Why Does the RAF have the Harrier today?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The shar/harrier is still the best CAS aircraft the RAF/RN has.
It can go anywhere, do just about any worthwhile sortie the grunts,yanks,fishheads want us to do.
As much as I hate the little sods when they are cocking up my conventional visual circuit, there is no doubt that the shar/harrier is a superb British aircraft which has proven itself in battle. This is more than can be said for the F3 which I believe has never fired in anger?
Anyway, we invented it, the yanks didn't and as every harrier pilot is always keen to tell the air traffic ladies at happy hour.......
................ happiness is vectored thrust.
It can go anywhere, do just about any worthwhile sortie the grunts,yanks,fishheads want us to do.
As much as I hate the little sods when they are cocking up my conventional visual circuit, there is no doubt that the shar/harrier is a superb British aircraft which has proven itself in battle. This is more than can be said for the F3 which I believe has never fired in anger?
Anyway, we invented it, the yanks didn't and as every harrier pilot is always keen to tell the air traffic ladies at happy hour.......
................ happiness is vectored thrust.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper,
A polite but erroneous statement.
PWIII isn't a "role". Notwithsatnding, the Fin and the Harrier can carry more weapons, higher and further so their PWIII capability is enhanced compared to the Jag.
The integration of the Joint Recce Pod (JRP - for a reason, the J originally meant Jaguar) and the TIALD pod (200 and 400) was/is better than either of the other 2 platforms. Indeed the capability of the 400 pod on the Jag remains slightly better than the 500 on the Harrier or the Fin, despite claims regarding the 500's "aledged" improved ball motor control, video stability, enhanced IR picture and reduced IR "thumbprint", and higher service ceiling. The feed from the IN is superior to that in the other 2 ac and goes a long way to creating a much more stable picture for the pilot to use his superior HOTAS. Latency at a tenth (roughly, to be more exact would be indiscrete) of the other types also helps significantly. I firmly believe that spot stability is the key to a decent hit with PW II or III - the Jag provides the most stable spot (and without an autopilot !!!). As far as the recce pod is concerned, I think the software/pod combo gives the Jag greater flex than the Harrier; I won't tarnish the forum with talk about the Raptor.
Undoubtedly, the Harrier can take its pod a bit further than the Jag can take its pod, (TIALD or recce) and with the added advantage of a proper warload including a terrific weapons mix.
If consideration is now being given to putting Litening and/or a recce pod onto Typhoon, then it's to the Jaguar that they need look for lessons on integration. As long as they look at the Harrier for lessons in the importance of mixed load capability and how not having a gun can limit options.
A polite but erroneous statement.
PWIII isn't a "role". Notwithsatnding, the Fin and the Harrier can carry more weapons, higher and further so their PWIII capability is enhanced compared to the Jag.
The integration of the Joint Recce Pod (JRP - for a reason, the J originally meant Jaguar) and the TIALD pod (200 and 400) was/is better than either of the other 2 platforms. Indeed the capability of the 400 pod on the Jag remains slightly better than the 500 on the Harrier or the Fin, despite claims regarding the 500's "aledged" improved ball motor control, video stability, enhanced IR picture and reduced IR "thumbprint", and higher service ceiling. The feed from the IN is superior to that in the other 2 ac and goes a long way to creating a much more stable picture for the pilot to use his superior HOTAS. Latency at a tenth (roughly, to be more exact would be indiscrete) of the other types also helps significantly. I firmly believe that spot stability is the key to a decent hit with PW II or III - the Jag provides the most stable spot (and without an autopilot !!!). As far as the recce pod is concerned, I think the software/pod combo gives the Jag greater flex than the Harrier; I won't tarnish the forum with talk about the Raptor.
Undoubtedly, the Harrier can take its pod a bit further than the Jag can take its pod, (TIALD or recce) and with the added advantage of a proper warload including a terrific weapons mix.
If consideration is now being given to putting Litening and/or a recce pod onto Typhoon, then it's to the Jaguar that they need look for lessons on integration. As long as they look at the Harrier for lessons in the importance of mixed load capability and how not having a gun can limit options.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're absolutely right RAF QWI.
The integration of the JRP and TIALD is better in the Jag, but what I am getting at is that all that extra capability in the avionics side can't be matched with the ability to haul said bombs to the target in the types of conditions we find ourselves operating in these days.
What annoys me is the fact that the Jag, a so called legacy airframe, has better avionics and software integration that our other two mud jets in service today. Imagine the potential we would have with GR9 and a Litening 2 pod, some of the avionics from the Jag and a Helmet Mounted Sight. But then again, BAE Systems would have to get involved and it would all get too difficult.
As for putting the Litening on Typhoon, what's wrong with putting it on a jet that's already in full service and needs it now?
Money, I guess
The integration of the JRP and TIALD is better in the Jag, but what I am getting at is that all that extra capability in the avionics side can't be matched with the ability to haul said bombs to the target in the types of conditions we find ourselves operating in these days.
What annoys me is the fact that the Jag, a so called legacy airframe, has better avionics and software integration that our other two mud jets in service today. Imagine the potential we would have with GR9 and a Litening 2 pod, some of the avionics from the Jag and a Helmet Mounted Sight. But then again, BAE Systems would have to get involved and it would all get too difficult.
As for putting the Litening on Typhoon, what's wrong with putting it on a jet that's already in full service and needs it now?
Money, I guess
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at the "Al-Qa'eda gets the RAF's message" thread then you will have the answer to this thread
Simple innit
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Simple innit
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 5th Oct 2005 at 15:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried the thread ABIW suggests... but just got re-directed to this one? I presume it refers to some effective use of the GR7/9 by the RAF... but, as to answering this thread, I somehow doubt it explains why the aircraft is still being flown by the RAF?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTG,
Interestingly (I think so anyway), a lot of folk believe that the main reason that the RAF was able to upgrade the Jag so effectively was because we "owned" the rights to the aircraft, having taken them back from BAe as the ac grew too old for the company to maintain an interest.
The truth is more to do with a willingness of the then Jag IPT and its leader (a Gp Capt Engineer) to "assume the risk" of a lot of the specifics of the upgrade, particularly to GR1B standard. By applying common sense, it was quite simple to guage the relative risks vs merit of different parts of the upgrade;weighing in the balance the information from "a competent authority" as to the worthiness of equipment and software. The clever bit was in deciding whether or not your chosen "authority" was competent. An example would be the modification to the ejection seat to cater for the auto-removal of the goggs upon pulling the seat handle. Martin Baker were adamant that the mod could not be done safely for less than a prohibitive amount of cash. QinetiQ (DERA) had a mechanism, proven well beyond the stated requirements that MB had failed to achieve, which even the RAF could afford. But it would never have been installed if the IPT hadn't been willing to take DERAs testing as sufficiently "authoritative", over the "establishment authority of choice"
The point I'm rather cack-handedly making is that the RAF could in fact do exactly the same for a lot of other upgrades/programmes, because, and this is the clincher, we own the aircraft. Unfortunately, no one high up in the food chain (said Gp Capt for example was unceremoniousy dumped from his next job after promotion for putting civil service noses out of joint) is willing to put their name to any kind of "risk" - so we end up throwing, illogically but career enhancingly, good money after bad in an impossible search for certainty.
Now, it so happens that JackoNicko, who knows the people concerned very well, may be able to provide better examples, and more eloquently express all our frustrations that none of the lessons of the Jag upgrade have been embedded into our procurement culture or our relationship with BWOS.
Interestingly (I think so anyway), a lot of folk believe that the main reason that the RAF was able to upgrade the Jag so effectively was because we "owned" the rights to the aircraft, having taken them back from BAe as the ac grew too old for the company to maintain an interest.
