The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time. (4 Viewers)

[syscom3]

I remember something being said in the aviation community back in the 80's that the F20 was a pure dogfighter with minimal ground attack capabilities. Thats the primary reason the USAF wasnt going to use it.

Northrup wanted the State Dept to offer it as the primary fighter jet available for export to 2nd and 3rd world nations. But many potential customers balked at it with the idea that "If it isnt good enough the USAF, why should it be good enough for me?".

For the Harrier: My opinion is that its a piece of junk. The LA Times had a huge expose on it last year that showed it was a maintence nightmare, extremely sensitive to damage and has a really bad accident rate. Sorry if I offended any of our Brit readers, but facts are facts.

 

[Glider]

Imagine. If we could do as well as we did in the Falklands with a pile of junk. What would we have done with a decent plane.

Lets see. Thousands of miles from home, limited support from carriers that were always under threat of attack. Often operating in filthy weather conditions. Always heavily outnumbered from an enemy secure from attack and supported by the whole country. Attacking heavily defended targets protected by the best AA defenses in the world (Roland AA missiles and radar guided 30mm cannon, plus numerous 20mm). Better than anything the UK or USA had at the time. Operating in GA roles and air to air plus of course no AWACS or ground control, from temporary strips on the ground and using Landing Ships as a base on one occasion.

Yep, not bad for a piece of junk.

Syscom. Would you care to name any other plane from any other country at the time that would have done any better. Being suspicious I tend to feel another NIH attack coming on

 

[syscom3]

It did a fine job in the Falklands as it was the only thing you had. You gotta dance with the girl you brought to the prom. But to say it was going up against dense, sophisticated defenses is stretching it a bit.

But look at its performance in GW1 and GW2. Had to be kept at arms length from the important missions cause it was to vulnerable to damage. The Marines made a mistake thinking that this airplane could function in a modern battlefield. Better to have Apaches and F18's than Harriers.

To change an engine requires the removal of the wings? Hah! Plus its sustained sortie rate is low. Plus its payload that it carriers for the ammount of resources needed to maintain it makes it a golden cow.

Then theres the accident rate in peacetime. More than one crewchief refused to fly in one on a checkride cause they new how unsafe they were.

In a non desert type of battlefield, where it wont be ingesting dust and sand, against a foe with minimal AA defenses then it could be usefull. But if anyone of those are present, then ground the plane and convert the groundcrews to foot soldiers.

 

[trackend]

I would'nt say the Harrier is a piece of Junk Sys it is not perfect thats for sure but for an aicraft to have an in service history of 30 odd years must mean that the role it has carried out for that length of time has not been bettered by any other aircraft the Apaches are great helicopters but in terms of speed they are donkeys compared to fixed wing jets and the
F 18 needs a runway combine the two and bingo it becomes a very formidable aircraft indeed.
The idea of vertical capability in a fixed wing plane is still being pursued in the shape of the Osprey and the Lockheed X35A the Harrier has proven that the concept can be put into a very servicable aircraft . The stories of Harrier pilots VIFFing to get an advantage over the Argentinian Super Etandard's I am not sure of but they where very successful at taking them on and beating them in dog fights, so Junk no, getting old yes.

 

[syscom3]

The Falklands were nearly 25 years ago, and time has progressed. GW1 and GW2 proved that the Harrier might have been an interesting idea in the 70's, but it has no place on the modern battlefield.

And as much as even current technology allows, all VTOL aircraft are sensitive to battle damage.

I still maintain its a piece of junk. In the US Marines, way to much men and material are wasted on it. For foreign navy's, well........ if you dont have a carrier that can launch traditional aircraft, then Youre stuck with 2nd and 3rd best.

 

[Glider]

Syscom
As you don't challenge the success of the Harrier in the Falklands or propose an alternative plane at the time I assume your view now is 'It was a first class plane when it came out but I feel that its now a pile of junk'.

To me the comment 'it might have been an interesting idea in the 70's' = 'How do I get out of this without admitting I was wrong at least at the start'.

To bring it more up to date, I think you will find that the first time that the RN Harrier FA2 took part in a Red Flag exercise, it was the only fighter (and one of the few ever) to match the aggressor F15's one for one in kills. This is despite the age of the plane and its lack of speed. Pretty good for a old pile of junk.

Obviously a traditional carrier plane has a number of advantages in particular Range and Speed and these are greater than the advantages in a Harrier but don't be to quick write off the old dog.
When landing as sea its a lot easier to stop and land as opposed to land and stop. There have been exercises when the weather has been so bad that the US Carrier had to stop flying but the Harriers could continue. On one occasion HMS Invincible sent a message to the US carrier ' Don't worry big brother, little brother will look after you'. They even framed it and presented it to them

I would be more impressed if there were examples of the US Marines saying that the aircraft was a dog and the money would have been better spent on something else. I know that politicians have tried to kill it off a number of times in the USA but my belief is that the Marines moved heaven and earth to keep them.

As PD points out the Harrier isn't perfect and does demand more from a pilot than most with the additional risk, but it delivers. It is also an old plane and inevitably this will have an impact on the maintenance involved but that applies to any old aircraft. Technology has moved on and it is time for a replacement but to call it junk is an exaggeration.

 

[Gnomey]

Well said Glider.

 

[evangilder]

Hmmm, from the USMC official site:

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.

http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/5306aebae2b024dd8525626e0048ccf7?OpenDocument

 

[syscom3]

Syscom
As you don't challenge the success of the Harrier in the Falklands or propose an alternative plane at the time I assume your view now is 'It was a first class plane when it came out but I feel that its now a pile of junk'.

It was a first class piece of junk..... just kidding. The Argentine AF was operating at the very max of its range, with the fighter bombers coming in with no escort. Id like to see what the Harrier would have done with an agile fighter going after it.

To me the comment 'it might have been an interesting idea in the 70's' = 'How do I get out of this without admitting I was wrong at least at the start'.

Time proves whether a concept was valid. Id say the Harrier occupied a niche for awhile, looked good on paper. But as events unfolded in the Middle East, it was obvious to be not the optimum plane to use and it didnt really "wow" anyone.

To bring it more up to date, I think you will find that the first time that the RN Harrier FA2 took part in a Red Flag exercise, it was the only fighter (and one of the few ever) to match the aggressor F15's one for one in kills. This is despite the age of the plane and its lack of speed. Pretty good for a old pile of junk.

Its quite possible that many years ago, thrust vectoring was a surprise to many people and it could have done in the F15's. But what about a success against F16's? Or F18's? Unless those practice kills accoured withing the past 15 years, I'd say the Harriers wouldnt have the same success.

Obviously a traditional carrier plane has a number of advantages in particular Range and Speed and these are greater than the advantages in a Harrier but don't be to quick write off the old dog.
When landing as sea its a lot easier to stop and land as opposed to land and stop. There have been exercises when the weather has been so bad that the US Carrier had to stop flying but the Harriers could continue. On one occasion HMS Invincible sent a message to the US carrier ' Don't worry big brother, little brother will look after you'. They even framed it and presented it to them

The Harrier has its only role as a backup for the big boys when flying weather is bad. And as events showed in the middle east, the harriers had neifhter the loiter time, nor payload to be worth the effort of deploying them. Note to the USAF: When the USN is having operations hampered by bad weather, please send over some F15's to provide cover till the weather improves.

I would be more impressed if there were examples of the US Marines saying that the aircraft was a dog and the money would have been better spent on something else. I know that politicians have tried to kill it off a number of times in the USA but my belief is that the Marines moved heaven and earth to keep them.

Every country in the world has difficulties killing off weapons programs. The US is no different. The USMC did have the political power in Congress to keep the program alive untill the F35 was deployed. Even though a joint senate/house investigation (in conjunction with a GAO report, as well as a JCS internal report) clearly identified this airplane as substandard, this plane will undoubtably keep flying, even though it clearly cant do what it was designed for. Its a very expensive plane to build and maintain.

As PD points out the Harrier isn't perfect and does demand more from a pilot than most with the additional risk, but it delivers. It is also an old plane and inevitably this will have an impact on the maintenance involved but that applies to any old aircraft. Technology has moved on and it is time for a replacement but to call it junk is an exaggeration.

It is a piece of junk because its expensive, difficult to maintain, easy to shootdown from damage, loiter time and payload is unimpressive and its an idea whos time has come and gone. Better for the marines to train the Harrier pilots for the F18 than to expend resources for this contraption.

Note to all...... remember we should all know to be leery on what the services say of their respective weapons. Just because the AF or Marines, or navy says this or that..... always take it with a grain of salt.

 

[evangilder]

I would also take anything written in the LA Times with a grain of salt. You won't find a more liberal rag than that.

 

[syscom3]

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2003/national-reporting/works/national1.html

The LA Times does have a good national reputation for investigative reports. Just cause their politics and editorials suck, it doesnt mean its all bad.

 

[evangilder]

Some of their articles are okay, but they are a very liberal slanted newspaper. The number of sorties and hours flown is a known fact though. I think calling the Harrier a piece of junk is not quite right. Now the Osprey...

 

[102first_hussars]

I agree the Harrier is not a peice of junk,

 

[lesofprimus]

You won't find a more liberal rag than that.

A vision of Martha Stewart suddenly came to my mind....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Harrier (like many aircraft) has limitations - it's far from a piece of junk - the LA Times is a Liberal roll of Toilet Paper - I'd rather read the Enquirer......

I met their aviation editior at an airshow once - I told him he was a moron and he should stick to writing about bad airline service because that's about the limit of his aviation knowlege capacity.....

I guess he thought I was going to kick his ass, so he left the airshow!

 

[syscom3]

They won the Pulitzer prize for the article. That means unlike the hariett meirs nomination, it was vetted and checked for accuracy.

Most of the complaints about the article had to do with technicalities and minor issues. The main points and thrust of the argument still stands.

Hey, if you want to shoot the messanger, go ahead. But it doesnt change the facts.

 

[evangilder]

3,380 sorties during the short Desert Storm I war says alot about an aircraft that you call a "piece of junk". It has been in service for a long time. Sure, it has maintenance headaches, but a lot of other aircraft in service do as well.

 

[lesofprimus]

Call the Harrier a piece of junk to the 100's of dead Iraqi military members that are having tea with Allah....

 

[syscom3]

When you look at how much money we spent on the planes vs its payload it can carry, its obvious its an inefficent use of money.

Plus so what it had such a big sortie rate. It could only fly over the airspace that was already cleared of SAMS and most AAA. It was the Hornets and A10's that went where it was tough. The marines could have used Apaches to better effect.

And know why they had so many sorties? Cause they didnt have the payload to do the job.

 

[Glider]

Obviously I didn't read the article in question but I gather that it implied that it can only operate in almost undefended skies. Well the RAF don't have A10's and Hornets but it didn't stop us using them right in the front line with first class results.
As for the A10, judging from the photo's I have seen on this site its saving grace is that it can take a serious amount of damage and it needed to. Harriers cannot take the same amount of damage as an A10 (nothing in the air can) but RAF Harriers were operating in the same environment and not getting hit.
By the way, you said that I was stretching things when I said that the Falklands were well defended. It is a fact that Argentina had Roland missile launchers on the Island defending the airbase. These were backed up by Tigercat missiles and the troops carried Blowpipes and SA-7's. The guns defending the Airbase were the twin 30mm cannons guided by the Skyguard radar system and these were supported by numerous twin 20mm. The Roland and the Skyguard were absolutely state of the art at the time and are still today, better than anything the USA has in the field as AA defence.
Put this lot together with the fact that the Argentines knew that we would attack the airstrip, and by default the likely approaches we would use plus the long range Hughes warning radar and you have very formidable defences. Evidence for these facts are spread over museums in the UK because of course we captured them. In fact the Skyguard and 30mm were issued to UK reserve forces because they were better than anything we had as well as the USA.
As for the fact that the Harrier cannot operate in sand, that is laughable. The UK have been using them in exercises in the Gulf since they were first introduced.

As for why the sortie rate. Its reliable, can operate in sand, doesn't get hit (despite being in the front line), can be based close to the front line and is available when called on.