Sea Jet

[Double Zero]

That's just the point I was making which a couple of previous posters conveniently skipped over !

We need Harrier 2+ with AMRAAM right now - it's also jolly handy at strike - exactly how many years ahead will the F-35 actually be in service ?

Bearing in mind berks like me would take 2 years or so on trials, even after the no doubt delayed initial deliveries of barely equipped Mk1A aircraft...

[Occasional Aviator]

We need Harrier 2+ with AMRAAM right now

Really? Have we been subject to air attack then? is this a similar need right now to the timescale we need more RW or FP in Afg/Iraq?

Sorry guys, but as I keep coming back to, the UK's policy is to take risk against air defence at the moment. That's why the Typhoon programme has been reprofiled to bring the air-to-ground capability forward at the expense of air-to-air, and why we have got out of the game of anything more than the most rudimentary GBAD.

Now I completely agree that we really ought to have balanced forces capable of large-scale warfighting at all times, but at the moment we don't, because we don't have the cash and we're committed to two operations that, while they may not be the type of conflict we will have to fight in the future, certainly are the fight we're having now, and our strategic direction is that these are the top priority operations. That's why we haven't all got all the tools we consider 'essential'.

Live in the real world! If we bought Harrier 2+ as a stop-gap, where do you think the money would come from? That's right, the JCA pot......

[Navaleye]

I read that the Spanish Navy are upgrading their remaining day attack Harriers to II+ standard for what seems a very reasonable sum. They no longer consider non radar equipped a/c suitable for maritime ops and a decent air to air capability a requirement. Maybe we should take a a dozen GR9a airframes and join the programme as an interim step for the NSW pre Dave-B.

[LateArmLive]

Sure, we'll take the GR9 (a completely different jet from the Spanish Harrier), ask BAE nicely if they wouldn't mind us completely changing the airframe and avionics (they'll probably be fine with that ) and join the Spanish programme.
Anyone else see a flaw with this, or is it just me

[spocla]

Late Arm live, you're wasting your breath trying to talk sense/no conspiracy/Harrier is old news/limited current air to air threat/limited resources/the FA-2 wasn't the best aircraft ever/we can't just knock up a 2+ even if we wanted it- to this lot of armchair experts-just look at this thread for gods sake.

[hulahoop7]

Upgrade

If it really was that desperate, there are still a few FA2s being pushed around concrete.

Harriers are the ultimate flying set of scales. You can't just add things willnilly without big adjustments elsewhere.

[Double Zero]

Late Arm Live,

I've walked around inside the fuselages under construction ( sans engine ) of 2+ and GR5/7/9 - main noticeable difference is the 2+ has a lot of strengthening stringers aft due to that known acoustic fatigue issue, and it has upwards firing chaff/flare, which is nice.

I agree it would be a lot of work - it's been done before & is being done by the Spanish now -, but " completely different airframes " ? No.

The first development GR5/7/9's, ZD318 & 319 are out of use for a start, but not out of hours, though I heard 318 may have been over-fatigued by a daft Warton move.

I suspect we could convert a few airframes or procure them ;
to that point, I heard there are now spare USMC 2+'s in storage...

Good grief, if we asked nicely they might let us have guns too - they might be handy in current operations don't you think, and I presume the American gatling as on AV-8B can't be used by UK aircraft as it would be really admitting the c--k up that was the 25mm Aden ( I photographed that in 'development' too ).

I'm aware the 'gunpods' weren't empty for a while, but now strakes seem the order of the day again.

So I still reckon as many 2+ as possible 'right now' would be jolly handy 'right now' while a projected ISD for the F35 means how long a 'stop gap' really ?

[LateArmLive]

Take out the DMT, put on a different nose, totally change the CG, install another generator, rewire the avionics.....and that's before we even get started on the software. That's what I mean about it being a different airframe.

A gun would be nice, but there is nowhere on the jet to put one now, and there is no aiming software at all in the jet. Cue BAE rubbing their hands with glee.

The GR9 can do the job it has to do without a radar. If you chaps want a radar so badly then you shouldn't have given away the Sea Harrier

[Modern Elmo]

Now I completely agree that we really ought to have balanced forces capable of large-scale warfighting at all times, but at the moment we don't, because we don't have the cash and we're committed to two operations that, while they may not be the type of conflict we will have to fight in the future, certainly are the fight we're having now ...

Please describe this large-scale warfighting.

What conflict at what location do you expect in future?

[Double Zero]

Late Arm Live,

well CG for a start- been done, and probably not as big a change as you'd think - Art Nalls with his civilian SeaJet is recalculating for the removal of the radar, and with his advice even Warton could do it !

Gun - it & the adjacent ammo' pod go where the strakes are - on very early development GR5's the dummy Aden 25mm pods ( actually camera pods ) had small strakes even underneath them, until access to the centreline proved nigh on impossible and they were of dubious effect anyway.

The gunpods act as strakes, though obviously with a weight penalty and not as deep.

Presumably the USA & Spanish have aiming software, and anyway changing HUD software is not difficult, I lost count of the number of times it was done.

The big point is, all the changes (and I'm not suggesting I could do it overnight with a Swiss army knife ) inc. generator etc etc have been done before, no need to reinvent the wheel, and anyway as I say it seems secondhand 2+'s are available right now.

What I and a few others here are suggesting is a good squadron's worth of AMRAAM capable 2+, principally for use at sea, while the gun is a separate sorry issue which ought to have been sorted out long ago for all UK Harrier 2's.

The 2+ retains FLIR, though for sandy op's I expect the DMT is quite useful; ( BTW it could have had a combined FLIR option, but that was slightly more expensive than the separate kit ) - not suggesting radar for everyone.

