I think one of the sadist things about the Harrier family, is the fact that its true capability and versatility, owing to its unique VTOL/STOL ability, has been the failure by the likes of its prominent utilize it in forward-operation locations.
By this I mean deploying it and operating it right up there with the forward troops.
Now I know that the RAF did this in exercises in West Germany, during the Cold War.
But it was more in line with airfield/aircraft dispersal, so as too protect the Harriers from strike-interdiction by the likes of Soviet/Warsaw Pact Su-24’s and MiG-27’s.
If the USMC and RAF were willing to operate the Harrier in conjunction with its forward element troops in the Close Air Support (CAS) role, this would have allowed for:
– Much shorter transit time too the CAS calls by forward troops in contact.
– Allowed a greater offensive warload to be carried and delivered on a given target.
– Allowed for a longer range = greater penetration into enemy territory to hit rear echelon targets.
– Allowed for greater time over target – loitering time.

But I guess this would have been seen as to costly in terms of logistics and manpower by many in the West who opted for supersonic/fast mover aircraft over that of the Harrier family.

The other major problem I see with the basic Harrier design, for forward operations is the need to remove the entire wing from the fuselage to carry out any major engine maintenance or replacement. No easy task in a forest – especially if it’s in the middle of a European winter!!

In the end though, I think the greatest thing that held the Harrier back was the likes of the USAF, USN and the RAF’s obsession with the fact that for a modern combat aircraft to be successful, it had to be able to fly at Mach 2, carrying the warload of a WWII Boeing B-17 heavy bomber over the range of a 1,000 miles, require a couple of miles of concrete runway to operate from and most importantly cost more and more extravagant amounts of precise defence funds every generation.

Yes there were some in the RAF that better than anyone else knew and appreciated the Harriers unique capability – but they were over shadowed by greater numbers in the high commands.
The USMC (apart from the US Army, who also appreciated the Harriers unique capability and would have gladly welcomed the Harrier into its aviation corps – if it was not for USAF bitter rivalry and political lobbying), always appreciated the harrier for what it was – a cheap and simple ‘tactical’ strike and CAS platform, that could be used in the mud fighting, that the USMC lived and died.
The USMC appreciated the capability that the VTOL/STOL performance that the Harrier offered too it, which would allow it to operate from its smaller helicopter/amphibious assault ships it had in its inventory, which could and would provide its troops on the beech/ground with immediate close air support, when in close contact with the enemy.
After all, one has to remember that the USMC had and has put so much faith in the Harrier design, that it elected to forgo the likes of the ultra modern and technically advanced hotrod designs like the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and LTV A-7 Corsair II and later McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet against the pressures of the US Navy brass, to have more squadrons of the Harrier and latter Advanced Harrier (AV-8B Harrier II).

It is also most unfortunately, that the Royal Navy only elected to go with Harrier, which it developed further into the radar equipped Sea Harrier as a last resort, when it was going to loss its fixed-wing carriers and aircraft.
I still think the Royal Navy should have developed a Sea Harrier variant of the GR.5/9 series, as a natural replacement for the original Sea Harrier.
For I could see the likes of India, Spain and Italy operating the likes of Sea Harrier II’s

Regards
Pioneer

The fact of the matter is that the USAF (and the whole U.S Military) can not do without the lift capability of the C-5.
Even the more modern and sophisticated C-17, can not lift the loads the C-5 is capable of.
My only hope is that the USAF and the rest of the U.S military, have the foresight too be looking at a new requirement for an effective replacement for the C-5 in the not to distant future – utilizing its operational experience of the Galaxy since the Vietnam War to the present, new technologies and aerodynamics, wiliness to learn from the experiences of the Soviet/Russian An-124 (a even more capable design, which itself would have been studied by the Soviets at the time!) to put into service an even more capable and worthy successor to the venerable Lockheed C-5 Galaxy Strategic Transport Aircraft, without the same drawn out and costly end product like the C-17.

Regards
Pioneer

I would have to say –

On the grounds of production numbers – the Supermarine Spitfire!
On the grounds of the number of variants – the Supermarine Spitfire!
On the grounds of the number of enemy kills – the Supermarine Spitfire!
On the number of pilots that became aces fly it – the Supermarine Spitfire!
On the number of sorties flown – the Supermarine Spitfire!
On the grounds of anyone you would ask in the street – the Supermarine Spitfire!

Although I have stated the Supermarine Spitfire.
I personally think the production run of the Spitfire was far too long!
As was the case with Messerschmitt Bf-109!
Far too much was asked and squeezed out of a design, which was designed and built for short point-defence interception.
I would have liked to have seen the likes of the more powerful, more advanced, longer ranged and more versatile Martin-Baker MB-5 or the North American P-51D Mustang put into full production and replace the venerable, but out dated Spitfire!

Regards
Pioneer

The thing that I have always appreciated about the former Soviet military system of thinking was the fact that they did not put all their faith into one form of Air Defence – be it air interception, SAMs or AAA.
Instead they design, developed and fielded a very comprehensive (the greatest the world has ever seen!) layered system, that would have forced any hostile action into its aerospace to run a gauntlet from hell.
Add to this the great mobility that they have built their systems around.

One should not forget history.
For example –
One should remember that the Germans in WWII put a lot of its industrial capacity, manpower and faith in ‘Flak’ being its key weapon against allied air attack of its cities, military production and bases, while its fighters were concentrated in offensive ops and air superiority of the battlefield during ‘Blitzkrieg’ offensives.
Very quickly, the Germans had to change their air defence doctrine, once the British (and later Americans) started their strategic bombing campaign against the German heart land.
This urgent (and unexpected nor planned) need for fighter/interceptors over the skies of the ‘fatherland’, had a detrimental effect on Germany’s war fighting capability outside of Germany, due to the cannibalization and redeployment of fighter/interceptor units back to Germany. This action would put Germany on the defensive (as well as latter leading the Luftwaffe to be forced by Hitler’s orders to produce and field nothing but fighters/interceptors, at the expense of offensive bombers.

Then one should only look at the way in which the British during the Battle of Britain employed a layered air defence using a combination of radar, fighters/interceptors and AAA in defending itself against a superior attacking enemy force.

I think one of the greatest problems and weakest link the United States military has had is the fact that it has not faced an actual threat of air attack since the end of WWII.
Part of this ‘I’ think is why the U.S military has put so much faith and belief in the assumption that the USAF can and will gain total air superiority, and hence deal with any potential threat.
Because of this mind set, the U.S Army has and still does lack a credible mobile SAM system to defend its forward units, when compared to the likes of the Soviet Union/Russia or the Bundeswehr (West Germany) for that matter.
For one only has to look at the U.S Army’s Air Defence platforms/weapons it has fielded during the era of the Cold War.
– M42 Duster SPAAG
– MIM-72 Chaparral SP SAM
– M163 A1/2 Vulcan SPAAG

The M42 Duster was a manually operated clear-weather system, which was very limited, and obsolete very quickly.
The MIM-72 Chaparral SP SAM was a cheap and very limited compromise that utilized the venerable Aim-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile as its basis, mounted on a modified M548 cargo carrier chassie, which offers very limited protection (if any)
The M163A1/A2 Vulcan SPAAG, although being equipped with the very fast firing 20mm Vulcan cannon, was very limited in stopping power and range of engadement, due to the 20mm round.

Compare this to the Soviet Unions serious efforts in the likes of the –
ZSU-57-2 SPAAG
ZSU-23-4 ‘Shilkas’ SPAAG
2S6M ‘Tunguska’ SPAAG/SP SAM

Krug (SA-4 ‘Ganef’)
Kub (SA-6 ‘Gainful’)
Osa (SA-8 ‘Gecko’)
(SA-9 ‘Gaskin’)
Buk-M (SA-11 ‘Gadfly’)
(SA-13 ‘Gopher’)
Ural (SA-17 ‘Grizzly’)
TOR-M1

My assumption that the U.S Army does not take its forward area air defense systems of its battlefield units seriously is emphasized by the fact that they had spent more than $6.7 billion over a period of 30-years on the likes of Mauler (XMIM-46A) SAM, Roland (MIM-115) SAM (1972-1981), Sgt York DIVAD (Division Air Defence) SPAAG (1981 -1985)and then ADATS (MIM-146A) LOS-F-H (Line-of-Sight, Forward, Heavy) SAM (1989-1992), which would only be cancelled without fielding a system. The U.S military’s problem of fielding modern and cost effective field mobile SP SAM’s and SPAAG’s has not been helped by the ‘Buy American’ policy of Congress. After all there would be nothing wrong with the US Army adapting the German Army Gepard SPAAG turret to that of its M1 MBT chassis.
Instead the U.S Army has elected to develop and field cheap and non-purpose built point defence systems (again!) like that of the ‘Avenger’ Low Level Air Defense System (1989), which is equipped with 8x ready-to-fire Stinger missiles and a single 12.7mm machine gun. The Avenger is hardly an answer to defending its better deserving troops and expensive equipment against the likes of the Su-25 ‘Frogfoot’, Mi-24 ‘Hind’, Mi-28 ‘Havoc’, Ka-50 ‘Hocum’ or the likes of the new PRC’s WZ-10.

