i know the OWE weight of a GR7 harrier is 7050kg, but i dont know about a harrier 2 with the radar mounted, dont know shar weight.
not really that more powerful.
slightly mininformed in how the wing was better. It had active flaps like on a hornet to improve performance at low speed (not in game), a lot more hardpoints (US harrier 2s are missing two) and LERX but overall it was a bigger bulkier plane that wasnt made as a fighter primarily
much more advanced wing though, and mk106 vs 107 is a 2,000lb thrust difference
none of the harriers really were, even SHar was a strike jet modified to fulfill a small fleet defence role
the weight difference is far bigger and there are 2 engines, its just a different scale overall so not that comparable, its like me using the difference in thrust between 2 cruise missile engines to make 106 vs 107 seem earth shattering
In what way?
Though less advanced than the GR5/7/9 wing though if I follow what I think your logic is
sea harrier is a navalised gr3 harrier for the most part, couple other changes in some places but ultimately its the same V/STOL medium-weight fighter meant to operate from anywhere. became much more of a strike craft with GR3 upgrades. very much a fighter with bombs more than multirole
harrier 1 was a lot more fighter-centric in its conception than harrier 2 was, to the point that harrier 1 punched extremely above its own class, harrier 2 really didnt in comparison for the times
doesnt gr5 have less composite and a worse leading edge extension than the AV-8B’s or something?
Might not have the full LERX, but still had the 8 hardpoints (4 per wing)
strike aircraft*
wasnt the outrigger pylon thing mostly a limitation imposed by the USMC to keep things safer
I thought you lads made [The Office] so much better, instead of Harrier.
Sea Harrier [F] RS.1, [F] A.2
became one. Wasnt one initially.
he said
implying the gr3 was a medium weight fighter
We navalised the Harrier because we want a medium-weight fighter.
In the role of Yak-38 or F-35 Lightning II
thats literally what harrier was designed to be. before being evolved into also being able to do the ground attack recce role.
Shar was purpose built as our naval air superiority fighter to replace spey phantoms. keeping the attack capacity from GR3 was an additional capability. (most of the gr3 goodies at least)
however we still used GR3 for bombing runs over FRS1 in the falklands.
its not a light fighter in the way of a hawk mk100 or mk200.
its not heavy like a phantom or tonka.
its a medium weight fighter
maybe one of the extremely early designs was connected to a fighter program, but the actual Harrier was designed to do a2g and recon.
thats a trainer jet with some a2a capacity. a light fighter would be an F-16
this was because you guys lost CATOBAR capability, not because it was the best naval air superiority fighter.
personally, i find even the more a2a focused harriers too distinct in their design and tradeoffs to neatly fit in any typical CTOL or CATOBAR fighter weight category. i can elaborate if you want
initial design was forwarded for NBMR-3a. VTOL fighter. it evolved into a quasi-multirole.
hawk 100 and 200 are light fighters based on the hawk T jets. i cant with a straight face call a F16 a true light fighter when its 3 tonnes heavier than a harrier. or double the weight of a hawk 203/209/RDA
catobar is expensive and complicated. and sea harrier didnt need it. we literally built invincible class for the harriers specifically after they proved fully carrier capability in the early 70s.
its quite simple. its bigger and bulkier than the likes of a gnat, hawk or F-5. smaller and lighter than phantoms or tornadoes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
yet much better since you can fly out much larger and heavier aircraft.
well yeah
and because you guys cheaped out on a decent carrier*
it is widely considered a lightweight fighter so youll just have to deal with it, the hawk is literally a trainer jet at its core so not comparable.
its also very different in design from real mediumweights like a MiG-23, F/A-18, or MiG-29. the harrier is extremely small, its well into the lightweight category, not to mention the fundamental tradeoffs and differences in a VTOL jet like abysmal combat radius
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
wasnt really needed tho was it. even the US shrank planes down in size from tomcat to hornet, f35 is smaller still.
invincible class turned out to be perfectly fine for the conflicts we got into didnt it?
hence why i specifically mentioned the 100 and 200. which are light fighters.
i can tell you the cockpit is, i didnt fit and im a skinny git. but the rest of the plane isnt tiny vs a lot of others other than the stubby wingspan
500 miles of range wasnt great, was tripled with the fuel tanks. but within that range it was one hell of an aircraft, climbed faster than most of its contemporaries and could pull very unusual manoeuvres that notably threw off other pilots first time they saw harriers.
ill let you be on this one because you clearly cant understand it. also the F-35C is heavier than a super hornet
that doesnt necessarily make it a good aircraft carrier
they are still extremely light among true modern light fighters like F-16’s, they also arent very good at being fighters compared to these aircraft
AV-8B which is bigger than harrier 1 is still 3m shorter in length, 1.2m shorter in height, and 3m less wingspan than an F/A-18C which isnt a very big plane
thats ferry range not combat radius