AV-8B Harrier Thread

[joey45]

Was thinking that...

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[ESAc_matador]

and subsonic Maneuvering combat is not really as relevant In an era of Helemt hud, and off boresight Missiles that aren't fooled by flares ( its not ww2) that is if a merge occurs, the fight will be over pretty quick. BVR engagements are more prevalent anyhow.

 

Then you remove the guns.. and then you have to develop the pods... Hahah

Edited April 14, 2017 by ESAc_matador

[shagrat]

Then you remove the guns.. and then youbhave to fevelopment poda... Hahah

^this

 

Learnt by the USAF the hard way... F-4 "we need no gun as we have rockets" Phantom comes to mind.

 

And the fact remains, that even without BVR missiles the Sea Harrier beat the F-15 in the 1980ies, although they had BVR missiles (AIM-7 Sparrows) and that was that.

Edited April 14, 2017 by shagrat

[shagrat]

um the Uk is a joint strike fighter Program investor/partner. Plus They also actually put up orders for the F35. The F35B can actually be deployed from LHD or helicopter carriers due to VTOL capability.

 

In any case new carriers constructions have been well underway since 2014. = Its a sure thing they will enter service. 2-3 years is not far away.

 

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/united-kingdom

I know, and they just have a brexit to cope with (money for budget comes to mind), todays projects are usually delayed (F-35B should already be in service, as to the original plan),

 

So the current situation of "urgent" confrontation is more: they "could" rent a french carrier, ask the US Marines or anybody to provide some carrier capable fighters, train the pilots on them and all that hopefully in less than a couple weeks?

 

They should have kept at least one carrier, in my point of view, with a full contingent of SHAR FA2.

 

But I can of course not understand the brilliance of the politics original idea, possibly.

 

Still the original point wasn't the F-35 or other 6th gen fighters.

I talked about the SHAR (with DCS 80ies/90ies modern jets in mind) and how it would be a great addition, that could hold its own against any contemporary fighter.

If you put a late 90ies F-15 armed with AMRAAM into play, you should of course put a SHAR FA2 with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM into play, as well.

 

The fact that even the original SHAR at its time was a superb fighter and the FA2 not just an A-10 with AMRAAM AND A-A radar slapped to it still stands.

If the SHAR could beat the shit out of F4s, the F-5 aggressors, F-15 and Mirage III and 5s, your A-10 comment simply looked, like you did not know what a Sea Harrier is or what its job is, sorry.

[frixon28]

^this

 

Learnt by the USAF the hard way... F-4 "we need no gun as we have rockets" Phantom comes to mind.

 

And the fact remains, that even without BVR missiles the Sea Harrier beat the F-15 in the 1980ies, although they had BVR missiles (AIM-7 Sparrows) and that was that.

 

Though the Navy used Phantonms without guns and their kill ratio improved drastically when Top Gun was established for learning how to implement missles properly. This was in an era of missles in what we would consider horrid due to poor seekers. So yes the Sea Harrier beat the F15 a few times, but so has the F5/4/16. Is it possible yes, is it better no! F16s have taken out Raptor doesnt mean its better. The Harrier will do decent in air to air combat, but with no radar dont expect much. Its a fast and maneuverable CAS aircraft but its still a CAS aircraft

[shagrat]

Though the Navy used Phantonms without guns and their kill ratio improved drastically when Top Gun was established for learning how to implement missles properly. This was in an era of missles in what we would consider horrid due to poor seekers. So yes the Sea Harrier beat the F15 a few times, but so has the F5/4/16. Is it possible yes, is it better no! F16s have taken out Raptor doesnt mean its better. The Harrier will do decent in air to air combat, but with no radar dont expect much. Its a fast and maneuverable CAS aircraft but its still a CAS aircraft

The SEA Harrier (not AV-8B) we talk about had a radar. The Sea Harrier FA2 discussed, got the Blue Vixen radar and AIM-120 and its primary role was to defend a carrier group perimeter and support Marines on the ground, not unlike an F/A-18.

I never said it is "better" than an F-whatever. I said it could stand up to this kind of fighters and is NOT a BVR capable A-10, as Kev2go implied.

 

The SHAR FA2 was a very capable if not one of the best multi role fighters for ship based operations.

 

I would love the prospect of a later SHAR or SHAR FA2 from Razbam and I think the current AV-8B will be interesting in close combat as well, though I agree, lacking an A-A radar puts the AV-8B at a disadvantage against proper fighters.

[frixon28]

The SEA Harrier (not AV-8B) we talk about had a radar. The Sea Harrier FA2 discussed, got the Blue Vixen radar and AIM-120 and its primary role was to defend a carrier group perimeter and support Marines on the ground, not unlike an F/A-18.

