Challenge; more Harriers.

[anon_user]

I'm wondering if there's any way to get Australia in a position to be able to afford or even want a Harrier carrier after the Melbourne is stricken from the rolls. No offense, but you guys had a pretty shitty time with that poor ship. When it wasn't running over a destroyer it was in dock getting fixed so it could go out and run over some more.

Maybe Aussie-Chinese cooperation in the mid-'80s gets each a Naruebet-style Harrier-carrier? It would go along with China as a Harrier maker.

Incidentally, the Swiss considered buying Harriers twice in the 1970s, once when they were looking to buy strike fighters (and ended up having to take Hunters when their preferred option, the Dassault Milan, fell through) and once when they were considering their fighter replacement (and ultimately went with the F-5E Tiger).
Two other potential customers, according to Flight, were South Korea and Zimbabwe.

 

[Riain]

Dan, was it political will that saw the BS100 replaced by twin Speys and a catapult launch? I'll have to have another look, but IIRC that was the way the development went and I assume it was because of technical feasability.

 

[Riain]

Perhaps if development of the P1154 went the same way as the P1127, ie; the RAF version gets developed and put into service and the RN version gets developed from the in service plane. Perhaps the RAF P1154 would be in production before the labour govt cancelled with if they were fucked around by the RN.

 

[Cook]

No offense, but you guys had a pretty shitty time with that poor ship. When it wasn't running over a destroyer it was in dock getting fixed so it could go out and run over some more.

If said destroyer captains and officer-of-the-watches had been doing their jobs they wouldn’t have become road kill.

 

[Cook]

Maybe Aussie-Chinese cooperation in the mid-'80s gets each a Naruebet-style Harrier-carrier? It would go along with China as a Harrier maker.

Interesting idea; China and Australia co-operate to develop a class of ships, the main use for which Australia would have would be to deter China.

 

[Riain]

I found the problem with the P1154/BS100. With all of that hot thrust blasting down into a small footprint the ground erosion and FOD blast problems would have been insurmountable. The plane would have only been able to VTOL from specially prepared sites to remove this problem, which defeats the purpose.

I wonder if this couldn't be mitigated against by the STOVL operations which the OTL Harrier force eventually conducted. Carriers could, and were, stregthened against afterburner blast and in OTL wars forward basing was conducted on Sid Strips in the Falklands and a bare concrete runway in the Saudi desert rather than on grass and dirt.

 

[KillerT]

Regarding the initial through deck cruiser scheme-the thoughts were originally for a good half dozen-bear in mind though that they would have only been up to 14kT whereas the Invincibles are 19KT-in reality 20kT. This would have meant a reduced aircraft capacity.

Now IF in the 1950s the British medium carrier project had developed they would have entered service from mid 60s on. These would have been ideal Harrier carriers (more likely a Sea Jaguar though).

Regarding SHar around 56 were built plus the Indian Navy's 30-not many. Always thought New Zealand would have been an ideal operator of the type, Aussie Navy would have been a certainty had Invincible been sold to them.

 

[RogueBeaver]

How about when Mulroney becomes PM he goes ahead with his planned military modernization (which included SSNs) and we have Canadian Harriers? To replace the 20-year old supply ships and get a replacement for the long-scrapped CVL Bonnie, he purchases 1 or 2 Wasp-class LHDs along with Harriers. Useful for CAS in Afghanistan maybe?

 

[Just Leo]

I found the problem with the P1154/BS100. With all of that hot thrust blasting down into a small footprint the ground erosion and FOD blast problems would have been insurmountable. The plane would have only been able to VTOL from specially prepared sites to remove this problem, which defeats the purpose.

I wonder if this couldn't be mitigated against by the STOVL operations which the OTL Harrier force eventually conducted. Carriers could, and were, stregthened against afterburner blast and in OTL wars forward basing was conducted on Sid Strips in the Falklands and a bare concrete runway in the Saudi desert rather than on grass and dirt.

Whatever basing shortcoming the P.1154 may have, it would share with the F-35B Lightning II. Somebody thinks the shortcomings can be overcome, and the advantages worthwhile.

 

[Riain]

I don't know, the F35 has a big fan and a big jet well spaced apart so may not have the FOD blast of the P1154. What's more the F35 has 40+ years of Harrier and Yak operating experience to look back on plus a long list of failed VTOL projects to illustrate what to avoid. The requirements for the F35 would not be the same as the P1154 as a result of those 40 years.

The P1154 was the opposite, it was assumed that it these VTOL aircraft would operate on very short, mostly unprepared runways. It was for these assumptions that the lift-jet Mirage got a look in, even though we now know that left jets are not a very good way to go.

Technically I think that the simple RAF version could have done what it was supposed to do, and the FOD could have been managed in practice. If the RAF version gets into service then the RN version, with a raised cockpit and radar could be developed from that. Then how would the Falklands have turned out?

 

[Cook]

I don't know, the F35 has ...

Noooo!


You’ve let the F-35 out of the bag, we’ll never hear the end of it now!

 

[Riain]

Only the F35B is relevent in a discussion about Harriers, and even then not very.

 

[Cook]

Only the F35B is relevent in a discussion about Harriers, and even then not very.

But the outside left wheel nut of the F-35B is marginally inferior to the equivalent in the Rafale C, therefore…

 

[Riain]

But only in a tropical environment a week either side of the monsoon rains, the rest of the time the nut on the Eurofighter is superior, except at night.

 

[anon_user]

If Harrier is more successful (and make the market for VTOL larger), maybe Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev try to bring Yak-141 to fruition?

 

[Just Leo]

The F-35B is light years ahead of Rafale and Typhoon and PAK FA and F-22 in STOVL performance. The point is: would it be ahead of the projected performance of a developed P.1154? Both feature cool plumes of air in the front and hot plumes in the back. Operational characteristics must be similar. Only the F-35B uses a gear-driven fan which is dead weight, like separate lift engines, in normal flight.

 

[usertron2020]

But only in a tropical environment a week either side of the monsoon rains, the rest of the time the nut on the Eurofighter is superior, except at night.

Unless the ground crew has been distracted while playing Fizzbin.

 

[Gridley]

Unless the ground crew has been distracted while playing Fizzbin.

They only do that on Tuesdays. Otherwise you can't get a Royal Fizzbin.

 

[Riain]

The F-35B is light years ahead of Rafale and Typhoon and PAK FA and F-22 in STOVL performance. The point is: would it be ahead of the projected performance of a developed P.1154? Both feature cool plumes of air in the front and hot plumes in the back. Operational characteristics must be similar. Only the F-35B uses a gear-driven fan which is dead weight, like separate lift engines, in normal flight.

The P1154 used Plenum Chamber Burning in the front nozzles to develop the full 36,000 of thust, 26,000 being available dry, so the front nozzles were hot as well unlike the Harrier and F35B. The P1154 wieghed 20,000 empty and 40,000 MTOW, so I don't know if it would need PCB for most landings, perhaps it could use slow short landings using a bit of wing lift so PCB wouldn't be needed.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

the french navy could have bought some Harriers - instead of Super Etendards.
As a bonus, we might have kept the old Arromanche carrier slightly longer. Or maybe the Jeanne D'Arc could have housed some jump jets, too !

The French navy buying a British aircraft when there's a French aircraft around (like the Etendard) is about as realistic as the US Navy deciding tomorrow to buy Rafale's instead of more Superhornets/F-35's.

I don't think carriers are the way to go to get more Harriers,

That's correct IMHO. Carriers are just too expensive/unsuited for 9 out of 10 countries.

I think land based airforces need to want them to really get the numbers up.

Problem with this is that the Harrier, although an awesome airplane which has great advantages, also has large drawbacks.

Firstly, it's accident ratio. In some ways it's arguably worse then the F-104 "widowmaker" was. see here:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?searchterm=accident+rate+harrier&page=45

Secondly, the early Harrier wasn't capable of carrying a packet of cigarettes across a footballfield. It wasn't untill the Harrier got improved later on, like with the AV-8B, that it got a halfway decent range and could carry a somewhat decent load.

Thirdly, although getting great results in Air to Air against Argentina, the Harrier isn't exactly a typical fighter. Sure, it's got great manoeuvrability, but it's not that good in intercepting aircraft, something which is most important to potential countries buying aircraft.