Defending the Harrier - I need ammunition

[Pureteenlard]

I frequent another forum - and so does a rabid anglophobe who goes by the name "Shooter20000". The man is legendary. Anyway he's currently having a go at that brilliant, though flawed, british invention - the Harrier.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages?msg=2488.8

Here's a quote;

I find it interesting that you quote Boyd as thinking the Harrier is a good fighter plane, yet at Red Flag and all of the other ACM/exercise ranges, they regularly get their clocks cleaned and in fact did not have a single A2A kill at any of the various events up untill the time I retired.

Any harrier or ex-harrier pilots out there who can give me ammunition to shoot this odious little tick down? Or better still join the above forum call him on his bull**** yourself.

[cokecan]

for those Ppruners not familiar with ARRSE, the following link relates to the freak of lab testing known as 'Shooter2000'.


http://http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=46647.html

truly the ultimate reason for Post-Natal Abortion...

[Maple 01]

in fact did not have a single A2A kill at any of the various events up until the time I retired.

But did OK in the Falklands I hear, or perhaps the real world doesn’t count in his mind?
(Much as I hate to 'big up' the SHAR)

[WhiteOvies]

Red Flag 2003, on a range near to a secret base close to Las Vegas, 800 NAS playing Aggressor in SHARs with the Vipers. Numerous A2A 'kills' (not all BVR!) on muds not paying attention.
Maybe this was after Shooters time but it did happen.
As for getting our 'clocks cleaned' the whole point of playing the bad guy is that the good guys learn how to deal with you. When you are pretending to be a Flogger with all the limits set on you is it overly surprising?

Not sure the GR7s ever get A2A kills as that's not the point of the GR7.
Don't want to start another debate here about SHAR vs GR7 :ugh:

[London Mil]

Of course, everyone knows that the viffjet was designed as a fighter. The bombs etc were only put there to give everything else a fighting chance. :ouch:

[Aeronut]

Anyone that refers to "Planes" really has no clue.

[RobinXe]

I wouldn't even get drawn into debate with him, you can't say something like "The Falklands war not withstanding. Those were special circumstances and under different ones the out come might have been very different." and then purport to be giving balanced judgement, its nonsensical!

To me thats like saying "Ford cars are very unreliable, notwithstanding all the journeys they do make without breaking down, and those are special circumstances where the car has been filled with oil, had it not then the outcome might have been very different!"

[QFIhawkman]

It's quite simple really. There is no defending the Harrier. It's a noisy hoover set on "blow". :ouch:

And that bowing thing it does at air shows is really old hat now. ;)

[SSSETOWTF]

Shooter2000 is welcome to hate any aircraft he likes. At various times over the last 20 odd years there have been loads of people who arbitrarily decided that the F-16 was too light-weight to do anything, or that the A-10 needed scrapping cause it was a waste of money, or that the B-52 has had its day etc etc.

Based on his devastating lack of knowledge of the Harrier, he thinks it's rubbish.

Based upon his justification, I'd have to say I think that Shooter is either ill-informed or just plain ignorant.

Either one of us could be right or wrong (or both of us for that matter). Frankly I don't care and am off to the bar for a glass of milk and to talk about me and my latest viff-viff nozzley-nozzley exploits.:)

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

It's quite simple really. There is no defending the Harrier. It's a noisy hoover set on "blow".

And that bowing thing it does at air shows is really old hat now.

Take it you never made the grade QFIdude:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[QFIhawkman]

Take it you never made the grade QFIdude:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

It's known as humour ABIW. I made the grade on GR1s many years back. And at least on the GR1, when you put the throttles forward, you got a kick in the pants.

Have you not made the grade for the C-17 yet? Or even the J?

[EODFelix]

Just to stir things a bit more:

After a few beers during a friday afternoon session at a secret airbase in Wiltshire, SAOEU members chilling -

"Whats the difference between a Harrier pilot and a 1000lb GP - the latter is not retarded"

"Whats the difference between a Harrier and its driver - the former stops whinning once the sorties over"!

[Pope Mobile]

And at least on the GR1, when you put the throttles forward, you got a kick in the pants.

You obviously never "put the throttle forward" in a lightweight Harrier. I saw 180 kts from parked in less than 1200 feet, approx 5 seconds after brake release. The thing is a screaming jet engine with a seat. And after getting airborne you could pull it into a almost vertical climb, and roll off the top with aplomb. It's amazing, best fun you can have. :O

[QFIhawkman]

And at least on the GR1, when you put the throttles forward, you got a kick in the pants.

You obviously never "put the throttle forward" in a lightweight Harrier. I saw 180 kts from parked in less than 1200 feet, approx 5 seconds after brake release. The thing is a screaming jet engine with a seat. And after getting airborne you could pull it into a almost vertical climb, and roll off the top with aplomb. It's amazing, best fun you can have. :O

No, I never had the pleasure. Believe me, t'was only light hearted banter directed at our employment challenged "K" tea maker.

No offence intended to Harrier mates. A fine aircraft.

[Yeller_Gait]

Good reply QFIHawkman,

but until your airplane has two ovens, two fridges, two hot jugs and two freezers at least, it does not matter how fast it goes, it is still not worth flying in!

Y_G

[L J R]

I agree Yella, it is always a nice touch to get into YOUR aircraft with all those comforts of home while you whisk us off back home after we drop all those bombs etc from the cramped conditions of 7-8 hours in my not so well equipped aircraft.

[SASless]

Gee! Almost vertical!

What about lighting the twin fires....rotate on takeoff to vertical and accelerate past mach 1.0 then roll out at the top and go about your business at some ridiculous height and speed?

[QFIhawkman]

Gee! Almost vertical!

What about lighting the twin fires....rotate on takeoff to vertical and accelerate past mach 1.0 then roll out at the top and go about your business at some ridiculous height and speed?

I thank you SASless.

Yeller gait..... I'm having trouble. Two fridges, ovens, FREEZERS? You had me for a while there, I was thinking about the BAe146. You must be a L1011 man!

A mighty fine aeroplane. Got me back from Kabul last year in three seat comfort all the way. A big thanks guys, always nice to fly 216. :ok:

[Zoom]

....rotate on takeoff to vertical and accelerate past mach 1.0....

Saturn V with a couple of flameouts??

[QFIhawkman]

Do you know if their loadies have a girl in every port?

Bugger off ratty! I'm not biting on the "Sheep in every field" way of things!

By the way, what aircraft do YOU fly?

[The Rocket]

Saturn V with a couple of flameouts??

Or the Mighty F3? :p :p

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Hawkdude,

Million miles from you and a mate being good enough for GR1 and those guys who have the ultimate skill set and can master the Harrier............you never made it dude so it's time to move on:=

Top tip get off the island fella, it's really clouding your judgement:p

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[QFIhawkman]

Hawkdude,

Million miles from you and a mate being good enough for GR1 and those guys who have the ultimate skill set and can master the Harrier............you never made it dude so it's time to move on:=

Top tip get off the island fella, it's really clouding your judgement:p

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

You never answered me ABIW. Did you not make the grade for "J" training? And how come you never made the grade for the C-17 also? "DUDE!"
The dole queue must loom large!

You f*cking prat.

[ORAC]

Gee! Almost vertical!
What about lighting the twin fires....rotate on takeoff to vertical and accelerate past mach 1.0 then roll out at the top and go about your business at some ridiculous height and speed?

Ahhh, the EE Lightning. The rotation climb was always a pleasure to watch. Cruised in cold at M1.3 as well.....

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"You f*cking prat.":D

Well that was easier than I thought:p

I know where you are coming from dude as I was lucky enough to get a ride in the Hawk during my ground crew days at Valley which was quite good fun but I was even luckier during my last rotary tour at Laarbruch as my wife was PA to OC 3 Sqn and managed to wangle me a trip in the Harrier which was "fan feckin tastic". So you see I can fully understand the "penis envy" you must be feeling at not making the grade for the ultimate RAF FJ and being farmed out to North Wales:p

Dole queue I think not dude, I have 6 years to go to age 55 and thanks to PA spine and the new pension scheme will be retiring on a nice "big" earner:ok: .....in fact was down at the Southampton boat show last weekend having a look at potential "retirement homes" for Mrs L and I :ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

PS As to your question I left the J OCU earlier this year after 3 years as an instructor and just completed the J TAC Cse and love what I do:ok:

[Vifferpilot]

Have to admit, after my back-seat ride in a T4 a couple of decades ago, the Harrier accelerates foooooooookin' quickly, way way quicker than even a clean fin, but then I suppose the fin doesn't run out of accel around the 480kt mark either...

Aren't we getting a little 'off message'?

Back to Puerteenlard's original post, whilst I have often extracted the Michael regarding the Harrier, it is an excellent aircraft. Shame it took the Yanks to show us how we should have built it in the first place...;)

[NoseGunner]

Interesting prejudices coming out on this thread - I cant believe I'm going to defend a GR1 mate (especially one who bit!) but not everyone wants to fly the Harrier. I dont know the current situation but a few years back it was the least popular choice out of Valley.

Also interesting is "Shame it took the Yanks to show us how we should have built it in the first place..." Dont know if you mean the whole GR3 to GR7 thing or the fact that the americans put a radar in theirs. But it is interesting that the US dont do the "bow down the Harrier is mighty" thing - they see it as a short range, CAS aircraft with limited capabilites that they dont send their best pilots to. Why do we think that is?

BTW this should in no way be related to the bollocks being spouted by that Major who has no appreciation or understanding of air power (unusual for an army officer, I know :rolleyes: ), or any idea of the excellent job being done by the Harrier guys n gals in Afghanistan. That bit was a rant.

[Flap62]

Nosegunner,

The reason that the Harrier was the least popular choice from valley was largely down to the student perception that it was a difficult OCU with a higher than average chop rate and so they thought, that looks difficult-think I'll take the easy option and go somewhere else. The perception of the aircraft was also given to the studes by instructors with chips on their shoulders who were never good enough to fly it and had done a GR1 tour some time ago and were now operating in their comfort zone at Valley, with no intention of returning to the horrible, difficult real world outside.

It's true that the USMC didn't always post the best studes to the Harrier but look at the resulting accident rate compared to the other fleet. The USMC also use the aircraft in a subtly different way to us. For them it really is mobile artillery to support the Exped force beachead. We employ the aircraft now as both a CAS and BAI platform.

[Tombstone]

Although I can't speak with full authority on this subject, I feel that I have to pipe up here.

As a GR4 mate, I'm more than aware that the guys who did best on 208 & 19 are now flying the GR7.

As a student on the GR1 OCU, I found it to be a very difficult course and found myself very close to capacity on several occasions! With this in mind, I have no doubt that I would no have got through the GR7 OCU at the time, no way.

Now, having had the luxury of a few hours in the T10 with a Harrier mate, I am even more convinced that the powers that be made the right choice when they pushed me onto GR1s.

We love to hate them however, they are the pilots of choice, flying the best CAS platform the RAF has to offer (it's the best in the world IMHO) out in a complete sh*thole, where the vis is often crappy & the calls for CAS require danger close drops.

Fair play to them.

[NoseGunner]

Flap62

Your reply actually made me laugh - very harrier! "Every one wants to go GR7 if only they were good enough and had the balls". Well that might be very good for your ego, but not very factually correct.

At the time there were 2 reasons people didnt want to go GR7. The first was perceived time spent on board/with the navy. The second and by far the more important was that Typhoon was (is?) the new shiny toy on the block. Pilots reckoned that as there were no abos going there, their best chances of getting on it was to go Jag or F3 and shine on their first tour - a technique that has worked for some.

From my own experience, I was the only abo on my valley course not to go single seat. Was that because I was crap and everyone else was great? No, I did pretty well (much better than some) but I only had 1 type on my dreamsheet - I wanted to fly fighters not bombers.

So, get over yourself, even a decade ago not everyone wanted to go harrier and now they certainly dont.

While I'm here "harrier best CAS platform in the world"????? Do you honestly believe that? Really? Certainly noone outside the RAF would ever say that (except maybe some USMC pilots, but even then!).

