Re: Harrier thrust vectoring in air-to-air combat?

[Alexandre Le-Kouby]

yes sea harriers have been used in air to air combat during the falklands
war in 1982 against the argentinian mirages and were quite successful.

"Boyan Brezinsky" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> I know this has been discussed ad nauseam, but I have to ask, so please
> bear with me.
> Has the thrust vectoring capability of the Harrier been used in air-to-
> air combat? If yes, how? Please, no smart answers like "yes, in
> providing forward speed". I've seen a reference to a book that claims it
> has not been used due to loss of energy, which makes perfect sense.
> Then, I've seen a suggestion of using changing thrust to downward while
> at the top of a loop, thus tighting the loop. Although this seems
> feasible, it still somehow doesn't feel right.
> Could you please provide some references? Preferably on the Internet,
> since I don't have access to books (like the abovementioned "The Story
> of Air Fighting" by Air Vice Marshall J. E. Johnson).
> Thanks!
> Boyan

[The Raven]

"Boyan Brezinsky" > wrote in message
...
> I know this has been discussed ad nauseam, but I have to ask, so please
> bear with me.
> Has the thrust vectoring capability of the Harrier been used in air-to-
> air combat?

I don't believe "viffing" has ever been used in combat although it has been
used in training etc.

> If yes, how? Please, no smart answers like "yes, in
> providing forward speed".

Mostly for decreasing the radius of a turn.

> I've seen a reference to a book that claims it
> has not been used due to loss of energy, which makes perfect sense.

It does, but if the target is in front of you it's probably useful.

> Then, I've seen a suggestion of using changing thrust to downward while
> at the top of a loop, thus tighting the loop.

I believe this, according to my references, is "viffing". I'm guessing the
term is based on "vectoring in flight".

> Although this seems
> feasible, it still somehow doesn't feel right.

In a dogfight it may be useful but, how common are dogfights
now..............

> Could you please provide some references? Preferably on the Internet,
> since I don't have access to books (like the abovementioned "The Story
> of Air Fighting" by Air Vice Marshall J. E. Johnson).
> Thanks!
> Boyan

Sorry, one reference packed in a box I can't get to.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Thomas Schoene]

"Frank May" > wrote in message

> VIFF = Vectoring In Forward Flight. I've read that Sea Harriers in The
> Falklands used VIFFing in combat with Argentine Mirages/Daggers.
> Especially effective when one was on a Harrier's tail.

While VIFFing does exist, its use in the Falklands was an invention of some
newspaper, based on talking to pilots who were not actually in the action.

Sea Harrier pilots who were involved are unanimous that VIFFing was NOT used
in the Falklands. There simply wasn't any reason to use it, since the
Argentine fighters never maneuvered aggressively enough to put the Harriers
on the defensive.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Frank May
confessed:

>VIFF = Vectoring In Forward Flight. I've read that Sea Harriers in The
>Falklands used VIFFing in combat with Argentine Mirages/Daggers.
>Especially effective when one was on a Harrier's tail.

Respectfully, "Sharkey" Ward's book failed to mention VIFFing, and he
was very happy to detail Sea Harrier success versus Alconbury's
527th Agressors; plus none of the contemporaneous tactical discussions
from the mentioned it.

[At the time I was posted on Phantoms in Germany and never saw the RAF
Harriers from Gutersloh use VIFFing. But I saw the Harriers quite
often. I never saw any "eye watering" turn rates or radii when I
briefly had trapped one at my 12 o'clock. However I was impressed when
I first saw F-16s square the corner.]

And...this is probably the contentious point, I was under the
impression that USMC pilots were the originators of VIFFing. I can't
recall the source, but believe it came from a poster on this forum.

Juvat

[Guy Alcala]

Juvat wrote:

> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Frank May
> confessed:
>
> >VIFF = Vectoring In Forward Flight. I've read that Sea Harriers in The
> >Falklands used VIFFing in combat with Argentine Mirages/Daggers.
> >Especially effective when one was on a Harrier's tail.
>
> Respectfully, "Sharkey" Ward's book failed to mention VIFFing, and he
> was very happy to detail Sea Harrier success versus Alconbury's
> 527th Agressors; plus none of the contemporaneous tactical discussions
> from the mentioned it.

He does mention it in the book, indeed he describes letting the F-5s try
and take a missile shot by letting them start on the perch and then viffing
to deny it, rolling out behind them as they inevitably blew by. It wasn't
used in the Falklands, because as Tom said there was never a need. It
mostly tends to be used defensively, and the SHARs were never defensive.

> [At the time I was posted on Phantoms in Germany and never saw the RAF
> Harriers from Gutersloh use VIFFing.

Probably because they weren't using it. It was largely a USMC/FAA thing at
the time. The RAF Harriers were tasked and trained for attack, the FAA and
to a lesser extent the USMC were more A/A oriented.

> But I saw the Harriers quite
> often. I never saw any "eye watering" turn rates or radii when I
> briefly had trapped one at my 12 o'clock. However I was impressed when
> I first saw F-16s square the corner.]
>
> And...this is probably the contentious point, I was under the
> impression that USMC pilots were the originators of VIFFing. I can't
> recall the source, but believe it came from a poster on this forum.

The Brits had done some tentative early testing, but the USMC did the
majority of the development. Harry Blot, then a Major or Col., later a Lt.
Gen. IIRR, and now (again IIRR) head of the JSF program for Lockheed, was
the project pilot. He supposedly decided that he might as well go for the
max., so got an AV-8A up to 500 knots or so and then slammed the nozzles
down to full braking stop. As he has told the story (perhaps improved in
the telling), the a/c started decelerating at a very high rate, the
magnitude of which he was unable to judge as he'd been thrown forward in
his straps and was desperately holding on to the seat with one hand, trying
to avoid smashing his face into the gunsight.

Guy

[Chad Irby]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

> Juvat wrote:
>
> > [At the time I was posted on Phantoms in Germany and never saw the RAF
> > Harriers from Gutersloh use VIFFing.
>
> Probably because they weren't using it. It was largely a USMC/FAA thing at
> the time. The RAF Harriers were tasked and trained for attack, the FAA and
> to a lesser extent the USMC were more A/A oriented.

I could swear I read somewhere that the Marines had to specially modify
their Harriers to use VIFF - wasn't there a manual lockout that kept the
nozzles from swiveling during most flight refimes on the early planes?

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>The Brits had done some tentative early testing, but the USMC did the
>majority of the development. Harry Blot, then a Major or Col., later a Lt.
>Gen. IIRR, and now (again IIRR) head of the JSF program for Lockheed, was
>the project pilot. He supposedly decided that he might as well go for the
>max., so got an AV-8A up to 500 knots or so and then slammed the nozzles
>down to full braking stop. As he has told the story (perhaps improved in
>the telling), the a/c started decelerating at a very high rate, the
>magnitude of which he was unable to judge as he'd been thrown forward in
>his straps and was desperately holding on to the seat with one hand, trying
>to avoid smashing his face into the gunsight.

Sharkey comments in his book that the SHAR will decelerate at 2+G in the
full braking stop, which was like hitting a wall.

--
John

[Juvat]

Guy Alcala opined thusly to my remark that I had never witnessed RAF
Harriers use VIFFing (in the early 80s)

>Probably because they weren't using it.

Guy, that I, like many here respect your posts and research goes
without saying (usually) so with tongue firmly in cheek I must
respond..."Gee ya reckon? Clearly I have a keen grasp of the
obvious." LOL

>The RAF Harriers were tasked and trained for attack, the FAA and
>to a lesser extent the USMC were more A/A oriented.

I do indeed grasp the implication WRT VIFFing and the nature of the
FAA vs RAF mission/training, I omitted that from my post for brevity,
simply to demonstrate that at least RAF Harriers were not using the
technique at the time.

But my friend you never tangled with RAF Harriers over Germany.
Everybody and I mean everybody in fast jets routinely hassled...the
PCA started at 7000' MSL so this totally UNAUTHORIZED dogfighting went
on from 250' AGL and above; it included the guys from Gutersloh. They
didn't merely grovel into a tail chase, ISTR watching them use split
plane and counterflow entries at low altitude.

>The Brits had done some tentative early testing, but the USMC did the
>majority of the development.

Hey...it appears that I'm learning and retaining stuff gleaned from
some very bright fellows on this forum. Cool.

