Harriers Power up With New Contract

[spike7451]

RAF and Royal Navy Harrier 'jump-jets' are set to benefit from a new £198m support contract signed with Rolls-Royce to support the aircraft's Pegasus engine over the next ten years.

The Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine provides the Harrier with its unique Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing capability and the new contract will guarantee its availability to the front line, as well as providing all aspects of technical support.....................................MORE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Julien]

If they were going to do this with the RAF harrier why not the SHAR's.

I thought one of the main issues with the SHAR was that it needed an engine upgrade??

Julien

[Seamus]

This is good news, and hopefully means that the nasty rumour of Harriers being retired by 2010 is a load of old tosh

[Danny]

If they were going to do this with the RAF harrier why not the SHAR's.

I thought one of the main issues with the SHAR was that it needed an engine upgrade??

Julien

I thought the SHAR also needed an Avionics upgrade and because it was closer to the GR.3 than the GR.7/9 there were problems with weapons loads and pilot training?

Danny

[AnonymousDFB1]

Also guess we are not going to see the F-35s anytime soon. Also fits in with the carriers being delayed.

[John B (Sc)]

If they were going to do this with the RAF harrier why not the SHAR's.

I thought one of the main issues with the SHAR was that it needed an engine upgrade??

Julien

Because 'Their Airships' of the light blue will do everything they can to destroy the Fleet Air Arm. The FAA has throughout its history embarrassed the RAF by doing more with less.

Effectiveness of defence for the country comes second to an absurd & nasty rivalry. At an operational level the light & dark blue get on well & have a good regard for each other. But at the top it's long been a different story.

The Sea Harrier was operated well and was one of the finest close-in air defence fighters around. Well flown, it successfully took on F-15s on occasion. That appears to have been anathema to the 'Airships'. (Was it Roy Braybrook or Bill Gunston who coined that phrase?) Remember the predecessors to these folk were the ones who winged until they got the F-111 instead of TSR-2, who said the Buccaneer was useless for their purposes, who on almost every possible occasion appeared to prefer to back American aircraft not British !

Edited January 31, 2009 by John B (Sc)

[Hepster]

I think some of you guys are missing the point; this is a support contract to maintain the existing engines, not an upgrade.

[Paddy]

Sorry but its got nothing to do with rivalry !!

The Sea Harriers were on their last legs and hopelessly out dated by their retirement. As for taking on an F15.. !! close in and with a lot of luck but fact is an F15 would take a SHAR out before the SHAR even got the F15 in radar range.

Air defence Destroyers like the new HMS Daring render out of date close fleet protection aircraft like the SHAR totally obsolete.

The SHAR was a superb aircraft in its day as it proved in the Falklands but that was nearly 30 years ago in the days of Lightnings !! when a SHAR might have expected to come up against a MIG 21 or the like. In the run up to the Bosnian conflict, SHARS were pitted against a few East German Mig 29 and found to be woefully out matched.

Also the extravagance of having a pure fighter with very little ground attack capability is a folly as the RAF is finding out with the Typhoon.

And then there is Cost !!!!

[AnonymousFO98]

Hi Paddy

i can see certain points to your argument- i am not sure about the inadequacy of Blue Vixen, but i am no expert so will not argue.

what i don't see is how fleet protection will be made obsolete by Type 45 pickets. it sounds a tad like the argument for replacing aircraft defense with SA missiles.

[Random]

In Sharkey Ward's 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands', he states that in 1982, the SHAR FRS1s were more than a match for US F-15s in a close quarters fight. Of course the Eagles had the option of plugging in the burners and running or going BVR.

As for 'on their last legs', and I right in thinking there there were a number if new build aircraft dating from 1997 or thereabouts? Still, any aircraft is better than Surface-Air missiles. Three words: Sandys' White Paper.

[Paddy]

That's my point random.....The SHAR would have to get past missiles fired from BVR before it could get close in. and it would have to track the F15/Mig 29 without look down or up radar ?

The hard fact is that in all recent conflicts ( last 30 years) the carriers have had more use/need for GR-5-7-9s than SHARS as fleet defence has not been an issue over ground attack capabilities

I wonder what a SHAR pilot would say now if he was told he was going up against MIG 29s or SU27 or F16s or euro fighters or a 2008 std F15 ??

Its easy to get nostalgic about aircraft but you have to have more than that if you want to ask pilots to go and fight for their lives in them.

[AnonymousFO98]

Hi Paddy

but the Blue Vixen radar if i am not mistaken has BVR capacity. it has look down capabilities also

i think you are thinking of Shar 1's with Blue Fox radars

i don't disagree that the Shar2 is getting to the point of retirement- but there is currently no type 45 active or any air fleet defence.

luckily that may not immediately be a problem- but there is no way of predicting future crises or what contigencies are necessary.

i wholeheartedly support your assertion to give people who are putting themselves on the line the best possible kit

[XV107]

It is an unfortunate myth that the RAF managed to do away with the SHAR; this was something which had a lot of dark blue input at a senior level. I heard one of Admirals involved (an aviator) tell an audience of all three services the details and [name drop] had lunch with him afterwards [/name drop] where he expanded a little further on the matter. Chatham House rule gets in the way of offering the details, although anyone familiar with the early days of the JFH would have a reasonable chance of guessing the officer concerned from the pool of senior RN officers involved at the time.

I believe that there is more truth in the idea that some elements within the RAF have asked why the RN should have separate squadrons (or more accurately the NSW) to operate the Harrier, rather than the RN providing pilots for RAF squadrons. There was resentment that the number command/executive opportunities for RAF Harrier mates went down when JFH was created (the loss of one RAF squadron and the command/exec positions) when it seemed that the RN couldn't provide the manpower to sustain two squadrons of Harriers. Fair or not, that was the perception and I have heard an RN Harrier mate suggest that there is merit in this. And this has led to a body of opinion that the FAA should operate helicopters (which it does very well) and the RAF should provide the fixed wing aircraft - not only by having a notable proportion of the Harrier force wearing dark blue, but by putting pilots who don't get through the Harrier OCU onto Typhoon and the GR4 so that you end up improving the chances of the RN having senior officers with an up-to-date aviation background.

Some of the stories in the Sunday Times blaming Glenn Torpy for the bid to remove the Harrier entirely in a fit of single-service pique are wildly inaccurate, unless Torpy is in the habit of lying to audiences at defence conferences unconcerned that events will illustrate that he's been mendacious.

Edited January 31, 2009 by XV107

[keefr22]

I wonder what a SHAR pilot would say now if he was told he was going up against MIG 29s or SU27 or F16s or euro fighters or a 2008 std F15 ??

Probably - '' Fight's on '' !!

And don't forget that in many scenarios the rules of Engagement would often preclude BVR missile engagement without positive target i/d - giving the Shar the opportunity to get in close enough to create some mayhem !!

Keef

[Paddy]

Hi walrus

I got my info from the book " No escape zone" by Lieutenant Nick Richardson, the SHAR pilot shot down over Bosnia. He went up against Mig 29s in his training on route to Bosnia on Ark Royal in 1994..

Its a fantastic read and highly recommended. :-)

[AnonymousFO98]

Hi Paddy

from "Alex's Royal Navy Page" Shar Serials

XZ498 Sea Harrier FRS1 13 May 81 Written-off 16 Apr 94 by AAM near Gorazde.

Pilot - Lt. N. Richardson (801 NAS, HMS Ark Royal)

ejected safely.

it seems, Richardson's Shar was an FRS1 Paddy so you were correct in your assessment (Hark at me the expert )

The FAS2 did have BVR capabilities, look down up etc. wether it would make a lot of difference up against Mig29's i dunno, but it would mean not having to get up too close and personal to trade nicities.

[paul_c]

If they were going to do this with the RAF harrier why not the SHAR's.

I thought one of the main issues with the SHAR was that it needed an engine upgrade??

Julien

i know a lot of this thread is very heated but can i just state the obvious by saying there are no such things as SHAR's anymore? the Joint Force Harrier at Wittering and Cottesmore operate a pool of GR9's that are used by the RAF and Navy. and this story is just about an engine maintenance contract, not upgrades.

[Paddy]

Well done walrus, I stand corrected. that's the great thing about these threads, you learn something new every day :-)) maybe i need to read the book again ! I just assumed that by 94 the FAS-2 had arrived.

[AnonymousFO98]

I just assumed that by 94 the FAS-2 had arrived.

me too Paddy- that's why i was confused - doesn't take much

so just did a quick search while looking at reviews of the book. the cover seemed to show a FRS1 and so i went on a search just to check.

looks a good read BTW

[Paddy]

This from the web

The Sea Harrier FA2 carries the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile and was the first UK aircraft to be provided with this capability. The first aircraft was delivered on 2 April 1993 and the first operational deployment was in April 1994 as part of the UN force in Bosnia.

Looks like Richardson had old kit !! So i wasnt far off :-))

Edited January 31, 2009 by Paddy

[Dave Fleming]

The first operational deployment was a group of four OEU aircraft that operated alongside the FRS1s to 'combat test' the FA2.

The FA2 needed a new engine

The problem was the climate the UK Forces now oerate in - the old Pegasus that they carried was fine for operating in the North Atlantic, but didn't have enough spare power to do safe vertical landings at operational weights in 'hot' conditions. There are stories of them having to jettison weapons (including Amraams) to get the weight down to get back on board during the one tour they did in the Gulf - the usual load was two tanks and two undefusleage AIM-120s). The proposed engine upgrade would have meant a substantial rebuild of the fuselage to hold the larger Pegasus - for several airframes, the second major rebuild of their career. In the financial climate of having to fight two minor wars,it just wasn't feasible.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Dave Fleming