And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Not a copy, but an improvement. I remember seeing the AV-8A Harrier at Iwakuni fifty years ago, and now the AV-8Bs are being phased out in favor of the F-35.
And as I have maintained for a very long time, the Harrier was a truly well performing jet. The F-35 is a horrible federal government boondoggle. Down the road, when people who are responsible pull their heads out of their butts, they are going to say, "What the hell have we done?"
The claim is that an F35 can orbit stealthily over the target area at 50000 ft and 1000 mph (super-cruise, not afterburners), where it is essentially invulnerable to SAMs, and with its modern sensors can guide other standoff munitions to the targets, whether they be drones or cruise missiles. This could be very valuable in a near-peer conflict where satellites may be destroyed or GPS jammed.
RAF Harriers performed very well against various Argentine aircraft, including the Mirage downing three. Shortly after that war we inexplicably discontinued their use. It always made me wonder why, when the USA used them, modified and improved them. Dodgy military procurement appears to be universal.
They were subsonic, had a short range, and limited space for modern sensors. Only useful on short jump-jet-style carriers. Totally unnecessary with large US catapult-capable carriers.
USMC wanted Harriers so they could base and operate closer to “the front”, from what they called “expeditionary airfields”. IOW, they weren’t tied to aircraft carriers or to huge, permanent air bases. The four swinging exhaust nozzles may have also made them the first operational airplane with vectored thrust, which gave them some advantages in air-to-air combat. The Brits used that to advantage in the Falklands campaign. BTW, USMC also had SATS . . . Short Airfield for Tactical Support. See here, for a decent description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Lai_Air_Base. When I was on one of my midshipman “cruises”, here on solid ground in the States, we got to watch them launch and recover an F-4 Phantom, using SATS.
That is something to watch!
ReplyDeleteCan it take off vertically as well?
ReplyDeleteJust a copy of the Harrier jump jet, and yes land and take off.
ReplyDeleteNot a copy, but an improvement. I remember seeing the AV-8A Harrier at Iwakuni fifty years ago, and now the AV-8Bs are being phased out in favor of the F-35.
DeleteStealth and supersonic are pretty big differences.
DeleteAnd as I have maintained for a very long time, the Harrier was a truly well performing jet. The F-35 is a horrible federal government boondoggle. Down the road, when people who are responsible pull their heads out of their butts, they are going to say, "What the hell have we done?"
ReplyDeleteThat's the power of .gov contractor lobbying overcoming common sense.
DeleteNemo
The claim is that an F35 can orbit stealthily over the target area at 50000 ft and 1000 mph (super-cruise, not afterburners), where it is essentially invulnerable to SAMs, and with its modern sensors can guide other standoff munitions to the targets, whether they be drones or cruise missiles. This could be very valuable in a near-peer conflict where satellites may be destroyed or GPS jammed.
DeleteNemo, you mean like the Osprey?
Delete@Rick - Exactly
DeleteRAF Harriers performed very well against various Argentine aircraft, including the Mirage downing three. Shortly after that war we inexplicably discontinued their use. It always made me wonder why, when the USA used them, modified and improved them. Dodgy military procurement appears to be universal.
ReplyDeleteThey were subsonic, had a short range, and limited space for modern sensors. Only useful on short jump-jet-style carriers. Totally unnecessary with large US catapult-capable carriers.
DeleteUSMC wanted Harriers so they could base and operate closer to “the front”, from what they called “expeditionary airfields”. IOW, they weren’t tied to aircraft carriers or to huge, permanent air bases. The four swinging exhaust nozzles may have also made them the first operational airplane with vectored thrust, which gave them some advantages in air-to-air combat. The Brits used that to advantage in the Falklands campaign. BTW, USMC also had SATS . . . Short Airfield for Tactical Support. See here, for a decent description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Lai_Air_Base. When I was on one of my midshipman “cruises”, here on solid ground in the States, we got to watch them launch and recover an F-4 Phantom, using SATS.
ReplyDelete