I never said it is "better" than an F-whatever. I said it could stand up to this kind of fighters and is NOT a BVR capable A-10, as Kev2go implied.

 

The SHAR FA2 was a very capable if not one of the best multi role fighters for ship based operations.

 

I would love the prospect of a later SHAR or SHAR FA2 from Razbam and I think the current AV-8B will be interesting in close combat as well, though I agree, lacking an A-A radar puts the AV-8B at a disadvantage against proper fighters.

 

My apologies for butting in, I stand corrected

[shagrat]

My apologies for butting in, I stand corrected

No problem, two different aircraft that are often mistaken. :D

[Bruce448]

About 15 years ago I was a part of the Royal Navy's FA2 tech support team (which as a part of fixed wing future development requirements). When we were told of the demise of the SHar we made plans/talks with BaeSys at Dunsfold on a proposal to make the nose and the avionics racks behind the engine on the future Gr7/9 modular i.e. Depending on the aircrafts roll, it would take roughly 4 hours to remove the EO nose and fit the radar components and visa versa.

 

We were informed by the RAF that it wouldn`t be cost effective because of their future plans in Maritime Strike.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Bruce448

[Bruce448]

As for low speed engagements the Argentinian airforce found out by accident about VIFFing (Vectoring in Forward Flight.

 

[Kev2go]

^this

 

Learnt by the USAF the hard way... F-4 "we need no gun as we have rockets" Phantom comes to mind.

 

And the fact remains, that even without BVR missiles the Sea Harrier beat the F-15 in the 1980ies, although they had BVR missiles (AIM-7 Sparrows) and that was that.

 

Oh this strawman point again :doh:

 

The missiles werent anywhere near as good in the 60s as they were today. even looking at stastics of a2a kills majority of them are done with missiles and even more by radar guided in BVR. Even then some people dont realize how far technology has come from the 1980s. Aim7s are thing of the past, AMRAMS area thing, and new Ir missiles like the aim9X are off bore sight, and are immune to flares.

 

 

today in the 21st century, the internal gun is pretty much the equivalent of the Cavarlyman's sabre in the turn of the 19th century, in a era of bolt action rifles, and emergence of Machine guns.

 

 

Though the Navy used Phantonms without guns and their kill ratio improved drastically when Top Gun was established for learning how to implement missles properly. This was in an era of missles in what we would consider horrid due to poor seekers. So yes the Sea Harrier beat the F15 a few times, but so has the F5/4/16. Is it possible yes, is it better no! F16s have taken out Raptor doesnt mean its better. The Harrier will do decent in air to air combat, but with no radar dont expect much. Its a fast and maneuverable CAS aircraft but its still a CAS aircraft

 

 

exactly a few simulated kills, especially if its at a greater is not indiciation of superiority. F16 got a Kill against F35s in recent red flag, But at a lost of 20 of thier own. yup F16 totally superior.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[shagrat]

Oh this strawman point again :doh:

 

The missiles werent anywhere near as good in the 60s as they were today. even looking at stastics of a2a kills majority of them are done with missiles and even more by radar guided in BVR. Even then some people dont realize how far technology has come from the 1980s. Aim7s are thing of the past, AMRAMS area thing, and new Ir missiles like the aim9X are off bore sight, and are immune to flares.

 

 

today in the 21st century, the internal gun is pretty much the equivalent of the Cavarlyman's sabre in the turn of the 20th century, in a era of bolt action rifles, and emergence of Machine guns, and also about as "useful"

 

 

 

 

 

exactly a few simulated kills, especially if its at a greater is not indiciation of superiority. F16 got a Kill against F35s in recent red flag, But at a lost of 20 of thier own. yup F16 totally superior.

Ahem, you go on ranting about a point I never made.

I simply said the SEA Harrier FA2 was not an A-10 with A-A radar and AMRAAM added.

 

It came from a 1980ies Fighter that was well capable of holding its own even against air superiority fighters like the F-15 FROM THE SAME TIME PERIOD (only AIM-7 available).

 

With the Blue Vixen radar and the same AMRAAM the updated SEA HARRIER FA2 was certainly a well versed fighter jet capable of BVR as well.

 

Of course a F-22 Raptor will be superior to any 1980ies jet...

 

I don't get your point, sorry.

[Buzzles]

While I love this off topic divergence, it doesn't actually have anything to do with the particular version Razbam are doing...

[shagrat]

And this was about your comment on the Sea Harrier FA2 you made earlier:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3107126

 

You seemed to think that the FA2 is a V/STOL A-10... I am simply trying to point out: Sea Harriers were Fighter Jets by design, and they were jolly good at that job.

