A Harrier flown in manual control can be a scary opponent even with the old FM.
Yeah… I have no doubt, but its the lack of decent yaw control that puts me off flying in manual the most. I want to get some rudder pedals at some point
Yes that’s fair the whole twist the joystick thing is not that good.
But it adds a sense of realism as too much side slip wasn’t allowed irl due to adverse yaw stuff.
Tornado F3 is an interceptor, and performed that role good enough. The assessment of (presumably, as you said strike aircraft which F3 is not) GR tornado variants being poor supersonic attackers is also flawed, as they were amongst the best low level strike platforms.
2 Likes
F-3 also has a really good radar as well. Wouldn’t be too far off to say that the F-3 could probably joust with F-15s of the same era and do pretty well.
The Tornado was easily able to keep pace.
Something, something. The Tornado F3 CSP and F-15C w/ JHMCS II (provisional) are contemporaries.
I don’t mean to say no. But both options do tend to lag pretty hard in terms of what would constitute a fair fight at various times in their (by now vast, storied and decorated ) service careers.
This does swing both ways though, for example F-15’s lacked more than a single use of Chaff (ground crew would split open chaff units and pack them under the airbrake, so when it was activated it would be dispersed into the free airstream) until ~'93 because the ALE-40 were not installed due to costs, yes this is during the period where even the AIM-9M (vs ASRAAM) would have been mounted, which basically would have left it (the F-15) up shit creek, with not even paddle, much less a dingy in sight.
At least if we’re only considering service configurations. I’m sure there are a ton of blatantly bullshit test types that could be pointed to (e.g. F-15A circa '78, w/ VTAS III + the Electro-Optical seeker AIM-95 & AIM-7Q & -7R).
2 Likes
This is true just for comparisons sake an F-3 with the same CMs as an F-15 both with 4 Radar missiles
Sky flash SuperTemp vs Aim7F.
I personally feel that they would have comparable BVR abilities in this specific state but obviously IRL is not perfect nor predictable.
I do think in terms of the Sea Harrier FA.2 its significantly smaller size and potentially better radar helps it at these longer ranges.
I really wish the UK had made dual wing mounts for the AMRAAM allowing 4 AMRAAMs while still having guns and the fuel bags.
1 Like
I suppose they kinda did.
She could carry twin mount ASRAAMs which are the next best thing.
1 Like
ASRAAM could just fit on LAU7?
Think so.
1 Like
Would make it so much more effective.
Technically a LAU-7A/A ( or LAU-105/A / LAU-128/A ) and some specific later (sub)variants (mainly electronics and port / coupler design changes to account for changing standards or specific intended mounting locations), yes. It would only provide baseline capability (likely caged seeker, jettison, maybe proximity Fuse Safety & Arming and aural lock-on tone ) with any level of certainty for a generic airframe as it should be backwards compatible (by design intent) with the right set / stack of adapters and fittings to make it work to get around what stations have which ports and to what standards they are internally wired to.
Of course that also would depend on the specific airframe for the more advanced capabilities (uncaged seeker, SEAM, Radar Slave, off boresight, recage, etc.) as there are some standards & design principles that should be common due to the MOU that was in place during the design phase.
You have to understand that basically all variants are designed with some level of backwards compatibility in mind (just in case) so have to be able deal with prior decisions and shortcuts that were made for various reasons. Just look at the 7 vs 9 pin Sidewinder adapter.
Absolutely. Why, exactly?
USN & USAF early sidewinder backwards compatibility only went one way due to USAF deciding to change the cable when they moved to Peltier cooling and ditched the external coolant bottle, only to get fucked over by the AIM-82/ -95 fly off / debacle, so forced the AIM-9L to move the coolant bottle internal to the missile which add nearly 4kg to the missile AUR weight needlessly in the end just so they didn’t have to use more USN items then they needed to.
1 Like
If it works it works lol.
I also want BOL for dual sidewinder mounts on the FA.2
Didn’t F-15C get countermeausres in 80’s?
Yeah, that would be a decent buff
1 Like
How many separate posts are there gonna be on the forum for the harrier’s fm?
Enough to get them fixed. Even after the buffs they don’t even come close.
After that just 1 prolly
1 Like
Yeah using the 4 missiles is not even worth it due to the loss in CMs
yes, and no. It was rolled out over a fair period of time to various Squadrons on a rolling basis so basically the latest possible point was '93, the last time a Squadron was (yet to be deployed) in a standing up cycle across the entire airforce (including non-deployable ANG airframes) was without them. At least if you ignore Strategic Chaff deployment systems, but considering their specific use case (fucking with Strategic (Nuclear) Early Warning radars) I’m ignoring them since they are specific mission equipment and not designed for self-protection or found in regular use.
2 Likes
Full strength BOL we’d be okay with 1, but in their state, 2 is needed
1 Like