Harrier jet performance in Desert Storm

[LBCO...@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu]

From LBCO...@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU

I've been trying (since yesterday) to find information on the performance of
the Harrier II jet that the Marines used during Operation Desert Storm.
The student who needs the information would like to know things such as the
number of missions flown, targets, and other stuff (not technical specification
s, which are readily available). We've checked various indexes to current
periodicals, the back issues of _Marines_ magazine, indexes to U.S. government
publications, and I've suggested that he look in other periodicals such as
Aviation Week and Space Technology, Armed Forces Journal International, Nationa
l Defense, etc.

Do you know of other places I might look for unclassified information? I am al
so planning to askthe Army War College library if they have any information.

Thanks.

--Michael Cotter, Joyner Library, East Carolina University

[J. Zufi]

From rda...@nella4.cc.monash.edu.au (J. Zufi)

LBCO...@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU writes:

>From LBCO...@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU

>Do you know of other places I might look for unclassified information? I am al
>so planning to askthe Army War College library if they have any information.

Try the journal Military Technology. I would regard it as one of the highest
standards of military information sources (i.e. regular information). I can
help you with the address/contact info - unfortunately all my copies relating
to the gulf war, including one issue which deals heavily with the British air
force contribution to the air campaign, is on loan to another person
conducting study, but if you need it I will see what I can do.

J.Z.

--
[ Jonathan Zufi | rda...@nellads.cc.monash.edu.au
[ Robotics & Digital Technology | z...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
[ Monash Univeristy, Caulfield | "A winner never quits; a quitter never wins"
[ Melbourne, Australia | traditional.

[portal!cup.porta...@uunet.uu.net]

From portal!cup.portal.com!Arthu...@uunet.UU.NET

(This is for the guy that requested Harrier stats)
Harrier performance statistics for Desert Storm
July 1992

Figures compiled by and commentary by Arthur Hu,
1194 Fargate Circle San Jose CA 95131

(Most figures provided by Marine Corp Information Office, DC)
Number of aircraft in theater - 86 (more than any other USMC fixwing)
including 26 operated from helo carrier
Sorties - 3,567 (most of any USMC type)
Combat loss: 5
Accident: 2
(I heard from one USMC witness of Harrier crashing on practice
run, another crashing in moving from carrier to shore base)
Tons of bombs delivered: 6,000
Loss rate per 1000 sorties: 1.4 (Highest of any strike aircraft
in any service, compare to F-16=0.37, A-10=0.69, F-15E=0.91)
Average sorties per day/aircraft 1 (total sorties/aircraft/40 days)
Loss rate per fleet: 5.81%
Average bomb load per sortie: 3,364 (heavier than F-18 = 2000, = to A-6)

Harriers were placed in forward bases or on helicopter carriers, so
average sortie was only 1 hr, required no refueling, and carried as
heavy a bomb load as the A-6, and could sortie as much as 3 per day,
as opposed to only 1 for other types.

One unit lost 2 of 20 pilots, a 10% loss rate.

2 killed, 3 POW

Average aircraft/pilot logged 40-55 combat sorties

VMA-331 flew 72 sorties per day with 20 planes, 20 min to target.

Surge rate was 3.5 sorties per day.

Typical payload: 1 or no sidewinder, 6 rockeye cluster bomb or
6 mk82/500 or 4 mk83/100, plus ALQ-164 ECM pod, plus 25mm gatling gun.

AV-8B is built by McDonnel/Douglas and British Aerospace, and is the
latest devlopment of a high - subsonic V/STOL aircraft starting with
the Kestrel of the 1960's, and the AV-8A which are now retired and in
storage. The AV-8B features a more powerful engine and redesigned
wing which doubles range and payload over the older plane, and a
raised cockpit for better visibility. The high-bypass turbofan uses a
pivoting four-post arrangement to enable short or vertical takeoffs
and vertical landings. The USMC has not adopted the ski-jump ramps
preferred by the British.

The Harrier replaced the A-4 Skyhawk in the close support and light
attack role. (The USMC never adopted the A-7) The US aircraft
replaces the British designed 30mm Aden cannon dual pod with a 25 mm
gatling gun which puts the gun in one pod and the ammo in the other. In
Vietnam, the F-4 was also used in this role.

Unlike the Falklands war, where Harriers were employed in an air
superiority role, USMC Harriers encountered no air opposition,
despite heavily promoted ACM training which makes use of vectored
thrush in VIFF to slow down the aircraft to elude atackers. No USMC
fighter shot down any Iraqi aircraft for that matter.

Unlike
the F-18, which suffered almost no losses despite 6 hits with I/R
guided missles, every hit on a Harrier resulted in a shootdown, most
likely due to the placement of exhaust nozzles along the sides of the
aircraft, compare to the F-18, where the exhaust is at the rear, away
from the tail surfaces. The A-10 force also suffered numerous hits, but
most hits resulted in only a damaged aircraft since it has 2 separated
engines, with relatively cool high-bypass exhaust placed so that the tail
and wings hide its IR signature, heavy cockpit and vital systems armour.
The A-10s were also able to operate from forward bases, though it appears
they did need air refeuling support. A10s primarily used Mavericks to attack
tanks, and carried an average payload of 2000 lbs of bombs, not counting
Mavericks, sidewinders (2) or ECM pod (1) or 30mm gun. The A10's bagged
a very high average of 1 target per sortie. There is no record of kills for
AV-8s that I've ever seen. A-10s were also used in Scud hunts and Sandy
helo rescue escort, and downed two helicopters with GAU-8 cannon fire.

The Marines have historically racked up
relatively high loss rates in Korea and Vietnam as well. Evidently
the AV-8 was employed much like the USAF A-10 in low level attacks against
ground targets, unlike USAF F-16s which dropped dumb bombs from relatively
high altitudes to stay out of range of ground fire.

The USMC is studying modifications to extend the tailpipe to the rear
and add warning devices to reduce pilot workload in dealing with
incoming threats, but they are still happy with their Harriers, despite
their high loss rate compared with F-18s which can do a similar job
given catapult carriers, or long airfields. I don't recall seeing any
films of AV-8s refueling from KC-130s, only F-18 and A-6, so it is
possible the close 20min basing freed up tankers to service F-18s and
US Navy aircraft.

No figures are given on number of targets destroyed by Harriers, but
it is probably the vast majority of Marine air to ground kills as
F-18D's were employed as night and fast FAC, and F-18s were more likely
used to supress air defences with HARM and pave the way for deep
penetration by A-6E's.

Controversy - anybody want to argue about the effectiveness of the
AV-8 in close support vs. the A-7, A-10, F-16, A-4, AH-1W or AH-64?

Other USMC stats:
20 A6E Intruder, 854 sorties, no losses, I estimate 4000 lbs per sortie,
1,708 tons bombs total
84 F/A-18 (including 12 F-18D night fighters), 5047 sorties, no losses
20 OV-10 Bronco FAC, 2 lost (10%), 593 sorties (3.4 / 1000 sorties)
highest loss rate of any US type. 2 crews taken POW.
12 EA-6B, 516 sorties
15 KC-130 1,267 sorties
78 AH-1W SeaCobra 1,273 sorrties, 1 combat loss, 1 accident
50 UH-1 1,016 sorties, 1 accident
120 Ch-46, 1,601 sorties, 1 accident
75 CH-53 Sea Stallion 2,045 sorties, no losses.

Marines concentrated on dropping huge volumes of dumb bombs - they
were concerned that not enough conventional bombs were stockpiled,
and were running short on some types towards the end of the campaign
based on reports in Aviation Week ( Desert Storm special). Most tank
kills during the ground war were from ground based fire from LAV,
M-60 and HUMMV/TOW.

[ga...@stsci.edu]

From ga...@stsci.edu

From ga...@stsci.edu

In article <1992Jul30.1...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
portal!cup.portal.com!Arthu...@uunet.UU.NET writes:

[several pages of stats, especially Harrier stats, deleted]

> Marines concentrated on dropping huge volumes of dumb bombs - they
> were concerned that not enough conventional bombs were stockpiled,
> and were running short on some types towards the end of the campaign
> based on reports in Aviation Week ( Desert Storm special). Most tank
> kills during the ground war were from ground based fire from LAV,
> M-60 and HUMMV/TOW.

As the co-author (along with Capt Steve Kowalkoski and LtCol Paul Cibuzar)
of the report from which HQMC extracted most of the above, I'd like to thank
Arthur for providing info which I, due to particular security provisions,
could not have released EVEN THOUGH it has become public domain. Now I can
comment on it without risking my clearence.

I'd like to add that the reason the USMC used such a large number of Mk80
series bombs was simply because of availability. The USAF kept all the
nice smart stuff for themselves. We used GP bombs for the same reason the
infantry guys used M16's. That's all we had. The F/A-18 pilots, and Harrier
pilots, would have LOVED to have laser guided bombs and onboard laser
designators. For that matter thay'd have liked it if they'd had enough FLIR's
so each plane could have its own.

-Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute
GySgt USMCR ...and yes, I work in Operations Research at Quantico VA