Harrier low pass

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

syscom3

Pacific Historian
14,712
10,350
Jun 4, 2005
Orange County, CA
Even though this is a neat clip, the Harrier is still a pile of s**t.
 

Attachments

  • harrier.wmv
    5.8 MB · Views: 109
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! :lol: :lol:
 
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.
 
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.

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Back