Harrier smooth moves

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2006-04-17 19:02

I just remembered being told that the harrier is in a true dogfight is VERY deadly. I'm talking the turning and burning type. I guess that the JSF would have the same ability, but I'm not sure.

What I'm talking about is it's turn radius. I heard that the harrier can actually turn it's thrust nozzles while flying and somehow make a turn even tighter. Turning is everything in a dogfight. especally in BF2. Just thought I'd throw that out and get feedback.

It'd be pretty cool to be able to do that in game!

Szarko · Post by **Szarko** » 2006-04-17 19:07

Thrust vectoring? Is that what your talking about?

mrmong · Post by **mrmong** » 2006-04-17 19:22

i made a thread about its ability to jump behind enemy aircraft tailing it

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-04-17 20:06

I think its more theory than combat tested and even still would require a brave and highly skilled pilot to mess with the thrust nozzles in a dogfight to the point in which you are describing. Combine that with the fact the the harrier is a death trap and likes to fall out of the sky like a stone. They dont call it the Scarier for nothin. lol

mrmong · Post by **mrmong** » 2006-04-17 20:58

they used it all the time in the falklands

Sgt. Jarvis · Post by **Sgt. Jarvis** » 2006-04-17 21:31

But they retired it in the UK. It's still used by Marines though...

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-04-17 21:40

mrmong wrote:they used it all the time in the falklands

The falklands is the only time the harrier has really been combat tested, and the UK were the only ones to use it in Air to Air, marines use them for ground attack and CAS. And they are still death traps, more so than any other combat aircraft in service today.

Skullening.Chris · Post by **Skullening.Chris** » 2006-04-17 21:46

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/farfrom1.html

Sad stuff...

As Yount shot out of the cockpit, his seat rotated out of position. When his parachute unfurled above him, its harness straps smacked violently against his helmet, whipsawing his head. The 42-year-old lieutenant colonel and father of two young girls died instantly of a broken neck.

Article also mentions POS Osprey...

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2006-04-17 22:39

Sgt. Jarvis wrote:But they retired it in the UK. It's still used by Marines though...

No, they haven't. The Royal Navy retired the Sea Harrier, which was the last '1st generation' Harrier in service with the UK Armed Forces.

The RAF and Navy still have GR.7 & GR.9 varients.

In regards to the stories about the Harrier being a death trap, it seems to me to be an issue with the AV8. We haven't had an overly concerning number of accidents of Harriers compared to any other aircraft model or varient in service with the British Armed Forces today.

I look forward to hundreds of forum members on a mission to prove me wrong....happy googling

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-04-17 22:47

'[R-DEV wrote:Gaz']

I look forward to hundreds of forum members on a mission to prove me wrong....happy googling

"Across the Atlantic, planes in Britain's much smaller Royal Air Force fleet have been crashing at an even higher rate. Between 1990 and 2000, the models most similar to the Marines' AV-8B had cumulative major accident rates ranging from 12 to 19 when the U.S. military standard is applied.

Fifteen major accidents killed two British and one American pilot during that period.

In August, an RAF Harrier slammed into the sea as the pilot parachuted to safety in front of thousands of spectators at a Suffolk air show. The cause of the crash is under investigation."

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/farfrom1.html

Touche?

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2006-04-17 22:52

SiN|ScarFace wrote:when the U.S. military standard is applied.

That like the US Military's standard of friendly fire identification??

Fifteen major accidents killed two British and one American pilot during that period.

Notice. 2 British pilots. Training losses. We have 3-4 times more die during infantry basic training each year than the RAF have from guys falling outta the sky.

maybe check a few more sites?

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-04-17 23:00

Number of air accidents that resulted in severe damage or loss of the aircraft

Sea Harrier T4 & T8. - 1979 to 2001, 27 total.
Harrier GR7 & T10 - 1988 to 2001, 18 total.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2006-04-17 23:08

ok, compare that to all varients of the Tornado and Jaguar.

The point I am trying to make is your comments that the aircraft is a 'deathtrap'. All your figures are about loss of or severe damage to the aircraft. I wonder if your figures above take into account the Harriers lost in the Falklands?

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-04-17 23:37

I found the info you said good luck finding. And one would assume there have been many more tornados and jaguars in service than there have been harriers no?

What does the falklands have to do with accidents? I would argue that the quality of pilots in the royal navy was much better than that of the argentine air force.

So you are saying that the harrier is not more dangerous to fly and operate than say a tornado or a hornet?

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2006-04-18 00:15

I meant I knew someone would be up all night googling it to prove me wrong...I was just interested in seeing who would 'bite'

I'm saying that the figures you quoted may include the aircraft lost in the Falklands conflict

I am not even 100% sure of the number lost though.

I am saying that if the Harrier was a 'deathtrap' it WOULD NOT have served over 20 years in the two largest and most professional Naval Forces in the world. I don't doubt that it take more experience and skill to fly than a conventional jet (that's why RAF pilots have to progress via fast jet experience - Tornado, to fly them). But I highly doubt they'd allow a deathtrap to be flown, or if they would let total tards fly em

Let's let this one get back on topic, before it turns into another Harrier bashing thread, like this one...

http://realitymod.com/forum/t4911-sea-h ... tired.html

Otherwise, this will be locked.

Deuce6 · Post by **Deuce6** » 2006-04-18 03:15

I agree. I don't think the military wouldn't allow our forces to fly a "deathtrap" nowadays. Although trying to dogfight in a harrier sounds pretty dumb, considering you'd bleed off airspeed and stall out if you tried to use the directional nozzles. Not an expert on this, just saying what I figure might happen.

mrmong · Post by **mrmong** » 2006-04-18 09:35

SiN|ScarFace wrote:The falklands is the only time the harrier has really been combat tested, and the UK were the only ones to use it in Air to Air, marines use them for ground attack and CAS. And they are still death traps, more so than any other combat aircraft in service today.

i meant the vectoring thing

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-04-18 14:36

Sgt. Jarvis wrote:But they retired it in the UK. It's still used by Marines though...

errm the british ones are still flying only FRS-1's and FA-2's are not in service.

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-04-18 14:38

'[R-DEV wrote:Gaz']ok, compare that to all varients of the Tornado and Jaguar.

The point I am trying to make is your comments that the aircraft is a 'deathtrap'. All your figures are about loss of or severe damage to the aircraft. I wonder if your figures above take into account the Harriers lost in the Falklands?

i believe that we lost like one to all the purakas that we took down.

mrmong · Post by **mrmong** » 2006-04-18 16:54

that was shot down by something on the ground