[jim]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Ok, back to jets then.
IMHO if the two dueling jets were starting out at the same altitude, which is only fair for a showdown style dogfight, I'd back the one with vectoring thrust in flight capability. For example in the Falklands the Hawker Harrier proved in a combat situation that maneuverability is still as important as overall speed.

Just a side note to your comment Aircrafty, if the Harrier had a little more top speed it would have had a greater kill rate than it did.

It just didnt have the straight line speed to catch the Mirages if they decided to turn and run.
However the lesson was soon learned by the Argentine pilots, dont try to take on a Harrier, you WILL lose. If the Harriers are in the area, turn and run.

He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by jim

Just a side note to your comment Aircrafty, if the Harrier had a little more top speed it would have had a greater kill rate than it did.

It just didnt have the straight line speed to catch the Mirages if they decided to turn and run.
However the lesson was soon learned by the Argentine pilots, dont try to take on a Harrier, you WILL lose. If the Harriers are in the area, turn and run.

He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

Jim, maybe the Harrier just needs faster missiles

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Ok, back to jets then.
IMHO if the two dueling jets were starting out at the same altitude, which is only fair for a showdown style dogfight, I'd back the one with vectoring thrust in flight capability. For example in the Falklands the Hawker Harrier proved in a combat situation that maneuverability is still as important as overall speed.

Nope, have to disagree. The Harrier is NOT especially maneuverable, particularly the first generation to include the Sea Harrier. All the talk about VIFFing and such is more theory than anything, and it was absolutely NO factor in the Falklands.

It's common knowledge that the success of Sea Harriers against Mirages and other Argentinian planes in 1982 were due to two things: the AIM-9L (provided urgently by the US at the start of the conflict), and the fact that the Argentinian Air Force (and Navy) were fighting at extreme range (limiting their use of afterburner/maneuvering in the target area) plus usually loaded with bombs with the pilots concentrating on their ship targets. Maneuverability has nothing to do with it. I would also add that the Mirage's rearward visibility from the cockpit is not the best (meaning more opportunities for unobserved shots, which in fact happened a lot).

It's still true that maneuverability is nice to have, but the Falklands is a bad example to illustrate this.

FVD

[jim]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Nope, have to disagree. The Harrier is NOT especially maneuverable, particularly the first generation to include the Sea Harrier. All the talk about VIFFing and such is more theory than anything, and it was absolutely NO factor in the Falklands.

It's common knowledge that the success of Sea Harriers against Mirages and other Argentinian planes in 1982 were due to two things: the AIM-9L (provided urgently by the US at the start of the conflict), and the fact that the Argentinian Air Force (and Navy) were fighting at extreme range (limiting their use of afterburner/maneuvering in the target area) plus usually loaded with bombs with the pilots concentrating on their ship targets. Maneuverability has nothing to do with it. I would also add that the Mirage's rearward visibility from the cockpit is not the best (meaning more opportunities for unobserved shots, which in fact happened a lot).

It's still true that maneuverability is nice to have, but the Falklands is a bad example to illustrate this.

FVD

I strongly recommend reading Sharkie Wards book on this subject, he was there and he did it.

Boy did he maneuver!

[Aircrafty]

I agree that the Falklands war is not a very good example of dog fighting as such because the Argies were mainly concerned with hit and runs against the British ships. However I can not agree that the vectoring capability of the Harrier was not an important advantage to the British pilots in the conflict as this has been detailed in a number of books and articles by the British pilots involved in the Falklands War.

Yes it's true that the Sidewinder AIM-9L was used in about 19 of the around 23 air to air kills made by the Sea Harriers, with no air to air losses themselves. However it's also true that the AIM-9L was not nearly as effective as the Americans had stated and in fact all headon attacks attempted by the Sea Harrier pilots with their sidewinders were ineffective due to lack of lock-ons, all kills being from the rear aspect. Therefore the AIM-9L missiles were no better in this conflict than the air to air missiles generally available to most countries at the time, including those the Argentine forces had.

The fact is that true dog fighting conflicts are rare as pilots are trained to avoid them, but I stand by my comments that aircraft equiped with in-flight vectoring are likely to have the advantage in a true dogfight situation.

As for the distances the Argentine pilots had to travel. It should also be noted that the Sea Harriers also had to travel some distance from their carriers which were stationed well away from the Falklands to protect them exocet missles etc. And of course they had to return and locate the carrier again to land.

It should also be noted that the high seas that occured during the conflict would have prevented carrier operations by conventional jets. Providing further evidence that the Harrier played a unique role in the defence of the British ships against an enemy with significantly more aircraft available to it.

[skysurfer808]

The Falklands discussion is interesting to me for many reasons, as that conflict has fascinated me since it occurred. I remember watching the news and seeing the Sea Harriers take off, and wondered why their flight decks were curved (didn't know about the sky jump). This conflict also forms the basis of a current project I am working on. The best primary source of that conflict is Sharky War's Sea Harrier over the Falklands, as many of the "official" publications put out there have the flaws of "official" history everywhere. To give some background on Sharky Ward, he was a former Phantom driver from 892 Squadron aboard HMS Ark Royal prior to the conflict. He then transitioned to Harriers and was instrumental in bringing the Sea Harrier into fleet service. He scored 3 victories during the conflict. At the beginning of the Falklands War, Ward was CO (or OC the Brit way) of 801 Squadron aboard the HMS Invincible. The other Sea Harrier unit was 800 Squadron aboard HMS Hermes, commanded by LtCmdr Andy Auld, a former Buccaneer driver. Thus, Ward had an extensive air to air background, while Auld was primarily air to ground. According to Ward, 801 was able to effectively utilize its Blue Fox radar, while 800 suffered from reliability problems. Also, 800 aboard Hermes had a larger detachment of 8 aircraft, while 801 had only 5, though this was later increased. Pilot ratios were similar, something that caused problems for the smaller Invincible detachment when assigned missions. The two RN units were reinforced by 1 Squadron RAF, whose Harrier GR-3s were wired with sidewinders as an air defense backup. This capability was not used, as Sea Harrier attrition was not what was anticipated. Number 801 Squadron initially scored against the Argentinians flying Daggers, shooting down 2 plus an Argie Canberra. The AIM-9Ls did make an important difference in combat, but as stated above, not with the accuracy figures claimed by the US....though still better then the winder's Vietnam era Probability Kill of 25 percent.

What should be noted from Ward's memoirs is that the Sea Harriers did not use VIFFing at all during the conflict. As for manuverabilty, the range limitations of the Argentians, the fact they had to carry external tanks, and were limited in manuvering were all critical in allowing the RN a chance to equalize things in a dogfight. The Sea Harrier, with its small wings, was not an ideal turning platform, but the Royal Navy pilots trained hard, and newly formed 809 Squadron, which further reinforced both deployed units, had the benefit of dissimilar training agains the French. The Sea Harrier did suffer from its engine layout, as any heat seeking missile would detonate against the machine's fuselage, destroying the aircraft rather than just the tail section. This was borne out in the Gulf, with USMC Super Harriers suffering one of the highest loss rates in Theatre (tied with the RAF Tornado and USN A-6, though the Italian Tornado loss makes the Tornado the winner of that dubious title.)

My point in all this, was that it was superior training of Fleet Air Arm pilots that enabled them to utilize their aircraft to its fullest potential, whereas the Argentians were hampered by range and consequently manuverability issues. Despite the disadvantage in Air to Air combat, the Royal Navy was never able to achieve true air superiority during the conflict. The Sea Harrier force was too small with only the better part of a couple dozen on hand. This force had to cover the Task force 24/7 in often appaling weather. The VSTOL capability did enable the Sea Harriers to operate when conventional carrier aircraft would have been grounded, but the Sea Harriers couldn't be everywhere at once. The lack of a carrier borne Airborne Early Warning system also crippled the Task Force, as it enabled the Argentinians to continue sortieing against the Royal Navy, and continuing to sink ships....all the way up to the amphibious invasion of the Falklands itself. This plays into the importance FVD mentioned about network capabiliies....a system of systems is more effective then a single platform. Many would assert that had the Royal Navy still possessed a big deck carrier with AEW capability, many RN losses would not have occurred....especially if Britian's possession of supercarrier had properly deterrred the Argentinians. It was a pity that the RN bowed down to Whitehall bureaucrats and cancelled CVA-01 back in the late 60s.

My new stepfather Col. Fegenbush did some dissimilar air combat training flying AV-8Bs against the Singaporian Air Force, mentioning one particular Sikh whose Call Sign was "The Butcher," who was a tough opponent in the F-16. He told me that in a one on one fight, the Viper and the Butcher were all over him, but in 2 vs 1 and 2 vs 2, the AV-8s began to have advantages, to the point where he said "it is virtually impossible to beat a pair of well flown Harriers in a close fight" This statement may sound like a platform driver praising his steed, but to me it represents shades of the classic Thach Weave....which shows that in Air Combat, some things never change.

People, Ideas and Hardware.....In that order.....words of Colonel John Boyd...whose doctrines have influenced both air and ground combat, but unfortunately being forgotten by the stewerds of today's Pentagon.

Skysurfer808

[flyXwire]

As usual, your flair for informative and well-balanced information is superb, Skysurfer. Muchos kudos to you, ace!

Btw, the reference above to Col. John Boyd is a good one. You guys should read "40 second Boyd" dogfight manual.

http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/boyd.htm

[skysurfer808]

Originally Posted by flyXwire

As usual, your flair for informative and well-balanced information is superb, Skysurfer. Muchos kudos to you, ace!

Thanks FlyXWire, though I'm not a fighter pilot, I play one every time I look at my collection....seriously though my intentions are to somehow put this knowledge to work in a paying capacity.

Skysurfer808

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

I agree that the Falklands war is not a very good example of dog fighting as such because the Argies were mainly concerned with hit and runs against the British ships. However I can not agree that the vectoring capability of the Harrier was not an important advantage to the British pilots in the conflict as this has been detailed in a number of books and articles by the British pilots involved in the Falklands War.

Yes it's true that the Sidewinder AIM-9L was used in about 19 of the around 23 air to air kills made by the Sea Harriers, with no air to air losses themselves. However it's also true that the AIM-9L was not nearly as effective as the Americans had stated and in fact all headon attacks attempted by the Sea Harrier pilots with their sidewinders were ineffective due to lack of lock-ons, all kills being from the rear aspect. Therefore the AIM-9L missiles were no better in this conflict than the air to air missiles generally available to most countries at the time, including those the Argentine forces had.

The fact is that true dog fighting conflicts are rare as pilots are trained to avoid them, but I stand by my comments that aircraft equiped with in-flight vectoring are likely to have the advantage in a true dogfight situation.

As for the distances the Argentine pilots had to travel. It should also be noted that the Sea Harriers also had to travel some distance from their carriers which were stationed well away from the Falklands to protect them exocet missles etc. And of course they had to return and locate the carrier again to land.

It should also be noted that the high seas that occured during the conflict would have prevented carrier operations by conventional jets. Providing further evidence that the Harrier played a unique role in the defence of the British ships against an enemy with significantly more aircraft available to it.

Oh, here we go again, where do I even start...

The AIM-9L was FAR more effective than any previous version of the Sidewinder. Quoting from memory, I believe in the Falklands the kill effectiveness was about 60% for that missile, compared to around 11% in Vietnam for the B and D models (which is what the Argentinians had). The fact that all kills were from the rear aspect is much more a factor of training than anything else. The Brits were not used to that missile and its full capability, and it showed. I've flown with the AIM-9L and M (an improved version of the L), and they work great from head-on, as long as the adversary does not use proper counter-IR tactics (which the Argentinians did not). The Argentines had NOTHING equivalent to the AIM-9L, by a long shot. And even if the kills were from the rear, the cone from which they were taken was much larger than for older versions of the AIM-9, again showing the vastly improved launch envelope of the new missile.

The thrust vectoring on the Harrier is of a COMPLETELY different nature as on the F-22 or Su-30MKI. By its nature, the Harrier's exhaust nozzles are right around the center of gravity of the aircraft, and therefore CANNOT be used very effectively to increase pitch rate of the aircraft at very low speeds. The main advantage of VIFFing in the Harrier is very fast longitudinal deceleration, and assist to lift from the wing (which certainly needs it, as the wing is small and is NOT very good at generating high turn rates by itself). I have yet to see one mention of thust vectoring being used by Harrier pilots in the Falklands during an air-to-air engagement (and Skysurfer seems to agree on this point). In fact, even though I never engaged a Harrier myself while flying the F-16, I've talked to RAF, Italian Navy, and USMC Harrier pilots and they all agree VIFFing is NOT something they do.

And I see the story about Harriers being able to operate in sea states that conventional carrier aircraft can't handle seems to persist. It's mostly propaganda from British Aerospace. It is true that in very extreme sea states, the STOVL has a slight advantage, but in practice, the difference it makes is insignificant. The true price the RN paid for not having a conventional carrier capability was lack of a carrier-borne AEW/AWACS platform, for which it paid dearly. And the subsequent fielding of the AEW version of the SH-3 (after the war) can only be described as a very poor subsitute, compared to an E-2C or similar aircraft.

FVD

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

It's common knowledge that the success of Sea Harriers against Mirages and other Argentinian planes in 1982 were due to two things: the AIM-9L (provided urgently by the US at the start of the conflict), and the fact that the Argentinian Air Force (and Navy) were fighting at extreme range (limiting their use of afterburner/maneuvering in the target area) plus usually loaded with bombs with the pilots concentrating on their ship targets. Maneuverability has nothing to do with it.

Me thinks you have somewhat contradicted yourself there, my friend.