LA Times savages Harrier

[ORAC]

LA Times - January 9, 2003
EDITORIAL - Justify Harrier or Drop It

In the more than three decades that Marine pilots have flown the Harrier attack jet, it has wowed air show crowds and movie audiences with its vertical takeoffs and quick maneuvers, combining the moves of helicopters and fixed-wing planes. But the vaunted vertical takeoff has not been used in combat, and the razzle-dazzle has overshadowed the plane's abysmal safety record.

The AV-8A Harrier and its successor, the AV-8B, have been in 143 major noncombat accidents, killing 45 Marines. The crashes have destroyed one-third of the Harrier fleet. The planes were chronically plagued with serious problems in their engines, wing flaps and mechanical systems. This week, the House Armed Services Committee announced hearings on the safety of the Harrier and other military aircraft in response to The Times' four-part series on the plane last month (www.latimes.com/news/specials/harrier). Those hearings are overdue.

The Harrier's mission is to quickly get close to troops on the ground and support them with firepower. But since 1971, when the Marines bought the aircraft and billed it as able to take off from tiny patches of ground or damaged runways in remote areas and roar to the rescue of besieged troops, the U.S. military's use of air power has changed.

In the Persian Gulf War, U.S. air commanders could "stack" many aircraft over a battlefield and quickly and efficiently call in strikes as necessary; this diminished the need to base planes close to the troops, a Harrier advantage. When the Harrier did fly in that conflict, its loss rate was more than double other major U.S. combat jets.

In Afghanistan, commanders held the Harriers out of the first weeks of combat. Marines said two AV-8Bs sent to a partly destroyed airstrip in Kandahar showed the capability of operating where other planes could not. But the two stayed only one night, flew four sorties and dropped no bombs. A Marine pilot who flew Harriers in Afghanistan said the flights from Kandahar "were like photo ops."

The Navy, which pays for Marine aviation, has spent nearly $9 billion since 1971 to buy and modify Harriers. It has spent $4.1 billion more since 1986 to repair and fly the plane. Now the Marines are rebuilding 74 Harriers at a cost of $28.2 million each. That heavy price tag -- which pales in comparison with the loss of 44 Marine pilots and a flight surgeon -- should prompt Congress to ask why the Harrier should be kept flying at all. The Marines have it scheduled to fly an additional 13 to 17 years. The post-World War II notion that Marines in the air are needed to protect Marines on the ground, with their own special planes, also demands reexamination. Navy and Air Force pilots can support Marines on the ground.

Military aviation is hazardous, especially in testing new aircraft. But The Times' series, by Alan C. Miller and Kevin Sack, showed that the Marines rushed the Harrier into the fleet and then dawdled in fixing its problems. The Marines have made the same mistakes with the V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft they are testing and which is supposed to speed troops into combat. Two Osprey crashes in 2000 killed 23 Marines.

Congress has held hearings on Harrier crashes before. The House Armed Services Committee's inquiry this time should not accept the Marines' usual explanation that the problems have been fixed. Instead, Congress should ask the Marine Corps to explain and justify its mission for the Harrier. If it cannot do so persuasively, there is no reason why Marines should not fly planes with better safety records. In more than three decades, the Harrier's ability to take off vertically has never been used in combat by the Marines -- although the craft was used to save Miami in the 1994 Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "True Lies." Based on the Harrier's safety record, fantasyland is where it belongs.

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-harrier9jan09,0,6238946.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dedi torials)

[Tourist]

Did you have to start a harrier topic,? all we will get now is that idiot WEBF or whatever he is called talking **** again.:rolleyes:

[rivetjoint]

I will wheel out my well used Exhibit A, to be used for comparisons : "Bread, Loaf of, Sliced".

[BEagle]

"Not invented here", perhaps?

....and which is truly the cause - the gunner or the gun?

Hoo-ah, Sir. Mreeeeeeeeeenkaw! Semper Fi.......couldn't possibly be the pilots, could it? Must be the goddam limey jet that's the problem.....

[StillTaxying]

Excellent, they can give them all to us!

We'll even write a thank you letter to the LA Times..

[ORAC]

Strangely enough the linked review is pretty fair and identifies the major causes.

Engine and airframe upgrades/changes rushed into service without being adequately debugged.
Poor maintenance with inadequately trained engineers who rotated of the force to often.
Engine and airframe known faults where the fixes were either concelled or slipped by years due to lack of funding.
Inadequate flying hours due to lack of airframe availability due to the above.

In their view however, that just proves it's too complicated and tricky to fly and the advantages of VSTOL have proved to be unnecessary for the Marines in actual combat and don't justify the lives lost.

Doesn't mean the advantages aren't there. Just that, in their view, they don't need them. The USMC obviously disagree.

I think the whole thing is a stalking horse for the USN. They're pushing the view that the USMC ought to operate a common fleet with the USN from CVs. They've pushed out figures showing how overall F-18E/F purchases can be cut by around 30% and the savings used to rescue other USN projects etc. It may also be a push to save money by eliminating the STOVL version of the JSF.

I await with interest any leaks and reports from the committee meetings.

[kbf1]

the AV-8B, have been in 143 major noncombat accidents

I don't know how many AV8Bs the Septics have so from that I can't deduce what %age attrition rate 143 incidents represents (or indeed how many of these were crashes which resulted in the loss of the AV8B). Anecdotally though if the a/c really was at fault surely the RAF would have lost a similar number as would the RN, Spanish AV 8B as well as the Itailian, Indian, and Thai navies who also operate variants? Huge or disproportionate losses in these services wouldn't go unoticed.

[Archimedes]

It seems that the RAF and RN have managed to operate the Harrier for years without seemingly regular expressions of doubt and pain about the aircraft. This makes me wonder whether or not some of the problems have a high institutional component rather than just a problem with the airframe?

Base this question on ORAC's points:

>Engine and airframe upgrades/changes rushed into service without being adequately debugged.

Fault of the aircraft or the operator? Of course problems with the former, but raises questions about the wisdom of pushing the type into service so quickly.

>Poor maintenance with inadequately trained engineers who rotated of the force to often.

Ditto above question - this is a human resources issue, not an aircraft problem, surely?

>Engine and airframe known faults where the fixes were either concelled or slipped by years due to lack of funding.

While this is a finance problem....

>Inadequate flying hours due to lack of airframe availability due to the above.

While this is a problem because of the lack of maintainers, money for fixes, etc., isn't it?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Stormin' Norman identified the AV-8B as being one of the key weapons systems in winning in 1991. Also, wouldn't the nature of the ops done by the AV-8B have exposed them to greater risk from ground fire, and thus losses than other types (apart from the A-10)?

Seems to me that the material in the article about Afghanistan and the 'photo ops' line can be read either as 'aircraft not capable', or, 'service politics meant the aircraft wasn't used'. (the third option, of course, is force protection concerns about forward deploying them). You may recall the thread we had here a few months ago about the AH-64 drivers doing remarkable things against Mr Bin Liner's finest - I presume that having AV-8Bs on call would have made life even more awkward.

As BEagle suggests, the history of the Harrier in US service seems to be riddled NIH syndrome, I'm afraid. For instance, I've seen a couple of pieces by Marines decrying the 'little British jet' in comparison to the Hornet, but basing this on the air-air capability of the two types, which is...odd. From what I can ascertain, the USMC were particularly successful with the type in the Gulf despite the losses (although part of that info originated from an AV-8 driver), but it seems that this is offset by a lack of support for the type that verges on the irrational dislike.

[A Civilian]

I hate harriers. Its not anything to do with the plane itself per see its todo with the average Joe on the street thinking the harrier is the bees knees due to its succes in the flanklands and my inability to convince them otherwise. Ive lost track of the number of times ive tried to. All different people and yet I just realized that im commenting on a military topic which I shouldnt be doing so im going to stop now.

[West Coast]

The LA Times has a hard on for certain military airframes. Back in the 80's, it and another Socal newspaper went after the CH53E which was based nearby.

[BlueWolf]

Now there was something the Yanks invented, wasn't there? Just scratching my head here, I know there was something, but I can't quite think of it.

It wasn't the aeroplane, because we did that; Richard Pearse was in the air near Timaru nine months before the Wright brothers.

It wasn't radar, because you Poms did that.

It wasn't radio; that was that Itie chappie, wasn't it?

It wasn't TV, that was that excellent Scots fellow whose name escapes me for the moment.

It wasn't dynamite, that was the man who also invented the Nobel Peace Prize....!

It wasn't nukes, because that was also a Kiwi; though he wouldn't have got anywhere if you lot hadn't given him all the money and facilities.

It wasn't the swing wing; that was Barnes Wallace.

It wasn't the internal combustion engine. That was a German.

It wasn't the jet engine. That was you guys again.

It wasn't penicillin or the aircraft carrier; ditto above.

It wasn't the ballistic missile - another point for the Krauts...

It wasn't the printing press, the weaving loom, the ballpoint pen or the bicycle.

OK, so it may have been electricity, the computer, Pepsi, and the lightbulb;

But it wasn't the steam engine, the sextant, X-rays or optical magnification.

The Japs did the fax machine.

I like the Yanks, I really do. And they've adopted or accepted plenty which they haven't invented. But I don't think they're justified in knocking the Harrier just because they're not very good at flying it.

[West Coast]

Blue wolf
I trust you feel better after your diatribe?
You should not have strong opinions about things you don't have an intimate knowledge of. Read the article ORAC posted, it talks of the Brits in there also and the higher, yes read it again, higher accident rate the Brits have had with the Harrier than the Marines.

My link is to a page that lists all RAF accidents since1990, non combat related.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm

It lists 19 RAF Harrier accidents on a force significantly smaller than what the Marines have. Allowed some exponential calculations to cover the previous 20 something years prior that it has been flying and the number is quite large. I presume there have been some RN accidents also during that time which are not accounted for here. I know I will be lambasted, but it looks like the Brits don't have alot to boast about when it comes to the scarrier either.

[Reichman]

Can it carry a large payload? - No.

Is it fast? - No.

Has it got long range? - No.

Can it fly with one engine out? - No.

Can it land and take off vertically? - Yes, but so what. Is that necessary? - No.

More expensive and less capable than a helicopter? - Yes.

Cold war relic that survives on its own hype? - Yes.

Is it the most tedious display you've ever had the misfortune to sit and be deafened through? - Oh yes. Eh?!

Harrier my ar$e!

[Lima Juliet]

Harrier Fact:

The RAF has lost over 12% of it's GR5/7s since its ISD 10 years ago. Compare that to Tornado F3, which is a 6% loss over 17 years of service, and you get quite an alarming picture!

I wouldn't want to go near the bloody thing. Hence I went light blue instead of dark blue when I joined the forces.

Great jet for air shows (Including large splashes off sea fronts!) but sod all use against anything with a credible air force and not a jumped up little Junta in South America!:cool: :cool: :cool:

[maxburner]

BlueWolf

A small correction: we Brits invented the computer.

[RubiC Cube]

Reminds me of the Boscombe Comet on its first trip to the States in many a long year. After establishing comms when entering US airspace:

ATC: RAFAIR state type.

RAFAIR: Military 4 jet.

ATC: But what type?

RAFAIR: Hawker Siddely Comet.

ATC: Whats that?

RAFAIR: The first jet airliner.

ATC: Oh its a Boeing then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[A Civilian]

A small correction: we Brits invented the computer.

In the National Computing Centre in Madchester 1946. Its a crying shame that the NCC is nowadays nothing more than a poorly funded document storage firm. Likewise of all the other orginal industrial developments quoted before I doubt where still leading the world in any of them.

[Zoom]

Regarding the USMC's Harrier accident rate, it is probably about as shocking as those of the RAF/RN Harriers, RAF Lightnings, Luftwaffe F-104s, etc, etc. The main problem could just be that the USMC has always had to fight for every scrap of funding from the USN. (A couple of RAF exchangees in the 70s told me all sorts of tales of how they would fly their F-4s with known faults into USN bases and then declare them u/s so that they could get them fixed with Navy parts. There were similar scams with fuel: declare fuel emergency close to USN base, divert, fill up.......) When the AV-8A was originally chosen by the Marines, it was against furious objections from the NIH lobby, so economies had to be made to make it look like a good deal. This meant that when the aircraft entered service it was a very basic machine indeed, having no nav/attack system or any of the other expensive goodies which all other new jets of that era did have. I don't know if decent kit was ever retro-fitted but the original AV-8A's bad weather and weapons aiming capabilities weren't too startling.

[Ali Barber]

Leon Jabachjabicz

To compare Harrier attrition with that of the Tornado F3 is not a fair comparison. The reason HMG leased Tornado F3s to the Italian Air Force was because of the embarrasingly low attrition rate on the F3 - we had more left than we were planned to. Any new aircraft buy always includes an anticipated allowance for attrition. Losses of single-engine aircraft must be higher than 2-engines and that was probably taken into account. I've not heard any stories of "how to get your own Harrier, buy land outside Wittering/Cottesmore and wait" as you used to about the F-104.

The Harrier operates in a dangerous environment, even in peacetime, and losses are expected. They're not welcomed, but they are expected.

[steamchicken]

In more than three decades, the Harrier's ability to take off vertically has never been used in combat by the Marines -- although the craft was used to save Miami in the 1994 Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "True Lies." Based on the Harrier's safety record, fantasyland is where it belongs.

And who cares whether or not its ability to take off vertically has been used? STOVL is far more important in any sensible context - VTO's main advantage is to get back up if you need to VL somewhere very small indeed. Which isn't really the point. And what does Arnie have to do with anything?

[BlueWolf]

I'd have said it was more of a rant than a diatribe West, but then that was more of a nibble than a bite:D

The best statistics are the ones which support my preconceptions. Can you find me some?

I guess by 'computer' I meant the modern electronic one, but point taken!

[Postman Plod]

Having been looking at Harier accident stats in perticular recently (see previous thread) there have been around about 96 RAF Harrier accidents (including 1st generation Harrier, up to 1996) with the main causes being:


First Generation - GR1 / 1a / 3/ 3a / T2 /T4
Engine failure / power loss - 14
Birdstrike - 8
CFIT / loss of control - 10
Mid Air Collision - 9
Low speed loss of control - take off / landing / transition -12
technical fault - 6
Fire Warning - 2
Ricochet from own cannon - 2
unknown - 2
Tailplane linkage disconected - 2
Combat operations - 3
Ground fire - 1
nosewheel failure - 1

Second Generation - GR5 / 7
Fatigue failure - 1
Electrical failure - 1
Vane failure (engine ingestion)- 1
Birsdstrike - 1
undemanded activation of manual fuel control system - 1
CFIT / Loss of control - 1
unknown - 1
Low speed loss of control - take off / landing / transition - 2

(stats taken from Lost to Service - a summary of accidents to RAF aircraft and losses to personnel, 1959 -1996, ISBN 0-9526619-0-X)

These are quick summaries - I hope the numbers add up,and the groupings are pretty rough, especially around loss of control, where reasons for control loss are generally not given. I can't comment on Harrier losses after 1996, which would clearly take the Harrier II stats up.

The Harrier does operate in a pretty unique role - single engine ground attack aircraft operating at low level, prone to birdstrikes, high sortie rates due to its role of CAS operating from forward bases, STOVL capability, etc. It does have the highest accident rate of any UK fixed wing military aircraft (the Jaguar not being too far behind - see following links:

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/stats/ukds/2002/chap4tab44frame.html

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/stats/ukds/2002/chap4tab44frame.html

The majority of accidents occur at take off / landing, and with such high sortie rates experienced with the Harrier, its spending much more time in this higher risk zone.

You could argue that the Harrier cant really be compared to any other fixed wing aircraft however, and that its closest comparison would be rotary aircraft. Looking at the links above, the stats compare more similarly with those of rotary aircraft (accidents per 10000 flying hours).

Finally, to give the Harrier a wee bit of support, it can quite happily hold its own amongst both combat jets of its own age, and more modern combat jets, according to US Marine pilots against F18's, F14's, F16's etc, and Royal Navy Falklands Hero Sharky Ward, and general lover of the RAF, who can speak no wrongs, and never exagerates.... :rolleyes: And lets face it, it did do a good job in the Falklands....

[West Coast]

Bluewolf
I can direct you to the article. Its the belief of some here through remarks that somehow the gold standard of Harrier attrition is set by the British. Several, including yourself question the Marines ability to fly them. Perhaps you failed to read on or didn't read the article at all. It further says the Brits have a higher rate of loss of the Harrier than the Marines. Ergo, if the Marines are lousy, then the Brits must be really lousy at flying the Harrier.

To orientate my bearing pointer, are you an expat living there or are you from New Zealand?

I unfortunately cannot get the link to the parliament records on RAF crashes to work, but use the search function to find it. It lists a large number of RAF non combat losses of the Harrier. Almost disproportionate to the small number the RAF has.

www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk

[joema]

The Harrier is the world's first mass production V/STOL fighter. It uses technology from the 1960s. It has unique capabilities. It doesn't have computerized flight controls. It can be a handful to fly. It has a high loss rate. I've read this in Aviation Week for decades.

I applaud the detailed LA Times coverage. Not many papers would tackle that. However it's now the end of the Harrier's life cycle. If it took them this long to figure out what is common knowledge in the aviation press, I suppose we can expect a similar LA Times expose on the JSF around 2040.

If the Harrier problems were so glaringly obvious, where was the LA Times 20 years ago? Ah, maybe it wasn't so obvious then. Nobody can predict how a fighter will work out. Sometimes a plane matures well, is operated properly, and it's capabilities luckily fit the changing tactical environment. You can't predict that. 25 years ago various press articles said the F-15 would never be successful. Today it has an essentially perfect kill/loss ratio. Sometimes the opposite happens. I think to a degree the Harrier was a victim of this. But you can't predict that. It's necessary to try things -- sometimes they work better than expected and sometimes worse. Even when less than expected, they can still fill a useful role.

The key is not how the Harrier works today. It's here, and the operators have little choice but to use it. The US and UK can't switch to A-10s for the interim period until the JSF is ready.

The key is whether the V/STOL JSF will work. If the LA Times thinks there are problems with that, I hope they'll tell us soon, not wait 20 or 30 years.

[BlueWolf]

New Zealander born and bred West, but an accident of my father's birth affords me British citizenship, and I lived in the UK for a number of years.

[SASless]

But back in the 80's....the 53's were being lost at an alarming rate by the USMC......of course the latest rhubarb over the V-22 testing hasn't helped matters either.

There have been some interesting afteraction reports coming out of Afghanistan.....seems the USAF Close Air Support doctrine requires them to remain above 10,000 feet AGL....and only precision guided munitions may be directed by USAF controllers....not US Army controllers. Thus....small units without assigned USAF controllers could not call in USAF airstrikes with PGM's and even then the zoomies never came down below 10,000 feet AGL. Not my definition of Close Air Support.....interesting thing is the USN and USMC had no such restrictions.....they were there to put bombs on rags when called upon.

I needn't ask what the Canadians think of USAF Tactical bombing!

[Flap62]

Don't think I've ever seen a thread where quite so many people with so little knowledge have been happy to spout off - all we need is webf and we'll have the full complement of idiots !

[Postman Plod]

Ohhh Flaps, great contribution to the thread there yourself! :)

[roundel]

Sage words indeed ORAC (as ever),to which I shall add only a few and I freely admit that they aren't my own, but on the way into work tonight I happened to glance through an article in a well known GA mag written by the (in my humble opinion) incomparable John Farley who of all people should know what he is doing;

"In 1968 when checking out the first USMC pilots without a two-seater or simulator, I insisted on the first sortie being taxi only. One very experienced pilot saw red and fumed to his CO that he did not need a Brit to tell him how to taxi. I insisted, his eyes glazed over during the brief, and he bent the aeroplane doing a simple accel-stop on the runway."

Need I say more or is this just another case of "All the gear,No Idea"?


By the way ORAC, your war crimes post was most enlightening,especially as I'm off to Macedonia tonight!!

[SixOfTheBest]

I'm with flaps,

You're all smokin dope.

[kbf1]

Ricochet from own cannon - 2

you can just imagine the de-brief can't you......

Airship: Jones...What the HELL did you think you were doing?

Jones: 'shot 'meself down sir!

Airship: TWICE??!

if the Marines are lousy, then the Brits must be really lousy at flying the Harrier.

Well we do let the RAF fly it..whaddya expect?

I did like the retort given to Gen Sir Mike Rose when he bantered with the pilot of the SHAR shot down over Boz in '95 that he hadn't managed to get a bomb off. SHAR mate replied "I did Sir, it was just that it was attached to the airframe at the time!"

[Pope Mobile]

What a splendid topic!
One I have often considered.

West Coast: Ever considered that the LA Times may not wish to state
"USMC pilots the worst Harrier pilots in the world!! No other air force plants'em like our steely eyed numpties".

"Harrier-The Vertical Reality" by Roy Braybrook (Great article Mr Farley!) lists every Harrier airframe and whether it survived or not. Covers the P1127 and all models up to 1997. And guess what: The USMC crashed the living daylights out of theirs. I have worked the stats out on a number of occassions and they are much better at crashing than the RAF (as a percentage). The Shar is pretty bad too, with approx 1/3 of all airframes (FRS1 and FA2) pranged. I can't be bothered to go back thru the book, but the USMC AV8A stats are dreadful.

A good friend of mine served as an instructor in a USMC training Sqn and told me that their attrition rates were so high because the best pilots went F18. The majority that came thru (this was the 80's/very early 90's) were hardly able to grasp the fundamentals of VSTOL. They were forbidden from doing advanced VSTOL, (for their own safety) and hence never got over their fear of the jet. On the other side of the Atrlantic meanwhile, our intrepid AV8 studes were carrying out mini-ccts, braking stop hovers, conventionals up the ying yang.......

Still: The article was a great read.
:)

[Divergent Phugoid!]

What was the name of that wonderful American a/c..... yes you know the one...... F 104 something? Starfighter??

NOPE Ive got it...


THE WIDOW MAKER!!


What a wonderful invention and yes, it was American!! That why its not been slated on here!! :D :D

On a bit more serious note, was its attrition rate better or worse than the AV8's and GR's? What were the losses due to?? Bad airframe or bad airmanship? I wonder?? ;) ;)

[rivetjoint]

I think one of the problems with the F-104G was training, didn't they train the German pilots out in Nevada where they had gin clear skies, only to send them to Germany where it was thick fog all day?

[ORAC]

Correct, the problem was not a fault with the aircraft but due to the speed with which it was rushed into service with the GAF resulting in inadequate aircrew and engineering training.

Once this was corrected the loss/accident rate dropped to comparable levels to that of other aircraft types. Other operators, such as the Dutch, Norwegians etc, had no similar problem.

Didn't stop the aircraft acquiring a bad reputation though. Perhaps the similarity is greater than you think.