cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (10/19/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) >From article <1990Oct15.033716.12587@cbnews.att.com>, by paj <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk>: > I saw this manouver done on the Soviet Su-27 Flanker on TV during the > Farnborough Airshow. Does it have any practical use, or is it just a > neat display exercise (like the Harrier's bow)? > > I imagine that it would cause rapid deceleration (causing the bogie to > fly past into your sights) and might hide the engine well enough to > lose any heat-seekers. Even exhaust-seeking IR missiles might nip > past under the tail since the exhaust jet no longer has the plane > beyond it. > > Paul. Some news sources reported that the British used the VIFF maneuver (Vectoring In Forward Flight) during the Falklands party, but I can't remember reading any authoritative reports of results. Supposedly, this was considered for use with the earlier AIM-9 models which had to be fired from behind the target. At deployment, the Brits had only the earlier Sidewinders (but were later armed with AIM-9L). It was supposed to work like this: Harrier ahead, with a bandit on his tail. In level flight, Harrier pilot rotates the exhaust nozzles to full down (or just past to reverse) position, resulting in a sudden loss of forward speed plus a rapid gain in altitude. The pursuing bandit overtakes and flies past (and under) the Harrier, which quickly goes back to forward thrust and puts the AIM-9 up the tailpipe. Anyway, the Brits thought it had practical value. Pat Kauffold
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/24/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) >Some news sources reported that the British used the VIFF maneuver >(Vectoring In Forward Flight) during the Falklands party, but I can't >remember reading any authoritative reports of results. Ethell&Price's "Air War South Atlantic", still the best account I've seen of air combat in the Falklands, says quite firmly that these reports were mistaken, and there was no use of VIFFing whatsoever. It is important to realize that the Argentine air force high command got the shakes after the Vulcan raids, and pulled back all their trained fighter squadrons to defend the mainland air bases. The Harriers spent most of the war picking off relatively defenseless bombers, which could not shoot back effectively; the only real problem was finding them before they could attack British ships or ground forces. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (10/26/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>The Harriers spent most of the war picking off relatively defenseless
bombers, which could >not shoot back effectively;
Most of the "relatively defenseless bombers" were A-4 Skyhawks, if I'm
not mistaken. Kind of negates an A-4 resurgence into the front-line US
combat role. It does make the Harrier look good anyway.
Allandmc@otto.yerkes.uchicago.edu (Dave Cole) (10/29/90)
From: dmc@otto.yerkes.uchicago.edu (Dave Cole) In article <1990Oct26.015212.24827@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >>The Harriers spent most of the war picking off relatively defenseless >>bombers, which could not shoot back effectively; > >Most of the "relatively defenseless bombers" were A-4 Skyhawks, if I'm >not mistaken. Kind of negates an A-4 resurgence into the front-line US >combat role. It does make the Harrier look good anyway. > >Allan These A-4 Skyhawks were operating at the extreme edge of their range, never stopped to dogfight, and carried no air-to-air missles. I'm certain that with bases close to the front and a couple of AIM-9L's under the wings of the Skyhawks, the contest wouldn't have been nearly so one-sided. After all, the Brits never took their carriers west of the Falklands, for fear of the increased air threat. Dave Cole dmc@otto.yerkes.uchicago.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/29/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >>The Harriers spent most of the war picking off relatively defenseless >bombers... > >Most of the "relatively defenseless bombers" were A-4 Skyhawks, if I'm >not mistaken. Kind of negates an A-4 resurgence into the front-line US >combat role. It does make the Harrier look good anyway. Harriers would show just as poorly with (a) no air-to-air armament, (b) pilots completely untrained in air combat, (c) a heavy load of ground-attack weaponry, and (d) incompetent tactics. The Argentine pilots were very brave, and their aircraft were reasonably capable, but they were fighting with one foot in a bucket. (I originally added (e) practically no fuel to spare, but that was actually somewhat true of the Harriers too. The RN held its carriers as far offshore as possible to interfere with land-based attacks on them, and this badly limited Harrier combat endurance. The combination of long transit times, short endurance on station, and lack of useful AEW meant that it was the luck of the draw as to whether there was a Harrier in the right place to attack an incoming raid. A lot of the Argentine attacks faced no airborne opposition.) -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
jwm@wdl76.wdl.fac.com (Jon W Meyer) (10/29/90)
From: jwm@wdl76.wdl.fac.com (Jon W Meyer) ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >>The Harriers spent most of the war picking off relatively defenseless >bombers, which could >not shoot back effectively; >Most of the "relatively defenseless bombers" were A-4 Skyhawks, if I'm >not mistaken. Kind of negates an A-4 resurgence into the front-line US >combat role. It does make the Harrier look good anyway. >Allan An aircraft carrying fuel and weapons for an attack against a ground or sea target is at a disadvantage when faced with aircraft configured for an air to air role (as the Harriers refered to above were). This says little if anything about the relative values of the A-4 and Harrier as strike aircraft. It just conforms to the idea that laden bombers are easier targets for interceptors than vice versa. Jon
cem@cs.brown.edu (Charles E. Moylan) (10/30/90)
From: cem@cs.brown.edu (Charles E. Moylan) In article <1990Oct26.015212.24827@cbnews.att.com>, ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes (in reference to the Royal Navy Harriers' success in air combat in the Falklands conflict): |> |> Most of the "relatively defenseless bombers" were A-4 Skyhawks, if I'm |> not mistaken. Kind of negates an A-4 resurgence into the front-line US |> combat role. It does make the Harrier look good anyway. |> |> Allan As I understood it, the high losses experienced by the Argentine A-4's were not a result of a problem with the plane itself, but rather a lack of defensive maneuvering/countermeasures by the Argentine pilots. It's no problem to shoot down even an F-15 or a MiG-29 if the pilot is just flying in a straight line, and not dropping any decoys! -- Charlie Moylan (cem@cs.brown.edu)