Challenge; more Harriers.

The Harrier was a new concept and it's not surprising that it had a high accident rate. After a while the RAF and USMC figured out what had to be done with training and procedures and the accident rate dropped.

Similarly practice and equipment mitigated against the Harrier's payload/range limitations. The RAF/USMC soon figured out that VTOL is virtually useless and STOVL is the way to go. With only a few hundred feet of takeoff the Harrier's meagre payload/range is boosted. What's more by dispersal and forward based greound loiter ultra long range isn't crippling the way it can be to runway bound aircraft who have to factor in long transit times for both reaction time and fuel load.

While the 1st gen Harriers aren't ideal planes compared to many contempararies the fact of the matter is that hundreds of better planes were destroyed on the ground by the Israelis in 1967 and runways were wrecked by durandals so surviving planes couldn't take off.
 
During the early seventies, Rockwell was developing a vertical take-off fighter called the XFV-12, utilising a system espoused by no less than Hans von Ohain, who by this this time lived in 'Merica. It's cost over-runs and subsequent failure and cancellation was apparently greeted with joy by proper navy admirals who saw a possible threat to a big deck navy. Is it not possible that the RN cancellation of P.1154 was born through similar fears?

The twin-Spey powered 1154 was the suggestion of Rolls-Royce, who were in competition with Bristols and eventually took over the company, along with Pegasus and Olympus. Was their suggested Spey powered 1154 derived from interest in furthuring the project, or killing it? The Spey-powered Phantom didn't further the F-4's performance while increasing cost, to the benefit of R-R. Business is business.

Of course, the RN eventually lost the big decks, and lost their Spey Phantoms and instead of two-seat P.1154, got single-seat Sea Harriers.
 
From what I can tell the P1154RAF was pretty much technically feasable, leaving aside things like the blast induced FOD problems. But the RAF were seemingly happy with Mach 1.7, a single crewmember and simple ground attack avionics. In contrast the P1154RN had 2 crew, a big powerful radar, Mach 2 shock inlets and inboard outrigger wheels and folding wings. All of this crap couldn't be adopted into the P1154, but did of course cost time and money to investigate and design out with the result being a loss of confidence in the entire supersonic VTOL idea and a loss of precious time to get the plane into the air. I think that without the RN version the RAF model could have been flying and perhaps even ordered before Labour came to power and cancelled the project.

The follow-on is, assuming everything else goes more or less to OTL, that the P1154 Harrier is used in the mid 70s as the base on which the Sea Harrier is designed. So the Through Deck Cruisers get a longish range supersonic plane with more room for a fancy radar, and this is what goes to war in the Falklands.
 
The Harrier was a new concept and it's not surprising that it had a high accident rate. After a while the RAF and USMC figured out what had to be done with training and procedures and the accident rate dropped.

Even when it wasn't a new concept anymore, it still had a high accident ratio.
It's accident ratio is going to stay highter then for example a conventional aircraft like the F-16's. Untill the F-35 with it's high level of automation, a STOVL aircraft is likely to have inevitable a higher accident ratio then a conventional aircraft.

Similarly practice and equipment mitigated against the Harrier's payload/range limitations. The RAF/USMC soon figured out that VTOL is virtually useless and STOVL is the way to go. With only a few hundred feet of takeoff the Harrier's meagre payload/range is boosted. What's more by dispersal and forward based greound loiter ultra long range isn't crippling the way it can be to runway bound aircraft who have to factor in long transit times for both reaction time and fuel load.

Err... AFAIK the Harrier never was used offensively or even operationally in VTOL, although I'd gladly be enlightened if otherwise.
The disadvantage mentioned in my previous post of the Harrier with range and payload was assuming STOVL.
Even the AV-8B, which was basically the first Harrier with a decent range/payload is still inferior in both compared to a F-16.

Not to mention a F-16 is quite a bit faster, cheaper and has a rate of climb about 3 times as high.

Don't understand me wrong, the Harrier is an awesome airplane.
It's just - unfortunately though - not suitable to 9 out of 10 nations worldwide.
 
Also, they're about the opposite of stealth. Four of them landed at an airport a mile from me this morning, and I could hear them for several minutes, inside the house, before they were even in visual range. Their IR cross-section isn't much better...
 
Also, they're about the opposite of stealth. Four of them landed at an airport a mile from me this morning, and I could hear them for several minutes, inside the house, before they were even in visual range. Their IR cross-section isn't much better...

And this matters in the '60s and '70s...why? Also, I thought most (almost all) stealth stuff had to do with radar and infrared stealthiness, not acoustic (visual being easy, camouflage it and fly at night).
 
Err... AFAIK the Harrier never was used offensively or even operationally in VTOL, although I'd gladly be enlightened if otherwise.
The disadvantage mentioned in my previous post of the Harrier with range and payload was assuming STOVL.
Even the AV-8B, which was basically the first Harrier with a decent range/payload is still inferior in both compared to a F-16.

Not to mention a F-16 is quite a bit faster, cheaper and has a rate of climb about 3 times as high.

Don't understand me wrong, the Harrier is an awesome airplane.
It's just - unfortunately though - not suitable to 9 out of 10 nations worldwide.

In the 60s, before the experience of operation, it was purchased with VTOL operation in mind.

I don't deny that the F16 is faster, longer ranged etc than the Harrier, but so it should be since it is at least a decade newer. Harriers could have entered service in maybe 1967 so it is only fair to compare it to late 60s aircraft, perhaps the A7A is a fair cop. While the A7A has payload/range advantages over the AV8A/GR1 it is limited to the kind of bases that Israel drilled in 1967.
 
Currently, Harriers are operated by GB, India, Spain and Italy, from decks. In recent news, the RN is talking about pooling naval resources with the French, Ha Ha. Also, the F-35B is to be abandoned in preference to the F-35C. Britain's two future carriers will be fitted with catapults to launch conventional aircraft, rather than STOVL aircraft. Bad news for the community. Twelve pilots have been sent to 'Merica to learn how to fly conventional.
 
Currently, Harriers are operated by GB, India, Spain and Italy, from decks. In recent news, the RN is talking about pooling naval resources with the French, Ha Ha. Also, the F-35B is to be abandoned in preference to the F-35C. Britain's two future carriers will be fitted with catapults to launch conventional aircraft, rather than STOVL aircraft. Bad news for the community. Twelve pilots have been sent to 'Merica to learn how to fly conventional.

Seeing as Italy and Spain are operating AV-8B's and not Harriers strictly speaking, I'm assuming you are using the broad definition of 'Harriers' in your list. In that case you're forgetting the biggest user of Harriers (AV-8B); the USMC.
Additionally the Thai Navy still owns a few exportversions of the AV-8A (the AV-8S), although those apparently are in disuse - just like the Chakri Naruebet - as the Thai Navy is broke.

IMHO the Thai doe win the coolness award; who else has a royal yacht which can operate a handfull of STOVL aircraft? :D

In the 60s, before the experience of operation, it was purchased with VTOL operation in mind.

And? :confused:
That detracts nothing from what I wrote earlier.
Basically the Harrier is designed and used as a STOVL CAS aircraft, something at which it is very good. However well it performed against Argentina and such, it isn't very ideal as a multirole fighter, which is what most countries who can only afford a single jet need mostly.

I don't deny that the F16 is faster, longer ranged etc than the Harrier, but so it should be since it is at least a decade newer. Harriers could have entered service in maybe 1967 so it is only fair to compare it to late 60s aircraft, perhaps the A7A is a fair cop. While the A7A has payload/range advantages over the AV8A/GR1 it is limited to the kind of bases that Israel drilled in 1967.

I was speaking of the AV-8B - as mentioned in my post - which was first in operational service in '85, nearly 5 years or so after the F-16A/B got in service worldwide.
So yes, comparing the performance of the AV-8B to the F-16 is valid.

Currently, Harriers are operated by GB, India, Spain and Italy, from decks. In recent news, the RN is talking about pooling naval resources with the French, Ha Ha. Also, the F-35B is to be abandoned in preference to the F-35C. Britain's two future carriers will be fitted with catapults to launch conventional aircraft, rather than STOVL aircraft. Bad news for the community. Twelve pilots have been sent to 'Merica to learn how to fly conventional.

Pooling a carrier and carrieraircraft isn't likely to happen. Something which the DoD already has confirmed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/02/britain-france-will-not-share-aircraft-carriers
It's AFAIK also still far from a done deal that the RN will ditch the F-35B.
There are a few disadvantages to CATOBAR, as costs for example. Advantage is that the F-35C is somewhat cheaper and more capable. Also a decent AEW aircraft is possible, although the RN possibly doesn't want those.

Sharing transportaircraft however is likely, just like NATO already does.
 
The AV8B is not a new aircraft in 1984, it is a 1961 P1127 with a raised cockpit and big wing, turning it into a bomb truck.
 
The AV8B is not a new aircraft in 1984, it is a 1961 P1127 with a raised cockpit and big wing, turning it into a bomb truck.

Even if that were true, that logic would be just beyond me. :D
There's nothing wrong with comparing contemporary aircraft.

Luckily it isn't true. The AV-8B is already a very extensive redesign when compared with the AV-8A - as a few minutes googling would have shown - let alone that's it hugely different from the 60's Harrier prototype.

Let's see,
- engine producing nearly twice the thrust;
- as mentioned by me earlier, having a decent range and payload;
- BVR capability compared to only WVR (early Harriers didn't even have radar);
- day and night capability;
- all sorts of modern gizmo's;

So what you're saying is basically the same as claiming the 2003 F-16 Block 60 is a 1973 YF-16 turned into a bombtruck.

Anyways, when you're done moving goalposts, can't you just admit you you were speaking out of your behind earlier (and now)?
It's not the end of the world, nobody can be an expert (or a fanboy ;) on the Harrier jumpjet like me) on every terrain, can they?
 
Hugely different?

Jumpjetsall.jpg
 
So what you're saying is basically the same as claiming the 2003 F-16 Block 60 is a 1973 YF-16 turned into a bombtruck.

Yes, with BVR AAMs as well.

I think you and I have different ideas about aircraft development. I see the creeping linear development from P1127 to AV8B+/GR9, although to be fair not may aircraft get their cockpit position changed and an entire new wing as part of their development. Then again not many aircraft take off the entire wings/upper fuselage in one piece as standard procedure at squadron level just to change an engine or do other routine maintenence.
 
What about if the VAAC programme, which looked at solutions to the problem that flying a Harrier requires 3 hands; stick, throttle, nozzle lever was instigated in 1965-70 instead of 1985? If the early models were much easier to fly, would the loss rate go down and interest go up?

http://www.vectorsite.net/avav8_3.html#m5 right down the bottom.
 
Yes, with BVR AAMs as well.
The BVR was already mentioned by me...

If you go to the trouble of posting a thread with a question and somebody makes the effort of answering those (and correcting them), one could assume it's common decency to at least read replies to one's thread before posting yet another post. :)

I think you and I have different ideas about aircraft development. I see the creeping linear development from P1127 to AV8B+/GR9,

That's not what you said earlier.
You said:
Riain said:
The AV8B is not a new aircraft in 1984, it is a 1961 P1127 with a raised cockpit and big wing, turning it into a bomb truck.
So moving goalposts again? :D
I might agree with the linear development from prototype to recent versions.

What about if the VAAC programme, which looked at solutions to the problem that flying a Harrier requires 3 hands; stick, throttle, nozzle lever was instigated in 1965-70 instead of 1985? If the early models were much easier to fly, would the loss rate go down and interest go up?

