What's new

U.S. To Buy Old British Harrier jets, Is F-35B dead?

Lankan Ranger

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
12,550
Reaction score
0
U.S. To Buy Old British Harrier jets, Is F-35B dead?

Britain has agreed to sell all of its 74 decommissioned Harrier jump jets, along with engines and spare parts, to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps - a move expected to help the Marines operate Harriers into the mid-2020s and provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
AV8B-Harrier-005.jpg


Rear Adm. Mark Heinrich, chief of the U.S. Navy's Supply Corps, confirmed the two-part deal Nov. 10 during a conference in New York sponsored by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in association with Defense News.

Heinrich negotiated the $50 million purchase of all Harrier spare parts, while Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, the U.S. Navy's program executive officer for tactical aircraft, is overseeing discussions to buy the Harrier aircraft and their Rolls-Royce engines, Heinrich said.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence in London confirmed the Disposal Services Agency was in talks with the U.S. Navy for the sale of the Harriers. The deal had yet to be concluded, he said Nov. 11.

Britain retired its joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy Harrier aircraft late last year in one of the most controversial moves of the defense reductions, which also cut the aircraft carriers that operated the jets, other warships, maritime patrol planes and personnel.

Most of the retired Harriers are stored at the Royal Air Force base at Cottesmore, England.

They have been undergoing minimum fleet maintenance, including anti-deterioration measures, in order to keep them airworthy, Heinrich said.

An MoD source said Nov. 11 that he thought both deals could be signed in the next week or two. The MoD source confirmed that the entire fleet of 74 Harrier aircraft was involved in the sale.

Heinrich noted that payment details were the only outstanding issue on the parts deal discussions, and he said the purchase will give the U.S. Marines a relatively economical way to get their hands on key components to keep the Harrier fleet running.

While it is unusual for the U.S. to buy used foreign military aircraft for operation, integration of the British planes into Marine Corps squadrons shouldn't be a major problem, one expert said.

"I don't think it will be costly to rip out the Brit systems" and replace them with Marine gear, said Lon Nordeen, author of several books on the Harrier.

Nordeen noted that the British GR 9 and 9As are similar in configuration to the Marines' AV-8B night attack version, which make up about a third of U.S. Harriers. The British planes also are night planes dedicated to air-ground attack, he said, and while both types carry Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensors, neither is fitted with a multimode radar such as the APG-65 carried by U.S. AV-8B+ models.

The absence of the big radar, Nordeen said, makes the GR 9A and AV-8Bs "a better-performing plane. Weighing less, it's more of a hot rod."

British GR 9s, although upgraded with improved avionics and weapons, are powered by the Rolls-Royce Mark 105 Pegasus engine. GR 9As have the more powerful Mark 107, similar to the Rolls-Royce F402-RR-408s that power Marine AV-8Bs.

British and U.S. Harrier II aircraft had a high degree of commonality from their origin. The planes were developed and built in a joint arrangement between British Aerospace - now BAE Systems - and McDonnell Douglas, now a division of Boeing. While each company built its own wings, all forward sections of the British and American Harrier IIs were built by McDonnell in St. Louis, Mo., while British Aerospace built the fuselage sections aft of the cockpit.

"All the planes have to fit together," Nordeen said.

The Harrier IIs, built between 1980 and 1995, "are still quite serviceable," he said. "The aircraft are not that far apart. We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it."

Operationally, Nordeen said, "these are very good platforms. They need upgrades, but on bombing missions they have the ability to incorporate the Litening II targeting pod [used by U.S. aircraft]. They're good platforms. And we've already got trained pilots."

Nordeen, however, said he expects the British Harriers to be used initially to replace two-seat Marine F-18D Hornet fighters now operated in the night attack role.

"The F-18Ds are more worn out than the Harriers," Nordeen said. "Most of the conversions [of ex-British aircraft] early on will be to replace 18Ds and not Harriers." He noted the first Marine F-35B squadron already is slated to replace an F-18D unit.

Nordeen applauded the move.

"I would see this as a good bargain to extend the operational utility of the Harrier II fleet, no matter what," he said.

U.S. To Buy Decommissioned British Harrier Jets - Defense News
 
.
Pakistan should look to buy the decommissioned aircraft carriers and may be Chinese money can help here!
 
.
F–35B Needs A Plan B (excerpt)


Oct. 4, 2011 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: Marine Corps Gazette; published October 1, 2011)



In December 2010 the Commandant was quoted as stating “there is not a plan B” to the F–35B program. In effect our Marine Corps has “derivatives of plan A,” based on a 1998 decision, that all rely on the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F–35B being produced. “We decided we would skip a generation of what we called fourth-generation airplanes . . . and we would end up putting all of our money and our hopes in the F–35B.”

