WI: The AV-8 Harrier is put in service with USN squadrons

viperjock

What if the Harrier jump jet program was not only expanded in USMC aviation but also assigned to USN carrier air wings?

The POD would be that impressed by the performance of RAF and RN Harriers in the Falklands War, the USN decides to adopt the Harrier for use as a light attack aircraft with its air wings. The Marine Corps also increases the number of Harrier squadrons.

On some of the big deck carriers there is a least one AV-8 squadron, either Marine or Navy. Instead of breaking up Marine squadrons into detachments assigned to the MEUs, some Marine attack squadrons deploy as a whole. The new Navy Harrier squadrons could be either converted from some of the existing A-7 squadrons or it can create brand new squadrons.

I was thinking also what if the Navy built a small deck aircraft carrier to accommodate an air wing built around the Harrier. For example in this time line USS kearsarge would be built without a well deck for landing craft but would be built from the keel up as an aircraft carrier. These "light" carriers could be employed where air to air threats are at a minimum such as supporting Task Force Ranger in Somalia and later on dealing with Somali pirates.
 

Zheng He

viperjock said:
How about going adding Cobra gunships or a naval version of Blackhawk gunships to the sea control ships? They the SC ship could serve as a floating SAR base.
Click to expand...

You tailor the air group to a variety of missions, what you are suggesting is essentially the Afloat Forward Staging Base concept of today. A role the SC Ship could fill if needed to.
 

usertron2020

Donor
Assuming no Donna Rice (or others), if Gary Hart wins the presidency, wouldn't this be just the kind of program he would embrace as his own? Like the never built light carrier "CVV Program"?:confused:
 

e of pi

viperjock said:
How about going adding Cobra gunships or a naval version of Blackhawk gunships to the sea control ships? They the SC ship could serve as a floating SAR base.
Click to expand...
The Marines use navalized Cobras off of the LHDs...however, those are for attack. SAR is the responsibility of other rotary-wing aircraft in the air wing.
 

Delta Force

Banned
If you're simply interested in alternative branches using the Harrier, the United States Army is another possible user. It tested the Kestrel and might have been able to acquire them, as the status of VTOL aircraft has never been clarified between the Army and Air Force.
 

Zheng He

Delta Force said:
If you're simply interested in alternative branches using the Harrier, the United States Army is another possible user. It tested the Kestrel and might have been able to acquire them, as the status of VTOL aircraft has never been clarified between the Army and Air Force.
Click to expand...

That's a great way to get the USAF to decide that it just has to have Harriers. Now you've got the USAF as an alternate user.
 

Matt Wiser

The final CVV design was for a repeat of U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67). Smallest was a Midway (CV-41) class ship. The SCS was a favorite of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, the CNO in the early '70s. When he left office, so did active consideration in the Navy for the SCS.
 

Coiler

The USN historically had absolutely no interest in Harriers, whether before or after the Falklands. Why bother with the small-ship expedient when you have supercarriers?
 

Cryhavoc101

Perhaps with the advent of the AV8B Harrier II more of the Airframes are upgraded to the PLUS standard - that is they recieve an APG 65 Radar and the ability to fire AMRAAM, Harpoon and HARM making them a much more useful addition to a CVNs airwing.

Pros: Sortie rates of Harrier II are greater than conventional fixed wing and they can operate in very bad sea states. Superbly manouverable.

Cons: Higher accident rate due to long landing cycle (including a high pilot load) and poorer performance vs other carrier fixed wing.
 

aktarian

Zheng He said:
That's a great way to get the USAF to decide that it just has to have Harriers. Now you've got the USAF as an alternate user.
Click to expand...

How would you go about achieving that? USAF barely stomached A-10 and Harrier would be seen as similar, only less capable

If you want alternate user why not US Army? You'd need an earlier POD that allows them to have fixed wing component when Harrier rolls out and they could adopt them for CAS missions which would be beneath USAF dignitas.

Coiler said:
The USN historically had absolutely no interest in Harriers, whether before or after the Falklands. Why bother with the small-ship expedient when you have supercarriers?
Click to expand...

This. USN has supercarriers capable of taking on larger planes thus negating advantages Harries has. Plus payload, range etc makes it bad alternative to what they operated OTL. Now, it makes sense for USMC to have them because they have different roles for them, but it makes no sense for USN to have them.
 

jahenders

Banned
In this concept USN tries harriers in numbers but concludes that Harriers are considerably less capable than alternatives (F/A-18, etc) that don't come with the baggage of VTOL and they eventually get rid of them.

This might allow the USMC more Harriers and maybe even some support carriers (like Kearsarge mentioned above).