The truth is more to do with a willingness of the then Jag IPT and its leader (a Gp Capt Engineer) to "assume the risk" of a lot of the specifics of the upgrade, particularly to GR1B standard. By applying common sense, it was quite simple to guage the relative risks vs merit of different parts of the upgrade;weighing in the balance the information from "a competent authority" as to the worthiness of equipment and software. The clever bit was in deciding whether or not your chosen "authority" was competent. An example would be the modification to the ejection seat to cater for the auto-removal of the goggs upon pulling the seat handle. Martin Baker were adamant that the mod could not be done safely for less than a prohibitive amount of cash. QinetiQ (DERA) had a mechanism, proven well beyond the stated requirements that MB had failed to achieve, which even the RAF could afford. But it would never have been installed if the IPT hadn't been willing to take DERAs testing as sufficiently "authoritative", over the "establishment authority of choice"
The point I'm rather cack-handedly making is that the RAF could in fact do exactly the same for a lot of other upgrades/programmes, because, and this is the clincher, we own the aircraft. Unfortunately, no one high up in the food chain (said Gp Capt for example was unceremoniousy dumped from his next job after promotion for putting civil service noses out of joint) is willing to put their name to any kind of "risk" - so we end up throwing, illogically but career enhancingly, good money after bad in an impossible search for certainty.
Now, it so happens that JackoNicko, who knows the people concerned very well, may be able to provide better examples, and more eloquently express all our frustrations that none of the lessons of the Jag upgrade have been embedded into our procurement culture or our relationship with BWOS.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF QWI,
eloquently put! Unfortunately the HSE and European legislation that we are forced to adhere to has meant that the IPTs fear taking any risk. Nowadays it is only when dealing with the smaller programmes that we can slip one past the net. I believe the majority of people involved in upgrades do not really understand the concept of 'risk'. To most, it is something to be avoided and certainly not something to put ones name to. If we could only get people to understand that risk is something we accept, but manage! That is the difference. I know some who adopt this approach and take the pragmatic and sensible (but still operationally focused view), which means an awful lot can be accomplished with relatively little.
Getting to why the RAF still has the Harrier, I ask a simple question.......... why not? It is a very capable bit of kit; yes, a radar would be nice, but it is primarily a mud moving aircraft, and I would dare say that there are more than a few lads on the ground who are happy to see a decent CAS platform pitch up.
eloquently put! Unfortunately the HSE and European legislation that we are forced to adhere to has meant that the IPTs fear taking any risk. Nowadays it is only when dealing with the smaller programmes that we can slip one past the net. I believe the majority of people involved in upgrades do not really understand the concept of 'risk'. To most, it is something to be avoided and certainly not something to put ones name to. If we could only get people to understand that risk is something we accept, but manage! That is the difference. I know some who adopt this approach and take the pragmatic and sensible (but still operationally focused view), which means an awful lot can be accomplished with relatively little.
Getting to why the RAF still has the Harrier, I ask a simple question.......... why not? It is a very capable bit of kit; yes, a radar would be nice, but it is primarily a mud moving aircraft, and I would dare say that there are more than a few lads on the ground who are happy to see a decent CAS platform pitch up.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful to avoid the Sea Jet thread and hopeful that I have never shown FJ tendencies, may I nevertheless commend 3 Squadron and their return home from Kandahar. In this this joint (really) detachment, the aircrew, maintainers and support teams have reset the Joint Harrier Force capability benchmark.
They have completed their last GR7A operational sortie and will move on to the Typhoon. Cracking job and well done.
In a challenging 4 month deployment in support of ISAF and coalition forces operating in the troubled southern area of Afghanistan, 3(Fighter) Squadron's detachment has seen a marked increase in operational activity for the Harriers, who have maintained aircraft and crews at 30 minutes readiness to launch during daylight hours to support troops on the ground. Their very presence has often been enough to coerce the insurgents into submission, but they have also had to deliver numerous weapons onto hostile targets with great precision to allow coalition forces to continue their operations.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF QWI
Interesting comments regarding upgrading your jets, do you know what is involved in keeping a full set of engineering drawings/data updated to reflect every minor change, checking with each system design/engineering authority to ensure that all changes integrate with the existing systems.
