Super Sonic Harrier - HS P.1154
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Super Sonic Harrier - HS P.1154
Guys ...
On the back of the recent splendid thread running on the Lightning v Harrier, along with input from the F4 community, it got me thinking about "What If" we had the Super Sonic Harrier ?
I understand the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 was a planned supersonic V/STOL fighter aircraft. Developed alongside the subsonic and smaller Hawker Siddeley P.1127/Kestrel, the P.1154 was derived from the P.1150. The P.1150 proposal did not meet NATO Basic Military Requirement 3 and, consequently, the P.1154 was born. The P.1154 was to have been a Mach 2-capable platform which retained plenum chamber burning previously designed for the P.1150.
Meanwhile, HSA considered modifying the airframe for a joint specification for an aircraft by the RAF and Royal Navy. I understand that the RAF and Royal Navy during 1961 and 1965 harmonised specifications to preserve design commonality. However, the RAF's desired configuration was to take precedence over that of the Royal Navy's. A number of proposals were submitted – at one stage, a twin-Spey design was considered, then rejected.
Sadly, following the Labour government coming to power in 1965, the project was cancelled. The result being that the Royal Navy acquired the F-4, while the RAF continued with the development of the P.1127 (RAF), leading to the successful Harrier family.
So had we had the P.1154 SSH how would we have used it ?
It seems certain that it's role would have been different to that of the P.1127 Family of Jump Jets.
Maybe John F might be able to elucidate if he's on frequency ...
Best regards ...
Coff.
On the back of the recent splendid thread running on the Lightning v Harrier, along with input from the F4 community, it got me thinking about "What If" we had the Super Sonic Harrier ?
I understand the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 was a planned supersonic V/STOL fighter aircraft. Developed alongside the subsonic and smaller Hawker Siddeley P.1127/Kestrel, the P.1154 was derived from the P.1150. The P.1150 proposal did not meet NATO Basic Military Requirement 3 and, consequently, the P.1154 was born. The P.1154 was to have been a Mach 2-capable platform which retained plenum chamber burning previously designed for the P.1150.
Meanwhile, HSA considered modifying the airframe for a joint specification for an aircraft by the RAF and Royal Navy. I understand that the RAF and Royal Navy during 1961 and 1965 harmonised specifications to preserve design commonality. However, the RAF's desired configuration was to take precedence over that of the Royal Navy's. A number of proposals were submitted – at one stage, a twin-Spey design was considered, then rejected.
Sadly, following the Labour government coming to power in 1965, the project was cancelled. The result being that the Royal Navy acquired the F-4, while the RAF continued with the development of the P.1127 (RAF), leading to the successful Harrier family.
So had we had the P.1154 SSH how would we have used it ?
It seems certain that it's role would have been different to that of the P.1127 Family of Jump Jets.
Maybe John F might be able to elucidate if he's on frequency ...
Best regards ...
Coff.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 21st Dec 2012 at 09:37.
Ooh good. Another Harrier thread. 
Something about plenum chambers, IIRC. A way to burn the already limited fuel even faster. I doubt it would have given birth to the later, much better, mark of Harrier.
Something about plenum chambers, IIRC. A way to burn the already limited fuel even faster. I doubt it would have given birth to the later, much better, mark of Harrier.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the Harrier always called a Harrier.
Reason why I ask, is when we were living in England, my father took me to the Farnborough Airshow when the Harrier was first flown in the airshow. But for some reason I think it was called by a different name?
Am I right, or is it old age?
I know I could look it up, but that is boring and usually here on Pprune the facts are supported by other little known facts and stories from the people that were there.
Reason why I ask, is when we were living in England, my father took me to the Farnborough Airshow when the Harrier was first flown in the airshow. But for some reason I think it was called by a different name?
Am I right, or is it old age?
I know I could look it up, but that is boring and usually here on Pprune the facts are supported by other little known facts and stories from the people that were there.
Last edited by con-pilot; 20th Dec 2012 at 19:01.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Con pilot
Your right there was a different name for the aircraft in development. I'm sure there are many former Harrier mates would love to bore you with all of the facts and figures about the Kestrel, the prototype Harrier.
