How good would SHAR be as an Afghan mud mover...?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How good would SHAR be as an Afghan mud mover...?
Just a thought, and I know it always dangerous to resurrect the Sea Harrier topic, but I was pondering this and thought it best to come here for an answer. The current RAF Harrier Fleet has been very overworked on Herric over the last few years, and with Tonka's deployment being delayed even more I was wondering, if we had kept the SHAR FA2's instead of binning them, how useful would they be?
Could the Naval Strike wing have used them in Afghan, to take some of the burden off the GR7/9's or would their ground attack capability be so much less as to be not really worth it? I mean, their rough airstrip capable, have a decent enough payload, can carry rockets and dumb bombs - you'd miss precision guided weapons, mind
Could the Naval Strike wing have used them in Afghan, to take some of the burden off the GR7/9's or would their ground attack capability be so much less as to be not really worth it? I mean, their rough airstrip capable, have a decent enough payload, can carry rockets and dumb bombs - you'd miss precision guided weapons, mind
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha Biggus, indeed, long loiter time, large amounts of ordnance, what more could anyone want...
A little different in that Sea Harrier cuts were cost saving not due to obsolescence... which is why I posed this theoreical question
A little different in that Sea Harrier cuts were cost saving not due to obsolescence... which is why I posed this theoreical question
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SeaJet bombing
Yeoman,
I was a technical photographer on the FRS2 trials, before various things & changes made it expedient to call it FA2.
It had uprated software for 'dumb' bombing compared to the FRS1 - mind you that was always being updated.
CCIP bombing was pretty accurate, about as good as it gets I should think ( can't give accurate figures, but let's say I wouldn't choose to moon at the pilot from the target position ).
Loft delivery was always an option, again being periodically updated, and of course particularly suited to LGB's.
Of course if it was still in service it would have a Sniper pod etc by now...
I don't know what software version the Indian Navy have, and I suspect they don't use the aircraft in that role, but must practice at it; I wonder if our very decent Indian contact could enlighten us ( I think I know his callsign, but as I'm not certain I just hope he reads this ).
I was a technical photographer on the FRS2 trials, before various things & changes made it expedient to call it FA2.
It had uprated software for 'dumb' bombing compared to the FRS1 - mind you that was always being updated.
CCIP bombing was pretty accurate, about as good as it gets I should think ( can't give accurate figures, but let's say I wouldn't choose to moon at the pilot from the target position ).
Loft delivery was always an option, again being periodically updated, and of course particularly suited to LGB's.
Of course if it was still in service it would have a Sniper pod etc by now...
I don't know what software version the Indian Navy have, and I suspect they don't use the aircraft in that role, but must practice at it; I wonder if our very decent Indian contact could enlighten us ( I think I know his callsign, but as I'm not certain I just hope he reads this ).
Not more Navy in the Stan..... leave us alone and send some bugger else
"Just a thought, and I know it always dangerous to resurrect the Sea Harrier topic, but I was pondering this and thought it best to come here for an answer. The current RAF Harrier Fleet has been very overworked on Herric over the last few years, and with Tonka's deployment being delayed even more I was wondering, if we had kept the SHAR FA2's instead of binning them, how useful would they be?"
You'd have had to have spent a fortune on them to put on the UOR kit required to get them to a standard where they could operate effectively in the environment. Given how much we spent on GR7/9 and will be spending on Tonka, I don't think it would have saved much.
Also - would the engines have been able to cope with it?
You'd have had to have spent a fortune on them to put on the UOR kit required to get them to a standard where they could operate effectively in the environment. Given how much we spent on GR7/9 and will be spending on Tonka, I don't think it would have saved much.
Also - would the engines have been able to cope with it?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minigundiplomat,
I think you'll find Joint Force Harrier includes the Fleet Air Arm, who are traditionally the type of pilots and groundcrew who like giving it to the enemy - though in this case only partially the RAF !
Jimlad,
It depends how you look at it; the FA2 was meant to have loads of kit it never got, so would that have been upgrading for Afghanistan or just a late fit ?
I think you'll find Joint Force Harrier includes the Fleet Air Arm, who are traditionally the type of pilots and groundcrew who like giving it to the enemy - though in this case only partially the RAF !
Jimlad,
It depends how you look at it; the FA2 was meant to have loads of kit it never got, so would that have been upgrading for Afghanistan or just a late fit ?
Last edited by Double Zero; 10th May 2009 at 17:35.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one overflies targets to hit them anymore - well no-one that is serious about mud moving anyway (CCIP et al = overfly).
Someone says SHAR was accurate at CCIP - so what, anyone (credible) since 1986 is as accurate.....
Someone says SHAR was accurate at CCIP - so what, anyone (credible) since 1986 is as accurate.....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I am not sure but could the SHAR not have been fitted with PWIV?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJR,
Would you not agree, that you never have to overfly tgts, if you are in a a limited threat environment? I cetainly wouldn't want to by choice.
Given, bigger threats, both S-A and A-A, we might not have the luxury of 'Drop at Will' (Whom ever 'Will' is!).
We might find, in the future, that hard learned tactical lessons, are learned again. Low and fast, in a 'stealth-ish' ftr, might be the only way in.
Advo
Would you not agree, that you never have to overfly tgts, if you are in a a limited threat environment? I cetainly wouldn't want to by choice.
Given, bigger threats, both S-A and A-A, we might not have the luxury of 'Drop at Will' (Whom ever 'Will' is!).
We might find, in the future, that hard learned tactical lessons, are learned again. Low and fast, in a 'stealth-ish' ftr, might be the only way in.
Advo
Absolutely right. The SHAR would have been great to use in HERRICK, just as soon as we fitted it with a new wing with multiple hardpoints, a bigger engine so it could actually carry an AG payload in block 2, a targeting pod, a decent countermeasures suite, a new cockpit and avionics, and a brand new SMS. (Maybe we could called it the Harrier II+?)
Oh, and then we could have trained a new bunch of grubbers and bombheads to maintain it, paid BAe seven billion pounds for the work (which would be ready in late 2015,16,17...) and finally we could also magic up some pilots to fly it.
Great idea!
Oh, and then we could have trained a new bunch of grubbers and bombheads to maintain it, paid BAe seven billion pounds for the work (which would be ready in late 2015,16,17...) and finally we could also magic up some pilots to fly it.
Great idea!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't an idea, I was asking how useful it would have been...
And I think, from that, what you're saying is that it would be an excellent aircraft, yes? Or have I missed something....
And I think, from that, what you're saying is that it would be an excellent aircraft, yes? Or have I missed something....
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big problem with the Sea Harrier in Afghanistan is the same problem that caused them to be binned in the first place - poor hot & high performance with the engine they had fitted. They needed a new engine, it would have meant a new rear & centre fuselage and the cost was just too much.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should have left that part out. 
Plus side, for me anyway, this is interesting, I had no idea Harrier's hot 'n high was that bad?
Plus side, for me anyway, this is interesting, I had no idea Harrier's hot 'n high was that bad?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who missed the reference to the 'overfly' piece, the reference was a hint that todays offensive aircraft fly with PGMs, where the 'smart' weapon does the dirty whilst the delivery platform does the avoiding of the TGT. ie Dumb Bombs are for the application air weapons range - PW2/PW3/EPW/PW4 etc would be the way forward to the SHAR, as long as you gave the jet the software to manage it, and / or integrate a suitable pod to generate co-ords etc.
Kachingggg $$$$$$ - BAE systems enter here.
At the end of the day, the SHAR was great for its prime job - Carrier Air Defence. ie send a carrier with an embarked aircraft to defend itself. Take the carrier away, and it doesn't need defending.
How good was SHAR's 'Bring-Back' capability (not every CAS mission actually drops)?
The reference to the Gun (can be considered 'precise' from GR-4) and CRV-7 - they are not the PRIME weapon for the specified aircraft, but good to have on-board, If I recollect recent events, both the GR-4 and GR-7 primarily deliver PGMs in recent history
....and if someone wants to take up the Typhoon gun piece, move it to another thread...
Kachingggg $$$$$$ - BAE systems enter here.
At the end of the day, the SHAR was great for its prime job - Carrier Air Defence. ie send a carrier with an embarked aircraft to defend itself. Take the carrier away, and it doesn't need defending.
How good was SHAR's 'Bring-Back' capability (not every CAS mission actually drops)?
The reference to the Gun (can be considered 'precise' from GR-4) and CRV-7 - they are not the PRIME weapon for the specified aircraft, but good to have on-board, If I recollect recent events, both the GR-4 and GR-7 primarily deliver PGMs in recent history
....and if someone wants to take up the Typhoon gun piece, move it to another thread...
Yeoman_dai,
The following is in reference to the plan to upgrade the SHARs Pegasus.
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 21 May 2002 (pt 1)
'Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of upgrading the Harrier GR7 to GR9; and what estimate he has made of the cost of upgrading the engine of the Harrier FA2. [57230]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1166–67W.
The integration of the Pegasus Mk 107 engine into 11 Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft was the subject of a feasibility study in 2000. The cost of integration was estimated to be approximately £230 million. The study concluded that there would be significant technical difficulties and that overall the programme did not represent good value for money.'
House of Commons - Defence - Fourth Report
'The MoD told us that:
The current engine of the Sea Harrier does not provide adequate thrust to enable operations to be conducted year around in hot climates, such as those encountered in the Gulf. There would be a very high level of technical risk in fitting new engines, since the Sea Harrier was not designed to take the more powerful engine which is being fitted to some of the Harrier GR9s. (The Sea Harrier is an early generation Harrier I—similar to the RAF's previous Harrier GR3s—whilst the only Harriers operating world-wide with the upgraded engines are the extensively modified Harrier IIs, such as Harrier GR7/9s). Specifically, the main technical risks are associated with the extensive airframe modifications that would be required and the adverse effects on the engine due to different intakes.[181]
An MoD study in 2000 found that (even if feasible) it would cost £230 million to integrate Mk-107 engines on just 11 Sea Harriers.[182] Sir Jock Stirrup considered that the necessary improvements to the Sea Harrier would have been "extremely expensive," and perhaps impossible.[183]'
See also John Farley's post ref fitting new engine in the SHAR.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...sea-jet-2.html
TJ
The following is in reference to the plan to upgrade the SHARs Pegasus.
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 21 May 2002 (pt 1)
'Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of upgrading the Harrier GR7 to GR9; and what estimate he has made of the cost of upgrading the engine of the Harrier FA2. [57230]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1166–67W.
The integration of the Pegasus Mk 107 engine into 11 Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft was the subject of a feasibility study in 2000. The cost of integration was estimated to be approximately £230 million. The study concluded that there would be significant technical difficulties and that overall the programme did not represent good value for money.'
House of Commons - Defence - Fourth Report
'The MoD told us that:
The current engine of the Sea Harrier does not provide adequate thrust to enable operations to be conducted year around in hot climates, such as those encountered in the Gulf. There would be a very high level of technical risk in fitting new engines, since the Sea Harrier was not designed to take the more powerful engine which is being fitted to some of the Harrier GR9s. (The Sea Harrier is an early generation Harrier I—similar to the RAF's previous Harrier GR3s—whilst the only Harriers operating world-wide with the upgraded engines are the extensively modified Harrier IIs, such as Harrier GR7/9s). Specifically, the main technical risks are associated with the extensive airframe modifications that would be required and the adverse effects on the engine due to different intakes.[181]
An MoD study in 2000 found that (even if feasible) it would cost £230 million to integrate Mk-107 engines on just 11 Sea Harriers.[182] Sir Jock Stirrup considered that the necessary improvements to the Sea Harrier would have been "extremely expensive," and perhaps impossible.[183]'
See also John Farley's post ref fitting new engine in the SHAR.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...sea-jet-2.html
TJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was a study even done on fitting the Blue Vixen radar and various other bits of the SHAR weapons system to the Gr7/Gr9? Much like the addition of recycled APG-65s from USN/USMC Hornets into AV-8Bs.