Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades  
User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5320 posts, RR: 30
Posted (11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7907 times:

The Navy has decided that it will need the Harriers for until the end of next decade. They have yet do decide on all of the enhancements but will probably be fairly extensive, including new communications, radar and weapons.

This is partly due to the F-35B delays but also because the Harriers are tough...more so than the F-18 A/B/C/D's.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...dying-harrier-enhancements-386224/

Quote:
The USMC originally planned to keep the Harrier in service only until 2015, but in the past few years decided to keep the aircraft in use for far longer. The majority of the Harrier fleet will now remain in operation until 2027.



What the...?
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 790 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7741 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
because the Harriers are tough...more so than the F-18 A/B/C/D's.

Not so much tough as simply newer and less used. The USMC F/A-18s are almost all A models, which finished production in 1987. They also have some D models which have seen extensive active service. Conversely the USMC received AV-8Bs all the way up to 2003 so the Harriers have a lot less air time on them as well as not having the rigour of carrier landings that a majority of the USMC F/A-18 fleet has had.

Add in the ex-British spare parts and the cost of ownership has probably dropped enough to make it worthwhile using them for longer. Plus the marines aren't known for using state of the art kit, they typically keep stuff as long as they can.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7735 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 1):
Add in the ex-British spare parts and the cost of ownership has probably dropped enough to make it worthwhile using them for longer. Plus the marines aren't known for using state of the art kit, they typically keep stuff as long as they can.

Also add in that there is no way F-35B production will be ever be able to replace the current USMC tactical air fleet in a short period of time. The F-35 line will be busy pumping out F-35A's for the USAF and partner nations.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4072 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7308 times:

More than that, it is a testament to the Harriers superb design, ruggedness and unparalleled record in combat.


I doubt the gold plated F35 will even come close.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7294 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
ore than that, it is a testament to the Harriers superb design, ruggedness and unparalleled record in combat.

Not really, considering that the Marines IOC'ed the Harrier II in 1985, and continued to receive Harriers up until 2003. Early production Harriers were re-manufactured to the Harrier II+ standard (which entailed powerplant and structural mods, along with a avionics refit) or were retired from service.

The USMC Hornet fleet is much, much older; many of the Marine's Hornet's are early production jets, built in the early 1980's. To give you an idea, the original Hornet were procured up until Lot 21. Many Hornet's assigned to the Marines are from Lots 0-9, with a few later lots mixed in.

Not to mention that the USMC Hornet fleet are reaching service life limits, which have risen to 9,000 – 10,000 flight hours after a SLEP... and flying that close to service life limits adds increased challenges in serviceability and maintenance.

So it is hardly surprising that the USMC is electing to keep a younger aircraft around longer. Someone will be out of their minds if they suggested that one keep a aircraft built in the 1980's that's been through a very lengthy and demanding service over one that was built in the mid to late 1990's in the long run.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 790 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 months 20 hours ago) and read 7245 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Harriers superb design,

Superb design???? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
unparalleled record in combat.

It worked well for the Brits in the Falklands but unparalleled? Perhaps the F-15 is unparalleled but not the Harrier.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (11 months 15 hours ago) and read 7170 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 1):
Add in the ex-British spare parts and the cost of ownership has probably dropped enough to make it worthwhile using them for longer.

Interesting here the scorn that the US got for selling off the VH-71 cast-offs to Canda and Denmark yet little recognition for the US picking up the British spares on the cheap.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4072 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (11 months 1 hour ago) and read 7069 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4):

Not really, considering that the Marines IOC'ed the Harrier II in 1985, and continued to receive Harriers up until 2003. Early production Harriers were re-manufactured to the Harrier II+ standard (which entailed powerplant and structural mods, along with a avionics refit) or were retired from service.

So what ?

No idea what 'IOC'ed' means.


Fact remains, the Harrier HAS proven itself in combat. In the Falklands it was unbeatable, in incredibly adverse conditions against land based aircraft with far higher 'theoretical' performance.


In every theatre since it has proven itself to be a superb CAS Aircraft.


So yes, for its design category it s unparalleled, comparing the Harrier to an F15 is unrealistic, the two designs are built for entirely different purposes.


Separately, they are superb in their own right.



The incredibly compromised F35 will never come close to either one of these magnificent Aircraft.;



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7031 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 7):
So what ?

It matters because the Harrier's are actually younger aircraft than the Hornet, and have been used in a less rigorous setting. Carrier operations, from the catapult launch to arrested landings is extremely harsh on the service life on the Hornet's.

I will furthermore note that the USMC's intention is to have F-35Cs & F-35Bs replace their F/A-18A/A+/C/Ds in active squadrons first (by 2023-26), and only then replace the AV-8B/B+ (by 2026-30). After that the USMC EA-6Bs and reserve F/A-18s will be replaced (2029).

That is why they bought all the UK's GR.9/9As and all their spare parts;to keep the AV-8Bs flying until ~2026 ish.

Note that this report was issued MARCH 20, 2012 (page 23 of the document)
http://armedservices.house.gov/index...f52357-c5ab-4ae4-8694-ffe3645c4eb9

Quote:
The USN and USMC continue to adjust transition plans as F-35 procurement ramps are flattened. The Marine Corps is taking advantage of higher service life remaining in its AV-8B inventory by sliding them to the end of the transition, thus reducing the demand for F/A-18A-D in the later years. Sustainment and relevancy funding will be imperative to maintain the requisite operational capability throughout the 2020’s.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 7):
No idea what 'IOC'ed' means.

Initial Operating Capability

Quoting Max Q (Reply 7):
In the Falklands it was unbeatable, in incredibly adverse conditions against land based aircraft with far higher 'theoretical' performance.

Many factors are at play in the Falklands War:
1. Pilot training. The average British pilot flying the Harrier was considerably better trained and more experienced than their Argentine counterpart.
2. Fuel and range. The long distances Argentine pilots had to fly, without the benefit of inflight refueling limited what the Argentine pilots could do in a combat zone, as the Argentines had to very closely monitor their fuel state and consumption otherwise they would have risked running out of fuel. The Argentines, in particular had to support their aircraft from home bases and consequently had to deal with the problem of being located 400 miles from the battle area, without the benefit of extensive tanker support. In particular, only the A-4's were capable of being refueled in air, and the Argentines only had 2 KC-130's available for that purpose, which limited availability of in-flight refueling and strike package size. The Mirage III's and Dagger's did not possess a in-flight refueling capability.
3. Better weapons. British Harriers had the latest all-aspect AIM-9L's available. The Argentine Air Force only had older tail chase missiles available, such as the AIM-9B, Shafrir 2's, and Magic 1's.
4. Strategic and tactical objectives. The Argentine Air Force and Fleet Air Arm were primarily focused on anti-shipping missions, and thus concentrated their air planning efforts against aircraft carriers, logistics support ships, ships close to land, enemy aircraft and finally frigates and destroyers. The British concentrated on destroying Argentine aircraft and were armed with the AIM 9L air-to-air missile.

These priorities gave the British the edge as the Argentine aircraft, especially the often used A-4 heavily laden with bombs and fuel, were not configured for an air engagement with Harriers outfitted for such encounters.

Argentine attempts at using their Mirage III's in the escort role were unsuccessful, as the Mirage III were forced into a low level flight regime that was unsuitable for them compared to the Harrier's, which performs the best at lower altitudes. After a couple of engagements, the Argentinian Air Force withdrew their Mirage III's for mainland defence against a possible RAF Vulcan attack.
5. Leadership. Argentine inter-service cooperation was very tenuous, at best. The Air Force and Navy never really cooperated or shared plans and intelligence. This violates a basic rule of warfare, i.e., unity of effort; this then seriously hampered their performance and positive control of tactical air operations was never achieved. The British on the other hand were extremely well coordinated in their control of air operations.
6. Experience. Argentine senior level decision making reflected a lack of experience in wartime matters. British actions caused hasty reactions evidently without a clear understanding of the ramifications, i.e. the pulling of Mirage III's from escort duty to mainland defence. In short, the Argentine military shot their own foot; because they made hasty decisions without thinking through the consequences, they made life for the British much more easier.

In addition, Argentines went into the war without experience. True, the British pilots were also not combat veterans, but their forces had at least historical experience to draw upon.The Argentines, however, had nothing to relate to in the way of national experience. Argentine training reflected this. Their pilots were not prepared for the adversary they were to encounter. Realistically, their training was based on the threat posed by Chile, a country with similar inexperience in air battle and armed with comparable weapons systems.

Consequently, the Argentines were forced to develop tactics from their first experiences against the British. They decided on flying a low profile at fifty feet or less. This forced them to ingress without escort, a weakness the British pilots recognized, and ruthlessly used to their advantage. By flying at such low altitudes all of the way till bomb release, it negated the fuzes on the bombs their aircraft were using because their bombs were not meant to be dropped from such low altitudes. The Argentines knew this but their lack of flexibility caused them to continue this delivery method.

[Edited 2013-05-26 03:28:32]

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4072 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6934 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
r:
1. Pilot training. The average British pilot flying the Harrier was considerably better trained and more experienced than their Argentine counterpart.
2. Fuel and range. The long distances Argentine pilots had to fly, without the benefit of inflight refueling limited what the Argentine pilots could do in a combat zone, as the Argentines had to very closely monitor their fuel state and consumption otherwise they would have risked running out of fuel. The Argentines, in particular had to support their aircraft from home bases and consequently had to deal with the problem of being located 400 miles from the battle area, without the benefit of extensive tanker support. In particular, only the A-4's were capable of being refueled in air, and the Argentines only had 2 KC-130's available for that purpose, which limited availability of in-flight refueling and strike package size. The Mirage III's and Dagger's did not possess a in-flight refueling capability.
3. Better weapons. British Harriers had the latest all-aspect AIM-9L's available. The Argentine Air Force only had older tail chase missiles available, such as the AIM-9B, Shafrir 2's, and Magic 1's.
4. Strategic and tactical objectives. The Argentine Air Force and Fleet Air Arm were primarily focused on anti-shipping missions, and thus concentrated their air planning efforts against aircraft carriers, logistics support ships, ships close to land, enemy aircraft and finally frigates and destroyers. The British concentrated on destroying Argentine aircraft and were armed with the AIM 9L air-to-air missile.

