AV-8B/Harrier feature in LA times

[Navy_Adversary]

Although I have not yet checked it out, the Los Angeles times is undertaking a 4 part feature complete with multi-media about the Harrier and it's safety record with USMC etc
To check it out:
http://www.latimes.com/harrier

Sorry, the link is inactive until 1700 pacific time, for some pre release info check out
http://www.latimes.com/services/site/releases/la-pr-121302.story

[Postman Plod]

Doh, why couldn't they have published this a week ago....

Looks sensationalist, but then it is a newspaper...

[rivetjoint]

Wow...
"The Harrier has failed to make a significant and distinctive contribution on the battlefield."

Any Harrier jocks here?

[griffinblack]

A very interesting article, not particularly flattering of the Harrier.

What has been the RAF/RN perspective. Obvoiusly the Falklands war was cited in the article. But is a war that was fought over 20 years ago still relivant? Has current threat weopon systems and PGMs made the VTOL aircraft redundant? Is the cost vs benifit still viable for a weopon system with all the inherent flaws?

furthermore, were does this place the STOVL version of the JSF?

[John Farley]

griffinblack

I have not seen the article yet. But in answer to your post, STOVL aircraft offer but one main military advantage. Operating site flexibility.

This point applies equally to the Harrier I, Harrier II or the STOVL version of the F-35

Whether you feel the need for operating site flexibility clearly depends on the situation. It might be totally crucial. It might be completely unnecessary.

Not sure what you have in mind regarding “inherent flaws”.

[NigelOnDraft]

'Any Harrier jocks here?' Well - was a RAF GR7 pilot, and still closely involved with the UK Harrier Force even in civvy street - not of course with JFs street cred.

Read the article... like most of this type, it starts with the conclusion, and then gently twists everything to fit it.

All <<comments>> from LA Times article... I've only picked a few...

<<only the compact, muscular-looking Harrier could lift straight up off a runway, hover like a hummingbird, then blast off in search of targets>>
Vertical Takeoff has never really been a serious operational aim for the Harrier. Its strength is STO (and really Short TO) and VL - enabling ops from small ships without the complexity of catapults / arrestor wires, or as we did in Germany, operating from unprepared short roadways. VTO great for airshows though!

<<At 14,500 feet ... the plane's engine quit. Yount twice tried to restart it. No response. .... I'm getting out of this thing. Get out of my way!" He veered the aircraft away from ..., then pulled the ejection handle. And there, at 7,500 feet, the Harrier failed him again. As Yount shot out of the cockpit, his seat rotated out of position. When his parachute unfurled above him, its harness straps smacked violently against his helmet, whipsawing his head. The 42-year-old lieutenant colonel and father of two young girls died instantly of a broken neck.>>
The engine failed. OK - well they do in many types... and he seemed to do all he could to save the aircraft, then himself. Tragic the seat failed, and seems to be a theme in the article. Not the "fault" of the Harrier though - seats are relatively the same between types, and the UK Harriers use MB seats. MB seats (I know nothing about the US [Stencil?] seats) have let very few down in UK services over many years. This accident I would suggest has little to do with anything unique to the Harrier.

<<In 31 years of flight, however, the Harrier's vaunted ability to take off vertically has never been used in combat ...
Instead, the planes have used their powerful thrusters for short, rolling takeoffs from runways and Navy assault ships, mostly flying missions that could have been handled by safer, more conventional aircraft.>>
See above. Last statement incorrect - the point about the Harrier is that it, and it alone as a "fast jet", can operate from (small) Assault size ships, rather than full size carriers.

<<In the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the hot thrust-producing nozzles in the heart of the fuselage -- the devices that allow the Harrier to rise and balance in the air -- made the plane a magnet for heat-seeking missiles. Its loss rate was more than double that of the war's other leading U.S. combat jets. Five Harriers were shot down and two pilots died>>
Not sure of the accuracy of this - the wing can be used to shield the nozzles... In the Gulf, the Harriers were operating well forward, and relatively low level, and crucially, "alone" i.e. without the usual US package of other types (ECM etc.).

A lot about how it was not used in Afghanistan. Well so what - maybe it was not appropriate?

