Commenter Solomon Shorter's assertion that the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter has more than twice the payload and range of the Harrier started me thinking. Popular sites and standard fact sheets say one thing, my 1996 Jane's something else.
How about the US Navy's official aircraft characteristics manual? Fortunately, someone decided that the Harrier was so old, that had to be historic, so they put it on the web.
OK, this is not an entirely fair comparison. The JSF is stealthy and supersonic and has an integrated sensor suite, and this is the original AV-8B, which had a piece of chewing gum stuck to the windshield as a bombsight.
But on the other side of things, the JSF is a brand-new airplane supported by tens of billions of dollars in investment. Today's Harrier is, essentially, an upgraded version of the original Hawker P.1127, which was ordered five years after the RAF retired its last front-line Spitfires. The P.1127 was a purely experimental aircraft (at the time, the RAF had no requirement for it) and Bristol had cobbled the engine together from Olympus and Orpheus parts.
Most of the Harrier's evolution took place in two programs, both of which were cheap substitutes for more ambitious projects that had been canceled. The original RAF Harrier GR.1 incorporated bits and pieces of the avionics developed for the supersonic HS.1154, scrapped in 1964. Around 1975, British Aerospace and McDonnell Douglas proposed a much improved aircraft with a bigger engine - but both the UK government and the US Navy choked on the price tag and the result was the re-winged AV-8B. The Pegasus engine has likewise been upgraded piecemeal-fashion along the way.
RAF
But the bottom line is this: with 2,500 pounds of weapons, plus the gun pod, the AV-8B has a hi-lo-hi operational radius of 508 nm. The F-35B's design radius, with no gun, two 1,000-pound bombs and two AMRAAMs, is 450 nm: the most recent numbers (from 2007) show it exceeding that and just about equalling the AV-8B's range.
Of course that comparison does not allow the F-35B the use of external fuel, which would add 70 nm or so to the radius if F-35A figures supplied to Norway are correct. But that gives away one of the JSF's two key advantages over its veteran predecessor.
In part this shows the price of stealth (which tends to increase empty weight) and supersonic speed (subsonic aircraft, like the Buccaneer, A-4, A-6 and A-7, have always tended to out-range the competition).
But from an operational point of view, it's important: the premise behind a STOVL-equipped carrier is that it can operate on its own, without air support from another carrier or from land (and the latter includes tankers).
So the offensive and defensive reach of the air wing is determined by two factors: how far the fleet needs to stand off from land, which determined by the threat from missiles or submarines, and the combat radius of its aircraft. And without tankers, there needs to be a solid margin between combat radius and mission distance, because there's nowhere to divert. You don't want two un-anticipated minutes of burner use to cost you a ditched aircraft.
And all of this is not to say that JSF is not projected to meet its requirements: but you do wonder why they were written that way in the first place.
What's interesting - from an operational viewpoint - is that the JSF does not extend the reach of the carrier group, relative to the Harrier.
However, it does permit operations against a more sophisticated threat, an adversary with SAMs and some fighters.
But raise the threat up a notch or two from there, and it would be utterly negligent to send a STOVL air wing into action without a CV air wing to back it up - with E-2s, Growlers, tankers and standoff weapons.
So there's a question for you: how big is the F-35B's unique mission space - and how much is it costing?
For UK, if they get the new CV, and India is a waste if you can pack Mig29K or F-35C.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
You hit on my concern over STOVL aircraft. The mission parameters where STOVL aircraft are useful is so narrow that it is hard to justify their procurement (Disclaimer: I say this from a pure US perspective as I know other defense forces have requirements where STOVL aircraft are more useful).
It has always seemed to me that both the defense industry and war planners have been complicit in creating this mythical narrow set of war condition where: airfields are limited, no carrier battle groups are near by, and one or two Marine Expeditionary Units are a sufficient force. I am well aware someone will cite the island hopping campaign in the Pacific during WWII as contrary to this however that was WWII.
Current conflicts are fought with a full complement of AWACs, EW, and tankers because it just does not make strategic sense to throw a STOVL force against anything other than a largely controlled threat environment to aircraft (think Panama, Afghanistan, or Iraq post 48-hours of initial attack). The risk is just too high and if AWACs, EW, and tankers are operating then it makes even less sense to operate compromised weapon platforms, for the sake of STOVL capabilities, when conventional platforms can operate with higher performance and larger weapons loads.
I simply can not foresee a situation where a US F-35B fleet will be sent into war sans-CVN airwing or without a full complement of USAF forces.
not island hopping but a true Expeditionary mindset and capability. the Expeditionary nature of the USMC coupled with sea basing....distributed operations (not sold but warming to it) and a STOVL fleet of aircraft has the Marine positioned to be the premier assault force for the foreseeable future. unlike our sister services, the Marines have been "necking" down it aviation forces for years now. if you have doubts about STOVL, then be intellectually honest about the reality of stealth. STOVL will not be teched out by future innovation. stealth in its current form of shaping aircraft will be in the next 20, in my opinion.
I fully recognize that stealth and the EW suite in the F-35B will exponentially increase the combat effectiveness over AV-8s and create a much broader range of missions with which the airwing of a MEU can function effectively.
That being said, even with these increased capabilities I do not believe that a F-35B fleet can, or will be allowed to, operate as a tip-of-the-spear attack force without the backing of a CV air wing or USAF support--save for low threat environments.
And for the record I don't play the F-35 v F-22 game. I believe both are necessary, their abilities complement each other, and neither should be cut for the other. I'm solely expressing concern whether the cost/benefit of the F-35B, to the United States, is worthwhile when there are so many other conventional bits-and-pieces (EW, AWACS, & Tankers) that also must fly for a Marine assault to work in a moderate-to-high threat environment.
And one of the enduring myths of the JSF is that you should compare its internal-fuel radius with the internal-fuel performance of other aircraft. Not so. First, other aircraft were designed around the use of tanks. Second, it's not a matter of internal-good, external-bad: it's a question of how much useful load (fuel and weapons) any aircraft can carry. Putting the tanks inside or outside does not change that equation.
Remember too that we started talking about ASTOVL back in the 1980s. That was when every CVBG was going to be tied up fending Backfires off in the North Atlantic. Those days might come again, but not for a while.
2X AIM-9's
2X drop tanks
1X targeting pod on a strake
1X gun pod with limited ammo
2X what are they? 500 pound bombs?
in this configuration the GR7/GR9 does not match the F-35's range, payload, speed, stealth, sensor suite, acceleration or lethality.
As far as fending off Backfires, that was an alternate theory being put forward by some in the US Navy and even in the Royal Navy for sea control ships. basically the re-birth of the escort carrier. it might yet again make a comeback today in the form of the LHA-6(?)...USS America.
as far as myths are concerned, the F-35B as used by the USMC, Royal Navy etc...will not necessarily be used in stealth configuration. it is easy to envisage its wings being filled with stores, its stealth ability not necessary to achieve the mission. the plane comes into its own and max load out becomes fearsome.
lastly the issue about flight testing is a red herring. computer sims have taken alot of the mystery out of the flight test regime. just as advancements in the design of the F-35 are filtering back to the F-22, lessons learned from the flight testing of that plane are being incorporated into the F-35.
oh and the GR7/GR9 are in some ways more advanced than the AV-8B...and they are no longer light wt airplanes. weight gain is dramatic when compared to the original Harrier...and speed is down.