Nice information Les and good pics, it took a fair bit of damage to the wings. What about the fusalage and engine though any hits there?
The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.
- Thread starter 102first_hussars
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
SLAM DUNK! 8)
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Still it only carries 9000 pounds of ordinance for 100 miles at 24 million dollars a copy. Not cost effective. Way too much money.
In the fleet defense role, its far more effective. No arguments about that.
Only thing those pictures proved is the wings were sure built solid!
And the Marine Corps doctrine is obsolete. Its still cold war thinking. The harriers need to be sold off or scrapped, Apache's and F18's brought in to replace them. Far more effective.
The A10 can also be refueled in the air, plus it has far longer loiter time/range so a tanker isnt wasted.
In the fleet defense role, its far more effective. No arguments about that.
Only thing those pictures proved is the wings were sure built solid!
And the Marine Corps doctrine is obsolete. Its still cold war thinking. The harriers need to be sold off or scrapped, Apache's and F18's brought in to replace them. Far more effective.
The A10 can also be refueled in the air, plus it has far longer loiter time/range so a tanker isnt wasted.
cheddar cheese
Major General
As lanc made very clear, that is the figure for a vertical take-off, which is seldom used in combat...
Apaches in place of Harriers? I think not. Alongside maybe but not in place of, theyre too unreliable.
Glider
Captain
Would someone like to tell Syscom about the problems that the Apaches are having in Afganistan due to the height and the heat?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Glider, what about it? Are you going to tell me the AAA in Afghanistan is so weak, the harrier is safe?
And if the Harrier isnt going to be used in a VTOL mode, then what is its rationale?
And if the Harrier isnt going to be used in a VTOL mode, then what is its rationale?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Glider said:
Right now I believe the Apache has the highest maintenance man hour to flight hour ratio out of all the aircraft within the US Armed services.
cheddar cheese
Major General
One was recently shot down after taking a hit from ONE .bullet from an AK. Ok it was a lucky shot, but still.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
helicopters are maintenece intensive. But Helo's are always easier in the sum total of cost to procure, fly, maintain and pilot training than compared to a Harrier.
Its another one of those comparing apples with oranges (am tempted to say lemons for the harrier, heheheheheh).
Its another one of those comparing apples with oranges (am tempted to say lemons for the harrier, heheheheheh).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
I maintained helicopters - As far as maintenance, I'll take 5 harriers over one Apache anyday!!!!
- Thread starter
- #251
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
syscom3 said:
Your telling us that the A-10 is basically imperveous to any AA weaponary?What if an SA-2 Surface to Air Missile flies up right behind an A-10 and hits it Directly on the Engines, youre saying chances are it will keep flying, is that along the lines of what your saying?
Because if it is, that means the A-10 is hands down the most Durable aircraf around, and for a jet that is hard to beleive.
And another thing Syscom Your statistics on the Harrier is not exact true because I just Learned Something, the Harrier was actually able to take off on the catapualt with a payload of 12000 pounds (not 9000) including external fuel, Oh an Sys The Harriers Range was more like 230 miles, but thats only after a vertical takeoff with a payload of 3tons. The Harrier doesnt use up as much fuel when it launches from the catapault.
cheddar cheese
Major General
The A-10 is bloody tough - It was designed to be able to fly lacking an engine, thats why theyre placed where they are.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
cheddar cheese said:
Agree with that!
Glider
Captain
No Syscom it was the assertion that the Marines would be better off replacing Harriers with Apaches.
The maintanence load for an Apache is very significant and in Afganistan they have trouble operating because like a lot of helicopters they cannot operate well or sometimes at all, at altitude.
You are the one that made that statement not I.
The maintanence load for an Apache is very significant and in Afganistan they have trouble operating because like a lot of helicopters they cannot operate well or sometimes at all, at altitude.
You are the one that made that statement not I.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
102first_hussars said:
Come on, dont go to extremes. I suppose an atomic weapon would bring down anything too.
102first_hussars said:
Well, if its flying from carriers with catapults, then we dont need it. Might as well use F18's. My figures are correct and cross referenced. 9000 pounds for 120 miles on a non cat launch.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not if it was launched with it's full load, performs a strike, and completes it's sortie at a 200' forward air strip - an F-18 ain't doing that!!!!syscom3 said:
The aircraft has attributes that kept it around for 30 years and it's proponents still out weigh it opponents, dispite it's limitations. As we speak the Marines (NAVAIR) is still getting funding for numerous mods and improvements that will keep this aircraft around for several more years, probably until the F-35 comes on line. Say and believe what you might think of the Harrier, if it was the dog you claim it to be it would of been gone many years ago....
Here: http://www.navair.navy.mil/clo/GetDocFile.CFM?DID=1427
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
A-10's dont fly off aircraft carriers..........
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The politics of weapons sytems in the US is amazing. Just because its funded, doesnt mean its good. And if its one thing the marines are good at, its getting funded.
A10 cant be flown off a carrier? Well the harrier dont carry the variety and payload an A10 has either.
And the F18 is both a good fighter and bomber. Far more versatile than the Harrier.
A10 cant be flown off a carrier? Well the harrier dont carry the variety and payload an A10 has either.
And the F18 is both a good fighter and bomber. Far more versatile than the Harrier.
- Thread starter
- #259
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Either way, until the new JSF comes out it is easy to say that all around the Harrier is the best naval aircraft at least, simply because it can get off the carrier deck quick enough to intercept enemy planes.
- Thread starter
- #260
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
syscom3 said:
the f-18 has be know to break into a flat spin trying to do certain manouvers the Harrier does very well, and the durability of the F-18's Tail Wing is another question that makes me question why the canadian airforce bought 1200 of those planes.
