renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Can you see an A6 loaded using a ski jump?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And then, this one time at band camp, the F-16's were not flung into the air haphazardly. The tacticians were actually competent.
.
.
Isn't you avartar a helicopter ?
Yeah I talked to some Harrier mechanics in Iraq and they said it was a pain in the ass to work on.
I am sure though that the pilots who fly it love it.
The Rockwell XFV-12A was waaaaaaaaay underpowered . . . it had a second-generation low bypass-ratio turbofan (a P&W F401) that didn't provide enough thrust to get it off the ground,
The Harrier is designed to fly from short runways and improvised airstrips.
It can do things no other jet can do.
To compare to say a F-15E is a little misleading. If the runway has been damaged beyoynd repiar the Eagle goes nowhere.
The Sea Harrier has one of the best kill ratios of a modern jet. And against a west equipped airpower.
I believe it also has a mishap rate about 4 times that of an F/A-18 in US service. Don't quote me on that one, though.
Which means that the RN made a good choice swapping the Harrier for the F35. No one can pretend that the Harrier is as good or as flexible as the F35, there is at least a generation difference in the technologyIn a couple short years when the F-35 is out - the Harrier alone won't have that capability any longer.
Also - don't forget the pilots that US and Brit Harrier drivers went up against have nowhere near their level of training.
Completely agree, but the FRS1 used in the Falklands was a remarkable plane that performed well, despite a huge number of tactical disadvantages. However and more relavent to he points raised in this thread, its reliability was unmatched in extreamly difficult war conditions. Which after all, is when it counts.
Also the FRS2 held a remarkable record in Red Flag exercises against the F15.
The ski jump makes a huge difference at sea and I have always wondered why the USA didn't follow this practice.
But they still built a prototype. This is what I don't understand. The 'lab tests' revealed that there was only enough thrust to lift 75 per cent of the aircraft. Why prove the point, by building the plane?
none of the above.....Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
either model ???
As static tests with the engine running at military power showed, these estimates were grossly overastated. So, it wasn't a case of "them" building an aircraft that they knew was underpowered, but one in which the theory did not live up to reality.