Was an opportunity missed with the Sea Harrier?

MatrixRupture said:
Im glad too see someone point this out. The B wing sacrificed significant general aircraft performance to achieve its payload and range increase. [...]
Click to expand...
Details like this post are why I love this forum!

I'd wondered why the SHAR never got the new wing.


But I kinda disagree with one of your conclusions.
MatrixRupture said:
However when you really dig into the numbers the B program seems like a huge waste of money. The AV-8B can only carry the exact same payload as the AV-8A about 300 more nautical miles. To cover the same distance it also has to use more fuel.
Click to expand...
A huge waste of money to give the B/GR7/GR9 150nmi more combat radius?

Press F to doubt.


MatrixRupture said:
There are no advantages in the fighter role for the B over the Shar.
Click to expand...
This one I agree with.
 
Scott Kenny said:
A huge waste of money to give the B/GR7/GR9 150nmi more combat radius?
Click to expand...
Depends what you want really.

Remember that in order to achieve this you sacrifice 100+ knots top speed, climb rate, sustained load factor, some of the good high speed handling characteristics, fuel consumption, and vertical landing capabilities.

When carrying an actually larger payload like the B was intended to do its range is basically the same as the A with slightly less payload.

Personally I would argue that the Tech was the biggest improvement and the ability to carry more weapons on more hardpoints.

I wonder what a FA.2 with an updated MFD and a centerline sniper pod would have been like.
 
MatrixRupture said:
Depends what you want really.

Remember that in order to achieve this you sacrifice 100+ knots top speed, climb rate, sustained load factor, some of the good high speed handling characteristics, fuel consumption, and vertical landing capabilities.
Click to expand...
Mostly things that matter for being a fighter, not being a bomb truck that also carries a pair of Sidewinders or maybe AMRAAMs on a bad day.


MatrixRupture said:
When carrying an actually larger payload like the B was intended to do its range is basically the same as the A with slightly less payload.
Click to expand...
Back when I was a new aircraft mechanic, 98 and 99, my work buddy was a Harrier Mechanic. Standard B model combat load then was a pair of 1000lb bombs and a pair of Sidewinders (and IIRC a pair of drop tanks).

Though IMO the better wing was the GR7/9 wing. Those two Sidewinder rails in front of the outriggers.




MatrixRupture said:
Personally I would argue that the Tech was the biggest improvement and the ability to carry more weapons on more hardpoints.

I wonder what a FA.2 with an updated MFD and a centerline sniper pod would have been like.
Click to expand...
Likely a worthwhile improvement, but as you noted the SHAR was never really seen as a striker to the people who operated it. And there were almost guaranteed to be some GR7/9s onboard if you needed something bombed, so the RN never saw the need to make the FA2 a better bomber.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Mostly things that matter for being a fighter, not being a bomb truck that also carries a pair of Sidewinders or maybe AMRAAMs on a bad day.



Back when I was a new aircraft mechanic, 98 and 99, my work buddy was a Harrier Mechanic. Standard B model combat load then was a pair of 1000lb bombs and a pair of Sidewinders (and IIRC a pair of drop tanks).

Though IMO the better wing was the GR7/9 wing. Those two Sidewinder rails in front of the outriggers.





Likely a worthwhile improvement, but as you noted the SHAR was never really seen as a striker to the people who operated it. And there were almost guaranteed to be some GR7/9s onboard if you needed something bombed, so the RN never saw the need to make the FA2 a better bomber.
Click to expand...
Yes that’s what I gathered from docs and talking with some aircrew as well.

The Shar did have some ATG capabilities but it was always preferred to let the mud movers do the brunt of the ATG work.

It makes sense.

Unfortunately I feel like the Shar airframe still had some more capabilities left in it that we never got to see because of that. (They dry fit a Mk408 (mk107) Pegasus in the FA.2 and it was deemed possible but expensive) along with the engine you could have integrated smart weapons and the lot.

Had the UK never purchased and joined the Harrier 2 program maybe it would have been possible to see FA.2 with LJDAM, brimstone, and things of that nature.
 
One problem with the Harrier II wing was the LERX. Initially there were concerns about pitch-up during ski-jump launches and smaller 65% LERX were fitted before the full-size LERX could be cleared for carrier use, in conjunction with the use of auto flap on take-off.

Another problem with the Harrier II was the lack of thrust given its increased weight, especially for vertical landings when bringing back unused ordnance under the wings.

As for FA.2 upgrades; TIALD was proposed around 1998 when the GR.7s got theirs and the carriers received storage/support facilities for the pods.
A range of options were looked at:
- fitting the GR.9's more powerful Pegasus 11-61 by 2003, cost £260 million.
- in addition, integration of anti-armour and PGMs.
- fitting the Harrier II’s zero scarf cold nozzles (providing an extra 200lbf thrust), cost £500,000.
- more radical surgery options included lengthening the intakes with a 12in (30cm) fuselage plug and new wings, the cost was deemed too high for these options.

In a way that is not surprising, by then the focus was very much on getting the FCBA by 2012 and sinking hundreds of millions into the Shar was seen as not cost-effective, especially as the RN faced a reduced air threat during this period.
 
Hood said:
One problem with the Harrier II wing was the LERX. Initially there were concerns about pitch-up during ski-jump launches and smaller 65% LERX were fitted before the full-size LERX could be cleared for carrier use, in conjunction with the use of auto flap on take-off.

Another problem with the Harrier II was the lack of thrust given its increased weight, especially for vertical landings when bringing back unused ordnance under the wings.

As for FA.2 upgrades; TIALD was proposed around 1998 when the GR.7s got theirs and the carriers received storage/support facilities for the pods.
A range of options were looked at:
- fitting the GR.9's more powerful Pegasus 11-61 by 2003, cost £260 million.
- in addition, integration of anti-armour and PGMs.
- fitting the Harrier II’s zero scarf cold nozzles (providing an extra 200lbf thrust), cost £500,000.
- more radical surgery options included lengthening the intakes with a 12in (30cm) fuselage plug and new wings, the cost was deemed too high for these options.

In a way that is not surprising, by then the focus was very much on getting the FCBA by 2012 and sinking hundreds of millions into the Shar was seen as not cost-effective, especially as the RN faced a reduced air threat during this period.
Click to expand...
Interesting so they did look into a range of options for FA.2.

As you said though this would have cost a fortune and JSF was on the horizon.

I also heard they planned on adding HMS for the FA.2 from old jags.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom