Fate of american aircraft in LockOn 1.1 ?

GGTharos · December 18, 2004

I'm stilla little worried, but a I've said repeatedly..ED has always listened ... so I'm always hopeful :)

Starlight · December 18, 2004

The Harrier is by McDonnel Douglas
... who do you think invented the Harrier ... the US attempts at VSTOL a/c were complete failures, worse than the Soviet Forger!!
James

The Britons invented the Harrier (and the Kestrel V/STOL prototype), but the current Harrier II is made by McDonnel Douglas. If you have doubts, read any aviation book and you will find "McDonnel Douglas AV-8B Harrier"

Now this is an extract from "Modern Air Combat" written by Bill Gunston (who is a Briton): << Until 1975 it had seemed obvious that further development of the Harrier would be either British or a 50/50 partnership with the USA, but unfortunately in that year the British government said there was "not enough common ground" for collaboration. The inevitable result is that the Harrier II is a US programme, but because of its purchase for the RAF, the UK has a share (40% in US/UK aircraft, 25% in sales to other countries) >>

It's clear that the Harrier II IS a US aircraft purchased by UK. This does not deny the fact that the original Harrier was made by UK. But now things are different. Since in this thread we were talkin' about companies and their rights over aircraft, the Harrier currently being flown all over the world is the Harrier II by McDonnel Douglas - a US company. That's all.

December 19, 2004

pfffffft :axe: I still have hopes to see these planes as flyables:

A-7 Corsair II

F-5E Tiger II

F-104 Starfighter

F-106 Delta Dart

JA-37D Viggen

MiG-21 Fishbed

MiG-25 Foxbat (too bad the -31 is a two-seater)

MiG-29M Fulcrum

Mirage 2000-5

May the aircraft manufactors go lick a nut.

Kula66 · December 19, 2004

[the Harrier currently being flown all over the world is the Harrier II by McDonnel Douglas - a US company. That's all.

I agree with your general comment, that the majority currently flying are US, but not completely true ... other non-US Harriers are flying ... the ultimate Harrier, the Sea Harrier FSR 2 - with AMRAAMs ... soon to be ditched by our looney MOD!!! And I think the Indian Harriers are of British origin ...

James

Drakkhen · December 19, 2004

Yeah, Harrier is native Brit :D

The original idea comes from a french inventor. He tried to sell his idea to Breguet but it was (stupidly :? ) rejected as an utopic concept. So, disappointed, he crossed the Channel and tried with BAe who accepted it. The french constructors then tried to make some VTOL aircrafts (like Gerfault) but they were all too unstable to be used further than as simple prototypes.

Years later, Yak developped the 38 Forger, then the US bought parts of brit rights to make the AV-8B... but the Harrier is formerly british, on a french idea.

French constructors are too suspicious with "new ideas" to take profit of them, quite like with the "monospace" vehicles inventor who had to try three constructors before one (Renault) accepted and did fortune with it, the "Espace".

Openminded, that's the point.

Edit: SeaHarriers were massively and successfully used during Falklands conflict against american/french warfare (Skyhawks, Daggers, Mirages, Etendards,Pumas,...), I guess that's from this point the US started to look at the brit VTOL aircraft.

Starlight · December 19, 2004

Yeah, Harrier is native Brit :D
The original idea comes from a french inventor. He tried to sell his idea to Breguet but it was (stupidly :? ) rejected as an utopic concept.

The V/STOL concept had been long sought by many countries between late '40s and 70s, but no aircraft was good enough to go beyond the early prototype phase, at least before the Kestrel (which was the Harrier concept prototype). So it's not very easy to say "the French invented the idea of the Harrier or the V/Stol concept", because aircraft often involve many technologies which come from different sources. Another example could be that of the stealth aircraft. Early figures about radar reflection were from a Russian scientist, but without US supercomputers of the 70s and the brains of the folks at the Skunk Works there would hardly be a stealth fighter today.

Edit: SeaHarriers were massively and successfully used during Falklands conflict against american/french warfare (Skyhawks, Daggers, Mirages, Etendards,Pumas,...), I guess that's from this point the US started to look at the brit VTOL aircraft.

Sea Harriers were aircraft from the 80s (they just entered service before the War) Mirages, Daggers and Skyhawk were aircraft of 20-30 years before! You really can't make such a comparison. The US became interested in the Harrier in 1970 and the first AV-8A for the USMC arrived in 1971. The development of the Harrier II (the AV-8B) by McDonnel Douglas started in the mid 70s. So the US interest for a working V/STOL solution is much earlier than the Falkland conflict.

The Harrier perfomed well in the Falklands, but Argentine did not own a sophisticated IAD system nor an efficient SAM "umbrella" and not even a first-line interceptor force. Later conflicts (like Gulf War of 1991) revealed many weak points of the Harrier (such as a high loss rate due to failures and SAM vulnerability, especially small IR SAMs).

Instead the Harrier's strong point could have been appreciated in the case of an all-out war, when Western airfield would have likely been knocked out by Warsaw Pact forces and so the Harrier could have used its ability to operate from "dispersed" locations (at least until logistics could keep the pace with operations....)

Another advantage of the Harrier is the ability to use VIFF (Vectoring in forward flight) maneuvers, which proved very useful in knife-range air combat.

But I don't think we could see the Harrier in Lock On, even as an AI aircraft, because building from scratch a flight model with VIFF support would probably be as hard as building a working/flyable multirole as the F-18 with its full avionics array.

Drakkhen · December 19, 2004

without US supercomputers of the 70s and the brains of the folks at the Skunk Works there would hardly be a stealth fighter today.

Funny to see that most airframes we can see today are all copies of german paper prototypes from the WWII... even the (top view only) shape of the F-117 looks like a german draw of late 44 (send you a pic as soon as I find a scanner).

Based on Blohm und Voss Ae603

Edit: Have a look here, you'll "recognize" some present aircraft designs... though they have only a small number of the known draws.

Kula66 · December 19, 2004

Another advantage of the Harrier is the ability to use VIFF (Vectoring in forward flight) maneuvers' date=' which proved very useful in knife-range air combat.[/quote']

I've heard this quoted often, but I think in RL a/a its a not used ... too much loss of energy, even in such a small high t/w a/c ... certainly I can't remember it being mention in the few SHAR books I've read - Ward's book is excellent btw.

As for vulnerability, how many have been lost to IR SAMs? I know the position of the hot nozzles under the wing means missile tend to home on the center of the a/c - rather than the tail. Given its role (I'm talking about the GRs/AV-8s), low-level A2G, has its loss rate been higher than F-18s? or Mig-27?

James

DAZnBLAST · December 19, 2004

The Harrier is by McDonnel Douglas
... who do you think invented the Harrier ... the US attempts at VSTOL a/c were complete failures, worse than the Soviet Forger!!
James

The Britons invented the Harrier (and the Kestrel V/STOL prototype), but the current Harrier II is made by McDonnel Douglas. If you have doubts, read any aviation book and you will find "McDonnel Douglas AV-8B Harrier"

Now this is an extract from "Modern Air Combat" written by Bill Gunston (who is a Briton): << Until 1975 it had seemed obvious that further development of the Harrier would be either British or a 50/50 partnership with the USA, but unfortunately in that year the British government said there was "not enough common ground" for collaboration. The inevitable result is that the Harrier II is a US programme, but because of its purchase for the RAF, the UK has a share (40% in US/UK aircraft, 25% in sales to other countries) >>

It's clear that the Harrier II IS a US aircraft purchased by UK. This does not deny the fact that the original Harrier was made by UK. But now things are different. Since in this thread we were talkin' about companies and their rights over aircraft, the Harrier currently being flown all over the world is the Harrier II by McDonnel Douglas - a US company. That's all.

Yup, the Brits did invent the Kestral/Harrier and yes the US Harrier is produced by McDonald Douglas - same as the US invented the AH64 Longbow Apache, but they are being produced by Westland for the UK Army Air Corps (cause my friend works @ Westland) :wink:

Starlight · December 19, 2004

I've heard this quoted often, but I think in RL a/a its a not used ... too much loss of energy, even in such a small high t/w a/c ... certainly I can't remember it being mention in the few SHAR books I've read - Ward's book is excellent btw.

I've read about the use of VIFF maneuvers in a joint exercise held many years ago in the Indian Ocean by the Royal Navy and the US Navy. Tomcats had a hard time to "shoot down" Harriers in mock air combat. Ok, they were flying old underpowered F-14As, but at knife range the VIFF can make some difference, I think.

I also read in some papers that VIFF was used against Argentine fighters in the Falklands, but I'm not sure of that.

As for vulnerability, how many have been lost to IR SAMs? I know the position of the hot nozzles under the wing means missile tend to home on the center of the a/c - rather than the tail. Given its role (I'm talking about the GRs/AV-8s), low-level A2G, has its loss rate been higher than F-18s? or Mig-27?
James

The problem here is that the Harrier is usually going to operate very close to the FLOT, performing CAS or BAI. In that environment it's quite exposed to small arms fire, as well as Manpads. There seemed to be two major shortcomings in the Harrier II: the first one is that the airframe is not very damage-tolerant, like many other aircraft of the same size (Hornet, Falcon...); the second one is that the location of the exhaust nozzles seem to attract IR SAMs quite well. And, since the hot parts of the Harrier are placed right in the middle of the airframe, an IR-homing missile launched against a Harrier is much more likely to cause critical damage to the airframe itself. In other aircraft IR-homers usually fly towards their tailpipe, and so they're more likely to be spoofed with decoys or to achieve achieve a non-direct (proximity) hit instead of a direct one.

The risk of manpads is very common for aircraft operating in that role, and this is why many CAS aircraft have one-of-a-kind designs or just some "field modifications": the Israeli A-4N Skyhawk has a much longer exhaust nozzle (to "suppress" IR signature). The A-10 has widely spaced engines. The Su-25 has an armored plate between the engines (and both A-10 and Su-25 have a huge load of flares) .

The Harrier lacks a feature to reduce vulnerability, and when compared to other mud-movers such as Hornets and Falcons, it has the further disadvantage of being quite slower. And many fighter pilots just say "speed is life"...

Kula66 · December 19, 2004

Yes, but is its loss rate any higher than the F-18/Mig-27/F-16?

James

Drakkhen · December 19, 2004

I also read in some papers that VIFF was used against Argentine fighters in the Falklands, but I'm not sure of that.

I read about an Argentine puma chopper "blown down" by a VIFFing SeaHarrier. I doubt a pilot would have taken such risks instead of simply shooting it down but... why not? :?

Starlight · December 19, 2004

Yes, but is its loss rate any higher than the F-18/Mig-27/F-16?

James

I don't have precise data about that. But, if we talk about the Gulf War, they did completely different missions. The F-16/18s were used as bomb-trucks, and were also sent over Baghdad in broad daylight, while the Harriers were loitering in generally safer areas and were also not used as much as the F-16/18s.

GGTharos · December 19, 2004

As for the whole Copyright Issue thing, it seems that it stems from putting the company name on the box, ie. 'McDonnel Douglas F-15C Eagle' is something they can sue you for, while 'F-15C Eagle' is not. So I hear. IANAL.

SwingKid · December 19, 2004

An apparently well-informed discussion:

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=526c07027f6b2a492680753e8011dcac&threadid=13370

-SK

Starlight · December 19, 2004

As for the whole Copyright Issue thing, it seems that it stems from putting the company name on the box, ie. 'McDonnel Douglas F-15C Eagle' is something they can sue you for, while 'F-15C Eagle' is not. So I hear. IANAL.

I hope so.... but I don't understand why companies and associations have to worry about computer games. Copyright for real players on sport games, copyrights on world championships for racing games, copyrights and restrictions on other racing games, copyrights for flight simulations. Why? Just money?

I remember that on the car racing game for PS2, cars could not be damaged after crashes because some companies didn't want to see their cars "discredited".... :)

If we continue in this way of thinking, sooner than later we'll have aerospace companies worry about flight sims, because an Air Force could be influenced by the performance shown by an aircraft in a computer game. That's nonsense!

If that thing about the F-104 is true, it's another nonsense.... The F-104 is an aircraft which has first flown 50 years ago!!!! Do they want to sell it again? Are they worried that an F-104 against a Su-27 can lose and so Lockheed can be discredited? C'mon guys!!!

My humble opinion is that games are artworks, made by artists. The games are representations of the real world (the definition of "simulation" is a very similar one) and one person can be free to represent what he/she wants. If I write a book with a story worked around a Formula1 pilot, I don't have to pay any copyright to the FIA, Ecclestone or any one there. Same thing should hold true for a computer game that does not want to be an official endorser, but just wants to describe something that exists in the real world.

Then, when talking about the computer games, did you notice that many games avoid copyright restrictions by using stupid names? But the games are fully editable so after 5 minutes you have the game with the correct names? Isn't that a stupid method of making things right?

I really hope that copyright issues won't bother the already unstable flight sim market. Companies don't have much money to make here, and it is already very hard for us to have some decent flight sims here.

I'm scared that in a near future we will have some sims with the FF-151 Eggle or the CY-270 Flinker. That would definitely be disgusting!

S77th-GOYA · December 19, 2004

Which companies are making a stink? Is it Grumman and Pratt & Whitney? And are they only threatening Oleg? Or has WoV been served?

uhoh7 · December 19, 2004

Here is what is happening

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=526c07027f6b2a492680753e8011dcac&threadid=13370

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=002323

sickboy · December 19, 2004

why do i feel betrayed?

they r looking to shaft one of the smallest community that uses computers for recreation.

my heart goes out to oleg/maddox. UBI has done what hte do best......

ie scr*w up!!

this sucks...bigtime!!!

SUBS17 · December 20, 2004

Other than peoples coments, I still do not see any solid evidence that this has happened. If this is the case then we'll just have to add them ourselves in a way that bypasses the red tape. When I say we I mean the flight sim community.eg that aircraft does not feature in the latest release, so just copy it from the first release back in. All the programmers have to do is create the ability for it to be fitted back in there.eg in the next patch

bflagg · December 20, 2004

This is just another example of Companies destroying the spirit of the law of which is was made for , by using the letter of the law against itself.

Just greed. Pure and simple.

britgliderpilot · December 21, 2004

Yup, the Brits did invent the Kestral/Harrier and yes the US Harrier is produced by McDonald Douglas - same as the US invented the AH64 Longbow Apache, but they are being produced by Westland for the UK Army Air Corps (cause my friend works @ Westland) :wink:

It gets more complicated with the Harrier II - really.

The original Harrier was certainly British.

However, the Harrier II program was kicked off by the Americans . . . . all we can really claim is a joint program.

The Harrier II isn't something that is produced under licence from another company - it is a project that was developed by two companies . . . and IIRC, the Americans did take the lion's share of the cost on that.

They couldn't have done it without the British Harrier as a starting point, for sure . . . . but I think we're basically forced to admit that the developments on the Harrier II are more American than British.

Some of the developments of the Harrier II are a bit daft, though - the latest Sea Harriers, developed from the original Harrier, were the only ones to carry the AMRAAM missile . . . . none of the new Harriers will be outfitted to carry it. All that money spent to develop a viable fleet defence aircraft . . . and we scrap it. Oh well done, chaps . . . .

britgliderpilot · December 21, 2004

And I just can't believe that an aircraft manufacturer is anal enough to prevent someone using one of their aircraft in a flight sim.

Dues on a trademark are all well and good up to a point - but denying use of an aircraft half of a century old for entertainment purposes is just bastardworthy.

olaleier · December 21, 2004

Posted as paraphrase on another forum:

It's about trademark and how in the US if you do not defend your trademark against ALL infringments than you lose exclusive rights to said trademark.

Designer owns trademark, licensed second sources have no claim.

This is old news, it's trademark law 101 in the US, and others have been down this path with Lockheed, with the train companies, with John Deere etc. Oleg and UBI were STUPID to let this get in the way.

I disagree with the italized part, I have no problem putting the entire blame on a single species:

The Carnivorous Industrialized Lawyer (iudex machinae horribilis)

Sign In

Fate of american aircraft in LockOn 1.1 ?

Recommended Posts

GGTharos

Starlight

Guest DeathAngelBR

Kula66

Drakkhen

Starlight

Drakkhen

Kula66

DAZnBLAST

Starlight

Kula66

Drakkhen

Starlight

GGTharos

SwingKid

Starlight

S77th-GOYA

uhoh7

sickboy

SUBS17

bflagg

britgliderpilot

britgliderpilot

olaleier

Recently Browsing 0 members