Jags now not required

[fat lazy techie]

Could it possibly be true? Given the axe that's fallen on the Harrier fleet the latest idea I've heard mentioned is that use of the Jag down here on the sunny side is going to be binned in favour of Harrier. Well it is a fresh out of service, well not quite but soon, aircraft that is now nice and modern. It has only one engine so there's less to go wrong. It's a modern construction and in the interests of all things healt and safety it's not so far for the AMMs to fall, alright the vortex generators may hurt a bit but that's life.

Any substance to this or is it just pure speculation?

If it is true who could they possibly get to head up the implementation team? Surely it would be a good idea to follow the Jag idea and possibly use people who've never worked the aircraft type. Who knows..........

 

[propersplitbrainme]

We would like to get some Harriers back (we had some but lean/6S etc decided we didn't need them) to use on a final consolidation exercise. They would be an excellent platform for a multi-trade exercise and the simple fact that they aren't Jags would help immensely.
Although, having worked on them for over a decade of my career I can't help but think it would be a somewhat ignominious end for such an iconic aircraft DT_Xtremez_26:

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

The rumours have already started on the darkside that they're gonna be the preferred platform for the upcoming FT2.1 DT_Xtremez_42:

I reckon a Nimrod fuselage would be good for the Comms phase too.

 

[Twiggles]

Not heard anything about it here at Cott. All I know so far is that we may continue flying until Christmas. After that who knows.

On the plus side, I already have my posting date for Cosford, just hoping it doesn't get turned off now.

 

[Late & Tired]

Well it certainly smacks of common sense, having as new a platform as possible for trg; but will you ever overcome the old adage Quote: 'Why are we learning on this when we're never get to work on it?' Unquote.
Harrier, Nimrod et al.

 

[Rigga]

Unfortunately the Harrier would be classed the same as a 'Torpedo' (BBC speak) as it too has 'unconventional' controls systems - not too good for conventional training uses.

 

[Tin basher]

Unfortunately the Harrier would be classed the same as a 'Torpedo' (BBC speak) as it too has 'unconventional' controls systems - not too good for conventional training uses.

Interesting view on Harrier use as a training vehicle. GR3's were used in the riggery for plenty of different training scenarios over many years at least 8 years to my knowledge. In fact they were deemed so useful they were dismantled and shipped by road from Halton to Cosford as PSBM says Lean/6S ended their use.

 

[Tyson]

It may depend on India wanting to buy/being allowed to buy them.

We could do a sort of BOGOF offer, buy 40 and we'll throw in a free ship to use them on.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Tornadoes from the binned squadrons (when they know) WOULD BE MORE USEFUL.. Sorry, they will be christmas trees for the rest..

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Tornadoes from the binned squadrons (when they know) WOULD BE MORE USEFUL.. Sorry, they will be christmas trees for the rest..

Sounds like a good idea... but for training purposes they are probably a bit too complex.

Plus, it would help if we had an aircraft that worked every time you turned it on... just like the jaguar still does and the Tornado never has!DT_Xtremez_30:

HTB

 

[Mug?]

not that I would know

not that I would know

I am not an aircraft tech so my opinion is probably as helpful as an Officers but, surely the Harrier is a bit similar to the JSF with moving nozzles and the STOL side of it. That way when the lads have done their training and all work their way up to Chief (oh I miss having that rank!) they may know a bit about the planes when they finally arrive .....unless they go straight to the Fleet Air Arm?

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

I am not an aircraft tech so my opinion is probably as helpful as an Officers but, surely the Harrier is a bit similar to the JSF with moving nozzles and the STOL side of it. That way when the lads have done their training and all work their way up to Chief (oh I miss having that rank!) they may know a bit about the planes when they finally arrive .....unless they go straight to the Fleet Air Arm?

Read the SDSR.. The V/STOL JSF is NOT being brought by the UK anymore. The RAF/FAA will get the naval JSF variant, that needs a cat and trap system on the new carrier.. That is being delayed by 4 years to incorporate it!

No Harriers needed.

BTW, the basic Harrier design and control systems date from the 1950s (bar the engine management systems). Jag is newer in that regards. Both have similar avionics (as the Jags were upgraded)..

Both have nothing in common with Typhoon or JSF apart from the amount of carbon in the heap..

 

[Twiggles]

I am not an aircraft tech so my opinion is probably as helpful as an Officers but, surely the Harrier is a bit similar to the JSF with moving nozzles and the STOL side of it. That way when the lads have done their training and all work their way up to Chief (oh I miss having that rank!) they may know a bit about the planes when they finally arrive .....unless they go straight to the Fleet Air Arm?

Thought we were binning off the short lift variant?

Either way, no comparison between the two. Harriers swinging nozzles don't quite work in the same way as the JSF's complex system of turning/swivelling nozzles, lift fan and complex intake and exhaust folding doors.

Miss having Chief eh? Did I miss the demise of the rank of Chief Technican?

Not sure how feasible harrier would be for a training aircraft. In terms of the usual lecy and fairy stuff then it should be fine, other than a few idiosyncracies with regards to powering off without draining the battery DT_Xtremez_14:

On the mech side of things, hyds and fuel systems are pretty basic and easy to work in the majority. Wouldn't reccomend it for an engine changing platform though! Ground runs are a easy though, unless you need to go high power. Not sure Cosford would want to justify building a full on tie down pan.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

The Jags are a lot safer to ground run (height of intake) and as the burner systems has been inhibited, they aren't much more powerful than a Hawk..

More like a Typhoon and Tonka to drop an engine too.

The Harrier design as an airframe (as we all know) was unique..

 

[Teh Wal]

...Although, having worked on them for over a decade of my career I can't help but think it would be a somewhat ignominious end for such an iconic aircraft DT_Xtremez_26:

Quick, box of tissues for PBSM!! DT_Xtremez_19:

At the end of the day pretty much any airframe is a good training tool... engineering is engineering no matter what and as long as the basics are taught well and to the correct level they should provide a sufficient baseline for the student to draw on when trained/taught the niceties of the aircraft types that they are posted onto later in life.
IMHO.

But I'm willing to accept that not all of us are born engineers.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Quick, box of tissues for PBSM!! DT_Xtremez_19:

At the end of the day pretty much any airframe is a good training tool... engineering is engineering no matter what and as long as the basics are taught well and to the correct level they should provide a sufficient baseline for the student to draw on when trained/taught the niceties of the aircraft types that they are posted onto later in life.

.

Only an opinion. With the increase of composite materials on 400m and other new aircraft types, surely the harrier will be of use as a training airframe for this alone.

TW

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Only an opinion. With the increase of composite materials on 400m and other new aircraft types, surely the harrier will be of use as a training airframe for this alone.

TW

Disagree mate, the composite structure of a heap was mostly of a slab carbon construction and limited to the cockpit, wing and tail. Panels on our Boeings and Scarebuses are more representive of the types of composite construction seen in Eurofulite and the other new types coming into service. SAC bloggs will not repair a composite panel, as much as a Licenced B1 or mech will not bond a composite repair in our line of work.

 

[ady eflog]

A harrier would be a nightmare for cosford, as mentioned it is a "unique" design with everything stuffed under access panel No 1. Jaguar is much better suited or how about a load of red arrow hawks seeing as they are just about out of fatigue life.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Hawks would probably be good as they are similar in system design to the Jaguar (apart from being single engined!) and would work as a good starting point for the students learning how to be technicians.

As a bonus, we would be able to get spares (if they sorted the contract correctly) as BAe still support Hawks.

In addition, they are smaller so we could fit more of them in the hangar... not that we will see the expected increase in Further Trainees, thanks to SDSR!

Furthermore, they are a little closer to the ground so not as many issues with working at height!

We'd probably need to keep some Jaguars for Mech Training (maybe as a consolidation exercise, engine changes or demonstration of Computer controlled FBW system).

It sounds like a great idea.... can't see it happening then!DT_Xtremez_30:

HTB

 

[sumps]

In my opinion you would have to use a conventional aircraft so as to have some thing representative for the new generation to train on. Hawks are good but jags have reheat enabling a mind set to be formed and effective practical experience to be gained that will allow transferable skills.

The Jag may appear to be the aircraft that is a little long in the tooth but during my training at Halton the EGR phase was carried out on Foland gnats! OK some what dated by the standard of the times abut at least there were transferable skills.

If the harrier can by fitted into this bracket then it stands to reason that it may be a viable option if it can be supported by the equipment OEM and the cost of this support doesn’t become a burden.