[Tombstone]

Flap62

From my own experience, I was the only abo on my valley course not to go single seat. Was that because I was crap and everyone else was great? No, I did pretty well (much better than some) but I only had 1 type on my dreamsheet - I wanted to fly fighters not bombers.

So, get over yourself, even a decade ago not everyone wanted to go harrier and now they certainly dont.


Such a shame you fly a bomber then isn't it. You can do what you want to the F3 however, it will never be a fighter!

As for Flaps62 getting over himself, you should try some of the same medicine my friend. Flaps was selling his a/c, not himself, unlike your last post.

[ORAC]

If you read Flaps post #29 as selling the aircraft and not himself, you speak a different language to me. If that's being modest, I'd hate to see him boast...

that looks difficult-think I'll take the easy option and go somewhere else.....instructors with chips on their shoulders who were never good enough to fly it.....It's true that the USMC didn't always post the best studes to the Harrier but look at the resulting accident rate compared to the other fleet
No, wait, maybe he is being modest for a Harrier pilot... :ooh:

[ICBM]

Come Come now, lets all be nice!

I think what's massively evident here is that each person loves their own steed, and thats a great thing! Imagine if we all flew the same aircraft in the same role? There would be far less banter I'm sure.

For a very long time now, Harrier pilots have received much banter (harsh and fair) for various things - most notably is an apparently larger than average ego. This 'may' have been the case in the past, certainly when chaps were rushing around in Hunters and Lightnings, however I would be inclined to say that the modern breed are just as humble as the next man, having met every type-operator in todays RAF. Some of the posts here smack of a little 'green monster' to the outsider, and some contain genuine and amusing banter.

The thread is about 'defending the Harrier' - IMHO, it isn't required! As we sit comfortably at our computers, getting involved in little spats over who or what's better than which, the young men and women who operate them are flying daily, in the face of a real threat. QFI Hawk Man (aka not Front Line anymore), I feel there now appears to be a disconnect between the original thread, which originated quite a while ago by the way(!), and your interesting decision to resurface this subject. I believe its your decision to do so that is 'old hat'.

I certainly hope your attitude doesn't come across to the young people you teach to fly.:=

ICBM

[wiggy]

Gee! Almost vertical!

What about lighting the twin fires....rotate on takeoff to vertical and accelerate past mach 1.0 then roll out at the top and go about your business at some ridiculous height and speed?

errr..didn't "the business" then start with a call of "Pan, Pan, Pan, due to Fuel shortage.......

[Maple 01]

More 'lamb RTB' as a rule

[212man]

I rather assumed that QFIHM was talking about Harrier GR1s!

[NoseGunner]

Tombstone

I was using "fighter" the way it has been used for about 90 years - I know thats not long enough in the army to be a tradition but not bad for combat aviation. Ie an aircraft whos job it is to shoot down other aircraft. Or to quote wikipedia "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed to attack ground targets, primarily by dropping bombs" Dunno if youre using a different one. Must admit though that the next sentence is "Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable" but 2 out of 3 aint bad (Meatloaf said that so it must be true).

I was in no way trying to sell myself or portray myself as Gods gift to aviation (I cant even convince myself of that!), just trying to use actual facts in an argument. Not traditional on PPRuNe, I know, but worth a try, I thought. Having re-read my post maybe I should have also pointed out that I wasn't the best pilot on my course at Valley, either, by a long way! I thought it was worth mentioning that some people choose paths based on other things than "that will make me look good"

To the original poster I apologise for thread creap, but some things I cant let go!

[Clockwork Mouse]

NoseGunner.

I find your statement about "the utter bollocks being spouted by that Major in Afghanistan who has no appreciation of air power" very revealing and deeply depressing. I do hope that you are not representative of your batch of RAF pilots. In fact I know you are not, thank God.

"That major" is up to his goolies in muck and bullets, commanding a unit that is suffering casualties and is not getting effective CAS from the RAF who are out there to provide it. While I am sure that they have the air threat well under control in your terms of the employment of air power, that ain't much comfort to the infantry involved in a viscious fire fight.

