By: Kramer
- 7th June 2010 at 20:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, good thread, IN SHARs are an interesting topic. When I read that 17 out of 30 SHARS delivered have been lost it reminded me of the Yak-38's safety record, which must be the worst of any modern combat aircraft, must be the nature of the beast I guess.
I agree with what you say above, I recall reading about a USN pilot ejecting from a submerged A-7 during the Vietnam war. I done some Google Fu to check it out, but I found this Youtube clip of a Yak-38 instead. Sorry for being off-topic:
In one year (1982) alone, the RN lost 6 Sea Harriers to accidents where pilots ejected.
Harrier GR7/9 have been modified quite a bit whereas Sea Harriers didn't get any engine mods.
The combination of unique flight handling, high pilot workload and an engine that wasn't capable of working at its optimum in hot and humid climes meant that this was a fighter that was particularly susceptible to high accident rates.
Indeed, the fact that the Sea Harrier's engine did not provide adequate thrust for operations year round in hot climates (as mentioned in a report tabled in the UK Parliament) meant that the IN was operating SHars at their limits, with the Arabian Sea being a hot and humid operating environment nearly year round.
The current engine of the Sea Harrier does not provide adequate thrust to enable operations to be conducted year around in hot climates, such as those encountered in the Gulf. There would be a very high level of technical risk in fitting new engines, since the Sea Harrier was not designed to take the more powerful engine which is being fitted to some of the Harrier GR9s. (The Sea Harrier is an early generation Harrier I—similar to the RAF's previous Harrier GR3s—whilst the only Harriers operating world-wide with the upgraded engines are the extensively modified Harrier IIs, such as Harrier GR7/9s). Specifically, the main technical risks are associated with the extensive airframe modifications that would be required and the adverse effects on the engine due to different intakes.[181]
An MoD study in 2000 found that (even if feasible) it would cost £230 million to integrate Mk-107 engines on just 11 Sea Harriers.[182] Sir Jock Stirrup considered that the necessary improvements to the Sea Harrier would have been "extremely expensive," and perhaps impossible.[183]
what this article also states is that while the SHar was being touted as a multi-role aircraft, its primary responsibility was air-defence.
75. Although the Royal Navy's website declares that the Sea Harrier is the UK's "only true multi-role aircraft," the MoD told us that it is optimised to provide air defence of the Fleet.[170] Indeed, we noted in our report on the lessons of Kosovo that the Sea Harrier was not given any ground-attack duties, but rather provided air-defence patrols to allow other aircraft to concentrate on bombing sorties.[171] First in-service in 1979, the Sea Harrier was upgraded in 1993 with the Blue Vixen multi-target tracking radar[172] and two years later with the AMRAAM medium-range missile for its primary air-defence role.[173] A dozen years ago, a report by a previous Defence Committee on this upgrade programme described how these "air-defence and anti-ship"capability improvements (running four years late) pre-dated the Falklands conflict but were given added impetus by that experience.[174]
By: Levsha
- 7th June 2010 at 21:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the Royal Navy's attrition record with its Sea Harriers wasn't particularly great either with around 27-28 Sea Harriers having been lost.
You can see the number of ejections (that may not include the entire list of SHar accidents in case there was no ejections during a fatal crash, more informed members may correct me if I'm wrong) on this link to Martin Baker's ejection history list on the Sea Harrier.
And I certainly wasn't trying to speak against the professionalism of the IN, it was the characteristics of the aircraft itself I was focused on.
Thanks for the information on how hot and humid climate affects the SHars - it's as much as I could have guessed, and even if it could be shown that the IN had a worse record with the Harrier than the Royal Navy they at least have a sensible excuse...
Here's a list of entire Indian Navy losses of the Sea Harrier from Warbirds of India:
By: pagen01
- 7th June 2010 at 23:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In one year (1982) alone, the RN lost 6 Sea Harriers to accidents where pilots ejected.
Thats a bad year to use as an example, the Royal Navy were under a bit of pressure that year, six SHars (and four RAF GR.3s) being lost during the Falklands campaign, most to enemy fire.
As I pointed out in a previous post its reliance on a jet engine for low speed lift aswel as thrust, It's operating area, dumpy airframe and small wings immediately puts it at a huge disadvantage when it comes to safety. The RAF Harrier GR.1-3 was the same awell (unsure about current generation Harriers) and was even expected hence the design work for the Mk.9 seat and other safety features, there is a good pilot survival rate.
Even the multi-engined Forger record has shown VTOL/VSTOL jet powered aircraft are susceptible, I wouldn't expect the 35B to be much different.
By: swerve
- 7th June 2010 at 23:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35B has the same airframe (externally) as the F-35A, including the same wings. In normal operations, it should have the same safety record as the F-35A, except when landing vertically, the only time when it relies on the engine for lift.
It should be far, far less prone to pilot error when landing than the Harrier, due to the FCS.
Carrier landings have their own risks, & I'm not sure that the F-35C will be any safer when landing than the F-35B.
By: Kramer
- 7th June 2010 at 23:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And I certainly wasn't trying to speak against the professionalism of the IN, it was the characteristics of the aircraft itself I was focused on.
Thanks for the information on how hot and humid climate affects the SHars - it's as much as I could have guessed, and even if it could be shown that the IN had a worse record with the Harrier than the Royal Navy they at least have a sensible excuse…
Hmmm... I wonder how the F-35B will be affected by "hot and Humid" climes?
Nothing against you, but what gets my goose is that near constant harping on the attrition rate of the IN's Sea Harrier fleet. Indian media almost always mentions this whenever the Sea Harrier is mentioned and that’s why even the wikipedia page mentions this while keeping mum on the RN's attrition rate. Do a google search for Royal Navy's attrition rate and most of the results are for the IN's attrition figures.
Anyway, the USMC has a higher attrition rate with its Harriers than any other jet they fly, and the RN too had lost nearly half their fleet of Sea Harriers before they retired the fleet. Its just the nature of the beast and the way in which it has to be flown which make it a particularly difficult fighter to fly.
And while the F-35B has a similar flight profile while landing and taking off, it is in many ways superior to the Sharrier being a supersonic FBW controlled fighter with a much better T/W ratio and a cockpit that a Sharrier pilot would absolutely adore due to the much reduced workload. The chances of departure from controlled flight while in the tricky hover mode or when using the nozzles is much lower on the F-35B due to the intensive use of computers which again will make it much safer. The F-35B may have a higher attrition rate eventually compared to F-35A and Cs, but in my opinion, it won't even approach that of the Harrier/Sea Harrier.
By: alejandrogrossi
- 13th November 2013 at 17:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi to all
two short questions.
Can the FRS-51 use the Phyton V missile, with the LUSh upgrade?
I read that they didn´t have any cockipt modification so Can they use the DASH Helmet asociated to the Phyton V, or they another modification?
Thanks
New
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher
- 14th November 2013 at 07:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi to all
two short questions.
Can the FRS-51 use the Phyton V missile, with the LUSh upgrade?
I read that they didn´t have any cockipt modification so Can they use the DASH Helmet asociated to the Phyton V, or they another modification?
Thanks
Not sure about the DASH from Elbit, but we have no evidence of the Python-V being used on the SHar..as far as one can tell, its still the Magic-II that is the primary CCM.
By: Austin
- 14th November 2013 at 08:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably ASRAAM in the future , IAF was planning to buy ASRAAM as part of Jag upgrade ....... although the possibility of using Python variant cant be ruled out if LUSH can use Derby BVR
By: Vnomad
- 14th November 2013 at 12:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably ASRAAM in the future , IAF was planning to buy ASRAAM as part of Jag upgrade ....... although the possibility of using Python variant cant be ruled out if LUSH can use Derby BVR
At this point, there's not really a lot of future to it. The Sea Harrier will be in service for another five years maximum. Given the Sea Harrier's limited payload as well as limited numbers, its not really worth the cost of integration. While not as maneuverable as the ASRAAM, Derby's short range performance is more than adequate. Its capable of LOBL operation, has a wide angle seeker and can still be mated to the DASH helmet.
Posts: 1,031
By: Kramer - 7th June 2010 at 20:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the Royal Navy's attrition record with its Sea Harriers wasn't particularly great either with around 27-28 Sea Harriers having been lost.
You can see the number of ejections (that may not include the entire list of SHar accidents in case there was no ejections during a fatal crash, more informed members may correct me if I'm wrong) on this link to Martin Baker's ejection history list on the Sea Harrier.
In one year (1982) alone, the RN lost 6 Sea Harriers to accidents where pilots ejected.
Harrier GR7/9 have been modified quite a bit whereas Sea Harriers didn't get any engine mods.
The combination of unique flight handling, high pilot workload and an engine that wasn't capable of working at its optimum in hot and humid climes meant that this was a fighter that was particularly susceptible to high accident rates.
