The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

syscom3 · 10-28-2005, 11:05 AM

Changing an engine on a F15, F16, etc is far faster and easier than having to remove the wing from a Harrier then having to put it back on.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Changing an engine on a F15, F16, etc is far faster and easier than having to remove the wing from a Harrier then having to put it back on.

On a 16, yes, on a 15, if both engines have to go, it may be just as time consuming. After a 15 engine change, the engines have to be trimmed, individually and to each other - more time than a single engie aircraft, again another maintenance peculiarity inherent in the aircraft...

Glider · 10-28-2005, 12:03 PM

I was trying to find the TBO of a Pegasus to get a feel for how often this happens and of course how often you have to take the engine out.
Still looking for that but I did find the following.
I am sure we all agree that one of the more common reasons for having to remove an engine for repair is due to turbine blade damage.

The following is a press release re the awarding of a maintanence contract to Pratt and Whitney in 2002. Its interesting for two reasons.
a) They dont have to take the engine out any more and
b) It only happened 30 times a year across the fleet in the first place.

Pratt & Whitney wins maintenance contract for Rolls-Royce engines on Harrier fighters

FARNBOROUGH AIR SHOW 2002 - The U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has awarded a contract to Pratt & Whitney to provide maintenance support for Rolls-Royce Pegasus F402 engines that power AV-8B Harrier fighter aircraft flown by the U.S. Marines.

The follow-on contract is for high-pressure compressor blade repairs using blendable boroscope technology that can be applied without removing the engine from the aircraft. With an average of 30 engine removals per year, NAVAIR estimates that the process could allow 83 more weeks of aircraft usage per year, potentially saving more than $10 million U.S. dollars in maintenance costs.

Syscom. I should point out that the F15 and F16 are nearly a Generation later than the Harrier in design so I would expect them to be more maintainer friendly.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2005, 12:22 PM

When the F-16 and F-15 were being developed there were "Maintainability Engineers" who actually assisted engineers in making the aircraft maintenance friendly.

Boeing pick up on this when they developed the 767 - I believe this is now common practice...

syscom3 · 10-28-2005, 01:15 PM

Why im seemingly obsessed about this harrier wing/engine change time, is in the attack role, it will be peppered by flak, bullets, cannons, maybe even frightened ducks. Engine damage is not a possibility, it is an inevitablity.

The true mark of a great attack aircraft is its ability to take battle damage and fly home or how easy it is to repair something on the plane. The A10 can handle that. The Harrier is vulnerable to damage and if the engine is hit, well there goes your air support for 8 hours.

The other aircraft, while in the fighter bomber role, fly fast and high enough to minimize their exposure time.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Why im seemingly obsessed about this harrier wing/engine change time, is in the attack role, it will be peppered by flak, bullets, cannons, maybe even frightened ducks. Engine damage is not a possibility, it is an inevitablity.

The true mark of a great attack aircraft is its ability to take battle damage and fly home or how easy it is to repair something on the plane. The A10 can handle that. The Harrier is vulnerable to damage and if the engine is hit, well there goes your air support for 8 hours.

No - you bring up another aircraft - A-10 loiters at 250 knots, Harriers Attack at 400 knots. An A-10 is designed to be shot at....

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The other aircraft, while in the fighter bomber role, fly fast and high enough to minimize their exposure time.

400 kts (which the Harrier could fly) on the deck is pretty fast. The whole point there is "one pass then haul ass - you may think these aircraft will take a lot of ground fire, because of these speeds they actually don't.

syscom3 · 10-28-2005, 01:49 PM

if the A10 gets hit by something, it probably will keep on flying. If the harrier is hit by something, so long harrier.

We can call it an attack plane, cause anything that can carry bombs is an attack plane. But is it a good attack plane? Nope. Id even put the Skyhawk above it.

Cant handle damage, cant carry much ordinance, and cant carry it very far for that matter.

Glider · 10-28-2005, 01:55 PM

Syscom. The RAF whose Harriers operated in the front line obviously without much A10 of F18 support didn't lose a single plane. As FJ says one pass then bug out as an option works.
Traditionally the RAF have used different tactic to the USAF. We have always stuck close to the ground whereas the USAF tend to rely on operating at higher altitudes. There are plus's and minus's to both.

Engine damage in not an inievitability. Some hits in GA are inevitable its a very dangerous task but we tend to have more problems with AA gun fire rather than Missile as the normal operating height is no more than 100ft.

Attack speeds vary but I have taken part in exercises where we have come in at 50ft and 550kts using Hunters. Missiles tend to have problems locking on to you at that speed and height.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

if the A10 gets hit by something, it probably will keep on flying. If the harrier is hit by something, so long harrier.

We can call it an attack plane, cause anything that can carry bombs is an attack plane. But is it a good attack plane? Nope. Id even put the Skyhawk above it.

Cant handle damage, cant carry much ordinance, and cant carry it very far for that matter.

But it could take from a 20 x 20 pad...

An A-10 can't attack at 400 knots. The chances of hitting a Harrier are the same as any other aircraft - yes, it's somewhat vurnable, but so is a helicopter...

lesofprimus · 10-28-2005, 02:16 PM

The RAF partially tested its doctrine during the Falkland Islands war in 1982. It sent sixteen aircraft, the majority on container ships, that operated from forward bases on the islands after the land forces had secured the area. They were dedicated close support for those forces as they moved across the island. Even operating at the end of extremely long supply lines, the Harriers proved very effective in the close air support role. They also proved to be survivable. Port Stanley was defended by Roland and Tigercat radar guided surface to air missiles (SAM) as well as SA-7 and Blowpipe shoulder fired SAMs. SAMs claimed only one victim, a Sea Harrier downed by a Roland. There was also significant anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) which was more effective and scored numerous hits. Repeatedly, RAF Harriers repaired battle damage and returned to the fight. In all, only three RAF Harriers were lost to AAA or ground fire during the conflict.

The USMC doctrine at the end of the Vietnam War was designed to make the Marines the nation’s rapid expeditionary response force. The Marine Corps was designed to react quickly anywhere in the world, either as an independent force, or to provide and forced entry, followed by a hand-off to the US Army. Since the Marines had to be light and mobile, they could not use heavy armor and artillery, and depended instead on very responsive close air support to fill that gap. Much like the British, the Harrier fit well into this mold. It could operate from ship or from austere areas ashore. Its short range was not a critical problem, because it would always be in close proximity to the fighting ground units. The Marine ground forces also required fuel and ammunition so most of the logistic infrastructure needed to support Harriers at the front already existed. The unique requirements of aviation fuel and armament do neccesitate some grond personnel dedicated to Harrier operations.

The Royal Navy doctrine in the 1970s acknowledged the importance of force projection in the Cold War, and the value that American super carriers had in this role. However, cost was prohibitive. The Royal Navy recognized potential for the Harrier that no one else had. It could be operated from the Navy’s existing helicopter carriers, and even the Kestral had been tested in deck landing operations off the HMS Ark Royal in 1963. The vision on their part was in seeing the Harrier performing other than its intended roles. That vision resulted in a helicopter carrier with Harriers that could provide, on a smaller scale, the same force projection capability as an American super carrier. The Sea Harrier could perform air defense, anti-shipping, air interdiction, close air support, and reconnaissance functions, and would execute all these missions in the Falkland Island War in 1982.

The Royal Navy eventually deployed twenty-eight Sea Harriers for operations in the conflict, its air-to-air missiles being delivered only as the two Royal Navy carriers left for the fight. The crews trained themselves during the transit, and later shot down twenty-three Argentine aircraft, to include two Mirage, nine Israeli built Daggers, and seven US built A-4 Skyhawks, with no air-to-air losses. In several engagements, the Argentines fired the first missiles, before being shot down themselves, and on three different occasions, a flight of two Sea Harriers attacked larger formations and came away with multiple kills. Only two of the Sea Harriers that participated were lost to hostile fire, one to a Roland radar guided SAM, and one to automatic weapons fire.

The Argentine Air Force actually flew 82 jet aircraft in combat from mainland bases, plus 40 turboprop Pucaras off the island, and the Argentine Navy added thirteen more Skyhawks and Super Etendards. On two separate days, they managed to mass up to 56 combat sorties in an attempt to overwhelm the Sea Harrier defensive combat air patrols. In all the British had 28 Sea Harriers, and 14 RAF GR-3s. The fact remains that the Harrier was significantly outnumbered, yet performed well above most expectations. Without them, the British would have had little hope of forcing the Argentines from the islands. The development of ships designed to operate fixed-wing V/STOL aircraft has since given many nations the ability to project airpower, and has been called a "major revolution in maritime airpower."

The lessons to be learned have to do with how to adapt doctrine to best use a technological improvement such as the Harrier. The limitations of the new weapon system must also be considered. For the Harrier, the limitations were range and payload, both of which were significantly less that conventional fighters. The Royal Navy provided the best example of how to recognize capabilities that were not designed into a system, then adjust their doctrine to get the most return on their investment, at the same time, weighing the limitations that are incurred. This massive adjustment allowed the Royal Navy to project force in the Falklands campaign in a manner impossible only a decade before. The Harrier is certainly not a premier air superiority platform against first rate air forces, but the fact remains that without the vision and foresight of the Royal Navy that led to the development of the Sea Harrier, the threat to the British surface fleet during the Falklands War would have been far greater and may have prevented them from projecting military force in the Falklands.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2005, 02:18 PM

Great info Les!

lesofprimus · 10-28-2005, 02:24 PM

In modern combat, we'll focus for a moment on the VMA-311 "Tomcats." The squadron arrived in Iraq on November 13, several days into the battle, and started flying combat missions within eight hours of arrival. As an aside, the squadron made Al Asad its base of operations, former home of an Iraqi MiG-21 squadron. Arab lettering and unit insignia still covered the walls.

One of the AV-8B Harrier’s most valuable assets is a camera pod that was designed to guide bombs and can spot men and cars in almost any weather, at distances where subjects don’t know they’re being watched. The Harrier’s outstanding slow flight and hovering performance made it uniquely suited to employ its camera, then accurately deliver ordnance in minutes within 150 meters of friendly troops in Fallujah and other cities.

The Harrier also was heavily used during the assault. Major Andrew Hesterman, serving at the time as air officer for RCT-7, has said that of the over 170 airstrikes called in by RCT-7, half were delivered by Harriers. And, the RCT was calling ordnance drops within 150 meters of friendly forces.

This was a Marine-led assault with heavy Army participation on the ground, and mostly Marine, Navy and Army aircraft were employed.

While USAF assets were used, the USAF had the job of patrolling other cities while this fight in Fallujah went on. There was concern that the enemy would start trouble in other cities to draw resources away from the Fallujah operation. The USAF taking responsibility for responding to problems in the other cities assured that air resources committed to the Fallujah attack stayed committed there.

Sure sounds like a worthless POS to me.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2005, 02:25 PM

Yep - just worthless!

lesofprimus · 10-28-2005, 02:27 PM

Oh, and BTW,

Quote:

Cant handle damage, cant carry much ordinance, and cant carry it very far for that matter.

Has anyone ever heard of in-flight refueling, or am I the only one that knows a plane can stay up for days. Harriers were routinely refueled in mid-air during close air support evolutions...

lesofprimus · 10-28-2005, 02:47 PM

Heres a couple of pics of a Harrier that was damaged AND returned back to base...

A Harrier flying at 350 mph drops it ordinance, while a Navy SeaCobra flying at 80 mph fires his gatling gun...

Who do u think is more vulnerable???