The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

And what about Desert Storm it did inland sorties on ground attack roles, and i dont recall it losing a whole lot of planes not like the Tornado did which is a much faster and more advanced plane than the Harrier is.

If the Harrier is a "pile of junk" in a GA role, how many were lost during the Gulf War? It couldn't have been that bad for the mechanics - they were turning them around in an average of 20 minutes in the Gulf.

You'll find for fleet defence it's first rate - among the best. It's small and extremely agile - those in the RAF have the same radar equipment as the F-18 plus superior NV equipment. Being the most advanced Harrier's in the world.

And your whole point on the maintenance bit ..."...you have to remove it's wings to lift the engines up ..." - as was said, taking it out backwards would be impossible in the stowage spaces ...and are you going to call the Lightning "junk" ...because, newsflash, the number one engine had to be lifted, you guessed it, up ...although the wings didn't have to come off. And number two engine went down ...the Lightning really was a maintainers nightmare. Pile of junk? And before you answer, only f*cktards who have no clue about everything would call a Lightning a piece of junk.

Calm it PD. Syscom like to cause a fuss, I think it makes him feel the centre of attention. He has no argument and ignores the facts. In addition he never answers a question that is put to him or produce any facts to support his case. All he does is make statements that he knows are going to cause a ripple.

Given have a chance he would probably agree, no insist, that the Fairy Battle was the Bomber of the war and Blenhiem fighters should have replaced Spits in the BOB.

I don't know Sysoms background but I would be suprised if he has any background in Military aviation, or any other arm of the millitary. If he has Heaven help the other members of his unit.

Everybody learns on this site and when our understanding has proven to be wrong then you, me and the others have always modified our views or agreed to differ. If Syscom won't then thats his loss, not yours or mine.

FLYBOYJ said:

jrk - just call the baldies, they'll take care of it!!!!

Click to expand...

yeah flyboy i hear theyre real smooth in the situation.

sorry mate i couldnt resist that one.

jrk said:

FLYBOYJ said:

jrk - just call the baldies, they'll take care of it!!!!

Click to expand...

yeah flyboy i hear theyre real smooth in the situation.

sorry mate i couldnt resist that one.

Click to expand...

just one last thing about the harrier, if it's that bad why did NATO, with the power to call on aircraft from britain and america (amoung others), place harriers on their eastern most airfeailds in germany?? aircraft on those airfeilds would be the most important and the first to be called into action against the USSR, they were placed there on the ground attack role so they can't be that bad, but they weren't just placed on the airfeilds, they were all over the place, they could take off in streets, small roads and even car parks, a huge advantage as they could easily be hidden from russian attack..........

the lancaster kicks ass said:

just one last thing about the harrier, if it's that bad why did NATO, with the power to call on aircraft from britain and america (amoung others), place harriers on their eastern most airfeailds in germany?? aircraft on those airfeilds would be the most important and the first to be called into action against the USSR, they were placed there on the ground attack role so they can't be that bad, but they weren't just placed on the airfeilds, they were all over the place, they could take off in streets, small roads and even car parks, a huge advantage as they could easily be hidden from russian attack..........

Click to expand...

Great point Lanc! - The Soviets during the good ole Cold War didn't have anything close!

A final note for those who believed that the Harrier in US service only operated over skies cleared of the enemy. This may be of interest.

Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was highlighted by expeditionary air operations performed by the AV-8B. The Harrier II was the first Marine Corps tactical strike platform to arrive in theater, and subsequently operated from various basing postures. Three squadrons, totaling 60 aircraft, and one six-aircraft detachment operated ashore from an expeditionary airfield, while one squadron of 20 aircraft operated from a sea platform. During the ground war, AV-8Bs were based as close as 35 nautical miles (40.22 miles) from the Kuwait border, making them the most forward deployed tactical strike aircraft in theater. The AV-8B flew 3,380 sorties for a total of 4,083 flight hours while maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90%. Average turnaround time during the ground war surge rate flight operations was 23 minutes.

