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 offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8972 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, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8806 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, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8800 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, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8373 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, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8360 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, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8310 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, 12722 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8235 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, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 8134 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, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 8096 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, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months ago) and read 7999 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, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7928 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, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7896 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, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7844 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 onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3957 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7843 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, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7684 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, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7614 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, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7578 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, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7567 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, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7533 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, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7415 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, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7392 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, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7359 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 (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7304 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, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7278 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, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7265 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.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7325 times:

You can theorize and fantasize about a conventional carrier being able to operate without restriction in the southern ocean around the Falklands.


Fact is, they didn't, HMS Hermes and Invincible did and in conjunction with the Harrier were incredibly effective, vital in fact to the winning of the war.


That is all the RN had ? So what, they did the job and they did the job that a conventional carrier couldn't, not in those weather conditions and sea states.



Operating in the Mid Atlantic and Norwegian Sea bears no comparison to the southern ocean, it has to be seen to be believed.



To quote Admiral Sir John Woodward Commander of the Falklands Carrier Battle Group:


'Land forces usually claim that they are the only people that can win wars, but without the Sea Harriers, the land forces wouldn't have even been given the chance to win the land battle in 1982'


Brigadier Julian Thompson, commander 3 Commando Brigade Falklands:


'As the Sea Harriers whittled down the enemy, so our admiration for the Fleet Air Arm increased, without them we would not have won'

[Edited 2013-05-28 23:22:08]

[Edited 2013-05-28 23:25:02]


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7304 times:

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

The Harrier has the highest operational cost of any military attack jet in the world.

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

The F-35B actually exceeds the vertical lift capability in almost all cases vs the Harrier. And it does this with a significantly longer range and the ability to refuel in the air.

Quote:
The F-35B pulls far fewer Gs (only 5) than Harrier (8)

In equivalent payload/range config, the F-35B can pull significantly higher sustained and non-sustained turning rates vs the harrier.

Quote:
The F-35B damages decks that Harrier does not damage

Which can be solved in about 30s and with the cost of a hose.

The F-35B really does outclass the harrier in all aspects.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7322 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 25):
You can theorize and fantasize about a conventional carrier being able to operate without restriction in the southern ocean around the Falklands.

The conditions where a USN CVN cannot operate are the situations where no navy can operate.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 25):
Fact is, they didn't, HMS Hermes and Invincible did and in conjunction with the Harrier were incredibly effective, vital in fact to the winning of the war.

That's simply because the RN didn't have a decent carrier.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 25):
That is all the RN had ? So what, they did the job and they did the job that a conventional carrier couldn't, not in those weather conditions and sea states.

Any USN carrier from that era could do the job.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7326 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 25):
You can theorize and fantasize about a conventional carrier being able to operate without restriction in the southern ocean around the Falklands.


Fact is, they didn't, HMS Hermes and Invincible did and in conjunction with the Harrier were incredibly effective, vital in fact to the winning of the war.

And I think this discussion was hampered by regarding different levels of warfare. Surely, Argentines warfare was botched by an inept command structure. But how the enemy organizes his warfighting does not add nor subtract to the achievements of the Harrier. They were superb in the Falkland's war.

IMHO the question if the Harriers were decisive in the Falkland's war is moot. The only valid question is how they did the job assigned to them.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7303 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 26):
Which can be solved in about 30s and with the cost of a hose.

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 maintenance on the decks of ships.

Quoting spink (Reply 27):
The conditions where a USN CVN cannot operate are the situations where no navy can operate.

Indeed. The following are a set of pictures that were shared from a ~5000 ton frigate operating in a task force during a mid-ocean storm in the mid-Atlantic:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/kubla69/DSCF0432.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/kubla69/4E6A0310.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/kubla69/4E6A0425.jpg

The story being told about these pictures is that the ships apparantly dug into a 16m wave, the stern came out of the water and both shafts tripped from over speed. Then the ship did a 39 degree roll and stayed there for a good minute. The sweepdeck was completely under water. Lots of very green sailors onboard those ships that day apparantly, but nothing dangerous.

A USN super carrier will be feeling this type of seas, and air operations will probably be suspended in such conditions because it will be too dangerous to move aircraft around on the deck anyways. They would be busy tying aircraft down to the decks to prevent them from being jostled about prior to entering a storm.

On a smaller carrier, they would also be halting air operations as well because of the extreme danger as well. No one is operating in such conditions, period. Everyone is bunkering down and trying to ride out the storm.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7218 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B pulls far fewer Gs (only 5) than Harrier (8)

You are comparing sustained vs instantaneous G's.

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 beats that by miles. Let's see 4.5 G VS. 8 Gs - which is better?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):

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.

More pure fantasy on your part and more false info. The WASP had a special new heat resistant deck installed before the F-35B landed on it. That's why. Harriers do not need this special deck.

http://defensetech.org/2011/10/25/th...eat-resistant-flight-deck-coating/

PB, why do you keep making stuff up? You disparage anything that is in any way a threat to the F-35 program. You are pushing A.net into the gutter. When people have to go against your total misinformation and made up stories like on the X-47B not having folding wings, to other posts, including here on the Harrier, you convert this site into a sham.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 24):
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?

Oh man, another F-35 obsessed A.netter who refuses to see reality. F-35B max Gs is 4.5 - sustained or instantaneous, there is no difference. Got to be world record low for a fighter. A 767 is pretty close on that metric.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...owers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G

And let me head the coming argument off at the pass fellas. Instantaneous turn rates have nothing to do with G load limitations. There is no such a thing a instantaneous G load limitations that differs from MAX G loads. That's a PB invention. Max, sustained, etc...all the same thing for G load limitations.



[Edited 2013-05-29 13:45:55]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7206 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 26):
The F-35B actually exceeds the vertical lift capability in almost all cases vs the Harrier.

Quote some numbers from verifiable sources please.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7207 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 26):
In equivalent payload/range config, the F-35B can pull significantly higher sustained and non-sustained turning rates vs the harrier.

No it can't. Even if empty, the F-35B is limited to 4.5Gs.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7194 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):

Pure fantasy on your part. 1) There is no difference in instantaneous or sustained Gs, your just making that stuff up again and 2) the Harrier beats that by miles. Let's see 4.5 G VS. 8 Gs - which is better?
http://physics.info/acceleration/
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2...and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/instturn/instturn.htm

Brush up on your physics.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
The WASP had a special new heat resistant deck installed before the F-35B landed on it. That's why. Harriers do not need this special deck.
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=63444

Quote:
Also being tested is a newer non-skid deck surface, Thermion, which is supported by a mechanical bond of ceramic and aluminum that makes the surface more resistant to extreme heat and better endures the wear and tear of flight operations. The Thermion covers landing spot nine on the flight deck, a small area used for vertical landings.

So they only coated landing spot 9 on Wasp for a sea trial... the rest is standard anti-skid.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
Oh man, another F-35 obsessed A.netter who refuses to see reality. F-35B max Gs is 4.5 - sustained or instantaneous, there is no difference. Got to be world record low for a fighter.

