One of the best british aircraft design ever.. the brits have some of the best aircraft designer in the past.. too bad their aerospace industry arent around anymore...
Not really bunt. Capabilities wise, it was much, much weaker than any other non-VTOL aircraft. The only advantage it had was VTOL/STOL which the British and Americans could use on their mini-carriers. The initial versions had no radars and had to eject their underwing unexpended ammunition before landing.
Compare them to their contemporaries like the F-5 Freedom Fighters, the MiG-21s and the Mirage fighters of their time. The performance parameters of the others are very shockingly high.
NAS pilots bettered Aggressor Sqd F-5s and US F-15s with Shar FRS1's in mock fights, and Mirages in real ones
up until retirement the FA2 was still getting first shots against UK based F-15's ,for a Light strike aircraft , that was made into a makeshift fighter, it wasn't bad
purely due to the AIM-9L which gave it all aspect capability vs the rear aspect only missiles used by the argies. Also take into account the lack of combat time (about 2 minutes) before bingo fuel vs fully topped off harriers, and having to use on board radar, vs ground (ship) controlled intercepts. The outcome under those circumstances was a forgone conclusion.
Some of the reports that I managed to read indicated that the Argentinians flew straight into them, "knowing" that the AIM-9s are rear-aspect only. That settled the fight pretty fast.
No, all sidewinder kill in 82 were tail shots, mirages dumped their (rare) drop tanks reducing their own range, Skyhawks hauled bombs to hit ships when they should have hauled more fuel, and go after harriers, Argentina lost because they failed to use the time (6 weeks?)they had to extend Port Stanleys runway and base their fast jets there
Is that a darker color scheme than in the past?
ReplyDeleteYes.
DeleteOne of the best british aircraft design ever.. the brits have some of the best aircraft designer in the past.. too bad their aerospace industry arent around anymore...
ReplyDeleteNot really bunt. Capabilities wise, it was much, much weaker than any other non-VTOL aircraft. The only advantage it had was VTOL/STOL which the British and Americans could use on their mini-carriers. The initial versions had no radars and had to eject their underwing unexpended ammunition before landing.
ReplyDeleteCompare them to their contemporaries like the F-5 Freedom Fighters, the MiG-21s and the Mirage fighters of their time. The performance parameters of the others are very shockingly high.
NAS pilots bettered Aggressor Sqd F-5s and US F-15s with Shar FRS1's in mock fights, and Mirages in real ones
Deleteup until retirement the FA2 was still getting first shots against UK based F-15's ,for a Light strike aircraft , that was made into a makeshift fighter, it wasn't bad
Our Harriers seemed to do ok against Mirages in a certain small conflict in 1982!
ReplyDeletepurely due to the AIM-9L which gave it all aspect capability vs the rear aspect only missiles used by the argies.
DeleteAlso take into account the lack of combat time (about 2 minutes) before bingo fuel vs fully topped off harriers, and having to use on board radar, vs ground (ship) controlled intercepts. The outcome under those circumstances was a forgone conclusion.
Some of the reports that I managed to read indicated that the Argentinians flew straight into them, "knowing" that the AIM-9s are rear-aspect only. That settled the fight pretty fast.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo, all sidewinder kill in 82 were tail shots, mirages dumped their (rare) drop tanks reducing their own range, Skyhawks hauled bombs to hit ships when they should have hauled more fuel, and go after harriers, Argentina lost because they failed to use the time (6 weeks?)they had to extend Port Stanleys runway and base their fast jets there
Deleteinteresting! so despite my belief that the Harrier and its pilots were better, you're saying that they also committed a strategic blunder.
Delete