Why Does the RAF have the Harrier today?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Does the RAF have the Harrier today?
IMMSMC, twenty years or so ago, the RAF Harrier force was the mainstay of the support for BAOR/BFG, and was perfect for the job flying from mexe-strips and hides in the N.German countryside, ready to fight-back (OK, delay?) the communist hoards charging over the E.German Border etc, etc...
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)...
Of course, it also embarks on Pusser's Flat-tops; where it is about to replace the FA2, a multi-role aircraft that could both attack and provide organic air defence. True the GR7/9 has a better engine than the FA2 and all that entails for endurance, pay-load etc etc... but what puzzles me is how the single role airframe won over the multi-role variant?
ISTM that an enhanced SHAR would be able to bomb and dog-fight... on land and over the sea. Troops on the front line might be as desperate for fighter cover as for ground support... and jack onboard would, I'm sure, be equally happy with the protection of a first line of air defence (let's not forget HMS Sheffield/Coventry et al). There may be elements of "Jack of all trades" about the SHAR, but is a third type of bomber in the light-blue inventory really necessary?
I realise an arguement that cites twenty plus year old conflicts is going to be slagged off... Nice toys, but could someone please explain why the RAF are still in the Harrier Force today?
... in coming!!!!
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)...
Of course, it also embarks on Pusser's Flat-tops; where it is about to replace the FA2, a multi-role aircraft that could both attack and provide organic air defence. True the GR7/9 has a better engine than the FA2 and all that entails for endurance, pay-load etc etc... but what puzzles me is how the single role airframe won over the multi-role variant?
ISTM that an enhanced SHAR would be able to bomb and dog-fight... on land and over the sea. Troops on the front line might be as desperate for fighter cover as for ground support... and jack onboard would, I'm sure, be equally happy with the protection of a first line of air defence (let's not forget HMS Sheffield/Coventry et al). There may be elements of "Jack of all trades" about the SHAR, but is a third type of bomber in the light-blue inventory really necessary?
I realise an arguement that cites twenty plus year old conflicts is going to be slagged off... Nice toys, but could someone please explain why the RAF are still in the Harrier Force today?
... in coming!!!!
I thought the very same thing when flying over Cottesmore today. An aerodrome with a nice long runway - can the beloved 'bona jet' actually make it from one end to the other with any sort of a load without needing to refuel?
Too many Harrier mafia in high places to accept that the whizzy little thing has had its day?
Too many Harrier mafia in high places to accept that the whizzy little thing has had its day?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Simplistic answer,
1. Jack of all trades, master of none. In the present environment a platform has to show it equals the ability of other dedicated platforms, else it stays on the deck not being used.
2. Range, payload and PGW ability dominate.
3. No one has the billions to replace a platform halfway through the planned life just because the threat has changed. Modify and muddle through.
1. Jack of all trades, master of none. In the present environment a platform has to show it equals the ability of other dedicated platforms, else it stays on the deck not being used.
2. Range, payload and PGW ability dominate.
3. No one has the billions to replace a platform halfway through the planned life just because the threat has changed. Modify and muddle through.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you people knocking things all the time?
The Harrier was and is a brilliant British invention
No other nation or aero company has come close to producing similar
It's the only ac the US have bought and developed (AV8B) apart from the Canberra (U2), from another country, which says a lot
Pierre
You need to go to an airshow and see a Harrier display to appreciate both the potential and versatiltaty of this remarkable flying machine
Beags
As an avid lover and pilot of aeroplanes, you surprise me with your comments. Take another pill and go to bed.
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!
B15
The Harrier was and is a brilliant British invention
No other nation or aero company has come close to producing similar
It's the only ac the US have bought and developed (AV8B) apart from the Canberra (U2), from another country, which says a lot
Pierre
You need to go to an airshow and see a Harrier display to appreciate both the potential and versatiltaty of this remarkable flying machine
Beags
As an avid lover and pilot of aeroplanes, you surprise me with your comments. Take another pill and go to bed.
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!
B15
I think you'll find the Canberra became the B-57, not the U-2.
Apart from that, a brilliant invention the Harrier may be, but that doesn't answer the question of why the RAF need it. The only time the Harrier uses its VSTOL capability these days seems to be going on and off a ship, which leads to a whole new argument about whether they should be a Strike asset or a Fleet asset. But if you're just going to be using runways it's a bit over the top.
Apart from that, a brilliant invention the Harrier may be, but that doesn't answer the question of why the RAF need it. The only time the Harrier uses its VSTOL capability these days seems to be going on and off a ship, which leads to a whole new argument about whether they should be a Strike asset or a Fleet asset. But if you're just going to be using runways it's a bit over the top.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Harrier has the capability to operate from short [relatively unprepared] strips using STOL, unlike the Tornado and other types that need a long, clean, runway.
So the GR7/9 can fly off a ship, carry out a strike and refuel/re-arm at a FOB which could be, for example, on a short piece of road.
If the fully-loaded ac launches from a carrier and does not complete the mission for some reason, it may not have the performance to land back on without jettisoning the stores; it can, however, land at a FARP [Forward Arming And Refuelling] point, thus saving munitions for re-use. This can be a spot, far forward [even forward of the FEBA], set up with the Tac Logs outfit, also refuelling and rebriefing from a Chinook or Herc refueller - Air Launched Arming And Refueling [ALARP] point.
Flexibility is the key to air power...
So the GR7/9 can fly off a ship, carry out a strike and refuel/re-arm at a FOB which could be, for example, on a short piece of road.
If the fully-loaded ac launches from a carrier and does not complete the mission for some reason, it may not have the performance to land back on without jettisoning the stores; it can, however, land at a FARP [Forward Arming And Refuelling] point, thus saving munitions for re-use. This can be a spot, far forward [even forward of the FEBA], set up with the Tac Logs outfit, also refuelling and rebriefing from a Chinook or Herc refueller - Air Launched Arming And Refueling [ALARP] point.
Flexibility is the key to air power...
Last edited by FJJP; 28th Sep 2005 at 21:55.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Harriers are still the mainstay you fool. Go anywhere at any time for any job. Look at the Afghan deployment for instance, extended once again because the Jag Fags and Tonka Plonkas can't use the poorly runway, ah didums, how versatile is that then.
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.
eeeeeee lad, when god was giving out brains you were doing a handstand.
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.
eeeeeee lad, when god was giving out brains you were doing a handstand.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: In my house
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre ...
Mate,
You are delusional. For FA2 in the ground attack role, say "Hawk", in almost every respect ('cept hoovering). In other words, not a serious wargoer.
The Crabs are breathing for the Fleet Air Arm (Finger?) for the forseeable future. A little gratitude would be more appropriate.
You should also note that, in capability terms, there is no comparison between your quoted Harriers from 'BAOR/BFG' days and GR7/7a GR9/9a. Do keep up.
Mate,
You are delusional. For FA2 in the ground attack role, say "Hawk", in almost every respect ('cept hoovering). In other words, not a serious wargoer.
The Crabs are breathing for the Fleet Air Arm (Finger?) for the forseeable future. A little gratitude would be more appropriate.
You should also note that, in capability terms, there is no comparison between your quoted Harriers from 'BAOR/BFG' days and GR7/7a GR9/9a. Do keep up.
Poor runways, short strips and emergency landings are all times when we use VSTOL.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre/ORAC,
I'm not sure what your reason for starting/adding to this thread are but it does sound a little like sour grapes. You've received some very candid replies which all make sense if you (hopefully) digest them. To add:
1. During TELIC, JFH (there was one RN pilot) had ZERO (nil, none, no, not one) engine removal for FOD. The mighty fin up the road had 19. NINETEEN. If I knew how to make the capitals bigger I would. We also had 91% serviceability and 93% sortie completion rate. I welcome your thoughts on those stats.
2. The reason the Harriers are in Afghanistan is that the Fins could not operate, and can still not operate, from the available strip.
3. Much as it galls me to say, the comments about the FA2, once you pick out the wheat from the chaff, are correct. Multi role we were, but capability? Have a read of the many comments (mine included) in the well beaten dead horse the "Sea Jet" thread.
