F35 v Harrier

[effortless]

Just idle curiosity but how do they compare for endurance? Could the F35 stay in the air without Tankering as long as the Harrier?

just in general terms no secrets wanted.

[Pontius Navigator]

Just idle curiosity but how do they compare for endurance? Could the F35 stay in the air without Tankering as long as the Harrier?

just in general terms no secrets wanted.
There are so many variables that you need to refine your question. Do you mean how long they can stay airborne - endurance? How far they can fully - range? Or their combat radius - mission profile?

Would both aircraft be on internal fuel or in normal fuel fit? More particularly, which Mark of each type?

Looking at Wiki it suggests the combat radius of the F35 on internal fuel is twice that of the Harrier GR9.

[glad rag]

"F35 on internal fuel "

coughs...

[Engines]

Effortless,

As Pontius rightly says, there are a load of variables in that question. However, the overall answer would be: 'The F-35B can stay in the air a lot longer than a Harrier'. That would apply to a non-tanking sortie. This might help a little: here are some approximate internal fuel capacities:

Harrier II: 7,500 lb
Tornado: 11,200 lb (note, this figure may be slightly higher by a few hundred pounds for the RAF version)
Typhoon: 11,200 lb
F-35A: 18,000 lb
F-35B: 13,500 lb
F-35C: 19,600 lb
F-16: 7,000 lb
F-15: 13,600 lb
F-4: 13.400 lb

As you can see, all variants of the F-35 have a fairly healthy internal fuel load. That is due to the design incorporating a large number of fuel tanks integrated into the airframe.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those watching their fuel gauges out there on task:

Engines

[LowObservable]

Well, yes, Engines. But the determinants of range include fuel fraction, lift/drag ratio and engine SFC. So while the F-35B carries nearly 80% more internal fuel than the Harrier, it's also a lot heavier and (outside of hover mode) its engine has a lower bypass ratio. Also, unlike most aircraft with afterburners, it doesn't carry external fuel. It will be interesting to see what the range is like on the combat profiles that get used in service.

The larger point is that it's much easier to get range if you don't have to do high-g or supersonic. But then, you also have to look at how much supersonic/high-g is included in any given mission profile.

[PhilipG]

Surely the answer to the question is an F35B if doing the same mission profile as a Harrier has a longer range using that performance range. Using the full performance of the F35B might well result in a shorter endurance than a Harrier flying in an economical mode with minimal external stores.

[orca]

If I may...

If you took a GR9 in a ‘two bag’ fit with 11.7 on crew in (broadly SOP) and a full (internal obvs) F-35B - and subjected them to the same taxy, ATC, weather, there with 2 x 500lb weapons, back without and a sensible recovery fuel - the answer for a Hi-Hi-Hi profile is ‘about the same’ with the F-35 winning by a nose.

[PhilipG]

If I may...

If you took a GR9 in a ‘two bag’ fit with 11.7 on crew in (broadly SOP) and a full (internal obvs) F-35B - and subjected them to the same taxy, ATC, weather, there with 2 x 500lb weapons, back without and a sensible recovery fuel - the answer for a Hi-Hi-Hi profile is ‘about the same’ with the F-35 winning by a nose.
I stand corrected, thanks.

[Mogwi]

No experience of the Dave but tin-wing Harrier planning figures were 100lbs/min at low level and 50lbs/min at high level. Good pilot rule of thumb stuff.

Mog

[Pontius Navigator]

orca, as I said at the outset it is all in the mission definition. Which can sustain the greater mission rate? As a low-low CAS bomb truck the Harrier managed 10 missions per day and I one exercise 1Sqn achieved 300 in 3 days. How would the Harrier fare on night missions?
​
​

[Darvan]

The F-35C figure compares favourably with the Buccaneer. Assuming the Bucc doesn’t go with a bomb bay tank but has slipper tanks fitted instead, the F-35C is only 500lbs short of the Bucc. Both aircraft would then retain fully capable internal weapons bays.

[orca]

PN - I agree entirely, just used Hi-Hi-Hi as the F35 is unlikely to do much else! (Just my opinion).

I don’t really understand the question of how the Harrier would fare at night...from a cockpit point of view the GR9 was fabulous at night. The FA2 was more relaxing - less to confuse you!

[Fortissimo]

Is this question about pure range or capabilty? I am not convinced there are any valid conclusions to be drawn from a back-of-an envelope comparison between 2 airframes used for such different purposes and with such a wide disparity between their respective operational capabilities. The only real similarities would appear to be a STOVL facility and single-pilot ops.

[orca]

Well, if you want to get picky and ask for only relevant facts and realistic context you’ll reduce the amount of aviation subject matter available to us has beens by 90% over night!😉

I’ve always wondered whether the Falklands conflict would have turned out differently if we’d still had the Sea Hornet...what do you think?

[Fortissimo]

We might have made a difference with the F4 (the Leuchars FG1s were still carrier-capable, the crews weren't). We thought getting airborne from a cat launch (assuming the USN lent us a flat-top...) would be OK but getting back aboard might be a bit more challenging. Having filled up with beer one happy hour, I informed the Stn Cdr that I had solved the problem. He was very interested until I explained that all we had to do was paint the piano keys at the front of the ship!

[Mogwi]

Yes, F4s would have been nice - and Gannets - but we were operating with the deck pitching 2 degrees and more a lot of the time and I believe that "normal" carrier-borne aircraft pull stumps at about 1/2 degree of pitch. OK, biigger ships might have been a little less prone to pitch but not that much.

A face full of water off the front is not a nice moment, nor is a view of the Admiral's cabin scuttle on short finals!

Mog

[megan]

I believe that "normal" carrier-borne aircraft pull stumps at about 1/2 degree of pitch Study of pitch on board the USS INDEPENDENCE

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d1ef/02210056e7163968484761aa4606d11c7e62.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoPBLLdzjNA

[orca]

Not sure what the rules were in ‘82 but in my time we were limited by +/- 2 degrees in pitch and +/- 3 in roll. I always thought the higher roll limit odd because the boat rolling towards you in the hover was ‘not great’ - whereas a pitching deck could be dealt with using a gumshield and ‘manly’ arrival.

The weirdest thing about CVS pitch and roll was the monitoring device in Flyco had two settings. One essentially showed half the deflection of the other. No one knew which one was right - so we used the one that showed the lowest!

I was lined up one day - looking at the bow with an amount of disbelief that we were within limits. I asked and was essentially told to ‘Grow up’. Post launch Homer told me that my playmates wouldn’t be joining me - deck now out of limits! Cue an hour of boning around Biscay on my own wondering how the landing would pan out...

Some years later I was waved off approaching the USS Carl Vinson (can’t remember how far out but I was ‘on the ball’ so let’s say 0.3nm) that I messed up because the ship pitched dramatically nose up. That gave me a very compelling ‘plan view’ of the ship, therefore natural reaction was to feel very high and take power off. Paddles (LSO) very unimpressed by plummeting F-18E - hence a wave off.

Of course - had I just ‘flown the ball’ - all would have been well and I’d have saved myself another trip around the USN’s patented ‘most convoluted way of arriving’ visual pattern!! I seem to recall the next go wasn’t sparkling but at least it stuck!

[Pontius Navigator]

orca, it was an innocent question. Simply how capable was the GR9 at night ops?

[orca]

Hi PN - the answer is - for an aircraft without radar or Tactical Data Link, brilliant. (UK specifically - other players had an APG, but the nose mounted FLIR the GR7/9 had was very useful).

[effortless]

Thank you so much for an interesting discussion. My question was of course simplistic. I was watching vid of f35 landing on down thrust and wondered how it compared to Shar in combat role. I wondered if the f35 was a bit more profligate in fuel. Of course they have, probably, different purposes but the Harrier is still, I believe, used by USM.

[Lechon]

The F35 is for sure more advance in so many ways, then again the maintenance on an F35 vs. a Harrier is way more expensive in the long run.

[Pontius Navigator]

Effortless, there you go, after all the discussion about the Harrier bomb truck you changed the aircraft!

[orca]

I think it was Eddie Van Halen who declared the Sea Harrier the coolest aircraft ever to slip the surly bonds. The F-35 will never achieve that!

[effortless]

Sorry Pontius, I was never very disciplined. :uhoh:

[Mogwi]

The F35 is for sure more advance in so many ways, then again the maintenance on an F35 vs. a Harrier is way more expensive in the long run.

Maintenance could be a bit of a task with the Harrier; for instance - to change the engine you had to:

1. Jack the aircraft.
2. Retract the u/c.
3. Lower it onto cradles.
4. Remove the wing (Yes, remove the wing!).
5. Crane the engine out from the top of the fuselage.
6. Crane in the new engine.
7. Replace the wing.
8. Jack the aircraft.
9. Lower the gear.
10. Lower the aircraft onto its wheels.

All this in a heavy sea with no rum ration! Hopefully the Dave will be a bit more user friendly.

Mog

[Pontius Navigator]

What was the mtbf for the Shar?

[Engines]

Lechon and others,

It might help if I follow up Mogwi's post with some information about supporting Harriers.

Bluntly, the aircraft was bad (and expensive) to maintain. The Harrier I was a direct development of the prototype P1127, and the amazingly complicated wing lift method to change an engine would normally have been rejected at the design review stage. The Harrier II introduced some limited improvements, but most of the access to items was really, really poor. To Mogwi's list, I would add that removing and replacing the engine meant disturbing, reconnecting and then testing the flying controls, fuel systems, landing gear systems, reaction control hot air ducts and the weapon systems connections to the wing pylons. I would also add that every time you lifted the engine, there was a TON of rectification work required to repair the interior of the fuselage where the mighty Pegasus had simply shaken bits of it loose.

Many parts of the aircraft were fully obsolete and getting replacements was becoming a real challenge. As an example, the undercarriage selection switch was the same item used in the Hawker Sea Fury. (I am not making this up). It was a huge lump of Bakelite and came fitted with rubber insulated wires, which we then had to cut off and replace before installing it. Many other components in the aircraft were antique, unreliable and amazingly hard to get at. The rear end of the aircraft was essentially under engineered, and the tailplane would regularly wear out its bearings. The reaction controls at the rear of the fuselage would shake themselves apart (I mean here in less than 50 hours). The RAF's Harrier fleet would have required a full rear fuselage replacement programme had they gone on in service much longer. The Pegasus engine was not especially reliable, and rarely (if ever) achieved its published life before having to be removed for repair.

But, I loved being associated with the Sea Harrier and the Harrier GR7s. The Harrier's STOVL concept was a work of pure British genius, and gave the UK an aircraft that was the key to winning a vital war in 1982. In the 90s, the Sea Harrier FA2 was one of NATO's most capable air to air combat aircraft. The people were great, the jobs incredibly satisfying, and standing on a deck next to an aircraft that had stopped dead in the sky always gave me a rush. But, time moves on, aircraft have their day, and then they don't. The new replaces the old, as it should, and the F-35B now has to be made to work in service. I know that the RN and RAF personnel charged to do that will succeed, along with their excellent USMC counterparts. Certainly, in combat, the F-35 will be a far more capable machine than the Harrier ever could have been. In support, it will be a challenge. Having worked with the people who took great pains to make servicing it as easy as it can be on an LO aircraft, I also know that it will be a better aircraft to maintain and support at sea. On that, I have no doubts at all.

Best Regards as ever to all those who are going to make the aircraft a success,

Engines

[Wingless Walrus]

The simple question of this thread has led to the sharing of very interesting experiences. It got me stooging around and I found some interesting stats here on F-35: -

F-35 LIGHTNING II PROGRAM STATUS AND FAST FACTS
October 4, 2018
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/d...Facts10-18.pdf (https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/documents/FG17-18980_013_F-35.comFastFacts10-18.pdf)

I know it wasnt the question but looking at quoted figures for combat radius shows the F-35 comfortably ahead. Although not any detail of profile or configuration, it is such a large margin that is probably indicative of the F-35 being much better; I am assuming also that the GR7 Wiki range is for internal fuel only.

Endurance will also be significantly affected by the airframe. I am guessing again that the speed for maximum endurance is subsonic (no transonic flow). From what still rattles around my brain, wing lift will be one of the largest components of drag and that will depend significantly on the aspect ratio (AR); higher AR usually means lower lift induced drag (if memory ok). I also compared wing loading and thrust/weight; figures shown below (Harrier from wiki).
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/820x501/f_35_harrier_175eb47fa3fa50531431e9f80cee1a0a93827097.png
I was surprised to see that the Harrier has such good figures wrt F-35B. AR and wing loading are similar or better. I was stunned to see the Harrier thrust/weight; it trounces the F-35, except the lighter F-35B in full afterburner.

I know there is more to it, but as a rough stab at comparisons the Harrier airframe looks like it could hold its own with an F-35 airframe. I am guessing the reason for the GR7 having a much smaller combat range (assuming all else equal; big 'if') is because although it probably has a more efficient engine (turbofan) the extra drag from the large frontal area offsets the advantages of the engine efficiency.

But if these two aircraft went nose to nose with each other, the respectable relative wing loading and the much higher T/W of the Harrier would likely give it the advantage. I remember reading of how the Sea Harrier FRS1 gobbled F-15's once within Sidewinder range; did the FA2 do even better with Blue Vixen/AMRAAM in the package?

Although Stealth of the F-35 gives it a huge advantage in todays arena of long range radar and weapons, but that stealth could well disappear in the future. Advances such as quantum radar could well negate the stealth of the F-35, especially if one is made small enough to fit in the nose of a Harrier.

It may sound far fetched but a senior admiral of the USN a few years ago expressed concern that we are putting all our eggs in one basket regarding stealth. His view was that at some point technology will nullify stealthy designs.

Would that lead to a new lease of life for aircraft like the Harrier? A fraction of the cost of an F-35 but highly effective aircraft in that scenario. In reality the combat scenario will not stand still. When stealth is finally negated, probably there will be no manned combat aircraft and laser weapons will be used to shoot down aircraft.

But these stats show just what an effective aircraft the Harrier was. I doubt we have got as much value for money in any other fighter except the Spitfire and Hurricane.

[PDR1]

I do love this common belief that the issues around the Harrier's wing/engine locations were somehow evidence of poor design. At the time it was designed V/STOL was essentially restricted to single-engine configs because engines (any engines) weren't deemed reliable enough to ignore the unmitigatable risks relating to asymetric engine failures in jet-borne flight. A large number of alternative VTOL mechanisms were tried, but with the materials and technologies of the day the only one that came even vaguely close to practicable was direct vectored thrust, and that meant that the engine had to be placed at the CG so that the trust centre was in the right place with the nozzles down. This inherently means that the engine has to be with the wing in the middle of the fuselage, because traditionally aerodynamicists prefer to have the wing close to the CG as well.

So you have two choices - engine above the wing or engine below the wing. Experiments showed that putting the engine above the wing resulted in bleeding great holes being blasted through the wing when the nozzles were vertical [/sarcasm mode] so Hawker opted for putting the wing on the top, over the engine. That meant the fuselage structure had a large hole in the top, so it needed strong sides and belly structure to compensate. Of course it also needed some strong structure to mount the undercarriage which (again by tradition) is generally put underneath the aeroplane where the ground is expected to be.

So an inherent consequence of the basic requirement is that the engine has to be in the middle of the fuselage with the wing above it, and the wing will have to be removed to get the engine out because it's not possible to create a big enough underside hatch whilst maintaining the required fuselage strength/stiffness at an acceptable weight. This means that WHATEVER we did you would still have to remove the wing to take the engine out.

Now another bit of tradition meant that the main undercarriage also needed to be put just behind the CG, but this space was already taken by the hot efflux from the rear nozzles.The available solution was the bicycle undercarriage with outriggers. Perfectly good solution, but it had the minor consequence that you had to trestle the fuselage before removing the wing. But again, there really weren't that many options within the weight/thrust characteristics of the only available engine. So all of this was just the inherent consequence of deciding to build a V/STOL aeroplane in the late 1950s.

The need to jack the aircraft, retract the U/C and then lower the aircraft was nothing to do with the Harrier. This was only needed at sea due to the restricted headroom available in the CVS hangar deck. The RAF never did it (they just trestled the fuselage), so if anything it was a design fault in the ship rather than the aeroplane.

All the rest of the issues fundamentally traced back to the fact that the MoD demanded the Harrier be a "minimum cost conversion" of a technology demonstrator. The MoD were (as usual) far too short sighted and parsimonious with the funding. In fact they were lucky to get even that, because the bulk of the funding came from the USA and Germany through Mutual Defence Fund money.

Now having said that, Hawker DID come up with a V/STOL design which eliminated most of these issues - the twin-boom P1216. It used a 3-nozzle development of the bigger BS100 engine, and the twin-boom layout allowed the mainwheels to be put in the booms so that the engine COULD just drop down on a trolley. But the MoD decided to buy american instead, so P1216 was cancelled, the RAF was stuck with the Harrier II and the RN was left to suck hind tit with further lashups stretching the Harrier 1 to ridiculous extremes.

I'm a GR9 man through and through (cut me and you'll find KT816 flowing through like a stick of blackpool rock), but if it came to a straight comparison between the GR9 and the F35 I would certainly HOPE the F35 was significantly better - it damned-well should be given that it was designed 50 years later and is more than an order of magnitude more expensive. If it isn't then LM need to be taken outside and shot for ineptitude or fraud!

But perhaps the REAL test should be comparing one F35 with the >10 GR9s that you could field for the same money...

PDR

[effortless]

Why was the Pegasus chosen for the harrier? Is it a stupid question to ask if an Avon wasn’t more reliable? Forgive the naivite of the question.

[sandiego89]

Why was the Pegasus chosen for the harrier? Is it a stupid question to ask if an Avon wasn’t more reliable? Forgive the naivite of the question.

Effortless, in very simple terms the Avon did not have enough thrust for a Harrier sized aircraft and being a turbojet was not the right “type” of thrust. The Pegasus being a turbofan moves massive amounts of air at a relatively modest velocity compared to a turbojet. A turbojet moves a smaller amount of air at a tremendous velocity. A turbofan is better for a hovering jet.

[Whinging Tinny]

The need to jack the aircraft, retract the U/C and then lower the aircraft was nothing to do with the Harrier. This was only needed at sea due to the restricted headroom available in the CVS hangar deck. The RAF never did it

Ships are not stable platforms and in constant motion, hence the need to lower the aircraft to the deck to change an engine as well as the height issue. Everything must be secured to the deck to prevent movement issues. Also on certain occasions, the 'goal post kit' (engine removal guidance tools) were used to facillitate the removal and installation of the ECU in poor conditions.
A RAF GR3 had an engine change down South using this method.
It certainly got interesting when the ship's bridge was asked to steer a steady course for an hour or so whilst the engine was hoisted up or lowered down and during the evolution they decided to heel the ship over and go zigzagging around the oceans.
As people who have changed out Harrier engines know, there is not a lot of room between the engine and airframe and it's more than easy to get your hands trapped.
All good fun though and a great way to annoy the fishheads below when lashing everything down or storm lashing aircraft/equipment during normal ops.

[orca]

Wingless Walrus - the FA2 carried 5000lb internally and with 190 gallon tanks a total of 8000lb. I think that ‘Mogwi’s bunch’ in ‘82 used the 100 gallon tank which gave you a maximum of 6600lb.
For the chart to be right then the GR is indeed on internals only....and even then I’m not sure the figure for either is right in an operational sense.
The real world has a habit of making the differences less stark than the ODM or simulation would have you believe!

[Navaleye]

Does the ski jump on the QEC make any worthwhile difference to the F35? It did with the Shar but they are very different animals.

[orca]

Same theory though. If your nose leg can withstand it, why wouldn’t you want it?

A tp once told me that an unexpected benefit was better yaw control than flat decks as the nose leg compressed on ramp entry. Not sure whether that matters - in the sense that more is good but adequate is still adequate!!

[Wingless Walrus]

Wingless Walrus - the FA2 carried 5000lb internally and with 190 gallon tanks a total of 8000lb. I think that ‘Mogwi’s bunch’ in ‘82 used the 100 gallon tank which gave you a maximum of 6600lb.
For the chart to be right then the GR is indeed on internals only....and even then I’m not sure the figure for either is right in an operational sense.
The real world has a habit of making the differences less stark than the ODM or simulation would have you believe!

orca, thanks for your guidance, the real world view in any walk of life is what counts and its what makes this site interesting and fun! I never trust a glossy brochure and Wiki, bless its heart, can only do so much. All the 'hands on' feed back on this thread has highlighted exactly why the Harrier was so special. It was a humble aircraft but went on to achieve so much because of the ingenuity and hard work of the designers, engineers, mechanics and all those that had to work on it and keep it going, despite the less than enthusiastic support from its successive parent governments; plus the professionalism, skill and dedication of its pilots to put it to good use in all conditions. The Harrier is a shining example of taking what is available and making it work wonders. The Harrier never received the political backing and investment it deserved and that in retrospect has to be seen as a national disgrace. The one fighter to penetrate the U.S. market, but it took U.S. dollars, not GB pounds, to do it. Britain gave birth to one of the most effective and unique combat aircraft ever and then left it alone to fend for itself.

If memory serves me right, the carriers it flew from were in fact not carriers! They were 'through deck cruisers' that in effect were adapted to allow the Harrier to fly from them?