These priorities gave the British the edge as the Argentine aircraft, especially the often used A-4 heavily laden with bombs and fuel, were not configured for an air engagement with Harriers outfitted for such encounters.

Argentine attempts at using their Mirage III's in the escort role were unsuccessful, as the Mirage III were forced into a low level flight regime that was unsuitable for them compared to the Harrier's, which performs the best at lower altitudes. After a couple of engagements, the Argentinian Air Force withdrew their Mirage III's for mainland defence against a possible RAF Vulcan attack.
5. Leadership. Argentine inter-service cooperation was very tenuous, at best. The Air Force and Navy never really cooperated or shared plans and intelligence. This violates a basic rule of warfare, i.e., unity of effort; this then seriously hampered their performance and positive control of tactical air operations was never achieved. The British on the other hand were extremely well coordinated in their control of air operations.
6. Experience. Argentine senior level decision making reflected a lack of experience in wartime matters. British actions caused hasty reactions evidently without a clear understanding of the ramifications, i.e. the pulling of Mirage III's from escort duty to mainland defence. In short, the Argentine military shot their own foot; because they made hasty decisions without thinking through the consequences, they made life for the British much more easier.

In addition, Argentines went into the war without experience. True, the British pilots were also not combat veterans, but their forces had at least historical experience to draw upon.The Argentines, however, had nothing to relate to in the way of national experience. Argentine training reflected this. Their pilots were not prepared for the adversary they were to encounter. Realistically, their training was based on the threat posed by Chile, a country with similar inexperience in air battle and armed with comparable weapons systems.

Consequently, the Argentines were forced to develop tactics from their first experiences against the British. They decided on flying a low profile at fifty feet or less. This forced them to ingress without escort, a weakness the British pilots recognized, and ruthlessly used to their advantage. By flying at such low altitudes all of the way till bomb release, it negated the fuzes on the bombs their aircraft were using because their bombs were not meant to be dropped from such low altitudes. The Argentines knew this but their lack of flexibility caused them to continue this delivery method.

[Edited 2013-05-26 03:28:32]

All of that doesn't alter the fact the Harrier was a superb performer in the Falklands. In fact no other Aircraft could have done the job in the circumstances. There were many occasions that, even if a conventional Carrier had been available it would not have been able to launch and recover Aircraft due to the sea state or the fog that was a constant problem.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6863 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
All of that doesn't alter the fact the Harrier was a superb performer in the Falklands.

It was, but there were other, major factors involved that tells more of the tale of what happened. Basically, Argentinian pilots, when engaged by Harrier's, did not fight back when attacked and focused on continuing to attack shipping. The British in fact later on after the war credited the Argentinian pilots for their bravery and determination. However, much like the Charge of the Light Brigade, the futility of the action and the reckless bravery can be best summed up with a quote from a French general: "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre: c'est de la folie." (It is magnificent, but it is not war; it is madness.) Coupled with better weapons that worked, and better training, the British did a excellent job under the circumstances.

In the end, waging a successful war must be the sum of many things. The attacking force...it's people and equipment. They must be well trained and disciplined, and have the implements necessary to defeat the enemy.

Logistics and maintenance. Your side must provide the properly maintained and best equipment, material, food, etc. to the attacking force in conflict. If you do not, then the attacking force will be handicapped, perhaps substantially, and perhaps fatally.

Leaders and national support. Your leaders must make good decisions, and understand how necessary it is when it comes to military matters, to let the professional military personnel operate freely within broad parameters in the conflict which are identified by the broad national interest...and then this must be communicated to the people in such a way so they will support it...because in the end, it is the families within the nation that supply the soldiers, and the people who work in the factories producing the equipment.

Argentina failed to even meet a number of these areas, and the British capitalized on these weaknesses.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
There were many occasions that, even if a conventional Carrier had been available it would not have been able to launch and recover Aircraft due to the sea state or the fog that was a constant problem.

The British were hampered by the fact that they didn't have a large carrier to operate from. A larger, more powerful carrier with a more capable air wing would have influenced the outcome more towards the British, or had made it a foregone conclusion. If the British, for example, had the Audacious class Ark Royal available with her wing of Phantoms and Buccaneers, the extra capabilities that air wing would have provided would had made a British victory that much more likely.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4072 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6831 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):

The British were hampered by the fact that they didn't have a large carrier to operate from. A larger, more powerful carrier with a more capable air wing would have influenced the outcome more towards the British, or had made it a foregone conclusion. If the British, for example, had the Audacious class Ark Royal available with her wing of Phantoms and Buccaneers, the extra capabilities that air wing would have provided would had made a British victory that much more likely.

On the Contrary, you have it completely wrong, you must not have read what I wrote. If you do a little research you will discover that a conventional carrier simply could not have launched it's Catapult assisted aircraft on many occasions in the very high sea states of the southern ocean close to the Falklands and, similarly would not have been able to recover them in these same conditions.


The Harrier, with it's VSTOL capability was able to launch and recover without restriction, this was a truly unique capability and one the argentinians did not expect or plan on, this is attested to by Harrier Pilots with previous conventional carrier experience. Even in heavy fog the Harriers were able to keep operating, there was one occasion where a returning Harrier faced with a low fuel state and zero-zero fog conditions was able to perform a vertical landing onto the deck by simply descending next to a searchlight pointed vertically upward from the deck.




While you have unlimited enthusiasm for the F35 PB (which I obviously don't share) your disparagement of the Harrier's record and implication it only did well because of Argentinian Pilot shortfalls is inappropriate and incorrect. They had some good Pilots and some very good, supersonic fighters. It was not as easy as you imply.



The RN and RAF Pilots were very good, but so was their Aircraft, simply put, the Falklands war could not have been won without the Harrier.

[Edited 2013-05-26 20:22:19]


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6779 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
On the Contrary, you have it completely wrong, you must not have read what I wrote. If you do a little research you will discover that a conventional carrier simply could not have launched it's Catapult assisted aircraft on many occasions in the very high sea states of the southern ocean close to the Falklands and, similarly would not have been able to recover them in these same conditions.

Disagree; it depends on the ship involved. The Argentine carrier, Veinticinco de Mayo, was not able to launch aircraft because of a combination of a lack of wind, and the limited capabilities of her catapult. In fact, during the Falklands War, the seas were unusually calm that time of year.

Also, carriers are able to conduct precision landings in rough weather using a combination of good seamanship, timing, and some technical assistance from the carrier's systems, from the precision landing radar, to active stability control systems now found on many ships. The larger the carrier, the more capable the carrier is in rough weather because a larger carrier is less affected by the carrier; for example, the French Charles de Gaule is able to conduct air operations in sea states up to factor 5.

The USN's super carriers are able to conduct air operations up to sea state 6, which is already a very large storm already. Mind you, during the trials with Forrestal and a C-130, the sea was extremely rough, and they were able to land the C-130 onboard.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
Even in heavy fog the Harriers were able to keep operating, there was one occasion where a returning Harrier faced with a low fuel state and zero-zero fog conditions was able to perform a vertical landing onto the deck by simply descending next to a searchlight pointed vertically upward from the deck.

Most large carriers these days have automated all-weather precision landing systems; for example, the USN's carriers have systems such as the AN/SPN-43C, AN/SPN-41, and AN/SPN-46:


The British didn't have these systems on their carriers. It won't be until they get their Queen Elizabeth class carriers will the British have anything like these types of systems on their ships.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
While you have unlimited enthusiasm for the F35 PB (which I obviously don't share) your disparagement of the Harrier's record and implication it only did well because of Argentinian Pilot shortfalls is inappropriate and incorrect. They had some good Pilots and some very good, supersonic fighters.

Brave pilots, not good pilots. The level of training the Argentinians had wasn't as good as the RAF or RN. Plus equipment-wise, the Argentines were hampered on occasion by equipment defects, and lack of spare parts. Witness the many dud bombs were dropped on British warships.

The truth of the matter is that the British, like all First World militaries, understood that constant realistic peacetime training of personnel was a necessity while the Argentines thought it was just a matter of buying the right stuff.

In the book, "The Battle for the Falklands", a British officer attempts to explain the "organizational culture" differences between the two militaries which fought. He points out how hard, realistic, and constant British training was while the Argentines had believed it was all a matter of "taking a pill". They'd forgotten the old saw about sweating more in peacetime to bleed less in wartime. The level of training, professionalism and preparedness of the British can best be demonstrated by the overall performance of the British task force and the land campaign.

In summary, I would recommend that you read this paper written a while back which looked at the air operations of the British and Argentines:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/DWF.htm
Very good read on the matter at hand.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The RN and RAF Pilots were very good, but so was their Aircraft, simply put, the Falklands war could not have been won without the Harrier.

It was the best aircraft they had that could be deployed to the region. If the RN had a bigger carrier that was capable of carrying higher performance aircraft, they would have done so. Unfortunately, the Brits scrapped their last CATOBAR carrier, HMS Ark Royal a few years prior to the war.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3884 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6778 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
f you do a little research you will discover that a conventional carrier simply could not have launched it's Catapult assisted aircraft on many occasions in the very high sea states of the southern ocean close to the Falklands and, similarly would not have been able to recover them in these same conditions.

It was a stroke of luck then that they couldn't send the Ark Royal anymore.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4072 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6619 times:

PB, the volume of your answer does not make it more credible.


Fact is the Harrier was the only Aircraft that could have operated in the conditions that existed in the Falklands.


You refer to the argentinians not being able to launch aircraft from their carrier because of lack of wind.


That was on ONE DAY of the conflict, FYI weather does change and the weather down there was atrocious, in the high sea states that existed regularly during the conflict conventional carriers could not have launched and recovered aircraft.


I suggest you read:


'One hundred days'


'Battle for the Falklands'


'Sea harrier over the Falklands'


'Hostile skies'


'RAF Harrier ground attack attack Falklands'


You would then have an idea of the reality facing the British forces with the weather of the southern ocean and the acknowledgement by senior officers and the Harrier Pilots, several of whom had flown off conventional carriers that they could not have operated from them due to those conditions.



The Harrier was the ONLY answer and the conflict could not have been won without it.


I wonder how the F35 would have done..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6549 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
Fact is the Harrier was the only Aircraft that could have operated in the conditions that existed in the Falklands.

Excellent aircraft. Excelled in one combat operation over the course of decades. A superb jet loved only by internet fanbois.  


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6513 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
Fact is the Harrier was the only Aircraft that could have operated in the conditions that existed in the Falklands.

US carrier aircraft can operate in conditions up to sea state 6.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4072 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6502 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Excellent aircraft. Excelled in one combat operation over the course of decades

Not true, it also excelled as a ground attack Aircraft in Gulf War one, two, Afghanistan and the Balkans.


It was and is no 'one trick pony'

Quoting spink (Reply 16):

US carrier aircraft can operate in conditions up to sea state 6.

They often could not have operated in those conditions and this was a unique advantage of the Harrier with it's VSTOL capability.



Fact is, they never have done, it's too risky and not practical. By a happy accident of politics slashing the RN budget, all that was available in this conflict for air support were the converted HMS Hermes and the new Invincible, both equipped for the Harrier and the design provided for enhanced performance with it's 'ski jump'


These 'mini carriers' while being seen as 'inferior' at first turned out to be perfect for the job as the Harriers were able to launch and recover in conditions that, to reiterate would have prohibited operation on a conventional carrier, their unique VSTOL flexibility turned out to be vital.



The Harrier won the Falklands war.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2049 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6468 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):

And weren't there these aircraft carriers of the Not-So-Illustrious-class?




I rather do not believe that one could fly F-35 from these ships.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4072 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6350 times:

Great pic FTurtle and yet another example of the Incredible Harriers flexibility.



I think the F35 would melt the deck, and if it did manage to land it would probably break down anyway !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6327 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):

They often could not have operated in those conditions and this was a unique advantage of the Harrier with it's VSTOL capability.

Funny, considering that USN carriers can operate in the mid-Atlantic, and of course, along the Norwegian Sea, where they were expected to go up against the Soviet Northern Fleet and the Soviet Naval Aviation strike squadrons.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
These 'mini carriers' while being seen as 'inferior' at first turned out to be perfect for the job as the Harriers were able to launch and recover in conditions that, to reiterate would have prohibited operation on a conventional carrier, their unique VSTOL flexibility turned out to be vital.

They were the ONLY carriers available to the British. If the British had the Audacious class HMS Ark Royal available, they would have sent her with her Phantom's.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):

The Harrier won the Falklands war.

The Marine Corps Command and Staff College disagrees with you in this paper:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/DWF.htm

Quote:
The Argentines were hampered by communications problems mostly attributable to a lack of unity among the ruling junta. From the outset, the President, General Galtieri and the Navy Chief, Admiral Anaya were most aligned in the decision to take possession of the Falklands. The Air Force head, Brigadier Basilio Lamidozo, was not privy to the
initial decision to invade. Throughout the conflict, Lamidozo remained the most hesitant member of the triad, ironic position in that his Air Force was so aggressive in fighting the ensuing battle.

The Argentines recognized the necessity to have an overall commander of the forces involved and assigned Admiral Juan Jose Lombardo to the post. But as the war situation deteriorated, his effectiveness lessened. The Army and Air Force began to take exception with the orders issued by a naval officer when the Argentine surface navy had for all intents and purposes taken itself out of the war.

Each air component also had its own coordinating headquarters. The Air Force controlled tactical air operations through the Comando de la Fuerga Aerea Sur (South Air Force Command). The Navy A-4's and Super Etendards were based at Rio Grande under the operational control of the Naval Air Command. No coordination existed between the two controlling agencies. For instance, the Navy launched the initial Exocet attacks without informing the Air Force of their intentions.

The result of jealousy and poor communication between services resulted in no control. The junta acted like a coalition government, with the emphasis on factions and this permeated down to the armed services. The Argentines violated a basic rule of warfare, i.e., unity of effort; this then seriously hampered their performance and positive control of tactical air operations was never achieved. Had there been better coordination, the results might have been reversed.

To the final bit:

Quote:
Certainly good fortune is an ingredient in many victories. In this case, however, the predominant factors were unity, better training, better thinking and better command. It is unlikely that a preponderance of luck on the side of the Argentines could have overcome what they lacked in these areas.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 18):
I rather do not believe that one could fly F-35 from these ships.

