Your air to air kill ratio numbers against anything more potent than the Argentinian Air Force are all based on anonymous sources pulled from internet chat sites. That is ironic considering you spend several paragraphs explaining your "rule of COIN". Live by your own rule, and stop posting "bogus" numbers. For the record, my last name is Rokke and I've been flying F-16's for 15 years. I've personally met Gunrunner2 and am very familiar with his background. USNBandit and I both attended the finest military academy in the world and graduated one year apart. I have also met A6Intruder while I was deployed to Langley AFB shortly after Sept 11. Grace522 and I just sat Noble Eagle alert together 2 days ago. The only person I haven't met in person is Mr Rogers, but I've corresponded with him enough to know he is who he says he is. None of us claim to be aficionados. That is because we are all experts. We have to be to accomplish our jobs. Knowing the air to air capabilities of aircraft is a job requirement, and one that our life depends on. I have fought against Harriers several times in my career. Never. Not once have I seen them use anything resembling a "VIFF". Nor do I know anyone else who has ever fought a Harrier that performed a "VIFF". That is because it would be stupid for them to do that, and they know it. Getting extremely slow in a within visual range engagement is your last move before dying. It may give you the turn radius from hell, but when your adversary takes it into the vertical after you try your little trick, your little Pegasus motor doesn't have what it takes to transition from nearly stopped to useful forward thrust before you're taking a AIM-9 up one of your very hot little nozzles. By your definitions, the meanest air to air aircraft in the sky would be helicopters. And since the B-52 has a 2 - 0 air to air record in actual combat, it must be a potent air to air platform. Hell, it's undefeated against a threat that actually did quite well against our top fighters at the time.
Your lectures on this site being Jim Robinson's house are all very nice, but since you've been here for so long (and incidentally, my first signup name was Rock and I can't remember my login either. 23 July 1998) you must know that one of the greatest assets of this site is the fact that it is populated with true to life experts on just about every topic imaginable. Since you acknowledge that you aren't one in this field, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss others who offer reasonable discussion on the topic at hand just because their opinions are not the same as yours.
You've gone from calling USNBandit a fraud
***I withdrew that accusation publicly. And also, Bandit, I apologize.
to calling everyone who disagrees with you (which is everyone on this thread) a fraud.
***Umm, no, I haven't called anyone else a fraud. And someone in this forum has called me a "pretender, a fake and a fraud." We have a factual disagreement here. I am differentiating primary and secondary source material because all these guys are signed up anonymously. There is no easy way to verify that they ARE fighter pilots. Primary source material is more valuable than secondary source material, but I think with enough of you guys present, we can turn that around. I'll talk about that later.
You rely on one book published in 1978, and another published following a war fought in 1982 to declare the Harrier an air to air killing machine.
***Well, then there's those kill ratios which are a bit astonishing. I know I'm using old material, that's all I have. It shouldn't be that difficult to knock it down.
Did you actually read Commander Ward's book? Perhaps you could share with us how many times British Harriers "VIFFed" in their engagements with Argentinian aircraft.
***I can't find his book. I'm afraid we're stuck with his claim on a 7:1 kill ratio vs. F15s.
And perhaps you ought to mention that nearly every kill was made using U.S. provided Aim-9L missiles, which were leading edge technology at the time. You also might want to mention that all of the Argentinian aircraft were operating at the extreme edge of their operational radius, and had neither the fuel or configuration for aerial engagements.
***Okay, good stuff here. High fact/opinion ratio.
Finally, Argentinian A-4 and Mirage III aircraft are not exactly a useful control group to determine an aircraft's potency as an air to air fighter. They couldn't even get their bombs to function correctly.
***That makes the aircraft lousy? Doesn't that make the bombs lousy?
Your air to air kill ratio numbers against anything more potent than the Argentinian Air Force are all based on anonymous sources pulled from internet chat sites.
***Umm, the combat kill ratios in the Falklands are well accepted. I think the problem we all have is the kill ratios from the "NATO Warplanes" article and Commander Ward. These are verifiable primary sources. But I am in no position to verify the identities of the fighter pilots in this forum any more than I can verify the identities in the other "chat sites".
That is ironic considering you spend several paragraphs explaining your "rule of COIN".
***As I already stated, "these tend to be secondary sources rather than primary sources, but the fact that both sides agree on certain facts tends to be highly significant." It is also highly significant that so far (since my last post) no one has disputed the primary source material of kill ratios by the Harrier. So this is the big red blinking light that we're all going to need to discuss.
Live by your own rule, and stop posting "bogus" numbers.
***I intend to.
For the record, my last name is Rokke and I've been flying F-16's for 15 years. I've personally met Gunrunner2 and am very familiar with his background.
***BINGO! You've just graduated from secondary source to primary source. I think we should be able to get to the bottom of this controversy in short order. Thanks for doing that.
USNBandit and I both attended the finest military academy in the world and graduated one year apart. I have also met A6Intruder while I was deployed to Langley AFB shortly after Sept 11. Grace522 and I just sat Noble Eagle alert together 2 days ago. The only person I haven't met in person is Mr Rogers, but I've corresponded with him enough to know he is who he says he is. None of us claim to be aficionados. That is because we are all experts. We have to be to accomplish our jobs.
***OK, very cool. Then your expertise triumphs the meandering postings of a Harrier afficianado and we can all resolve the controversy.
Knowing the air to air capabilities of aircraft is a job requirement, and one that our life depends on.
***That was why I had gotten suspicious of Bandit in the first place, but he has proven himself to be a credit to the Navy by being so patient.
I have fought against Harriers several times in my career. Never. Not once have I seen them use anything resembling a "VIFF". Nor do I know anyone else who has ever fought a Harrier that performed a "VIFF". That is because it would be stupid for them to do that, and they know it. Getting extremely slow in a within visual range engagement is your last move before dying. It may give you the turn radius from hell, but when your adversary takes it into the vertical after you try your little trick, your little Pegasus motor doesn't have what it takes to transition from nearly stopped to useful forward thrust before you're taking a AIM-9 up one of your very hot little nozzles.
****Excellent Primary Source Post. Exactly what we needed to resolve the controversy. Thank you for going out on a limb. I'm sure the folks who read through this thread in a year or two will appreciate it very much.
By your definitions, the meanest air to air aircraft in the sky would be helicopters.
***Nope. I think there have been a couple of misconceptions operating. I thought it was odd that the Harrier could rack up kills operating from a vertical takeoff with very little kinetic energy. It just doesn't make sense. Also, the Harrier pilots tend to VIFF more than just as a hard break maneuver, they vector their nozzles to stay at maximum throttle when they're flying at low speeds. But there might be a scenario that made sense in the exercises for a Harrier winning while starting with low Kinetic Energy. Here goes: The Eagle pilot is going around looking for tanks, full load of ordinance. He sees a slow moving air target on his radar and assumes it to be a helicopter, swinging around for the kill without dropping his ordinance. He comes back over the hill to re-establish radar contact and looks where the helicopter should be, based on its maximum flight speed, and it's not there. Soon, there's a blip on his radar, which is now going faster than a helicopter and he is right in the middle of the flight envelope where the Harrier is strong, already in a knife fight at a disadvantage. Typical of the Brits, they exploit this weakness and skew the results of the air exercise with an aircraft that probably should be retired. Does that sound plausible? I just don't think it's a good idea to start a dogfight with very little kinetic energy, so this strategy would probably never be used in real combat.
And since the B-52 has a 2 - 0 air to air record in actual combat, it must be a potent air to air platform. Hell, it's undefeated against a threat that actually did quite well against our top fighters at the time.
***Interesting straw argument, but I never said it and I don't hold that position. But I really do appreciate you operating in the clear and resolving most of this controversy.
Your lectures on this site being Jim Robinson's house are all very nice, but since you've been here for so long (and incidentally, my first signup name was Rock and I can't remember my login either. 23 July 1998) you must know that one of the greatest assets of this site is the fact that it is populated with true to life experts on just about every topic imaginable.
***I know that, but as I stated, I didn't get the magic decoder ring that enables me to verify your identities. But your post should be good enough to resolve the dispute and we can all go our own way. Right here I would like to say to all you guys that I do appreciate your service to our country and I will say a prayer for each one of you. Thank you.
Since you acknowledge that you aren't one in this field, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss others who offer reasonable discussion on the topic at hand just because their opinions are not the same as yours.
***It's not a dismissal, it's just pointing out that since people are anonymous in this forum, it relegates them to secondary source material. It's unfortunate. But I don't think it's all that necessary for people to break anonymity if they don't want to, I had been working on a way around it. But you have resolved the controversy. What I had in mind was to have all the fighter guys on that ping list weigh in with whatever information they were willing to provide in terms of what year they flew, the name of the exercises, which aircraft they were in, what their kill ratio versus the Harrier was, and what their overall squadron kill ratio was. With that kind of material we could have built a case with secondary source material that refutes the kill ratios of the posted primary source material. We could still do that if they want to, but you guys are probably all a little peeved at seeing one of your own take hits in this forum. Anyways, good job. Keep up the good work.
Rokke:
Your air to air kill ratio numbers against anything more potent than the Argentinian Air Force are all based on anonymous sources pulled from internet chat sites.
***No, they were taken from pre-internet published sources, such as Commander Sharkey who flew harriers.
Nor do I know anyone else who has ever fought a Harrier that performed a “VIFF”. That is because it would be stupid for them to do that, and they know it. Getting extremely slow in a within visual range engagement is your last move before dying.
***The straw argument here is assuming that VIFF is full 90degree nozzle engagement, which is not the case. VIFFing at 10-15 degrees means that the turn is tighter, the throttle is still at 100%, but a high wing loading airfoil like the harrier turns like a low wing loading Mirage. None of the guys on this thread addressed this and other straw arguments.