The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

Which is the Best?

  • Total voters
    281

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

Your only complaint seems to derive from the expense, and to some extent (although disproven from the turnaround time in the Gulf War) maintenance. Yet you consider the Tornado a good aircraft, or at least superior to the Harrier ...yet, you forget that the Tornado is one of the most expensive fighter/ground attack aircraft in the world, and Apaches aren't cheap - and the AH-64D is about as reliable as British made consumer electronics.

The only reason the Harrier can truly be called less than adequete is because of the difficulty of flight in one. How do you solve the problem? Get decent pilots. The Royal Navy and RAF handle their Harriers perfectly because they train their pilots to the best to do so.

The Harrier has a top notch combat record. It can operate from spaces other fixed wing can't, it can carry payload to do it's job ...in fact, it's proved to the world it can do it's job. Price doesn't matter in combat if it saves lives of your own troops ...the Harrier does it, has done and will continue to do it. And certainly ...the price is high but it's still in service with one of the most tight fisted world powers on the planet, Britain ...trust me, if the Harrier was that expensive - Britain would just scrap the Carriers.
 

The Tornado can carry a higher payload, fly faster, fly farther than the Harrier. Plus it can go places where the Harrier cant go.... namely over defended airspace. The AH64 is helicopter, so we would be comparing apples and oranges. But if you insist, the AH64 needs far fewer troops to maintain it, does not need a super sophisticated logistics base to keep it flying, air crew training far simpler (and cheaper), can land anywhere safely if its damaged (unlike a Harrier which would probably crash). Plus its impressive variety of guided and unguided rockets makes it tops for really close in support.


Good point. But then the cost to train and keep proficient those pilots add's to its overall cost.


Top notch against the Argentinians, "ho-hum" against Iraq. Price does matter in combat. If its too expensive, then you dont get enough of what you need. Its obvious the Brits need the Harrier because of the lack of an alternative. But the reality is you have a 2nd (or even 3rd rate) attack plane. For fleet defense, it does the job well enough as long as its going up against non-maneuvering aircraft.

The harrier is a usefull fleet defense aircraft if a carrier or land based fighters is not available. For ground support, if nothing else is available, then I suppose you have to make do with an inferior fragile contraption. But when the big boys are there to provide the support, the Harriers should scoot right back to their bases (with their tails between their legs) in case they might get damaged.
 
D has a great point - TRAINING. And that always seems to emerge as a factor with an aircraft with a high accident rate.

The AH-64D has an extremely high flight hour to maintenance ratio (I don't remember exactly was it is) making it one of the most labor intensive combat aircraft in the world today - it won't surprise me if it's higher than the Harrier....

It's been obvious over the years that Marines have a bit more rambunctious with regards to "Operational Risk Management" or ORM. Each branch of the US Military embraces this process, but the Marines, based their mission and their operational physique seem to sometimes brushes this aside, take the risks, and ultimately experience the higher losses. As an old Marine once told me, "Spare me the details, make it happen."

Bottom line, the Harrier's performance during the Falklands cannot be disputed, severely outnumbered, it put up one of the greatest performances of combat aircraft next to the Spitfire or Hurricane during the BoB......
 
syscom3 wrote

Top notch against the Argentinians, "ho-hum" against Iraq. Price does matter in combat. If its too expensive, then you dont get enough of what you need. Its obvious the Brits need the Harrier because of the lack of an alternative. But the reality is you have a 2nd (or even 3rd rate) attack plane. For fleet defense, it does the job well enough as long as its going up against non-maneuvering aircraft.



if the harrier is only supposed to hold the aces over non manouverable aircraft then why is it several harriers ACTUALLY destroyed several MIRAGE,DAGGERS(which were israeli lisense built mirages) A4 SKYHAWKS.i wouldnt describe them as being non manouverable aircraft.
 
They were flying at the maximum extent of their range, loaded with ordinance. Quite simply, they (the ones that were intercepted by the harriers) were too few in numbers, commited in piecemeal fashion.

They also didnt have a clue that the Harriers were going to do some thrust vectoring while in flight. Excellent surprise for them, but once it was known, unlikely to repeat that experience.

Now, if the harriers were closer in, where the fighters had enough fuel to dogfight them, the result might have been far different. All you need is some IR countermeasures and use your superior speed to advantage, and then the Harriers would be EXPENSIVE junk on the ocean floor.
 
Syscom I have mentioned before that you don't anwser questions.
Can you explain how the Sea Harrier does so well against the US Aggressors in the Red Flag exercises. I doubt that you would call F15's and F16's flown by the worlds experts in air combat, non manouvering?

PS Please don't mention using the vector thrust. Its a manoever of absolute last resort as you lose speed, energy, position and become a sitting duck if there is another plane around.
 
The harrier is quite maneuverable. I think its the wing shape and dihedral that makes it very quick for a snap roll. And the harriers did do thrust vectoring against the Argentinians.

And they dont always dominate the F15's and F16's, cause if it were true, then the AF would be buying the Harriers left and right.

As Ive said.... as a fleet defense fighter, it has its role and place. As ground attack, its second rate. maybe even third rate.

They probably did quite well before the AF had it figured out.
 
Syscom. The only example of using Thrust vectoring that I have found was to slow down enough to shoot down a damaged Pucara. I know that other people found one more example but it certainly isn't the norm for the reasons I posted before.
I have also never claimed that they dominated the F15 and F16. Just matching them with those pilots is a significant achievement in any aircraft by any airforce.
 

That's called exploiting your enemy's weaknesses!!!! The FAA suckered the FAS into their tactics, kicked their butt with "a piece of junk" and then walked away with destroying 35% of the Argentine AF!!! Your argument is like crying foul becuase you got kicked in the nuts during a street fight!!

Here's some more info....

"Argentina lost 22 Skyhawks—19 from Grupos 4 and 5 and three more from a naval Skyhawk squadron. Grupo 8 lost two Mirages, and Grupo 6 lost 11 of its 30 Daggers. The 2d Bomber Squadron lost two Canberras. In all, the FAS lost 41 percent of its aircraft to combat and operational accidents."
 
Flyboy, my point is the harriers engaged the argentine fighters when they didnt have the fuel to dogfight.

A kill is a kill, and sure doesnt deminish the achievement.

But, in a hypothetical engagment, put those Harriers 200 miles farther to the west, and let them go two on twowith a Mirage. Things would be different.

And again, I will repeat........ I repeat........ I repeat........... Its a capable fleet defense fighter. Its junk for close support or attack.
 
syscom3 said:
But, in a hypothetical engagment, put those Harriers 200 miles farther to the west, and let them go two on twowith a Mirage. Things would be different.
Click to expand...

I doubt that - Air-to-air the Harrier was superior with the exception of speed, which didn't factor in the dogfight.

Got this from a report about the Falklands....

"The FAS launched almost all of its strike forces into action on 1 May 1982. The first two flights of fighters ingressed at medium altitude, failed to find the British force, reached their "bingo" fuel limits, and had to turn back. In midafternoon, the third flight of four Mirages sent to engage the Harriers found their prey. The flight of two Harriers flying CAP outmaneuvered the Mirages and quickly downed two of the Argentine fighters with Sidewinder missiles. A third Mirage pilot used up too much fuel to return to his Argentine base and tried to make an emergency landing at the Port Stanley airfield. The Argentinian air defenders mis-identified their Mirage for an attacking British aircraft, successfully engaged, and shot it down, killing the pilot."
 
Ok, so if a sidewinder was shot at the Harrier, it would miss? Sounds like Argentine pilots were not skilled enough to engage the Harriers. Or they didnt know the correct tactics. If one thing the Harrier ISNT is.... is a fast aircraft. Use the correct tactics against a small nimble aircraft that is slow relative to you, and you will blast it from the skies. Just like the F4 pilots did against the Mig 17's in Vietnam, after they relearned the tactics.

The Harriers moment of glory was a quarter century ago. Its time has come and gone. Its now just an overpriced airplane with a one act show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

New Chinese Fighter
Replies
1
Views
472
Capt. Vick
F-4 Phantom II - McDonnell Douglas Supersonic Jet Interceptor And Fighter Bomber
Replies
11
Views
1K
Gnomey
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
898
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
543
Thumpalumpacus
M
Launch the Alert Fighters ....And Grab the Xbox Controller
Replies
1
Views
318
Denniss
D
Menu
Log in
Register