How good would SHAR be as an Afghan mud mover...?

[Yeoman_dai]

Just a thought, and I know it always dangerous to resurrect the Sea Harrier topic, but I was pondering this and thought it best to come here for an answer. The current RAF Harrier Fleet has been very overworked on Herric over the last few years, and with Tonka's deployment being delayed even more I was wondering, if we had kept the SHAR FA2's instead of binning them, how useful would they be?

Could the Naval Strike wing have used them in Afghan, to take some of the burden off the GR7/9's or would their ground attack capability be so much less as to be not really worth it? I mean, their rough airstrip capable, have a decent enough payload, can carry rockets and dumb bombs - you'd miss precision guided weapons, mind

[Biggus]

I knew we should never have scrapped those Beaufighters and Mosquitos.....

[Winch-control]

I thought the un-manned missiles and a/c were all the rage now! Yeoman Dai

[Yeoman_dai]

Haha Biggus, indeed, long loiter time, large amounts of ordnance, what more could anyone want...

A little different in that Sea Harrier cuts were cost saving not due to obsolescence... which is why I posed this theoreical question

[spheroid]

Not more Navy in the Stan..... leave us alone and send some bugger else

[Double Zero]

Yeoman,

I was a technical photographer on the FRS2 trials, before various things & changes made it expedient to call it FA2.

It had uprated software for 'dumb' bombing compared to the FRS1 - mind you that was always being updated.

CCIP bombing was pretty accurate, about as good as it gets I should think ( can't give accurate figures, but let's say I wouldn't choose to moon at the pilot from the target position ).

Loft delivery was always an option, again being periodically updated, and of course particularly suited to LGB's.

Of course if it was still in service it would have a Sniper pod etc by now...

I don't know what software version the Indian Navy have, and I suspect they don't use the aircraft in that role, but must practice at it; I wonder if our very decent Indian contact could enlighten us ( I think I know his callsign, but as I'm not certain I just hope he reads this ).

[minigundiplomat]

Not more Navy in the Stan..... leave us alone and send some bugger else


A fair point, but one I'd keep to oneself in the current climate, those without a high profile role at the moment are likely to be first in line for cuts, hence the heavy RN presence in the desert.

[Jimlad1]

"Just a thought, and I know it always dangerous to resurrect the Sea Harrier topic, but I was pondering this and thought it best to come here for an answer. The current RAF Harrier Fleet has been very overworked on Herric over the last few years, and with Tonka's deployment being delayed even more I was wondering, if we had kept the SHAR FA2's instead of binning them, how useful would they be?"

You'd have had to have spent a fortune on them to put on the UOR kit required to get them to a standard where they could operate effectively in the environment. Given how much we spent on GR7/9 and will be spending on Tonka, I don't think it would have saved much.

Also - would the engines have been able to cope with it?

[Double Zero]

Minigundiplomat,


I think you'll find Joint Force Harrier includes the Fleet Air Arm, who are traditionally the type of pilots and groundcrew who like giving it to the enemy - though in this case only partially the RAF !

Jimlad,

It depends how you look at it; the FA2 was meant to have loads of kit it never got, so would that have been upgrading for Afghanistan or just a late fit ?

[L J R]

No-one overflies targets to hit them anymore - well no-one that is serious about mud moving anyway (CCIP et al = overfly).

Someone says SHAR was accurate at CCIP - so what, anyone (credible) since 1986 is as accurate.....

[Pontius Navigator]

No-one overflies targets to hit them anymore - well no-one that is serious about mud moving anyway (CCIP et al = overfly).

Oh? In which case why are they clearing the gun on Typhoon and prectising strafe of the GR4? What of CRV7 on the GR7/9?

I am not sure but could the SHAR not have been fitted with PWIV?

[advocatusDIABOLI]

LJR,

Would you not agree, that you never have to overfly tgts, if you are in a a limited threat environment? I cetainly wouldn't want to by choice.

Given, bigger threats, both S-A and A-A, we might not have the luxury of 'Drop at Will' (Whom ever 'Will' is!).

We might find, in the future, that hard learned tactical lessons, are learned again. Low and fast, in a 'stealth-ish' ftr, might be the only way in.

