Harriers vs F-15's

Theres a good story that 801 Sqn pilots will tell you about their last tactical flight, 5 FA2's against 4 GR4s, 2 Jags and 5 5 F15s... all enemy aircraft destroyed. I know that GG will have an intelligent excuse for the Eagles demise but im happy in the knowledge that the Harrier can kick ass.

 

Hey ED, get the Harrier made so we can put all this to the ultimate test ;)

 

Its still a one off. You cant construct a solid argument from that.

 

As an Example PoAF routinely "shoots down" Eurofighters. If I didnt tell you the below you probably would think the F-16 was the superior plane, it was not. The Eurofighters mostly flew with equipment place holders and pilots a little on the green side. There are other factors that can dominate the events (such as ROE) to explain the results, which probably never reach your ears or eyes.

GG seems to wink a lot concerning A-A and F-15's. Kinda creepy, maybe he knows something?

Theres a good story that 801 Sqn pilots will tell you about their last tactical flight, 5 FA2's against 4 GR4s, 2 Jags and 5 5 F15s... all enemy aircraft destroyed. I know that GG will have an intelligent excuse for the Eagles demise but im happy in the knowledge that the Harrier can kick ass.

 

Hey ED, get the Harrier made so we can put all this to the ultimate test ;)

 

Jags can barely shoot down a helicopter..:P

I agree with most of your statements GG but you do like to quote beyond context, implying things sometimes that people just haven't said. I also would not choose to mix it with F-15s in an air to air dogfight for sure.

 

However the Harrier does have a very neat trick in VIFF ing which is very difficult to counter, wether it be for Air breaking or Turn rate increase (it only takes 1 shot ...sometimes). The Harrier pilot will stay in the weeds and slow by comparison, and in his counter performance window.

 

Yes, it is the pilots - but what exactly do you think is going on here when it is the F-15C pilots who are SPECIFICALLY and ONLY training for A2A, allegedly being beaten by pilots who do not?

Absolutely !! I can only speak for Brit mud movers (ground attack) but when we train we spent a lot of time being 'jumped' at low-level by Air Superiority (AS) fighters. They have to come down fairly low into the ground attack aircrafts domain i.e. V low-level. By contrast of course the Air Superioty guys do the reverse. The difference is that the ground attack guys aren't going to go anywhere near the AS fighters domain (unless they are stupid). The AS guys may well HAVE TO.

 

Lonewolf - Back in '82 VIFF ing was a fairly new manoevre and one which had F-15s going WTF! Now they are a little more streetwise.

 

I think I shall quit on this one otherwise we'll end up with 2 page essays with performance graphs and quoting the latest Combat Doctrine out of 'C' school.

 

1 last comment - 10 years+ ago (this may have changed since) the U.S. considered 500ft low-level and thats what they trained at. The Brits train at 250 ft and in some low level training areas 100 ft. Can't imagine there were too many USAF AS guys comfortable at 100ft back then.

The Harrier is a good aircraft, but it's just a VTOL version of the A-10 with more speed but less survivability. To say the Harrier class aircraft do so well against dedicated fighters is going overboard.

 

In order to have VTOL capability a lot of sacrifices need to be made. Especially when needed for a VTOL takeoff, the payload is very limited. Combat radius is small, the GR9 doesn't even have radar and relies on AIM-9's. A modern fighter with look-down shoot-down radar wouldn't even have to get into a turning fight for it to be toast before it even got into the Harrier's tiny air-air radius.

 

VTOL does have it's mission, that's why their is a version of that planned for the F-35 for amphibious assault ships. If you take an entity like the USAF that has ton's of money and doesn't need VTOL capability, there are better options for each role. Hence why the USAF doesn't have Harriers. The Harrier isn't a air-air and air-ground win all card, or obviously everyone would be flying harriers when in fact they are low quantity aircraft.

I was never saying that the Harrier could win against a dedicated air superiority fighter ALL the time. But it can't be denied that it could, and has done in the past. From my perspective it seemed from some of the posts in this thread that people were saying that the Harrier would never, ever be able to splat one period... which is has done in the past!

 

Of course, a dedicated fighter will have a stupendous advantage over the Harrier... but it's not immune.

I agree with most of your statements GG but you do like to quote beyond context, implying things sometimes that people just haven't said. I also would not choose to mix it with F-15s in an air to air dogfight for sure.

 

However the Harrier does have a very neat trick in VIFF ing which is very difficult to counter, wether it be for Air breaking or Turn rate increase (it only takes 1 shot ...sometimes). The Harrier pilot will stay in the weeds and slow by comparison, and in his counter performance window.

 

It is very easy to counter; you counter it in the exact same way you would counter a thrust-vectoring F-22: You pull up, roll over, pull down, gun. It's called energy fighting and works well on anyone who wants to believe that speed isn't life ;)

 

Absolutely !! I can only speak for Brit mud movers (ground attack) but when we train we spent a lot of time being 'jumped' at low-level by Air Superiority (AS) fighters. They have to come down fairly low into the ground attack aircrafts domain i.e. V low-level. By contrast of course the Air Superioty guys do the reverse. The difference is that the ground attack guys aren't going to go anywhere near the AS fighters domain (unless they are stupid). The AS guys may well HAVE TO.

 

Air superiority guys go high for a reason - that reason is that they can shoot down everything below them, at least as far as F-15's are concerned.

 

Lonewolf - Back in '82 VIFF ing was a fairly new manoevre and one which had F-15s going WTF! Now they are a little more streetwise.

 

They were probably streetwise to it after the second time it happened. ;)

 

I think I shall quit on this one otherwise we'll end up with 2 page essays with performance graphs and quoting the latest Combat Doctrine out of 'C' school.

 

You don't need either.

 

 

1 last comment - 10 years+ ago (this may have changed since) the U.S. considered 500ft low-level and thats what they trained at. The Brits train at 250 ft and in some low level training areas 100 ft. Can't imagine there were too many USAF AS guys comfortable at 100ft back then.

 

There's a difference between flying parameters but in the end it really doesn't matter to an AMRAAM whether you're at 500' or 250' or 50'. Even if you're a bitty little cruise missile ;)

 

The facts here are that this particular 'dogfight' happened on the last deployment of the 801 when they were standing their harriers down. It was a going away bash, and considering that you had 5 F-15's coming in and they and all the strikers got killed, those F-15's were pretending to be something else that doesn't have the radar capability to deal with low flying targets. That really is all there is to it.

Hi All,

 

to have the next single seat solution with the option to be in the middle between a vertical take off and hover helicopter and a normal fix wing aircraft with V/STOVL feature, the F-35 will offer the most options.

 

I think we'd all agree an F-35 would be splended, it isnt going to happen however, same with the Typhoon, F-22, Superbug etc etc.... To classified, ignore the silly pole.

 

Welcome to the forum though :thumbup:

It is very easy to counter; you counter it in the exact same way you would counter a thrust-vectoring F-22: You pull up, roll over, pull down, gun. It's called energy fighting and works well on anyone who wants to believe that speed isn't life ;)

Since when can a F-22 thrust vector forward? Its a bit like comparing apples and pears. High speed YoYo and your done. Hmmn ok. Ther Harrier is no slouch with a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1 in some cases. It might bleed speed VIFF ing but it can sure as hell pile it all back on again quickly and whilst turning tightly. Thats what makes it a difficult aircraft to counter. For you to suggest otherwise is plain wrong.

 

Air superiority guys go high for a reason - that reason is that they can shoot down everything below them, at least as far as F-15's are concerned.

Everything eh, if only it were that simple.

 

There's a difference between flying parameters but in the end it really doesn't matter to an AMRAAM whether you're at 500' or 250' or 50'. Even if you're a bitty little cruise missile ;)

Why are you turning this into a BVR discussion when we are all fully aware that the Harrier doesn't stand a chance. I believe we were talking about a close quarters engagement here, which can happen.

 

I don't doubt the capabilities of the f15 especially when teamed up with AMRAAM but for you to suppose its invinsible against ground attack aircraft like the Harrier is short sighted.

Since when can a F-22 thrust vector forward?

 

Since when does that matter? (Hint: It doesn't)

 

Its a bit like comparing apples and pears.

Yes it is, because the F-22 is even a better perfomer than an F-15, which is a better performer than a Harrier ;)

 

High speed YoYo and your done. Hmmn ok. Ther Harrier is no slouch with a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1 in some cases. It might bleed speed VIFF ing but it can sure as hell pile it all back on again quickly and whilst turning tightly. Thats what makes it a difficult aircraft to counter. For you to suggest otherwise is plain wrong.