Grow up and learn some humility.

[NoseGunner]

Clockwork Mouse

Noone has ever denied that the said major is "up to his goolies in muck and bullets" and doing an extremely difficult and dstressful job with real people really dying. And I have a huge amount of respect for that.

The point at issue though is that the problems with interoperability will never be solved by random mud slinging and name calling. Added to that his comments are completely factually inaccurate - displaying his lack of knowledge of probably the most capable weapons available to him.

Do you disagree with the "spouting utter bollocks" part or the "no appreciation of air power"? Maybe he is a FAC, has done training with CAS regularly - most importantly with an open and honest mutual debrief and if so I apologise, but I suspect not. The way to get more effective CAS is not to tell the people doing it that they are useless.

Harriers doing CAS are an extremely capable and potent platform when used effectively. I personally don't believe they are utterly, utterly useless.

I see, though, that you carry on the tradition of random name calling and insults.

[Tombstone]

Tombstone

I was using "fighter" the way it has been used for about 90 years - I know thats not long enough in the army to be a tradition but not bad for combat aviation. Ie an aircraft whos job it is to shoot down other aircraft. Or to quote wikipedia "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed to attack ground targets, primarily by dropping bombs" Dunno if youre using a different one. Must admit though that the next sentence is "Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable" but 2 out of 3 aint bad (Meatloaf said that so it must be true).

I was in no way trying to sell myself or portray myself as Gods gift to aviation (I cant even convince myself of that!), just trying to use actual facts in an argument. Not traditional on PPRuNe, I know, but worth a try, I thought. Having re-read my post maybe I should have also pointed out that I wasn't the best pilot on my course at Valley, either, by a long way! I thought it was worth mentioning that some people choose paths based on other things than "that will make me look good"

To the original poster I apologise for thread creap, but some things I cant let go!

May I also add my apologies for the creep thread, whilst I pack up my fishing rod.

Fox 3, splash one NoseGunner.

Too easy.;)

[Clockwork Mouse]

NoseGunner,

What planet are you on? Each post you make confirms my original impression that you are an ignorant, opinionated plonker. The major, who is an operationally experienced rifle company commander, has been engaged in desperate close quarter battle with a fearless, cunning and effective enemy fighting on his own ground. His company has taken casualties and has not received effective close air support from the RAF Harriers who are out there to fulfill one single purpose: to give effective close air support to him and his fellow pongos. It is not the fault of the airmen; the RAF do not have an effective CAS weapon system. The Harrier doesn't even have a gun, for heaven's sake.

Please tell me what part of his complaint is utter bollocks. What has he said that is factually inaccurate? Is he somehow mistaken and has in fact received effective support? And how the hell does a theoretical appreciation of air power help him with his problems on the ground?
You have the arrogance to accuse him, a senior and highly qualified infantry officer, of lack of knowledge of the most capable weapons available to him. You mean, I presume, the Harrier, which is clearly not in fact proving very effective. He should know. He is there, under fire and unsupported for God's sake. If you personally don't believe they are utterly, utterly useless then you go on down to Afghanistan, join him in his trench and see how effective the CAS really is.

You blather about solving problems of interoperability and open and honest debriefings. They are not on a blasted training exercise down there. It is as real as it gets and the oppo are firing ball.

What experience do you have which qualifies you to sling mud at a real warrior? I thought so!

[Squirrel 41]

Dumb question time, so pls bear with me.... and BEADWINDOW understood!

I too was confused by the "strafing" comments of the 3 Para Major - for whom I have the utmost respect and wish (as a crab) that we had something more suitable to help out with (and doubtless, more of them....).

However, following the deletion of the GR7's UK gun (Aden 25mm IIRC?), can the GR7/9 airframe take the AV-8B's GAU-12 - which I understand is a 25mm gatling related (however distantly) to the A-10's GAU-8? If it can, how quickly could it be integrated (remember the bl**dy good effort of the techies to integrate Maverick onto GR7 a few years ago after it was supposedly unavailable on GR7s), and if not, why not.

