Harrier supersonic?

There seems to be a bit of confusion about the Harrier here, so please read....and your welcome to argue some of my conclusions.
Design work on VSTOL began in the 1950's yes, but proper work on the Harrier was much later and work began to build a supersonic VSTOL fighter to meet the needs of the RAF AND Fleet Air Arm. This project, called P1154, was cancelled by the Labour government in 1965. Instead the P1127 was ordered in combat form as a replacement for ground-attack Hawker Hunters of the RAF. The RAF was not very pleased to have this political aircraft placed upon them, but then came the Arab-Israeli War of 1967 when the Arab Air forces were destroyed on their airfields within the first hours of combat. All of a sudden, squadrons of Harriers hidden away in woods looked the only way to survive a Warsaw-Pact surprise attack.
The Harrier was adopted by the US Marine Corps as the AV-8A. The advantages of the Harrier for the support of amphibious operations were highlighted in the Falklands War. In the Falklands war both RAF ground attack Harriers and Navy air defence Harriers were dispatched. The Air defence variant shot down 24 (at the time modern) supersonic aircraft with out loss- a record not equal in recent history. The RAF ground attack aircraft flying at very low level over Argentine positions did not get shot out of the sky by small arms fire as some members seem to think it would be infact was again a major success. The Harrier with proper tactics is a very good ground attack platform.
As a side note a few years before the, the Brits tried to sell it to Argentina and they sad it was not supersonic and therefore not good enough!!
McDonnell Douglas in partnership with British Aerospace built the AV-8B for the USMC. They rebuilt an AV-8A with a new wing made of carbon composite material. This improved the range and nearly doubled the amount of weapons the aircraft could carry. This new model also had improved avionics, an angle-rate bombing system, Forward-Looking Infra-Red (FLIR), built-in radar warning sensors and chaff dispensers. British Aerospace designed a leading-edge extension which improved the turn rate for greater manoeuvrability.

The rate of turn for the Harrier is second to none, beating any current American, European, Russian or Chinese aircraft. By using the vectored thrust, called VIFF. At the red flag exercises the Harrier has in the past achieved a 75% success rate at low level close in aerial combats with F15's, and if the F15 don’t want to get close in, it has to turn away thus making itself more venerable. Low level close in combat is where you will have to engage the Harrier because it is a mud mover. A favourite tactic is to fly 2 harriers ahead let them get engaged, use VIFF to keep the enemy off them and two follow up Harriers take the air defence fighters out. (Watch you six) Down at low a Harrier will eat almost anything for breakfast; VIFFing will get position every time in a SRAAM/gun fight. The American AF made them stop for safety due to a couple of near collisions.

What today is the primary role of a Harrier? In a word, flexibility. If you want an aircraft to fly out to support a counter-insurgency operation in Africa, it had better be the Harrier - unless you have a 90 000 ton carrier nearby. Likewise if you want to transport aircraft into combat on a container ship- yes the Harrier can turn a container ship into a cheap aircraft carrier. Want to give close support to rapid reaction troops in the Gulf or Afghanistan? Harrier again. If you are a country and want a cost effective aircraft carrier, there is only one way.

It's carrying capacity both in terms of fuel and warload is OK, not great but for the areas it can operate from, i.e. no runway it can get a hell of a lot more into the air than some of the “competitor†aircraft some members have mentioned.

As for comments about speed, at low level where it is ment to be it is very fast, it is designed to take off from near enemy position, fly a short hop and get back, land and do it again, it has no need to be supersonic.

GR7 and AV8-B, Max Speed 660 mph (1,065 kph) at sea level.
SEA HARRIER FA2, Max speed 720 mph (1,160 kph) at 1,000 ft (305m).
It is also operated by Spain, Italy and India although less capable than the British and US military versions.

And for those who like figures:
AV-8B weight 6,336 kg ( 13,939lb)
GR. Mk 7 weight 7,050 kg( 15,510lb)

Basic flight design gross weight for 7g operation 10,410 kg( 22,902lb)

Powerplant Pegasus mk 105 21,750lb st.
Pegasus mk 107 23,800lb st

Look at the numbers. Power equal or greater than the max weight. This NOT a sluggish aircraft.
The Harrier, old yes, coming to the end of its life, yes. As bad as some of you guys seem to think - NO WAY.

In response to VIFFing, I have heard from a USAF pilot that this tactic is highly overrated. He stated that when the harrier initiates this manoveur that it is essentially just a slower moving target and thus an easier gun kill. Anyway, i am sure others see it differently.

Also, concerning the Falkland War air engagements, I have to give 100% of the credit to far superior training of RAF pilots and not the supperior design of the harrier. The Argentine pilots were worthless, simple as that.

Walter,
In response to.... VIFFing, I have heard from a USAF pilot that this tactic is highly overrated. He stated that when the harrier initiates this manoeuvre that it is essentially just a slower moving target and thus an easier gun kill. Anyway, I am sure others see it differently.

-It depends on how close in the attacking aircraft is, a Harrier pilot would not use the Viffing technique at long rang as it would just be a slow moving target, Viffing slows the Harrier down a great deal and uses up its Kinetic energy so in that since you are right, but in a close in dog fight using guns or SRAAM it is almost full proof if carried out correctly. Yes a conventional pilot can learn to over come the Viffing and he will say it is over rated but usually he has been shot down on the previous 5 or so close in engagement. (Some thing people who say Viffing is over rated fail to mention) I am not saying the Harrier is a great fighter - it is not and is not designed to be, but close in a low level unless you have trained against it, and any potential enemies the Harrier might have will not have trained against Viffing, you’re probably going to be dead.
Quote
Also, concerning the Falkland War air engagements, I have to give 100% of the credit to far superior training of RAF pilots and not the superior design of the harrier. The Argentine pilots were worthless, simple as that.

A good pilot, and yes the British military have some of the best,(the Harrier is still the top choice for UK pilots and only the best are allowed to fly the single seat aircraft) will get the best out of the aircraft he is flying and flies to the aircraft strengths. They were able to fly to the aircrafts strengths and made it a better aircraft than the opposition.24 to Zero kill ratio is not about just pilot skill, not every argentine pilot was THAT bad, infact some of them, the Dagger and Mirage squadrons were considered elite.

Aerodriver said:

Walter,

A good pilot, and yes the British military have some of the best,(the Harrier is still the top choice for UK pilots and only the best are allowed to fly the single seat aircraft) will get the best out of the aircraft he is flying and flies to the aircraft strengths. They were able to fly to the aircrafts strengths and made it a better aircraft than the opposition.24 to Zero kill ratio is not about just pilot skill, not every argentine pilot was THAT bad, infact some of them, the Dagger and Mirage squadrons were considered elite.

Click to expand...

hi Aerodriver,

You basically confirm what I stated earlier, namely that superior RAF pilot training lead to the stated kill ratio. It was their training that allowed them to fly to the harriers strength, as you say, and unfortunately, the 'elite' Argentine pilots either 1) did not do the same, meaning they were inferior to RAF pilots, OR 2) did not have effective command and control, radar coverage, other intelligence, or a combination thereof, in which case maybe the Argentine pilots were not as bad as I previuosly stated, but rather they were dead before they even knew what hit them.

Honestly, I do not know which of two scenarios is more accurate, but the Harrier as an aircombat aircraft will never have a 24:0 kill ratio to its credit unless vs. far outdated tech. That is just the truth. And as already stated, the Falkland Wars scenario is attributable to superior RAF pilots, and probably much better C&C, battlefield intel, radar coverage, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I know the Harrier is "special" and in certian areas of the flight envelope, if it can dupe another pilot to get into it, it will outmanoveur and win against its adversary--no doubt about it. But here we are again back to pilot training--does an F-16 pilot know where he can win vs. the Harrier? If so, then he doesn't have to get into the low altitude, slow velocity part of the flght envelope where the Harrier has the advantage. You are surely right, many pilots have kicked themselves in the ass for taking the bait and getting VIFFed, but I imagine one time is enough and then they know better.

Just one small point, please refrain from referring to Sea Harrier pilots as RAF, the SHAR as it is known is a NAVY aircraft flown by FLEET AIR ARM pilots. Suggesting they work for the second best airforce in the UK is something FAA members find grossly insulting...

MIGleader said:

this is cnn bs. the only supersonic vtols are the yak-141 and the f-35(which is an stol). .

Click to expand...

I believe in a steep dive that the Harrier can just break the sound barrier...but it was absoliutely not designed for supersonic flight operations.

As to the F-35, there are three versions. The Airforce Version (F-35A) is standard, normal take-off and landing, the Navy version (F-35C) is for catapult take-off and arrestor-assited landings. But the Marine version (F-35B) is a true VTOL capable aircraft.

Well it wasnt untill several years after the Falklands war was over that it was disclosed by the British that the Argentine Airforce had made several hits on British ships with A-4 skyhawks.They were comming in low at mast level and hitting the british ships with standard Iron bombs. However the A-4's were flying so low the bombs did not have enough time to arm properly. So there were several British ships running around withe live bombs in there belly that the British were then disarming. I have seen some small films clips of the A4s flying over tops of the British ships with harriers chasing after them. If you ask me, the Argentine pilots have steel balls and were top rate.
Problem with the Harrier was if an A-4 got passed, it was hard for the Harrier to catch back up.

This is from Wikapedia:

[During the Falklands Conflict, in spite of being armed with just iron bombs and lacking any electronic or missile self defense, Argentine Air Force Skyhawks sunk HMS Coventry (D118), HMS Antelope (F170) and RFA Sir Galahad (1966) besides producing heavy damage to several others like HMS Glasgow (D88), HMS Argonaut, HMS Broadsword and RFA Sir Tristram.

Argentine Navy A-4Q also played a role in the operating bombing attacks against British ships destroying HMS Ardent (F184).

See Gordon Smith's website for complete reference.

In all, 22 Skyhawks were lost or shot down during the war to a mixture of surface to air missiles such as the Sea Dart and the Sea Harriers guns and missiles.]




OTI have a very old computer with an out dated browser, please exscuse me for the formats of my posts. Things dont work right on the control bars
for me. I am sorry.)

The bravery of the Argentine pilots was never doubted but their tactics were flawed, as you said they came in too low for their bombs to arm themselves and their success in hitting ships says more about the woeful inadequacies of the British MODs procurement policies in the preceding two decades. No CIWS (other than WW2 era Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm guns on the ships), 1950s vintage radars and most of all the failure to provide shipbourne AEW aircraft to replace the Fairey Gannets withdrawn in 1978. It is also worth remembering that when the skyhawks were intercepted by Sea Harriers they were almost always shot down. AEW in the Falklands would have meant many more succesful interceptions including catching the raiders before they reached their targets. British losses would have been greatly reduced if only the Government had spent the relatively small amount of money on the Sea King AEW variant before the conflict instead of during and after. Prevention is better than cure.

I was just wondering, though harrier had accidental problem (so does other plane) how come no one use the harrier as a base of design to design a new stovl plane?? Is it because is original design flaw????