Talk:British Aerospace Sea Harrier/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Inaccuracies/Biases

It is incorrect to say that Argentinian aircraft lack mid-air refuelling capability. The A4 squadrons that did so much damage to the British naval task force had inflight refuelling probes used in conjuction with C-130 based tankers. A few badly shot up Argentinian aircraft were saved by plugging themselves into tankers and flying back to base in tandem.

+++++ No losses for Harriers in the Falklands war? Not according to Air forces in the Falklands War article. I`ve also heared that the British eventually admitted the loss of several (I think 5) Harriers during the war (not specified to what causes).

On a separate issue I`ve heared a story that one Harrier was shot down by the Army of Republika Srpska during the war in Bosnia, being hit by Strela 2M man-portable SAM and that the pilot was killed. Any confirmations or denials?

Veljko Stevanovich 18. 2. 2006. 22:10 UTC+1

  • The losses listed there may have been of aircraft lost on vessels that were sunk. I'm pretty sure the Atlantic Conveyor was transporting Harriers at one point, though I think they were offloaded before she was sunk. On the other hand, the article may be plain wrong. In either case, some research should be done and the appropriate changes made. --Scott Wilson 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic Conveyor carried whole Harriers? News to me. Here`s what I`ve found about her cargo:

"Atlantic Conveyor was carrying tents for 5,000 men, at least ten helicopters (three Chinooks HC.1 of the 18th Sqdn. RAF, six Wessexs HU.5 of the 848th Sqdn. RN, and one Lynx HAS.2 of the 815th Squadron RN), spare engines and pieces for the Harriers, a plant to make sea water drinkable, and the materials to build a mobile runway for the Sea Harriers." [1]

I don`t think spare engines count as lost aircraft (or am I wrong?)

I`ve since found that nine Harriers were lost during the war (None in air to air combat) [2]. Note that it is the British account. I`m naturally a little reserved when a country is speaking of it`s own losses (but I`m much more reserved when it`s speaking of the losses it had inflicted).

Veljko Stevanovich 22. 2. 2006. 16:20 UTC+1

Don't forget the context of the article is the RN Sea Harrier and not the RAF's Harrier.GraemeLeggett 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but the source I`ve given for the Harrier losses lists more than two (six) Sea Harriers lost (the ones this article is about). The rest are GR3 s
Veljko Stevanovich 22. 2. 2006. 23:30 UTC+1

Atlantic Conveyor did indeed carry whole Sea Harriers and flew them off. You can see photos here http://www.btinternet.com/~philipbparker/acl_history.htm . None were on board when she was lost however. Gordon Smith's excellent book / website (here http://www.naval-history.net/F63braircraftlost.htm ) lists the Sea Harrier losses as;

  • Tuesday 4th May - Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes shot down over Goose Green by radar-controlled, 35mm Oerlikon fire (1.10 pm). Lt Taylor RN killed.
  • Thursday 6th May - Two Sea Harriers of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible lost in bad weather, presumably by collision, south east of Falklands (9.00 am). Lt Curtiss and Lt Cmdr Eyton-Jones RN lost.
  • Sunday 23rd May - Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes crashes into sea north east of Falklands shortly after take-off and explodes (7.55 pm). Lt Cmdr Batt RN killed.
  • Saturday 29th May - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible ready for take-off, slides off the deck as the carrier turns into wind to the east of Falklands (3.50 pm). Lt Cmdr Broadwater RN ejects and is safely picked up.
  • Tuesday 1st June - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible shot down south of Stanley by Roland SAM (2.40 pm). Flt Lt Mortimer RAF ejects and is later rescued from the sea.

That would give 6 losses, 1 to gunfire, 1 to a missile and 4 in accidents. If you can find documented evidence for any other losses then the article would require correction, as it is, any additional losses are merely unfounded speculation. Emoscopes 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It`s OK now, somebody has corrected the article since I had written my first comment.
Veljko Stevanovich 03. feb. 2006. 10:45 UTC+1

Designation

Is it FA2 or FA.2, has the period been dropped from the British designation system? Emoscopes Talk 20:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

MoD, RAF and RN/FAA websites seem to quote all deisgnations without the period or an Mk. now. I have modified the article accordingly as it was effectively using three different designation systems. Ive left FRS.1 / Mk.1 as is however, as I'm not sure when the period was dropped and it would seem innapropriate to retrospectively apply it to older models. Emoscopes Talk 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawl

Please see my comments Talk:Royal Navy about the imminent withdrawl of the Sea Harrier, it is relevant for changing this article in the next month when the official withdrawl date is (can't find the actual date for the life of me on the MoD or RN websites, what a surprise ¬_¬ Emoscopes 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article HAS to emphasise that the major difference between the FA2 and GR9, i.e. FA2 was an air superiority fighter with AI radar and AMRAAM missle and GR9 had an optional ability to carry AIM9 missiles and relies on other aircraft to ensure its safety. Emoscopes Talk 03:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The retirement of the last Royal Navy Sea Harrier was marked by flypast and parade at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton in Somerset on the 28th March 2006. The disbandment of No 801 Naval Air Squadron brought to a close 26 years of Sea Harrier operations at the base and through out the world. Royal Navy’s last six Sea Harrier FA Mk 2s and two Harrier T Mk 8s are now headed for storage at RAF Shawbury pending disposal.

The Indian Navy is currently interested in acquirring up to eight aircraft in order to maintain their Sea Harrier fleet. If the deal goes through it will be for the aircrat less the Blue Vixen radar, the RWR and the AMRRAM capability along with the deletion of certain US sourced software.

One Sea Harrier has been acquired by a US Warbird operator and has been shipped to the US where it will join the US Air Show Circuit, a number of airframes are beginning to appear in Museums on static displays and one has made its way in to the beer garden of the Snipe Pub in Dukenfield near Manchester 86.9.236.109 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Dave Bllinge86.9.236.109 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Ark Royal NPOV

The claim that recapturing the Falklands would have been easier with a full aircraft carrier is not a claim I've seen cited elsewhere, so it would be good if a source for this assertion could be found. --Dunstan 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The assertion is that the operations around the FI would have been easier if the Task Force had Airborne Early warning aircraft. If the RN had kept the Ark Royal, then they could have operated something like the Gannet. That's not the same as recapturing would be easier. GraemeLeggett 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Two F-4 Phantom PACs with their long range and the full AIM-9L/Sparrow AAMs combination stationed over west falkland and supported by the Gannet would eliminate almost all argentine raids and the Bucaneers would represent a high threat for any argentine target not only at the islands but the continent and made the Vulcan flights not necessary. Jor70 15:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
But is this a citable source, or your personal opinion? I do not wish to argue with the statement itself, but all the reading that I have done criticises the lack of AEW cover rather than the lack of the Ark Royal herself. Emoscopes Talk 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Just one, but you can find it on any serious analysis of the War, a british source on a US Navy site : Four years after Ark Royal was retired, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. The only way to recover the Falklands was through an amphibious operation, and the Ark Royal would have proved invaluable. Although by comparison to a U.S. carrier air wing Ark Royal’s aircraft complement was small, a fixed-wing carrier would have provided the task force with strike aircraft, air defence fighters with a beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile capability, and, crucially, airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft. As the conflict progressed, it was clear that all were desirable. Jor70 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if is me or what but the page has gone offline! you can check it from google cache

The AEW cover is inextricably linked to the Ark Royal, and if you have her then you get the others or similar. I don't know if a Sea Harrier would be more fuel efficient at take off using a long stretch of Arks flight deck than using the ski-jump. GraemeLeggett 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I still don't undestand how could be a npov on the fact that with a conventional aircraft the whole operation would be easier. Just check any analysis done after the war or if you want we can change it to: who want the Sea Harrier if the Ark Royal was still in service ? Jor70 17:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not so much a matter of NPOV, it's a matter of verifiability. We just need a good source to confirm this, and it can stay in. --Scott Wilson 19:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let do a quick Google search! : Jor70 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • from HMS Ark Royal (R09) :-)) -> Ironically the Falklands War took place only two years after the Ark Royal was scrapped; had the carrier still been in service for the conflict the Argentine Air Force would have had a considerably tougher time launching attacks on the Royal Navy.
  • from [3] -> The British experience affirmed "defense-in-depth" principles that had served as the foundation of U.S. Navy doctrine since World War II. The White Paper and the Summary Report both faulted the British for their lack of a well-rounded carrier wing--complete with early warning aircraft and long-range fighters--and for lacking the close-in air-defense weapons that might have prevented at least some of the warship losses. Two decades later, the British are constructing a large conventional aircraft carrier capable of hosting an air wing such as that recommended.
Which is why I find it so terribly ironic that the government is prepared to spend a number of years without the Sea Harrier, in a situation little better (if not worse) than 1982 :) To cut to the point, I too agree it should be in, it was just a matter of verification. Emoscopes Talk 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cost

