Harrier Jump-Jet discussion.

What did McDonnell Douglas know about engines? They were strictly an airframer, Rolls would certainly have been involved as Rolls Royce Bristol designed, developed and built every single engine on every single Harrier ever made. The idea that an engine upgrade would take place without their direct involvement is impossible. It is however entirely possible that the USMC requested an upgrade, but Rolls were continually developing the engine in any case and it is more likely that the improvements were accepted by the Marines after Rolls told them about it.

I have heard of Sea Harriers reaching mach 1, in a shallow dive and only briefly, but as the AV-8B/GR.5/9 models are significantly slower than the older models I would be surprised if one of those managed the feat. In any case, that is all a far cry from genuine usable supersonic capability, which is what I think the O-P was getting at. There have been several designs for Harrier derivatives operating at Mach 1.5-1.7 but none ever flown, the P1154's were only two of a whole series of such proposals from Hawker Siddeley, culminating in the 1972 Sea Harrier-like, so called 'AV-16' (picture an AV-8B with Sea Harrier FRS.1 style nose) before they moved on to all-new designs. McDonnell Douglas also proposed a supersonic research conversion called the AV-8SX (for Supersonic Xperimental, perhaps?) to Rolls Royce as a PCB pegasus test bed around 1979 but nothing came of it.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by waynos]

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

No, Im just saying its junk. Im glad they are replacing the damn thing. It has nothing to do with propaganda.

You think the only fixed wing VTOL combat aircraft ever successfully deployed, which came out of the Falklands conflict where it faced mach 2 capable Mirages with a 28-0 combat record in its favour and was the *only* combat aircraft it was possible for Britain to deploy, a piece of junk? Is the USMC mentally retarded for keeping a piece of junk in service for 35 years? And one they had to import to get hold of! If you want to define junk then try looking at the XFV-12A. That sucker couldn't even fly.

You think the only fixed wing VTOL combat aircraft ever successfully deployed, which came out of the Falklands conflict where it faced mach 2 capable Mirages with a 28-0 combat record in its favour and was the *only* combat aircraft it was possible for Britain to deploy, a piece of junk? Is the USMC mentally retarded for keeping a piece of junk in service for 35 years? And one they had to import to get hold of! If you want to define junk then try looking at the XFV-12A. That sucker couldn't even fly.

Personally I don't see what advantage VTOL offers (for the US) over STOVL in the greater scheme of things. The Harrier sacrifice WAY too much capability to be VTOL capable, in terms of A2A fighters it's not up there. And the F-35B is not VTOL capable with a full tanks of gas and a combat weapons load, it will be tested in the VTOL configuration but you will not see it doing that in combat. Also, the F-35 IMO is a great improvement over the harrier, range, speed, avionics/sensors, stealth, weapons, maneuverability etc... so I'm glad the USMC is switching over, I know they are.

Originally posted by johnsky

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

Errrr. The Osprey isn't exactly in service.

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

How do you know he's American? That's just the usual American stereotypes coming from Brits.

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.

Do I have to look at your profile to see that you're a brit?

If you see a silly post, just correct it instead of waging on about what country the come from, PLEASE.

As for the discussion, yeah, it's a great plane with a distinctive sound. Just after vertical landing it sounds really weird :S

Ok, I owe all the harrier fans an apology. I am not on top of all the recent avaition tech., so please forgive my little display of ignorance. I didnt realize that it was the American modifications to the jety that were causeing all the problems.

Ooh, you're so sharp its a wonder you don't cut yourself

I don't think anyone is saying the US mods are causing any problems. I think there was a problem with US training methods which caused a lot of accidents by comparison with British training methods, but even then only in the early days and I'm sure it was sorted out years ago.

The thing to remember about the Harrier is that it was the first (and currently still is the only) fast jet to offer those kinds of capabilities. Now whether those capabilities are actuially needed or not is a separate argument but when you are introducing a completely new way of doing things for the first time then there are going to be problems (V-22 development being a case in point). All I am saying here is that dismissing the type tasked with solving all those operational problems as 'junk' is completely unfair. Without the Harrier you would see exactly the same issues rearing their heads on the F-35B as that one would have to be first, assuming the STOVL aspect was addressed at all. The Harrier has served perfectly well since 1969 in all its models and is not nearly so bad as a few incompetent pilots or govt bean counters would have you believe.

Westy;

Personally I don't see what advantage VTOL offers (for the US) over STOVL in the greater scheme of things. The Harrier sacrifice WAY too much capability to be VTOL capable,

The Harrier has been operated as a STOVL aircraft, rather than a VTOL, ever since it first entered service with the RAF, the AV-8B's and GR.5/9 models of todayare just as incapable of VTOL with a useful load as the F-35B is so the Harrier sacrifices nothing in this respect. The Harrier only really uses VTOL at air shows, see also the Royal Navy's ski Jumps to further enhance the Harriers capabilies in STOVL operations.

in terms of A2A fighters it's not up there.

Except that the Harrier was the first fighter to deploy TVC in combat and was not shot down in A2A combat, as the F-15 fans always tell us, let the record speak for itself. The F/A.2 was also equally capable at BVR engagements thanks to its Blue Vixen radar (from which CAPTOR evolved) and AMRAAM armament.

Now if you are comparing against the latest designs, quite so, which why a replacement has been developed.

Also, the F-35 IMO is a great improvement over the harrier, range, speed, avionics/sensors, stealth, weapons, maneuverability etc... so I'm glad the USMC is switching over, I know they are.

Yes, absolutely, and I'm sure the RAF and FAA feel the same way. But that does not make the Harrier 'junk' any more than the appearance of the F-22 makes the F-15 'Junk'.

Waynos.... Was there a concept harrier with twin tails like Hornets??

saw a pisc somewhere some time ago i think it hwd sidewinders on wingtips???

HSA, and later BAe, schemed several twin fin V/STOL concepts, including FSW anf X-wing layouts in the lead up to their participation in JSF but none of these were based on Harrier directly.

Your description reminds me most of this curious Harrier/F-35 hybrid style design from Avpro, is this it?

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Ok, I owe all the harrier fans an apology. I am not on top of all the recent avaition tech., so please forgive my little display of ignorance. I didnt realize that it was the American modifications to the jety that were causeing all the problems.

An American with sarcasm.... Who'da thunkit?!

I didn't think you were being sarcastic at first, but then it clicked.

Honestly though, it stands to reason. The USMC Harriers drop out the sky, get shot down and your pilots keep dying. You claim they are a nightmare to maintain.

But the RAF/RN Harriers function as good as any other aircraft, have an excellent combat record and we've lost 1 pilot (through his own error..flew into some cables). Our maintainence crews have never complained about the Harrier. In fact, it is a much loved aircraft.

Logic dictates that if your having problems and we are not, then the issue lies with the user, not the machine.

Originally posted by stumason
Logic dictates that if your having problems and we are not, then the issue lies with the user, not the machine.

and your logic would be correct, either the Marine Corps needs to desist in their modifications, or get the plane right from the source.

Originally posted by waynos
Except that the Harrier was the first fighter to deploy TVC in combat and was not shot down in A2A combat, as the F-15 fans always tell us, let the record speak for itself. The F/A.2 was also equally capable at BVR engagements thanks to its Blue Vixen radar (from which CAPTOR evolved) and AMRAAM armament.

I suppose it would be pointless to argue that I could of probably flown better than the Argentine pilots in comparison to British pilots since the same goes for every A2A engagement (even US ones), so yes, let the record stand. But I will still argue that the Harrier was not among the top A2A fighters (in terms of capability) back in the day.

Contrary to popular belief, the Argentine fighter pilots weren't idiots, but your point is valid none the less, it has often been said (and I wont argue) that if the planes were swapped and we flew Mirages we would still have won.

The point about the Harrier though is that it is a ground attack aircraft, not a fighter, even though Navy needs saw A2A requirements foisted upon it. And yet it still did the job it was asked (but not designed) to do. So another reason why it cannot be 'junk' is established


Still, I can understand Americans being loathe to give any credit to this invention, seeing as the American idea of the way to make a VTOL fighter was to stand a plane on its tail and put a big propeller on the front. Ingenious guys

(you know I'm joking don't you)

[edit on 11-12-2006 by waynos]

Hey it worked didn't it? We even had giant hooks so we could hang the aircraft on a mobile platform. BTW, to give credit where it's due without the pioneer work done on the Harrier and other SVTOL aircraft the F-35B would not have happened as it did.

American idea of the way to make a VTOL fighter was to stand a plane on its tail and put a big propeller on the front. Ingenious guys

Yeah, exactly, a aviation company shows what 300 million people are like.

But hey, atleast it looks cool.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by PisTonZOR]

*Yeah, exactly, a aviation company shows what 300 million people are like.*

Of course it does, everyone knows that everything that happens in America has to be 'the will of the people', even silly aeroplanes, or should I say 'airplane's', its the brits who make silly aeroplanes.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
HSA, and later BAe, schemed several twin fin V/STOL concepts, including FSW anf X-wing layouts in the lead up to their participation in JSF but none of these were based on Harrier directly.

Your description reminds me most of this curious Harrier/F-35 hybrid style design from Avpro, is this it?

Thats the one!!!!!!!!!!
Harrier/F-35 and should be supersonic

Sorry that I don't have much to add to the subject, but I just came across this vid on youtube. Thought i'd share it since it fits the subject of the thread. Harrier low fly-by

EDIT: Just noticed this one too.

Note a bit of swearing in both vids.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by jra]