aircraft/loadouts Hawker Harrier GR.1/1A/ GR.3

[pieve 3,578]

           United States and England

 

Hello everybody, well I made this suggestion I hope you like it because it took a long time to do this 

Hawker Harrier GR.1/1A/GR.3

Prototype Kestrel FGA.1 doing test flight 1966

 

The first true production GR.1 was XV738 and it first flow on the 28th December 1967, later being used for development testing at Roll-Royce. Development trails were well underway and it was not long before the GR.1 received flight clearance to carry a full weapons load.
The Harrier even though designed as a subsonic aircraft could pack a punch in the ground attack role, the five hard points could carry a range of stores. Fitted with two hard points under each wing and one on the centreline under the fuselage, the typical external weapons load was approximately 5,000lbs in total weight and could include, two 1,000lb xxxx bombs or four BL-755 cluster bombs, "Matra 155" 18 round unguided rocket pod for the SNEN 68mm rocket, which was the main weapon of the GR.1. Plus two 100 gallon drop tanks, these being carried on the inboard hard points as these were the only ones fitted with the plumbing.

 

Harrier GR.1 / 1A / 3 / 3A (as of 1966)

 

And for the reconnaissance role, a camera pod containing five cameras, one facing forward and the other four formed as a “fan” to give horizon to horizon imagery coverage, could be fitted on the centreline hard point. This was in addition to the Port Facing Oblique (PFO) that was fitted in the noise of the aircraft. Another upgrade was the fitting of the Ferranti FE541 Nav/Attack system; this incorporated a Smiths Head-Up display and also a moving map display screen. The pace of production allowed the Harrier Conversion Team to be formed at the start of 1969 at RAF Wittering; this was mainly made up of RAF personnel who had worked along side Hawker Siddeley workers during the various development stages. On the 1st April 1969 the Harrier Conversion Unit (HCU) was officially formed again at Wittering, only eighteen days later the first of its aircraft were delivered, this being XV746.
In July of that year the HCU started its first conversion course, because there was no Harrier simulator or two-seater Harriers available at the time, the RAF only selected the best of its experienced pilots to undertake the training.

 

 

The Harrier truly came to the public’s eye in May 1969; when it took part in the Daily Mail newspapers Transatlantic Air Race, the race being the fastest return crossing between the city centers of London and New York. There was always a strong rivalry between the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm, using a Helicopter-Phantom-Helicopter combination, and the Royal Air Force. The RAF would use two Harriers, XV741 and XV744; both were fitted with 100 gallon drop tanks, a fixed in-flight refuelling probe and bolt on extra length wing tips.
The RAF understood that the Harrier would be slower that the Navy’s Phantoms and also would require a number of in-flight refuellings. But the Harrier could by using its vertical take-off start and complete the race in one go. So taking off from the closed coal yard in St Pancras railway station, it set a time of 5 hours and 31 minutes crossing to New York. This display underlined the operational capability of the aircraft and truly earning the name “Jump Jet”.

 

XV741 Getting ready for departure from St Pancras railway station, London.

XV741in mid air above St Pancras

The fitting of the bolt on wings tips did help to improve the cursing range of the aircraft, however; this would be one of the only times they would be used on the Harrier.
In 1969,

No.1 Squadron RAF was declared as the first operational RAF Squadron flying the new Harrier GR.1, the first Vertical and Short Take Off and Landing (V/STOL) jet aircraft squadron in the world and this can be seen in the squadron’s motto In omnibus princeps meaning “First in all things”. By February 1971 the HCU had competed six conversion courses for the Harrier, by this time a new unit had been formed at Wittering, No. 233 Operational Conversion Unit (OCU). The unit was formed from the personnel of the HCU, with an added number of new instructors. During this period the Harrier Force, as it was later to be know, was expanding, a number of No. 1 Squadron’s pilots were transferred to No. 4(AC) Squadron in June 1970 to start the work-up of the first operational Harrier squadron to be based in RAF Germany.

  

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

The first GR.1s had the Mk.101 (Pegasus 5) engine installed, advancement in the design of the engine at the factory brought if up to Mk.102 or Mk.103 standard, in the mid 1970s the GR.1 fleet had the Mk.102 installed and were renamed GR.1A and the T.2A for the two-seater trainer. New airframes fitted with the Mk.103 engines were renamed GR.3. The remaining GR.1s and GR.1As on major servicing received the MK.103 Pegasus upgrade and became GR.3s. Other upgrades to the GR.1 to GR.3 standard were the fitted of a bolted on in-flight refuelling boom (some fitted to GR.1As as well), change in the shape of the noise for the fitting of the Ferranti LRMTS, outer wing pylons to carry the Sidewinder AIM-9 missile and antennae for the Marconi ARI. 18223 Radar Warning Receiver fitted in the rear of the aircraft and tail fin.

 

Years of Operation: 1968 -1975 were withdrawn from operation (Harrier GR.1 / GR.3)

 

Specifications: (Harrier GR.1/ GR.3)

Spoiler

Prototype Kestrel FGA.1 basic armament:

    Crew: 1
    length: 42 feet 6 in (13.0 m)
    Wingspan: 22 feet 11 in (6.98 m)
    Height: 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m)
    Weight: 10,000 lb (4,540 kg)
    Maximum take-off weight
    (short takeoff): 17,000 lb (7,710 kg)
    top speed: 545 mph (877.1 km/h)
    Fighting radius:?
    Engine: Pegasus 6
    Impulse: 15,000 lbf (66.7 kN)
    Radar: None
    Weaponry:

       Guns: 2× 30mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannon pods under the fuselage

       Rockets: 4× Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets each

 

 

 

    Crew: 1
    Length: 46 ft 10 in (14.27 m)
    Wingspan: 25 ft 3 in (7.70 m)
    Height: 11 ft 11 in (3.63 m)
    Wing area: 201.1 ft² (18.68 m²)
    Empty weight: 13,535 lb (6,140 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 25,200 lb (11,430 kg)
    Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Pegasus 103 turbofan with four swivelling nozzles, 21,500 lbf (95.6 kN) Four vertical flight puffer jets use engine bleed air, mounted in the nose, wingtips, and tail.

 
    Maximum speed: 730 mph (1,176 km/h) at sea level
    Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload
    Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km)
    Endurance: 1 hr 30 min (combat air patrol – 115 mi (185 km) from base)
    Service ceiling: 51,200 ft (15,600 m) Time to climb to 40,000 ft (12,200 m): 2 min 23 s

    Armament:

  

    Hawker Harrier GR.1/1A/GR.3

    Guns: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannon pods under the fuselage
    Hardpoints: 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:

    Rockets: 4× Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets each
    Missiles: 2× AIM-9 Sidewinders Air-to-air missiles
    Bombs: A variety of unguided iron bombs, BL755 cluster bombs or laser-guided bombs

 

 

 

 

source:

Spoiler

https://dunsfoldairfield.org/tag/kestrel/

https://dunsfoldairfield.org/tag/jump-jet/

http://harriersig.org.uk/reference/harrierreferencev1105.pdf

http://www.edavirtual.org/download/books/Harrier/Ian Allan - Aircraft illustrated Special - Harrier.pdf

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by pieve

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[Dan_RAFBC 1,201]

Lets start to fill Tier VI with Britain's finest, +1

[Delta_48 471]

+1 Sure

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

I'll say "yes"...but not right away.  This thing would literally fly circles around the early supersonic jets that are confirmed so far.  I'd wait till we get some Mach 2 capable aircraft first.

[Wogmidget 73]

Sounds good . . . but not before we get some other late 60's jets

[Fyingkiwi 2]

Z3r0_ how would the harrier fly circles around early supersonic jets I don't think you know how Vtol aircraft work 

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

3 hours ago, Fyingkiwi said:

Z3r0_ how would the harrier fly circles around early supersonic jets I don't think you know how Vtol aircraft work 

 

Crazy P/W ratio (in excess of 1:1, a requirement for VTOL), which means ridiculous acceleration, and climb rate are the big ones, and that's not without getting into maneuverability.  It'd **** on most of the sub-Mach 2 jets, so something that at least has a performance edge would need to be added to make the Harrier even remotely balanced.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Z3r0_

[Wogmidget 73]

2 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

 

Crazy P/W ratio (in excess of 1:1, a requirement for VTOL), which means ridiculous acceleration, and climb rate are the big ones, and that's not without getting into maneuverability.  It'd **** on most of the sub-Mach 2 jets, so something that at least has a performance edge would need to be added to make the Harrier even remotely balanced.

The Harrier wasn't a particularly manoeuvrable aircraft - VTOL capability restricted its wing area to keep total airframe mass down, so its wing loading wasn't that good (and while it could VIFF, there's no record of that technique being used in combat)

 

But yes, the GR.1 (which was never actually a fighter) would be unsuited for going up against jets 15 years its senior

[_M4RC0S_ 22]

+1 SUPPORTED, It will only be worth it if you have a decent AiM-9 hahahaha

[RanchSauce39 397]

On 08/12/2018 at 00:58, Z3r0_ said:

I'll say "yes"...but not right away.  This thing would literally fly circles around the early supersonic jets that are confirmed so far.  I'd wait till we get some Mach 2 capable aircraft first.

 

so? a mig17F would fly circles around F100D.

 

guess we need to wait for phantoms to have extra speed to take them on?

 

please....

 

Mach 1 aircraft just need to avoid turnfighting, they already have the speed, climb and acceleration to disengage from a fight or dicate the terms of engagement.

 

 

besides Gr1 variation is a ground attack plane. Its was never meant to play a interceptor. It should only really be engaging aircraft in a form of self defense if someones heading at them.

Edited December 14, 2018 by RanchSauce39

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

10 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

so? a mig17F would fly circles around F100D.

 

guess we need to wait for phantoms to have extra speed to take them on?

 

please....

 

Mach 1 aircraft just need to avoid turnfighting, they already have the speed, climb and acceleration to disengage from a fight or dicate the terms of engagement.

 

 

besides Gr1 variation is a ground attack plane. Its was never meant to play a interceptor. It should only really be engaging aircraft in a form of self defense if someones heading at them.

 

The p/w ratio is what worries me.  People are already complaining about the MiG-19PT's projected numbers - the Harrier would be even better than that.

 

Again, I'm fine with this coming into the game at some point, just not until we get some better stuff to compete with it in the other trees.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Z3r0_

[RanchSauce39 397]

On 14/12/2018 at 09:16, Z3r0_ said:

 

The p/w ratio is what worries me.  People are already complaining about the MiG-19PT's projected numbers - the Harrier would be even better than that.

 

Again, I'm fine with this coming into the game at some point, just not until we get some better stuff to compete with it in the other trees.

 

 

more modern second generation harrier. Harrier 2 Gr7 has lower performance in terms of overall P/W ratio. Worse climb and worse top speed. See all the weight that fancy avionics added on?

 

 

that certainly far under F100D and Mig19 levels of performance.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

15 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

 

more modern second generation harrier. Harrier 2 Gr7 has lower performance in terms of overall P/W ratio. Worse climb and worse top speed. See all the weight that fancy avionics added on?

 

 

that certainly far under F100D and Mig19 levels of performance.

 

Even the first-gen Harrier would have a higher p/w ratio than any of the confirmed rank 6 fighters coming to the game (it has to - one of the requirements for VTOL capability is a p/w ratio in excess of 1:1), giving it insane acceleration.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Z3r0_

[RanchSauce39 397]

5 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

 

Even the first-gen Harrier would have a higher p/w ratio than any of the confirmed rank 6 fighters coming to the game (it has to - one of the requirements for VTOL capability is a p/w ratio in excess of 1:1), giving it insane acceleration.

 

you have misunderstood everything i wrote. The exact opposite of what you just said.

 

1st gen harriers have better p/w ratio than second gen harriers. Second gen harriers in spite of engine improvements are still much heavier. They have a decrease in Top speed and climb compared to gen 1.

[MeanSwing 31]

I Just posted the idea for harriers in the steam discussions without even seeing this post was a thing. But I think the GR3 would be the best choice for them since it has a speed that can keep it competitive with the second generation F100D and Mig19. Pretty sure the GR3 had a top speed of 1174km/h. Lets face it if they give Britain the GR1 they would just give the US a later version of the harrier..

 

Love the Suggestion though!

Edited December 21, 2018 by MeanSwing

[sirkiwi123 80]

I would love for this to be added, HOWEVER, I feel like it is quite a jump from the new tier VI and V/STOL will take a lot of time to implement and balance.

Also, I agree with @MeanSwing that it should be the GR3 not the GR1 as the GR1 for me had a lot of problems that if was implemented, would display the Harrier as a whole, to be a lot worse (meaning more disappointed fans)

 

Otherwise, I still support it, just a bit too soon for now.

[pieve 3,578]

Harrier GR.3 taken at RAF Gutersloh in Germany circa 1990

[TerikG2014 1,389]

Definitely +1

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

9 hours ago, pieve said:

Harrier GR.3 taken at RAF Gutersloh Gütersloh in Germany circa 1990

FTFY

[Milocat 4,855]

I'll repeat what I said in the U.S. Harrier topic:  

 

I think that this plane would be a great tier 6 addition, but the VTOL capabilities do present something of a problem. I still think it should be added, but maybe not for another update or two. +1.

[onemax9000 1,243]

+1 it would be nice to have VTOL in game

[NinjaMouse 42]

+1 absolutely! Simulating VTOL shouldn't be too difficult. Just vector the trust line via the nozzles and simulate bleed air puffer ducts for low speed control based on nozzle angle. Although VTOL operations from short unprepared airstrips doesn't really suite the meta, it could add some interesting gameplay during a dog fight.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

+1

[Lucass_CABJ 62]

Yes pls i like this camo xD