Model Forum / General / Models / January 2008

To paraphrase Napoleon, I'd sooner have "lucky" aircraft than "good"
aircraft :o)

(kim)

I don't believe the VSTOL fleet concept was *ever* relevant. I have been
around Harriers long enough to know that although vertical tak-poff looks
good at air shows, it is absolutely useless for operations. STOVL is a
different kettle of fish, however. The short take-off roll, combined with a
ski-jump allows a decent payload to be carried. The STOVL concept still has
a lot of relevance in a fleet role.

Sadly, the only operational aircraft that currently operate in this role -
Harriers - are obsolete. In my opinion Harriers were only ever marginally
suitable for operations in the first place. The Harrier is effectively a
test-bed with military equipment strapped on to the outside. If anything
ever goes wrong with it, some item of armament equipment (usually gun pods,
centreline pylon and ehection seat) has to be removed to afford access.
That's not a good design for a military aircraft.

The Harrier airframe was/is not a good fighter. It bleeds off energy far too
quickly. During the 1980s, RAF tactics in Germany were to put up a four-ship
package of Harrier GR3s.  Three of the aircraft would carry a warload
suitable for the mission. The fourth was known as the "Stinger". This jet
would carry a single Winder on one outboard pylon with a Phimat chaff pod on
the other. The Stinger would be placed in a random position in the
formation. His job was to "protect" the others, but he was really only there
as deterrence - any attacking aircraft could never be sure which jet had the
Winder.

The Stinger was always flown by an experienced pilot and the intention was
not for him to actually engage any threatening aircraft, but for him to put
himself into a threatening posture whenever an enemy fighter approached one
of his formation. This required a lot of discipline and so the job was given
to the more older, more experienced jockeys. This was explained to me once
by a very experienced Squadron Leader.  "The Jet isn't a fighter," he said.
"But you can't tell these kids that. Give 'em a Winder and strap a bang seat
to their arse and they all think they're bloody Maverick. God forbid it
should ever come to the real thing, 'cos they'll try mixing it with a Mig
and they'll die. I wouldn't even mix it with a bloody Alpha Jet."

I asked him about VIFFing - Vectoring In Forward Flight, where the pilot
vectors the nozzles to allow the jet to stand still in the skies. He said
"Viffing is only good for airshows."  His argument was that in air combat
the way to survive is to keep your energy high. If you have low energy you
should always unload the aircraft (dive at a shallow angle which reduces the
load on the wings and allows speed to be regained) and disengage. He said
that viffing instantly gave the aircraft *zero* energy. It may get you out
of a tight spot with a single attacking fighter, but they always hunt in
pairs.  After the viff, you would be stationary and his wingman would waltz
right in and kill you. He was of the opinion that the wingman wouldn't even
need to use any weapons for the kill - a fast pass in afterburner would
produce enough turbulence to knock the Harrier off its exhaust column. There
was also a concern that viffing at high speed might actually tear some of
the older jets apart.

The Harrier's best survival methods were low-level concealment and
avoidance. This was practiced all the time. Three times a year we used to go
to "Deci" in Sardinia. Once was for Armament Practice Camp (APC) which
allowed extensive bombing and gunnery practice on the Capo Frasca range. The
other two times were for ACMI - air combat training on the Air Combat
Maneuvering Instrumentation range. The intention here was to let the kids
loose with a Harrier that had been stripped down to its lightest
configuration (no guns), fitted with a acquisition Winder and ACMI pod and
put them up against F-15s.  After four days of continually getting creamed
by real fighters, they learned that there was no way they would ever survive
such an encounter. They could then learn the real tactics of fighter
avoidance. At the start of the ACMI they considered a "kill" by one of their
side as a successful sortie. At the end of the detachment they considered a
sortie where none of their own was killed to be successful.

As for the Harrier's relevance in the Falklands, it was simply the only
aircraft that was available. The Harrier GR3s did a very good job because
they were carrying out the role for which they were designed, close air
support.  The Sea Harriers also did a good job which was down to using
correct tactics. As I've mentioned before, they were employed as
interceptors, not fighters. The SHAR pilots were under strict orders *not*
to get involved in dogfights. In the event the Argentine pilots weren't
interested in mixing it either, as they were at the limits of their
endurance. However, if a couple of the A-4 pilots *had* decided to have a
go, I think that the SHAR pilots would have found themselves in trouble very
quickly indeed.

Don't believe everything you read. The Harriers used in the Falklands were
*not* reliable.  The strange thing about a Harrier is that once you get it
flying, if you keep it flying it stays serviceable. Once they put their
wheels on the deck, if you get the thing airborne again within half an hour,
you can keep running that cycle all day and the jet will stay serviceable.
However, let the jet settle and it all goes pear shaped. The GR3s were
flying two missions a day and so they suffered some immense reliability
problems.
After the Falklands War there was a major modification programme instituted
throughout the RAF Harrier fleet. Known as "Phase 6" it was in part an
attempt to address the reliability problems of the aircraft. By the time
GR3s were withdrawn in the early 90s, they had become far more reliable than
they had been ten years before, but they still had the highest maintenance
manhour rate of any combat aircraft in the RAF.

My sources tell me that Typhoon is currently approaching similar manhour
rates as the Harrier GR3 - almost 25% higher than that of the Jaguar which
it replaced. So much for progress..

I have that book somewhere, I'll have to see if I can find it.

I wouldn't agree with the stated number of six gun kills. Certainly not for
air-to-air kills. Mind you, the RAF GR3s caused all sorts of havoc against
aircraft on the ground using their guns.  Plenty of lessons learned there as
well - and just as quickly forgotten!

The 30mm ammunition came in belts of 60 rounds. The ammo boxes in the
Harriers were designed to hold 90 rounds. During normal training, we just
used to use a single belt of 60 rounds in each gun. The warload was 120
rounds per gun, mostly because it was easy to make up by simply connecting
together two 60 round belts. Trials had shown that the ammo box and feed
chutes could *just about* handle 120 rounds. The first few missions suffered
gun stoppages every single time, due to belt drag. We worked out that
vibration in flight caused the ammunition to settle in the tanks and lock
together, so causing the stoppage. Once we reverted to the designed warload
of 90 rounds per gun, all the stoppages stopped. Lesson learned!

Three years later and I got posted back onto a Harrier squadron. Many of the
lessons learned in the Falklands had been ignored and standard practice was
to use 120 rounds as a warload, even though we all knew that the gun would
almost certainly suffer a stoppage.

Further research has shown that the gun kills were on a Pucara on 21 May.
One A-4Q was shot down by guns on the same day, with a second damaged by
guns. The pilot of the second A-4 attempted to recover to Stanley but could
not lower his landing gear so he ejected.

The third gun kill was against a C-130 which had been hit but not downed by
a Sidewinder.

Two of those gun kills were against aircraft that were no threat to the
SHARs (Pucara/C-130). It is possible that the A-4 gun attacks were made only
because the SHARs had expended their Sidewinders.

I'll say it again...slow, so you can catch it -

if...they'd...been...fighting...F-15s...they...would...
...have...gotten...their...arses...handed...to...them...

yeah, yer probably right...

That's cool...seems tail heavy, but that could be worked out.  I really
like this concept, as rotary winged things go.

bookmarked so i can read in full.