A4 Skyhawk Vs Harrier

[Florian Peitz]

Appreciateany comments on if any of the harrier/sea harrier family was ever considered for buddy refueling pods. One very experinced with the SHAR program told me they were never asked to trial it- that it was never a requirement. I also understand that fuel was drawn from the external tanks first and there was very limited ability to move fuel around, especially in the early FRS.1/GR/AVA8 family, so limited plumbing and maintaining CG may have been obstacles- but I do not know if these were show stoppers. It seems that the ability to top off another aircraft for increased range/loiter would have been a usefull capabilty- eg: extended CAP time in the Falklands. I do understand the centerline harpoint would be a non-starter, but perhaps a smaller pod (Super Etendard size) on the wing could have worked? Appreciate any comments on if it was ever proposed, trialed, potential obstacles, etc.

Don't forget you'd have the hose dangling happily in the Harrier's exhaust, with the jetpipes of the Pegasus being on the side of the fuselage and all that. I doubt there would be enough clearance between the fuselage/jet blast and the inner pylon for a refuelling hose to be fitted.

Come and think of it, i don't think any of the high-mounted wing buddy refuellers have carry their refuelling pod on the wing. It's all centerline. (Tornado, Su-24, A3D, F-105 for the trials) The wing-mounted refuellers either were low-wing (Etendard, Skyhawk) or had plenty of clearance thanks to their size or design (Sea Vixen).

Believe the the Scimitar buddy pod was mounted port inner. Yes, it does seem most buddy pods are mounted centerline as you mentioned (Tornado, A-4, Etendard, etc with center pods and KA-6 and KA-3 with center reels) , but I do recall A-7 and S-3 as examples of high wing, with wing mouted buddy packs.

There was an idea somewhere in the 1980s where Sea Harriers could refuel from a crane-mounted refuelling station aboard other ships. The crane-mounted hose would be extended from the ship, the Harrier would hook-on flying the same speed as the ship, and voila.

How many airforces in the world have the capability of buddy-refueling on a regular basis? I know USN regulary practice it, but their situation is a bit exceptional. Does the french have that capability for their carrier planes? The issue is not only to have the necessary kit available, you will probably also need training and certification.

Germany has the capability on it's Tornadoes, and it used to be practiced. Don't know if they continue with the capability now the MRTTs are there, but it was a favourite bit of their flying displays during the late 1980s, early 1990s.

As noted buddy refueling is a rather wasteful way, on the other hand it may add the extra range needed to attack a high value target (with appropriate weapons, for example the Bomb or a anti ship missile).

Also, about the one credited shared between ardent and Morrel. the skyhawk pilot, Arca, did not mention the Ardent and only mention the damage he got from Sea Harriers. (Taken from the book Exocet that depicts some navy missions)

My late friend Rod Frederiksen said the the main advantages that the Sea Harrier had in the conflict were its small physical size and that it produced very little smoke, so hard to spot, combined with very good weapons. He was proud to have flown for Queen and country, but also acknowledged the professionalism and determination of Argentine opponents, who were hampered by the short time available to them in the combat area.

3a8082e126