Harriers vs F-15's

[Druid_]

So, let's set this up. Here I am at 30,000ft in my Eagle, with all the SA in the world as to where you are in your Harrier, somewhere around 10-12,000ft:thumbup:

Please... nooo. :wallbash: If you read my previous posts you would know that my replies are relative to a particular scenario and NOT the one you have mentioned. I completely agree with your outcome from a mid-high level scenario engagement and have stated so in a previous post in this discussion. However (and a big one at that) I was talking about the Harrier at low-level (100-200 ft) with the F-15 forced into WVR engagement at lower altitudes. A harrier flying at 12000ft is plain stupid in a combat zone. Did you ever do any low altitude jumps on the Harrier over hilly/mountainous terrain? Over sea its much easier to keep a visual on.

Now let's recall some aerodynamics. What keeps any aircraft (including a harrier) flying? Really? One guess, & it's not thrust vectoring, unless the jet's low weight and below 1000ft MSL. It's air over the wings! Yes, the same lift that keeps the Cessna or Grob in the air. So what do you think happens to the harrier as it begins to stop in the air?

Come on please, I'm not that stupid.:idiot: VIFFing does not involve reducing speed down to zero. The Harrier is a brick at slow speed especially with those low AR anhedral swept wings:smartass:.

Another aside: From taking to USMC pilots who were stationed conveniently near my base at Iwakuni NAS, Okinawa, Japan, they said the deceleration is about 1.5-2.5g's, pretty substantial!

:thumbup: agreed, and my experience also, certainly not less than 1g as stated by GG.

I'll just see the nose rotating (or the sudden stop, but that's usually a late sign) use my greater energy to pull into the vertical and behind the harrier and wait for God's G to take it's effect on an aircraft with little airflow over its wings. I then pirouette, put my nose behind the harrier and can either "Fox 2" or gun you as your nose descended and your nozzles had to be aft to pick up speed after your VIFF, giving me a nice heat source, or a quick guns opportunity before I had to pull up again to prevent from violating TR bubble, overshooting, or busting the bottom of the container.

Absolutely agree, I guess at 12000ft he would have to nose down (and he should be trying to turn into you also). However at low level he should be able to counter your vertical manoeuvre more effectively, especially if lightweight (he should have jettisoned non-essential external stores by now anyway) and may even be provided with a reasonable firing solution for his nine lima.

2) Without airspeed you have no energy or life. I will gun you as long as I don't get stupid or cocky - so to speak... and try to fight the battle on your terms (low and slow). Sure, you can say "E" is life, too, I guess. But for fighter pilots, and not engineers, Speed IS Life! :smartass:

Energy is 1) higher altitude (which converts to greater speed at same level) over your opponent or 2) just speed. Either one is good. Otherwise you would never convert speed to height in a lag manoeuvre. But if you want to keep it simple then thats fine. p.s. I'm no engineer :smilewink:

 

BTW the max Nozzle deflection is about 100 degrees, so as you say a nose up movement with blooming effect is a good indication of a VIFF.

[GGTharos]

Did you ever do any low altitude jumps on the Harrier over hilly/mountainous terrain? Over sea its much easier to keep a visual on.

 

They do LOWAT over sea, with potentially harder to see aircraft.

 

Come on please, I'm not that stupid.:idiot: VIFFing does not involve reducing speed down to zero. The Harrier is a brick at slow speed especially with those low AR anhedral swept wings:smartass:.

... which makes it different from an F-22 or a flanker how? ;)

 

:thumbup: agreed, and my experience also, certainly not less than 1g as stated by GG.

Neither did you mention numbers, nor did anyone describe instrumentation saying so - and like I said, I can 'stick your face in the gunsight' in my car, so descriptions like that are pretty much useless. A 2G decel is not due to viffing alone since the physics do not permit it- there's something else happening.

 

However at low level he should be able to counter your vertical manoeuvre more effectively, especially if lightweight (he should have jettisoned non-essential external stores by now anyway) and may even be provided with a reasonable firing solution for his nine lima.

In what way?

 

Energy is 1) higher altitude (which converts to greater speed at same level) over your opponent or 2) just speed. Either one is good. Otherwise you would never convert speed to height in a lag manoeuvre. But if you want to keep it simple then thats fine. p.s. I'm no engineer :smilewink:

Irrelevant on the altitude. By the time you gain your 200kt back you've been gunned. Altitude is energy only when your opponent doesn't already have all the energy in the world on you, and altitude is irrelevant when it comes to jinking, whether it be in terms of missile evasion or guns evasion. If you DO NOT HAVE SPEED, you're dead. You're not moving out of anyone's or anything's way, you are not rating, you're not doing anything except maybe trying to dive while your opponent drives to the elbow. This is why SPEED is life. Not 'energy' ... speed. If the guy's in front of you, you can slow down and dive back down, but what does that give you other than maintaining status quo? The big deal about speed with big turbofans is that the faster you go, the faster you go faster. You climb better ... that is energy fighting. But if you're floating around at 250kt in front of someone you're just a dead duck.

 

BTW the max Nozzle deflection is about 100 degrees, so as you say a nose up movement with blooming effect is a good indication of a VIFF.

Which is why the thrust alone won't give you anything like 1g deceleration - you can do the math on that one. It's probably the pitch-up and subsequent altitude balooning that helps add g to the speed loss, or in other words, good old flying mechanics of induced drag (and in this case, lack of forward thrust) :D

Guess how you do that in a non-TV jet? Yep ... barrel roll. You can dump speed like craaaazy.

Edited October 17, 2010 by GGTharos

[nscode]

A harrier flying at 12000ft is plain stupid in a combat zone.

 

I doubt it entered any combat zone at less than 15000 in the past 20 years.

[leafer]

Actually, they flew pretty low during Desert Storm and only when the Iraqi set fire to those oil wells, they were forced to fly above the smoke stacks.

[mvsgas]

I'm no pilot, nor do I have any special knowledge, I'm just a guy that likes aircraft. I don't intend to correct but inquire about some things.

 

Which version of the harrier are you guys comparing? There are so many version after 40 years. I read the F-15C posted several times, so that one is clear but not the harrier.

 

GR9 does not necessarily have better performance than an AV8B, again depends of the version you guys are referring to.

 

Argentine A2A aircraft during the Falklands/ Malvinas conflict were not that superior in dogfights, delta wings are very bad at turning at low altitude. I don't think the Neshers had radars did they? "Shafir" missiles where similar to performance to the AIM-9 of the time right?

 

Argentinean aircraft did have many disadvantages, A-4 where flying with expire rocket motor on ejection seat ( bet that lay heavily on the pilots mind) and the wing of several of them where overdo for time changes. Many aircraft did not have required navigational equipment nor electronic equipment against SAMs (no RWR, no chaff, flare nor ECM pods)

 

Comparing aircraft due to their performance in exercise is not the most accurate way to do it. I bet an aggressor pilot with couple of thousand of hours of experience can probably shoot down most nuggets with a T-37 vs what ever, but the nugget or student pilot wouldn't learn much. Most pilot that go to Red Flag (AFAIK) are new guys that need the experience ( not always the case of course) Also ROE are normally in favor of the side that need the training. Look at the video of

for example, one 18 pilots points to a snapshot, he did get the aircraft center mast later on but I doubt the snapshot would have had any effect on the aircraft. Also in theory, the MIG shouldn't be able to get that close because the 18 on this video should have been 120 capable right? But they wouldn't get much dogfight training that way.

 

I thought Viffing did more than just slow down, I thought they could use it in other ways also.

Pierre Sprey, doesn't think much of the harrier as a fighter... well he doesn't think much of many aircraft :D

 

The Harrier also do have a disadvantage against to IR missiles, even old generation ones. The same way it can hide it nozzles under the wing, when the missiles do see it is must be a great heat source, very close to the center of the aircraft. If an IR missiles would hit it, it wold hit more likely on the center of the frame, greatly reducing, in my ignorant mind, it's chance of survival.

 

The Sea Harrier FA2 is not the only version that could carry 120, there are version of the AV8B that can currently do that right?

[vrv]

The F-15C's combat record begs to differ when compared to the Harrier. I win. What's next? Comparing the C-130 to a Tu-144 in a WVR engagement? Not even Top-Gun era sane Tom Cruise could do well in that situation. Put decent pilots on both sides and the Eagle will still come out on top. Why? Because it's a Air-Superiority Fighter. The Harrier isn't. BVR / WVR doesn't matter. The Harrier is meant for ground attack not burning holes in the sky.

[Druid_]

... which makes it different from an F-22 or a flanker how? ;)

F-22 or flanker probably have 20 degrees of THrust nozzle deflection max available versus 100 degrees for the Harrier. So 80 degrees, there's your difference. I don't know why the F-22 was introduced into the discussion to be honest. Apples and Pears as you admitted earlier.

 

A 2G decel is not due to viffing alone since the physics do not permit it- there's something else happening.

I was treating the VIFF as a Harrier manoeuvre and not just an abbreviation. Agree, there is a lot more going on in the manoeuvre. Planform airbraking due to rapid change in AOA to relative airflow most likely.

 

Irrelevant on the altitude. By the time you gain your 200kt back you've been gunned. ..etc

Ok re-read the discussion and its evident that you are talking about the defender whereas I assumed it was a general reference i.e. you were referring to aggressor and defender. In which case yes, speed is life. The aggressor has the advantage of converting speed to height (energy management) the defender hasn't.

[GGTharos]

F-22 or flanker probably have 20 degrees of THrust nozzle deflection max available versus 100 degrees for the Harrier. So 80 degrees, there's your difference. I don't know why the F-22 was introduced into the discussion to be honest. Apples and Pears as you admitted earlier.

 

You're thinking thrust direction instead of how it's used in maneuver. Both of the aircraft can stop on a time to make you overshoot - what's really unpleasant though is that if a raptor does it right, it'll also accelerate right out of that. If it doesn't ... dead in the water - and really, when you're stopping/turning/etc in the end it is all about turn + G's. The harrier might do it a bit less conventionally but for all the offensive fighter cares it's pretty much the same deal.

 

I was treating the VIFF as a Harrier manoeuvre and not just an abbreviation. Agree, there is a lot more going on in the manoeuvre. Planform airbraking due to rapid change in AOA to relative airflow most likely.

Right, we're looking at it from different points.

 

Ok re-read the discussion and its evident that you are talking about the defender whereas I assumed it was a general reference i.e. you were referring to aggressor and defender. In which case yes, speed is life. The aggressor has the advantage of converting speed to height (energy management) the defender hasn't.

Yep, I am talking about this because this is how the scenario is presented - someone's trying to make someone overshoot. At any time when a jet is engaged either offensive or defensive, speed is life; as the defender, you can jink out of the way if you have speed (your roll rate is faster, you have more g available, you can change aspect more and faster, your rate is faster) ... as the offensive jet, speed gives you every option you need to fight your bandit - first to get to the elbow, and then to stay there. In either case, if we ignore HOBS missiles losing speed=losing position or getting gunned (whether right away or eventually). This is why no one says energy is life - because potential energy just doesn't really help you when you're in this fight any more ... whoever keeps their speed best will win.

 

On the other hand, scissors with a Harrier - that's probably not so pleasant, so rolling scissors it is :P

[Frostie]

Without going overboard and saying the SeaHarrier is an air superiority fighter, its worthwhile to note that it was a very capable BVR fighter.

 

Its a 90's fighter for sure but no less still shouldn't be dismissed as a simple mud mover with A2A missiles strapped on.

Most Harriers are designed for carrying heavy bomb loads, the SeaHarrier had a different wing, designed to be a fighter.

 

It possessed the Blue Vixen radar which was a far superior radar to the old APG-65 F/A-18 radar used in the later AV8B+ versions, combine this with the most deadly A2A missile on the planet 'the AMRAAM' and a very small RCS, then only the ill informed would label it a simple mudmover.

 

During its time it was regarded as one of Europe's best BVR fighters, capable of operating over 30000ft with ease.

And should not be put in the same bracket as the AV8.

 

On the downside is its small payload and obvious lack of speed which restricted it from making a M1+ launch, but thanks to it wing was capable of supersonic dives.

 

Better than a 90's Eagle? Most certainly not.

Capable of bringing one down? Ofcourse.

 

 

-------

Going back even further in time to the 80's Falkland's conflict with the SeaHarrier FRS1, the Argentinian Super Étendards at least most certainly had RWR systems as they were able to employ a lobe pecking technique to hide from ships radars, hiding from ships and running from the old BlueFox radar. If RWR was present on their antiship jets then its possible that it was also present on their fighters.

The Harriers up against Mirages were able to bring them down to a slow turning fight where they excel. This helping to give them the already mentioned 23-0 kill ratio, now for such a small production of aircraft that is still mighty impressive.

No judgement should be made on the quality of the opposition as the Eagle seems to get a 'by' on that rule so why not the FA2?

Edited October 18, 2010 by Frostie

[robmlufc]

A Harrier will pull upto 2Gs with the nozzles at braking stops, that's a fact. If anyone says otherwise they are ill informed or making assumptions.

[GGTharos]

Without going overboard and saying the SeaHarrier is an air superiority fighter, its worthwhile to note that it was a very capable BVR fighter.

 

... against lower capability threats. Anything that can go supersonic, unless for some reason it CANNOT, already has a kinematic advantage in BVR. Anything with a larger radar has an SA advantage.

 

SeaHarrier had a different wing, designed to be a fighter.

I don't think that is entirely true, but we aren't going to really find out what compromises were made there.

 

It possessed the Blue Vixen radar which was a far superior radar to the old APG-65 F/A-18 radar used in the later AV8B+ versions, combine this with the most deadly A2A missile on the planet 'the AMRAAM' and a very small RCS, then only the ill informed would label it a simple mudmover.

It's RCS can't be too small, but as for the radar, yep ... besides the 65 was compromised, and later replaced by the 73.

 

During its time it was regarded as one of Europe's best BVR fighters, capable of operating over 30000ft with ease.

And should not be put in the same bracket as the AV8.

In terms of BVR or maneuvering? In the latter they probably aren't all that different. I don't have the appropriate NFM yet, but working to get it.

 

On the downside is its small payload and obvious lack of speed which restricted it from making a M1+ launch, but thanks to it wing was capable of supersonic dives.

 

Better than a 90's Eagle? Most certainly not.

Capable of bringing one down? Ofcourse.

That's like saying a MiG-21 is capable of bringing down an Eagle. Sure, ok. Will it? Highly unlikely. (Obviously not a BVR fight).

 

 

 

Going back even further in time to the 80's Falkland's conflict with the SeaHarrier FRS1, the Argentinian Super Étendards at least most certainly had RWR systems as they were able to employ a lobe pecking technique to hide from ships radars, hiding from ships and running from the old BlueFox radar. If RWR was present on their antiship jets then its possible that it was also present on their fighters.

The Harriers up against Mirages were able to bring them down to a slow turning fight where they excel. This helping to give them the already mentioned 23-0 kill ratio, now for such a small production of aircraft that is still mighty impressive.

No judgement should be made on the quality of the opposition as the Eagle seems to get a 'by' on that rule so why not the FA2?

The issue isn't quality in this case; the opposition's main fighter could have had all the quality in the world, it just lacked the fuel to use it. These guys weren't flying target drones by choice, they were literally shackled to course, speed, altitude by the fact that if they deviated they'd not make it home. Only some of their aircraft were capable of air refueling.

 

By comparison a bunch of the Eagle's targets actually fought back and were out-classed, but their tactics in some cases appeared to be fairly good. Yep, they were followed by mistakes and the opposition was low-time, but they weren't exactly flying target drones.

 

In any case, none of this matters when comparing Harriers and Eagles since both have an impeccable air to air score.

Edited October 19, 2010 by GGTharos

[robmlufc]

 

The issue isn't quality in this case; the opposition's main fighter could have had all the quality in the world, it just lacked the fuel to use it. These guys weren't flying target drones by choice, they were literally shackled to course, speed, altitude by the fact that if they deviated they'd not make it home. Only some of their aircraft were capable of air refueling.

 

The Harriers endurance wasnt ideal either, the RN Carriers were positioned well away from the action due to the threat of Exocets. So really we can call the endurance issue equal, the 'la Muerta Negra' did good :)

[GGTharos]

There's a difference between 'not ideal' and 'I can't deviate or I crash' :)

 

The Harriers endurance wasnt ideal either, the RN Carriers were positioned well away from the action due to the threat of Exocets. So really we can call the endurance issue equal, the 'la Muerta Negra' did good :)

[MBot]

It is an interesting discussion. Regarding the Harrier I would draw the following conclusions

 

-No version of the Harrier is an air superiority fighter (the Sea Harrier FRS.1 and FA.2 I would call air defense fighters). As such it is inferior to dedicated air superiority fighters in most aspects. The biggest advantage of the Harrier can be (also in the Falklands) simply that "it is there", which is made possible by being V/STOL. A present Harrier is bettern than an absent F-16 ;)

 

-While not being the best dogfighter, the Harrier is capable in WVR. It is not the best, but it can keep up. Propably enough so that pilot quality plays a bigger role than technological differences. It should not be forgotten that not all Harriers are/were intended for ground attack. The Sea Harrier pilots were fighter pilots. It would also be interesting to know how much emphasis the Spanish and Italian AV-8B+ put on air combat, being an air defense component of their aircraft carriers.

 

-There are obviously better BVR aircraft, but the AMRAAM gives the Sea Harrier FA.2 and AV-8B+ a weapon that is very capable.

[MBot]

The Harriers endurance wasnt ideal either, the RN Carriers were positioned well away from the action due to the threat of Exocets. So really we can call the endurance issue equal, the 'la Muerta Negra' did good :)

 

The Sea Harriers were indeed challenged by the RN carriers being far east, but the endurance issue can not be called equal. The Sea Harriers were able to put up CAPs with 20 minutes on station time. This is not much by todays standarts, but it gave them some flexibility in combat.

 

The Mirage III basically could do a straight roundtrip to the islands and make a single high altitude pass on any target. They could not engage in turning combat, descend to low altitude or use afterburner. The Dagger did a little but better fuel wise, because it had larger drop tanks, but was not used as a fighter after 1st May.

[Tyro-AWG]

Ok, here's my two-penneth

 

Harriers GR7 regularly used to get 1:1 kill ratios against Dutch F16s on the ACMI ranges over the wash. WVR only as far as I know, and before you ask, that was reported by the F16 pilots and I was in the debrief!

 

Everything else aside, the Harrier is capable in a dogfight, but not exceptional, and in the end, as ever, it comes down to the skill of the pilot and the situation. Every fight is different, and everyone tries to engineer a situation where they're at an advantage before the merge (if the merge is the preferred option)

 

Truth is, saying "X aircraft can/cannot beat Y aircraft" is a simplistic point of view.