Jump Jet: The Secret History of the Harrier

[Mike Pryce]

I cannot wait for your next book Mike, just finnished mine a few days ago and it was excellent five stars.

Thanks! So glad you enjoyed it.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Where does the " sp.107" designation come from ? It is outside the usual Hawker numbering system. Special projects ? Asking this, wondering about hypothetical Sp.106 or Sp.108...

Study Project.

They were things Ron Williams thought would make a good 'project after next.' He had been seconded into the Advanced Projects Group at Kingston, with other staff from the wider HSA, and thought the 'Hawker' team could try a bit harder, when he went back to work with them on the P.1154RN.

When the P.1127 and P.1154 were active, and later when the Kestrel became the P.1127(RAF), most of the team were busy with real planes, so there were fewer P. numbered projects for the 'next' aircraft, giving Ron his chance to push for longer-term projects. They ended around 1968 due to a design reorganisation. One of the last SP designs fed into the Hawk.

 

[Archibald]

Thanks !

 

[Mike Pryce]

I dug out a few SP numbers:

SP.104 - faster (hotter PCB), joint service version of P.1154RN, 1964

SP.105 - STOL version of Kestrel,1964

SP.115 - Harrier with two nozzle Pegasus and 1x RB189 lift jet, became P.1175, 1967

SP.117 - Straight wing trainer, became P.1182 Hawk, 1968

 

[Mike Pryce]

Some more:

SP.113 - Supersonic land/ship V/STOL aircraft. Like a P.1154/Harrier hybrid but with long span, high aspect ratio wings and u/c units in wing pods. 1965

SP.115 - Subsonic V/STOL. Harrier-like, with all the problems ironed out (e.g. raised cockpit, lowered engine nozzles). 1966

SP.114 - low cost strike aircraft. Subsonic, like an AMX but with Hunter intakes, 1965

SP.119 - VTOL subsonic ground attack, like a Hawk/Hunter mix (low-mounted wing) with various wing sizes to reduce T/O run. Late 1968

 

[Mike Pryce]

I am launching Jump Jet in London at Imperial College on Thursday 22nd October at 2pm.

The event is in-person and online. All welcome to register.

There will be a discussion about the book and a Q&A.

For those physically attending, the plan is to go and look at the first Hawker P.1127 and Alan Turing's computer in the Science Museum after. Both play a big part in the book.

Further details and registration are on this Imperial College page:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/events/211613/jump-jet/

 

[BigD]

Amazon US actually has physical copies of the book in stock. Considering how indescribably bad they usually are at getting UK-published books in stock within a year of their official release date, I'm tempted to see if there's been any recent planetary alignments I may have missed.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Amazon US actually has physical copies of the book in stock. Considering how indescribably bad they usually are at getting UK-published books in stock within a year of their official release date, I'm tempted to see if there's been any recent planetary alignments I may have missed.

Publishing is eternally mysterious but I am glad to hear US buyers can now get the hardback direct.

The book has quite a lot of directly US-relevant content. See https://www.twz.com/air/the-hidden-history-of-americas-harrier-jump-jets

 

[Scott Kenny]

Just got my copy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Amazon US actually has physical copies of the book in stock. Considering how indescribably bad they usually are at getting UK-published books in stock within a year of their official release date, I'm tempted to see if there's been any recent planetary alignments I may have missed.

Right?

 

[Mike Pryce]

Those who've read my book will have seen the 'stealthy' P.1216-53.

In today's terms it is barely stealthy at all, but one of the striking things I found in the research for the book was just how different UK doctrine was from the USAF. No idea of fighting your way into an IADS like an ATF/F-22. Instead, the belief was even a super stealthy design (which the UK had started to look at) would be seen over central Europe, with its mass of enemy radars, so low flying was still essential. Even the seemingly much stealthier BAe P.125 had external weapons under the fuselage, assuming radars would not be looking up from 200 feet below.

To cope with the radar density at low level the SRARM missile project was hoped to muster a weapon that could go toe-to-toe with an SA-15 system and take out the vehicle, and possibly the missile too. The same with bigger SA-10/SA-11 missiles coming in from on high. It would also be able to take out MiG-29s before they could launch a semi-active missile, or during the engagement, killing the illuminator.

Once the threat changed, and perhaps once the F-117 was flown by exchange pilots, the view of the future changed, and doctrine with it. This 'hybrid' stealth approach fell away.

The reason for my rambling is I find this other view of stealth fascinating and may write it up more fully in an article, to add to what's already in the book (ASTOVL/CABE/NCA etc.). Is there any interest in such a thing from folks here before I start digging out the archive files?

 

[scautomoton]

Sounds fascinating. I imagine there must be numerous things like this through the history of military flight.

 

[TorpedoJ]

Even the seemingly much stealthier BAe P.125 had external weapons under the fuselage, assuming radars would not be looking up from 200 feet below.

I've just looked up the p.125. Surely those wings can't be genuinely beneficial? The edges don't even line up.
Also I wonder why the buried cockpit hasn't been explored further. It might just be pilot preference but I can't think what functions of modern warfare are still better served looking out of the window than condensed onto screens and helmet HUD, especially with AR/VR. There are roles where that might not be the case but if we are fighting with CCAs it follows that a pilot's eye view is not fully necessary.


I would love an article on early stealth development BTW!

 

[scautomoton]

Also I wonder why the buried cockpit hasn't been explored further. It might just be pilot preference but I can't think what functions of modern warfare are still better served looking out of the window than condensed onto screens and helmet HUD, especially with AR/VR. There are roles where that might not be the case but if we are fighting with CCAs it follows that a pilot's eye view is not fully necessary.

A window is 100% reliable. Imagine being in a buried cockpit and a SW glitch turns all the viewers off.... and with so many lines of code, and so many modules on vehicles these days, and so many different interactions and input variables, there will always be an edge case somewhere which either has not been, or can not be, tested.

Also, haven't they gotten around the stealth issues of canopies by using coatings?

 

[Arjen]

gotten around the stealth issues of canopies by using coatings

Partially. A conventional fighter cockpit protrudes from the fuselage, an additional feature to be, err, stealthified.

 

[Hood]

Those who've read my book will have seen the 'stealthy' P.1216-53.

In today's terms it is barely stealthy at all, but one of the striking things I found in the research for the book was just how different UK doctrine was from the USAF. No idea of fighting your way into an IADS like an ATF/F-22. Instead, the belief was even a super stealthy design (which the UK had started to look at) would be seen over central Europe, with its mass of enemy radars, so low flying was still essential. Even the seemingly much stealthier BAe P.125 had external weapons under the fuselage, assuming radars would not be looking up from 200 feet below.

To cope with the radar density at low level the SRARM missile project was hoped to muster a weapon that could go toe-to-toe with an SA-15 system and take out the vehicle, and possibly the missile too. The same with bigger SA-10/SA-11 missiles coming in from on high. It would also be able to take out MiG-29s before they could launch a semi-active missile, or during the engagement, killing the illuminator.

Once the threat changed, and perhaps once the F-117 was flown by exchange pilots, the view of the future changed, and doctrine with it. This 'hybrid' stealth approach fell away.

The reason for my rambling is I find this other view of stealth fascinating and may write it up more fully in an article, to add to what's already in the book (ASTOVL/CABE/NCA etc.). Is there any interest in such a thing from folks here before I start digging out the archive files?

On seeing the P.1216-53 and its RCS reduction features I was immediately struck by how almost all those items were fitted to the Tornados and Jaguars for Desert Storm. So the 1216-53 was using new off-the-shelf technologies that had been developed for the Tornado. Plesssey and ICI had the RAM tiles and paint, which Colebrand supplied the canopy film. I presume it would have had internal RCS foam for its larger structural cavities too.

The aim was to reduce the head-on RCS to reduce the chance of detection and lock-on by SAM/AAA fire-control radars. Given at the time high-speed low-level penetration was the doctrine, the hope was they could be out of the engagement zone before the Soviet systems could react, every second of delay in lock-on increased their chances of escape and even small reductions had a large beneficial effect. An RCS reduction of 30% was observed on the Jaguar, with the best results being obtained in I-band.
Whether it had much impact in Desert Storm given that they flew at medium altitudes is an interesting question, although the Jaguars (and I presume the Tornadoes) retained their retro-fitted RAM paints etc. for the remainder of their service.

I assume had the P.1216 entered service in the early 90s that most of these features would have been included anyway.

 

[Mike Pryce]

I've just looked up the p.125. Surely those wings can't be genuinely beneficial? The edges don't even line up.
Also I wonder why the buried cockpit hasn't been explored further. It might just be pilot preference but I can't think what functions of modern warfare are still better served looking out of the window than condensed onto screens and helmet HUD, especially with AR/VR. There are roles where that might not be the case but if we are fighting with CCAs it follows that a pilot's eye view is not fully necessary.
View attachment 825216

I would love an article on early stealth development BTW!

That GA is a bit shonky. It did have edge alignment.

The buried cockpit was a provocation from the design team leader to see what was possible. Later P.125 variants had a conventional canopy.