With the FA2 update they got BVR capabilities on par with any other contemporary jet armed with AIM-120.

[Kev2go]

Ahem, you go on ranting about a point I never made.

I simply said the SEA Harrier FA2 was not an A-10 with A-A radar and AMRAAM added.

 

It came from a 1980ies Fighter that was well capable of holding its own even against air superiority fighters like the F-15 FROM THE SAME TIME PERIOD (only AIM-7 available).

 

With the Blue Vixen radar and the same AMRAAM the updated SEA HARRIER FA2 was certainly a well versed fighter jet capable of BVR as well.

 

Of course a F-22 Raptor will be superior to any 1980ies jet...

 

I don't get your point, sorry.

 

Well it can be argued aircraft are of comparable era given upgrades weill int the 21st century a 2000's F16 or F15 is not a 1980's fighter any longer. and F15C Golden eagle given its AESA radar, and new avionics, might just qualify it as a 4.5 gen fighter.

even within 80s these platforms saw various blocks an upgrades. Like F15C's MSIP 2 for EG. or emergence of the F16C, and subsequent Blocks.

 

Apart form having a2a capability getting a few simulated kills against F15 doesnt prove superiority of platform even from aircraft from its era.

 

 

If not, I dont get your point either sorry

Edited April 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[ESAc_matador]

Me

Though the Navy used Phantonms without guns and their kill ratio improved drastically when Top Gun was established for learning how to implement missles properly. This was in an era of missles in what we would consider horrid due to poor seekers. So yes the Sea Harrier beat the F15 a few times, but so has the F5/4/16. Is it possible yes, is it better no! F16s have taken out Raptor doesnt mean its better. The Harrier will do decent in air to air combat, but with no radar dont expect much. Its a fast and maneuverable CAS aircraft but its still a CAS aircraft

 

With no radar. Absoluty agree, but It is the airframe What i talked about in comparation with 70_80 airframes. We are suposed to have a radar equiped harrier module in the future.

Edited April 14, 2017 by ESAc_matador

[shagrat]

...and F15C Golden eagle given its AESA radar, and new avionics, might just qualify it as a 4.5 gen fighter.

even within 80s these platforms saw various blocks an upgrades. Like F15C's MSIP 2 for EG. or emergence of the F16C, and subsequent Blocks.

Correct. That's why we should compare a SHAR FA2 to a 90ies Eagle.

The comparable british Fighter/Successor to the modern Golden Eagle (4.5 Gen) would be the Eurofighter Typhoon.

 

Apart form having a2a capability getting a few simulated kills against F15 doesnt prove superiority of platform even from aircraft from its era.

 

If you may want to read the links I provided, they didn't just "got a few simulated kills", the numbers were, let's brag a bit here more like a "simulated beat-the-shit" out of the supposed superior platform.

Of course this doesn't mean much, given that pilot training, situation and even luck plays a great part in such engagements, but the same is true for the other side.

Just because it is an F-15 doesn't mean it has to win a fight.

 

The point is, Sea Harriers proved, pretty decisively the can beat other fighter jets.

 

Then they actually beat the shit out of the Argentinian Mirage's...

 

It is a fighter jet designed to do the job of defending and supporting a carrier group. And it was jolly damn good at it.

[Prowler111]

Very interesting discussion...the main problem with developing a DCS sea harrier is the fact that there is no reasonable blue vixen radar info available (prove me wrong and we'll talk)

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Kev2go]

Correct. That's why we should compare a SHAR FA2 to a 90ies Eagle.

The comparable british Fighter/Successor to the modern Golden Eagle (4.5 Gen) would be the Eurofighter Typhoon.

 

 

 

If you may want to read the links I provided, they didn't just "got a few simulated kills", the numbers were, let's brag a bit here more like a "simulated beat-the-shit" out of the supposed superior platform.

Of course this doesn't mean much, given that pilot training, situation and even luck plays a great part in such engagements, but the same is true for the other side.

Just because it is an F-15 doesn't mean it has to win a fight.

 

The point is, Sea Harriers proved, pretty decisively the can beat other fighter jets.

 

Then they actually beat the shit out of the Argentinian Mirage's...

 

It is a fighter jet designed to do the job of defending and supporting a carrier group. And it was jolly damn good at it.

 

but not every nation has comparable aircraft given time period. Some nations just have better technological stuff, and sooner than the other guys do.

 

There is no foreign equivalents to the F22 or even the F35 ( despite its delays) that are in service. Even when they do its almost a case of bragging, of " hey we had this tech X years earlier than you guys", and Given than F22 has been around since 2005 thats already 12 years, which is a significant amount of time, and is the first 5th generation stealth fighter.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[shagrat]

but not every nation has comparable aircraft given tim period. Some natioms just have greater technologicla stuff.

 

There is no equivalent to the F22 or F35 that are in service.

Of course. That's why the Persian Army was defeated by the greeks, the Romans lost to the "Barbarians", the Napoleonic army beaten, Hitler's armies defeated by Russia, the US lost Vietnam.

All supposedly superior technology on paper, with no equivalent.

 

Bad luck it seems. ;)

[Kev2go]

Of course. That's why the Persian Army was defeated by the greeks, the Romans lost to the "Barbarians", the Napoleonic army beaten, Hitler's armies defeated by Russia, the US lost Vietnam.

All supposedly superior technology on paper, with no equivalent.

 

Bad luck it seems. ;)

 

Hitler was defeated with the help of western allies not by Russia alone..... Russia had the help of allies giving them Lend lease, and certainly didnt help that Germanies industry was bombed by Western allies so they fell behind mass production, Whilst Russian, and American industry was unmolested

 

Plus i think someones forgetting that Allies opened 3 different fronts, in Africa to deny germany the Oil supplies, italy, and then France which eventually close on Germany from the West, which made Russias job easier.

 

In this case your comparisons isnt relavent to the US given that, that even without Cutting edge F22 or F35, thier AF size is still greater then any other nations, and other factors come into play even outside Logistics or Tactics.

 

Also your others examples are a gross oversimplification of what happened, and Quite seen in hindsight.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[iLOVEwindmills]

Please just admit the FA2 was not an A10 with amraams on it so we can move on with our lives.

[Robert31178]

Of course. That's why the Persian Army was defeated by the greeks, the Romans lost to the "Barbarians", the Napoleonic army beaten, Hitler's armies defeated by Russia, the US lost Vietnam.

All supposedly superior technology on paper, with no equivalent.

 

Bad luck it seems. ;)

 

Whoa there.....I hate to be this guy, but the US politicians lost Vietnam. I feel it is clear to make that distinction because a score of 58,000-ish vs around a million is hardly a loss. It sucks that any lives had to be wasted there at all, but man vs man we whipped that ass while fighting a losing battle politically.

 

"At no point in history has a man ever been asked to hand the enemy his ass on a platter, then snatch it away at the last second and hit him over the head with it." How fitting, but a lot more heads were hit than asses taken away.......

[shagrat]

Hitler was defeated by allies not by Russia alone..... Russia had the help of allies givign them Lend lease, and certianly didnt help that Germanies industry was bombed by Western allies so they fell behind mass production,

 

Plus i think someones forgetting that Allies opened 3 different fronts, in Africa to deny germany the Oil, italy, and then France which made Russias job easier.

 

In this case your comparisons isnt relavent to the US given that, that even without F22 or F35, thier AF size is still greater then any other nations.

 

Also your others examples are a gross oversimplification of what happened, and Quite seen in hindsight.

Size doesn't always matter... ;)

 

The majority of the eastern armies weren't brought down by the russian army, eather. They were defeated by the environment and bad strategy (overstretched, worn down with too long supply lines).

Anyway history proves in lots of conflicts, the immediate effect of "superior" technology, didn't win the war.

 

Just look at the world today...

 

Again, it isn't about todays 5th and 6th Gen. fighter jets.

Or who has the longest... err, technologically superior weapons. It was about the DCS environment, more 80ies / 90ies and a place the SHAR or SHAR FA2 would perfectly fit in.

I would love Razbam to may add a SHAR later on. That's all.

[Kev2go]

Please just admit the FA2 was not an A10 with amraams on it so we can move on with our lives.

 

I never said that, i only said that A10 would simply have better Self defense if it had search radar plus AMRAMS.

 

But its not really nessary given that the A10 is a CAS platform and its not supposed be operating in contested airspace anyhow. Besides considering how the AF wants to kill the A10, in favour of spreading its duties among the F35 and other existing platforms i doubt A10 would ever really get any such upgrades, let alone any further A/G improvements. Du to funding cuts even the Suite 9 updates are no longer going to be applied.

 

 

 

Sorry, I mentioned Vietnam, there are enough other conflicts that had similar outcomes.

 

 

 

and yet there are equally plenty of examples were superior Technology ( and/ or larger Force of military) dictated a victorious outcome.

 

Take the Zulu war for example how a firearms were a huge force multiplier against foes that did not have them. Smaller continent of British soldiers with breech loading rifles, artillery, Field Guns and Machine guns were able to beat larger superior #'s of Zulu warriors armed with nothing but spears, and bows. proof that superior technology behaves as a force multiplier on its own.

 

or the battle of Omdurmn which ended in complete British & Egyptian victory agaisnt the Sudan, over much larger force.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Kev2go