JFH provides just shy of 25% of the total UK strike force and is deployed on 50 % of the current UK ops. Do the maths as to "Why does the RAF have the Harrier today?"
Oh yes, Pierre. Questioning the Harrier? Questioning the JSF? Single seat envy?
I'm not sure what your reason for starting/adding to this thread are but it does sound a little like sour grapes. You've received some very candid replies which all make sense if you (hopefully) digest them. To add:
1. During TELIC, JFH (there was one RN pilot) had ZERO (nil, none, no, not one) engine removal for FOD. The mighty fin up the road had 19. NINETEEN. If I knew how to make the capitals bigger I would. We also had 91% serviceability and 93% sortie completion rate. I welcome your thoughts on those stats.
2. The reason the Harriers are in Afghanistan is that the Fins could not operate, and can still not operate, from the available strip.
3. Much as it galls me to say, the comments about the FA2, once you pick out the wheat from the chaff, are correct. Multi role we were, but capability? Have a read of the many comments (mine included) in the well beaten dead horse the "Sea Jet" thread.
JFH provides just shy of 25% of the total UK strike force and is deployed on 50 % of the current UK ops. Do the maths as to "Why does the RAF have the Harrier today?"
Oh yes, Pierre. Questioning the Harrier? Questioning the JSF? Single seat envy?
Better payload/range than a Jag, more deployable than a Tornado, more useful than a SHar. So what if the STOVL trickery is largely an irrelevance nowadays?
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the only ac the US have bought and developed (AV8B) apart from the Canberra (U2), from another country
Great job on the Harrier though
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(It's the only ac the US have bought and developed (AV8B) apart from the Canberra (U2), from another country, which says a lot)
I thought that in the 60's the US helped fund the peg!
As a designer the SHAR is a great airframe not too much plastic, bring back good old metal fuselages, although saying that the Har GR7/9 is a much more advanced fuselage then the SHAR .
I thought that in the 60's the US helped fund the peg!
As a designer the SHAR is a great airframe not too much plastic, bring back good old metal fuselages, although saying that the Har GR7/9 is a much more advanced fuselage then the SHAR .
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
I don't see how you can say the Jag is more versatile than the Harrier. How is it more deployable too?
The advantage with the Jag that I can see is that we own the licence for it now and can develop all sorts of new toys such as Helmet Mounted Sight and fancy datalinks. If only we were allowed to fit such trickery into the Harrier or Tonka we could increase our capability even further.
The poor old Jag cannot operate in the conditions we find ourselves in today (hot and high) with anything resembling a warload. That is why the range/payload thing is so important.
I don't see how you can say the Jag is more versatile than the Harrier. How is it more deployable too?
The advantage with the Jag that I can see is that we own the licence for it now and can develop all sorts of new toys such as Helmet Mounted Sight and fancy datalinks. If only we were allowed to fit such trickery into the Harrier or Tonka we could increase our capability even further.
The poor old Jag cannot operate in the conditions we find ourselves in today (hot and high) with anything resembling a warload. That is why the range/payload thing is so important.
Casper,
Your data link argument does not hold water. The Tornado (in the F3 guise) has an excellent link 16 capability and has for many years now. The GR4 is getting it soon-ish. The GR7/9 should get at least the IDM in the same timescales as the GR4.
It also seems to me that the GR7 is doing a good deployed ops job in Afghanistan.
Regards,
MB
Your data link argument does not hold water. The Tornado (in the F3 guise) has an excellent link 16 capability and has for many years now. The GR4 is getting it soon-ish. The GR7/9 should get at least the IDM in the same timescales as the GR4.
It also seems to me that the GR7 is doing a good deployed ops job in Afghanistan.
Regards,
MB
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max, I agree with what you say, but why has a legacy aircraft that is being retired got better kit than our front line aircraft? It's all very well saying that we're going to get the kit, but we want it now.
I was only trying to find something nice to say about the Jaguar!
I was only trying to find something nice to say about the Jaguar!