The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

[evangilder]

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.

[trackend]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

Sounded like a little touch of venom in that remark SYS

Only one comment really if its **** 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.

[syscom3]

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.

[Glider]

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

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.........

[syscom3]

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.

[evangilder]

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.

[lesofprimus]

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.

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...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

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

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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

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

[lesofprimus]

FINALLY!!! AFTER ALLLLL THIS TIME.... WE FINALLY GOT SYSCOM TO SMILE..................

HOOYA!!!

[Gnomey]

[syscom3]

sometimes, you guys crack me up )

[plan_D]

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.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by plan_D

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 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.

Originally Posted by plan_D

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.

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

Originally Posted by plan_D

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.

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.