AV-8B Harrier II Plus Pictures

[L4key]

Woo hoo! Go Vaulty! You tell 'em! :lol:

 

Can I not refer everyone back to http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=821330&postcount=63

 

...in a vain attempt to knock this on the head? It didn't really work last time so I'm not sure why anyone'll listen to me now but seems a good compromise as me and Vaulty want to have the SHAR's children and everyone else thinks it's a complete pudding of a fighter?

[GGTharos]

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.

 

I guess my explanation was not clear. Most of the aircraft shot down by the harriers were configured in the Air to Ground role - the Harriers may or may not have been, but an additional factor was a superior WVR weapon in most cases (The Shafrir was crap until it became the python, basically) as well as operating time. The Harrier had the advantage and convenience of being able to leave its A2G mission and attack a plane - but in most cases, AFAIK, those Harriers were in fact actively working A2A duty, meaning they were configured for and tasked with A2A combat.

 

This does make all the difference, because it isn't exactly hard to shoot down a plane that cannot use its full capabilities because engaging in A2A combat would mean it literally cannot return due to lack of fuel. This isn't LOMAC - you don't get to go 'aw darnit I'll just fight him here and get a new plane'. These guys WANTED to fly back home so, yes, they flew as straight a line as they could to their target and back from it.

 

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.

Aerodynamics don't matter squat when you are forced to fly a particular profile that has little to nothing to do with air to air combat. This has nothing to do with actual performance of aircraft in air to air combat - this is purely a situational matter - what those argentinian 'fighters' were doing was not at all compatible with air to air work. Further they had to contend with SAM pickets put up by the fleet as well.

 

PS: Yes, a bunch of the thread might be silly I guess; but it isn't as if some interesting things were not said.

Edited January 26, 2010 by GGTharos

[MBot]

I actually bothered to get out my books. Here are some quick quotes:

 

 

Air War in the Falklands 1982, 2001, Christopher Chant, p. 49:

 

"Moreover, from this day forward [1st May] the Dagger was employed as a fighter-bomber rather than pure fighter, and for the rest of the war did not operate over the Falklands Islands with air-to-air missiles. Thus in the remaining six weeks of the war British pilots were faced by many forms of danger, but not missile-armed Argentine fighters"

 

 

 

Falklands Air War, 2002,Chris Hobson, p.164:

 

"The 17 Mirage IIIEAs were the Argentine Air Force's primary air defence interceptors and should have been a threat to the Sea Harriers. However, following the disastrous combat on 1st May when two Mirage IIIEAs were lost, the aircraft were rarely seen over the Falklands except for a few decoy and escort missions."

 

"Although a reasonable fighter-bomber, especially at low-level, the Israeli-built Dagger was only intended for short-range missions and so it had a relatively poor navigational fit and no in-flight refueling capability. The restrictions of Mirage IIIEA operations following the loss of two aircraft in 1st May resulted in most Argentine bombing raids being unescorted and the Sea Harriers were therefore virtually unopposed. Many of the Daggers jettisoned their bombs before reaching their target if they were engaged or threatened by Sea Harriers, but Gruppo 6 pilots inflicted serious damage on three warships (Antrim, Ardent and Plymouth)."

 

p.165:

"Their [Mirage III's] failure to engage the Sea Harriers after 1st May meant that A-4 and Dagger A attack aircraft were left unprotected and had to fend for themselves."

 

 

 

Sea Harriers over the Falklands, 1992, Nigel "Sharkey" Ward (commander NAS 801)

 

p. 268, on the actions of the 21st May:

"Commodore Mike Clapp's tactics for the air defense of San Carlos had proved very effective. Defence in depth had worked. The outer layer of Sea Harriers on CAP had shot down a mixture of nine enemy aircraft, mainly Mirage V Daggers and Sky Hawks. But although the air-air confrontations had been exciting in the extreme, it was already clear that the Argentine pilots were not going to mix it with us; knocking them down had become a question of being in the right place at the right time."

 

p. 269:

"Further, and of immense tactical significance of the success of the CAP, attack aircraft were instructed that if confrontation with the Sea Harrier seemed inevitable then they were to jettison their attack ordnance and return to base."

[L4key]

Ok, I'll bite, and use your own quotes...

 

"The 17 Mirage IIIEAs were the Argentine Air Force's primary air defence interceptors and should have been a threat to the Sea Harriers. However, following the disastrous combat on 1st May when two Mirage IIIEAs were lost, the aircraft were rarely seen over the Falklands except for a few decoy and escort missions."

 

"Commodore Mike Clapp's tactics for the air defense of San Carlos had proved very effective. Defence in depth had worked. The outer layer of Sea Harriers on CAP had shot down a mixture of nine enemy aircraft, mainly Mirage V Daggers and Sky Hawks. But although the air-air confrontations had been exciting in the extreme, it was already clear that the Argentine pilots were not going to mix it with us; knocking them down had become a question of being in the right place at the right time."

 

Yes - why? It had a lot to do with - though not entirely, because the Argentines had respect for it's capabilities as proved in day one. Do we say the F22 is rubbish because no-one fights it/the US in the air? No - because it's so good the USAF relies on it's deterence factor as well.

 

Simplified? Yes. A stretch to compare the SHAR and F22? Of course - but the point remains the same, the Argentinians obviously knew their fuel restrictions on day one but still were ok with engagements? Saw SHAR more than a match and thought better of it. In my book thats a success and credit to, amongst other things, the SHAR's A2A capability.

