GR7/GR9 vs USMC Harrier II+
GR7/GR9 vs USMC Harrier II+
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you mean the Harrier II+, radar and AMRAAM equipped jets that our Mediterranean and USMC friends fly? Sorry but GR7/9 just doesn't measure up. At least the SHAR has/had A/A capability. Still its nice to have mud Harriers in a package. At least then you know theres someone single engine, slower and with less fuel than you. They always pick off the stragglers first. Leave them on the boats where they belong. 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alf Awarna says
Do you mean the Harrier II+, radar and AMRAAM equipped jets that our Mediterranean and USMC friends fly? Sorry but GR7/9 just doesn't measure up.
Sorry Alf, you're talking out of your rusty bullet hole. The USMC don't even carry slammers. The APG-65 is old and limited, and when you put in a RADAR, you lose some of the other bits. The GR7 is unmatched in the A-G role by any other type of Harrier. The USMC think some of the software in the GR7 is awesome. Don't slag it off just cos it ain't got a RADAR. Facts, gentleman, facts, not opinions. As for the quality of operator, well we all know the answer to that one........
Do you mean the Harrier II+, radar and AMRAAM equipped jets that our Mediterranean and USMC friends fly? Sorry but GR7/9 just doesn't measure up.
Sorry Alf, you're talking out of your rusty bullet hole. The USMC don't even carry slammers. The APG-65 is old and limited, and when you put in a RADAR, you lose some of the other bits. The GR7 is unmatched in the A-G role by any other type of Harrier. The USMC think some of the software in the GR7 is awesome. Don't slag it off just cos it ain't got a RADAR. Facts, gentleman, facts, not opinions. As for the quality of operator, well we all know the answer to that one........
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOTB,
What did they lose then? When I look at the GR7 I see nothing that the II+ didn't have. In some cases it may be slightly different due to the varying weapons loadouts across the Pond, but I disagree that anything was left out.
The APG65 may be old but it's damn good at what it does. The ability to build SAR maps and auto-bomb on them is a toy to behold and sadly lacking from the GR7. The A-2-A capability of the radar is a joy and whereas, as you correctly state the USMC does not carry the 120, it does nevertheless give you an excellent air picture, especially when overlaid on the moving map.
I'm afraid I never flew the GR5/7, but I did fly the SHAR & II+ and can confidently say there is NO better Harrier.
Toodle pip,
Pontius
PS:my info regarding the equipment carried by the GR7 comes from many of my Bona Mates who have/currently fly the things.
What did they lose then? When I look at the GR7 I see nothing that the II+ didn't have. In some cases it may be slightly different due to the varying weapons loadouts across the Pond, but I disagree that anything was left out.
The APG65 may be old but it's damn good at what it does. The ability to build SAR maps and auto-bomb on them is a toy to behold and sadly lacking from the GR7. The A-2-A capability of the radar is a joy and whereas, as you correctly state the USMC does not carry the 120, it does nevertheless give you an excellent air picture, especially when overlaid on the moving map.
I'm afraid I never flew the GR5/7, but I did fly the SHAR & II+ and can confidently say there is NO better Harrier.
Toodle pip,
Pontius
PS:my info regarding the equipment carried by the GR7 comes from many of my Bona Mates who have/currently fly the things.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If you look at my link above, you will see it is about AIM-120 integration. The Italians & Spanish get it this year, the Spams next year.
"The second effort is the integration of the MIL-STD-1760B interface and the AMRAAM missile, known as the OC1.1 Block Upgrade. MIL-STD-1760B provides a standard interface between the aircraft and the weapons, enabling the aircraft and stores to "communicate" using standard wiring, connectors and software protocols.
The OC1.1 Block Upgrade began in October 1995 with only the integration of AMRAAM and the MIL-STD-1760B interface. In October 1996, the Office of the Secretary of Defense authorized the OSCAR program as part of the military's Open Systems Initiative. The OC1.1 Block Upgrade is in the final stage of development known as the system test-analyze-fix phase. System verification and validation testing is planned for October 2001 thru February 2002. Early fleet introduction to Spanish and Italian squadrons is planned for March 2002. USMC fleet introduction is planned for June 2003".
"The second effort is the integration of the MIL-STD-1760B interface and the AMRAAM missile, known as the OC1.1 Block Upgrade. MIL-STD-1760B provides a standard interface between the aircraft and the weapons, enabling the aircraft and stores to "communicate" using standard wiring, connectors and software protocols.
The OC1.1 Block Upgrade began in October 1995 with only the integration of AMRAAM and the MIL-STD-1760B interface. In October 1996, the Office of the Secretary of Defense authorized the OSCAR program as part of the military's Open Systems Initiative. The OC1.1 Block Upgrade is in the final stage of development known as the system test-analyze-fix phase. System verification and validation testing is planned for October 2001 thru February 2002. Early fleet introduction to Spanish and Italian squadrons is planned for March 2002. USMC fleet introduction is planned for June 2003".
Is this why Mr Blar is giving Gibraltar away?
Is he terrified of the Spanish Navy's AV-8B+ aircraft with their AMRAAMs?
