Sea Jet
The article Navaleye links to says;
“The Harrier has the highest accident rate of any jet fighter. This is largely because of its vertical flight capabilities, which give it an accident rate similar to that of helicopters”.
Is this being entirely fair, in the case of SHAR? In the period 81-95 most RN losses involved the CVS ramp or lost in action. At least two were lost to birdstrikes, one to out of fuel. One “just” slipped over the side of Invincible.
“The Harrier has the highest accident rate of any jet fighter. This is largely because of its vertical flight capabilities, which give it an accident rate similar to that of helicopters”.
Is this being entirely fair, in the case of SHAR? In the period 81-95 most RN losses involved the CVS ramp or lost in action. At least two were lost to birdstrikes, one to out of fuel. One “just” slipped over the side of Invincible.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seajet losses
Also, off the top of the head, another 2 were lost presumed collided in cloud during the Falklands war, while the only combat losses being shot down by ground fire doesn't seem like a comment on the aircraft or it's VSTOL handling !
It is a demanding aircraft, no doubt, but 'highest rate' sounds a bit harsh and doesn't ring true.
On the + side, just to be predictable, what would Ian 'Soapy' Watson have done when lost mid-Atlantic, then spotted the small freighter 'Alraigo' ?!!!
I don't think a Tomcat / F-18 or even an F-22 would have got him out of that one...
It is a demanding aircraft, no doubt, but 'highest rate' sounds a bit harsh and doesn't ring true.
On the + side, just to be predictable, what would Ian 'Soapy' Watson have done when lost mid-Atlantic, then spotted the small freighter 'Alraigo' ?!!!
I don't think a Tomcat / F-18 or even an F-22 would have got him out of that one...
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never seen accident figures for the SHar, but the US AV-8B's certainly don't help the 'Harrier' overall stats. Last time I saw any published figures (and very much from memory so there's room for error) for the US Navy their accident rate for all jets was something around 2 per 100 000 flying hours. But the Harrier trumped everyone with a rate that has historically varied between 7 - 11 per 100 000 flying hours. The only other jet that came close was the U-2.
Of course if you wanted to put a positive slant on it, you could say that it's been designed perfectly to meet the risk objectives of '10 to the minus four' every time you go flying....
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Of course if you wanted to put a positive slant on it, you could say that it's been designed perfectly to meet the risk objectives of '10 to the minus four' every time you go flying....
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over the years we have lost fewer but then we had less to start with, not sure how it works out as a percentage. Maybe our pilots are less keen on banging out? I certainly know a few instances of 'how did they manage to get that back?' I would like to think we lose less because our engineering standards and practices are higher than some/most. The failure rate of the Peagsus was high in early days but has decreased significantly and the Mk 107 fitted to the GR7A/9A is very reliable. Still not enough to be allowed to fly over London though 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxenfforrdde
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whilst they complain about being left short of resources by the U.S.N., it is well known that U.S.M.C. aircraft are not as well maintained as they could be
interesting article here
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2003/na...national1.html
interesting article here
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2003/na...national1.html
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a near complete picture of the remaining SHAR airframes theis site is probably the best:
http://www.demobbed.org.uk/
There is a photo of almost every airframe still in existence taken within the last 12 months or so. Whilst many have been stripped to bare fuselages quite a number are not only still intact, but still kept serviceable (primarily those at Culdrose with the School of Flight Deck Operations, sufficient for a full sqn) and one hopes the four airframes being sold to India don't come from there
. Never know when we might need them again... As for India, well there are plenty of readily dismantled airframes to choose from.
The current Harrier shortage (GR7/9) is starting to bite and proves what folly the JFH descision was. We are now left with insufficient aircraft and pilots to meet any contingencies that may arise and can't even supply adeqate aircraft for excercises.
http://www.demobbed.org.uk/
There is a photo of almost every airframe still in existence taken within the last 12 months or so. Whilst many have been stripped to bare fuselages quite a number are not only still intact, but still kept serviceable (primarily those at Culdrose with the School of Flight Deck Operations, sufficient for a full sqn) and one hopes the four airframes being sold to India don't come from there
. Never know when we might need them again... As for India, well there are plenty of readily dismantled airframes to choose from. The current Harrier shortage (GR7/9) is starting to bite and proves what folly the JFH descision was. We are now left with insufficient aircraft and pilots to meet any contingencies that may arise and can't even supply adeqate aircraft for excercises.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Check out the link from the Telegraph here.
The pigeons are certainly coming home to roost and much of what was said on this thread have been borne out.
The pigeons are certainly coming home to roost and much of what was said on this thread have been borne out.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine if the chickens come home to roost, then we'll really be in trouble.
You'll be relieved to know that much of the report in the Telegraph was factually devoid of logic. Some of it actually made me laugh out loud.
Is either you or WEBF actually Mr Harding in real life?
'Only' 19 pilots qualified to fly from CVS at night? More than we had when were operating the FA2 then.
The overall theme, including many other non-CVS skills that current Harrier pilots have (I know, difficult to reconcile that there is life beyond embarked capabilty) are indeed in some fade while we do OPERATIONS.
It will take time to regenerate those capabilities as with any high end skill not practiced routinely.
Cliff Edge? That's a hotel near Beachy Head isn't it?
You'll be relieved to know that much of the report in the Telegraph was factually devoid of logic. Some of it actually made me laugh out loud.
Is either you or WEBF actually Mr Harding in real life?
'Only' 19 pilots qualified to fly from CVS at night? More than we had when were operating the FA2 then.
The overall theme, including many other non-CVS skills that current Harrier pilots have (I know, difficult to reconcile that there is life beyond embarked capabilty) are indeed in some fade while we do OPERATIONS.
It will take time to regenerate those capabilities as with any high end skill not practiced routinely.
Cliff Edge? That's a hotel near Beachy Head isn't it?
Suspicion breeds confidence
I agree that the article contained some howlers but the point about skills fade is very valid and its not just applicable to the pilots. It also applies to all the other trades on board that operate, service and arm the aircraft. These folks have to be kept current as well and its just not happening. Bad for capability, bad for morale and bad for retention. Their are only so many times we can get the begging bowl out for an airgroup from our allies.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 56
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never seen accident figures for the SHar, but the US AV-8B's certainly don't help the 'Harrier' overall stats.
Am on dial-up today so I would be retired before I could find it but perhaps a PP search by someone who could post a link would set the record straight.
Art has now taken delivery of a GR.3 with the possibility of returning it to flight. Update on the SHAR at the following.
http://www.nallsaviation.com/
TJ
http://www.nallsaviation.com/
TJ
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the USMC first began operating the AV-8A, the first sqn formed was filled with qualified test pilots, who had an excellent safety record and reported the Harrier was very easy to fly. Obviously for test pilots it presented no problems because they are of a much higher standard than regular sqn pilots. After this initial period, the USMC authorities that the Harrier would present no difficulties, and went a step further; as th Harrier could land and take off vertically and hover, then why not post helicopter pilots to the Harrier sqns? This they did, and the former helo pilots had no problems in the vertical, they just had a bad habit of flying into hills and mountains at 500 knots. The pilots just didn't have the 'currency', as the Marines called it, for fast jet operations. This is the USMCs own explanation for the high accident rate in the 70s and early 80s.
Since the introduction of the AV-8B the problem has been partly down to insufficient flying hours. When one aircraft crashes, the whole fleet is grounded and the pilots begin to lose proficiencey if the grounding drags on. When the fleet returns to service the pilots are less practiced than they should be and the liklihood of accidents increases, again this is from the USMC itself (though not necessarily the top brass). Also remember, when embarked aboard the LHAs/ LHDs of the USN, the Harriers are effectively 'second class citizens' as helo ops take priority. When a USMC sqn embarked in HMS Illustrious last year the contrast was very dramatic from their point of view, and they found it very refreshing to be on a ship that put them first.
Since the introduction of the AV-8B the problem has been partly down to insufficient flying hours. When one aircraft crashes, the whole fleet is grounded and the pilots begin to lose proficiencey if the grounding drags on. When the fleet returns to service the pilots are less practiced than they should be and the liklihood of accidents increases, again this is from the USMC itself (though not necessarily the top brass). Also remember, when embarked aboard the LHAs/ LHDs of the USN, the Harriers are effectively 'second class citizens' as helo ops take priority. When a USMC sqn embarked in HMS Illustrious last year the contrast was very dramatic from their point of view, and they found it very refreshing to be on a ship that put them first.
I am sure things will improve with JFH and carrier operations once Typhoon takes over the Herrick commitment.
Recently a Google search for "Sea Harrier parts" (I was looking after hearing the story of F14 parts going to Iran) found the following article.
...and new work worth £400,000 to export Sea Harrier parts under licence from BAE Systems to India.
Thought 1: That's interesting.
Thought 2: Why is it?
Recently a Google search for "Sea Harrier parts" (I was looking after hearing the story of F14 parts going to Iran) found the following article.
...and new work worth £400,000 to export Sea Harrier parts under licence from BAE Systems to India.
Thought 1: That's interesting.
Thought 2: Why is it?
Hmm - a mere £400K contract to 't Bungling Baron?
Probably just a couple of light bulbs.
