LA Times 4-part series on "dangerous" Harrier

[airgreg]

For everyone interested in USMC aviation, the LA Times is running a 4-day series of articles on the AV-8B Harrier "Widow-Maker" being the "Most Dangerous U.S. Military Airplane". The series starts in Sunday's paper (12/15) and eventually will be available online at www.latimes.com/harrier (after Saturday @ 5PM) along with other multimedia info.

Any comments about the Harrier or the articles from actual military pilots?
-Greg


The following description (pasted from a Yahoo news summary) covers some of the more contraversial matters:

Press Release Source: Los Angeles Times

Marine Corps' "Widow-Maker": Harrier Attack Jet
Friday December 13, 10:00 am ET
Beginning Dec. 15, Four-Part Series Looks at Most Dangerous U.S. Military Airplane Flying Today


LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 13, 2002--On Sunday, Dec. 15, the Los Angeles Times will launch a major four-part series, "The Vertical Vision," chronicling the troubled history of the most dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today -- the Marine Corps' Harrier attack jet.
Known among some Marine aviators as "The Widow-Maker," the Harrier was originally produced by the British to perform short and vertical takeoffs and landings from remote clearings and glens.

Among the findings reported by Times staff writers Alan C. Miller in Washington, D.C., and Kevin Sack in Atlanta are:

The Harrier has killed some of the country's most accomplished and promising Marine aviators. Many of those deaths were preventable.
The airplane has suffered the highest major accident rate of any Air Force, Army, Navy or Marine plane now in service.
The Harrier has failed to make a significant and distinctive contribution on the battlefield.
Despite the Harrier's controversial history, the Marines are pushing ahead with a new generation of vertical-lift aircraft, including the V-22 Osprey troop transport whose revolutionary technology also has had deadly side effects.
Times reporters and researchers in Houston, London, Los Angeles, San Diego and Washington, D.C., contributed to the report.

The series publication schedule:

Dec. 15 -- Deaths in training, disappointments in combat
Dec. 16 -- What could go wrong has gone wrong with the Harrier
Dec. 17 -- One pilot's story
Dec. 18 -- The Marines keep their "vertical vision" alive
The series' first installment, as well as a comprehensive multimedia package, will be available online after 5 p.m. Dec. 14 at www.latimes.com/harrier.

The online multimedia package will feature:

Photos of the Marine pilots killed in the Harrier
Narrated examinations (video) of two fatal crashes
Overview (video) of the Harrier AV8-B program, from development by the British to its use by the Marine Corps
Interview (video): A Harrier test pilot explains the AV8-B's capabilities
Interview (video): The future of the Harrier AV8-B program
Virtual-reality tour: A 360-degree view of a Harrier AV8-B cockpit
The Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Publishing company, is the largest metropolitan daily newspaper in the country and winner of 27 Pulitzer Prizes. It publishes four daily regional editions covering the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the San Fernando Valley, and Orange and Ventura counties as well as an Inland Valley section and a National Edition.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Los Angeles Times
David Garcia, 213/237-4715
david.garcia@latimes.com

 

[farkle84]

is the harrier really that bad, for those marine aviators that know about them? or is it not as bad as it sounds?

 

[phrogdriver]

As usual, the truth is somewhere between the extremes. The Harrier is more dangerous than most aircraft, but is not as dangerous as the series promo purports. At the same time, it hasn't been as successful as the USMC would have liked. It doesn't carry that much ordinance and until the night attacks and radar birds came off the line, not all that technically capable. In Afghanistan, two LHDs worth of Harriers did serve as gap fillers, allowing the CVs to take a break. Whether they were really all that critical, I don't know.

Phrogs phorever

 

[Frumby]

I haven't looked at the article but all I can say is "It's about time!" As an Aviation Safety Officer, a Foward Air Controller, one who has flown the T bird a few times and a person who has attended numerous funerals, I can only say that this aircraft has never really proven its worth. I'm not going to quote articles, facts or anything else, just my 17 year opinion. Take it for what its worth. Frumby

Attack Pilot
Major USMCR

 

[Schwabenprinz]

Has the Harrier ever been in combat? I have never heard of it proving its worth.

 

[jarhead]

i had an IP @ K-Rock that ejected outta the Harrier, engine failure on a low level, but i also heard (from several Harrier guys) that 75% of Harrier crashes were due to pilot error ... something to do with hovering and the wind? the Harrier has a lot of potential, and from my understanding did well over Kosovo/Bosnia as well as in Afghanistan ... but my question is this: has Spain, England, or Italy had the same problems as the Corps has with the Harrier?

i don't trust the media, usually full of sh1t

semper fi

 

[phrogdriver]

I've been told the Brits don't have nearly the probs we have had. They make their Harrier pilots spend a few years as helo bubbas first--something about learning how to hover. That's not official gouge, just something I've been told.

Phrogs phorever

 

[Banjo33]

I think that once it proved its worth in the Falklands war for the Brits, we were sold. The anhedral wing makes it very unstable (I'm assuming slow speeds aggravates that instability) and hence very unforgiving.

 

[jrklr]

I can't believe that the harrier is really this bad, I had no idea. I always thought that it was bad ass, being as though it is the only plane that can hover, plus their making the JSF with hover capabilities so you would think that something's going right. What's so bad about it any way, is it because it has problems hovering, or that it's not very maneuverable for air to air combat or something else like that?

 

[Velocity]

What I find interesting is that the article said that they have never used a Hovering take off in combat, just in training and in Airshows...so my question would be why would you keep a plane that was made for its hovering but then never use it? I dunno, I may be wrong.

But I did see a show called "Harriers" on discovery wings and they had some good things to say about it and some bad things. Like the harrier is a very very very hard plane to fly. But then people who fly it say that it has never let them down and is a very reliable plane(Until they crash).
But also, if I can recall correctly, they said the Harrier couldnt drop bombs on a target worth ----. But then again I think they said that it has some good air to air capabilities(sp).

I cant wait to see the JSF(Marine Version). I saw it on the Discovery channel and it has a lift fan and the engine vectors(not sure if thats how you would say it) downward like the engine points at the ground or something like that...So I like that plane.

 

[phrogdriver]

The hovering t/o reduces their fuel and weapons load considerably. They typically do a short t/o (STO), with the nozzles partially rotated. They have done this on combat missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Iraq from LHDs. One thing that is fabricated is the "street fighter" label. The a/c is too much of a FOD magnet and maintenance intensive to use in most forward areas.

The old day attacks weren't all that good at dropping bombs or anything. Of course, now with GPS-guided JDAMs, one plane's almost as good as any other in accuracy. Air-to-air, the bird had some decent defensive capabilities, but was average overall. It was also unable to use any air-to-air missile other than sidewinder before the AMRAAM and intro of radar versions.

We were already sold on the Harrier by the time of the Falklands, BTW. Being able to have F/W CAS with an amphibious ready group is very important to the Corps, so it needs STOVL, if not VSTOL. The JSF looks like a capable platform, though some guys have expressed doubt about engaging a clutch to switch from a turboshaft to a turbojet at 30,000+ rpm.

Phrogs phorever

 

[airgreg]

Thanks for all comments so far. I tend not to believe the media on any military matters.

Given the proliferation of stingers and other shoulder-fired missiles, wouldn't it be suicide to attempt a vertical take-off in a combat situation? I mean, isn't the Corps looking at ways to get planes off the ground FASTER (like Fat Albert)?

-Greg

 

[phrogdriver]

By combat launch, I meant launching into combat, as in leaving the ship to go bomb, not taking off amidst gunfire. Taking off vertically in combat isn't the suicidal part--helos do it all the time.

Rocket assisted t/o is a means to get off short runways. I don't know if that's ever been used by the Marines in a real world sit. I think it may have been used in Desert One, but I'm not sure. We got 130s off the ground at Camp Rhino w/o it, and that's about as crappy a runway as you'll ever see. I walked over it and barely knew it--it was barely a truck trail in the dust.

Phrogs phorever

 

[LadyJayUSN]

We sailors have a technical term for the 'Scarrier':

Lawn Dart.


(BTW: This was a term I picked up from my first A-school instructor, Gsgt Delano.)

<I SWIM 'CAUSE I'M TOO DAMNED SEXY FOR SPORTS THAT REQUIRE CLOTHING>

 

[Blue]

This isn't a very serious question but I always wondered why the Marines never looked into the A-10 for the Close Air Support Mission. The A-10 screams Marine Corp. Its rugged as hell, its got the biggest gun and it was designed from the get go to move mud, nothing else. Just my opinion though.