AHC Harrier replacement

So allegedly the F - 35 B will replace the Harrier in service with a number of countries. My question is there another aircraft that could replace the Harrier at a much lower price point?
 
So allegedly the F - 35 B will replace the Harrier in service with a number of countries. My question is there another aircraft that could replace the Harrier at a much lower price point?

Are you asking if there are any options out there, or was there potential for their to be?

There's no other STVOL airframe out there, and I don't think anything serious was proposed before the F 35B was decided on. Still think the B is a bad idea though for many of the nations.
 
There's no other STVOL airframe out there, and I don't think anything serious was proposed before the F-35B was decided on.
Well there was the proposed British Aerospace P.1216 that was designed by the former Hawker design team who had created the Harrier. It was meant to be supersonic though and to achieve this was going to use plenum burning chambers, which unfortunately apparently had the slight drawback of often melting the surface it was landing on. I'm not sure if there were ever any plans for a subsonic version but it's a potential option.
 
Well there was the proposed British Aerospace P.1216 that was designed by the former Hawker design team who had created the Harrier. It was meant to be supersonic though and to achieve this was going to use plenum burning chambers, which unfortunately apparently had the slight drawback of often melting the surface it was landing on. I'm not sure if there were ever any plans for a subsonic version but it's a potential option.

Well yeah, but I thought we were talking about the timeframe around the F 35B being selected rather than back in the 80's
 
The only alternatives that exist today are pure STOL muti-role jets like the Saab Gripen (a bargain so long as you don't need a navalized jet and/or VTOL capabilities).
 
Are you asking if there are any options out there, or was there potential for their to be?

Both I suppose, essentially I look at the F - 35 program and see a niche to replace the Harriers used by several Navies throughout the world. I am also firmly of the opinion that a replacement can be sought that is far less complicated and at a lower price.

So I suppose in order to avoid the F - 35 B, we would need to start a replacement program by the mid to late 90's.
 

Driftless

Donor
Dumb question....

Can the F-35B land/take off on grass or dirt, without ingesting the grass, dirt, nearby pigeons, etc. Can the Harrier?

I've only seen the Harrier work from a runway at Oshkosh. It's impressive as all git-out.

Isn't one of the premises for the jet V/STOL's to work from un-improved, impromptu airfields? Or is that an inaccurate idea?
 
Ground erosion is a problem with all V/STOL aircraft.

The F35B has issues with this, it can take off from concrete but has issues with tarmac (it will melt), concrete can be a problem under some circumstances as prolonged or repeated use of the same area of concrete can cause the surface to "scab" and breakup potentially leading to ingestion of debris into the air intakes. There have been problems using these on ships as the high temperature of the exhaust damages the anti-slip surface on the flight decks of carriers/LHA's.

Harrier didn't do a lot of VTOL take offs operationally as they were weight limited, if it's fully loaded it wont get off the ground. In RAF and FAA service they did a short take off roll (60-100 m iirc) but normally did a VTOL landing. RAF trained to operate from short concrete/tarmac roads but would not use loose surfaces due to FOD risks.

As for its stealth qualities, the USN is buying more F18 Growlers to support their F35's whilst the USMC is retaining their EA6Bs and picking up ex-USN examples as the Navy phase theirs out. So much for a Day 1 capability.
 

Driftless

Donor
Ground erosion is a problem with all V/STOL aircraft.

The F35B has issues with this, it can take off from concrete but has issues with tarmac (it will melt), concrete can be a problem under some circumstances as prolonged or repeated use of the same area of concrete can cause the surface to "scab" and breakup potentially leading to ingestion of debris into the air intakes. There have been problems using these on ships as the high temperature of the exhaust damages the anti-slip surface on the flight decks of carriers/LHA's.

Harrier didn't do a lot of VTOL take offs operationally as they were weight limited, if it's fully loaded it wont get off the ground. In RAF and FAA service they did a short take off roll (60-100 m iirc) but normally did a VTOL landing. RAF trained to operate from short concrete/tarmac roads but would not use loose surfaces due to FOD risks.

As for its stealth qualities, the USN is buying more F18 Growlers to support their F35's whilst the USMC is retaining their EA6Bs and picking up ex-USN examples as the Navy phase theirs out. So much for a Day 1 capability.

This is the thing I don't completely get with the F-35. So much importance seems to be attached to it's V/STOL characteristics, but they only seem to really work well in a narrow tolerance range for operating conditions. Good luck finding that set of conditions in real war use.

*edit* I know little enough to ask eye-rolling questions for the knowledgeable. If I'm way off base, please let me know, but it strikes me that this aircraft is being sold more on the "sizzle", than the ""steak"?
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
Just for shits and giggles, and to provide a glimpse of how dodgy the runway can be for Harrier operations.



 

Driftless

Donor
Is the metal in the first photo corrugated roofing? :eek:

If so, you would think that stuff would get sent sailing as soon as an engine lights up.

Do they still use these interlocking steel panels as runways anywhere?
psp-mats-008_AAA3F87C-FE19-EF3E-D42C698EB486C187.jpg
 

Riain

Banned
Form.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-islands/

There is some contradiction in the various sources used for this post on what surface materials were actually used.
Some say there was a quantity of AM2 matting available on the Stronmess and others indicate that the sappers had to scrounge matting material from all over the place, pierced steel planking (PSP), Class 30 trackway, bomb damage repair matting, MEXE Pads and even the materials used for temporary helicopter pads on the many civilian ships were assembled and used instead, again, much of it from the Stromness.
[UPDATE, David Morgan DSC commented on the post that it was PSA 1 (Pre-fabricated Strip, Aluminium)]
Whether it was AM2, PSP, Clas 30 trackway, MEXE Pads, repair matting, PSA 1 or a combination of all of them is an interesting technical point but the fact remains that a 260m runway was established.


The picture below suggest that there was some scrounging going on, if not for the main runway then for the odds and ends.

 

Driftless

Donor
Those photos reinforce the point that the Harriers could perform a mission unique to their design under some pretty crappy conditions.
 
Those photos reinforce the point that the Harriers could perform a mission unique to their design under some pretty crappy conditions.
Which was the point- the RAF were supposed to be using them to provide close air support to BAOR at a time when all the proper airfields were expected to have been nuked by the Soviets. The fact they allowed the Royal Navy to retain a fixed-wing capacity without a proper carrier was a welcome bonus.
 
So the question remains is the best replacement for the Harrier another Harrier?

To assist I would be looking at a replacement for the A - 4 Skyhawk and the Harrier rolled into one and preferably a replacement with an ability to operate from an aircraft carrier.
 
So the question remains is the best replacement for the Harrier another Harrier?

The short version is yes, it is.

A revisit of the P.1216 in the late 80's could potentially see an upgrade to the Harrier, if not a new aircraft by 2010 and extending the service life quite some years meaning we would have a "stealth" aircraft later than everyone else, but it would be after the bugs have been worked out rather than us being among the Nations paying for Boeing's pretty toys while they work the bugs out ready for the DOD.
 
In RAF and FAA service they did a short take off roll (60-100 m iirc) but normally did a VTOL landing. RAF trained to operate from short concrete/tarmac roads but would not use loose surfaces due to FOD risks.

Not routinely perhaps, buuuut :)

img794.jpg


6029563673_9b611e53a3_z.jpg


Hawker+Harrier+GR3.jpg


I'll bet the 233 OCU maintenance section loved the first pic. Nice demonstration of the airflow into the intakes though :)
 
Top