aka MacNamazation.

Really the plane the current Afghan unpleasantness required was the Jaguar

Lowest operating cost, Lowest accident rate. Best mission availiblity/abort rate. Top weapons targeting. Better payload/range than the Harrier.

But the Harrier could land vertically - and to keep the carriers in service, the Jaguar was deselected c2000.

Ten years on. its now between Harrier and Tornado. And despite the Tornado being the worst choice for the Afghan mission in operating cost, weapons targeting, and mission availablity (about 40%. Harrier is closer to 90, Jaguar was 95+), Harrier can't do deep interdiction strike.

So although there isn't a call for that right now, Tornado is kept on just in case the Sov Union reemerges.