Harrier and Sea Harrier

[scooter]

I know words alone won't help much, but the Shipbucket illustration specifies a what-if ship along the line of Strike Cruiser Mk.II:

Something along these lines?


I used her as a basis for my von Richthofen carrier

[dy031101]

Strike Cruiser Mk.II does keep all its aircraft stowage (six Harriers and two helicopters) above deck in the superstructure though.

After counting pixels on that "Hornet class Strategic Sea Control Ship"...... would a difference of 6" (as in a 17' clearance instead of 17.5' as in Midway and Vikrant) affect the Harriers (in terms of servicing, of course)?

[sandiego89]

would a difference of 6" (as in a 17' clearance instead of 17.5' as in Midway and Vikrant) affect the Harriers (in terms of servicing, of course)?

No.  Close enough, especially for WHIF.  Still plenty of room for servicing.

[dy031101]

No.  Close enough, especially for WHIF.  Still plenty of room for servicing.

Thanks.  

I don't know much about the logistic side of the Harrier (or carrier-based aircraft, for that matter), and I have an awful sense of scale.  

[Weaver]

But this is whif world so any number would be fine. Same as hangar heights. If you were modding a ship to be a Harrier carrier then I'm sure you could modify decks as well, or have an area of specific height to work on them. Besides, they are nowhere near as large as an F-14.

I'm also thinking that the way they remove the wing to access the engine would ease maintenance. Not sure how long it takes to do so, but maybe a new generation of Harrier could address the removal.

Well if you can generate a whiff scenario that makes two or three SHARs mandatory on a small ship then the government paying the bills may decide it's worth eating the efficiency cost. I was just illuminating the reasons why you don't see very small Harrier-carriers in real life.

Modifying the hangar height on a carrier is a HUGE deal, particularly if it's a British one with an armoured deck that makes a significant contribution to the longitudinal strength of the hull. Rebuilding Victorious with a taller hanger escalated into such a nightmare that the RN cancelled all it's plans to rebuild the rest of the class. You're not just changing the superstructure, you're changing the fundamental stressing of the hull AND changing the stability calculations by adding height high up on an already top-heavy ship.

The Harrier engine access is a major PITA. At least on a ship you don't have to erect a gantry around it to lift the wing and engine out because you've already got the overhead structure, but you still have to:

1. trestle the fuselage ('cos you're losing the outriggers)
2. lift the wing off and find somewhere safe to put it
3. remove all four nozzles
4. lift the engine out and find somewhere safe to put it so you can work on it

It need quite a lot of space both vertically and horizontally and is super-good-fun in any kind of heavy weather.

Just about every "super-Harrier" proposal has striven to find a different way of getting the engine out, usually downwards with lower-corner-mounted nozzles still attached.

[scooter]

Strike Cruiser Mk.II does keep all its aircraft stowage (six Harriers and two helicopters) above deck in the superstructure though.

Thanks for that tidbit.  Looks like the Red Baron's going to get a refit

[sandiego89]

As weaver suggests a special place in the hanger deck where you can conduct a (Sea)Harrier engine is a good idea. Overhead gantry to yank the engine, place to jack up, store the wing, etc.  The whole hanger does need to be so open as this.  IIRC one of the design drivers for the improved WASP class required a few spaces below deck where a MV-22 Osprey could be unfloded for maintainence (she folds down to a much smaller footprint).

Although the hangar decks on most modern carriers are quite high, they are also used for hanging storage, especially empty drop tanks and the like.

A first generation harrier/sea harrier fin tip is only 12 feet + high off the deck (twin seaters a bit more)   

[dy031101]

Looks like the Red Baron's going to get a refit

Do remember that Strike Cruiser Mk.II uses the same hull as the rest of the Strike Cruiser family......

And it's nuclear-powered (just like the rest of the Strike Cruiser family).

[Captain Canada]

That's too bad...I had always thought through the pictures I have seen of Harriers in the field, even the eraly GRs, that engine swaps were relatively easy !

But that's ok, I'm staying inside my bubble where the Harrier is Dog's perfect aeroplane.

[rickshaw]

That's too bad...I had always thought through the pictures I have seen of Harriers in the field, even the eraly GRs, that engine swaps were relatively easy !

They were, once the equipment was available and the crews were trained.  Getting to that point was what took the time and effort as in all things.

[Caveman]

Amongst the lessons learnt from harrier in use on the f35 is the ease of engine removal. Just wheel the engine stand up behind the aircraft, attach the rails, disconnect the "plumbing" and slide it straight out. I think you need about a half aircraft length clear behind.

[Captain Canada]

I was reading an article on Harrier.org about the 8 hour engine change....seems the biggest problem was dropping spanners and nuts etc. into the belly during installation and having to undo everything you did to get them out, as there were few access panels on the underside. The yo-yo effect.

[zenrat]

Has anyone Whifed up a non VTOL Harrier?  I.e. smoothing over where the front nozzles were and replacing the rear ones with traditional backwards pointing fixed jet nozzles?
Harrier A or Harrier C to the VTOL Harrier B as it were.

[PR19_Kit]

You'd need larger rear nozzles as well. All that low pressure air from the fan has to go somewhere or the airframe would blow up like a balloon! 

[zenrat]

Like, say, the Mig 29 nozzles I have in my parts box?