Marine Corps Harrier shoots down seven UAVs

54
Marine Corps Harrier shoots down seven UAVs


Based on an article in The WarZone magazine signed Thomas newdick. Almost literal translation.



Why I was interested in this is probably because the Harrier is still not a fighter, although in the Falklands it had to act in this capacity. And the most interesting thing is at the very end, as expected.


Exactly how many drones were shot down by Harriers?


Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier II (subsonic vertical take-off attack aircraft) have reportedly intercepted numerous droneslaunched by the Houthis in the Red Sea, as well as aimed at striking Israel. It is unclear exactly how many drones were shot down by the Harriers. So far, we have heard and continue to read reports of US and allied ships shooting down Houthi UAVs and missiles.

It also talks about UAVs destroyed in the air by US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets and unnamed ground-based C-fighters. Recent reports shed light on the AV-8B's airborne attack capabilities.

Note. Just in case, I’ll explain why in the article about aviation the Air Force, the Navy, and even the Marine Corps are mentioned - because our neighbors across the ocean have an Air Force like view armed forces, and aviation of the Navy, Marine Corps and even the National Guard is race troops included in the above type of armed forces.

In an interview with the BBC on February 10, 2024, Harrier pilot Capt. Earl Ehrhart said that he personally intercepted seven drones. The WarZone is trying to figure out if there was any of these drones shot down by Captain Earhart, and what capabilities does the attack aircraft have for this.

Earhart serves with Attack Squadron 231 (VMA-231), which is stationed aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan. Since the end of December, the ship operated in the Mediterranean Sea, but in October, when the Houthi campaign and military operations in Gaza began, the ship was in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. It is not entirely clear in which areas Earhart carried out the tasks in question.


Captain Earhart, December 26, 2023, USS Bataan

Earhart believes the squadron never expected to engage in dogfights with any enemy. To operate for air defense purposes, the Harriers had to be modified and armed with missiles. It is not specified which missiles are used.


An AV-8B armed with a live AIM-9L/M Sidewinder missile aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan on December 26, 2023

However, the Marine Corps' Harriers can be armed with both AIM-120 active radar seeker missiles and AIM-9L/M infrared seeker missiles. The aircraft can also be equipped with a suspended container with a GAU-12 cannon of 25 mm caliber, with 250 rounds of ammunition.

Photos of attack aircraft aboard the USS Bataan released by the US Department of Defense show that the aircraft also have so-called Litening targeting pods.

Litening targeting pod – a hanging container for illuminating a target day and night, in difficult weather conditions. It significantly increases the ability to identify a target and get where you need to go.

Lightening pod helps visually identify a target at very long distances and can exchange information with radar.

However, the same article on the BBC website states that some drones were intercepted at such a distance that the explosion of their ammunition could seriously damage the interceptor itself. Aircraft searching for and attacking low-speed, low-flying targets expose themselves to considerable risk.

According to Earhart's interview, USS Bataan always had more than one AV-8B attack aircraft on standby in case of drone attacks. The targeting apparently came from one of the guided missile destroyers nearby, which was using its Aegis system. Earhart:

“The central post informed us, ‘The Houthis have launched a disposable UAV, the flight time is such and such,’ and then we switched from a 2-hour readiness to a five-minute readiness.”


An AIM-9M Sidewinder is loaded onto AV-8B aboard USS Bataan, December 26, 2023

Obviously, the use of Harrier attack aircraft to combat UAVs was primarily due to their availability in the region. It is worth noting that the AV-8B has very significant, although often overlooked, capabilities for combating air targets.

The AV-8B+ variant is equipped with the AN/APG-65 radar, which was once carried by the F/A-18A/B Hornet and then transferred to the Harriers. Since then, it (the Harrier) has undergone several upgrades and now, in combination with AMRAAM missiles, also has serious air-to-air capabilities among its wide range of applications. From the experience of the Royal Saudi Air Force, it is known that AMRAAM missiles are excellent weapon against drones launched by the Houthis.


Saudi F-15 shoots down Iranian UAV

Sidewinder missiles are not very good against UAVs, which have very limited thermal signature. The former F-15 pilot recalls that while AMRAAM is not the only option in this type of combat, “it may be the best, depending on the size of the target and the type of engine.

Due to an insufficient heat signature, you may not receive a signal (audio) until you enter the minimum range - at the same time, this will render the Sidwinder missile useless. As for the radar signature, the UAV has enough of it.”

On the other hand, when flying over the sea, the Sidewinder missile may have more opportunities to “catch” the UAV’s heat signature.

As for firing a cannon at a small target, this is considered quite difficult for a pilot who has not received special training, and it is completely unclear whether Harrier pilots were trained in such methods.

Additionally, it can be dangerous due to the threat of collision with such a small target. The same former pilot describes it this way: “a gun is possible, although very difficult. But it’s also a lot of fun.”

It's worth remembering that the AV-8 has some unique capabilities that make it a very useful platform for engaging slow-moving targets: its four thrust-vectoring nozzles combined with... (sorry, this is where it became unclear to me - what reaction control vanes are... some kind of rotary vanes... it’s only clear that this concerns the propulsion system)... In general, this property provides the aircraft with excellent low-speed flight qualities, which can be useful in battles with slow-moving drones.

While we don't know what types of drones were intercepted, the Iranian-made Shahed-136 UAV used by the Houthis and Russia has a top speed of only about 115 mph.


AV-8B launched an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile over Florida for the first time operationally, August 2012

While the Harrier doesn't have the capabilities of, say, a Super Hornet, it does provide an extra layer of protection to its mothership. In addition, the pilot can visually identify a potential threat, and this also creates an advantage over “inanimate” missiles. This flexibility is very useful in such a complex area, which is now the Red Sea.

It is also reported that aircraft from the USS Bataan participated in air strikes not only against Houthi-occupied territory in Yemen, but also against targets in Iraq and Syria. This suggests that the planes took off from the ship while it was in the Mediterranean Sea.

As for downed drones, since October 7, victories have been won by the US Navy, the Israeli Air Force and, apparently, the US Air Force. It is very possible that the Saudi Arabian Air Force also participated in repelling the attacks. Since the Houthis don't seem to be stopping, the Marine Corps can be added to the list.

This is where the article ends. You can also look at the author of the interview.


What can I say?


Racing an attack aircraft, much less a fighter, for a UAV worth 5 thousand dollars and spending on it an AIM-120 missile worth a million... Perhaps the United States can afford this. For a while. Now, if the Houthis start launching their devices in packs of a hundred pieces at a time, they will not only break through to the ships, but will also deal a good blow to the pockets of American taxpayers.

It seems that in the States they are already starting to think about this possible trouble and are even going to take some measures about it. And there are already reports about this in the press.

There is an organization there called the Air & Space Forces Association, which periodically holds symposia, and one of them took place just the other day, from February 12 to 14. Among others, the speaker was none other than 4-star general, commander of the US Air Force in Europe, James B. Hecker. So, he said that Ukraine managed to create a system that detects the presence of drones in the air. It consists of several thousand sound sensors united into a network.

This network, apparently with the help of AI, can isolate the sound of a UAV engine from a multitude of noises, determine its coordinates, speed and course, and transmit the data via mobile communications to the nearest duty team. A group, in a pickup truck/loaf/cart, armed with machine guns, night sights and thermal imagers, goes out to intercept - well, how it goes.

The effectiveness of this network is not reported.

Our military does not say how many Geraniums were launched tonight, much less how many of them hit the target - but such statistics must be present somewhere.

What exactly the general said remains unknown, but he insisted that this method of struggle was much cheaper. And perhaps even more effective. It would be good for our generals to think about it too.
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    19 February 2024 04: 21
    Racing an attack aircraft, much less a fighter, for a UAV worth 5 thousand dollars and spending on it an AIM-120 missile worth a million... Perhaps the United States can afford this.

    Nowhere do they lie more than in fishing... hunting and war... they shot down as always 146% laughing
    1. +11
      19 February 2024 05: 12
      Quote from Enceladus
      Nowhere do they lie more than in fishing... hunting and war

      They lie even before the elections wink
      1. +15
        19 February 2024 11: 04
        To race an attack aircraft, much less a fighter, for a UAV worth 5 thousand dollars and spend on it an AIM-120 missile worth a million...
        Once again the same thing. It is not the cost of weapons that should be taken into account, but the cost of possible damage caused by this weapon....
    2. 0
      28 February 2024 22: 37
      after fishing and hunting, during the war and before elections.
  2. +1
    19 February 2024 04: 22
    that some drones were intercepted at such a distance that the explosion of their ammunition could seriously damage the interceptor itself... ...In general, this property provides the aircraft with excellent flight qualities at low speed, which can be useful in battles with low-speed drones.
    And most likely it was this property that was used. Combined with cannon fire. Helicopters, for example, effectively intercept drones.
    Racing an attack aircraft, much less a fighter, for a UAV worth 5 thousand dollars and spending on it an AIM-120 missile worth a million... Perhaps the United States can afford this. For a while.
    All the same, Sidewinders can be used for long-range UAVs, because they have either internal combustion engines or jet engines. And cannon fire from a GDP aircraft against a low-speed target is probably safer than from a high-speed fighter.
    By the way, hello to those who believe that the Yak-41 was not needed.
    1. +4
      19 February 2024 05: 26
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      By the way, hello to those who believe that the Yak-41 was not needed.

