Harriers:

[Akira 0]

"Widow-makers"

You be the judge. I knew they had hella lotta trouble with the Osprey but not the Harrier.

[MHSJROTTCADET 0]

the harrier is an excellent aircraft, it's just extremely disoreinting to most new pilots. and unlike most other aircraft, you cannot make any mistakes during landing.

[Akira 0]

The crash that killed Jeff Smith was attrributed to a microscopic piece of plastic that was in the fuel line...whether in manufacturing or what have you is unclear.

What about the statistic (everyone loves those) that Harriers have a higher than normal crash percentage? If that is attributed to the "unforgiving" nature of the plane, then does the Marine Corps need seperate training for those pilots (if they don't already)?

[Necromancer- 0]

How would the Harrier be extremely disorienting??

[ralphwiggum 6]

i guess since they have more things to take care of, more controls, and that means more stuffs around pilot.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Dec. 20 2002,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How would the Harrier be extremely disorienting??<span id='postcolor'>

VTOL would be extreemely disorienting to anyone not used to it. And controling the thrust vectors can also be tricky. I remember reading that the instruments just weren't precise enough at one point to detect a slight slip or dip towards one side start to occur while hovering, and of course the pilot dosen't have many obvious visual cues at that point. That can ruin your whole day. I was under the impression that most of the Harriers problems had been adressed, although it remains a more difficult AC to master. The Russians experienced similar problems in their VTOL fighters and that's mainly why they gave up on the Yak-36/38.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> "If the Harrier had been decisive many times in battle, we would all still regret horribly the tragedies of the pilots who have been killed, but at least you'd be able to say that the Harrier made a difference," said Philip E. Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester from 1994 to 2001.

"What makes this situation so difficult is that we just don't have that kind of battlefield record to support the accidental deaths."

In the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the hot thrust-producing nozzles in the heart of the fuselage -- the devices that allow the Harrier to rise and balance in the air -- made the plane a magnet for heat-seeking missiles. Its loss rate was more than double that of the war's other leading U.S. combat jets. Five Harriers were shot down and two pilots died.<span id='postcolor'>

Are the Harrier worth the risk? Also mentions that its vaunted ability to VTOL has never been used in combat...only in airshows, and the movie True Lies.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 20 2002,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are the Harrier worth the risk? Also mentions that its vaunted ability to VTOL has never been used in combat...only in airshows, and the movie True Lies.<span id='postcolor'>

IMHO VTOL would be extreemely useful in a scenario where all your airfields have been bombed. The Russians gave up on VTOL because of the same problems the Harrier had, but they had different approaches. Most MiGs can be used from unprepared runways, The MiG-29 can be classified as a STOL aircraft, and before SAM technology really took off there was a MiG-15 variant that was launched like a SAM.

*edit* But yeah I see your point. Personally I'd keep them in National Guard units or the odd mission where VTOL can really be exploited.

[MrMilli 0]

actually the ability to angle the jets, done well greatly adds to the planes turn rate, it also means that the aircraft can operate from just about anywhere.

Both of these attributes were used in the UK Harrier in the Falklands, the ability to operate from dispearsed sites was essential to the planning during the cold war.

It also means that you don't need a full carrier to handle them and there is a story of a Royal Navy Harrier landing on a Spanish freighter, and Harriers being taken off of Atlantic Conveyor (a converted container ship) during the Falklands and landing on the Carriers.

The US Marine Corp, if I remember correctly use big Landing Craft that can handle Harriers as well.

Its a useful aircraft, if it wasn't the US wouldn't of bought it (overseas designs are generally a *big* no no for US Defence procurements) and the UK wouldn't have been using it for so long.

As for its Vertical take off never being used in Combat, this leaves a very important omission, LANDING

Its difficult for a Harrier to take off vertically with a full load of weapons, but it is usually landed vertically.

As for "Ingesting Pebbles and other engine destroying debris"

For one of the Original tests (before Animal rights I think ) the Engineers shot a chicken directly into the intakes without significant damage to the engine.

[mr. Duck 0]

Widow maker? It depends on who's driving the thing and if the pilot has his/her day...

I heard most of these problems are resolved in the new stovl JSF.

[Badgerboy 0]

The Harrier is a great A/C, but suffers from a high pilot workload, as is typical of all older single seat A/C.

VTOL is a asset yes, but true 'hovering' can any be acheived for a small amount of time. Due to the lack of air intake at very low forward speed, the engine starts to overheat. You counter this by pumping water through a cooling system. However, you only have enough water for 30 to 60 secs max.