Harrier was such a unique aircraft and the pilot was greatly relied upon for its ability in the air. A challenging aircraft. The F-35 may be more capable and easier to fly, but if I had the choice of flying either I would pick flying FA2's off carriers in its hayday. Times change and the Harrier was the end of an era; the arena has changed. But that aircraft punched way above its weight.

"Never in the field of aviation, has so much been achieved, with so little."

As good as the F-35 is, I don't see that phrase ever being used for any other aircraft.

[FODPlod]

I'm relishing this thread. So informative and helpful without any of the usual carping, back-biting or snide put-downs... well, almost.

Thank you to those knowledgeable contributors who deserve 'likes' in abundance.

[effortless]

Effortless, in very simple terms the Avon did not have enough thrust for a Harrier sized aircraft and being a turbojet was not the right “type” of thrust. The Pegasus being a turbofan moves massive amounts of air at a relatively modest velocity compared to a turbojet. A turbojet moves a smaller amount of air at a tremendous velocity. A turbofan is better for a hovering jet.




Thank you for the clear explanation. I guess my original post was prompted by a picture of the eflux of the F35. It reminded me of RAF and US pilots on lightning conversion at Colt. The US pilots tended to have full reheat on take of while RAF pilots tended to leave the ground more sedately.

[orca]

Winged Walrus - my only addition to what you wrote is to point out your two mentions of the pilots.

Flying the FA2, GR7 and GR 9 was a challenging treat. But the heroes of the Harrier world were the squadron maintainers and armourers - who kept all marks going in all conditions from windswept oceans to baking desert heat - and their brothers (and sisters) in arms - the yellow coats of the CVS deck. (Not that my division ever had many kind words for the chock heads!)

[Engines]

I'd like to echo FODPlods' post - thank you to everyone who has contributed to a really good thread. To help in a couple of areas:

Effortless, the Pegasus wasn't really chosen over the Avon for the Harrier. It was specifically designed for the P1127, the Harrier's prototype ancestor, by Dr Stanley Hooker at Bristol Engines in close partnership with the Hawker team at Kingston, led by Ralph Hooper. Essentially, the Pegasus was an existing Bristol jet engine (I think it may have been the Orpheus) with a vastly oversized Low Pressure Compressor stage tacked on to the front via a plenum chamber which fed the two front 'cold' nozzles. As far as I know, the Avon was never a runner for the P1127. Much later, Rolls Royce did offer an 'interesting' propulsion option for the much larger (and later cancelled P1154 STOVL fighter/bomber which comprised two RR Spey engines plus a system of 'cross ducting' to feed for rotating nozzles. This was, to say the least, challenging, and the team stuck with the Bristol BS100.

To Tinny and others, the RAF (on a couple of occasions) did change Harrier engines at sea and they did have to retract the gear as per the shipboard procedure. In fact, the entire engine change gear for shipboard use was very different to that used on land, with much beefier trestles and side arms. The main reason for the 'lowered' position was the (quite justified) fear of having an aircraft high up on jacks swaying about on rolling decks. The 'Guide posts' were not much used, as there was a strong tendency for the guide collars attached to the wing to jam on to the posts - that created more problems than they solved.

PDR1 and others - yes, the design solution chosen for the P1127 fuselage and wing structure made perfect sense for a prototype. But (just my opinion), it didn't really past muster for a front line aircraft. As most readers here already know, the larger P1154, which was cancelled in 1967, had a large set of doors/panels on the underside of the fuselage to allow the much larger BS100 engine to be dropped down out of the aircraft without having to remove the wing. On the P1216 and other studies, some former colleagues of mine who worked on the P1216 expressed relief that it and other studies were never taken forward as a full design. The twin boom arrangement was a nightmare to design at an acceptable weight. More seriously, the BS100 engine (a much enlarged and redesigned Pegasus) had some serious issues, particularly with regard to the use of Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB) on the front nozzles. This generated a severe risk of hot gas reingestion (HGI) and thrust loss, as well as some probably insoluble issues with erosion of any landing surface.

Wingless, the Royal Navy's 'Invincible' class ships were aircraft carriers, albeit small ones. The 'through deck cruiser' designation was adopted to try to keep the procurement of the ships from being opposed by the RAF - the inter service climate in the MoD in the late 1960s/early 70s was simply poisonous, and this 'subterfuge' was a necessary expedient. The ships were not originally designed to take the Harrier, and it was a last minute change to get the lifts widened to accept the jet - before that, they were long thin 'slot' designs to take a folded Sea King. Small they may have been, but they served the nation well.

I absolutely agree that had the basic P1127/Kestrel design received a small fraction of the funding that went into P1154 and other programmes the UK could have developed its own more capable equivalent of the Harrier II in the 70 and 80s. In any case, the Sea Harrier and GR5/7/9 served the UK exceptionally well, providing 'bang per buck' that I think was unmatched. Having exceptionally good maintainers and operators was also essential to the aircrafts' successes. But (there's always a but, isn't there) the basic concept of a single large engine mounted in the centre of the aircraft with vectoring nozzles has, in my view, reached its limit. I agree with the basic conclusion reached by Lockheed that the best place for an engine on a supersonic aircraft is at the rear, with some of he power of the engine being used to generate (more efficient) cold thrust at the the front of the aircraft where it poses far less risk of HGI. I know others may disagree, and that's the great thing about forums like this - there is always room for other opinions. Long may that last.

Best regards as ever to all those who have, over the years, made STOVL work.

Engines

[LowObservable]

Essentially, the P.1127 was designed around the Pegasus. The available thrust was utterly marginal to demonstrate VTOL and transition, so the P.1127 was the smallest and lightest airframe that could be wrapped around the engine and maintainability be damned.

The Pegasus itself was designed to demonstrate the concept of a bypass engine with a large forward fan fitted with rotating nozzles, enabling VTOL. The first Pegasus sketches did not have vectoring on the core exhaust. I recall reading somewhere that Hawker observed to Bristol that the Sea Hawk had a bifurcated exhaust, so why waste that vertical thrust? The original idea was to match an Orpheus with Olympus compressor stages, but there can't have been much left of either original by the time the BE.53 ran.

Where it gets interesting is that Bristol was introduced to the concept of vectored thrust via France's Michel Wibault and his Gyroptere (https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/414489-harrier-engine-origins.html#post5679049). This had four shaft-driven lift-cruise blowers, and the most powerful European turboprop at the time was the Bristol Orion. Stanley Hooker didn't like all the shafts and gearing and saw that a direct-drive axial fan with moving nozzles would be simpler and would also supercharge the core engine.

And, many years later, Paul Bevilaqua looked at the in-line tandem fan STOVL concept, which presented some nasty flow-switching issues, and decided to turn the front fan through 90 degrees with a clutch and gearbox, and separate the airflows, and so the F-35 was born.

And now you know the rest of the story...

[Whinging Tinny]

There's a a very good book called 'Pegasus - The Heart of the Harrier' by Andrew Dow with the foreword written by John Farley (ISBN-13: 978-1848840423)
It gives an insight not only to the development of the engine (all variants) and the airframe, but also a history on VSTOL and the UK aviation industry at the time, especially between Bristol and Rolls Royce engine divisions.

