BAe Sea Harrier - Technical data and discussion

I remember when “stopped using x” didnt stop gaijin in the past, cough L15 ammunition on challenger tanks… xD

I have to ask, weighing up the pros and cons, in the fullness of time, is it really going to be that big of an issue giving them the dual carrier when the plane only carries dumb bombs anyway at 11.7/12.3? Everyone and their mum at that BR carries way more payload or even smart weapons. It would allow the plane to carry 2 extra bombs, so instead of 3(?) it can take 5?

The real question shouldnt be “did they still use them”, it should be “would the plane be able to use them still?”.

1 Like

What I’ve been told is that the twin stores carriers stopped being used just because they didn’t safely separate from the aircraft in the event of the carrier being jettisoned. I don’t know whether this was only when they were empty, or with stores as well. Either way, they were restricted to emergency/wartime use for the aircraft that were certified to carry them. And that’s why you practically never see photos of them being carried outside of e.g weapon trials.
Even during the Gulf War it appears only the Saudis carried them on Tornado, and the RAF had either chosen not to or got rid of them by then (entirely possible we just gave them to the Saudis). So effectively they were no longer used by the UK by the early-to-mid 1990s when Sea Harrier FA.2 was introduced to service.

At some point it’s likely that aircraft were never even certified with them in the first place because of the known risk associated with them that might delay the aircraft’s entry in to service. But as you say, it’s almost certain that the FA.2 would have been able to use them as much as the other 1st Gen Harrier airframes could.

4 Likes

Question.

Was the BOL rail ever used in the duel rail config?

Seems a shame that we can only take the BOL rail with a single ‘winder.

1 Like

Probably never done, but likely possible

2 Likes

I suppose the more important question is “could we prove it was possible (the dual SWs + BOL)?”

moreover dual AMRAAM racks would be nice, although I get why they’re not a thing right now

1 Like

Remember this @Flame2512

1 Like

I mean…Tornado F.3 & Late have duel ‘winder racks with BOL.

They do not work the same way. F3 have 2 pylons at the oposite side, they are independent and one was wiered for bol.

1 Like

Yeah, really interesting.

My most schizo take would be that the modeller is a Russian. But like I said that’s quite a schizo take

1 Like

image


image
It’s on none of the pics of the relevant spot

2 Likes

It has the stats of the 105, it’s just named 101

Spoiler

image

image

It should have 106

Either 105 or 106 is fine. But I’d prefer 106 as there isn’t another Shar that could come after this to carry it.

7 Likes

this isnt the shar is it? as its showing it could hold missiles on the inner wing pylons. so is this the av 8b or a latter gr variant?

Look at the bottom of the page

It’s a proposed future variant of the Shar.

The Mk.3a & 3b

No, it is a proposal from BAe for a Sea Harrier FA.2 replacement after it was retired, called Harrier III.
I created a forum on it, search on my profile to find it.

2 Likes

Seems likely tbh.

Extremely excited for the FA.2, is it too ambitious to think the update will drop next week?

@Gunjob I know the Devs have made MFDs more realistic with better utility, any word if this will extend to cockpit warning lights and such? Plenty of these in the Shar!

Next week will be too soon.

2 weeks at least.

Warning lights and stuff can wait, we are in dire need of the correct HUD.

3 Likes