<<the Harrier has a massive Rolls-Royce engine that supplies 23,800 pounds of thrust through four nozzles that pivot down to produce a shimmering blast of hot air. The thrust can propel the plane off the ground and into a hover, a process that pilots compare to balancing an elephant on the head of a pencil.>>
Well - I was obviously good at balancing elephants then! A bit OTT...

<<But by the accepted standard of U.S. military aviation safety -- major accidents per 100,000 flight hours -- the Harrier has no peer among active planes today.>>
You can make stats read anything. The whole idea of the Harrier is to be based forward, and make MANY SHORT sorties (primarily FAC). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that takeoff and landing related accidents (the most common for ANY type, including airliners) will be higher if an aircraft flies short sorties. My logbook last page or so shows 24 hours typical Germany / UK Harrier training trips and 60+ (!) landings. Obviously some practice (and very enjoyable it was too) until the fuel ran out of the end of each sortie, but reflecting the totally different role of the aircraft. Any measure of accident rate must take this into account and <<major accidents per 100,000 flight hours >> does not.

<<Failures of the cantankerous Rolls-Royce engine have been chronic, causing more than two dozen major accidents.
... knew for nearly eight years that the wing flaps were prone to locking up, but it took three crashes, two of them fatal, before they decided to redesign the problem part.>>
The "bigger" (408?) engine took a bit of time in USMC service to iron out some problems - hopefully done so as the RAF only now introduce it. The Harrier 2 Flaps are "interesting" - a good article in "Harrier - the Verical Reality" by none other than the previous correspondent (!) about them. IMHO they are needed to give the operational benefits to the Harrier 2 - however, as and when they go wrong (rarely) it can easily result in loss of the airframe.

<<flew a British Harrier into the ground while on an exchange program with the RAF in England.>>
I'm afraid flying an aircraft into the ground is usually fatal, whatever the type...

<<The Harrier has to be light enough for the engine's thrust to lift it straight off the ground, so it carries a relatively small amount of fuel, which limits both its range and payload. Its maximum external load, including bombs and fuel, is 9,000 pounds.
By contrast, the Marines' own F/A-18 can handle 15,500 pounds and the Air Force's A-10 up to 16,000 pounds, according to Jane's All the World's Aircraft.>>
As stated earlier, VTO is rarely required operationally, and if needed ONLY a Harrier can do it. Given a much shorter strip than the A10/F18 needs above, it can carry ~16K. And provided it burns / drops most of it, VL back (not so the A10/F18).

<<Until recently, the Harrier's vulnerability was magnified because it was intended to fly close to the ground as it swooped down on enemy troops>>
So its the ROLE causing the problem - NOT the aircraft... Ahhhh

Hope I haven't ranted on too long. I have obviously only picked holes where I easily can... The point about the Harrier is it is a unique aeroplane for unique operational circumstances. Comparing it to a more conventional aircraft, but then using its uniqueness to highlight accidents, is an easy, but invalid point to make. Finally, many thanks to JF for his part in developing an aeroplane that I thouroughly enjoyed and admire...

[HOODED]

That cantakerous RR engine does seem to come in for some stick, I remember a Senior Officer at STC asking why everytime the Harrier had an engine failure we lose a jet? He felt a bit stupid when told that the Jag and Tornado have 2 engines compared to the Leaping Heaps 1. Also RR have had some bad press on some of the failures, some of the big problems the USMC had were due to poor maintenance proceedures by NADEP. The RAF suffered this too after sending some engines there for Recon, we ended up having to stip them down again to ensure some bearings were correctly assembled. All in all the mighty Pegasus and the Harrier are unique and the RR backup is excellent. RR are producing the most dificult parts in the F35s engine because RR have the materials expertise, so hearing the Yanks slagging off the Harrier and RR riles me somewhat!

Rant Over

[NigelOnDraft]

Some interesting points there Hooded..

I did not know the background you gave, but in fact the LA Times mentioned "bearing probs", and maintenance errors.

Somewhere, not this thread, the "remaining" number of Harriers was quoted, implying that all others had "crashed". Had a "spotter" half hour or so just now in my log book, and most of the GR3s / T4 s I trained on are "stored", not crashed....

