SinoDefence Forum

Aerodriver

There seems to be a bit of confusion about the Harrier here, so please read....and your welcome to argue some of my conclusions.
Design work on VSTOL began in the 1950's yes, but proper work on the Harrier was much later and work began to build a supersonic VSTOL fighter to meet the needs of the RAF AND Fleet Air Arm. This project, called P1154, was cancelled by the Labour government in 1965. Instead the P1127 was ordered in combat form as a replacement for ground-attack Hawker Hunters of the RAF. The RAF was not very pleased to have this political aircraft placed upon them, but then came the Arab-Israeli War of 1967 when the Arab Air forces were destroyed on their airfields within the first hours of combat. All of a sudden, squadrons of Harriers hidden away in woods looked the only way to survive a Warsaw-Pact surprise attack.
The Harrier was adopted by the US Marine Corps as the AV-8A. The advantages of the Harrier for the support of amphibious operations were highlighted in the Falklands War. In the Falklands war both RAF ground attack Harriers and Navy air defence Harriers were dispatched. The Air defence variant shot down 24 (at the time modern) supersonic aircraft with out loss- a record not equal in recent history. The RAF ground attack aircraft flying at very low level over Argentine positions did not get shot out of the sky by small arms fire as some members seem to think it would be infact was again a major success. The Harrier with proper tactics is a very good ground attack platform.
As a side note a few years before the, the Brits tried to sell it to Argentina and they sad it was not supersonic and therefore not good enough!!
McDonnell Douglas in partnership with British Aerospace built the AV-8B for the USMC. They rebuilt an AV-8A with a new wing made of carbon composite material. This improved the range and nearly doubled the amount of weapons the aircraft could carry. This new model also had improved avionics, an angle-rate bombing system, Forward-Looking Infra-Red (FLIR), built-in radar warning sensors and chaff dispensers. British Aerospace designed a leading-edge extension which improved the turn rate for greater manoeuvrability.

The rate of turn for the Harrier is second to none, beating any current American, European, Russian or Chinese aircraft. By using the vectored thrust, called VIFF. At the red flag exercises the Harrier has in the past achieved a 75% success rate at low level close in aerial combats with F15's, and if the F15 don’t want to get close in, it has to turn away thus making itself more venerable. Low level close in combat is where you will have to engage the Harrier because it is a mud mover. A favourite tactic is to fly 2 harriers ahead let them get engaged, use VIFF to keep the enemy off them and two follow up Harriers take the air defence fighters out. (Watch you six) Down at low a Harrier will eat almost anything for breakfast; VIFFing will get position every time in a SRAAM/gun fight. The American AF made them stop for safety due to a couple of near collisions.

What today is the primary role of a Harrier? In a word, flexibility. If you want an aircraft to fly out to support a counter-insurgency operation in Africa, it had better be the Harrier - unless you have a 90 000 ton carrier nearby. Likewise if you want to transport aircraft into combat on a container ship- yes the Harrier can turn a container ship into a cheap aircraft carrier. Want to give close support to rapid reaction troops in the Gulf or Afghanistan? Harrier again. If you are a country and want a cost effective aircraft carrier, there is only one way.

It's carrying capacity both in terms of fuel and warload is OK, not great but for the areas it can operate from, i.e. no runway it can get a hell of a lot more into the air than some of the “competitor� aircraft some members have mentioned.

As for comments about speed, at low level where it is ment to be it is very fast, it is designed to take off from near enemy position, fly a short hop and get back, land and do it again, it has no need to be supersonic.

GR7 and AV8-B, Max Speed 660 mph (1,065 kph) at sea level.
SEA HARRIER FA2, Max speed 720 mph (1,160 kph) at 1,000 ft (305m).
It is also operated by Spain, Italy and India although less capable than the British and US military versions.

And for those who like figures:
AV-8B weight 6,336 kg ( 13,939lb)
GR. Mk 7 weight 7,050 kg( 15,510lb)

Basic flight design gross weight for 7g operation 10,410 kg( 22,902lb)

Powerplant Pegasus mk 105 21,750lb st.
Pegasus mk 107 23,800lb st

Look at the numbers. Power equal or greater than the max weight. This NOT a sluggish aircraft.
The Harrier, old yes, coming to the end of its life, yes. As bad as some of you guys seem to think - NO WAY.

walter

In response to VIFFing, I have heard from a USAF pilot that this tactic is highly overrated. He stated that when the harrier initiates this manoveur that it is essentially just a slower moving target and thus an easier gun kill. Anyway, i am sure others see it differently.

Also, concerning the Falkland War air engagements, I have to give 100% of the credit to far superior training of RAF pilots and not the supperior design of the harrier. The Argentine pilots were worthless, simple as that.

