Unfortuantely the Indian Navy is running out of Harrier airframes, they need a carrier capable of hosting fixed wing non-STOVL airframes unless the decide to turn the Invinciple into a dedicated LHP.
Britain may sell one of its 2 QE class carrier to India
- Thread starter Zaitsev
- Start date
The UK won't go to the IMF; indeed, it only just recently donated $26 billion to the IMF.
domain-b.com : UK may pledge additional $11billion to IMF
The British could sell some Harrier aircraft. Probably not the newest, and may be worn, but a few aircraft could possibly be bought by India if Invincible was sold.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
They could sell a dozen or so FA.2's stripped of their electronics, but the spare GR.9's will all be needed in order to manage the fatigue lifetimes of the airframes to remain in service until replaced by F-35.
on the bright side the our 1st test frames being built now of our three test frames. But the harrier users are going to have trouble maintaining the harrier life till their out of service date.
Any idea who has the youngest harriers (Spain)
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
It would have to be a toss up between the Spanish Harriers and the last of the British Harriers to be delivered. I'd say the spanish harriers are probably newer, but the british ones were probably completely refurbished during the GR.9 upgrade.
i.e. all the airframes still in MoD hands, only some of which will be restorable to flying condition.
India rejected the offer of 8 sound FA2s without their radars a few years ago, on the grounds that the AMRAAMs & radars weren't included. Bizarre, as knew beforehand we couldn't sell the AMRAAMs, as the USA hadn't licenced their export to India back then (& the RAF wanted them), but still evaluated the offer, & examined the airframes, & they'd already decided to re-fit their existing Harrier fleet with the EL/M-2032 radar & Derby, so could easily have added the FA2s to the programme, & got a fleet with common (& perfectly adequate) radars & missiles. That must be among the worst procurement decisions ever made.
Yep.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
i'd doubt that...the Harrier's will most likely be going out of service once the INS Viraat is decomissoned(cant confirm)..so i think it would be useless to invest in it when they can get perfectly new Mig 29k's from russia for the new carrier
they can always acquire a dozen ex royal navy harriers and then upgrade them with israeli radars and weapons.,i dont see that as a very big problem.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
More a downgrade then an upgrade. The offer was made of ex-RN Harriers minus classified electronics, the IN refused the offer.
windscorpion
New Member
I don't really see the point of buying a big shiney new aircraft carrier and then cobbling together an ageing fighter to operate off it.
Except that they're currently very short of Harriers, a shortage which would not have occurred if they'd bought the ex-RN ones. The current fleet is so small that there's a risk there won't be enough even to continue to provide an air group for Viraat until retirement.
Mark Healy
New Member
I agree. What a pathetic sorry pass this country has come to that it cannot afford two aircraft carriers that it has been planning and intending to build for nearly a decade. But wherein lies the logic in selling to India apart from the short term solution to the immediate budget problem? On the other hand, the Indians who are spending money hand over fist on defence at all levels, were gifted £850 million in aid by our glorious PM. If India can afford to build its own carrier (s)and nuclear submarine(s), purchase 125 top of the range new fighters, possibly 10 C-17s, new trainers, helicopters and increase yet further its purchase of Su-30s from Russia why on earth are we giving them aid to feed their poor, when we cannot even afford to properly equip our armed forces?
This is a scandal of the first degree. Nor are we likely to get anything better from the Conservatives if they get into office.
Let us stop pretending and posturing that we are any longer a major player on the world stage and do a Sweden. At least we might then have armed forces that we could afford.!!!
Mark Healy
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
It's not a scandal. It the media running a story with no legs, probably propagated by a snivelling RAF/Army sympathiser/employee who's trying to sabotage the aircraft carrier project. There have been several of them in the last year, including selling one to the French, the contracts being cancelled (in violation of the terms and invoking penalties), one ship being cancelled (also invoking penalties), one carrier "not operating F-35s" and only being for helos (nonsense) - now this. All are poppycock.
Don't be so hysterical. Go do some proper research and don't make such ignorant comments as your first contribution to a forum like this.
you only need to see the start of the RN thread to see how long this has been going on these story's. I wonder when we'll next get info on the progression i.e the bow blocks ect. Theirs a time line somewhere which has it but i can't think were it is for the build
Well Swerve, we are not at 25% inflation yet, or even the 18% peak inflation of the last decade, but this year we have certainly started the road towards inflation,
Even printing money and low interest rates couldnt fudge the recent GDP numbers into positive territory. Until the BoE significantly raises interest rates and attempts to reduce the budget deficit (which i dont think any politician has the guts to do), we are walking down a dangerous road
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Up until last year the majority of your deficit was actually payment interest on loans. It would be interesting to know how much of the money budgeted to the NHS, Social Security and a couple of other departments is actually spent. In my opinion, there is half a chance at least half a chance they wont spend all their money.
