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?
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.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.
Are you asking if there are any options out there, or was there potential for their to be?
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.
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.Those photos reinforce the point that the Harriers could perform a mission unique to their design under some pretty crappy conditions.
So the question remains is the best replacement for the Harrier another Harrier?
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.