Posted on 02/13/2005 5:28:59 PM PST by Eurotwit
As I read what should be your second to the last post on this thread, the last being the one where you apologize and then offer your humble thanks for the education so many have so patiently tried to give you, I can only wonder about why you bothered with all of this.
***I am a Harrier afficianado. I think it's a cool plane, with some unique flight capabilities. I had some primary source material that said it won air to air victories and attained some impressive Kill Ratios. Then this anonymous guy who claims to be a fighter pilot says it's not a good dogfighter, so I engaged. In my obviously limited knowledge and capabilities, I bumbled around and even thought that he might be masquerading, because I thought this stuff was generally known. I found it useful to update the record on the Harrier so that a lot of guys in the future won't have that misconception that I did. I don't mind having my opinions & misconceptions corrected, it's actually quite useful.
Your rants make me wonder if you're out of high school yet.
***Ooh, that hurts. You must be referring to my thread on helping kids skip high school:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1315730/posts?page=84#84
IF you have done much reading about or had much exposure to the people who actually fly as you claim, you would recognize the real deal as they answer your ANNOYING "MAN" rants.
***I haven't read that many posts by Pukin Dog in this forum due to time constraints. Lately I have a few spare cycles. I was disappointed that I couldn't read through his material.
It's all been very revealing of both character and knowledge...that is, who has it and who doesn't. They do and sorry, but I don't think that you do...regardless of how long you've been at Free Republic.
***Well, I'm sorry you have the impression that I don't have character. I don't know what "They do and sorry" means, but I can guess. My most humble apologies.
Quite frankly, I don't sense any obligation on my part to respond to an Internet fighter pilot postulating in his pajamas. You may think, by virtue of your onerously recited scholarship, that is only exceeded by your lack of personal experience, that you are the expert. The reality is you are like a virgin attempting to explain intercourse to others who have lost their cherries many times and long ago. You bore the rest of us. In fact, I doubt if you even know how to contact ATIS.
To: USNBandit; Rokke
Odd. . .fighter pilots, the guys that actually fly the jet and fly with/against Harriers are not considered a "primary source." They ARE primary sources.
***That was because they were anonymous, and the verification audit trail was broken.
A little clue for those that don't know, merely because one writes a book or publishes a paper does not thereby establish oneself as credible.
***I guess I don't follow you on this one. Guys who could be just afficianados might sign up and pretend to be fighter pilots for the fantasy of it, showing off how much they know, but it is all unverifiable until they drop enough hints. A published author may not be credible because he's an idiot but at least we can verify his story.
There are many books that talk about UFO's but that doesn't make then credible.
***Actually, the best book I've read about that phenomenon was "Intercept UFO" by Renato Vesco. It details boundary layer control experiments/secret weapons as the origin of the phenomena. Check it out, it's a pretty good read. If you can't find it (it's hard to find), the rights were picked up by a nutbag named David Childress who included the material in a book called "Man Made UFOs: 1944-1994 50 Years of Suppression". But I would avoid anything Childress has to add.
Pasting long-winded pretentious tomes are a lazy way of making an argument, and sanctimonious preaching is boring.
***You're right, it was lazy, because I intended to refer back to it in the follow up posts saying stuff like, "low facts/opinion ratio" or citing COIN. But it proved its usefulness. Sorry I was boring. Sanctimonious? Oh well, you can't please everyone.
Fact is, we (me, Rokke, Bandit) know from years of experience and countless exercises and from flying in the UK, Harriers do not win A/A engagements. Not many anyway. All this mumbling about slow speed rolling-scissors fights are nothing but nonsense. No one in their right mind get's into a scissors if they can avoid it. And a Harrier running along at speed and stopping in a dog fight is lunacy as this only makes him easier to kill (hence "strafe rag")---they lose their energy and simply can't re-engage.
***Good stuff. High facts/opinion ratio.
No one gets down with a Harrier, one goes vertical and wins.