NoD

[griffinblack]

Thanks to JF et al for some meaningful/balanced explaination on the Harriers capabilities and limitations.

As a helo pilot let me throw a little controversy here in respect to the harrier role. with the advent of the introduction of AH64D in the UK inventory will the role of the Harrier still be needed and viable. I would argue not. The AH64 will be able to operate further forward and respond faster than any jet can. It will be able to provide CAS, FAC and battlefield interdiction, with arguably superior results and at less risk. I would rather be masked 8Km from the enemy with my radar exposed over a hill than wazzing around at 500 Kts.

A finally the cost of operating the AH64 is, I expect, significantly less. The only down side would be payload, range and air to air capability. Payload can be offset by precision. Range is something fixed wing will allways have over helos. air to air is not a significant role of harrier and if needed to go air to air it means it is not achieiving its primary mission. I would expect, particularly with the advent of EFA, that it would very rarely be tasked to conduct CAP. AH64 will be armed with stinger for self defence and possible counter helo ops.

Thoughts or repercharges?

[NigelOnDraft]

GB

Maybe (!) good points. However, perspective needed on whether we are looking forward or back.

LA article, and my response was looking back. AH64 is all looking forwards (in UK terms)?

For the Harrier, looking forwards, we are away from land close FAC, probably. Much of the Harrier's role, now life limited by JSF (2012?), is sea borne, on Invincible type carriers, or normal land based ops, where the aeroplane is a match for others, both in "safety" and capability.

NoD

[BlueWolf]

I have to admit to not being up with the play in terms of the Harrier's thrust vectoring, but a couple of things occur to the engineer bit of me;

1) if the nozzles pointed slightly outwards as well as downwards, the ac would have to be more stable in hover/VTO/VL;

2) with a single engine, vectored thrust must be at opposite rotation on opposite sides of the ac, which has to have an effect on stability.

Hopefully someone with better knowledge can set me straight on both these points. I've never worked on aircraft, only on the exploding things which fall from them, and the bits that dispense the said exploding things.

Are these valid concerns, or am I way off track?

[Barn Doors]

BW

The Harrier Nozzles do have a very slight splay to them, so I guess that must improve the overall stability somewhat. However, the main stablilty comes from the Reaction Control System (RCS) which uses those little 'puffer ducts' to maintain control with zero airflow over the 'normal' control surfaces. This is linked to a stability augmentation system which helps again, to a degree.

Just a thought though regarding AH-64...... We've done the usual and mucked up bringing it into service already, have'nt got enough people to fly it maybe, and they are very limited on what they can do, I believe. I believe that the GR7 can respond just as quickly to a Close Air Support environment, yet can, and will bring more ordnance and as much 'fear' factor to an enemy's ground forces. I believe there is , for now, a place for both types. The Apache is certainly a massive step-up in terms of capability for the British Army, but I remain slightly sceptical regarding their ability to get as 'up-to-speed' as the US Army are wrt AH-64 ops.

Just my thoughts over the last few posts read here...

Cheers

BD

[ORAC]

The term the "battlefield" is becoming a bit hazy with systems such as MLRS with ATACMS being able to strike over 100nm beyond the FEBA. This being one of the reason for the merging of the roles of BAI and CAS. The AH-64 has also, as in Desert Storm, shown the ability for deep strike. But at such ranges speed and range/payload play-offs, as well as the types of munitions carried, become more of a factor.

The raison d'etre of the AV-8B, as far as the USMC was concerned, was that it could be available at very short notice near the beachhead either from FOBs/FARPs on the beach or from light carriers off-shore. The USN, meanwhile, would never risk a CV that close in-shore and would also be limited by launch/recovery cycles in their response. They're regarded as super hand-grenades to save the lives of troops on the ground on-call. The USN will look at the loss rate of the AV-8B against the loss rate of the FA-18, the USMC will look at the relevant respinse time and the lives saved on the battlefield, chalk and cheese.

The number of AH-64 being procured and the the limitted range and weight of payloads will not,directly, allow them to replace CAS assets such as the Jaguar. They may, however, be able to be used in conjunction with these and other larger platforms to enhance the execution of the task. If suitably equipped with either L16 or an ADM they can perform the battlefield recce role and co-ordinate with ground FAC and perform the AFAC role. Successful trials have been with weapons being launched from a fixed-wing aircraft miles behind the FEBA based on AH-64 weapon cueing and with the AH-64 taking over and providing final guidance. With weapons such as JAASM, Apache, Storm Shadow etc it is probable that,in the future, launch platforms may include UAVs such as the Global Hawk directly over the battlefield or stand-off platforms such as the B-52 with dozens of weapons.

The urgent need for a manned fixed-wing STOVL platform for the next generation may, for land battle scenarios, be moot.

In the case, however, of a maritime scenario when the CV is 200-300nm off-shore, the AV-8B will, surely, retain a role for the medium term.

In passing, one of the main points made about the loss rate of the AV-8 v the FA-18 during Desert Storm was that every AV-8 hit by a MANPAD SAM was lost, whilst every FA-18 was recovered,albeit with tail/jet-pipe damage. This was attributed to the AV-8 nozzles being half-way along the fuselage along the warhead to cut the airframe in half. The design of the JSF is, of course, radically different with the exactly the same position of jet-pipes in all models,the lift-fan not being in use over the battlefield. The STOVL model should, therefore, not be any more at risk than the CTOL or CV models.

[NigelOnDraft]

Bluewolf

<<if the nozzles pointed slightly outwards as well as downwards, the ac would have to be more stable in hover/VTO/VL>>
I'm not sure where this stability thing came from. The thing is perfectly "stable" in the hover. Indeed, when converting from the Harrier 1 to 2, the very effective auto stabs on the 2 became a problem - if you want to move sideways on the 1, "think about it" and it goes. On the 2 you really had to persuade it to go where you wanted it. This meant in a gusting wind, it could actually be harder to hold a fixed hover point than the 1 - unless you pulled the paddle taking the auto stabs out.

<<with a single engine, vectored thrust must be at opposite rotation on opposite sides of the ac, which has to have an effect on stability.>>
Not sure what you are on about here?

NoD

[rivetjoint]

On the opening night of Desert Storm the AH-64s were guided to the radar site by the SOG's helos, do the Apaches have the capability to get to the targets themselves today?

[BlueWolf]

NoD

What I'm suggesting is that thrust entering the nozzles from opposite sides of the engine will have either a clockwise or an anticlockwise component; on exiting the nozzle this may well translate itself to a rotation in the exhaust column, and have an effect on the yaw of the ac, since any such rotation would be cumulative not counteracting.

I could be wrong; but it's the sort of thing which occurs to me might be happening, even if technically it shouldn't.

[John Farley]

NigelOnDraft

Thanks for your fine post re the LAT article and the points you made. Saves us all a lot of trouble!

Thanks too for your kind words.

Without wishing to flog a dead horse IMHO there are three key issues about jet STOVL aircraft and it is very easy to run them all together into a mess of potage that just becomes yet another pro/anti article! I believe they should be addressed sequentially.

1 Would your expected military objectives be easier to achieve if you had some specialist fast jets with the necessary operating site flexibility to deploy them well forward, if necessary even in a ground based cab-rank mode.

2 Can the current level of technology give them a competitive military capability away from the circuit?

3 Can they be made easy enough to handle in the circuit?

Question 1 is not my business

Dealing with 2 it seems to me that so far as the GR7 is concerned the answer is very much yes offensively, dropping to probably defensively. With the FA2 in the AMRAAM interceptor mode it is a loud and clear yes both ways. But from now on don’t use the FA2 for mud-moving unless the targets are unarmed women and children queuing for soup or perhaps some hospitals.

As for 3, history suggests a qualified yes (qualified by the need for good circuit currency to be maintained). But I would suggest things are still a serious notch easier than arrested landings on board.

Everybody is in the same boat with 2, because everybody has to continually update kit, (and training) to cope with the latest bad guys. So it is not really a STOVL issue, although STOVL aircraft do have to take weight particularly seriously.

My take on 3 for the STOVL F-35 is that those mates will be able to forget about the need for special circuit training and currency. The software in that monster will completely de-skill circuit work – and a jolly good thing too. The pilots will still be able to exercise their egos away from the circuit, but once the fan is running they will all be equal.

Regards

John