BAe/Boeing GR.5 / AV-8B wings-span 'What If' question????

[Hobbes]

Fair enough on the landing pad. Just trying to give a frame of reference for transporting outsize loads.

As for loading to capacity: A single 20-ft container loaded with water would hold 37.5 tons of water, i.e. far more than those containers are designed to carry. So even at 1 kg/dm^3 average density, you soon run into the load limit for road transport.   
For things like fuel and ammo you can assume at least this density.

[rickshaw]

I assume a greater density.  Afteral AVTUR is less dense than water (typically 0.775 kg/L).  HE is obviously considerably higher.  What we really need to discuss is possible Issue Scales for a single Harrier over a 24 hour period for POL, Ammunition and other consumables.  I rather suspect that we will not max out either cube or mass, before we max out on the 24 hour time period.

[Hobbes]

For VTOL, the difference between empty weight and max. takeoff weight is 2895 kg (Wikipedia, Harrier GR7). So that's the amount of fuel plus ordnance per sortie. These will be short flights (limited fuel). Assume 30 minutes of flight time plus 30 minutes of turnaround, that's up to 24 flights per day (an awful lot in my opinion, but desperate times etc. so we need a worst-case scenario here). That's 24 * 2895 = 69480 kg. Add the spares, food and supplies for personnel, etc.

In the Netherlands, the max. gross weight of a lorry is 50 tons with an axle load of 10 tons, with an overall length of 18 m. That weight is higher than in other countries (most have a 44-ton limit).
Of those 50 tons, you can get max. 35 tons of useful load (depending on the type of load), but that's for unarmored civilian trucks.
There's also the 'LZV' category, which allows up to 60 tons and an overall length of 25,75 m on main roads and industrial estates only.

[MAD]

rickshaw - Each Harrier would be assigned three road trains.   Two for operations and one for logistics.  The two operational ones would be provided with the following:

Ok.....that would give some operational flexibility and a far less predictable target!!
These would have to be some seriously powerful and cross-country capable truck/prime mover..........I'm thinking MAZ-543 (8x8) or KZKT-7428 (8x8) or if the ADF does not like the idea of using Eastern designed, built, tested and proven trucks, then it would have to be trucks like M.A.N CAT A1 (8x8) or Oshkosh Defense MKR16 (10x10) or Oshkosh Defense M1070's!!

rickshaw - Steel matting sufficient to build a landing pad

What about incorporating DROPS (Demountable Rack Offload and Pickup System) into this proposed system road train system? This would greatly minimize vulnerable resup time and again negate vulnerability to attack. Let alone the time, labor and support equipment (falklifts & cranes) needed to carry out the actual resup.
This DROPS system technique could also be employed for deploying and recovering a quick reel-type of your proposed PSP -type Aluminum / Steel matting landing pad i.e MLC-70 Vehicle Recovery Mat (VRM) / trackway system!!  Again this arrangement saving both time and effort to both deploy and recover on and off the road train

rickshaw - The logistics road train would carry sufficient fuel and ammunition for 48 hours operation.

Agreed!!

rickshaw -Road trains would operate semi-independently, with the Harriers flying between them and being called up to mount strikes in concert.

Makes sense!!

rickshaw - The road trains would be able, because of the large network of bush tracks and roads to range in and around an operational area and be able to provide rapid and timely air support to troops engaged with the enemy.

The exact purpose and want of my original concept + minimize vulnerability of the aircraft themselves!

rickshaw - I would foresee that on the march, the Harrier road train would be something like:

Scout Vehicle  (Landrover equipped with HMG & LMG)
Troop Vehicles  (Landrover troop carriers)

Maybe Bushmasters? Some armoured protection and psychological advantage to our troops!!
Or I hate to say it, let alone mention it Perentie 6x6's 

rickshaw - Road Train vehicle  (B-Couple semi-trailer equipped with multiple wheel drive)
MANPADS Vehicle  (Landrover carrying MANPADS team(s) ).

I'm thinking something along the lines of Avenger MANPADS/gun combination!

