The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

syscom3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the messenger is a bone head - write anything anti-conservative or anti-military and you'll win a Pulitzer, especially if it seems like the tax payer is being screwed!!!!

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

Let's run a little comparison here. The Harrier flew 3,380 sorties during the 1991 Gulf war. That is just a little over 2x what the B-52 flew. The BUFF flew 1,620 sorties during that time. Flying more sorties does not necessarily indicate a lack of payload.

LA Times also broke the story aboutthe $800.00 toilet seat - that was BS as well. The seat was actually an enclosure that was made of fire resistant plasitc. Lockheed actually overcharged the government about 4% which was about $35.00 and was allowed to do so by Federal Acqusition Regulations - you don't see the Time writing anything about that?!?!

Les is right - you want the truth, ask the Iraqi Army how effective the Harrier was (is)........

Or ask the US troops on the ground who called in the airstrike and were helped by the Harrier.

evangilder said:

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

Let's run a little comparison here. The Harrier flew 3,380 sorties during the 1991 Gulf war. That is just a little over 2x what the B-52 flew. The BUFF flew 1,620 sorties during that time. Flying more sorties does not necessarily indicate a lack of payload.

Click to expand...

Are you comparing a B52 with a Harrier?.........

Just moments ago, I asked my coworker about what aircraft he perffered to answer the call for airstikes. His qualification is he was a squad leader for a marine recon unit in GW1 (even has a chunk of mortar shrapnel on his desk that was pulled out of his thigh).

His answer......... Helicopter gunship, besides the A10 or Hornet. he chuckled about the harrier.

The reason I posted that was because the number of sorties flown does not indicate the effectiveness of the aircraft. When the shit hits the fan and you call in for air support, you can't be picky and you will be thankful for what you can get. So if it's a Harrier or nothing, well the choice is obvious.

If it is so bad, why do they still have them?

Exactly, theyve performed sterling service over the years, I dont know how you can actually call them "pieces of junk"

Stellar service? Well I suppose it was stellar service for the harrier for the Brits, cause there is nothing else to use.

For the US? hah!

Expensive to use, limited survivability and ho-hum payload.

The only admited role it could be used with effect, is in shipboard defense. But then it has to be totally revamped to take on a 100% air-to-air mission role. And hopefully it wont have engine problems at sea cause the wings would have to removed to fix them! How long would that take........ several hours?..... 1/2 a day?

Replacing engines on a lot of modern fighters is no easy task. Again, if they are so bad, why are they still in use? You say that the F-18, helos and the A-10 can do their job, well then, why have the Harriers not been put into mothballs?

I remember on atleast one occasion, where the Harrier saved my ass in the field.... Calling an aircraft a piece of junk, when it saves Navy and Marine Corps lives, is alittle bit un-educated, even if it aint the best aircraft in the sky....

And for the record, I would rather have helo support from a gunship than a Harrier....

I never personally got out of a jam with a Harrier, but helos did on many occasions and that would be my preference only from personal experience. I will agree that it is not the best, but I certainly would not call it a piece of junk.

syscom3 said:

Stellar service? Well I suppose it was stellar service for the harrier for the Brits, cause there is nothing else to use.

Click to expand...

Sounded like a little touch of venom in that remark SYS

Only one comment really if its shit why has Lockheed ect taken on the task of developing a replacment when they could just use choppers?.
Perhaps theres a roll that a VTOL super sonic aircraft can do that helos ect can't without the Harrier's proven track record (all beit slower than the new design) it would not have been even considered as a viable project to take on.

Well, it was the British Govts decision to retire the big carriers with catapults. Its the only plane you have, so you gotta use it...right?

And the F35 replacement might or might not be a capable plane. Once again, an airplane is being designed to be something of everything for everyone.

Syscom.
.Re the removal of the wing to do an engine change. In the RN its preferable to lift things because the hangers have overhead cranes and lifting them is by far the quickest way to do a change. I take it you have never been on the hanger deck of a loaded carrier. I have and I promise you that any suggestion to take it out backwards would have the engineers falling about in laughter.
Contrary to popular belief the RAF do know what they are doing and the RAF Harrier was designed to be operated away from bases on short strips and they seem to manage quite well.

Your main argument also has one major floor. You admit that the Harrier had a high sortie rate but insist that its unreliable. That doesn't square up in my book, can you explain how it squares up in yours.

You also go on about the payload. On an attack mission a Harrier normally carries about 4,000ib. I know the book weights for the other attack planes are considerably greater, but how many times do you see an A10 or F18 carry much more than that on an actual mission. The A10's that I have seen seem to carry four AT missiles and a couple of bombs which weigh about the same. Do you have any details about actual war loads which at the end of the day are what counts to back up your claims.

You are right that its the only plane the RN have and we use it. That isn't the point, the questions is is it a pile of junk? Can you explain why the Marines purchased it because it isn't the only plane that they have?
It isn't the only attack aircraft that the RAF have either. The Jaguar is a very good GA aircraft with an excellent if overlooked track record. If the Harrier was so bad, why didn't we buy more Jaguars?
I should point out that a carrier version of the Jaguar was built but not continued with as we were moving away from the traditional carrier.

You are at liberty to say that you believe that the Harrier is over the hill and not all its cracked up to be. I may disagree with the last but I have said as have others that technology has moved on and its time for a replacement. Just dont be so aggressive, you only set yourself up for a fall.

Your comments are getting more aggressive and less factual. The points that I and the others have rasied are factually correct and address your points. A number of questions have been asked and you tend not to awnser them. Try to awnser the questions.

syscom3 said:

And the F35 replacement might or might not be a capable plane. Once again, an airplane is being designed to be something of everything for everyone.

Click to expand...

It's VSTOL methodology is entirely different from the Harrier - During the JSF flyoff it won hands down - there is no indicated reason at this time why that aircraft won't be successful unless it's funding is cut.

A side note - my best friend designed the electrical System for the X-35. I got to see the first flights as well as the hover flight out of Palmdale - he said the surface was barely scratched with what you saw during the JSF competition.........

The Jag is a great airplane. No complaints about it. Harrier sortie rates... impressive but was it mission after mission over defended airspace the A10, F18 and Tornado had to do? Nope. It was kept nice and cozy away from the nasty stuff. It couldnt handle the battle damage. Real Impressive for an attack airplane.

Lets compare the two......
Harrier 2 has a combat radius of 100 miles with a single barrel 25mm gun with a 9000 pound payload. This figure is for STOL takeoff. The VTOL would be even worse.
Cost = $23.7 Million

A10 has a combat range of 800 miles with a 6 barrel 30mm gun with a payload of 16,000 lbs.
Cost is about $10 million in 1998 dollars.

A10 carries more for less. But its actually comparing apples and oranges.

Reason for the Marines using it still? Because of politics. The Marines are the last organization in the US military that seems to be having trouble "playing ball" with the other services. It still justifies the rationale for the Harrier due to its lack of dedicated air support in GUADALCANAL IN 1942!!!!!!!! Thats right. What happened 63 years ago still drives doctrine.
Every attempt to get marine aviation folded under the USN or even parts of it handled by the USAF or USA is met with resistance. I think Don Rumsfeld has lost his hair the past few years due to the Maines having their own agenda and not following his doctrine.

I still stand by my analysis that for ground support, its expensive junk. For fleet defense, it does occupy a niche role that is increasingly irrelevant.

The A-10 is outstanding, I will give you that, but it doesn't have an arresting hook, making it useless for fleet Marines. Helos works well in most situations, but they are also very vulnerable to ground fire, especially in the rotors. It still has a purpose.

I will definatly agree with u that it is WAAAYYY too highly priced for the role it plays.....

However.............

impressive but was it mission after mission over defended airspace the A10, F18 and Tornado had to do? Nope.

Click to expand...

Why are u comparing a Marine Close Air Support aircraft with the F-18 and the Tornado?? 2 completely different roles....

As a side note, watching a Harrier hover 10 feet over a sand dune and destroy 2 APC's, an AAA piece and a Command Bunker before ur very own eyes would probably change ur mind, or atleast appreciate it more, like it did mine...

syscom3 said:

Every attempt to get marine aviation folded under the USN or even parts of it handled by the USAF or USA is met with resistance. I think Don Rumsfeld has lost his hair the past few years due to the Maines having their own agenda and not following his doctrine.

Click to expand...

More hair will be lost now that the Chairman of the JCS is a Marine.....

FLYBOYJ said:

syscom3 said:

Every attempt to get marine aviation folded under the USN or even parts of it handled by the USAF or USA is met with resistance. I think Don Rumsfeld has lost his hair the past few years due to the Maines having their own agenda and not following his doctrine.

Click to expand...

More hair will be lost now that the Chairman of the JCS is a Marine.....

Click to expand...

hahahaha, that one gave a smile to my face......