Advanced Harrier Projects

Scott Kenny said:
I'm really not too sure about a twin engined VSTOL... Unless the engines have roll posts on both sides, losing one engine in the hover is an instant aircraft loss...
Click to expand...

The patent link was dead, but here's a new version:

US4343446A - V/STOL Aircraft - Google Patents

A twin-engined VTOL/STOL aircraft comprising a rearwardly bifurcated fuselage 10 is proposed which in the event of failure of one engine 20 will allow the other engine 20 to produce a thrust which is not assymetric relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The fuselage 10 comprises a...
patents.google.com

You can see it's a bit clever -- there are engines in each nacelle feeding into a single bifurcated nozzle on the centerline aft and two close-set nozzles near centerline mid-fuselage. In theory, the thrust should stay centralized even if you lose an engine. Still not going to be a fun ride, but not instant rollover.
 
Anyone ever put two engines back to back--exhaust pointed towards each other but deflected into the same venturi?

Good for blown wings...one turbine spins one way...it's counterpart? The other.

Anything to get symmetry.
 
There was the 'Flying Bedstead', but that didn't use a common nozzle . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Just wanted to ask. Was there, ever, a Harrier derivative packing a radar compatible with AIM-7 Sparrows ? (I do know AV-8B got AMRAAM and the according APG radar). For example a Phantom radar in a Harrier airframe.
Just being curious.
 
Archibald said:
Just wanted to ask. Was there, ever, a Harrier derivative packing a radar compatible with AIM-7 Sparrows ? (I do know AV-8B got AMRAAM and the according APG radar). For example a Phantom radar in a Harrier airframe.
Just being curious.
Click to expand...
Well technically those AV-8B Harrier II Plus variants with AN/APG-65 radars would have been theoretically capable.
 
Archibald said:
Just wanted to ask. Was there, ever, a Harrier derivative packing a radar compatible with AIM-7 Sparrows ? (I do know AV-8B got AMRAAM and the according APG radar). For example a Phantom radar in a Harrier airframe.
Just being curious.
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean on the US side?

Because the SHAR radar should have been compatible with Sparrows as well as Skyflash.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Assuming you mean on the US side?

Because the SHAR radar should have been compatible with Sparrows as well as Skyflash.
Click to expand...

Blue Fox (SHAR FRS.1) wasn't compatible with either, as it lacked CW illumination. Blue Vixen (SHAR FA.2) may not have been as well, since it was designed specifically with AMRAAM in mind.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Assuming you mean on the US side?

Because the SHAR radar should have been compatible with Sparrows as well as Skyflash.
Click to expand...
Just a little nitpicking over use of just "Shar".

Only FA.2 could carry a BVRAAM in the form of AMRAAM. Didn't even bother with Skyflash (They should have ditched Skyflash for AMRAAM at this point for the F3's too!). FRS.1 was a SRAAM only fighter with an intercept radar.
 
Yes, Blue Vixen was designed specifically around AIMRAAM, with no Sparrow capability. Skyflash and older Sparrows in UK inventory needed CW and that was extra cost and (more importantly for the Harrier) weight. Also, Sparrows weigh a lot more than AMRAAMs, and once you have AMRAAMs the only reason to carry Sparrow is to make use of existing stocks.
 
Now thinking about AV-16. Since XVF-12 and Convair 200 had Sparrows (in the promotional artworks at last,) did AV-16 had that capability too ?
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Yes, Blue Vixen was designed specifically around AIMRAAM, with no Sparrow capability. Skyflash and older Sparrows in UK inventory needed CW and that was extra cost and (more importantly for the Harrier) weight. Also, Sparrows weigh a lot more than AMRAAMs, and once you have AMRAAMs the only reason to carry Sparrow is to make use of existing stocks.
Click to expand...

It didn't necessarily have to add weight. APG-65, for example, has no separate CW illuminator. It just fakes it using a high PRF pulse-Doppler signal.
 
TomS said:
It didn't necessarily have to add weight. APG-65, for example, has no separate CW illuminator. It just fakes it using a high PRF pulse-Doppler signal.
Click to expand...
You need compatible Sparrows for that (AIM-7F+ I think - up to AIM-7E-2 CW was required). Skyflash requires CW. AIM-7F and beyond support CW or High PRF pulse illumination. APG-66 lacked the High PRF capability so needed a CW illuminator even for AIM-7F/M.

Blue Vixen had High PRF so COULD have implemented a Sparrow illumination mode, but Single Target Track wasn't really a design goal - it was TWS/AMRAAM based in conception, newer than AN/APG-65 etc.
 
Last edited:
Monopulse or not is not relevant - that is the tracking methodology, it has no bearing on whether the seeker uses pulse/pulse doppler/CW.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Monopulse or not is not relevant - that is the tracking methodology, it has no bearing on whether the seeker uses pulse/pulse doppler/CW.
Click to expand...

OK, I misunderstood something then. Probably just that the switch from CW to PD happened roughly in sync with the switch to monopulse. Thanks for clarifying.
 
TomS said:
OK, I misunderstood something then. Probably just that the switch from CW to PD happened roughly in sync with the switch to monopulse. Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...
AIM-7F was CW or PD but still conical scan seeker, it was AIM-7M that brought in monopulse.

Skyflash was CW with monopulse seeker.
 
Hrm, I'd thought Skyflash was better than that... bugger.

One reason for Sea Harriers to have Sparrow/Skyflash capability is the bigger warhead on Sparrow/Skyflash versus AMRAAM. The Israelis are still carrying 1x or 2x Sparrows on their Eagles for that reason. 40kg warhead on Sparrow, 30kg on Skyflash (I think, that's the AIM-7F warhead weight), and only 20kg on AMRAAM.

If you're trying to break a bomber, I want the biggest warhead I can stuff in the missile!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm, I'd thought Skyflash was better than that... bugger.

One reason for Sea Harriers to have Sparrow/Skyflash capability is the bigger warhead on Sparrow/Skyflash versus AMRAAM. The Israelis are still carrying 1x or 2x Sparrows on their Eagles for that reason. 40kg warhead on Sparrow, 30kg on Skyflash (I think, that's the AIM-7F warhead weight), and only 20kg on AMRAAM.

If you're trying to break a bomber, I want the biggest warhead I can stuff in the missile!
Click to expand...
One of the reasons FA.2 was so highly regarded was its AMRAAM capability. It was ahead on that front of most of its European Sparrow/Skyflash armed counterparts. The extra range offered was invaluable to its surviveability. An extra 10 or 20kg warhead is only so useful if you get killed. Far better to kill, shoot a second time, before the other side can even shoot back.

Israel keeps Sparrows and their big warheads specifivally for drones and cruise missiles I recall reading where the extra "stick length" doesn't matter.
 
A few interesting designs from DEFE 71/1139 Naval Staff Target 6464: Sea Harrier replacement:
  • Shar 3A - Based on Sea Harrier FA.2 with larger wing (9.2 m)
  • Shar 3B - Based on Sea Harrier FA.2 with even larger folding wing (11.9 m)
  • P.1227 -Based on Harrier GR.5 with larger folding wing (11.9 m)
All were to feature the Blue Vixen radar from the Sea Harrier FA.2, and the Zeus ECM system from the Harrier GR.5. They were to be fitted with either the Pegasus 19 or RB.532 engine offering a 15% or 30% increase in thrust respectively over the Pegasus Mk.104/5 used in the Sea Harrier FA.2 / Harrier GR.5.
 

Attachments

  • Shar 3A.png
    Shar 3A.png
    709.6 KB · Views: 363
  • Shar 3B.png
    Shar 3B.png
    786.6 KB · Views: 237
  • P1227-3.png
    P1227-3.png
    789.4 KB · Views: 293
On the subject of SHAR radar, I recall a contemporary report of a study looking to fit a radar - I think it was unspecified, but I assume Blue Vixen over APG-65 - in a external pod on GR.7/GR.9 to cover the gap post FA.2 retirement.

Is this something the collective wisdom of the forum recognises. I assume it would have either been in Flight or something from Key Publishing.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
One of the reasons FA.2 was so highly regarded was its AMRAAM capability. It was ahead on that front of most of its European Sparrow/Skyflash armed counterparts. The extra range offered was invaluable to its surviveability. An extra 10 or 20kg warhead is only so useful if you get killed. Far better to kill, shoot a second time, before the other side can even shoot back.

Israel keeps Sparrows and their big warheads specifivally for drones and cruise missiles I recall reading where the extra "stick length" doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

From memory, this gave SHAR fire-and-forget capability by the early 1990's, at a time when everybody else (F-16s not MLU and Mirage 2000s) was either SARH or Sidewinder.
France introduced fire-and-forget with MICA in 1997 with the Mirage 2000-5F.
 
bobthemonkey said:
On the subject of SHAR radar, I recall a contemporary report of a study looking to fit a radar - I think it was unspecified, but I assume Blue Vixen over APG-65 - in a external pod on GR.7/GR.9 to cover the gap post FA.2 retirement.

Is this something the collective wisdom of the forum recognises. I assume it would have either been in Flight or something from Key Publishing.
Click to expand...
It was mentioned in the press (AFM I think) as a consideration, and one of the Qinetiq Andovers (XS646) was seen around that time with what looked like a Blue Vixen radome fitted, but I don't think it progressed very far.


XS646 - Hawker Siddeley Andover C.1 by Steve Kilvington, on Flickr
 
bobthemonkey said:
On the subject of SHAR radar, I recall a contemporary report of a study looking to fit a radar - I think it was unspecified, but I assume Blue Vixen over APG-65 - in a external pod on GR.7/GR.9 to cover the gap post FA.2 retirement.

Is this something the collective wisdom of the forum recognises. I assume it would have either been in Flight or something from Key Publishing.
Click to expand...
I certainly advocated it at the time as the affordable way to keep AMRAAM capability on RAF Harrier IIs. Harking back to the past.

The fact the rather modest amounts of finance needed wasn't forthcoming suggested a move to kill off Naval Fast Air by stealth. But then when looking at what the 'savings' were from retiring Sea Harrier.....which were pittiful... it seemed to hit at that far more clearly.
 
Kiltonge said:
Not an advanced Harrier as such, but I hadn't previously seen GR.1 XV277 with the Blue Fox radome shape for testing.
Click to expand...
www.airhistory.net

Aircraft Photo of XV277 | Hawker Siddeley P-1127 Harrier | UK - Navy | AirHistory.net #145404

Aircraft photo of XV277 - Hawker Siddeley P-1127 Harrier - UK - Navy, taken by Ian Howat at East Fortune in Scotland, United Kingdom on 29 August 2002 at the National Museum of Flight. The Royal Navy markings were picked up in the days when it was a ground instructional airframe. It was operated...
www.airhistory.net www.airhistory.net
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I've got a nice article in Air International on the big-wing Harriers.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, do you still have that article?
I'm trying to ascertain the time frame of the 'Big Wing' research and development program.

Regards
Pioneer
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Geez, that was 7 February 2007.

Big Wings from Kingston, Air International Sept 1979

Might be an issue that survived the flooding - can check later.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know that was sometime ago mate, sorry. But that's the beauty of this forum. When you have an itch about a given project/program, where better else to find it. ;)

Regards
Pioneer
 
If we're including notional studies that never became hardware, there's always the Harrier III family that McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace cooked up with major help from Rolls Royce. The "Low" and "Medium" versions were AV-8Bs with bigger wings and/or stretched fuselages and/or dorsal spines (think A-4M) but "High End" also known as "Harrier 21" was dramatically different. Thanks to RR's innovative repackaging of the Pegasus engine core into a form that used a single conventional axisymmetric nozzle at the tail for conventional flight, and redesigned/rerouted cold and hot VTOL nozzles, Harrier 21 had a Mach 1.6 top speed and a much more modern overall appearance. I believe that sketches of the "Low" and "Medium" designs have appeared, but I'm not aware of any Harrier 21 drawings that have made it into the real world. The engine, though, appears in the list of RR products, as RB-578. Actually, that's the engine that was supposed to go into a proof-of-concept prototype, but the production aircraft was going to do the same repackaging job on the Eurofighter engine under the RR designation RB-571. It would have been game-changing for many reasons, but the ASTOVL group found out what we were up to in the Advanced AV-8B group and used their clout to have that study shut down because it was encroaching on their turf. I wrote a paper on Harrier 21 for the Boeing Technical Journal just before I retired, but I don't have access to the Journal since I'm no longer an active employee. If anyone here is, maybe they could have a look.
 
Thank you, Awesome information!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a lot of interesting Harrier-concepts in the paper:

Beyond the Harrier - Kingston V/Stol Projects 1957-1988​

Beyond the Harrier - Kingston V/Stol Projects 1957-1988

The aircraft design team based at Kingston-upon-Thames in England (called variously Hawker, Hawker Siddeley Aviation and British Aerospace over the years) produced a large number of Vertical and/or Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL) projects in the 1957-1988 timeframe. The unique feature of their w
www.sae.org www.sae.org
 

Attachments

  • Harrier Concepts.jpg
    Harrier Concepts.jpg
    321.1 KB · Views: 126
Flame2512 said:
A few interesting designs from DEFE 71/1139 Naval Staff Target 6464: Sea Harrier replacement:
  • Shar 3A - Based on Sea Harrier FA.2 with larger wing (9.2 m)
  • Shar 3B - Based on Sea Harrier FA.2 with even larger folding wing (11.9 m)
  • P.1227 -Based on Harrier GR.5 with larger folding wing (11.9 m)
All were to feature the Blue Vixen radar from the Sea Harrier FA.2, and the Zeus ECM system from the Harrier GR.5. They were to be fitted with either the Pegasus 19 or RB.532 engine offering a 15% or 30% increase in thrust respectively over the Pegasus Mk.104/5 used in the Sea Harrier FA.2 / Harrier GR.5.
Click to expand...

What's the timescale on these? Early to mid 90s?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom