Harrier supersonic?

BAe Systems continued with design studies for advanced Harrier variants well into the 90s, including supersonic variants, but the British governments preferred to wait for the Americans to come up with a replacement for the Harrier. Basically it was all down to money and politics.

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).

Click to expand...

Don't forget the HMS Invincible. Hur-Hur-Hur.

Joking asside, those Agentine pilots were pretty damn impressive, in my opinion. Brave guys too. Had they had better tech, they may have given the British a real run for their money.

I remember hearing about an AV-8 Harrier II that crashed into an Arizona suburb. That incident (or so I have come to understand) is what lead many to question the efectiveness of the Harrier. I hear it's a real buggy aircraft.

If you want to hear a first hand account of the Harriers performance rather than third hand rumours and speculation I suggest you read "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" by Commander Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward, who commandded 801 Naval Air Squadron flying from HMS Invincible during the campaign. You'll find it quite an eye opener.The Harrier in all its variants can be a handful to fly but the pilots who do so wouldn't swap it for anything else around at the moment. The F-35B will solve the handling problems of the Harrier in vertical flight by using a lot of computing power to stabilise the aircraft, leaving the pilot free to guide the plane gently down to a landing for example. This technology has already been trialled in a two seat Harrier known as the VAAC and works very well. If it were retro fitted to harriers the accident rate would decline considerably but a retrofit is unlikely as the harriers are due to phased out in the next few years as the F-35B becomes available, and also the computers take up a significant volume within the airframe. The F-35B is a larger airframe than the Harrier and has been designed to accomodate the Computers from the start.
When the US Marine Corp introduced the AV-8A into service in 1970 the first squadron had a near spotless record for safety, but then it was made up of qualified test pilots (the best of the best) who reported the aircraft as very stright forward to fly (it was for them) and this lead the USMC to believe no special standard for pilot competence over and above the normal level was required. So they started to post ordinary pilots to Harrier squadrons including helicopter pilots, reasoning they would be better able to cope with the vertical flight regime. They were very good at hovering the Harrier, it was just the flying forward at 500 knots they had trouble with and more than a few drove their planes straight into the side of mountains and othe examples of 'cumulo granite' simply because they didn't have the currency for fast jet ops. This is the USMCs own account of the accident rate in the 70s, and the accident rate since has as much to do with the high utilisation rate of the harrier as anything else. The AV-8B+ has the same radar/attack system as the F-18A/B and performs equally well in combat, but the Hornet cannot operate from LHAs/LHDs, which is why the Harrier is still in service with the USMC.
Most criticism of the harrier tends to come from countries that don't have it or from services that feel threatened by its success, and remember the Harrier is a combat proven aircraft, and thats what it was designed for, making large and expensive holes in the enemies installations and inventory, and shooting down aircraft twice as expensive as it is. A lot of 'experts' have dismissed the harrier from day one and continue to do so, but the best definition of an expert I have ever heard came from John Fozzard, one of the Harriers designers; "Ex is a has-been and spurt is a drip under pressure."

Obi Wan Russell said:

BAe Systems continued with design studies for advanced Harrier variants well into the 90s, including supersonic variants, but the British governments preferred to wait for the Americans to come up with a replacement for the Harrier. Basically it was all down to money and politics.

Click to expand...

how much does a harrier cost anyways?? i am asking this because since american is give all other nation a crippled f-35 and wondering how much it is compared to f-35.

Given the new stabilizing tech, would it reduce the landing accident that i heard before??? if it is fixed, wouldn't it be better to use the harrier than move to f-35 stovl

ahho sez

how much does a harrier cost anyways?? i am asking this because since american is give all other nation a crippled f-35 and wondering how much it is compared to f-35.

Click to expand...

A cripled F-35? You mean downgraded of course. . We will just have to wait and see the real differences between the US variant and the export. The US is never going to give it's technology away.

You can't buy new Harriers any more as the production lines have closed, but the Royal Navy has 40 or 50 second hand Sea Harriers for sale at about £5million each if you are interested...