Tha' knows. Sithee by 'eck as like...
Probably just a couple of light bulbs.
Tha' knows. Sithee by 'eck as like...
From the RN website: Indian Navy Sea Harriers Hit UK Splash Target
Couldn't resist posting this. Sorry!
I wonder if those aircraft have the licence built parts mentioned above?
Couldn't resist posting this. Sorry!
I wonder if those aircraft have the licence built parts mentioned above?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK probable F35 purchase dates
"In its fiscal year 2006 budget submission, DOD reduced the planned procurement quantities for the U.S. by 38 aircraft through fiscal year 2011. The preliminary figures also includes planned quantities for the United Kingdom of 2 aircraft in fiscal year 2009, 4 aircraft in fiscal year 2010, 9 aircraft in fiscal year 2011, 9 aircraft in fiscal year 2012, and 10 aircraft in fiscal year 2013."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...anufacture.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...anufacture.htm
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 Deliveries
Spiffing...
So we might have a useful shipload of them by..the 22nd Century ?!
I was rather hoping for myself or my ghost / descendant to command the USS Enterprise NX-1 into deep space by then.
For Christ's sake can't someone see sense - financial as well as militarily - and build / make available Harrier 2+ !!!
As for those who bleat about " want more range / payload " well let's see anything else as versatile & able to operate from heli-pads at a pinch, or small flight decks.
If any enemy has any sense, they will attack us right now - strange how the lessons of history go out of the window when individual's careers brown-nosing seem more to the fore...
So we might have a useful shipload of them by..the 22nd Century ?!
I was rather hoping for myself or my ghost / descendant to command the USS Enterprise NX-1 into deep space by then.
For Christ's sake can't someone see sense - financial as well as militarily - and build / make available Harrier 2+ !!!
As for those who bleat about " want more range / payload " well let's see anything else as versatile & able to operate from heli-pads at a pinch, or small flight decks.
If any enemy has any sense, they will attack us right now - strange how the lessons of history go out of the window when individual's careers brown-nosing seem more to the fore...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 buys
I was actually suprised at the pace of the deliverys! I thought the treasury would be keen to push them back to the late teens.
I don't have any idea how long it takes a squadron to convert, but you can see the 9 plane squadron size orders coming through in those 2011-12 & 2013 years ( and perhaps another 9-10 in 2014).
The orginal 2 and 4 must be for testing and training respectively.
I don't know why anyone would have downer on the F35.. the UK is getting a top line jet, with at least a 20% workshare on 1000's of planes. The UK can buy them off the line when it wants, and it can piggy back the R&D and supply chain of the US. If it does the job as designed it's the deal of the century, and if those orders remain, and conversion takes around 12 months a squadron, we might get a meaningful airgroup in time for the CVFs.
Do you really think that a Harrier + would be ready in that timescale? Particularly as the machining etc has now been trashed.
Come on, what do you want - sugar on it?
I don't have any idea how long it takes a squadron to convert, but you can see the 9 plane squadron size orders coming through in those 2011-12 & 2013 years ( and perhaps another 9-10 in 2014).
The orginal 2 and 4 must be for testing and training respectively.
I don't know why anyone would have downer on the F35.. the UK is getting a top line jet, with at least a 20% workshare on 1000's of planes. The UK can buy them off the line when it wants, and it can piggy back the R&D and supply chain of the US. If it does the job as designed it's the deal of the century, and if those orders remain, and conversion takes around 12 months a squadron, we might get a meaningful airgroup in time for the CVFs.
Do you really think that a Harrier + would be ready in that timescale? Particularly as the machining etc has now been trashed.
Come on, what do you want - sugar on it?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely agree. F-35 will be the new Sea Jet. Harrier is OLD technology, no matter how shiny the toys on the 2+ are. And all this 'Best BVR Fighter' stuff is very confusing. Is it talking about in the UK (which means it would only have to beat the F-3, which has 2 crew, a greater weaponload, more speed, endurance and range, a working and integrated datalink, a radar which is now just as good, etc), or is is it just trying to avoid the issue that it ain't that great in the close-in fight?
Moreover, F-35 will give us stealth. This in many ways makes up for the smaller weaponload and range than Typhoon, and the JSF's systems are pretty damn advanced too. There's every reason to think this will be the jet of choice for expeditionary air ops when it comes on line, whether that be carrier ops or part of medium/large scale efforts from concrete.
Moreover, F-35 will give us stealth. This in many ways makes up for the smaller weaponload and range than Typhoon, and the JSF's systems are pretty damn advanced too. There's every reason to think this will be the jet of choice for expeditionary air ops when it comes on line, whether that be carrier ops or part of medium/large scale efforts from concrete.