Why Does the RAF have the Harrier today?
 

IMMSMC, twenty years or so ago, the RAF Harrier force was the mainstay of the support for BAOR/BFG, and was perfect for the job flying from mexe-strips and hides in the N.German countryside, ready to fight-back (OK, delay?) the communist hoards charging over the E.German Border etc, etc...

Today the GR7/9 cannot go near the smallest bit of gravel without Fod'ing an engine, so is operationally mud/sand-moving from airfields (a role also performed by Tornado and Jaguar)...

Of course, it also embarks on Pusser's Flat-tops; where it is about to replace the FA2, a multi-role aircraft that could both attack and provide organic air defence. True the GR7/9 has a better engine than the FA2 and all that entails for endurance, pay-load etc etc... but what puzzles me is how the single role airframe won over the multi-role variant?

ISTM that an enhanced SHAR would be able to bomb and dog-fight... on land and over the sea. Troops on the front line might be as desperate for fighter cover as for ground support... and jack onboard would, I'm sure, be equally happy with the protection of a first line of air defence (let's not forget HMS Sheffield/Coventry et al). There may be elements of "Jack of all trades" about the SHAR, but is a third type of bomber in the light-blue inventory really necessary?

I realise an arguement that cites twenty plus year old conflicts is going to be slagged off... Nice toys, but could someone please explain why the RAF are still in the Harrier Force today?

... in coming!!!!

I thought the very same thing when flying over Cottesmore today. An aerodrome with a nice long runway - can the beloved 'bona jet' actually make it from one end to the other with any sort of a load without needing to refuel?

Too many Harrier mafia in high places to accept that the whizzy little thing has had its day?

Simplistic answer,

1. Jack of all trades, master of none. In the present environment a platform has to show it equals the ability of other dedicated platforms, else it stays on the deck not being used.

2. Range, payload and PGW ability dominate.

3. No one has the billions to replace a platform halfway through the planned life just because the threat has changed. Modify and muddle through.

Why are you people knocking things all the time?

The Harrier was and is a brilliant British invention

No other nation or aero company has come close to producing similar

It's the only ac the US have bought and developed (AV8B) apart from the Canberra (U2), from another country, which says a lot

Pierre
You need to go to an airshow and see a Harrier display to appreciate both the potential and versatiltaty of this remarkable flying machine

Beags
As an avid lover and pilot of aeroplanes, you surprise me with your comments. Take another pill and go to bed.

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!

B15

I think you'll find the Canberra became the B-57, not the U-2.

Apart from that, a brilliant invention the Harrier may be, but that doesn't answer the question of why the RAF need it. The only time the Harrier uses its VSTOL capability these days seems to be going on and off a ship, which leads to a whole new argument about whether they should be a Strike asset or a Fleet asset. But if you're just going to be using runways it's a bit over the top.

The Harrier has the capability to operate from short [relatively unprepared] strips using STOL, unlike the Tornado and other types that need a long, clean, runway.

So the GR7/9 can fly off a ship, carry out a strike and refuel/re-arm at a FOB which could be, for example, on a short piece of road.

If the fully-loaded ac launches from a carrier and does not complete the mission for some reason, it may not have the performance to land back on without jettisoning the stores; it can, however, land at a FARP [Forward Arming And Refuelling] point, thus saving munitions for re-use. This can be a spot, far forward [even forward of the FEBA], set up with the Tac Logs outfit, also refuelling and rebriefing from a Chinook or Herc refueller - Air Launched Arming And Refueling [ALARP] point.

Flexibility is the key to air power...

FJJP

Spot on mate!

I'm in your gang

Military jet noise, the sound of freedom!

RAF Harriers are still the mainstay you fool. Go anywhere at any time for any job. Look at the Afghan deployment for instance, extended once again because the Jag Fags and Tonka Plonkas can't use the poorly runway, ah didums, how versatile is that then.

As for the FOD issue, pah. All engines suffer roughly the same amount of 'erosion/impact damage', it's only because the mighty pegasus is so visable to even the daftest of monkeys that it gets picked up on servicings. Just because t'other Jets ecu's are so far down the arse end doesn't mean that FOD evaporates once it enters the intake.

eeeeeee lad, when god was giving out brains you were doing a handstand.

Pierre ...

Mate,

You are delusional. For FA2 in the ground attack role, say "Hawk", in almost every respect ('cept hoovering). In other words, not a serious wargoer.

The Crabs are breathing for the Fleet Air Arm (Finger?) for the forseeable future. A little gratitude would be more appropriate.

You should also note that, in capability terms, there is no comparison between your quoted Harriers from 'BAOR/BFG' days and GR7/7a GR9/9a. Do keep up.

Fair one, I assumed if there wasn't water surrounding it, it was a long runway!

Pierre/ORAC,

I'm not sure what your reason for starting/adding to this thread are but it does sound a little like sour grapes. You've received some very candid replies which all make sense if you (hopefully) digest them. To add:

1. During TELIC, JFH (there was one RN pilot) had ZERO (nil, none, no, not one) engine removal for FOD. The mighty fin up the road had 19. NINETEEN. If I knew how to make the capitals bigger I would. We also had 91% serviceability and 93% sortie completion rate. I welcome your thoughts on those stats.

2. The reason the Harriers are in Afghanistan is that the Fins could not operate, and can still not operate, from the available strip.

3. Much as it galls me to say, the comments about the FA2, once you pick out the wheat from the chaff, are correct. Multi role we were, but capability? Have a read of the many comments (mine included) in the well beaten dead horse the "Sea Jet" thread.

JFH provides just shy of 25% of the total UK strike force and is deployed on 50 % of the current UK ops. Do the maths as to "Why does the RAF have the Harrier today?"

Oh yes, Pierre. Questioning the Harrier? Questioning the JSF? Single seat envy?

Better payload/range than a Jag, more deployable than a Tornado, more useful than a SHar. So what if the STOVL trickery is largely an irrelevance nowadays?

But we ought to be keeping Jag, too. Cheaper to run than a Tornado or a Harrier, more deployable than a Harrier, more versatile than either. So what if the payload/range equation is a bit poor?

The U2 is not the same aircraft as the Canberra nor was it derived from it. The U2 was developed at the Lockheed Skunkworks in the early to mid 1950s. It is not a British design.

Great job on the Harrier though :ok:

and the DH4.

And the B-57 Canberra.

And the T-45 Goshawk.

And the C-27 Spartan.

And now the US101.

Looks like the WB-57 (operating for NASA) will outlive RAF Canberras...

(It's the only ac the US have bought and developed (AV8B) apart from the Canberra (U2), from another country, which says a lot)

I thought that in the 60's the US helped fund the peg!

As a designer the SHAR is a great airframe not too much plastic, bring back good old metal fuselages, although saying that the Har GR7/9 is a much more advanced fuselage then the SHAR .

FB11

Good to hear form you again - are you getting a fealing of deja vue too! All we need now is a fictitious scenario and a copy of Beachead!

Jackonicko

I don't see how you can say the Jag is more versatile than the Harrier. How is it more deployable too?
The advantage with the Jag that I can see is that we own the licence for it now and can develop all sorts of new toys such as Helmet Mounted Sight and fancy datalinks. If only we were allowed to fit such trickery into the Harrier or Tonka we could increase our capability even further.
The poor old Jag cannot operate in the conditions we find ourselves in today (hot and high) with anything resembling a warload. That is why the range/payload thing is so important.

Casper,

Your data link argument does not hold water. The Tornado (in the F3 guise) has an excellent link 16 capability and has for many years now. The GR4 is getting it soon-ish. The GR7/9 should get at least the IDM in the same timescales as the GR4.

It also seems to me that the GR7 is doing a good deployed ops job in Afghanistan.

Regards,

MB

Max, I agree with what you say, but why has a legacy aircraft that is being retired got better kit than our front line aircraft? It's all very well saying that we're going to get the kit, but we want it now.
I was only trying to find something nice to say about the Jaguar! ;)

Jag? I heard it's got plenty of power;) single engine ops to save fuel and the rest.....

Quote...

I beg to differ!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ex/Harrier.jpg

I took this at the Roundnice Airshow just north of Prague in June this year!

PP

Whilst i remain a staunch realist about retirement of the SHAR, let's not go calling it a Hawk with respect to it's A-G capability. It clearly cannot utilise PGMs but as for dropping dumb bombs (which still do exist...no seriously, they do) it can match any UK platform bar none.

No, not a 'save the Sea Jet' post but you must be polite and accurate about the Old Girl.

That's not strictly though true is it? As someboby else alluded to in this thread, The Tornados apparently had 19 engine changes during Telic whilst the Harriers had none? A questionable claim, but a claim none the less.

If FOD damage is only easy for "monkeys" to spot when it is as visible as the Pegasus is on the Harrier, then how did the "monkeys" spot the FOD damage on the deeply buried engines of the Tornados?

"All engines suffer roughly the same amount of 'erosion/impact damage"

What a complete and utter load of Ar$e!!

All Engines are subject to strict limits and tolerances regarding FOD damage, and that doesn't matter whether it is a Pegasus, or RB199. If the engine is damaged beyond limits, it is changed.

Surroundings will have an impact on the extend of erosion/impact damage. Are you suggesting that an engine from the Gulf will have a comparable amount of impact/erosion damage as an engine that has spent the last few years punching holes around Norfolk?

Harriers ARE susceptible to FOD, the major reason being the same as you imply it is spotted. There is an enormous fan not 4 feet above the ground, powerfully sucking in a huge amount of air. Is it unreasonable to suggest that a large amount of crap is going to be picked up by this swirling mass of air, and passed through the compressor?

Tornados are also affected by FOD, however, this would be vastly reduced if Thrust Reverse wasn't regularly employed below the 60kt minumum. Instead of being used as an alternative to the footbrakes!

Jacko,

If only you had a more up to date vision of the Jaguar, with it's multitude of sporadic leaks, numerous wiring problems, and labyrinth of age related cracks, perhaps you too would see it with Clear Tinted Spectacles:E


And that will do for this evening........



climbs off Sunlight soap box

Having had the pleasure of 5 albeit not to recent years on the HF in Germany.

When operating in the field, Sennelager etc...A FODDED (sp) Jet would only usually need a Fan change...not the entire engine.

Still took a day though.

The Harrier is more sensitive to sanded runways/taxiways than F-16s btw. (The F-16 is a hoover in it's own right)

Its important to note that although some engines are more FOD tolerant than others, most of the engines we operate are pretty robust (just look at the adour - well, the Mk 104 anyway). If FOD is visible and the damage is OOL and cannot be blended in situ, the engine will be changed. Although FOD is often found on strip, it is not always the cause for rejection and having FOD listed on a strip report can somtimes skew the analysis of any investigation into that rejection. With surge, for example, it is not easy to ascertain the exact cause when the engine is in bits in the bay, however, FOD is likely to be found at some stage within the engine especially if it is high life and is occasionally cited as a (if not the) contributary factor to the rejection.

As for "the Jaguar, with it's multitude of sporadic leaks, numerous wiring problems, and labyrinth of age related cracks". I totally agree. We've got our moneys worth out of the Jag but its on its last legs - most are pretty much held together with PRC.

If one were keeping the Jag Force (or a small part thereof), the sensible solution would be to take the 2,000 hr ground instructional GR1 jets from Cosford, give them a major, and convert them to 3As (which would cost less than the £450k per jet paid for the current 5-7,000 hr 3As, since many LRUs could be robbed). That this is possible has already been demonstrated (two ex-GI aircraft have been converted straight from 1 to 3A).

And even if you didn't do that solving the Jags leaks and wiring would cost far less, per airframe, than the new rear fuselages required to keep the GR7s and 9s in service.

Nor is it an 'either/or' - keeping an enlarged Jag unit would give the Harrier GR7/9 and GR4 fleets a sporting chance of making it to their planned OSDs, which would otherwise look difficult to achieve without very major expenditure, and would give the RAF a FJ that was cheaper and easier to rapidly deploy, with a smaller logs footprint and that can do recce, TIALD, PWIII, etc. at least as well as either of its complementary platforms.

Erm, don't you mean the C-23 Sherpa? The C-27 is a G.222.