Aerodriver

Walter,
In response to.... VIFFing, I have heard from a USAF pilot that this tactic is highly overrated. He stated that when the harrier initiates this manoeuvre that it is essentially just a slower moving target and thus an easier gun kill. Anyway, I am sure others see it differently.

-It depends on how close in the attacking aircraft is, a Harrier pilot would not use the Viffing technique at long rang as it would just be a slow moving target, Viffing slows the Harrier down a great deal and uses up its Kinetic energy so in that since you are right, but in a close in dog fight using guns or SRAAM it is almost full proof if carried out correctly. Yes a conventional pilot can learn to over come the Viffing and he will say it is over rated but usually he has been shot down on the previous 5 or so close in engagement. (Some thing people who say Viffing is over rated fail to mention) I am not saying the Harrier is a great fighter - it is not and is not designed to be, but close in a low level unless you have trained against it, and any potential enemies the Harrier might have will not have trained against Viffing, you’re probably going to be dead.
Quote
Also, concerning the Falkland War air engagements, I have to give 100% of the credit to far superior training of RAF pilots and not the superior design of the harrier. The Argentine pilots were worthless, simple as that.

A good pilot, and yes the British military have some of the best,(the Harrier is still the top choice for UK pilots and only the best are allowed to fly the single seat aircraft) will get the best out of the aircraft he is flying and flies to the aircraft strengths. They were able to fly to the aircrafts strengths and made it a better aircraft than the opposition.24 to Zero kill ratio is not about just pilot skill, not every argentine pilot was THAT bad, infact some of them, the Dagger and Mirage squadrons were considered elite.

walter

hi Aerodriver,

You basically confirm what I stated earlier, namely that superior RAF pilot training lead to the stated kill ratio. It was their training that allowed them to fly to the harriers strength, as you say, and unfortunately, the 'elite' Argentine pilots either 1) did not do the same, meaning they were inferior to RAF pilots, OR 2) did not have effective command and control, radar coverage, other intelligence, or a combination thereof, in which case maybe the Argentine pilots were not as bad as I previuosly stated, but rather they were dead before they even knew what hit them.

Honestly, I do not know which of two scenarios is more accurate, but the Harrier as an aircombat aircraft will never have a 24:0 kill ratio to its credit unless vs. far outdated tech. That is just the truth. And as already stated, the Falkland Wars scenario is attributable to superior RAF pilots, and probably much better C&C, battlefield intel, radar coverage, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I know the Harrier is "special" and in certian areas of the flight envelope, if it can dupe another pilot to get into it, it will outmanoveur and win against its adversary--no doubt about it. But here we are again back to pilot training--does an F-16 pilot know where he can win vs. the Harrier? If so, then he doesn't have to get into the low altitude, slow velocity part of the flght envelope where the Harrier has the advantage. You are surely right, many pilots have kicked themselves in the ass for taking the bait and getting VIFFed, but I imagine one time is enough and then they know better.

Obi Wan Russell

Just one small point, please refrain from referring to Sea Harrier pilots as RAF, the SHAR as it is known is a NAVY aircraft flown by FLEET AIR ARM pilots. Suggesting they work for the second best airforce in the UK is something FAA members find grossly insulting...

Jeff Head

I believe in a steep dive that the Harrier can just break the sound barrier...but it was absoliutely not designed for supersonic flight operations.

As to the F-35, there are three versions. The Airforce Version (F-35A) is standard, normal take-off and landing, the Navy version (F-35C) is for catapult take-off and arrestor-assited landings. But the Marine version (F-35B) is a true VTOL capable aircraft.

DennisDaMenace

Well it wasnt untill several years after the Falklands war was over that it was disclosed by the British that the Argentine Airforce had made several hits on British ships with A-4 skyhawks.They were comming in low at mast level and hitting the british ships with standard Iron bombs. However the A-4's were flying so low the bombs did not have enough time to arm properly. So there were several British ships running around withe live bombs in there belly that the British were then disarming. I have seen some small films clips of the A4s flying over tops of the British ships with harriers chasing after them. If you ask me, the Argentine pilots have steel balls and were top rate.
Problem with the Harrier was if an A-4 got passed, it was hard for the Harrier to catch back up.

DennisDaMenace

This is from Wikapedia:

[During the Falklands Conflict, in spite of being armed with just iron bombs and lacking any electronic or missile self defense, Argentine Air Force Skyhawks sunk HMS Coventry (D118), HMS Antelope (F170) and RFA Sir Galahad (1966) besides producing heavy damage to several others like HMS Glasgow (D88), HMS Argonaut, HMS Broadsword and RFA Sir Tristram.

Argentine Navy A-4Q also played a role in the operating bombing attacks against British ships destroying HMS Ardent (F184).

See Gordon Smith's website for complete reference.

In all, 22 Skyhawks were lost or shot down during the war to a mixture of surface to air missiles such as the Sea Dart and the Sea Harriers guns and missiles.]




OTI have a very old computer with an out dated browser, please exscuse me for the formats of my posts. Things dont work right on the control bars
for me. I am sorry.)

Obi Wan Russell

The bravery of the Argentine pilots was never doubted but their tactics were flawed, as you said they came in too low for their bombs to arm themselves and their success in hitting ships says more about the woeful inadequacies of the British MODs procurement policies in the preceding two decades. No CIWS (other than WW2 era Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm guns on the ships), 1950s vintage radars and most of all the failure to provide shipbourne AEW aircraft to replace the Fairey Gannets withdrawn in 1978. It is also worth remembering that when the skyhawks were intercepted by Sea Harriers they were almost always shot down. AEW in the Falklands would have meant many more succesful interceptions including catching the raiders before they reached their targets. British losses would have been greatly reduced if only the Government had spent the relatively small amount of money on the Sea King AEW variant before the conflict instead of during and after. Prevention is better than cure.

ahho

I was just wondering, though harrier had accidental problem (so does other plane) how come no one use the harrier as a base of design to design a new stovl plane?? Is it because is original design flaw????

Obi Wan Russell

BAe Systems continued with design studies for advanced Harrier variants well into the 90s, including supersonic variants, but the British governments preferred to wait for the Americans to come up with a replacement for the Harrier. Basically it was all down to money and politics.

Kampfwagen

Don't forget the HMS Invincible. Hur-Hur-Hur.

Joking asside, those Agentine pilots were pretty damn impressive, in my opinion. Brave guys too. Had they had better tech, they may have given the British a real run for their money.

I remember hearing about an AV-8 Harrier II that crashed into an Arizona suburb. That incident (or so I have come to understand) is what lead many to question the efectiveness of the Harrier. I hear it's a real buggy aircraft.

Obi Wan Russell

If you want to hear a first hand account of the Harriers performance rather than third hand rumours and speculation I suggest you read "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" by Commander Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward, who commandded 801 Naval Air Squadron flying from HMS Invincible during the campaign. You'll find it quite an eye opener.The Harrier in all its variants can be a handful to fly but the pilots who do so wouldn't swap it for anything else around at the moment. The F-35B will solve the handling problems of the Harrier in vertical flight by using a lot of computing power to stabilise the aircraft, leaving the pilot free to guide the plane gently down to a landing for example. This technology has already been trialled in a two seat Harrier known as the VAAC and works very well. If it were retro fitted to harriers the accident rate would decline considerably but a retrofit is unlikely as the harriers are due to phased out in the next few years as the F-35B becomes available, and also the computers take up a significant volume within the airframe. The F-35B is a larger airframe than the Harrier and has been designed to accomodate the Computers from the start.
When the US Marine Corp introduced the AV-8A into service in 1970 the first squadron had a near spotless record for safety, but then it was made up of qualified test pilots (the best of the best) who reported the aircraft as very stright forward to fly (it was for them) and this lead the USMC to believe no special standard for pilot competence over and above the normal level was required. So they started to post ordinary pilots to Harrier squadrons including helicopter pilots, reasoning they would be better able to cope with the vertical flight regime. They were very good at hovering the Harrier, it was just the flying forward at 500 knots they had trouble with and more than a few drove their planes straight into the side of mountains and othe examples of 'cumulo granite' simply because they didn't have the currency for fast jet ops. This is the USMCs own account of the accident rate in the 70s, and the accident rate since has as much to do with the high utilisation rate of the harrier as anything else. The AV-8B+ has the same radar/attack system as the F-18A/B and performs equally well in combat, but the Hornet cannot operate from LHAs/LHDs, which is why the Harrier is still in service with the USMC.
Most criticism of the harrier tends to come from countries that don't have it or from services that feel threatened by its success, and remember the Harrier is a combat proven aircraft, and thats what it was designed for, making large and expensive holes in the enemies installations and inventory, and shooting down aircraft twice as expensive as it is. A lot of 'experts' have dismissed the harrier from day one and continue to do so, but the best definition of an expert I have ever heard came from John Fozzard, one of the Harriers designers; "Ex is a has-been and spurt is a drip under pressure."

ahho

how much does a harrier cost anyways?? i am asking this because since american is give all other nation a crippled f-35 and wondering how much it is compared to f-35.

Given the new stabilizing tech, would it reduce the landing accident that i heard before??? if it is fixed, wouldn't it be better to use the harrier than move to f-35 stovl

bd popeye

ahho sez
A cripled F-35? You mean downgraded of course. . We will just have to wait and see the real differences between the US variant and the export. The US is never going to give it's technology away.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"