>>By the way, there were a LOT of dogfights set up against different types >>of agressors against the Sea Harriers before the Falklands (this included >>red flag agressors in F-18s). The WORST the Sea Harriers did on any day >>was to win 4-1. Indeed the fights were so one sided that the Red Flag >>pilots thought they had been set-up and were being graded by their boses >>by flying against specially trained pilots. All the harrier pilots were >>normal squadron jockeys. Basically if the Harreirs were not killed in a >>BVR engagement then they one the battle, end of story....
John Gregor Oct 23 1994, 8:32 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military From: a...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Gregor) - Find messages by this author Date: 24 Oct 1994 03:32:57 GMT Local: Sun, Oct 23 1994 8:32 pm Subject: Re: Harrier is a best dogfighter? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
In a previous article, gree...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH) says:
>takes a backseat to experiment, and the experiment has been done. In Red >Flags in the early and mid 1980s, -15 and -16 pilots quickly learned to >STAY beyond visual range when engaging Harriers. When they closed with >Harriers, they lost to Harriers. No matter how much speed you carry into
This is true, which is also why this whole debate is of little value. The kill ratios for Harriers against other aircraft in dogfighting are well known from Red Flag and other such exercizes, and no amount of debate here is going to change them. The Harrier has achieved a 3 to 1 kill ratio
against F-16s, 15s, and 18s in nearly every such exercize held. It is nearly impossible to fight a thrust vectoring aircraft with a pilot who knows how to use the advantages of his aircraft, and the Harrier can turn inside of ANY other western aircraft. Hence, they win dogfights. Of course, an incompetent pilot can lose a dogfight in any aircraft, but with two equally qualified pilots the Harrier will win.
>Dart drivers beat Harriers in only 20% of their engagements in Red Flag.
Yes. For a long time, other A/C had a long range advantage over the Harrier in that they could engage BVR. With new Harriers carring BVR missiles, this advantage will be moot. John
WCI Oct 24 1994, 6:03 am show options Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military From: j...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Joe Makkerh (WCI)) - Find messages by this author Date: 20 Oct 1994 17:05:51 GMT Local: Thurs, Oct 20 1994 10:05 am Subject: Re: Harrier is a best dogfighter?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse rati...@ccs.neu.edu (Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>>>>>> "Alex" == Alex Daggart writes: >Alex> Since nobody can possibly sit on a Harrier's tail, does it mean that >Alex> when it comes to knives nobody can beat a Harrier? (Pilots' skills >Alex> are equal.) >Nope. In a knife-fight, speed=superiority=victory. The Harrier is the >second slowest fighter up there (the title of slowest belongs to the A-10), >and while VIFFing can save your ass a couple of times the odds in the long >run are definitely with the faster aircraft.
I don't agree. Dogfights occur at about 400 knots- something the Harrier can easily achieve. Furthermore the T:W ratio for the Harrier is outstanding so it can accelerate to these speeds much more quickly than almost any counterpart. It can't run away though, or give chase to an enemy running away. Joe
Lee Green MD MPH Oct 25 1994, 11:31 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military From: gree...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH) - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 21:35:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Harrier is a best dogfighter? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article , rati...@ccs.neu.edu
- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - (Stainless Steel Rat) wrote: > >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Makkerh (WCI) writes: > Joe> I don't agree. Dogfights occur at about 400 knots- something the > Joe> Harrier can easily achieve.
> Only the "meat" of the fight. Engagement and disengagement occour at much > higher velocities, and those are the most dangerous times for the slower > aircraft.
> Joe> Furthermore the T:W ratio for the Harrier is outstanding so it can > Joe> accelerate to these speeds much more quickly than almost any > Joe> counterpart. > In some cases yes. But if it has to pivot it's thrusters from "down" to > "back" that's time the fixed-engine enemy has to accelerate that the > Harrier doesn't.
> Joe> It can't run away though, or give chase to an enemy running away. > And that's where it will loose, unless it's flying NoE and can quickly find > cover.
Theorizing about what will happen in dogfights is good fun, but theory takes a backseat to experiment, and the experiment has been done. In Red Flags in the early and mid 1980s, -15 and -16 pilots quickly learned to STAY beyond visual range when engaging Harriers. When they closed with Harriers, they lost to Harriers. No matter how much speed you carry into
the engagement, no matter whether you take the fight one-circle or two, or vertical, the Harrier will turn inside you. If you are lucky enough to get on its six, you won't be there long enough to get a shot off. Try to take a passing shot at high speed a la Me262 and you better hope he's out of heat missiles; the Harrier may be slow but Sidewinders aren't. Lawn Dart drivers beat Harriers in only 20% of their engagements in Red Flag .
Others have pointed out the reasons the jump jet doesn't make a good choice for general air superiority work (speed, range, avionics, load, available weapons systems), but it's not something you want to get into a knife fight with even in a good air superiority fighter.
-- Lee Green MD MPH | Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own, Family Practice | and do not represent the University of University of Michigan | Michigan. Medical commentary is for general gree...@umich.edu | information and discussion; consult your | personal physician for your own care.
This is probably not the best source to assess the air to air capabilities of the Harrier. As soon as one of comments in your post stated that the Harrier could eat anybodies lunch is a 2 circle fight you should see that these people don't have any personal knowledge of air to air combat.
From personal experience I can tell you that the Harrier does not have a magic move. I've flown against Harriers both as a fleet Tomcat pilot and as an adversary pilot. They aren't that tough to beat.
Back to the original discussion of STOVL vs. CSTOL carriers....A look at the Falklands crisis shows how limited those aircraft were. STOVL carriers had a small number of Harriers and helicopters on them. They had no tankers, no fixed wing early warning or ASW aircraft. For early warning they had a strap on radar for their helicopters. A small carrier or cargo ship with a landing pad on it does no have the capability to launch a sizable strike and can barely man a reasonable air defense. In addition cargo carriers have no ability to defend themselves, make big targets, and lack the crews to handle damage control. Lack of power projection allowed groups of A-4 Skyhawks to attack the amphibious ships and surface combatants guarding them. The UK got lucky because the Argentine A-4s dudded a lot of bombs that hit UK ships.
By comparision a super carrier of that timeframe carried two squadrons of Tomcats (air to air only), Two squadrons of A-6's, a squadron of A-7's, 4 EA-6B, 4 E-2C, 6 S-3s, and 6 SH-3. A carrier battlegroup of that day could have mounted long range strikes into Argentine airfields for several days and then once air superiority was assured supported landing operations on the islands.
This is from the article that you posted. It pretty much says it all. The UK STOVL carriers could not handle the threat from the Argentine air force. In the meantime the UK lost 8 ships and would have lost more with 13 unexploded bombs delivered by Argentine aircraft.