The navy is getting these ships, MLP-AFSB in the next few years:
http://www.sldinfo.com/admiral-buzby...s-of-a-usn-usmc-msc-enabled-fleet/
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/MLP-AFB.jpg

Quote:
Admiral Buzby: With the MLP-Afloat Forward Staging Base (MLP-AFSB) or AFSB variant of the ship, you are seeing the versatility built into the ship. The main capability of the ship is its versatility. The AFSB will be the latest incarnation of what one can fit into that 800 feet of empty space that fills a need, fills a requirement without having to go out and purpose build at great expense, and at great length of design, a capability to serve the war fighter.

With the AFSB, you will see a fairly robust aviation capability; a fairly robust boat capability to support a whole host of different missions. I think it’s a very strong, and very positive step forward in this ship’s future.

You could very easily, given the dimensions that we are currently envisioning in the design of AFSB, hanger space, deck space, we’re designing it on the big side for CH-53s and that kind of asset.

But you could conceivably have an ACE aboard that ship, supporting a reinforced MEU or something like that because you could probably carry Cobras on it, UAVs, and could envisage putting some joint strike fighters on there in small numbers if you really needed to, or MV 22s. One could be very creative in mixing the aviation assets on that ship.

The Navy and MSC accepted delivery of the lead ship, USNS Montford Point exactly two weeks ago on May 14 in San Diego.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 19):
I think the F35 would melt the deck, and if it did manage to land it would probably break down anyway !

Considering that the Navy thinks otherwise is a different story.

And the Harrier isn't scot free; read these solicitations:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ef86e3cf317e1812376cc60d0805b6b8&tab=core&_cview=0

Quote:
Incorporation of the improved frame 11-16 (aluminum), with abutment fittings, into the TAV-8B, and incorporation of the improved frame 11 (titanium) into the AV-8B Night Attack and Production Radar aircraft for the AV-8B Harrier.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9388bfb59183b6590b1bba7ec9be5bdd&tab=core&_cview=0

Quote:
The Center Fuel Tank is experiencing cracking in two major areas: 1) Around the Frame 20 and 21 Diaphragms, and 2) At the Frame 19 Bulkhead to the Tank Top Interface. The United Kingdom has developed modifications/repairs for both of these areas per 5ESK and KT589. The AV8 FST is developing Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) CP-AV8B-042, to incorporate both fixes into all USMC T/AV8B aircraft.

These rework efforts are the 'newest' on top of a long list of Depot structural items that have already been added to the 'to fix' list as now 'standard' repairs. The Harrier has had a long history of frame 15 (center fuselage) issues. Of course, the standard job of adding a patch or a doubler to the affected frame might fix the problem at the fix location, but the problem will manifest itself somewhere else in the aircraft, requiring another fix. This sort of stuff is very common in fighters, and it gets worst as the aircraft ages.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6294 times:

You would have to be a complete moron to think a Harrier will do a better job than an F-35B. The B out classes the Harrier in every conceivable aspect, thinking otherwise would be ignorant.

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6239 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
The B out classes the Harrier in every conceivable aspect, thinking otherwise would be ignorant.


The F-35B costs considerably more to own and operate
The F-35B can only lift off vertically with 3,500lbs, Vs. 7,000lbs for Harrier
The F-35B pulls far fewer Gs (only 5) than Harrier (8)
The F-35B damages decks that Harrier does not damage

Yep, better in all these metrics and I am sure many more. Right now the F-35 can't do anything but flying around like driving miss daisy. Nice, but useless.

[Edited 2013-05-28 18:59:50]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6213 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B costs considerably more to own and operate

Yet to be determined.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B can only lift off vertically with 3,500lbs, Vs. 7,000lbs for Harrier

The numbers for the Harrier are totally incorrect; the Harrier has trouble in hot and humid climates, and when it has to land, it has to jettison any heavy ordinance prior to. Also, for the Harrier to carry any reasonable load, it can't take off vertically; it still needs a rolling take off. Operationally, the Harrier is a STOVL aircraft: Short Take Off / Vertical Landing. The take-off run allows it to use the lift generated by its wings. In its absence, it either sacrifices fuel or ordnance.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B pulls far fewer Gs (only 5) than Harrier (8)

You are comparing sustained vs instantaneous G's.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B damages decks that Harrier does not damage

False. The Navy furthermore would never would have allowed the F-35B to conduct ship-based trials on USS Wasp if there was a chance that the aircraft would damage the deck.