Troop Vehicles
Scout Vehicle

rickshaw - Logistic road trains would consist of:

Scout Vehicle
Road Train vehicle
Scout Vehicle

I think that this logistic road train would need both troop and air defence assets, as it will be the lynch pin in the system!!

rickshaw - The Logistics road train would be pushed forward to which ever FOB required resupply on an "at need" basis, returning to a FLB (Forward Logistics Base) for resupply itself.

Again I like it! But once again this emphasis it's need of organic troop and air defence assets!

Fantastic work and thought put into this rickshaw!!
My hat is comes off to you dear sir

M.A.D

[MAD]

This is what I was thinking for the railway air-basing system - the Skyhook system 'Trestle' arrangement (circled in red) minis the arming arms oh and yeah minis the skyhook itself!!

M.A.D

[rickshaw]

MAD, the system would rely largely on palletised logistics for ease of handling.  Whether its DROPS or some other system is pretty much up to you.  The steel matting could be the deployed off a bobbin but I was envisaging more PSP connected with hinged joints.  You would literally fold the mat up and just attach lines and lift with crane onto the back of the vehicle.

As to what truck you wish to see used, that is up to you but I think if you realistically want this to look like it was real, then you'd have to look at either European or American truck manufacturers.  The defence lobby would never allow the adoption of an East European truck IMO.  The old buffers at the RSL would be out on the streets if they dared (witness the continued resistance to the adoption of Toyota Landcruisers over Landrovers)!

I would suggest that assigning AFVs to this sort of duty would be an overkill.   Ditto for a specialised MANPADS vehicle.   The idea would be to make such mobile basing attractive because of its relative cheapness.  AFVs and specialised vehicles cost a great deal more.  Considering how far back, behind the FEOT (Forward Edge - Own Troops) they would be expected to operate, a small security detail mounted in soft-skin vehicles would be more than sufficient.

[PR19_Kit]

MAD, where did you find that Skyhook system drg. please?

[tinlail]

This is what I was thinking for the railway air-basing system - the Skyhook system 'Trestle' arrangement (circled in red) minis the arming arms oh and yeah minis the skyhook itself!!

M.A.D

A flatbed cars rigged up with that skyhook like system, would make for a good engine maintance facility. Even if the planes were operating off the ground. Pull the plane next to the car, lift if in to a cradle, pull the wing off and put it in a another cradle. change out the engine using the crane also, put it back together and on the ground for sorties.

[Weaver]

Another thing to consider is maintenance support. In Rebuilding the Royal Navy, D.K.Brown relates that study after study into small Harrier carrier concepts showed that maintenance support became grossly uneconomical for units of less than six Harriers, which is pretty much what killed off Skyhook and other "micro-carrier" concepts.

As I understand it, this is because many of the maintenance "assets" (be they equipment or skilled personnel) are assigned on a one-per-six aircraft basis. The effect of this is as follows:

12 aircraft in 1 unit of 12 on 1 ship: 2 lots of assets
12 aircraft in 2 units of 6 on 2 ships: 2 lots of assets
12 aircraft in 4 units of 3 on 4 ships: 4 lots of assets
12 aircraft in 6 units of 2 on 6 ships: 6 lots of assets

So if twelve aircraft are deployed in six separate units of two aircraft each, then they need three times as many of these maintenance assets as they would if they were all deployed together.

[coops213]

I have to respectfully disagree: I think it's the equivalent of plugging a fuel receptacle into the end of a basket and then reeling in the reciever until it docks with the tanker. My point about mass is that it governs inertia, which in turn governs the response speed possible with a reaction control system of a given power. If the Harrier is descending and a gust catches it at the last second, it's likely to have hit the ground off-centre before your autopilot can detect the gust, apply the reaction control jets and get a result. Of course, you can make the RCS more powerful, but that still doesn't get over the sense-decide-react loop delay, and of course, it means bleeding more air from the engine.

I guess you're right. Control systems are getting faster and more powerful all the time (read up about antilock braking, sensors detect sudden deceleration of a wheel and reduce it's brake before it locks) and I strongly believe such systems will exist in the future. But in the case of the Harrier I guess there probably just isn't enough thrust available to make such last drastic and last minute corrections.

Thanks for explaining the "cross-wind-yaw" issue, PR19_Kit. Aside from good piloting, I guess the only way to resolve that would be if one of the wingtip roll jets were capable of supporting half the weight of the aircraft! Which as Weaver pointed out, would bleed more air from the engine. You can't very well turn a whole train into the wind, so it would probably be near impossible to orient the aircraft precisely with the landing cradle.

Oh, and thanks for pointing me in the direction of John Farley's book, I'll be sure to check it out!

Chris

[PR19_Kit]

But in the case of the Harrier I guess there probably just isn't enough thrust available to make such last drastic and last minute corrections.

Chris,

It may not be lack of thrust, but more likely the time it takes for such a hefty engine to spool up to a power setting above what it's at right now. There's a LOT of inertia in a Pegasus engine and no matter how fast the control system responds the actual hardware takes time to follow on.

Thanks for explaining the "cross-wind-yaw" issue, PR19_Kit. Aside from good piloting, I guess the only way to resolve that would be if one of the wingtip roll jets were capable of supporting half the weight of the aircraft! Which as Weaver pointed out, would bleed more air from the engine. You can't very well turn a whole train into the wind, so it would probably be near impossible to orient the aircraft precisely with the landing cradle.

Oh, and thanks for pointing me in the direction of John Farley's book, I'll be sure to check it out!

The difficulty of aliging the whole train is why Weaver and I both proposed systems to have the platform be rotatable post the landing.

As for John Farley's book, it's a MUST read for anyone who's looked at a Harrier suspended in mid-air and thought 'Woweeee!'

[Weaver]

The problem isn't the inertia of the engine, which is running at near 100% in the hover anyway, it's the inertia of the whole aircraft. If the RCS wants to roll, yaw or pitch the aircraft then it can do it very quickly, because all it has to do is open some air valves which are on the end of long moment arms. However, if you want to move the whole aircraft bodily sideways, then you have to roll it as far as possible without losing too much vertical thrust component, then wait for the small amount of excess horizontal thrust to start moving 18,000lb of metal. In other words, it's not how fast the control system can react, it's how fast the control mechanisms can affect the movement of the mass.

[MAD]

Rickshaw - MAD, the system would rely largely on palletised logistics for ease of handling.  Whether its DROPS or some other system is pretty much up to you.

Yeah cool mate 

Rickshaw - The steel matting could be the deployed off a bobbin but I was envisaging more PSP connected with hinged joints.  You would literally fold the mat up and just attach lines and lift with crane onto the back of the vehicle.

Yep got you there mate, as I am familiar with the PSP system. It's just when scanning through the internet for ideas and concepts, that I came across the MLC-70 Vehicle Recovery Mat (VRM) / trackway system, which I thought elevated the need for dismounting and assembly and dismantling and restoring onto the trucks!

Rickshaw - As to what truck you wish to see used, that is up to you but I think if you realistically want this to look like it was real, then you'd have to look at either European or American truck manufacturers.  The defence lobby would never allow the adoption of an East European truck IMO.

You are completely correct on this point.
Its just that I have a soft spot (fascination with the awesome capability and off-road performance of the specialised Soviet / Russian trucks) 

Rickshaw - The old buffers at the RSL would be out on the streets if they dared (witness the continued resistance to the adoption of Toyota Landcruisers over Landrovers)!

That's funny, but so true!!! 

Rickshaw - I would suggest that assigning AFVs to this sort of duty would be an overkill.

Yeah I know  It's the Rifleman in me..........wishfull thinking! I've operated out of those Perentie 6x6's 

Rickshaw - Ditto for a specialised MANPADS vehicle.   The idea would be to make such mobile basing attractive because of its relative cheapness.  AFVs and specialised vehicles cost a great deal more.  Considering how far back, behind the FEOT (Forward Edge - Own Troops) they would be expected to operate, a small security detail mounted in soft-skin vehicles would be more than sufficient.

Again a reality check and well called too!!
I guess I can live with those shitfull Perentie 6x6's, some RBS-70 or FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS!

Thanks again for your sensible advice and input!!

M.A.D

[jonesthetank]

Thoughts.....

[MAD]

MAD, where did you find that Skyhook system drg. please?

Sorry mate.............I just spotted this inquiry 
To be truthful, I can not remember ...................just found it on my hard drive.....but I will endeavor to find its source for you 

M.A.D