How Much Does It Cost To Support Harrier?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much Does It Cost To Support Harrier?
The answer looks like £772M through to it's Out of Service date.
The support to Harrier is now mapped out until 2018 for both the aircraft and the engine:
Article - WSJ.com
Rolls-Royce secures £198 million contract to support UK Pegasus fleet - Rolls-Royce
Now these contracts have been signed, can one assume Harrier's future is secured (for now)?
The support to Harrier is now mapped out until 2018 for both the aircraft and the engine:
Article - WSJ.com
Rolls-Royce secures £198 million contract to support UK Pegasus fleet - Rolls-Royce
Now these contracts have been signed, can one assume Harrier's future is secured (for now)?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now these contracts have been signed, can one assume Harrier's future is secured (for now)?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're screwed ?
Aiborne Aircrew,
I fear you are right, no matter which flavour of UK 'government' has the reins.
If we did cancel the F-35 ( whichever version ) would we actually save much after the penalties, not to mention the extra war-fighting ability for our guys ?
Or, cancel JSF & CVF and keep on with the Harrier, - now only supported by Boeing - possibly even resurrecting Invincible, and - I know I keep mentioning it - maybe a squadron or two Harrier 2+ for the FAA; I know it's not as good a radar as Blue Vixen, but I was on the first European AMRAAM trials, as a technical photographer, and I was mighty
impressed !
Or, do we keep on with CVF and marinise the Typhoon ? I know this has a lot of drawbacks, but might keep Tranche 3 funding going.
I suspect we're better off sticking with Plan A, CVF & JSF, especially as the world seems to become a financially awkward more dangerous place.
Keeping bankers & car salesmen in continued employment seems a poor deal if we all have to learn Chinese or Russian.
I think we can all guess what's coming though, after all whoever does the deed will be comfortably retired - presumably safely abroad - by the time the pigeons come home to roost...
I fear you are right, no matter which flavour of UK 'government' has the reins.
If we did cancel the F-35 ( whichever version ) would we actually save much after the penalties, not to mention the extra war-fighting ability for our guys ?
Or, cancel JSF & CVF and keep on with the Harrier, - now only supported by Boeing - possibly even resurrecting Invincible, and - I know I keep mentioning it - maybe a squadron or two Harrier 2+ for the FAA; I know it's not as good a radar as Blue Vixen, but I was on the first European AMRAAM trials, as a technical photographer, and I was mighty
impressed !
Or, do we keep on with CVF and marinise the Typhoon ? I know this has a lot of drawbacks, but might keep Tranche 3 funding going.
I suspect we're better off sticking with Plan A, CVF & JSF, especially as the world seems to become a financially awkward more dangerous place.
Keeping bankers & car salesmen in continued employment seems a poor deal if we all have to learn Chinese or Russian.
I think we can all guess what's coming though, after all whoever does the deed will be comfortably retired - presumably safely abroad - by the time the pigeons come home to roost...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safely abroad..erm... I dont think the Government peeps aforementioned need to worry about moving abroad....Its just the rest of the uk christian population that needs to....
Then again maybe 1bn thrown at the mil system may help?
Then again maybe 1bn thrown at the mil system may help?
Winch-control,
With your constant drip drip of digs at foreigners you are beginning to sound like a nasty little bigoted xenophobe, or just an old fashioned racist?
With your constant drip drip of digs at foreigners you are beginning to sound like a nasty little bigoted xenophobe, or just an old fashioned racist?
Ronny Baby,
Not Great? Maybe in YOUR eyes................
Deport the TERRORISTS eh? Just how are you going to do that if they are BRITISH, clot! How do you spot a 'terrorist', skin colour maybe? Or a beard?
Patriotism eh Modern Elmo, what was it Dr Johnson said about a patriot, " patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Patriots, just what we need, more narrow minded nationalism, just what the world is crying our for.
Not Great? Maybe in YOUR eyes................
Deport the TERRORISTS eh? Just how are you going to do that if they are BRITISH, clot! How do you spot a 'terrorist', skin colour maybe? Or a beard?
Patriotism eh Modern Elmo, what was it Dr Johnson said about a patriot, " patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Patriots, just what we need, more narrow minded nationalism, just what the world is crying our for.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has taken a nasty turn; I was up for discussing theoretical defence options, but ' deporting terrorists ' is another department entirely; as mentioned, how do you identify them, and if so sure, the last thing to do must be deporting them, better to 'secure' them ?!.
I suggest we get back to Harriers and options, even from gits like me, - I happen to be a fan of the Harrier since taking part as groundcrew on trials for 14 years .
It's all academic and I doubt defence policy will be adapted on what I say - after hearing from an F-35 pilot as to its' extra abilities this seems the way forward if not spending all our money on bankers, or if the racism goes on the moderators would be quite right to pull the plug.
I suggest we get back to Harriers and options, even from gits like me, - I happen to be a fan of the Harrier since taking part as groundcrew on trials for 14 years .
It's all academic and I doubt defence policy will be adapted on what I say - after hearing from an F-35 pilot as to its' extra abilities this seems the way forward if not spending all our money on bankers, or if the racism goes on the moderators would be quite right to pull the plug.
Last edited by Double Zero; 24th Apr 2009 at 00:05.
00 said
Indulge a not so knowledgeable bloke then. Where does Trident fit here? Too many jobs to lose? Or do we need it for anything other than a top table seat.
If cancelled, do we have the capability to buy anything defence related in under 10 years?
Why is it NOT a good idea to shelve it?
CG
I was up for discussing theoretical defence options,
If cancelled, do we have the capability to buy anything defence related in under 10 years?
Why is it NOT a good idea to shelve it?
CG
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trident
Simple answer to that - don't know !
I do know ICBM's can be countered - very expensively, so that's a limited club for a while...
Meanwhile the idea of binning Trident, having a decent amount of Astutes & aircraft, army kit etc is very appealing, but if we come across a sophisticated enemy it seems cruise TLAM's etc won't get through.
We all know, like every other defence project, if Trident was binned we'd lose more jobs & skills, the money going to more comfy offices for politicians & chums, so on that basis, like the CVF's & Tranche 3 Typhoons, we might as well have them !
Not that any of us particularly want TLAM's or ICBM's to reach their target, just it would be a snag if the implied threat - MAD etc - was not taken seriously and an enemy came steaming on.
The Army is already fighting with hands tied in Afghanistan in case they hurt or traumatise any Taliban, ( who unfortunately haven't been given the same rule-book ) but history shows one must not plan / equip for the last - present war.
Any ideas ?
I do know ICBM's can be countered - very expensively, so that's a limited club for a while...
Meanwhile the idea of binning Trident, having a decent amount of Astutes & aircraft, army kit etc is very appealing, but if we come across a sophisticated enemy it seems cruise TLAM's etc won't get through.
We all know, like every other defence project, if Trident was binned we'd lose more jobs & skills, the money going to more comfy offices for politicians & chums, so on that basis, like the CVF's & Tranche 3 Typhoons, we might as well have them !
Not that any of us particularly want TLAM's or ICBM's to reach their target, just it would be a snag if the implied threat - MAD etc - was not taken seriously and an enemy came steaming on.
The Army is already fighting with hands tied in Afghanistan in case they hurt or traumatise any Taliban, ( who unfortunately haven't been given the same rule-book ) but history shows one must not plan / equip for the last - present war.
Any ideas ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Frozen North
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Carrier Force
Agreed, Harrier now looks set til 2018, to be replaced by JSF - but the overlap in Harrier/JSF numbers looks mighty thin (IIRC JSF trickles in from 2016) for whatever state the carrier(s) are in.
And if anything slips right.....
And if anything slips right.....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patriotism eh Modern Elmo, what was it Dr Johnson said about a patriot, " patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Just because some defunct geezer said that doesn't make it true.
Well said. Its no longer Great Britain anymore. Deport the terrorists I say! Then we have won the war on terror!
Paying disloyal Muslims to re-patriate to a Muslim nation would be money much better spent than ekeing out the life span of those old Harriers until 2018
Just because some defunct geezer said that doesn't make it true.
Well said. Its no longer Great Britain anymore. Deport the terrorists I say! Then we have won the war on terror!
Paying disloyal Muslims to re-patriate to a Muslim nation would be money much better spent than ekeing out the life span of those old Harriers until 2018
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If these are your beloved Dr. Johnson's views on American independence, then I have to conclude that the old boy is not an infallible authority:
413. America/Americans; Patriotism; Taxation
"He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot.
"That man, therefore, is no patriot, who justifies the ridiculous claims of American usurpation; who endeavours to deprive the nation of its natural and lawful authority over its own colonies, which were settled under English protection; were constituted by an English charter; and have been defended by English arms.
"To suppose, that by sending out a colony, the nation established an independent power; that when, by indulgence and favour, emigrants are become rich, they shall not contribute to their own defence, but at their own pleasure; and that they shall not be included, like millions of their fellow-subjects, in the general system of representation; involves such an accumulation of absurdity, as nothing but the show of patriotism could palliate.
"He that accepts protection, stipulates obedience. We have always protected the Americans; we may, therefore, subject them to government."
Source: The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page: Quotes on Patriotism
413. America/Americans; Patriotism; Taxation
"He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot.
"That man, therefore, is no patriot, who justifies the ridiculous claims of American usurpation; who endeavours to deprive the nation of its natural and lawful authority over its own colonies, which were settled under English protection; were constituted by an English charter; and have been defended by English arms.
"To suppose, that by sending out a colony, the nation established an independent power; that when, by indulgence and favour, emigrants are become rich, they shall not contribute to their own defence, but at their own pleasure; and that they shall not be included, like millions of their fellow-subjects, in the general system of representation; involves such an accumulation of absurdity, as nothing but the show of patriotism could palliate.
"He that accepts protection, stipulates obedience. We have always protected the Americans; we may, therefore, subject them to government."
Source: The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page: Quotes on Patriotism
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CharlieGolf, as someone way down the food chain I have my doubts on the utility of nuclear weapons in this day and age. However I think it was Michael Meacher writing recently who argued cogently that the deterent was still a necessity.
In many ways all defence forces are deterents until such time as deterence fails and they are called into action. At that point it is numbers and effectiveness that matter and not a theoretical potential threat. You then need the whole range of weapons to get the best weapon/target match.
Without doubt the Harrier is one of the better systems and no doubt Tornado and Typhoon too. Variety increases the enemies problems.
In many ways all defence forces are deterents until such time as deterence fails and they are called into action. At that point it is numbers and effectiveness that matter and not a theoretical potential threat. You then need the whole range of weapons to get the best weapon/target match.
Without doubt the Harrier is one of the better systems and no doubt Tornado and Typhoon too. Variety increases the enemies problems.
