Harrier and Sea Harrier

[Brian]

Hi Martin H "looks like a bog standard 1000 pounder to me".

That's because its not an iron bomb but a nuclear bomb!

All nuclear bombs have a lower relative density than iron bombs because their internal spaces are filled with equipment and .... well ... space. Wheras iron bombs are filled to the eyebrows with HE and no spare empty spaces. So a 600 lb nuclear bomb as this one might well be physically bigger than a 1000 lb iron bomb as Martin correctly spotted.

Some more recently posted pics of Sea Harriers and this bomb are here:
http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/032-Sea-Harrier-release.png
http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/033-Sea-Harrier-loaded.png

and here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/133000/bb/133417_16x9_bb.asx
and here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7097101.stm




***edited to create links to the images***

[TsrJoe]

Waw excellent finds there by Jef and Brian, some images i hadnt seen before too...hm...now ill have to do something with those Belcher 177's..

[Weaver]

Here's a thought - how about a proper tac-recce Harrier (i.e not just the one F-95 camera)?

GR.3 airframe (for minimum drag) with an extended nose housing a full camera suite (I've got some pen-tops that are the perfect shape  ). It would need more weight and side area aft, but not nearly as much as a T.4, so it would keep it's GR.3 fin,but have an extended tail-stinger with fixed strakes above and below. Rather than carrying lead ballast like a T.4, the stinger and strakes could be made of heavy steel tube, and the strakes could carry chaff/flares in their thickness.

Now the RAF probably wouldn't build such a thing because they've got other, better assets, so how about this:

In my "semi-realistic" timeline, P.1154 is cancelled earlier (on ground erosion issues), the RAF turns it's nose up at the P.1127, and the RN gets Paladins (updated Crusaders) on small CTOL CVs. However, there's then a debate in Britain, prompted by early experience in Vietnam, about who owns CAS and battlefield helos (similar to the one in the States) which the ground-pounders partially win. The Army Air Corps and the newly-formed Royal Marine Air Arm take over battlefield transport helicopters from the RAF/RN, and the latter are put under an obligation to provide a suitable CAS aircraft, which they do (grudingly) by adapting old Gannets into Skyraideresque GA.7s (model planned  ).

However, the ruling which gives the AAC/RMAA the helos is actually phrased to give them control of "support aircraft not requiring an airbase". They then use this ruling to acquire Harriers (after another almighty battle with the RAF/RN, of course). Since these Harrier forces are independent, they need their own tac-recce, hence the specialised version. The RMAA operate them from through-deck LPHs, initially Albion and Bulwark, whilst the AAC deploys them alongside helos in both Germany and Vietnam.

[Weaver]

One of the problems with the original Harrier was that it's wing was sized for a speed it couldn't reach, hence why every proposed and real upgrade since has featured bigger wings of one sort or another. Now what if one of the operators decided that the Harrier's CAS mission profile should be more like the A-10, i.e. slower, more weapons and more loiter time? They might fit a REALLY big wing with greater span and less sweep. Such a wing would certainly be heavier than the original, particularly if filled with fuel, but then again, Harriers habitually fly with drop tanks anyway, so if the new wing allowed those to be left behind, the trade-offs would probably work out.

So in modelling terms, here's something to think about:

1st Gen Harrier wing: 201 sq.ft.

2nd Gen Harrier wing: 230 sq.ft.

1/48th Hawk wing scaleorama'd to 1/72nd: 270 sq.ft. (but problems fitting it because of the wing-root curve to match the intakes)

1/48th Alpha Jet wing scaleorama'd to 1/72nd: 280 sq.ft. (and dead straight wing roots)

And since, by all accounts, the the Heller 1/48th Alpha Jet is a POS anyway.......

[DarrenP]

One area that would have been interesting for the harrier would have been if the UK had replaced he Sea Harrier FRS1 with a version of the Harrier II equipped like te AV8+ but with Blue vixen radar.

[Weaver]

I think the principal reason they didn't is because the AV-8B is about 50kts slower than a Sea Harrier due to the different characteristics of it's wing. However, an AV-8B II+ with Blue Vixen would almost certainly still be in service today, unlike the SHAR. It would probably have sold to the Italians and the Spanish too....

The ideal would be an AV-8B fuselage (capable of taking a big-fan Pegasus) with a BAE Big-Wing-Harrier-style big and THIN wing holding a bit less fuel but preserving the top end speed of the GR.3. Since the MoD wouldn't fund that for the RAF buy, I couldn't see them doing it just for the RN though....

[JayBee]

You know, this is starting to sound a bit like Lenny100's HarriHog.

[DarrenP]

Agree but given the economy of scale if the FAA had been pushed to buy Harrier II GR5 aircraft to replace the Sea Harrier then Upgrade them to FAA specific aircraft I think the Navy would have go ten over it. If you Read Joint Force Harrier the implication is the Navy were very flexible

[kitnut617]

I've been thinking about a scaled up Harrier to be used as a close support bomb-truck or such and it will be in 1/72 scale.  My plan was to use a 1/48 Harrier II as a base because I want to modify the outriggers positions into dedicated main wheels (similar to RN P.1154) but instead of using one engine, I'm going to go with two. The bottom of the rear fuselage will look a little like an F-4's using F-35 type swiveling exhaust cans but the front swivelling ducts will stay the same. Forward fuselage will be as the two-seater T.4. The air inlet though I'm going to change into a ramp style inlets (originally like an F-15 but since then I've changed my mind and it will look like half a Concorde inlet).

I got hold of a Monogram Harrier II and Ian at Heritage Aviation was able to sell me a 1/72 T.4 forward fuselage (I had asked if he had any that had flaws as I was going to kitbash it anyway) and almost immediately found that using the 1/48 parts isn't going to work for what I had in mind.  I really need a Harrier in about 1/60 or 1/65 scale.  This photo of the two wings shows clearly that something that is only 1 1/2 times bigger is way bigger than what I had thought it would be.

At the moment the whole thing is on hold because I need to think about it more as it clearly isn't going to work this way.

[dy031101]

Does anyone have either a photo or an illustration on the Indian Sea Harrier that has gone through the latest upgrade (Israeli radar, Derby AAM capability, and etc.)?

It sounds like the upgrade is complete- there's even a news of an upgraded Indian Sea Harrier involved in an accident, but I just can't seem to find a photo of the upgraded Harrier......

[elmayerle]

Perhaps a bit of thread revival, but does anyone have a good three-view, or at least a good side view, of the AV-8C?  I've got some ideas for suing elements of that one to enhance GR.3's for the RAAuxF and SHARs as part of a more extensive FA.2 conversion effort.  I parti :banghead:cularly need good data on the gunpod strakes.

[Mossie]

These any good Evan?

Walkaround, try page 3, 9 & 11
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/shawn_antunes/av-8c/

[elmayerle]

Very useful, thanks, but I was hoping for a drawing to work from.  *grin* I've got plans to use some of these mods on other Harrier verisions (a minor one being a TAV-8C)

[Shasper]

I believe, besides the minor antenna differences, that the Alpha & Charlie model AV-8s were identical in shape.

[Mossie]

I could have sworn I posted earlier, but IIRC, the 1/72 Airfix Harrier II kits (there were three boxing's I think all with the same sprue, a GR.5, GR.7 & AV-8B) had a gun arrangement similar to the AV-8C.  I don't think it was the GAU-12 pod, or was possibly an innaccurate representation.  I might be mistaken as I gave the part away some time ago.