av-8D as f-35b alternative?

I

ikke666

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
24 December 2010
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
some years ago i read an article in which the author proposed a stealth version of the harrier as alternative for the f-35b.
the article contained a concept art drawing.
does any-one have this article?
 
Do you mean the AVPRO concept?:

Photo Storage

Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!
media.photobucket.com media.photobucket.com

from this forum thread:

Harrier III? F-35B alternative fantasy - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

This Forum should be used to discuss modern military aviation affairs relating to any country or aviation industry.
forum.keypublishing.co.uk

Or this article?:


Stealth and the Harrier's inlets will not go together, but a stealthy(ish), all-new subsonic STOVL aircraft could be possible, if anyone has the money to try.

AV-8D was the original name for the Night Attack AV-8B
 
it was indeed the avpro that i was looking for.
is the avpro concept just a painting or did they get any further? (aerodynamic testing, ...)
 
Just a painting - AVPRO did a lot of such paintings (see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6463.0.html).

That inlet and a Pegasus-type engine would never work - the Harrier inlet was key to its success and all that stealth shaping would cause airflow distortions that would kill thrust. And why have a stealthy inlet anyway if you have pylon mounted bombs etc.?
 
SteveO said:
harrier said:
...from this forum thread:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=55132 ...
Click to expand...
LOL, I got quite into that thread :D

Still stand by what I said in 2006 :( http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=883183&postcount=37
Click to expand...

Spot on! Now, who will win the Kentucky Derby this year!?
 
I always wondered if this idea had any merit? (Can't remember who first posted these pics :-[ )
Basically a Harrier in a new stealthy fuselage.
 

Attachments

  • Bill Gunston Stealthy VSTOL -1.jpg
    Bill Gunston Stealthy VSTOL -1.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 623
  • Gunston STOVL Fighter 3.jpg
    Gunston STOVL Fighter 3.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 622
Couple of thoughts:

If the Marines hadn't been ordered by Congress in 1994 to join JAST/JSF to replace their Harriers, would they really have cared about much stealth? Remember, we're talking a primarily Close Air Support machine here.

I'm sure it's occurred to others, but now that the RAF has stuck it to the RN and put the Harrier on the block, can the USMC buy the fleet and make changes in equipment fit to make them compatible with USMC operations? Could buy them some time to figure out where to go next.
 
SteveO said:
I always wondered if this idea had any merit? (Can't remember who first posted these pics :-[ )
Basically a Harrier in a new stealthy fuselage.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly that design is courtesy of Bill Gunston - speculation on a future stealthy VSTOL in one of his books.
 
It was also to be twin engined - the engines coming out sideways IIRC.

regards,

Greg
 
F-14D said:
If the Marines hadn't been ordered by Congress in 1994 to join JAST/JSF to replace their Harriers, would they really have cared about much stealth? Remember, we're talking a primarily Close Air Support machine here.
Click to expand...

Strangely, at the time the Marines already had several stealthy V/STOL efforts underway. How they managed to pull that off, I don't know.
 
SteveO said:
harrier said:
...from this forum thread:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=55132 ...
Click to expand...
LOL, I got quite into that thread :D

Still stand by what I said in 2006 :( http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=883183&postcount=37
Click to expand...

Steve

At the time the F-35B was still supposed to be the first one to enter service in line with the new Carriers, whilst the C was still earmarked for in service date of 2016 which was too late. Plus at the time the RAF would have walked if an alternative was propossed that might have threatened its Typhoons if an alternative off the shelf Naval Aircraft not to mention BAE Systems having a paddy.

Shame the 1216 never got past mock-up as a technology demonstrator would have been nice to prove the technology.

Will the state of the F-35B program now mean that Harrier will have to add a postscript to his P1216 book due to be printed in the near future ?
 
don't you mean the supersonic P1154 harrier instead of P1216? ???

does anyone have a family tree of harrier concepts (in pictures)? P1127 to P1216
 
Will the state of the F-35B program now mean that Harrier will have to add a postscript to his P1216 book due to be printed in the near future ?
Click to expand...

Yes!
 
quellish said:
F-14D said:
If the Marines hadn't been ordered by Congress in 1994 to join JAST/JSF to replace their Harriers, would they really have cared about much stealth? Remember, we're talking a primarily Close Air Support machine here.
Click to expand...

Strangely, at the time the Marines already had several stealthy V/STOL efforts underway. How they managed to pull that off, I don't know.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the ASTOVL program, as I remember it they were looking for increased performance, maybe to include supersonic capability, and greater ease of maintenance. While signature reduction would be welcomed, especially in the IR arena, I don't believe they were looking for a stealth aircraft. After all, CAS was the main mission, and you often get fairly low to do that. "Hey, look out the window. Isn't that an aircraft with low RCS? Hand me the gun".

Stealth became a much bigger driver when Congress ordered them to merge their program into JAST.
 
F-14D said:
If you're talking about the ASTOVL program, as I remember it they were looking for increased performance, maybe to include supersonic capability, and greater ease of maintenance. While signature reduction would be welcomed, especially in the IR arena, I don't believe they were looking for a stealth aircraft. After all, CAS was the main mission, and you often get fairly low to do that. "Hey, look out the window. Isn't that an aircraft with low RCS? Hand me the gun".

Stealth became a much bigger driver when Congress ordered them to merge their program into JAST.
Click to expand...
Stealth wasn't a marine requirement, but the idea of having a supersonic stealth fighter on the decks of our amphibious assault ships, effectively making them into a formidable force of carriers capable of penetrating denied airspace is certainly attractive to strategic military planners. Of course, f-35b equipped America class is no Ford class. However, for some, it means a tremendous boost in capabilities, where a force of smaller carriers yet more numerous that make it harder to counter attack can be built to complement our carrier fleet. For some others keen on saving, it means we can reduce the numbers of our current carrier fleet.
 
donnage99 said:
F-14D said:
If you're talking about the ASTOVL program, as I remember it they were looking for increased performance, maybe to include supersonic capability, and greater ease of maintenance. While signature reduction would be welcomed, especially in the IR arena, I don't believe they were looking for a stealth aircraft. After all, CAS was the main mission, and you often get fairly low to do that. "Hey, look out the window. Isn't that an aircraft with low RCS? Hand me the gun".

Stealth became a much bigger driver when Congress ordered them to merge their program into JAST.
Click to expand...
Stealth wasn't a marine requirement, but the idea of having a supersonic stealth fighter on the decks of our amphibious assault ships, effectively making them into a formidable force of carriers capable of penetrating denied airspace is certainly attractive to strategic military planners. Of course, f-35b equipped America class is no Ford class. However, for some, it means a tremendous boost in capabilities, where a force of smaller carriers yet more numerous that make it harder to counter attack can be built to complement our carrier fleet. For some others keen on saving, it means we can reduce the numbers of our current carrier fleet.
Click to expand...

Most of what you're describing here is what the Marines have always feared: Their assets dedicated to support the troops on the ground (which is what Marine Air is focused on and its reason for existence) would be hijacked to perform unrelated regular naval missions, leaving (as so often happens) the grunts in the lurch.

This always sets off a big debate, but having a larger fleet of smaller carriers would not be less vulnerable and would cost a lot more. That, though is better hashed out on a different thread, I think.
 
F-14D said:
If you're talking about the ASTOVL program, as I remember it they were looking for increased performance, maybe to include supersonic capability, and greater ease of maintenance. While signature reduction would be welcomed, especially in the IR arena, I don't believe they were looking for a stealth aircraft. After all, CAS was the main mission, and you often get fairly low to do that. "Hey, look out the window. Isn't that an aircraft with low RCS? Hand me the gun".
Click to expand...

No, GhostHawk, and another VSTOL fighter from about the same timeframe. USMC was apparently heavily involved in another (non-VSTOL) manned VLO program that ran from 88/89-93.
I agree that stealth makes very little sense for a Marine aircraft with roles similar to the Harrier.
 
F-14D said:
Most of what you're describing here is what the Marines have always feared: Their assets dedicated to support the troops on the ground (which is what Marine Air is focused on and its reason for existence) would be hijacked to perform unrelated regular naval missions, leaving (as so often happens) the grunts in the lurch.
Click to expand...
That's why I was careful not to say that the idea was attractive to the marines ;)

This always sets off a big debate, but having a larger fleet of smaller carriers would not be less vulnerable and would cost a lot more. That, though is better hashed out on a different thread, I think.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to build an entire new fleet of ships dedicated to carry f-35b. What I meant is that the CURRENT fleet (not politically correct since we talking about America class, which is not built yet) of amphibious assault ships can now become a force of formidable carriers due to the presence of f-35b on their decks. I do not mean to build additional ships.
 
harrier said:
Do you mean the AVPRO concept?:

Photo Storage

Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!
media.photobucket.com media.photobucket.com

from this forum thread:

Harrier III? F-35B alternative fantasy - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

This Forum should be used to discuss modern military aviation affairs relating to any country or aviation industry.
forum.keypublishing.co.uk

Or this article?:


Stealth and the Harrier's inlets will not go together, but a stealthy(ish), all-new subsonic STOVL aircraft could be possible, if anyone has the money to try.

AV-8D was the original name for the Night Attack AV-8B
Click to expand...
The F-35B has been able to coast its way through flight testing and into production and deployment, so the Harrier III concept became null and void. The very Brits who share a common culture and language with us are lucky to try out flying a stealthy replacement for the Harrier because they, France, and Germany have fallen behind the US, China, and CIS in stealth warplane development.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom