The Sea Harrier FA2 .... was fully the equal of the F-18A/C, F-16, MiG-29K and other fourth generation fighters
The Sea Harrier FA2 .... was fully the equal of the F-18A/C, F-16, MiG-29K and other fourth generation fighters
The Sea Harrier FA2 .... was fully the equal of the F-18A/C, F-16, MiG-29K and other fourth generation fighters
ok warriortard
do
the
needful
sir
>anti brit
>warriortard
>pro brit
>warriortard
>ugly
>subsonic
>piddly radar
>british
>gaslighter spam Black person
playing both sides is older than Black folk
Blue Vixen was superior to the APG-63/65/66 used by US fourth gens until recently
>APG-63
laid it on a little thick there bud
Honestly the sort of moron that posts "warriortard" in any thread remotely related to British military gear is significantly more deranged than even fartsniffer himself.
You do get warriortard is behind those out of place comments and does so to get this exact reaction? Do you?
i hate angloids but i love the harrier
>lust provoking image
>time wasting question
I won't post anymore. The harrier is just so fricking gorgeous I can't help myself.
my president flies a harrier, not some gay f18
>equal of the F-18A/C, F-16
In what possible fricking measure?
its a troll post meant to start another bongbashing thread by posting as a brit.
the harrier was a greeat plane for its time in its own specialised niche, it was until the F35 the only successful STOVL./VTOL jet. Its not directly comparable to the F16 or 18 nor was it intended to be.
But they’re so ugly
Take that back moron it's literally top 10 tier.
Top 10 most ugliest, yes. Up there with the Rafale.
That second part is bait.
i agree with him until the frogs figure out the alien technology that is an openable panel to hide the fuel probe until it is needed
>le probe contentious
>again
I'll give it credit for being the first (and until recently, only) successful VTOL aircraft. Plus it is pure sex.
Reminder it was designed in the early 50s (53) kek
The only time a harrier was ever relevant was when it shot some missiles at that Key West shitbridge in True Lies.
It was pretty good at blowing up Argies in the 80s
I don't understand the hate boner /k/ has for the bongs, I think the Harrier is based.
I wouldnt say it was equal to what OP listed but it was a successful strike platform. It was designed to be used from short runways, roads, fields etc and it did the job. Why the hate?
and another thing,
it had a better service record of all the homosexuals putting it down
>I don't understand the hate boner /k/ has for the bongs
A large portion of it is inorganic. Not to say brits lack detractors, but maybe 2/3rds of it comes from a single guy.
Ironically that single schizo has probably done more to reduce the 'real' hate of Bongs on the board than any actual UK shill could possibly hope for.
There'll always be a low level of disdain for Brits here because of their gun laws, but that guys criticism is so autistically nonsensical it just ends up making Britshit look average to good rather than actively bad.
So far he's redeemed the SA80, Warrior IFV, Eurofighter, QE class carriers and Type 45 destroyers in my eyes.
>SA80
>redeemed
let's not go too far, lol
A2 onwards is fine, not great, but not worth the hate it gets. There are plenty of worse rifles out there.
It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, but I wouldn't have this opinion without Armatard/Warriortard constantly trying to convince me that they are utter trash and that its existence alone would justify the wholesale destruction of the British nation.
He started seething about pie and mash yesterday and now I want to try it kek.
The A2 still has bad ergos and it's heavy as frick for no real gains over other designs. It only exists as a save facing measure/backdoor deal and the british military would have been happier with Diemacos since the start.
BTW this is not about anti-bullpup hate. The Aug and the Famas were both successful decent rifles even if the AR15 has became the golden standard.
>heavy as frick
It's not, it's barely noticeable. have you ever held or shot it?
Sea harrier has a better combat record than F18, 16 and Mig 29 as like F15 it has an infinite K/D ratio. And i think at 13 or so kills it has more victories than any of them other than F15?
It's fat and heavy like an english girl. It's okay if you like that, but don't pretend it's optimal.
>heavier than a Hk416.
And that one has always been criticized for being too heavy with its fat rail handguards and barrel to the point HK redesigned it as a slim and lighter version.
Don't care, gay. Your criticisms are 100% autism mixed with too unfunny memes from 2012 about how le bad everything British is to take you seriously. Surprised you're not digging up the stale tooth decay jokes.
A2 rifle is fine.
Trying to save the SA80 reputation is pure cope. It was bad and the UK overpaid to keep it working. Just because it doesn't break or shits the bed anymore it doesn't mean it's good now.
The Sea Harrier was great, though
I didn't say good, I said fine. Words have meaning. The way people go on about it you'd expect it to be the root of all evil in this world. It's just an average rifle, one which anyone without deep /k/autism will only be able to tell from any other by the fact that the mag is in the 'wrong' place and it's green.
Weight doesn't matter if you're riding in an APC or IFV most of the time, length does, hence the choice of a bulpup rifle. It was a big step up from the SLR. A2 onwards is more accurate than an M16 and more reliable than any DI AR. The slight weight increase gives better multi-shot accuracy at range and more controllable full auto performance.
It's heavier than a SLR, and almost 1kg more than a equally effective AR15 like a basic M4. I won't bother answering the rest of your cope.
It's not fine either just because it doesn't jam or break all the time anymore. It's mediocre but serviceable.
People rightfully criticize it because the UK could have done much better for probably less money, even other bullpup rifles.
The existence of a SA80 defence force here is bizarre. At least the M14gays can argue about calibers and their fetish wasn't unreliable when new.
>It's heavier than a SLR
It absolutely isn't.
SLR is 4.3kg
L85A2 is 3.8kg
The only sources you'll find with a higher L85 weight than SLR are ones that include a loaded magazine and optic for the latter. In which case you should also add a loaded mag and SUIT sight to SLR. which takes it to more than 5kg.
L85A2 and A3 jam less in every environment type than an issue DI AR and this makes you upset.
The full combat weight is the only one that matters and almost all SLRs never got a SUIT.
The L85A2 is 4.5kg fully loaded, a Kg more than a M4, lol
>Muh DI AR
They only need to be cleaned and lubed more often, that debate was settled more than a decade ago.
And a G36, SCAR, Aug, etc are as reliable without being heavy pigs.
>an opticless SLR is better because it's lighter than an SA80 with an optic
Wew lad, you are really plumbing new heights of moronation
Reading comprehension: 0
>the 416 with the L85's piston system
you mean the Ar18 piston system? the other rifle the UK could have adopted instead of losing two decades?
>an m4 has a tiny barrel, it can't put down accurate fire to 600m and is far less controllable on full auto.
delusional, there's no meaningful difference due to the ammo
>Infantry that spend most of their time in vehicles and helicopters need short weapons
This is cope based in the history of the SLR being cumbersome for NI urban ops.
Carbine barrels are good enough and there were better bullpups than the SA80 anyway, so that's not an argument.
>go to the gym more
You've never been in the field, do you? lol
>delusional, there's no meaningful difference due to the ammo
There is actually ,UK Radway Green rounds are hotter so that they cycle they heavier action more effectively. Also longer barrel = more expansion = higher muzzle velocity.
Talk about neverserved.
>The full combat weight is the only one that matters and almost all SLRs never got a SUIT.
And a loaded L85 with optic still weights less than a loaded SLR with no optic. What they got doesn't matter because L85 replaced SLR, had that not happened wider issue of optics would have happened because it was a requirement from that point in time onward.
>They only need to be cleaned and lubed more often, that debate was settled more than a decade ago.
And even then they have a lower (worse) MRBF than L85, it's why people are adopting the 416 with the L85's piston system.
an m4 has a tiny barrel, it can't put down accurate fire to 600m and is far less controllable on full auto.
Infantry that spend most of their time in vehicles and helicopters need short weapons, also, go to the gym more.
It's ~500g heavier than a Hk416. That's not catastrophic. The way people go on about weight you'd expect it to be 10kg heavier.
It’s literally one Brazilian from PrepHole who’s eternally butthurt about anglo aviation, if you see the term United Statesian or an unprompted mention or thread about American aircraft losses in Vietnam that’s him, bring up the Wright brothers and he’ll ape out.
It's a few pajeets and an iranian.
Actual westeners even from historical butthurt rivals like France or Spain love to give them shit but not to this moronic extreme.
Yes it was very underrated as a figher. Most dogfights take place at subsonic speeds anyway so supersonic is not that important unless you want to intercept quickly or out pace longer range AA.
After upgrades in the mid 90's they could carry AIM-120 and an improved version of the Blue Vixen radar, which was well ahead of it's time and considered superior to contemporary F16 radar. I remember reading somewhere that it was able to lock on to low flying objects during the Balkans conflict which even AWACS struggled to do.
"Using the high-PRF look down mode, the Blue Vixen was used by F/A2 operators to provide a gap-filling capability during the Bosnian operation. Data from the Blue Vixen radar were used to cover areas where the US Air Force's Boeing E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft encountered radar-performance problems. The F/A2's radar proved capable of picking up slow-flying helicopters at low level. "