Pity we don't have an AMRAAM armed carrierborne fighter isn't it?
Is he terrified of the Spanish Navy's AV-8B+ aircraft with their AMRAAMs?
Pity we don't have an AMRAAM armed carrierborne fighter isn't it?
Er... WEBF: we do .
The SHAR - as I thought you knew - has an OSD for the last one of 2006.
If I may be permitted to make a friendly observation - there's no need to keep trying to convince the majority of users of this site that getting rid of the SHAR is a silly idea by jumping in with pro-SHAR comments on every thread that has some connection with Harriers/ BVR weapons/ Radar/ the sky. Most of us agree that this ranks high in the list of bad ideas. However, constant repetition of the same line of approach at every possible opportunity is, as you'll have noticed, starting to wear away at the patience of other Pprune users, especially as you're preaching to the converted.
I'm not suggesting that you shut up entirely (although I suspect some wish you would), just to recall the adage of 'Moderation in all things, dear chap!'
Finally, I would respectfully suggest that rather than lobby for the retention of the SHAR, you'd do better to lobby for the GR 9 upgrade to bring the GR 7 to the standard of the II+ . A II+ standard (or better) upgrade would still meet the stated reason of increasing the strike power of the CVS, but would add the crucial ability to use BVR weapons (as well as, arguably, giving some experience of multi-role work to would-be JSF mates).
[any spelling or grammatical errors herein should be be laid at the door of Bank's Brewery]
The SHAR - as I thought you knew - has an OSD for the last one of 2006.
If I may be permitted to make a friendly observation - there's no need to keep trying to convince the majority of users of this site that getting rid of the SHAR is a silly idea by jumping in with pro-SHAR comments on every thread that has some connection with Harriers/ BVR weapons/ Radar/ the sky. Most of us agree that this ranks high in the list of bad ideas. However, constant repetition of the same line of approach at every possible opportunity is, as you'll have noticed, starting to wear away at the patience of other Pprune users, especially as you're preaching to the converted.
I'm not suggesting that you shut up entirely (although I suspect some wish you would), just to recall the adage of 'Moderation in all things, dear chap!'
Finally, I would respectfully suggest that rather than lobby for the retention of the SHAR, you'd do better to lobby for the GR 9 upgrade to bring the GR 7 to the standard of the II+ . A II+ standard (or better) upgrade would still meet the stated reason of increasing the strike power of the CVS, but would add the crucial ability to use BVR weapons (as well as, arguably, giving some experience of multi-role work to would-be JSF mates).
[any spelling or grammatical errors herein should be be laid at the door of Bank's Brewery]
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius,
How about the Dual Mode Tracker/Laser Spot Tracker for starters! In addition, the APG-65 in the GR7 is smaller than the F-18's, so, although useful for mapping etc, it falls short when thinking A-A. The LST is a godsend in a CAS environment.....
Archimedes,
You're smoking crack! Have you any idea how much it would cost to 'upgrade' the GR7/9 to 11+??? Probably more than it would cost to keep the Sea Harrier, which, incidentally, has a far better A-A RADAR than the 11+ Forget about upgrading this and converting that. We all know the decision is (in alot of ways) pretty shortsighted............Where's me glasses
ORAC,
You're very boring
How about the Dual Mode Tracker/Laser Spot Tracker for starters! In addition, the APG-65 in the GR7 is smaller than the F-18's, so, although useful for mapping etc, it falls short when thinking A-A. The LST is a godsend in a CAS environment.....
Archimedes,
You're smoking crack! Have you any idea how much it would cost to 'upgrade' the GR7/9 to 11+??? Probably more than it would cost to keep the Sea Harrier, which, incidentally, has a far better A-A RADAR than the 11+ Forget about upgrading this and converting that. We all know the decision is (in alot of ways) pretty shortsighted............Where's me glasses
ORAC,
You're very boring
Last edited by SixOfTheBest; 29th Jul 2002 at 18:59.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOTB,
Okay, you're right about the TV, but I guess something had to go to make way for the radar.
The radar is smaller than the F18, thus a slightly larger beam width but we're not comparing F18 & II+. You suggest the A-A capability of the radar is lacking, I know otherwise. It was and is a very capable bit of kit and having flown the 3 USMC versions of the 8B, I have no doubt whatsoever in saying it was far, far more useful than the ARBS & telephoto capabilities of the TV. The laser tracker was still a feature of the II+, you just couldn't see it heads-down.
Why else would I buy a II+ over the GR7?
Bigger engine (obvious really), bigger wing (100% LERX), upward & downward firing chaff & flares (with BIG pods), a decent, accurate, high fire-power gun with lots of ammo to let lose on the bad guys and great (un-Boscombe Downed) software which tells you the stuff you need to know on the VREST pages etc etc. The AMRAAM is obviously coming, but I can't put that on the list 'cos they ain't got it yet.
I'm afraid I stick to my claim of it being the best of the Bona Jets...Mate.
Chocolates aweigh,
Pontius
PS: The II+ has got much better weather at it's bases too
Okay, you're right about the TV, but I guess something had to go to make way for the radar.
The radar is smaller than the F18, thus a slightly larger beam width but we're not comparing F18 & II+. You suggest the A-A capability of the radar is lacking, I know otherwise. It was and is a very capable bit of kit and having flown the 3 USMC versions of the 8B, I have no doubt whatsoever in saying it was far, far more useful than the ARBS & telephoto capabilities of the TV. The laser tracker was still a feature of the II+, you just couldn't see it heads-down.
Why else would I buy a II+ over the GR7?
Bigger engine (obvious really), bigger wing (100% LERX), upward & downward firing chaff & flares (with BIG pods), a decent, accurate, high fire-power gun with lots of ammo to let lose on the bad guys and great (un-Boscombe Downed) software which tells you the stuff you need to know on the VREST pages etc etc. The AMRAAM is obviously coming, but I can't put that on the list 'cos they ain't got it yet.
I'm afraid I stick to my claim of it being the best of the Bona Jets...Mate.
Chocolates aweigh,
Pontius
PS: The II+ has got much better weather at it's bases too
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets face it, all the A-G capability in the world isn't going to help if you don't/can't make it past the CAP, fancy LST or not. And if any UK aircraft is more likely to operate without sweep/escort its the Harrier due to its ability to launch from a carrier.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alf old chap,
Are you still smarting from that day at Valley when you got told you weren't good enough to fly a Harrier so now spend your life making daft comments about it?
'slow, single-engine, picked off etc' blah blah. Well regardless of what RAF mud aircraft you fly I can't imagine you intentionally fly through CAPs unless you are truly dense. (moving your wings about doesn't generally scare people off)
The RAF/Navy doesn't have a true multi-role aircraft of the F15E/F16 capabilites. That doesn't stop us all having a pretty good stab at a wide range of jobs. The mighty Fin definitely has pluses (and minuses) as does the Jag and the Harrier. So before you go slagging off something you can't fly and don't know anything about think a second:
The platform which dropped the most bombs in the Gulf War was the USMC Harrier (we're good at cas... Tonkas aren't particularly); the Falklands relied fairly heavily on our ability to land on boats; Allied Force was far from a total disaster and there were a more than a couple GR7s floating around day/night and we were the first (and only - until people started feeling left out) people to put our hand up and say we'd go in night low-level cas to support the ground offensive.
So get over the humiliation of role confirmation night and get on with your life.
Are you still smarting from that day at Valley when you got told you weren't good enough to fly a Harrier so now spend your life making daft comments about it?
'slow, single-engine, picked off etc' blah blah. Well regardless of what RAF mud aircraft you fly I can't imagine you intentionally fly through CAPs unless you are truly dense. (moving your wings about doesn't generally scare people off)
The RAF/Navy doesn't have a true multi-role aircraft of the F15E/F16 capabilites. That doesn't stop us all having a pretty good stab at a wide range of jobs. The mighty Fin definitely has pluses (and minuses) as does the Jag and the Harrier. So before you go slagging off something you can't fly and don't know anything about think a second:
The platform which dropped the most bombs in the Gulf War was the USMC Harrier (we're good at cas... Tonkas aren't particularly); the Falklands relied fairly heavily on our ability to land on boats; Allied Force was far from a total disaster and there were a more than a couple GR7s floating around day/night and we were the first (and only - until people started feeling left out) people to put our hand up and say we'd go in night low-level cas to support the ground offensive.
So get over the humiliation of role confirmation night and get on with your life.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Without commenting on the capabilities of the AV-8B.
Of the 36,245 strikes mounted during Desert Storm the B-52 bomber dropped one-third of the air war's 88,500 tons of ordnance.
86 deployed USMC AV-8Bs flew 3,342 sorties (5 loses).
84 USMC F/A-18s flew 5,239 sorties (4 damaged).
90 USN F/A-18s flew 4,449 combat sorties (1 lost).
250 USAF F-16 aircraft flew 13,500 sorties (5 lost in combat, 2 in training).
I could go on but it's pointless. It hides the true value of the AV-8B which was it's nearness to the battlefield, availability and turn-round time. During the war, the AV-8s were based around 35nm from the Kuwait border, they maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90% and their average turnaround time was 23 minutes. It's big down side being it's vulnerability to IR SAW due to the nozzle location.
Of the 36,245 strikes mounted during Desert Storm the B-52 bomber dropped one-third of the air war's 88,500 tons of ordnance.
86 deployed USMC AV-8Bs flew 3,342 sorties (5 loses).
84 USMC F/A-18s flew 5,239 sorties (4 damaged).
90 USN F/A-18s flew 4,449 combat sorties (1 lost).
250 USAF F-16 aircraft flew 13,500 sorties (5 lost in combat, 2 in training).
I could go on but it's pointless. It hides the true value of the AV-8B which was it's nearness to the battlefield, availability and turn-round time. During the war, the AV-8s were based around 35nm from the Kuwait border, they maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90% and their average turnaround time was 23 minutes. It's big down side being it's vulnerability to IR SAW due to the nozzle location.
Last edited by ORAC; 16th Aug 2002 at 06:12.