Edited January 26, 2010 by L4key
typo

[MBot]

I think no one denies that the Fleet Air Arm made a lasting impression on the Argentine command on first May. They shot down 2 Mirage III and one Dagger in full blown air-air combat (+1 Canberra bomber) which was a big success. Even though it must be primary attributed to the excellent training of the RN aviators, rather the airframe they flew. But still it convinced the Argentines to never again challenge the Sea Harrier, which I would say was a war winning success.

 

All I am saying is that the myth Vault propagates, that the Sea Harrier achieved this spectacular kill-loss ratio, in all out dogfights is simply that, a myth.

[Vault]

I guess my explanation was not clear. Most of the aircraft shot down by the harriers were configured in the Air to Ground role - the Harriers may or may not have been, but an additional factor was a superior WVR weapon in most cases (The Shafrir was crap until it became the python, basically) as well as operating time. The Harrier had the advantage and convenience of being able to leave its A2G mission and attack a plane - but in most cases, AFAIK, those Harriers were in fact actively working A2A duty, meaning they were configured for and tasked with A2A combat.

 

This does make all the difference, because it isn't exactly hard to shoot down a plane that cannot use its full capabilities because engaging in A2A combat would mean it literally cannot return due to lack of fuel. This isn't LOMAC - you don't get to go 'aw darnit I'll just fight him here and get a new plane'. These guys WANTED to fly back home so, yes, they flew as straight a line as they could to their target and back from it.

 

What's best GG? lack of fuel and a cold swim or knocking at the pearly gates with an AIM-9L hanging out of your arse?. Yeah a swim whilst awaiting SAR seems pretty appealling at that point. Argie pilots cruised high to save fuel but they DID use AB for short diving supersonic sprints against Harrier pilots.

 

Aerodynamics don't matter squat when you are forced to fly a particular profile that has little to nothing to do with air to air combat. This has nothing to do with actual performance of aircraft in air to air combat - this is purely a situational matter - what those argentinian 'fighters' were doing was not at all compatible with air to air work. Further they had to contend with SAM pickets put up by the fleet as well.

 

lol now go check wing loading figures of each aircraft. :D as i said although fuel was a major concern they were capable of dogfighting and at anytime they could jettison their payload and bug out, there simply is no excuses. It goes to prove that it's all about who's in the seat.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Vault

[Vault]

I think no one denies that the Fleet Air Arm made a lasting impression on the Argentine command on first May. They shot down 2 Mirage III and one Dagger in full blown air-air combat (+1 Canberra bomber) which was a big success. Even though it must be primary attributed to the excellent training of the RN aviators, rather the airframe they flew. But still it convinced the Argentines to never again challenge the Sea Harrier, which I would say was a war winning success.

 

All I am saying is that the myth Vault propagates, that the Sea Harrier achieved this spectacular kill-loss ratio, in all out dogfights is simply that, a myth.

 

Myth? as in "unlucky argy pilots?" or "it's classified but"... lol or "they carried no AAM" lol and "they never flew high" or "after first day there was never A2A dogfight!", now they're myths propagated by you!.

 

BTW last time we spoke it was just Mirages that had been shot down, now you've added a Dagger lol.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Vault

[MBot]

but they DID use AB for short diving supersonic sprints against Harrier pilots

 

Source?

[MBot]

Myth? as in "unlucky argy pilots?" or "it's classified but"... lol or "they carried no AAM" lol and "they never flew high" or "after first day there was never A2A dogfight!", now they're myths proporgated by you!.

 

I provided plenty of sources, you so far didn't.

[Vault]

Source?

 

Pilots interview, Dogfights:Battle for the Falklands.

[Vault]

MBot so would you like to divulge how you got your hands on classified information?

[MBot]

MBot so would you like to divulge how you got your hands on classified information?

 

I do not see how information about the Falklands war should be classified. Like I already linked previously the FAA website (that is the Argentine Air Force) has a good overview about it's daily operations, including loadouts of aircraft (and go figure, no AAMs for Daggers after 1st May!).

 

 

I am searching this Dogfights episode now, is it on youtube?

[Vault]

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

 

Post #43 you talked about classified info. :) MBot where did the Dagger come from? before you was telling me it was just 2 Mirages lol..and only on the first day lol. Your version of the Falklands air war is very "dynamic".

[Vault]

I am searching this Dogfights episode now, is it on youtube?

 

Why posting links to copyright material would be bannable, that would be copyright infrigment, and we all know where people go if they wanted to infringe copyright laws. ;)

[GGTharos]

No, he meant however it is classified, as in whether it is classified as a fighter, multirole or bomber.

 

Post #43 you talked about classified info. :) MBot where did the Dagger come from? before you was telling me it was just 2 Mirages lol..and only on the first day lol. Your version of the Falklands air war is very "dynamic".

[MBot]

Post #43 you talked about classified info. :) MBot where did the Dagger come from? before you was telling me it was just 2 Mirages lol..and only on the first day lol. Your version of the Falklands air war is very "dynamic".

 

Post #43 is by you, but I guess you mean #48. I meant classified as "the class it belongs to". Has nothing to do with secret.

 

I clearly edited my post #42 13 minutes after posting to add the Dagger I forgot. That was a week ago, sorry if you missed that.

 

 

I have the impression we have a language problem here, either because of English or sloppy reading, which quite frankly is a bit tiresome. I think I will call it a day and keep reading what Sharkey Ward has to say about the Argentine fighters his squadron met over the South Atlantic.

[Vault]

MBot you should be a dynamic campaign generator for ED lol. :D