Perhaps this failed USN incorporation (and USMC ownership of more Harriers) provides enough evidence that the services are able to defeat the requirement that the JSF be VTOL. The F-35 program has LOTS of issues, but the USMC-demanded/DOD-validated requirement for VTOL is a source of LOTS of costs and problems and probably dooms the F-35 to being "just OK" in most respects.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd...th-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5
 

Cryhavoc101

jahenders said:
In this concept USN tries harriers in numbers but concludes that Harriers are considerably less capable than alternatives (F/A-18, etc) that don't come with the baggage of VTOL and they eventually get rid of them.

This might allow the USMC more Harriers and maybe even some support carriers (like Kearsarge mentioned above).

Perhaps this failed USN incorporation (and USMC ownership of more Harriers) provides enough evidence that the services are able to defeat the requirement that the JSF be VTOL. The F-35 program has LOTS of issues, but the USMC-demanded/DOD-validated requirement for VTOL is a source of LOTS of costs and problems and probably dooms the F-35 to being "just OK" in most respects.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd...th-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5
Click to expand...


You know when the F35 works soooo many people who claimed it wouldn't are going to be really grumpy.

(Edit: Also he is either only talking about the F35B or think all the F35s have a lift fan - because he keep talking about Chinese versions not carrying the deadweight of a lift fan? Mug)

Just read that article and dismissed it on this one sentence alone

"But the Harrier, so appealing in theory, has been a disaster in practice"

The writer goes on to say that X have crashed blah blah blah

This is a con of the types higher sortie rate - and please note in the Gulf War Harrier also had the highest crash rate - they also it must be noted - flew 3 times as many missions - Airframe for Airframe - than any other type due to their forward 'rough strip' airbasing and ability to be turned around quickly - thus they went through the landing cycle 3 time or more, more often than any other aircraft type.

Thats why the Marines wanted it - and it works

The F35B carries twice as much, twice as far and twice as fast - without the 'clunky' landing cycle of the AV8B Harrier II - which is why the USMC have pushed to make their F35Bs operational now before it was planned to be (even if the cannon doesn't work)

That and the Harrier II fleet is running out of spares :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Zheng He

aktarian said:
How would you go about achieving that? USAF barely stomached A-10 and Harrier would be seen as similar, only less capable

If you want alternate user why not US Army? You'd need an earlier POD that allows them to have fixed wing component when Harrier rolls out and they could adopt them for CAS missions which would be beneath USAF dignitas.



This. USN has supercarriers capable of taking on larger planes thus negating advantages Harries has. Plus payload, range etc makes it bad alternative to what they operated OTL. Now, it makes sense for USMC to have them because they have different roles for them, but it makes no sense for USN to have them.
Click to expand...

My point was that if the Army decides they want some Harriers then the Air Force will quickly decide they should them instead. Of course the USAF will not actually want them and will probably assign them to the Air National Guard but the last thing the USAF wants is for the Army to have fixed wing aircraft of any kind.
 
WILDGEESE

WILDGEESE

For AV-8's/Harriers to be put into USN service you'd need a change in US Navy doctrine in the same way as Escort Carriers where put into service in WWII.

On the one hand do you want US Super-Carriers to act as power projection instruments?

Or do you want US V/STOL ships to act as ASW carriers in protecting the GIUK Gap, thus the Atlantic Sea-Bridge from Soviet incursions in WWIII?

The SCS (Sea Control Ship) was designed as a force multiplier, in other words, 3 to 4 SCS's could be purcased and operated for the same cost as a standard nuclear powered CVN.

It would take a major change of doctrine by the US gov't and navy to do this.

hope this has helped
 

Riain

Banned
The Harrier's biggest advantage as an aircraft is its basing and operational flexibility. However, and it causes me great personal anguish to admit this, as a capable aircraft the Harrier isn't much chop. There are dozens of combat aircraft out there that are faster, more agile, have greater endurance, greater war-load, easier maintenance, easier flying characteristics/lower accident rate and lower operating costs. In addition, if the operators really wanted to, more conventional aircraft can expand their basing to less conventional methods like roads, or small runways with portable arrestor gear and PSP planking to chip away at the basing flexibility edge.

So the question is do the USN have a need for a reasonable performing aircraft that can operate from a large array of bases and in worse sea states than a regular CATOBAR aircraft? Personally I think the S3 Viking killed the SCS concept dead in the USN, so I think the flexibility makes it a niche for the Marines, unfortunately.
 

Matt Wiser

The only way the Navy would adopt the Harrier is if Gary Hart became POTUS and pushed the SCS or a similar ship onto the Navy. Though the big carriers always have many powerful friends on The Hill...If you want Convoy Escort/ASW Hunter-Killer Groups or support for Amphibious Operations, you buy SCS. If you want power projection, you buy CVNs. When Zumwalt left the CNO's office, SCS died when he left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top