This decision has become particularly troubling in regard to the high costs associated with the program, the program’s current status, and our United States Marine Corps reputation for plans and preparations. Part of serving as the Nation’s force-in-readiness is our ability to plan, prepare, and maintain both perception and reality that the Marine Corps is most ready when the Nation is least ready. One well-known statement toward Marine readiness came in 1971, during the “Pentagon Papers” investigation. When cross-examined and asked if the Marine Corps had been preparing to fight in Vietnam and Cambodia back in 1964, LtGen Victor H. Krulak famously replied yes and that “we were preparing to fight in a lot of other places, too.”



How do we describe the plan to develop the F–35B? Let’s try expensive to start. Development costs for the entire Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program were estimated at $25 billion at inception in 1996 and by 2004 had grown 80 percent. Thankfully, in 2008 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found there had been no additional increases in development costs. Unthankfully, this was because “development costs were held constant by reducing requirements, eliminating the alternate engine program, and spending management reserve faster than budgeted.” Late is an apt description for the program too. Once envisioned to have an initial operational capability (IOC) as early as 2010, IOC has now been put off to 2016. Our Marine Corps has had late weapons systems before. But we have never had a weapons system so expensive.



What about acquisitions costs? From program start in 2001, the JSF was estimated to cost $233 billion for total program acquisition. This was the teaser price, the estimate grew to $245 billion in 2004, $279 billion in 2007, and in 2008 the JSF program office’s estimate was $300 billion, a 29 percent increase over the original figure.



However, GAO found that this 2008 estimate was not reliable, comprehensive, accurate, well documented, or credible. Worse, no uncertainty analysis has been conducted (acquisition may cost $298 billion; it may cost $500 billion). The only thing that is certain, the $300 billion estimate was “virtually certain to be wrong.” In 2010, after a Nunn-McCurdy breach—a required formal review whenever program costs increase anywhere from 15 percent to 50 percent over expectations—GAO’s latest 2011 estimate is a total JSF program acquisition cost of $383 billion. Using coarse analysis and acknowledging that from 2001 to 2011 estimated program cost grew about $16.7 billion a year, when IOC begins in 5 more years we might expect a $466 billion acquisition cost—exactly double the original estimate.



But procurement costs are less than half of the problem; life cycle costs are the lion’s share.



In 2005 the estimated procurement and remaining life cycle costs, typically described as operations and support, were $245 billion and $344 billion, respectively. In 2008, for the scheduled 2,457 aircraft, the program office’s estimate had grown from $344 billion to $650 billion in operations and support costs. GAO reports that historically operations and support represent 72 percent of total costs. If acquisition represents 28 percent of total costs and GAO’s $383 billion acquisition estimate holds true, then operations and support costs would be an estimated $985 billion. This figure grows to $1.198 trillion using the $466 billion acquisition cost estimate. For a more empirical and optimistic measure, assume support cost estimates increase by merely $306 billion over the next 6 years (as they have the past 6 years) for a total of $956 billion in support estimates in 2017. GAO says that the next official independent life cycle cost estimate for JSF is not scheduled until 2014.



However, a 21 April article appearing in Bloomberg News stated that the Pentagon’s cost analysis and program evaluation group, which estimates $1 trillion in operation and support costs, was to complete a major F–35 review in May.



So why are foreign militaries spending their money on the JSF? Simple, they are not.



JSF’s principal international partners include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (UK). None of these nations have received more than test models. Israel is a security cooperation partner, and the cost of their 19 F–35As has spiraled to $145 million each. Lockheed Martin is offsetting the costs by paying them $4 billion. The UK, the only F–35B partner, canceled its F–35B program in favor of F–35Cs, which are capable of landing on an aircraft carrier and which won’t be available before 2019. A British study suggests that C model operating costs will be 25 percent less than B models. Spain operates a version of the Harrier but has no scheduled buys. Italy’s first four F–35s, scheduled to arrive in 2014, have been switched from STOVL to conventional aircraft. At this point in the program, cancelling the F–35B only affects the Marine Corps.



This is the precipice where the STOVL variant stands now. (end of excerpt)



Click here for the full story, on the Marine Corps Gazette website.
 
. .
The Harrier IIs, built between 1980 and 1995, "are still quite serviceable," he said. "The aircraft are not that far apart. We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it."

What on earth does that mean?

Pakistan should look to buy the decommissioned aircraft carriers and may be Chinese money can help here!

I don't think Harriers would suit well for Pakistan. They aren't cheap to maintain, and also not capable of flying at greater than sound speeds.

I don't know if it's just me, but the F-35 program looks like a load of fail.

What will happen to the F-35B? More delay and an excessively high price tag!
 
.
They maybe cutting down orders and a few fleet maybe pacific fleet maybe flying the F-35s.
 
. . . . . . .
Truth is they cannot afford to replace everything. a couple of hundred here and there (F-22 & F-35) is the best they can do for now.
 
. .
Speaks volumes about the American confidence in F35 :azn:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom