Posted on 02/26/2021 5:57:41 AM PST by Red Badger
The Harrier never could fulfill its mission of operating in a combat environment in a forward area because it simply could not land in the middle of nowhere near a FOB or at the time an LP/OP and had to fly from an airfield no different than any standard jet. It had to take off and land like the zoomers you dislike because if it did not it could not carry a large enough payload to support ground forces.
Unlike you I was in the Corps and working in NAVAIR during the debate to keep Harriers or stick with legacy airframes until the F-18 was operational. Obviously you did not read the link I sent you. Either you are just looking for an argument or you are just a dumbass.
In the Bloggers & Personal forum, on a thread titled US admits F-35 failed to replace F-16 as planned, needs new fighter jet, OldGoatCPO wrote:
As Sailor not a wannabe, no Navy Ships is a FOB as no Navy ship is a “base.” Maybe in some war video game you played but not in the real Navy. Duhh!
***Take a fricken writing class. Your sentences do not make sense.
The Harrier never could fulfill its mission of operating in a combat environment in a forward area because it simply could not land in the middle of nowhere near a FOB or at the time an LP/OP and had to fly from an airfield no different than any standard jet.
***Complete bullshiite. A FOB was established at Port San Carlos during the Falklands crisis and the Harrier operated exactly as it was designed to do, knocking off a full hour off the round trip to the carriers.
It had to take off and land like the zoomers you dislike because if it did not it could not carry a large enough payload to support ground forces.
***Dude. It did that because it COULD do that. It’s not like A4s could have taken off vertically once the runway was knocked out, like as happened in Kuwait in the next decade.
Unlike you I was in the Corps
***Playing the elitist card.
and working in NAVAIR during the debate to keep Harriers or stick with legacy airframes until the F-18 was operational.
***And lucky for us, there were no surprise attacks against airfields at the time such as happened to Kuwait GW1 or Egypt 1967.
Obviously you did not read the link I sent you. Either you are just looking for an argument or you are just a dumbass.
***Either you are just a dumb fighter jock or a dumbass.
I was there, in the 70s. I trained on the AV-8A and C, worked on every model of the A-4, except C, F-5 Tiger II, T-38 and BaE Hawk. I was an all systems QAR on OA-4Ms and an Avionics and Airframes QAR for Lockheed. I have worked for the militaries of three different nations including one during wartime. I was boots on the ground living the dream in Desert Storm. You are obviously just a wannabe.
I point you to air2air kill ratios in combat.
https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use/
That is my starting point. Fuq off with your wannabe insults.
Going in depth on those combat kill ratios, we find a platform that fulfilled its mission that no other aircraft could fulfill. Second only to the venerable F15 in air2air kills, and the F15 was DESIGNED as a fighter while the Harier was DESIGNED as an attack aircraft/bomber.
It makes sense for the air force to keep fulfilling those niches if it really does want a new zoomer. Revive the P.1154 supersonic Harrier project with modern avionics, modern materials engineering, modern power plants. DESIGN it as an air superiority assistance fighter, with niches in CAS that no one else can fill.
What is it with this wannabe reversion argumentation tactic?
Why can’t you guys simply argue apples-to-apples comparisons?
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4065396/posts?page=45#45
The Russian offensive was carried out in a very “classic” manner. Initially—as the Israelis had done in 1967—with the destruction on the ground of the air force in the very first hours.
***The Ukes should buy up every single Harrier on the market. They’re being phased out but they’re far cheaper than F35s. Less bureaucratic blocking paperwork as well.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3937861/posts?page=62#62
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1342535/posts?page=226#226
To: Blood of Tyrants
Fascinating. Thanks for pointing me to this.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4050755/posts?page=53#53
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/army-air-force-pitted-jet-fighters-attack-helicopters/
Air Force fighters got wasted by Army attack helos in this combat experiment
Blake Stilwell
Posted On June 18, 2019 16:05:50
The Army and Air Force once conducted an air-to-air combat experiment between jet fighters and attack helicopters. Called J-CATCH, or Joint Countering Attack Helicopter, it was not the first of its kind but the most conclusive using modern technology.
Final ‘Top Gun 2’ trailer will give you ‘Goose’ bumps
The results showed attack helicopters proved remarkably deadly when properly employed against fighter aircraft. And it wasn’t even close.
Air Force fighters got wasted by Army attack helos in this combat experiment
And for once, it’s not the F-35’s problem!
First conducted by the Army using MASH Sikorsky H-19s, airframes developed in the 40s and 50s, the modern J-CATCH test started in 1978, as the Soviet Union expanded their helicopter forces. Of special concern was the development of the Mil Mi-24 or Hind helicopter gunship. The four phase J-CATCH experiment started in earnest with the Army, Marines, and Air Force participating in simulations at NASA’s Langley labs.
The second phase was a field test, pitting three AH-1 Cobras and two OH-58 Scouts against a Red Team force of UH-1 Twin Hueys and CH-3E Sea King helicopters and developed many new helicopter air-to-air tactics and maneuvers designed to counter the Russian Hind.
Air Force fighters got wasted by Army attack helos in this combat experiment
The Russian Hind.
Phase Three is where the fighters came in. The Air Force chose F-4, A-7, A-10, and F-15 fighter aircraft to counter whatever the Army could muster in the exercise. The F-4 and F-15 were front line fighters with anti-air roles while the A-7 and A-10 had air-to-ground missions.
For two weeks, the helicopters trounced the fighter aircraft. The fighter pilots in the test runs sometimes didn’t even know they were under attack or destroyed until the exercise’s daily debriefing. The Army pilots were so good, they had to be ordered to follow Air Force procedures and tell their fixed-wing targets they were under attack over the radio. This only increased the kill ratio, which by the end of the exercise, had risen to 5-to-1 in favor of the helicopters.
Air Force fighters got wasted by Army attack helos in this combat experiment
Even the mighty BRRRRRT has its limits.
The fourth phase of the exercise saw the final outcome of the test: fighters should avoid helicopters at all costs, unless they have superiority of distance or altitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.