‘Top Gun’ takes on Taliban upside down

[green granite]

From the Sunday Times:

THE Royal Navy’s “Top Gun” pilot and veteran of almost 200 missions in Afghanistan has relived the hair-raising aerial manoeuvres used against a Taliban stronghold.

Lieutenant Simon Rawlins, 30, described flipping his Harrier jet upside down while flying up the side of a mountain at more than 500mph to scare off enemy troops.

The “show of force” mission required the fighter pilot to fly just 100ft above ground, the minimum safe distance, leaving him vulnerable to rocket attack and rifle fire.

Full article here: ‘Top Gun’ takes on Taliban upside down - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6395819.ece)

edited to correct the link

[Bunker Mentality]

That link doesn't take you to the Sunday Times, G2................

[SirToppamHat]

Full Article here:

'Top Gun Takes on Taliban' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6395819.ece)

STH

[L J R]

135 AoB=up-side down nowerdays is it...?


....but well done lad, pity that you only got 400 hours in your 200 sorties. - that is a lot of strap-ins.

[Smurfjet]

How pissed is he about comparing his maneuver to pulling a Maverick and Goose on the Taliban?

[soddim]

Hope the Taliban enjoyed the display - can't see how it killed any of them but maybe we can only read the bit that was meant to impress.

[[email protected]]

Might have been worthwhile if he had actually shot/bombed some of them instead of 'terrifying' them - more fantastic RN PR

[airborne_artist]

But if proximity of our forces/civilians prevented this, and the impact of his low pass gave time for our forces to advance/move to safety, then it's still a worthwhile action. Look at all the munitions dropped in Vietnam - who won?

[Desert Diner]

more fantastic RN PR

Somehow, I feel this may backfire on them.

I wonder when someone will ask if the display was performend due to a shortage of ammo.

[Sgt.Slabber]

7/9's don't have a gun, :mad:

[NickGooseBrady]

Scrawlins! Or Scranbag. Bless you. Dartmouth (Cunningham) 1998, do you still wear pyjama bottoms under your 3's trousers (itchy legs)? PM me if you are out there in prooone land (when not going inverted and keeping up international relations).

NGB (we shared a cabin for 5 months)

[Desert Diner]

7/9's don't have a gun, :mad:

What happened to the 30mm?

Last time I heard, the Taliban still did not have an air force. So it is mostly ground support missions. How do you do that without a gun?

[airborne_artist]

Last time I heard, the Taliban still did not have an air force. Just as well, as the last I heard the GR7/9 was not a fighter.

How do you do that without a gun?Paveway IV

[Desert Diner]

Paveway IV

I guess it's more like call in an A-10 then:bored:

[Sgt.Slabber]

ADEN 30mm was fitted to GR1, 3, FRS1 and F/A2.

ADEN 25mm was being developed for UK GR5/T10, etc. RO/BAe and an engineering development company in the Ascot/Windsor area(?) couldn't get around the gun cradle twisting during gun firing resulting in multiple stoppages and excessive cradle cracking - allegedly.

US system on AV8B - gun in one pod, ammo in the other with an up-and-over feed system through the fuselage - can not be fitted on UK Harriers due to additional UK spec kit being fitted in the cross-feed hole - allegedly.

[Desert Diner]

ADEN 25mm was being developed for UK GR5/T10, etc. RO/BAe and an engineering development company in the Ascot/Windsor area(?) couldn't get around the gun cradle twisting during gun firing resulting in multiple stoppages and excessive cradle cracking - allegedly.


sh1t!:uhoh:

[GIATT]

Many moons ago (2004?) I watched 2 PARA doing a live firing attach up an Otterburn re-entrant supported by a pair of Harriers dropping some form of practice bombs.

The boss of 16Bde was obviously unimpressed by their accuracy and demanded that the next run impress him or else.

Cue Harrier running in inverted before verting and dropping at the last minute. I think it was the laughter of those around the bunker rather than the flying skills that silenced the Brig.

[TEEEJ]

Desert Diner,

Along with Paveway and General Purpose Bombs.

CRV-7s

RAF - CRV-7 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/crv7.cfm)

Maverick

RAF - Maverick (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/maverick.cfm)

TJ

[Desert Diner]

TEEEJ,

Thanks for the links. Truly awsome weaponry against ships and other armored forces and installations. However, these may not be well suited for close air support of a patrol that has come under fire from nearby snipers.

You need a gun/cannon for that.

Now I see why Lieutenant Rawlins had to resort to "scaring" the Taliban

CRV-7

This unguided weapon equips the Harrier GR7 and comes in two versions, for attacks on lightly protected installations, ships or armoured forces.

Maverick

The weapon is designed for close air support and defence suppression and can be used against armour, ships and transport and fuel-storage facilities. The G2 version, with which the RAF is equipped, has an Imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker which gives the weapon a true all weather, day or night ‘fire-and-forget’ capability against armoured and mobile targets.

[zerva]

Desert Diner

Exactly how many CAS missions have you flown in? I assume you are an expert in the weapons effects of a gun verses HEPD CRV 7 verses sniper positions.

[Desert Diner]

Exactly how many CAS missions have you flown in? I assume you are an expert in the weapons effects of a gun verses HEPD CRV 7 verses sniper positions.

None and I am no expert, but I am falling back on things I like to call "common sense" and "logic".

But go ahead and assume anything you want, just explain to us why Lieutenant Rawlins had to "scare" the Taliban instead of utilizing some weaponry.

Thanks in advance.

[NickGooseBrady]

The "scare" tactic is otherwise known as a "show of force", a well utilised practice. The whole article is just a spot of PR. Correct me if I am wrong but the inverted bit is quite normal when bunting over the top of ridges.

Cheers

NGB

[Wholigan]

I am falling back on things I like to call "common sense" and "logic".

Stap me mate - you're totally in the wrong forum for those things! Try Jet Blast!

:E

[Wholigan]

Correct me if I am wrong but the inverted bit is quite normal when bunting over the top of ridges.

Sorry old mate, but if you bunt whilst inverted you go upwards, not down over the ridge as I imagine you meant! And anyway, ridge-rolling is - in my opinion - a useless and quite dangerous thing to do. There was a thread about it some years ago.

[TEEEJ]

Desert Diner,

I suggest that you read Joint Force Harrer 'The true story of a Royal Navy Fighter Squadron at war' by Commander Adrian Orchard, RN with James Barrington.

The Taliban certainly know how effective CRV-7s are!

Joint-Force Harrier - Legion, the Royal British Legion magazine (http://www.legion-magazine.co.uk/features/book-reviews/joint-force-harrier/)

Shows of force are highly effective.

Show of force during 2007 in Iraq.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | RAF jets save life of top Iraqi Police Commander (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RafJetsSaveLifeOfTopIraqiPoliceCommander.htm)

TJ

[ShyTorque]

S'funny - I thought our chaps were only fighting the Taliban... not those who are supposedly on our own side :hmm:

[TEEEJ]

Desert Diner,

See the mission marks on the Harrier at the following. Note the CRV-7s employed.

RAF Harrier Mission Markings from OP HERRICK (http://www.fast-air.co.uk/Harrier-Mission-Markings.htm)

TJ

[Desert Diner]

TEEEJ,

Thank you for those links. Nice pictures by the way.

Nice plane the Harrier, I've seen a few of them during Gulf 1 (from the outside I had better add before zerva accuses me of anything else).

As for the markings, of the CRV-7s that are shown, I wonder how many times they would have been selected if the cannon option was also available?

Some here have the opinion here that a gun/cannon is not needed because the Harrier has rockets.

On the contrary, I am proposing the opinion that rockets have to be used because the Harrier does not posess a gun/cannon anymore.

And as been said before, "show of force" aerobatics are useless and dangerous against an enemy that is shooting at you, and suggest the lack of a suitable alternative.

And zerva, I am still awaiting your "expert" :rolleyes: opinion to my question. Anytime after shool is over will be fine.

[airborne_artist]

In the wide open, flat spaces of the Iraqi desert there is often a use for a 30mm cannon/rockets in close air support, especially against light armour and soft-skinned vehicles, but Helmand is a very different battle ground. Terry is often dug in inside compounds less than 200m from our chaps, and a jet moving at 400kts firing is not going to be able to get a decent firing solution and much lead down without a blue on blue, or firing into civilian areas. They really don't like making more than one pass at that kind of height, too.

Paveway can be targetted and released from 15,000', so the enemy literally does not even know it's coming, and the relatively low HE content, compared to an iron bomb, means that the destruction is quite short-range, so it can be used even when our forces are in the next field.

[TEEEJ]

Desert Diner,

As suggested pick up a copy of Joint Force Harrier. It will explain all.

TJ

[Engines]

SS, I do know a little bit about the Aden 25 - I was PM for the project for a while.

The 25 was a development of the standard Aden 30, carried out by RO at Enfield, then moved to Nottingham when Enfield closed. Sadly, the guys who knew anything about high speed cannon didn't move with the project and RO produced a gun that suffered repeated jams and stoppages due to a number of problems, including cradle twisting.

The project was then taken off RO and given to a small firm in the Ascot area, who did a really very good job on the gun, redesigning and retesting it. Culminated in a 250,000 round shoot in around 4 days with very few stoppages.

Sadly, the gun pod was left with BAES at Farnborough, along with the gun feeds. The early trials showed not only feed induced stoppages, but also spent links hitting the tailplane. (never a problem for FRS1 or FA2, with tin tails, but GR5/7 tailplane is composite). The whole programme was canned a couple of years after I left it, when the RAF pulled the plug, citing the 'irrelevance of a non-precision weapon' - Typhoon gun was canned at the same time.

I've commented here because that little firm in Ascot did an excellent job in a short time for quite a low cost, and never really got the credit they deserved. In my view the 25mm would have been a good gun, but would have needed a new feed system and a better spent link collector - both eminently doable.

My own view is that the RAF pulled guns off their aircraft with very little thought for operational scenarios where a gun can work. The 25mm round is excellently suited to CAS, and with modern gunsights and aiming systems, guns can be very precise in both air to air and air to ground. More precise than a CRV7, that's for sure, but less range - there's always a tradeoff...

Best regards as ever, Engines

[Desert Diner]

Engines,

Excellent post. Thank you for sharing.

Regards

[newt]

Wholigan I think you will find that many years ago ridge-rolling was the accepted method of crossing a ridge line and was taught on the Jag OCU.

I wonder why it is now considered to be dangerous? Could it be you are getting a bit too old for such excitment? Or are you becoming Captain Sensible having been to CFS!!!!!

[BEagle]

Hmmm...ridge rolling.

In 1974, I was at Leeming doing a 'Fast Jet Lead In' course and my QFI was, well, a bit of a loony. He once showed off his 'ridge rolling' technique to me in the JP5 and it was one of the few times that I was genuinely scared fartless.... We rolled and pulled over the Buttertubs and various hilly bits of Yorkshire at extremely low level.

Sadly, he later killed himself in a Jaguar.

[LateArmLive]

I vote Desert Diner should come out to KAF and brief us all on how to provide CAS effectively. We obviously haven't got it right yet in the 5 years we've been out here. :rolleyes:

[Desert Diner]

I vote Desert Diner should come out to KAF and brief us all on how to provide CAS effectively. We obviously haven't got it right yet in the 5 years we've been out here.

LAL, stop being a tw@t.

To quote that other "great air combat authority" zerva:

Exactly how many CAS missions have you flown in?

I can't believe any real combat pilot would prefer going into a CAS mission without a gun. They will because they are professionals and follow orders, but professionalism also means common sense

If you think a gun is not required, then please provide a logical explaination.

[airborne_artist]

DD - of course guns and rockets are carried by Apache. OK, it's not fast, but in some ways CAS from Apache has advantages over the same from faster platforms. It's been very popular in Helmand.

[Desert Diner]

AA,

I am not saying that CRV-7 or any rockets or bombs are bad, nor anything against their use on CAS missions. Just that many military pilots I've talked over the years have spoken fondley of their "gatlin guns" These were mostly A-10.

It irks me to have idiots dismiss an otherwise interesting discussion with sarcasm. And what is their point?

A canon is not necessary because it cannot be fit onto the airframe?

Sounds like a pencil pusher to me.:rolleyes:

I seriously doubt any real pilot would prefer not having a gun for CAS if it was available.

Simple as that/

[airborne_artist]

Of course, what the pilots want, and what the grunts want may be two different things. What the pilots wants isn't really important, and in fact, the grunts who need the CAS don't really care what is delivered, or by what platform, so long as it's immediately available, accurate and effective. We have to bear in mind that the A10 was procured to bust tanks in Europe, not well dug-in Taleban in the mountains. For that matter, so was Apache.

[gungho]

Bring back the FGA9, Omani ones had 4XAden 30MM, 24XSura, 2X1000lbs, very effective as I remember against all sorts of things, cheap to run too! :ok:

[John Farley]

Just some of the many reasons why guns are not at all a weapon of choice when it comes to CAS are:

They are hard to aim, not that accurate and need a period of (relatively) prolonged tracking of the target at a substantial dive angle which leaves you very exposed to even quite primitive weapons in the hands of the enemy. Throw in the fact that the forward air controller can play no part in designating the actual targets to bullets when they are en-route (unlike other stores) and I hope you are starting to see why people may not be bothering to answer your question.

Mind you if your target is unarmed women and children queuing for soup or large isolated hospitals then by all means use a gun - indeed you could even fire from the hover to improve your aim.

Seriously as one CAS pilot said in the mission debrief when he was asked why he dropped his bomb at 560kt instead of the optimum 480kt his answer was "Because the aircraft would not go any faster"

[ORAC]

Dos Gringos: Going in for Guns (http://www.dosgringosrocks.com/audio/DOS_GRINGOS-Going_In_For.m3u)

[Monty77]

John Farley:

Come off it. Weapon of choice? Like you say CAS depends on what you're having a pop at, and to not have cannon limits your armoury.

I don't think the A10 was designed to take out soup kitchen queues. It does a very good job.

Hovering is for airshows, not Afghanistan.

[Double Zero]

'77, you're playing with fire taking on the best Harrier pilot on the planet, JF !

However, not having tried it as you know John, I'd have thought there was a case for a gun ( I only saw the disastrous early trials of the 25mm, it's both heartening & sad to read it finally cut the mustard but was still binned ) - surely you can't take out a bad guy in a jeep or standing alone with a Maverick, maybe not even a Paveway - expensive OTT if witty solutions, and rockets require flying low into RPG range, + have to be less accurate ?

DZ

[Monty77]

I obviously defer to the mighty JF's credentials, but would argue that he is probably not, now the best Harrier pilot in the world.

The best ones are now actually flying it in combat.

Wishing they had a bloody great cannon.

No disrespect intended here to better, and more accomplished men than me.

[John Farley]

Well you are right there Monty I am certainly a has been.

However my post was an attempt to respond to Desert Diner who said “If you think a gun is not required, then please provide a logical explaination” (sic).

I felt DD might appreciate some of the issues that make guns hard/dangerous to use – at least the sort of gun that was considered for the RAF Harriers and used by the USMC. The A-10 was conceived as a Gatling type carrier and that type of gun is a very different and specialist weapon compared to those used on the Harrier.

I am sorry you did not perceive my third para for what it was – a weak attempt at humour and presenting the real risks associated with Harrier type guns - people shooting back as you struggle to keep the piper on the target in the bunting dive that is required as range reduces. I had hoped that by starting the next para with the word ‘Seriously’ before going on to talk about the defensive properties of speed in an overfly type of attack readers would get the point.

If you felt I was making a case for hovering in Afghanistan I can assure you I was not doing anything of the sort.

[Desert Diner]

JF,

Your comments on using a gun were noted and appreciated.

What is not appreciated are sarcastic comments like "how many CAS missions have you flown" or "Come to Kandahar to brief us". That shows simple immaturity as far as I'm concerned.

I still maintain that having a gun for ground attack is critical. The A-10 was built around the gun. Your Harrier doesn't because the program was cancelled. Simple as that.

There may be scenarios where you will not use it, but that is not a reason not to include it. Not if your main CAS targets are soft skins.

I hope you are starting to see why people may not be bothering to answer your question.

I think its more to do that they agree with me. Would you as a pilot prefer not to have a gun on your Harrier if one was available? Simple as that.

[Desert Diner]

I am sorry you did not perceive my third para for what it was – a weak attempt at humour and presenting the real risks associated with Harrier type guns - people shooting back as you struggle to keep the piper on the target in the bunting dive that is required as range reduces.

I took that paragraph for what it was: the real risk associated with attacking people that are shooting back at you. Speed is life.

[Czech MaShortz]

DD,

You are totally correct that the Harrier GR7/9 does not have a gun because the gun upgrade programme was cancelled. I'm pretty convinced that had we actually got the thing fitted to the aircraft in the mid-90s, that we would be forced to use it today in Afghanistan. However, more through luck than judgement, the Harrier Force has ended up with CRV-7 as its low collateral direct fire weapon and, thankfully so.

Why do I think its better than a gun for Counter Insurgency Ops in 'the Stan'?

1. 2 x pods of CRV-7 are a hell of a lot lighter than a pod-mounted gun and all its ammunition. Hence, we have less of an issue regards all up weight when operating in a hot and high environment with a full warload (including the bombs). However, the 2 pods of rockets actually give you (in general) the same amount of pickle presses as a proper gun.

2. We are fighting a counter insurgency op, where its NOT all about killing people and breaking their stuff. Its about the delivery of effect that allows our forces to provide enough security on the ground to allow the other agencies, out with the military, to conduct reconstruction etc. CRV-7 is an excellent wpn for delivering effect - just firing a single rocket over the heads of an enemy delivers a supersonic crack that generally keeps their heads pinned down long enough to let our troops extract or fight through.

3. CRV-7 can be fired from much further away than a gun however, remains every bit, if not more, as accurate. Therefore, we get to stay out of the threat envelope for longer, which is nice. Moreover, it has more of a punch than your average gun (not counting DU rounds but then UK would never sign up for that!).

4. Because of this extra punch, CRV-7 has a broader utility. It can be used against any light skin tgt (including people) however, it is also very effective against more robust targets. This broad utility means we don't just have a one-trick-pony strapped to our wings therefore, making us a more employable asset in the current theatre (and whatever theatre comes next).

5. I have debriefed with many A10 and F15E pilots in Afghanistan and every single one of them envies our rockets. The USMC are extremely keen to get them refitted to their jets.

6. I have witnessed a hell of a lot more enemy survive gun attacks than CRV-7 attacks.

7. From a pure attack pilot's point of view, its a bloody great weapon to employ; it requires quite a bit of skill from the pilot to be accurate and when employed properly, you actually feel like you have earned some of your flying pay.

That's it. My own opinion of course but I've shot loads of them and love it. MoD was due to get rid of CRV-7 just prior to TELIC but since then we have proved its worth and it is now part and parcel of the new GR9s arsenal.

Cheers

CMaS

[LateArmLive]

Sorry if I offended you Desert Diner - you do come across as a bit of a whining gun-salesman who knows absolutely nothing about current military aviation ops though.

I can assure you that the current RAF/RN Harrier Force would much rather have CRV7 than a cannon for a few reasons that I will not go into here. One rather obvious one is the freeing up of two stations on the belly of the jet for kit that couldn't have been there had we flown with 1 gun and an ammo pod (like the USMC do). The USMC boys have to use an underwing station to fit the targeting pod, hence losing a bomb carrier.

In an ideal world we would have a gun as well, but it just isn't needed (or possible) with the current fit we use. You may well maintain that having a gun for AG ops is critical - but you'd be wrong :ok:

[Archimedes]

And the exchange here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/337946-final-work-up-typhoon-fgr-4-a-2.html#post4312602) between Phochs3 and FB11 would add further support to LAL's point -I make that a 100% return of 'no, we don't need a gun' from those who actually fly/have flown the aircraft on ops now...

[Sgt.Slabber]

Engines,

Thanks for the update... You have a PM.

Kind regards...

[nunquamparatus]

As my slightly loud, Australian, colleagues would say - "Shave a dog, mate!"

Looking back into the mists of time (the first post) I dimly recall that this was a nice piece of PR for a Joint Force Harrier pilot (happened to be Navy - in our 100th year of Aviation) doing a top job in Afghanistan (Simon, good job well done - slightly cheesy photo though) and not an opportunity for the slightly jealous rubber desk johnnies to drip about whether or not the pilots should go into combat with a gun. GR7/9 doesn't have one. The end.

Although obviously they do fly with a gun but I'm suspecting that the disco gun is not very effective from 10kft, especially with the 450kt wind - must make it hard to hold a bead on the little blighters.

Any chance we can return to the normal world now DD?:ugh:

[Double Zero]

JF despite his modesty will never be a has-been; there's a huge difference between currency and experience, having had the honour of flying with him in our comms' Dove - we literally didn't know we had landed - I'd go for experience !

I still find it very hard to believe ( having filmed Matra air to ground rockets ) that they are more accurate than guns; I understand you may not be able to explain here.

In Hawk trials we tried a bloody great rocket pod ( 4 in a long pod ) which when fired immediately snuffed the engine in a low dive ' attack ' - when the Test Pilot staggered back after a relight, a fairly heated phone call to the manufacturers ensued.

The answer was " Oh no other jets use them, it makes the engine go funny " - so much for Flight Test research...

[Engines]

SS and others...

Have to declare an interest here - I was a previous MOD(PE) PM for not only the Aden 25 but also CRV7, so had both sides of the argument!

In truth, at the time the RAF were disinterested in both weapons - the prevailing view was that only precision weapons (Brimstone, 1000lb plus LGBs and cruise missiles) were worth bothering with - how times change!

The choice between rockets and guns is a tough one, and technology makes it harder, in my view. Rockets used to be horribly inaccurate, but the CRV7 family are much, much better and also fast - shorter time of flight is always a good thing. We only had CRV7s as a leftover from GW1, and my main job was helping buy them for Apache. Good job the fixed wing guys caught on...

Guns have not been very accurate, but that has been driven in part by sub-optimal weapons (Aden 30 - slow shell and poor ballistics with a worse warhead) and lack of effort on better aiming technology. The Aden 25 and Mauser 27 both fire good shells, but the UK has done little on precision air to ground aiming methods. With modern optronics and better projectiles, laser ranging and INS/GPS, and integrated fire and flight controls, 'snap' engagements of ground targets should, in my view, be possible with good results.

There's a 'new kid on the block' and that is a laser guidance system for 2.75 rockets. Called APKWS II, and despite a long development is, in my view, a potential winner. Put it on a CRV7, laser illuminate the target and you get a low-collateral damage precision weapon. My bet for a future UOR.

As ever, the choice depends on what you want to do to what from what range - and how much you can spend doing it.

best Regards to all

Engines

[Double Zero]

Just remember everyone, if I can photograph a Harrier or other aircraft going by, some smartarse with an RPG can do the same thing...

[Flap62]

What? They can take photographs with RPGs now? This is madness!! Why weren't we told!!

[Double Zero]

Well, Flaps

I was a technical photographer for BAe before it became ' Systems ' - as I'm sure you know, the point I was making is that if a git like me can aim with a camera, another git with an RPG or Stinger etc can aim too.

I'd guess this puts the rockets / guns question out of the equasion !

[GPMG]

Ahh yes but flying upside down in a Maverick style'y confuses the Taliban into holding his Stinger or RPG back to front, thus blowing his oppo's head off.

Did this Naval Aviator flip Terry the bird whilst carrying out this manoeuver? If not then he should not be referred to as 'Top Gun'. He also needs to be able to ride a GPZ up a runway wearing just a pair of Ray bans whilst shouting Yahoo, (other clothing is optional).

[not_so_sis]

one minute they are top gun the next minute they are hung up on scientology.

[TEEEJ]

The Taliban have no resistance against the hard steely-eyed stare! Training sortie against the Viet Taff.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/c6e98bec.jpg

TJ

[Double Zero]

A great shot Teej, looks like there's some nozzle being used.

GPMG, if mentioning that film ( it had plenty of faults but I'm still jealous of the amount of co-operation the U.S. gave the photographers, simply wouldn't happen in the U.K. ) - the chap in question had better learn to tap MFD's if running low on fuel, and go for the wrong handle if things go pear-shaped.

Come to that his girlfriend was a good foot taller than him and turns out to have been batting for the other side...

I also wouldn't care to repeat the ' Show Of Force ', even if I was in a position to do so.

[BrakingStop]

This is one of the most entertaining threads that I've read in years. There are a few Harrier mates here who are writing informed opinions on rockets vs guns based on A LOT of recent CAS experience, and a lot of people here with little or no experience not listening to the opinions of those that do have the knowledge.

As for the above picture, I can assure you that there was no nozzle being used. If VIFF was being used then there would probably be a second picture of a big smoking hole.

Keep posting - this is keeping me entertained for a short while before going to the Tobie Norris!

BS.

[Double Zero]

B.S,

Are you sure about that ? ! The nozzles look slightly down to me, though I agree ' Viffing ' ( copywright the Sun newspaper ) would have meant a nasty coming together with the photo' aircraft/ person.

If you reckon rockets are better than guns who'm I to judge, I only filmed earlier versions, though I'd be amazed if rockets are as accurate after what I saw; I'm listening to your mates but still not quite believing, after being involved with most test flying on the Harrier at its' birthplace - I don't doubt you get more ' bang for your buck ' with CRV7's wherever they go!

DZ

[Backwards PLT]

Every combat aircraft should have an (internal) gun. It is an extremely flexible weapon whilst being relatively cheap. Modern systems are pretty accurate, both air to air and air to ground. You can, of course, adopt the "mad woman ****ting" approach and have a poorly setup gun teamed with a sighting system that doesn't use radar or laser to rangefind - but that is for the amateurs.

As to the whole Harrier rockets/gun debate, as has been mentioned many times, they tried to get a gun many moons ago and it didn't work. Instead they now have rockets, which are pretty good. Harrier guys obviously big it up, and in truth there are some advantages over a gun but at the end of the day how many other FJs have decided that it is worth losing 2 pylons in exchange for some rockets?

IMHO the Harrier has, as always, done the best it can given the limitations of the aircraft but most CAS operators would much prefer a gun plus 2 pylons for JDAM/LGB/PMIV or maybe even fuel tanks!!

Edited to add: Didn't know if I should laugh or cry at the earlier US views of "What's the point of SoF/SoP just kill them all"

[Airborne Aircrew]

I can photograph a Harrier or other aircraft going by, some smartarse with an RPG can do the same thing

You're failing to take into account lead. When you take a photograph you are capturing the light that is already at the lens. When you fire a projectile you have to lead the target sufficiently to allow the projectile to travel to the target. A projectile as slow as an RPG requires such a lead that the Harrier wouldn't be in the sight picture at all making it almost impossible to hit unless the aircraft is coming straight at you... In which case you are probably the target and you are playing chicken... I'll bet on the Harrier with guns or rockets... :}

[Double Zero]

Actually I did have to account for lead; with a camera it's known as panning, and I still had to aim in front of the aircraft & swing as it passed; I ended up working for a while with an Iranian RPG team leader ( that's Crawley for you... ) and found A, he's a charming peaceful guy, B the technique is much the same !

One memorable shoot was John Farley going past Dunsfold ATC tower - if bothered see www.harrier.org.uk (http://www.harrier.org.uk) and scroll down to Harrier Testing, I know there are some mistakes, some mine some others' -he did it four times ( around 30', 300 + knots ) of which I was able to get two, no fast motordrive or shutter speed on a Hasselblad, but with a guided missile it may be a different matter - with other issues best not discussed here.

I'm very surprised to hear rockets are the favoured option ( after what I saw on test ranges, I was involved with designators however not including CRV7's ) - but if you guys are really happy without a rifled gun, great, it certainly does keep the weight down.

As for Paveways, I take it you have good armourers to take out individuals.

[The Oberon]

Brilliant photo, well done.

[recce_FAC]

At last a thread that I know something about. I have recently returned from Afghanistan where I was a JTAC(yank for FAC) for over 6 months. I controlled loads of different types of A/C ranging from B-1B to French M2K.My experience with both GR7/9 was extremely positive and too a man every Brit JTAC would prefer a GR-9 over any other A/C. Ok it doesn't have a gun. However the CRV-7 was more than able to make up for this. Single shot it if you want. There is nothing worse than some spotter reading something and then being an expert( well I can thnk of a few things worse,however). I worked and controlled with firstly NSW and then IV sqn and they provided the best CAS support in Afghanistan. Without a gun ! They also let us play on there playstation,drink brews and generally abuse there hospitality whenever we got up to KAF. Just DONT FEED THERE FISH!!!

[LateArmLive]

You fed the fish and survived? :eek:

Glad to hear it all worked out for you out there - it was a pleasure working for you. Maybe your comments will put an end to the rubbish being spouted on this thread!

[Double Zero]

I don't know if I'm the ' spotter ' mentioned, if so I suggest you read my posts more thoroughly, I was simply asking a question re. guns; I was on the original test team for the UK Harrier 2 ( GR5 & 7 ) and FRS1 & 2 - including at test ranges, where the last thing I'd do is take happy snaps.

[BrakingStop]

recce_FAC - a great post!

[zerva]

Ginger piss wizard, I thought you would know better. Your model aeroplane does not have a gun either and it's one of the most important CAS/ISR platforms in theatre.

[Backwards PLT]

Zerva - don't you mean the most? ;)

How are things?