The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

syscom3 · 10-23-2005, 07:50 PM

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 · 10-23-2005, 10:13 PM

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 · 10-23-2005, 10:17 PM

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

syscom3 · 10-23-2005, 11:08 PM

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 · 10-24-2005, 12:37 AM

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.

FLYBOYJ · 10-24-2005, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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!!!!

evangilder · 10-24-2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

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.

FLYBOYJ · 10-24-2005, 09:52 AM

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)........

evangilder · 10-24-2005, 10:07 AM

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

syscom3 · 10-24-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

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.

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.

evangilder · 10-24-2005, 02:49 PM

The reason I posted that was because the number of sorties flown does not indicate the effectiveness of the aircraft. When the **** 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?

cheddar cheese · 10-24-2005, 02:54 PM

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

syscom3 · 10-24-2005, 03:22 PM

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?

evangilder · 10-24-2005, 03:27 PM

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?

lesofprimus · 10-24-2005, 04:38 PM

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....