Ubiquitous Harriers.

[Barry Bull]

Of course, no fighter wins a war alone; however the point is that the 'experts' in this case (who I believe it is generally accepted none of whom had actually ever flown a harrier) all said it couldn't do the job and within the system it worked, it did. Interestingly I can also remember ex-harrier pilots being interviewed said 'the harrier will do its job' and lets be honest it did.

You have to remember I am old enough to remember the conflict clearly, I can remember experts being wheeled out on TV, radio and in the press saying the harriers would all be shot down etc-and they were wrong.

In Bosnia, as far as I am concerned, the harrier saved my life so I am going to be pro it

I've to say I am interested to see how the Harrier will perform in a high- intensity war facing modern fighter jets armed with BVR missiles... On a side note, the Harrier is quite deadly in dogfights even against the latest jets, thanks to their strange maneuverability, but the chance of engaging in dogfights is decreasing...

 

[Jason]

I've to say I am interested to see how the Harrier will perform in a high- intensity war facing modern fighter jets armed with BVR missiles... On a side note, the Harrier is quite deadly in dogfights even against the latest jets, thanks to their strange maneuverability, but the chance of engaging in dogfights is decreasing...

I think the experts reckon it would hold its own, but you're right about the chances of dogfights.

I seem to recall that back in the 80s Maggie visited Zimbabwe and offered them the chance to buy some second-hand Harriers; given the current tensions, that could have led to an interesting 'what if'.

 

[Barry Bull]

I think the experts reckon it would hold its own, but you're right about the chances of dogfights.

I seem to recall that back in the 80s Maggie visited Zimbabwe and offered them the chance to buy some second-hand Harriers; given the current tensions, that could have led to an interesting 'what if'.

Most pilot would consider dogfighting with a aircraft that actually can fly backwards is a bad idea at best. Still, harrier is a very difficult to maintain aircraft, due to the V/STOL design and I don't think Zimbabwe is the best home for it.

 

[whatisinaname]

The Harrier is indeed not a good fighter in the sense that it is not good for BVR air combat, even though the British Sea Harrier FRS.2 is equipped with Blue Vixen rader and sky flesh BVR missiles. However, it is a good ground support aircraft. The air victory in Falkland depends much more then the RN's integrated air defence capacity, utlizing the FAA, AAW surface ships and EW, instead of solely relying on Harrier's capability as a fighter.

Nit pick - Sea Harrier F/A 2 had AMRAAM not Sky Flash
As the Blue Vixen rader was built for the Sea Harrier in conjuction with AMRAAM.

++++

As in 1982 a lost of the so called experts said that the Sea Harrier FAS.1 would take 50% losses in air to air combat it took none

So much the the experts

 

[Alexius]

Current Harrier operating nations:
UK, India (BAe Harrier)
US, Italy, Spain, Thailand (McDD Harrier)

Other possibilities- Israel have recently expressed interest in acquiring a STOVL fighter (F-35B). The US will sell them practically anything. WI they decided they wanted Harriers earlier? Perhaps during one of Israel's wars, the enemy manage to crater a runway?

Germany. The RAF's Harriers were supposed to operate out of German forest clearings in WW3. Perhaps the Luftwaffe decide they want involvement?

Note that both these countries would be operating Harriers from land bases, which only the UK do currently.

There are many more possibilities for countries with navies operating Harriers. The most obvious is Australia- the British planned to sell them HMS Invincible in the early 80s (pre-82), and it would have come with an air wing of Harriers.
Another possibility is that the countries that operated British-built light carriers (Colossus- and Majestic-class) decide to go with a Harrier-carrier to replace them. IOTL, India did so, Brazil (and France) operate French-built catapult carriers, and the others abandoned carrier aviation. These others are: Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Argentina.

Canada and Australia are the most likely- the Dutch sold theirs in the 60s, earlier than the others. As for Argentina, they were buying British weapons up to the late 70s (Type 42 destroyers are one example) and in a TL with no Falklands War might have continued. However, IOTL 25 de Mayo (their Colossus, actually the former Dutch one) served until 1997- a bit late.

Some of these can work with no (or more, in the case of Australia) British cancellations. However, in the "ideal" universe, the Harrier is very different- it's the Hawker P.1154 prototype- it's supersonic, a multi-role fighter biased towards air-to-air, and the "Sea Harrier" has 2 seats! The OTL Harrier might still be built- as the Kestrel, or perhaps the Merlin- as a light ground-attack machine, and might be popular for export.

The Navy operate CVA-01 aircraft carriers ITTL, with a mixed air-group of alt-SHARs and Buccaneers, or with all alt-SHARs.

 

[dummnutzer]

Germany. The RAF's Harriers were supposed to operate out of German forest clearings in WW3. Perhaps the Luftwaffe decide they want involvement?

Germany had already abandoned its supersonic VJ 101 C program due to a change in NATO doctrine. Why should they buy a British version?

A more likely POD to convince Germany to buy Harriers would be an Anglo-German cooperation on VTOL planes, with Britain being the project leader. This should satisfy British prestige, support both industries and add sufficient funds for advanced R&D (Mach 2 was a design target for the VJ 101 family, we might get some VJ 101/P.1154 hybrid).

Caveat: I am anything but an expert on aircraft.

 

[Riain]

I imagine ITTL SHars don't operate from CVA 01&2, these 2 big ships pack in as many high performance planes as possible. But since the RN has Commando carriers and probably would get an ASW carrier or 3 it would need the SHar.

 

[Jason]

Germany had already abandoned its supersonic VJ 101 C program due to a change in NATO doctrine. Why should they buy a British version?

A more likely POD to convince Germany to buy Harriers would be an Anglo-German cooperation on VTOL planes, with Britain being the project leader. This should satisfy British prestige, support both industries and add sufficient funds for advanced R&D (Mach 2 was a design target for the VJ 101 family, we might get some VJ 101/P.1154 hybrid).

Caveat: I am anything but an expert on aircraft.

If I remember aright, when the original experimental squadron of Kestrels was formed, it was a tri-partite unit consisting of the UK, USA and Germany, so it wouldn't take much to keep Germany interested.

 

[Alexius]

I imagine ITTL SHars don't operate from CVA 01&2, these 2 big ships pack in as many high performance planes as possible. But since the RN has Commando carriers and probably would get an ASW carrier or 3 it would need the SHar.

I mean the P.1154RN, which would be called the Sea Harrier ITTL. There were plans to operate it from the CVA's, but it's hard to figure out what it would have looked like- it was planned to be a replacement for the Sea Vixen heavy fighter, so was a larger aircraft than the RAF version, with 2 seats, which resulted in very low endurance with a full weapons load. There were even plans for it to be catapult-launched!

Basically, the P.1154RAF was a supersonic Harrier, but the Navy version was a VTOL Phantom! It had serious problems, which might eventually have been solved by the RN either adopting the RAF version, building a non-VTOL version, or using it mainly as a vectored-thrust conventional catapult-launched fighter with the option to either take off from a ski-jump on a commando carrier or operate vertically from an LPD or merchant ship for emergency refuelling or convoy defence (as Harriers did in the Falklands). Probably they would have landed vertically on the CVAs if the bring-back weight was low enough, to save deck space.

 

[Riain]

The P1154, not to be too blunt about it, sucked arse. The biggest problem was the damage downward facing afterburners would do to everything they touched. In later versions the BS100 was replaced by a pair of Speys, and then the next step was to keep the Speys, but chuck out the airframe and replace it with the Phantom. In my rose-coloured-glasses world this whole process is avoided; the Sea Vixen, Javelien and mostly Lightning would be replaced by a conventional F4esque fighter without any overly fancy VTOL crap.

However my glasses aren't so rosy as to believe that the RN could afford 3 or even 4 or 5 CVAs. I could however see the Command Cruiser concept, OTL Invincibles, being built and them needing the 2nd-tier, GR1-derived SHar. What the Shar lacks in dazzling outright performance it makes up for in flexibility and affordability, indeed it makes the whole Sea Control Ship/Command Carrier/whatever you want to call it possible in a way that cats and wires can't.

 

[Alexius]

The P1154, not to be too blunt about it, sucked arse. The biggest problem was the damage downward facing afterburners would do to everything they touched.

As opposed to the damage done by the afterburners of the F-4, which meant that the deck of Ark Royal had to be water-cooled so it didn't melt?

Interesting that your TL has no P.1154- that's not usual for this sort of thing. On looking further into this, though, especially at Richard Beedall's page, I'm inclined to agree with you, and the Navy P.1154 did seem a bit ridiculous towards the end- they wanted the same aircraft to be capable of vertical take-off and catapult launch! Probably better to have the Vickers Type 583 (which looks very much like a Tomcat) be selected for the RN.

The P.1154 was the best of a bad lot, though (with the possible exception of the German EWR VJ). Look at the Mirage IIIV if you want to see what a disaster they could have ended up with- it killed 2 test pilots, couldn't go vertical and supersonic in the same flight, and had no fewer than NINE engines!

 

[Riain]

Only the bit of the deck where it ran up to full power on launch, where the jet blast deflectors were. If the Invincibles are any guide the whole CVA01 deck would get used to STOVL and thus need to be strengthened, and every land base they would operate from. I just don't see that the P1154 would be as good as a conventional fighter, or that STOVL would be a handy thing in the circumstances.

 

[pacifichistorian]

In the vein of usefulness, what would you say to a combination of Harriers (or Harrier+, with more thrust/range/wp load) & something like Hinds, in place of armor & attack helos?

Oh, BTW: bump.