Validating V/STOL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Validating V/STOL
Been reading the preview of a book that raises the question of whether V/STOL (read Harrier or F-35B) have a justifiable place in a nations arsenal (cost, capability). While recognising the teamwork, creativity and innoviation that went into the design, development, fielding, and operation of the unique Harrier tactical aircraft, save for the Falklands War the jet has flown the vast majority of its sorties from the same bases hosting conventional attack aircraft.
Over to the experts. Apologies to John Farley and team for raising.
Edited to add that the comment regarding "flown most of its sorties from bases hosting conventional aircraft" refers to its actual use in combat.
Over to the experts. Apologies to John Farley and team for raising.
Edited to add that the comment regarding "flown most of its sorties from bases hosting conventional aircraft" refers to its actual use in combat.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 7th May 2007 at 01:11.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the decision was validated for the Harrier, but I personally feel that the decision to buy the STOVL variant of Dave is just so we don't have to build bigger carriers.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
RAF Harrier - Is it worth it?
Historically, I would suggest you also read up on the field operations of the RAFG harrier force and the USMC and concepts such as FARP.
Historically, I would suggest you also read up on the field operations of the RAFG harrier force and the USMC and concepts such as FARP.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LFA6
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current Operations?
Only strike attack platform (excluding Predator) capable of operating from shortened runway in Afghanistan for the last 6 years = AV8B/Harrier GR7/9
STOL is more than just carrier operations
DH
STOL is more than just carrier operations
DH
The Navies of the UK, Spain, Italy, India and Thailand may also disagree with ".....the jet has flown the vast majority of its sorties from the same bases hosting conventional attack aircraft." As will the US Marine Corps who can field them aboard amphibious ships.
Who knows, F35B may allow Australia back onto the carrier scene, as some have proposed.
Who knows, F35B may allow Australia back onto the carrier scene, as some have proposed.
Dear Brian,
Of course the vast majority of Harrier sorties have been flown from conventional bases. A wing of Harriers operating in the Field causes as much damage (and annoyance to civilians) as several squadrons of tanks on manoeuvres. As in the case of tank training, Harrier field training could only be carried out after bribing landowners with large amounts of dosh, and we only did this 3 or 4 times per year on specific exercises. This was how off-base training was conducted in West Germany, for example, during the Cold War. In wartime you can do what you like.
Cold War Harrier Field Deployments in Germany were a sight to see. We used to deploy 36 aircraft on 6 well-camouflaged sites, each pilot flying up to 6 missions per day with cockpit tasking. The Wing would Surge Fly up to 300 sorties per day.
Of course the vast majority of Harrier sorties have been flown from conventional bases. A wing of Harriers operating in the Field causes as much damage (and annoyance to civilians) as several squadrons of tanks on manoeuvres. As in the case of tank training, Harrier field training could only be carried out after bribing landowners with large amounts of dosh, and we only did this 3 or 4 times per year on specific exercises. This was how off-base training was conducted in West Germany, for example, during the Cold War. In wartime you can do what you like.
Cold War Harrier Field Deployments in Germany were a sight to see. We used to deploy 36 aircraft on 6 well-camouflaged sites, each pilot flying up to 6 missions per day with cockpit tasking. The Wing would Surge Fly up to 300 sorties per day.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Why we need Aircraft.
An aircraft is just a means of transport - in Harrier's case transport for a weapons system. It is fine having STOL/VTOL capability as long as you have a weapon capable of the task. The RAF historically has had good(ish) aircraft but inadequate weapons to put on them. The Harrier's job in the cold war was to kill tanks - however since the advent of ERA, the only way that a harrier could kill a tank was to fly over the top and drop a WWII 1K iron bomb on it! (Not good for survivability at low level - cluster bombs are not very good against ERA). Therefore is the A10 more effective given a simpler/cheaper airframe but with lots more weapons of better killing potential? A10s have operated from the short runways in the Stan! Perhaps the best CAS system for Afghanistan however is the B52 (it was during the "conquest" in 2002). Old platform, but carries a hell of a lot of JDAMs an awful long way and can stay for a long time on task until needed. We can maybe make the arguement that Eurofighter is too expensive to carry its weapon systems - should we have spent more on the weapon and less on the platform? The choice is yours, although our Lordships think that we have more cudos with a "sexy" new fighter rather than having a good weapons system for it.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: backofbeyond
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A10s operating from short strips? Seem to remember that one was stuck for over a week after diverting in while Harriers continued to operate unhindered from a very short piece of poor quality tarmac.
B52's as the ideal CAS weapon? Granted carry a large number of JDAMs but remember JDAM only goes to a fixed position - what happens when the weather gets bad and you need a low level option to take out mobile targets such as manoeuvring troops and vehicles? Give me a combo of EPW and some of the older weapons which point and shoot to cover all the bases. Incidentally give me a mixture of US and Brit systems and you have pretty much all of the methods of attack you need - exactly as they are operating today to great effect.
B52's as the ideal CAS weapon? Granted carry a large number of JDAMs but remember JDAM only goes to a fixed position - what happens when the weather gets bad and you need a low level option to take out mobile targets such as manoeuvring troops and vehicles? Give me a combo of EPW and some of the older weapons which point and shoot to cover all the bases. Incidentally give me a mixture of US and Brit systems and you have pretty much all of the methods of attack you need - exactly as they are operating today to great effect.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harrier or STOVL gives flexibility; it may well not be the best answer but at least it can operate when a lot of other platforms can't; The Corps & RAF/RN keep on proving it time & time again.
Not wishing to appear too cynical, but I reckon the V/STOL "Dave" is very much an RAF driven decision. The CVFs would be much more effective (esp in terms of range and bring-back) if we used CV "Daves". However, that would require conventional deck landing skills and is de facto a Naval core skill (ie the FAA would have to expand to permit the acquisition & retention of suitably trained aviators), whereas the RAF have proved that Sqn dudes can land a GR7/9 on a deck and are therefore keen for the status quo to be maintained. The other side of the coin is that if we made a decision to go "conventional" with CVF then E-2 for MASC is a must, whereas Dave is not a shoo-in for the airgroup (F-18s/Rafale?) and that would really make BAES grumpy!!