Indeed, the fact that the Sea Harrier's engine did not provide adequate thrust for operations year round in hot climates (as mentioned in a report tabled in the UK Parliament) meant that the IN was operating SHars at their limits, with the Arabian Sea being a hot and humid operating environment nearly year round.
link
what this article also states is that while the SHar was being touted as a multi-role aircraft, its primary responsibility was air-defence.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 7th June 2010 at 21:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And I certainly wasn't trying to speak against the professionalism of the IN, it was the characteristics of the aircraft itself I was focused on.
Thanks for the information on how hot and humid climate affects the SHars - it's as much as I could have guessed, and even if it could be shown that the IN had a worse record with the Harrier than the Royal Navy they at least have a sensible excuse...
Here's a list of entire Indian Navy losses of the Sea Harrier from Warbirds of India:
http://www.warbirds.in/Crashes/crpage.php?qacid=103&qafdb=IAF&datesall=ON
Hmmm... I wonder how the F-35B will be affected by "hot and Humid" climes?;)
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 7th June 2010 at 23:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats a bad year to use as an example, the Royal Navy were under a bit of pressure that year, six SHars (and four RAF GR.3s) being lost during the Falklands campaign, most to enemy fire.
As I pointed out in a previous post its reliance on a jet engine for low speed lift aswel as thrust, It's operating area, dumpy airframe and small wings immediately puts it at a huge disadvantage when it comes to safety. The RAF Harrier GR.1-3 was the same awell (unsure about current generation Harriers) and was even expected hence the design work for the Mk.9 seat and other safety features, there is a good pilot survival rate.
Even the multi-engined Forger record has shown VTOL/VSTOL jet powered aircraft are susceptible, I wouldn't expect the 35B to be much different.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 7th June 2010 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35B has the same airframe (externally) as the F-35A, including the same wings. In normal operations, it should have the same safety record as the F-35A, except when landing vertically, the only time when it relies on the engine for lift.
It should be far, far less prone to pilot error when landing than the Harrier, due to the FCS.
Carrier landings have their own risks, & I'm not sure that the F-35C will be any safer when landing than the F-35B.
Posts: 1,031
By: Kramer - 7th June 2010 at 23:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nothing against you, but what gets my goose is that near constant harping on the attrition rate of the IN's Sea Harrier fleet. Indian media almost always mentions this whenever the Sea Harrier is mentioned and that’s why even the wikipedia page mentions this while keeping mum on the RN's attrition rate. Do a google search for Royal Navy's attrition rate and most of the results are for the IN's attrition figures.
Anyway, the USMC has a higher attrition rate with its Harriers than any other jet they fly, and the RN too had lost nearly half their fleet of Sea Harriers before they retired the fleet. Its just the nature of the beast and the way in which it has to be flown which make it a particularly difficult fighter to fly.
And while the F-35B has a similar flight profile while landing and taking off, it is in many ways superior to the Sharrier being a supersonic FBW controlled fighter with a much better T/W ratio and a cockpit that a Sharrier pilot would absolutely adore due to the much reduced workload. The chances of departure from controlled flight while in the tricky hover mode or when using the nozzles is much lower on the F-35B due to the intensive use of computers which again will make it much safer. The F-35B may have a higher attrition rate eventually compared to F-35A and Cs, but in my opinion, it won't even approach that of the Harrier/Sea Harrier.
Posts: 27
By: alejandrogrossi - 13th November 2013 at 17:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi to all
two short questions.
Can the FRS-51 use the Phyton V missile, with the LUSh upgrade?
I read that they didn´t have any cockipt modification so Can they use the DASH Helmet asociated to the Phyton V, or they another modification?
Thanks
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 14th November 2013 at 07:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure about the DASH from Elbit, but we have no evidence of the Python-V being used on the SHar..as far as one can tell, its still the Magic-II that is the primary CCM.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 14th November 2013 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably ASRAAM in the future , IAF was planning to buy ASRAAM as part of Jag upgrade ....... although the possibility of using Python variant cant be ruled out if LUSH can use Derby BVR
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 14th November 2013 at 12:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At this point, there's not really a lot of future to it. The Sea Harrier will be in service for another five years maximum. Given the Sea Harrier's limited payload as well as limited numbers, its not really worth the cost of integration. While not as maneuverable as the ASRAAM, Derby's short range performance is more than adequate. Its capable of LOBL operation, has a wide angle seeker and can still be mated to the DASH helmet.