How good would SHAR be as an Afghan mud mover...?
I cannot understand why the MoD allowed the Mark 2 Sea Harrier programme to proceed at the same time but independently of the Harrier II, which became the GR5/7/9. Surely common sense dictates that a coherent policy for UK Harrier projects in the 1980's would have been to have a common airframe based on the more advanced Harrier II structure and aerodynamics, but with avionics suited the seperate requirements of each service. It seems crazy to have spent money putting an advanced radar into a 1960's airframe. To put it in perspective, the AV-8B+ entered service in the same year as the FA2.
Maybe the RN thought it politically better to be deliberately seperate from the RAF project. If they did, not only was it a waste a taxpayers money, but it has proved to be a flawed policy. I suspect that a Sea Harrier II+ would still be in service today as an FAA aircraft.
Maybe the RN thought it politically better to be deliberately seperate from the RAF project. If they did, not only was it a waste a taxpayers money, but it has proved to be a flawed policy. I suspect that a Sea Harrier II+ would still be in service today as an FAA aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dat581
It's not as simple as sticking a radar onto the front of an AV-8B - those converted to II+ had to have a completely new fuselage built (Hence why ex-USMC fuselages turned up as BDRT airframes at Wittering and Cottesmore).
BP
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, when the FA2 was launched in the 80s, no-one thought we'd be fighting a series of wars in the Arabian Gulf.
Also, the FA2 got through the budget as an upgrade (and one that was less extensive than originally envisaged) with 12 attrition replacement airframes. An RN AV-8B/FA3 would have been all new build airframes, with the revised fuselage as mentioned above - and if we'd used Blue Vixen, then we'd have had to pay for the design and system integration of that as well.
There was also a question I beleive of the 100mph speed difference between the FA2 and the AV-8B being considered an advantage in a fighter.
It's not as simple as sticking a radar onto the front of an AV-8B - those converted to II+ had to have a completely new fuselage built (Hence why ex-USMC fuselages turned up as BDRT airframes at Wittering and Cottesmore).
BP
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, when the FA2 was launched in the 80s, no-one thought we'd be fighting a series of wars in the Arabian Gulf.
Also, the FA2 got through the budget as an upgrade (and one that was less extensive than originally envisaged) with 12 attrition replacement airframes. An RN AV-8B/FA3 would have been all new build airframes, with the revised fuselage as mentioned above - and if we'd used Blue Vixen, then we'd have had to pay for the design and system integration of that as well.
There was also a question I beleive of the 100mph speed difference between the FA2 and the AV-8B being considered an advantage in a fighter.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question.
We all seem to realise that the Sea Harrier is out of service, and Yeoman Dai's original question was only theoretical anyway.
So, would a Lancaster (yes we do have one left) be any use in the CAS role. If we fitted some heat suppressors on the exhausts, would it's long loiter and ability to train three separate sets of guns on target be of any use (I say three, as in: nose; ventral and tail, although in mountain territory I suppose the upper could come in handy).
I know this idea has already been thought through (DC3 gunship and AC130), but would it be of use in what we are doing now, and if so are there any suggestions of a suitable aircraft type we could do it with.
Please no suggestions that we buy off the shelf proven gear...we must keep to reality, and remember the politicians we have, who would have to agree to this
.
Thinking about this further, a multi gunned UAV could be pretty tasty!
I am thinking more of a converted C119 from desert storage (semi disposable) rather than a Predator.
We all seem to realise that the Sea Harrier is out of service, and Yeoman Dai's original question was only theoretical anyway.
So, would a Lancaster (yes we do have one left) be any use in the CAS role. If we fitted some heat suppressors on the exhausts, would it's long loiter and ability to train three separate sets of guns on target be of any use (I say three, as in: nose; ventral and tail, although in mountain territory I suppose the upper could come in handy).
I know this idea has already been thought through (DC3 gunship and AC130), but would it be of use in what we are doing now, and if so are there any suggestions of a suitable aircraft type we could do it with.
Please no suggestions that we buy off the shelf proven gear...we must keep to reality, and remember the politicians we have, who would have to agree to this
.Thinking about this further, a multi gunned UAV could be pretty tasty!
I am thinking more of a converted C119 from desert storage (semi disposable) rather than a Predator.
Last edited by barnstormer1968; 11th May 2009 at 19:37. Reason: Specifying UAV type
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sea Harrier FA2 was a fighter / interceptor, weapon range in the order of 50 miles, the GR7-9 is a bomber with limited air to air self defence ability range 1-4 miles depending on one's luck.
As mentioned previously, the 'improved aerodynamics' include going 100mph slower; but it is a fair bit more user-friendly.
I agree if we had to bin the Sea Harrier, ( which we didn't ) a sensible move would have been to get some Harrier 2+, as while it IS beefed up, it does have a lot of commonality with the GR5,7,9.
Like everyone else I'd normally jump through hoops for the chance of a Lancaster flight, but if over Afghanistan etc maybe not...and what's this about a ventral gun - did someone cut a hole and poke a Bren through ?!
As mentioned previously, the 'improved aerodynamics' include going 100mph slower; but it is a fair bit more user-friendly.
I agree if we had to bin the Sea Harrier, ( which we didn't ) a sensible move would have been to get some Harrier 2+, as while it IS beefed up, it does have a lot of commonality with the GR5,7,9.
Like everyone else I'd normally jump through hoops for the chance of a Lancaster flight, but if over Afghanistan etc maybe not...and what's this about a ventral gun - did someone cut a hole and poke a Bren through ?!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero
As we only have the one Lanc, I did not think general fit had to be mentioned
Although I am surprised at the lack of bites...oops I mean responses.
I had visions of a newer version of "options for change" throwing up all sorts of ideas.
One quickie was to drag a Fairey Gannet out of some museum and lash up some form of turret where the radome once was!, The odd Shackleton has been used for co-in work too. In fact the Gannets and Shackletons could form a modern RAF MEAF
but with the MEAF standing for Middle East Antique Force this time around.
Coat already in hand, door in sight
Although I am surprised at the lack of bites...oops I mean responses.
I had visions of a newer version of "options for change" throwing up all sorts of ideas.
One quickie was to drag a Fairey Gannet out of some museum and lash up some form of turret where the radome once was!, The odd Shackleton has been used for co-in work too. In fact the Gannets and Shackletons could form a modern RAF MEAF
but with the MEAF standing for Middle East Antique Force this time around.
Coat already in hand, door in sight
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there's a Gannet Double Mamba at Tangmere, but it may need new prop's as the current ones are about a foot long.
You'll need to remember to unplug it, as it's currently ( pardon the pun ) driven electrically.
As for fitting Blue Vixen onto a Harrier 2+ etc, a creative accountant can make up any figure they feel like, having first judged if their boss is pro or anti the scheme.
As a photographer for BAe when it was still a decent place to be, if photographing equipment my first approach was to ask why the photographs were required, was it to show how good or bad the kit was...
( I also insisted on switches being in realistic settings, to avoid derision ) - it's surprisingly easy to make things look very bad or very good.
I'm damn sure we could have had Harrier 2+ if the will had been there, with or without Blue Vixen; preferably with, but the really important bit was the AMRAAM.
Remember budgets are funny things, when the officers of a Type 42 destroyer left an inexperienced midshipman on watch overnight ( this of course is the story version I heard ) he managed to get broadside on in front of a supertanker in the Straits of Hormuz.
Result, broken detroyer carried into harbour on the bulbous bow of the tanker, otherwise it would have sunk.
It cost more to repair the ship than build a new one, but there was a ready 'repair budget' while a new ship was unthinkable, so she was repaired...The same sort of logic may well have applied to the mid-life update of the Sea Harrier, ( which also kept British jobs and technology ticking along ) compared to buying the then unproved Harrier 2+.
As with the hover trials mentioned next, please PM me if wanting a shot of the proposed FRS2 ( as then ) rather than how it turned out.
As for the Sea Harrier and bring-back, it did suffer in this area if heavily loaded, say with 2 Sea Eagles, but as J.Farley mentioned, taking off with 2 in the first place would have been a panic war move, normally it would have one, and a drop tank the other side.
The Sea Harrier can hover quite happily with such a load, I know as I walked nearly underneath until cowardice set in, and pointed the camera upwards to photograph it...
I'm happy to report a Kingston photographer pushed his luck ( well, they weren't used to live aeroplanes ) and got picked up by the efflux, lifted about 50' then thrown to the ground - he was lucky not to have any broken bones, but I think he got the message.
Having trouble with Photobucket & the other site presently, ( just had my P.C. 'repaired' ) but if anyone's bothered please PM me and I'll e-mail a copy of the hover trials & proposed FRS2 inc. cockpit.
You'll need to remember to unplug it, as it's currently ( pardon the pun ) driven electrically.
As for fitting Blue Vixen onto a Harrier 2+ etc, a creative accountant can make up any figure they feel like, having first judged if their boss is pro or anti the scheme.
As a photographer for BAe when it was still a decent place to be, if photographing equipment my first approach was to ask why the photographs were required, was it to show how good or bad the kit was...
( I also insisted on switches being in realistic settings, to avoid derision ) - it's surprisingly easy to make things look very bad or very good.
I'm damn sure we could have had Harrier 2+ if the will had been there, with or without Blue Vixen; preferably with, but the really important bit was the AMRAAM.
Remember budgets are funny things, when the officers of a Type 42 destroyer left an inexperienced midshipman on watch overnight ( this of course is the story version I heard ) he managed to get broadside on in front of a supertanker in the Straits of Hormuz.
Result, broken detroyer carried into harbour on the bulbous bow of the tanker, otherwise it would have sunk.
It cost more to repair the ship than build a new one, but there was a ready 'repair budget' while a new ship was unthinkable, so she was repaired...The same sort of logic may well have applied to the mid-life update of the Sea Harrier, ( which also kept British jobs and technology ticking along ) compared to buying the then unproved Harrier 2+.
As with the hover trials mentioned next, please PM me if wanting a shot of the proposed FRS2 ( as then ) rather than how it turned out.
As for the Sea Harrier and bring-back, it did suffer in this area if heavily loaded, say with 2 Sea Eagles, but as J.Farley mentioned, taking off with 2 in the first place would have been a panic war move, normally it would have one, and a drop tank the other side.
The Sea Harrier can hover quite happily with such a load, I know as I walked nearly underneath until cowardice set in, and pointed the camera upwards to photograph it...
I'm happy to report a Kingston photographer pushed his luck ( well, they weren't used to live aeroplanes ) and got picked up by the efflux, lifted about 50' then thrown to the ground - he was lucky not to have any broken bones, but I think he got the message.
Having trouble with Photobucket & the other site presently, ( just had my P.C. 'repaired' ) but if anyone's bothered please PM me and I'll e-mail a copy of the hover trials & proposed FRS2 inc. cockpit.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LFA6
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if the SHAR had the ability to:
carry more fuel
have more thrust for +50C and Afghan altitudes
carry and spike in precision weapons
carry a digi recce pod
be equipped with modern & secure comms
have a modern defensive suite
then, I also believe that it should join the fight in Afghanistan. Simples ....
carry more fuel
have more thrust for +50C and Afghan altitudes
carry and spike in precision weapons
carry a digi recce pod
be equipped with modern & secure comms
have a modern defensive suite
then, I also believe that it should join the fight in Afghanistan. Simples ....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
But if the RN managed to get hold of some Super Hornets it'd be doing what it scoffs at the RAF over, restricting itself to land-based operations. The CVFs after all are going to be Dave-B compatible, not Dave-C.
The CVFs after all are going to be Dave-B compatible, not Dave-C.
Are the planned new carriers really not compatible with F-35C - is there no room for catapults and arrestor systems, should that prove necessary?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The QE design includes ducts for traps, space for arrester gear and space for steam plant should it be required. The as built design will have a large port sponson supporting an angled deck, although its not so apparent with centre-line deck markings.
Goto Video 2 on this link, about a quarter of the way through you'll see the CTOL gear going down before the flight deck is covered over:
Queen Elizabeth Class : Future Ships : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
Goto Video 2 on this link, about a quarter of the way through you'll see the CTOL gear going down before the flight deck is covered over:
Queen Elizabeth Class : Future Ships : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find Sea Harriers did well in 'hot & high' trials - though no jet likes it much, the GR5-9 has a slightly more powerful engine but a lot more weight and drag.
The questions about digital recce' and weapon aiming pods are easy to answer - someone would have had to stump up the payments for the wiring, computers + pods !
The Navy had even worse recce' pods ( and the same poor built in cameras ) compared to the RAF, but a relatively small cash input could have sorted that.
Not as drastic as it sounds, until getting a rip-off quote from the companies involved.
The aircraft has in-flight refuelling, and defensive suites are up to the customer; in 1982 it didn't have any except in most cases a RWR, so a bunch of tin foil was placed above the airbrake as a ' one-off ' chance.
Since then, as I'm sure you know, the U.S.Marines found out in Gulf War 1 that while not reheated, the nozzles tended to attract SAM's to the centre of the aircraft, which led to the 2+ mark having upwards firing chaff & flares, and other automatic systems.
The questions about digital recce' and weapon aiming pods are easy to answer - someone would have had to stump up the payments for the wiring, computers + pods !
The Navy had even worse recce' pods ( and the same poor built in cameras ) compared to the RAF, but a relatively small cash input could have sorted that.
Not as drastic as it sounds, until getting a rip-off quote from the companies involved.
The aircraft has in-flight refuelling, and defensive suites are up to the customer; in 1982 it didn't have any except in most cases a RWR, so a bunch of tin foil was placed above the airbrake as a ' one-off ' chance.
Since then, as I'm sure you know, the U.S.Marines found out in Gulf War 1 that while not reheated, the nozzles tended to attract SAM's to the centre of the aircraft, which led to the 2+ mark having upwards firing chaff & flares, and other automatic systems.
Last edited by Double Zero; 14th May 2009 at 10:37.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: london
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wasn't the SHAR used in the Balkans (albeit with restrictive ROE) in the 90s to drop stuff on the Serb wpns deemed to be infringing the ceasefire. Unfortunately one was lost.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Age: 61
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The role in Afghan doesn't include any hovering or any particularly short TO & landing, therefore the Hot and High argument is exclusive.
We were trialing LGB on the Shar in Bosnia and dropping alot of ordinance.
Returning from a mission with ordinance isn't an issue in a conventional scenario.
At one of the last little bombing competitions held at RAF Wittering between the FA2 and the GR mud movers, the FA2 came out tops in all disciplines!
The FA2 was due a Secure comms upgrade and an DAS upgrade prior the the plug being pulled.
The Blue Vixen radar was a world beater at AI and not too ropey at look down either. One story from Bosnia of one of our pilots picking up a low flying chopper at roughly 80NM and informing the AWACS, which had a hard time spotting it springs to mind.
I reckon the FA2 would have been ready and would have done us pround too!
We were trialing LGB on the Shar in Bosnia and dropping alot of ordinance.
Returning from a mission with ordinance isn't an issue in a conventional scenario.
At one of the last little bombing competitions held at RAF Wittering between the FA2 and the GR mud movers, the FA2 came out tops in all disciplines!
The FA2 was due a Secure comms upgrade and an DAS upgrade prior the the plug being pulled.
The Blue Vixen radar was a world beater at AI and not too ropey at look down either. One story from Bosnia of one of our pilots picking up a low flying chopper at roughly 80NM and informing the AWACS, which had a hard time spotting it springs to mind.
I reckon the FA2 would have been ready and would have done us pround too!
Hey I like the SHAR as much as the next man, but some of these posts are getting fanciful. DH gave you a good hint that whilst the SHAR was capable of doing some good things, modern mud moving was not one of them.
The quotes about ‘hot and high’, hover and relevance to theatre are ridiculous – ‘hot and high’ is just as relevant for conventional Harrier flight. Blessed with a tiny wing and an engine that was sapped of power at high ambient temperatures (let alone the airfield altitudes of Afg) the old girl could struggle, even at light weights.
Double Zero, the ‘extra drag and weight’ of the GR9 that you speak of is not there for fun – it’s to do its job. I’ll keep it simple, ignoring money, wiring, performance, weight, safe carriage and release, RF threats etc lets consider a modern load-out:
Draw a sketch of the SHAR
Now add 6 hard points
Think about the tiny internal fuel load
So add 2 external tanks to the 2 inboard pylons
Think about DAS
So add IR BOL to the 2 outboard pylons
Oh and a TERMA pod to a fuselage pylon of your choice
Now what to do with that remaining pylon; hmmm…:
Perhaps a targeting pod (perhaps a mate could bring a bomb)
Perhaps a single gun
Perhaps a single dumb bomb
Perhaps a single rocket pack
The poor old SHAR was never going to be a decent CAS platform, hence the move to a big wing, multiple pylons, increased fuel load, bigger engine, mixed weapons loads, decent cockpit, FLIR, decent avionics etc that all came with the later generation Harrier II.
Oh and regarding Blue Vixen at 80+ miles – well the radar had many plus points but long range work was certainly not one of them. Having also joined-in with SHAR-centric bombing contests it was always good for a giggle. The opening rules usually started by prohibiting the other contestants from using their normal suite of weapons, or their usual means of delivery…
The quotes about ‘hot and high’, hover and relevance to theatre are ridiculous – ‘hot and high’ is just as relevant for conventional Harrier flight. Blessed with a tiny wing and an engine that was sapped of power at high ambient temperatures (let alone the airfield altitudes of Afg) the old girl could struggle, even at light weights.
Double Zero, the ‘extra drag and weight’ of the GR9 that you speak of is not there for fun – it’s to do its job. I’ll keep it simple, ignoring money, wiring, performance, weight, safe carriage and release, RF threats etc lets consider a modern load-out:
Draw a sketch of the SHAR
Now add 6 hard points
Think about the tiny internal fuel load
So add 2 external tanks to the 2 inboard pylons
Think about DAS
So add IR BOL to the 2 outboard pylons
Oh and a TERMA pod to a fuselage pylon of your choice
Now what to do with that remaining pylon; hmmm…:
Perhaps a targeting pod (perhaps a mate could bring a bomb)
Perhaps a single gun
Perhaps a single dumb bomb
Perhaps a single rocket pack
The poor old SHAR was never going to be a decent CAS platform, hence the move to a big wing, multiple pylons, increased fuel load, bigger engine, mixed weapons loads, decent cockpit, FLIR, decent avionics etc that all came with the later generation Harrier II.
Oh and regarding Blue Vixen at 80+ miles – well the radar had many plus points but long range work was certainly not one of them. Having also joined-in with SHAR-centric bombing contests it was always good for a giggle. The opening rules usually started by prohibiting the other contestants from using their normal suite of weapons, or their usual means of delivery…