3 ms·
No military experience myself but this is sounding similar to the way the harrier jump jets were taken out of service in the UK. High and increasing maintenance
by keithpeter 12y ago
No military experience myself but this is sounding similar to the way the harrier jump jets were taken out of service in the UK. High and increasing maintenance costs, effective in certain roles, no obvious replacement.
- masklinn 12y agoI could be mistaken, but I don't think the Harrier was ever hated by by the RAF or the RN, whereas the A10 certainly wasn't liked (or desired) by the USAF, and they've been looking for a way to dump it without the Army or USMC operating them pretty much since they got the frame.
- gaius 12y agoWhat the USAF and RAF have in common is a very clear idea of who their real enemy is: the Army and Navy. They would gladly sacrifice all war fighting capability, if it meant burning the other two services in the process. Hence the Eurofighter, and now the F35. I refuse to call it the Lightning; the original Lightning was a proper weapon.
- cstross 12y agoThe RAF Harriers were taken out of service in 2010 as part of a gigantic axe-swinging defense review with across-the-board cuts that sliced to the bone -- the Navy lost its carriers (the new ones won't be fully in service for a while yet), the RAF lost its entire anti-submarine warfare capability (the Nimrod MRa.4 upgrade program was shitcanned at the same time), the entire Tornado F.3 force (even though the Typhoon-II was only just marginally operational) and nearly the Tornado GR4 bombers (they have survived -- for now -- largely due to IS). The army just lost most of its main battle tanks -- they got off lightly! The RAF brass didn't "hate" on the Harriers -- they were just under pressure to take their part of huge defense cuts.