Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Sniper69 wrote:

The Harrier can only hover for something like 1 minute 30 seconds before the engine overheats.

Hmm. Its not the first time I've heard this but they seem to spend longer than that hovering during their show routines and even during routine flying (spent a very noisy day at Cottesmore). Didn't time it mind Smile

Quote:

-This is for the UK guys---> Why the heck are your Sea Harriers getting retired if they are that young and the F-35's aren't even tested yet!? Is the RAF going to start flying thier birds off of your carriers now?

What Boff said. I also think some civil serpent at Whitehall thought that if visual rules and Sidewinders was good enough in 1982 then BVR and AMRAAM was far in excess of requirements Razz

To be fair, the Sea Harrier was doomed from the FA Mk 2. It had a better AA capability (hell, the radar became the starting block for the Typhoons!) but the fact it stuck with the smaller wing and had no organic smart weapons capability meant that the GR Mk 9 was always going to win in a funding fight. Its just more capable in the roles that the UK forces need (if one excepts that they won't need a carrier based 'fighter').

F-16.net Sponsor

Sniper69 wrote:

The Harrier can only hover for something like 1 minute 30 seconds before the engine overheats.

Hmm. Its not the first time I've heard this but they seem to spend longer than that hovering during their show routines and even during routine flying (spent a very noisy day at Cottesmore). Didn't time it mind Smile

Quote:

-This is for the UK guys---> Why the heck are your Sea Harriers getting retired if they are that young and the F-35's aren't even tested yet!? Is the RAF going to start flying thier birds off of your carriers now?

What Boff said. I also think some civil serpent at Whitehall thought that if visual rules and Sidewinders was good enough in 1982 then BVR and AMRAAM was far in excess of requirements Razz

To be fair, the Sea Harrier was doomed from the FA Mk 2. It had a better AA capability (hell, the radar became the starting block for the Typhoons!) but the fact it stuck with the smaller wing and had no organic smart weapons capability meant that the GR Mk 9 was always going to win in a funding fight. Its just more capable in the roles that the UK forces need (if one excepts that they won't need a carrier based 'fighter').

EDIT: I see Boff beat me to the Blue Vixen - ECR-90 link. oh well, worth repeating I guess Razz

The hover time depends on the ambient air temperature... the hotter the shorter amount of time the Harrier can hover... in temperatures of 20 seconds... its reserve "water coolant" tanks run dry in 90seconds and after 90 seconds the aircraft must enter and stay in normal flight or risk the engine seizing up and disaster.

At Gilze-Rijen this year the weather was hot and I mean hot, the harrier took off and didn't even bother performing its display.. it just came to the crowd line, hovered for 45 seconds and then landed as it had already ran out of water!

Andy

Thanks for the replies you guys! Cool

Leave it to SAMs, RAF, or allies to protect your navy... WTF

God, and I thought our defense procedures and leaders were asinine sometimes.....(elp would agree with me there haha Thumb

)

The SHAR was unable to take the upgraded engine to improve bring back capability, this is what killed it off. The problem was not the airframe or the engine bay / interface it was the compression rate on the nose strut when going off the ramp with a full load.

Harriers can hover both wet and dry, the water tank will empty in about 90 seconds
but you can still hover as long as your weight is within limits. If it smokes the water is flowing.

The RAF killed the Sea Harrier because they took ownership and didn't think fleet air defense was a high priority. The Sea Harrier didn't actually need that much money spent on it but even if it had been one penny, the RAF wasn't willing to spend it and they were in control.

Shades of the 1920's & 1930's when the RAF once before screwed UK naval aviation into the ground. There's still still a vocal faction there that would cancel the UK F-35 rather than allow the next generation of aircraft carriers.

Quite pathetic.

The Royal Navy and the UK military has been shrinking since WW2 no question about that. Back in the 1980s the Royal Navy wanted 12 or so type 42 destroyers now they only have 8, and if 'bad' things happen they will end up with only 6 Type 45s.
The Sea Harrier ability to take off vertically is the only reason the aircraft exists, since everything else about it kinda well, sucks. The F-35 will be a huge leap foward, faster, stealthier, greater range, faster etc. Lets just hope this doesn't get trimmed like everything else.

As every gas turbine powered aircraft sucks at the front can you be more explicit. The SHAR has a great radar and a reasonable weapons system. I agree that the cockpit layout is ergonomically challenged but it is light years better than British aircraft of a similar vintage.

Is it still true that the only jet aircraft flown by the NZ Air Force is a 757?

nzenthusiast wrote:

The Royal Navy and the UK military has been shrinking since WW2 no question about that. Back in the 1980s the Royal Navy wanted 12 or so type 42 destroyers now they only have 8, and if 'bad' things happen they will end up with only 6 Type 45s.
The Sea Harrier ability to take off vertically is the only reason the aircraft exists, since everything else about it kinda well, sucks. The F-35 will be a huge leap foward, faster, stealthier, greater range, faster etc. Lets just hope this doesn't get trimmed like everything else.

Actually 14 Type 42s` were built for the Royal Navy. Two were lost in the Falklands,1 scrapped, 2 waiting for the grim reaper... You are correct that there are only 8 left. It does look like only 6 Type 45s` will be built, still hoping for 8. The F-35 will be huge leap, agreed but I would still put my money on a SHAR close in, in a knife fight with an F-35! Laughing

The RN is in a poor state in terms of numbers but the ships are very capable, the Type 45s will potentially be as good an air defence ship as anything afloat. I would prefer Standard missiles to ASTOR though....The VLS was a poorer choice some believe although the Lockheed Martin VLS can be retro-fitted and is much more versatile being able to carry Tomahawk, Harpoon etc.. Having said that, there are planned changes for the 6x8 SYLVER VLS to improve it`s versatility. The Storm Shadow cruise missile is being adapted to fit in future SYLVER launcher upgrades. Space has been left on the type 45`s forward superstructure to allow the addition of dedicated Harpoon launchers or "other" weapons. Because of defence cuts (again!) the type 45 will initially have no anti-ship capability and the RN will have to rely on the Type 23 frigates for ASM duties....

There was rumour of the US offering the Oliver Hazard class, 4 ships, in about 1997. This was going to be a lease until the Type 45s were built. It was a curious arrangement, the US wanted the purchase of AEGIS and SM-2 missiles as part of the deal..So it looks like it was a lease/buy-as-you-rent kinda deal!!

Yep the RNZAFs only jet powered aircraft are 757s.

Sorry about that number error on the Type 42s, I might just add here type 23 numbers have been cut as well with sale to Chile.

Yep, thats more bad news. The French navy is now larger than the RN for the first time since the 17th century. OUCH! The Type 23s are powerful little warships.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

The F-35 vs. The Harrier Jump-Jets