history channle is full of sh.t..again
|
|
Thread rating:  |
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 01:15 GMT no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 02:43 GMT > no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked more than once for confusing the difference.
 Signature - Rufus
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 04:12 GMT >> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. > >....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked >more than once for confusing the difference. i had even forgotten that. i suppose it could carry sidewinders....
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 05:10 GMT >>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked >> more than once for confusing the difference. >> > i had even forgotten that. i suppose it could carry sidewinders.... That still don't make it a "fighter"...even if I am an "ace" in the sim...
 Signature - Rufus
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT >>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That still don't make it a "fighter"...even if I am an "ace" in the sim... yep, i'm a legend in my own mind, too.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 05:25 GMT >>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > yep, i'm a legend in my own mind, too. I actually managed to not only shock the sim operator, but myself as well...I'd had a running argument for years with one of our Harrier drivers that I couldn't fly a Harrier - I insisted that I couldn't, and he insisted that I could.
Of all the civvies that went to the sim with me that day, not only was I the only one that shot something down, I was also the only one in the group that didn't crash...everybody else flew into the dirt without even being shot at. "Oh, you can fly...well, we're gonna have to give you something that shoots back"...
I even did good conventional landings, which is supposed to be the "hardest" way to land the jet according to all the guys I knew that flew them.
 Signature - Rufus
Mark Bivens - 07 Nov 2007 08:22 GMT > >>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. > >>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "hardest" way to land the jet according to all the guys I knew that flew > them. I think the Fleet Air Arm pilots who flew Sea Harriers in the Falklands found them to be a reasonable fighter.
Mark
 Signature remove "nospam" in replies! Perth Western Australia
Enzo Matrix - 07 Nov 2007 16:52 GMT >>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I think the Fleet Air Arm pilots who flew Sea Harriers in the > Falklands found them to be a reasonable fighter. Interceptor. The only gun kills were against relatively static targets such as a C-130. The Argentinian combat aircraft were at the limit of their range and so couldn't afford the fuel that they would use by engaging in combat.
 Signature Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 19:37 GMT >>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mark Specific instance...I still don't think of the jet as a "fighter". It's an attacker. Different mission.
But in fairness to the Fleet Air Arm, theirs was also a different jet from a USMC Harrier.
 Signature - Rufus
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 17:04 GMT >>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >"hardest" way to land the jet according to all the guys I knew that flew >them. sounds like fun.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 19:46 GMT >>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > sounds like fun. Way fun. The Col was po'd because they let me strafe a train...he'd always wanted to do that and never had the chance - not even in the sim. He laughed through my whole debrief until I got to the part about blowing the passes at the train after doing pop-up attacks on a ZSU. Then he got jealous...
 Signature - Rufus
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 22:06 GMT >>>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >blowing the passes at the train after doing pop-up attacks on a ZSU. >Then he got jealous... did you offer to teach him?
Rufus - 08 Nov 2007 01:45 GMT >>>>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>>>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> > did you offer to teach him? Man, I screwed it up totally...and told him so. And all he kept saying was - "you got to strafe a TRAIN?!??"
That sim was/is way cool - total cockpit (all hte switches), complete with a full closing canopy and windscreen, which is unusual for a fighter sim. And when you put your helmet on, there's a head tracker that makes the full 3D color vision area follow your gaze, so it's full viz anywhere on the dome.
I was locked into the HUD for about five minutes playing the "video game", but it didn't take long before I was looking into turns, keeping my head out of the cockpit, and flying the HUD around to where I was looking instead of the other way round. There's also air bladders and strap looseners in the seat so when you "put the G on" you sink into the seat and get some of that sensation as well...not the real thing, but enough to fool you once you've been tricked into thinking you're "flying".
 Signature - Rufus
someone@some.domain - 08 Nov 2007 02:54 GMT >>>>>> In article <IMbYi.189199$Fc.162820@attbi_s21>, Rufus <not@home.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >seat and get some of that sensation as well...not the real thing, but >enough to fool you once you've been tricked into thinking you're "flying". too bad you can't grab one at best buy. what cracks me up is watching guys twist and turn in their seats to follow onscree action that has no effect in the real world. i've done it myself blasting them green slime monsters from procyon ixx during the refridgerator wars. zap!
Dave Williams - 07 Nov 2007 10:37 GMT >> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. > > ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked > more than once for confusing the difference. The Sea Harrier FA2 was mainly used as a fighter, but I still wouldn't consider it one of the top ten. Those History channel top ten shows are always full of crap.
Dave
Enzo Matrix - 07 Nov 2007 17:31 GMT >>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The Sea Harrier FA2 was mainly used as a fighter, but I still wouldn't > consider it one of the top ten. Sea Harriers were used for fleet defence and as such were interceptors. The Harrier airframe was not a good fighter. It would bleed off energy far too quickly.
During the 1980s, RAF tactics in Germany were to put up a four-ship package of Harrier GR3s. Three of the aircraft would carry a warload suitable for the mission. The fourth was known as the "Stinger". This jet would carry a single Winder on one outboard pylon with a Phimat chaff pod on the other. The Stinger would be placed in a random position in the formation. His job was to "protect" the others, but he was really only there as deterrence - any attacking aircraft could never be sure which jet had the Winder.
The Stinger was always flown by an experienced pilot and the intention was not for him to actually engage any threatening aircraft, but for him to put himself into a threatening posture whenever an enemy fighter approached one of his formation. This required a lot of discipline and so the job was given to the more older. more experinced jockeys. This was explained to me once by a very experienced Squadron Leader. "The Jet [1] isn't a fighter," he said. "But you can't tell these kids that. Give 'em a Winder and strap a bang seat to their arse and they all think they're bloody Maverick. God forbid it should ever come to the real thing, 'cos they'll try mixing it with a Mig and they'll die. I wouldn't even mix it with a bloody Alpha Jet."
I asked him about VIFFing - Vectoring In Forward Flight, where the pilot vectors the nozzles to allow the jet to stand still in the skies. He said "Viffing is only good for airshows." His argument was that in air combat the way to survive is to keep your energy high. If you have low energy you should always unload the aircraft (dive at a shallow angle which reduces the load on the wings and allows speed to be regained) and disengage. He said that viffing instantly gave the aircraft *zero* energy. It may get you out of a tight spot with a single attacking fighter, but they always hunt in pairs. After the viff, you would be stationary and his wingman would waltz right in and kill you. He was of the opinion that the wingman wouldn't even need to use any weapons for the kill - a fast pass in afterburner would produce enough turbulence to knock the Harrier off its exhaust column. There was also a concern that viffing at high speed might actually tear some of the older jets apart.
The Harrier's best survival methods were low-level concealment and avoidance. This was practiced all the time. Three times a year we used to go to "Deci" in Sardinia. Once was for Armament Practice Camp (APC) which allowed extensive bombing and gunnery practice on the Capo Frasca range. The other two times were for ACMI - air combat training on the Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation range. The intention here was to let the kids loose with a Harrier that had been stripped down to its lightest configuration (no guns), fitted with a acquisition Winder and ACMI pod and put them up against F-15s. After four days of continually getting creamed by real fighters, they learned that there was no way they would ever survive such an encounter. They could then learn the real tactics of fighter avoidance. At the start of the ACMI they considered a "kill" by one of their side as a successful sortie. At the end of the detachment they considered a sortie where none of their own was killed to be successful.
[1] RAF Harrier pilots never referred to their mount by name. It was always "The Jet". The groundcrew nickname for a missile-armed jet was "Uhrwerk Springen Haufen", which was German for "Clockwork Leaping Heap" - the "clockwork" bit referring to the fact that it had a "side winder". ;-)
 Signature Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 20:08 GMT >>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >>> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > was to "protect" the others, but he was really only there as deterrence - > any attacking aircraft could never be sure which jet had the Winder. "Soft kill"...yeah, makes sense.
> The Stinger was always flown by an experienced pilot and the intention was > not for him to actually engage any threatening aircraft, but for him to put [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > should ever come to the real thing, 'cos they'll try mixing it with a Mig > and they'll die. I wouldn't even mix it with a bloody Alpha Jet." Most of the engagements I witnessed (Harrier on Harrier) while controlling fights on the TACTS range in Yuma resulted in mutual kills. And that was in even fights.
> I asked him about VIFFing - Vectoring In Forward Flight, where the pilot > vectors the nozzles to allow the jet to stand still in the skies. He said [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was also a concern that viffing at high speed might actually tear some of > the older jets apart. Yup - VIFFing...fugeddaboudit. The single most "useful" VIFF maneuver - a "flop", where the jet swaps ends instantly in the vertical - actually requires departing the jet at ZERO airspeed, which is the LAST thing a pilot would want to do during an engagement. I watched while one of my guys came close to losing one once...not pretty. Alomost thought I was going to have to call the trucks for the first time. After it was over and he stopped breathing hard was reestablished in the climb I got on the radio and said simply - "nice". The only way vectored thrust can have any real advantage during a fight is if it's integrated with the flight controls, which it isn't in a Harrier.
Not to mention that the aircraft has VERY nasty pre-departure characteristics under load - you can spike the G on at an eye-watering rate by slamming the nozzles down, and the jet goes into wing rock and heavy buffet...you lose most lateral control unless you slowly roll out and relax the G at the same time, and you have to have presence of mind to use the rudder and not the stick or you'll just aggravate it. And you're a grape while you're stuck doing that...
> The Harrier's best survival methods were low-level concealment and > avoidance. This was practiced all the time. Three times a year we used to go [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > side as a successful sortie. At the end of the detachment they considered a > sortie where none of their own was killed to be successful. Best low-flyer out there - bar none. And you don't know it's coming until it's on you, if the jet isn't radar equipped. Really lamented sticking a radar on the front of the Marine jets.
I went on a night Red Flag once (A/G strikes only, A/A unopposed), where during one sortie the trailer in the attack blew the snot out of everything, but the leader bit it. He knew that even before the range scorer came in and asked, "where'd you like the body sent?" Pretty sobering. Yeah - getting all your guys back is what counts.
> [1] RAF Harrier pilots never referred to their mount by name. It was always > "The Jet". The groundcrew nickname for a missile-armed jet was "Uhrwerk > Springen Haufen", which was German for "Clockwork Leaping Heap" - the > "clockwork" bit referring to the fact that it had a "side winder". ;-) Funny...now that I think about it, most of my guys only referred to it as "the jet", too...
 Signature - Rufus
RobG - 08 Nov 2007 03:40 GMT "Enzo Matrix" <enzo55@hotmail.com> wrote a whole pile of... stuff. About Harriers.
More local colour from Enzo. It's why I keep on coming back...
Ta mate.
RobG (The Aussie one)
someone@some.domain - 08 Nov 2007 04:00 GMT >"Enzo Matrix" <enzo55@hotmail.com> wrote a whole pile of... stuff. About >Harriers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >RobG >(The Aussie one) enzo is definitley and edumacation. and funny.
RobG - 09 Nov 2007 08:18 GMT > In article <13j51a856fv9n75@corp.supernews.com>, RobG > <haha@happyland.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > enzo is definitley and edumacation. and funny. Yes indeedy. And now I have to wonder what gems I missed while I was internetless in the UK.
RobG (Tha Aussie one)
someone@some.domain - 09 Nov 2007 15:51 GMT >> In article <13j51a856fv9n75@corp.supernews.com>, RobG >> <haha@happyland.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >RobG >(Tha Aussie one) i don't think this group is archived by google.
Bruce Probst - 11 Nov 2007 22:46 GMT On Nov 10, 2:51 am, some...@some.domain wrote:
> i don't think this group is archived by google. Actually, it is.
Bruce Melbourne, Australia
someone@some.domain - 12 Nov 2007 15:02 GMT >On Nov 10, 2:51 am, some...@some.domain wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Bruce >Melbourne, Australia good, that makes things easier.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 19:40 GMT >>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dave Yup...different from a USMC AV8B in that they had a radar and trained to employing it much earlier than the US Marines did.
 Signature - Rufus
Enzo Matrix - 07 Nov 2007 16:47 GMT >> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. > > ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been > smacked more than once for confusing the difference. It's not even an attack aircraft. It's a technology demonstrator with pylons.
 Signature Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 19:42 GMT >>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been >> smacked more than once for confusing the difference. > > It's not even an attack aircraft. It's a technology demonstrator with > pylons. Heh...but it was still one of the best close air support aircraft ever produced...until they stuck a radar on it. A-10 being the best, IMO.
 Signature - Rufus
Martin - 09 Nov 2007 15:00 GMT >>...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked >>more than once for confusing the difference. The F stands for fighter
I think a few Argentinians would disagree
Rufus - 10 Nov 2007 01:25 GMT >>> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked >>> more than once for confusing the difference. > > The F stands for fighter > > I think a few Argentinians would disagree ...it's an "A"V8B..."A" stands for "Attack".
 Signature - Rufus
Mad-Modeller - 11 Nov 2007 04:50 GMT > >>> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft. I've been smacked > >>> more than once for confusing the difference. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > - Rufus Unless it's an RN FA.2.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
tomcervo - 11 Nov 2007 06:17 GMT "history channel is full of sh.t"
"Japan Surrenders"
"Madonna has a lot of boyfriends"
someone@some.domain - 11 Nov 2007 15:15 GMT >"history channel is full of sh.t" > >"Japan Surrenders" > >"Madonna has a lot of boyfriends" stating the obvious is intellectual masturbation.
Mad-Modeller - 12 Nov 2007 05:58 GMT > >"history channel is full of sh.t" > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > stating the obvious is intellectual masturbation. Hey, if Madonna comes to my place and wants to, err, you know, with me my intellect will probably not be engaged.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
someone@some.domain - 12 Nov 2007 15:04 GMT >> In article <1194761839.554093.47850@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, tomcervo > <tomcervo@aol.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. if she opens her mouth with the fake accent, none of me will be either. after cleaning out her wallet, i'll stuff her back in her limo and say seeya!
Martin - 14 Nov 2007 10:24 GMT >>> The F stands for fighter >>> >>> I think a few Argentinians would disagree >> >>...it's an "A"V8B..."A" stands for "Attack". FRS1
then
FA2
Rufus - 25 Nov 2007 20:29 GMT >>>> The F stands for fighter >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > FA2 Different nation, different system?..to me, the first is "Fighter Recon", and the second is "Fighter Attack".
But that's just a US take on it.
 Signature - Rufus
Enzo Matrix - 25 Nov 2007 22:12 GMT >>>>> The F stands for fighter >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But that's just a US take on it. The whole "F/A2" business was spin on the part of the UK Ministry of Defence. Since 1943, British military aircraft have had a consistent method of designations. The first anomaly came in 1983 with the supply of a number of ex-USN F-4J aircraft to bolster the air defence of the UK while a squadron was deployed "down south" to the Falklands. By rights, they should have been designated "Phantom F Mk.3". Instead, they were designated "Phantom F-4J(UK)".
The next abomination came with that Sea Harrier F/A2 farrago. The MoD noted how glamorous the F/A-18 sounded and so they produced a designation that matched it. They simply ignored how ridiculous it sounded - especially considering that there was a perfectly viable designation available: FG Mk.2.
The latest stupidity is with the Typhoon. Traditionally, the Mk1 version reflects the *basic* role of the initial service version. By rights, the Mk1 version should have been the F Mk.1 single-seat fighter version. Sadly, the aircraft is a pile of shite and the first version available for service was the T-bird. So, the Mk1 version is the T Mk.1 - a *trainer* ! How sad! :-(
 Signature Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Rufus - 25 Nov 2007 23:08 GMT >>>>>> The F stands for fighter >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > aircraft is a pile of shite and the first version available for service was > the T-bird. So, the Mk1 version is the T Mk.1 - a *trainer* ! How sad! :-( Ok. Now I get the whole "Mk.x" thing...and it makes more sense.
...but if you ecer want to know how "official" F/A is in the USA, try leaving it off of your business cards sometime...man, did I catch crap for that.
 Signature - Rufus
Mad-Modeller - 26 Nov 2007 05:46 GMT > >>>>>> The F stands for fighter > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > -- > - Rufus Now I understand why you're such a stickler about that. To me it's an F-18. Enzo, you can tell the MoD that they're possibly the only ones who considered ex-USN Phantoms as F-4J(UK)s. Most modellers I know refer to them as Mk.3s. ;)
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Rufus - 26 Nov 2007 06:22 GMT >>>>>>>> The F stands for fighter >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. It all depends on who you're working with, or more likely which nation - a Canadian officer once told me that their MoD can't make up it's mind what to call them either - someone somewhere once decided that all CF military aircraft should have 3 digit type/model/series numbers, so they just tacked another "8" on the back of CF-18 to make it CF-188. But if you look through their pubs, it's referred to as BOTH CF-18 and CF-188, depending on the pub.
Then there are nations that won't use "F/A" due to reasons of treaty - they maintain diplomatic status of their airpower as defensive only, so the "Attack" A in the designator is right out. But if you're talking about a US Navy Hornet, it's "F/A-18"...and that's official.
Modelers also invented the "bug" thing...I've never heard a US Naval aviator refer to the jet as such. They refer to them as Super and "baby" Hornets. But I did find out a bit ago that they call the Super "Rhino" not due to the bump on the nose, but because it's big, gray, and slower than a baby Hornet...
- Rufus
Bruce Burden - 07 Nov 2007 04:11 GMT : no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. "The Military Channel" is so bankrupt for ideas that they did a "let the viewers choose the 10 best post-WWII weapons" show.
I did not bother to watch.
On the other hand, History International did a very nice show on the building of the Alcan highway, with interviews of a handful of vets (including, surprisingly enough, a couple of vets of the black 97th engineering battalion. They also had footage (some in color) of the building of the road. The show also featured a resident of Dawson's Creek, Canada, which is where the railhead was located. Apparently it was a bit traumatic to have 11,000 soldiers descend on a settlement of some 200 - 300 full time residents. :-)
I did not notice any flaws with the naration and the foot- age being shown, plus the description of the hazards faced squared with what I have heard regarding the challenges of building on perma-frost and muskeg.
All in all, it seemed to be produced by somebody who cared, and not the usual slapdash slop shown.
Bruce
 Signature ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT >: no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. >: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Bruce i've seen that show. it is excellent. but they interchange a lot and i belive the alcan show was a hc original.
Richard Brooks - 07 Nov 2007 08:37 GMT someone@some.domain said the following on 07/11/2007 01:15:
> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. List programmes are always best kept away from.
The classic style of History programme format arises typically in the carrier edition. Cram a whole history of carriers around the world in about 5 minutes then spend the rest of the time on some present day US carrier expounding on how much food is eaten, how much beer is drunk, how much they've shat each day, the list goes on! WTF?
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 17:06 GMT >someone@some.domain said the following on 07/11/2007 01:15: >> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >carrier expounding on how much food is eaten, how much beer is drunk, >how much they've shat each day, the list goes on! WTF? obviouvly aimed at massmind and not a real history buff.
crw59@earthlink.net - 07 Nov 2007 09:54 GMT On Nov 6, 5:15 pm, some...@some.domain wrote:
> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters. elaborate pleez.
|
|
|