RAF Harrier - Is it worth it?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK on the odd occaision
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chateau Ver de Fleur is quite correct in his testimony that the GR7a is providing more than its weight in gold. If memory serves the boys are providing something like 10% of current OEF CAS as well as providing a pair on GCAS for circa 10 hours per day.
The only thing the GR7a is lacking is a gun and an advanced targetting pod such LITENING or SNIPER. Combine these with ROVER III terminals for the JTAC on the ground and boy you'd have one hell of a great CAS platform.
Oh SASLess, better get your fact right about the state of Kandahar's runway before posting outdated, misinformed info.........................
The only thing the GR7a is lacking is a gun and an advanced targetting pod such LITENING or SNIPER. Combine these with ROVER III terminals for the JTAC on the ground and boy you'd have one hell of a great CAS platform.
Oh SASLess, better get your fact right about the state of Kandahar's runway before posting outdated, misinformed info.........................
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,132
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
What about this runway SASless, do you think the sweeper will sort it?
I'm of no doubt the 96th Heavy Bomb and Curry Delivery Service Squadron will be operating off it tomorrow.
I'm of no doubt the 96th Heavy Bomb and Curry Delivery Service Squadron will be operating off it tomorrow.
Must be a bit odd to have the Backhoe digging a wider river channel like that! This where the new CVF is headed if it gets built?
Thread Starter
The point was what has Harrier given us?
Yes its working off a shortened strip. Are there FARPs out there? Or is it just working off a short runway carrying little load.
Once a proper airhead is established, the Harriers can return to there normal guise of doing little.
And let the real aircraft get on with the fighting.
Yes its working off a shortened strip. Are there FARPs out there? Or is it just working off a short runway carrying little load.
Once a proper airhead is established, the Harriers can return to there normal guise of doing little.
And let the real aircraft get on with the fighting.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit worried about all those manpadded Harriers. How come the B52s never get hit? I've never heard of any Typhoons being downed by one, either. Maybe Sasless has a point. Maybe we should bring on a few them thar B52s for a bit of pinpoint, low level close air support. 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When your house is on fire....one does not question who is throwing water at it.
Books and Google are no substitute for being there SASless.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skeleton,
Do you recall when the current Afghanistan operation began? In the interim 5 years of waiting for the 'proper airhead' to be established there has been a frequent requirement for on-call CAS. The only strike aircraft that can operate from the airfields available even to this day are the Harrier and A-10. Do I have to join the dots for you, or can you see that your point actually supports the requirement for the Harrier?
FARPs aren't used in Afghanistan, but they were used by the AV8B very successfully in OIF and the Hornet bubbas were very jealous of the capability when the AAR was scarce - go read about them.
If you want to open another can of worms - consider a USN LHD equipped with 24 Amraam, JDAM & Litening capable AV8Bs (+1000 USMC grunts). Park that off the coast of anywhere you feel like and you have a very powerful tool of foreign policy at significantly lower cost than having to send a CVN and associated battle group.
If you read the aviation press at all, you will have seen that the USAF are considering trading in some F-35A models to get some of the -Bs. Do you think that might say something about the utility of STOVL as a concept - or do you know more than them?
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Do you recall when the current Afghanistan operation began? In the interim 5 years of waiting for the 'proper airhead' to be established there has been a frequent requirement for on-call CAS. The only strike aircraft that can operate from the airfields available even to this day are the Harrier and A-10. Do I have to join the dots for you, or can you see that your point actually supports the requirement for the Harrier?
FARPs aren't used in Afghanistan, but they were used by the AV8B very successfully in OIF and the Hornet bubbas were very jealous of the capability when the AAR was scarce - go read about them.
If you want to open another can of worms - consider a USN LHD equipped with 24 Amraam, JDAM & Litening capable AV8Bs (+1000 USMC grunts). Park that off the coast of anywhere you feel like and you have a very powerful tool of foreign policy at significantly lower cost than having to send a CVN and associated battle group.
If you read the aviation press at all, you will have seen that the USAF are considering trading in some F-35A models to get some of the -Bs. Do you think that might say something about the utility of STOVL as a concept - or do you know more than them?
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 250 ft agl
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joint Force Handbags (ah, the joy of Jointry!) is in Afghanistan because no-one else can do the job in it's entirety, encompassing assets available, footprint on the ground, runway type/ length/ state of disrepair in use, ordinance carried, capability, small amount of people needed, etc. The Harriers are the first request from all of the Allies in theatre on the ground because it is the best available to them from all of the options there.
Ever seen a B52 inverted through a pass at 100 feet???
If you are stuck on the ground in a tight spot in a valley in a fire fight- a puffer-jet is the best thing you could hope to see above (or below!) your position.
SMT
Ever seen a B52 inverted through a pass at 100 feet???
If you are stuck on the ground in a tight spot in a valley in a fire fight- a puffer-jet is the best thing you could hope to see above (or below!) your position.
SMT
Thread Starter
Provided said puffer jet can find a runway to take off from. If its saving you it has not taking off vertically, if it has then its darn close to you.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF
What about the Vipers out of Kabul? Long smooth runway, 25 minutes from the fight...
Harrier boys doing a great job, absolutely no doubt, but there would be other options if we had the political will to make it work.
What about the Vipers out of Kabul? Long smooth runway, 25 minutes from the fight...
Harrier boys doing a great job, absolutely no doubt, but there would be other options if we had the political will to make it work.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly no-one has the political will to make it work, otherwise there would be GR4s etc in Afghanistan.
Will Typhoon ever deploy? If so any idea of a date? And on that date how many C-17 loads will be required to get it into theatre, operating and supported?
Will Typhoon ever deploy? If so any idea of a date? And on that date how many C-17 loads will be required to get it into theatre, operating and supported?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One might be so bold as to suggest that aircraft like the Harrier are what we should be spending the lion's share of our money on.
Given that all of our defence policy (that i personally don't agree with) seems to be that we will always fight as a (small) part of a coalition, why bother with the 'mainstream' roles?
By having 'niche' capabilities up our sleave we can actually contribute meaningfully.
Incidentally, those JFH boys are doing a fantastic job. I doff my cap in their general direction.
Given that all of our defence policy (that i personally don't agree with) seems to be that we will always fight as a (small) part of a coalition, why bother with the 'mainstream' roles?
By having 'niche' capabilities up our sleave we can actually contribute meaningfully.
Incidentally, those JFH boys are doing a fantastic job. I doff my cap in their general direction.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fleur - The RAF did not use the Harrier in GW1 . It was blooded over the years in various other Operation 'this and thats' which seem to have sprung up in the 1990's. The second Gulf War saw the Harrier see action . Whether it's the wonderful machine that people believe remains to be seem. Certainly it's ideally suited for systems integration but weight is always going to be an issue. As for the much vaunted ability to deploy anywhere - it's pretty much a myth that anyone is really going to want to field deploy with the type if they have the opportunity to deploy somewhere with long runways and good security instead.
Interestingly the U.S is exploring the servicability of a wide range of types which were developed either during or just after the Vietnam war.
Fighting a fairly unsophisticated puts the onus decidedly on pilot survival and not on stealthy first strike ability. The years ahead will see interesting choices for our future combat aircraft the Harrier is carrying out a role which is incredibily similar to what the Hunter FGA.9 did in the 1960's in the Middle East - whether the demands for weapons advancements is that valid when
survivability to small arms fire is a major issue remains to be seen.
In terms of the Harrier itself - it would be far nicer to have a twin jet with greater endurance and payload but we havn't .It's very much a British case of having to make the best of what we have!
Interestingly the U.S is exploring the servicability of a wide range of types which were developed either during or just after the Vietnam war.
Fighting a fairly unsophisticated puts the onus decidedly on pilot survival and not on stealthy first strike ability. The years ahead will see interesting choices for our future combat aircraft the Harrier is carrying out a role which is incredibily similar to what the Hunter FGA.9 did in the 1960's in the Middle East - whether the demands for weapons advancements is that valid when
survivability to small arms fire is a major issue remains to be seen.
In terms of the Harrier itself - it would be far nicer to have a twin jet with greater endurance and payload but we havn't .It's very much a British case of having to make the best of what we have!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RileyDove,
How much more does an aircraft have to do to satisfy you? The Harrier's been coming up with the goods all over the globe for 30+ years. I'm curious about this field deploying 'myth' - what about the field site set up in the Falklands, what about USMC Harriers landing on roads just behind the FLOT in GW1, what about the FARPs used in GW2, what about the total lack of ramp space in GW2 and the Harrier's unique ability to operate off small flat decks that can actually get into the shallow waters close to shore, what about flying off the short serviceable strip in the current op in Afghanistan? If the capability to operate from austere sites and short strips has been used repeatedly over 25 years, how does that make it a 'myth'? The Hornet bubbas that I met at AJ were jealous as hell of the Harrier FRPs in Iraq - especially when the ATO went to a ball of chalk and the AAR got a bit scarce.
While it would be nice to have 2 engines, more weapons and more fuel, it's not necessarily the answer - then you could end up with an F3, and spend 20 odd years never even firing a shot in anger (
) The Harriers have been busy enough over the years and really don't need even more capability to prove either the aircraft or the concept. But as the launch platform for PW4, we're getting even more, and before anyone else.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
How much more does an aircraft have to do to satisfy you? The Harrier's been coming up with the goods all over the globe for 30+ years. I'm curious about this field deploying 'myth' - what about the field site set up in the Falklands, what about USMC Harriers landing on roads just behind the FLOT in GW1, what about the FARPs used in GW2, what about the total lack of ramp space in GW2 and the Harrier's unique ability to operate off small flat decks that can actually get into the shallow waters close to shore, what about flying off the short serviceable strip in the current op in Afghanistan? If the capability to operate from austere sites and short strips has been used repeatedly over 25 years, how does that make it a 'myth'? The Hornet bubbas that I met at AJ were jealous as hell of the Harrier FRPs in Iraq - especially when the ATO went to a ball of chalk and the AAR got a bit scarce.
While it would be nice to have 2 engines, more weapons and more fuel, it's not necessarily the answer - then you could end up with an F3, and spend 20 odd years never even firing a shot in anger (
) The Harriers have been busy enough over the years and really don't need even more capability to prove either the aircraft or the concept. But as the launch platform for PW4, we're getting even more, and before anyone else. Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Thread Starter
Were back then to the old question of it's actual ability.
The FARP concept was a nice idea, but that meant lack of security for the jets, lack of manpower for guards etc, but from what I saw was never believed in once the CO of the secret Rutland base made it quite clear the plan did not include getting the troops out once the jets had gone. I may be wrong but now its finally become an operational bona fida jet the FARP concept has not been used.
The question of its ability to carry any load, GR9 or not, will always be asked about the Harrier. Yes it can match a lot of aircraft but it needs a runway to do it which kind of defeats its purpose.
As a platform I can see its limited uses, but IMHO what a waste of money - If had been any good it would have seen action in GW1, it didn't because there was no need for it to be there. Instead of jazzing up a tired old aircraft now, lets cut our losses, bin it and get something that can do the job.
You can keep 1 or 2 for airshows - it was always good at that.!!
The FARP concept was a nice idea, but that meant lack of security for the jets, lack of manpower for guards etc, but from what I saw was never believed in once the CO of the secret Rutland base made it quite clear the plan did not include getting the troops out once the jets had gone. I may be wrong but now its finally become an operational bona fida jet the FARP concept has not been used.
The question of its ability to carry any load, GR9 or not, will always be asked about the Harrier. Yes it can match a lot of aircraft but it needs a runway to do it which kind of defeats its purpose.
As a platform I can see its limited uses, but IMHO what a waste of money - If had been any good it would have seen action in GW1, it didn't because there was no need for it to be there. Instead of jazzing up a tired old aircraft now, lets cut our losses, bin it and get something that can do the job.
You can keep 1 or 2 for airshows - it was always good at that.!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skeleton old chap,
You seem to be lacking a few fundamental facts:
There were a shed-load of USMC Harriers flying in GW1. Yes they got shot up quite a bit, but that's because they were down and dirty over the battlefield. If you recall, our Tornados also got pretty badly shot up at low level too, so it wasn't exactly a flaw in the aircraft, perhaps more in the tactics.
The FARP concept is still a nice idea and was used in GW2. There were 2 of them within 100nm of Baghdad, complete with a nice ring of grunts and Patriots for security - none of which got left behind. For the UK there's always the Falklands FARP at San Carlos - or does that not count either? And to reiterate a point from earlier in the thread, just because the satellite photo of Kandahar shows a huge long runway does not mean that the useable strip on that airfield is 10 000ft long - otherwise other fast jets would be able to use it. It's 25 min transit time closer to the current fighting than Bagram, so Kandahar itself isn't terribly far removed from the FARP concept either.
There were very good reasons why the UK GR5 didn't get involved in GW1 - it was brand new at the time and had extremely limited weapons clearances (a bit like the Typhoon now). But that bears no reflection on the capability of the aircraft today. In addition, we were sending just about every other serviceable fast jet airframe and it's not always sensible to put all your eggs in one basket is it?
So you admit that in some scenarios it's a match for other small fast jets, when operating off runways (usually much shorter ones than anyone else). At the same time it has additional unique capabilities - and that's an argument for scrapping it? Where's the logic in that? And as for your last point - it is doing the job right now, and has been for years. In which case, there's no justification whatsoever to 'bin it'. IMHO your opinion is totally irrational - did a Harrier mate spill your pint once? If so, I'm sure he's very sorry. Now get over it.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
You seem to be lacking a few fundamental facts:
There were a shed-load of USMC Harriers flying in GW1. Yes they got shot up quite a bit, but that's because they were down and dirty over the battlefield. If you recall, our Tornados also got pretty badly shot up at low level too, so it wasn't exactly a flaw in the aircraft, perhaps more in the tactics.
The FARP concept is still a nice idea and was used in GW2. There were 2 of them within 100nm of Baghdad, complete with a nice ring of grunts and Patriots for security - none of which got left behind. For the UK there's always the Falklands FARP at San Carlos - or does that not count either? And to reiterate a point from earlier in the thread, just because the satellite photo of Kandahar shows a huge long runway does not mean that the useable strip on that airfield is 10 000ft long - otherwise other fast jets would be able to use it. It's 25 min transit time closer to the current fighting than Bagram, so Kandahar itself isn't terribly far removed from the FARP concept either.
There were very good reasons why the UK GR5 didn't get involved in GW1 - it was brand new at the time and had extremely limited weapons clearances (a bit like the Typhoon now). But that bears no reflection on the capability of the aircraft today. In addition, we were sending just about every other serviceable fast jet airframe and it's not always sensible to put all your eggs in one basket is it?
So you admit that in some scenarios it's a match for other small fast jets, when operating off runways (usually much shorter ones than anyone else). At the same time it has additional unique capabilities - and that's an argument for scrapping it? Where's the logic in that? And as for your last point - it is doing the job right now, and has been for years. In which case, there's no justification whatsoever to 'bin it'. IMHO your opinion is totally irrational - did a Harrier mate spill your pint once? If so, I'm sure he's very sorry. Now get over it.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly