Your top 10 modern fighters

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

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,

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?

[The Basket]

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.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by The Basket

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.

In 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.

[Glider]

[quote=mkloby;269913]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.

In a couple short years when the F-35 is out - the Harrier alone won't have that capability any longer.

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 technology

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.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Glider

The ski jump makes a huge difference at sea and I have always wondered why the USA didn't follow this practice.

Russians had a shot at it, aboard the Tbilisi in late 1989 with MiG-29s and Su-27s. Take-off runs, depending on weight, varied between 330-600 feet. The short run benefited from the use of deck-launch 'restrainers', which were hinged planks, raised ahead of the mainwheels to allow the engines to be run up to full thrust before the aircraft was released. Deck-end speed was 75-85 knots.

But as renrich pointed out, a loaded A6...?

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Graeme

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?

The developers had originally thought they could increase the thrust by ducting part of the engines thrust at takeoff 'to "augmentor" flaps in the wings and in the oversized canard. By dragging free-stream air through the flaps and increasing the mass flow, the augmentor flaps would boost the engines thrust by 70 percent - in theory' (Quoted from Joint Strike Fighter: Boeing X-32 vs Lockheed Martin X-35, by Bill Sweetman). As static tests with the engine running at military power showed, these estimates were grossly overstated. 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.

[Aussie1001]

Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
either model ???

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
either model ???

none of the above.....

[Aussie1001]

Jesus that's not exactly good on it's part oh well i guess it wasn't really designed to be a supersonic plane with all the bulky gear that gives it the ability to go VTOL

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

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.

Hmm..I've been under the impression that shortcomings in the Thrust Augmented Wing (TAW) had been revealed at Rockwell's "whirly-rig" stage, but pressed on hoping the problem could be overcome by experimenting with the prototype.

Must have been a huge disappointment/embarrassment for Rockwell. In 1975 Company President Jim Tichenor told a reporter that, "It'll make the Harrier as dead as the dodo". One company history book, 'Rockwell-The Heritage of North American' (1986) makes no mention of the saga or the XFV-12A, at all.
Bill Gunston states that when Rockwell was pressed, "they explained that they failed to achieve the desired augmentation ratio, (1:6), in the ejector ducts, but there was more to it than this".

Thanks for your input SoD Stitch

[Aussie1001]

Sir Winston Spencer Churchill onec said this which in the circumstances i think is rather approporiate if a little wrong in this case anyway:

Eating words has never given me indigestion.
Winston Churchill
He also said this:

Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement.
Winston Churchill

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
either model ???

Could have been.

Russians did.

Now go outside, and kick the footy for awhile!

[The Basket]

The Harrier performed excellently in the Falklands.

The Harrier isn't supersonic but so what?

Tanks aren't supersonic. The Apache isn't supersonic.

The Harrier was the ONLY successful VTOL aircraft.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You have the remember the Harrier was not designed to be a interceptor or air supperiority fighter like the F-15, F-14, F-16 and so forth.

The Harrier was designed to be used in ground attack and support missions. That is why the US Marines bought it and why other nations such as England use it.

To compare it to aircraft such as the F-15 and so forth is a bit foolish in my opinion.

The Harrier is a great ground attack but does not come close to the A-10 in my opinion.

[Aussie1001]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Could have been.

Russians did.

Now go outside, and kick the footy for awhile!

WTF dont have a footy however will ride motorbike at soonest oppotunity....