WI: No Harrier-series aircraft?

[Riain]

No what I'm saying is that the money spent on SHar could be spent getting more Sea Wolf Systems. I did not specify which ships might get them or when

OK.

BTW you are one of the few that thinks the SHar didn't just fall from the sky for free, and that SHar money might be spent elsewhere. Personally I think with a (very) different decision path the SHar money could be spent on a Buccaneer upgrade for the squadrons embarked on CVA01 & 02.

 

[Zen9]

In the context of this thread, no I don't think it would be spent on the Buccaneer or the F4.

What it ought to have been spent on was either decent 3D radar for the ships or AEW.
But what it might have been spent on was more Sea Wolf.
Assuming that No.11 didn't just keep it for all the other things Government spends money on. Like debt repayment.

 

[Riain]

In the context of this thread, no I don't think it would be spent on the Buccaneer or the F4.

I agree, but we constantly have threads that say Britain has no money for CVA01 etc without thinking of the money spent on the Invincible and SHar programmes.

What it ought to have been spent on was either decent 3D radar for the ships or AEW.
But what it might have been spent on was more Sea Wolf.
Assuming that No.11 didn't just keep it for all the other things Government spends money on. Like debt repayment.

I assume the MoD got its share of the national budget, the RN got its share of the MoD budget and the acquisition organisation got its share of the RN budget so the money would be more or less the same as OTL. Perhaps the RN spend it on more Exocets or some other striking capability.

 

[Zen9]

Yes there was the Fleetfoot requirement. A big 200nm ranged system using mid course update.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

FMA IA Pucara?

I don't remember what was proposed back then. It was the very early 1970s.

 

[Driftless]

Isn't one of the perpetual knocks against most VTOL/STOL jets is the capacity for self-destruction by sucking up rough field debris? How did the Harrier avoid that problem where others failed? If there's no Harrier, does that bugaboo remain as a hurdle?

Or is that just a complete misinterpretation by me?

 

[Riain]

Isn't one of the perpetual knocks against most VTOL/STOL jets is the capacity for self-destruction by sucking up rough field debris? How did the Harrier avoid that problem where others failed? If there's no Harrier, does that bugaboo remain as a hurdle?

Or is that just a complete misinterpretation by me?

IIUC it was debris blasted up from the downward facing nozzles that was the real fear, Harriers kept moving forward so that it kept sucking fresh air until the last second. Bear in mind that Vertical Take Off was rarely, if ever, used in practice; Short Take Off/Vertical Landing was the general practice, Sid Strip which was built by hand in just over 2 weeks was only 260 metres long, and its pretty easy to find 260m of road or whatever in Germany.

 

[Zen9]

FOD ingestion is a risk but mitigatable by just operating on clean surfaces.
A slight forward movement helps a lot and still permits operation from something far less than a runway. Clearing the treeline is a major issue for STOL.
HGR hit gas reingestion, is a risk even on a perfectly clean surface. Again a bit of forward movement helps or in the case of the Harrier, the front nozzles cool unburnt air blocks the hit burnt air of the rear nozzles.
Rolling VL allows for some wingborn lift, but needs more 'runway'.

 

[Riain]

Yes there was the Fleetfoot requirement. A big 200nm ranged system using mid course update.

Wow, the Fleetfoot is ultra obscure, even for you! All I can find is a excerpt from a Friedman book about a 25mn range missile akin to the Exocet and a 100mn range missile akin to the Otomat, nothing on a really big 200mn range missile.

In any case I believe that pre-SHar it was envisaged that the Invincible would carry the Exocet.

 

[riggerrob]

OTL Harrier nearly failed multiple times. Brits may have started the Kestrel/Harrier project, but they had dozens of major technical hurdles to over-come. USMC fu0dning and NASA wind tunnels help work out later problems.

ATL Without Harrier, we would probably see more STOL fighters on the Swedish model (Viggen) .... big wings, big wheels, lots of thrust, etc. They might even sport top-side (ala. MIG 27) supplemental engine intakes to reduce the risk of FOD.
We might even see catapult-assisted STOL with vertical landings ..... certainly the only way Kestrel prototypes could carry any bombs. But vertical landings would only be possible after all bombs and most fuel were expended.

 

[juanml82]

Would Falklands become a lost cause without Sea Harriers? With different fleet structure there might well be more Command Cruisers with better AAW capabilities to counteract lack of Sea Harriers. Or not.

And conduct an amphibious invasion at the end of an incredibly long supply chain without air cover? The UK would either need to turn to France and the USA for help retaking the islands, or accept their loss and probably invest again in fixed wing naval aviation for any future needs.

 

[Jukra]

And conduct an amphibious invasion at the end of an incredibly long supply chain without air cover? The UK would either need to turn to France and the USA for help retaking the islands, or accept their loss and probably invest again in fixed wing naval aviation for any future needs.

Sure, Sea Harriers performed bombing and CAP, but were these tasks really crucial in a sense they could not have been conducted by ships - more and perhaps better equipped ships which could have been available. Wiki lists 18 Argentine strike aircraft (Skyhawk, Canberra, Dagger) shot down by Sea Harriers and 14 by SAM's and guns.

 

[Jukra]

Wow, the Fleetfoot is ultra obscure, even for you! All I can find is a excerpt from a Friedman book about a 25mn range missile akin to the Exocet and a 100mn range missile akin to the Otomat, nothing on a really big 200mn range missile.

In any case I believe that pre-SHar it was envisaged that the Invincible would carry the Exocet.

Without Sea Harriers would there have been drive to develop a longer ranged ASM / cruise missile to replace striking capability lost when abandoning fixed wing air?

 

[juanml82]

Sure, Sea Harriers performed bombing and CAP, but were these tasks really crucial in a sense they could not have been conducted by ships - more and perhaps better equipped ships which could have been available. Wiki lists 18 Argentine strike aircraft (Skyhawk, Canberra, Dagger) shot down by Sea Harriers and 14 by SAM's and guns.

But now think about the paras walking all the way through Eastern Falklands while Argentina has air supremacy over land. Now, the Argentine Air Force tended to screw land attacks due the misuse of forwar air controllers, but the British won't know that in advance.
Or, in this situation, the Argentine Air Force may skip attack on warships in order to save its strength for use during the land campaign.

 

[Nick P]

If the RN don't have Harriers or conventional carriers then the Royal Marines will want some form of aerial cover for beach landings. That means helicopters. Armed helicopters.

Are we mounting rockets and missiles on Gazelles like the French?
TOW missiles on Lynx?
AH-1 Cobra from the US?
Early purchase of the AH-64? Too early for the Falklands though.