Also considering that the Navy is currently looking at replacing the current anti-skid paint on the decks of their ships with a product called Thermion, a aluminum-ceramic thermal spray, which is considerably more durable (it has a design life of 10 years with zero maintenance), and is easier to apply, the heat will not be an issue. During the Wasp ship trials with the F-35B, a small section of Wasp's deck was treated with Thermion instead of the usual anti-skid coating.
https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/2010%20Proceedings%20Documents/Mega%20Rust%202010%20Proceedings/Tuesday/MR2_Lemieux.pdf (pages 15 to 18)
http://defensetech.org/2011/10/25/th...eat-resistant-flight-deck-coating/


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 790 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6200 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B costs considerably more to own and operate

The cost to purchase is moot, you cannot buy a new Harrier today and your cost to operate is incorrect. The UK paid approximately $55000 per flight hour and even your widely over pessimistic figures for the F-35 is nowhere near that, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-25a.365.0


Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B can only lift off vertically with 3,500lbs, Vs. 7,000lbs for Harrier

Suggest you provide a valid source for this because mine, http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf pages 3,4,11 clearly states the AV-8B Harrier is limited to take-off weights, at an average temp of 80F, of 18,500lbs using water injection and 16,500lbs without. Considering the airframe weights in at a minimum of 13,000lbs you're 1,500 pounds short if you use the 90 second water injection and 3,500 pounds short if you don't!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B pulls far fewer Gs (only 5) than Harrier (8)

The F-35B is rated for 7G, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm The Harrier is 7.5G, http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf page 8. Does a 0.5G advantage to a Harrier matter, when the the F-35B can pull 50 AoA and will almost certainly have better sustained and instantaneous turning rates?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B damages decks that Harrier does not damage

The heating has already been found to be a non-issue. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/19/jsf-heat-woes-being-fixed-trautman/

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
Yep, better in all these metrics and I am sure many more.

Well if you read the already linked document, http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf you will see the significant issues the AV-8B has with operating with any kind of meaningful operational payload either vertically or off a deck! The F-35B is designed to improve on all of these.