For example, social security pays a constant amount per year to pensioners and the disabled. On top of that you have people temporarily out of work. The number of people temporarily out of work would vary, however the budget would be set to take into account X number of these people.
For the NHS it depends on how many people get sick, what medicine they are prescribed, what operations have to be performed etc.
matthew22081991
New Member
People saying that it is nonsense I think are trying to avoid thinking the impossible. We live in a country which has a government desperate to cut the Navy back. The country has quite a history of this sort of thing. It is entirely feasable we will not get both carriers. We will certainly get one because it's already being built, but the second is not so certain. Selling it to India does not seem likely, since India does not need it, and I suspect they don't have the ships to escort it. Besides, they'll prefer to build their own for the purposes of national prestige and the economy.
You'll note the MOD was very hazy in its replies to the accusations, which generally means, yes, they are considering it. If they weren't they'd be very quick to say they weren't. However, they would not say that if they were considering it, because they'd look stupid if they did do it.
Now I agree it shouldn't be done, but the risk is there. Instead of dismissing it as sloppy journalism, let's stop hiding from the awful thought of a copy of the French Navy and take it seriously. That way there is a better chance of fighting against it.
The government will probably go ahead and do it if they do choose to despite the public anyway. This is because they know most people don't really give a damn; we might, but we're all signed up to a defence forum: of course we care! The Navy tends to get ignored when they protest too.
The Army will throw its weight behind cancelling it in favour of front line equipment (which I doubt they'd get evenif it was cancelled, but they want the equipment desperately). The government would love that sort of justification in this economic climate. The RAF I'm not sure of, they know the aircraft carriers mean more F35s for them (since the Fleet Air Arm won't be able to pilot all the aircraft required) but then again they'll probably have some other things like Eurofighters cut back. The main problem is the Army doesn't respect the other services as much as it should sometimes, they don't always realise why the aircraft carriers are needed. The Army's forum (arrse.co.uk) puts across the generally held opinion that the aircraft carriers aren't necessary. They have a short-sighted view of things (they don't seem to look beyond Afghanistan, perhaps because they are having trouble getting the resources for that, let alone beyond it) and don't understand the concept of expeditionary warfare (power projection). Although admittedly I did notice a few sympathetic souls who felt awfully sorry for the Navy.
Anyway, dismiss this report at your peril! It may yet prove to be true... Remember, it's a British government, they couldn't possibly do what would make sense now, could they?
You'll note the MOD was very hazy in its replies to the accusations, which generally means, yes, they are considering it. If they weren't they'd be very quick to say they weren't. However, they would not say that if they were considering it, because they'd look stupid if they did do it.
Now I agree it shouldn't be done, but the risk is there. Instead of dismissing it as sloppy journalism, let's stop hiding from the awful thought of a copy of the French Navy and take it seriously. That way there is a better chance of fighting against it.
The government will probably go ahead and do it if they do choose to despite the public anyway. This is because they know most people don't really give a damn; we might, but we're all signed up to a defence forum: of course we care! The Navy tends to get ignored when they protest too.
The Army will throw its weight behind cancelling it in favour of front line equipment (which I doubt they'd get evenif it was cancelled, but they want the equipment desperately). The government would love that sort of justification in this economic climate. The RAF I'm not sure of, they know the aircraft carriers mean more F35s for them (since the Fleet Air Arm won't be able to pilot all the aircraft required) but then again they'll probably have some other things like Eurofighters cut back. The main problem is the Army doesn't respect the other services as much as it should sometimes, they don't always realise why the aircraft carriers are needed. The Army's forum (arrse.co.uk) puts across the generally held opinion that the aircraft carriers aren't necessary. They have a short-sighted view of things (they don't seem to look beyond Afghanistan, perhaps because they are having trouble getting the resources for that, let alone beyond it) and don't understand the concept of expeditionary warfare (power projection). Although admittedly I did notice a few sympathetic souls who felt awfully sorry for the Navy.
Anyway, dismiss this report at your peril! It may yet prove to be true... Remember, it's a British government, they couldn't possibly do what would make sense now, could they?