Harrier replacement

[John Farley]

I was asked yesterday by an old lady who knew of my Harrier connections about what woud replace it. I showed her a pic of the F-35B in the hover and she said "It looks like a badly opened tin".

[ColdCollation]

Sorry, but I couldn't help sniggering. Then got to thinking, 'If it looks right...':uhoh:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Is this an old lady who, like my mother, turns out to have been trained by De Havilland and knows a wrong 'un when she sees one?

[sharpend]

Will we every see an F35 here? Talked to chaps at RIAT and read the news. Doubtful. Too expensive and the B(I)8 Canberra could do more. & yes, a Canberra did land on a carrier!

[John Farley]

I thought her comment exremely amusing and on a par with another old lady a while back who said "It looks like the machine that clears the drains in our street"

[camlobe]

Oh, I do so wish we had a 'Like' button on here.

Camlobe

[Davef68]

a Canberra did land on a carrier!

More details please!

[Wander00]

There you go - what does "MRCA" stand for................hat, coat...

[cobalt42]

F-35B...

"It looks like a badly opened tin"

:D:ok::ok:

[Herod]

Harrier replacement? A new Harrier.

[JohnFTEng]

I recall the last(?) Canberra off to Argentina. A touch overweight perhaps. Good job the lights at Freckelton were green. loL

[Herod]

There you go - what does "MRCA" stand for................hat, coat...

Seems like MRCAaAaAaA...and Again, and Again and Again...

[sharpend]

MRCA= Mother Riles Cardboard Aircraft

or was it

Must Refurbish the Canberra Again?

ps I think the Americans did the carrier Canberra landing in Vietnam. I remember also seeing a video of a Herc landing on. Anyone got footage of the Canberra?

[Wander00]

Sharpend - the second of those.......................

[CoffmanStarter]

All good John ... But the similarity with the Flip Top Wheelie Bin must be up there too :ooh:

[golamv]

You can see the C130 carrier trails here;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

[dragartist]

P.1154 being discussed by Dr Michael Pryce at Cambridge RAeS on December 11th at Marshall.


Now in plan form that did not look too dissimilar to Johns Harrier. I guess wheelie bins had not been invented by then so the designer took no inspiration.


All my books on Canberra - no details of carrier landing. JF, could you ask Eric if he knows anything of this.


Drag

[Al R]

The Harrier was never the prettiest of things either, mind. I rather like the ungainly look of the F-35.

[BOAC]

All my books on Canberra - no details of carrier landing. - it will be the B57 or RB57 to search for. There are some tenuous links on Google I cannot follow!

[LowObservable]

Both excellent descriptions. There's also a passing resemblance to one of the larger members of the order Coleoptera.

[MSOCS]

Haters will always hate.

[Lima Juliet]

If the old girl thought that the F35 "Flying Wheelie Bin" was Fugly, what did she think of the Harrrier?!!

I always compared the 2:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51103000/jpg/_51103901_harrier2.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/11/16/charles460x276.jpg

Oh well, off to the Tower for me then... :ok:

LJ

[CoffmanStarter]

Yep ... Off to Air Traffic for you LJ :E

[glad rag]

There you go - what does "MRCA" stand for................hat, coat...

40 years continuous ops?

:D

[NutLoose]

Al R
The Harrier was never the prettiest of things either, mind. I rather like the ungainly look of the F-35.


At least the Harrier never carried a load of dead weight everywhere that was only utilised on the landing phase.. We seem to never learn

[Engines]

Nut,

Actually, it did. It was called a very large engine with an oversized front fan. It also carried a lot of additional structural weight to locate the engine in the middle of the fuselage.

There were other penalties, but these were overcome by brilliant design and detailed engineering so as to make it a viable combat aircraft.

You might also note that the F-35B's lift system is used for STO as well as vertical landing, slightly useful if you want to operate from a ship, or short runways.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that getting a powered lift aircraft to work well enough to be an effective military combat jet is 'crazy hard'. It always involves compromises, clever engineering and significant risk. The Harrier was the only successful one of many attempts to develop such an aircraft - my opinion (and that's all it is) is that the F-35B will be the next. Many think it won't - that's fine too.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever to those making function meet requirement

Engines

[Lima Juliet]

At least the Harrier never carried a load of dead weight everywhere that was only utilised on the landing phase...

I beg to differ, a Harrier jock has a large ego to carry about - and that is a significant burden!

LJ :E

(sent from the Tower of London)

[gzornenplatz]

Why didn't they think of some sort of catapult device on ships to save the weight of heavy lift fans and maybe have cables and things to stop aeroplanes from falling off the end of the deck when they land? Or is that too far in the future. Sorry.

[charliegolf]

At least the Harrier never carried a load of dead weight everywhere that was only utilised on the landing phase.

No Nav?

CG

[The B Word]

Why would you want to carry a dead nav? I find them more useful alive - just! :ok:

The B Word

[Typhoon93]

LJ, your comparison is brilliant!


You are going to Hell, though. :)

T.

[Onceapilot]

Engines,

Actually, the "oversized fan" made the RB Pegasus a very efficient (medium bypass) engine in the Harrier role and in achieving its hover power requirement. I would also suggest that the placement of the engine in the middle of the fuselage of a combat jet like the Harrier probably MINIMIZED its structural weight! Placing engines at the extremities of an aircraft structure can increase structural weight due to the extra strength needed to be built into large parts of the aircraft that do not need to be so strong for aerodynamic or other loads. Weight penalties of tail mounted engines on large-ish narrow body aircraft spring to mind.;)
You are right though, compromise, and the RIGHT compromise, is the key. Trouble is, maybe they have got the cost/effectiveness compromise of the F35 badly wrong?

OAP

[Engines]

OAP,

I apologise for not being clearer - by 'oversized' I meant that the engine had to have a very large diameter - this led to a fairly fat fuselage and a basically subsonic design. That was a challenge looking at the UK's firm requirement for a next generation supersonic STOVL aircraft.

For a combat jet, LM's view was that the right place for a single engine is down aft. This minimises jet pipe losses, allows more options for intake placement, and frees up the central structure for stuff like weapons bays (if you are going for stealth) as well as fuel. I am inclined to agree, but I know others might differ.

The British preference for aft mounted engines on airliners was driven in part by a desire for very clean wings to attain high cruise speeds and long range, with quieter passenger cabins as a useful by product. This layout was structurally inefficient, and led to substantial extra weight (which reduced the range). The situation is very different with combat aircraft like the F-35. The engine thrust mounts are closed to the main wing spar and also the undercarriage attachments - making for what should be an efficient structure.

The Harrier design solution included multiple small fuel tanks built into the fuselage to replace larger but fewer fuel tanks - they worked, but could never be very weight efficient. They also leaked. The UK's many efforts to design a supersonic ASTOVL design with a centrally mounted engine never delivered a feasible design - and I got that opinion from a senior BAES designer.

You are spot on that the right compromise is the key. My answer to your question 'have they got the compromise of the F-35 badly wrong' is 'no, I don't think so'. Again, I know others will disagree.

My view is that the design has concentrated on high end sensors and information capability, and systems integration with the weapons. I think that's a key attribute. They have gone for an 'LO' design, not a 'VLO' design, and have not pursued the highest end of the manoeuvre spectrum. Again, I'd back that call.

Most importantly for the US, they have produced a common family from one aircraft that replaces many legacy platforms. The savings are planned to come downstream as the production lines roll and the support systems are delivered to reduce through life costs. That's the plan. Again, I know others think it's a rotten plan.

Hope this helps a bit,

Engines

[Hempy]

and have not pursued the highest end of the manoeuvre spectrum.

They seem to have successfully achieved that KPI!