Your right there was a different name for the aircraft in development. I'm sure there are many former Harrier mates would love to bore you with all of the facts and figures about the Kestrel, the prototype Harrier.
con-pilot, one of the early P1127 developments was the 'Kestrel'.
CoffmanStarter, JF is emphatically NOT a fan of PCB. However, the hovering bolleaux of the puffer jet, whilst fine for airshow tricks and potentially for German supermarket car parks after the balloon had gone up, wasn't really part of the proposed P1154 SOP which assumed STO and rolling VL...... So PCB would rarely have been needed. Which would also have been OK for the FAA had P1154 been on CVA01 - but probably not for the dear little 'through deck cruisers' which came a decade after CVA01 had been scrapped....
The RAF was content to sacrifice P1154 in order to secure TSR2. In the end they lost both.
CoffmanStarter, JF is emphatically NOT a fan of PCB. However, the hovering bolleaux of the puffer jet, whilst fine for airshow tricks and potentially for German supermarket car parks after the balloon had gone up, wasn't really part of the proposed P1154 SOP which assumed STO and rolling VL...... So PCB would rarely have been needed. Which would also have been OK for the FAA had P1154 been on CVA01 - but probably not for the dear little 'through deck cruisers' which came a decade after CVA01 had been scrapped....
The RAF was content to sacrifice P1154 in order to secure TSR2. In the end they lost both.
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Dec 2012 at 19:13.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks chaps ...
RAFEngO74to09 ... that article is most interesting .... thanks. BEagle I can see why we went with the TSR2 but as with all things you just wonder what the SSH might have turned in to.
A twin Spey variant .. PHWOAR !
I'm sure Courtney would have wanted a go on such a beast
Still interested in further comment ... I suspect quite a bit of design compromise might have been necessary for, say, the SSH to have been a credible ADV ?
Coff.
RAFEngO74to09 ... that article is most interesting .... thanks. BEagle I can see why we went with the TSR2 but as with all things you just wonder what the SSH might have turned in to.
A twin Spey variant .. PHWOAR !
I'm sure Courtney would have wanted a go on such a beast
Still interested in further comment ... I suspect quite a bit of design compromise might have been necessary for, say, the SSH to have been a credible ADV ?
Coff.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The test piece, a Harrier with added plenum chamber burning, has recently been acquired by the Helicopter Museum here in WsM. It is not fully representative of the BS100 front nozzle design but certainly worth a look.
I seem to recall the BS100 is very wide and would have given the 1154 substantial frontal area. Not sure if it was made viable. RRHT used to have a complete engine, not sure where it is now.
I seem to recall the BS100 is very wide and would have given the 1154 substantial frontal area. Not sure if it was made viable. RRHT used to have a complete engine, not sure where it is now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks Mike ...
It's sad that so much of our, then, cutting edge aviation technology ends up forgotten.
It's sickening that the TSR2 programme has been reduced to rivet sales
Coff.
It's sad that so much of our, then, cutting edge aviation technology ends up forgotten.
It's sickening that the TSR2 programme has been reduced to rivet sales
Coff.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Farley's post #515 and #518 in http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7144134 are explanatory
Supersonic Harrier?? It was!!
Excuse me interrupting - but - the GR1/3 was supersonic!
Never tried it in the 5/7!!
Never tried it in the 5/7!!
Last edited by ex-fast-jets; 21st Dec 2012 at 17:43.
Excuse me interrupting - but - the GR1/3 was supersonic!
Getting the back end of a Phantom to hang together with the battering it got from the reheated exhaust of a J79 or Spey was pretty challenging. Getting 2/3 of the fuselage of the P1154 to stay in one piece getting similar punishment from the PCB on the front nozzles would have been even more difficult. The equipment inside would have had a pretty hard time as well. I would not like to have to sign up to a reliability guarantee for the project.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooh good. Another Harrier thread.
Oh no.............
Sorry for thread creap
Last edited by cuefaye; 21st Dec 2012 at 20:53.