We’ve all seen the news that emerged on Sunday saying that the Marines are close to buying 70 of Britain’s freshly retired Gr7/9 Harrier jump jets to keep the USMC Harrier fleet flying into the 2020s. This comes a few months after it was revealed that the Corps is slated to purchase about 80 F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighters. This is clearly a hedge against delays with the F-35 program. The Marines have been all in on the JSF for years, saying that it was the future of Marine Corps tacair and that there is no plan B.
Well, just like the Navy has purchased additional F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to offset against delays in the F-35 program, the Marines are buying the Brits’ newly refurbished Harriers –which are a few years newer than the Corps’ AV-8Bs — to provide parts for their oldest Harriers and replace F/A-18D Hornet strike jets that are quickly approaching the end of their service lives.
You’ve got to be asking what will this mean for the F-35B. While the Bravo has been having a fairly good year of flight testing, it’s still experienced considerable delays and cost overruns (as has the entire program). As the Defense Department prepares for hefty budget cuts, top DoD officials are saying that the Pentagon may not need to buy all three F-35 variants.
As Phil points out at DoDBuzz, this could well be a sign that the Corps is hedging against cuts to the F-35B buy. With the overall program delayed by at least another two years and the amphibious service’s fighters — that were supposed to be replaced by the F-35B starting in 2012 — closing in on retirement, this move replaces the oldest STOVL jets and Hornets with planes that will keep flying into the 2020s. Meanwhile, the Corps will likely be able to take delivery F-35Cs at the end of this decade to replace the Hornets that are still flying. By that time, the B will either be set to enter service or a memory.
{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }
Well Somebody in the Corps is thinking out the box. Learning to adapt & overcome obstacles is The USMC way. The UK gets some cash for used birds. A win-win. However other Harrier users like Spain or Thailand now get shut out of the RAF surplus source.
Perhaps more than that. How many Harriers does the UK HAVE?
70ish I'd think
Seems I recall reading somewhere there were 74 (?) in storage.
Well what kept them from just buying the whole lot then?
We are buying the whole lot. It's probably a typo in the article. I'm sad, though, that we can't afford to put them in service, suitably modified, and instead will just be using them for parts. Still, it's a good deal of us, and removes a political embarrassment for the MoD since retiring the Harrier was definitely a bad call, especially after having spent so much in the previous 18 months to develop and install new capabilities and signed long term maintenance contracts for which they'll now have to pay substantial penalties.
This was the wrong plane to retire, but I understand the ulterior political infighting motives.
Given the current economic environment and the anticipated budget cuts and given that its completely unlikely the F35 could get canceled… the most likely occurance is a delayed purchasing that stretches out the acquisistion. This is a very good move on the Marines part. The "worst" thing that could happen is they get F35-Bs sooner rather than later and have to try and sell their spare parts to some other nation.
Jeff, I sure as hell hope you are right.
Meaning, like the poor Brits have had to dump military assets?
Good one, now if only the AF would buy more legacy fighters, we could all finally acknowledge that the F-35 is an unaffordable (and I would say unnecessarily premature) expenditure given the current fiscal straights.
All this really does is buy time F-35B teething problems. Unlike the F/A-18, the F-16, and the the production lines of the Harrier II are gone. There are no new planes to be had, and it's unclear whether Harrier II lines could be recreated without really significant investment of capital.
Interestingly the F-35B is the only one of the F-35 variants who's capabilities are not duplicated in a fighter currently in production.
There's a U.S. stealth(y) 'sensor-fused' (whatever that means) internal weapon-bay carrier launched manned fighter currently in production? Cool! Do you have a pic (or more likely a crayon drawing)?
F/A-18, what I meant by 'Interestingly the F-35B is the only one of the F-35 variants who's capabilities are not duplicated in a fighter currently in production.' The F-35C mission can be adequately handled by F/A-18 Super-hornets, The F-16 can adequately handle all rolls that would have been assigned to the F-35A.
Name another fighter platform that can operate off of amphibious assault decks and still has an operation production line.
If the Air Force decides to rely on our 30 year old legacy fighters for another 20+ years, we can forget about having the uncontested air superiority we've enjoyed since the end of the Cold War.
Russia and China have already started down the path to inducting stealth fighters. India, Korea, and Japan all have plans to develop stealth fighters. Basically, the world's major air forces are advancing forward, and we're supposed to go backwards?
They don't grow on trees. They cost money. Money we lack right now, tech issues aside.
Dead pilots and strafed ground troops cost a lot more than any budget overruns. Something our COngress critters need to remember.