I've added a unit cost figure of about £12m in 1990; this is derived from Alan Clark's 1989 defence review, which gave the price of ten extra Sea Harriers as c.£120m. If anyone has a better figure, please feel free to give it, but better this than nothing Shimgray | talk | 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nickname "shar"

Is this meant to indicate Shah or Shar Pei? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's merely a contraction of Sea Harrier. --Scott Wilson 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what I understand also. Mark83 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian order quantity

I've changed the quantities of FRS.51 orders for India to twenty-three as per Jim Winchester (Ed.) (2006). The Encyclopedia of Modern Aircraft. Grange Books. ISBN 1-84013-908-0. and Paul Eden (Ed.) (2004). The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft. Amber Books. ISBN 1-904687-84-9.. Unfortunately, neither agrees on how many T.60s were ordered. The former says six, while the latter says four. Can anyone shed some more light on this? --Scott Wilson 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Navy said it would not after all be acquiring 8 second-hand Sea Harrier FA 2 fighters from the RN saying they were not as cost effective as originally thouight because of the exclusion of radar and other components. According to a report in the October issue of the defence magazine India Strategic, the eight Harriers, which were also the last to serve the Royal Navy, were on offer but without some vital components like missiles and the Blue Vixen fire control radar. The prime consideration was to use them to train pilots and to fill in the gaps caused by the loss of six Harriers in the Indian Navy due to accidents spread over more than 20 years. Published reports indicate that India has 22 Sea Harriers, 16 of them being the FRS.51 fighter version. They are to be gradually replaced by MiG-29K aircraft, some 40 to 50 of which are likely to be acquired from Russia.

India has already contracted to buy 16 MiG-29Ks as part of the deal with Russia to acquire the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, renamed INS Vikramaditya, but more such aircraft would be needed as the Indian Navy grows to its required size and capability.The Indian Navy plans to use the Sea Harriers till around 2020.

Engines for Indian Sea Harriers were supplied by Rolls Royce while the aircraft have been maintained and upgraded - as prime contractor - by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2605

Their original Sea Harriers are being retrofitted with Elta EL/M-2032 multimode fire-control radar, Rafael Derby air-to-air missiles and a helmet-mounted sight. 81.86.144.210 07:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Book information

There's a book "Sea Harrier Over the Falklands", by "Sharkey Ward", CO 801 Squadron (HMS Invincible). From my memory of the book:

1) The Royal Navy set off with 20 Sea Harriers ... presumably all the planes in service ... 12 on HMS Hermes and 8 on HMS Invincible 2) Later, 8 RAF Harriers were sent out on the Atlantic Conveyor, 4 going to each carrier. They were flown off before the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk. 3) Two Harriers from Invincible on patrol together in fog went missing, with no information about what happened. The only explanation anyone could think of was they had collided 4) I recall at least one Sea Harrier from Invincible was shot down over the Falklands. The carrier Captain discussed with Ward whether the pilot (Mortimer, I believe) should face a court martial as he was not supposed to be flying in the area where he was shot down. The court martial did not take place. 5) One Harrier slid off the deck of HMS Invincible while the ship was carrying out evasive action in heavy weather. One of the pilots was reported as remarking to the captain "That'll teach you to chuck your ship about like a speedboat, sir." 6) I seem to recall the runways at Port Stanley were not long enough for Argentinian jet aircraft 7) According to the author, the Vulcan raids were a total waste of time; as I recall, seven raids were carried out. One was aborted when the Vulcan lost power in one engine, the crew causing some embarrassment by diverting, fully armed, to an airfield in South America. Another was aborted due to loss of cabin pressure - which, when the plane return to Ascension Island, was found to be due to an open cockpit window. Five aircraft got to the Falklands, dropping 105 bombs, 104 of which missed the runways. One bomb managed to hit one corner of one runway. (Not mentioned in the book, but I believe these were cluster munitions; so perhaps the nuisance caused to the ARgentinians was greater than the author suggested.) 8) According to the book, it transpired after the war that Argentinian pilots had been under orders not to engage in air-to-air combat with Harriers. 9) According to the book, HMS Hermes' Harrier pilots were ordered by the flagship not to use their Blue Fox radar. The author - who has quite an axe to grind - blames this and other stupidities for the amount of damage done to Royal Navy ships. He says there was no single incidence of an Argentinian air attack being pressed home when there were Harriers from Invincible in low-level defensive positions operating their radar.

Tim

I too have read this book and while it makes a good read, Ward definitely has an agenda. The usefullness of the Vulcan raids has been well argued and probably will be for a long time. The bomb that cratered the runway was a 1000lb GP bomb, not a cluster bomb (the only clusteres used in theatre were the BL755). It would be good to have some more detail on the Shars that were lost, but we need a better reference than Ward's book, there must be a report published somewhere? Mumby 08:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Argentinian pilots had been under orders not to engage in air-to-air combat Do you mean facing cannons vs AIM-9L ?? the only real air combats occurs the first day (May 1) when Mirage III and Daggers go low to intercept the SHarrs: A Dagger (Lt Ardiles) was shot down with a 9lima from out of their shafrir range whilst the Mirages, one was blow out too while the other escape but get out of fuel to return to the mainland so attempt to land at stanley where its was shot down by friendly fire. After that, the Mirage III (the only real fighter group) were the only to carry AAM (R530 and R550) continue to escort the strike aircraft up to the last day but flying high altitude (if they go down they could not return) where the SHarrs wisely do not care of them. Jor70 11:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ARA SeaHarrs

There is not mention of the tests performed by the Argentine Navy of a Harrier from the 25 de Mayo carrier (there is a well known photograph). ARA was looking for the replacement for their A-4Q which finally led in the Super Etendards Jor70 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a good source in my books, or online. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually found that was Sept'69, during the voyage of the recently bought 25 de Mayo in the Netherlands, Hawker Siddeley demostrasted their Harrier GR1 onboard the carrier. The Argentines bought refurbhised A-4B (as A-4Q) in the US instead --Jor70 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that's about the same time that Spain bought their AV-8Ss, Argentina probably would have purchased GR.1s Spain bought their Harriers as AV-8As through the US because Britan wouldn't sell directly to the fascist government of Spain (but presumably approved of it anyway, or I doubt the US could have sold them.) I don't think Argentina had any problems with the British government at that tiem, so they probably would have bought GR1s directly from Britian. It would have been very interesting had Argentina purchased Harriers, as they would most likely have faced off with the Sea Harriers during the war. - BillCJ 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems seems to be the fact that the Harriers would be delivered w/o AAM, A-4Q came with AIM-9B instead but ironically all american hardware suffered the spare part problem at the ends 70s due the Carter/Humphrey embargo while the British not. --Jor70 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Art Nalls’ Harrier was once used by the British Royal Navy

GERALD MARTINEAU/The Washington Post Ex-test pilot Art Nalls’ Harrier was once used by the British Royal Navy. Once, after an emergency landing, he had it towed on St. Mary's County, Md., roads, riding in the cockpit dressed as Santa Claus. By JENNA JOHNSON The Washington Post January 04, 2008 6:00 AM http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/LIFE/801040307

St. Mary's County Regional Airport in Maryland is home to a fleet of single-engine Cessnas, many of them owned by amateur pilots and parked in tidy rows just off the runway. But in a hangar at the edge of the grounds sits a Harrier, a hulking jet that takes off and lands vertically, cruises at speeds in excess of 600 mph and is similar to the Marines' primary attack aircraft.

...

Royzee (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Copying the entire article is a copyright violation. I cut out most of it. People can read it at the link you provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AIM-7/Sky Flash

Was the Sea Harrier ever fitted for Sk Flash or AIM-7 MRAAM operation? Doing so would have given the aircraft an improved ability to defend the fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cockpit, avionics, etc etc

Well apologies, User:Fnlayson, it was only meant as a start and as an encouragement to other contributors, but it seems a day is too long to wait. The little bits and pieces currently given in "Design and development" didn't seem to amount to much and I thought a basic description on which variants ciuld be built might give more weight. Remove the same start in Hawk if it gives you the same pain. But a plea for contributions here. Thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're right. I didn't give it much of a chance. But this article does not get that much attention, unfortunately. What about splitting off a separate Design section? Add an expand-section tag there. I've got a book or two with Sea Harrier info. Not sure what to add with this being a derivative of the Harrier I though. I generally only watch the Hawk article. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
OK many thanks. Although as you hint. Harrier itself might be a better starting place. Yes a separate design section would seem very sensible and could contain coockpit stuff. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll try to add some basic design info to the Harrier article. Chances are parts of it can be used in this and other Harrier family articles. Add some cockpit and other info where you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Use in Gulf War?

