AV-8B Harrier Thread

[Dudikoff]

Yep, most likely AIM-9L as they received the AIM-9M shortly before the Falklands.

As I said it has an "advantage" in a dogfight, but not a magic "win-the-match" button.

 

It depends on how DCS can/will model the heat signature, as well as on how pilots can/learn to use this to their advantage, together with the option to viffing (thrust-vectoring)... Unfortunately it is very hard to find videos, or documents describing parameters etc. for these specific maneuvers.

 

I see that all these wonders of viffing were debated already in this thread.

[Mr_Burns]

Cant wait, its purchased but I dont want 1.5 or Nevada.......

 

Plus I dont want to bomb 1940's famr houses.

 

Whats the deal guys, any idea on the best options???

 

DCS - sort out the engine, Razbam did their bit.

[Dudikoff]

Cant wait, its purchased but I dont want 1.5 or Nevada....... Plus I dont want to bomb 1940's famr houses. Whats the deal guys, any idea on the best options???

 

I think you've perfectly summed up your only option - wait till whenever 2.5 is released.

[shagrat]

I see that all these wonders of viffing were debated already in this thread.

So Rhen basically said that the F-15 pilots from Bitburg and the Aggressors were "stupid" to let the Harriers get a shot at them...?

 

Ok, they are USAF's finest, but that doesn't mean they have to be bright, hmm, wait a second...

 

Edit: I should add a bit on that. Of course trained pilots are not stupid. On the other hand you can't win any engagement when you fear the enemy and it's capabilities.

Both the SHar pilots and the F-15 pilots need that "we will hand them their ass" attitude and confidence in their planes capabilities and their tactics.

 

When everything works as you planned it you will win!

 

Unfortunately in real life things not often go as planned. That is where things as intuition, training and pure luck play an important role.

 

I never said a Harrier is per se superior to an F-15.

I said it could stand it's ground, and it proved that in the engagement against the Bitburg guys. Which does not mean the outcome will always be in favour of the SHar, but that it doesn't necessarily mean the F-15 will win, just because they have the "Air Superiority Fighter"... :)

Edited November 3, 2017 by shagrat

[Schmidtfire]

I am pretty sure that Su-25T is AFM and not AFM+.

Anyways, back to the Harrier. It is sub-sonic and carries AiM-9s for A-A. You might get lucky, but going up against Eagles, Fulcrums or Flankers is asking to much. Try fighting the F-15 with Su-25 and you get the idea. There is a reason why the AiM-9s on the Harrier is "for self defence".

[Dudikoff]

So Rhen basically said that the F-15 pilots from Bitburg and the Aggressors were "stupid" to let the Harriers get a shot at them...?

 

Ok, they are USAF's finest, but that doesn't mean they have to be bright, hmm, wait a second...

 

I believe the term he actually used was "green" (in combination with the AIM-9L limitations denying them the lock).

 

So, it was kind of a novelty experience for those F-15 guys, but other than being a good example of what can happen if you're careless, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions on Harrier's capabilities against much superior platforms. With the AIM-9M's, even that straight in approach would have allowed those green pilots a first shot opportunity.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Dudikoff

[shagrat]

I am pretty sure that Su-25T is AFM and not AFM+.

Anyways, back to the Harrier. It is sub-sonic and carries AiM-9s for A-A. You might get lucky, but going up against Eagles, Fulcrums or Flankers is asking to much. Try fighting the F-15 with Su-25 and you get the idea. There is a reason why the AiM-9s on the Harrier is "for self defence".

...and they did it in the 80ies in the Sea Harrier and lo and behold, they were a match for the mighty Eagle. ;)

[shagrat]

I believe the term he actually used was "green" (in combination with the AIM-9L limitations denying them the lock).

 

So, it was kind of a novelty experience for those F-15 guys, but other than being a good example of what can happen if you're careless, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions on Harrier's capabilities against much superior platforms. With the AIM-9M's, even that straight in approach would have allowed those green pilots a first shot opportunity.

He said (...)"I'd have to be stupid, or not have done my vault study, or just have my fangs hanging through the floorboard of the cockpit for that to happen...."(...)

Which implies the guys were doing that?

 

As I said above in the edit, it is what a Pilot must do. He needs to be confident, or he is dead meat, already.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

As the airframe (SeaHarrier II is more or less an AV-8B+/Gr.9 with different Radar) hasn't been modified, the capabilities excluding the radar for A-A combat is the same in the AV-8B.

 

Different wing, no?

[shagrat]

Different wing, no?

As far as I am aware the Sea Harrier II shares the same airframe across AV-8B, Gr.9 and SeaHarrier II.

 

The radar and other systems are different between the british SeaHarrier II and the AV-8B+, though.

[Dudikoff]

He said (...)"I'd have to be stupid, or not have done my vault study, or just have my fangs hanging through the floorboard of the cockpit for that to happen...."(...)

Which implies the guys were doing that?

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by focusing on the implication that the pilots were "stupid", but I was aiming at this line: "But again, this tends to happen to "noobs" flying the jet, just like harrier kills on Eagles tends to be on baby Eagle drivers."

 

Again, it seems to have been a one-off experience where the F-15 pilots didn't react ideally and were limited by the AIM-9L capability against a turning Harrier, but you seem to be quite comfortable with drawing long-lasting conclusions from a single exercise. Without evidence of such an outcome happening regularly afterwards against them or perhaps statements by e.g. the F-15/16/18 pilots that would actually consider a Harrier as a credible threat to them, I would beg to differ.

 

The whole point of an exercise is not to determine if the Harrier can beat the F-15's, but to learn something about the possible opponents (in this case, the OP stated that Harriers were playing Yak-38's). In that case it would seem that it certainly was a valuable experience, but of course, if you're trying to sell a book, you might be inclined to offer a rather different perspective on some of these events.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Schmidtfire]

The Eagle still is the worlds most successful Air Superiourity Fighter. Sure it has been beaten in training. By everthing from T-38s to F-14s. But that is acm training. In a live conflict, the F-15C vs Harrier is a ridicolous matchup. Same against a Flanker or a well kept MiG29. One look through the helmet sight and it is all over. Ofcourse support like EWR, AWACS, jamming F-111 etc. also matters a lot. But in my view there is a reason that Eurofighter is handling the A-A stuff and not the Harrier. The Harrier II Plus is a different animal though, with radar and amraams.

[Dudikoff]

The Harrier II Plus is a different animal though, with radar and amraams.

 

IMHO, it's pretty much the same thing still. The Eagle would still have a first shot capability and could choose to stay out of the Harrier's AMRAAM WEZ or move in for the kill depending on the situation.

 

AFAIK, the old radars from the F/A-18A's were reused on the Harrier Plus not to make it a capable BVR platform, but to give it an all-weather bombing capability. Sure, having the radar and AMRAAM's is a great boost for the Harriers air-defense capabilities, but that's as far as it goes.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Dudikoff

[shagrat]

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by focusing on the implication that the pilots were "stupid", but I was aiming at this line: "But again, this tends to happen to "noobs" flying the jet, just like harrier kills on Eagles tends to be on baby Eagle drivers."

 

Again, it seems to have been a one-off experience where the F-15 pilots didn't react ideally and were limited by the AIM-9L capability against a turning Harrier, but you seem to be quite comfortable with drawing long-lasting conclusions from a single exercise. Without evidence of such an outcome happening regularly afterwards against them or perhaps statements by e.g. the F-15/16/18 pilots that would actually consider a Harrier as a credible threat to them, I would beg to differ.

 

The whole point of an exercise is not to determine if the Harrier can beat the F-15's, but to learn something about the possible opponents (in this case, the OP stated that Harriers were playing Yak-38's). In that case it would seem that it certainly was a valuable experience, but of course, if you're trying to sell a book, you might be inclined to offer a rather different perspective on some of these events.

I was more trying to point out that neither the USAF Aggreasors, nor the F-15 pilots from Bitburg were "stupid" or "green".

 

What Rhen describes is typical for any(!) fighter pilot in the world. Confidence and trust in his platform, training and tactics.

 

At the point in time these first test engagements were done, the F-15 was the most top rated air superiority fighter in the world. The Eagle even with the advantage of a BVR missile (AIM-7).

Still in the engagement they were at least matched... During the training they had multiple sorties, so yes the first pilots may were "surprised", but after 2 or 3 engagements the others should have known what to expect.

So the mantra "Air Superiority Fighter wins vs Non-Air Superiority Fighter" is dangerous.

 

You need to understand and respect the capabilities of your opponent, not underestimate him and better have prepared a set of your own tactics to use against him... What Rhen was pointing out in his posts.

 

Still all this does not mean you will win, as the other side does the same and sometimes it has a greater component of "luck" involved, than we think.

[shagrat]

IMHO, it's pretty much the same thing still. The Eagle would still have a first shot capability and could choose to stay out of the Harrier's AMRAAM WEZ or move in for the kill depending on the situation.

 

AFAIK, the old radars from the F/A-18A's were reused on the Harrier Plus not to make it a capable BVR platform, but to give it an all-weather bombing capability.

Yes, and keep in mind to fit the dish into the nose they needed to reduce it. So the AV-8B+ radar has a decreased range and burn through.

[shagrat]

The Eagle still is the worlds most successful Air Superiourity Fighter. Sure it has been beaten in training. By everthing from T-38s to F-14s. But that is acm training. In a live conflict, the F-15C vs Harrier is a ridicolous matchup. But in my view there is a reason that Eurofighter is handling the A-A stuff and not the Harrier. The Harrier II Plus is a different animal though, with radar and amraams.

 

That was not the point it was about everybody implying the Harrier being "cannon fodder" for any supposedly superior jet.

 

Also keep in mind the training took place in the 1980ies and there were no AIM-120 or AIM-9M/X around.

[Dudikoff]

I was more trying to point out that neither the USAF Aggressors, nor the F-15 pilots from Bitburg were "stupid" or "green". At the point in time these first test engagements were done, the F-15 was the most top rated air superiority fighter in the world.

 

I can't comment on the experience of those F-15 pilots as these things can vary through the time periods depending on how much money and emphasis was put into developing and maintaining certain pilot capabilities. A decade or so earlier, the F-4 was probably the top rated air superiority fighter in the world, yet their pilots (especially USAF) were not doing that well at first in Vietnam against much inferior platforms. I guess piloting the best platform can sometimes even be detrimental to the perceived need for training and developing proper skills and tactics and estimating your opponents correctly.

 

Certainly those F-15 guys didn't fly against Harriers (with their hidden nozzles from some aspects) before so at least from that perspective they were "green" and could be surprised by some tricks and tactics developed by what I understand were at the time the best Harrier pilots specifically trained for the air-defense role.

 

The Eagle even with the advantage of a BVR missile (AIM-7).

 

Apparently, those Harrier pilots involved were already well trained by their Phantom colleagues in developing tactics on how to deny them the BVR lock (by notching the radar's I guess) and how to proceed on the merge. As I have stated already, those tactics would have probably left them as dead meat for the AIM-9M's if those were available at the time so I don't think it's something that can be expected to work with the same outcome later on.

 

Still in the engagement they were at least matched... During the training they had multiple sorties, so yes the first pilots may were "surprised", but after 2 or 3 engagements the others should have known what to expect. So the mantra "Air Superiority Fighter wins vs Non-Air Superiority Fighter" is dangerous.

 

Still all this does not mean you will win, as the other side does the same and sometimes it has a greater component of "luck" involved, than we think.

 

Matched in what exactly? In low speed close combat with limited aspect short range missiles, sure, but then the Eagle pilots didn't use their airplanes' capabilities to stay out of reach. If they did and kept fast and used their speed to extend in the vertical, at best what the Harrier pilots could hope for is to try to deny them proper shot opportunities and thus survive the engagement, but given their limited fuel, I'm not sure they can outwait the Eagles here. But, instead, the F-15 pilots went in the slow merge to try to get behind them for a lock opportunity with those 9L's which is exactly what the Harrier pilots wanted them to.

 

The main point I'm trying to make here is that the Eagle pilots (with their superior radars and kinematics) control the situation from the get go and unless they make a huge mistake and literally serve their asses on a platter, the Harrier stands little chance of threatening them. In that regard, there's little to no luck element to it, IMHO, unless you consider pilot errors and misreads or e.g. weapon malfunctions as luck here.

 

Of course, not being a fighter pilot or anything, besides this simple reasoning, I can't really contribute anything more to this debate, sorry.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Dudikoff

[BIGNEWY]

Guys please stick to the topic title

 

AV-8B Harrier Thread

[shagrat]

The main point I'm trying to make here is that the Eagle pilots (with their superior radars and kinematics) control the situation from the get go and unless they make a huge mistake and literally serve their asses on a platter, the Harrier stands little chance of threatening them. In that regard, there's little to no luck element to it, IMHO, unless you consider pilot errors and misreads or e.g. weapon malfunctions as luck here.

 

Of course, not being a fighter pilot or anything, besides this simple reasoning, I can't really contribute anything more to this debate, sorry.

That would be reasonable in the first two or three engagements, but then they would have learned from the mistakes of their buddies and likely did "with their superior radars and kinematics control the situation", still they lost more engagements, than they won and that were lot more than 3 (I have to look up the overall outcome, again) not at home currently.

 

That is why I am pretty sure it wasn't "just" stupid mistakes, but some of the Harriers / AV-8B's capabilities that gave them an advantage. They actually had to rely on a GCI as the radar was not yet implemented, making them more similar to AV-8B NA. With both the F-15 and the AV-8B loaded with AIM-9Ms the only difference in a modern engagement would be the AIM-120 and better training against the AV-8Bs tactics... a plane is not winning a fight because it should on paper.

I personally am interested to see how good an AV-8B NA can survive against a fighter jet or SAM in DCS, it shouldn't be too bad. :smartass:

[shagrat]

Guys please stick to the topic title

 

AV-8B Harrier Thread

 

Actually we discuss the A-A capabilities of the AV-8B Harrier. I wouldn't consider that off-topic... maybe a bit on the rare occurances for a primary ground attack platform, but especially survival against air threats, will be part of the training, thus these capabilities matter, I think.:music_whistling:

 

What is correct, though, all arguments and facts are likely brought to light, already and we get a bit redundant. So let's wait for the release and test a bit in DCS, what can be done with the nozzles and flaps.

[Robert31178]

But if I'm fighting you Dudikoff and you make a mistake on my end that IS considered luck, as in "lucky for me you muffed it", ipso facto, luck.

[Vitormouraa]

Edited November 3, 2017 by Vitormouraa

[uscstaylor]

Good video

[rjetster1]

Very nice!

[Gladman]

Nice to see the liftoff went as smooth as it did. I was wondering how difficult that was going to be.