[SammySu]

00

Your last post highlights your lack of current knowledge about the GR9. Suggest you find out what hangs in place of the left and right strakes on an op jet - we have better uses for these positions than a gun. The USMC jet is actually handicapped by not having fuselage positions - how many LGBs can they self des?
CG would be a major issue with a heavier nose, it is bad enough already, though you could I suppose put in a T10 type lead boom - major work. Internally the jet is now rammed with wiring and avionics, there really isn't much room anymore.
We don't need/want our tight budget, that is providing so many capability enhancing improvements that benefit our primary role, wasted on a radar so we can play at A-A on exercise somewhere.
If all the armchair experts would stop ditting on about how FA2 / a radar GR9 would be the panacea to fleet defence, and start praising the awesome updates and capability improvements in A-G that the Harrier Force now has and is shortly getting ( down to a huge amount of hard work from our own guys and contractors) then you might feel a little better about the fixed wing FAA - more relevant and capable in current ops than ever before.

[Pontius]

We don't need/want our tight budget.......wasted on a radar so we can play at A-A on exercise somewhere

Clearly written by someone who has never flown the II+ and used the A/G functions of the radar (DBS & SAR) to aid them in their primary role

[Double Zero]

SammySu,

Actually I do know what the underneath item you're referring to is, and it's very highly spoken of to me, but there are ways around that...

Not much use at sea though, unless going for undefended targets.

The radar can be useful for navigation in extremis as well as spotting surface or air bad guys at sea too, and I'm damn sure you'd like it if operating from a carrier ( of any type ) for long.

[cokecan]

while i know fcuk all of the areodynamics/weight crap that we employ people with bad hair to SOLVE, the most disturbing aspect of this thread is the utter subservience of our so-called 'warrior class' to what BAE will and won't say yes to - and indeed to what they will and won't do.

personally, i was - mistakenly obviously - under the impression that the RAF was a military organisation authorised by the elected government of the day to use lots of lethal force in pursuit of that governments national security policy in which, were a suited lawyer from BAE to turn up the gate and say "err... we don't like what you're doing to aircraft that you've already bought from us", some roughty-toughty Sergeant with a pointy rifle thing would give him a swift "fcuk-off or or i'll feed you some slop from the cook house".

obviously i'm wrong and the RAF isn't such an organisation and is actually a buch of limp-wristed dandies called Kevin with white socks, grey slip-on shoes who have no loyalty to what the real needs of the RAF - and by extention the nation - but merely to their post-RAF employment prospects.

sad isn't it, that only those in ignorance are prepared to determine who should be the servant and who is the master, while those who claim to be in the know refuse.

[pr00ne]

cokecan,

Suggest you read up on the Nimrod airworthiness thread and wise up, and grow up, pretty damm quickly!

[Backwards PLT]

There are obviously those on this thread who have experience/knowledge of military aircraft operations and those who don't.

Modifying a GR9 to take a radar is a major piece of work on so many levels - it would be very expensive and long-winded. No-one has modified a GR9 standard to carry a radar. Just because someone else who flies a harrier has is largely irrelevant.

Anybody who thinks the UK is about to buy another type (Harrier II+) is barking mad.

The harrier is a good CAS platform - let them get on with that. They are kinda busy with it.

The harrier (in any guise) is an awful A-A platform. Sacrilige on this thread, I know but there you go. It's subsonic limit prevents it from engaging a whole load of threats and the turn performance is awful.

I could go on, but the whole idea of the UK procuring/converting an A-A harrier is so ridiculous it stuns me.

[mystic_meg]

Anybody who thinks the UK is about to buy another type (Harrier II+) is barking mad

Nah, he's a toggie, (photographer for the uninitiated,) so obviously he knows what he's talking about.....
I went down the pitlane at Silverstone once and snapped a few cars - maybe I should give Ron Dennis a ring and tell him where he's going wrong?

Spocla, you still producing eco-fuel??

[Navaleye]

Backwards PLT,

The harrier (in any guise) is an awful A-A platform.

Who says? I'm over at Mayport right now following JFTEX-08 and the USN folks I have spoken with thought the Shar was a great A-A package but insist that a II+ could out turn it. So if you if you fit a Blue Vixen on a II+ airframe, surely you end up with a better all round bird. Longer range, more weapons etc. Non?

[andyy]

The SHAR always seemed to do alright at Decci.... at low level.

[Double Zero]

Mystic Meg,

Yes I was a 'toggie; but not a P.R. type taking pretty pictures ( though I did that as well now and again).

I was on the Sea Harrier 1 & 2 & GR5 & 7 Trials development team, Hawk export models as well, fitting camera pods & pilot display recorders ( up to 16 high speed cine cameras on a GR5 ) and what with that and to a lesser extent a little training in aeronautics and initial fitter training, + working closely with Flight Test, I reckon I have mixed with the best professionals going - I left BAe voluntarily when the accountants took over.

While not on trials I was photographing structures and equipment fits for designers and engineers etc, future projects rigs, and generally was in a very lucky position to get an insight into most if not all departments - so I suspect I have a rather better idea of the work involved ' converting a GR9 ' than you might suspect, and I even picked up a little knowledge of how the things fly, what they do and don't like...

As you still fail to understand, I'd suggest that conversion - and the fact the Spanish are doing it while we're not is pretty damning - as a second choice, if these secondhand 2+ are available.

They have a great deal of commonality with your mud-movers, and I'd like to see anyone argue that a mix of 2+ & GR9 on a carrier would not be ideal - don't talk to me about budgets, I've seen the way money is wasted on comfy chairs and funny prices for relatively trivial equipment etc...

Or are you worried this A-A ability would suit your FAA brethren too well ?