There seems to be many in this forum who have a real problem with the support British industry (BAES, WHL etc) gives the jets that you fly, one should take a look at the red tape, the requirements, the spec’s, Def std’s, Mil specs and then more red tape that we have to go through to design and then introduce a mod to an airframe, who places these requirements on us, YOU do. Although these requirements can be a pain they are there for a reason and that is the safety of the guy flying the jet
I remember in the early 80’s we could design and manufacture a mod kit set and then retro install it on to an airframe within a few weeks, with to days processes a mod could take months to get authorised let alone installed on an airframe.
Keep knocking British Industry but please remember that it contains engineers who’s first priority is to ensure the safety of the person flying the jet and if we have to go through all of the red tape, the requirements, the spec’s, Def std’s, Mil specs and then more red tape the so be it as long as the guy flying the jet is safe.
Interesting comments regarding upgrading your jets, do you know what is involved in keeping a full set of engineering drawings/data updated to reflect every minor change, checking with each system design/engineering authority to ensure that all changes integrate with the existing systems.
There seems to be many in this forum who have a real problem with the support British industry (BAES, WHL etc) gives the jets that you fly, one should take a look at the red tape, the requirements, the spec’s, Def std’s, Mil specs and then more red tape that we have to go through to design and then introduce a mod to an airframe, who places these requirements on us, YOU do. Although these requirements can be a pain they are there for a reason and that is the safety of the guy flying the jet
I remember in the early 80’s we could design and manufacture a mod kit set and then retro install it on to an airframe within a few weeks, with to days processes a mod could take months to get authorised let alone installed on an airframe.
Keep knocking British Industry but please remember that it contains engineers who’s first priority is to ensure the safety of the person flying the jet and if we have to go through all of the red tape, the requirements, the spec’s, Def std’s, Mil specs and then more red tape the so be it as long as the guy flying the jet is safe.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under The Sea
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF QWI,
And I would suggest that the industry is risk adverse view are the reason that the governance of military flying operations may be due for change.
It is believed by some that the processes to qualify military mods are not robust enough to meet the civilian model. I accept an argument that the roles are different, however, most flying of UK military aircraft is done over friendly (non hostile) airspace, and therefore the safety requirements must be as good as those required for civil.
I would suspect that the days of go-it alone (SEM/STF) upgrades are drawing to a close.
And I would suggest that the industry is risk adverse view are the reason that the governance of military flying operations may be due for change.
It is believed by some that the processes to qualify military mods are not robust enough to meet the civilian model. I accept an argument that the roles are different, however, most flying of UK military aircraft is done over friendly (non hostile) airspace, and therefore the safety requirements must be as good as those required for civil.
I would suspect that the days of go-it alone (SEM/STF) upgrades are drawing to a close.
Short Runways
Hate to butt in on the short-runways business, but in the Fin we would often work the MOS (Minimum Operating Strip) of 5000ft with a warload fitted during TACEVAL/MINEVALs. I think the Italians invented the reverse thrust as you can actually go backwards with it - very effective Put in a cable and you can use less.
Is that much different to the RAF airfield in Afghanistan and is there a cable?
LJ
PS I think the airshow and airship arguments have hit the nail on the head...
Put in a cable and you can use less.Is that much different to the RAF airfield in Afghanistan and is there a cable?
LJ
PS I think the airshow and airship arguments have hit the nail on the head...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Is that much different to the RAF airfield in Afghanistan and is there a cable?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
A full warload maybe, but in Europe in winter I'll bet. The Tonka can't be operated from KAF in the state it's in at the moment (the airfield, not the jet!), but as you are no doubt aware, the GR4 should be taking over when the runway is relaid.
A full warload maybe, but in Europe in winter I'll bet. The Tonka can't be operated from KAF in the state it's in at the moment (the airfield, not the jet!), but as you are no doubt aware, the GR4 should be taking over when the runway is relaid.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's news to me, as far as I was aware they were meant to be heading out next summer. Having said that, we were only meant to be there for only 9 months....
Have you heard something I haven't?
Have you heard something I haven't?