As an Australian, I can hardly talk about our efforts in forward area air defense, what with our hand full of Rapier and RBS-70 SAM’s – hell we even deploy our army’s RBS-70’s aboard our naval ships, due to our inability to take air defence seriously.
But as for the United States, what with their military budget, wiliness to intervene into others affairs, the world over, they should take another look at modern military history, and design, develop and field some of the most capable and mobile ‘forward area air defense’ self-propelled SAM’s and AAA the world has ever seen!

P.S. I have not included the likes of the Hawk or the Patriot in my gripe, due to the fact that the Hawk can hardly be classed as mobile enough to be effective in an advancing formation + it is so old! While the Patriot is a true area defence system, it does not come into my scope of ‘forward area air defense’ – although I would like to see the U.S Army adopt the more mobile (and less vulnerable!) German approach to deploying their Patriot batteries – MAN 8×8 high mobility truck/Patriot combination!!

Regards
Pioneer

And yet still no skijump!!!!!
I know its U.S naval politics, when it comes to this matter.
What with the Navy’s paranoia, that Congress might see this STOL capability as a cheaper alternative and so threat to its super carriers…………….
But the Marines must be so restricted, to the full capability of its Harrier fleet at sea, in terms of range and payload.

Regards
Pioneer

Lets put it this way.. could you provide any meaningful CAS without means to defend your airspace?

I agree 100%

Some have mentioned the likes of the Northrop F-5, Mirage F1 and even Atlas Cheetahs for Georgia!
These older and less capable aircraft would be eaten alive by the likes of Russian Fulcrum’s and Flanker’s, even if they had a chance to get airborne!

At the end of the day, can Georgia afford the quality aircraft needed to face Russia?
Let alone the number it would require?
Can they afford to maintain these advanced fighters?
Do they have the infrastructure and skill of training their pilots to the full degree, to which the likes of the – say Gripen, F-16 or Mirage 2000 requires?

Would and could Georgia afford a credible strike/interdiction aircraft fleet to complement its fighter/interceptor force – which is imperative if you are to attempt to gain and maintain air superiority (for you have to be willing and able to both destroy your enemy’s aircraft on the ground, as well as force your enemy to use his fighter/interceptor force to defend their own aerospace, denying your enemy the ability to concentrate his forces offensively.
Or would it be better for Georgia to employ the likes of short-range ballistic missiles against Russian airbases

Saying this, after what and how the Georgian forces performed against the Russian’s, I would be inclined to think that Georgia would be better off taking a somewhat Finish/Swedish approach to its defence.
This would mean that its military would be geared to defence, with an open manner of saying and showing Russia that any further push into Georgian territory would cost it dearly in men and materials.
But saying this, again does Georgia have the economy, resilience and unity as a nation to do what Finland and Sweden had achieved?????
This is all going to take time = many many years
And time is something that Georgia does not have, as the ‘Bear’ to its north gets bigger and fatter in both economy, capability and ambition.

I am also worried that if the United States and the Western Europeans put to much pressure on Russia (which I do not think it will – remember Hungarian Crisis!!), it may be inclined to look towards the likes of the PRC as a stronger alliance.
For the PRC is also starting to have rumbles of secular tones within its greater boarder area.
Know that would be scary!

Regards
Pioneer

RA-5C Vigilante. A real beauty, IMHO.

I second that!!

Pioneer

At least not with the Tu-16 and Tu-95. There might have been some problems with the M4, but AFAIK it never suffered from those nasty break-up-in-flight issues either.

Did the Soviets employ their ‘Badger’s’, ‘Bison’s’ and ‘Bear’s’ in the low-altitude missions? (I know the MP/ASW variants of the ‘Bear’ would have!)

As for there being no B-52 for some daft reason, it would have been the B-60 in service as a heavy bomber from the 1950s on. There simply needed to be something to replace the woefully inadequate (except for it’s coolness factor) B-36. I just can’t see there being no gapfiller between the early post-war bombers (B-36, B-50, even B-47) and the supersonics (B-58 and mighta-shoulda-coulda-B-70). I don’t think how a B-52-esque design in service could have been avoided in any way. Especially not with all the political clout Curtis LeMay had during the 1950s. That guy always got the toys he wanted, and plenty of them.

I read that LeMay was very impressed with the British Valiant.
So the purpose-built low-altitude Valiant B.2 could have been a contender!
But then again would the American’s have been seen to have failed in the strategic bomber game, by adopting a British design?
Would Congress have approved a none ‘made and designed in the U.S.A strategic bomber??
After all they did adopt the English Electric Canberra – ‘AKA’ the Martin B-57!

Regards
Pioneer