Talk:AV-8B Harrier II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Questions

Under specifications the wingspan is given in feet and meters, but the numbers do not agree. Either the meters or the feet are off. --Eric

Would someone more military minded clear up the difference between an helicopter ship and an amphibious assault ship.

A helicopter carrier is just a small aircraft carrier that has no provision for fixed-wing aircraft (not enough runway space for them to take off or land, no catapult or ramp, etc.). An amphibious assault ship has provisions for helicoptors, may or may not carry fixed wind STOVL aircraft, and has a "well deck" in the back that can be flooded, allowing amphibious landing craft and hover craft to float out and carry troops to the beach.

Does this Harrier also have to carry around a tank of cooling water for landing?

No, not necessarily. The Harrier carries water when it is anticipated that extra thrust may be required for a takeoff or landing. The water, when engaged for thrust augmentation, actually not only cools the exhaust temperature but also increases the mass flow of the exhaust gases that enter the turbine section. Extra thrust is usually only needed when the aircraft recovery weight at landing (which is roughly the sum of the aircraft, remaining fuel and unexpended ordnance weights) is very close to the "hover performance" of the engine and a vertical landing is required, such as aboard a ship. The hover performance is calculated for each landing. Variables affecting hover performance include outside air temperature and altitude. In general, the hotter the air temperature and the higher the landing elevation, the lower the hover performance of the engine. Water injection increases hover performance therefore allowing vertical landings when hot/high conditions exist.

Can the Harrier do a conventional carrier landing with an arresting cable? Does it use a catapult? Does it use an angled ramp? When do they take off vertically?

--anonymous


The Harrier is designed to operate in austere conditions, although it does need SOME ground support.

The Harrier doesn't need to do conventional carrier landings. A vertical landing is far safer--carrier landings are a harrowing experience even for seasoned naval aviators, especially in bad weather. It doesn't need a catapult, and I don't think it has provision to use one. It's been noted about the Harrier that it's far easier to stop and then land, than it is to land and then stop within about 500 feet.

The Harrier is most correctly described as 'STOVL' -- short take-off, vertical landing. When it's carrying a combat load, it usually makes a short take-off run. That lets it take off at higher weights (the total weight of the aircraft can be higher than the thrust of the engine -- for vertical take-off, the Harrier has to weigh less than the engine's maximum thrust) and burn less fuel taking off. When it returns it's lighter (fuel has been burned, weapons dropped), so it lands vertically.

The previous poster is correct - there is no provision for a catapult or arresting line. I believe the British Harriers use an angled ramp, the US Marines use a flat runway. I have seen multiple Harrier launches straight off the front end of an LHD (a helicopter carrier), then land vertically upon return. Harriers aren't designed to take off vertically when fully loaded with ordnance. The aircraft does have a water tank, it's located under the back part of the wing.

[edit] FRS.1 and FA.2

The FRS.1 and FA.2 have very little connection with this version of the harrier. With the FA.2 there was less than 2% commanaility of parts between the types.

[edit] Moved to AV-8 Harrier II

Reverted moved according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft): US military aircraft: Number and name. RAF version of the Harrier II has its own page. The Spanish and Italian Harrier IIs are basically the US version. I would prefer having under AV-8B Harrier II, but was unable to do so (must be moved by an administrator). The original move (Nov. 2005) was done without discussion on this page, so I have done this as a revert. --BillCJ 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing is the Prime Contractor

I have listed the manufacturer as Boeing/BAE Systems on the AV-8 Harrier II article, and BAE Systems/Boeing on the RAF Harrier II article.

Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) and BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) are partners in the total Harrier II program. Boeing is the prime contractor on US and export versions (Italy and Spain) of the AV-8B; BAE Systems is the secondary partner. However, on the RAF Harrier GR5/GR7/GR9, BAE is the prime contractor. I can provide sources for this if I need to.

Please do not make further changes to the order Boeing/BAE Systems on this article without providing sufficient sources and gaining a concensus to make changes first. Thanks. -BillCJ 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I didn't notice this before. I added the original manufacturers (MDC/BAe) on 1 line with Boeing/BAE systems on the 2nd line in the Infobox. Similar things are done in other aircraft articles. If that's a problem, you can fix it or I can.. -Fnlayson 00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! - BillCJ 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simulation

Do any commercial simulators exist that enable you to fly the harrier? Bastie 15:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of computer games involving the Harrier would be of interest? Desert Combat for one has a flyable Harrier, though it's fairly unrealistic and cartoonish. Bastie 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture Drutt 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIM-7

Well it's highly unverified so I don't care if somebody removes it, but I added that the Harrier II+ can presumably carry AIM-7's as well as amraams, what with the F-18 radar and all. JaderVason 13:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's unverified, we can't put it on the article, so it's been removed. I doubt the 3 users of the Plus (USMC, Spain, or Italy) still have Sparrows in stock, and there may be wiring or software considerations involved also. - BillCJ 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I looked around and this website claims it can carry sparrows. [1] Also says something about the LITENING pod, which I don't believe I've seen on a harrier, but......so what's the consensus on this? JaderVason 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on this video, in which the targeting shots are presumably taken from a harrier, it must have a litening, because it doesn't have any other system capable of taking those shots (or laser designating) Near the end, you can see one on a pylon, and furthermore the article link to "harrier finding success" mentions how the litening pod is a valuable surveillance device on the harrier. Perhaps we should mention it.JaderVason 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On the Sparrow, that site states its capable of carrying it, but as I said, I've seen no sources stating that any of the users operate the Sparrow with the Plus. I know the Spanish and Italian Navies both operate the Amraam with their Pluses, but as far as I know, the USMC hasn't certified the Plus to carry them. So for right now it might be best to leave out the Sparrow.
As for the Litening, I have some printed material on the Harrier II, and I seem to recall the Litening being mentioned there. I'll try to look it up within the next week, and if it's there, I'll put it in the article with a citation. - BillCJ 18:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AV-8, AV-12, AV-16, BR-549...

I seem to recall seeing AV-16 mentioned in some 'mainstream' publications (years ago regrettably, no idea where now), without any mention of its having been a manufacturer's construct (grr). But I don't see how AV-12 would be 'the proper designation', yet alone the FV-12 'eventually taking it up', as the FV-12 was an early-70s project and Harrier II a late-70s one... - Aerobird 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but the AV-8 designation was given in the 60s, before the FV-12. The whole paragraph in the text refers more to the original Harrier, and doesn't discuss what the Harrier II's designation should have been. I do have a source that states the AV-16 was a manufacturer's construct, chosen to indicate twice the capability of the AV-8. - BillCJ 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't realised that referred to the AV-8A as opposed to the B, thanks. - Aerobird 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

i think you are confused.. the AV-8B Harrier II and the Harrier GR7/GR9 are different aircraft. so why do you state otherwise, this article seems to be flawed in the origins of the American harrier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardMathie (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

If you have a verifiable source for that, please site it. But to be honest, you are the one who is confused. The AV-8B and the Harrer GR5/GR7 are the same basic airframe, though with some different avionics to suit them for the different roles. The Sea Harrier is a totally British aircraft, and is based on the original Harrier, not the Harrier II. The Sea Harrier FA2 is an upgrade of the Sea Harrier FRS.1, and is also wholly British. If you look at pictures of the Shar FA2 and Harrier II on the RN carriers, you can see there are lots of differences between the two planes. Except for the markings, the GR5 and AV-8B are externally identical, tho the B+ has a different nose for the radar. - BillCJ 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not quite identical. Interesting enough, the AV-8B has MDC's supercritical composite wing and the BAe Harrier II (GR5 and on) have their metal rooptop. BAe's wing allowed higher speed. MDC's wing was lighter and better at low speeds. MDC worked on their new wing before the British really got on board. The Harrier II uses a lot of composites to get more performance with slightly improved Pegasus engine. -Fnlayson 00:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I think you're referring to the "Big-Wing" Harrier, which was also called a GR.5. THe British governmet didn't want to fund the BWH, so BAe got on board with McDD as a partner, and when the RAF dicided to order the Harrier II, that was the only version availabe (with supercritical composite wing). I just got the Nordeen book today, and in the appendix, it describes the different production variants on pages 183-187, and it doesn't mention a metal wing at all. - BillCJ 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm in the middle of that book and I'm sure it said the British used BAe's roopftop wing. It may have been composite. I guess the profile was the main thing. I'll check some more.. -Fnlayson 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right. It's explained in Ch. 6. The GR5 with the metal rooftop wing was a study concept against the AV-8B. This GR5 concept was nicknamed the big wing Harrier as you mentioned. The production GR5 was AV-8B modified for the British, including extra hardpoints for Sidewinders and more protection against bird strikes. -Fnlayson 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The BAe "big wing" Harrier, which I believe was referred to as the "GR.5(K)" (K for Kingston, where the design work was done) was a completely separate project from the AV-8B/GR.5/7/9. It was much closer to the GR.3 and the new wing was quite different to the AV-8B's. Letdorf 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mid-sentence full stops

Those pesky mid-sentences full stops (British for periods) are the accepted two-letter abbreviation for United States, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). Three letters is "USA", but "U.S." is preferred over US by Wikipedia. For the record, I prefer to use "US", but they didn't ask me! - BillCJ 22:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • True. Funny how period or not is OK for some common abbreviations (WP:MoS abbreviations). I wish acronyms were treated seperately and without the periods. -Fnlayson 22:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I see the Harrier GR models written in some places with the periods and some without. Looks like BAE Systems writes them without now.[2] Did they used to use periods? -Fnlayson 22:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The British MoD stopped using the period in designations around 2003. THe informal consensus on most Brtish aircraft pages is to not use the period at all if there are modern designations present, but to use the period on older aircraft which were out of service before the change. I don't think it's been discussed at WT:AIR, but I couldn't find the discussions I remeber on aircraft talk pages, tho I only looked briefly. - BillCJ 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • OK. You summed it up pretty well there. Although it might be confusing on the borderline models. -Fnlayson 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production years

I added production years for the AV-8B and B+. I included the time where planes were remanufactured at the plant. This Nordeen Harrier II book lists 1978-79 for the YAV-8B prototypes, and 1981-2003 for the B/B+ models. Looks like the B+ started in 1992. -Fnlayson 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design / avionics

Doesn't this article need a sub-section on design features including engines, avionics and cockpit? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes and the airframe details too. Its primarily made from composites. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)