Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Small carrier missions
Message-ID: <11528@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 18 Nov 89 06:37:00 GMT
References: <11197@cbnews.ATT.COM> <11495@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <11495@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>
>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>
>The British *had* air superiority in the Falklands whenever they had
>aircraft in the right place.  The Harriers worked just fine as fighters;
>the big problem was the lack of early warning, which made it difficult
>to put them in the right place at the right time.

The issue of Harrier performance is not so cut and dried.  I have read
claims (maybe from Argentine Apologists) that the Skyhawks and Mirages
didn't have time on station for aerial combat.  For most of their 
missions they had barely enough time for one run and turning around.
The Mirages (Daggers) had to use large drop tanks that precluded
supersonic flight.  So you have a delta-winged fighter with its high
wing loading, not able to use the primary advantage of its design, high
speed.  Given all that, you are right when the Harriers were in position
they had air superiority.  But that doesn't make them air superiority
fighters.  

---
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogc.edu