Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 127534	2012-10-29 04:42:00	One for the Aviators.	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1309381	2012-10-29 21:28:00	What's the matter? Don't you like the facts? Sea Harriers 20 Argy planes: Argy Skyhawks and Mirages -nil 20 -nil is a good score in anyones book surely ? Nothing of course to do with the fact these planes were bombing or carrying air to surface anti shipping missiles. And nothing to do with the fact they had to come out and return 1000 NM and had no spare fuel to dog fight or carry AIM 9.	prefect (6291)
1309382	2012-10-29 21:31:00	Actually Pegasus GT engine does have a Lucas stater	prefect (6291)
1309383	2012-10-29 22:58:00	What's the matter? Don't you like the facts? Sea Harriers 20 Argy planes: Argy Skyhawks and Mirages -nil 20 -nil is a good score in anyones book surely ? Quite unsound statistics to evaluate the ability of each plane surely. Do you not think superior weaponry, organisation and logistics may have had a bearing on the outcome? But I tell you what, I’d rather be chasing a Sea Harrier in a Mirage than chasing a Mirage in a Sea Harrier. The other thing is I’m not sure any of the Argentinean planes that were shot down were actually credited to the Sea Harrier. But here’s an interesting summery from Wikipedia. “By the best estimates, Argentina totaled about 240 planes when the war broke out. About half of those were posted in the interior and along the Chilean border [7] On paper, the 20 subsonic British Sea Harriers could easily have been wiped out by the more than hundred Argentine combat planes, including many supersonic jets.[citation needed] The reality was different. The long distances from their bases prevented them from using their top speed or they risked running out of fuel.[8] Although, the Argentines had more aeroplanes than the British Task force, a good number of them were Pucara turboprops.[9] Also, the A-4 Skyhawk force were dependent on the two available KC-130 tankers, limiting the amount of aeroplanes that could attack simultaneously.[10] Argentina's fleet of A-4 Skyhawk attack jets was in very poor condition. The arms embargo placed by the United States in 1976, due to the "Dirty War", had made most airframes unusable. The involvement of Israel in helping to return the A-4 to full operational status has been alleged, but has never been confirmed.[11] The small air arm of the Argentine Navy (Armada Republica Argentina; ARA) was in the middle of the transition from the A-4Q Skyhawk to the new Super Etendard. Only five of the Etendard's anti-ship Exocet missiles had been delivered at the time of the conflict, at which point an arms embargo prevented the delivery of further shipments. Additionally, the required programming for the missiles to interact with the Etendard's computers had not been completed by French engineers when the conflict broke out. France, being an ally of the United Kingdom, recalled all technicians, which left a number of Argentine scientists and electronic engineers to figure out a way to make the missiles take input from the plane's computers. Navy pilots, particularly those of the 3rd Naval Fighters Squadron flying A-4Qs were the only trained in the specific art of bombing warships. Air Force pilots trained during April against the two Argentine Type 42 destroyers, similar to those of the British Fleet, and according the Naval officers all the sorties were shot down causing great concern to the High Command until the successful May 1 strikes which they proved that aircraft could survive.[11][12] Finally, Argentine military aviation had never been involved in an international conflict, indeed the last time the Argentine military had been involved in an international conflict was the War of the Triple Alliance more than a century before.”	B.M. (505)
1309384	2012-10-29 23:01:00	Actually Pegasus GT engine does have a Lucas stater :eek: So how do you start it?	B.M. (505)
1309385	2012-10-29 23:20:00	Twist and turn and wriggle all you like, the fact remains....Harriers 20: Skyhawks and Mirages zilch	Terry Porritt (14)
1309386	2012-10-29 23:32:00	:eek: So how do you start it? A little known fact ... some aircraft were retro fitted with an auxiliary radial Pegasus engine, which enabled a prop to be swung and the main jet engines started. The plan was later to be discarded partly due to the extra weight and drag not only of the engine, but the auxiliary petrol fuel tanks that were needed. Subsequent protests by the widows of unfortunately beheaded prop swingers eventually persuaded the Ministry to abandon the scheme altogether. :D	WalOne (4202)
1309387	2012-10-29 23:56:00	Twist and turn and wriggle all you like, the fact remains....Harriers 20: Skyhawks and Mirages zilch No need to twist turn or wriggle when all your up against is a distorted and twisted statistic. :lol: Can you actually show me where any "kills" were attributed to a Harrier? :lol:	B.M. (505)
1309388	2012-10-30 00:05:00	No need to twist turn or wriggle when all your up against is a distorted and twisted statistic. :lol: Can you actually show me where any "kills" were attributed to a Harrier? :lol: So now you want me to hold your hand, can't you Google for yourself ? www.naval-history.net "It didn’t take long for full on dogfighting to take place against the Mirage III............" theaviationist.com	Terry Porritt (14)
1309389	2012-10-30 01:43:00	So now you want me to hold your hand, can't you Google for yourself ? www.naval-history.net "It didn’t take long for full on dogfighting to take place against the Mirage III............" theaviationist.com Hold my hand….:eek:...I don’t think so! Well there you are, just as I thought, it was the Weaponry, (in the form of Sidewinder Missiles) that caught the Mirages, not Harrier superior performance. I note Harrier's didn’t have much luck here either. :lol: “First air-to-air engagement took place on the morning of May1, 1982, when a pair of Sea Harriers on CAP (Combat Air Patrol) near Port Stanley, were vectored onto three slow moving aircraft that had departed the local airfield. The three aircraft turned out to be T-34s that were made aware of the Harriers’ presence and hid in low cloud. One of the SHAR managed to fire some 30mm cannon rounds in the general direction of the turboprops but the first contact ended with a no-score draw.” Priceless, and thanks for confirming what I already suspected. :thumbs:	B.M. (505)
1309390	2012-10-30 03:44:00	Of course it was the weaponry. Did you think they were going to throw lumps of chewing gum at them. What's the point of having sidewinders if you don't use them. I think Terry well proved his argument. See also below from Wikipedia. A number of factors contributed to the failure of the Argentinian fighters to shoot down a Sea Harrier. Although the Mirage III and Dagger jets were considerably faster, the Sea Harrier was considerably more manoeuvrable.[36][37] Tactics such as the 'Viff' (Vectored in Forward Flight) using the nozzles normally used for vertical flight for braking and other directions proved decisive in dogfights, [36] although at least one reputable source has reported Viffing was not used by RN pilots in the Falklands. [38] Moreover, the Harrier employed the latest AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles and the Blue Fox radar.[36][39] The British pilots had superior air-combat training, one manifestation of which was that they thought they noticed Argentinian pilots occasionally releasing weapons outside of their operating parameters. This is now thought to have been Mirages releasing external fuel tanks rather than weapons, and turning away from conflict with the Sea Harrier. This later reduced their capability to fight an effective campaign against the Sea Harrier due to reduced range and lack of external fuel tanks.[40][41]	Richard (739)
1 2 3