Glider said:

Calm it PD. Syscom like to cause a fuss, I think it makes him feel the centre of attention. He has no argument and ignores the facts. In addition he never answers a question that is put to him or produce any facts to support his case. All he does is make statements that he knows are going to cause a ripple.

Given have a chance he would probably agree, no insist, that the Fairy Battle was the Bomber of the war and Blenhiem fighters should have replaced Spits in the BOB.

I don't know Sysoms background but I would be suprised if he has any background in Military aviation, or any other arm of the millitary. If he has Heaven help the other members of his unit.

Everybody learns on this site and when our understanding has proven to be wrong then you, me and the others have always modified our views or agreed to differ. If Syscom won't then thats his loss, not yours or mine.

Click to expand...

Glider, keep your personal attacks for another forum. All it shows is youre arguing from emotion and cant backup any of your facts for what I am arguing for. Now if you have bothered to read what I posted, its the following.

1: The Harrier in the fleet defense has a usefull role to play.

2: The harrier for ground attack is way outclassed and hardly worth the time and effort spent on it for that role

3: At 24 million per copy, to carry 9000 pounds of munitons for only 100 miles is an enormous sum for any airforce.

4: Replacing an engine requires the removal of the wings which is not a simple or quick job to do. I dont see the F18, A10 OR ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT needing the wings removed to swap an engine.

6: The harrier didnt do much in the way for support over the battlefield that was still defended by SAMS or medium/heavy AAA. It is sensitive to battle damage and had to stay away from those areas.

7: I never said the Lightning was ugly. On the contrary, its a good interceptor.

8: So what if NATO deployed the Harrier up close to the border. The soviet air defenses would have swatted them down like fly's just like most NATO ground attack aircraft. Even the A10 would have had troubles.

9: If its a wonder weapoon, why arent the Marines screaming left and right for it?

Since your country HAS to operate the Harrier because of lack of an alternative, it doesnt mean the USMC has to. In fact, the whole rationale for the USMC to use it is for dedicated ground support. And there is plenty of evidence that has yet to be refuted that its not the optimum aircraft to use for that role. Fleet defense should always be handled by the USN, not the ground pounders. And if the USN decides that this will be a dedicated air defense aircraft, then configure it for that role, and stiop pretending for it to be a ground attack aircraft. This weapon was designed with the cold war in mind...... and in case you havent noticed, it was over 15 years ago.

There are cheaper and more effective alternatives to this plane, and if politics had not been a concern, the Harrier would have been retired at the end of GW1.

i feel a tommy cooper moment coming on.the one where he puts elbow up to his shoulder.

tc."doctor every time i do this it hurts."

doc."well dont do it."

syscom3 said:

There are cheaper and more effective alternatives to this plane.

Click to expand...

Yes, the F-35....

And although it will cost more per unit, it will be cheaper in the long run when the airframes last 25 or 30 years!!!

F35 is not a deployed aircraft. Before we pass judgement on it, lets see how it works for a few years in the real world.

syscom3 said:

F35 is not a deployed aircraft. Before we pass judgement on it, lets see how it works for a few years in the real world.

Click to expand...

Yep - I already bought lockheed-martin stock 8)

Syscom. You keep repeating the same statements but you have not submitted any evidence to back up any statement that you have made.

Taking them one at a time from your last post.

1 The Harrier in the fleet defense has a usefull role to play
You started saying that is was OK against non manoevering targets

2: The harrier for ground attack is way outclassed and hardly worth the time and effort spent on it for that role.

A valid point of view. I don't agree with it but a valid point of view. I did observe that the actual payload carried in combat which is what really counts is similar to any other GA plane. I asked what evidence you had to back up that it was vastly superior. You quoted brochure figures which isn;t the point.

3. At 24 million per copy, to carry 9000 pounds of munitons for only 100 miles is an enormous sum for any airforce

True but one that the Marines, British, Spanish, Indian forces seem happy to pay However its a valid point of view.

4 Replacing an engine requires the removal of the wings which is not a simple or quick job to do. I dont see the F18, A10 OR ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT needing the wings removed to swap an engine.

You have a real fixation on this point, have you ever done it? Many componebts can be removed and replaced in situ. The actual removal of the whole engine is unusual and not an every day occurance. The forces who use the Harrier have been able to manage very well. I haven't done an engine change on a Harrier but I have on F4's and Buccaneer's and it isn't something that I enjoyed.
Availability is well above average, reliability is way above average. To the people who use the plane these are the figures that count.

6: The harrier didnt do much in the way for support over the battlefield that was still defended by SAMS or medium/heavy AAA. It is sensitive to battle damage and had to stay away from those areas.

Total rubbish, SUPPLY YOUR EVIDENCE. Loads of evidence has been put forward to show that the Harrier was in the front line from 1982 to the Second Gulf War. Where is your evidence. This is the most damming error you make and I believe that YOU OWE IT to those who fly and maintain these planes to put up or apologise. This has gone beyond put up or shut up.

7: I never said the Lightning was ugly. On the contrary, its a good interceptor

I think its ugly, but I also consider it to be a simply superb interceptor, totally unmatched in its day by anything. I think you will find it was plan D point

8: So what if NATO deployed the Harrier up close to the border. The soviet air defenses would have swatted them down like fly's just like most NATO ground attack aircraft. Even the A10 would have had troubles.

EVIDENCE PLEASE. 1982 is cold war and I have provided clear evidence that the Harrier operated at the worst possible position against the most sophisticated AA guns/missiles/Radars in the world and they did very well indeed. Put up or withdraw this statement.
By the way you seem to have ignored the info that it was the first plane deployed against the Iraq forces and was based closer to the front than any other plane.

9: If its a wonder weapoon, why arent the Marines screaming left and right for it?

You address your own point. They have been screaming to keep it.

I repeat that the time has come to replace the Harrier. This is now underway but as a plane it has done everything that it has been asked to do. You cannot expect more from any aircraft. If its replacement does as well we will be more than satisfied.

Subject now closed

8 hour engine change.....

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/engine_change.htm

The Harrier in a fleet defense fighter would be good because its opponents would be aircraft carrying heavy anti-ship missles which would be unmaneuverable. It wouldn't be very hard for them to intercept and shoot them down. If its opponants are just plain old fighters with no bombs or AGM, then it wouldnt harm the ships.

I checked with several reputable websites that had the same figures. 9000 pounds at 120 miles or 4000 pounds for a slightly longer range.

Dont compare the small defenses at Ft Stanley as compared to what NATO would face against the Soviets. The shear volume of fire from them would ensure all attack planes would have a good chance at taking damage, and the Harrier is not capable at handling it. Since it takes 8 hours to change an engine, and youre only 50 miles or less from the front, its a good chance that your Harrier would be nailed from opposing forces while sitting on the ground being fixed.

My source comes from my colleague at work. A Marine veteran of GW1. He didnt have a very high opinion of the jet. He preferred helo's and F18's. He wished the marines would have spent their money on A10's!

And the marines are always screaming for one thing or another. What branch of the service doesnt? But give them the choice of an F18 or an AV8. guess which one they preffer to have.

reluctantly i discuss this you guys all seem fixated on maximum speed most modern fighters endurance at full power and this is a generous estimate would be less then 30 minutes which would give them a range including taxi take off and approach of less then 200 miles not including setting up for the attack the harrier was designed to be a ac close to the battlefield so range should not be a major factor although it would be nice . personally i.ve been in position to watch mock attacks on airfields f4s f18s f 5s f16s vulcans jaguars bucaneers at diiferent times and harrier was most fun to watch

Good Point

Port Stanley ...not Fort Stanley ...

Youre right. Stanley is in Hong Kong. Great place to have a cold beer while watching the sampams go by on the Pearl River estuary.

I worked at the nearby Fort Stanley for awhile. It was weird as HK was turned over to the PRC then, and the fort was occupied by chicoms.