@adam13deaf This isn't true. As a matter of fact, Marines had changed their mission focus from Amphibious based to more land based when they started focusing on the ground mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although they are still being part of ARG's and travelling on amphibs, they are also going to the Middle East on regular aircraft transports.
That being said, the Marine Corps is going to start moving back their amphibious route. They don't want to be seen as another Army.
I can't beleive the stupid sods scrapped it. This aircraft can remain parked up indefinately in a clearing just a very few miles away from a battle zone ready to give air support to ground troops at a few minutes notice.
Conventional jets can only fly continuelly on station whether needed or not or fly long distances from an air base or carrier. I fear the true cost will be in even more of our troops coming home draped in a flag.
Here is a question; do these carriers need a special runway considering the heat generated by the engines is pointed downward? If not, can this bad boy land on a Nimitz class?
@raythedodger Nothing special about the decks. Back in the earliest days of the Harrier they would land and take off vertically from the helicopter pad of much smaller ships.
They are actually quite happy to take-off and land on grass as well, so long as you get the speed right so the nose wheel doesn't kick debris up into the intakes.
@raythedodger They take off using that small LHD runway but need to land vertically...at least onboard the LHD's. Obviously when they are on land, they can land on a runway. I think (although I'm not sure) they could land on a carrier but would need to do a vertical landing as I don't think they are set up to do an arrested landing.
@wraprop They can land conventionally, it's just that they're not fitted with the mechanism that allows conventional landing on an aircraft carrier, which is part of the reason behind their development.
@raythedodger No they dont there decks can take the harrier's thrust heat. But the F-35B engine that points down for vertical take off, generates enough heat to melt the deck of any known aircraft carrier flight deck (and they found that out not to long ago, it wont melt through straight away but will make it warp and weaken it) so for that there going to have to say put down a more heat resistant metal for were it has to vertically land, normal take off is not a problem. :)
Harrier cannot take off vertical when it's loaded with weapons and fuel. Even though it needs a runway it only needs a very short runway so small carriers can be used or supermarket carparks.
@KCfunny - Harriers launch off ships using their own power. No catapult assist. When taking off on a boat, once a Harrier engine reaches full power you are committed to taking off. There is no abort ability other than ejection. Same for the catapult shots for the big decks once the stroke starts for all those guys.
@KCfunny - Onboard ships, Harriers takeoff horizontally and land vertically. Reason for not taking off vertically is that you cannot launch with much weight. You can carry more into the air with a horizontal launch. For landing, every landing must be vertical on the ship. If you need to do a roll-on landing, you need to find a runway ashore and divert. The boat is not designed for it.
@KCfunny - It would be great to be able to takeoff vertically, but even the new JSF doesn’t make near the power to do it fully loaded. That is a tremendous around of energy required. Even if you could make an engine that powerful, it would be difficult to create a surface that could withstand it. The horizontal takeoff distributes the vertical lift requirement between the wings and the engine. In a vertical takeoff, the engine obviously has to do all the vertical lifting.
@KCfunny - Take a look at an Osprey (MV-22). The blades are huge and the blade loading is so great they have issues with downwash, vortex rings states, etc.
I doubt it would replace it, as the Harrier (from what I've seen) has a better hovering system, and the F-35 is prone to leaning forwards when hovering, but I don't know, I LOVE HARRIERS! :)
The harrier is also alot smaller, which is good because it means you can fit more of them on a ship, or hide them away from air fields in case the Russians come.
no, the take over is schedualed for 2012 for US military forces and 2011 for UK military i think...its earlier for UK because we are currantly in the process of decomissioning all our Harrier's because of buget cuts...its a bunch of crap, we should keep Harriers and the Tornado instead
Comment removed
rolfen 2 months ago
marines cant go anywhere without navys holding their hands lol
adam13deaf 10 months ago
@adam13deaf This isn't true. As a matter of fact, Marines had changed their mission focus from Amphibious based to more land based when they started focusing on the ground mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although they are still being part of ARG's and travelling on amphibs, they are also going to the Middle East on regular aircraft transports.
That being said, the Marine Corps is going to start moving back their amphibious route. They don't want to be seen as another Army.
wraprop 2 months ago
I can't beleive the stupid sods scrapped it. This aircraft can remain parked up indefinately in a clearing just a very few miles away from a battle zone ready to give air support to ground troops at a few minutes notice.
Conventional jets can only fly continuelly on station whether needed or not or fly long distances from an air base or carrier. I fear the true cost will be in even more of our troops coming home draped in a flag.
Stupidity ..... bloody stupidity.
TheSpiritof1969 1 year ago
Man, I don't miss that sound. Those are so loud and annoying. But, VMA-542 flying tigers! This a build up? I didn't see any chaff or flares.
bigsexy13 1 year ago
Here is a question; do these carriers need a special runway considering the heat generated by the engines is pointed downward? If not, can this bad boy land on a Nimitz class?
raythedodger 1 year ago
@raythedodger Nothing special about the decks. Back in the earliest days of the Harrier they would land and take off vertically from the helicopter pad of much smaller ships.
They are actually quite happy to take-off and land on grass as well, so long as you get the speed right so the nose wheel doesn't kick debris up into the intakes.
bryUK 1 year ago
@bryUK Thank you sir! The Harrier has always been my favorites.
raythedodger 1 year ago
@raythedodger They take off using that small LHD runway but need to land vertically...at least onboard the LHD's. Obviously when they are on land, they can land on a runway. I think (although I'm not sure) they could land on a carrier but would need to do a vertical landing as I don't think they are set up to do an arrested landing.
wraprop 1 year ago 4
@wraprop Cool! Thanks man.
raythedodger 1 year ago
@wraprop They can land conventionally, it's just that they're not fitted with the mechanism that allows conventional landing on an aircraft carrier, which is part of the reason behind their development.
sonolowblow 11 months ago
@raythedodger No they dont there decks can take the harrier's thrust heat. But the F-35B engine that points down for vertical take off, generates enough heat to melt the deck of any known aircraft carrier flight deck (and they found that out not to long ago, it wont melt through straight away but will make it warp and weaken it) so for that there going to have to say put down a more heat resistant metal for were it has to vertically land, normal take off is not a problem. :)
SkullKing11841 10 months ago
Harrier cannot take off vertical when it's loaded with weapons and fuel. Even though it needs a runway it only needs a very short runway so small carriers can be used or supermarket carparks.
NielsShoe 1 year ago
its better when it takes of vertically
BrazillianFOsho 1 year ago
ow, my ears....
LouSaydus 1 year ago
i thought it hovered??? whats up with the launch?
KCfunny 1 year ago 2
@KCfunny They can take off vertically, but that uses alot of fuel. They can also take off the way you see. They can only land vertically though.
wraprop 1 year ago 4
@KCfunny they cant take off vertically when they are fully loaded.
mogulkahn23 1 year ago
@KCfunny - Harriers launch off ships using their own power. No catapult assist. When taking off on a boat, once a Harrier engine reaches full power you are committed to taking off. There is no abort ability other than ejection. Same for the catapult shots for the big decks once the stroke starts for all those guys.
tikkihut58 9 months ago
@KCfunny - Onboard ships, Harriers takeoff horizontally and land vertically. Reason for not taking off vertically is that you cannot launch with much weight. You can carry more into the air with a horizontal launch. For landing, every landing must be vertical on the ship. If you need to do a roll-on landing, you need to find a runway ashore and divert. The boat is not designed for it.
tikkihut58 9 months ago
@KCfunny - It would be great to be able to takeoff vertically, but even the new JSF doesn’t make near the power to do it fully loaded. That is a tremendous around of energy required. Even if you could make an engine that powerful, it would be difficult to create a surface that could withstand it. The horizontal takeoff distributes the vertical lift requirement between the wings and the engine. In a vertical takeoff, the engine obviously has to do all the vertical lifting.
tikkihut58 9 months ago
@KCfunny - Take a look at an Osprey (MV-22). The blades are huge and the blade loading is so great they have issues with downwash, vortex rings states, etc.
tikkihut58 9 months ago
we should be getting it soon but i don't think the harrier is going anywhere for a long while...
GUNNYclaus 1 year ago
not yet i am a 6212 o level mechanic on it for the marines
GUNNYclaus 1 year ago
0:39 There it goes off to Wasteland!
Jippsx 1 year ago
i dont think they can vtol when fuled and loaded they still need a short take off thats why all our carriers have a ski jump at the end
damafia29 2 years ago
u are right mate
22hellman22 2 years ago
aww damn i was hoping for a vtol takeoff
mikail511 2 years ago
have dey replaced dem with 35's yet?
josephkennith 3 years ago
No idea
wraprop 3 years ago
Not yet. The F35 is still in development :p
Doowoo 2 years ago
F-35 comes out 2010 or 2012. I hope they don't replace them, I love harriers
LKLNinja 2 years ago
I doubt it would replace it, as the Harrier (from what I've seen) has a better hovering system, and the F-35 is prone to leaning forwards when hovering, but I don't know, I LOVE HARRIERS! :)
Honeychicken21 2 years ago
@Honeychicken21
The harrier is also alot smaller, which is good because it means you can fit more of them on a ship, or hide them away from air fields in case the Russians come.
Trustisaliability 1 year ago 2
nope not till2010
XxnesiexX 2 years ago
tks
josephkennith 2 years ago
np anything else about harriers u want to know , il try to help
XxnesiexX 2 years ago
not yet but within the next 4 years they should come into comission
Cannedheat24 2 years ago
@josephkennith
no, the take over is schedualed for 2012 for US military forces and 2011 for UK military i think...its earlier for UK because we are currantly in the process of decomissioning all our Harrier's because of buget cuts...its a bunch of crap, we should keep Harriers and the Tornado instead
WarmFanta 1 year ago
@josephkennith the harriers are no longer in service anyway. they will replace them with the f 35's in 2013
antimorons1945 4 months ago
FIRST COMMENT!!!!!!
HunterG0325 3 years ago