Harrier -v- Tornado
Coming a bit late to the fray, but I have to make a comment on the current spate of warnings that current and former military types are giving the government over the proposed scrapping of the Harrier force.
I agree completely with former Major General Julian Thompson and the four retired Admirals who wrote in a letter to the Times on Wednesday berating the decision. Yes, the Harrier is hardly the most glamorous of aircraft, but in the warfare scenarios this country finds itself in at present (and the ones it is likely to face in the near future) it is uniquely positioned as probably the most effective aircraft in the world. It is no accident that the Harrier is the current aircraft of choice for the US Marine Corps (and will remain so until the F-35 JSF comes into full-scale operation), they know a good thing when they see it.
Yes, the Tornado can chop along at Mach 2.2 (1,500mph) and carry 20,000lbs of bombs, missiles and such-like, while the Harrier idles along at a much more sedate 660mph and can onyl carry 8,000lbs of bombs, but these headline figures ignore a number of salient points. Firstly, with 20,00lbs of bombs, the Tornado can only just manage to creep over Mach 1 (about 780mph), whereas with its full 8,000lbs of bombs the Harrier can still manage a reasonable 640+mph. Secondly, the vast, vast majority of combat takes place well below maximum speeds, mostly below sub-sonic speeds, so mach 2+ capability in a modern attack plane is pretty much like go-faster stripes and alloy rims on a car, they look pretty but don't really mean anything to the combat performance. Thirdly, and perhaps most telling, while 20,000lbs is a hell of a lot more ordnance than 8,000lbs, any soldier or commander in the field will tell you they would rather have a little air support when it matters than have 3 times as much air support fifteen minutes too late. The Tornado cannot take off from 500 feet of road ten miles from the front line and land in a car park or (relatively) flat field; the Harrier can. It's that simple.
The Government may put forward the argument of vulnerability, but the simple fact is that the Harrier is no more vulnerable to ground or air attack than the Tornado (though the Tornado's 2 engines make it less susceptible to loss through mechanical failure than the Harrier's one engine).
The Government may put forward the argument of Britain's armed forces needing the best equipment to fight future wars. As with the Trident argument, if in the future we are facing a war where we need this weapon, the United States has all the weaponry we could ever want. And we would not be fighting a war where we needed such weapons without the United States in our corner (or, more likely, us in the US's corner, much as we have been since about 1944). And war the UK is likely to get into by itself will likely be similar to the Falklands war, a war which we could not possibly have won without the Harrier. Either way, as either the sole combatant in a small-scale war against a small-scale adversary, or as Best Supporting Role to the headline star, our need for a large top-line strike force will be limited, whereas our need for effective and flexible front-line support with a limited medium-range attack capability is currently, and will in the future be, of vital importance.
Like it matters what anyone says, anyway. Little George has seen his shiny shiny zoom jets and gone "Ooooh, want!" and if anyone says he can't have, there'll be tantrums before bedtime. *sigh*
I agree completely with former Major General Julian Thompson and the four retired Admirals who wrote in a letter to the Times on Wednesday berating the decision. Yes, the Harrier is hardly the most glamorous of aircraft, but in the warfare scenarios this country finds itself in at present (and the ones it is likely to face in the near future) it is uniquely positioned as probably the most effective aircraft in the world. It is no accident that the Harrier is the current aircraft of choice for the US Marine Corps (and will remain so until the F-35 JSF comes into full-scale operation), they know a good thing when they see it.
Yes, the Tornado can chop along at Mach 2.2 (1,500mph) and carry 20,000lbs of bombs, missiles and such-like, while the Harrier idles along at a much more sedate 660mph and can onyl carry 8,000lbs of bombs, but these headline figures ignore a number of salient points. Firstly, with 20,00lbs of bombs, the Tornado can only just manage to creep over Mach 1 (about 780mph), whereas with its full 8,000lbs of bombs the Harrier can still manage a reasonable 640+mph. Secondly, the vast, vast majority of combat takes place well below maximum speeds, mostly below sub-sonic speeds, so mach 2+ capability in a modern attack plane is pretty much like go-faster stripes and alloy rims on a car, they look pretty but don't really mean anything to the combat performance. Thirdly, and perhaps most telling, while 20,000lbs is a hell of a lot more ordnance than 8,000lbs, any soldier or commander in the field will tell you they would rather have a little air support when it matters than have 3 times as much air support fifteen minutes too late. The Tornado cannot take off from 500 feet of road ten miles from the front line and land in a car park or (relatively) flat field; the Harrier can. It's that simple.
The Government may put forward the argument of vulnerability, but the simple fact is that the Harrier is no more vulnerable to ground or air attack than the Tornado (though the Tornado's 2 engines make it less susceptible to loss through mechanical failure than the Harrier's one engine).
The Government may put forward the argument of Britain's armed forces needing the best equipment to fight future wars. As with the Trident argument, if in the future we are facing a war where we need this weapon, the United States has all the weaponry we could ever want. And we would not be fighting a war where we needed such weapons without the United States in our corner (or, more likely, us in the US's corner, much as we have been since about 1944). And war the UK is likely to get into by itself will likely be similar to the Falklands war, a war which we could not possibly have won without the Harrier. Either way, as either the sole combatant in a small-scale war against a small-scale adversary, or as Best Supporting Role to the headline star, our need for a large top-line strike force will be limited, whereas our need for effective and flexible front-line support with a limited medium-range attack capability is currently, and will in the future be, of vital importance.
Like it matters what anyone says, anyway. Little George has seen his shiny shiny zoom jets and gone "Ooooh, want!" and if anyone says he can't have, there'll be tantrums before bedtime. *sigh*