BF2S Forums Another Harrier goes down.

Yeah, they're ancient. F-35 can't come any quicker to replace 'em

LOL noobkilla, you bitch

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-06-16 14:10:12)

I <3 the harriers. I loved seeing them zip around Gibraltar.

FatherTed wrote:

N00bkilla55404 wrote:

In b4 F35B replacing 40 year old plane that should have gone a long time ago.

I don't think the Harrier should have gone a long time ago - It's still remarkably good in certain roles (Ground Support for one), and if more money had gone into the things over the years, it would still be a prime piece of kit.

Unfortunately, the Harriers don't see much funding going their way.

That's my point.  It costs a lot more to refurbish and maintain an old piece of equipment than it takes to make a new one  Aside from that, its ever twitchy VTOL would never be able to fully integrate autopilot and fly-by-wire, so why waste money on that?  Frankly, the only reason it survived past the 90's was because nothing could replace it to a T.  The F35 could not come sooner.

N00bkilla55404 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

N00bkilla55404 wrote:

In b4 F35B replacing 40 year old plane that should have gone a long time ago.

I don't think the Harrier should have gone a long time ago - It's still remarkably good in certain roles (Ground Support for one), and if more money had gone into the things over the years, it would still be a prime piece of kit.

Unfortunately, the Harriers don't see much funding going their way.

That's my point.  It costs a lot more to refurbish and maintain an old piece of equipment than it takes to make a new one  Aside from that, its ever twitchy VTOL would never be able to fully integrate autopilot and fly-by-wire, so why waste money on that?  Frankly, the only reason it survived past the 90's was because nothing could replace it to a T.  The F35 could not come sooner.

True, the F35 will be useful.

I'll be sad when the Harriers get mothballed, or go the way of the Jaguars.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I don't think we designate the F-35 as the F-35 Lightning II link the Yankistani's do. I think we're calling it the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) - which makes sense, we never designate equipment the same as the Americans. Even if it's the same thing. Do shit your own way rite. Although I guess with NATO and shit, it would be better if there wasn't things like designating equipment with different names.

The Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) is the official designation of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence used for the F-35 Lightning II, formerly the Joint Strike Fighter, and the result of the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Combat_Aircraft

Yep we're having it as the JCA.

Why we're not using RR engines instead of these Pratt engines is beyond me though.

I seem to remember that simulations were done where the RR engines would out-perfom the others in every single test, but the Americans wouldn't let us use them. Or something like that.

Coming down at 45 degrees? That's ... deep

FatherTed wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I don't think we designate the F-35 as the F-35 Lightning II link the Yankistani's do. I think we're calling it the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) - which makes sense, we never designate equipment the same as the Americans. Even if it's the same thing. Do shit your own way rite. Although I guess with NATO and shit, it would be better if there wasn't things like designating equipment with different names.

The Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) is the official designation of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence used for the F-35 Lightning II, formerly the Joint Strike Fighter, and the result of the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Combat_Aircraft

Yep we're having it as the JCA.

Why we're not using RR engines instead of these Pratt engines is beyond me though.

I seem to remember that simulations were done where the RR engines would out-perfom the others in every single test, but the Americans wouldn't let us use them. Or something like that.

The P&W F135 turbfan is the single most powerful jet engine ever made.  Seeing how the F35 (OR the JCA, for you crazy tea sippers) is a single engine aircraft...

Assuming you are comparing the harriers engine

Harrier: 23,800 lb maximum thrust.
F35: 39,800 lb maximum thrust.
The still in development F136 is relatively equal, in the end the only difference would likely be cost that determines which is used.  Otherwise, the F135 has already proven itself more than competent enough to perform the duties the F35 requires, plus a power boost.

Last edited by N00bkilla55404 (2008-06-16 14:58:13)

FatherTed wrote:

ThaReaper wrote:

They need a better jet than the harrier, it really isn't that great.

Proved itself great enough in the Falklands, and Afghanistan.

It can't go supersonic around sea level, vertical take off is pointless, and it's over 30 years old.

FatherTed wrote:

ThaReaper wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

ThaReaper wrote:

They need a better jet than the harrier, it really isn't that great.

Proved itself great enough in the Falklands, and Afghanistan.

It can't go supersonic around sea level, vertical take off is pointless, and it's over 30 years old.

VTOL isn't pointless, it's a great assest for the Navy.

It was never needed to go Supersonic, we have other jets for that.

And its about 50 years old.

I guess, I don't really like it. Good for the navy I suppose, that's about it though.

N00bkilla55404 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I don't think we designate the F-35 as the F-35 Lightning II link the Yankistani's do. I think we're calling it the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) - which makes sense, we never designate equipment the same as the Americans. Even if it's the same thing. Do shit your own way rite. Although I guess with NATO and shit, it would be better if there wasn't things like designating equipment with different names.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Combat_Aircraft

Yep we're having it as the JCA.

Why we're not using RR engines instead of these Pratt engines is beyond me though.

I seem to remember that simulations were done where the RR engines would out-perfom the others in every single test, but the Americans wouldn't let us use them. Or something like that.

The P&W F135 turbfan is the single most powerful jet engine ever made.  Seeing how the F35 (OR the JCA, for you crazy tea sippers) is a single engine aircraft...

Assuming you are comparing the harriers engine

Harrier: 23,800 lb maximum thrust.
F35: 39,800 lb maximum thrust.

The F135 has already proven itself more than competent enough to perform the duties the F35 requires, plus a power boost.

That's with the afterburners lit. The F-35 doesn't continously use them because if it did then it would run out of fuel in about 10-15 minutes. The F-35's maximum thrust without afterburners is about 25,000 pounds. The Harrier's is about 24,750 pounds. So they're virtually the same.

max wrote:

ThaReaper wrote:

long post

VTOL / STOVL is rather useful if you're operating off small ships or bad/short landing strips. If you've got access to Kitty Hawk-class supercarriers all over the world, that's a whole other cup of tea ...

Maybe the Europeans should invest in some better carriers then .

FatherTed wrote:

ThaReaper wrote:

max wrote:

VTOL / STOVL is rather useful if you're operating off small ships or bad/short landing strips. If you've got access to Kitty Hawk-class supercarriers all over the world, that's a whole other cup of tea ...

Maybe the Europeans should invest in some better carriers then .

We don't need em, we try and avoid fighting wars 1000s of miles from home

Haha, I guess you have a point. America does like to get involved in every war there is...

ThaReaper wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

ThaReaper wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

ThaReaper wrote:

They need a better jet than the harrier, it really isn't that great.

Proved itself great enough in the Falklands, and Afghanistan.

It can't go supersonic around sea level, vertical take off is pointless, and it's over 30 years old.

VTOL isn't pointless, it's a great assest for the Navy.

It was never needed to go Supersonic, we have other jets for that.

And its about 50 years old.

I guess, I don't really like it. Good for the navy I suppose, that's about it though.

N00bkilla55404 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Yep we're having it as the JCA.

Why we're not using RR engines instead of these Pratt engines is beyond me though.

I seem to remember that simulations were done where the RR engines would out-perfom the others in every single test, but the Americans wouldn't let us use them. Or something like that.

The P&W F135 turbfan is the single most powerful jet engine ever made.  Seeing how the F35 (OR the JCA, for you crazy tea sippers) is a single engine aircraft...

Assuming you are comparing the harriers engine

Harrier: 23,800 lb maximum thrust.
F35: 39,800 lb maximum thrust.


The F135 has already proven itself more than competent enough to perform the duties the F35 requires, plus a power boost.

That's with the afterburners lit. The F-35 doesn't continously use them because if it did then it would run out of fuel in about 10-15 minutes. The F-35's maximum thrust without afterburners is about 25,000 pounds. The Harrier's is about 24,750 pounds. So they're virtually the same.

Protip: The harrier engine lacks an afterburner entirely, a major drawback, and when dry the F135 still has a noticeable power increase.  The harrier's engine was also highly temperamental, and many planes were lost due to malfunctions mostly related to its VTOL capability.  Try to get accurate representations of thrust, what i posted here were the official specs.  Exaggerating numbers to prove your point only makes you look stupid.

IIRC: F136:39,950 lb maximum thrust. 

The F136 has slightly greater engine thrust and noticeably greater cold thrust.  The F135 provides greater thrust in the roll posts, and in the end it's only 150 pounds difference.