It's possibly not so much the attrition rate which makes sales difficult, although that might help.
Look at the F-104 for that.

What prohibits the Harrier from selling in larger numbers is that it's firstly a very, very good CAS aircraft instead of a fighter/interceptor.
As a CAS aircraft matters as range, rate of climb etc aren't that important.

In order to sell in larger numbers the Harrier needs to:
- have a larger range;
- be cheaper;
- be more suitable as a fighter/interceptor.
 
Hmmm, particularly the Harrier gets into full production a bit earlier, and Australia buys a handful for Vietnam, thus proving the worth of the concept. Thus, several Commonwealth countries in need of aircraft for close air support duties buy the Harrier, leading to orders for the Harrier from the Australian, Canadian, Brazilian, Indian and South African Air Forces. The Indian and Australian aircraft are delivered in basic trim, but upgraded to FR.51 spec in the late 1970s and early 1980s, while the later Canadian and Brazilian aircraft come with the upgrades. Most are assembled by their respective nations' aircraft builders.

Canada
The Canadian versions, built by Canadair, join the Canadian Forces' F-4 Phantoms (no F-5s in this case ;)) and CF-104s, which are replaced by the CF-18 Hornet starting in 1982. The Canadian aircraft took advantage of an agreement for better engine development between Rolls-Royce and Orenda Engines, which resulted in Canadian Harriers using the Orenda-developed Pegasus 14 engine, which necessitated a slightly-bigger fuselage for the engine, but improved its thrust and its carrying capacity and fighting ability. First deployed to Germany just as the last of the CF-104s go home in 1985, the Harriers stayed in Germany until 1991, when they were redeployed home after joining the fight in Desert Storm. The CF's fighter "trio" - the CF-188 Hornet, CF-144 Phantom and CF-155 Harrier - would serve the CF in its entirety from 1983 until the final retirement of the CF-144 in 2006. The Canadian Harriers were deployed to Italy for service over Bosnia in 1998, and were deployed abroad a third time to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. As of 2010, the Canadian Forces operates 82 CF-155 Harrier jump jets, along with 98 CF-188 Hornets, and a growing number of CF-156 Northern Eagles (OOC: Canadian F-15Es) in the Forces' Air Command.

Australia
The Australian Hornets arrived just in time to see a little service in Vietnam, where they proved to be highly effective. The Royal Australian Air Force proved to be a major believer in the Harrier, including deploying them from aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne starting in 1974. When Melbourne was decommissioned for the final time in 1982, Australia began the task of buying a new carrier, eventually ordering a modified variant of the American Tarawa class amphibious assault ship, which worked rather nicely for Australia's purposes. The RAN and RAAF upgraded their Harriers to the full FR.51 standard starting in 1984, though financial considerations meant that the project was not finally finished until 1991. The new Australian carrier, HMAS Australia, was commissioned in 1986, and serves to this day. Its usual complement includes some 16 Harrier FR.51(A) jump jets. HMAS Australia was deployed to help in Afghanistan, as were Australian F-111 strike aircraft.

India
India first ordered the Harrier in 1973, largely based on Australia's experiences with them in the jungles of Vietnam. India, which has fought multiple wars with Pakistan and had a major counter-insurgency problem in the 1970s and 1980s, pressed their Harrier GR3s into service almost immediately. A number of Sea Harrier FR.51s were purchased for aircraft carrier Viraat, being delivered between 1978 and 1980. First deployed to Sri Lanka in 1987 during Operation Pawan, the Harriers were sent into far more active service after the Indians took a far more active role in Sri Lanka after Rajiv Gandhi's assassination in 1989. India's Harriers were all fitted with the Blue Vixen radar between 1987 and 1991. In the Kargil War, Indian Harrier FR.51s fought successfully, downing six Pakistani Mirage IIIs and F-7 Skybolts, though losing three of their number to Pakistani F-16s. India's Harriers remain in service today, with 166 Harriers serving the Indian Air Force and 52 serving the Indian Navy.