As for being a 'widow maker', utter crap. Have a look-see and see how many Tomcats have been driven into the sea. The F-104 howver, is a good example of a 'Widow Maker'

Aircraft get lost in accidents, it's a fact. The Harrier is a old aircraft, (Plus its subsonicin level flight) only has a single engine. (An annoyance over the water), and several technical nuances which piss everyone off. If the aircraft are serviced well, and treated well by the pilots (ie, not firewalling the frigging jet every chance they get), they don't fall out of the sky like the article suggests. Anyway, the Harrier is to be replaced by JSF, as the Super Harrier design got shelved.

Anyway, who the hell wrote this article? Do they work for Lockheed-Martin? (Buy the JSF Harrier users.... before it kills all your pilots!

(As for the Spanish freighter incident... A Royal Navy pilot mistook the freighter for the HMS Invincible. By time he had discovered his mistake, he had to land, as his engine was overheating. They had to ship the Harrier back to the UK in boxes, and the pilot got a good bollocking.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">actually the ability to angle the jets, done well greatly adds to the planes turn rate, it also means that the aircraft can operate from just about anywhere<span id='postcolor'>

Yes its called 'VIFFing', and its bloody useful, at least in close range combat. UK Harriers managed to blow half the Argentinian AF away, with not a single A-A loss. (30mm Cannon and 9L's).

Remember, this A/C was designed in the Cold War, and was a bloody good first attempt at a proper VTOL. I don't know why people are slating it, its done us rather well, and has led to the JSF, which will become the Harriers successor.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 20 2002,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> "If the Harrier had been decisive many times in battle, we would all still regret horribly the tragedies of the pilots who have been killed, but at least you'd be able to say that the Harrier made a difference," said Philip E. Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester from 1994 to 2001.

"What makes this situation so difficult is that we just don't have that kind of battlefield record to support the accidental deaths."

In the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the hot thrust-producing nozzles in the heart of the fuselage -- the devices that allow the Harrier to rise and balance in the air -- made the plane a magnet for heat-seeking missiles. Its loss rate was more than double that of the war's other leading U.S. combat jets. Five Harriers were shot down and two pilots died.<span id='postcolor'></b>

Are the Harrier worth the risk? Also mentions that its vaunted ability to VTOL has never been used in combat...only in airshows, and the movie True Lies.<span id='postcolor'>

Not really, a squadron of Harriers managed to win the Falklands back from the Argies

Not worth at all

[edc 0]

They probably didn't take off vertically in the Falklands. Doing so limits the amount of fuel and weapons you can carry.

[Badgerboy 0]

The standard practise in the UK Navy is to use a 'Ski ramp' instead. It's combines a conventional takeoff with a VTOL. (Only about 45 degrees on the nozzles). The RAF simply fling 'em off the runway. We have alot more room!

Best of both worlds really.

[MrMilli 0]

As mentioned some took off vertically from the atlantic conveyor to join the Carriers when the first harriers lost.

If taking off from a converted container ship, surronded (thats spelt wrong I think but hey its 10 past midnight) by containers set up as a makeshift armour, in the pitching seas of the South Atlantic isn't operating in poor conditions, I'd love to hear a what is

5 Sea Harriers and 3 GR.3's were lost,

3 Sea Harriers were lost in accidents

All of the others were shot down by ground fire. (a point I might add against UK's JSF being used in the close air support role, and for the Army Air Corp's Apache's)

By the way one of the accidents mentioned on that article, a Harrier losing power and falling into the sea

That Harrier was at a Grand altitude of about, five feet

If it had not been at an airshow and operating at such a insanely low altitude, the pilot could probably of recovered the aircraft. It was raised recently and was in remarkably good condition considering it had a fast one way trip to the bottom

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Dec. 21 2002,05:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for "Ingesting Pebbles and other engine destroying debris"

For one of the Original tests (before Animal rights I think ) the Engineers shot a chicken directly into the intakes without significant damage to the engine.<span id='postcolor'>

This is still done today. The chickens are dead of course, and they take really cool gory videos of it as well. The force of a goose hitting an airplane at takeoff speed is the same as a 1000 pound weight dropped from a few feet off the ground, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, the problem with harriers is that they recquire a mix of both types of pilots. They can't use only helicopter pilots because, although they're good with the VTOL and hovering, they suck at high speeds at low alts and fighter tactics. They can't use only fighter pilots because, although they're good with high speeds and fighter tactics, they suck with VTOL and hovering. So, if you ask me, there should be special harrier training BEFORE and instead of any other UPT (basic pilot training).

I also think, after watching the video on that crash, they should make parachutes steerable. In all seriousness that had to of been horrible for the pilot.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, the problem with harriers is that they recquire a mix of both types of pilots. They can't use only helicopter pilots because, although they're good with the VTOL and hovering, they suck at high speeds at low alts and fighter tactics. They can't use only fighter pilots because, although they're good with high speeds and fighter tactics, they suck with VTOL and hovering. So, if you ask me, there should be special harrier training BEFORE and instead of any other UPT (basic pilot training).<span id='postcolor'>

Eh? How the hell did you come across that information? That might be practise in th US services but it certainly isn't here. A fighter pilot is a fighter pilot. When you go to your conversion unit, they teach you how to fly that particular aircraft....

How would teaching pilots how to fly a Harrier before basic training help? A Harrier is a jet aircraft. It is flown like a jet aircraft, but with some additions which are not hard to master. (I managed to hover a two seater for 20 secs without crashing the bastard, and that was my first jet ride).

Helicopters all together different machines, with different tactics and training, for a different role and job.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">they suck at high speeds at low alts and fighter tactics.<span id='postcolor'>

Complete arse. I know many pilots who have flown both types, and trust me they are quite capable.

If the US military are following anything like your guide to aircraft training, no wonder they keep crashing the fuckers.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also think, after watching the video on that crash, they should make parachutes steerable. In all seriousness that had to of been horrible for the pilot.<span id='postcolor'>

Parafoils are notorious buggers to control. Parachutes areused as they can be used in quite windy conditions without the canopy collapsing and you plummeting to your death.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Dec. 21 2002,07:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Eh? How the hell did you come across that information? That might be practise in th US services but it certainly isn't here. A fighter pilot is a fighter pilot. When you go to your conversion unit, they teach you how to fly that particular aircraft...<span id='postcolor'>

Not in the U.S., I don't think.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A Harrier is a jet aircraft. It is flown like a jet aircraft, but with some additions which are not hard to master.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, jet aircraft hover excellently.

The harrier pilots even call it a tricky airplane to hover and land. Jet pilots are used to coming in at 140 knots and landing on a runway. Harrier pilots need to hover and land, at least for VTOL.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Complete arse. I know many pilots who have flown both types, and trust me they are quite capable.

If the US military are following anything like your guide to aircraft training, no wonder they keep crashing the fuckers.<span id='postcolor'>

What are you, 12? Your vocabulary sure seems like it.

It's a simple concept, helicopter pilots aren't used to high speeds, jet pilots aren't used to hovering. So they have to have training to do it right.

And no, it's not my guide to aircraft training, I heard it on a documentary.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are you, 12? Your vocabulary sure seems like it.

It's a simple concept, helicopter pilots aren't used to high speeds, jet pilots aren't used to hovering. So they have to have training to do it right.

And no, it's not my guide to aircraft training, I heard it on a documentary. <span id='postcolor'>

Sigh. Questioning my age only raises questions about your own.

Your 'simple concept' holds no water. It is rubbish. Do you know Harrier pilots? Do you know Harrier test pilots?

The RAF system works like this;

Your basic flying training : EFT RAF Cranwell - Firefly - 50 hours

Then depending on your qualities, you get streamed for Fast Jet/Multi Engine/Rotary.

For fast jet;

RAF Lyton - Tucano - 124 hours

RAF Valley - Hawk - 107 hours

Then, you go to a OCU (Operational Conversion Unit). They teach you how to fly the A/C you have been selected for. This can take up to another 60 hours.

They don't just pluck 'Generic Jet Pilots' and chuck them in a Harrier. It's not a case of not being used to low level flying, you train and aquire the skill. You seem under the impression that jet pilots can't develop new flying skills. If you 'suck' in regards your VTOL abilites, you fail the course. Additionally, hovering is only ever usually used for landing, as its actually safer than a conventional landing. Harriers generally don't 'hover around the battlefield'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, jet aircraft hover excellently. <span id='postcolor'>

I think this is your problem. Harriers don't operate like helicopters. The VTOL concept was brought about for a aircraft that could operate without a runway and thats what they came up with. Harriers usually only do a bit of hovering (Between 30 and 60 secs), and that's at the end of the trip. Therefore Harriers pilots do not need to adopt the tactics of the rotary wing, it's a entirely different concept, which is covered by the current training program. Bringing your helicopter skills over to fast jet would have very little effect in regards to flying the harrier, and vice versa.

One more thing. From what you have written, do you think it would be prudent to try and train a cadet pilot VTOL and Viff'ing before he has even mastered the basics of flight?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Dec. 21 2002,08:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Questioning my age only raises questions about your own.<span id='postcolor'>

At least I don't have to use foul language to get my point across. Anyway, irrelevant.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They don't just pluck 'Generic Jet Pilots' and chuck them in a Harrier.<span id='postcolor'>

In the beginning they had to. Thats what I was talking about, maybe I should've worded it differently, but I don't know of any harrier-specific training programs. There may be, but I don't know of them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Additionally, hovering is only ever usually used for landing, as its actually safer than a conventional landing. Harriers generally don't 'hover around the battlefield'.<span id='postcolor'>

Did I say otherwise?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bringing your helicopter skills over to fast jet would have very little effect in regards to flying the harrier, and vice versa.<span id='postcolor'>

When the U.S. and possibly the UK started flying harriers, the problem they ran into was that helicopter pilots who converted to harriers were having trouble with the high speeds, and jet pilots who converted to harriers were having trouble with the VTOL stuff.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One more thing. From what you have written, do you think it would be prudent to try and train a cadet pilot VTOL and Viff'ing before he has even mastered the basics of flight?<span id='postcolor'>

Did I say that? No.

Looking back I did misword what I said though, -_- *sigh*.

What I meant was I think it would be smart to decide what aircraft the student will be flying, then train him appropriately. Not train him specifically for a helicopter, then send him to a harrier, or specifically a jet then to a harrier.

Again, I don't know how they do it, they might do exactly what I said or not.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I meant was I think it would be smart to decide what aircraft the student will be flying, then train him appropriately. <span id='postcolor'>

Thats how we do it.

Think of a pilot coming from Hawk training as a 'blank template'. When he is sent to OCU for a specific aircraft, he is taught all he needs to know on that machine.

Tornado pilots train to fly 500+ kts at 25ft, Jaguar pilots train for CAS, and the Harrier pilots are taught to use the VTOL capabilites of the aircraft.

I imagine the US use the same system. It's dangerous to simply chuck a pilot an a A/C and ask him to fly it.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They don't just pluck 'Generic Jet Pilots' and chuck them in a Harrier.

In the beginning they had to. Thats what I was talking about, maybe I should've worded it differently, but I don't know of any harrier-specific training programs. There may be, but I don't know of them.<span id='postcolor'>

not true. ever heard of training exchange programs within Nato ? we even trained US forces on our NBC tank Fuchs and the Leo2 machines in Arizona. Same for airforce. Several US pilots enjoyed freerides with the Tornados and Mig´s after the wall came down.

[Othin 0]

OT here, but this one is for Badger or anyone else that knows about UK Harriers.

I was talking with two of our Harrier pilots the other day about the two seater. They were saying that here in the States we only use it as a trainer, whereas in the U.K. yours are actually combat capable. Is that true, if so what is the guy in back doing? They said both seats are fully rigged to be the pilot too.

It was pretty funny because they were also ragging on the Hornets and Super Hornets. They said it was boring to fly a plane like that since the plane does 90% of the work, whereas in the Harrier it's all pilot.

As far as the widow maker article(s) I think there is something dishonest going on there. A three part article in a major newspaper about a single aircraft? Mmm alarms are ringing.

My final ramble here is a short one from when our Royal Navy officer left. Our CO was going out in FA-18E shortly after the Harrier pilot took off on his final flight. So the Harrier pilot flew within seeing distance of the runway (off to the side of course) and "bowed" the Harrier to the CO as he staged for takeoff. It was awesome! Then he came back and we gave him a proper wetting down

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Dec. 21 2002,08:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My final ramble here is a short one from when our Royal Navy officer left.  Our CO was going out in FA-18E shortly after the Harrier pilot took off on his final flight.  So the Harrier pilot flew within seeing distance of the runway (off to the side of course) and "bowed" the Harrier to the CO as he staged for takeoff.  It was awesome!  Then he came back and we gave him a proper wetting down <span id='postcolor'>

lol! now that's something i wish i was there to see.

good to see you back Othin