Advanced Harrier Projects

[TinWing]

The same pods on "AEW X-32"?

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1997/1997%20-%200800.pdf

I noticed the same thing. I do have to wonder if the wingtip radar pods were a largely British proposal? Wasn't BAe partnered with Boeing on the X-32 after MD-NG's JSF proposal was rejected?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Big Wing Harrier

Source:

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1979/1979%20-%202507.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1979/1979%20-%203024.html

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

AV-16A article here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1974/1974%20-%201545.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1974/1974%20-%201546.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1974/1974%20-%201547.html

Picture shows AV-16 recce / surveillance version.
3 view of AV-16.

 

[MihoshiK]

Finally, a little OT: AV-16

Ooooh! Looky what I found on my hard drive:

I thought the AV-16 had a more F-16 style canopy with a forward section hinged upward and a fixed aft section?

When are we ever going to see that beauty oh great Wizard?

 

[hesham]

My dear overscan,

the Harrier III and ASTOVL aircraft.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1990/1990%20-%202736.html?search=ASTOVL%20aircraft%201981

 

[hesham]

3 view of a earlier new build Big Wing Harrier.

Source:
Big Wings from Kingston, Air International Sept 1979

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1983/1983%20-%202338.html?search=mcdonnell%20ATF%20aircraft%20project

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the Harrier GR7 with ani-armour-weapons.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201757.html

 

[zen]

Could the equipment fitted in the nose of RAF Harrier GR5 etc have been fitted into an underfuselage or underwing pod so leaving the nose free for radar?

Could this have been done at a later stage?

Of course, if the money and forethought had been there....assuming you're thinking about putting something else in the nose....like a radar?

 

[SteveO]

IIRC the RAF planned to fit a Harrier GR3 style laser ranger marked target seeker (LRMTS) in the nose but stuck with the ARBS to save money.

The AV-8B+ had to have a redesigned fuselage to fit the APG-65 mechanically scanned radar in it but maybe it would be possible to fit a AESA radar into a standard Harrier II nose?

 

[PMN1]

In Tony Buttler's 'British Secret Projects, Jet Bombers since 1949', there is a line in the section on the HS.1184 (Harrier developments) which states 'No interest in the HS.1184 was forthcoming from the UK Government but it did lay the ground for the AV-16. The policy was that no more Harriers could be ordered because the Anglo-French Jaguar was now under way and would fullfil all future requirements'.

What if the Jaguar development had never been started, could it be assumed extra Harriers or developments of Harrier would have been ordered or would it have been a case of nothing ordered?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Consolidating existing topics.

 

[blackkite]

There was a air show in 1972,Tokyo Iruma base. I saw flight demonstration of F-14A,F-15B and Harrier.
F-14A and F-15B demonstrated very tight turn with full afterburning.
In the air show, most impressive demonstration was Harrier's one for me.
At first Harrier stopped mid air horizontally, then began to take vertical position, angle of attack reached almost 90 degree finally. Kept this position for a while, and began to climb!!!
I surprised very much. I can't believe that flight still now.
Harrier is really super plane.

 

[gunner]

It would have been an interesting project if the Fleet air arm had bought Harrier II instead of doing the F/A2 upgrade and integrated its systems onto the new airframe before the USMC AV8B+ along side some most of the HarrierII systems.

 

[fightingirish]

Hey folks,
after long months of search, I finally found the article about a modification programme for the MDD (now Boeing) AV-8B.
The picture shows one of the AV-8B Harrier prototypes. Maybe it had the serial #161397, which was built in 1982. ???
This aircraft was on loan from the USMC to MDD.
New wingtips with Sidewinder missile launchers were installed, so 2 hardpoints under the wing were free for other weapons or sensors. Modified nozzles, lifting devices and ceramic pieces were also installed.
Eight test flights were planned.

Source: Flug-Revue - February 1995 - Page 8 - News

 

[SteveO]

Well done fightingirish, knew I'd seen that pic before but couldn't find it either.

Anyone have further details/pics on the other modifications?

I think the rear hot nozzles were changed with a "zero scarf" version similar to the front cold nozzles on the Harrier II.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Hi All -

Thanks to the archives at the Greater St. Louis Air & Space Museum, some artwork and an inboard profile of the AV-16.

Not too sure that #4 is an AV-16 but....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Pics 3 and 4 have a very different canopy design , much more like the AV-8A. Either a different revision or a different Harrier project.

 

[SteveO]

Great pics Mark, anyone know why the UK versions are shown with a pitot tube on the nose? Different nav/attack system maybe?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Merged topics

 

[Dsadow]

Hi, While reading the posts about VFA-Fighters for Sea Control Ships, I came across the mention of the McDonnell Douglas Model 258-52. Powered by a Pegasus 15-03, a redefined fuselage and high speed wing, and F-4J intakes. Has anyone ever seen a 3 view drawing of this design? To me, it sounds similar to the AV-8SX that Mcdonnell Douglas was proposing as a supersonic demonstrator,but that was in the 1980's.
thanks for help.

 

[Stargazer]

I have no information about a Model "258-52", but the McDonnell Model 258-2 was an Advanced Harrier Sea Control Ship (SCS) fighter proposal, with new thin high-speed wing, slimmer fuselage, new intake, and a Pegasus 15-03 engine.

However, there was an alternate configuration for the same program, also with a Pegasus 15 turbofan and a new, supercritical wing giving a Mach 1 top speed. Perhaps this was designated "258-52"? It is very possible.

On a side note, a third proposal for the SCS program was the Model 262, also designated AV-8C.

 

[Dsadow]

Thank you for your reply. I guess you can't believe everything you read,even if it is from Aviation week and Space technology!! That will make things easier to try and find more info.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Most likely Model 258 is the AV-16S (HS.1185 to us Brits . S-1 to S-6 versions were studied of this supersonic Harrier derivative.

258-52 might actually be 258-S2.

 

[danielgrimes]

The AV-16/P.1185 would have been an amazing aircraft. USMC and RAF (AST.396) requirements diverged as the former wanted a close air support aircraft, whereas the RAF wanted multi-role with air to air capability. The RAF then defined AST.403 on this multi role desire which several years later was de-scoped to define AST.409 giving us the GR7 - more or less a licence built McDonnell Douglas AV-8B, that had cost far more than the P1185 ever would have. The PCB pegasus got as far as being fitted into a Harrier (XV798), so we could have had theF-35b 20 years ago! I wish the RAF would learn, but I really can't think of any procurement they have done with anything approaching competence!

 

[F-14D]

The AV-16/P.1185 would have been an amazing aircraft. USMC and RAF (AST.396) requirements diverged as the former wanted a close air support aircraft, whereas the RAF wanted multi-role with air to air capability. The RAF then defined AST.403 on this multi role desire which several years later was de-scoped to define AST.409 giving us the GR7 - more or less a licence built McDonnell Douglas AV-8B, that had cost far more than the P1185 ever would have. The PCB pegasus got as far as being fitted into a Harrier (XV798), so we could have had theF-35b 20 years ago! I wish the RAF would learn, but I really can't think of any procurement they have done with anything approaching competence!

Hmmm, it's hard to believe that that the AV-16S (which was what the P.1185 was, the first AV-16 was the P1184 and was subsonic) would have cost less than the AV-8B/ Harrier GR.5 (which was the first version of the Harrier II that the UK bought). The AV-16 would have had to fund the development of the Pegasus 15 and a new, wet, supercritical wing. When you went to the AV-16S you also had to fund a larger fuselage, plus everything else necessary for supersonic flight, not to mention developing and perfeting PCB. This would certainly be very expensive to develop. buy and operate. Hawker Siddley pulled out of the project in 1975 and USMC was unwilling to fund the whole thing themselves. Both the UK and USMC then started looking at less expensive ways to get closer to the AV-16 goal of double the payload or double the range.

RAF did look at the concept of a "Big Wing" (also called "Tin Wing") proposed by British Aerospace that could be mounted on existing GR.3s and Sea Harriers (nicely illustrated here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,184.msg12092.html#msg12092), but partnering with USMC on their more extensive modification which became the AV-8B offered greater growth potential for less upfront costs to them. The AV-8B did not meet RAF's tuning requirement, but this was addressed by adopting the LERX designed for the Big Wing.

Again, I can't see how the costs of the AV-8B-GR.5/7 could be anywhere near as large as what the AV-16S would have cost.

BTW, not really totally on-topic but related: The word is that this week the UK will announce that it will ax the entire Harrier fleet.

 

[danielgrimes]

When development costs are going way over budget, the RAF has a history of regenotiating the project to place the risk on the contractor and then tries to blame the contractor when the deal collapses! As the customer and fund holder, it would have been the MOD/RAF that would have really made the decision to pull the plug, even if dressed up as the contractor.

Before settling on the GR5/7/9 which incurs the costs of licenced McDonnell DOuglas intellectual property, the RAF had 'wasted' millions in the dead eands of the P1185, P1205 and P1216 (and all the interim developments). The AST409 aircraft the RAF introduced in 1989 was a lesser specification than the AST396 aircraft specified 17 years previosuly.

With the P1185, Rolls Royce had got as far as getting the PCB pegasus into a test GR1 airframe, which implies a certain amount of engine maturity (this airframe is 'on display' at Kemble Airfield). Added to this that the supercritical wing and LERX aerodynamic development were going to be funded by the USMC implies to me that much of the R&D risk had already been bourne by the termination of the project in 1975. I conjecture that the costs of the next 14 years of abandoned development of various aircrafmes and then the usual theme of fitting British systems into an american aircraft (did the MOD not learn from the Navy's Phantom debacle) would have been less than the 6 or 7 years to get the P1185 into flight.

[Removed Offtopic rant - Admin]

 

[AeroFranz]

I am going through boxes of old AvWeeks from 1979-1980- here's some stuff i found on Advanced Harrier projects.
The first pic is a detail of the front PCB nozzle.

 

[Dsadow]

I'm looking for a 3 view of the McDonnell Douglas and Rolls-Royce proposed demonstrator,the AV-8SX. It would use modified AV-8A airframe and use a Pegasus 11 with plenum chamber burning (PCB ). I have seen in articles a picture of a disply model showing all the changes,but never a 3 view.
Thanks

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I've not yet come across this one in the archives - if I do, I'll be sure to post it!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Arjen]

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%200679.html
3-view of a proposed operational aircraft, not the AV-8SX itself.

<edit>As Aerofranz already noted, he posted similar content before. I am fairly new here, so I have a considerable backlog of unread postings. Sorry about the duplication. Looking for the AV-8SX, I did stumble upon the Flightglobal-archive (again) and realized it also contains scans of some very old magazines. Yum.</edit>

 

[Hood]

Jane's Civil and Military Aircraft Updates 1993-94 has some brief info on the Harrier III.
Although details were still sketchy Jane's thought it likely that the all-new bigger wing would be 9.75m in span with wing folding and be made from carbonfibre composites. The fuselage would be longer with refined aerodynamics with a RR 11-61 Pegasus turbofan. Avionics were thought to be based on EFA (as it then was) with an "advanced radar".
Jane's noted that it might replace the Sea Harrier first in 2000-2005.

 

[Hood]

Flightglobal has turned up some more on the Harrier III. The 20-26 Feb 1991 issue has an article on ASTOVL and at the time BAe were sutdying a Harrier III with a bigger wing and capable of carrying six AMRAAM and two ASRAAM on wingtip rails. McDonnell Douglas at the time wanted to retain the Harrier II wing box and the AV-8B Harrier II Plus forward fuselage and nose with an uprated Pegasus. This seems to be a much more limited upgrade than envsioned by BAe. Was this split ever resolved before the demise of Harrier III? Or was it a non-starter given the other advanced ASTOVL projects then underway?​

​

​

 

[Deino]

Actually I'm very much surprised after I've seen this photo linked at the Key-Forum (THANKs Peter-G) showing an USMC AV-8B with two AMRAAMs.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24526864@N03/4605819064/sizes/l/in/set-72157624037134274/

Deino

 

[F-14D]

Instead of wingtip rails, I always thought the British idea of mounting the AIM-9 rails on the front of the outrigger wheel housings was rather elegant.

 

[RAP]

Hi- Nice 3-view of AV-16. Similar to some of the other posts but thought I'd go ahead and post it anyway. Can never have too many drawings the Harrier

 

[RAP]

Here are a couple of drawings of the GR Mk 5 from the Definition Devlopment Specification dated October 1980. Document has some other interesting details- cockpit layout, wing design, large inboard profile, etc. When I have some time I'll post these if anyone is interested.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Certainly interested - makes good comparison to the McDonnell-Douglas Harrier II.

 

[SteveO]

Yes please RAP! Thanks for sharing.

 

[RAP]

Happy to share. Enjoy!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Quick edit