Posted on 02/13/2005 5:28:59 PM PST by Eurotwit
bookmark info bump
The reason I thought this was funny was because that may have worked against plume tracking IR missiles, but not against the average threat on the street today. The threat IR missiles produced today look at a different section of the IR spectrum in order to track skin heat and the heat in the engine section of the aircraft. This is done by using different detecting materials which pick up a different wavelength of energy. Within the next 10 years I would suspect that threat nations will be producing an imaging IR array detector like the AIM-9X has. It not only tracks skin heat, but builds an image of the target and uses its brain to say "hey, that's and airplane" or "hey, that's a flare, go after the airplane shaped target."
>Harrier vectored thrust results in a nose pitching moment because the front nozzles are located forward of the center of gravity. The increase in turn performance is derived at the cost of speed.
***Any time an aircraft chooses to turn, there is a tradeoff versus speed. But the Myles book shows that the Harrier using VIFF obtains a more efficient (fully blown) wing utilization, thereby reducing the speed cost and increasing the maneuverability better than any other aircraft:
“ What was happening was that although the wing was losing lift, this was being compensated by the lift from the deflected engine thrust. Thus, in a turning dogfight when an opponent had reached the point of stall, the Harrier would still be turning at ever decreasing speed and radius. When the enemy was forced to break out of the turn, the Harrier could reverse back towards him, throwing the nozzles aft and getting immediate maximum acceleration. Of course, the throttle setting had never been altered, and only the nozzle lever had been used. When the thrust was directed straight back again, there was no gradual build up. Acceleration was instantaneous…. If the pilot did it correctly, he entrapped air on top of the wing, ending up with what they termed a “fully-blown” wing. That, said the Marines, was how they were turning circles faster than the designers believed the aerodynamically capable of. … They were aviators of the old school who pointed to the Harrier’s loss of energy when the nozzles went down. What they ignored was that fighter pilots had always given up energy in the hard break maneuver with thrust off, brakes out, trying to force an overshoot.”
It appears that you are in the same rut as the old school aviators who “could not accept that the Harrier offered them that same capability, only magnified many times.” In addition, you do not address the underlying point, which is that this technology derived from the Harrier and was carried forward because of Air-to-air successes of its implementation.
>The answer to the rest of these questions is that the F-22 vectored thrust is derived from the same principal of vector mechanics
***That appears to be a slippery acknowledgement of the Harrier’s role in the derivation of this technology. You’re answering the question without addressing the issue, beating around the bush. The reason why any of this was being looked at was because of the effectiveness of VIFFing, that capability unique to the Harrier which you claim is not a “magic move”. If it was so effective in the Harrier, how can you claim it doesn’t have a magic move? The Harrier without VIFF lost to a T38 every time, but using VIFF it attains a kill ratio of 10:1 against your F14 in combat exercises.
> with a totally different application. The reason Harrier type vectoring is such a nonstarter is the complex nature of four moveable nozzles compared to two,
***That confirms my position that the cancelled P.1154 (supersonic Harrier) project would have been a superior fighter platform compared to the current generation, and perhaps even hold its own against the next generation except in stealth. That was a hugh mistake – the Brits could have owned the market for supersonic STOVL fighters 30 years ago.
>structural loading and fatigue issues, and dash performance issues since fighters like to be able to go fast and that means afterburner.
***Using afterburners in dogfights is often a bad idea, because of the ease of takedown by a heat-seeking missile, one of the reasons why the Raptor is aiming for sustained supersonic performance without burners.
The Raptor vectored thrust isn't supposed to produce a magic move it is supposed to provide sustained maximum performance.
***Fair enough, but where did vectored thrust come from? It came from that magic move the Harrier has that you claim it doesn’t have, with resulting kill ratios to bear out the fact.
>The reason I thought this was funny was because that may have worked against plume tracking IR missiles, but not against the average threat on the street today. The threat IR missiles produced today look at a different section of the IR spectrum in order to track skin heat and the heat in the engine section of the aircraft. This is done by using different detecting materials which pick up a different wavelength of energy. Within the next 10 years I would suspect that threat nations will be producing an imaging IR array detector like the AIM-9X has. It not only tracks skin heat, but builds an image of the target and uses its brain to say "hey, that's and airplane" or "hey, that's a flare, go after the airplane shaped target."
***Well, it looks like it’s my turn for ROTFLMAO. That is one interesting standard that you are holding up the Harrier to. An aircraft that’s been around for 30 years doesn’t measure up to a threat that MIGHT happen 10 years from now. That’s a little bit like F4 pilots laughing at P51 guys for using a little bit of flap deflection during ACM for an added advantage in maneuverability, especially considering the poor Kill Ratio attained in Vietnam as compared to the P51 pilots in WWII. The poor Vietnam Kill Ratio was the reason why the Top Gun program was started in the first place. Using that standard, the Harrier is not a good dogfighter versus a next generation fighter because the projected kill ratio of the JSF is supposed to be 20:1. Of course, using that same standard, the projected kill ratio against the F15 would be 3X higher, since the Harrier has a 3:1kill ratio against it. Oh, and the F14 might lose out at 200:1. Using your standard, maybe the Harrier is not a good dogfighter, and the F14 isn’t worth the jet fuel poured into it, but yet that doesn’t stop you from jumping into the cockpit. It appears that when you say, “the Harrier is not a good dogfighter”, you are using a Clintonian definition of the word “IS”.
To repeat, the more I tango with you the more I’m reminded of story of the guy who claimed to have wrestled a Grizzly bear. His cohorts checked on his story and found that what he wrestled was a one-eyed, de-clawed, de-fanged Grizzly. His story just didn’t add up, and your posts continue to fail the smell test. I’m afraid I’m operating at the edge of my radar in terms of time, wherewithal, discernment and knowledge – especially since you continue to be so selective about which questions you’ll answer. You’re working off odd definitions and strange standards against known facts. I’m going to have to leave it to the Aviation ping list to weigh in on your credibility.
Errr???...diagramming quickly...Thanks, Guys! :^)
***I may be revealing how dense I am, but I just don't get it. What does "diagramming quickly" mean?
I don't know what happened to Pukin Dog. Hopefully it's just temporary.
Try reading the post again. TODAY's threat tracks (and actually for the last decade) tracks skin heat and engine section heat. When I mentioned the AIM-9X it was to illustrate that the situation is only going to get worse. Basically this "hiding one's heat signature" would not have been effective for the past decade. Plus why would a pilot of a non-afterburning aircraft worry about doing this when deployment of flares would be much more effective.
To repeat, the more I tango with you the more I’m reminded of story of the guy who claimed to have wrestled a Grizzly bear. His cohorts checked on his story and found that what he wrestled was a one-eyed, de-clawed, de-fanged Grizzly. His story just didn’t add up, and your posts continue to fail the smell test. I’m afraid I’m operating at the edge of my radar in terms of time, wherewithal, discernment and knowledge – especially since you continue to be so selective about which questions you’ll answer. You’re working off odd definitions and strange standards against known facts. I’m going to have to leave it to the Aviation ping list to weigh in on your credibility.
I don't really see it that way at all. I look at your posts like the "annoying man." The "annoying man" is the self educated expert on aircraft who learned everything he knows from the internet, but has zero experience. He often shows up at airshows while you are standing next to your aircraft on display and lectures you about the "finer points" of ACM which he learned from watching "Top Gun" until the tape broke.
I've tried to offer my professional insight, but have obviously made the mistake of trying to educate someone with a V/STOL fetish.
Wrong again. Using afterburner when the opponents sensor nose or weapons are coming to bear is a bad idea. Not using afterburner at all, while engaged, is dumb. Of course you won't believe this because you read something different in a book entitled Harriers are Great and Everybody Else Sucks.
To me, the AV-8 is basically just fun to watch at airshows. That's about it. Given its lack of a fuel load, it basically can only bring one bomb to the table and even then, hope that no one on the ground with a BB gun gets lucky. And for air to air, you have one advantage but if you use it, it costs you all of your energy and leaves you a sitting duck.
Sure is fun to watch at airshows, though...
The Harrier is not much of a dogfighter.
I agree with USNBandit. The Harrier is a technical exercise that became operational, a computer video game made real in aluminum and steel. Nothing more. It is interesting, has a sexy profile, plan form and fantasy potential, but that's it. It's a concept, not a weapons system.
Kevin, I have pinged everyone I know on FreeRepublic who actually flies or has flown military combat aircraft. Those aircraft include the following: A-6, A-10, F-4, F-15, F-16, and the F-18. I not pinging them to gang up on you. I'm pinging them to give them the opportunity to validate or refute what USNBandit has been trying to help you understand.
You are obviously a big fan of the Harrier, and there are many things about the Harrier that make it a great aircraft. "VIFFing", however, is not one of them. Neither is its air to air capability. In short, you really do have no idea what you are talking about. I would like to believe that the fact that neither the RAF nor USMC considers the Harrier a primary air defense asset to be strong indicator that maybe your assessment of it is not accurate. Certainly USNBandit has done his able best to set you straight. But rather than listening to him, you reported him to Jim Robinson as being a fraud. Having read this whole thread, it is very clear to me the USNBandit speaks with the knowledge of actual experience. It is equally clear that you do not. I have flown with Harriers and against Harriers. I think they are one of the coolest aircraft around. But air to air killing machines they are not, and they never will be. Despite the best anecdotes you can Google on the web.
Props to my peeps.
Bump to read the Kevin Omalley/USNBandit crossfire when I have more time.
>>The answer is that they didn't feel safe moving their carrier close enough to establish air superiority over the islands.<<
Actually, it was the threat of subs and the AAA threat, not an AA threat.
>> The Harrier holds its own against most of the other modern jet planes because of its maneuverability.<<
Ahhh. . . .not even close.
I will acknowledge the sub threat. I didn't mean to imply an AA threat affected the carrier positioning. I meant the Air to Surface threat like Exocet.
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.