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
1309391	2012-10-30 04:59:00	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] Showing your normal comprehension ability I see Richard. :rolleyes: Let me explain. At no stage was weaponry, including chewing gum a consideration. All I said was, I quote: “46 years on and some of those planes would still be competitive”. Terry’s response was, again I quote: But not against the Harrier as shown in the Falklands. Well, I don’t subscribe to that because whilst I was impressed by the Aussie Mirage’s, the Phantoms were also impressive. To say that the Harrier was better plane than either Mirage or the Phantom and that the Mirage and Phantom would not still be competitive is plain nonsense. However Richard, I accept that you have a better understanding of nonsense than I do. Oh, and thanks for you paste from Wikipedia which also confirms that the Argentineans were trying to operate outside the planes specified range. (Albeit that range was twice the Harrier’s) ;) I quote from you own paste: 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. So you see it was hardly the planes fault that the Argentineans lost the war.	B.M. (505)
1309392	2012-10-30 07:32:00	Ponder this: "Two Marine Attack Squadron 513 (VMA-513) AV-8A Harrier aircraft. The Marine Corps tested its Harriers against Phantoms and other aircraft in air to air combat and came away convinced the Harrier was a capable fighter platform" www.defensemedianetwork.com (photo 4) "The AV-8A's abilities in air-to-air combat were tested by the Marine Corps by conducting mock dog-fights with McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs; these exercises trained pilots to use the vectoring-in-forward-flight (VIFF) capability to outmanoeuvre their opponents and showed that the Harriers could act as effective air-to-air fighters at close range" en.wikipedia.org ...and don't forget Harriers 20, Skyhawks and Mirages 0	Terry Porritt (14)
1 2 3