There were several factors involved in closing down the two fora including the flak we used to get. However feel free to contact me or post any issues you have on this thread however keep it civil. I will be listening!

Can you share those factors with us?

Is it possible to close the Army and Navy forums but make them available in the archives?

Would it help to have a general military discussion forum instead of the Missiles and Munitions Forum too?

Trouble with an EJ200 powered STOVL plane is that it’s either quite a bit smaller than a Harrier, or it has to be twin-engined. The EJ200 is a great engine, but it’s not that big. Is a Hawk size plane credible? A STOVL Mako? And that would be struggling to bring back weapons for a vertical landing. You’d have severe limits on radar antenna size, range, payload . . . No, too limiting. Got to be two EJ200s. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but I think it’d complicate the FCS for vertical flight.

Fair comments, but I was thinking of a standard EJ200 combined with a lift jet or a advanced EJ200 development with a higher thrust rating.

Info on more powerful EJ200 developments for the Typhoon can be found here http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk//Eurofighter/engines.html

Giuseppe Garibaldi is probably a better balanced design, more weapons, better propulsion, etc.

Principe de Asturias is based on the Sea Control Ship which I really like, but it’s a design that’s supposed to be mass produced (quantity versus quality).

That’s an awkward looking location for the -120.

I agree, it’s a standard fit though.

OK, what about this –

Configuration like an F-35, but two EJ200s in place of the single F135, with smaller versions of the F-35 swivelling jet pipe. It’d need a new power take off from the engines, there being two of ’em, but that saves worrying about the USA vetoing use of the R-R N. America designed one in the F-35. With twin nozzles at the rear, would it need the auxiliary side thrusters of the F-35?

Sensors & weapons as for Typhoon. Doable? If so, any guesses as to cost & timescale? Nobody’s ventured any opinions on either so far, for any options.

It’s probably possible but it sounds very complicated and expensive.

In my opinion, a Harrier III will have to be a simple Harrier II update or a new low cost and lightweight design that uses a EJ200 based powerplant to have any realistic chance of funding.

A lightweight Boeing X-32 style direct-lift design would be my choice 🙂

It would look similar to these pics JAZZ posted.

I think the P.1216 was the perfect project to replace the Harrier by a “pure” british aircraft. Its really a pity that even the Falkland war couldn’t convince Miss Thatcher to fund the project…
Have you seen the X-wing P.1214 ? awesome project!

Tony Butler’s British Secret Projects books are full of great V/STOL designs, but unfortunately Mrs Thatcher was firmly ”buy American” when it came to the Harrier replacement. It’s a shame the US only wanted a close air support aircraft at the time.

Something like the P.1216 could be the basis of a Harrier III but I think a simpler design would be a better choice.

Could Sea Harrier FRS1 safely land vertically with two unused Sea Eagles attached in hot weather condition? I bet FA2 couldn’t.

It probably could, landing at high weights in hot weather conditions isn’t impossible for the Sea Harrier but doing so causes the engine to wear out faster.

Oblique wing Flight International articles here http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/Search.aspx?Keywords=oblique+wing+

DARPA/NGC Switchblade.