AV-8B Harrier II Plus Pictures

[Vault]

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.

 

http://www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm mind explaining how they got to within the killzone of a SRIRM if the Dagger pilots were not up for the fight?.. or did they just fly straight at the Harriers in a suicidial type of manner?. At anytime the supersonic Dagger pilots could out accelerate and out pace the sub sonic Harrier but they didn't, why? because they were enaged with them in A2A combat that's why, the dagger pilots even flew down from high altitude to engage the Harriers.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Vault

[MBot]

http://www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm

 

That list doesn't support your statement that all Daggers killed were engaging Sea Harriers in air combat.

[Vault]

OK let me get this right MBot you're saying that all those Dagger's and Mirages that were shot down in that list by AIM-9L suicidally flew straight at the Harriers to within SRIRM carrying bombs only?.

[MBot]

or did they just fly straight at the Harriers in a suicidial type of manner?

 

Basicaly yes, although they certainly weren't sucicidal. They were on bombing runs against ships and were always low on fuel, so they prefered to accelerate away and return the next day for more bombing. On many occasions accelerating away was succesful, but sometimes they were killed while doing so. If you have read about those engagements as you say, then you must know that.

 

supersonic Dagger

 

The Dagger in the Falklands conflict was not a supersonic fighter. Flying supersonic meant unsing the afterburner and using the afterburner meant they wouldn't make it back. Simply as that. Even without afterburner, having enough fuel to return was always a concern for the Mirage and Dagger pilots (the A-4 could refuel in the air).

 

the dagger pilots even flew down from high altitude to engage the Harriers.

 

They flew down to bomb ships.

 

 

With the execption of the one cannon attack, I do not know a single instance after 1st May that a Dagger pilot was trying to attack a Sea Harrier. If you know one, then please let me know.

[MBot]

OK let me get this right MBot you're saying that all those Dagger's and Mirages that were shot down in that list by AIM-9L suicidally flew straight at the Harriers to within SRIRM carrying bombs only?.

 

They did not suicidaly fly at the Sea Harriers, because after 1st May they didn't engage them at all. They were intercepted and shot down when approaching/departing the target, which were ships. The Argentines where trying to avoid Sea Harriers either by vectoring the strike aircraft around them using radar controllers on the island, or decoy flights (often Mirage III) to draw the CAP away. Sometimes this didn't work out and the strike aircraft were intercepted, then they dropped bombs (if they still got them) and tried to get away. Sometimes it was too late and some where cought. That is how the majority of Sea Harrier kills happened.

[Vault]

So when they were caught and firmly in the Harriers WEZ would you not agree that the Dagger and Mirage pilots would of fought for their lives considering that most engagements proved fatal for the Argy pilot or do you think they just flew on ignoring the Harriers?.

[topol-m]

If the fact that the argentinian fighters weren`t armed with AA missiles is true than these fights are not to be considered as a standard for Harrier`s air-to-air performance. In a situation like this a single harrier could shoot down with missiles 2 EF-2000s, would that prove it`s good in AA? Nope it only proves that missiles are better than gun. The harrier remains the same ground attack aircraft with limited air-to-air capabilities.

[Vault]

The Mirage's were armed with Matra R-530 SRIRM. Dagger's were armed with AAM but I'm not sure which type.

 

http://www.mw.ua/3000/3150/32700/

Edited January 20, 2010 by Vault

[MBot]

So when they were caught and firmly in the Harriers WEZ would you not agree that the Dagger and Mirage pilots would of fought for their lives considering that most engagements proved fatal for the Argy pilot or do you think they just flew on ignoring the Harriers?.

 

Like I said, they would drop stores, open throttle try to pull away. Which they could do on many occasions with their faster jets.

 

Why didn't they turn around and fight? I think there are 3 reasons:

 

-While the Argentine pilots were excellent aviators, they missed the air-air training how to provide mutual support in a flight.

-They were always low on fuel. Any engagement posed the risk to not make it back to the base, loosing the jet and having a swim in a very unfriendly South Atlantic.

-They had orders to break contact with Sea Harrier in order to preserve their jets to attack the British fleet another day. Whether in the end this was a sound strategy is another question...

 

 

The Daggers carried Israeli Shafrir AAM. A number of Mirage III could also carry R-550.

Edited January 20, 2010 by MBot

[Vault]

MBot they would attack from great height at supersonic speeds diving on Harrier pilots at low altitude, they even got first AAM shot off, I think they knew a thing or two about A2A combat, afterall why would you fly in a fighter and not be trained in A2A ACM?.

 

Fifteen minutes after the ships had left, the main Task Force came under attack for the first time, from the air. Two French-built Dassault Mirage IIIs were homing in on us from a hundred and thirty miles out to the west. We had two Harriers at fifteen thousand feet over Port Stanley, but the incoming raiders were higher and they dived towards the two British naval pilots, firing one radar-homing Matra missile from four miles away, and another from two.

The Harrier pilots, at a serious disadvantage, took evasive action and the missiles passed close by. The two pilots were also treated to a first-hand view of just how swiftly the Argentinian Mirage pilots could make their getaway, flying at supersonic speed. This particular fracas had, in addition, a side issue which was somewhat tiresome, in that one of the pilots reported that the second Mirage was an Etendard, and that when it fired off a missile, which was immediately reported to be an Exocet, it caused some amazingly fast action by the British ships, swinging their sterns to the threat and firing off chaff in abundance. A simple enough error, but with expensive consequences.

Nonetheless that had been the very first 'dog fight' of the war, and although it had ended indecisively, the incident had apparently shown us the general tactic the Mirage pilots intended to use against the Harriers. It looked as though they planned to patrol at high altitude in order to conserve fuel, using their height and superior speed to choose their moment to attack and subsequently get away. They continued to fly all afternoon, always retaining their advantage of height, but apparently reluctant actually to attack.

http://www.mw.ua/3000/3150/32700/
Edited January 20, 2010 by Vault

[MBot]

This action was on 1st May. As I said multiple times the Argentines didn't challenge the British air superiority ever again -after- 1st May. The Mirage III pilots, which obviously had some A2A training, didn't play any more role in the air war after the 1st day.

 

Regarding how good the A2A training of the Mirage pilots was is questionable. They fired R-530 missiles without solid lock. Read your quote, they fired R-530 radar guided missiles in a look down/shoot down situation, with Mirage III that isn't capable to do so. They also fired R-550s (a rear aspect missile) from a frontal aspect. None of their missiles they fired on 1st May guided, the all went ballistic. In their only deciding engagement with Sea Harriers they were flying a very unfavorable welded-wing formation, while the SHAR were flying a combat spread. It cost them both aircraft.

 

 

If you want a good presentation of Argentinan air action, I suggest to read the FAA website with a translator. Gives a pretty good overview. Have a look at the Dagger actions on May 21, 23 and 24.

[L4key]

Facts as I see them thus far from this debate -

 

1. Early engagements went sufficiently well against the Argentinians to change their tactics - had it failed in this and been the dog of a fighter that it should be as A2G platform then as Nigel Ward (indeed, excellent book) said, the ability to protect the fleet would have been over-run fairly quickly. This could be considered a failure on behalf of the Argentinians, true, but to deny the Harrier recognition entirely in this respect here is unfair.

 

2. It did perform better 'than expected' against air superiority fighters, I have read this twice in different places.

 

3. It would get whooped 9 times out of 10 by modern fighters, obviously.

 

4. It's not particularly 'beautiful' in a conventional way, but holds appeal more as a deisgn classic.

 

But two points thus far missed - When was the 'Kestrel' first tested - 1960? My bet is then, and up to the 70's, it could have been a very comparable A2A jet. I might be wrong on this but I'm sure I read that it's use of vectored thrust allowed even better performance and unmatched manouvres in VR confrontations...

 

Anyway, can we not agree that for a primarily tasked ground attack airframe (and the only option A2A for the RN in '82) the Harrier was 'surprisingly' decent in the A2A role?

[IvanK]

Actually I don't think the Argentines ever fired an R530 in the Falklands war. I know there are reports of this but it was never verified. There is I believe only 1 reported case, and in fact I believe turned out to be a Jettisoned 374gall tank. There are verified accounts of Shaffirs being fired head on. R530 employment was not an easy thing to do especially head on in a Fighter v fighter engagement. The process of getting the lock cancelling sight orders and waiting for the missile to synch with the radar all took time. Coupled with some pretty poor manoeuvre capability using the R530 in a dynamic Air to Air engagement is problematic to say the least. The RN pilots were intimately aware of these limitations (they had commonwealth buddies who used both the R530 and Mirage III and spoke the same language :)

 

The Harriers success in the Falklands in the Air to Air role can be put down to 4 things.

 

1. They were there (RN was fortunate indeed it still had Invincible and Hermes)

2. They had the AIM9L (no head on shots but a super reliable missile more so than the AIM9D/G they sailed to war with)

3. The Brit pilots were well trained.

4. The Argentines were operating at a extreme range.

 

As to the debate as to how good the Mirage III v the Sea Harrier FRS1 is. Well I speak from the point of view of a then Current Mirage III pilot who around a year after the Falklands war had the opportunity to do some some DACT against the vaunted Sea Harrier.

 

In these engagements both types were operating at reasonable ranges from their respective bases so Fuel considerations were a minimum, Both sides had good GCI to enter the engagements. Sea Harriers were running 2 x Aim9L 2x100g tanks, 2 x 30mm ADEN. Mirages were running 2X R550 MKI, 2 x 110g tanks, 2 x 30mm Defa. So in terms of fight entry things were about as fair as they could be. Of course no real shots were made but the RN found a very differrent outcome when tangling with these Mirages being flown by equally experienced crews to themselves and able to concentrate on the job in hand and not the prospect of a 400nm bug out over the South Atlantic.

 

A serious comparison between the 2 aircraft is quite revealing. The Sea Harrier Frs1 radar was only marginally superior to the Cyrano IIB ... this advantage being offset by the Sea Harriers truly humongous radar signature especially in the forward quarter. Harrier turn performance both instantaneous and (more so sustained) is pretty marginal compared to a Mirage III. VIFFING though much vaunted is hardly used in a real engagement. We got to see it in some academic comparison set ups but none of us got to see it in the DACT engagements. VIFF is impressive but the huge energy loss puts the Sea Harrier an a perilous position as its poor turn performance is now even worse since he has donated all his precious IAS to the Energy god.. a fact well known to the Harrier pilots. There is another VIFF related thing the RN guys called "nozziling". This was used when trapped in lag (common for a relatively poor turning aeroplane). The idea was to blip the nozzles a small amount with the aim of getting just a little more nose authority with the hope of a possible a Missile lock. In these situations only 2 or so nozziling attempts could be made as the performance loss associated with it then affected normal turn capability (i.e. aerodynamic) that the end result was you would be worse off.

 

The R550 v Aim9L front sector capability was the real issue we had to deal with. Defeating the AIM9L on the initial merge wasnt to much of a problem (not going to say how here), and once the fight started the AIM9L Sea Harrier was at a distinct disadvantage versus an aeroplane that could turn as well (in fact better) that was equipped with a DF missile with a min range performance inside the turn like no other of its generation. (so good the Missile and gun envelopes overlap even at high G and Angle off). Couple that with the R550s auto acquisition boundary's (significantly better than the AIM9L/Sea Harrier combination at the time) and post merge you have a really lethal combination in the Mirage III/R550. Bug out potential for the Sea Harrier was extremely restricted by its poor speed capability .. realistically 600Knots v 730Knots.

 

The result of these engagements though peacetime training were the exact opposite of what happened in the South Atlantic 12months or so earlier. Over the years the Sea Harrier developed this Aura of being a superb Air to Air machine, when the truth is it was really pretty average. That is not to denigrate the aircraft or its pilots record in the Falklands war They had a job to do and did it supremely well.

 

Edited January 21, 2010 by IvanK

[mikoyan]

What I read and saw on magazine articles and several Argentinean documentaries was that the Argentineans pilots were very brave but lacked equipment and better training.

 

They did several attacks on ships using bombs but most of then failed to explode because they were not designed to be used against ships, they also blain the bomb fuses, because they couldn't get them to explode at the right moment.

The Argentineans also had to fly a lot to get to the fighting zone, so they couldn't take chances fighting the harriers. The mirages were better at altitude, but the harrier had better chances staying low. the harrier AIM9 was all aspect but the British never got the chance or never tried to use it on head on engagements. The Argentineans also had trouble using their A-4 at decisive moments. The Argentinean Navy couldn't launch their A4 from their carrier because they had to load lots of fuel and the weather conditions didn't provide enough wind to help get their A4 out of the deck.

 

The cool thing about the Documentaries (spanish History Channel) is that they give you both sides of the story.

On the documentary the British sailors admitted that in some of the Argentineans attacks they were very surprised on how brave and bold the Argentines fought.

On the magazine I have about the Malvinas or Falklands War the british pilots say that the enemy was brave but didn't have the training to use all the advantages of the mirage III, but they also comment that at the beginning of the war they were concern that at the high rate of engagements was going to create casualties for the British, casualties that they could not afford for too long.

[MBot]

Thanks for your very interesting insights IvanK, it's always a pleasure! Now how you defeated the AIM-9L at the initial merge would be truly interesting to know... :)

[L4key]

What I read and saw on magazine articles and several Argentinean documentaries was that the Argentineans pilots were very brave but lacked equipment and better training.

 

They did several attacks on ships using bombs but most of then failed to explode because they were not designed to be used against ships, they also blain the bomb fuses, because they couldn't get them to explode at the right moment.

The Argentineans also had to fly a lot to get to the fighting zone, so they couldn't take chances fighting the harriers. The mirages were better at altitude, but the harrier had better chances staying low. the harrier AIM9 was all aspect but the British never got the chance or never tried to use it on head on engagements. The Argentineans also had trouble using their A-4 at decisive moments. The Argentinean Navy couldn't launch their A4 from their carrier because they had to load lots of fuel and the weather conditions didn't provide enough wind to help get their A4 out of the deck.

 

The cool thing about the Documentaries (spanish History Channel) is that they give you both sides of the story.

On the documentary the British sailors admitted that in some of the Argentineans attacks they were very surprised on how brave and bold the Argentines fought.

On the magazine I have about the Malvinas or Falklands War the british pilots say that the enemy was brave but didn't have the training to use all the advantages of the mirage III, but they also comment that at the beginning of the war they were concern that at the high rate of engagements was going to create casualties for the British, casualties that they could not afford for too long.

 

 

As opposed to the one sided English langauge ones? :huh:

 

I can assure you, most UK media to do with the subject ever since takes a very 'balanced' view, in most cases it is criticisied for being too 'left wing' and anti Thatcher/war etc so sorry but I don't buy that you are in some way more enlightened because of your documentaries. Is it not just as possible that Spanish language documentaries have agendas? - I don't neccessarily think they do by the way, but I can't see how you can imply critisim to English ones on the same basis.

 

This is also borne out by the fact that most of your points in relation to the engagements have already been accepted as accurate in this debate by both, even us who only have the benefit of propaganda ;)

[topol-m]

In this "AV-8B Harrier II Plus Pictures" thread there is exactly 1 page with pictures and 6 with no pictures at all. :laugh: :doh: That`s enlightening. :P

[L4key]

In this "AV-8B Harrier II Plus Pictures" thread there is exactly 1 page with pictures and 6 with no pictures at all. :laugh: :doh: That`s enlightening. :P

 

 

You started it the whole debate by calling it ugly IIRC! :lol:

[topol-m]

Hehe I admit it ;) And I still think it is. Actually I started a whole thread with it not so long ago: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=46839 Though the discussion went from its indisputable ugliness to its "flawless" victory record and its air superiority, something I didn`t initiate. :D

[L4key]

Hehe I admit it ;) And I still think it is. Actually I started a whole thread with it not so long ago: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=46839 Though the discussion went from its indisputable ugliness to its "flawless" victory record and its air superiority, something I didn`t initiate. :D

 

 

:lol:

[MBot]

In this "AV-8B Harrier II Plus Pictures" thread there is exactly 1 page with pictures and 6 with no pictures at all. :laugh: :doh: That`s enlightening. :P

 

:)

 

[Vault]

Guys there's a good Harrier pilot interview on Dogfights:Battle for the Falklands, the interview was actually made by one of the Harrier pilots who served in the Falklands!, not by some "experts" off a forum somewhere, anyway most of the statements and "facts" on this thread are inaccurate to say the very least, infact some are really amusing lol. :D "They flew straight at them and just got unlucky", "Argy's used no AAM", and "there were no dogfights except for day one" are classics ROFL...

Edited January 26, 2010 by Vault

[MBot]

They flew straight at them and just got unlucky, Argy's used no AAM and there were no dogfights only on one day are classics ROFL...

 

Why do you keep twisting what is said here? Try to read the thread again and actually try to understand what is said.

 

As for that interview, do you have a link for it? Would love to see it.

[GGTharos]

Maybe you didn't realize, but someone above just posted his OWN guncam shot with a harrier in the pipper ...

 

But, perhaps for a better understanding of what really happened there one just need to understand a particular quote:

 

'There are only two types of planes in the air: Fighters and Targets'.

 

And anything that carries 'a pound for air to ground' is no longer a fighter, no matter how much anyone would like it to be so. You either drop the A2G stuff and become a fighter, or you're a target.

 

The fuel considerations are also quite stringent for the Argentinian pilots. They couldn't afford to get into a turning fight - their missioin was to get in low (to avoid SAM fire for one) and drop bombs on fleet ships, not to tangle with Harriers. After all, if you sink the carrier it won't matter.

 

Guys there's a good Harrier pilot interview on Dogfights:Battle for the Falklands, the interview was actually made by one of the Harrier pilots who served in the Falklands!, not by some "experts" off a forum somewhere, anyway most of the statements and "facts" on this thread are inaccurate to say the very least, infact some are really amusing lol. :D "They flew straight at them and just got unlucky", "Argy's used no AAM", and "there were no dogfights except for day one" are classics ROFL...

[Vault]

Nice quote GG but fighters became the target of what's pre-dominantly a ground mover, that's a fact, so it's a foolish quote to use in a discussion on the Falklands air war.

Look at the aerodynamic profile of the Mirage and compare them to the Harrier, it's a delta winged lightweight fighter and I'm sure I don't need to lecture you on how responsive and nimble those type of fighters are, especially at trans/sub sonic speeds, and it got pawned in a dogfight by a Harrier, that's some feat, don't get me wrong all things being equal I know that the Mirage would beat the Harrier hands down, watch the pilots interview and then read this thread it's a joke lol.