Those are the trial requirements (i.e. we need a testing range large enough that the aircraft can start 75 nm apart), not the radar requirements.
The Blue Vixen could detect a Sea Harrier FA.2 (roughly 5m2 RCS) at a range of 54 nautical miles at medium altitude and 30 nautical miles at low level.
Spoiler
According to this bug report a 1978 standard F-15 could detect a 2m2 target (so smaller than the FA.2 target) at 78 nautical miles range.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VoRssKha8xH6
Presumably “F-15s from the late 80s and early 90s” would be even better than that.
3 Likes
That’s definitely not 78 NM detection of a 2m2 target.
its 78 of a medium sized target, whatever that is in m2 no idea. Likely larger than a FA.2.
2 Likes
Compared to an F-15 it would be abysmal BVR.
1 Like
It’s nerfed as all hell and I somehow manage fine.
You realize the game is not even close to approximating real life. Harrier as a launch platform has abysmal performance metrics that the Brits thought would be important in BVR combat.
Also “managing just fine” is amounts to farming Chinese bots in Sim?
1 Like
If you want to talk real life there are several metrics that make it decent with only 1 real draw back, it being subsonic.
2 Likes
Does this distinction even matter though? Eve when looking at Eurofighter documents, one of the common through-lines is the Germans wanting to replace ECR-90 with AN/APG-68 to save cost.
We always see this claim that Captor-M was “the best mechanically scanned” radar at a time when that technology was approaching obsolescence. It’s like people saying that the Su-27 has the most advanced cassegrain antenna and running with the implication that it’s just as good as the tech that replaced it.
The drawback is that it’s overall performance is low compared to dedicated fighters. It being subsonic is part of its low performance.
1 Like
It’s overall performance is better then MiG-23 F-4E
mirage 3 and F-5E
In sustained turn rates and instantaneous turn rates (with VIFF) not to mention much smaller turning circles and AOA in combination with all those other metrics.
It falls between the later slatted agile Eagle F-4s and the F-15A in sustained turns.
The F-15A with 8 missiles and a centerline fuel tank has a maximum sustained turn rate at sea level of approximately 17 D/S
The Sea Harrier post modification 1242 will sustain 15.4 D/S with 2 100 gallon drop tanks and 2 9L or 2 AMRAAM also at sea level
The harrier will also have approximately 3 times the combat fuel burn endurance rate. Meaning it can stay engaged in the fight 3 times as long as the eagle.
1 Like
According to the Brits…it dies. It doesn’t even make it on the chart.
We love a 0 context chart
The context is comparing ESR-D requirements and how relevant the British saw them. Also should be noted that in other comparisons the Harrier also isn’t very favorable with poor sustained turn rate and instantaneous turn rate.
Capability speaking it is nowhere near an F-15 and was designed for an entirely different mission-set.
1 Like
Are you quoting a document that listed out incorrect data for the Gr.5?
Or the docs that say the flanker sustains 21 degrees a second with full fuel?
1 Like
The Harrier with VIFF has a better instantaneous turn rate then most modern fighters like you call them.
And it’s only at a disadvantage in sustained turns but not by a ground breaking amount. The fight is still winnable.
The harrier will easily outclimb these types when both get slow.
2 Likes
you prolly think you know more then him but, still interesting to those who wanna listen.
Yep. The EFA engineers definitely didn’t know the performance of their own aircraft. Obviously you have a better understanding of the aircraft than they did through the 24 leaps and bounds you have to take to argue that it’s a better dogfighter.
They aren’t the same engineers that made the harrier
All they did was take un extrapolated data.
1 Like
He’s describing a specific circumstance where it can win. What does this prove in terms of its dogfight performance?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/oGLY9dKj8x9E
2 years and still no news on my report for the Shar FRS.1 to get 1000lb bombs on the outer pylons :(
7 Likes
I’ve explained to you all the other bits
It’s between a later F-4E and a F-15 in basic BFM capabilities
However in other areas it’s much better.
