Sea Jet
 

I haven't read about the Sea Harrier (currently best BVR fighter there is) 4 ages. Somebody must have something (nice!) to say about this smashing little fighter, surely.

No. The PPRUNE Thought Police would like me to make a longer reply. So, here it is again. No.

The Harrier is the most fun aircraft I've ever flown, the Sea Jet (FRS1) is the best of the Harriers. It combines the handling qualities of the earlier marks with the stability of the later varients. If only they could have put the 11-61 into it. It turned the GR5 into a lightweight GR3..............just imagine what it could have done for the Sea Jet!

I can't think why you guys out there keep knocking it.....a little envy creeping in perhaps?


A

Shhhhhhhhh! You might wake up WE Branch Fanatic!!!

Ali barber,

You just got in before me. Fancy a sweepstake on what time it will be before he kicks off..... again!

TR

Wasnt WE Branch Fanatic a chopped WAFU ?

He's probably taking time researching, by un-sticking the photo pages of his Observers Book of Sea Jets in order to prepare his penny-worth !!

Peter - very naughty suggestion, old chap. However, I had been thinking much the same myself!

Much as some enjoy a bit of widdle-extraction from WEBF, you can't help but admire his enthusiam and tenacity in sticking up for the Sea Jet.

But it's rather reminiscent of the attitudes shown by some old cavalwy wedgiment bwigadier twying to keep his horses after the first tanks appeared on the scene;)

The horses never went, merely parked up in a green field so they can put on displays for the Royals and the public. The SHAR will be much the same.
Fancy a scotch at the Royal Hoverers Club ?

Now now boys, you shouldn't knock it until you've flown it.....I still feel there's a bit of envy creeping in......

A

As someone who was lucky enough to get his hands on the T4 a few times I have to say that flying the Harrier was the most exciting thing I have ever done with my trousers on. Half an hour at low level and 480kt in Germany without ever going about 250' is amazing - and so is taking off and landing on tiny little tin strips in a pine forest.

I still remain to be convinced of it's effectiveness as a weapons system - it was described to me by a Sqn Ldr on 4Sqn as an "expensive artillery piece" because all that gear could only deliver 2 CBUs or 2 x 1000lb-er.

Great at airshows, though.

Moggie
Try flying it with your trousers off
(sorry couldn't resist it!)

FRS 1 was a pretty-looking jet. Did the biz in the Malvinas pretty well. But F/A 2 is a typically ugly BWoS product - surely it could have been built to look less like something produced by a 6 year old modeller who had sawn the nose off a model Harrier FRS 1 and stuck on the Phantom radome he happened to have in his bits box... Or maybe that's exactly what 't Bungling Baron did - and then bellowed "Eh oop Seth, send this model which our young Jethro has joost made to 't boogerrs at 't Soft Sootherrn Werrrks an' get 'em to knock up a jet for 't lads in 't Navy" .

Personally I preferred GR1 or even P1127 displays - the GR7 display is so b£oody noisy and goes on for too damn long;)

Very clever design, the Harrier. I'm told that it's wonderful, even 'bona' to fly. But is it a viable 21st Century weapon system?

Ooooohhh Beagle........John Farley's going to have you for that. ;)

The temptation was too much - so much for self control.

BEagle see http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/JSF_HarrierIII.htm.

As for the Sea Jet - see.....

Target Lock: Sea Harrier : Origins

Navy News - News Desk - News - Rockin' all over the Ark
Navy News - News Desk - News - Harriers put through paces in America
Navy News - News Desk - Feature - Harriers cross Atlantic for US training mission
Navy News - News Desk - News - Navy squadron visits Poland

I accidently stumbled across this page on the RN website after clicking on the wrong thing. Don't you think the paragraphs under "The Future" are interestingly worded? Time for reading between the lines I think....

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/content/172.html

Consider this interview with the First Sea Lord...

http://www.warshipsifr.com/pages/int..._alanWest.html

Also The Falkland Islands Campaign of 1982: A Case Study And Lessons For

Edited yet again because I forgot a link!!

Edit (Sept 2013): Things would get much worse in 2010, post the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Following the retirement of the Sea Harrier, carrier skills faded as the Harrier was committed to Afghanistan leaving empty decks, then just as things started to improve, Harrier got axed. Some suggested that if Sea Harrier had still ben in service things may have been different.

See the thread here: Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers"

:ugh::ugh::{

Good post, WEBF
;)

WEBF,

Welcome back :ok:

..............mmmmmmmmmmmmm

The idea of an engine failure leading to a no-trouser ejection does not bear thinking about. Imagine coming down in a pine forrest!

maxburner

Take a look around you - this is PPRuNe country. Accuracy is important in flight test so I suggest you sharpen up.

For everybody else, there is so much that could be said regarding some of the incorrect SHAR info that floats around (especially on WEB’s first link) that one could make a career out of correcting it all. But the hell with that, life is too short.

For me, the most significant thing is that the SHAR's most vociferous critics never mention its most diabolical feature. I suspect this says a bit about how much they actually know about the wriggly machine but let us not get into that. The nozzle lever (the said diabolical feature) means there are two things for the left hand to grab so it is only a matter of time before you move the wrong one. However, 40 plus years ago there was just no other way to do the desirable vectored thrust thing. Since then generations of pilots have been trained up to the task and compensated for the deficiencies in the basic design concept - most of the time.

In 1971 I went to the first RAE meeting where boffins outlined a way ahead to simplify the pilot’s task. I got very excited and thought 18 months should sort that. In fact it took until 1999 before I flew software in the VAAC where I felt you needed zero training beyond a PPL to fly any manoeuvre involving jet lift. Thank goodness the JSF pilots will be properly served. Quite seriously, until you have flown a fast jet where all you have to do is pull back on the pole to go up AT ANY AIRSPEED then you have not experienced low work load.

Of course BEagle is right to question whether a forty year old concept has much sensible service life remaining. Especially when the hottest bit of the machine is positioned at the CG. It must be nasty in any fast jet to have your IR defences penetrated and as a result loose a chunk off your back end, but surely this is as nothing compared to taking a direct hit right behind your own pink back.

As the original poster said the SHAR has a BVR system that is the one to beat even today, but thanks to years of under investment we must agree it is mounted in a knackered airframe that is shoved around by a worn out donk. Unlike the kit in the GR9.

John
There's alot of words in your post that contradicts your words in books. I'm sorry to read your words such as "diabolical".
The Harrier (non Mc D), as far as I understand it, is a piece of engineering genius unique on this planet inspite of some misgivings (Shar cockpit is a fine example of ergonomics gone wrong). The Harrier is now past its sell by date however that should not detract from its conceptual brilliance. Well done to all those that were involved with the Harrier/Kestrel in its early days.
Harry says "Hi" by the way.
FEBA

Well said John. The real sad thing for me is that it took some 14 years to get the 11-61 into the GR Harrier, with constant lobbying from both operator and seller alike. R-R also did a dry fit of the 11-61 into the Sea Jet, and it worked fine.

With a bit of application, and some money (although cost of ownership would be reduced) we could have a much more effective fighting aircraft in an 11-61 powered Sea Jet while we wait for the JSF.

A

FEBA

Please do thank Harry. If anybody was Mr Nozzle Lever it was Harry. Of course some things (including the nozzle lever) were brilliant at the start, but 40 years on standards have moved ahead and we have to adjust the criteria we use to say things are OK today. I thought Ralph Hooper (who conceived the airframe in 1958) was God until 1979 when he started to argue against the use of fly-by-wire. Times had moved on in those 21 years (the F16 had been flying since 1971) and it was no longer right to say simplicity was everything. In 1979 it was smart to complicate and use FBW flaps to increase TO performance with the same thrust. Smart because the benefits outweighed the possible failure issues. In the early Harrier days bombs were dumb, pilots had skill limits and targets were missed. Today bombs are complicated, pilots need less (aiming) skill and targets are hit.

Airbedane

I understand your enthusiasm for putting the latest engine in the SHAR, but in reality the SHAR intake would have throttled this big donk something rotten. In the B and the 9 it has an intake designed for the extra mass flow. As it was, in 1982, it took 3 mods to the B intake (and several more to the compressor) during flight test before we got an intake/engine combination that could accept all the AOA that the big LERX airframe could offer without surge.

I hope nobody will ever doubt my appreciation of the Ralph Hooper’s and Gordon Lewis’s (Mr Pegasus) of this world. They had the simplicity/reliability/lean on the pilot compromise just right for the first 20 years. But that does not mean it is still the way to go today.

Regards

John

I've watched too many SHAR pilots come back to mum at night with no googles, poor ergonomics and zip fuel for a go around; and have had nothing but total admiration for the guys that fly them and maintain them.

However, what would the shape of the Falklands War been if we had a true carrier, especially with AEW coverage for the fleet? we cannot turn back time, but without the political clanger that cancelled Ark's replacment, surely the '82 thing would never happened ?

The RN not having the legacy of a mud-moving aircraft for 'Royal', would there have ever been a Sea Jet ?

John,

I agree on the intake issue with the SHAR, but the mods are not that great. In any event, the SHAR fails at high temperature as the thrust of the (-106, I think) falls off markedly. The 11-61 is flat rated to a much higher temperature, so the engine could be limited to the existing mass flow to allow effective higher temperature ops.

