Hornet or Harrier?

[0414 Wee Neal]

Hi

In the time of self contemplation I want to learn a new aircraft. I have been flying the A10 for years, but fancy a new challenge, considering I have a bit of home time for awhile.

 

I would welcome some considered opinions please, fully appreciating its subjective. I have purchased the super carrier for giggles, but that is not a reason to just go for the Hornet.

 

Thanks

 

Neal

[AG-51_Razor]

I have both and can quite honestly say that both are absolutely awesome! Learning to hover in a jet is definitely a challenge! Learning to trap in a Hornet aboard the carrier is possibly a slightly easier pilot operation but to do it well and consistantly is another thing. Just operationally speaking, I think that the Hornet is just about on a par with the Harrier in terms of air to ground is concerned but the Hornet is way ahead of the Harrier in terms of air to air. I would say that, depending on what it is you enjoy doing the most, you should let that be your guide. They are both very well done modules and I seriously doubt that you'd be disapointed by either one. The only little fly in the ointment is the Tarawa. It has some warts that need some attention yet but I'm sure that won't last long.

[razo+r]

I wouldn't go for either one now. Maybe wait a bit and see how things develop.

 

Hornet had a "promising" start of development but "slowed" down and is still unfinished and missing some stuff after all that time.

 

Harrier on the other hand has really questionable support from the devs and didn't really make all too much progress since early access.

 

Don't get me wrong, both are fun planes and unique, but the current state is not too favorable for a purchase.

[Jester986]

I would echo Razor, with a slight edge to the Hornet. The Harrier is a little less polished systems and bug wise than the Hornet. But if you want air to air with some air to ground go Hornet. If you want mostly air to ground go Harrier.

[Fusedspine33]

If you can get them both.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[609_Relentov]

Both are fun to fly. Depends on what you want - some key differences, not entire list of capabilities):

 

AV8B

- More dedicated to ground attack/CAS

- Limited air-to-air capability, only Fox-2 IR missiles, gun, no air-to-air Radar

- Amphib Assault Ship Ops or land a/f Ops (STOL/VTOL)

- Can take off and land just about anywhere on land or ships with a flat open area (assuming weight not over limits)

- Slower max speed

- Night Ops specialist, including built in sensors (DMT)

 

F/A-18C

- Multi-role air-to-air/air-to-ground

- BVR air-to-air capability w/Fox-1/2/3 missiles, gun, w/air-to-air Radar

- Carrier Ops (catapult and wires) or land a/f Ops

- Faster max speed (after burning engines)

- FBW controls

 

Both have TPOD available, can carry guided ordinance, dumb bombs, drop tanks, etc, A-A refueling capable

 

Just going off memory, I’m sure I missed a lot. You’ll likely have fun either way you go.

 

Good luck!

[Outlaw24]

I have both but if I had to choose between the two, I would go with the Hornet.

[TheGuardian]

I own both, and like several others have said they are both equally fun to fly while also providing challenges in different areas. Tarawa operations to me are just as fun as Stennis. I think the Hornet is a little easier to learn as the systems are quite straight forward. If i had to pick one to buy right now, it would be the Hornet, simply because the SC is coming out in Two Weeks™, but I don't think you will be disappointed either way

[animaal]

Have you the F-16, or plan on getting it? If so, the Hornet will have a similar capability, whereas the Harrier is quite different.

 

 

(obviously there are differences between the F-16 and Hornet, but I find them more similar than most other jets while actually flying)

Edited March 25, 2020 by animaal

[ebabil]

buy harrier + tomcat instead i would do if i hand't bought hornet already

[Kev2go]

both are 50% off so with the current sale its a good time to get both . Although the harrier is a unique due to VTOL capabilities it does have some limitations being a dedicated CAS jet.

 

 

The hornet is a multi role fighter. It is not only capable for A2A roles, in air to ground it is still more flexible in its employment for A/G missions besides CAS compared to the Harrier due to wider variety of guided munitions.

