It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harrier Jump-Jet discussion.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
We all know that the Harrier is about to go the way of the do-do with the F-35B S/VTOL variant, although I'm a little upset about that, even though the F-35 is an impressive aircraft, I've always liked the Harrier. I was watching the Military channel the other day, and they had the Top 10 Fighters of all time on there, the Harrier was around number 8 I believe. Anyways, they said that for the Harrier to have it's VTOL capability, it couldn't be supersonic, and it wasn't very maneuverable. Why simply could they not have designed a Harrier variant with 2 engines(I'm actually doing a design of this right now, for anyone that would like to see, I'm no aircraft engineer, it's just for fun.), or at least put a more powerful engine into the fighter, and perhaps give it more wing space to make it more nimble. There are quite a few things they could have done in my opinion to bring the Harrier frame into the 21st century. I guess the true answer is that technology must move forward, and the F-35 is the new direction.

Mostly just me ranting cause I like the Harrier XD




posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Now I'm not going to pretend to know what I'm talking about, but bear with me!


I believe that the Harrier is the way it is, is to keep it small enough to operate from aircraft carriers and smaller airfields that usually could not cater for jet aircraft.

Also, I think it's role is more chase off the enemy than actually take them on.

Someone will be able to explain it better than me though.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
40 years ago they wanted to make such an aircraft




but like every revolutionary aircraft of the time - it got cancelled.


www.harrier.org.uk...


ape

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
yah, the harrier's role is to back up military personell that are fighting on the ground and to provide air cover and fighter/bomber. the VTOL really caught th eyes of the marines because that fighting force is meant to be equipped and ready to fight in any terrain at any time in a heartbeat and the harrier backs them up nice for that role.

no way is it meant to do the brunt of the air combat but it can hold it's own. awesome aircraft IMO.

your idea rulez =)

[edit on 9-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 10-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I'll agree with that, I just wish the Harrier airframe would stick around for a while. It's versatile, and kicks serious butt. Again, me just ranting. Just like I'd rant about the YF-23 bieng a much better fighter than the F-22 (IMO) I just love that plane



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   
UGH...the harrier? that has to be the worst piece of junk in aviation existance. It kills more of its pilots then it does enemies on the ground! The maintenance is horrific as well.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
UGH...the harrier? that has to be the worst piece of junk in aviation existance. It kills more of its pilots then it does enemies on the ground! The maintenance is horrific as well.


Care to back that up? From memory, we lose more Tornado's than we have Harriers and thats just from the falling out the sky!

If you US types are losing pilots, then it's down to a training/maintainence problem.

It performed magically for us in the Falklands.



yah, the harrier's role is to back up military personell that are fighting on the ground and to provide air cover and fighter/bomber. the VTOL really caught th eyes of the marines because that fighting force is meant to be equipped and ready to fight in any terrain at any time in a heartbeat and the harrier backs them up nice for that role.


I think the idea being that if there were nukes flying from the Soviets, we could still launch aircraft from normal roads, woods etc rather than the glowing airfields which would most likely be first strike targets..

If you can land a helicopter somewhere, you can land a Harrier there too.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
UGH...the harrier? that has to be the worst piece of junk in aviation existance. It kills more of its pilots then it does enemies on the ground! The maintenance is horrific as well.


Care to back that up? From memory, we lose more Tornado's than we have Harriers and thats just from the falling out the sky!



here goes:

foi.missouri.edu...

www.findarticles.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Reading those articles makes me think it is the American-built, American maintained, American-flown Harrier that has the problems. See a common trend there?

Not having a pop, but you guys fly a different version that is built by McDonald Douglas, not the version that BAe produce for our chaps.

The RAF/RN Harriers are no where near as unreliable as what your USMC one's appear to be. Harrowing stories, none-the-less.

We've lost the odd one or two, here and there, to technical faults, but as I said, Tornado's fall out of the sky far more frequently than our Harriers.

If memory serves, since 1998, we've lost 4 (Harriers, that is), one of which was the aircraft clipping overhead power cables. We've lost more Tornado's since 2000. We have only lost 1 Pilot.

In combat, we have lost 0 aircraft, I believe. (may be wrong, but pretty sure of it)

I remember one story, a few years ago, of a Harrier that lost its canopy in mid flight.

The pilot managed to fly it back home, mind you, albeit a tad windier than he expected



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Topaz84
Anyways, they said that for the Harrier to have it's VTOL capability, it couldn't be supersonic, and it wasn't very maneuverable. Why simply could they not have designed a Harrier variant with 2 engines(I'm actually doing a design of this right now, for anyone that would like to see, I'm no aircraft engineer, it's just for fun.), or at least put a more powerful engine into the fighter, and perhaps give it more wing space to make it more nimble. There are quite a few things they could have done in my opinion to bring the Harrier frame into the 21st century. I guess the true answer is that technology must move forward, and the F-35 is the new direction.

Mostly just me ranting cause I like the Harrier XD


- Harriers are very manouverable at lower speeds - n, especially when using VIFFing.

- 2 engines means alot of balance problems when in the vertical landing stage. Getting two engines to produce exactly the same thrust would require control mechanisms that weren't around when the Harrier was first built.

- I'm sure incremental upgrades were made to the engine through the different variants (haven't checked though.

- Dunno if the wing was touched through the variants, I think it may have been for the last versions at least.


The harrier was a decent airframe... still is. But its sometimes better to start with a clean sheet and build on the knowledge gained from the old design and whatever has been learned in between. The JSF is much more capable than the harrier could ever have hoped to be.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The P1154 was a twin engined supersonic Harrier (for it was going to be called Harrier in service) and was going to be built in two very different versions.

These were the single seat P1154RAF, a sort of VTOL Jaguar, for close support and the two seat P1154RN carrier based fighter, operationally a VTOL F-4 Phantom, for want of a better description. Despite sharing the same designation they were actually two very different aircraft, for example the RAF model had short wings and a bicycle undercarriage (like the Harrier in fact) while the RN model carried a big AI radar, had longer, folding wings and a tricycle undercarriage with the rear units being mounted in streamlined fairings on the wing trailing edge.

The twin engines were coupled up so that one fed the front right and rear left nozzle and the other one vice versa, this was intended to avoid assymetric thrust problems in the event of a failure.

After the hopelessly complex RN model was sensibly killed off the F-4K was created to fill the gap and then when the much more realistic RAF model also died several months later the P1127 research aircraft was used as the template for the smaller and cheaper Harrier that we came to know, being developed as the P1127RAF but also adopting the chosen name for the extinct, land based, P1154.

Neither is the Harrier about to disappear, the GR.9 has only just entered RAF service this year will certainly be aound until at least 2020. It will take just as long for the USMC to bid farewell to the type too.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
UGH...the harrier? that has to be the worst piece of junk in aviation existance. It kills more of its pilots then it does enemies on the ground! The maintenance is horrific as well.


Just the usual "I cant believe any other country but the US designed something better" propeganda coming from the americans corner. Nothing new.

I suggest you take a look at your Ospreys track record before saying anything about the harrier, lol.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
In my own post I was tempted to hit back with 'Brewster Buffalo', but I refrained.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Hi,

Just a little correction on the P1154, it was infact a SINGLE engine aircraft using a Bristol Siddeley BS100 Vectored Thrust Powerplant. Very similar to the RR Pegasus used on the Harriers of today, but with one key difference- Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB)- essentially an afterburner in the front nozzles (normally fed with bypass air). This could only be used for shortish bursts but gave the engine almost 36,000lb of thrust with PCB and 26,000lb dry. These figures were confirmed on bench tests. Bear in mine this the mid 1960's and the latest Mk107 for the RAF's GR7A/9A only chucks out 24,500lb.
There was a proposal to exchange the BS100 for an adapted pair of Spey's at a late stage to try and apease the RN but it was rejected. The FAA version was cancelled and replaced by Phantoms, leaving only the RAF version which was later cancelled by the same Labour government that killed TSR2 and CVA01.

Reference-
Harrier Website



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
UGH...the harrier? that has to be the worst piece of junk in aviation existance. It kills more of its pilots then it does enemies on the ground! The maintenance is horrific as well.


You know, its sad but I don't have to look at a profile, or even ask you where you are from to know that you are American.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumpy2000
Hi,

Just a little correction on the P1154, it was infact a SINGLE engine aircraft using a Bristol Siddeley BS100 Vectored Thrust Powerplant......There was a proposal to exchange the BS100 for an adapted pair of Spey's at a late stage to try and apease the RN but it was rejected.


Yes stumpy you are almost completely right, I was being very unclear in my haste to reply.

I only say 'almost' because the twin Spey model was not proposed at a late stage, but in 1962. This was the twin engined version with crossover pipes I was thinking of, you are quite right though that the BS.100 powered model (which the RAF never wavered from) had a single engine. Both types were to use PCB to achieve supersonic performance and thrust vectoring for VTOL.


ape

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by stumason
I think the idea being that if there were nukes flying from the Soviets, we could still launch aircraft from normal roads, woods etc rather than the glowing airfields which would most likely be first strike targets..


yes im sure thats one of the options in regards to the original design and function but another option was to be able to back up fighting units on the ground very quickly in any scenario with the VTOL, since the soviet union dissolved the threat eliminated from soviet expansion the role of air support fighter/bomber has strengthened and has become the priority role.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Topaz84
...Anyways, they said that for the Harrier to have it's VTOL capability, it couldn't be supersonic...


IIRC there was a USMC Harrier engine upgrade in the mid to late '90s that would allow the aircraft to go supersonic, but it had to be just the right conditions - altitude, pressure, humidity, wind at your back, etc... and even then there were supposed to be some limitations put on the aircraft to prevent it from actually occurring in service. As far as Harrier maintenance goes, my uncle (career Navy pilot from late '60s to late '80s) state that the issue with so many of them crashing had to do with the training that the Marine pilots received - apparently it just wasn't very good. Supposedly the MAJORITY of the AV-8A's were lost due to accidents. He also said that the majority of the pilots had actually been helicopter pilots first.



[edit on 10-12-2006 by crusader97]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
IIRC the Harrier is subsonic because of the big exposed fan, which would handle a supersonic shockwave very badly, also the fuselage itself is strictly subsonic in its proportions. It has nothing to do with the engine power which, with a thrust ratio of more than 1:1 being vital if VTOL is to be achieved, is more than enough for supersonic flight in a suitable airframe. In any case, engine mods would be Rolls Royce's bag, not the USMC.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
IIRC the Harrier is subsonic because of the big exposed fan, which would handle a supersonic shockwave very badly, also the fuselage itself is strictly subsonic in its proportions. It has nothing to do with the engine power which, with a thrust ratio of more than 1:1 being vital if VTOL is to be achieved, is more than enough for supersonic flight in a suitable airframe. In any case, engine mods would be Rolls Royce's bag, not the USMC.


It was an article from AvWeek, and it was about an incremental engine upgrade that was USMC/McDonnell Douglas driven (I don't recall Rolls being involved, but they must have in some way). The aircraft was never meant to go supersonic, but the test pilot did so accidentally. I remember it occurred in the US, but I don't remember any other details as to where.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join