[Whinging Tinny]

This is an interview with Sqd Ldr Andy Edgel F-35 test pilot, ex 4 Sqdn and 800 NAS which gives an insight into landing both on deck and the work load involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRH_lwbQ0aE&feature=share

[PDR1]

The Pegasus started life as an early turbofan engine which used the Bristol Orpheus as the gas-generator. It came about because the original Orpheus had a novel design feature in that it saved the weight and cost of a centre bearing by making the mainshaft a large diameter tube whose stiffness was enough to avoid whirling without the additional support of a third bearing. Someone (Stanley Hooker, if I remember the story accurately) hit on the idea of adding what we would now call a second spool by running another shaft down the middle of this tube carrying a "big" fan at the front driven by a dedicated turbine on the back of this second shaft. This then led to thoughts of a 3-nozzle VTOL engine which had a straight-through (non vectoring) nozzle at the back, and the front fan air collected into two (vectoring) side nozzles. He drafted a brochure on this and discussed it with (again, IIRC) Ralph Hooper at Hawker. He had an idea for a light recon jet which landed vertically by pitching up to about 30 degrees so that the fixed and vectorable nozzles would cancel out to zero horizontal thrust.

At the time the Kingston project office were still hoping for a supersonic fighter project, but in the mean time they played with the VTOL concept to keep occupied. They had long since decided that any practicable VTOL jet had to be a "flat-riser" rather than any kind of "tail-sitter", so they went back to Bristol with the suggestion that the rear nozzle should be split and directed into two vectorable nozzles to produce the four-nozzle, fully-vectorable configuration we are now familiar with. They also made another suggestion which was to prove crucial. Bill Bedford had been in the US and had flown several of the US VTOL technology demostrators, including the Bell X-14 which he crashed. He crashed it because he got it into a situation where the powerful gyroscopic moments of the two engines running at high power but zero airspeed significantly exceeded the available control authority. Hawker's team had recognised that gyroscopics would be a significant issue on VTOL aircraft due to the negligible aerodynamic damping and stabilising forces in the hover. So Hawker suggested that the spools in this engine should counter-rotate, and that where possible effort should be made to try to make the gyroscopic moments of the two spools equal (but opposite).

As a result right from the very beginning the pegasus had negligible gyroscopic moments to upset hovering stability/controlability. This just left the discovery of "intake inertia moments" as the only nasty effect to be mitigated, but that's another story.

More than anyone wanted to know, I'm sure.

PDR

[Wingless Walrus]

orca - so true; the effort needed by so many to keep fast jets operating is tremendous and way overlooked. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the various contributions made here that give a glimpse of the importance and skill of those on the ground/ship that make the flying possible. Worthy of a book in itself; I find the detail on here fascinating and absorbing. The complexity of fast jets is amazing but it comes at a huge cost in maintenance.

Engines - thanks for the clarification and very illuminating posts on what issues there were around the Harrier and its concepts.

I have found all the comments here truly delicious! I could gorge on them no end. This thread is just like the Harrier project itself; it started with a simple humble question that grew into something more valuable than anyone could have imagined! All very interesting, informative and unique posts here giving a precious insight into an iconic historic aircraft. Many thanks to all posting here.

[OK4Wire]

Great thread indeed.

My green shirts would have agreed with your division's views in heartbeat, Orca!

I think PDR's point about numbers (I would FA2s in there for completeness) But perhaps the REAL test should be comparing one F35 with the >10 GR9s that you could field for the same money...is very poignant, and in a world of ever increasing costs it is easily missed, by politicians' starry eyes and others.

[Bob Viking]

May I just query the 10 x GR9’s for the cost of one F35 statement?

I know the denizens if this website are mostly fully signed up to the ‘quality has a quantity all of its own’ mantra. However, putting aircraft roles and capabilities aside for a moment, how does this maths work?

Any new jet off a production line today is going to cost at least $50M (conservative estimate). F35s are pricey but they’re not 1/2 a billion each!

Or was the statement trying to suggest ten airframes already in the inventory?

Remember, with F35 we are not just discussing the number of bombs and missiles it can carry. In bomb terms it would lose out to ten Harriers (although a fair cost comparison is probably closer to 2 or 3). In missile terms it would win. Unless you wanted to offer the AV8B as a better comparison.

In other capabilities it would win hands down. Even against ten.

Either way what was, on the face of it, an attempt to use cost comparison as a stick to beat the F35 with ends up full of holes in my opinion.

BV

[flighthappens]

May I just query the 10 x GR9’s for the cost of one F35 statement?

I know the denizens if this website are mostly fully signed up to the ‘quality has a quantity all of its own’ mantra. However, putting aircraft roles and capabilities aside for a moment, how does this maths work?

Any new jet off a production line today is going to cost at least $50M (conservative estimate). F35s are pricey but they’re not 1/2 a billion each!

Or was the statement trying to suggest ten airframes already in the inventory?

Remember, with F35 we are not just discussing the number of bombs and missiles it can carry. In bomb terms it would lose out to ten Harriers (although a fair cost comparison is probably closer to 2 or 3). In missile terms it would win. Unless you wanted to offer the AV8B as a better comparison.

In other capabilities it would win hands down. Even against ten.

Either way what was, on the face of it, an attempt to use cost comparison as a stick to beat the F35 with ends up full of holes in my opinion.

BV

add in the cost to recruit, train, maintain, support, upgrade etc the X times number.

additional to that look at combat effect, an F-35 is going to be able to go places and do things that a Harrier just isn’t.

[PDR1]

I don't disagree, and the 10 for 1 statement was a bit of throwaway hyperbole harking back to Mountbatten's line that persuaded the Aussies to drop out of TSR2 in favour of a larger number of F111s. I remember back in 2009/10 when we were looking at extending the Harrier OSD beyond 2016 we decided 2018 was easy, 2023 was achievable but 2026 was going to be very difficult (much as my heart wished to say otherwise).

But my real point is one about the danger of having a small fleet of highly capable assets. The small numbers mean you're reluctant to risk losses, so you end up not prepared to risk using the extra capability. Another example would be my view that we'd have a more usable battle force with 8 CVSs than 2 QECs - because we could afford to risk losing a couple.

PDR

[Pontius Navigator]

PDR, not really, risk that is.

In the case of the Falklands we were prepared to lose both carriers and lost several destroyers and escorts, hang the expense.

Less than 20 years earlier we were warned that the loss of one Vulcan would be the same level of political loss as the loss of an aircraft carrier.

It is a balance of political and not military acceptance of risk. To take two more recent examples: would we have risked the F35 in GW1? Would we risk an F35 in downtown Damascus?

​​​​​​I suspect Yes and No respectively.

[Wingless Walrus]

I guess in an ideal world, it would be useful to have combat aircraft at both ends of the spectrum. Highly sophisticated and expensive aircraft like the F-35 and simple cheaper aircraft like the Harrier. The F-35 would be used in advanced airspace with advanced SAM and fighter threats; the Harrier could be used in more secure airspace such as Afghanistan, where advanced systems are largely absent.

There is logic in having both; but practicality leads to choosing one. If you have the money you can have both; the USA is doing exactly that by operating F-22/F-35 as well as U.S. Marine Harriers (up to about 2030 I believe). No other country has pockets quite as deep.

The Harrier is an iconic unique aircraft; but in its way so is the F-35. Not only is it the most advanced 5th Generation aircraft, it is likely to be the last solely manned fighter developed (in the USA/UK anyway). Tempest is to be manned/unmanned; that could change as systems develop even further.

Having put my handkerchief away and stopped sobbing over the passing of the humbly superb Harrier from the UK inventory, I went for a stroll through 'F-35 land' and found out for myself a bit more as to why this aircraft is essential for future combat airspace.

It comes in two words: stealth and systems. The value of stealth cannot be overrated and it doesn't have to make you invisible, just a lot smaller.

Modern SAM systems are so lethal they could detect and engage 4th generation fighters from a very long way away with high probability of a kill. Stealth negates these systems (and airborne systems); a stealthy aircraft would need to be engaged at closer ranges. With 4th generation fighters there was ECM and manoeuvring to defend against hostile weapon systems. Even if those '4th generation' weapons systems could engage you, they could be defeated with proper use of ECM and defensive manoeuvring (as clearly shown in Vietnam).

Now modern weapon systems are so lethal that once they get a lock on the target, the target is toast. Modern systems are much more robust in dealing with ECM and have high agility to deal with the manoeuvres of aircraft. To survive in this battle space an aircraft needs to be difficult to detect.

An Australian pilot gave an account of an engagement flying against F-22's; he said he could see the F-22 but couldn't put a weapon on it (the onboard weapon systems couldn't see the F-22). That amount of stealth is a game changer.

Now that you can penetrate the highly lethal battle space, the stealth aircraft can engage them directly or gather and distribute information on where the enemy assets are, allowing older fighters to stand off and lob weapons onto the targets found by the stealth aircraft, without having to hang around in that battle space. The stealth aircraft will clear a path through hostile airspace, a bit like a mine detector clearing a path through a minefield. You wouldn't want to run through a minefield but if someone had a detector to at least tell you where the mines are, you could get through it or blow up the mines found.

Came across the following interesting article describing what happens when one side has 5th generation and the other side doesn't.

The Reason No One Can Kill an F-22 or F-35: "It’s Nearly Impossible to Fight An Enemy You Can’t See."
September 2, 2018
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/reason-no-one-can-kill-f-22-or-f-35-it%E2%80%99s-nearly-impossible-fight-enemy-you-can%E2%80%99t-see-30357?page=0%2C1

Example of stealth against 4th Gen. aircraft; T-38 Talons & F-15E's represented 4th Gen aircraft at BVR distances. Friendly forces were F-22 and Typhoon coordinating together. The idea was for the T-38's to try and close to visual range on the F-22 friendly forces. The T-38 pilots included an F-22 Test Pilot and prospective F-22 trainee pilot. So the attacking force had good knowledge of how the F-22 operates.

The flight of three T-38's didn't know what hit them; two went down without realising they were under attack by a Typhoon. The remaining T-38 began defensive manouvring against a threat still not seen and was shot down by a Typhoon coordinating with an F-22. The Typhoon coordinating with the F-22 was a combination described as "lethal".

An article here states that four F-22's with four F-15's achieved a kill ratio in exercises of 41-1.
"The Next Generation F-15 Is Packed With Missiles"
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25656/eagle-2040c-next-generation-f-15/

I read about the proposed F-15 upgrade to allow carrying of upto 24 missiles (F-15X).
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/boeing-pitches-to-pentagon-the-f-15x-the-eagle-that-can-fire-24-air-to-air-missiles/

Its not hard to see what giving the F-15 the ability to carry upto 24 missiles is all about; replace the F-22 with F-35 and replace the Typhoon with F-15X; that combination will sweep 4thG fighters from the skies.

I read that this is one of the fundamental uses of the F-35; it will allow not just itself, but older 4thG aircraft to operate safely and effectively in the modern battle space. It is a force multiplier, in effect. Also cost effective if it allows older aircraft to be retained instead of being replaced by more expensive 5thG aircraft (USA plan was to replace the F-15 with 750 F-22's; only about 187 F-22's will be acquired).

Found useful interesting short clips on F-35 below.

F-35 Range information
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppyVg4ttLU&list=PLDF92451CB0870E9E&index=76&t=0s

Good information here on what makes the F-35 the necessary choice.
https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities

Benefits of 5th Generation Fighters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJVJsN4WDXQ&list=PLDF92451CB0870E9E&index=75&t=0s

F-35 - A Pilot's Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kshe7-BYfWc

Taking a 4thG fighter all by itself into a modernised battle space is like taking a knife to a gunfight. An F-35 will change that.

[orca]

The vexed issues:

The key issue is that the threat, and in particular the SAM threat is now ridiculous - in terms of both spec and proliferation. To the point that Air Power supporters such as ourselves now need to be very careful trotting our tired phrases such as ‘the bomber will always get through’ (Will it?) ‘speed, height, reach’ (not enough, not enough, not enough) and ‘ubiquity of air power’ (hoping the opposition didn’t remove the ubiquity with a trip to the SA-XX Shop).

That leaves the Typhoon(and aircraft like it) unable to operate in high end MEZ/ JEZ but massively over spec for ‘day job’ of dropping PW4. (Although I have heard the integration makes it more of a challenge).

Gen 4 plus 5 force mix is indeed lethal. My last Flag was in one of the better (US) Gen 4 platforms and the team works. Can’t speak for Typhoon with legacy mech scan and low end data link...sounds like they do fine against T38😉. The Nevada SAM threat was however a bit 90s and noughties...

F-35 exportable and cheaper than F-22 but without the performance and weapon carriage. Still too expensive for entirety of force mix - and despite enormous work share for the UK still not British.

Harrier and similar not a patch on Typhoon in A-A, (by a country mile or two) and with upgrades the Typhoon should be toting Stormshadow and Brimstone - so it’s an expensive way of killing Hilux etc but can do it (or should soon) and bunker bust etc too.

Another type = another base, another logs tail, another DE&S PT etc etc

So we’ve actually got (once Typhoon A-S is set and F-35 is ready) middle and high end covered respectively. The argument should probably be - when sculpting the next generation - whether middle is VFM compared to low.

Break, break new subject. Optionally manned? Utterly pointless in my opinion. It’ll hamstrung the design for no benefit whatsoever.

[Pontius Navigator]

Typhoon should be toting Stormshadow and Brimstone - so it’s an expensive way of killing Hilux etc

This looks to me like very specific target/weapon matching. Whilst the PK is over 0.5 how do you deal with three, or a dozen etc?

[Onceapilot]

Some good points in recent posts. :) Of course, the arguments about capabilities and relative enemy performance need to be kept in context so that the argument is not one of a "perfect" capability that in reality is less than that. Also, if you put your tiny force of super-capable machines on board a highly vulnerable transporter / launch system, you might have the almost proverbial case of "all your eggs in a weak basket". :oh:

OAP

[orca]

PN - well you could look in the tactics manual and calculate your Over Target Requirement - helped by a bit of Precision Weapons calculator action...

Or you can just ‘Start whaling off stores; kill them, kill them and keep killing them until they’re dead’.

Only the seasoned campaigners or those pre disposed to spending a bit of time ‘inside’ ought to consider tactic 2. It does save you a lot of time though in zero CDE situations.

[Wingless Walrus]

Top brass seem not to be that interested in their low end aircraft; I understand the USAF wasn't particularly thrilled at having an A-10 until the US Army said it would make one itself. When it came along, it was treated with disdain in the USAF, despite its success in combat.

The CAS mission no longer has a dedicated aircraft in the UK. The Harrier did superbly in CAS in Afghanistan from what I heard. F-35 or Typhoon seems overkill in such a scenario. From what I read, including parliamentary debates, there was no real need to replace Harrier in that theatre. There were suggestions that the Harrier was being 'killed off', similar to rumours now about the A-10 in the USAF.

Was the Harrier unfairly assassinated? Would we use an F-35 to do the type of job Harrier did in Afghanistan? No, I suspect.

Would a pairing of F-35 with Harrier have been worth it? Both those aircraft could operate off the carriers and give greater flexibility in CAS role.

[Pontius Navigator]

Orca, my point really is how the OTR is determined. If we consider a mass attack of whatever then you need to counter with mass. You may not have the luxury of plinking one at a time. Refining your weapons systems to the extent that you have a PK approaching 0.99 and collateral 0.01 may limit your abilities to up your game in a target rich environment. The F15x missile truck would address that issue, as would a 3-ship of Buffs.

[orca]

PN - I agree!

[Onceapilot]

Orca, my point really is how the OTR is determined. If we consider a mass attack of whatever then you need to counter with mass. You may not have the luxury of plinking one at a time. Refining your weapons systems to the extent that you have a PK approaching 0.99 and collateral 0.01 may limit your abilities to up your game in a target rich environment. The F15x missile truck would address that issue, as would a 3-ship of Buffs.

Pontious, are we not discussing a scenario here that has 5th Gen stealth as a pre-requisite for survivability? Therefore, missile trucks and Buffs would not survive.

OAP

[orca]

Unless your missiles went a very long way...and you managed to keep PID fulfilled etc

[Pontius Navigator]

OAP, I agree with that too. My caution is that procurement should not go so far as it ensure killing a Hilux and losing the capability of killing an armoured battle group.

Whilst the F35 mine clearance analogy may work a counter is more mines!

[Onceapilot]

OAP, I agree with that too. My caution is that procurement should not go so far as it ensure killing a Hilux and losing the capability of killing an armoured battle group.

Whilst the F35 mine clearance analogy may work a counter is more mines!

Yes, true. However, in my opinion, we cannot know all the details of the perceived threats and the real weapon effectiveness of the latest weapons against them. It seems that very little information is given to us about the politically led requirements that our forces are demanded to achieve. That leaves us to contemplate the general concepts of weapon systems and policy. :hmm: Cheers

OAP

[tqmatch]

Ships are not stable platforms and in constant motion, hence the need to lower the aircraft to the deck to change an engine as well as the height issue. Everything must be secured to the deck to prevent movement issues. Also on certain occasions, the 'goal post kit' (engine removal guidance tools) were used to facillitate the removal and installation of the ECU in poor conditions.
A RAF GR3 had an engine change down South using this method.
It certainly got interesting when the ship's bridge was asked to steer a steady course for an hour or so whilst the engine was hoisted up or lowered down and during the evolution they decided to heel the ship over and go zigzagging around the oceans.
As people who have changed out Harrier engines know, there is not a lot of room between the engine and airframe and it's more than easy to get your hands trapped.
All good fun though and a great way to annoy the fishheads below when lashing everything down or storm lashing aircraft/equipment during normal ops.

Lowering the aircraft nose to lift the wing and remove the engine was nothing to do with stability, it was to do with getting the aircraft in the rigging position, and thus the wing and engine coming out of the aircraft straight. In the RAF we would "EITHER" retract the nose leg and drop the aircraft nose low, or remove just the nose wheel, but still drop the aircraft nose low. It was possible to use the same hoist to remove the ECU & Wing, but this meant moving the hoist point around, so we "RARELY" used the same hoist for both operations. With a well versed crew, we could get an engine change with all the associated work done in two 8 hour shifts, the biggest hassle was the tie down runs with associated hot air leak checks - then it was over to the two wing master race to air test the machine, complete with perf hovers if we could - if we were in the field or somewhere else, we could enter a lim for "no limiting hovers" which basically meant you could hover the machine if there was an escape route available (Runway) but to a field pad or similar, then no!

[Wingless Walrus]

Just had a peek at the modern threats to aircraft. There is one threat that is the 'Daddy' of them all and it is really bad news. The Russian S-400 Triumf (NATO code SA-21 Growler). It can reach out to 400km, up to about 30km high (185km on Wiki for specific missile), down to about 5m and travelling at 5,000 m/s (MACH 15). It is highly resistant to jamming. It is extremely mobile, can be setup quickly and with only three personnel. It fires four different missiles for various range engagements and can engage 80 targets simultaneously. It can engage all manner of airborne threats, including ballistic and cruise missiles. If that wasn't bad enough, they are selling it all over the place. It will be in more countries than MacDonalds by Christmas.

I don't know about F-35, I would be wanting the Starship Enterprise and Klingon cloaking device before messing with that.

The nearest system we have apparently is the Patriot missile system that has a range of about 100km up to about 25km altitude. That's a whole lot less than the S-400. There is an upgrade in progress (Patriot Advanced Capability - 3) but I don't imagine it will get anywhere near the S-400.

How did that happen? How did Russia get such a jump ahead of the West in SAM capability? Apparently only the F-22 is capable of confidently attacking the S-400, with its better stealth properties. The F-35, with reduced stealth, is said to be at risk to this system, especially as the stealth of the F-35 diminishes significantly when not targeted from the frontal aspect.

Government statements have indicated the Typhoon will be in-service to 2040. 4thGen aircraft wont get near an S-400. If I was a Typhoon pilot I would ask for a F-35 or a pay rise at least. Going against a S-400 in anything other than an F-22 is said to be risky; anything less than a F-35 would be re-enacting the charge of the Light brigade.

The S-400 is a monumental advance in SAM capability; but what leaves me gobsmacked is that we have nothing near it. Any tin-pot dictator could buy one and instantly get a high level of air defence capable of handling nearly anything that could be thrown at it.

It would interesting to know whether unmanned fighters, with their much higher 'G' capability, would be able to out-manoeuvre these SAM missiles, in a similar way to how that was done in Vietnam. I doubt it and in any case ripple firing these SAM's would get the aircraft in the end.

Together with the potential of new stealth defeating systems (such as quantum radar, etc.) and laser weapons downing aircraft, it seems one possible scenario of the not too distant future is a battle space where aircraft have become as vulnerable and outdated as cavalry.

Quick overview of S-400
"Russia's S-400 Is Way More Dangerous Than You Think"
January 18, 2018
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-400-way-more-dangerous-you-think-24116

Good detailed overview of S-400
"Technical Report APA-TR-2006-1201"
Almaz S-300P/PT/PS/PMU/PMU1/PMU2 / Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumf / SA-10/20/21 Grumble / Gargoyle (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html)

Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

Why India Is Buying Russian S 400 Instead Of America’s Patriot Pac 3?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB8YhrUXfOE

[Whinging Tinny]

tqmatch,
You've obviously done a lot of ship borne engine changes then...............

