Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Small carrier missions
Message-ID: <11670@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Nov 89 17:12:27 GMT
References: <11197@cbnews.ATT.COM> <11495@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 54
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: att!utzoo!henry
>From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
>>The British *had* air superiority in the Falklands whenever they had
>>aircraft in the right place.  The Harriers worked just fine as fighters...
>
>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...

They were, by and large, operating near the limits of their range.  The
Harriers were operating at quite considerable range too, however, since
the carriers were being held as far east as possible to keep *them* out
of easy range of the mainland.

>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...

The Harrier wing loading is considerable, too.  And supersonic speed is
of virtually no use in air combat, which is why modern fighters are
increasingly giving low priority to maximum speed.  *Sustained* high
speed would be useful, but only a few specialized interceptors like the
Foxbat can do that.  Certainly the Mirage and Dagger can't.

More to the point, after a few air-combat engagements very early on,
the Harriers were facing mostly aircraft configured for, and pilots
trained for, ground attack rather than air combat.  This had a lot to
do with the very lopsided kill ratio.  Actually, the British pilots
were not too worried about the supersonic speed of their opponents;
dealing with that is just a matter of attacking where the other guy
is weak, not where he's strong.  What *did* worry them was a war of
attrition against superior numbers, a prospect that never materialized.

>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.  

Actually, if you talk to the USMC, they'll tell you that Harriers make
dandy air-superiority fighters.  They are small and have relatively
smoke-free engines, which makes them hard to see.  They are reasonably
maneuverable -- the powerful engine makes up for high wing loading to
a considerable extent -- and accelerate quickly.  The lack of supersonic
speed is largely irrelevant.

The current Harriers are not terribly good *interceptors*, but that's
a different issue.  For that they would need better range (difficult),
better radar and missiles (in the works), and better AWACS support
(partially done).

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu