AV-8B Harrier II Plus Pictures

[Vault]

L4 the T-10 is beautiful but I can understand why some peeps don't dig the twin cockpit thing.

 

Aesthetics aside, the Harrier is an awesome weapons platform that has more than proved itself as a viable weapons platform in A2A/A2G, sure it doesn't look very aerodynamic but rumour has it that low down in the weeds where the Harrier's performance envelope is optimal combined with VIFF'ing it's a complete bastard to shoot down as many Argie pilots in dedicated A2A platforms found out to their horror.

[topol-m]

It`s AA use is more like an exception. This ugly subsonic fly can do its ground attack job well but its place is not high in the skies fighting the AA dedicated dragonflies, cause it will pretty easily be eaten for breakfast.

[Vault]

It`s AA use is more like an exception. This ugly subsonic fly can do its ground attack job well but its place is not high in the skies fighting the AA dedicated dragonflies, cause it will pretty easily be eaten for breakfast.

 

The A2A kill ratio of the Harrier in the Argie conflict was 23-0, that's 23-0 against mainly dedicated A2A platforms, considering the Harrier carries A2A missiles I fail to see the exception!, when VIFF'ing Harriers are rumoured to be surprisingly very agile at low altitude.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Vault

[L4key]

If I may refer the honouroble Mr M to the Falklands war when 20 Sea Harriers held off the entire Argentine AF, as referenced by my esteemed colleague Mr Vault. Argentine pilots nicknamed it the 'Meurte Negra' (sic) or 'Black Death'.

 

Mirage III's? Still pretty impressive. Ok, so now most 4th + generation fighters may prevail but considering the harriers apparently questionable dynamics they'd still get quite a scrap!

 

In fairness, probably a jack of all trades, master of none. The USAF at one stage said they didn't want it because they questioned it's payload - they said 'it couldn't carry a coke bottle round an airfield' or something like that!

 

Edit: beat me to it V!

[MBot]

AA use depended on version a lot. The Sea Harrier was primary an air-air platform, although of course with limited capabilty (initally it was intended to drive away Soviet martime patrol aircraft from the ASW battlegroup). Still, in the 80s the SHAR of 801st squadron proved that they could repeatetly beat the Eagles deployed in England in open combat. That doesn't mean that it was a superor platform (because it wasn't) but that it was still dangerous with a good pilot. That was also the conclusion of its good performance in the Falklands.

 

I guess the same holds true for the new AV-8B+, which is resposible for air defense on Spanish and Italian carriers.

Edited January 20, 2010 by MBot

[EtherealN]

Well, remember that the Argentine aircraft were operating at the far edge of their operational range, so they had limited freedom to maneuver. The Harriers also had the added freedom of being able to pop in and out of SAM coverage from ships, and of course better training.

 

I'm a bit uncertain about the whole thing with "mainly dedicated A2A" though. The argentine were conducting those flights against the fleet (with some success) and operated A4's and a whole host of other attack aircraft. If wikipedia holds true (I didn't have time to doublecheck it's sources) the Harriers got 11 kills on A2G aircraft, and 10 on A2A platforms. The A2A airplanes were mainly Neshers and Mirage III's - hardly top equipment at the time.

 

But they still did unexpectedly good work.

[MBot]

The A2A kill ratio of the Harrier in the Argie conflict was 23-0, that's 23-0 against mainly dedicated A2A platforms, considering the Harrier carries A2A missiles I fail to see the exception!, when VIFF'ing Harriers are rumoured to be surprisingly very agile at low altitude.

 

Well I wouldn't say it in absolutes. After the two Mirage III kills on the first day of the air war, the Argie Mirages never again engaged in air combat for the rest of the conflict (they flew a couple of decoy mission though). The Daggers only carried AAMs on the first day and engaged Sea Harriers on one occasion, after that they only flew attack missions. One Dagger later engaged a SHAR with cannons (but missed) when on an attack mission, but this was simply a good oportunity rather than searching the kill. The Skyhawks never engaged with SHAR as far as I know. The fast majority of Argentine jets where killed when they were accelerating away to safety, to return and strike another day.

 

The success of the Sea Harrier in the Falklands in my opinion is primary caused by the good training of the British pilots and the Argentine descision to avoid air combat after the first day. Even the well praised AIM-9L didn't realy have a big impact as is often implicated. All Sidewinder kills of the confluict were achieved from the rear quarter.

Edited January 20, 2010 by MBot

[topol-m]

The A2A airplanes were mainly Neshers and Mirage III's - hardly top equipment at the time.

 

That`s what I`m saying. The harrier may have been good once against A-4s, Neshers, Mig-15s, P-51s and similar aircraft, but right now it has no chance in AA combat against aircraft like - Mirage 2000, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15, Su-27/30, Mig-29 etc. etc. Well, it has a chance if the enemy is entering the fight with no missiles and the harrier has some LOL :doh:

Edited January 20, 2010 by topol-m

[MBot]

Well, remember that the Argentine aircraft were operating at the far edge of their operational range, so they had limited freedom to maneuver.

 

This is also an important factor. Mirage III and Daggers were unable to use afterburners and even then only had fuel for a couple of minutes of operations over the Falklands. If they would have been equipped with inflight refueling probes as were the Skyhawks, things might have gone very different. According the Sharkey Ward, commander of 801 NAS, the small Harrier force was so streched out that the loss of only a couple of Sea Harriers would have colapsed the air defense of the fleet.

Edited January 20, 2010 by MBot

[MBot]

That`s what I`m saying. The harrier may have been good once against A-4s, Neshers, Mig-15s, P-51s and similar aircraft, but right now it has no chance in AA combat against aircraft like - Mirage 2000, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15, Su-30, etc. etc. Well, it has a chance if the enemy is entering the fight with no missiles and the harrier has some LOL :doh:

 

Do not compare the FRS.1 Sea Harrier with the AMRAAM capable FA.2 (now retiered) and AV-8B+. While not top notch air-air fighters, they will certainly give you a run for your money.

[topol-m]

Whatever you equip them they still remain subsonic ground attack aircraft not specifically designed for air to air combat. It`s like equipping a Su-25 with R-77 and saying it`s a good interceptor :doh: I mean yes it has become a much more advanced Su-25 but you can`t expect to dominate the skies with it and shoot down F-15s like ducks :laugh:

[MBot]

Still the Harrier has a couple of advantages in air-air combat. Even if subsonic, it is actually pretty fast on the deck. It has very good acceleration at lower speed because of its great thrust-weight ratio. Compared to afterburner equiped fighters, the Harrer has better fuel economy at high thrust. It is rather small and hard to see. Like I said, with good pilots, FRS.1 Sea Harriers have repeatetly beaten USAF F-15 (which had BVR missiles) in the 80s.

 

Is it an interceptor or air superiority fighter? No. Can it hold it's own in air combat? Sure.

[Vault]

Can't blame them if I was getting served a can of whoop arse in my interceptor I'd stay well clear of them too. 23-0 speaks for itself, the reason the Argies avoided A2A was because they thought the British was going to invade the mainland so they moved all fighters north to protect argentina the other reason was because they thought the SAM's they had on the Falklands was more than up to the job of defending the airspace against the British. Word it how one wants but the fact remains the Harrier shot down capable dedicated A2A platforms.

[MBot]

Word it how one wants but the fact remains the Harrier shot down capable dedicated A2A platforms.

 

With all the love I have for the Harrier, it only shot down 1.5 dedicated A2A platforms, the rest were attack aircraft :) Still, it certainly was a stellar performance.

[Vault]

I thought the Harrier scored alot more Mirage kills than 1.5?.

[MBot]

Only two Mirage III were lost, both in one engagement on 1st May. One was shot down, the other was damaged and was then downed by friendly air defenses when trying to make an emergency landing at Stanley. Though that airframe would have been lost anyway because Stanley's runway was too short for Mirages, so one could count that as a clear Sea Harrier kill too if one wants.

 

The other "Mirage" kills were Daggers, Isreali Mirage V copies. The Daggers where used in the fighter role with missiles only on the first May (perhaps one of those was shot down too, I would have to check). After that they were exclusevly used with bombs in the attack role which is their primary mission, not having the avionics suite of the Mirage III.

 

Edit: Additionaly one Dagger in air-air configuration was shot down on 1st May, so make that 2.5 fighter kills for the Sea Harrier :)

Edited January 20, 2010 by MBot

[Vault]

Mbot here's the list of kills http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/falkgb.htm . There was alot more then 1 Dagger kill too. Still the fact remains that the Harrier shot down multiple Daggers that were engaging the Harrier in A2A combat and lost. :D

Edited January 20, 2010 by Vault

[Warbird_242]

Still the Harrier has a couple of advantages in air-air combat. Even if subsonic, it is actually pretty fast on the deck. It has very good acceleration at lower speed because of its great thrust-weight ratio. Compared to afterburner equiped fighters, the Harrer has better fuel economy at high thrust. It is rather small and hard to see. Like I said, with good pilots, FRS.1 Sea Harriers have repeatetly beaten USAF F-15 (which had BVR missiles) in the 80s.

 

Is it an interceptor or air superiority fighter? No. Can it hold it's own in air combat? Sure.

 

 

An interesting read is Sea harrier over the falklands by Sharkey Ward. It mentions first person some of the engagements listed above, and my view of it was that although the F15 could shoot down the Harrier on paper, the pilots did not have the correct tactics against well flown thrust vectoring aircraft. And in addition to above, the SHAR would not have made a bad interceptor. Although the book is biased it presents a fairly convincing side to the Tornado F3 / SHAR argument as the UK's QRA fighter. The main point was that the Tor could not go supersonic over land due to noise constraints and the harrier due to the simple systems has a much better turnaraound and scramble times

 

 

EDIT: actually, looking at that list, Nigel ward aka Sharkey wrote the book

[EtherealN]

Being a copy of something that started as an A2A platform says nothing.

 

Would an Austrian Saab 35, equipped only with cannon and bombs (since they specifically requested it be given bombing gear) count as killing an A2A bird? Especially if operating at a range where using the afterburner would mean it doesn't get home?

 

Those Daggers had less A2A kit as far as avionics and so on than the Mirage III, and that one was old already in it's tech.

[MBot]

Still the fact remains that the Harrier shot down multiple Daggers that were engaging the Harrier in A2A combat and lost. :D

 

Two Daggers were lost that were engaging Sea Harriers, so yes you are right here. One on 1st May that actually shot a missile and another one that was on a bombing run and rather accidently had a Sea Harrier in his sights (he missed with cannons and was downed second later).

 

I don't want to take away anything from the Sea Harriers good performance during the Falklands war. But the high number of kills the SHAR achieved should not be used to draw wrong conclusions. After two separate engagements on 1st May resulting in the loss of two Mirage III and one Dagger, the Argentines completely stoped to search air combat with the Sea Harrier and only once more was the Sea Harrier attacked by Argentine aircraft. The good kill ratio of the Sea Harrier came from the fact that the majority of their kills where straight flying fighter bombers.

[Vault]

Ethereal the Dagger is classified as a multirole fighter, multirole yes, but it is pre-dominantly a fighter.

[MBot]

Ethereal the Dagger is classified as a multirole fighter, multirole yes, but it is pre-dominantly a fighter.

 

However it is classified, it carried AAMs on one day of the war and bombs for the rest of it.

[Vault]

However it is classified, it carried AAMs on one day of the war and bombs for the rest of it.

 

MBot all the Daggers that were shot down were shot down whilst engaging the Harriers in A2A combat, honestly it's true I've read pilots accounts of combat over the Falklands, if they're only carrying bombs why would they engage the Harriers?, they had a critical advantage over the Harrier which is speed they could always run if they needed to but no many Dagger pilots decided to stay and fight because they simply beleived the Harrier was a turkey shoot.

[topol-m]

However it is classified, it carried AAMs on one day of the war and bombs for the rest of it.

 

LOL now I see why the Harrier has so many victories :doh:

[MBot]

MBot all the Daggers that were shot down were shot down whilst engaging the Harriers in A2A combat

 

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. I suggest the book Falklands Air War, which is a very thorough daily reconstruction of all air activities surrounding the Falklands war.