where does the harrier rank in the ground attack/ CAS tier list? with A-10 being dogshit and the aardvark being S-tier
where does the harrier rank in the ground attack/ CAS tier list? with A-10 being dogshit and the aardvark being S-tier
where does the harrier rank in the ground attack/ CAS tier list? with A-10 being dogshit and the aardvark being S-tier
I dunno, I've only used it in aiRB. I prefer the Yak-38 cause 4 R-60s are just delicious
>reddit thunder
Lower than the a-10. It carried a hilariously low amount of ordinance
>fewer blue on blue incidents
>performs better against literally anybody who isnt a goatfucker
You can’t 1 to 1 compare it to a plane that’s seen much, much more combat.
>less targets killed
>carries a really small amount of ordinance
it wasn’t really a good plane. The marines wanted something that could hop off of their LPDs but jumped at the chance to replace it with a better plane
>fewer blue on blue incidents
This argument annoys me. It always seems to be thrown out with zero regard for what the aircraft is supposed to be doing. No shit the plane assigned to provide very close air support has a higher rate of friendly fire as opposed to one thats only response to a danger close strike is "unable".
It’s his only coping mechanism. He just learned that the harrier can’t jump with much payload
>it's SUPPOSED to kill friendlies
It was always amusing how lightly protected the warrior is from 30mm rounds.
Ironically enough when you use a gun (and ammunition) designed for busting tanks, lighter vehicles don't hold up too well against it. But you already knew that warriortard.
Seething. I’m not your little playmate schizo
Rates usually take into account how much use there is. Hence why murder rates are in x per 100,000 people so that larger counties don't have their population skew their stats.
Also, the A-10 isn't "assigned" to CAS. As of 2014 the A-10 only did 11% of CAS missions while the F-16 did 33%. It's a function of who is closest/has the most appropriate loadout/enough fuel. If you call in CAS and it's a Navy Hornet that fits the bill that's what you get.
A10 has good stats on thunder skill, so the A10 is at least B tier
Obsolete. CAS/intelligence is a drone's job now.
OP here, another question how does the viggen stack up to the rest?
lets narrow it down to aircraft from the gulf war era, so no drones or F-35s.
Any Saab designed plane ranks extremely low. I don’t really care if you like the shape of it
>lets narrow it down to aircraft from the gulf war era
As far as CAS goes the a-10 is better. Honorable mention to the f-15
B52 is pretty good at cas
The loiter time, the payload, the fact she THICCCCC
I would literally rather have no other aircraft on station
God I want to see a B52 do a low bombing run. Imagine that big ugly fat fuck at 5, maybe even 3000 feet doing Bogdonoff proud by doomping et. I don't care if I’m in the splash zone, if that's the last thing I see before I die I'll walk up to the pearly gates with the dumbest smile on my face
>how does the viggen stack up to the rest?
the Viggen is pretty good. It is mostly an interdiction aircraft like the F-111 and Tornado but it can attack opportunity targets with rockets and high drag bombs. Plus it has a very short turn around time and can operate from road bases with minimal equipment.
I would rather have A-10's available to me for CAS than any other aircraft. The only thing better is on call artillery.
I have seen A-10's working.
Ok warriortard we believe you. Braaaap
cope
>I would rather have F-111's available to me for CAS than any other aircraft. The only thing better is on call artillery.
>I wish I could have seen F-111's working.
FTFY
Aardvark simps fall into two camps, Red Dragon players and gay pig fans. I hope for your soul you're column A
>literally was the most effective aircraft of the gulf war
>can fly fucking far, fast and can carry a fuckton
>apparently according to this guy anyone who likes that is a gay
Yes because it's not a B1 Lancer, now that's a swing wing I'd fuck
>but that's a bomber
Don't care, love it infinitely more than the Aardvark
F-15 was far more effective
F-15 couldn't have bombed Libya like the F-111 did.
Hah I loved it in WG RD
You couldn't serve artillery fast enough or have enough of it to ever match the tons per hour the A10s can drop on target
What on earth are you talking about?
This thread backfired on you. Nobody cares about the harrier. Like not even a little bit
ok...? I was just trying to figure out if it was any good. Sure I think its cool, but i just want to figure out the general consensus, which is pretty negative.
Yeah it is generally viewed unfavorably by non children. Especially in the usmc where it was used for quite some time.
but then, why dont the marines use naval hornets and cobra's working in conjunction with one another?
I cared when Arnold Schwarzenegger stole one to kill terrorists.
Was that in the same arnold film with the MAC-10 slinky
Yes
I forgot that it existed.
>Like not even a little bit
Why do you talk like a 13yo girl?
