Guest RKSL-Rock Posted July 28, 2009 I think the main thing with the Harrier is that it the MoD at the time aswell as the RAF wanted nothing todo with the plane and when the USMC were interested McDonnell Douglas were able to fix the issues that were plaguing the prototypes. Hawker Siddley not having the funds to do so on its own. McDonnell didn't fix anything in the prototypes. It was all Hawker's design team. At that stage McDonnell was just learning how to assemble the aircraft from kits. McDonnell's involvement at the time was to evaluate the design for manufacture in the US only. They had no design authority. The USMC were also working closely with the RAF and HS. Its just that Hawker Siddley didn't have the funding to continue on its own when the RAF & UK MoD were forced to cut funding by the government of the day. The USMC then stepped up to save the project from dying like the other British aircraft projects of the day. Even then It wasn't until the aircraft went into regular USMC service and they starting adding US spec boxes that McD started to change things. In the initial service aircraft McDonnell's attempt to "fix" early control problems resulted in serious stability problems. It wasn't until quite late in the day the USMC added LERX and extended wings of the AV8B RE EuroFighter and the US About '99/2000 when i was working at EuroFighter there was a rumour going around that the NETMA had been approached by the US or EuroFighter GmBH approached them. Depends on which rumour you heard. But the upshot was that EuroFighter was offered to the US as an F-15/F-16 replacement. How true that is i don't really know though. I did hear of a more substantial rumour that the US DoD were considering buying 8 aircraft to use for Aggressor squadrons. One of the reasons it died was that someone leaked a story that the real reason behind the request was to get full access to the aircraft for industry research. (Boeinghas done it before. They bought 3 A300 and A310 in the mid 80's and pulled them apart). Again, how true that is i'm not sure but at the time i was working with the EFA International sales group on a Offset deal with Norway and around this time a huge sweeping change in the sales and contract conditions came down from NETMA and EuroFighter GmBh. After that we heard no more rumours of US sales. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luke.S 10 Posted August 4, 2009 They will just have to use the eurofighter typhoon which is about the same capability for about half the price Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vasmkd 12 Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) Watch this (visual range ofcourse) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N0iXFN37iU&feature=PlayList&p=8C71E5FF01E638AC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=80 Edited August 16, 2009 by vasmkd Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hvymtal 1251 Posted August 16, 2009 Ah, but it is not so much the machine, but the pilot, correct? However, Machine is pretty helpful, doubtless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baff1 0 Posted August 18, 2009 Watch this (visual range ofcourse)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N0iXFN37iU&feature=PlayList&p=8C71E5FF01E638AC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=80 Visual range isn't the worst of it. Their AA missiles have a massive range advantage over ours. They can expect to get the first shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prydain 1 Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) They will just have to use the eurofighter typhoon which is about the same capability for about half the price And it can carry a suitable amount of weapons. Watch this (visual range ofcourse)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N0iXFN37iU&feature=PlayList&p=8C71E5FF01E638AC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=80 My concern with the video is, besides its poster being called RUSSIAN POWERRR!!!! (or whatever), perhaps it was to be expected of an aircraft that is designed for a STOVL configuration. I don't have any opinion on the aircraft because I have no verifiable facts about it and since it is still under development any opinion is subject to changes made.What I will say is that surely a 21st century air force using more multiple types of aircraft than is needed must be a kick in the teeth for procurement agencies and logistics groups that support the air force. I have my doubts about it and perhaps a carrier version of the Typhoon will increase commonality in the usage of parts, but that does not mean shit as I am not an expert. Edited August 19, 2009 by Prydain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Relemar 10 Posted August 19, 2009 why not just build a new plane? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel 0 Posted August 19, 2009 You'd have to have started the research and design phase decades ago to begin building now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted August 19, 2009 There's also the borderline comical procurement politics involved with every US weapons purchase. Companies may spend billions developing a plane and get a bit pissed off when they don't get picked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) Hi All As with Prydain I am skeptical of the source given as it is a competing product. May have been a little judicous editing in the Russian source. Here is the original source Transcript with the video is on the left hand side in windows media and Real media form http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2373457.htm Kind Regards walker Edited August 19, 2009 by walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
