USMC V/STOL goodness

[Jamisjockey]

Back in the day, the Marines thought that top student pilots deserved airframes like the F18.  And then some more rational thinking prevailed and they started sticking the better pilots into the harrier and the accident rate went down.
When I was ATC in the Marines I spent 5 years in Yuma.  4 Harrier squadrons.  I've seen my fair share of Harrier accidents, incidents, and issues....
The most entertaining was when the Mars squadron would come from Cherry Point.  Those are the student harrier pilots.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the Harrier needs a short roll under full combat load.  Lighter loaded it can take off vertically.  Doesn't land well under full load either, they would normally "roll on" with a full load if they returned under emergency circumstances.

[French G.]

Accident rate was always the highest for any fixed wing, by far. They dealt with a fun issue for a while a few years back, uncommanded throttle rollback. Basically a sensor feedback loop deal and an air sensor would get a retarded input and chop the throttle while vertical.

I've never seen a vertical take-off, on ship they deck run with nozzles in forward flight mode and at the end there is a nozzle rotate line where the pilot kicks them to an intermediate position.

Hot deck problems usually not an issue since they don't idle with nozzles down, just in landing. Hot deck for Ospreys? Yep, fun times.

The only positive I see is the Harrier's over-taxed landing gear was on centerline. With the F-35 if you land on a mobile ship with a weird attitude you are going to stress the hell out of one strut and its mountings until the other one contacts and/or slams down too hard.

[RevDisk]

Hot deck problems usually not an issue since they don't idle with nozzles down, just in landing. Hot deck for Ospreys? Yep, fun times.

Ayep. VSTOLs generally don't fry the deck too horribly.  Ospreys can be problematic of (on ships) cooking the deck or (on land) starting fires.

[roo_ster]

Will the F35 USMC variant result in any loss of capability?  It is supposed to replace not just the USMC Harriers, but also the USMC F-18ABCD, too, IIRC.  USMC will purchase a buncha Navy-variant F35s to fly off the big flat tops, too.

It will be nice to have fully-capable multi-role fighters on the amphibs, though. 

I will laugh my tuckus off if the final cost on the f35s ends up being within spitting distance of the F22, which was cancelled for costs, but looks to be superior in most every way to teh f35.

[RevDisk]

We used to buy fighters in the thousands. We used to go from drawing board to ramp in merely a few years...and that was back when we used fricken' slide rules to design aircraft. Now? It takes 20 years to get airplanes on the ramp (if you are lucky...more often than not they are canceled, ala the RAH-66 Comanche).

Between:
- federal acquisition regulation, prohibiting anyone but massive megacorps from bidding for the big fish)
- government accounting, think Cthulhu insanity
- politics, sourcing based on pork, not best fit
- incompetence within military-industrial complex companies. I worked for 'em... Trust me, you'd weep at the stupidity,
- the military "designing" the aircraft instead of aerospace engineers (the specs, which bloody well decide the rest of the aircraft),
etc etc.

20 years is pretty good.

[erictank]

Back in the day, the Marines thought that top student pilots deserved airframes like the F18.  And then some more rational thinking prevailed and they started sticking the better pilots into the harrier and the accident rate went down.
When I was ATC in the Marines I spent 5 years in Yuma.  4 Harrier squadrons.  I've seen my fair share of Harrier accidents, incidents, and issues....
The most entertaining was when the Mars squadron would come from Cherry Point.  Those are the student harrier pilots.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the Harrier needs a short roll under full combat load.  Lighter loaded it can take off vertically.  Doesn't land well under full load either, they would normally "roll on" with a full load if they returned under emergency circumstances.

Not a pilot (gorramit!), but the specs for the Harrier always showed a LARGE delta between max VTO load and max STO load - like, 6,000lbs+, IIRC. 3 tons is a LOT of missiles.  Federation of American Scientists shows AV-8B max VTO weight at 9342kg, max STO weight (435meter run) 14,061kg, about TEN thousand pounds heavier. Some of that will be in fuel, too, of course, but  . If you want to carry much in the Harrier, you'd better have a short-takeoff run or a full-on runway. Vertical landing weight is actually a little less than VTO loading - 9,043kg, max spec (design limit is about 2,000kg more).

Still, I see them at the airshow and think, "Man, wouldn't THAT be an awesome daily-driver!" If I didn't have to pay for the fuel or maintenance, of course... 

[Boomhauer]

Still, I see them at the airshow and think, "Man, wouldn't THAT be an awesome daily-driver!" If I didn't have to pay for the fuel or maintenance, of course.

There is one Harrier in civilian hands. http://nallsaviation.com/

(World's coolest money pit, hands down. Personally, I just want an L-39)

[French G.]

I want a Skyraider with intact guns. Failing that I'll take a SU-25

[bedlamite]

As long as we're choosing, I want an A-10.

[RevDisk]

As long as we're choosing, I want an A-10.

I'd take a B-52.   With red pills on the exterior pylons.