Why Does the RAF have the Harrier today?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote...
I beg to differ!
I took this at the Roundnice Airshow just north of Prague in June this year!
PP
Today the GR7/9 cannot go near the smallest bit of gravel without Fod'ing an engine, so is operationally mud/sand-moving from airfields (a role also performed by Tornado and Jaguar)...
I took this at the Roundnice Airshow just north of Prague in June this year!
PP
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst i remain a staunch realist about retirement of the SHAR, let's not go calling it a Hawk with respect to it's A-G capability. It clearly cannot utilise PGMs but as for dropping dumb bombs (which still do exist...no seriously, they do) it can match any UK platform bar none.
No, not a 'save the Sea Jet' post but you must be polite and accurate about the Old Girl.
No, not a 'save the Sea Jet' post but you must be polite and accurate about the Old Girl.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the FOD issue, pah. All engines suffer roughly the same amount of 'erosion/impact damage', it's only because the mighty pegasus is so visable to even the daftest of monkeys that it gets picked up on servicings. Just because t'other Jets ecu's are so far down the arse end doesn't mean that FOD evaporates once it enters the intake.
If FOD damage is only easy for "monkeys" to spot when it is as visible as the Pegasus is on the Harrier, then how did the "monkeys" spot the FOD damage on the deeply buried engines of the Tornados?
"All engines suffer roughly the same amount of 'erosion/impact damage"
What a complete and utter load of Ar$e!!
All Engines are subject to strict limits and tolerances regarding FOD damage, and that doesn't matter whether it is a Pegasus, or RB199. If the engine is damaged beyond limits, it is changed.
Surroundings will have an impact on the extend of erosion/impact damage. Are you suggesting that an engine from the Gulf will have a comparable amount of impact/erosion damage as an engine that has spent the last few years punching holes around Norfolk?
Harriers ARE susceptible to FOD, the major reason being the same as you imply it is spotted. There is an enormous fan not 4 feet above the ground, powerfully sucking in a huge amount of air. Is it unreasonable to suggest that a large amount of crap is going to be picked up by this swirling mass of air, and passed through the compressor?
Tornados are also affected by FOD, however, this would be vastly reduced if Thrust Reverse wasn't regularly employed below the 60kt minumum. Instead of being used as an alternative to the footbrakes!
Jacko,
But we ought to be keeping Jag, too. Cheaper to run than a Tornado or a Harrier, more deployable than a Harrier, more versatile than either. So what if the payload/range equation is a bit poor?
And that will do for this evening........
climbs off Sunlight soap box
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Not Ardua enough
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had the pleasure of 5 albeit not to recent years on the HF in Germany.
When operating in the field, Sennelager etc...A FODDED (sp) Jet would only usually need a Fan change...not the entire engine.
Still took a day though.
When operating in the field, Sennelager etc...A FODDED (sp) Jet would only usually need a Fan change...not the entire engine.
Still took a day though.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its important to note that although some engines are more FOD tolerant than others, most of the engines we operate are pretty robust (just look at the adour - well, the Mk 104 anyway). If FOD is visible and the damage is OOL and cannot be blended in situ, the engine will be changed. Although FOD is often found on strip, it is not always the cause for rejection and having FOD listed on a strip report can somtimes skew the analysis of any investigation into that rejection. With surge, for example, it is not easy to ascertain the exact cause when the engine is in bits in the bay, however, FOD is likely to be found at some stage within the engine especially if it is high life and is occasionally cited as a (if not the) contributary factor to the rejection.
As for "the Jaguar, with it's multitude of sporadic leaks, numerous wiring problems, and labyrinth of age related cracks". I totally agree. We've got our moneys worth out of the Jag but its on its last legs - most are pretty much held together with PRC.
As for "the Jaguar, with it's multitude of sporadic leaks, numerous wiring problems, and labyrinth of age related cracks". I totally agree. We've got our moneys worth out of the Jag but its on its last legs - most are pretty much held together with PRC.
If one were keeping the Jag Force (or a small part thereof), the sensible solution would be to take the 2,000 hr ground instructional GR1 jets from Cosford, give them a major, and convert them to 3As (which would cost less than the £450k per jet paid for the current 5-7,000 hr 3As, since many LRUs could be robbed). That this is possible has already been demonstrated (two ex-GI aircraft have been converted straight from 1 to 3A).
And even if you didn't do that solving the Jags leaks and wiring would cost far less, per airframe, than the new rear fuselages required to keep the GR7s and 9s in service.
Nor is it an 'either/or' - keeping an enlarged Jag unit would give the Harrier GR7/9 and GR4 fleets a sporting chance of making it to their planned OSDs, which would otherwise look difficult to achieve without very major expenditure, and would give the RAF a FJ that was cheaper and easier to rapidly deploy, with a smaller logs footprint and that can do recce, TIALD, PWIII, etc. at least as well as either of its complementary platforms.
And even if you didn't do that solving the Jags leaks and wiring would cost far less, per airframe, than the new rear fuselages required to keep the GR7s and 9s in service.
Nor is it an 'either/or' - keeping an enlarged Jag unit would give the Harrier GR7/9 and GR4 fleets a sporting chance of making it to their planned OSDs, which would otherwise look difficult to achieve without very major expenditure, and would give the RAF a FJ that was cheaper and easier to rapidly deploy, with a smaller logs footprint and that can do recce, TIALD, PWIII, etc. at least as well as either of its complementary platforms.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would either of those ex GI Jags you refer to be one of the Taxiable/Ground Running airframes Jacko?
As opposed to the mangled/hacked at/battered majority of ground instruction Jags at Cosford.
Having seen and worked around some of those training airframes that have been used for the past 20 years to train ham fisted 16 year olds the intricacies of complex aircraft maintainence, I think they would need a DAMN sight more than a major, and robbed LRU's to make them anything like serviceable.
Perhaps there are a few which have had their hydraulic / electrical systems kept in working order, but the majority of them are in a very poor state indeed. I do believe a study was actually carried out on the viability of re-introducing some of those aircraft into service, but was rejected on the amount of work that would be required, and ultimately, cost.
A great shame, as I actually quite like the Jag, as clearly you do yourself, but the realities of the situation mean that they have indeed had their day.
As opposed to the mangled/hacked at/battered majority of ground instruction Jags at Cosford.
Having seen and worked around some of those training airframes that have been used for the past 20 years to train ham fisted 16 year olds the intricacies of complex aircraft maintainence, I think they would need a DAMN sight more than a major, and robbed LRU's to make them anything like serviceable.
Perhaps there are a few which have had their hydraulic / electrical systems kept in working order, but the majority of them are in a very poor state indeed. I do believe a study was actually carried out on the viability of re-introducing some of those aircraft into service, but was rejected on the amount of work that would be required, and ultimately, cost.
A great shame, as I actually quite like the Jag, as clearly you do yourself, but the realities of the situation mean that they have indeed had their day.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think you'll find most of the GI Jags have major frame cracks which is why they're GI in the first place.They would require Frame replacement to make them airworty and it's simply too expensive. Bit like the major structural repairs required to keep the SHAR going which is why it was binned and the savings put into upgrading the younger GR7.
There are a number of recently retired Jags serving as GI airframes, and these do tend to have effectively irreperable Frame 25 damage, but there are also a shedload of ex RAFG GR1s, most of which have less than 2,000 FH on the clock, and which are in excellent condition, structurally. Two of the latter were converted to GR3A as a feasibility study, and the judgement was that the effort involved was no greater than for an in service GR1A/B - but that you gained a lot of airframe life. They did require a major, however.
India are extremely interested in these aircraft.
India are extremely interested in these aircraft.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HOODED,
Think you'll find that the entire fleet has Frame 25 cracks, and that most of the GI fleet has far less extensive damage than the in service aircraft.
It is true that this is the reason they are GI aircraft, however, these aircraft were simply the first to show signs of it, and as it was feared to be potentially terminal, panic ensued, and the aircraft were cleared "one flight only" to their final destinations as instructional airframes. However, it was subsequently discovered that the cracking was not nearly as important as first suspected. With regular monitoring of these cracks, the Jag has continued for a very long time, and as I said earlier, most of the GI frame cracks are far smaller than serving aircraft.
Most of the panels, hoses, pipes, tanks, rest of the aircraft....etc etc... is in far worse condition however!!
Think you'll find that the entire fleet has Frame 25 cracks, and that most of the GI fleet has far less extensive damage than the in service aircraft.
It is true that this is the reason they are GI aircraft, however, these aircraft were simply the first to show signs of it, and as it was feared to be potentially terminal, panic ensued, and the aircraft were cleared "one flight only" to their final destinations as instructional airframes. However, it was subsequently discovered that the cracking was not nearly as important as first suspected. With regular monitoring of these cracks, the Jag has continued for a very long time, and as I said earlier, most of the GI frame cracks are far smaller than serving aircraft.
Most of the panels, hoses, pipes, tanks, rest of the aircraft....etc etc... is in far worse condition however!!
Last edited by flipflopman RB199; 30th Sep 2005 at 23:42.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Delta Quadrant
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
The U2 is not the same aircraft as the Canberra nor was it derived from it. The U2 was developed at the Lockheed Skunkworks in the early to mid 1950s. It is not a British design.
Strictly true. Indeed, Martin were asked to produce a developed variant of their licence-built RB-57 (i.e. the PR.3) for the requirement. But the Canberra PR.3 was the benchmark for high altitude recce at the time, what with Kasputin Yar and the world record attempts and all, so I'd always understood that Lockheed were "inspired by" the Canberra when developing the U2 in a remarkably short time frame.
Anyway, HAL, I came across an American writing on the Kasputin Yar mission who helpfully explained for his readers that the Canberaa was the "the British variant of the Martin B-57". So, the Canberra was really an American design all along.
Not sure I understand all this fuss about the Harrier. Would it help if it was renamed the Sea Harrier FR.9? (oh, of course, it's only single role...)
The U2 is not the same aircraft as the Canberra nor was it derived from it. The U2 was developed at the Lockheed Skunkworks in the early to mid 1950s. It is not a British design.
Strictly true. Indeed, Martin were asked to produce a developed variant of their licence-built RB-57 (i.e. the PR.3) for the requirement. But the Canberra PR.3 was the benchmark for high altitude recce at the time, what with Kasputin Yar and the world record attempts and all, so I'd always understood that Lockheed were "inspired by" the Canberra when developing the U2 in a remarkably short time frame.
Anyway, HAL, I came across an American writing on the Kasputin Yar mission who helpfully explained for his readers that the Canberaa was the "the British variant of the Martin B-57". So, the Canberra was really an American design all along.
Not sure I understand all this fuss about the Harrier. Would it help if it was renamed the Sea Harrier FR.9? (oh, of course, it's only single role...)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
Not wishing to slag off the Jaguar or it's pilots, but it cannot do recce, TIALD or PW3 as well as it's complimentary platforms....
Unless it's complimentary platforms are Cessna 152s
Not wishing to slag off the Jaguar or it's pilots, but it cannot do recce, TIALD or PW3 as well as it's complimentary platforms....
Unless it's complimentary platforms are Cessna 152s
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper,
Ooh, I don't know.
With those two little hairdryer engines, it's certainly a lot quieter than its complimentary platforms when operating in a recce role
Ooh, I don't know.
With those two little hairdryer engines, it's certainly a lot quieter than its complimentary platforms when operating in a recce role
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotter alert!
The U2 used the Starfighter fuselage - both designed by 'Kelly' Johnson.
Also , on the first trip to Vigo Woods in '89, the GR5's went through the entire stock of mainwheels and outriggers in a couple of days on their first gravel excursion.
To my knowledge, no hoovers were killed due to ingestion of said gravel, but that was just before the funny bend in the fuselage was found just behind the hot air nozzles on ACMI in Deci.
The U2 used the Starfighter fuselage - both designed by 'Kelly' Johnson.
Also , on the first trip to Vigo Woods in '89, the GR5's went through the entire stock of mainwheels and outriggers in a couple of days on their first gravel excursion.
To my knowledge, no hoovers were killed due to ingestion of said gravel, but that was just before the funny bend in the fuselage was found just behind the hot air nozzles on ACMI in Deci.