how good was the harrier?

>>33892918
>do you think that the speed its important in a dogfight?
It wasn't meant for dogfighting, it was meant for quick CAS. It could be stationed nearly anywhere and was super versatile.

Even air superiority fighters do not dog fight at top speed.

In the Falklands the Harriers forced the superior Mirages to play on their level by flying low and slow. To engage the Mirages would have to come down and this left them vulnerable to Harriers. Argentinian aircraft also had less time on station because the fuel they would have to burn flying from the mainland and back. This limited the types of fuel burning maneuvers they could perform. But yeah the Harrier is used so widely and successfully because it is a versatile aircraft.

Harrier wasn't used "widely" as it's a niche aircraft so only RAF and US Marines bothered with it.

However it had one key advantage in the Cold War. The Brits kept lorries ready with maintenance equipment at Harrier bases so if they could immediately disperse away from their soon-to-be-destroyed airfield.

I went TDY as an A1C to RAF Gutersloh in 1982 with a couple of Broncos from Sembach and got to see how they operated. Pretty cool.

I miss the Cold War. Good times.

>>33892918
As CAS? Very good.
As a Air Force Mach++ useless expensive shit heap? Not good at all.

>>33893141
India, Italy, Spain, and Thailand also had or still have them in service

>>33892918
It was shit at everything and dangerous to fly.

But the fucker could take off from boats no other plane at the time could and that made it super valuable.

The harrier is a light ground attack aircraft. It did fairly well in the Falklands war air to air, because the Americans supplied the latest all-aspect version of the sidewinder missile, which meant it didn't need to line itself up behind the Argentine aircraft to shoot them down, and so could make the most of an information advantage.

The harrier existed because every air strip in western Europe was going to be targeted at the outbreak of WW3, and so an aircraft which didn't need a runway was precious. Being able to operate from small aircraft carriers was almost just a bonus.

>>33893184
Exept for India. They retired their Harrier last year.

>>33893049
dude, you are confusing the mirage with the skyhwaks

>>33892918
The harrier wasn't designed for speed, it was designed to operate from forest clearings after all nearby runways had been ruined by nukes.

>>33894645

He's not. Harriers shot down a few mirages.

>>33894362
>also had or still have them in service

Yep.

>>33893049
Also, the Mirages were hunting the British fleet and couldn't focus on dog fighting. The geography also favoured the Harrier, with the cliff walls constricting the Argies line of attack. The Argies and Brit pilots did have respect for each other though.

At one time they developed it to be launched from ships that werent carriers i believe i had read that even a destroyer could use the system

>>33896387
It depends. They needed a ski jump if they wanted to launch them with more weight.

>>33896387

It sounds possible. I think that the Atlantic Conveyor (a civilian cargo ship pressed into service) actually entered the exclusion zone around the Falklands with a Harrier on deck armed with two Sidewinders, ready to take off vertically and intercept. Though by the time it got hit with Exocets, the Harriers had all been offloaded.

>>33896387

Yeah. It was called a Through-Deck-Cruiser *honk honk*.