What is plain wrong is your misunderstanding of basic fighter maneuvers. If you slow down YOU DIE. Let's see if we can put this into perspective. Harrier VIFFs, slows down, F-15 sitting in the elbow goes high, comes back down, and ... the harrier does what? According to you, apparently a robotech/macross dodge ;) In actuality, nothing. It is SLOW and has left itself without the ability to take itself out of the pipper/flight path of any rounds on the way. It is exactly THIS simple, and it applies to all aircraft - even if they can thrust vector forward.

 

Everything eh, if only it were that simple.

But it is, unless you want to claim you're fighting someone who doesn't know either what they're doing, or the threat.

 

I don't doubt the capabilities of the f15 especially when teamed up with AMRAAM but for you to suppose its invinsible against ground attack aircraft like the Harrier is short sighted.

I prefer exchange ratios, and while a Harrier MIGHT once in a blue moon shoot down an F-15 (I mean heck, there's youtube videos with F-22's sitting in a T-38's pipper out there ... you see anyone claiming that a T-38 can beat a Raptor?), because these things happen, in a 'fair fight', it's pretty much toast. That isn't short-sighted, that is fact.

Since when does that matter? (Hint: It doesn't)

It DOES when, in the context of an example (e.g. 'you counter it in the exact same way you would counter a thrust-vectoring F-22'), you are comparing thrust vectoring aircraft that have different thrust vectoring systems. F-22 can't VIFF, period.

 

What is plain wrong is your misunderstanding of basic fighter maneuvers. If you slow down YOU DIE. Let's see if we can put this into perspective. Harrier VIFFs, slows down, F-15 sitting in the elbow goes high, comes back down, and ... the harrier does what? According to you, apparently a robotech/macross dodge ;) In actuality, nothing. It is SLOW and has left itself without the ability to take itself out of the pipper/flight path of any rounds on the way. It is exactly THIS simple, and it applies to all aircraft - even if they can thrust vector forward.

OK let me explain in depth the tactic used. Harrier places nozzles in forward position trying to cause an overshoot of aggressor (A), maybe in conjuction with a high G barrel roll to disguise the VIFF initially. (A) carries out a typical high YoYo (which, depending on aspect, will likely cause him to lose sight of Harrier during the manoeuvre for a short time). Harrier sees (A) carrying out such manoevre and places nozzles in down position and turns sharply up and into(A), harrier then causes (A) to 1). Pull high G to press the attack (bleeding that all important speed/energy) or 2). carry out a defensive manoevre in reply. Either way (A) overshoots and Harrier has the advantage and still the manoeuvrability to shoot. Also we have to assume after (A)'s high YoYO he hasn't lose sight of the small camoflaged Harrier amonst the ground clutter. At low level, its a difficult aircraft to spot, trust me on this one.

 

I have a good understanding of basic fighter manoeuvres and if you do too you know about the chapter dedicated to slow speed manoeuvres. Its in there for a reason. Its not an area in which you want to operate but you may well be forced to. Its also an area in which the Harrier excels under certain conditions. I do have the feeling that you think the Harrier can only point nozzles forward or aft and not in any position in between otherwise you wouldn't have made the 'robotech/macross dodge' wise ass remark and the 'counter it in the exact same way you would an F-22' solution.

 

Speed aint life by the way, Energy is, but I'm sure thats what you meant.

 

I prefer exchange ratios, and while a Harrier MIGHT once in a blue moon shoot down an F-15 (I mean heck, there's youtube videos with F-22's sitting in a T-38's pipper out there ... you see anyone claiming that a T-38 can beat a Raptor?), because these things happen, in a 'fair fight', it's pretty much toast. That isn't short-sighted, that is fact.

I dont do youtube videos and hope by the comments I have made so far that you would realise such. I am not claiming that the Harrier is a superior aircraft to the F-15, far from it. But your comments in this thread make out that it doesn't stand a chance and that just isn't true especially in close quarters combat at low-level.

 

PM me if you want to continue the discussion before we bore the pants off everyone else in the thread. Druid Out.

