Replies

The CATO Institute report referred to in #42 by Drago mentioned 913, but that was many years ago. It's basically 50 year old technology that they've been trying to get to work on the V-22 for 15 years. Bear in mind that we landed on the moon (repeatedly) 34 years ago, and even with all the advances since then, the Osprey is still plagued with seemingly insurmountable shortcomings.

Even if the technical problems were overcome )and it could land power-off), its horrendous price tag puts it in the company of the F-111 and Harrier as an expensive (potential) solution in search of a problem.

When the Military-Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned of wasn't looking, the excellent A-10 was developed and deployed. Relatively cheap, very effective, and irreplacable in the current inventory as the USAF geniuses found out when they tried to mothball it before Desert Storm. There's was just nothing like that flying gun to zap tanks!

Presuming that there is a real need for a fast VTOL transport, tell me again why Harrier technology won't work....

Presuming that there is a real need for a fast VTOL transport, tell me again why Harrier technology won't work....

It was not my intent to badmouth the Harrier. But I will anyway. The Harrier is the Marines CAS (Close Air Support aircraft. It cost about $30 million a copy vs the A-10s $3 million a copy. The Harrier has short legs and short loiter time. About 1/3rd that of A-10. It is not a robust aircraft. It has fuel over, under and around the intake. It is full of high temperature tubing to provide Vstol control. It does not have a the mighty 30-mm armored killer. It has maybe 4 munitions passes per sortie. The A-10 has maybe 20 if you count the cannon which I do.

Even though investment cost of the Harrier is 10 fold greater than the A-10 it generates about .5 sorties per day. The A-10 generates 1.5 sorties per day. You get the equivalent of 3 fleets of fighters per airframe.

It can not take off loaded in VSTOL. When loaded out it needs a runway albeit a shorter one. It has the worst accident record of any jet fighter by far.

There is a technology called Short take off and land.(STOAL) It consists of bush pilot type technology. Lots of low speed wing, low wing loading, lots of flaps and a big engine putting air across the wing. It would cost about 10% of the the Harrier approach. It would be extremely robust easy to maintain and we could get many times more for the same investment.

The Harrier approach for a troop carrier /transport is a non sequeter. Once loaded it is no longer VSTOL. It does fine empty.

Godspeed, The Dilg