Cheers

S41

[Clockwork Mouse]

Deliverence

Yes, the Harrier in its latest version is a lousy CAS platform. The crews, God bless them, will always do their best, but they cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The infantry need a CAS aircraft that can deliver accurate, timely and effective ordnance onto an enemy in close contact with our own troops. Its called close air support. Our MOD and politicians have failed to provide a suitable aircraft and they should be hanged out to dry for their criminal failure.

And I don't think that the Army making a complaint up the chain of command is going to produce a timely deliverence from the Major's immediate tactical problem. Give me strength!

[Flap62]

ClockworkMouse,

So the Harrier is a useless CAS aircraft, primarily because it does not have a gun, eh!

You, Sir, are a cretin, and every post you make further confirms this.

[Clockwork Mouse]

F62

Ok, so I'm a cretin. But the Harrier is still not a good CAS aircraft and you, I presume, are a Harrier pilot. How frustrating for you. I am, or was, an infantryman.

[Tombstone]

Flaps62,

don't give him too hard a time. You must remember that he is a pongo & only understands weapons up to and including the calibre of Cannon.

Guns & rifles rool! ;)

[NoseGunner]

Right well I'm gonna keep thrashing away - although gagging a bit as I seem to have a hook, line and sinker obstructing my throat. The humiliation is unbearable!:uhoh:

And to make it worse I'm finding myself completely in agreement with a harrier pilot.:confused:

I need to go for a quiet lie down in a dark place.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"don't give him too hard a time. You must remember that he is a pongo & only understands weapons up to and including the calibre of Cannon."

What ever happened to the customer is always right:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Monty77]

The RAF Harrier, in it's current ground attack configuration, is not the best aircraft in the world for supporting ground troops in the close air support role. If anyone here wants to dispute that, bring it on.

There is no doubt in my mind, that the pilots that fly the RAF Harrier are the best pilots in the RAF. Believe me, I've trained some of them. Frighteningly good.

Weirdly outstanding in their situational-awareness they can see and do stuff that the rest of us can simply goggle at.

I just wish that the government would provide the best kit.

But they don't.

If you had to do a job - any job, ask a Brit what piece of kit on the market he would like to use to do the job he would ALWAYS come up
yank kit. Because it's better.

[orca]

Meanwhile, back at the original question. I believe that the RN bought a total of 52 or so FRS1 and FA2 aircraft. They attained 32 kills down south. (Some sources say 28). Even so, how many other aircraft have a similar record?

As for A-A performance, the FA2 never had a problem dealing with a Fulcrum threat BVR. BV plus AMRAAM versus Slot Back plus 10A? No contest. Particularly as the SHAR could CAP in Block three and climb on commit. I have personal experience of three threat nations so consider myself well informed. WVR was often a disaster, but is in just about every other platform, certainly until the new joint helmet and 9X came along. A Fulcrum with HMS and AA-11 would knock anything over WVR - unless you got some serious angles at the merge. WVR the small size of the harrier is a real plus, compared to F-18 and 15, and 14 before it too went to the scrap pile.

As for aggressing on Red Flag, i can honestly say that a couple of us had an absolute roar behind the 'no-no-we've-got-a-different/exactly-the-same-plan-today-but-no-way-of-dealing-with-leakers-Eagle-Wall".

As for the GR-various Harriers its a pretty good CAS and AI platform, and some nations have an AIM-120 capability to help them along as well.

[Pureteenlard]

Thankyou, Orca, an actual reply to the question I asked! I was beginning to despair . . .:ugh:

[brickhistory]

......had an absolute roar behind the 'no-no-we've-got-a-different/exactly-the-same-plan-today-but-no-way-of-dealing-with-leakers-Eagle-Wall".


.........:ok: ...........

[WhiteOvies]

Sorry my reply #4 wasn't good enough! ;)
Following on from orca you could quote SHAR vs Malaysian Mig 29s - SHAR won BVR everytime but tended to get minced close in. Also against Malaysian Hawk 200 and Australian F-18s SHAR did well in A-A, all in a hot and humid environment which was not conducive to keeping the Blue Vixen serviceable.

[Pureteenlard]

Sorry my reply #4 wasn't good enough! ;)
Following on from orca you could quote SHAR vs Malaysian Mig 29s - SHAR won BVR everytime but tended to get minced close in. Also against Malaysian Hawk 200 and Australian F-18s SHAR did well in A-A, all in a hot and humid environment which was not conducive to keeping the Blue Vixen serviceable.
Post #4 was truly excellent - just so long ago that it had momentarily slipped my mind . . .:)

[griffinblack]

Clockwork mouse,

Hats off to you. You did try.

The mentioned major is a light infantryman. His role is to seize and hold terrain in all seasons, weather and terrain. And everyone is there to help him. That is how infantry think. They don’t know the intricacies of planning, weather or how hard it is to see things from the air. They don’t understand air ROE or how hard it is to prevent fratricide from the air through usable but robust control measures. All they want is bombs, on time and on target and as much as they need to suppress, neutralise or destroy the enemy. All other arms and services are there to support him.

He doesn’t understand air warfare, but few of you have demonstrated any understanding of the needs of a tactical ground commander in contact, or ground manoeuvre. If he says he is getting inadequate close air support, my guess is he is getting inadequate CAS. Either too restrictive, not on time, not the right load or simply not enough of it. Perhaps the CAS platform is not creating the effect he is after, when he wants it.

Is he expecting too much – perhaps. Does he understand air power and its intricacies - almost certainly not, but he doesn’t care because CAS is there to provide Close Air SUPPORT (YOU ARE SUPPORTING HIS TACTICAL OBJECTIVE) – not the other way around.

You guys may be the best pilots in the world – but it doesn’t matter in the least. It simply comes down to having enough of the right equipment, in the right place and the will to use it – to support the tactical commander.

[Navaleye]

Its interesting that the UK and ROW Harrier communities have a different opinion about how to eqiup the Harrier. Everyone else says it needs a radar to make it the truly versatile machine it has the potential to be, the RAF says it doesn't. The end result is that we ended up with a gun less, compromised airframe that is OK for CAS, but totally unsuited to carrier ops relying on other assets to defend it. Fatty Ingram said that it would cost £650m to fit Blue Vixen to the GR9. Well assuming a unit cost of maybe £30m for a Harrier that buys a fleet of about 20 Harrier II+.

[Semper Jump Jet]

However, following the deletion of the GR7's UK gun (Aden 25mm IIRC?), can the GR7/9 airframe take the AV-8B's GAU-12 - which I understand is a 25mm gatling related (however distantly) to the A-10's GAU-8? If it can, how quickly could it be integrated (remember the bl**dy good effort of the techies to integrate Maverick onto GR7 a few years ago after it was supposedly unavailable on GR7s), and if not, why not.

Cheers

S41
I asked the same question on a related post, the Gau12 is a self-contained kit, so I don't see why it couldn't bolt on to the belly of the GR.7, as long as there is a way to provide bleed air from the compressor and of course a way to control it electronically. I'd wager a couple of guys with 50lb brains and a case of beer could make it work in about 48 hours, but it would then require 7 years of testing by both governments to validate!

[RileyDove]

The GAU pods should fit straight on the same mounts. From memory the RAF Harrier is beefed up on both sides to take the cannon recoil - the AV-8B isn't
but apart from that it should be the same.

[Squirrel 41]

Semper, Riley

Thanks for this. And though there are differences between AV-8B and GR5/7/9 - cf the AGM-65G2 point earlier - they are presumably sortable. (I understand that the 50lb brains in question last time were some WO/FS + Sengo who were determined to show it Could be done..... :D

So GAU-12? Get on with it!!!

S41

[GlosMikeP]

Report on page 23 of the Oct 06 edition, under the main commentary on "Wings over Europe" is a sub-section "Red Harriers", a highly paraphrased extract from which is:

Among the nations interested in the Harrier was the People's Republic of China. During the 1970s John Farley was asked to give a flight in a 2-seat harrier to the second-in-command of the People's Liberation Army Air Force - a current MiG pilot............However a combination of UK inflation and the hot,high environment from where they would be operating put paid to the idea. As a postscript, after the Falkland's war the same General contacted John to say "If we had realised how good the Harrier was we would have found the money for it somehow!"

[TEEEJ]

Report on page 23 of the Oct 06 edition, under the main commentary on "Wings over Europe" is a sub-section "Red Harriers", a highly paraphrased extract from which is:

Among the nations interested in the Harrier was the People's Republic of China. During the 1970s John Farley was asked to give a flight in a 2-seat harrier to the second-in-command of the People's Liberation Army Air Force - a current MiG pilot............However a combination of UK inflation and the hot,high environment from where they would be operating put paid to the idea. As a postscript, after the Falkland's war the same General contacted John to say "If we had realised how good the Harrier was we would have found the money for it somehow!"


From the National Archives:

"Covering dates: 1973 April 11
Scope and content: Defence implications of the sale of Harrier aircraft and Spey aircraft engines to China.
Access conditions: Normal Closure before FOI Act: 30 years
Closure status: Open Document, Open Description
Held by: The National Archives, Kew"

Images of Harrier GR.3, serial XZ965, on display in China. I believe that the late Ray Hanna swapped the GR.3 for an La-9?!

http://afwing.com/gallery/beijing.htm

Maybe John Farley can add some more info on the snippets from this webpage?

http://harrier.hyperlinx.cz/gallery/mod8.htm

[John Farley]

His name was Mr Ma

[SSSETOWTF]

While, at first look, it should be relatively straight-forward to bolt the AV-8B gun onto a GR7/9. I believe a major stumbling block / expense would be that no other box / structure / weapon on the aircraft has had vibration testing to the required level (ie to demonstrate that they can survive the vibration of repeated gun firings). Not sure whether this could be circumvented by an OEC though - anyone from IPT world able to shed any light?

Add to that the woeful (IMHO) reluctance by the UK and US Harrier worlds to share knowledge, (eg look at the OSCAR/H20/H40 upgrade to the AV-8B and how it is almost identical to the GR9 programme, but both have been planned and run in complete isolation) it would be a break with tradition for us to just grab their gun, bolt it on and go.

Without a nice APG-65 or Blue Vixen in the front to give you a radar CCIP, the GR7/9's aiming options would realistically limit it to an area weapon - which is what we have with CRV-7 anyway. Finally, now we strap the TIALD pod on the gun station anyway (on some jets), and we didn't buy the big engine for the whole fleet so could really do without having to carry the extra 1000lb of weight around unless it's absolutely necessary. Overall I don't think it's as simple as 'we want a gun, and that one on the shelf looks nice and shiney' - but in principle it's a great idea.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Flap62]

SSSETHOWF,

So without radar the GR7/9 is limited to delivering "area" weapons. What about ARBS/GPS Baro etc? What's the CEP on dumb deliveries from 45deg, 10,000ft? Let me tell you, it aint changed from when I did it and it wasn't much then!

[GlosMikeP]

His name was Mr Ma
Highly inventive communications plan I thought, though I left it out here for brevity.

Did it work flawlessly?

[John Farley]

GlosMikeP

In a word yes

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/4smallcrop.jpg

[GlosMikeP]

John

Couldn't be clearer in morse!

[Semper Jump Jet]

Add to that the woeful (IMHO) reluctance by the UK and US Harrier worlds to share knowledge, (eg look at the OSCAR/H20/H40 upgrade to the AV-8B and how it is almost identical to the GR9 programme, but both have been planned and run in complete isolation) it would be a break with tradition for us to just grab their gun, bolt it on and go.


Good points all, very frustrating how the two programs diverged, another case of "work harder, not smarter" for both services.

Not having the radar for ranging does degrade slant range calculation but it doesn't seem to be an order of magnitude difference than the ARBs, GPS etc...

Losing the gun station for the TIALD is an issue too, USMC is currently working putting the LITENING on centerline but it's not yet approved. Not sure if that's even an option for GR9.

[LateArmLive]

A man in the know tells me that the GR9s will have Litening on the same station as TIALD. :)