# Harrier low pass



## syscom3 (Jun 21, 2006)

Even though this is a neat clip, the Harrier is still a pile of s**t.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 27, 2006)

How is the Harrier a pile of s**t? Its one of the greatest military aircraft ever built, VTOL is better than the JSF's! It was also the biggest factor in us Brits winning in the Falklands.

Great video!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 28, 2006)

Besides, did the Americans have any jets based in Germany that didn't need an Airfield in case they were bombed? I think not


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2006)

Full marks to the guy with the camera.

Re syscoms neutral, unbiased, well thought out, documented and supported statement on the Harrier, don't rise to his bait. He is well known for his support of anything but the Harrier.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2006)

Glider said:


> Full marks to the guy with the camera.
> 
> Re syscoms neutral, unbiased, well thought out, documented and supported statement on the Harrier, don't rise to his bait. He is well known for his support of anything but the Harrier.



I think the Spitfire and Me-109 are superior to the Harrier.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 28, 2006)

I agree Glider the guy with the camera did well not to duck...

Does that mean you think that the P-51 is superior to anything flying today?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2006)

The P51 is superior to the -109 and Spit, therefore the -51 is better than the Harriercrap


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2006)

Of course, the Harrier being such a poor design that it embarassed the US design teams by being the only VTOL aircraft in the world at it's time of introduction. And it also being one of only two foreign aircraft used by the US since World War II, the other being the Canberra.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 28, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Of course, the Harrier being such a poor design that it embarassed the US design teams by being the only VTOL aircraft in the world at it's time of introduction. And it also being one of only two foreign aircraft used by the US since World War II, the other being the Canberra.


the us Forces also have used the DHC Caribou Otter and Beaver although these are not "combat" aircraft they were used a lot in Tactical situations from Korea thru Vietnam


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Of course, the Harrier being such a poor design that it embarassed the US design teams by being the only VTOL aircraft in the world at it's time of introduction. And it also being one of only two foreign aircraft used by the US since World War II, the other being the Canberra.



The Harrier is a niche aircraft usefull only in a few circumstances.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2006)

You'll find no aircraft are very good at changing babies nappies, syscom.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2006)

Niche aircraft? it's a ground attack aircraft... that's a pretty big niche! we've had this argument before, she can't have been that bad if NATO, with the choice of pretty much any plane from american and Britain, chose to place the harrier right on the front line in Germany, in the event of a soviet attack on an airfield, it'd be the harriers hiding in forests and little streets that hit back............

oh and pD, the US Navy also use the BAe Hawk, they call it the T-45 Goshawk, they've strenthened the undercarraige and given it an arrester hook and use it as a trainer on their carriers.........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2006)

I wasn't aware the UN had a navy...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

If the harriers were going up against a horde of soviet tank divisions, they would have a glorious and one sortie lifespan.

All shot down.

When it comes to ground attack, its in last place. Good only when its not being shot at.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2006)

Are you informing us, syscom, that the Harriers over the Falkland Isles were not being shot at? Is your well of knowledge changing the course of history to suit your purpose and argument. Are you, telling us all, right now... that Harriers in combat, that have survived, were not shot at?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

Being shot at by poorly equiped Argentine forces is far different than the massed firepower of a couple of Russian tank armies.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 29, 2006)

Mirages aren't that bad...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

The Mirages were at the very end of their ranges and were after the ships. Not the Harriers.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 29, 2006)

That is because they were told to avoid the Harriers and go for the ships.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

And if the Mirages were told to go after the harriers, then a few of both would have been shot down.

Now if you had a full up carrier, you could have ground attack and CAP, all at the same time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2006)

duely corrected pD...........

why are you so certain the Harrier would get shot down, NATO obviously aren't, Britain isn't, even your beloved America isn't, oh, no, wait, i forgot, you're smarter, more wise and have more combat experience than all of them combined..........


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

I suppose your aircraft are protected by invisible shields. I should have suspected that.

Do your pilots also wear tinfoil over their heads too?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

No, syscom, but the Royal Navy has some of the best pilots in the world. And the Harrier took part in air-to-air combat against Argentine aircraft throughout the Falklands War and it wasn't always against fully-laden or retreating Mirages. 

The Harriers were not invincible, three were lost to ground fire. But your implications that no Harriers have survived when ground fire has been encountered is an insult to the British forces. 

_"Good only when its not being shot at."_ 

The Harrier did a remarkable job over the Falklands, Gulf and Iraq. And is currently upholding the air offensive over Afghanistan. All theatres saw the plane, and pilot, shot at time and time again. 

The poorly equipped Argentine military on the Falkland Isles was defended from air attack by this: 

601st Air defence artillery group. 
1 Cardion TPS-44 long range radar. 
1 Roland SAM system. 
3 Tigercat SAM triple launchers. 
6 Skyguard fire control radars each controlling 2 Oerklikon GDF-002 35 mm twin cannons. 
3 Rheinmetall twin 20 mm anti-aircraft guns. 

B Battery, 101st Anti-Aircraft regiment. 
8 30 mm Hispano Suiza guns. 
10 12.7 mm machine guns 

Airfield defence group. 
1 Westinghouse TPS-43F long range radar. 
1 Superfledermaus fire control radar. 
1 Elta short ranged radar 
3 Oerlikon twin 35 mm guns. 
9 Rheinmetall twin 20 mm anti-aircraft guns. 
A number of SA-7 man portable short ranged SAMs. 

No. 1 Marine Air Defence Battalion: 
3 Tigercat SAM triple launchers. 
12 Hispano HS-831 30 mm anti-aircraft guns

Hardly a small amount of AA to contend with. Since most of the equipment would have been centered around Port Stanley.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 1, 2006)

probably being the only one here that can actually say they've seen the best at lo flying the USAF and USN/USMC are not even in the game the RAF are very good at the lo end of things


----------

