Harrier supersonic?

Well we could open another thread but this one seems to have successfully evolved into the broader subject of VSTOL /STOVL operations. Context is everything, and talking about the harrier in isolation from the context of its operational environment would prove ultimately unsatisfying for all concerned. The original question was "Is the Harrier supersonic?" well no it isn't unless you put it into a steep dive. Asked and answered. The harrier family are brilliant aircraft, world beaters, but the basic design is 40 years old, no longer in prodution and the existing aircraft are now holding the line until replaced by the new F-35B Lightning II. We'd be happpy to answer any more questions on the Harrier, but the discussion in this thread appears to have broadened beyond that, like any good conversation (thats half the fun of talking, seeing where you end up).
The Harrier is a weapon system, but it is also part of a larger system of systems especially in the maritime context. The torch is being passed from the Harrier to the Lightning II and also branching out with the V-22 Osprey. As FAA pilots like to say; "It's a lot easier to stop and land than it is to land and stop." as well as "It's a lot less bovver in the Hover!"
And to answer your question, The Harrier can do any manouvre the Flankers and Fulcrums can, plus it can fly backwards! Convential Aircraft design has been playing catch up with the Harrier for the last four decades. When the Harrier was designed, everyone else was trying to be faster than the competition, manouverability wasnt' the priority it is now. The only thing the Harrier can't do (but the new F-35 can) is fly supersonic straight and level.

Sea Harrier F/A 2 of 800 NAS from HMS Ark Royal, circa 2002

RAF Harrier GR 7s of 1(F)sqn aboard HMS Illustrious with Navy Sea Harriers from 801 NAS aft. 800 NAS has now reformed with Harrier GR7/7As and 801 NAS will reform in september with Harrier GR 9s.

and here's my 'mods' applied to the new LHA(R) design.

Nice idea Obi wan...Nice paint job.

As a person that served in the USN for 20 years I have always wondered why the USN never adopted the ski-jump for it's Harriers. Now the USMC will soon have JSF's F-35's. Any idea's any one?

I did mention earlier about the opposition from the pro-CVN lobby to anything less than a full deck carrier. Perhaps they were worried the USMC would show them up if they were allowed to operate the Harrier to it's full potential. There's always been a lot of (friendly) rivalry between the marine aviators and their navy colleagues, but to be honest it's always been a mystery to me too.

There's always been a lot of (friendly) rivalry between the marine aviators and their navy colleagues, but to be honest it's always been a mystery to me too.

Click to expand...

So very, very true. The US Marines can't stand the fact they they come under the Dept of the US Navy..it burns them up...

You know the Marines have refused Super Hornets? They see only a little improvement in the Super Bug. They just have to be different. Oh well. Every USN CVW now has USMC squadrons attatched. Some even have USMC commanders.

On this side of the pond the Royal Marines are proud to be a part of the Navy, It's when people mistakenly describe them as being part of the Army they get annoyed. All RMs are Commandos, elite spearhead troops, while they regard the regular army as being good for marching in parades and not much else. Army basic training lasts six weeks, RM basic training lasts thirty weeks and failure to pass the Commando course means you are out. The only part of the British army that comes close to RM standard is the Parachute Regiment, also a spearhead force. The RMs used to have an air element known as 3 Cdo Bgde Air Sqn flying Lynx and Gazelle anti tank Helos, but this was redesignated as 847 NAS some years ago, and frequently operates from the LPH HMS Ocean in support of Amphibious ops.

I can understand the USMCs descision to reject the Super Hornet, it is a great plane but the Marine corps are probably concerned that buying it will bring them more into the USNs sphere of operations (ie supplementing USN sqns aboard CVNs as they are now) and restrict the numbers of F-35Bs they purchase. The Lightning II will be able to operate from the LHA/LHD force as the Harrier does now directly in support of Marine corps ops whereas those sqns stationed aboard CVNs will just be used by the Navy to make up numbers. Understandably, the USMC wants to keep its' air assets for its own use and moving away from flying the same types as the Navy is one way of doing this subtley. If all current USMC combat aircraft were Harriers, would the Navy still want them to make up numbers on their CVNs? I suspect they would be reluctant to add another type to the the inventory, complicating the supply chain just as the Navy is trying to reduce the numbers of different types it operates at sea in its quest for commonality to cut costs. Just a theory anyway.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Remember, the Falklands war wasn't just about liberating the islands, for the Royal Navy it was a fight for it's very survival against ill considered defence cuts brought in by yet another batch of ignorant politicians. Almost two thirds of the Royal Navy's strength was dispatched to the South Atlantic even though most of the major units were scheduled for premature disposal, including both carriers (Invincible was to be sold to Australia in early 1983 and Hermes was to be scrapped around the same time, leaving just the yet to be completed Illustrious and Ark Royal. The two LPDs Fearless and Intrepid were also due to be sold,- to Argentina! If they had waited a year it would have been a very different story) and a large number of destroyers and frigates. British losses in the campaign can directly be attributed to decades of defence cuts that left the British forces woefully short of equipment.

Click to expand...

A bit OT, but like they said, hindsight is always 20-20.

Had Argentina waited 1-2 years, the RN would've decommissoned/sold off carriers, LPDs sold to Argentina. Argentina might've been able to buy the decommissioned RN carriers for scrap, just in case.

The Argentine AF had ordered 14 Super Etendard fighters and 14 air-launched Exocets, but at the time only 5 planes and 5 missiles had been delivered. If they had waited a year, they'd have received another 5+5. The additional exocet missiles would've done a lot more damage to the RN.

Also, the Argentine AF had purchased the Israeli Nesher (Dagger) fighters, which was under-going upgrades to the Kfir C.2 standard in 1982 when war broke out. Ironically the upgrade equipment was made by British Marconi and, needless to say, incomplete. During the Falklands War the Argentine Daggers were sent out on 150+ sorties, and 11 were lost.

Due to the political-economic situation, the military leadership of Argentina couldn't wait. They needed a war to distract the population from paticipating in civil unrest. If they had waited, they didn't know if they'd even be in power by 1983.

Overall, I think the Harriers performed superbly during Falklands War, winning the air war by a land-slide. Had the RN not achieved air superiority, the Argentine strike aircraft would've been able to unload their munitions at optimal altitude against RN ships. With Harriers flying cap, the Argentine planes had to come in low, with insufficient altitude for the bomb fuses. As the result many bombs scored hits but didnt' detonate.

IMO the British are quite proud of the Harrier as a "domestic product". It represented a time when the British were the ones who designed and built the V/STOL fighter, and everyone else, including Americans, were the customers. When UK joined the F-35 program, they didn't want to become the customer/client-state to US technology, it'd be a reversal of roles at expense to British pride and autonomy. This is prolly why they demanded equal partner status as well as full access to source code and tech transfers. If US wasn't willing to give, they'd have opted for navalised version of the Typhoon.

adeptitus said:

they'd have opted for navalised version of the Typhoon.

Click to expand...

I know that this is ff but does the navalized Typhoon have VSTOL capability? Other than France, no European country would buy it as their carriers are too small to operate aircraft like the Typhoon (if it's not VSTOL). And France has the Rafale. The only other navy I could think of would be Italy when it gets the Cavour later in 2007. I'm not sure how big it is but I think that the Cavour could be big enough.

Well Typhoon isen't VSTOL plane...Only VSTOL planes around are harrier and JSF (And ofcourse the already retired Yak-38 and the never materialized Yak-41).

The navalized Typhoon is/was planned by the Brithish (french don't use Eurofighter, they have Rafale, remember) to the new carrier. It was only premilinary planning however and never even got to the stage of making prototypes.

The navalised Typhoon (N) is still being used by British politicians as a bargaining tool with the Americans in the ongoing saga over the F-35B Lightning II. I don't think it is a realistic option though, as the Typhoon airframe and Landing gear simply weren't designed for Carrier ops. It is at present too weak to withstand deck landings and isn't stressed for catapult launches, whereas the Rafale M was designed from the start for this. A little fore thought on the part of the British government back in the late eighties and development of a naval variant could have been in hand from day one. The officail British position is that if the F-35B were to fail to be produced, plan B is the Typhoon (N), but no serious work has been done on the project other than a few artists impressions! (But don't tell the Americans, we're still trying to haggle over the price of the F-35B!)

Obi Wan Russell said:

The navalised Typhoon (N) is still being used by British politicians as a bargaining tool with the Americans in the ongoing saga over the F-35B Lightning II. I don't think it is a realistic option though, as the Typhoon airframe and Landing gear simply weren't designed for Carrier ops. It is at present too weak to withstand deck landings and isn't stressed for catapult launches, whereas the Rafale M was designed from the start for this. A little fore thought on the part of the British government back in the late eighties and development of a naval variant could have been in hand from day one. The officail British position is that if the F-35B were to fail to be produced, plan B is the Typhoon (N), but no serious work has been done on the project other than a few artists impressions! (But don't tell the Americans, we're still trying to haggle over the price of the F-35B!)

Click to expand...

As a last resort, they could buy Rafale M from France, or spend $ to develop the BAE-Saab JAS-39 Gripen for carrier operations.

The French seem to have a good track record of developing AF aircraft for carrier use (i.e. Dassault Super Étendard).

Another far-fetched option is to follow India's example and buy Russian. Very slim chance of this happening however.