Harriers proved themselves in the Falklands War and many times since then.
They weren't perfect, but they got the job done and actually worked unlike their russian counterparts at the time or the F-35B which still needs to prove it's worth it.
Comparing them to the A10 it's retarded. They have very have different trade-offs despite sharing some mission profiles.
One of the few British designed aircraft that had a chance to perform. Stuff like the Lighting never got used for real, pretty sure we'll never see the Eurofighter do it's job for real either, meaning the shitposting wars will never stop.
If you have a ramp, and catapult, why not go with a less complex and lighter aircraft without the VTOL.
>ramp and a catapult
????
also we have conventional aircraft launched from a ramp carrier its called STOBAR and its total shit that combines the worst aspects of both systems only operated by chinks and pajeets
Nevermind, I thought the ramp could be combined with a catapult but that is not done in practice.
>ramp, and catapult
That's retarded but I'm slightly aroused at the redundancy. I fucking love redundant systems
Beneath the A10. Solid carrier fighter but even ignoring the meme gun the A10 runs circles around it for CAS. Then again that's like asking what's a better duck gun, a Model 29 loaded with ratshot or a Cobray Terminator
Depends on the variant.
early AV-8s were shit tier low level mk1 eyeball CAS later retrofitted with laser guided munitions and FLIR.
The Sea Harrier had a tape based INS system and a radar to fix it with making it more like a baby sized A-7. During the falklands war they even did medium level night raids using just INS/radar bombing.
The Harrier and Osprey are examples of transient tactical considerations driving the design basis of an aerial platform. Both were born illegitimate. Neither is even tactically reliable.
Coming into this thread I knew very little about the harrier. It seems like it’s not that good
It is worthless dog dookie with the only success it achieved being destroyed on the ground by sand people at Bastion
The British failing to secure bastion will never not be funny
>The British failing to secure bastion will never not be funny
>Marine Major General Charles M. Gurganus was in charge of the base defenses and had reduced the number of Marines patrolling the base perimeter from 325 to 100 one month before the attack. After pressure from the families of those killed or injured in the battle, the US Senate put Gurganus' promotion to Lieutenant General on hold.[5] On 30 September 2013, USMC Commandant James F. Amos announced that he had found Gurganus and USMC Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant to be accountable for failures of the base defenses during the raid. Sturdevant was in charge of USMC aviation assets in that region of Afghanistan. Both were directed to retire from the USMC immediately at their current ranks of Major General.[21]
You falseflag fed the first post just so you could post that. That’s really embarrassing that you were caught doing that
Why dont you reply to both and see what happens bitch?
It's not use, because vatniks like yourself already are known to hop VPNs
That is why any saying "Flags and IDs" are 100% of the time a vatmoron who would use it for their spam anyway.
The Harrier ranks below the Thunderbolt II and the Aardvark. The Cessna A-37 Dragonfly even has it beat by miles in SOVL, which is arguably the most important category.
God damn it why does everyone talk like warriortard nowadays
He lives rent-free in your head.
What really gets me is how small they are, they're like a flying miata
Damn, those were sexy planes.
Proved extremely effective in the Falklands but it's more geared for multi-role than outright CAS. Only downside was it was pretty hard to fly, apparently. Suppose that's the expected fate of early V/STOL aircraft though, even now the F-35B has teething problems.
They didn’t do much in the falklands. Less than 1000 people in total died in that war. It’s way overblown by British posters and most people don’t consider the falklands skirmish a war because of the small kill count
>it didn't meet some arbitrary kill count I've decided on therefore I'm ignoring it
Warriortard cope lmao
Less than 1000 total. Really low intensity conflict. Sorry you don’t like it
>harrier was so effective it ended the war almost immediately, sparing further bloodshed
Why is British equipment so good?
they scored more kills in real combat (against a much larger airforce with many more capable aircraft) than the F-14 and F/A-18 in US service in the only near peer naval war since WW2. The only reason the kills were relatively low is it was an expeditionary war with about 10,000 ground troops.
if the USN/USMC ever did a modern Island hopping war the number of dead would be similar just based on the numbers of you can deploy to remote islands.
>UK campaign would be similar to US campaign
Lmao someone mindbroke this retard
moron how many troops do you think are in an MEU?
The MEU is just the first guys on scene. Either way I’m this line of questioning is just an offshoot of a coping mechanism designed to cushion the blow of the realization just how small the falklands skirmish was.
