NEEDED - Second most successful jet fighter in history

[rkk01]

Only three jet fighters have an “unbeaten” combat record....

 

No 1 and No 3 are both in the game, albeit as FC3 models. 
 

If ED truly considers DCS to be the definitive jet era combat sim, then:

 

- DCS Sea Harrier needs to be in the game

 

(along with full fidelity F-15 and Su-27...)

 

Fits the late Cold War period that users are asking to be fleshed out.

 

Razbam has announced, appropriately, for South Atlantic... but puzzlingly recently added “not a priority”...!!!???

 

One of the most successful, overlooked, flexible aircraft - with a combat record to prove it

 

(ETA - I suspect stats exclude Korea....)

Edited March 10, 2021 by rkk01

[sirrah]

I'm confused, or probably missed some news.. Did Razbam stop the FRS.1 project?

 

 

[bmbpdk]

Define "Most successful".
In-service numbers, number of operators, air-to-air kills, air-to-ground-kills, kills in total, loss vs kills ratio, most variants, most diverse roles of one single variant/type/family, longest service life, most value for money, etc.
Without a clear definition, the  "most successful" phrase have no value and cannot be answered.
And if the amount of kills is the determining factor; which source are to be believed?
USAF, NATO, Russia, Janes, Aviation magazines?
And who is to determine "most successful"?
Discovery channel, History channel, some youtube "expert", wikipedia?

Your question is a very deep one, that cannot, with any value at all, be answered just as a hip shot, it takes research and clear definitions that is not affected by politics, religion, culture or "side".

Edited March 10, 2021 by bmbpdk

[Northstar98]

40 minutes ago, sirrah said:

I'm confused, or probably missed some news.. Did Razbam stop the FRS.1 project?

 

 

 

They didn't stop it AFAIK, but we'll see what happens. Personally I'm worried about the Blue Fox RADAR and the ARI.18228 RWR, both are mostly classified as far as I can tell (yes, even though they are very outdated systems, with them both being surpassed at almost every level - that's the British for you, who are notorious about everything EW, even on stuff long out of service), and even some cockpit shots of FRS.1s have the RADAR screen blanked out or even deleted.

 

And I guess the ARI.182228 can be approximated as similar in function to an APR-25 or ALR-45 that we're getting on an earlier version of the Tomcat, though I doubt RAZBAM will employ the same fidelity HB did.

 

Spoiler

There's also, the erm, other stuff, I hope they've improved but they're still a fair way to go on their existing AV-8B N/A. This has been done to death and I don't want to start anything more.

 

[rkk01]

“Most Successful” was slightly tongue in cheek, but based on A2A kills for vs A2A losses... 20 kills, no losses

 

Based on this info

 

So, according to that site, only F15, Sea Harrier and Su27 with “kills for” but “none against”...

 

Re the Razbam FRS1, the recent Falklands video included a comment that the Sea Harrier wasn’t a priority at the moment - surprising, I’d have thought it was absolutely essential for the Falklands

Edited March 10, 2021 by rkk01

[bmbpdk]

4 hours ago, rkk01 said:

“Most Successful” was slightly tongue in cheek, but based on A2A kills for vs A2A losses... 20 kills, no losses

 

Based on this info

 

So, according to that site, only F15, Sea Harrier and Su27 with “kills for” but “none against”...

 

Re the Razbam FRS1, the recent Falklands video included a comment that the Sea Harrier wasn’t a priority at the moment - surprising, I’d have thought it was absolutely essential for the Falklands

 

Tables and "Top Tens" like that are useless, the pilot, his training and tactics deployed and sometimes old fashion luck, have a much bigger impact than platform specs.
And dont forget that every single platform performance and capabilities are based on perfect scenarios, perfect weather, lift, thrust, weapons delivery envelopes and so forth.
You should read up on every single scenario that are used in that table, eg:
NATO/west never ever goes into a war if they arent massively outnumbering and outteching the enemy, they love "spamming" and NEVER goes 1-1 with the enemy, was it 500 planes that took of 17. january ´91 against a bombed out, wartorn through 11 years (counting Iran-Iraq war), international embargos and almost bankrupt country.
Oh, and read up on Operation Allied Force, that bombardment showed just how overhyped and arrogant NATO had become, which mean they failed hard at destroying serbian AD.
Weather, mountains, an enemy not playing by NATO rules and a very skilled air defence force apparently surprised NATO planners.
NATO planned for a three day air campaign, after 78 days, all they got was: United States Joint Chiefs of Staff quote: "Degraded, but functional", "...significant capability to engage with SAM´s" end of quote, book "Air defence artillery in combat 1972 to the present ISBN 1526762048.
After the war only 23 vehicles could be confirmed destroyed if i remember correct.

90/91 gulf war is overadvertised because it was the perfect scenario for the coalition, and was a "perfect storm", for the lack of a better word.
And if you read up on how Israel wages war, they rely heavily on jamming, deception and EW, which raises the odds for their forces, so its not the platform itself, its every single weapon, soldier, piece of electronic etc that makes the outcome.

No doubt that western and now Russian technology gives them an edge, but relying on it instead of "stick and rudder" abilities in the pilot, makes you very vulnerable and in the end "stupid".

If you dictate which theater, which scenario, which fight to base your "research" on, they you have dictated a biased results that in the end, have no value.
Its my believe that its impossible to find "Most successful", "Most dangerous", "Best plane/helicopter/tank/ship/cannon etc" in the world, there are so many variables that its every little bit, in each situation that makes the outcome, not a single variable.

Im sorry if this sounded like a rant or anything like that, it wasn my intention.

I can only recommend you to NOT rely or put to much weight on those stat-charts.
I can highly recommend you to buy books that are either written by the pilots themselfes or from a highly unbiased and objective sources.

Take care

Brian
 

[rkk01]

59 minutes ago, bmbpdk said:

Tables and "Top Tens" like that are useless, the pilot, his training and tactics deployed and sometimes old fashion luck, have a much bigger impact than platform specs.
And dont forget that every single platform performance and capabilities are based on perfect scenarios, perfect weather, lift, thrust, weapons delivery envelopes and so forth.
You should read up on every single scenario that are used in that table, eg:
NATO/west never ever goes into a war if they arent massively outnumbering and outteching the enemy, they love "spamming" and NEVER goes 1-1 with the enemy, was it 500 planes that took of 17. january ´91 against a bombed out, wartorn through 11 years (counting Iran-Iraq war), international embargos and almost bankrupt country.
Oh, and read up on Operation Allied Force, that bombardment showed just how overhyped and arrogant NATO had become, which mean they failed hard at destroying serbian AD.
Weather, mountains, an enemy not playing by NATO rules and a very skilled air defence force apparently surprised NATO planners.
NATO planned for a three day air campaign, after 78 days, all they got was: United States Joint Chiefs of Staff quote: "Degraded, but functional", "...significant capability to engage with SAM´s" end of quote, book "Air defence artillery in combat 1972 to the present ISBN 1526762048.
After the war only 23 vehicles could be confirmed destroyed if i remember correct.

90/91 gulf war is overadvertised because it was the perfect scenario for the coalition, and was a "perfect storm", for the lack of a better word.
And if you read up on how Israel wages war, they rely heavily on jamming, deception and EW, which raises the odds for their forces, so its not the platform itself, its every single weapon, soldier, piece of electronic etc that makes the outcome.

No doubt that western and now Russian technology gives them an edge, but relying on it instead of "stick and rudder" abilities in the pilot, makes you very vulnerable and in the end "stupid".

If you dictate which theater, which scenario, which fight to base your "research" on, they you have dictated a biased results that in the end, have no value.
Its my believe that its impossible to find "Most successful", "Most dangerous", "Best plane/helicopter/tank/ship/cannon etc" in the world, there are so many variables that its every little bit, in each situation that makes the outcome, not a single variable.

Im sorry if this sounded like a rant or anything like that, it wasn my intention.

I can only recommend you to NOT rely or put to much weight on those stat-charts.
I can highly recommend you to buy books that are either written by the pilots themselfes or from a highly unbiased and objective sources.

Take care

Brian
 

 

All of the above applies to “blue” (US / NATO, IAF etc) F14, F15, F16, F/A18 stats...

 

... but I’d argue that doesn’t actually apply in the case of the Sea Harrier.

 

The Falklands air campaign was probably one of the most finely balanced of all “recent” air campaigns.

 

Both sides were operating in poor weather and at the limits of their range / endurance, with the UK forces operating from 2 small carriers in a hostile ocean at the end of a 8000 mile logistics train...

 

Add to that, the Sea Harriers were outnumbered 10 to 1 and both the Mirage III and V were considered to be a significant A2A threat.

 

UK forces also had no AEW capability, relying on radar picket ships and submarines off the Argentinian coast - as well as the standing CAPs

 

Regarding tactics and training, the Argentine pilots showed considerable tenacity and bravery, pressing home attacks from ultra low level and with enough success to pose a really dangerous threat to the amphibious operations...

 

No, I really don’t think that the Sea Harrier’s combat record is the result of operating in an overwhelmingly coordinated and benign campaign environment

[Snappy]

Not arguing the limit-of-range part or the skill & bravery of the argentinian pilots , but systems-wise  ( HUD for example )and especially radar-capability -wise the Sea Harrier was far ahead of the mirages and A-4. Plus they had the benefit of all aspect sidewinders, which the Argentine Air Force had not ( as far as I'm aware.) and which represents a significant tactical advantage .

Still, challenging conditions for both sides , no question.

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Snappy

[bmbpdk]

3 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

 

All of the above applies to “blue” (US / NATO, IAF etc) F14, F15, F16, F/A18 stats...

 

... but I’d argue that doesn’t actually apply in the case of the Sea Harrier.

 

The Falklands air campaign was probably one of the most finely balanced of all “recent” air campaigns.

 

Both sides were operating in poor weather and at the limits of their range / endurance, with the UK forces operating from 2 small carriers in a hostile ocean at the end of a 8000 mile logistics train...

 

Add to that, the Sea Harriers were outnumbered 10 to 1 and both the Mirage III and V were considered to be a significant A2A threat.

 

UK forces also had no AEW capability, relying on radar picket ships and submarines off the Argentinian coast - as well as the standing CAPs

 

Regarding tactics and training, the Argentine pilots showed considerable tenacity and bravery, pressing home attacks from ultra low level and with enough success to pose a really dangerous threat to the amphibious operations...

 

No, I really don’t think that the Sea Harrier’s combat record is the result of operating in an overwhelmingly coordinated and benign campaign environment

The argentine army on Falklands was mostly forced conscripts, the British professional soldiers including SAS and SBS.
The UK worked closely with the US which gave them intelligence, the British, allthough not AEW, had plenty of warnings from aircraft carriers and their support.
I would bet you that any captain and crew of HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes would be offended to be called "small carriers".

No doubt that many Argentinians, army, navy and airforce where brave soldiers, but as many books says, written by the pilots and soldiers themselfes, they said that they had no choice; either go in when ordered or be courtmartialed.

The Falklands campaign was a VERY coordinated campaign between the Marines, RAF and Navy.
In war you just dont "do" something just because, you coordinate, combined arms response.

When where there a realistic threat of a Harrier being outnumbered 10 - 1?
Is that just numbers vs numbers or where there actually a scenario and place where the argentinians had literally ten times as many planes in the air as RN Harriers?

[rkk01]

AIM-9L was clearly a huge advantage...

(but the weapon system(s) are a decisive part of any fighter - F14/ Phoenix, WW2 .303 vs 50cal vs 20mm cannons)

 

Not sure that the commentary on the soldiery or wider campaign is relevant to Sea Harrier performance

 

Re RN carriers, they famously didn’t have AEW capability until the Sea King AEW was brought in to service. In terms of carrier-borne radar warning, Hermes and Invincible were kept out of air strike range, so early warning was based on the frigates and destroyers on radar picket duty.

 

And yes, I’m sure the captain and crew would not regard Hermes and Invincible as small, but with 12 and 8 Sea Harriers respectively, I think “small” probably fits the bill

 

Anyway, regardless of points to argue either way, it seems to me that the Sea Harrier is an often overlooked fighter with a combat record to put much better known aircraft to shame 

Edited March 10, 2021 by rkk01

[bmbpdk]

36 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

AIM-9L was clearly a huge advantage...

(but the weapon system(s) are a decisive part of any fighter - F14/ Phoenix, WW2 .303 vs 50cal vs 20mm cannons)

 

Not sure that the commentary on the soldiery or wider campaign is relevant to Sea Harrier performance

 

Re RN carriers, they famously didn’t have AEW capability until the Sea King AEW was brought in to service. In terms of carrier-borne radar warning, Hermes and Invincible were kept out of air strike range, so early warning was based on the frigates and destroyers on radar picket duty.

 

And yes, I’m sure the captain and crew would not regard Hermes and Invincible as small, but with 12 and 8 Sea Harriers respectively, I think “small” probably fits the bill

 

Anyway, regardless of points to argue either way, it seems to me that the Sea Harrier is an often overlooked fighter with a combat record to put much better known aircraft to shame 

 

It seems that we disagree on some points, but that is only healthy for us all.

I fully agree that he Sea Harrier is often overlooked with the more "fancy" jets getting all the credit and limelight.
Let us all hope that in the future DCS will be more diverse, ie. less know modules such as the Sea Harrier and Sea King, logistics, infrastructure will get more attention, be it from official partners or private/mods.
The Falklands map could open the door for such mods.

[Evoman]

19 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Only three jet fighters have an “unbeaten” combat record....

 

No 1 and No 3 are both in the game, albeit as FC3 models. 
 

If ED truly considers DCS to be the definitive jet era combat sim, then:

 

- DCS Sea Harrier needs to be in the game

 

(along with full fidelity F-15 and Su-27...)

 

Fits the late Cold War period that users are asking to be fleshed out.

 

Razbam has announced, appropriately, for South Atlantic... but puzzlingly recently added “not a priority”...!!!???

 

One of the most successful, overlooked, flexible aircraft - with a combat record to prove it

 

(ETA - I suspect stats exclude Korea....)

 

I had read a reply from RAZBAM on their Facebook page a few months ago stating that the AMX, EE Lightning and Sea Harrier can be expected after the F-15, Mig23 and Super Tucano.

I suggest keeping tabs on RAZBAMS FB page for the latest info.

 

When it comes to Russian aircraft there are a lot of restrictions on the newer aircraft or anything post 1970 from what it seams. ED has stated that their could be a glimmer of hope with the Mig-29A if things work out with the necessary permissions. It is what it is regarding Russian aircraft. If you don't like it then take it up with the Kremlin.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Evoman

[bies]

I would rather have Sea Harrier 1980s fighter with British HMS Hermes aircraft carrier than F-15E, but that's me.

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, bies said:

I would rather have Sea Harrier 1980s fighter with British HMS Hermes aircraft carrier than F-15E, but that's me.

 

I'd go Invincible and preferably HMS Invincible (just because it's got more air-defence capability circa 1980s-early 90s), though I'd prefer to have multiple fits.

 

For HMS Invincible:

• ~1980s - GWS.30 Sea Dart
• ~early 90s - GWS.30 + 3x Goalkeeper CIWS
• ~mid-90s and beyond - 3x Goalkeeper CIWS; GWS.30 and associated magazine and Type 909 TTR/FCR deleted.

 

As for the Harrier, I'd love any 1st generation type, preferably the FRS.1 or GR.3 circa 80s. Only problem with the former is getting its RADAR implemented accurately - it's still classified even though it was completely replaced by Blue Vixen (in the FA.2) in the very early 90s.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Northstar98

[upyr1]

On 3/10/2021 at 1:57 AM, rkk01 said:

Only three jet fighters have an “unbeaten” combat record....

 

No 1 and No 3 are both in the game, albeit as FC3 models. 
 

If ED truly considers DCS to be the definitive jet era combat sim, then:

 

- DCS Sea Harrier needs to be in the game

 

(along with full fidelity F-15 and Su-27...)

Agreed 100% on the Eagle and Flanker. My dream would be the F-15E mod will have the C as well. 

 

 

On 3/10/2021 at 1:57 AM, rkk01 said:

 

Fits the late Cold War period that users are asking to be fleshed out.

 

Razbam has announced, appropriately, for South Atlantic... but puzzlingly recently added “not a priority”...!!!???

 

One of the most successful, overlooked, flexible aircraft - with a combat record to prove it

 

(ETA - I suspect stats exclude Korea....)

 

Razban says the are working on the Sea Hairier and I hope they get something out.