Further, the surge margin of the 11-61 is way ahead of the -106, so that doesn't become an issue, either.

I accept that it's all wishfull thinking, and also that we must forge ahead, but while we wait and wait for these future projects to come to fruition, the boys on the front line need all the help they can get. The curent SHAR is heavy and ineffective in high temps. the 11-61 would have greatly increased the aircraft's effectiveness while we still wait for JSF.

A

Airbedane

Agreed all that. But the time to have done the deed was 8-10 years ago. Hence my comment about under investment. It is a fact of life that certificating the aircraft with the 11-61 sitting behind a different shape of nose to the B as well as the intake issues would have been made a big job (as opposed to just dropping the thing in the engine bay and changing a few couplings etc) and people did not make a strong enough case then. If it had been done then would it have been sensible to ignore the cockpit internals? And so it goes on and on. Min change (however valid) is v difficult stuff to push through and manage. As it happens and with hindsight we have been lucky and the RN have not actually needed an air defender since the Falklands. Let us hope their luck holds. If it runs out then the sailors lives will depend on the RN of the day saying, sorry we cannot do that job, we do not have the kit.

Regards, John

I hope the Argentinian politicos are not reading this thread!
When is the navy to get a decent AEW ?
FEBA

Shortly after the Malvinas war, I was told that there had even been some show interest in the old AEW Gannet lurking in a hangar at Leuchars.......what would it take to get it flying again and what sort of a deck would it need!!

John,

You're certainly right when you say the 11-61 should have been put in the Sea Jet some 8 - 10 years ago, albeit with the limitations discussed above. It's a sad fact that R-R were pushing as hard with the Navy to buy their engine as they were with the RAF. It's taken the latter 14 years to see the light and put it in the GR9!

Best Wishes,
A

It was the lack of AEW in the South Atlantic that forced the hasty conversion of the Sea King. In the interim they used Andy as a decoy!!!
Time for a change eh!

I think the upgrade to the FA2 (which was meant to include enhancements to the cockpit and avionics as well as the improved engine) had been in the pipeline for some time - at least that is what the following suggest:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/07/0041914.htm
http://production.investis.com/baesy...ngs/2002-02-05
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cac...n&ie=UTF-8</a>
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/p...sus/detail.htm

The following exchange in the Commons is also of interest:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/20717-14.htm

If there is no need for dedicated naval air defence, then how come various Navies have been trying to obtain it? And we still train for defending a task force......

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3857.html

As for the performance of the Sea Harrier in warm climes, we have operated it in the northern Persian Gulf/Iraq, and in the 2001 exercises in Oman, plus of course the Adriatic. India has operated it for many years in the Indian Ocean. Thailand and India (and possibly other Middle/Far Eastern nations which tend to be hot) are interested in buying it in its current state.

Why won't the Government come clean and admit that the SDR and the concept of expeditionary warfare have been consigned to the bin? Not just talking about the SHAR here.

What changes in 2006 to remove the need for air defence? Could it be that it is election time, and the Government don't want a military disaster or a crisis we can't respond to before they have secured a third term (God forbid) in office?

Perhaps the worst thing is that it will coincide with a gap in shipborne defences, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm. You couldn't make it up!!

Would an Admiral who said "No, we cannot do it" be listened to? Or would No 10's inner circle over rule him? I'm not convinced that the safety and welfare of members of HM Forces is seen as important.

WEBF

Sadly, there is enough evidence around from over the years to make that a perfectly reasonable comment. I hope you are wrong, but would not put much money on it.

It is only too easy to loose sight of the simple fact that governments pay and design their armed forces. This means it is impossible to avoid a conflict of interest between any government and its MOD. It takes strong and good men on both sides if the system is to work even well, let alone perfectly.

WEBF
Please read your PM's
FEBA

So - anyone got any idea exactly what defence policy is now? Like almost everything else, this govt. has started with good ideas and lost direction, grip, will.

WEBF

Get thee down to thy local branch of thy most right-wing political party with a reasonable chance of gaining representation, and become involved in it.

I am now many years removed from the politics of the UK so I cannot advise who this may be; are the Conservatives still a realistic prospect for future Governence of Britain?

The woes of the Defence Forces are political in nature, and so will be their salvation.

I commented once, a while ago now, and in connection with your untimely demise from Her Majesty's service, that those who are talented, genuine, and committed (or words to that effect) will always be able to make a contribution, even if the nature of this contribution differs from that which they had assumed would be the case.