25 Max Q : You can theorize and fantasize about a conventional carrier being able to operate without restriction in the southern ocean around the Falklands. Fact
26 spink : The Harrier has the highest operational cost of any military attack jet in the world. The F-35B actually exceeds the vertical lift capability in almo
27 spink : The conditions where a USN CVN cannot operate are the situations where no navy can operate. That's simply because the RN didn't have a decent carrier
28 flyingturtle : And I think this discussion was hampered by regarding different levels of warfare. Surely, Argentines warfare was botched by an inept command structu
29 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : Or the Navy could replace their current anti-skid coatings with the Thermion product... not only will it solve any heat issues, it will reduce mainte
30 Post contains links tommytoyz : Pure fantasy on your part. 1) There is no difference in instantaneous or sustained G limits, your just making that stuff up again and 2) the Harrier
31 tommytoyz : Quote some numbers from verifiable sources please.
32 tommytoyz : No it can't. Even if empty, the F-35B is limited to 4.5Gs.
33 Post contains links ThePointblank : http://physics.info/acceleration/ http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2...and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/insttu
34 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : How about some vertical landing performance? This is from another site: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2...r-note-concerning-f-35b-bring.html
35 tommytoyz : PB, You resort now to posts from other amateurs and from amateur sites. Those are not credible. Nothing you posted changes max G loads limitation on t
36 tommytoyz : Where did you get this information from for 1) the Harrier 2) the F-35B? Totally false.[Edited 2013-05-29 16:29:51]
37 spink : That is sustained turn Gs and it is important to note that Sustained Gs is simply a proxy number for turn radius at a given speed at a given configur
38 spink : Considering you do not even understand what numbers you are quoting... There are 3 numbers of significance: Sustain max G load: a proxy number for no
39 Post contains links Ozair : What you say is not true. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=110 clearly indicates that the jet is capable of up to 7G US Marine Cor
40 tommytoyz : Sorry, that's all it will do. I am sure the flight control software will not allow that value to be exceeded. Totally wrong. But believe what you wan
41 spink : Part of the problem is once again you don't understand what is being talked about. The only max G load for the F-35B that is 4.5G is Maximum sustaine
42 Post contains links ThePointblank : Especially considering I LINKED to the AV-8B's Standard Aircraft Characteristics document: http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf Also availabl
43 Post contains images mandala499 : Well, to date, it is the only proven SVTOL (and STOVL at latter variants due to the payload increases) design to date... scap the Forger... it was a
44 tommytoyz : Show me a link to where you get these structural G load limitations for the F-35B and Harrier. These limitations (4.5G and 8G) are not performance ca
45 Post contains links spink : The 4.5G number for the F-35B *IS* a performance number, it is not an operational nor absolute structural g load maximum. We've not only shown source
46 Post contains images tommytoyz : I stand corrected on one point, namely the one mentioned above. That the relaxed DOD standards for the F-35 means it isn't capable of sustaining a ti
47 Ozair : Beat you to it by a couple of posts. Clearly you chose not to read....... If you look at page 8 of the document you will see the Harrier structural l
48 Post contains images kanban : we seem to be in the middle of the continuing disrespectful quibble that has closed too many threads to date. Both parties have lost credibility.. so
49 Max Q : Nonsense and that is exactly my point, the Royal Navy DID operate in conditions that the USN could not have. They had a decent enough carrier to win
50 tommytoyz : You are not reading the graph correctly. 1) The graph you indicate does not say what the maximum sustained G turn performance of the Harrier is. 2) H
51 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : That's the maximum structural load that can be sustained. The 4.5G is the maximum G that can be maintained at a certain altitude, weight, speed, and
52 spink : You do realize that the AV-8B barely sustain a 4G turn, right? Or that the plane with the best sustained max G load was early model F-16s at roughly
53 Post contains links Ozair : Mate, if you actually knew what the graph represented you wouldn't say that. The line that is called Ps indicates where sustained turns can occur. As
54 Post contains images mandala499 : Unfortunately that is the sad truth... the topic has descended into mere trolling
55 tommytoyz : "instantaneous" is not a time duration, as you seem to imply. PB has thoroughly confused many here with the falsehood that it is a short time duratio
56 spink : Just so you know and don't make this mistake again... The vertical axis on the charge is Turn Rate in Deg/Sec. The G load lines are the curving lines
57 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : I've taken the liberty of zooming in for a close up on the diagram in question and highlighting the Ps=0 line in red and the 7G line in green: The Ps
58 spudh : Pointblank, surely you're not expecting tommy to concede an argument in the face of any factual evidence you might present. You're Pointblank, your ar
59 spink : F35 fanboy? Hardly, I think it should of been cancelled long ago. But I think the actual facts of the plane and the program make that argument withou
60 Post contains images spudh : Ahh now Spink, don't be bringing a reasoned, balanced and realistic viewpoint to the table Couldn't agree more. The nagging doubt I have is the compl
61 tommytoyz : You can have your opinions, but I have admitted my errors here on A.net many times. I stand corrected on the reading the Harrier performance chart wr
62 bikerthai : One question on this statement. The AV-8 can use all thrust nozzles for combat dog fighting. Will the F-35B be able to do similar maneuver? Can the l
63 BigJKU : The answer to that is no.
64 ThePointblank : However, it is not a recommended tactic because you bleed energy while doing so, making you a potential sitting duck for someone else. I don't believ
65 bikerthai : Yes, butt all maneuver requiring tight turns bleed energy. ( The Harrier just takes it to an extreme.) It's up to the pilot to determine if the risk
66 AirRyan : So THAT is how the USMC plans to work with the new USS America LHD's with no amphibious well decks; what a GD joke. The AV-8 in the Marines is an air
67 BigJKU : From a pure agility standpoint no. Most missiles are rated at very high turn rates and have all aspect IR seekers anymore. You are not going to out-t
68 Ozair : It's not the end of the world, only the first two America class will be missing the well decks. From LHA-8 onwards they will get it back. That is my
69 Post contains links ThePointblank : A more limited well deck; 2 LCAC's instead of 3. But the current America class LHA's are meant for aviation support and flagship for an Expeditionary
70 Post contains links tommytoyz : http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/asd_05_29_2013_p01-02-582896.xml Additionally, the Navy says, “The unique heat signature of the F-35 has re
71 spink : except in the harrier case, those hot gasses directly blow onto the fuselage making it significantly hotter. So while it may not be as hot as the tai
72 Post contains images ThePointblank : It makes it worst, because the front two nozzles on a Harrier are bled from the bleed air, while the rear is primarily exhaust gas. Thus, the front n
73 bikerthai : Pluses and minuses . . . from above, the exhaust is hidden by the fuselage. Similar to the A-10 where the exhaust is shielded by the tail when viewin
74 ThePointblank : I remember seeing a photo of a Harrier landing using night vision equipment. The rear exhaust were glowing bright in the dark while there was a bit c
75 Max Q : The Harrier is just a better Aircraft than the bloated, compromised F35. Simple as that.
76 bikerthai : Would be interested to see simulated combat exercise results with Harriers against other aircrafts (Red Flag for example). bt
77 spudh : The forward thrusters are always effective, same as a normal high bypass turbofan except they are ducted. I don't know if they can regulate the thrus
78 ThePointblank : I believe it is a permanent split. Per the description of the engine in the NATOPS: There's also nothing in the engine controls section that indicate
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Some Life-Cycle Questions On USN Aircraft posted Sat Apr 25 2009 02:02:07 by Loran
Interesting F-15D ANG CAP Ride Live On Cnn! posted Wed Sep 26 2001 21:45:06 by CX747
C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130 posted Wed Sep 7 2011 11:39:30 by PolymerPlane
Info On C-130s With Eight Blade Props? posted Wed Dec 22 2010 19:14:52 by 747400sp
James May Flies With A U2 posted Sun Aug 1 2010 02:50:20 by Aviopic
Is NG Going To Work With Boeing On KC-X? posted Wed Jul 14 2010 18:32:29 by KC135TopBoom
Space May Be Over Run With WIMPs posted Mon Dec 21 2009 13:29:10 by NoWorries
USN Aircraft Carrier With Island On The Left? posted Sat Aug 1 2009 22:34:31 by Max Q
Potential Performance With Uprated Engines On F18F posted Sat May 23 2009 01:30:32 by Max Q
Live Earth Pix. On Your TV. 24/7 posted Thu Apr 23 2009 19:00:05 by ZANL188

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format