"we can forget about having the uncontested air superiority" F-35 advocates conviently like to leave F-22 out of the equation when resorting to this kind of scare tactic, thus forcing the taxpayer to pay for the troubled F-35 program. F-22 advocates conviently left out all kinds of equations out of the logic that promises us a 144 to zero kill ratio in exchange for the taxpayers paying for the troubled F-22 program. Can we detect a pattern here and maybe, just maybe, want to put an end to it???
The F-35's better not get canceled because we cannot relay on F-22's
There's a simple solution to this: Cancel the F-35B and by Super Hornets with upgraded Stealth characteristics.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/testing…
Exactly how does the Super Hornet replace the Harrier?
He doesn't know… that's his canned response to any story with the term "F-35" in it.
The B model does a job the Hornets do not do. Stealth does not let it land on a LHA or a Small Carrier like those used by Spain or Italy.
Then again, is either nation in fiscal shape to buy -B's?
Have any of you read J.A. Stout's book? He's a marine F/A-18A pilot that fought in the Gulf War. The Harrier is essentially a useless aircraft. Everything it does can be compensated for by conventional war planes. It is more practical to put all of our money towards full bread airfields and full bread aircraft carriers, not go halfway and make these STOVL fighters or these short airfields (Which the F/A-18 has been proven to be able to operate on as well.)
The STOVL capability has not made any difference in any fight we have been in. Even in the projected fights we could be in the STOVL capability has no usable utility.
When people conceived the Harrier we though of it jumping out of the woods camouflaged to attack and slow down the Soviet armored fist that would have been rolling over Europe, then it would fly back to rear where an airfield awaited it for support. Even in that capacity it doesn't deliver enough damage to be effective and the cost of moving maintenance personnel, fuel, and aircraft parts was not only useless but also left a big footprint and was a logistics nightmare. After slowing down the Soviet armored fist all of it personnel, parts, and fuel at it's original station camouflaged in the woods would end up in the hands of the Red Army.
The STOVL fighter IN ITSELF is a useless machine. We don't need it and that money could be better spent on full bread aircraft carriers, airstrips, and fixed wing aircraft. The AV-8B Harrier and the F-35B are merely continuations of a useless idea.
Foolish narrow thinking…..
1. We have been lucky in having friendly nations to stage from.
2. We only have 11 CVN's. That may not last for budget reasons. They have other missions to do other than CAS.
3. How long till your engineers make or repair a airfield?
4. Mr. Stout is wrong is his tactical thinking. They allow you not to be on some mapped out fixed target. Nor is the Hornet the best thing in the sky either.
sigh … i wish we'd kept them and at least one of the invincibles, especially as it now means we are pretty much screwed if the f35 falls through … can't believe the shit our government is pulling at the moment military-wise, whilst increasing (amongst others) our overseas aid budget (including charity payments to india, china and pakistan this fiscal year).
can i come live over with you guys? :-)
Sure cmon over—we can use all the friends we can get.
I agree. If the UK has another campaign like the Falklands they must rely on another country toprovide the forward air.
I thought of the F-35B as an extravagance until I realized it turned all the helicopter carriers into mini aircraft carriers. That makes them huge force multipliers.
How many -B's are you thinking of carrying? And if you load up on -B's, you're cutting into the helicopter force. Many of those amphibs were meant to move Marines, and to support them first and foremost.
Shh… Don't say it too loud! This is something we've planned as a surprise for future enemy(ies). Without fanfare, all of a sudden our number of aircraft carriers is… doubled.
On paper, maybe. At best, they can masquerade as 'carriers' in a pretty and superficially imposing naval fleet review. Because without an organic long-range AEW craft aboard, the slow-moving LHDs will not be going solo into anything but the most permissive of environment.
The kind of environment where advanced LO supersonic CAS fighters are both tactically unnecessary and financially wasteful.
Ahem, Japan's "Helicopter Destroyers" might need a few someday.
Zumwalt would be proud, the Sea Control Ship has returned.
Not just that, but the F-35B is less vulnerable to SAMs and MANPADS that will flood the market. The next war will see newer shoulder fired missiles and SAMs that would eat the AV-8/Harrier for breakfast.
The bad part is the Air Force announced last week that they have to spend @1.2 billion to extend the life of F15s and F16s and now the Marines have to buy used Harriers from England because of the delays on the F35,where does it end because of the delays on the JSF?
No, the bad part is that back in DC there is no Budget deal. They will not get one by X Mas and real cuts come to the DOD budgets.
The big spenders in government are SS, Medicare and DoD in that order. Though I've heard the spin about how SS money is defined, but I'll leave it in there anyways.
You can't touch the first two because guess who votes? As for the third…
Honestly, I think the supermegaultracommittee will follow the pattern pretty much all political deals in recent years have set: Everyone will panic as the deadline closes in with no agreement in sight, but at the last possible minute they will hash out a (usually half hearted) deal that likely puts off a major decision yet again.
How can the F-18 be coming to the end of its service life? It's only about 20-odd years old. Can't they refurbish them with new avionics, radar and such, and give them another 20 years? What war are we fighting that we always need the latest and greatest gold-plated weapon system that costs ever more and more billions? I like the latest and greatest, but give me a break; we need to live within our means. After all, we've got a huge defense budget cut (probably) coming in a matter of months from the budget deal.
It's all about flight hours with aircraft. That, and how hard you have been flying them. Metal fatigue is a fact, and short of very expensive SLEP programs, there is not much you can do about it. And the older the bird, the more maintenance hours and parts they suck up. Think about trying to keep a 20 year old truck running on a daily basis, Vs a brand new one.
At least that is how I always thought of it.
Not a 20 year old truck… A 20 year old corvette that you drive like a madman everyday. Pedal to the metal and heavy braking every time someone drives it.
Try flying them everyday for 10 years with combat loads? The Airframe has a design life. Hard use, uses that up.
The sevice life of the Hornet's was to be about 3000 hours with the center barrel replacement program another 3000+ was added it just will not make any sense to increase the overal life…As for replacing the Hornet the Corps should be made to buy the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G and just buy the F-35B to replace the Harrier…..
Don't forget the extra strain on the planes from catapult launches and arresting wire landings–that has to put a lot of stress on the airframes.
So, buy some new ones with new avionics, engines, etc. Don't need the F35
Like I said at DOD Buzz I think the Harriers will fly for a long time even past the 2025 date. Same for the F-15 I think with economic and political problems older jets will fly for a few more decades to come. Upgraded they will preform just as good as any Chinese or Russian plane around.
If the Harriers can even last until 2018 I will be amazed. And even if they could, performance wise they will be BADLY outclassed compared to the F-35B.
As for the F-15, I hardly think it is prudent to continue to rely on 40 year old tech when the other nations are moving forward, not backwards. The PAK-FA and J-20 may not seem like much now, but the fact is that it is only a matter of time until the Russians and Chinese get a reasonable hold of stealth tech.
Its arguable that current Flanker models could give an Eagle a serious run for its money, so I think forfeiting our only remaining next gen fighter design is a monumentally stupid idea.
Just read the article fully, specifically, the bit about Harriers slated to be used to 2025. Ridiculous.
Anyways, the Marines have been quite protective about the F-35B. Just a few days ago I read something about Marine officials testifying once again that there is no alternative to the aircraft. I think this is Osprey redux, the Marines will fight for their new aircraft.
The F-15 can outperform the Flanker period and could give a crappy J-20 a run for it money. Chinese fighter are not as high tech as there Russian counterparts and many lack many avionics and weapons there Russian counter parts have.
It's the numbers & the men the that count. 20-1 is still 20-1. If I have the numbers, your tech can not shoot them all. The well trained pilot wins fights, not always the best jet.
We are buying the whole lot. It's probably a typo in the article. I'm sad, though, that we can't afford to put them in service, suitably modified, and instead will just be using them for parts. Still, it's a good deal of us, and removes a political embarrassment for the MoD since retiring the Harrier was definitely a bad call, especially after having spent so much in the previous 18 months to develop and install new capabilities and signed long term maintenance contracts for which they'll now have to pay substantial penalties.
BTW, most of the other places reporting the recent Harrier purchase don't seem to be portraying it as a huge threat to the F-35 in any way. I think this is all being overblown, as JSF stories always are.
I still prefer F-35 and F-22 for defense . Just ask the manufacturer to check their delivery schedules.
And the Death Spiral begins for the F-35. Air Force Upgrading F-15's & F-16's, the Marines purchasing British Harriers. The Pentagon can read the writing on the wall.
No Deal by the Super Committee, equals No Money, equals NO JSF.
Hardly. These token upgrades are a stopgap. Nothing more.
Well the corps on the right track. Buy or fund a program for (in this case old British Harriers) or a Super Harrier. An buy F, E/A-18E,F,Gs to replace the older Cs an Ds.
If the Harrier line is dead, then we're spending money to reopen an old line that may no longer be in line with what we need tomorrow.
Flushing out older Hornets for newer ones might be a short term choice, but it cannibalizes the JSF buy. R&D cost will spiral upward. We may not have an option though if the cost becomes ridiculously unsustainable.
Why is it that the DoD is so hit-and-miss when it comes to some programs coming in on time and on budget (or slightly above budget, or under budget) versus others? Like the Virginia SSN build, for instance?
A-10 was also delivered under budget and on time.
yea how many years ago? haha. great aircraft btw.
"Why is it that the DoD is so hit-and-miss when it comes to some programs coming in on time and on budget (or slightly above budget, or under budget) versus others?". ANSWER: Too many unrealistic, unachievable concepts to begin with, coupled with worse execution. Committing to immature technology resulting in immeasurable risk. Inability to specify & maintain requirements discipline. Inability to lead & manage contractors and satisfy stakeholders that they "have their act together", resulting in punishing actions from OSD, GAO, and Congress, creating further havoc and death spiral programs.
the USAF and Marines have been screaming that there's no alternative to the F-35 for years (while the Navy just bought more F-18's and is spending a lot of money on the X-47B). using older aircraft instead proves that there is
as for future Russian and Chinese stealth fighters, modern radars and sensors are always getting better at detecting enemies. the F-35 can detect the F-22, the USAF says F-15's with AESA can detect the J-20, and the T-50 has L-band radars, making the F-35 stealth pretty much useless
Okay, let's have a little pretend time and believe that stealth is useless. Even unstealthed Su35s may very well outmatch our legacy fighters. Once again, the Navy is buying Super Hornets as a stopgap, and the X-47 is complementary to the F-35, not a substitute.
If anything, the Navy is finally returning a degree of diversity in carrier aircraft. Back in the day a carrier would have Tomcats for air defense, Intruders for long range strike, and Hornets for multirole capabilities.
Now, a carrier can have a JSF for multirole and a UCAVs for long range strike.
If They do Fall through It will be at least five years until another aircraft can be crated possibly more. then how can we keep up with china.
The Marines and the Navy have two diffrent functions. What is good for one may be useless to the other. We should leave it up to the best minds for the final decisions.
Just another example of legacy aircraft doing what the F-35 should be doing. Seriously if the aircraft comes operational a decade late, how can one defend that? That mean's it's already old technology coming into service.. by the time we get enough in numbers a sixth generation fighter will already be in development. Hopefully not by Lockheed.
The F-35 is loosing it's purpose.. there's no point to continue on with unproven and soon to be obsolete technology.
If were going to do this we shouldn't have retired those jets we already retired in the past. Just imagine how mush we could have saved.
In order to bolster our asian allies military capabilities to off set a rising Chinese navy capability. The US should provide eight Harrier Jump Jets to Thailand to bring their Aircraft Carrier up to full capability.
There is no cold war anymore, no real major threat, we have enough Toys (Fighter Jets) to keep most pilots happy. It's just them Generals wanting new toys to play with, but when the money is almost gone, you be happy with what toys you have. Besides I can remember how long we got along with the old and dependable F4 Phantom during the cold war when I was in the Corps in the 80's. We done so much, for so long for so little, that we were qailified to do the impossible with nothing…Semper FI
The problem is not so much the need to buy new useless toys as the need to replace ones close to wearing out and being grounded.
If the USMC had access to new build AV-8B's that were cost effective Im sure they would buy them. F-35B haters aside the F-35B offers a significant upgrade over the AV-8B Harrier II. The F-35 may not offer significant advances over a F-16 or a F/A-18 but next to a Harrier you are talking a major capability advance.
1. Losing the Harrier wouldn't change that.
2. That's why we add to the number of planes. The same amount will be doing the other missions. The surplus will be doing CAS.
3. The F/A-18 is capable of operating on unprepared runways too. Besides that, show me an instance where the STOVL factor made a difference. Are there any real world situations that have happened?
4. Again the Hornet family can operate on short unprepared airstrips too. Show me an example in the real world where the harrier has made this difference. The Hornet may not be the best, but it's a heck of a lot better than the Harrier and better than what most of the world can put up in the air as well.
4. There isn't one.
Didn't the British ship Harriers to the Falklands on merchant ships? I don't remember if they were able to do combat ops off of them or not or just stored the aircraft on them.
They make a big difference to a MEU…
AFAIR, the merchant vessels were used only to transport the UK Harriers, bu there were studies in the UK (and US?) to turn merchant vessels into "auxillary carriers".
Even then, as for an "example in the real world where the harrier has made this difference", the Falklands conflict is a prime example. Without the Harrier, the UK would have had no air support apart from helicopters.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
during the Falkland wars the british used bombers (Vulcan) based in Ascension to initially bomb /crater the runways, then used the harriers to defend the fleet and attack staging areas on the falklands. they went up against A-4s, Mirages, and the best of what Argentina had to offer at the time….they did remarkably well. they started with 28 Sea Harrier FRS.1 and 14 Harrier GR.3. in the course of the war they lost 6.. btw..they accounted for air to air 20 kills..
We have a little thing called a $17 trillion dollar debt……. We have to pay for things other than jets.