AV8B HARRIER ASSAULT - OPERATIONS MANUAL - Part 6 ------------------------------------------------- INDONESIAN ARMY EQUIPMENT Since seizing power the military junta has embarked on major purchases of military hardware. These have greatly increased the striking power of the Army particularly in terms of tanks, artillery and surface-to-air missiles. Standard main battle tank is now the Chinese T-59, a version of the Soviet developed T-54/55. Armed with only a 100mm gun, these 38 ton tanks are outclassed by the US M1 Abrams. Although crudely made, these are reliable and well-armored for their weight class. If unsupported by the small number of tanks available to the landing force, Marine units which encounter T-59s should be able to deal with these using TOW anti-tank missiles. The T-59 will also be vulnerable to attack by the AV-8Bs or AH-1W attack helicopters. The main artillery used by the Indonesian Army is a Chinese built version of the Soviet 122mm D-3O howitzer. With a maximum range of just over 9.5 miles (15km), these are out-ranged by the more modern M198 howitzers used by the Marines. Two types of mobile Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) have been purchased in large numbers. The heaviest is a Chinese-built version of the Soviet ZSU-57-2 a twin-barrelled 57mm gun mounted on a T-54 tank chassis. This is a relatively slow-firing weapon, but a single hit can do massive damage to your aircraft. Much more likely to score a hit is the radar-guided ZSU-23-4 Shilka radar guided AAA gun, significant quantities of which have become available on the international market with the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Mounted on a PT-76 tracked chassis, this four barrelled weapon combines accuracy with a high rate-of fire. Until recently Indonesian surface-to-air missile (SAM) defenses were restricted to small numbers of British and Swedish systems, but these have not been deployed in east Timor. The SAM defenses of East Timor are based on two types of missile purchased from one of the former Soviet republics. The SA-3 is a transportable command-guided SAM with a maximum range of up to 15 miles (25km). The smaller SA-6 is mounted on tracked vehicles, and has a range of 18 miles (30km) against low altitude targets, or about twice this distance against aircraft flying at high altitude. SA-3 and SA-6 will probably be used to defend airfields, and other high value targets such as fixed bases and fuel dumps. Flying at very low altitude (around 300ft) should dramatically reduce the effectiveness of these both types of SAM, but will increase the risk posed by AAA weapons. The ALQ-164 jamming pod should also reduce the effectiveness of these missiles as will the release of chaff. Mobile units have been armed with the Chinese built HN-5, an improved version of the Soviet SA-7 shoulder fired missile. This is a heat seeking missile, with a maximum range of around two miles (3.5km). The best counter to this weapon is to release flares. INDONESIAN COMBAT PERFORMANCE The Marines have the edge over Indonesian soldiers in both quality of equipment and level of training. In a firefight against an Indonesian mobile unit, a US unit of similar size will probably win with minimal casualties. When sent against defended fixed bases, the Marines will be an a disadvantage, since they not only cope with dug-in defenders, but must also concentrate on trying to destroy base facilities. Without air support the marines are likely to take significant casualties in such an attack you are advised to bomb fixed bases using the AV-8Bs, then send in the Marines to mop up any remaining defenses. If this is not possible, the AV-8Bs should at least provide Close Air Support for the attacking Marine forces. THE HARRIER AT WAR Harrier has twice seen combat action. USMC AV-8Bs were deployed to Saudi Arabia in 1990, and played a successful role during Desert Storm. Almost a decade earlier, Britain successfully used the aircraft during the 1982 Falklands War. Both campaigns illustrated the strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft, offering useful lessons for the current East Timor campaign. OPERATION CORPORATE: THE LIBERATION OF THE FALKLANDS On April 2nd 1982, Argentinian forces invaded the Falkland Islands overcoming the token UK military forces stationed there. The US Navy believed that the recapture of the islands by Britain was a military impossibility a view obviously shared by Argentina. This view overlooked the presence of two strong-willed individuals - British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the head of the Royal Navy, First Sea Lord Sir Henry Leach. Even before the Argentinian fleet had reached the Falklands to begin what Argentina saw as the liberation of part of its territory, Leach had begun to assemble the naval task force whose first elements would depart for the south Atlantic on April 5th. Britain's Royal Navy no longer operates full-sized aircraft carriers able to operate conventional catapult launched fighters. To provide air cover for the task force, the UK had to rely on the Sea Harrier. A total of 28 were deployed on two vessels. Invincible was the first of a new class of light carriers, while the larger Hermes was a conventional carrier which had been rebuilt as a helicopter equipped assault ship. To improve the endurance and firepower of the Sea Harrier, a modification program fitted the aircraft with larger drop tanks, and increased its armament from two Sidewinders to four. In theory at least, the British aircraft should have been no match for Argentina's top fighters. The 21 Mirage III and 26 examples of the Israeli-built Dagger copy of this French fighter were supersonic aircraft with a top speed of Mach 2. Luckily for the British, the Mirage is a delta-winged aircraft, a configuration which requires a long runway. The airfield at Port Stanley was the largest in the Falklands, but had too short a runway to handle these aircraft. The Mirages and Daggers had to fly their combat missions over the Falklands from bases on the Argentinian mainland. Like the Messerschmitt Bf109 fighter which escorted Luftwaffe bombers attacking Southern England fifty years earlier, the Argentinean fighters were forced to carry external fuel tanks to extend their range, and even with these could spend only a few minutes flying at full power in the combat zone. On May 1, Hermes launched 12 Sea Harriers to carry out attacks on the airfields at Port Stanley and Goose Green. An hour after their return, these aircraft were once more airborne on air-defense patrols. Despite being outnumbered six to one, the force of 28 Sea Harriers scored 20 "kills" and three "probables" during the brief war. Sixteen of the Argentinian aircraft were downed using the AIM-9L Sidewinder the other four by fire from the Sea Harrier's internal armament of two 30mm Aden cannons. Six Sea Harriers were lost. One was shot down by a Roland surface-to air missile the other by AAA. The remaining four were lost in accidents - one crashed after take off while the others fell victim to the foul South Atlantic weather. Two which went missing while on patrol are believed to have collided in poor visibility while another rolled off the deck of the carrier and fell into the sea. To supplement the small Sea Harrier force, 14 Royal Air Force Harrier GR.3 fighters were selected to handle much of the ground-attack role. RAF pilots were hurriedly trained in the art of flying from a carrier while their aircraft were modified to carry AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles. These aircraft were flown to Ascension Island. Six were sent to the South Atlantic aboard a container ship, then transferred on arrival in mid May to the flight deck of Hermes. Two more flew from Ascension to Hermes, arriving on June 1, and were followed by a further two which arrived on June 8th. The RAF Harrier GR.3s flew 125 ground-attack and tactical reconnaissance sorties in the face of heavy defensive fire, mainly from light anti aircraft weapons. Three of the 10 aircraft were lost in action, all believed to have been the victims of anti-aircraft gunfire. "Most aircraft engaged in offensive support survived damage, which usually resulted from intense Argentinian anti-aircraft gunfire, said the British Government's official report on the campaign. Most of the close support missions used unguided bombs, the British BL775 cluster bomb proving particularly effective. Throughout the brief war task force commander Rear Admiral John "Sandy" Woodward was aware that the success of the amphibious landing would depend on the survival of his two aircraft carriers, particularly the flagship Hermes. Wherever possible, he kept these vessels well east of the Falklands, and thus out of range of the Argentinian Mirages, Daggers, and Skyhawks. Even at this distance, Woodward still faced the threat of attack by fighter-bombers equipped with the French built Exocet anti-ship missile, but Indonesia has no weapons of this type. For Ocean Saber, the US has only one carrier, while the number of AV-8Bs available is around a fifth the size of Woodward's combined force of Sea Harrier and Harrier GR.3 aircraft. This small air component must handle both the air to-air and air-to-ground missions, flying against an air force about a third the size which Britian faced in 1982. Without Tarawa and its AV-8Bs, the landings are doomed to failure. Lose Tarawa, and you lose the campaign. During the Falklands War the Argentinian Air Force made two main tactical errors. One was for its fighters to launch their missiles at maximum range, then turn away to retreat at supersonic speed. The Sea Harriers were able to dodge the incoming missiles, close the range, then fire their own Sidewinders. The other was the fact that for most of the brief war aircraft tasked with attacking the fleet concentrated their fire on the escorting warships rather than the amphibious ships and transports. Destroyers and frigates could be replaced by others despatched to the South Atlantic in the wake of the main task force, but the carriers and their aircraft, plus the assault ships and transports with their cargo of soldiers and equipment were irreplaceable. Neither error is likely to be repeated by the Indonesians. The F-16 has a much longer range than the Mirage and Dagger so will have ample time to engage the AV-8Bs. It also has a much higher performance than the Argentinian fighters, and is armed with more effective air to air missiles. Unlike Rear-Admiral Woodward, the commander of Ocean Saber does not have a supply of fresh escort vessels. Like the amphibious ships and transports, Kidd and her Perry-class companions are irreplaceable. OPERATION DESERT STORM: THE LIBERATION OF KUWAIT The part played by the AV-8B in Desert Storm was relatively small. Two squadrons of AV-8B were among the first Marine aircraft to arrive in Saudi Arabia. By the time that the air war began, 6O AV-8B were operating from shore bases, and a further 26 aboard amphibious- warfare ships operating in Gulf waters. This was a total of four squadrons and one detachment. The land based aircraft operated from King Abdul Aziz Airfield. This was the most northerly airfield used by the Allies, and ensured a short flight time to the combat zone. Other deployment locations included rough airstrips and concrete forward sites. The AV-8B went into action on the first day of the ground war, knocking out Iraqi artillery which was bombarding Marine ground positions near Khafji. By the end of the Gulf War the small force AV-8B force had flown more than 3,380 combat sorties, and some 4,000 flying hours. During this time, they delivered more than 5.9 million pounds of ordnance. Mission capable rate averaged 90 per cent. To stay out of SAM and light AAA fire, AV-8Bs typically flew at an altitude of around 15,000ft high enough to say out of trouble, but low enough to see trucks moving on the ground. Assigned a primary and secondary target within a 30 by 30 mile "kill box", pairs of aircraft would make diving attacks on their designated targets. If these couldn`t be found, pilots would follow the roads until they found a target. Few AGM-65 Mavericks were used by the AV-8Bs; the best warload turned out to be between four and six bombs mounted one per pylon. These were normally 500lb, 1,000lb or Rockeye bombs. In a typical CCIP attack the weapons would be released at around 6,000ft while the aircraft was flying at around 525kts in a 45 degree dive. At first, the AV-8Bs would trade two bombs for Sidewinders, carrying four bombs plus two missiles, but the absence of the Iraqi Air Force made this a pointless precaution. The number of Sidewinders carried was reduced to one under the left wing, then to zero. Five AV-8B were lost in combat - two from VMA 542, and one each from VMA 231, 311. and 331. Two of the pilots - Captain James M Wilbourne of VMA-542, and Captain Reginald C. Underwood of VMA 331 were killed. Captains Michael C. Berryman (VMA-311) and Russell A. C. Sanborn (VMA-231) were taken prisoner, and later released, while Captain Scott Walsh of VMA-542 was rescued. Combat experience showed that the aircraft's main weakness was the location of its engine nozzles. Heat-seeking missiles home of the hottest part of the target which is normally the jet pipe. On a conventional fighter, hits from light heat-seeking missiles tend to be one the tail but on the AV-8B the hot jet pipes are much closer to the engine and cockpit area. Gulf War combat experience shows versatility of the unguided bomb, particularly the Rockeye, and the wisdom of staying above the ceiling of light AAA weapons. If losses due to heat-seeking SAMs build up during Operation Ocean Saber, it may be advisable to carry an external chaff/flare dispenser so that you can drop flares more frequently during your attack. SECTION X: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HARRIER At Britain's 1968 Farnborough Air Show, three officers of the Us Marine Corps walked into the hospitality suite of the British company Hawker Siddeley Aviation and announced "We're interested in the Harrier". The US services are not in the habit of buying jet fighters from an overseas supplier, but this was the start of a process which would see the US taking into service Britain's revolutionary vertical take off and landing (VTOL) fighter and which would lead to todays AV- 8B Harrier II. To an Englishman, the sale of Harrier to the US Marines might be seen as evidence that his nation can still teach the "Yanks" a thing or two about aviation, but in fact US involvement in the Harrier program dates back to the late 1950s. Without US financial assistance, the airplane would never have left the drawing board. Back in the mid-1950s, the Cold War was at its peak, and the NATO allies had based their air plans on a network of 8,200ft runways based in Western Europe. These would have been priority targets in wartime a fact which led French airplane designer Michel Wibault to purpose the Gyroptere, a ground-attack fighter able to take off and land vertically. The idea of a vertical takeoff and Landing (VTOL) fighter was not new. Several experimental aircraft had already flown, and others were being built. Some, like the turboprop-powered Convair XFY-1 and the jet powered Ryan X-13 Vertijet, were "tail-sitters." From a vertical starting position, these climbed away from the take-off point under the power of their main engine, then reversed this manueuvre in order to land. An alternative solution explored by aircraft such as the Shorts Sc.1 involved taking off with the fuselage in the normal horizontal position, the aircraft being raised by a battery of downward-pointing lift engines. Both arrangements had disadvantages. The pilot of a tail-sitter was in a most uncomfortable position. During take-off and landing - the very times when his concentration needed to be at its highest. This was not the case with an aircraft which used liftjets; here the problem was that the lift engines occupied much of the internal volume of the fuselage, reducing the amount of fuel which could be carried, and for much of the flight were simply unwanted dead weight. Wibault proposed to get around these problems by using vectored thrust. A single huge engine whose thrust was greater than the aircraft weight could lift the aircraft if its thrust could be directed downward, then propel it in normal flight by directing the thrust rearward. This idea had been tested in 1954 with the twin-engined Bell Model 65 Air Test Vehicle, and would be explored further in the new Bell X-14 then under construction in the USA, but these aircraft were too small to perform any military task. On the tiny Model 65, the two J44 jet engines were mounted outside of the fuselage and could be moved from rearward or downward-thrusting positions. For the X-14, two British- built Armstrong-Siddeley Viper turbojets would be mounted side by side within the forward fuselage, discharging their exhaust through belly mounted steerable cascade nozzles. In a conventional aircraft, safety is improved by having multiple engines. If one fails, the aircraft can keep flying. This isn't the case with a VTOL aircraft any significant loss of thrust while in the hover will turn that hover into a crash. Having multiple engines simply increases the chance of an engine failure. This was the problem faced by 1950s designs such as the Model 65, the X-14, and the Shorts SC.1, and by todays Yakovlev Yak 38 Forger and Yak 141 Freestyle V/STOL fighters. For the Gyroptere, Wibault planned that the thrust would be generated not by several jet engines but by four steerable air blowers, all mechanically driven by the most powerful engine he could find - the Bristol Orion rated at around 8,000hp at sea level, this would be connected to the blowers by a system of shafts and bevel gears. The four blowers would be angled downwards to provide the thrust needed for vertical takeoff then turned to face aft to create the power for conventional flight. Conventional control surfaces such as ailerons, elevators and rudder obtain their effect by deflecting the rapid flow of air passing around the aircraft's wings, tail fins, and rudder. When the Gyroptere was hovering or flying at low speed, they would be useless. Wibault realised that a practical VTOL aircraft would require a second control system for low speed flight and hovering. He proposed to fit the aircraft with a system of nose, tail, and wingtip mounted reaction control jets. Fed by compressed air, these would be used to maintain control until the airplane was flying fast enough for conventional control surfaces to take over. Unwilling to fund such as novel airplane, the French suggested that Wibault apply for funding from the Mutual Weapons Development Programme (MWDP), a scheme under which the US could fund promising foreign weapons. Gyroptere was too complex to be practical, but gave two British companies Hawker and Bristol Aero Engines the inspiration to devise a more sensible design. Bristol engineers looked at Wibault's proposal, and decided his estimated weight of only 1,0801b for the four blowers and bevel gearboxes was unrealistic. Instead, they proposed that the Orion engine should drive a single large fan section "borrowed" from the companys much larger Olympus engine. This in turn passed its output of compressed air to two steerable nozzles. Hardly had this BE.48 engine been sketched out on the Bristol drawing boards when Hooker realised that Bristol's new Orpheus jet engine would make an even better power source than the Orion. This BE.52 engine design was equally short-lived. The improved BE.53 eliminated the gearbox used to drive the fan. Instead, the fan was driven by its own turbine stage. The idea of using a second turbine was not new. Until 1949 all jet engines had used a single shaft. Air from the inlet was compressed by a multi stage compressor whose airflow entered a combustor section, where the fuel was burned. The hot efflux gases leaving the combustor passed through a turbine used to drive the compressor, before passing to the jetpipe. This layout was simple, but the rotational speed of the turbine-driven shaft which drove the compressor was always a compromise between the optimum speed needed by the early stages of the compressor and the speed best for the later stages which were handling a higher pressure airflow. In 1949 two engine manufacturers Pratt & Whitney and Bristol Engines - tested new engines which introduced a twin-shaft layout, a configuration still used for most present-day aero engines. A low- pressure (LP) fan feeds air to a high-pressure (HP) compressor. After fuel has been burned in this HP airflow the hot gases pass through an HP turbine used to drive the HP compressor, then an LP turbine which drives the LP fan, before passing to the jetpipe. The two section of the engine - LP and HP can each rotate at the speed which gives highest efficiency. On the B.53 the fan did not feed the HP compressor. All its air went to the two large steerable nozzles. Two small inlets mounted directly above and below the fan were used to feed air to the Orpheus section whose hot exhaust gas was released from a rearward-facing jetpipe just as in a conventional engine. Since all the compression was done by a compressor which was entirely driven by a single shaft and turbine, the BE.53 was not a true two-shaft engine, but it promised enough power to allow the design of a warplane. In the spring of 1957, the Hawker team led by Sir Sidney Camm, designer of the World War II Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest piston- engined fighters, drew up plans for what was then known as the P.1127. With its ugly tadpole shaped fuselage, unswept mid set wing, and tail wheel undercarriage, this design looked more like the primitive jet fighters of the mid 194Os than a combat aircraft for the 196Os. Air from the nose inlet entered a BE.53 engine in the lower part of the centre fuselage. The two steerable nozzles were located on either side of the fuselage directly under the wing, the jetpipe emerging from the lower fuselage just aft of the wing. A slim rear fuselage led to a tail assembly which would not have looked out of place on a Second World War piston engined fighter. Since only part of the thrust of the BE.53 was vectorable, the aircraft was designed for short rather than vertical take-offs and landings. Its take-off and landing speeds would be too low for aerodynamic controls to be effective, so Camm's team planned to feed some of the fan air to a system of nose, tail, and wingtip-mounted reaction control jets similar to those first proposed by Wibault. Too small and lacking in engine thrust to carry a warload, the P1127 was proposed as a lightweight reconnaissance aircraft. While this design work was going on, back at Bristol Engines, Hookers team had come up with further improvements. In a normal two shaft engine, the task of the fan stage is to provide LP air for the HP compressor. The new engine now being sketched out on Bristol drawing boards had an oversized fan which produced enough LP to feed not only a pair of steerable nozzles, but also the HP compressor. Having passed through the HP and LP turbines, the hot engine efflux entered not a single conventional jetpipe, but a pair of steerable aft nozzles. All four nozzles of this "four-poster" arrangement could be simultaneously moved so that they pointed downward to provide the vertical thrust needed for VTOL, then backward to power the airplane for normal flight. This new engine allowed the Hawker team to make a fresh start. By the autumn of 1957 they had created a design able to take off and land vertically. Although the wing was still unswept, it was recognisably the ancestor of today's AV-8B Harrier II. The new airplane and engine could not have been born at a worse time. The British Government had just decided that the manned combat aircraft was obsolete, and opted to cancel virtually all its current warplane programmes in favor of guided missiles. The idea of a VTOL fighter fell on deaf ears. US defense planners rejected the British idea of all-missile air forces as naive, and agreed to meet 75 per cent of the cost of developing the new airplane and its engine. Refused British funding, the two partner companies used their own money to make up the remaining 25 per cent. Not until late 1959 did the British government agree to help fund the two P.1127 prototypes taking shape at Hawker's Kingston factory. Camm and his team wanted to create not just a flying testbed able to demonstrate V/STOL technology but an airplane which could serve as an operational fighter. The structure was built strong enough for combat and with the internal volume needed to allow the installation of mission related avionics. The problem they faced was that in any VTOL airplane, the total weight at takeoff must be less than the thrust created by the engine. Get the airplane too heavy or be faced with an engine unable to develop the specified thrust, and it will refuse to fly a fate not unknown in the history of VTOL aircraft! In September 1959 the new engine, now named Pegasus 1, started running on the test bench. It developed only 9,000lb of thrust, but showed that the concept of a "four poster" vectored-thrust engine worked. An engine suitable for flight would have to generate more thrust, plus a supply of HP rather than LP air for the reaction control system. Studies had shown that the amount of LP air needed for reaction control would reduce engine performance, and require bulky ducting to feed it to the wingtip, nose, and tail reaction jets. To be practical the system would have to be redesigned to use high-pressure air drawn from the engine's HP section. To provide the extra thrust and a source of HP bleed air, Bristol devised the Pegasus 2 engine, which ran for the first time in February 1960. The best that Bristol designer Stanley Hooker could promise was 11,0001b of thrust giving Camm the problem of packing this large engine into an airplane about the weight of a Korean-War-era F-86 Sabre. Redesigning the reaction control system was not easy. The HP bleed air from the Pegasus 2 was available in the quantities needed to do the job. and at pressures high enough to allow small and compact ducting. Unfortunately it left the engine at a temperature of around 660 deg F, so had to be ducted via pipework made from Nimonic alloy a material originally designed for use inside jet engines. By October 1960, the first P.1127 airplane was ready to fly. It left the ground for the first time on October 21st, beginning the first of a series of tethered tests intended to explore handling in the vertical mode. The margin between aircraft weight and engine thrust was very low during these first flights, allowing enough fuel for only two minutes of hovering flight. By early November, test pilot Bill Bedford and the P.1127 team were ready to try free flight. To do this involved the additional weight of installing a radio in the cockpit at a time when every pound was vital. The first untethered flight was on November 19th. Soon afterwards, the British government finally agreed to pay for a batch of four development aircraft. Bristol - know known as Bristol Siddeley also increased the thrust of the engine by a further 1,000lb, allowing more fuel to be carried. Next stage was to try the airplane out in normal flight. This phase of the test program started on March 13th 1961, clearing the way for the team to cautiously explore the problem of making the way for the vertical to horizontal flight and back again. On some hovering flights, the nozzles were rotated backward to give the aircraft a forward velocity while during others made from the runway the nozzles were deflected downwards to allow the aircraft to fly more slowly, eventually bringing it to speeds at which its aerodynamic control surfaces had little effect, control being maintained using the puffer jets. During a six month series of tests using both P.1127 prototypes, the gap between the highest speed attained from the hover and the lowest achieved in horizontal flight gradually narrowed, until the first transition was demonstrated on 20th September 1961. For todays AV-8B pilots, this maneuver has become routine and its one you`ll have to learn to carry out in seconds. Early in 1961, the NATO allies released a specification for a new supersonic close-support airplane able to operate from rough strips some 200 yards long. Hawker had already started work on a supersonic P.1150 design. Power by an improved Pegasus engine with afterburning in all four nozzles, this would have been a practical and useful fighter. Unfortunately its top speed would have been around Mach 1.3 rather than the then-fashionable Mach 2. It was never ordered. By the end of the year, Hawker Siddeley had drawn up plans for the improved P.1154 - an aircraft which combined the Mach 2.0 performance of the F-4 Phantom with the VTOL ability of the P.1127. To power this, Bristol Siddeley started work on a more powerful engine - the BS.100. Worried that the P.1127 concept might be abandoned if left to the British, around the end of the year the US suggested that a batch of P.1127 be built to equip a proposed tri-national US/UK/West German trials squadron. Work started on a batch of nine aircraft built to an improved design designated Kestrel. These would have swept wings and the uprated 15,200lb thrust. Pegasus 5 engine, but would still not be able to carry a usefull ordnance load. Britian pressed ahead with the supersonic P.1154, which was intended for use by both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy and even started work on a C-130-sized short-take-off and landing transport aircraft able to support P.1154 operations. It was an ambitious concept and one which would even strain today`s technology let alone that of the mid 1960s. In practice. getting the Air Force and Navy to agree on joint design proved near impossible, and the commonality between the two versions rapidly dwindled. Late in 1963 the Navy dropped out of the program and an order for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms was announced in February 1964. Work continued on the Air Force version, which was expected to enter servive in 1969. The arrival in power in late 1964 of a Socialist Government intent on abandoning most of the nation's military aircraft programmes resulted in both the P.1154 and the Hawker Siddeley 681 STOL transport being cancelled in 1965 before either had flown. F-4 Phantoms were ordered for both British services, but the go-ahead was also given for the subsonic P.1127 to be taken into service as a combat airplane. It was to use some of the nav/attack systems being developed for the P.1154, and be powered by the latest 19,000lb thrust Pegasus 6 engine. Six development aircraft were ordered in February 1965. Between the spring of 1965 and the spring of 1966 the Kestrel-equipped tri-national squadron explored the military usefulness of VTOL aircraft, flying around 600 hours for the loss of a single airplane. After the unit disbanded, six of its aircraft were despatched to the USA for trials under the designation XV-6A, while the others stayed in Britain. Flying from the carrier, Independence, and the assault ships Raleigh and La Salle XV-6A proved the potential usefulness of a naval VTOL fighter. The first of the six development P.1127 first flew on August 31st, 1966. A batch of 60 production aircraft was ordered early in 1967, and the first of the resulting Harrier GR.1 aircraft flew on December 28th, 1967. A total of 114 GR.1's were delivered to the RAF, where they remained in service until replaced by the AV-8B Harrier II in the early 1990s. In 1968 the USMC realised that the XV-6A tests had showed the feasibility of deploying an operational VTOL fighter: Unlike the other US Services, the Marines are an offensive force, one designed to seize and hold beachheads. The fire support they need must travel with them. Marine Forces can't take with them the massive artillery support which the Army takes for granted, so strike aircraft must provide the close-support needed to soften up an enemy position, or to break an enemy attack. In the past, USMC aircraft had operated from carriers, but the P.1127 Harrier was an airplane which could be deployed from assault ships or even improvised airstrips close to the front line. At first, Congress refused to allocate money for Harriers, but the Marines pressed ahead with their evaluation of the airplane while arguing their case. When Congress finally did agree to authorise the purchase of 12 Harriers for test and evaluation by the USMC, it insisted that any follow-on order for production aircraft would have to be placed with a US manufacturer. Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas signed a licence-production agreement for the airplane, while the other deal between Rolls-Royce (who had taken over Bristol) and Pratt & Whitney covered US manufacture of the Pegasus engine. In practice however the cost of setting up US production facilities for the planned USMC fleet of 102 single-seaters and eight two seat trainers was so high that Congress relented, and the aircraft were purchased from Britian. By now the RAF had progressed from the original Harrier GR.1 to the improved GR.1A (with the Pegasus 102 engine), then the definitive GR.3 (with the 21,000lb thrust Pegasus 103 and additional avionics). The USMC version was similar to the GR.3, but did not have the nose mounted laser ranger and marked-target seeker fitted to the RAF Aircraft. The single seater was designated AV-8A, with the two seater becoming the TAV-8A. A further batch of 13 aircraft was purchased in the early 1970s by Spain. Ordered by the US Navy in order to spare Britain's socialist government the political embarrassment of selling weaponry to a right wing regime, they were transferred to Spain where they remain in service as AV-8S and TAV-8S Matadors. They entered service on the elderly carrier Dedalo, and now serve on its replacement, the Principe de Asturias. The Marines use the AV-8A in the close-support role, but what Britains Royal Navy now needed was a VTOL fighter able to operate from the new Invincible class light carriers. Ordered in May 1975, this was based on the GR.3/AV-8A, but incorporated a raised cockpit, a nose- mounted blue fox radar, and a marinised Pegasus 11 Mk 104 version of the Mk103 used to power the Royal Air Force's Harrier GR.3. The Blue Fox radar was designed for the task of detecting high altitude targets such as maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and had none of the expensive technology needed for look down operation against low level strike aircraft. First flight of a Sea Harrier prototype was on 20th Augnst 1978. Deliveries to the Royal Navy began in June 1979, and the aircraft became operational in 1980, first on the carrier Invincible, then on sister ships Illustrious and Ark Royal. In its FRS.51 Form, it also serves with the Indian Navy which purchased 23 (plus four two-seat trainers) for servive aboard the carriers Vikrant and Viraat. Both Britian and the US realised that their existing fleets of AV-8A and Harrier Gr.1/3 would need to be replaced in the 1980s, so the two nations had already started work on studies of a "Super Harrier". In 1973, McDonnell Douglas started preliminary work with British Aerospace (which had absorbed Hawker Siddeley) to develop an inproved version of the airplane. The AV-16A would have had a long- span supercritical wing, a 25,000lb (11,350kg) Pegasus 15 engine, and twice the payload/range performance of the existing aircraft. The two countries were unable to agree on a common design. In the United States the Marines wanted the most efficient VTOL close- support airplane which technology would permit, but Britain's RAF wanted a design to which its existing aircraft could be rebuilt. Not surprisingly in March 1975 the British Government announced that there was not enough common ground between the two requirements to justify a joint programme. At this point Britain and the US pursued their own national programs. British Aerospace drew up plans for what became known as the "Big Wing" Harrier. This would have had a revised front fuselage, extended intakes and a new 34ft (10.4m) span wing of metal construction. Optimised for high-speed flight, this enlarged wing would have been retrofittable to existing aircraft. In the US, McDonnell Douglas pressed ahead with a less expensive design which would combine a new airframe incorporating refined aerodynamics and the large-scale use of carbon composites with a developed version of the Sea Harrier engine. This would be known as the AV-8B Harrier II. The cockpit was raised to improve the view back over the inlets and wing a vital feature in air combat - while a new longer span wing with 15 per cent more area than that of the AV-8A produced more lift and less drag. The inlets were redesigned, while under the skin, a new generation oF avionics promised better reliability. Internal fuel capacity was 50 per cent more than that of the AV-8A. To minimum weight, almost a quarter of the structure was made not from metal but from carbon composite materials. To speed the programme, the first two YAV-8B prototypes were not built from scratch, but were created by fitting the new wing to two AV- 8As. The first flew on 9 November 1978. Flight demonstrations were completed during 1979 with the two prototypes having flown more than 170 test hours successfully. The aircraft did have problems, but these were political rather than technical. The Carter administration was opposed to the development of an aircraft customised to meet the relatively small Marine requirement. When drawing up the Fiscal Year 1979 Defense Budget Request, the Pentagon refused to add funding for the AV-8B. Instead it suggested that the Marines buy a batch of 78 McDonnell Douglas A-4M Skyhawks, and increase their order for the F/A-18 Hornet. This would help reduce the unit cost of the latter aircraft, and help keep the Skyhawk production line open. Congress disagreed, and restored funding for the AV-8B. The following year saw this process repeated, with the Department of Defense refusing the $203 million requested for continued AV-8B development. Congress forced the release of $108 million held over from the previous year and added a further $180 million for FY80. This allowed a full scale development contract to be issued in April 1979. A year later Congress again over-ruled the Carter administration and provided not only the $240.7 million needed for the FY81 development work but also $90 million for procurement of "long-lead" production hardware which would have to be ordered now to allow procurement of the first 12 aircraft. By now it was clear that the aircraft's long-term future would depend on its becoming an international program. The obvious customer was Britian. In 1980, the Royal Air Force evaluated the aircraft, and concluded that although the aircraft met the performance standard laid down by Britians Air Staff Requirement 409 (ASR 409) in most respects, it was badly lacking in one area - maneuverability. The AV-8B had been tailored to meet a US Marine Corps requirement for an efficient "bomb truck" able to carry a heavier payload over a longer range than had been possible with the AV-8A. In USMC service, the AV-8B would operate under the protection of friendly fighters such as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and McDonnell Douglas F/A 18 Hornet, but the British wanted an aircraft able to fight in Central Europe, where friendly fighters would be outnumbered by Soviet MiGs Any Harrier replacement would have to be able to defend itself the RAF decided so ASR 409 placed strong emphasis on maneuverability and survivability for defensive air combat performance. Turn rate of the US aircraft was well below the 20 degree per second turn rate which the RAF thought essential if the Harrier was to be able to defend itself against enemy air superiority fighters. As well as idetifying the problem, the British also offered a potential solution. The metal wing of the proposed "Big Wing" Harrier - now known as the Harrier GR.5 would have incorporated wing leading- edge root extensions (LERXs), features intended to increase maneuverability. Studies showed that by adding similar LERXs to the AV-8B wing, the airplane would meet the RAF maneuvrability requirement without jeopardising the payload/range requirement needed by the Marines. In the summer of 1981, the UK agreed to rejoin the programme, and to buy at least 60 AV-8B fighters. British aircraft would be known as Harrier GR.5, the designation originally proposed for the "Big Wing" Harrier. Under the terms of a deal announced in July 1981, the UK agreed to contribute an initial $80 million to the costs of a joint development program, and to provide the additional $200 million needed for development work unique to the RAF version. BAe would set up a production line in England to build the RAF aircraft, and would be responsible for manufacture of the rear and center fuselage sections, center-line pylon and the reaction control system. Fin and rudder assemblies may also be included. Under this work-sharing agreement McDonnell Douglas would manufacture approximately 60 per cent of the aircraft, BAe the remaining 40 per cent. Work on the engine would be split in a similar manner, with 75 per cent going to Rolls-Royce and 25 per cent to Pratt & Whitney. To keep the existing AV-8A fleet effective until the AV-8B entered service in the mid-1980s, the Marines embarked on a conversion in Lieu ofProcurement (CILOP) program to rebuild existing aircraft to the improved AV-8C standard. Changes included the installation of LIDS (Lift Improvement Devices), plus installation of new avionics such as the AN/ARC 159 radio, KY-28 crypto set, the ALR-45 radar warning receiver and the ALE-39 flare/chaff dispenser. The F402-RR-406 Pegasus 11-2IE engine used in early production AV- 8Bs is based on the Mk 104 developed for Sea Harrier, but is designed to match mounting points on the AV-8B airframe. It also incorporates a redesigned fan able to run at higher RPM. It also has new zero scarf cold nozzles, a revised swan-neck intermediate casing which smooths the flow of air into the high-pressure compressor a forged combustion chamber, better HP turbine cooling. a new shrouded LP turbine and improved seals. Maximum thrust is 21,500lb The first true AV-8B was the first of four full scale development aircraft. It flew for the first time on November 5, 1981. All four were sent to the Naval Air Test Center during 1982 to begin a program of flight test. The first of 12 pre-production airplanes flew on August 29, 1983. A two-seat TAV-8B version was also developed to help train Marine pilots. Wherever possible, the AV-8B uses off-the-shelf avionics. Like Marine pilots assigned to fly the AV-8B, you`ll have to become familiar with these systems. Prime attack sensor is the Hughes Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS), a nose-mounted unit which combines a laser spot tracker and TV contrast tracker. This allows day or night attacks to be delivered using conventional bombs, laser-guided "smart" bombs, unguided rockets, or guided missiles such as the Hughes AGM-65 Maverick. Navigation is handled by an ASN-130 inertial- navigation system. Harrier Gr.3 and the AV-8A had no autopilot, but the AB-8B is fitted with a unit known as the Stability Augmentation and Attitude Hold System. Intended to reduce the pilot's workload by about two-thirds, this allows easier and safer hovering and vertical landings. The pilot can even take his hands off the controls while the airplane is hovering. Many of the cockpit systems were already used on the F/A-18 Hornet, and include the head up display (HUD), a multi-function cathode-ray tube (CRT) cockpit display and an Up Front Control (UFC) panel used for communications, navigation, and weapons control. In the AB-8B cockpit, the engine throttle and nozzles are operated from a single control to allow the pilot to keep his attention focused outside the cockpit during air combat. Under this HOTAS (hands-on throttle and stick) scheme the pilot will be able to fly "viffing" (vectoring in forward flight) combat maneuvers. Without looking down, he can control the airplanes maneuvering flaps, select and steer the aircraft sensors, acquire targets, release weapons and aim the guns. For self protection, the AV-8B is fitted with an ALB-67 radar-warning reciever designed to detect hostile radar signals. Mounted in the rear fuselage is an ALE 39 dispenser able to release radar reflecting chaff designed to confuse enemy radars, or hot-burning flares able to decoy heat seeking missiles. The aircraft is due to receive the internally- mounted ALQ-165 Advanced Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ), but delivery of this complex system has been repeatedly delayed. (The RAF version of the airplane carries the British-designed Zeus jamming system). For the moment, the Marines rely on the externally-mounted ALQ-164 jamming pod. In 1984, McDonnell Douglas started work to create a night-attack version of the AV-8B. This was done by adding a nose-mounted Forward looking Infra-Red (FLIR) system, and equipping the pilot with Night Vision Goggles (NVGs). These systems are now standard in current production aircraft, while earlier examples will be modified to add these. The Marines took delivery of their first AV-8B in 1984, and the aircraft became operational with the USMC's VMA-331 Bumblebees in 1985. In its Harrier GR.5 form, the aircraft became operational with Britians Royal Air Force in 1989. A total of 94 are planned. Spain ordered 12 EAV-8B to replace the older AV-8A, and these are now in service aboard the aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias. In its basic form, the aircraft was intended for use by day, but in September 1989 the USMC took delivery of the first version configured for night attack. A similar night-attack version known as the Harrier GR.7 entered service with the Royal Air Force in the following year. The new avionics needed to give the pilot a view of the outside world were developed in the UK. A nose-mounted forward-looking Infra red (FLIR) creates an image of the terrain ahead of the aircraft. This is displayed on the HUD as a full-sized image directly superimposed on the outside scene. Flying an aircraft using only the small area visible through the HUD would be difficult, so the pilot also wears night vision goggles which provide a lower-grade thermal image of the outside world in whatever direction the pilot is looking. This version of the aircraft has a more powerful engine, the 23,800lb thrust Pegasus 11-61 known to the US Marines as the F404-RR 408. In AV-8B Harrier Assault, you'll be flying this night-attack capable version of the aircraft, the most modern variant currently in service. An even more advanced version known as the AV-8B Harrier II plus started flight trials on 22 September 1992, but this will not enter service until the mid-1990s. Main change in this new version is a reprofiled nose containing an APG 65 multi mode radar. The Marines intend to take delivery of up to 40 AV-8B Plus. Italy plans to buy 15 single-seat and two twin-seat Harrier II Plus for service on the carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, and could increase this order to around 30. The Spanish Navy expects to operate 12 AV-8B Plus, but will probably rebuild its existing EAV-8B to this standard rather than buy new airframes. Japan is known to be interested in the aircraft. Production of the AV-8B is expected to run into the early 1990s by which time the Marines will have taken delivery of 300 AV-8B and 28 TAV-8B trainers. Under present plans, 156 of these aircraft will be built to the night-attack standard. To bring older aircraft up to this standard, the USMC plans a rebuild program. A first phase will install the night attack avionics; a second could add the APG-65 radar. Britian will rebuild its Harrier GR.5 aircraft to the GR.7 night attack standard but haSs no plan to add a radar as part of a mid-life improvement programme, 31 Royal Navy Sea Harriers are being rebuilt to FRS.2 standard, receiving a British-developed Blue Vixen pulse Doppler radar able to provide all-weather look-down capability track while scan, and the ability to engage several targets simulaneously using up to four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. Other changes include a lengthened rear fuselage (to compensate for the enlarged nose needed to house Blue Vixen), a redesigned cockpit, and an improved radar-warning receiver THE REBELLION IN EAST TIMOR In August 1975 civil war broke out in the colony of Portuguese Timor. The eastern section of the islands which make up the Indonesian archipelago, Timor had first been settled by Portuguese colonists in 1586. In 1859, the island was divided between the Netherlands and Portugal. In 1949, the western (Dutch) portion joined the then new state of Indonesia, whose independence had finally been recognised by the Netherlands. For Indonesia, the continued presence of the Portuguese in Timor remained a sensitive issue. Portuguese Timor was run as an overseas province of Portugal, and until 1975 no steps had been taken to promote self government. Portugal finally decided in 1975 that it would pull out in 1978, and announced plans to hold local elections for a planned People's Assembly. Unfortunately the three main political factions in Portugese Timor ware unable to agree as to what form independence should take. The Associcao Popular Democratica de Timor (APODETi) wanted the colony to become an autonomous province of Indonesia, while the Uniao Democratica de Timor (UDT) favoured independence but retaining links with Portugal. A third party the Frente Revolucionario de Este Timor Independente (FRETLiN), wanted total independence On August 11th 1975, the UTD announced that it had taken over the colony in a coup. Fighting broke out several days later and by the 20th had become a full blown civil war between FRETLIN on one side and an alliance between the UDT APODETI and several smaller parties on the other By November 28th, FRETLIN was able announce the establishment of a "Democratic Republic of East Timor", but the new state would last for less than a month. On December 7th a force of around 6,000 Indonesian paratroops supported by bombardments from Indonesian warships operating offshore invaded the new republic, and seized Dili the capital. Four days later, the United Nations demanded that Indonesia desist from "furthur violation of the territorial integrity of East Timor" and ordered it to withdraw. Indonesia would admit that its Army was in action claiming that the attack on Dili had been mounted by APODETI, UDT and what were described as "Indonesian volunteers." The formation of a "Provisional Government" for East Timor was announced on December 17th. Four days later the UN Security Council voted unanimously for a Resolution calling for a total withdrawal by Indonesian forces. This was rejected by Indonesia, which has ignored many subsequent UN Resolutions on East Timor. By mid February 1976. the take over of East Timor was essentially completed. On May 31st the newly formed "People's Representative Council of East Timor" held a meeting which had only a single item on the agenda - a petition that East Timor be absorbed by Indonesia. In a ceremony reminiscent of the colonial era, an Indonesian "fact finding mission" which arrived on June 24th was handed a portion of East Timor soil and a nugget of gold. Five days later, Indonesia announced acceptance of East Timor and the existence of the new province was proclaimed on August 17th. Just over a week later, Indonesian leader Suharto admitted that FRETLIN was still fighting. Two months later, the Indonesian Defense Minister described FRETLIN as a "band of bandits" who would be eliminated in two to three months. In practice, the Indonesian Army was to mount repeated offensives against FRETLIN over the next few years, the largest being in 1978 and the fall of 1981. 1982 produced the first reports of human rights violations by Indonesia, with 4,000 Timorese being held in prison camps on the island of Atauro. By this time, Indonesia estimated that FRETLIN had been reduced to a force of around 130 combatants, while the guerrillas claimed a force of six companies - about 6,800 in total. Independent observers suggested figures ranging from 200 to 600. The province seemed quite in the first half of 1983, but fighting broke out again that August. The mid 1980s saw growing reports of further human rights violations - mass arrests, "resettlement programs", the execution of FRETLIN sympathisers executions during the military operations, conscription of Timorese civilians into the Indonesian Army. These heavy handed tactics seem to have worked. On 27th December 1988, Indonesia announced that the FRETLiN rebellion was finally over. Travel restrictions in the area would be lifted, and the region demilitarized. In October of that year Pope John Paul II visited Indonesia, and the authorities suppressed pro Timor demonstrations during his visit. To the Indonesian Government, the most disturbing feature of these demonstrations must have been the relative youth of the agitators many of whom must have been children at the time of the 1985 invasion . A new generation of Timorese was taking up the struggle for independence. A program of settling non-Timorese in the region caused protests and demonstrations in 1990. A report by Amnesty International in the following year spoke of an "accelerating program of short term detention, torture, and ill treatment of political opponents". On November 12, troops opened fire in Dili on a crowd of around 3,500 demonstrators. The number killed has never been fully established. At the time, the Indonesian Army claimed 19 deaths, and blamed the incident on a "misunderstood order" Opposition groups estimated the death toll at between 60 and 180. A later official investigation by the Indonesian government put the figure at 50. Human rights groups claimed that within days of the massacre, between 300 and 400 people had been arrested, and that between 60 and 80 were executed on November 15. By late November, claims were being voiced that more than 200 had been executed. By this time, East Timor had been a closed territory for 13 years. Some human rights groups have estimated the number of East Timorese killed or who have died of starvation in the long-running campaign at around 200,000. FRETLIN has offered a cease-fire, but this has been rejected by the Indonesian Government. The stalemate continues. The rebels lack the strength to defeat the Indonesian Army but that Army in turn has failed to reduce rebel strength in more than a decade of struggle. If the people of East Timor are ever to be given the chance to decide their own future, this can only be done with the help of the international community In 1992, Portugal asked President Bush to apply pressure to Indonesia to persuade that nation to accept the many UN resolutions on East Timor, but with a Presidential election looming and his own poll rating slipping there was little, in practice, the US President could do. For the moment the problems of East Timor remain on the international communities "back burner" ------------------------------------END------------------------------------