***I don't know what "gets down with" means. It has unusual connotations. Perhaps you could elaborate? Or we could all just move on, if you wish.
When flying the A-10 I swacked many a young F-15/16 pilot that tried to get low and turn with me. Problem was, I may have won the first turn but after that, my energy level was so low I was barely flying and was a strafe rag for anyone that cared to take a shot.
***Good stuff.
Rokke, Bandit, all that needs to be said has been said. Primary sources like us laid out opinion based on fact and experience.
***I would say Rokke is a primary source. Bandit has proven himself and certainly has a lot of credibility, but by the definition he's still a valued second source. We don't need to quibble about it, that comment was intended for future readers.
It is up to the readers to decide if primary source experts like us are credible or if KO made his case.
***I agree. You all did a good job.
Just me talking. . .and what do I know.
***More than me.
By all means, alert Jim Robinson.
NONE of these games are realistic representations. The F15 loses against the Indian SUs, Israel, Germans- EVERYONE apparently.
Reality is the F15 flew against the Indian SUs and were NOT allowed to play any engagement past 20 Miles and were outnumbered 2:1. Just an example of how these games are mostly BS. There was no play with ECM or anything else. Every Theoretical launch counted as a hit.
Reality is that the F15 had a kill ratio (documented) of 82:0 and that went up to 102:0 since after 1991. This list includes most of the so-called advanced Soviet fighters claimed to match the F15 (Example MIG 29).
The F15 is still the gorilla in the sky. Sheer kinetics (acceleration-range/time on station-payload, climb rate, initial turn rate, practical speed, internal ECM, lots of flares, G-loads, IFF……) combined with radar power (Now with an AESA- the best there is) make it the Brutus out there. Even today with AMRAAM “C” and AIM9X (And HMCS) the F15C is king of the hill period. That’s why EVERYONE compares themselves to this plane. It sets the standard and it did the day it came out in 1975.
Some of the new threats are near matches WVR from the airframes capabilities (At the merge), but even the best foe the F15 still outperforms because or BVR capabilities, ECM (Never really played in these matches that are always talked about) and because of weapons capabilities. Not to mention pilots who train more hours, have more real world experience and train exclusive for air supremacy (That’s all a F15C pilot does- air to air).
If I was an enemy pilot and even in a SU27 and I knew I was going up against F15C’s I would $hit my pants.
Red6
PS-The US delivered free AIM9s to the Brits during the Falkland war.
Pretty good Facts/Opinion ratio.
You bore the rest of us. In fact, I doubt if you even know how to contact ATIS.
***Sorry to bore you.
End of message.
Kinda hard to engage in little resricted socialism and afford a stable of Aircraft Carriers..
Them carriers be expensive to build and operate mate..
Arrrgggh even if they be for the "chilrun"....(wink,,wink)
Is the USAF contention of those superior aspects of the SU/27/37 and others, at least in part, part of a pitch for more advanced AC such as the F-22?
Note the simulated kill ratio for the F-22.
Quote:
"The F-15C has an air combat victory ratio of 95-0 making it one of the most effective air superiority aircraft ever developed.
The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range.
Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges.
In long-range encounters, with its superiorr radar the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight.
The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities.
Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraft’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles.
Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).
The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost).
The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1.
In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
To a layman such as myself, someone who values the lives of our pilots, to me it looks like we need to build LOTS of F-22s! Right now! We've gotten 30 years out of the F-15's air superiority and it would be foolish to think its advantage would last forever. Admittedly, the F-22 is no AV-8B, but I hear that the pilots like it and that's good enough for this tax paying American.
Don't get me wrong. The Harrier is an interesting airplane. The Brits spent LOTS of money on it and, proud of their technical achievement, made their military take it. But it is dated. And despite its novelty, it has many limitations: range, payload, speed, etc. Don't believe me, trust your own eyes. Look at recent combat pictures of Marine AV-8Bs and what they are carrying. Compare that to an F-15E or an F/A-18 or an F-16. Compare its range and payload to any of those other three. Like someone else here said: Barney Fife. And if you think it's not vulnerable to ground fire? Compare it to the A-10. Which would you want to be in when the people on the ground are shooting at you. And, though I don't know this for a fact, I'm willing to bet that the A-10 is vastly more maneuverable, not that much slower, can carry a greater load and has a longer loiter time.
You based your entire argument on the results of training exercises and a war that happened how many decades ago against a totally outclassed opponent. Even so, as others have tried valiantly to point out, the Brits got lucky in the Falklands.
It's too bad that Pukin Dog isn't posting any more, but you didn't lack for experience nor expertise. You were just either too innocent of knowledge to recognize that fact or too blinded by your need to validate your opinions to notice. None the less, at least some good came from it. My, and I'm sure many, many other's, respect for the people we trust our lives to in combat increased as a result of their taking the time to try and educate you. America is the greatest nation on the planet b/c of them and you did good in giving them a chance to reveal themselves, their knowledge, skill and, above all, their patience. For that, I appreciate your inane arguments.
Jim wouldn't give you an outdated ILS chart to cry on.
Sweetheart, these men have castrated you to the point of ridicule and you only require a mirror to view the result.
Your teddy bears will give you the comfort you need tonight.
Sleep well
The reason why all compare themselves to an F15C is the same why all compare themselves to an M1 (Abrams) or M2 (Bradley). Those are the pace setters, the ones who determine the benchmark to which others are compared.
The F15C still has many things going for it even today. When these guys run their sales pitch analysis they focus on some aspect of the plane where it has a perceived advantage. With the EF they may sell the reduced RCS (Though not true stealth) and more advanced avionics compared to a F15C. However, the F15C still has more range (With internal fuel), more speed and better all around performance at altitude. The F15C with its old APG 63 has a more powerful radar still and some already use an AESA which puts the Doppler radar in the EF to shame. Many airframes are challenging the F15C in some aspect (The SU27 has enormous range and is highly maneuverable) but few even today really match the F15C when viewed in entirety.
No, the SU27 has no advantage in its radar. It can’t see as far nor as well as an APG63V2. The ONLY chance a SU27 has is if he gets in close. If he gets to the merge then with a fairly good AAM (Which they have) the SU27 can win. In a BVR fight the F15C will clean his clocks. Better missiles and radar lead to a substantial advantage. The F15C today already has some units with the AESA. This is no hypothetical dreaming. Look half way down the page.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com">http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg36488.html
The AF began with the first Squadron of AESA on F15Cs in 1999 or so.
When you debate this with a German you’ll always hear names like METEOR and IRIS-T. Problem is-They don’t exist yet. I’m talking real world what’s in the sky. Some F15Cs have AESAs, the AIM9X has been around for 3-5 YEARS and the AIM120C has been in use for some time too.
The F15 was designed as an air supremacy fighter. It was the product of specialization and huge budgets where “bigger” is possible. It’s hard to find an aspect where the F16 can really be called the “BEST” at anything. It’s a great plane but is a jack of all trades, yet master of none. The EF, Rafale and Saab are in the same boat. Multi-purpose, budget constrained GEN 4 or 4+ fighters that have some aspects where they beat out an F15 (Just like the F16C is a better “rate” fighter than a F15C), but in the sum of all factors really have no advantage and under real world conditions most likely would get their butt handed to them.
If you look at the picture at a macro level and see overall performance as a function of: Airframe, pilot, weapons, other tied in systems then the F15C even today strips away anything there is. The EF uses AIM9L, the F15C since 3-5 years the AIM9X with greater range, better ECCM and MUCH greater off boresight ability. The F15 uses the AIM120C and has greater range with them than the AIM120B the EF is armed with. Then throw in a pilot who is among the best trained, most experienced (On average) and has more flight hours to train than nearly any other pilot in the world. Imagine this pilot trains the air-supremacy mission exclusively. Imagine the F15C is tied into AWACS, RJ other platforms via data link. Throw in a massive structure to gather and sort intel, digest it and make sense of it all; determining the best TTP/doctrine to fight. No, even today under realistic conditions the F15C will clean up.
Most of these simulations are unrealistic; serve to sell a plane or sell the “purpose” of a new plane. Yes, I think the AF is trying to justify the procurement of the F22 with such events like India. I believe the F22 IS NEEDED so that in 10 years we have the same capabilities overmatch that we enjoyed in the 80s and 90s with the F15. Though the F15 is the big boy on the block today, it’s a Gen 4 airframe as well (Just a very good one). Bringing stealth to the fight in a long range air supremacy fighter changes a lot. Adding super cruise, a better AESA (The best), two dimensional thrust vectoring and advanced ECM helps too.
Here’s a link to the original article that had the F15C vs. SU30:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm/method=messages&threadid=13088&forumid=5
Here is the KEY PHRASE in the article: “Although the US fighters flew with certain restrictions that handicapped their effectiveness, the performance of the Indian fighters exceeded expectations.” What were these minor restrictions?
1. The AF was not allowed to engage past 20 miles (The F15Cs strength is BVR).
2. ECM was not played and every simulated missile launched from the SU was counted as a hit (Unrealistic)
3. The F15Cs were outnumbered 2:1 (Pretty significant-don’t you think?)
4. The F15C were ones using the older radar (Not that it would have made a difference)
5. No AIM9X and no helmet mounted cueing system.
The F15Cs were beaten, which meant they shot down the F15 with a 1:1 kill rate. Bad, huh? Not really! Imagine if the F15C even with all handicaps had AWACS coverage been there (A real world reality).
The USAF wants to buy the F22. They are right. The F15 is aging and the F22 needs to come. But some of this is also media manipulation and the building of consensus within public opinion that we need to buy these very expensive planes. The outcome of this exercise served everyone well (India and the US), even though all these fights are staged. We NEVER use full radar and ECM capabilities when playing games because the capabilities themselves are restricted. True missile capabilities are not public, nor are ECCMs and much more. Had this been a real fight for life and death, the outcome would have been very different.
Red6
Many don’t want to hear this and many try to dismiss it (It does not look good for Soviet type systems), but in Iraq, Soviet trained Iraqi pilots (Who were ATP airline pilots in part when not flying fighters) who had MIG29s, Mirage F1, and other jets REFUSED orders and did not take off in 2003 (Fully functional and armed planes). These guys knew exactly what would happen once the wheels go up.
Truth is in 91 they got their head beat in. In 2003 it would have been a bloodbath for them. The USAF was wishing for that opportunity. “Please, please God, give me a target.”
Despite all the “Oh-the F15 is old FOD and the MIG/SU is soooo much better”, the F15 keeps shooting them down in the real world. Years ago when the MIG29 came out all you heard was how the MIG29 was designed to meet the F16 and 15 and defeat them. Iraqi and Serb MIG29s did not make that experience. F15 and 16 beat them in every air to air engagement. Of course the MIG/SU fan club in some .ru website then has to downplay this with “The Serbs were all bad pilots too.”, “They didn’t have the right weapons.” No, the US simply invests its money very wisely. The US has an excellent balance of training, weapons and aircraft capabilities. When push comes to shove, the USAF has the right stuff, while others win in some simulation or internet chat room.
The best N. Korea has is the MIG29C. The best China has is the SU27 (No 35-The Russians don’t even really have the 35). Look at the best weapons they will carry (Not some trade show future dreamed up BS). The best Medium range AAM they have is equivalent to an AIM7 Sparrow. Then think about this; the F15C with AESA, helmet mounted cueing system, AIM9X, AIM120C is REAL. AWACS, Link 16, is there-it’s not a concept. Consider that a nation like India bought a whopping 40 SU30s and we have something like 700 F15s. Then put a US trained (Some of the best training in the world) pilot with lots of stick time (Our guys get more hours in than nearly anyone else), possibly experienced in Iraq/Balkans (Our pilots have more real world missions than nearly anyone else) or elsewhere in charge of this plane. It’s just an opinion I guess, but all this bla bla bla is just that. It’s some 16 year old at home dreaming up crap and living in his Sukhoi world. If I were Chinese or N. Korean and I had to go up against F15Cs I really would be nervous.
In simulations everyone keeps winning. In the real world the F15 has shot down 102 planes and lost ZERO. You need to include all F15 users, not just the US. I believe the F15 is up to 102 already.
Red6
NONE of these games are realistic representations. The F15 loses against the Indian SUs, Israel, Germans- EVERYONE apparently.
***Good post. Excellent fact/opinion ratio. I guess I don't know what that means when you say the F15 loses regularly in these games. I thought it usually smoked others, it certainly has the right kill ratio in real combat. One more thing, what does SU stand for?
Reality is the F15 flew against the Indian SUs and were NOT allowed to play any engagement past 20 Miles and were outnumbered 2:1. Just an example of how these games are mostly BS. There was no play with ECM or anything else. Every Theoretical launch counted as a hit.
***Thanks. Great stuff. I thought the exercise kill ratios were a solid example of a plane's performance. Thanks for providing the context that I could not find.
Reality is that the F15 had a kill ratio (documented) of 82:0 and that went up to 102:0 since after 1991. This list includes most of the so-called advanced Soviet fighters claimed to match the F15 (Example MIG 29).
***I agree. That was why I found the kill ratio figures of the Harrier vs F15 & F14 so astonishing. I really did want to know the reality of the situation and your post has provided the only discussion of these kill ratios till now. Once everyone settles down & takes a breather, they'll realize that we built a very good thread here with excellent primary source material.
The F15 is still the gorilla in the sky. Sheer kinetics (acceleration-range/time on station-payload, climb rate, initial turn rate, practical speed, internal ECM, lots of flares, G-loads, IFF……) combined with radar power (Now with an AESA- the best there is) make it the Brutus out there. Even today with AMRAAM “C” and AIM9X (And HMCS) the F15C is king of the hill period. That’s why EVERYONE compares themselves to this plane. It sets the standard and it did the day it came out in 1975.
***I had suspected as much. When I was going to airshows in the 1980's, I went up to the Harrier pilots and asked about these kinds of kill ratios in exercises, they were all aware of them and proud of their accomplishments. The considered it an example of its uniqueness and survivability, and, as far as I can recall, its dogfighting capability. The F14 and F15 pilots would always say the same thing: "I wasn't involved in those exercises." I didn't press the issue at the time because, unlike Bandit's allegation, I was not really ANNOYING MAN (I just play one on FreepTV), I was just trying to find out the bottomline truth -- more like Inquisitive Man looking for Primary Source Material. Now I can see that the F15 pilots might have perceived that they were encountering ANNOYING MAN and gave me the blowoff. I dropped the whole thing, went to school & got married, and a few years later it resurfaced.
Some of the new threats are near matches WVR from the airframes capabilities (At the merge), but even the best foe the F15 still outperforms because or BVR capabilities, ECM (Never really played in these matches that are always talked about) and because of weapons capabilities. Not to mention pilots who train more hours, have more real world experience and train exclusive for air supremacy (That’s all a F15C pilot does- air to air).
***Yup. One thing I've noticed is that there does seem to be a flight regime where pilots don't engage the Harrier, which would be when the kinetic energy has wound down towards stall speed in a turning knife fight. Would you say that the Harrier has the advantage here and that these posted kill ratios were a result of the other pilots being drawn into its web at the time? Then as the word got 'round, the approach was to keep up your kinetic energy and strafe it, hence the term "strafing rag"? It would be useful for the purpose of this forum to find some updated kill ratios with the Harrier against others after the pilots got its number. I don't know where to find this info, which is why I did not have it.
If I was an enemy pilot and even in a SU27 and I knew I was going up against F15C’s I would $hit my pants.
***Especially if you consider that it was the pilot ability that seems to have made the difference (almost always the case) in the earlier Harrier vs. others exercises. Our pilots are very well trained vis-a-vis any others in the world. Keep up the good work.
Red6
PS-The US delivered free AIM9s to the Brits during the Falkland war.
You simply don't get it. The Harrier is not a fighter. It is a very limited ground attack aircraft that sacraficed payload and range for the ability to operate without runways because England new that all their runways would be out of action within days of a European shooting war with the Soviets. Its like comparing the kill ratio of an Apache helicopter in ground level engagements with an F-15. All modern U.S. fighters have radar with look down capability to remove ground clutter and anything 5 feet above the ground is dead. Modern avionics and mission computers also mean the fighter from above can strafe an kill anything below it at virtually any approach angle with their gun. The harrier is dead in any realistic fight. It must carry water to cool the jet nozzles and a sling shot could take it down in hover. No further debate required.
For what it's worth, I've not read any posts by you until this thread. From reading your q&a style on this thread, I was reminded of three personality types I've seen: the teenager, the alcoholic and the pseudo intellectual. They all refuse to hear, refuse to give up on their position, refuse to acknowledge superior knowledge and generally try the patience of those they are interacting with. In your case, I went with the teenager.
***I am sorry about the aggressive insults. For awhile, in my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject, I really did think I had a masquerader on my hands and I knew I'd need help to pick him apart. But that was a terrible brainfart, firing off a live round at Bandit. Then, after that, what y'all saw was the Thick-Skinned Guy with Brass Balls Who Doesn't Care What Other People Think. If you were in an A2A exercise and had someone fire what appeared to be a live round during an exercise, it would probably unnerve you. The guy is genuinely sorry about that, but he realizes that "stuff happens", and you need to have your wits about you at all times, so he takes advantage of his consequent position and tries for a kill anyways. I once tried for a job as a radio announcer (I have the looks for radio) and while I was reading the news, they pulled the paper away and said, "keep going." I flopped around like a fish out of water. I saw them do it to someone else who knew the trick, and they started blinking different lights on him & throwing stuff at him; it didn't phase him, and he got the job. As I stated in my "tirade", I was after facts, period. Bandit didn't address the kill ratios, which I found significant. When someone posts primary source material that goes undisputed, it becomes a fact that I build upon and start hammering away. It's like leaving your cabin door broken when you go back home... at first, just some critters move in and steal your Macaroni & Cheese. Then when you return a few weeks later & think, "This isn't so bad, just a raccoon. I'll fix the door later." Then the next time you come in, there's a bear setting up shop, eating a dead raccoon and raiding your fridge. I'm not usually so insulting. Oh, and another mistake was not addressing the gold standard. My "tirade" was more or less a classic argumentation technique of defining the terms, introducing my own gold standard. A Chinese expression is something like, "He who defines the terms wins the argument." Note that the controversy was not resolved until we saw primary source material posted...
Don't get me wrong. The Harrier is an interesting airplane. The Brits spent LOTS of money on it and, proud of their technical achievement, made their military take it. But it is dated. And despite its novelty, it has many limitations: range, payload, speed, etc. Don't believe me, trust your own eyes. Look at recent combat pictures of Marine AV-8Bs and what they are carrying. Compare that to an F-15E or an F/A-18 or an F-16. Compare its range and payload to any of those other three. Like someone else here said: Barney Fife.
***That Barney Fife thing seems a common theme. I'm afraid I don't understand it (yes I remember Don Knotts), but I'll bet it's a funny joke.
And if you think it's not vulnerable to ground fire? Compare it to the A-10. Which would you want to be in when the people on the ground are shooting at you.
***This seems like the most dangerous flight regime in the world, ground attack. We don't lose any F15s nor Harriers to A2A in combat, just ground fire. Nasty deal.
And, though I don't know this for a fact, I'm willing to bet that the A-10 is vastly more maneuverable, not that much slower, can carry a greater load and has a longer loiter time.
***Oh, no, let's not go there. The A10 vs Harrier, which is more maneuverable. Sorry, it just doesn't matter. I was impressed with the "ground loiter" capabilities of the Harrier, which if it had been around during Vietnam, could have really made a major difference. But saving gas is not the same as saving kinetic energy, and the Harrier kills starting from VTO must be some kind of fluke, if they exist at all (certainly no primary source material posted on that one).
You based your entire argument on the results of training exercises and a war that happened how many decades ago against a totally outclassed opponent. Even so, as others have tried valiantly to point out, the Brits got lucky in the Falklands.
***As I said prior to the melee, the Brits seem pretty good at using what they've got. I would be real nervous trying to take some islands with 2 aircraft carriers reconfigured from cargo ships, 20 planes, some pilots who've never landed on carriers before (try that one with CTOL), and going against superior numbers. Maybe they were lucky, but I admire their courage. Oh, and by the way, folks in this thread may not realize it, but I do admire the courage of our fighter pilots who put their lives on the line for our country. I am not even very good at classic rhetorical argumentation, which is why I was saying that I shouldn't have been on Bandit's six. If you want your head handed back to you on a platter, try arguing with religious zealots like Islamofascists and atheists on an unmoderated forum. This stuff is tame compared to them.
It's too bad that Pukin Dog isn't posting any more, but you didn't lack for experience nor expertise. You were just either too innocent of knowledge to recognize that fact or too blinded by your need to validate your opinions to notice.
***It was the knowledge thing, which is what I stated: "I’m afraid I’m operating at the edge of my radar in terms of time, wherewithal, discernment and knowledge..." Notice I backed down right away once the primary source material started pouring in. And it wasn't a blind thing about validating opinions. It's more like a cat that regularly visits the trees where the crows nest. No matter how many times they scream at him, he isn't going to pay attention because, eventually, he's going to find a baby crow on the ground. So he learns to ignore all the invective aimed at him. If anything, when there's an increase in rancor, it's a sign that lunch is at hand. To mix metaphors, I guess either way I end up eating crow.
None the less, at least some good came from it.
***I totally agree. I knew we were building a good thread with primary source material. I don't like to drive over cliffs, but at least it was a spectacular crash. When the thread started, searching on Google for viff + Harrier + kill ratio generated results all over the map; now all the best hits come to this thread.
My, and I'm sure many, many other's, respect for the people we trust our lives to in combat increased as a result of their taking the time to try and educate you.
***So did mine. Bandit deserves a beer. I'm not that hard to find, I'll buy him one if he shows up. And if doesn't want to talk to me (who can blame him?), I'll buy a beer anyways.
America is the greatest nation on the planet b/c of them and you did good in giving them a chance to reveal themselves, their knowledge, skill and, above all, their patience. For that, I appreciate your inane arguments.
***That was one fantastic insult. Keep up the good work.
Sleep well
***I do.
You simply don't get it. The Harrier is not a fighter.
***I thought we were done with this?
It is a very limited ground attack aircraft that sacraficed payload and range for the ability to operate without runways because England new that all their runways would be out of action within days of a European shooting war with the Soviets. Its like comparing the kill ratio of an Apache helicopter in ground level engagements with an F-15. All modern U.S. fighters have radar with look down capability to remove ground clutter and anything 5 feet above the ground is dead. Modern avionics and mission computers also mean the fighter from above can strafe an kill anything below it at virtually any approach angle with their gun. The harrier is dead in any realistic fight. It must carry water to cool the jet nozzles and a sling shot could take it down in hover. No further debate required.
***Good facts/opinion ratio.
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.