Ramped Carrier Decks

Based on the Harrier's success in the Falklands, 'fighter' is not too much of a stretch. 22 year down the road, it still might be employede tactically in a similar manner against a combatant with subsonic attack aircraft.

Mark Schynert

Read about the exploits of Sharkey Ward - he flied them - he has beaten US agressor squadrons, and shot down Argentinian aircraft

From the latest issue of Air Forces Monthly........... about the SHAR.....

".... all the remaining Sea Harrier aircrew and maintainers at RNAS Yeovilton can take pride in knowing that it remains the only current in-service UK fighter to have shot down another aircraft during hostilities............"

That's what the letter F in FRS1 and FA2 stands for !!!

Ken Duffey

i get that mag, not read it yet, v good.

If you've ever watched one fight a REAL fighter (F-15, for example) you'd know that it's past it's prime. A Harrier pilot needs to sucker a true fighter into a pretty untennable position to gain an advantage.

"Further on down the road" any country's air force is going to be taken out with cruise missiles prior to even getting airborne...at least that's certainly the way the most recent conflicts have gone...

Yes - Harriers against A-4s, F-5's, Hunters, etc..."fair" fight. Not so against a modern fighter with a full-on radar system and the weapons to employ. The Night Attack Harrier IS probably the best attack jet ever fielded, IMO...but it's still not a genuine world-class "fighter".

And I've watched them fight on a TACTS range...in assymetric and symmetric combat.

A Harrier is probably a fair match for most US Agressors - AND you have to remember that the Agressors are held to rules of engagement and may not actually operate to edge if the scenario doesn't call for it.

As for shooting down Argentine aircraft - a) better training; b) "even" matches? I'd need to look into it.

Granted, RN Sea Harriers are armed differently from the USMC AV8Bs I'm familiar with...but I'd like to see one encounter an F-16 a few times and see what happens then.

With 2 equal pilots, the F 16 should win every time. The F 16 really is that much more advanced aerodynamically, and electronically.

Hey the Harrier is a nice A/C, and with the VSTOL it makes it a good close support A/C (AV 8B) but it is extremaely dated when it comes to A to A........

What I'm curious about, is whow the new JSF will compare to the AV8B. I'm hoping the JSF will be a true leap forward in VSTOL attack A/C !

And there is nothing to compare to the F 22 :)..........................

"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."

The Tornado, and F 15 E outclass it in every way...............

"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."

I aggree with everything you say, but the issue was framed by me strictly in terms of subsonic opponents. No way the Harrier can be expected to have any chance against a type with, what, twelve times the thrust, and three times the speed?

The cruise missile issue is well-noted. It goes beyond questioning the viability of Harriers, though, by raising the issue of whether any maritime unit/TF without substantial AM defense has any chance of surviving. And pre-emptive strikes are notorious for disabling air forces that rely on fixed facilities--the Harrier, being more easily dispersable, might better survive such attacks on land.

As you say, it's dated in the fighter role, but I don't think the concept is--it's pity the Brits haven't made more of an attempt to follow on.

Mark Schynert

Good luck to the RN......

1. The Harrier would be dispersed to forward areas in any conflict. They would be hard to find and expensive to take out with cruise even when found.

1. The Argentine fighters were taken out by Harriers VIFing and putting a missle up the tail of the fighters as the passed by. The faster the enemy the more pronounced the effect.

2. With the next generation missiles in developement you just need to get the system in the air and fire them. The target needs to out run the missle, not the plane that fired it. The Harrier of course can VIF and hard to aquire as a target.

1. At 33000 pounds over weight the JSF does not fulfill its design specs. cannot VIF and too heavy the fly from any current or planned carriers other than the American super carriers.

6.France would not buy American aircraft for them at any price, so an uprated Harrier, that has been mooted, could become a reality, and with a bigger market for the Worlds navies than that for the JSF, if it goes into production.

1. We shall all have to wait and see.

Like I said, good luck to the RN. I hope the UK is in the lead on this joint project....

Sharing design and developement costs using the same company, Thales.

Not when it comes to the Close Air Support mission. The Tornado has just now incorporated Night Attack capability, and the Eagle doen't hold a candle to the A-10.

The closest equal to the Night Attack Harrier is, and probably always will be, the A-10 in the CAS arena.

Ok, but I was speaking in terms of air warfare in general. The more I learn, the more I learn that comparisions of fighter/attack/strike/,etc. aircraft against one another as "the best" are meaningless. You can't count on your opponent to follow your scenario (one never wants to fly into a "fair" fight), and besides - a good mission planner will match the best asset to the precieved threat...so the issue really becomes which aircraft is best suited to the task at hand - not which is "the best". And even so, each still has it's vulnerabilities...which may be exploited by a smart adversary.

Your comment on fixed facilities is sort of at the heart of why I think the Iraqis buried their airforce...it's a great way to hide from overhead imaging. The buried Migs might well qualify as the WMD everyone has been looking for, IMO. And even if they were dispersed, a Tomahawk wouldn't care as long as they could be seen by SOMETHING...that, coupled with precision air attack capability in the night environment sort of moots the ability to disperse - it only draws out the conclusion a bit.

As for forward basing of VSTOL aircraft, it might work anywhere but the open desert. Operating a Harrier anywhere but from a carrier deck or a tarmac in the desert is a maintenance/supply nightmare....forward basing a tactical aircraft is an idea that just doesn't work out practically for a fixed wing aircraft. Attack helos have it all over VSTOL jets in that role. What they lack is speed.

I don't think a Harrier was ever really suited to be, or ever should be, considered a "fighter" aircraft. Maybe it's because I once got a sound verbal thrashing for referring to an AV8-driving USMC LtCol acquaintence of mine as a "fighter pilot"..."I'm an ATTACK pilot, dammit!" was his response. And after having spent four years watching them operate I've come to agree with him - the Night Attack AV8B is one of the finest attack jets ever fielded. Putting a radar on it and trying to turn it into a "fighter" was a complete waste of time, money, and effort.

2) VIFFing is HIGHLY overrated. To get a Harrier to "put on the brakes" in the air that hard, you must depart from controlled flight...not what you want to do in a dogfight. AND - unless the Harriers had AIM-9X (which they didn't) the nose of the jet needed to be pointed generally at the target to get a shot.

4) VIFFing during a dogfight has been proven to be an unusable tactic for the Harrier. Reason - you lose control of your ability to point the nose, and therefore to bring your weapons into solution. Not to mention that a smart adversary knows not to try and turn hard with a Harrier - just extend, reverse, and shoot him down as he trys to regain his energy and control of his jet.

Good place to preposition and stage them for battle with the Mole people, too. ;-)

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

not the mole people, the c.h.u.d.

1. the thread suggested taking out Harriers with cruise. They are not confined to the use of fixed bases when they would be targeted.

1. They did it. Subsonic Harriers took down supersonic Mirages

2. However its done, its the missile that is the immediate danger not the plane that fired it

1. See 2 above

2. What type of engagement a pilot would wish to engage in may not be up to him.