Would either of those ex GI Jags you refer to be one of the Taxiable/Ground Running airframes Jacko?

As opposed to the mangled/hacked at/battered majority of ground instruction Jags at Cosford.

Having seen and worked around some of those training airframes that have been used for the past 20 years to train ham fisted 16 year olds the intricacies of complex aircraft maintainence, I think they would need a DAMN sight more than a major, and robbed LRU's to make them anything like serviceable.

Perhaps there are a few which have had their hydraulic / electrical systems kept in working order, but the majority of them are in a very poor state indeed. I do believe a study was actually carried out on the viability of re-introducing some of those aircraft into service, but was rejected on the amount of work that would be required, and ultimately, cost.

A great shame, as I actually quite like the Jag, as clearly you do yourself, but the realities of the situation mean that they have indeed had their day.

Think you'll find most of the GI Jags have major frame cracks which is why they're GI in the first place.They would require Frame replacement to make them airworty and it's simply too expensive. Bit like the major structural repairs required to keep the SHAR going which is why it was binned and the savings put into upgrading the younger GR7.

There are a number of recently retired Jags serving as GI airframes, and these do tend to have effectively irreperable Frame 25 damage, but there are also a shedload of ex RAFG GR1s, most of which have less than 2,000 FH on the clock, and which are in excellent condition, structurally. Two of the latter were converted to GR3A as a feasibility study, and the judgement was that the effort involved was no greater than for an in service GR1A/B - but that you gained a lot of airframe life. They did require a major, however.

India are extremely interested in these aircraft.

HOODED,

Think you'll find that the entire fleet has Frame 25 cracks, and that most of the GI fleet has far less extensive damage than the in service aircraft.

It is true that this is the reason they are GI aircraft, however, these aircraft were simply the first to show signs of it, and as it was feared to be potentially terminal, panic ensued, and the aircraft were cleared "one flight only" to their final destinations as instructional airframes. However, it was subsequently discovered that the cracking was not nearly as important as first suspected. With regular monitoring of these cracks, the Jag has continued for a very long time, and as I said earlier, most of the GI frame cracks are far smaller than serving aircraft.

Most of the panels, hoses, pipes, tanks, rest of the aircraft....etc etc... is in far worse condition however!!

Go to Kandahar-Thats reason enough!!!!!

Nah.
buoy15 got it right. Good for airshows.
Red noses anyone.:ok:

quote:

The U2 is not the same aircraft as the Canberra nor was it derived from it. The U2 was developed at the Lockheed Skunkworks in the early to mid 1950s. It is not a British design.

Strictly true. Indeed, Martin were asked to produce a developed variant of their licence-built RB-57 (i.e. the PR.3) for the requirement. But the Canberra PR.3 was the benchmark for high altitude recce at the time, what with Kasputin Yar and the world record attempts and all, so I'd always understood that Lockheed were "inspired by" the Canberra when developing the U2 in a remarkably short time frame.

Anyway, HAL, I came across an American writing on the Kasputin Yar mission who helpfully explained for his readers that the Canberaa was the "the British variant of the Martin B-57". So, the Canberra was really an American design all along.

Not sure I understand all this fuss about the Harrier. Would it help if it was renamed the Sea Harrier FR.9? (oh, of course, it's only single role...)

:hmm:

Jackonicko
Not wishing to slag off the Jaguar or it's pilots, but it cannot do recce, TIALD or PW3 as well as it's complimentary platforms....


Unless it's complimentary platforms are Cessna 152s
:ok:

At last something gets mentioned on MIL that I actually have in my logbook :ok:

Casper,

Ooh, I don't know.

With those two little hairdryer engines, it's certainly a lot quieter than its complimentary platforms when operating in a recce role ;) :p :p

Spotter alert!
The U2 used the Starfighter fuselage - both designed by 'Kelly' Johnson.

Also , on the first trip to Vigo Woods in '89, the GR5's went through the entire stock of mainwheels and outriggers in a couple of days on their first gravel excursion.
To my knowledge, no hoovers were killed due to ingestion of said gravel, but that was just before the funny bend in the fuselage was found just behind the hot air nozzles on ACMI in Deci.