New us Marine Squadron

[lmgaylard]

Well, doesnt it make you sick........

We get rid of the Harrier's, sell them on the cheap to the US Marines for spares and now the Marines have found that the EX - UK Harriers are so 'pristinw' that they will now form a new squadron................

[lmgaylard]

Yes you are right but it just proves what a crap decision it was.

[TankBuster]

The Marines probably knew they were buying a good bit of kit, and for a good price. Probably so good that they grabbed it with both hands & quickly walked out of the shop with it .

If the Harriers are that pristine perhaps the Marines will now keep our old aircraft as complete airframes, and use the older USMC aircraft for spares.

Sounds like they got "The real deal" .


TankBuster

[Unknown74]

Totally boakin'. --->

[The Phantom]

Yes you are right but it just proves what a crap decision it was.

One of the worst ever! And if ever the Argies needed an incentive to start causing trouble again, that was it.

[Fighterfoto]

I think the four Typhoons and integrated air defence system including HMS Dauntless are deterence enough, the loss of ground attack Harriers makes no difference to the Argies.

[Vulcanone]

The USMC said they would be flying some of the aircraft when they bought them the US navy guy that was responsible for buying them said so!

Although some people on here thought.....Oh no they won't.

As for the Falklands - Think Submarines with TLAM and Type 45 withSea Viper and throw the potential for rapid re-inforcement of more Typhoons. They did it in the days of Phantom rapidly without a carrier so we can do now without a carrier.



TS

[romeo bravo]

Well, doesnt it make you sick........

We get rid of the Harrier's, sell them on the cheap to the US Marines for spares and now the Marines have found that the EX - UK Harriers are so 'pristinw' that they will now form a new squadron................

Link please............

Anyway, you don't have a say in something once it's been sold.

[Vulcanone]

Adam

Well said, Although I might not like them getting axed anymore than the next man.

They got the chop, they have gone (to some good use while the USMC awaits F-35 in 201?) so would the last person out switch off the lights - even most of the Aviation publishing fraternity has got over it now, well we have.

Even if we still had Harriers, what use is it if the Argentinians attacked tomorrow, the carrier would still have to sail from the UK and Harriers would have to wait to meet the carrier from somewhere before or after Ascension Island.

TS

[Thunderbird]

Perhaps we should ask the Americans to cough up some more money -heaven knows we need it!

[andrewn]

Adam - everyone is entitled to an opinion

I get your point that it's over; however the idiocy of the decision and the "leaked" lies and deceit that accompanied the announcement are a scandal that deserves further analysis.

- So why did we dispose of a platform that had recently had hundreds of millions of pounds invested in it (GR9, 9A)?
- Was it really wise to ditch a carrier strike capability, knowing that you need to "regenerate" said capability in 5 or so years time?
- Most importantly we now have little or no flexibility in terms of offensive assets (basically no alternative to GR4)
- Does anyone know how much of the recently signed multi million pound "through life support" BAES support contract was forfeited?
- Politically, what kind of message does this decision send to both our allies and potential enemies?


Summed it all up for me when DC made the announcement and he referred to "Typhoons operating in AFG now being able to perform the full range of operations that Harrier did" (wrong on so many levels)

And, yes, I know we're skint but it's all about priorites and keeping Harrier (and GR4) in service should have been a priority.

Just my thoughts.