 

So due to purely due to being a faster jet with greater role versatility i say between the two i would still choose the Hornet.

Edit:

 

since some have suggested the F16, I would also say that the Hornet is more feature complete. the Hornet is still better bang for your buck than the Viper as of now. and still arguably so even when both are feature complete since F16 aint getting JASSM, the Hornet will still be king in terms of standoff muntions.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Kev2go

[0414 Wee Neal]

Thanks for the views lots to mull over. I have purchased both so now just need to decide which to learn.

 

Neal

[RampantCoyote]

Thanks for the views lots to mull over. I have purchased both so now just need to decide which to learn.

 

Neal

Hah. Yep, that's the challenge!

[kotor633]

As the owner of the M2k and Harrier modules: save your money for it, even if you currently get the modules cheaper. Take a look at how long this back and forth goes on with these modules. With the products from ED, Heatblur or Leatherneck your money is better invested.

[SilverHawk94]

I own both but to be honest I havent even opened the box on the Harrier yet because I'm enjoying the Hornet so much. btw, I just bought the F-16C. :pilotfly:

[Snowy55]

You brought both, good decision and problem solved. I prefer the F/A 18 mainly because the RAAF have it.

[Fri13]

Coming from A-10C to either one, I would say that Harrier is closer to the CAS than Hornet will ever be. As it was dedicated for the Marines close air support tasking, while Hornet is the multirole fighter.

 

If you want ever to go for Air-to-Air combat, then Hornet. As the Harrier A-A is purely limited to self-defense, so not existing really. In the future IF we get Harrier AV-8B+ as own module, then you could fly two kind missions, as you get effective A-A radar with it and AIM-120 capability and of course get all weather capability to perform A-G sorties that AV-8B N/A can't do.

 

So if you would be at that possible future scenario good with Harrier, you would enjoy likely more with the Harrier then to be able fly two kind aircrafts (both N/A and + variants has identical pilot manuals as the radar doesn't change anything else than remove the ARBS system and add a radar functions to MFCD's) but that is just hypothetical possibility.

 

The Harrier is very interesting to fly, as you can fly fast (like 400-450+ knots) if wanted, or you can fly slow (like 140-200 knots) if target area so requires. You can quickly cover low and high altitudes and either use it for long range attack or closer range long time period support.

In future IF (again) we get the APKWS then you would love to fly with Harrier, as if you tried that similar system in JF-17 when it was for trial for two days just 24-25th day, you had change to use 90mm rockets with laser guidance. And you will not miss mavericks or other laser guided bombs etc with those as you get so quickly target destroyed. (I believe it is up to ED to again implement APKWS and "Ugroza" for Russian side, so it would come to all platforms that can launch standard rockets).

 

If you want to get better knowing what Harrier can do, watch these:

 

1545Cbdumg0

 

h1cx4ZdyGyA

 

The Harrier IMHO is such aircraft that you need to enjoy from variation of the combat and flying. It is like special aircraft like A-6 Intruder is. So you might first want to get a F-14 Tomcat or F/A-18 Hornet but when you get flying A-6, you don't want to fly anything else.

 

The Hornet in other hand is as pure multirole aircraft you can get your hands in DCS. It is the most capable one and best performing in that class, but you need to wait that ED gets their A-G radar systems, new FLIR etc implemented until you start to really get to it.

You need to really get to like to fly fast and be more of a "package deliver" than "fighter", so if you really like the CAS tasking that you do with A-10C, then Hornet is less about that and more about fighting your way to enemy airspace and get couple bombs out and then back to carrier.

 

IMHO the Hornet is little same as flying F-14 just for bombing missions, it is like directing the aircraft for completely wrong tasking it was designed for.

But like any other module tasked for ground combat, they completely lack the proper ground forces and so on it is like slapping a baby and thinking that you are though when you can beat a baby. Reason simply is that in DCS the ground combat is aggressively simplified so bad that there is no challenge whatsoever to fly those aircrafts.

[donkeyrider]

I have both and fly the Hornet most of the time. Carrier ops is something I never get tired of and having a platform capable of both A2A and A2G makes the Hornet my go to jet.

[Kev2go]

Coming from A-10C to either one, I would say that Harrier is closer to the CAS than Hornet will ever be. As it was dedicated for the Marines close air support tasking, while Hornet is the multirole fighter.

 

 

 

If you want ever to go for Air-to-Air combat, then Hornet. As the Harrier A-A is purely limited to self-defense, so not existing really. In the future IF we get Harrier AV-8B+ as own module, then you could fly two kind missions, as you get effective A-A radar with it and AIM-120 capability and of course get all weather capability to perform A-G sorties that AV-8B N/A can't do.

 

So if you would be at that possible future scenario good with Harrier, you would enjoy likely more with the Harrier then to be able fly two kind aircrafts (both N/A and + variants has identical pilot manuals as the radar doesn't change anything else than remove the ARBS system and add a radar functions to MFCD's) but that is just hypothetical possibility.

 

The Harrier is very interesting to fly, as you can fly fast (like 400-450+ knots) if wanted, or you can fly slow (like 140-200 knots) if target area so requires. You can quickly cover low and high altitudes and either use it for long range attack or closer range long time period support.

In future IF (again) we get the APKWS then you would love to fly with Harrier, as if you tried that similar system in JF-17 when it was for trial for two days just 24-25th day, you had change to use 90mm rockets with laser guidance. And you will not miss mavericks or other laser guided bombs etc with those as you get so quickly target destroyed. (I believe it is up to ED to again implement APKWS and "Ugroza" for Russian side, so it would come to all platforms that can launch standard rockets).

 

If you want to get better knowing what Harrier can do, watch these:

 

1545Cbdumg0

 

h1cx4ZdyGyA

 

The Harrier IMHO is such aircraft that you need to enjoy from variation of the combat and flying. It is like special aircraft like A-6 Intruder is. So you might first want to get a F-14 Tomcat or F/A-18 Hornet but when you get flying A-6, you don't want to fly anything else.

 

The Hornet in other hand is as pure multirole aircraft you can get your hands in DCS. It is the most capable one and best performing in that class, but you need to wait that ED gets their A-G radar systems, new FLIR etc implemented until you start to really get to it.

You need to really get to like to fly fast and be more of a "package deliver" than "fighter", so if you really like the CAS tasking that you do with A-10C, then Hornet is less about that and more about fighting your way to enemy airspace and get couple bombs out and then back to carrier.

 

IMHO the Hornet is little same as flying F-14 just for bombing missions, it is like directing the aircraft for completely wrong tasking it was designed for.

But like any other module tasked for ground combat, they completely lack the proper ground forces and so on it is like slapping a baby and thinking that you are though when you can beat a baby. Reason simply is that in DCS the ground combat is aggressively simplified so bad that there is no challenge whatsoever to fly those aircrafts.

 

 

Honestly the idea of "one aircraft has a label of CAS, and the other is multi-role and therefore it must be assumed the one with the CAS label must be assumed to be better than multirole " is malarkey. Certainly in this case when comparing Harrier to Hornet.

 

The only advantage the harrier has in CAS to the F/A18 is that it can deploy from an LHA or a FOB with a helipad or small landing strip thus being potentially closer to the front lines , however in situations its limited landing/takeoff space requires smaller fuel quantity, and a minimal bomb load. So such a harrier will have very limited station time unless it hits the tankers and not much payload to support troops on the ground. Otherwise, it doesn't possess any advantages in cas when the Hornet can use the same weapons (and then some).

 

The harriers fuel consumption is still pretty high for a subsonic jet and on max internal fuel you only get 7,700 lbs of fuel. You wont be VTOl with max internal fuel, and external stores, let alone with external fuel tanks strapped in. IN comparison with 1 bag of external fuel a Hornet driver can still take a cheek TGP, and take 8 bombs and stay aloft longer than a harrier can ( if you need the range. If you dont, then drop the bag and thats 2 extra bombs). The harrier can only exceed the Hornets payload if its has the necessary length for a conventional take off ( and thats only with conventional bombs). ANd then it handles very sluggishly. NOt that it matters in DCS but IRL the harrier is also more expensive per hour of flight than the Hornet.

 

Really the Harriers a unique due to VTOL/STOL capability but that is a novelty feature to proclaim it better at CAS to the Hornet. What is really necessary to really stand out for CAS are what the A10 has. Long loiter time, and a large payload. The large degree of systems redundancy is a cherry on top.

 

Depending on who you ask in the USMC, some think the harrier was a mistake. Its expensive, It more dangerous to fly, its impractical, and it combat range/loiter time is even worse than the Hornet's. Luckily a mistake that can be rectified today with the F35B which also is a multi-role fighter, and not a novelty subsonic attack jet.

Edited March 28, 2020 by Kev2go

[Ayabe]

The Harrier itself is fun to fly but for the A2G role the Hornet is far superior in a lot of scenarios. The only time I prefer to fly the Harrier is in "clean" airspace, free of sophisticated SAMs and redfor aircraft. HARMs are a lot better than Sidearms and I don't like having to rely on sneaking up on a Mig29 to have a chance.

 

 

 

The Hornet TPOD is much easier to use even without being complete due to the Harrier slew being absolute nonsense and frustrating to use. TOO'ing GBUs is also a lot more work and prone to errors. You can't really pickle off several in one run due to having to laze-range every target. Perhaps once the Harrier CAS page is fully functional and you can pickle off 10-12 GBUs in one shot it'll be a real beast and have a leg up on the Hornet. The whole "click the map" thing to enter coords is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be implemented, just wait to do it properly.

 

 

 

Harrier gunpod is great, basically a sniper rifle in A2G, it's very fun to use.

 

 

As it stands I consider the Hornet to be the only aircraft in game that can survive and be effective regardless of the scenario for my play style. F-16 will get there eventually.

[dburne]

I do not yet have the Harrier, but I am so loving the Hornet. Still in learning process though.

[Revs]

just get either one now, soon you'll be like most of us anyways and have both and then some.

[peterwinship]

I just bought the Harrier. I'm in the middle of learning the Hornet. Im a beginner, I would say. I would also say that despite the vast array of tutorials for the Harrier, which are excellent, I'm finding it a lot more difficult to learn than the Hornet. The Hornet seems a straightforward process to learn. By which I mean, I start off on the tutorials, watch on-line tutorials etc then have a go, and I rarely run into those moments like 'oh no, what do I do now, this doesn't work like it said in the tutorial,' or 'oh, I heard all that, but I still don't understand what's going on...help!...' I will learn the Harrier in time, but I feel the Hornet is much easier to learn. I'm too much of a beginner to comment on relative bugginess/development state etc.

 

For what it's worth, the Mirage is superb to fly and beautifully done, but I would say the same about learning it as the Harrier, vis a vis the Hornet. Sometimes difficult.

 

Easy planes with more of a fighter focus (for a change from the A10 you're used to) would be the Saber, Mig 15 and the F5, both of which are quick to learn (the Saber and Mig15 very quick indeed) and all of which are a real joy to fly. For the Saber and the F5 the graphics are not as beautiful as the Hornet or Harrier though. For a real feel to flying I think the Mig15, the Mig19 and the MIg21 can't be beaten because they are, relatively, so difficult to fly that you're always aware of being in the air trying to control a fast, reluctant lump of metal. And imho the graphics for those 3 are the best of any.

Edited April 1, 2020 by peterwinship

[Flummi]

Definitiv the Hornet! The reason for me is the state of development at the moment.

[Focha]

As much as I like the Harrier, go for Hornet. If you have the budget, go for JF-17. I am enjoying every bit of it.