You’re arguing with a notorious British shill. Just move on
>the first guys on scene are the ones who have to slowly sail there
MEUs aren't some kind of rapid deployment force they are meant for expeditionary and amphibious warfare (hence the name) operating with the navy to capture islands and shit away from land based supply lines. You know like that war in the South Atlantic
You’ve outed yourself as a retard. The MEU is the fastest to deploy self contained fighting unit the US has. No other country has a constantly deployed self contained fighting force. Expect a MEU thread at 0700 east coast time tomorrow morning
do you live in a world where airborne divisions and heavy lift aircraft don't exist?
I live in a world where heavy lift aircraft don’t have access to enemy runways and deploying airborne troops with no support isn’t a viable strategy
that's why you airbridge troops my moron in christ. What do you think Desert Shield was?
If you are just attacking somewhere far away from friendly controlled areas then that's expeditionary warfare like the falklands which was my exact point to begin with.
Much easier for a ship to ferry troops by helicopter and LCACs ferry supporting equipment than somehow trying to land a c5 in enemy territory. I’m sorry you thought otherwise
The IRF is generally faster unless there is an MEU already on standby in the area. 1 battalion anywhere in the world within 18 hours and the rest of the brigade in 72. Granted, the MEU is a little better set up for forcible entry, but at the core its still just an infantry battalion with attached logistics. The MEU is also needs time to spool up and by necessity has to have a target near the water. In that way it isn't really different from the IRF, but it isn't going to have the rest of an entire brigade at its heels.
An ESG is a much more capable formation and I'd argue more capable than IRF if it has an embarked MEB. With two on rotational, high readiness deployment to EUCOM and CENTCOM at all times, it's able to get to expected trouble quickly.
F14 has an order of magnitude more kills than the Harrier, dumb moron. Against something much closer to a beer peer than Argentina ffs.
And Harriers performance in that war was 100% due to AIM-9Ls being ez-mode in basically the antarctic circle. Which we gave you when you begged us because you were scared of the brownies lmao
>warriortard so in denial he's pretending the Falklands war isn't real
It's funny how you can push this retard into a corner by just pointing at the facts and watching him combust.
Who is pretending it isn’t real? The falklands was a very low intensity war is the vibe I’m getting from all of this
High intensity but short lived. There's a difference between scale and intensity you tard, and since the island was so far away from both parties it limits the number of men you can put in the field.
But again you're only trying to downplay it because the harrier proved effective in the war. That shoots holes in your narrative so you have to try and deny it's legitimacy. I accept your concession.
> harrier
harrier than what?
Real answer is harrier brings an unique capabilty that wasnt matched in the world up until the f35b.
f15e was the best cas platform overall though
Fairly midrange. If we can put the nationalistic dickwaving aside for a moment that was all it was ever meant to be - a versatile, non-CATOBAR carrier capable, aircraft that could do just about anything you might need it to do. Comparing it to the A-10 is kind of retarded though, considering the years they entered service and what they were designed to do. It would be like trying to ask whether the B-17 or Mosquito was a better strategic bomber. Or asking whether the Harrier or A10 was a better carrier aircraft.
Harrier is a really old plane. Old at the time of the Falkands war.
But is it good or bad? My knowledge of british jets is rather limited but the harrier above all others seems to have very mixed opinions on PrepHole.
Regarding the falklands though, the harriers being able to land directly onto the decks of Hermes and Invincible did greatly contribute to the task force getting underway as quick as it did
As a whole? It is battle tested and proven. As an attack aircraft? It is a tiny plane that carries very little ordinance, as others have noted.
Why would the brits even need to use the harrier for ground attack when there's a whole 'nado variant meant for that role?
Because the Tornado sucks, the only aircraft worse than the Tornado IDS is the Tornado ADV.
And why does it suck?
Good for its intended role as a multirole fighter and as a plane to be launched from basically any flat surface. If you don't believe me, look up the Atlantic Conveyor. However it's payload is fairly small, especially when compared to dedicated attack aircraft. It's electronics weren't that great, even for its time. GR.3, the model used in the Falklands could only use Fox 2s and unguided rockets because it didn't have a radar. Modernizations and the versatility of VTOL kept it relevant but the design didn't leave much room for improvements. Much like the centurion it was innovative and great upon introduction and we just milked the design for everything it had and retired it when it couldn't go any further
CAS and ground attack are two different but related roles.
For ground attack the A10 is unironically fantastic: it can carry a huge payload and has the gun for lighter targets.
For CAS the A10 is dogshit because it has a bad sensor suite and poor visibility for its age, and that gun is not accurate.
CAS requires a platform that will not miss the target because, by definition, it means shooting targets that are close to friendlies, who don't appreciate catching stray misses or being mistaken for hostiles.
The harrier is relatively poor at everything because it is designed to fulfil a need that limits its payload: that is to say it can do VTOL which puts constraints on the design.
In summary, the question betrays how little op understands.