It DOES when, in the context of an example (e.g. 'you counter it in the exact same way you would counter a thrust-vectoring F-22'), you are comparing thrust vectoring aircraft that have different thrust vectoring systems. F-22 can't VIFF, period.

 

And it still doesn't actually matter. :)

 

OK let me explain in depth the tactic used. Harrier places nozzles in forward position trying to cause an overshoot of aggressor (A), maybe in conjuction with a high G barrel roll to disguise the VIFF initially. (A) carries out a typical high YoYo (which, depending on aspect, will likely cause him to lose sight of Harrier during the manoeuvre for a short time). Harrier sees (A) carrying out such manoevre and places nozzles in down position and turns sharply up and into(A), harrier then causes (A) to 1). Pull high G to press the attack (bleeding that all important speed/energy) or 2). carry out a defensive manoevre in reply. Either way (A) overshoots and Harrier has the advantage and still the manoeuvrability to shoot. Also we have to assume after (A)'s high YoYO he hasn't lose sight of the small camoflaged Harrier amonst the ground clutter. At low level, its a difficult aircraft to spot, trust me on this one.

 

VIFFing isn't even going to give you one gee of deceleration. A cobra maneuver will give you about three, and a barrel roll is tactically more useful than that anyway; further, F-15 (or any air to air) pilots are trained to spot such closure issues, not to mention they do DACT against those tiny F-5's/T-38's. And yes, it's speed, not energy. You can have all the energy in the world (high altitude) but it won't help you one whit if you don't have the speed to pull g's.

I'll leave you with those hints for the next time you want to claim knowledge of BFM.

VIFFing isn't even going to give you one gee of deceleration. .....

Just goes to show how little you know about VIFF ing. I have flown in a Harrier T10 and VIFF'ed and I can assure you its a lot more than 1g. But don't take my word for it, here is a quote by Lt Gen 'Harry' Blot of the US Marine Corps

 

"the airplane started decelerating at an alarming rate, the magnitude of which I could not determine because my nose was pressed up against the gunsight. I was now straddling the stick, with my right hand extended backwards between my legs, trying to hold on for dear life"

 

The VIFF test was carried out at 500 kts. Hardly sounds like less than 1g deceleration. You put an aircraft that has a forward thrust ratio in excess of 1:1 and point that forwards and claim not 1g of deceleration !!

 

I'll leave you with those hints for the next time you want to claim knowledge of BFM.

A little condescending don't you think? Its not a competition here to see who understands more about BFM. Given your comments so far, I'm sorry but you clearly do not understand the capabilities of the Harrier with regard to VIff ing manoeuvres (see comment below also) and maybe for once you should just admit as such.

 

but it won't help you one whit if you don't have the speed to pull g's.

With vectored thrust you don't need to pull G's to turn.

A turn immidiatly implies making G's.

This is both educational and fun to read. Don't stop boys you're turning me on. :D

PM me if you want to continue the discussion before we bore the pants off everyone else in the thread. Druid Out.

 

Nonsence, this is great stuff and we have our own thread now, also see the jet thunder thread, harrier fans jet excited :)

Just goes to show how little you know about VIFF ing. I have flown in a Harrier T10 and VIFF'ed and I can assure you its a lot more than 1g. But don't take my word for it, here is a quote by Lt Gen 'Harry' Blot of the US Marine Corps

 

I will in fact not take your word for it, nor 'sounds like'.

 

"the airplane started decelerating at an alarming rate, the magnitude of which I could not determine because my nose was pressed up against the gunsight. I was now straddling the stick, with my right hand extended backwards between my legs, trying to hold on for dear life"

 

The VIFF test was carried out at 500 kts. Hardly sounds like less than 1g deceleration. You put an aircraft that has a forward thrust ratio in excess of 1:1 and point that forwards and claim not 1g of deceleration !!

Yeah, right :D Except you're not pointing the thrust all the way forward because the Harrier CANNOT physically do so. You only get a very tiny portion of that thrust as a direct braking force. Sure, you might spoil some speed because you're also forcing the aircraft to go up at the same time.

 

As an interesting aside, slamming the brakes in a car will 'put your nose in the gunsight', but the forces are quite a bit less than 1g. You might get a significant deceleration component from friction alone if you pull the engines to idle, but I still doubt it'll come close to 1g all on its own.

 

A little condescending don't you think? Its not a competition here to see who understands more about BFM. Given your comments so far, I'm sorry but you clearly do not understand the capabilities of the Harrier with regard to VIff ing manoeuvres (see comment below also) and maybe for once you should just admit as such.

 

With vectored thrust you don't need to pull G's to turn.

You either pull g's to turn, or you're standing still and rotating about your axis. Those are your only two options, whether you have thrust vectoring or not.
Edited October 16, 2010 by GGTharos

OK let me explain in depth the tactic used. Harrier places nozzles in forward position trying to cause an overshoot of aggressor (A), maybe in conjuction with a high G barrel roll to disguise the VIFF initially. (A) carries out a typical high YoYo (which, depending on aspect, will likely cause him to lose sight of Harrier during the manoeuvre for a short time). Harrier sees (A) carrying out such manoevre and places nozzles in down position and turns sharply up and into(A), harrier then causes (A) to 1). Pull high G to press the attack (bleeding that all important speed/energy) or 2). carry out a defensive manoevre in reply. Either way (A) overshoots and Harrier has the advantage and still the manoeuvrability to shoot. Also we have to assume after (A)'s high YoYO he hasn't lose sight of the small camoflaged Harrier amonst the ground clutter. At low level, its a difficult aircraft to spot, trust me on this one.

:doh:

I applaud your loyalty to FAA Sea Harriers. The GR. Mk3 is a great air to mud aircraft. However, GG is correct. You're understanding of the tactics used are missing the big picture. We fought the Sea Harriers mostly because we were expecting the Yak-36/38 Forger to be a threat, so the Harriers were nice enough to play along. :smilewink: At any rate, for the time frame you're talking about when the Harrier engaged F-15s out of Bitburg at RAF Lakenheath, the Harrier wasn't much of an air-to-air machine. They could only field Limas (AIM-9L) and we had the Sparrow and Lima. Usually we called them morted before the merge BVR. However they had a few tricks that would deny us a Sparrow shot and then we'd get WVR, where, I'm sure your discussion wants to go. The Sea Harrier had no radar at the time and was limited to a fixed reticle for its boresighted Lima. Their advantage was their anhedral wing and placement of their nozzles, which allowed their heat signatures to be hidden by the wing. To deny a lock, all they had to do was point their nozzles a certain number of degrees downward and no Lima lock. That's assuming a high/low (Eagle high, Harrier low) geometry.

 

So, let's set this up. Here I am at 30,000ft in my Eagle, with all the SA in the world as to where you are in your Harrier, somewhere around 10-12,000ft, where the air's thicker for your non-afterburning engine. You perform a maneuver to deny me my first shot with the sparrow and so we get WVR. I optimize my attach geometry to stay out of your Lima WEZ and deny you an idea of where to look for me (we're not stupid! We don't just come at you head on in a nice "you pick the circle" fight. We make sure you minimize your SA while I have SA on you the entire time since I have a radar that can give me that SA). So now we're looking down at you from high-to-low and of course we can't get a Lima off because of your wings (Sidewinder won't lock - the Mike will, though :thumbup:). Now we just do our conversion from high-to-low and come down on you (no Yo-Yo's need be done, thank you very much). You evidently spot us beginning our conversion maneuver and decide to do a nice, well-timed, VIFF (Vectoring In Forward Flight - moving the nozzles downward to decrease forward motion and tighten their turns - GG is right, the nozzles don't actually point anywhere close to full forward, just slightly greater than 90 degrees down IIRC) to force an overshoot.

 

Now let's recall some aerodynamics. What keeps any aircraft (including a harrier) flying? Really? One guess, & it's not thrust vectoring, unless the jet's low weight and below 1000ft MSL. It's air over the wings! Yes, the same lift that keeps the Cessna or Grob in the air. So what do you think happens to the harrier as it begins to stop in the air?

 

Ok, now back to our dogfight scenario: Here's what I see from my jet. I see you begin to initially point the nose upward as I'm coming down on you from high, and watch as your jet suddenly appears to stop in mid-air (actually it's an optical illusiion as you still have a good deal of forward speed, it's just that the overtake has increased dramatically).

 

Another aside: From taking to USMC pilots who were stationed conveniently near my base at Iwakuni NAS, Okinawa, Japan, they said the deceleration is about 1.5-2.5g's, pretty substantial!

 

So I see your jet seemingly stop in mid-air (you don't really think I'm going to try to get directly on your 6 during this do you? :smartass:), GOD! What do I do!!! I'm clueless!! I guess I'll just let myself get shot down by your superior Harrier! :surrender:

 

Then all you have to do is just rotate your nozzles back to zero, put your reticle on the fire coming out of my P220s and say "Fox 2 kill F-15 overshooting the AMAZING Harrier at 9,000ft" before your nose began to drop from lack of airspeed.

 

Aahhh. :noexpression: I don't think so. I'd have to be stupid, or not have done my vault study, or just have my fangs hanging through the floorboard of the cockpit for that to happen.... :megalol: I'll just see the nose rotating (or the sudden stop, but that's usually a late sign) use my greater energy to pull into the vertical and behind the harrier and wait for God's G to take it's effect on an aircraft with little airflow over its wings. I then pirouette, put my nose behind the harrier and can either "Fox 2" or gun you as your nose descended and your nozzles had to be aft to pick up speed after your VIFF, giving me a nice heat source, or a quick guns opportunity before I had to pull up again to prevent from violating TR bubble, overshooting, or busting the bottom of the container.

 

This is a trick we've also used successfully on the F-22 if the meat-stick actuator in that jet was stupid enough to get slow, and have to rely on thrust vectoring to rate the nose. But again, this tends to happen to "noobs" flying the jet, just like harrier kills on Eagles tends to be on baby Eagle drivers.

 

Speed aint life by the way, Energy is, but I'm sure thats what you meant.

 

Couple of things:

 

1) I don't think VIFFing has ever been done during "real" combat, not even during the Falklands. There just wasn't any need as the Argentinians never could maneuver aggressively enough to warrant use of such a tactic with many drawbacks - one of which is being slow and non-maneuverable after its accomplishment.

 

2) Without airspeed you have no energy or life. I will gun you as long as I don't get stupid or cocky - so to speak... and try to fight the battle on your terms (low and slow). Sure, you can say "E" is life, too, I guess. But for fighter pilots, and not engineers, Speed IS Life! :smartass:

For once, Good luck to those satellites and the narrow corridor.

It’s useful when it’s needed other than that it’s useless in the tactical terms.

Tea party anyone?

 

Joking aside... the Harrier will win IF and only IF the F-15C makes a serious error. An error like what happens regularly... everyday on online server some frog or A-10 nails a F-15/Su/Mig. But the prevailing winds has me always betting on the A2A dedicated airframe.

Edited October 16, 2010 by RIPTIDE

Huh. Someone is a fighter pilot...i wonder who that is. :D I'll just keep hitting F5...

Edited October 16, 2010 by leafer

Then all you have to do is just rotate your nozzles back to zero, put your reticle on the fire coming out of my P220s and say "Fox 2 kill F-15 overshooting the AMAZING Harrier at 9,000ft" before your nose began to drop from lack of airspeed.

 

Aahhh. :noexpression: I don't think so. I'd have to be stupid, or not have done my vault study, or just have my fangs hanging through the floorboard of the cockpit for that to happen.... :megalol: I'll just see the nose rotating (or the sudden stop, but that's usually a late sign) use my greater energy to pull into the vertical and behind the harrier and wait for God's G to take it's effect on an aircraft with little airflow over its wings. I then pirouette, put my nose behind the harrier and can either "Fox 2" or gun you as your nose descended and your nozzles had to be aft to pick up speed after your VIFF, giving me a nice heat source, or a quick guns opportunity before I had to pull up again to prevent from violating TR bubble, overshooting, or busting the bottom of the container.

 

...only to take a Lima up the ass from SeaHarrier #2, who trailed in at under 100 ft, woohoo Jester's dead.

As both Harriers get splashed by Eagle #2's TWS slammers. :D

As both Harriers get splashed by Eagle #2's TWS slammers. :D

No way man. They barrel rolled them.

Harrier 5 vs 5 whit amrams and AESA would be able to fight anything, its never 1vs1 fight. Disadvantage for the Harrier is that it cant run or chase, you always need support from boddys.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Teknetinium

Ahhh, fictional Harriers with a radar they will never have and that would never out-perform the big birds in any way, shape or form anyway :D