Brazil
One of the last orderers of the Harrier, Brazil ordered the FR.51 Sea Harrier in 1984, after seeing them annihilate the Argentine Air Force during the Falklands Conflict. Brazil's order of 65 was to complement the AMX attack aircraft that first flew in 1984. Brazilian Harriers were almost identical to the Canadian variants, including the Pegasus 14 engines. 52 of Brazil's 65 aircraft were assembled by Embraer, with all delivered between 1985 and 1988. A smaller second order (30 aircraft) was made by Brazil in 2001, in response to the commissioning of aircraft carrier NAeL Sao Paulo, which was the first Brazilian aircraft carrier to carry fighter aircraft. Brazilian pilots originally were not liking the Harrier, but grew to love the aircraft's versaility. Brazil has only lost three Harriers, and as a result Brazil as of 2010 operates 64 Harrier FR.51(BR) and 28 Harrier FA.2(BR) aircraft.

South Africa
Ordered in 1970, South Africa was originally a bigger purchaser of the Harrier than the Australians. The South Africans wanted a close air support fighter first and foremost, and so their version, the Harrier GR.3(SA), was originally not equipped with a radar, but instead had the highly-advanced bombing target equipment from the contemporary Mirage F1AZ. The first GR.3(SA) Harriers were delivered in 1973, and yet again, of the 84 aircraft ordered by the SAAF, 70 were built by Atlas Aerospace. As a Result of South Africa's increasing diplomatic isolation, their Harriers began to be difficult to maintain, promoting Atlas to reverse engineer many of its components, including the Pegasus 6 engine. By 1985, South Africa had the ability to clone the Harrier in most aspects, aside from electronics. South African Harriers by the late 1980s gained most of the highly-sophisticated electronics from its Atlas Cheetah fighter project. The South African fighters saw extensive use in Angola and Namibia, as well as seeing combat in Rhodesia and Mozambique.

As South Africa came out of isolation in the 1990s, the extent of the sophistication of the South African Harriers became very real, with many noting that the radars equipped to the Harrier GR.3(SA) was a highly-sophisticated one, and that the Harriers in SAAF service could (and often did) carry air to air missiles, and stories of SAAF Harriers killing Angolan and Cuban MiG-21s and MiG-23s were quite rampant. The SAAF dropped in size dramatically as apartheid ended, but their Harriers and Cheetahs stayed in service. Being able to get parts again was a big help, though a number of South African harriers had timed out long before the end of apartheid. Despite the retirement of the Cheetah in favor of the Saab Gripen in 2007, the SAAF continues to operate the Harrier, with the 35 aircraft in service carrying the Harrier SA.1 designation.

OOC: How well did I do?
 
Brazil
One of the last orderers of the Harrier, Brazil ordered the FR.51 Sea Harrier in 1984, after seeing them annihilate the Argentine Air Force during the Falklands Conflict. Brazil's order of 65 was to complement the AMX attack aircraft that first flew in 1984. Brazilian Harriers were almost identical to the Canadian variants, including the Pegasus 14 engines. 52 of Brazil's 65 aircraft were assembled by Embraer, with all delivered between 1985 and 1988. A smaller second order (30 aircraft) was made by Brazil in 2001, in response to the commissioning of aircraft carrier NAeL Sao Paulo, which was the first Brazilian aircraft carrier to carry fighter aircraft. Brazilian pilots originally were not liking the Harrier, but grew to love the aircraft's versaility. Brazil has only lost three Harriers, and as a result Brazil as of 2010 operates 64 Harrier FR.51(BR) and 28 Harrier FA.2(BR) aircraft.

So, the Brazilians essentially replace their OTL Skyhawks with Sea Harriers? Maybe the Sao Paulo will be able to handle a larger wing than IOTL? (I mean, it's about 50% larger than the Invincibles the British used) Certainly the Harriers will have an embarrassingly large amount of space, considering that the thing was designed for CATOBAR operations.
 
Top