F-35 versus Harrie

[rickshaw]

F-35 'incomparable' to Harrier jump jet, top test pilot tells El Reg   

[Doug K]

You'd really have to hope so, given there is 45 years of tech development in between. Oh, and how much the things cost.

I'm still not sure the brutalism of the F35's design matches the elegance of the Harrier.

[NARSES2]

At the risk of attracting the wrath of the membership I never considered the Harrier to be a particularly attractive aircraft especially in its early days.

The F.35 ? It does have a certain look about it to me, not attractive as such but grabs your attention ? I know some women like that as well

[sandiego89]

At the risk of attracting the wrath of the membership I never considered the Harrier to be a particularly attractive aircraft.....

Dangerous words indeed!  The Gr3 with the laser nose was the least attractive.  Original Sea Harrier for the win!  I actually like the early two seaters.... 

[McColm]

I still think that the Yak-141 could have been saved as an alternative to the F-35. The hot exhaust from both aircraft still seems problematic but that new matting on the new aircraft carriers might be a cure.

[AS.12]

So it's incomparable, except in comparison to the VAAC Harrier which made the F-35B's flight-controls possible... typical Register article.

They're certianly not comparable in noise, the Harrier is unpleasant but the F-35B is horrific.  After all it is heavier than an F-4E, and far heavier than an F-105D.

[PR19_Kit]

That's a bit like comparing a Tornado GR4 with a Brigand, about the same time difference. 

[sandiego89]

I still think that the Yak-141 could have been saved as an alternative to the F-35. The hot exhaust from both aircraft still seems problematic but that new matting on the new aircraft carriers might be a cure.

IF the desire had been for a simpler, non-stealthy, STOVL aircraft perhaps.  While the 141 may have been potentially impressive performance wise, it would have been largely third generation technology wise, and decidedly non-stealthy.

The lift jets on the 141 are far more troublesome for deck and austere basing options, with very high velocity and hot exhaust causing deck heating and ground erosion concerns.

They're certianly not comparable in noise, the Harrier is unpleasant but the F-35B is horrific.  After all it is heavier than an F-4E, and far heavier than an F-105D.

Having seen the B up close in STOL mode and on take off, I found it sounds much like a F/A-18 (decibel, and type of sound wise) on take off, and quieter than harrier on short landings. Would not call it horrific.  I have not seen it in true hover. 

The weights of the F-4 and F-105 you quote that show that the F-35 is much bigger than most would imagine, but that does not make it that much worse or noisier.       

[McColm]

The F-35 has the same problem with the hot exhaust, the two new carriers have heat absorbing mats on their decks.

[sandiego89]

The F-35 has the same problem with the hot exhaust, the two new carriers have heat absorbing mats on their decks.

Agree Steven that the F-35 has deck temperature issues, I just wonder if the temperature issues with an operational 141 perhaps would have been even worse?  The 2 lift turboJETS on the 141 face almost straight down and the articulated turbofan would create a lot of heat and ground erosion. Turbojets move a moderate amount of air at very high temperature and very high velocity.  Tubofans move air at more moderate velocities. Yes the F-35 moves a massive amount of air with the lift fan and the articulated tail pipe, but I wonder if the overall effect is less than the 141? 

There is a great image from the Harrier pilots manual indicting that the Harrier was very capable of "digging it's own grave" on soft surfaces.  I imagine the 141 and F-35B would dig their own grave even quicker!   

I do wonder about many of UK asphalt surfaces with the F-35B.  I realize there are some concrete pads.  Most of the US F-35B bases have concrete ramps and runways.   

[rickshaw]

I am unsure why the deck problem is a problem, really.  All that is required is a slightly elevated deck with a grid as it's basis - the hot air "blows through" and out the sides.   I seem to remember the US Navy was thinking about doing that for one of their many iterations of the VSTOL aircraft they designed before the F-35...   

[zenrat]

I am unsure why the deck problem is a problem, really.  All that is required is a slightly elevated deck with a grid as it's basis - the hot air "blows through" and out the sides.   I seem to remember the US Navy was thinking about doing that for one of their many iterations of the VSTOL aircraft they designed before the F-35...   

That would make it difficult to walk on in stiletto heels...

[Steel Penguin]

the slatted deck also reduces the trapped air, bonus lift bubble, by allowing it to escape far easier, 

[PR19_Kit]

Having seen the B up close in STOL mode and on take off, I found it sounds much like a F/A-18 (decibel, and type of sound wise) on take off, and quieter than harrier on short landings. Would not call it horrific.  I have not seen it in true hover. 

Having watched (and heard...) the F-35B reproduce the 'Harrier Standard' hover, sideways flight and 'bow' at last year's RIAT I'd say it's a lot louder than a Harrier. It's also a higher frequency sound, presumably because of the re-heated main engine exhaust in the hover.

[kitnut617]

Having seen the B up close in STOL mode and on take off, I found it sounds much like a F/A-18 (decibel, and type of sound wise) on take off, and quieter than harrier on short landings. Would not call it horrific.  I have not seen it in true hover. 

Having watched (and heard...) the F-35B reproduce the 'Harrier Standard' hover, sideways flight and 'bow' at last year's RIAT I'd say it's a lot louder than a Harrier. It's also a higher frequency sound, presumably because of the re-heated main engine exhaust in the hover.

Um, it doesn't use the reheat in hover Kit