Obi Wan Russell said:

You can't buy new Harriers any more as the production lines have closed, but the Royal Navy has 40 or 50 second hand Sea Harriers for sale at about £5million each if you are interested...

Click to expand...

Hey Obi Wan..the USN has a decomissioned LHA,the USS Belleau Wood(LHA-3), sitting in Hawaii starting to rust..Hummm??? Well I know the max capacity for an LHA is 20 Sea Harriers. 20 Sea harriers deployed for 82 days on the USS Nassau(LHA-4) in 1981 to the Medterrian Sea.



...That's without any helos but SAR/ASW.. I doubt that the US would sell any nation an LHA...But it would be an interesting configuration.....Perhaps a modified LHA could carry as many as 24 Sea Harriers along with 12 helos of various types....Just a thought...

Funny you should mention that, I hear both Canada and Australia are in the market for LHA/LHD type ships, which I've always thought look naked without Harriers on deck. Perhaps the US would consider loaning or leasing the ship to one of those countries until they can build their own vessels...

Obi Wan Russell said:

Funny you should mention that, I hear both Canada and Australia are in the market for LHA/LHD type ships, which I've always thought look naked without Harriers on deck. Perhaps the US would consider loaning or leasing the ship to one of those countries until they can build their own vessels...

Click to expand...

Sell or give away is a better word..I know that Canada could have really used an LHA/LHD to evac it's citizens from Lebanon.

It's one thing to have a ship like this. But another thing to operate it. It is not cheap to fuel these levithants..Extremely costly. Not to mention the crew, logistics etc.....

Granted. But the cost of buying and the time taken to construct one usually puts governments off. Lend them one in working order and they may get hooked. Once they find out how indispensible a ship of this type is, they will be more likely to order a new one. I have heard a lot of Canadians on the radio this week expressing their disgust at their government's lack of action over the situation in Lebanon, apparently the Canadian government has put several frigates and support vessels 'on standby' to help. But as they are still in the St Lawrence seaway (about 2 weeks sailing from the eastern med) this has not impressed anyone. The consenus of cannuck opinion is that they should have been ordered to sail at the beginning of last week when every one else did (USN, RN, Fr N, Italian navy etc.). Sorry to stray off topic.

Actually the thought of the ex- USS Belleau Wood setting sail again equipped with ex-RN Sea Harrier F/A 2s as possibly the next HMAS Australia or HMCS Bonaventure (alternative suggestions on a post card please) does make me salivate somewhat. A ready made csg for whoever has the right cash and is in the USAs /UKs good books, along with a few Spruance class DDs upgraded with modern SAMs and you get an invitation to sit at the top table with the 'Big Boys'. I'd consider remodelling the Belleau Wood with a wider forward flight deck (as in the Wasp class) incorporating a portside ski jump for the Harriers (never understood why the USN didn't fit them to the LHAs/LHDs in the first place, the excuse about maximising helo spots is a bit weak), as well as possibly fitting a portside flight deck extension to maximise deck space (as in the British CVF design) since the island takes up a lot of deck space. The 'overhang' thus created would increase internal volume (as in US CVs/CVNs) and extend from the portside deck edge lift forward as far as the new ski jump (you'll have to use your imagination a bit). US ships of this size and importance are usually well maitained and, refitted she should be good for another 20+ years service with her new owners. Perhaps the list of potential candidates could include Japan (they have the money but the constitution would be a problem) but this would hinge more on developments locally, ie South Korea's new carriers (sorry LPDs, who are they kidding?) and of course the Varyag.

Artists impression of proposed JMSDF DDH. Destroyer? I don't think so...

And in the blue corner... the first of four "LPD"s for South Korea. This twisting of the language is getting beyond a joke. I mean, c'mon it was funny when the Royal Navy called the Invincible class 'Through Deck Cruisers' in the 70's, but we all knew they were lying then to get round ignorant politicians. Now it's just getting silly, as the colonel from Monty Python would probably have said were he still with us.