Juvat

[Guy Alcala]

Juvat wrote:

> Guy Alcala opined thusly to my remark that I had never witnessed RAF
> Harriers use VIFFing (in the early 80s)
>
> >Probably because they weren't using it.
>
> Guy, that I, like many here respect your posts and research goes
> without saying (usually) so with tongue firmly in cheek I must
> respond..."Gee ya reckon? Clearly I have a keen grasp of the
> obvious." LOL

I grant you, I could have worded that a bit better ;-) But what I meant
was that the RAF apparently didn't use Viffing at the time, PERIOD. I
don't remember if this was due to official disapprobation, or because they
hadn't made the minor changes to the nozzle drives etc. that the USMC and
presumably the FAA felt were necessary, to use VIFF on a routine basis.

> >The RAF Harriers were tasked and trained for attack, the FAA and
> >to a lesser extent the USMC were more A/A oriented.
>
> I do indeed grasp the implication WRT VIFFing and the nature of the
> FAA vs RAF mission/training, I omitted that from my post for brevity,
> simply to demonstrate that at least RAF Harriers were not using the
> technique at the time.
>
> But my friend you never tangled with RAF Harriers over Germany.
> Everybody and I mean everybody in fast jets routinely hassled...the
> PCA started at 7000' MSL so this totally UNAUTHORIZED dogfighting went
> on from 250' AGL and above; it included the guys from Gutersloh. They
> didn't merely grovel into a tail chase, ISTR watching them use split
> plane and counterflow entries at low altitude.

<snip>

I freely admit my lack of personal experience of ACM in this period (or
any other). My knowledge of combat flying and usage is all gleaned
second-hand from "them what's been there and done that." Having said
that, the difference in FAA and RAF attitudes at that time towards using
the Harrier does seem to be rather wide, and there was still considerable
daylight between the RAF and the USMC on roles and missions. The RAF
refused to wire the GR.3s for AIM-9s until they were forced to for the
Falklands (and then had to remove it again when they were re-rolled for
bombing during the conflict, as the SHARs were felt to have the A/A game
well in hand). Getting AIM-9s on RAF Jaguars was another case of pulling
teeth, although at least in that case there was some less than trivial
cost involved (the overwing AIM-9 pylons that only the export Jags had up
to that time). And not all of the RAF Harrier jocks were air-to-mud types
born and bred - many had come from F-4s or Lightnings, and more than a few
had flown SHARs on exchange tours with the FAA. Indeed, Ward's QWI was an
RAF Flt. Lt., Ian Mortimer, and there was a substantial sprinkling of
light blue among the dark blue uniforms of the Falklands' SHAR pilots --
in addition to Mortimer, Dave Morgan, Bertie Penfold, Paul Barton, John
Leeming, Eric(?) Ball and Simon Brown.

Guy

[Chad Irby]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

> The RAF refused to wire the GR.3s for AIM-9s until they were forced
> to for the Falklands (and then had to remove it again when they were
> re-rolled for bombing during the conflict, as the SHARs were felt to
> have the A/A game well in hand).

They had a similar view on ECM equipment. "Chaff dispensers? Silly
things. Who needs them?"

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Guy Alcala]

Juvat wrote:

> Guy Alcala responded thusly::
>
> >I grant you, I could have worded that a bit better ;-)
>
> Hey it just sounded funny...no offense inferred.

Glad to hear it.

> >But what I meant was that the RAF
> > apparently didn't use Viffing at the time, PERIOD.
>
> Which I agree with...anecdotally.
>
> >I freely admit my lack of personal experience of ACM in this period (or
> >any other).
>
> Allow me to clarify...I wasn't implying anything in a perjorative
> context

Wasn't inferring that you were, just wanted to clarify that all my info is
second-hand.

> ...you would have loved it.

Undoubtedly.

> Thanks for the additional gouge...

My pleasure.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Chad Irby wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> > The RAF refused to wire the GR.3s for AIM-9s until they were forced
> > to for the Falklands (and then had to remove it again when they were
> > re-rolled for bombing during the conflict, as the SHARs were felt to
> > have the A/A game well in hand).
>
> They had a similar view on ECM equipment. "Chaff dispensers? Silly
> things. Who needs them?"

To be fair, the RAF did buy and install ALE-40s in a hurry during the war,
and also managed to develop (well, the contractor did) and install the
gun-pod mounted jammer (Blue Eric IIRR) in only a few weeks.

Guy