AV-8B Harrier Thread

[NeilWillis]

The GR3 Harriers in the Falklands were operated from a FARP in the final stages of the conflict. It's not a huge leap to allow the N/A to do so is it?

[some1]

I haven't said they didn't train to do so.

 

But to this day, it's still disputed if that is a viable strategy to operate a very expensive and maintenance heavy jet aircraft.

[Harry.R]

I understand USMC Harriers used a FARP near Baghdad during Gulf war 2.

[NeilWillis]

They were operated, in a war situation in the Falklands from an improvised FARP. It was no training exercise.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thats my point. And why the Harrier is so unique and special.

[Sephyrius]

Except, to my knowledge, they were never used from FARPs in any real conflict. Ships yes, but these are sometimes even further from the target.

 

Half of the stories in "Joint Force Harrier" and "A nightmare's prayer" are about A2A refuelling or getting hairy low on fuel, or both. Refuelling twice per sortie was nothing unusual.

 

Here's a post from earlier in this thread.

 

I was in the Marines at a FARP during Desert Storm at a place called Tanajib Airport which was mostly AH-1W Cobras and Harriers. We had to build a runway with these giant aluminum rectangles that locked together because apparently a Harrier cant land or take off on just an everyday runway, it will blow away the concrete, or at least thats what we were told.

 

And

's the video clip in which that base is being referred to ("forward basing concept", "40 miles from the enemy")as well as the bigger picture of it, the role/prowess of the Harrier, and the benefits it had to doing sorties from the carrier (which, as you say and is also mentioned, required long flights and several refueling runs).

[some1]

Ok, found the site that nicely sums up the use of Harrier in Forward Bases over the years.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2014/06/vertical-panic.html

 

While the aircraft was used from FARPs over the years, these are were not a typical FARPs that come to mind after playing DCS, with a few vertical pads for takeoff and landing in the middle of nowhere. Even the rudimentary one in the Falklands had a 250 meters runway for takeoffs.

 

We have to make one thing clear here: the famous airstrips in the woods that we see in photos of the Harrier force in Germany were training sites with a possible but unlikely war role. They were not the actual War Locations. Wartime operations would have happened exploiting stretches of secondary roads in countryside villages and towns, so to have paved surfaces from which to make short take offs and landings.

The use of locations carefully selected within villages offered the added benefit of buildings to exploit for the accommodation of supplies, personnel and communications. Supermarkets and other suitable large buildings would be exploited for parking the aircraft away from sight.

[Sephyrius]

From that article.

 

The Atlantic Conveyor also transported all the equipment to build an Harrier Forward Air Base ashore, which was to include vertical landing pads and a 400 meters runway, plus fuel infrastructure and command and control sufficient to base and operate a squadron of 12 aircraft.

So I guess the DCS equivalent would be a FARP placed next to a suitable road, but sadly the FARP block is elevated massively (to deal with the roughest of terrains I'm guessing) which makes that seemingly impossible to pull off unless there's a way to lower it.

 

But sure, landing pads only in the middle of nowhere wouldn't make sense, it's not as if landable surfaces are rare enough of a commodity to go to such extremes.

[Harry.R]

A Harrier needs a length of runway/road/matting/hard grass to get airborne with a useful fuel/weapons load, although it can recover vertically after most of the fuel and weapons are expended. IIRC DCS FARPs were designed with helicopters in mind.

[Dave317]

It would be nice if instead of the current farp we could refuel and rearm within a radius of say a refuel truck. This would mean mission designers could make much more concealed and realistic farps for both the harrier and helicopters.

[Harry.R]

It would be nice if instead of the current farp we could refuel and rearm within a radius of say a refuel truck. This would mean mission designers could make much more concealed and realistic farps for both the harrier and helicopters.

 

I'm sure the Viggen guys were going to implement something like that, you could order them to meet you somewhere on the map? The ability to drop a NATO 'T' (although off topic) and have a nearby tanker for helicopters would also be good.

 

Although we talk of FARPS, the DCS maps have plenty of airfields, these would be FOBs (Forward Operating Base) and would be where most of the fleet would live and operate during any operation.

[SkateZilla]

take off from farps w/ minimal fuel then top off airborne.

[Dudikoff]

although it can recover vertically after most of the fuel and weapons are expended.

 

Yeah, but realistically, not just about anywhere. It can damage the landing surface and FOD damage is a big threat apparently, so they always seems to have used specially prepared landing pads.

 

take off from farps w/ minimal fuel then top off airborne.

 

Doesn't that kill the whole purpose of having these things? If there's air tanker support, then there's a good chance there's a proper runway in the theater (or a carrier) and you could have normal airplanes on CAS standby using those same tankers and carrying a much more useful load and probably for less money, too.

 

And it's probably cheaper than investing into these damn things, maintaining them, keeping the pilots current, building special pads in the theater so they can even land, provide them air cover, etc. just so that the USMC can have its own air force. :)

 

Don't get me wrong, it will be cool to fly them in the DCS, but I'm not convinced they're a necessity for the US armed forces.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Dudikoff

[SUNTSAG]

I will just leave this here :thumbup:

 

[BlazingTrigger]

Amazing Suntsag!! The harrier can use a small 400m dedicated strip to takeoff from such as this example in Norfolk, UK.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[javelina1]

I will just leave this here :thumbup:

 

 

why your heartless b*st*rd! Love it!! :thumbup:;):D

[Harry.R]

Yeah, but realistically, not just about anywhere. It can damage the landing surface and FOD damage is a big threat apparently, so they always seems to have used specially prepared landing pads.[/Quote]

 

In real life landing surfaces are checked first by a team of qualified people to make sure that they are suitable for Harrier operations, the aircraft don't just turn up and land anywhere. Not like I do in DCS...:D

[Esac_mirmidon]

I´m not saying a Harrier´s FARP is a single Helipad 20x20 meters size.

 

I´m saying Harriers FARP deployment is or could be a Supermarket parking, a road section, a metallic construction by Reg. Engineers, anything about 300-400 long, with pads for landing or an even paved surface or parking is enough.

[drPhibes]

In real life landing surfaces are checked first by a team of qualified people to make sure that they are suitable for Harrier operations, the aircraft don't just turn up and land anywhere. Not like I do in DCS...:D

 

 

Case in point, somewhere in Switzerland some time in the nineties (or perhaps eighties?). That turned out well :p

[Harry.R]

Case in point, somewhere in Switzerland some time in the nineties (or perhaps eighties?). That turned out well :p

 

 

https://tacairnet.com/2016/08/10/watch-this-raf-harrier-destroy-part-of-a-runway-with-its-thrust/

 

Typical 3 Sqn...Any jet would have done this to be fair. In the UK this year a Vampire jet ripped up a runway taking off for a display.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Harry.R

[Ramsay]

Case in point, somewhere in Switzerland some time in the nineties (or perhaps eighties?). That turned out well :p

 

Two years previous (1978 ), there wasn't the same issue (perhaps the Bex taxiway 'improvement' was a later addition).

 

 

As for FOD, just keep the aircraft's forward momentum so it keeps out of the dust cloud - a simpler time, I wouldn't want to do the risk assessment today lol.

[BlazingTrigger]

Two years previous (1978 ), there wasn't the same issue (perhaps the Bex taxiway 'improvement' was a later addition).

 

 

As for FOD, just keep the aircraft's forward momentum so it keeps out of the dust cloud - a simpler time, I wouldn't want to do the risk assessment today lol.

FOD isn't just about a dust cloud, the amount of air that the intake is sucking in makes it a very expensive hoover, a loose stone can easily be sucked up into the engine, dust isn't an issue but stones, other organic and man made matter is a hazard.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Zeus67]

Nozzle glow now has a daylight factor.

 

[rrohde]

:thumbup:

[Vitormouraa]

Much much better!