Agreed.
You could as easily ask why they needed the original Harrier developed in the 1960s. The justification back then was the (correct) belief that if the Warsaw Pact went to war with NATO then Nato's airfields would be amongst the first targets and any air asset that could be operated independently of big concrete runways after such an attack would be invaluable. In spite of the views of many of the light blue's top brass (who also spent most of the sixties deriding the Buccaneer, until they had no choice but to adopt it as their primary strike aircraft), the Harrier proved itself to be versatile, adaptable and in 1982 the only option for deployment to the warzone around the Falklands (all their Lightnings, Phantoms, Buccaneers and shiny new Tornados sat impotently on the sidelines).
The more far sighted members of the RAF realised that a strike platform that could go anywhere, even onto the decks of the Navy's carriers, meant they could potentially be involved in any future military operation and not get left on the sidelines. The Harrier made up a significant portion of the RAF's strike force until 2010, and by throwing in with the Navy on the subject of it's replacement they negated the usual inter service rivalry the Government normally relies on to screw everyone over when Defence Reviews come around. A common fleet shared between the two services meant lower purchasing and operating costs compared with buying two distinct types, and originally the F-35B was only supposed to replace the joint Harrier force.
Tornado was supposed to be replaced by the Future Offensive Air System, which was separate from the F-35B purchase, and was supposed to be a mix of manned aircraft and UCAVs. The F-35 in either A, B or C variants were contenders for the manned part of the project, though no choice was made and the project cancelled in 2005 (partly to pay for the Iraq war, along with four then six batch 2 Type 45 DDGs). The UCAV part of the project is alive and well (now called Future Combat Air System, FCAS), but without any other manned combat aircraft on the horizon the F-35B became the de facto replacement for the Tornado as well as the Harrier, and after the 2010 SDSR when the RAF threw the Harrier force 'under the bus' the tone of those on the light blue side about what they want to use the aircraft for feels distinctly land locked...
...In this context, it is understandable that the Navy would be looking elsewhere for a partner to help fill the decks of the QECs.
From long time yet with Harrier the 2 services use together their STOVL fighters for air naval operations.
Jura The idiot
General
I've read your response twice and I still don't get it, so just three quick points:
- it seems in the first part you suggested the Harrier had been meant to operate in adverse conditions, and indeed scenes like this:
come to my mind, plus I've read somewhere about eight sorties per day ... now compare to F-35B
- if RAF (what I assume is "the light blue side" from the end of your third paragraph) would prefer to operate F-35B off land bases (that's how (miss)understood said fragment), then I can just repeat my question: What for? I mean what would be the concept of operations please? (as compared to F-35A of course, that's what I'm curious about)
- F-35A is cheaper than F-35B
Jura The idiot
General
Elementary, My Dear FORBIN?
(or you may read the post right above)
Point 1:yes that is what the original justification for the Harrier was, a strike aircraft that can operate away from expensive and vulnerable air bases which are likely to be the first targets on the Warsaw Pact's list for day one of the war. THE USMC still intends to operate the F-35B from rough and ready strips in order to stay close to the frontline, reducing reaction times for close air support. This does not of course preclude normal operations from air bases or aircraft carriers. It's always handy to know even if the enemy puts big holes in your runways, you can still fly your missions.I've read your response twice and I still don't get it, so just three quick points:
I'm sorry for any misunderstanding (I didn't mean to nitpick or nothing)
- it seems in the first part you suggested the Harrier had been meant to operate in adverse conditions, and indeed scenes like this:
come to my mind, plus I've read somewhere about eight sorties per day ... now compare to F-35B
- if RAF (what I assume is "the light blue side" from the end of your third paragraph) would prefer to operate F-35B off land bases (that's how (miss)understood said fragment), then I can just repeat my question: What for? I mean what would be the concept of operations please? (as compared to F-35A of course, that's what I'm curious about)
- F-35A is cheaper than F-35B
Point 2: Yes the RAF in the UK is often politely referred to as the 'Light Blue' because of their uniforms; The RN/FAA is also known as the 'Dark Blue' and the Army as 'Brown Jobs'! There are many other nicknames but they tend to be rather rude so I refrain from using them here. The historical point I was making was that when the 'Joint Force Harrier' existed, the RAF's Harrier community was quite pro-carrier operations after having worked alongside the FAA's Sea Harrier sqns afloat and ashore for many years. That's when the choice of F-35B was made and the plans for both services to embark on the carriers drawn up. After 2010 the RAF's other strike force, the Tornado sqns became the sole land based strike force after the Harriers were sacrificed in the SDSR, the pilots and commanding officers etc. were dispersed amongst the Typhoon community, Tornado community and sent across the pond to train up on the Lightning. The current 'regime' in charge of RAF Strike capability are not the ones who chose the F-35B and for the most part never expected to deploy at sea, but the aircraft is the only one on the table to replace their beloved Tornados and that's the context in which they envisage their use. Note the first frontline RAF sqn numberplate to reform on the Lightning is a former Tornado sqn (617), not a former Harrier sqn (1, 3, 4, 20 or 41). You have to read between the lines of much of what they say, but the 'mood music' coming from RAF Strike Command is they are seeing the Lightning as a direct Tornado replacement, and the STOVL capability is something they aren't too bothered about in that context. I'm pretty sure some of them think they'll only be going to the ship for a two week qualification exercise every year. The MOD may well give them a rude awakening.
Point 3: Yes the A is cheaper than the B, but not greatly so and buying a 'split fleet' mix of A's and B's might seem sensible on paper, in reality all the armed forces have learned the painful lesson of operating 'Fleets within Fleets' and keeping all examples the same will outweigh any urge to buy a different model. The B will do any mission the A can for the most part but not vice versa. The range differential is negated by the use of In Flight Refuelling (normal for most land based strikes).
In summary, the Tornado force will inherit the replacement aircraft selected for the Harrier force, intends to grin and bear it, especially when they have to share with the FAA not only the aircraft but the duties at sea as well. The Navy has seen this coming for several years and has been planning to fill it's decks with USMC aircraft when possible to make up for the RAF's perceived reluctance to 'come out to play'.
Jura The idiot
General
Exercise Raises Questions About Marine Corps F-35 Plans
(you may check the area in boldface inside; maybe you can tell the size of San Carlos off top of your head ... or of course you can tell me I'm mixing apples and oranges
my point is with Terabytes of data being copied there and back, super-sensitive skin etc. etc. I somehow can't imagine F-35B at San Carlos... I'll read the rest of your post again
I know the USMC's plans are being 'questioned' that doesn't mean they are disproved. There are people out there who are still denying the F-35 will ever fly in combat. Doesn't make them right. The Marines, in common with most countries armed forces, have a 'can do' attitude and will find ways to make their plans work rather than give up at the first hurdle. I noticed the article said the base would take two months to set up, and they did it in 17 days. So they have to stay aboard the 'Gator's for two or three weeks before they can deploy ashore. Shouldn't be a problem.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL
Autonomic Logistics Information System
(I know it can be switched off
getting back to your points now ...
... am wondering how they'll manage
Autonomic Logistics Information System
(I know it can be switched off
getting back to your points now ...
Jura The idiot
General
here I have a question: when/which AShM will be integrated on the UK F-35Bs?
and here just this (dated 08 July, 2016):
RAF hints that UK could still opt for mixed F-35 fleet