(Moved here from User talk:Fnlayson)

Finalyson,

I'm sorry but none of our aircraft carriers, Ark Royal, Invincible or Illustrious took part in Desert Storm! So no Sea Harriers took part there. Secondly the only Fleet Air Arm aircraft that took place during that conlfict were the Lynx HM8 armed with Sea Skuas which successfully sunk quite a few of the iraqi gunboats and vessels. Commando helicopter squadrons namely 845, 846 and 848 took part with Sea King Commando Mk4 painted in desert camouflage operating in support primarily the Royal Marine Commandos and other ground troops.

Sea Harriers FRS.1 and the later F/A-2 did take part in Southern Watch and Desert Fox.

By the way for the record, I;m not only an aviation enthusiast but a helicopter pilot, I've worked over 12 years in the aviation industry primarily in helicopter maintenance (EASA Part 145), and commericial aviation maintenancer research operations, published a few articles and run my own consultancy. I also have an aerospace engineering degree and you can find me at Farnborough Airshow, Heli Expos or Helitech.

Also the Telegraph like any tabloid especially here in UK doesn't get it facts right!

Please feel free to check the Royal Navy website or the Fleet Air Arm archive or ask a question on PPRUNE.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendriver (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked my Harrier books. The Great Book of Modern Warplanes (ISBN 0-7603-0893-4) says no Harriers or Sea Herriers were used there. Can someone verify the combat usage with another book or something? Thanks for any help. -fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why couldn't the normal version of the Harrier be used on ships?

Why couldn't the normal version of the Harrier be used on ships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.14.37 (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They could and they are now. The normal Harrier isn't built to be an air defense fighter, it is traditionally a ground-attack craft. The Sea Harrier was tricked out to do the job it was supposed to in terms of its anti-air capabilities, which were beyond that of the original Harrier itself. It was also treated to deal with the more corrosive environment it would be operating in. Today's Harriers are bigger, heavier, and have more modern engines; but they lack radar and still wouldn't be as good providing airocover to the fleet if it was in jeapordy. Kyteto (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Kyteto is speaking only of the UK Harriers (GR7/GR9). The USMC, Italian Navy, and Spanish Navy all operate the radar-equipped AV-8B+ Harrier II+, which is basically the same airframe as the UK aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, quite right. A wonderfully stupid decision of our higher-ups there, deciding to remove the standard radar from the construction specs, yet make it 'take over' from the properly equipped Sea Harriers there... The AV-8B+ is a nice aircraft, and is basically the most modern and well equipped of all Harriers.(Though the Blue Vixen radar is likely better) I wish things were better equipped than they are right now. Kyteto (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've never quite understood why the RN decided to upgrade the Shar FRS.1 to FA2 instead of ordering Harriert IIs with the Blue Vixen radar and the other FA2 systems. Its quite likely yhey could have sold that variant to Italy or Spain, which would have been available earlier than the B+. In the end, the RN still had to order new SHar FA2s, which were less than 10 years old when they were retired! - BilCat (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
HarrierII is a bomber - it is largere and slower than a HarrierI, and is optimised for ground-attack roles. A "fighter" varient of the HarrierII with a good air-air radar would still be a less effective air combat platform than the SHAR FA2 (PDR May2017)
I'm still outstanded that any government (as the same leadership were in in 1998 and 2002!) would decide to buy brand new planes in 1998 and then plan their retirement less than four years after! New Labour's defense policy really does look like a complete shambles with events like these, but that's far too political a statement for wikipedia of course. :P I they were going to buy brand new in 1998, and had an ounce of actual long term (or short term, for that matter!) planning, they would have either cancelled the purchase and outfitted the GR7/GR9 properly for air combat,(GR10 perhaps?) or made sure the frames had been altered to take the more powerful engines at a later date as funds became available. There's no practical reason I can see that'd cause what really is a 'gold-standard cockup' (to use the official term from the Chinook HC3 procurement disaster) like this to have happened, other than no planning at all... Kyteto (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
At the time, the early RAF land-based Harriers used an inertial navigation system (INS) that required the aircraft to be on a stable non-moving surface/platform (i.e., solid ground) to allow the navigation system to initialise immediately before flight. This is not possible on a moving ship at sea, as there is no non-moving reference point, the aircraft needing to be motionless while the INS is initialising. This is no problem in calm sheltered waters, such as when RAF Harriers were used in the Falklands War, but becomes impossible offshore in a moving ship in any normal sea. So the normal RAF Harrier INS was unusable for a ship-borne aircraft. The other factors mentioned above by other posters also apply - and in a naval aircraft a radar is almost essential these days and the Harrier GR's had none.
I'm afraid this just isn't true. Both SHAR and Harrier GR3 (and all the HarrierIIs, come to that) had inertial nav systems which had to be "aligned" prior to flight. The SHARs had an embedded "Sea Align" system which used data from the ship's inertia platform as a datum. The GR3 didn't have this, but there was a schemed external unit called "FINRAE" to provide this function should it ever be needed. Hours after the conception of the Falklands Task Force the FINRAE team was reassembled and the designs completed, Several units were them built and certified in a few days, and they were taken onto the fleet at Ascension so that when the RAF's GR3s joined the fleet they had a full carrier-operational capability. There were actually more GR3s than FA2s deployed in Operation Corporate; the FA2s were then able to focus on the CAP role while the GR3s focussed on the ground-attack role. Again, it it worth remembering that the Navy's Sea Harriers were primarily a fleet air-defence system while the RAF's GR fleet were essentially tactical air support system for close-air-support of ground forces.
BTW, the 'proper' naval Harrier was to have been the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 but it was cancelled in the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand how RAF Harriers flew from carriers in "calm sheltered waters" during the Falklands War. The carriers remained in the open sea until after the Argentine surrender. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have phrased that part better. What I meant was after the surrender when it would have been possible to fly them off of ships at anchor.
Sorry, but no. Whilst not COMPLETELY impossible you would never choose to fly-off jets from static ships. The lack of ~30kts wind-over-the-deck would massively restrict the take-off weight, meaning that they would have to fly with minimal wstores load adn/or fuel. [PDR June 2017]
To be able to use them of the carriers at sea while the war was on-going, Ferranti had to quickly develop FINRAE, which was an alignment aid for the INS. The Ferranti FE541 INAS used in the early Harriers is also the weapons aiming system so bombing accuracy is also affected by INS errors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


VIFF used for dogfighting?

"Tactics such as such as the 'Viff' (Vectored in Forward Flight) using the nozzles normally used for vertical flight for braking and other directions proved decisive in dogfights." -- sourced to a TIME magazine article from June 1982. I am reasonably certain that later reports (probably including Admiral Sandy Woodward's book, not totally independent though he might be) confirmed that VIFF was never used for dogfighting during the war, mainly because Argentine pilots chose not to engage in dogfights.

If anyone has the time to confirm this and correct the article, it would be much appreciated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that Time magazine quote is flat wrong. In the well-researched "Air War South Atlantic", by Jeffery Ethell and Alfred Price, they have this to say (pg 175): "Because there was scarcely any fighter-versus-fighter combat, Sea Harrier pilots never used VIFF (thrust Vectored In Forward Flight) while engaging enemy aircraft." And later on the same page: "Once Sea Harrier pilots had enemy aircraft in sight, the usually pounced from above, closed rapidly to within missile firing range, and loosed off a Sidewinder." The Army's version of the Harrier was not used in any air to air combat during that campaign. As far as I have been able to determine, VIFF has never been used by Harriers in air-to-air combat in any conflict. 98.255.85.245 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sea Harriers overshooting Runway

According to Dabolim Airport, there has been a case of a Sea Harrier overshooting the runway. How can a Sea Harrier overshoot the runway? They land vertically. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all the time, its makes a lot of noise and uses fuel so its better to land normally when then can. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Aerospace_Sea_Harrier/Archive_1&oldid=809027373"