> Ferry range is rather useless for actually fighting.
But there is no “inaccuracy” in the figures I quoted. You do know that your moving the goalposts doesn't indicate any innaccuracy on my part, don't you?
> There combat range matters. Combat range of Harrier < 300 nmi, less if operating from > rough strips or a carrier. Combat range of Typhoon and Tornado around 900 nmi.
I'd like to know your sources for those figures – even though combat radiius is an infinitely-fungible figure, depending on profile and payload, I doubt that Typhoon can go better than three times as far as Harrier.
Besides, the point I was trying to make, which I think is obvious to most people, but you seem peculiarly determined not to understand, is that Harriers can typically be based closer to the target than types dependent on long, flat runways.
And, as you have already pointed out yourself, there's always IFR – although for some reason you didn't seem to think this applied to Harriers.
> Harrier can operate from anywhere. You can't get its fuel, munitions and spares in anywhere.
The proviso about getting the other stuff there applies as much, if not more, to the other types, though.So as well as failing to show any “inaccuracy” in my part, you still have not shown how Harrier is less flexible than other types.
> Last time I worked with the Harriers their fragile engines were lasting about 10 flying hours
If you were only getting ten hours before replacing them, either it was a very, very long time ago, or Pegasus has got worse since I last processed bunches of dodgy work-ticket data from Swanton Morley.
> Logistics rule modern warfare. You can have the most flexible airframe in the world but it is
> useless without bombs and fuel. The British military has dreadful logistics capabilities
No surprise, Sherlock. And this tells us what? That we need to invest in better logistics, definitively drop the idiocy of “just-in-time logistics”, or that we need to scrap our most capable CAS aircraft? For some reason I cannot see the shiny (relatively) new Typhoon getting fantastically better availability rates than Harrier.
>> how much did it cost the Typhoon force to > deliver a slack handful of Storm Shadows?
> A damn site less than a carrier task force would cost.
Do you work for BAE? The Storm Shadow strikes against Libya were an embarrassing piece of operationally pointless showboating for BAE products, and at least a carrier task force has some uses beyond advertising.
>> ...apart from setting records for them in 1982, obviously.
Your amusement makes it no less of a fact, though, and still doesn't indicate any “inaccuracy” on my part. You do remember that you were going to pick up some of my “more egregious” inaccuracies, don;t you? Feel free to start any time you like.
> Harriers in Italy can't even reach its target.
Yes, that's why you fly them off a carrier. Can you remember that we discussed carriers before? You know, those things you can't fly a Tornado from, which according to your line of thinking apparently makes the Tornado “more flexible”?
According to a House of Lords answer I'm too lazy to Google for again, Harrioer flying hours cost slightly more than Tornado, but Typhoon costs about twice as much. Not to mention the fact that your favoured approach of absurdly long-range flights means many more hours per sortie.
> And with a 300 nmi combat range what were we supposed to do from Italy - eat ice cream?
OK, I see you still haven't mastered the concept of having aircraft carriers, dare I mention IFR again?
>You do understand the big issue with Harriers is that if you are doing VTOL landing you can't
> carry a full combat load.
If you're doing VTOL landing. So this limitation only applies in cases where other aircraft, which cannot do VTOL landing, cannot operate. See how your claim that other types are “more flexible” than Harrier continues to be utterly starved of any shred of evidence?
And I'd still like an explanation of your, yes, egregious claim that flying things back from a forward deployment is more difficult than flying them in any other direction.
> These are real issues that if you read any of the analysis that went into dumping Harrier you
> might understand.
If this “analysis” shows the kind of faulty reasoning, disregard of facts and utter lack of critical thinkling that you have demonstrated in this thread, it's probably just as well for my blood pressure that I haven't seen it. I am all too familiar with the dismal quality of much defence decision-making – not that there aren't still some pretty good analysys left, but the decision-makers always contrive to ignore them and listen instead to the shiny-bottomed apparatchiki who know what the boss wants to hear. It is hardly a secret that on grounds of operational effectiveness the project that should have been cancelled was Typhoon, a massively late and overpriced white elephant even by the piss-poor standards of British defence procurement. Politically, of course, that would have been an impossibly “courageous” decision, for it would have made it embarrassingly clear that there is very little justification for keeping the RAF as a separate service. Consequently, Lord Wossname has to come up with spurious reasons for keeping on the GR4 instead of the Harrier, like having a larger fleet (how many squadrons are you ever going to operate at one?), and being able to operate other pointless but shiny BAE weapons like Storm Shadow and Brimstone. Think of the fun BAE must have had looking at which constituencies to threaten massive redundancies if they didn't get paid for all the shinies.
I think I trust the USMC analysis rather more.
>> We ought to invest in our loggy capabilties too, then.
> With whose money? We can't afford the stuff we had - that's why we retired a fleet of aircraft.
Yeah – the wrong fleet.
Personally I'd be happy to take money from lots of sources to fund defence adequately, starting with but not limited to the “performance” bonuses of badly-perfroming bankers. It might also be a good idea to stop pissing taxpayers' money away on PFI boondoggles with bandits like Serco. Don't try to pretend there isn't plenty of money – we're a rich country, and we very comfortably afforded a much greater level of defence expenditure when we were less rich than we are now.
> We didn't get Harrier to Afghanistan until 2006 because of security issues.
Again, I remind you of your promise to point out inaccuracies on my part. Harrier not only went to Afghanistan and flew from land bases, it did so years before Tornado did. This does not make the Harrier “less flexible”, does it?
>>> Forward operating bases for Harriers can be thrown together in many places, but availability
>>> of the Harriers drops considerably when operating from a rough field site.
>> And for all other RAF types, it drops to nil. It's not the Harrier that's inflexible.
> Please cite your evidence. My many years as an RAF Engineering Office state that your
> argument is made up.
OK, tell me when you operated Tornados from a rough field. That's a *rough* field.
> Ok, who has a navy that we are going to fight?
Most countries with coastlines have a navy of some kind. But even if we could somehow arrange to fight only navy-free opponents, what on earth makes you think that carrier air cannot be used against land targets?
> Every battle we have fought since the Falklands has been on land.
And, as we're an island, every expeditionary force we send has to cross the sea. So what's your point?
>> high sortie rate are a better bet than long-range strikes with heavy loads, as, again,
>> the Falklands showed with striking clarity.
> Which matters during warfighting. Like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With Harriers doing their but in both places – in Aghanistan, for a couple of years before the other types pitched up to join in. So in terms of putting steel on the target, I'm failing to see how you have demonstrated any material inferiority on the part of Harrier.
>> Traditionally it has been the RN that preferred 2-seat (and 2-engine) aircraft.
> That was true in the past. In recent years we discovered that 2 seaters give the crew much better situational awareness.
How many seats in a Typhoon? Count carefully, let me know when you're finished. And then don't forget that you still have to find an “inaccuracy” to point out.
> Tornado is long for this world, at least in the ground attack role.
> [Snips] We are expected to keep them in service until 2025.
Really? Source, please. A House of Lords debate just after the SDSR seems to indicate 2021 as the out-of-service date, and the fleet will be run down over that time.
> You let on your horrible lack of knowledge when you claim that the only thing they score
> heavily over Harrier on is air defence. The Tornado F3 was always a weak air defence
> airframe. It became marginally better with things like JTIDS, but it is still weak. With
> equivalent missiles fitted, I would take a Harrier over an F3 any day of the week.
Really? Personally, I reckon the F3 was probably the best thing going for the specific task of bogging around somwhere north of Saxa Vord chivvying Bears out of our airspace. Still, I would love you to explain how you imagine a Harrier is going to fulfil the AD role without having a radar.
> The Ground Attack variant though has been used in every war we have fought after the
In a similar spirit, I would like you to list the Tornado squadrons that operated in Sierra Leone.
Oh, and if you could let me know about those “inaccuracies” you claimed you were going to correct...
All the best,