Back to high school physics:
http://physics.info/acceleration/

Quote:
Much like velocity, there are two kinds of acceleration: average and instantaneous. Average acceleration is determined over a "long" time interval. The word long in this context means finite — something with a beginning and an end. The velocity at the beginning of this interval is called the initial velocity (v) and the velocity at the end is called the final velocity (v0) [v nought]. Average acceleration is a quantity calculated from measurements.
a = Δv = v − v0
Δt Δt

In contrast, instantaneous acceleration is measured over a "short" time interval. The word short in this context means infinitely small or infinitesimal — having no duration or extent whatsoever. It's a mathematical ideal that can can only be realized as a limit. The limit of a rate as the denominator approaches zero is called a derivative. Instantaneous acceleration is then the limit of average acceleration as the time interval approaches zero — or alternatively, acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/instturn/instturn.htm

Quote:
You can classify turns into (2) categories which are Instantaneous or Sustained.

Instantaneous Turn / Instantaneous Turn Rate - where a plane pulls max G's (near 6 right before blackout) to turn quickly for a short period of time, turn rate varies with speed , usually bested at the corner speed/ corner velocity of a given aircraft. A turn that quickly expels speed and possibly alt, while an instantaneous turn is by definition unsustainable, most times to be no more than a 180 degree turn or change in direction. While usually bested at the corner speed of the given aircraft, this turn can be performed at higher or lower speeds with less benefit.

Sustained Turn / Sustained Turn Rate - where a plane maximizes it’s smallest turn radius, g - load, and speed to acquire the best possible turn rate and continuously sustains the turn for long periods of time, without giving up alt, speed, or degrees of turn.

As the above definitions have defined, the difference between the two is the period of time you're able to maintain the rate of turn. While you can achieve a high instantaneous G-load by pulling back hard on the stick, you will not be able to maintain that high rate of turn for very long because that high G-load will increase drag and slow the aircraft, in return this will reduce the maximum G obtainable. Conversely, a lower G-load produces less drag. Eventually you'll reach a point where thrust will be sufficient to overcome the drag being produced. This will allow you to maintain the current G-load and speed. This is called sustained turn rate.

You need to go back to high school and take high school physics because this would have been explained there...


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7189 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):

Quote some numbers from verifiable sources please.

How about some vertical landing performance? This is from another site:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2...r-note-concerning-f-35b-bring.html

Quote:
Let's take a look at the performance of the highest performing STOVL aircraft the F-35B is replacing: the AV-8B. From the AV-8B's Standard Aircraft Characteristics publication NAVAIR 00-110AV8-4 (1986) (http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf), we first find the important 'weights' for the AV-8B:


The first key weight we'll note is the 'operating weight': 13,086 lbs. Now let's look at the maximum landing weights versus temperature chart for the AV-8B. The 'wet' thrust is assuming the water injection system was not used on takeoff, but on a hot day, we'll see later that this is pretty much a non-factor:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-De7smPg6OS0/UY0ITUx3syI/AAAAAAAACTg/sAMOsXTrWeA/s1600/AV-8B-Landing-Wt-vs-Temperature.jpg

The first thing these two charts tell us is that you aren't going to be vertically landing so much as vertically crash-landing the AV-8B on a 'hot' day unless you are on fumes with NO payload. Even then it is going to be 'sporty' to say the least:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dg01H7sOI2U/UY0KvuqZRUI/AAAAAAAACT0/doOuzQxm6dg/s1600/Fumes.jpg

But the really wild thing here is if you are operating off a deck afloat in the 'tropics' you had to do a rolling takeoff, using about 90% of the available flight deck, and you were only able to do it if you had 40 knots of wind over the deck. With less deck or wind you weren't leaving with what you wanted to take with you in the first place. You'd have to leave fuel behind and 'tank up' en route.

From this last graphic, we can see chances are that on a heavy-hot-high mission, the AV-8B probably used its water injection system just taking off.

We can also infer that the current rolling takeoff spec for the F-35B of "600 foot" allows growth for much higher takeoff weights. This should make development of the "Ship-borne Rolling Vertical Landings" (SRVLs) an irresistibly attractive option for the USMC: If you can takeoff with 'more' you want to be able to land with 'more'. I suspect that the USMC will probably be on board with the concept before the Brits even begin operations. Pursuit of an SRVL recovery method is clearly more about eventually fielding MORE capability than currently planned and NOT about preserving current projected capabilities.

The whole idea of vertical 'bring back' weight is mostly about meeting a 'cost' objective by lowering operating costs incurred by jettisoning stores and is NOT and never has been an 'operational' problem. The weights under what conditions were selected almost certainly on a cost/benefit basis. I would assume either the number of days in a F-35B's operating life where temperature and humidity would conspire to affect the normal 'bring back' weights as negligible or the cost to allow for them exorbitant. Otherwise, the requirement would have been factored into the specs in the first place.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7155 times:

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 the Harrier and the F-35. You are infusing misinformation here, by conflating turn rates with G load restrictions. One thing is true, the Harrier has a far tighter turn radius at equal speeds due to the G load limit differences.

If you can find any credible source that says the Harrier or the F-35 have different max G load restrictions depending on duration of the G load, then I'll apologize. However, you will not find it, because it's bunk. You should just fess up to the truth.

The gibberish from your sources can be seen here:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
In contrast, instantaneous acceleration is measured over a "short" time interval. The word short in this context means infinitely small or infinitesimal — having no duration or extent whatsoever.

1. If there is a short duration, then these is a duration. A "no duration load period" is impossible - amateurs at work.
2. Even if it were possible, which it isn't, no flight input can cause a G load spike of "infinitely small" duration. Nonsense.
The max G load is is the max G load period. There is no literature from a credible source that says there are exceptions to the 4.5 G load limit for the F-35B under any circumstances or for any period of time. Period.

[Edited 2013-05-29 16:24:47]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7138 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The F-35B pulls far fewer Gs (only 5) than Harrier (8)

You are comparing sustained vs instantaneous G's.

Where did you get this information from for

1) the Harrier
2) the F-35B?

Totally false.

[Edited 2013-05-29 16:29:51]

User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7095 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
No it can't. Even if empty, the F-35B is limited to 4.5Gs.

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 configuration. The given configuration is generally 4 AA missiles or 2 AA missiles plus 2 bomb plus either 50% or 60% internal fuel volume. The instantaneous G or energy dump G capabilities for the F-35 remain at 9G which is pilot limited.

One thing to realize is that the standard parameters for sustained G are actually pretty negative for both the F-35 and F-22 due to their much higher internal fuel capabilities which results in them carrying a significantly higher overall weight with the standard parameters for sustained G. Given equivalent absolute fuel load they do significantly better, and moving to equivalent range make them do even better.

The other thing to realize is that sustained G turn performance is much less important than it once was due to the rarity of gun engagements and the increased capability of high off bore-sight missiles reducing the turn rate advantage. AKA the whole historical reasons behind sustained G/turn performance were for maintaining/getting into/out of guns alignment and recently non-high off bore-sight missile target acquisition.

For all these reasons the sustained turn G performance of the F-35 is much less important:
A) at equivalent fuel load or range, the sustained G performance for older planes is much much worse than spec.
B) sustained G performance only matters for guns and non-high off bore-sight missiles which largely doesn't apply to current BVR or WVR combat.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
Quote some numbers from verifiable sources please.

Vertical thrust vs min operating weight is larger for F35-B. For any given combat radius + weapons, the F35-B requires less weight over min operating weight.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7062 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
Nothing you posted changes max G loads limitation on the Harrier and the F-35. You are infusing misinformation here, by conflating turn rates with G load restrictions. One thing is true, the Harrier has a far tighter turn radius at equal speeds due to the G load limit differences.

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 non-energy bleed sustained turn performance. Of waning significant due to high off bore-sight missiles and general lack of gun use. Varies with weight/configuration of craft.

Max operational structural G load: max operationally approved G-load, not sustainable, will eventually result in stall. Anything beyond 9G is mostly pointless as the pilot generally limited to less than 9Gs. Primarily a spec to increase overall frame lifetime. Varies with weight/configuration of craft.

max structural g load: load at which the plane will likely break apart. Generally not relevant as the pilot will have blacked/whited out. Varies with weight/configuration of craft.



Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
If you can find any credible source that says the Harrier or the F-35 have different max G load restrictions depending on duration of the G load, then I'll apologize. However, you will not find it, because it's bunk. You should just fess up to the truth.

Except you don't know what the numbers you are quoting actually mean. The max structural G load for the F35B is ~10.5G. The Max operational structural load for the F35B is 7.5G.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
1. If there is a short duration, then these is a duration. A "no duration load period" is impossible - amateurs at work

Its sustained vs non-sustained.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
2. Even if it were possible, which it isn't, no flight input can cause a G load spike of "infinitely small" duration. Nonsense.

Happens quite often in high performance jet.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
The max G load is is the max G load period. There is no literature from a credible source that says there are exceptions to the 4.5 G load limit for the F-35B under any circumstances or for any period of time. Period.

Max G load is a meaningless term. It doesn't tell you what is being measured or what is being affected. The F-35B *MAX SUSTAINED G LOAD* is 4.5 This is as previously stated, not an operational G load limit, but a proxy measurement for sustained turn speed.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7054 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
The max G load is is the max G load period. There is no literature from a credible source that says there are exceptions to the 4.5 G load limit for the F-35B under any circumstances or for any period of time. Period.

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 Corps Lt. Col. Matt Taylor, a test pilot at Pax who has been flying the F-35 since July 2010, explained the methodical nature of expanding the flight envelope: “We start at the center of the flight envelope and move out from there.” When the airplanes first arrived at Pax, they were flown at subsonic speeds, medium altitudes, and low g-forces. “This year we are exploring the high-speed, high-altitude, and high-g edges of the envelope.”

Those edges are defined as Mach 1.6, 50,000 feet, and up to 7.0 g’s for conventional flight for the F-35B; and Mach 1.6, 50,000 feet, and 7.5 g’s for the F-35C.


What the article also clearly indicates, which the media and particularly a number of key so called journalists such as Bill Sweetman choose not to report, is that the flight envelope is expanded as the jet moves through development and testing.

Capabilities associated with mission systems are being developed in a series of software blocks. Block 1 covers basic functions of the navigation system, communication systems, and sensors. With Block 1, the aircraft are limited to subsonic airspeeds, an altitude of 40,000 feet, maximum g force of 4.5, and a maximum angle of attack of eighteen degrees. Block 2A, which as of the summer of 2012 was being flown at Pax on BF-5, covers Multifunction Advanced Data Link, the current Link-16, maintenance data link, and a mission debriefing system.

Block 2B, which is the initial warfighting version of the software, adds capabilities associated with air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. It also has the complete set of maintenance functions. With Block 2B, the aircraft can be flown at supersonic speeds (up to Mach 1.2 for B- and C-models); a maximum g force of 5.5 and 7.5 for B- and C-models respectively; and a maximum angle of attack of fifty degrees.


So your reference to 4.5G is correct only in that it references the current restriction the jets are placed under during testing.

Your flight global link talking about the slight reduction in all three jets was due to reduced afterburner use, lowering slightly the specs for the aircraft under the Block 2B flight restrictions and which is being solved. This lowering was exactly what has happened previously, a lowering of a performance metric for a short period of time to allow the SDD phase to continue. It is an incredibly common occurrence during military development programs. Its purpose is to keep development moving in other areas while fixes for identified issues are undertaken. If you didn't, the program would ground to a halt until the specific issue was fixed and the budgetary costs for development would skyrocket.

Do you honestly think the USMC would accept the jet if it was only capable of 4.5G?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7040 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 40):
Do you honestly think the USMC would accept the jet if it was only capable of 4.5G?

Sorry, that's all it will do. I am sure the flight control software will not allow that value to be exceeded.

Quoting spink (Reply 39):
The F-35B *MAX SUSTAINED G LOAD* is 4.5 This is as previously stated, not an operational G load limit, but a proxy measurement for sustained turn speed.

Totally wrong. But believe what you want. You don't have to turn to pull Gs.

Quoting spink (Reply 39):
Its sustained vs non-sustained.

Here's a hint for all of you: Instantaneous refers to the "instant" a certain G load value is reached depending on all the other variables, not the time duration of a G load. You are all confused as to what this term "instantaneous" means as used in this context.

From PB's document:

Instantaneous performance describes the capability of an airplane at a particular flight condition, at an instant in time.

And nobody has given me any source saying what PB claimed that the Harrier 8 G load limit is for short durations only. Total bunk too.

[Edited 2013-05-29 23:07:10]

User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7015 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):

Totally wrong. But believe what you want. You don't have to turn to pull Gs.

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 sustained performance G load, which is a proxy for sustained turn performance and is derived from an Energy Maneuverability data set at a defined set of weight parameters at defined altitude. For reference, the AV8-B number for the same measurement is only 4Gs. This can be derived by anyone from the publicly available Energy Maneuverability charts for the AV8-B.

See when you actually compare comparable variables, the F-35 is more capable than the AV8! Imagine that.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
Here's a hint for all of you: Instantaneous refers to the "instant" a certain G load value is reached depending on all the other variables, not the time duration of a G load. You are all confused as to what this term "instantaneous" means as used in this context.

The only one who needs a hint and apparently cannot take one is yourself. There are multiple G loads used to simply describe airframe performance, you keep confusing Sustained G Load which is a simplified proxy for turn performance, max operational structural G load, and max structural G load.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):

And nobody has given me any source saying what PB claimed that the Harrier 8 G load limit is for short durations only. Total bunk too.

The Harrier 8G load limit is the max structural load limit. The equivalent number for the F-35B is either 7.5G for max operational structural G load or 10.5 for max absolute structural G load.

So in simplified form:
Frame Sustained G - Max Op G - Max Abs G
AV8-B 4G ?? 8G
F-35B 4.5G 7G 10.5G

[Edited 2013-05-30 01:01:06]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7003 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 42):
This can be derived by anyone from the publicly available Energy Maneuverability charts for the AV8-B.

Especially considering I LINKED to the AV-8B's Standard Aircraft Characteristics document:
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf

Also available: The AV-8B NATOPS:
http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-na...s-av-8b-harrier-ii-flight-manuals/

You will also need document A1-AV8BB-NFM-400 for the flight characteristics as well.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6921 posts, RR: 76
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6999 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 5):
Superb design?

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 useless design, and the replacement isn't in service.
And let's not forget the A-7 didn't have a better safety record, and the other amazingly capable 'cheap' aircraft, the A-4, isn't faring any better.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 7):
So yes, for its design category it s unparalleled

In my books, the only aircraft that can match such flexibility from 'pocket carriers' is the A-4 (it wins on cost)... For a little more budget, yeah, Harrier family all the way!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 7):
The incredibly compromised F35 will never come close to either one of these magnificent Aircraft.;

While the Harrier frame is one heck of a frame, the F35, as is likely to be better, but at a totally exorbitant cost that will, for me, keep the Harrier as an attractive option.   

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
this is attested to by Harrier Pilots with previous conventional carrier experience.

I talked to several of them. The conditions were impossible for conventional carriers of non-US Supercarriers size...
What the Harrier did was to enable flight operations from a 'pocketcarrier' in sea states usually reserved for the supercarriers. They doubted that the Ark Royal would have had the same flight operations capability with the F4s and the Bucks in those conditions.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
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.

Excuse me...

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
to active stability control systems now found on many ships.

Would this be available to small conventional carriers of those days?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
The USN's super carriers are able to conduct air operations up to sea state 6, which is already a very large storm already.

Sure, not doubting that one bit. But, how much is one of those supercarriers compared with... HMS Hermes or Illustrious or Invincible?

Big advanced stuff is always nice, but "battlenomics" as I put it, is also a key. The US didn't join the conflict so superior $$ and the equipment it can bring, is moot.

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.

As a Harrier supporter, I disagree with this notion. During the extremes of weather in the war,the Harrier was the only aircraft that could have operated in the conditions with the class of assets (same/similar class of carriers included) that was available at that time.

Pocket carriers that can carry the A-4s wouldn't be able to launch and recover in the extremes of those conditions... the Harriers wouldn't be as capped, even if it were to operate from Veinticinco de Mayo in that war.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
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.

LOL! Yeah! Now, where was that periscope photo of Veinticinco de mayo launching or recovering an A-4 during that conflict before it ran back to shore upon hearing that the UK SSNs were roaming for a hunt kill?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
The Harrier was the ONLY answer and the conflict could not have been won without it.

The UK analysts are split on this behind the scene, but in a twisted way.
What if the UK didn't deploy a carrier in that conflict? Well, it would have been a total disaster and that victory was attainable only with politically unacceptable bloodshed and asset losses.
What if the UK didn't have the Harrier but had the Phantom and Bucks with the Ark Royal? Well, the Ark Royal would have been a prime target, but the attacking aircraft would also suffer bigger casualties. The RN's capability would have been wider in most circumstances. However, the "operating cost" for the war would also be more.
What if the UK had the ArkRoyal with the F4s and Bucks, aswell as Harrier pocket carriers? Simpler answer... a swifter and more convincing victory than what happened (which was totally convincing)... as the non-airops would have had less interruption from Argentinian air attacks.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Excellent aircraft. Excelled in one combat operation over the course of decades. A superb jet loved only by internet fanbois.

And in 50 years time, perhaps the F35B would join that club... the "no budget restrictions fanboys".

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.

Pocket Carriers with Harriers were the perfect answer to the Falklands... Pocket Carriers with conventional capability wouldn't be as convincing (but would be totally effective paired with Harriers). The only other carrier alternative that could deliver the same all-weather operational availability would be the supercarriers... (it is huge and expensive for a reason!)

Quoting Max Q (Reply 19):
Great pic FTurtle and yet another example of the Incredible Harriers flexibility.

I must also caution... the flexibility of the Harrier was great, but it also meant a lot of compromises...
Using it correctly, yes, it's incredible! No Doubt!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
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.

See above...

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):
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.

Rolling Short take off capability of the Harriers anyone?
By the way, how is the F35B's capability on this?

Gimme a huge wallet, I'll get myself a super carrier with all the nice toys on it...
Gimme a realistic wallet of any country in the rest of the world, then I'll pick a pocket carrier with Harriers on it... if that's too much, I'll get A-4s on it. If I can't get them... I'll just scrap the whole idea!   



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6840 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 41):
The only max G load for the F-35B that is 4.5G is Maximum sustained performance G load, which is a proxy for sustained turn performance and is derived from an Energy Maneuverability data set at a defined set of weight parameters at defined altitude. For reference, the AV8-B number for the same measurement is only 4Gs.

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 capabilities of the frames, they are G load limitations imposed on the frame, regardless of duration. PB, nor you nor anyone else has shown any source, that shows that the new 4.5G load limit can be exceeded by the F-35B for short durations, or that the 8G limit for the Harries is only for short durations. Until someone does, it's bunk.

If you go to PDF page 32 of PB/s own document, you see the max G load is never exceeded when determining the other values and Max instantaneous G Loads. I hesitate to use the term instantaneous, because many here think it refers to a time duration, when that is not what it means.

Quoting spink (Reply 41):
There are multiple G loads used to simply describe airframe performance

We are not talking about turn performance here. We are specifically talking about Airframe structural G load limitations. Like I already said and you have ignored, you can pull G loads without turning. This has nothing to do with turning performance, though a lower G load limit will affect turn performance, as would CLmax, etc...

Harrier = 8 G structural load limitation
F-35B = 4.5 G structural load limitation

No matter what the duration is, these are values never to be exceeded by the pilot.

[Edited 2013-05-30 11:46:45]

User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6805 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):

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 capabilities of the frames, they are G load limitations imposed on the frame, regardless of duration. PB, nor you nor anyone else has shown any source, that shows that the new 4.5G load limit can be exceeded by the F-35B for short durations, or that the 8G limit for the Harries is only for short durations. Until someone does, it's bunk.

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 sources, there are abundant sources available all over the internet, and that your wrong is entirely obvious to most everyone. But since you want to play the cite the sources game, I suggest you actually cite an actual source...

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...35-Fast-Facts-November-11-2012.pdf
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/dod/2011f35jsf.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
http://www.examiner.com/article/ride...ng-the-marine-corps-latest-fighter
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...09/F-35-Fast-Facts-Sept-5-2011.pdf
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

And once again:
F35B
Sustained Turn G: 4.5G
Max Operational : 7G
Max absolute: 10G

Harrier
Sustained Turn G: 4G
Max operational: ??
Max absolute: 8G


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 45):
The 4.5G number for the F-35B *IS* a performance number, it is not an operational nor absolute structural g load maximum.

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 tighter turn than one that pulls 4.5Gs. tis is indeed a *turn performance metric*. That is piss poor turn rate performance by anyone's standards. Again only on that point do I stand corrected, not on the others.

Everyone who has argued that "instantaneous max g load" or instantaneous turn rate" means a short time duration, as they have claimed, should also stand corrected, because that's wrong.

If the F-35's max G load is 7 then it's 7 G for an unlimited time. Trouble is, it can't sustain anywhere near that load because it is too underpowered or too draggy. A sham when others can sustain far higher rates and thus turn much tighter.

Quoting spink (Reply 45):

F35B
Sustained Turn G: 4.5G
Max Operational : 7G
Max absolute: 10G

Harrier
Sustained Turn G: 4G
Max absolute: 8G

Where do you get this info from? 1) Max Operational and 2) Max Absolute? Here we go again.....making stuff up. Not even the Lockheed literature claims there two max G load definitions.


This what a 5.5G (4.5G turn is even wider) Vs. a 9G turn looks like:



User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6739 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):

Especially considering I LINKED to the AV-8B's Standard Aircraft Characteristics document:
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/a...b.pdf

Beat you to it by a couple of posts.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 24):

http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
And nobody has given me any source saying what PB claimed that the Harrier 8 G load limit is for short durations only. Total bunk too.

Clearly you chose not to read.......

Quoting Ozair (Reply 24):
The Harrier is 7.5G, http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf page 8.

If you look at page 8 of the document you will see the Harrier structural limit is defined as 7.5G on the lower left hand graphic. If you look at the lower right graphic, the EM plot, it identifies the G structural and load factors of the jet. Of no surprise to most of us, the Harrier cannot pull 7.5G through all of its flight profile as the G load depends upon speed and altitude nor can it pull 7.5G sustained at any point. Looking at the graph, the Harrier sustain turns at approximately 3.5G and M 0.4 and approx 12 deg/sec, which is less than a F-35B from the article you quoted.

If you pull 7G in a Harrier, you lose between -600 and -800 ft/sec which in no way, shape or form is sustained.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3625 posts, RR: 27
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 knock it off. You've stated your position over and over and neither of you is budging.

The thread is about harriers extending their life to 2030.. not about F-35 vs Harrier..      


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6728 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 27):

The conditions where a USN CVN cannot operate are the situations where no navy can operate.

Nonsense and that is exactly my point, the Royal Navy DID operate in conditions that the USN could not have.

Quoting spink (Reply 27):

That's simply because the RN didn't have a decent carrier.

They had a decent enough carrier to win the war.

Quoting spink (Reply 27):

Any USN carrier from that era could do the job.



Except they didn't and couldn't.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6714 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 47):
Looking at the graph, the Harrier sustain turns at approximately 3.5G and M 0.4 and approx 12 deg/sec, which is less than a F-35B from the article you quoted.

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) However, it does say that at about 0.63 MACH and at the 7.5 G structural load limit and at sea level, it can achieve a turn rate of almost 20 degree per second with a turn radius of 2,000 feet. I don't think the F-35 can do anywhere near that.

So again, where do you get the maximum sustained G turn performance data for the Harrier? Quote it, not just link a 100 page document. That's useless and proves nothing. It's not in the chart you pointed out.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 47):
If you pull 7G in a Harrier, you lose between -600 and -800 ft/sec which in no way, shape or form is sustained.

Where do you get that? I see that nowhere in the document you linked. A lot of assumptions I am afraid. It's all in the same category as the X-47B has no folding wings or the Harrier and F-35 having two structural G load limits or that "instantaneous max G load" refers to duration it can sustain them. All made up Nonsense or assumptions. I am done battling a list of assumptions that keeps growing. Believe what you like.

As to the Harrier being good till 2030 - that's beyond question and will supplant the F-35B in many roles - I hope. The F-35B was supposed to replace the Harrier, but that's not happening now. In light of that, I wonder why we need the B version at this stage at all then? For Marine purposes, the Harrier can handle that role well. IMHO.

[Edited 2013-05-30 19:17:34]

[Edited 2013-05-30 19:33:36]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6706 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
If the F-35's max G load is 7 then it's 7 G for an unlimited time.

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 bank of angle. You can achieve a higher turn rate by changing speed, altitude, and weight. That's why sustained turning performance metrics are always prefaced with the the loadout (weapons and fuel state) because if you changed the loadout, you can drastically change the turning performance. For example, a aircraft won't have the same sustained turn rate with full fuel tanks compared to one that's half empty.

Also, store limits will affect the maximum or sustained G-load. For example, a certain aircraft maybe able to make a 8G turn, but if it's carrying a certain store (air to ground weapons are usually the biggest culprit in reducing g-loads), it may limit the aircraft so that it can only achieve 5G's.

I think the argument is truly about turn rates, not G load. We can address this below:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
Trouble is, it can't sustain anywhere near that load because it is too underpowered or too draggy.

Considering that not many fighters can sustain their maximum G load for extended periods, this is a misleading statement. Also Maximum G load =/= maximum turn rate.

I will note that for the F-16C, according to this aircraft performance chart, can sustain a 9G turn at just above Mach 0.8 at roughly 19 degrees per second, with a turn radius just below 3000ft.
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/46_42787_652786df417fac4.gif

If you changed your speed to Mach 0.5, the chart notes that you can achieve the highest rate of turn at 26.2 degrees per second with a turn radius of around 1000ft, but you are only pulling 8G's.

However, if you looked at the top of the chart, it states that the F-16 can only do this with nothing hanging off the aircraft (no weapons, external tanks, etc), and at a gross vehicle weight of 20,000lbs at maximum afterburner. Given that the empty weight of a F-16 is around 18,900lbs for a Block 30, that's not a lot of fuel to work with. So basically, to get a 9G turn with the highest possible rate of turn, you better hope that you have a tanker close by or the airfield is right below you.

The thing is, in order to really compare aircraft performance, you need the aircraft's EM diagrams, and compared like configurations to each other. Even then, most current EM diagrams don't specify a certain loadout, only drag index. For the EM diagrams, it's generally Drag Index 0, 50, 100, 150, etc. In all honesty, as the F-35's flight manuals are still being written as the aircraft is in testing, these are not currently available for anyone to do any proper comparisons.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
Everyone who has argued that "instantaneous max g load" or instantaneous turn rate" means a short time duration, as they have claimed, should also stand corrected, because that's wrong.

The problem is that "instantaneous max g load" or instantaneous turn rate" refers to the peak performance of the aircraft at a particular moment of time. It's been a long time since I took high school physics (and I can barely remember it anyways), but I believe that for most force calculations under Newtonian Physics, time is not a factor in the calculation of force, of which g-load is a force. Basically, g-load calculations are always done at a particular snapshot of time.

Basically from all of this, instantaneous turn performance is the ability of an aircraft to turn at any given point in time. This is a function of the aircraft's speed and altitude. As the term implies, this turn doesn't have to be sustained for more than an instant. Something called maximum instantaneous turn performance is achieved at very high speeds. Altitude is also a factor here since, as you get higher, the density of air is reduced. The reduced amount of air passing over the wings reduces lift capability. This then reduces the turning performance.

Sustained turn performance is the ability of an aircraft to maintain a turn for an extended period of time. Turn performance is measured three ways:
-Load factor, or G's (gravity units) pulled during the turn.
-Turn radius. This is the area it takes to accomplish a complete turn. Turn radius is normally expressed in feet or miles.
-Turn rate. This is how fast the aircraft is changing course during a level turn. This is expressed in degrees of change per second.

The maximum G force an aircraft can handle is set by the manufacturer and normally allows for a significant safety margin. High-G turns can be performed at low and high speeds, but keep in mind that any time you're performing a maximum G turn, all available lift is used just to maintain the current altitude. If you must climb, you'll have to reduce the angle and severity of the turn.

However, the aircraft's maximum-G turning ability is not the most important factor to a fighter pilot. Turn rate and turn radius are more important because they determine the ability of the aircraft to turn inside another plane either to escape or to obtain the necessary lead angle for a shot.

Basically, g-loading is not a very valid measurement of an aircraft's performance.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6701 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
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 tighter turn than one that pulls 4.5Gs. tis is indeed a *turn performance metric*. That is piss poor turn rate performance by anyone's standards. Again only on that point do I stand corrected, not on the others.

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 9Gs and subsequent F-16s have had progressively worse performance.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 50):
1) The graph you indicate does not say what the maximum sustained G turn performance of the Harrier is.

Yes the graph does. The maximum sustained G for a plane on an EM graph is the point on the Ps=0 line at the highest point relative to the G load curves. The is beyond obvious that the Ps=0 line tracks along but does not go above the 4G load line. Therefore the max sustained G for the AV-8B is 4G which as said previously is below that of any version of the F-35.

Quoting kanban (Reply 48):
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 knock it off. You've stated your position over and over and neither of you is budging.

Unfortunately, this isn't about positions, I would of knocked it off ages ago. It is about cold hard facts supported by voluminous data.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
Where do you get this info from? 1) Max Operational and 2) Max Absolute? Here we go again.....making stuff up. Not even the Lockheed literature claims there two max G load definitions.

Max operational is pretty standard and is the standard do not exceed. It is generally what is spec'd for planes. If the plane exceeds the max operational, then the mechanics generally have to do a full teardown to verify the frame is still air worthy. Max absolute is the G load at which this will very likely catastrophically break. It is the never to exceed. There is no margin at the max absolute G load. Both these are pretty standard terms and both are tested, operational via actual flight and absolute via destructive ground testing.

For the 35B the people buying it don't forsee an operational need for greater than 7G so that is what the test program will push it to, even though many of the same structures and components will be tested to 9G operational for the 35A. They have already completed destructive ground testing on the 35A to 13.5G.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6689 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 50):
You are not reading the graph correctly.

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 already stated at the 7G level the Ps line is indicating -600 to -800 ft/sec. This means any turn at this level is instantaneous and not sustained. You cannot sustain a turn if you are losing speed or altitude, that is not what sustained means.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 50):
However, it does say that at about 0.63 MACH and at the 7.5 G structural load limit and at sea level, it can achieve a turn rate of almost 20 degree per second with a turn radius of 2,000 feet.

At where you state the Ps is greater than -800 ft/sec. You are rapidly losing speed/energy to maintain that turn. That is not sustained, it is instantaneous.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 50):
The graph you indicate does not say what the maximum sustained G turn performance of the Harrier is.

It does if you know how to read it.......

So interesting as well that the following link, http://2011.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2011/05/18/36290792.pdf page 9 clearly identifies two different G figures for the JSF, one instantaneous and one sustained........ That is what your flight global article is talking about, a reduction in the sustained G at the values given. To state again, the flight global article has nothing to do with instantaneous G which remains at the values already provided for the F-35B.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6921 posts, RR: 76
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6653 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 48):
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.

Unfortunately that is the sad truth... the topic has descended into mere trolling  



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6652 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 53):
page 9 clearly identifies two different G figures for the JSF, one instantaneous and one sustained
Quoting Ozair (Reply 53):
ht global article has nothing to do with instantaneous G which remains at the values already provided for the F-35B.

"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 duration - or a duration of any length.

Quoting spink (Reply 52):
Max absolute is the G load at which this will very likely catastrophically break.
OK, "Max Absolute" is personal term made up based on you personal definitions. Thanks for clarifying.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 53):
That is not sustained, it is instantaneous.

Often the "max" is left out for brevity. Same as "Sustained G" means "max sustained G". Not just any old sustained G value - the max - even though it's not stated, it's understood it's the MAX.
Sustained G = Max Sustained G
Instantaneous G = Max Instantaneous G

Quoting Ozair (Reply 53):
page 9 clearly identifies two different G figures for the JSF, one instantaneous and one sustained

Instantaneous can be for long periods or short periods or any duration, sustainable or not sustainable. In the case of the F-35 (and most fighters), the max instantaneous G load can not be sustained. That's why they mention it like they do.

I am sure there are some planes where max instantaneous = max sustained. Concorde for instance probably. With the power Concorde had, it should easily have been able to sustain a 3G turn, or whatever it's max structural limit was.

Some planes are the reverse of Concorde in this regard, in that they can never achieve their structural G load limits and their max instantaneous G load is aerodynamically limited, not structurally, which they may or may not be able to sustain.

As far as the Harrier chart is concerned, yes it seems the Ps=0 line says the Harrier can sustain a 7 G turn at Mach 0.4 with zero altitude loss. That is the Ps=0 line folks. Perhaps some looked at the line above it. Easy to misread which line is which.



[Edited 2013-05-30 23:29:02]

User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6639 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
As far as the Harrier chart is concerned, yes it seems the Ps=0 line says the Harrier can sustain a 7 G turn at Mach 0.4 with zero altitude loss. That is the Ps=0 line folks. Perhaps some looked at the line above it. Easy to misread which line is which.

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 going upwards to the left. The only two Ps lines that ever intersect with the 7G line are the Ps = -600 and the Ps = -800. The Ps = -600 line briefly touches the 7G line at approximately mach .8. The Ps = -800 line goes above the 7G line at approx mach .7 and falls below the 7G line at approx mach .88. The Ps = 0 line starts out at approx 12 Deg/Sec at mach .4 at barely above the 3G load line. The Ps=0 line intersects with the 4G load line from approximately Mach .6 to Mach .7. It never goes above the 4G load line.

Any interpretation in contradiction of what I just stated is in fact user error.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6632 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
As far as the Harrier chart is concerned, yes it seems the Ps=0 line says the Harrier can sustain a 7 G turn at Mach 0.4 with zero altitude loss. That is the Ps=0 line folks. Perhaps some looked at the line above it. Easy to misread which line is which.

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:
http://www.airliners.net/uf/95260/php2qrSKT.gif

The Ps=0 line actually never intersects with the 7G line. In order for what you argue to be true, the red line needs to intersect with the green line... which it doesn't.

Where I believe that you think intersects the 7G line is actually the start of the line for 3G at Mach 0.4...so Ozair is correct in how he is reading the EM diagram. In order for the AV-8B to pull 7G's, it is bleeding anywhere from -600 to -800 ft/sec.

For comparison's sake; the F-16C's EM diagram is below (properly uploaded this time)
http://www.airliners.net/uf/95260/1369985947veA9pF.gif


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6602 times:

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 argument and any mere historically accurate document (US gov no less) such as an actual EM chart you might present must be tainted by your chronic case or F35itis. Spink, if you're not careful tommy will have you inducted into the F35 fanboy club with Ozair and PB. If that happens all is lost you wont be allowed present rational argument in the face of tommyland logic.

Its admirable that you continue to stay patient in these exchanges but its an excercise in futility that is getting tiresome when every thread that mention of an F35 is even hinted at degenerates like this one.

Having said that I'm with Max Q on the Harrier in the Falklands. I remember reading in either Roger Ball or in one of Paul Gillcrist's books about a joint USN - RN excercise in the Indian Ocean where the sea state got so bad that the USN had to launch additional tankers to send a gaggle of F-14's and other fighter's etc to shore base because they couldn't recover on the carrier. The Royal Navy recovered all their Harriers in the sqme sea state. From what I've read you can launch on a pitching deck as the cat guy can time it so the cat is fired on an upstroke of the deck. The guy coming into land at 130kts doesn't have that luxury so once the rise and fall of the deck exceeds a few metres then recovery is too dangerous.

The Harrier gave a stellar performance in the Falklands. It exceeded the expectations of everyone bar the Harrier crews. The fact that the Argentinians got their tactics wrong doesn't detract from that. A key tactical victory is getting the enemy to fight on your terms. The Harrier maximised that tactical advantage, a 20 for 0 exchange rate will have completely demoralised the Argentinian pilots further hampering their capability to wage war, that on its own will have shortened the war.

How relevant it will be in 2025- 2030 is another argument. It might be a very expensive platform at that stage


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6589 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 58):
Spink, if you're not careful tommy will have you inducted into the F35 fanboy club with Ozair and PB. If that happens all is lost you wont be allowed present rational argument in the face of tommyland logic.

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 without having invent false facts or distort actual facts. The F35 is an under-performing, over-priced, poorly managed poster child for everything that is wrong with military procurement.

That being said, paradoxically, and relevant to this thread, the F-35B is the one model that is significantly better is every aspect (besides purchase cost) than the model(s) it is replacing. It flies farther, faster, with a larger payload, with better detection/identification/awareness ability, reduced detection liability, and has better commonality/compatibility with existing/future weapons and planes. Basically, anything the AV-8B can do, the F-35B will be able to do better. Which is why the USMC is willing to pretty much sacrifice all its other programs to get it.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6567 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 59):
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 without having invent false facts or distort actual facts. The F35 is an under-performing, over-priced, poorly managed poster child for everything that is wrong with military procurement.

That being said, paradoxically, and relevant to this thread, the F-35B is the one model that is significantly better is every aspect (besides purchase cost) than the model(s) it is replacing. It flies farther, faster, with a larger payload, with better detection/identification/awareness ability, reduced detection liability, and has better commonality/compatibility with existing/future weapons and planes. Basically, anything the AV-8B can do, the F-35B will be able to do better. Which is why the USMC is willing to pretty much sacrifice all its other programs to get it.

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 complex lift arrangement of the F35B in the USMC CAS role. Whatever we say about the Harrier being designed in the 50's, lack of engine power drove a very lean and (relatively!) simple lift arrangement so when more power and a bigger wing came about with the AV-8B you had robust STOVL aircraft with a good workable warload that seems to have fared reasonably well against the small arms fire risk of the CAS role.

There are a lot of moving parts in the F-35B lift arangement, a lot of places for that golden BB to hit home and potentially disable a lift door or such. PB any idea if tests have been done on a controlled descent with one door shut?

To be fair though RN SOP was to not try and recover a Harrier if it had issues with its lift before landing aboard. I'm pretty sure they were to eject near the ship rather than try and land.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6532 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 58):
surely you're not expecting tommy to concede an argument in the face of any factual evidence you might present.

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 wrong. I agree it's more around 4G sustained. Admitting errors is easy for me to do. I am not trying to inject misinformation here on A.net, nor do I claim to know it all. But I skip right over PB's posts now.

I don't make up personal definitions and pass them on as official definitions/numbers/metrics. Likewise I don't invent stories nor debase other planes that threaten the F-35. I do not have an agenda. Nor do I refuse to admit my mistakes. I will even give the F-35 credit where it is due.

Quoting spink (Reply 59):
the F-35B is the one model that is significantly better is every aspect (besides purchase cost) than the model(s) it is replacing.

It's clear to me in this thread that the Harrier is not being replaced, at least not within the next 15 years or so. And while the F-35 *is promised* to do many things better, how many projections/promises been missed by a significant margin by the F-35 program? Haven't many of the F-35 metrics been lowered significantly from what was promised? And the costs - significantly? The F-35 program is a program of broken promises and projections for a decade and counting.

The test with external stores haven't even begun yet in earnest. I'd be surprised if many other metrics aren't lowered as well before everything is said and done. I'd wait to see a real comparison between Harrier and F-35B, once the real capabilities are determined.

I would also like to know what upgrades the Harriers will get 2019. Or will there be no money left to do that?

I am sure the F-35B will be a fine plane, just behind the times when it's finally capable around 2019 and not worth sacrificing other programs over. Resources are more effectively spent elsewhere.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6490 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 59):
Basically, anything the AV-8B can do, the F-35B will be able to do better.

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 lift fan be operated during combat maneuver or will the thrust vectoring nozzles be sufficient.

Sorry, I just skipped over the whole pulling g's argument it the answer lies there.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6484 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 62):
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 lift fan be operated during combat maneuver or will the thrust vectoring nozzles be sufficient.

Sorry, I just skipped over the whole pulling g's argument it the answer lies there.

The answer to that is no.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6444 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 62):

The AV-8 can use all thrust nozzles for combat dog fighting.

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 believe this is also regularly taught to Harrier pilots as well as it is pretty much a last ditch effort.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 62):
Will the F-35B be able to do similar maneuver? Can the lift fan be operated during combat maneuver or will the thrust vectoring nozzles be sufficient.

Nope.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6181 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
However, it is not a recommended tactic because you bleed energy while doing so,

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 is worth the rewards.

I wonder if the Harrier vectoring is sufficient to out turn a missile? If it could, than may be a reward after all.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6174 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
The navy is getting these ships, MLP-AFSB in the next few years:
http://www.sldinfo.com/admiral-buzby...leet/

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 aircraft that quite frankly doesn't justify being replaced, let alone dictating the entire USAF and USN variant to boot. When the Marines went into Skopje to operate over Kosovo in June/July of 1999, their Harriers were told they were not needed and thereby subsequently stood down in Israel for a month while they looked for the installation of a cotter pin on the engines (all East Coast Harrier's were ground during this time if I recall correctly.)

Think about it, the Marines were interested in replacing their F-4's with F-14's just like the USN did, and were even testing the aircraft's A/G ability as early as 1974 I believe. But because the F-14 was going to cost so much, the Marines went cheap on the losing bid to the Air Force Lightweight Fighter contest, LWF. Fast forward 30-40 years and apparently dollar signs don't matter, and now we're all looking at inferior aerodynamic airframes stuffed with high tech goodies and stealthy skin for prices that make the F-22 blush.

It's called insanity and our Nation is ripe full of it now.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6172 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 65):
I wonder if the Harrier vectoring is sufficient to out turn a missile? If it could, than may be a reward after all.

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-turn one for the most part, though it is possible at the longest of ranges when missile energy is mostly expended. Out turning a missile in a pure agility sense would turn a pilot to squishy mush inside of his flight suit. What you are looking to do is put the missile in the most demanding environment you can and use your decoys and EW abilities to lure it away from you.

VIFF (vectoring in forward flight) was theoretically useful in the era of tail-chase only (or tail chase mostly) IR weapons. It would be less effective now would be my guess and there seems to be a lot of debate about just how much it was used in actual combat. I am not sure I would try it against anyone with a helmet cued IR weapon or even worse all-around targeting. The proper defensive move for the other side would be to fire off a weapon at you, turn away from your turn and accelerate to build energy. Even if they miss you they then have a massive energy advantage as you try to build backup to speed from the move.

Basically from what I can tell it was a tactic developed to give the less agile and speedy Harrier something to fall back on if they got into serious ACM with a pure fighter. One the list of things a pilot would want to do in combat I think this would fall fairly low on the list.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6085 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 66):
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.

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.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 43):

Well, to date, it is the only proven SVTOL (and STOVL at latter variants due to the payload increases) design to date... scrap the Forger... it was a useless design, and the replacement isn't in service.

That is my point. The Harrier is the best in class, except its class consists of only two aircraft. I also stand by my comment that the aircraft is not a superb design. It is very difficult to fly, so much so that close to 150 of the 800 or so airframes have been lost to training incidents and it has earned the nickname "widow-maker" for a reason. I have spoken to a number of former British Harrier pilots and while they all loved the capabilities of the aircraft they all freely admitted they were glad they weren't still flying it.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6061 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 68):

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.

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 Strike Group.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 66):
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 MLP's will allow Military Sealift Command ships to offload their vehicles directly onto the shore without a harbour, at a fraction of a cost of what it would cost to build a San Antonio class LPD or a LHD. Not to mention a MSC RO-RO vessel can carry hundreds of armoured vehicles compared to a amphib; for example, a Wasp class LHD only has 22,000 square feet of vehicle space. A San Antonio class LPD has 25,402 square feet vehicle space. Compare that to something like the Army's Bob Hope class Army prepositioning ships; 397,413 square feet of vehicle space. If you can unload a Bob Hope class prepositioning ship directly onto a beach, you can unload hundreds of vehicles to continue a attack on shore. The MLP will do that.

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MLP-Fact-Sheet.pdf

In short, a Marine group can land and secure a beach using existing amphibious assets, and a push can be sustained and supplied through the MLP's even though we haven't secured a harbour to unload the rest of the task force. They can be unloaded on a MLP directly onto a shore. The nearest equivalent in history to doing is perhaps the Mulberry harbours from World War II.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6059 times:

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 required reinforcement of the flight deck to alleviate stresses from the heat of the jet, as well as modifying the flight deck coating to reduce erosion caused by jet exhaust associated with increased thrust.

The changes confirm that Lockheed Martin and the Marine Corps issued erroneous statements in early 2010 regarding the environmental effects of the F-35B’s exhaust. At that time, a company spokesman said that “extensive tests” had shown that “the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”


When will the lying stop? This also confirms that the F-35 has a much larger IR heat signature than the harrier.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 65):
Yes, butt all maneuver requiring tight turns bleed energy.

While no plane can out turn a missile, they can force the missile to expend a lot of energy. Turning at MACH 4 and high Gs takes an extreme amount of energy. The missile that needs to maneuver is one that has less speed and range. The tighter the target plane can turn, the higher it's chances of defeating the inbound missile.

As to the Harrier, it must have a unique IR signature, because it does not expel it's engine gasses from the rear, as other planes do. I wonder if this reduces or increases it's IR signature? I would think this reduces the IR, as the hot gasses are diffused, exiting from 4 different points. Anyone know?


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6043 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
As to the Harrier, it must have a unique IR signature, because it does not expel it's engine gasses from the rear, as other planes do. I wonder if this reduces or increases it's IR signature? I would think this reduces the IR, as the hot gasses are diffused, exiting from 4 different points. Anyone know?

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 tailpipe of a normal fighter, it is a lot bigger.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6044 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
As to the Harrier, it must have a unique IR signature, because it does not expel it's engine gasses from the rear, as other planes do. I wonder if this reduces or increases it's IR signature? I would think this reduces the IR, as the hot gasses are diffused, exiting from 4 different points. Anyone know?

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 nozzles are cooler than the rear nozzles, and the heat from the engine isn't cooled by the bleed air:



If you review the NATOPS for the AV-8B (which is publicly available), on page 80, there is a diagram and cutaway of the entire Pegasus engine. Pages 73 and 74 provide a cutaway of the aircraft itself and the engine installation.

Also note that the engine and exhaust are mounted significantly forward of the aft fuselage, which means that if a heat seeking missile were to detonate near the exhaust, it would do more damage to the airframe compared to a aircraft with exhaust towards the tail.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):

When will the lying stop? This also confirms that the F-35 has a much larger IR heat signature than the harrier.

Careful, this is a Bill Sweetman article.

The whole world knew that the current fleet of USN LHA/LHD would require modification to operate the F-35B. Which, has been discussed at length ad nauseum for several years now. Heck, every aircraft introduced to the carrier required modifications be made to the carrier's prior to introduction. This is nothing new!

I'm not catching what the problem is here. Against the scale of a 40,000 ton ship, none of the modifications mentioned seem to be that big of a deal (easily taken care of during a scheduled refit or overhaul).

Moving antennas and changing the deck coating (which they were planning for anyways) does not constitute a significant change to the CONOPS for the F-35B. The F-35B won't operate in the same way as the Harrier since the F-35B is much heavier than the Harrier, hover profiles & approach vectors are different, etc.

In addition, some of these modifications will also affect the MV-22 as well; there has been heat problems on the deck of the USN amphib's that required temporary quick fixes. For example, the modification to the MV-22 on-deck engine-running procedure for idle running in excess of 10 minutes requires shutting down one engine and either putting a portable heat-shield under the running engine or parking the aircraft with the running engine over the catwalk rather than the deck.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5931 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 71):
So while it may not be as hot as the tailpipe of a normal fighter, it is a lot bigger.

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 viewing from bellow.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):

It makes it worst, because the front two nozzles on a Harrier are bled from the bleed air,

Not sure if the front thruster are effective when flying normally. Anyone know?

When vectoring, you are changing the direction of the exhaust gases completely. How does that affect the signature? You'll need some IR photo's to see. I guess.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5744 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 73):
When vectoring, you are changing the direction of the exhaust gases completely. How does that affect the signature? You'll need some IR photo's to see. I guess.

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 coming out of the front nozzles. Compared to a night vision image of a F-35B landing vertically, you only see the hot exhaust plume emerging from the engine's swiveling exhaust nozzle out of the rear and no sign of the cool lift fan exhaust.

But I think the bottom line is that for viffing, it falls into the same category as the 50° aoa manoeuvre, unless you have really messed up and your adversary is just as bad, you should die before the manoeuvre is complete, especially in the era of all-aspect weapons. The only chance I see it having some success is a one on one fight with guns only. Any other scenario, either the pilot following you will get a missile shot off, or his wingman will nail you.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

The Harrier is just a better Aircraft than the bloated, compromised F35.


Simple as that.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5606 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 74):
The only chance I see it having some success is a one on one fight with guns only. Any other scenario, either the pilot following you will get a missile shot off, or his wingman will nail you.

Would be interested to see simulated combat exercise results with Harriers against other aircrafts (Red Flag for example).


bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 73):

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 thrust or if it is a permanent 50/50 split


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 77):

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 thrust or if it is a permanent 50/50 split

I believe it is a permanent split. Per the description of the engine in the NATOPS:

Quote:
Air drawnthrough two intakes enters the fan. Leaving the fan the air is divided, one flowpassing to an annular plenum chamber from which it is ducted through front, left and right, cold nozzles. The other flow passes through variable inlet guide vanes, through the high pressure compressor (HPC) and a combustion chamber to the high pressure (HP) and lowpressure (LP) turbines. It is then ducted through rear, left and right, hot nozzles. Thermocouples in the turbine exhaust sample gas temperature and supply data to a digital jet pipe temperature (JPT) indicator and to the engine fuel system for JPT limiter (JPTL). The digital signal is fed to the mission computer for engine life count. The engine bay is ventilated by ram air intakes at the forward end of the front nozzle fairings and the wing roots. Air flow is assisted, whenever the engine is running, by flow inducer nozzles supplied by air bleed from the fan; this ensures that the bay is adequately ventilated in slow and hovering flight.

There's also nothing in the engine controls section that indicates that the nozzles can be regulated as well; that's pages 92 to 100 in the NATOPS. In fact, all it states is that:

Quote:
The four nozzles are mechanically interconnected and can be simultaneously rotated by a lever in the cockpit, from fully aft through a 98° arc to a forward braking position to vector the engine thrust. The nozzle mechanism (Figure 2-6) also operates a butterfly valve lever to supply bleed air to the reaction controls. The system is driven by an air motor supplied with air from the HP compressor. The air motor drives a gear box which positions all four nozzles through mechanical linkages. When the nozzles reach the selected position, the control valve is positioned to cut off the air supply so that the nozzles remain in the selected position. Air is supplied to the motor via a short double flexible pipe. If the innerwall fails, pressure to the air motor ismaintained by the outerwall. Indication of this failure is given by an air motor feed pipe leak indicator, which then protrudes about 1/2 inch from the side of the lower left fuselage.


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