After 40 years faithful service

[Beefsteak 305]

Just found this news from yesterday .

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?sto...ECE0EBDC81C6E6A

[Limey 242]

Yep - the Harrier has been a great plane - but getting a little outdated. Biggest problem was the Americans were really the only ones who could afford to use it effectively. I think the Marines still have more of them than anybody else!

It will be sad to see them go - but, lets face it, they are slow by todays standards!

[plantfit 7,704]

Ayup Beefsteak,

I don't think this will be the end for the Harrier, it's too versatile, what could happen though is for the army to use them and form a larger air arm similar to the American system, they have an air force and an army air corps. just a thought

Rog

[Beefsteak 305]

I agree Rog but, fourty years is still a bloody good innings. I can only think of the C-130 Hercules and the B-52 that have been in service longer now. Firbeck will help out I'm sure.

Nimrod , ?

[bamber 128]

The Harrier was always a solution looking for a problem. As a fighter it was/is nigh on useless: it's subsonic; lacks a radar; is short range and carries too few munitions. Being able to take off from a rough airstrip was always a party trick rather than a valuable tactical benefit.

In its Sea Harrier incarnation (which has now been withdrawn from service) it did well in the Falklands but that was over a quarter of a century ago. And if the Royal Navy had still had "proper" carriers (with Phantoms and Buccaneers) back then the Argentinians wouldn't have got close enough to sink one ship.

And the only reason the F35B (the Harrier replacement) was ever designed was because the US Marine Corps wanted to retain its own aviation capability separate from the US Navy's F35C squadrons.

This programme could still be cancelled - look at the parlous state of the US budget - and that will bu99er the RAF/RN because our new carriers (if they avoid cancellation) have been designed around the F35B rather than the conventional F35C favoured by the US Navy.

And as for Nimrod ... how many tens of billions have been wasted because the MOD wanted to save money by squeezing the electronics into a relatively small airframe that dated back to the end of the Second World War.

When working on the new MR4 They only found out quite late that because the old airframes were essentially handbuilt the new wings didn't fit every aircraft. You couldn't make it up.

[firbeck 860]

I've got to nip out now, so I have'nt time to reply properly, but the Harrier useless as a fighter, cr@p, read Sharkey Wards book, subsonic air to air combat is the bees knees to that aircraft, and it can dictate this pace, twice I've personally seen them take part in combat exercises where they've used their viffing ability, I can assure you, it's awsome, even by todays standards.

''I'll put on the brakes and they'll fly right by, yeehah''.

[plantfit 7,704]

Nimrod the same airframe as the Comet over 50 years old

Rog

[firbeck 860]

The RAF operates 2 Hawker Hunters, ZZ190 and ZZ191, as Hunters first appeared in 1954, they could well be the oldest operated type by the RAF, not counting the BBMF of course. These two examples are believe it or not ex-Swiss airforce machines renovated at Scampton and leased back to the RAF for weapons trials work, initially from St Mawgan, but probably now from Boscombe Down.

The B-52A first entered service with the USAF in 1955 after a 3 year test programme, the C-130 first flew with the USAF in December 1956.

Incidentally, it's interesting to note a subsonic type such as the Hunter in use with the RAF on weapons trials. Not having the ability to perform high speed manouvres is not a disadvantage in a dog fight, any aircraft type with a skilled pilot and tight turning circle can out perform anything within it's own flight envelope.

During the Indonesian/Malayan incursions in the early 60's, the IAF operated P-51 Mustangs as it's principle fighter, the RAF, Lightnings. Trials were carried out in this country pitching a Lightning against one of the BBMF's Spitfire XIX's. It was found that if the Spitfire persuaded the Lightning to take part in a traditional dogfight, the Lightning lost, the tactic evolved by the Lightning was to stand off then attempt a high speed vertical pass from underneath, hoping to get off a shot in the meantime, fortunately this method was never put to the test.

Oh, just thought of another type, the Martin B-35, based on the Canberra, is still in use as a high altitude research aircraft by NASA, one of these appeared at Mildenhall a couple of years ago, but by the time I found out about it, it had gone back to Edwards AFB.

[plantfit 7,704]

firbeck,

B35, is that the one the Americans called the Washington?

Rog

[plantfit 7,704]

Sorry I got it wrong, the B29 was called the Washington by the RAF

Rog

[firbeck 860]

firbeck,

B35, is that the one the Americans called the Washington?

Rog

Sorry mate, my mistake, my brain hurts this morning, the Canberra variant in USAF parlance was the Martin B-57, built under licence, the YB-35 was the Northrop 'Flying Wing' ( see the 'War of the Worlds', first Hollywood version).

The Washington was the RAF's name for the B-29 that was taken on by them as the nuclear deterent in the early 50's as a stopgap until the 'V' bombers came into service, imagine those things trying to penetrate Russian airspace at that time and having to face Mig-15's instead of what they were originally designed for, ie the Zero's that literally fell out of the sky trying to intercept them at high altitude over Tokyo.

Talking of building under licence, and back to the Harrier, did you know that the current generation of RAF Harriers, the GR9's, are more or less an American design because BaE allowed the patent to lapse and McDonnell Douglas took advantage of this to improve the design. It was simply another disaster stemming from the defence cuts of the 60's that saw us lose the TSR-2. The original Harrier concept as a service aircraft was really meant to be the all singing and dancing, bigger, more capable, supersonic Kestrel, but like so many things, it came to nowt because of government disinterest or understanding.

If you want to feel sick, look up the history of the British Miles M52, see it's similarity to the later Bell X-1 and wonder why the British government of the day cancelled it's development in mysterious circumstances, still fully unexplained.

Oops sorry, I was doing this between phone calls and missed your posting.