Advo

[LateArmLive]

Absolutely right. The SHAR would have been great to use in HERRICK, just as soon as we fitted it with a new wing with multiple hardpoints, a bigger engine so it could actually carry an AG payload in block 2, a targeting pod, a decent countermeasures suite, a new cockpit and avionics, and a brand new SMS. (Maybe we could called it the Harrier II+?)

Oh, and then we could have trained a new bunch of grubbers and bombheads to maintain it, paid BAe seven billion pounds for the work (which would be ready in late 2015,16,17...) and finally we could also magic up some pilots to fly it.

Great idea! :ok:

[Yeoman_dai]

Wasn't an idea, I was asking how useful it would have been...


And I think, from that, what you're saying is that it would be an excellent aircraft, yes? Or have I missed something....

[XV277]

And I think, from that, what you're saying is that it would be an excellent aircraft, yes? Or have I missed something....

Yes, the bit where he mentions Harrier II+ - like the USMC have....

The big problem with the Sea Harrier in Afghanistan is the same problem that caused them to be binned in the first place - poor hot & high performance with the engine they had fitted. They needed a new engine, it would have meant a new rear & centre fuselage and the cost was just too much.

[Load Toad]

Yes I think you've missed something.

[Yeoman_dai]

Should have left that part out. :hmm:

Plus side, for me anyway, this is interesting, I had no idea Harrier's hot 'n high was that bad?

[L J R]

For those who missed the reference to the 'overfly' piece, the reference was a hint that todays offensive aircraft fly with PGMs, where the 'smart' weapon does the dirty whilst the delivery platform does the avoiding of the TGT. ie Dumb Bombs are for the application air weapons range - PW2/PW3/EPW/PW4 etc would be the way forward to the SHAR, as long as you gave the jet the software to manage it, and / or integrate a suitable pod to generate co-ords etc.

Kachingggg $$$$$$ - BAE systems enter here.

At the end of the day, the SHAR was great for its prime job - Carrier Air Defence. ie send a carrier with an embarked aircraft to defend itself. Take the carrier away, and it doesn't need defending.

How good was SHAR's 'Bring-Back' capability (not every CAS mission actually drops)?

The reference to the Gun (can be considered 'precise' from GR-4) and CRV-7 - they are not the PRIME weapon for the specified aircraft, but good to have on-board, If I recollect recent events, both the GR-4 and GR-7 primarily deliver PGMs in recent history

....and if someone wants to take up the Typhoon gun piece, move it to another thread...

[TEEEJ]

Yeoman_dai,

The following is in reference to the plan to upgrade the SHARs Pegasus.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 21 May 2002 (pt 1) (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020521/text/20521w01.htm)

'Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of upgrading the Harrier GR7 to GR9; and what estimate he has made of the cost of upgrading the engine of the Harrier FA2. [57230]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1166–67W.

The integration of the Pegasus Mk 107 engine into 11 Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft was the subject of a feasibility study in 2000. The cost of integration was estimated to be approximately £230 million. The study concluded that there would be significant technical difficulties and that overall the programme did not represent good value for money.'

House of Commons - Defence - Fourth Report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/779/77908.htm)

'The MoD told us that:

The current engine of the Sea Harrier does not provide adequate thrust to enable operations to be conducted year around in hot climates, such as those encountered in the Gulf. There would be a very high level of technical risk in fitting new engines, since the Sea Harrier was not designed to take the more powerful engine which is being fitted to some of the Harrier GR9s. (The Sea Harrier is an early generation Harrier I—similar to the RAF's previous Harrier GR3s—whilst the only Harriers operating world-wide with the upgraded engines are the extensively modified Harrier IIs, such as Harrier GR7/9s). Specifically, the main technical risks are associated with the extensive airframe modifications that would be required and the adverse effects on the engine due to different intakes.[181]

An MoD study in 2000 found that (even if feasible) it would cost £230 million to integrate Mk-107 engines on just 11 Sea Harriers.[182] Sir Jock Stirrup considered that the necessary improvements to the Sea Harrier would have been "extremely expensive," and perhaps impossible.[183]'

See also John Farley's post ref fitting new engine in the SHAR.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/98152-sea-jet-2.html

TJ

[dat581]

Was a study even done on fitting the Blue Vixen radar and various other bits of the SHAR weapons system to the Gr7/Gr9? Much like the addition of recycled APG-65s from USN/USMC Hornets into AV-8Bs.

[Brain Potter]

I cannot understand why the MoD allowed the Mark 2 Sea Harrier programme to proceed at the same time but independently of the Harrier II, which became the GR5/7/9. Surely common sense dictates that a coherent policy for UK Harrier projects in the 1980's would have been to have a common airframe based on the more advanced Harrier II structure and aerodynamics, but with avionics suited the seperate requirements of each service. It seems crazy to have spent money putting an advanced radar into a 1960's airframe. To put it in perspective, the AV-8B+ entered service in the same year as the FA2.

Maybe the RN thought it politically better to be deliberately seperate from the RAF project. If they did, not only was it a waste a taxpayers money, but it has proved to be a flawed policy. I suspect that a Sea Harrier II+ would still be in service today as an FAA aircraft.

[XV277]

dat581

It's not as simple as sticking a radar onto the front of an AV-8B - those converted to II+ had to have a completely new fuselage built (Hence why ex-USMC fuselages turned up as BDRT airframes at Wittering and Cottesmore).

BP

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, when the FA2 was launched in the 80s, no-one thought we'd be fighting a series of wars in the Arabian Gulf.

Also, the FA2 got through the budget as an upgrade (and one that was less extensive than originally envisaged) with 12 attrition replacement airframes. An RN AV-8B/FA3 would have been all new build airframes, with the revised fuselage as mentioned above - and if we'd used Blue Vixen, then we'd have had to pay for the design and system integration of that as well.

There was also a question I beleive of the 100mph speed difference between the FA2 and the AV-8B being considered an advantage in a fighter.

[barnstormer1968]

I have a question.
We all seem to realise that the Sea Harrier is out of service, and Yeoman Dai's original question was only theoretical anyway.

So, would a Lancaster (yes we do have one left) be any use in the CAS role. If we fitted some heat suppressors on the exhausts, would it's long loiter and ability to train three separate sets of guns on target be of any use (I say three, as in: nose; ventral and tail, although in mountain territory I suppose the upper could come in handy).
I know this idea has already been thought through (DC3 gunship and AC130), but would it be of use in what we are doing now, and if so are there any suggestions of a suitable aircraft type we could do it with.
Please no suggestions that we buy off the shelf proven gear...we must keep to reality, and remember the politicians we have, who would have to agree to this:eek:.

Thinking about this further, a multi gunned UAV could be pretty tasty!
I am thinking more of a converted C119 from desert storage (semi disposable) rather than a Predator.

[L J R]

How about a million Sopwith Camels each with a GBU-12 and a hand held laser pointer....?

Would cost a little less than a Typhoon.

....?

[Double Zero]

The Sea Harrier FA2 was a fighter / interceptor, weapon range in the order of 50 miles, the GR7-9 is a bomber with limited air to air self defence ability range 1-4 miles depending on one's luck.

As mentioned previously, the 'improved aerodynamics' include going 100mph slower; but it is a fair bit more user-friendly.

I agree if we had to bin the Sea Harrier, ( which we didn't ) a sensible move would have been to get some Harrier 2+, as while it IS beefed up, it does have a lot of commonality with the GR5,7,9.

Like everyone else I'd normally jump through hoops for the chance of a Lancaster flight, but if over Afghanistan etc maybe not...and what's this about a ventral gun - did someone cut a hole and poke a Bren through ?!

[Archimedes]

Some Lancs had a ventral turret (A Frazer Nash affair, IIRC), but it was fitted to only a small number of aircraft.

[Double Zero]

Archimedes,

Thanks for that - I had a feeling there might have been the odd special, but certainly not general fit.

[barnstormer1968]

As we only have the one Lanc, I did not think general fit had to be mentioned:E
Although I am surprised at the lack of bites...oops I mean responses.
I had visions of a newer version of "options for change" throwing up all sorts of ideas.
One quickie was to drag a Fairey Gannet out of some museum and lash up some form of turret where the radome once was!, The odd Shackleton has been used for co-in work too. In fact the Gannets and Shackletons could form a modern RAF MEAF
but with the MEAF standing for Middle East Antique Force this time around.




Coat already in hand, door in sight:\

[Double Zero]

Well there's a Gannet Double Mamba at Tangmere, but it may need new prop's as the current ones are about a foot long.

You'll need to remember to unplug it, as it's currently ( pardon the pun ) driven electrically.

As for fitting Blue Vixen onto a Harrier 2+ etc, a creative accountant can make up any figure they feel like, having first judged if their boss is pro or anti the scheme.

As a photographer for BAe when it was still a decent place to be, if photographing equipment my first approach was to ask why the photographs were required, was it to show how good or bad the kit was...

( I also insisted on switches being in realistic settings, to avoid derision ) - it's surprisingly easy to make things look very bad or very good.

I'm damn sure we could have had Harrier 2+ if the will had been there, with or without Blue Vixen; preferably with, but the really important bit was the AMRAAM.

Remember budgets are funny things, when the officers of a Type 42 destroyer left an inexperienced midshipman on watch overnight ( this of course is the story version I heard ) he managed to get broadside on in front of a supertanker in the Straits of Hormuz.

Result, broken detroyer carried into harbour on the bulbous bow of the tanker, otherwise it would have sunk.

It cost more to repair the ship than build a new one, but there was a ready 'repair budget' while a new ship was unthinkable, so she was repaired...The same sort of logic may well have applied to the mid-life update of the Sea Harrier, ( which also kept British jobs and technology ticking along ) compared to buying the then unproved Harrier 2+.

As with the hover trials mentioned next, please PM me if wanting a shot of the proposed FRS2 ( as then ) rather than how it turned out.

As for the Sea Harrier and bring-back, it did suffer in this area if heavily loaded, say with 2 Sea Eagles, but as J.Farley mentioned, taking off with 2 in the first place would have been a panic war move, normally it would have one, and a drop tank the other side.

The Sea Harrier can hover quite happily with such a load, I know as I walked nearly underneath until cowardice set in, and pointed the camera upwards to photograph it...

I'm happy to report a Kingston photographer pushed his luck ( well, they weren't used to live aeroplanes ) and got picked up by the efflux, lifted about 50' then thrown to the ground - he was lucky not to have any broken bones, but I think he got the message.

Having trouble with Photobucket & the other site presently, ( just had my P.C. 'repaired' ) but if anyone's bothered please PM me and I'll e-mail a copy of the hover trials & proposed FRS2 inc. cockpit.

[Delta Hotel]

Well, if the SHAR had the ability to:

carry more fuel
have more thrust for +50C and Afghan altitudes
carry and spike in precision weapons
carry a digi recce pod
be equipped with modern & secure comms
have a modern defensive suite

then, I also believe that it should join the fight in Afghanistan. Simples ....:)

[L J R]

Good point and Well presented DH, so I presume the RN will get the Super Hornet then....!

[The Helpful Stacker]

But if the RN managed to get hold of some Super Hornets it'd be doing what it scoffs at the RAF over, restricting itself to land-based operations. The CVFs after all are going to be Dave-B compatible, not Dave-C.

[BEagle]

The CVFs after all are going to be Dave-B compatible, not Dave-C.

A point I made to a visiting MP at Base Aerea Gringo when he was down for the tourist, sorry, flesh-pressing season one December. A carrier designed for F-35C can always be used by F-35B and/or Harrier but the converse is not true!

Are the planned new carriers really not compatible with F-35C - is there no room for catapults and arrestor systems, should that prove necessary?

[Sunk at Narvik]

The QE design includes ducts for traps, space for arrester gear and space for steam plant should it be required. The as built design will have a large port sponson supporting an angled deck, although its not so apparent with centre-line deck markings.

Goto Video 2 on this link, about a quarter of the way through you'll see the CTOL gear going down before the flight deck is covered over:

Queen Elizabeth Class : Future Ships : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/queen-elizabeth-class/)

[NURSE]

The FAA would have been better buying a variant of the GR5 instead of upgrading but hey ho.

[27mm]

BBC reporting that a Harrier has gone down in the 'Stan - pilot ejected

[Double Zero]

I think you'll find Sea Harriers did well in 'hot & high' trials - though no jet likes it much, the GR5-9 has a slightly more powerful engine but a lot more weight and drag.

The questions about digital recce' and weapon aiming pods are easy to answer - someone would have had to stump up the payments for the wiring, computers + pods !

The Navy had even worse recce' pods ( and the same poor built in cameras ) compared to the RAF, but a relatively small cash input could have sorted that.

Not as drastic as it sounds, until getting a rip-off quote from the companies involved.

The aircraft has in-flight refuelling, and defensive suites are up to the customer; in 1982 it didn't have any except in most cases a RWR, so a bunch of tin foil was placed above the airbrake as a ' one-off ' chance.

Since then, as I'm sure you know, the U.S.Marines found out in Gulf War 1 that while not reheated, the nozzles tended to attract SAM's to the centre of the aircraft, which led to the 2+ mark having upwards firing chaff & flares, and other automatic systems.

[greycoat]

wasn't the SHAR used in the Balkans (albeit with restrictive ROE) in the 90s to drop stuff on the Serb wpns deemed to be infringing the ceasefire. Unfortunately one was lost.

[Charizma]

The role in Afghan doesn't include any hovering or any particularly short TO & landing, therefore the Hot and High argument is exclusive.
We were trialing LGB on the Shar in Bosnia and dropping alot of ordinance.
Returning from a mission with ordinance isn't an issue in a conventional scenario.
At one of the last little bombing competitions held at RAF Wittering between the FA2 and the GR mud movers, the FA2 came out tops in all disciplines!
The FA2 was due a Secure comms upgrade and an DAS upgrade prior the the plug being pulled.
The Blue Vixen radar was a world beater at AI and not too ropey at look down either. One story from Bosnia of one of our pilots picking up a low flying chopper at roughly 80NM and informing the AWACS, which had a hard time spotting it springs to mind.

I reckon the FA2 would have been ready and would have done us pround too!

[Just This Once...]

Hey I like the SHAR as much as the next man, but some of these posts are getting fanciful. DH gave you a good hint that whilst the SHAR was capable of doing some good things, modern mud moving was not one of them.

The quotes about ‘hot and high’, hover and relevance to theatre are ridiculous – ‘hot and high’ is just as relevant for conventional Harrier flight. Blessed with a tiny wing and an engine that was sapped of power at high ambient temperatures (let alone the airfield altitudes of Afg) the old girl could struggle, even at light weights.

Double Zero, the ‘extra drag and weight’ of the GR9 that you speak of is not there for fun – it’s to do its job. I’ll keep it simple, ignoring money, wiring, performance, weight, safe carriage and release, RF threats etc lets consider a modern load-out:

Draw a sketch of the SHAR
Now add 6 hard points
Think about the tiny internal fuel load
So add 2 external tanks to the 2 inboard pylons
Think about DAS
So add IR BOL to the 2 outboard pylons
Oh and a TERMA pod to a fuselage pylon of your choice

Now what to do with that remaining pylon; hmmm…:

Perhaps a targeting pod (perhaps a mate could bring a bomb)
Perhaps a single gun
Perhaps a single dumb bomb
Perhaps a single rocket pack

The poor old SHAR was never going to be a decent CAS platform, hence the move to a big wing, multiple pylons, increased fuel load, bigger engine, mixed weapons loads, decent cockpit, FLIR, decent avionics etc that all came with the later generation Harrier II.

Oh and regarding Blue Vixen at 80+ miles – well the radar had many plus points but long range work was certainly not one of them. Having also joined-in with SHAR-centric bombing contests it was always good for a giggle. The opening rules usually started by prohibiting the other contestants from using their normal suite of weapons, or their usual means of delivery…

[Double Zero]

Well, it sounds like you may have flown the Sea-jet / GR5 etc, I certainly didn't, just worked with the designers. ( photography of kit installations only not using them ) The original mid life update ' FRS2 ' included a bigger wing and a fair bit of other equipment, which might well have worked out handy- and it had AMRAAMS and /or guns !