If you can put the same energy into finding the political solution to the state of Britain's defences as you have put into the debate concerning the fate of the SHAR, you will probably achieve a result of tangible good, and in all probability, be remembered for it.

You have made this issue your own, my good fellow, and in metaphysical terms, you are now, at least partly, responsible for it. Your approach from here on in will be your making, or your downfall.

Go boldy forth, WEBF. You have great support, much of it unspoken; you are committed, informed, and most important of all, you are right. Take the wise counsel which has been offered here by many posters these past couple of years, and turn it into reality.

Preaching to the converted may have given you a blooding, but it is pointless, and ultimately, a waste of your talents and potential.

Have faith; and go do the real thing.

You know you want to - and we know you can.

:ok:

Advice Balancing
 

WEBF
This is not good advice, although the rest of Blue Wolfs' post is.

Try the Tories they may be interested as the timing of a presentation of your (and the national interest) concerns will be very important. Suggest you start now so as to arouse oppostion interest at the end of the Hutton enquiry. The journos that regularly contribute to this forum should take note (Jacko !!) there's a promising story here of incompetance at the MOD.
Mr Hoon should be publicly confronted with this.
Good luck and fair seas to you.
FEBA

Prior to clicking on this thread a few minutes ago, there had been 3105 views on this thread.

I do not believe for a second that threads such as this are looked at solely by signed up PPRuNers - anyone on the net can look at PPRuNe. I understand that amongst the audience are a number of journalists, academics, and I would imagine, politicians and/or their researchers. This is one of the things that makes PPRuNe such a potentially valuable asset. When I post on PPRuNe it is this audience that I usually have in mind, rather than the serving/ex serving military that are to be found on this forum.

I registered on PPRuNe and started posting away to contribute to the debate about the Sea Harrier. A search of my postings will reveal that this was my main topic of discussion back then. This is an issue that has interested me for years. Much of my knowledge of defence and naval things in particular has come from reading such books as One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward, Task Force (now being printed under a different title) by Martyn Middlebrook, Sea Harrier Over The Falklands and many others. It also came from my family (in particular my father), careers booklets, media coverage (I've lost count of the number of documentries I have seen that were about the problem of naval air defence - including some very good ones in the last couple of years, including Exocet on BBC2 in July(?) 2001, Going Critical in late 2001 on Channel 4(see below) and The Falklands: Exocet! in January 2002, also on Channel 4, and of course older programmes from the 80s and 90s. Certain elements of my education were directly related too - particularly when I found myself being taught an overview of Electronic Warfare by a (ex RN) person who had been involved in the post conflict studies of dealing with the air/missile threat at sea. Equally illuminating was my contact with members of HM (and on occasion other) Forces. All of this information is freely available - my function is solely to point to it.

See Going critical || HMS Coventry

BlueWolf and FEBA, to return to your points, yes I did (last year and ongoing) attempt (with some sucess) to raise the issue with my own MP (who acted on the issue for me) and also with other Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. Both opposition parties are opposed to the loss of organic air defence and have frequently clashed with the Government in parliament over this issue.

Unfortunately they do not have an adequate response to the Goverment's capacity for spin or distorting the truth. Talking of spin, did anyone ever find out who was responsible for that letter to the Times last year from two officers who do not exist?

Meanwhile, the Sea Harrier continues to perform well in exercises....

Navy News - News Desk - News - Sea Harriers join Flying Fish

PS See also the CVF thread(s) as this is relevent.

PPS Does anyone know why this page of the thread, and the first one, doesn't fit on the page neatly since I posted this? Anything I can do about it?

Tories all talk no spending.

Hermes 82, Frontline First...

"Tories all talk no spending"

AND; Bulwark 81, Invincible sale to Oz 81, Endurance, Fearless, Intrepid and Hermes 81 and slash surface escorts. With the exception of Bulwark the only thing that stopped them doing the rest was a certain expedition to the 'Malvinas' from a nearby mainland.

On top of this they prevaricated for YEARS over actually ordering the SHAR in the first place, it was eventually ordered by Roy Mason, the LABOUR minister of Defence........................

Politic Real
 

Proone
Since when has the politics of today have anything remotely to do with the past.
Remember A WEEK IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS

FEBA,

"Since when has the politics of today have anything remotely to do with the past"

Because the Tories have been pulling this particular stunt for decades, nay generations!

"We must build up our defences" shouted the blonde handbag merchant in opposition. She was elected in 1979 and the first Defence cuts hit in 1980!

It is relevant today because under IDS there is a policy of massive reductions in Public spending (£16 BILLION!) AND tax cuts, so you can bet your bottom dollar that if we ever let that lot rule again the Defence budget would be slashed!

Remember 1957!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!