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

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

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?

The MOD decided that did they not?:uhoh:

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

You are assuming the MoD make decisions purely on effectiveness?

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

The A-10:ok:

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.

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.

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 :)

'ground attack' also needs defining - in CAS terms, Apache wins hands down...

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

A dozen takeoff's was it?

:E



.......

AC-130.:cool:

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:

Perhaps in the RAF, not elsewhere however.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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: