Bundeswehr Harriers

[uk 75]

In the late 60s the Germans were looking
for a replacement for its ground attack
Fiat G 91s.
As an offset against costs for BAOR and
RAF Germany the UK succeeds in selling
Harriers to the Bundeswehr and getting
Dornier involved in its production and
a joint trainer which becomes the Hawk.
HS and Dornier combine work on the HS 141
and Do 231 to produce an Andover replacement
and a feederliner for BEA and Lufthansa.
I know it was never going to happen but
the kit would have been cool.

 

[DWG]

And if you build the Do 231, the Do 31 pretty much drops into your hands as an early '70s 350kt Chinook/V-22.

 

[GTX]

Something like this perhaps:

 

[uk 75]

GTX
es ist fantastisch gut so hit me..... Very 70s and should have been
Many thanks

 

[Hobbes]

I built a German Harrier a few years ago:

backstory

 

[Archibald]

While the Harrier is a flying death trap, it really couldn't have been worse than F-104G.

 

[GTX]

While the Harrier is a flying death trap, it really couldn't have been worse than F-104G.

Depends if the same lack of training issues were there - the real underlying issue with the so-called F-104 issue.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Where is the background to call the Harrier a "Flying death trap"?

 

[uk 75]

Hood on Shipbucket did these lovely side views of what if P1154 including the
Tripartite squadron.
He also did a Luftwaffe version but this has disappeared

 

[r16]

"Flying death trap"?

the US Marines combining A-4 and helicopter pilots into the Harriers at first then opting to prefer jet pilots only . Or Harrier piloting being a real source bragging in the RAF because of its hardness and all .

 

[Foo Fighter]

Facts please.

 

[r16]

any aviation magazine where this famous British test pilot had interviews . ı think Farley is / was the name and he talked how hard the Harrier was to fly . After F-35 had become concrete . It might not on par with the 104 accidents wise , but it seems it wasn't what Bill Gunston would be claiming .

basically an "opinion" that wouldn't win a court case , it doesn't insult any plane and it can be true .

 

[blockhaj]

The harrier always looked German to me.

 

[Arjen]

It might not on par with the 104 accidents wise ...

The F-104 had a better safety record than the Harrier.

 

[blockhaj]

It might not on par with the 104 accidents wise ...

The F-104 had a better safety record than the Harrier.

But they are 2 different classes of plane.

 

[Arjen]

The F-104 is often presented as an example of unforgiving aircraft, mostly because of its abysmal safety record in German service during the sixties. When taking into account the F-104's safety record with other air forces, the Harrier comes out worse.
I don't have the statistics available right now, but the RAF and USMC lost roughly half of their first generation Harriers in accidents.

 

[DWG]

F-104s in general aren't an appropriate comparator for Harrier loss rates, you need to restrict it to F-104s operated as low-level attack aircraft.

I make it 75 first generation UK Harrier/Sea Harrier losses. CFIT or A-A collisions: 19. Enemy Action: 6. Aircraft failure: 32. Bird strike or related: 10. Others unclear. UK first generation fleet: 200+.

It's an unforgiving place to fly.

 

[Arjen]

F-104s in general aren't an appropriate comparator for Harrier loss rates, you need to restrict it to F-104s operated as low-level attack aircraft.
[...]
It's an unforgiving place to fly.

True. If I remember correctly, F-104Gs in Dutch and German service were mostly used in the low-level attack role.
Of 138 F-104Gs in Dutch service, 41 were write-offs.
Of 916 F-104F/Gs in German service, 262 were write-offs.
Comparable numbers to the ones you gave.

 

[GTX]

The F-104 is often presented as an example of unforgiving aircraft, mostly because of its abysmal safety record in German service during the sixties.

People need to do their homework when talking about the F-104 and its service with Germany, especially the accident rate. If one looks into it, the issue was not so much the aircraft but rather the training (or lack thereof).

 

[starviking]

F-104s in general aren't an appropriate comparator for Harrier loss rates, you need to restrict it to F-104s operated as low-level attack aircraft.

I make it 75 first generation UK Harrier/Sea Harrier losses. CFIT or A-A collisions: 19. Enemy Action: 6. Aircraft failure: 32. Bird strike or related: 10. Others unclear. UK first generation fleet: 200+.

It's an unforgiving place to fly.

It could be as much a function of what the pilots were asked to do with the plane.

 

[uk 75]

My assumption was that the Bundeswehr
Luftwaffe would have used the Harrier
to replace its Fiat G 91 squadrons in the
1970s instead of the Alpha Jet.
This would have involved the Harrier GR3
and T2 initially, moving on to the GR5
in the 80s like the RAF.
Harriers would undoubtedly have been
a challenging aircraft to operate. However,
the Spanish and Italians also used them.
The costs and capabilities in real life
did not impress the Germans.