JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 22, 2013 5:04 pm

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...?
 
Ozair
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 23, 2013 6:21 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 23, 2013 6:55 am

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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Sat May 25, 2013 3:49 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Sat May 25, 2013 4:55 am

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Sat May 25, 2013 11:35 am

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 avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Sat May 25, 2013 5:13 pm

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!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Sun May 26, 2013 6:44 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Sun May 26, 2013 10:19 am

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]
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Sun May 26, 2013 7:10 pm

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Mon May 27, 2013 1:39 am

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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Mon May 27, 2013 3:20 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Mon May 27, 2013 8:14 am

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 avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4102
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Mon May 27, 2013 8:16 am

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)
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Mon May 27, 2013 8:48 pm

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.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Tue May 28, 2013 12:16 am

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.  
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Tue May 28, 2013 4:37 am

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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Tue May 28, 2013 5:23 am

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.
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4604
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Tue May 28, 2013 9:07 am

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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Tue May 28, 2013 8:25 pm

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Tue May 28, 2013 10:01 pm

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.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Tue May 28, 2013 11:11 pm

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.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 1:37 am

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]
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 4:12 am

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/
 
Ozair
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 5:15 am

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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 6:20 am

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.
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 9:26 am

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.
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 9:38 am

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.
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4604
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 9:50 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 11:36 am

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.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 8:20 pm

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]
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 8:33 pm

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.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 8:37 pm

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 8:54 pm

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...
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 9:10 pm

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.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 11:18 pm

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]
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Wed May 29, 2013 11:28 pm

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]
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 2:25 am

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.
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 4:05 am

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 4:52 am

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?
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 6:04 am

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]
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 7:59 am

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]
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 8:29 am

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.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 9:39 am

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 !
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 6:44 pm

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]
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Thu May 30, 2013 9:01 pm

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
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Fri May 31, 2013 12:43 am

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:

 
Ozair
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Fri May 31, 2013 12:48 am

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 avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Fri May 31, 2013 1:32 am

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..      
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Some Harriers May Live On Until 2030 With Upgrades

Fri May 31, 2013 1:44 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy, liquidjam, Scipio and 10 guests