Page 1 of 3
USMC AV-8 Harrier
Posted: 2003-01-01 10:28am
by Vympel
LA Times recently did an indepth piece on the USMC and it's troubled AV-8 Harrier. I have yet to read the entire thing, but the key thing was of course the Harrier's unparalleled accident/mortality rate in US military service, it's vertical takeoff ability that has yet to be used in any real campaign etc.
A theme in the article was drawing parallels between the troubled Harrier program and the downright macarbe V-22 program- the Marine Corps perhaps being a bit too obsessed with it's 'vertical vision' so to speak.
http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/harrier/
Note that you DO have to register to read all the articles, but it is FREE.
Thoughts?
Posted: 2003-01-01 11:03am
by Soontir C'boath
The Harriers should be retired immediately.
I mean, the Navy won't help improved it except for a third design coming out.
And it costs a hell of a lot of money just to upgrade them.
Plus, the amount of accidents and incidents compared to it's combat flight hours is ludicrous.
Cyaround,
Jason
Posted: 2003-01-01 01:14pm
by phongn
Harrier is due to be replaced with the STOVL version of the F-35.
Re: USMC AV-8 Harrier
Posted: 2003-01-01 01:38pm
by MKSheppard
Vympel wrote:
A theme in the article was drawing parallels between the troubled Harrier program and the downright macarbe V-22 program- the Marine Corps perhaps being a bit too obsessed with it's 'vertical vision' so to speak.
Now you've done it. Expect Wilkens to run in here and rant and rave at you...
I'm seeing the same signs appearing here with the Corps obsession
with urban warfare, and the US Army's current obsession with
lightweight wheeled vehicles.....
Posted: 2003-01-01 01:43pm
by Sokar
The Harrier line of aircraft was designed to provide USMC Amphibious foces their own intergal air support component, without necessitating the presence of a Carrier Battlegroup. That being said , the Harrier with its V/STOL abilities is by definition an extreme modificaton to the concept of 'airplane'. It takes great skill to fly , espcially the early versions which lacked much of the computer stabilizization systems of the current AV-8B/C, and caused the majority of the Harriers accidents. This being said , the Marines have never been coy about the risks of being a Harrier pilot with the men who volunteer, thats right of their own free will, to be pilots.
If the public has heard about the dangers of beiong a Harrier pilot , you be damed sure that the entire Corps knew abot it long before we ever did.
Posted: 2003-01-01 01:58pm
by MKSheppard
Osprey $$$ flows into 42 states. That's why after 14 years of not flying very well it still hasn't been killed.
And why it still continues to be funded even after a major scandal involving
Marines FALSIFYING the maintenance/safety records of the experimental
V-22 squadron near here.
Posted: 2003-01-01 02:19pm
by Wicked Pilot
The Harrier is a remarkable aircraft, and its use has been demonstrated in the Falklans and Gulf War. Of course it's somewhat dangerous, but almost all military aircraft are more dangerous than their civilian counterparts. Just remember, that hundreds if not thousands of pilots in the U.S., U.K., and other nations have logged thousands of hours in this plane, and have gone on to retirement without being in an accident. The AV-8B has served the USMC well, and does not need to be retired prematurely.
Posted: 2003-01-01 02:32pm
by Sea Skimmer
Anyone got a replacement that can fly off a Wasp? No? Very well then the Harrier stays until the F-35 shows up.
If there attacking the lack of it's vertical takeoff's then someone who was part of this is a moron who didn't bother to do real research on the plane. The ability to vertically take off requires a very limited warlord, a couple AAM'ss and partial fuel. This has always been known and is why the plane has always been considered a Short take off vertical landing aircraft.
Posted: 2003-01-01 02:33pm
by Keevan_Colton
The harrier is an amazing little craft, very manouverable and very useful in its own way. Its not really meant for every day use its was developed for use in STOL more than VTOL capacity and there it is excellent...when mixed with the ski-jump style carriers its very useful....simply look at the falklands.
The USMC use for it is a little different than the british intention when it was designed....it was meant to provide functionality on smaller carriers and inland to allow tactical support without the aid of airstrips in the event of a war with the warsaw pact. It was assumed that the airfields would be high on the target list and they wanted a craft capable of functioning if most of the RAF's fields were taken out in a first strike.
Posted: 2003-01-01 02:37pm
by Sea Skimmer
MKSheppard wrote:Osprey $$$ flows into 42 states. That's why after 14 years of not flying very well it still hasn't been killed.
And why it still continues to be funded even after a major scandal involving
Marines FALSIFYING the maintenance/safety records of the experimental
V-22 squadron near here.
Not like that’s the first time that's happened for a military program. 2/3's of the F-14 prototypes crashed and the plane turn out to be an excellent aircraft that will have served for decades by the time of retirement and proved highly adaptable to recon and bomber tasks its designers never had in mind.
The MV-22 program needs allot of work, but there is no other replacement that will work and canceling it will fuckover USMC and USN building plans for the next decade or so.
Posted: 2003-01-01 03:21pm
by MKSheppard
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Not like that’s the first time that's happened for a military program. 2/3's of the F-14 prototypes crashed and the plane turn out to be an excellent aircraft that will have served for decades by the time of retirement and proved highly adaptable to recon and bomber tasks its designers never had in mind.
F-14 Tomcat First Flight: December 1970
F-14 Tomcat Operational Service: 1973
********
V-22 Osprey First Flight: March 19, 1989
V-22 Osprey Operational Service: FUCK KNOWS WHEN
Scrap it and use this:
Posted: 2003-01-01 03:23pm
by MKSheppard
The really sad thing is that the turkey that is the V-22 has diverted
Marine resources for over 20 years. It has literally stopped
development and procurement of modern long range troop
carrying helicoptors for the Combat Marine.
They went into Afghanistan in 30+ year old buckets of bolts.
They deserve so much better. Unfortunately, they will not get
what they deserve for years to come - while the troops will have
to fight this ongoing worldwide battle with ever older, more
dangerous, unreliable 1950s and 60s technology.
So sad.
Posted: 2003-01-01 03:24pm
by Sea Skimmer
MKSheppard wrote:Sea Skimmer wrote:
Not like that’s the first time that's happened for a military program. 2/3's of the F-14 prototypes crashed and the plane turn out to be an excellent aircraft that will have served for decades by the time of retirement and proved highly adaptable to recon and bomber tasks its designers never had in mind.
F-14 Tomcat First Flight: December 1970
F-14 Tomcat Operational Service: 1973
********
And in that time 9 out of 14 crashed.
Posted: 2003-01-01 03:30pm
by MKSheppard
Sea Skimmer wrote:
And in that time 9 out of 14 crashed.
It got into squadron service in 3-4 years, rather than taking 14+ years
and COUNTING....I wouldn't mind if the V-22 crashed like crazy....but the
immense WASTE of the program, and the hideously long stretched schedule
has made me conclude that it is Defense Contractor Pork (TM), like the F/A-22..
What's the fucking point of the F/A-22 now that it has the same radar as
the F-35? Cancel it and the Osprey...
Posted: 2003-01-01 03:38pm
by phongn
MKSheppard wrote:What's the fucking point of the F/A-22 now that it has the same radar as
the F-35? Cancel it and the Osprey...
There's more to an aircraft than it's radar. The F/A-22 is faster and more optimized for the air-to-air role than the F-35. It (IIRC) has a longer range and warload to boot.
Re: Scrap it and use this:
Posted: 2003-01-01 05:26pm
by Sea Skimmer
MKSheppard wrote:[img]
http://www.cartercopters.com/pm_navy.jpg[img]
[img]
http://www.cartercopters.com/pm_award.jpg[img]
The really sad thing is that the turkey that is the V-22 has diverted
Marine resources for over 20 years. It has literally stopped
development and procurement of modern long range troop
carrying helicoptors for the Combat Marine.
They went into Afghanistan in 30+ year old buckets of bolts.
They deserve so much better. Unfortunately, they will not get
what they deserve for years to come - while the troops will have
to fight this ongoing worldwide battle with ever older, more
dangerous, unreliable 1950s and 60s technology.
So sad.
That thing is too fucking huge for a Wasp's to operate. Too fucking huge for a Wasp's deck. Hauling a lot and being fast is not enough, it needs to be on a very compact aircraft. That’s why A tilt rotor is the only game in town, compound helicopters or gyroplanes are either too big or carry far too little.
Posted: 2003-01-02 12:57am
by Vympel
Sea Skimmer wrote:Anyone got a replacement that can fly off a Wasp? No? Very well then the Harrier stays until the F-35 shows up.
If there attacking the lack of it's vertical takeoff's then someone who was part of this is a moron who didn't bother to do real research on the plane. The ability to vertically take off requires a very limited warlord, a couple AAM'ss and partial fuel. This has always been known and is why the plane has always been considered a Short take off vertical landing aircraft.
I know that, however Marine Corps generals have been fudging the truth. In promoting the Harrier, many of them lied that the Harrier had operated in the Gulf War out of a soccer field, and that this was essential.
It's quite a good report, and it would be nice if people actually read it before coming up with the cliched "harrier is a remarkable aircraft" spiel.
Posted: 2003-01-03 02:30am
by Knife
Vympel wrote:Sea Skimmer wrote:Anyone got a replacement that can fly off a Wasp? No? Very well then the Harrier stays until the F-35 shows up.
If there attacking the lack of it's vertical takeoff's then someone who was part of this is a moron who didn't bother to do real research on the plane. The ability to vertically take off requires a very limited warlord, a couple AAM'ss and partial fuel. This has always been known and is why the plane has always been considered a Short take off vertical landing aircraft.
I know that, however Marine Corps generals have been fudging the truth. In promoting the Harrier, many of them lied that the Harrier had operated in the Gulf War out of a soccer field, and that this was essential.
It's quite a good report, and it would be nice if people actually read it before coming up with the cliched "harrier is a remarkable aircraft" spiel.
What do you expect in this over political correct world of ours. Any accident with an experimental craft is seen as a total failure and the Generals know it. The public has been groomed to not except any causualties in training without an outroar and a billion calls to the local Congressman.
I've been in many an operation with the AV/8 and sorry man, but it is a "remarkable aircraft". Its low stalling speed and flexibility from its directional thrust make it a superb CAS aircraft. With the "all in one package" that the Corps has become over the years, it serves its purpose really well. Is there problems? Yes, but name an combat aircraft without bugs in it. The fudging the numbers is the result of political correctness gone too far and people trying to save valuable equipment from the axe.
Posted: 2003-01-03 02:37am
by Vympel
Knife wrote:
What do you expect in this over political correct world of ours. Any accident with an experimental craft is seen as a total failure and the Generals know it. The public has been groomed to not except any causualties in training without an outroar and a billion calls to the local Congressman.
I've been in many an operation with the AV/8 and sorry man, but it is a "remarkable aircraft". Its low stalling speed and flexibility from its directional thrust make it a superb CAS aircraft. With the "all in one package" that the Corps has become over the years, it serves its purpose really well. Is there problems? Yes, but name an combat aircraft without bugs in it. The fudging the numbers is the result of political correctness gone too far and people trying to save valuable equipment from the axe.
You should at least read the report before making broad statements about political correctness. This is not a 'Harrier crashes a lot, scrap it!" piece.
As for the Osprey, it's a POS. And not just because it crashes.
Posted: 2003-01-03 10:50am
by Alyeska
In case anyone is wondering...
The V-22 can be used effectively on LHAs and LHDs. The aircraft is a good concept, though it is taking a while. Once it finally enters service it will give the Marines a long range heavy lift capable aircraft. That is important for them because it extends their combat range.
Posted: 2003-01-03 11:28am
by Wicked Pilot
The USAF is also working to add this plane to it's helo fleet for special operations missions.
Posted: 2003-01-03 09:14pm
by Tsyroc
I didn't realize the Osprey folded up as much as that.
Posted: 2003-01-03 09:26pm
by The Yosemite Bear
Yeah, Folding air-craft, nessarry for carrier storage situations, but damn unstable otherwise.
Posted: 2003-01-03 09:27pm
by The Yosemite Bear
Actually, the instability, and safety problems was one of the reasons some people wanted the Hellcat scrapped.
Posted: 2003-01-03 09:39pm
by Crayz9000
Tsyroc wrote:I didn't realize the Osprey folded up as much as that.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of the Osprey's problems would be fixed if it didn't imitate an accordion. Leave the wings fixed, leave the rotors fixed; just have the engines tilt up and down, and you've more than halved the mechanical complexity.
