F-15 is thrust limited yes but not the su-27 and mig-23
Also how has a conversation about the f15 go to the harrier
1 Like
I mentioned the harrier is thrust limited.
Gaijin based it of a drag index of like 40
As we said before about the clean performance being used for turns and all since gaijin doesn’t model drag very well.
The harrier in game when clean has the performance of a IRL harrier when at a drag index of 40. This would be like the F-15 when clean having the performance of the IRL one with CFT and 8 Missiles having a top speed of 1.6 vs 2.2
good point, should probably stick to F-15
AIM-120 performance matters more than anything else though, i wish there were more sources for the 120C
1 Like
Harrier 2 can save American air lol.
there are good reasons why even for how amazing some people say it is, it was only ever acquired because of its VTOL capabilities
You realize that it was deemed more effective than the hornet for real world close air support right?
When, what harrier, and in what way?
The USMC where so amazed by the A that they wanted to scrap all conventional jets completely.
The dumbasses in the DOD assumed the F-18 would be better than the AV-8B and wanted to can the idea. So a massive trial was done F-18 vs AV-8B
Summary, the AV-8B while being smaller, cheaper almost as advanced is able to deliver almost 2X the amount of weapons on target while also being at the battlefield 2X as fast. It also has a better survivability rate. The only thing it lost to the F-18 too was the fighter role as the F-18 had a radar and sparrows. However the Harrier is more than able to hold its own in a dogfight with the F-18.
When we got the AV-8B plus with the radar that short fall was remedied.
1 Like
In fact the USMC general liked the harrier so much more that he wanted to scrap the hornet completely to fund the Harrier 2.
1 Like
Why does everyone hate the hornet gah damn lmao
Tomcat bros and the harrier bros as well
So a proven and very mature aircraft did better in the categories its niche is in?
And let me guess, they assumed the base attack would go through, when in reality there would be way more defenses around the base farther back and the distance makes it harder to strike that base.
Its very good for small bases and LHD operations but lacks in range and payload, avionics, upgrade potential, and reliability
Because it offers nothing that the other jets couldn’t do better.
No, AV-8B was brand new not even finished at this time.
They did multiple tests where NATO allies where attacking and defending as if it was a real war.
Tell me what’s harder to destroy a carrier with F-18 a massive fixed runway or an opening in the woods or a random road.
Harriers had a FOB 37 miles away from the combat on average vs 125 miles for the F-18.
If you are in a desperate firefight and you need air support who are you calling?
yet in range and payload its still not far off F-18. While also being able to conduct sorties at 2X the rate.
Only because of the proximity to the battlefield. As for your earlier question, I would take the harrier, but the F-18 is better for higher level targets
How, it doesn’t do anything the harrier can not. Its not even really any faster when loaded up too.
The range and payload, the hornet can bring large cruise missiles and anti ship missiles and move them farther while launching them from a greater altitude
not in 81.
So you agree that the harrier had less growth potential for a major conflict. Its amazing for stuff like the Falklands or the middle east but against a major power I don’t think it’s as useful
It has more.