[Brain Potter]

remove the ECU

On a previous type I remember being slghtly puzzled when engineers referred to an “ECU”. Initially I thought they meant a component, perhaps Engine Control Unit, but then realised that they were talking about the entire engine.

The aircrew documents never used this term, and I am not sure if the type maintenance manuals actually did either. Was it brought across by engineers from other types? I never heard it used with modern transport-category aircraft either.

[Nomad2]

I was also confused by this term, but eventually figured out that it stands for 'Engine Change Unit'.

[orca]

Winged Walrus - S400’s quite the handful eh?

Most of us have a story or two to tell of (peacetime) assuming that we’ve been shot to pieces only to find out in the debrief that we hadn’t been - luck, EW, operator error, SAM system malfunction etc - so the baddies aren’t 10 foot tall and have as many bad days with their kit as anyone else.

A few of us have been missed for real. No idea what the debrief was - I assume buffoonery had a hand to play.

As systems advance however this will change. I don’t know to what degree.

Theoretically if an unmanned system could detect the inbound weapon it could well defeat it kinematically and if it can do it once it may do it multiple times. Mathematically I don’t think it could do it all day...proximity depends on g available to both parties in the end game but if you dial up the wick on the warhead that may become irrelevant.

Dont forget that there’s always a kill chain involved and there may be ways, pre and post launch, to weaken or break it.

But the threat is ‘significant’ these days.

Your post sounds a little like you were the last person to find out about the S-400!!😉

[Pontius Navigator]

Brian, an ECU is a complete engine assembly with all the extra components fitted to the basic engine. Think a car engine and then the water pump, alternator, head box etc. A 'Simple' engine change involves removing the engine, stripping all the ancilliaries off it, refitting them to the new engine and reinstalling it. Changing an ECU, all out all in. The paperwork is probably simpler too as all the components will have been serviced and service intervals reset.

We once needed an engine change overseas. The engine was removed and packaged by an aptly named Sgt Hammer. The replacement was delivered, ours was loaded on the transport and back to UK. When we unpacked the engine we found just an engine and not a complete ECU. So we had another week in the Sun.

[Onceapilot]

WW,
The details in open source always sound scary. However, as I pointed out in my post, you cannot know the real performance and capabilities from reading that sales blurb. The actual effectiveness and vulnerabilities of weapon systems are kept very closely guarded for obvious reasons. However, where the general characteristics of some things are known, we can debate their merits. Cheers

OAP

[Whinging Tinny]

Brian,
To expand a bit on PN's answer, ECU stands for Engine Change Unit and is a manufacturer's / maintenance term.
That is probably why you never saw it written on the aircrew side.
Nowadays, it is usually called QEC (U) Quick Engine Change (Unit) and is used by Airbus and Boeing in their maintenance manuals plus GE and RR have specific definitions as to what constitutes a QEC.
There is also EBU - Engine Build UP which is a Boeing term.

[Pontius Navigator]

There is one threat that is the 'Daddy' of them all and it is really bad news. The Russian S-400 Triumf (NATO code SA-21 Growler). It can reach out to 400km, up to about 30km high (185km on Wiki for specific missile), down to about 5m and travelling at 5,000 m/s (MACH 15). It is highly resistant to jamming. It is extremely mobile, can be setup quickly and with only three personnel. It fires four different missiles for various range engagements and can engage 80 targets simultaneously

I don't know anything about the S400 apart from what I read here or wiki, but there is a clue in the quote. The ignorant assume that 400km and 5m are one corner of the flight envelope. The 4 different missiles suggest each missile is optimised for a specific part of the MEZ. So what is new compared with earlier, Nike/Hawk/Rapier layered defence? What is new compared with a 400km range missile retired by the US almost 50 years ago?

What is apparently new is the ability for a launch team to operate 4 different missiles. The ability to engage 80 targets simultaneously is awesome, but you also need 80 plus missiles plus reloads. Now the logistics must be awesome. Unless they are supplied wholesale as in Vietnam they could soon be shot out.

Impressive as the system undoubtedly is it will have wealnesses; I think logistics is one. Analysts will find a weakness somewhere that can be exploited.

[Wingless Walrus]

orca - I have been out of the combat aircraft 'sphere' for a very long time now. Some of the articles I read were years old, so I probably am the very last person to hear about the S400! I came across another article about phones that can fit in your pocket; I am going to get one when they come out! Such is my Robinson Crusoe existence, without the palm tree's unfortunately.

I came across the S400 a while ago but didn't check out its specs. My comments were a little tongue-in-cheek but I was impressed by how far the goal posts had moved.

I guess principles of SAM systems are fundamentally the same and so the initial means of dealing with them can still be used, along with more modern methods. SAM = radar + fire control + missile + data-link; I suppose this equation is still valid although there is probably a bit more too it now.

One thing that wont change are the laws of physics. A missile is still a pole with short stubby fins on it. A missile that can go 400km is going to be big and heavy. It has a long reach but its not invincible. When a SAM turns its 'headlights' on, its there for all to see.

Radar is still limited by the curvature of the earth, so seeing a jet on the deck beyond a flat 25 miles or so is still problematic unless you have airborne radar.

I read an account of a Gulf War A-10 pilot who was shot at by a SAM at night. He saw the launch and tracked the 'flame' of the SAM and began to 'dance'. Then the flame went out and he had to time his moves based solely on his predictions of what the now invisible SAM was doing. That's one hell of a way to earn a living but it shows the defensive tools and training work.

I suspect that today's high threat environment puts emphasis on team work more than ever. The S400 is a clear marker of how much more lethal the battle space is becoming. No doubt technology will continue its game of 'leapfrog', where one advance is negated by another.

What was interesting in reading some government published documents was that it was pointed out that the 6thGen Tempest does not necessarily refer to a single aircraft; Tempest could actually be the name for a system of several components that deliver the required capability.

OAP - you are right. Rules of Life: No.1 Never eat yellow snow; No.2 Never trust a glossy brochure. I take your points exactly. The theoretical capabilities can be far different to the 'every day' real world capabilities. I 'over egged' it a bit in making the point that the systems of today are highly lethal and getting more so.

Manufacturers can be over enthusiastic with their 'new born babes'. Back in the beginning of the SAM/missile age many thought the missile had killed the dogfight; they thought once the missile was launched it was game over for the poor target. The manufacturers were eager to sell their wonder weapons and they undoubtedly sold them to themselves first and made gross claims that these miniature kamikaze's could not be dodged if launched within their limits. When these wonder weapons went to war in Vietnam, they did not work as advertised.

Like wise the Sea Harrier in the Falklands. I do believe an initial serious assessment by some outside the FAA was that they would all be lost in one or two weeks and were no match for the supersonic jets and missiles. The pilots had other idea's but it took putting the systems and the personnel to war to reveal reality. As you say, no matter what the brochure says it will take putting those systems to the test to know how effective they really are.

The proliferation of highly capable weapon systems like the S400 may give some crazy person the impression they are now more protected than they really are, leading to them starting something somewhere. As well as the battle space impact of these systems they may also have a political space impact. They may destabilise various regions.

Thanks to you both for your sharing the benefits of your experience; this thread has been a great read.