PDA

View Full Version : Which aircraft Is more effective in the ground attack role: Harrier or Apache?


Typhon111
28th May 2014, 11:46
I normally would have said the Harrier, because of the bomb load it can carry and it's versatility. but my friend seems to think the opposite, and that the Apache is much better at attacking ground targets.

we can't decide between the two, do any of you clever chaps (preferably people who know about these aircraft) know the answer?

I hope you can help because you guys are a lot smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than I am! :P

thanks

just another jocky
28th May 2014, 15:02
Depends upon one's definition of "effective" as that will decide the winner of this mini-competition.

And the threat.

And the distance.

And the immediacy of the requirement.

And the requirement.

Etc.....etc....etc.

Didn't mean to be flippant but there are no winners or losers in these things, they each have differing capabilities. Think of one scenario and one will be more effective, think of another and the other will be.

And who's Harrier are you talking about? USMC? Spanish? Italian? Indian? If they each still have them?

Boudreaux Bob
28th May 2014, 16:06
The MOD decided that did they not?:uhoh:

The Harrier's are in the scrap yard and they are talking about buying more Apaches.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
28th May 2014, 16:09
You are assuming the MoD make decisions purely on effectiveness?

How long have you been in, Bob, all day??;)

tonker
28th May 2014, 16:26
The A-10:ok:

Boudreaux Bob
28th May 2014, 16:34
One should have faith in One's Leaders, surely!

Loyalty alone demands that I should think?













Anyone whose length of service exceeds Reveille knows "effectiveness" is the last thing to be considered when those on high make decisions.

RileyDove
28th May 2014, 17:40
The Harrier was replaced by the Tornado in Afgahnistan -so replacement doesn't come into it! In terms of putting munitions on the target the Harrier could clearly deliver a lot more and was due to add Brimstone to its arsenal.

sharpend
28th May 2014, 18:46
Actually, to toss a spanner into the works, and from one who flew Jaguars for 10 years, I truly believe that the Canberra B57G was the best. I did not have the good fortune to fly it, but did tours on B15/16s and B(I)8s. We could carry Nuks, rockets, missiles, cannons, napalm, retard and free fall bombs, flares, could fly 1000 miles at low level, cruise at 60,000 feet and all for the price of a bottle of beer :)

cokecan
28th May 2014, 20:10
'ground attack' also needs defining - in CAS terms, Apache wins hands down...

Hot_LZ
28th May 2014, 20:15
As previously mentioned there is no real winner as their capabilities are different. But having served on the ground in Helmand I found the Apache to be more effective in Strike but the Harrier for ISTAR.

The Apache was very handy with its load of 30mm, Rocket and Hellfire. 30mm being devastatingly accurate and plenty of it, rockets would bring down tree lines nicely and the Hellfire was great for accurate punch. The problem we had down South was that it couldn't hang about too long compared with Harrier.

The Harrier could sit nice and high to watch with its pod and could remain on station for a decent time which was probably it's most handy trait for us. It could provide serious impact with larger bangs than Apache, great for simultaneous strike. And great for clearing crowds etc with 200' show of force.

At the end of the day the Taliban was a fan of neither and they both did great jobs!

LZ

Boudreaux Bob
28th May 2014, 20:55
from one who flew Jaguars for 10 years

A dozen takeoff's was it?

NutLoose
28th May 2014, 21:06
:E



.......

nice castle
28th May 2014, 21:49
AC-130.:cool:

smujsmith
28th May 2014, 22:10
Its a pity that in the air to ground role we are limited to these two only. My personal bet would be a fully kitted B52 doing a full WW3 drop. I'm sure that buckets of sunshine have more punch than a couple of 500 lb LGBs. But then, like the Harrier, the Nuke Bomber is a thing of the past.

Smudge:ok:

West Coast
28th May 2014, 22:52
Perhaps in the RAF, not elsewhere however.

Boudreaux Bob
29th May 2014, 00:58
Westie,

MPA is gone....Harrier is gone....Tornado's are scarce as Hen's Teeth....Tristar's gone....VC-10's....it is almost easier to figure out what is left than what is gone.

The Oberon
29th May 2014, 11:26
Probably a dumb question but was it possible for the harrier to fire weapons at slow ground speed or the hover ? Just had a vision of one lurking behind something, rising up, firing off something and then beetling off.

Boudreaux Bob
29th May 2014, 12:29
A Harrier Lurking behind something then shooting an unsuspecting target?

Either the target would be about five miles up-wind or completely stone deaf to not tweak to the presence of the Harrier hovering!

The things are are louder than a Convention of Mother-in-Laws!

Whitewhale83
29th May 2014, 12:37
The A-10:ok:

Don't worry according to the not at all insanely biased chaps at f16.net the F-35 is the perfect replacement CAS and ground attack unit for the A-10 because... uhm... 5th generation™ and stuff... you know.

Lonewolf_50
29th May 2014, 18:41
Since our opening poster didn't actually tell us what the target was, it is hard to answer his question.

Building?
Harrier
Column of armor?
Apache
Some other targets: either.

Infantry in the open: Apache with that lovely chain gun. :ok:

Robert Cooper
30th May 2014, 03:50
Hard to say without knowing the target, but as the Harriers are gone it has to be an A-10 or Apache, and of those the A-10!

Bob C

GreenKnight121
30th May 2014, 07:26
The Brits may have gotten rid of their Harriers, but the USMC still has plenty flying in various parts of the world - as well as those 72 ex-British airframes slowly being stripped of anything useable.

And the USMC ones even have that 25mm GAU-12/U 5-barrel gatling cannon fitted - as well as that small-dish AN/APG-65 multimode radar.

Darvan
30th May 2014, 07:36
Strictly speaking, the Apache does not perform, CAS. In Air Manoeuvre doctrine it conducts CCA or Close Combat Attack. CAS is an Air doctrine term for fixed wing platforms. Minor detail I know but we are not comparing like with like here.....

Lonewolf_50
30th May 2014, 12:46
20 years ago, an Apache pilot I know (Major Braun) was working on Army doctrinal development with the aim of classifying Apache as CAS. The core of his approash was that having a differnt name for the same function (airborne fires) struck him as conceptually limiting. Granted, he was looking at this from an Army point of view, institutionally, but he was also informed by the US Marine Corps' combined arms doctrine.

It looks like his efforts were in vain.

CCA, is it? OK, whatever. :p

Aynayda Pizaqvick
31st May 2014, 09:48
Saying that the difference between CCA and CAS is simply helicopters v FW is a rather crude simplification and doctrinally there is more to it than. Due to some of those differences (and a host of other reasons) AH is always (from personal recent experience) the first preference for the guys on the ground in CURRENT operations but clearly just because that is the preference now, certainly doesn't mean FW CAS wont be the best platform for the job in the future!

cornish-stormrider
1st Jun 2014, 03:47
someone said AC-130........

a real crowd pleaser, if you are well out of the way..
we'll just circle around in a pylon turn out of manpad range and have at you with a broadside of everything but the kitchen sink.....

I always wondered why they never did a variant with 4x GAU-8 (A10 cannon) and a whole herc full of ammo.

Bring the rain, indeed yes.

Vendee
1st Jun 2014, 07:47
I always wondered why they never did a variant with 4x GAU-8 (A10 cannon) and a whole herc full of ammo.Rudder isn't big enough :E

Lonewolf_50
2nd Jun 2014, 12:34
Aynayda, thanks for your reply. Major Braun was dealing with military reality as it was in the mid 1990's, so your point on "what's popular in the current fight" is very well made. :ok: