A Q for any Harrier mates out there

[Flik Roll]

Evening,
RAF website is slightly contradictory to other sources I have read and heard regarding what weapons the GR9 can carry - Please could someone give me a definitive answer for both GR7 and GR9. PM if you'd rather.
Cheers, FR

[Exrigger]

Try these:

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0009.html

http://www.harrier.org.uk/technical/Harrier_GR9.htm

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcottesmore/...s/aircraft.cfm

Hope this is the sort of info you want

[Flik Roll]

Thank you for those links. I had looked at two of them already - the harrier website and Cottesmore one, but they both contradict and the armedforces.co.uk one gives a list but doesn't say for which mark of aircraft - hence after a definitive list per se.

[BEagle]

UK Harriers are at war. In case you hadn't noticed.....

Do you really expect people to pass on information which could be used by an enemy on a publicly accessible website?

Suggest you FOIFP - and take your little aluminium stepladder with you!

[Exrigger]

All this information is readily available on the WWW, including the MODs own which includes this information http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/.

Also the information requested by Flik Roll hardly warrants your comments.

[Flik Roll]

BEags,
Understandable old chap, however I did say that PM was an option - it is fairly obvious that I'm not a journo or just digging for dirt. The info is on the internet including the RAFs own website, BAE Systems, Cottesmore - the list goes on - but it's just very contradictory, especially regarding Paveway IV and Brimstone so I wanted an answer.
If you want to know who I am feel free to PM me.

(And the little aluminium step ladder comment is incorrect. Get your facts right).

[BEagle]

Security is not a dirty word....

As for Exrigger's comments, they do not merit a response.

But what you ask for should not be disclosed for a public website.

[Flik Roll]

Ok I apologise as I made the mistake of asking for a 'definitive' list. I'll just crack on and go with what I have....

[speeddial]

Flik Roll, sometimes information published is vague or misleading on purpose, as BEagle points out there are currently Harriers at war. Yes there are official web sites with information on but none of them deliberately have the "I'm a Harrier pilot and can confirm this is what my jet on the line is capable of carrying today" stamp on which I think you're looking for.

In subjects like this remember that if you need to ask then you probably don't need to know.

[Flik Roll]

I understand hence the apology. I shall go away now!

[3portdrift]

Except that it's just the sort of (generic) question that OASC might ask a wannabe pilot candidate. And not being satisfied with the confused and conflicting answers available, even on military sites, shows a creditable attention to detail, but still doesn't elicit a reasonable answer.

Flik Roll - if you get asked that Q you can feel confident in saying that their websites are inconsistent on the matter - no-one will be at all surprised at hearing that! Just give a generic answer based on the types that can be carried, show that you know the loads vary with task etc and there are security issues that mean you can't find a definitive answer and you'll ace it.

[TEEEJ]

The main glaring mistake on

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0009.html

is

'2 x 30mm Aden guns'

The only guns on a UK Harrier on ops would be a personal sidearm.

[Double Zero]

Too true about the Aden !

I photographed the development of the 25mm job for the GR5 etc, and dispite irritated claims from a designer when I made a previous post, I've seen the thing fire it's own innards out...

I hope ( but am not in the picture now ) that maybe pylon mounted gunpods may be an option, though that would be sad - more likely to stick with relatively ' stand - off ' weapons.

[Wader2]

Originally Posted by 3portdrift

Except that it's just the sort of (generic) question that OASC might ask a wannabe pilot candidate. And not being satisfied with the confused and conflicting answers available, even on military sites, shows a creditable attention to detail, but still doesn't elicit a reasonable answer.

3port, I suggest that the conflicting information would not invalidate a candidates answer.

If, for instance, the non-service candidate gave an accurate published answer that was incorrect in detail his response would not have been wrong.

If, after a little more research the candidate mentioned the conflicting information then that might both open up the discussion and give additional brownie points.

Neither would be wrong.

A brand new RAF handbook crossed my desk last week. What would you like to know about the Jaguar weapons fit? . Put another way, even within the service there are different levels of knowledge.

[Flik Roll]

Thanks 3PD and Wader2 for your responses - 3PD was quite right, I didn't want to go to OASC and look like an idiot by giving what I thought was the wrong answer; hence I came on here - perhaps mistakingly, in search of the correct version

[3portdrift]

Candidates for OASC are told that they are being held to the highest standards and many of them try to prepare accordingly. However they have very little access to the truth about the greys in an apparently very black and white system. You and I know that Wader2 because we have both been through OASC and know how the system works from the powerful position of hindsight. Mind you, it still seems that some around here leap to a pompous 'security' defence at will