      This is a dead end. Well, perhaps in the fleet, where there is no normal runway. You probably meant the Yak-141?
      1. +2
        19 February 2024 06: 19
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        This is a dead end. Well, perhaps in the fleet, where there is no normal runway.

        Why? All its life, aviation has been striving to reduce/abandon runways, and you are a “dead end”. Step!

        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        You probably meant the Yak-141?
        Yeah, but if I went into mass production, it would probably be the Yak-41.
        1. +1
          19 February 2024 07: 35
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          All its life aviation has been striving to reduce/abandon runways, and you are a “dead end”
          Abandoning GDP is a wonderful idea, but it has a lot of disadvantages. Vertical take-off aircraft have enormous fuel consumption, are difficult to operate and have a relatively short range. And in today’s development of air defense, these aircraft will be simply an excellent target for them, like in a training simulator
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Step!
          Down wink
          1. +2
            19 February 2024 08: 26
            Quote: Dutchman Michel
            Abandoning GDP is a wonderful idea, but it has a lot of disadvantages. Vertical take-off aircraft have enormous fuel consumption, are difficult to operate and have a relatively short range. And in today’s development of air defense, these aircraft will be simply an excellent target for them, like in a training simulator

            Like all airplanes, and even more so like helicopters. But the runways and the roads themselves and the cars tied to them are not particularly cheaper and are definitely more vulnerable. However, VTOL aircraft are still niche vehicles, especially jet aircraft. But those who have them don’t refuse them, they’re idiots.

            Quote: Dutchman Michel
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Step!
            Down

            Yes Yes. Technological.
          2. +4
            19 February 2024 09: 07
            But it’s okay that the F-35B version of STOVL is precisely a vertical take-off and landing aircraft. Somehow they don’t call it an excellent target for air defense.
            1. +2
              19 February 2024 11: 47
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              But it’s okay that the F-35B version of STOVL is precisely a vertical take-off and landing aircraft

              Nothing. This is a small batch for aircraft carriers. This modification also has hanging containers. Which fighter do you think it is? Or at least an attack aircraft, with such high fuel consumption for vertical takeoff and landing?
          3. 0
            19 February 2024 10: 17
            These aircraft can be based directly on transports, which excludes convoy aircraft carriers from the escort composition. For lovers of economic calculations, I recommend subtracting from the cost of operating GDP fighter-attack aircraft the cost of preserving transport and transported cargo, as well as the possibility of a retaliatory strike on the enemy’s sensitive infrastructure.
            1. +1
              19 February 2024 11: 49
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              These aircraft can be based directly on transports, which excludes convoy aircraft carriers from the escort composition

              They can be based. Yes. But can they, in a naval version, be full-fledged fighters with such a short range (I mean in a naval version)?
            2. +4
              19 February 2024 11: 51
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              These aircraft can be based directly on transports, which excludes convoy aircraft carriers from the escort composition.

              Can not. To base a VTOL aircraft, the transport must have a reinforced deck, free space for take-off and landing, radio and lighting equipment for take-off and landing operations, as well as a fuel refueling system, compartments for storing ammunition and a full-fledged fuel cell. Oh yes, another hangar.
              And as a result we get... that's right - an escort aircraft carrier.
              1. 0
                19 February 2024 13: 09
                Everything you listed is formed from standard blocks in the dimensions of containers. And in the tropics, hangars are simply superfluous. As for full-fledged naval fighters: aerobatics is a thing of the past, the main thing is the detection system, weapons and avionics. The disadvantage is the small radius of action, but for closed seas it is quite sufficient.
                1. +3
                  19 February 2024 16: 20
                  Quote: Victor Leningradets
                  Everything you listed is formed from standard blocks in the dimensions of containers.

                  Especially the hangar, fuel tanks and ammunition cellars with their temperature conditions and flooding system.
                  Quote: Victor Leningradets
                  And in the tropics, hangars are simply superfluous.

                  Seriously? Are you going to carry out maintenance and repair of aircraft on the open deck under the tropical sun? And even in the company of VTOL aircraft taking off and landing with their jet streams spreading across the deck?
                  1. +1
                    19 February 2024 18: 08
                    THIS WAS NOT THE case on the convoy aircraft carriers either. Takeoff and landing, the rest is on the shore.
                    1. +2
                      20 February 2024 12: 26
                      Quote: Victor Leningradets
                      THIS WAS NOT THE case on the convoy aircraft carriers either. Takeoff and landing, the rest is on the shore.

                      During that war, airplanes were consumables - just remember the disposable Hurrikats on a CAM ship. And the cars themselves were simpler.
                      And yes, the escort aircraft had a full-fledged hangar, 2 aircraft lifts and a catapult.
                2. 0
                  19 February 2024 21: 37
                  And in the tropics, hangars are simply superfluous.

                  And if the storm?
                  Why only in the tropics? What if you need to guard a convoy in the North Atlantic?
            3. +2
              19 February 2024 21: 17
              Of course, they burn a lot of fuel during takeoff, but there is in-flight refueling.
          4. +3
            19 February 2024 14: 30
            and have a relatively short range.

            How to say.
            For F-35V
            Combat radius without anti-tank missiles and air refueling 833 km

            For example, for comparison, for Hornet
            Technical characteristics using the example of F/A-18C/D
            Combat radius 720 km

            For Super Hornet F/A-18E
            Combat radius: 726 km

            Of course, there are aircraft with a much larger combat radius, but the example of the Hornets, aircraft proven over many years of combat operation, shows that the F-35B fits well within the range of combat radius requirements for aircraft of this type
            And in today’s development of air defense, these aircraft will be simply an excellent target

            This is also an extremely controversial statement.
            One of the primary tasks of aircraft of this type is to attack air defenses, and the capabilities for this are much greater than those of old-type aircraft - stealth, a developed RTR system for detecting a working ground radar, radar with the ability to operate on the ground with a mapping mode , an electronic warfare station, if a ground-based radar detects it, developed optical and IR surveillance systems - from the point of view of capabilities, it is very prepared to fight air defense.
            1. +1
              19 February 2024 16: 29
              Quote from solar
              How to say.
              For F-35V
              Combat radius without anti-tank missiles and air refueling 833 km

              For example, for comparison, for Hornet
              Technical characteristics using the example of F/A-18C/D
              Combat radius 720 km

              For Super Hornet F/A-18E
              Combat radius: 726 km

              In fact, for the Super Hornet the combat radius without PTB is 856 km.

              And most importantly, it is not indicated at what load and according to what profile (speed-altitude) the combat radius of the F-35 was calculated.
              Because for the “Super Hornet” this is the combat radius when solving the task of “fighter escort, air-to-air loading.”
              1. +1
                19 February 2024 18: 42
                Let's face it.
                726 km is the combat radius of the Super Hornet from the Russian Wikipedia page, usually this is how strike missions, air-to-ground are indicated without specification (interdiction mission, air-to-surface - clumsy machine translation usually translates interdiction mission or interception mission).
                Let's look at the English page
                Combat range: 444 nmi (511 mi, 822 km) combat radius for interdiction mission with 2 × 480-gallon drop tanks[248]
                489 nmi (906 km; 563 mi) interdiction mission on 3 × 480-gallon drop tanks[248]
                462 nmi (856 km; 532 mi) fighter escort (air-to-air) mission on internal fuel only[248]
                Combat range: 444 mi (511 mi, 822 km) combat radius for interdiction mission with two 480 gallon drop tanks [248]
                489 mi (906 km; 563 mi) interception mission with 3 x 480 gallon drop tanks [248]
                Fighter escort (air-to-air) mission over 462 miles (856 km; 532 mi) using internal fuel only [248]

                That is, your 856 km is for air-to-air (that is, only with explosive missiles, this is a relatively small load) only with internal tanks.
                For drums, the range is 822 km with two external tanks and 906 km with three external tanks. That is, 726 km is the combat range on the internal tanks for the strike mission.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
                Now let's look at the F-35V. I took 833 km from the Russian Wikipedia page, also without details. Let's look at the English page. Detailed specification there for F-35A
                Combat range: 669 nmi (770 mi, 1,239 km) interdiction mission (air-to-surface) on internal fuel
                760 nmi (870 mi; 1,410 km), air-to-air configuration on internal fuel[491]
                Combat range: 669 mi (770 mi, 1239 km) interdiction mission (air-to-surface) internally fueled.
                760 nmi (870 mi; 1410 km), air-to-air configuration with internal fuel [491]

                And then there is a sign with the difference between the options. We look there for the F-35A and F-35B variants
                Combat radius on
                internal fuel 669 nmi (1,239 km) 505 nmi (935 km) ....

                From the value of 1239 km for the F-35A, we see that the table shows data for the strike mission, that is, for the F-35B this range is 935 km. Which is greater than the range of a Super Hornet with three external fuel tanks on the same strike mission. Which is not small at all.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. The comment was deleted.
                4. The comment was deleted.
                5. 0
                  29 February 2024 14: 26
                  "Watching fagot"
                6. 0
                  29 February 2024 14: 27
                  The main thing is not to touch the fagot with your hands and don’t put it in your mouth... but look - look, of course
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. +2
          19 February 2024 08: 04
          Yeah, but if I went into mass production, it would probably be the Yak-41.
          According to documents it was a Yak-141. Saw it in flight, in LII. Funding stopped in the fall of 1993 for a well-known reason - the unconditional victory of democracy.
          1. +2
            19 February 2024 13: 54
            According to documents it was a Yak-141.

            As far as I know, both designations were used - Yak-41 and Yak-141. It seems at what stage the Yak-41 smoothly turned into the Yak-41M, and it into the Yak-141.
          2. +2
            19 February 2024 14: 59
            Funding stopped in the fall of 1993 for a well-known reason - the unconditional victory of democracy.

            In fact, it also crashed on the deck during testing during one of the first flights from the deck. Immediately after the accident, testing was stopped, and later the program was closed.
    2. +1
      19 February 2024 13: 52
      By the way, hello to those who believe that the Yak-41 was not needed.

      I suspect that the Yak-141, due to its different propulsion system design, is much inferior to the Harrier in operations at low speeds.
      1. -1
        19 February 2024 14: 00
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        I suspect that the Yak-141, due to its different propulsion system design, is much inferior to the Harrier in operations at low speeds.

        Probably comparable to the F-35 in this regard, and it was certainly equipped with a jet thruster system. But I can't check anymore...
        1. -1
          19 February 2024 14: 02
          Probably comparable to the F-35 in this regard

          Don't think. All the same, the F-35V does not need to start lifting engines in flight.
          1. 0
            19 February 2024 14: 05
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            Don't think. All the same, the F-35V does not need to start lifting engines in flight.

            But you need to turn on the lifting fan. bully
            1. +1
              19 February 2024 14: 22
              Of course, but I suspect it is somewhat simpler. In terms of low-speed operation, the Harrier is still unrivaled.
              1. -1
                19 February 2024 14: 26
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                Of course, but I suspect it is somewhat simpler.

                Well, maybe a few, because... After all, this is the normal mode.
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                In terms of low-speed operation, the Harrier is still unrivaled.
                You can’t argue with that! hi
        2. +2
          19 February 2024 15: 03
          was equipped with a jet thruster system

          The second Yak-41 (product 48-2, the first flight model) was finally assembled in December 1985 and received a w/n 75. It had an important difference from the first prototype - it had jet rudders for course deflection, located at the ends of the tail beams

          In June 1987, the assembly of the second flight model (product 48-3), which received the no. 77 [28], was completed. Unlike the first sample, here jet rudders at the ends of the tail booms were missingand - they were replaced by a single small rotating nozzle in the nose of the machine.

          It was the second flight prototype that crashed during testing.
  3. +1
    19 February 2024 05: 49
    And it’s scary to even say how many things Arnie Schwarzenegger “dunk” on the Harrier!
    1. +3
      19 February 2024 05: 54
      Quote: Amateur
      And it’s scary to even say how many things Arnie Schwarzenegger “dunk” on the Harrier!

      And my grandson, he knocks down hundreds of them every evening. He could have shot down a thousand, but his computer is turned off in time. Time to sleep wink
    2. The comment was deleted.
  4. +2
    19 February 2024 06: 14
    sorry, this is where it became unclear to me - what are reaction control vanes... some kind of rotary vanes... it’s only clear that this concerns the propulsion system

    These blades are located directly in the nozzles, and as I understand it, they increase control efficiency at low speeds.
    1. +1
      19 February 2024 08: 08
      It does not have separate lifting engines, like on our Yak-38 and Yak-141; the British spent 20 years fine-tuning their Pegasus engine, but they did it. It has 4 rotating nozzles, naturally, with blades inside.
      1. +1
        19 February 2024 08: 30
        Quote: Aviator_
        It has 4 rotating nozzles, naturally, with blades inside.

        I don’t remember that the nozzles of ordinary machines had blades, and even rotating ones. In any case, this is not a mass reception.
        1. +4
          19 February 2024 08: 41
          I don’t remember that the nozzles of ordinary machines had blades, and even rotating ones.
          In a short section (3-4 diameters), you need to turn the flow 90 degrees and make it as uniform as possible. It is impossible without internal blades. And the car is far from ordinary, there are no other ones like it, so there’s nothing to remember. drinks
          1. 0
            19 February 2024 08: 49
            Quote: Aviator_
            In a short section (3-4 diameters), you need to turn the flow 90 degrees and make it as uniform as possible. It is impossible without internal blades.

            As I understand it, we didn’t bother with this on our cars thanks to separate lifting motors. (At least there’s some kind of plus in that)
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. -1
              19 February 2024 19: 10
              As I understand it, we didn’t bother with this on our cars thanks to separate lifting motors. (At least there’s some kind of plus in that)
              There was no money to spend 20 years on a specialized engine. The Americans also failed with the XVF-12, which was supposed to use an ejector wing. The wing was made, the engine was not. They then simply purchased Harriers for themselves under the name AV-8A
      2. +2
        19 February 2024 09: 48
        Quote: Aviator_
        It has 4 rotating nozzles, naturally, with blades inside

        I don’t quite understand why the blades are needed there?
        1. +1
          19 February 2024 14: 00
          It was written above - to stabilize the escaping gases. The nozzles themselves are curved and without these “blades” (more precisely, partitions) - no way.
          1. +1
            19 February 2024 15: 29
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            It was written above - to stabilize escaping gases

            It's clear. I thought it was something rotating, like a turbine. These are just some kind of guides wink
    2. 0
      19 February 2024 11: 37
      Reaction control system
      The use of engine thrust deflection to provide stable attitude control to a short or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft below the flight speed of conventional winged aircraft, such as the Harrier "jump jet", may also be referred to as a reaction control system.
      Reaction control systems are capable of providing small amounts of thrust in any desired direction or combination of directions. RCS is also capable of providing torque, allowing for control of rotation (roll, pitch, and yaw).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system
      As far as we can understand, this is an attitude control system. The Harrier, in addition to vector deflection in the engines, also has jet systems for stabilizing the position in the air and changing the orientation of the aircraft at low speeds.
      1. 0
        19 February 2024 11: 42
        Quote from solar
        The Harrier, in addition to vector deflection in the engines, also has jet systems for stabilizing the position in the air and changing the orientation of the aircraft at low speeds.

        There is one, but vanes - blades, do not belong to it, there are nozzles - high pressure air nozzles.
        1. +1
          19 February 2024 12: 16
          The Harrier engine nozzles have guide deflectors for the same purpose, perhaps these are "vanes".
          There are, however, also adjustable air intakes, but this is unlikely to apply to the Reaction control system
  5. 0
    19 February 2024 09: 47
    The author indicates the cost of missiles, and the cost of operating one flight hour of a Harrier? This is not a solution to the problem - it is a path to nowhere. Well, I can’t help but agree - the advertising for the Harrier is powerful))) look, the F-35 will start to be purchased in large quantities.
  6. 0
    19 February 2024 11: 47
    The Harrier has certain advantages for combating UAVs - the ability to be based as close as possible to the place of possible use, and, accordingly, minimal time in the air (conventional aircraft will most likely have to conduct constant patrols in the air), as well as the presence of systems that ensure stability and maneuverability of the aircraft at low speeds . But it hardly makes sense to use it as a permanent means of combat; it’s too expensive. For such a purpose, it makes sense to use the Harrier in case of a sudden threat until other means of combat are brought up, or in case of episodic threats.
  7. -1
    19 February 2024 14: 12
    What exactly the general said remains unknown, but he insisted that this method of struggle was much cheaper. And perhaps even more effective. It would be good for our generals to think about it too.

    There’s nothing to think about, there’s a mark from the cap in the fat.
  8. 0
    19 February 2024 16: 01
    There is nothing unusual in terms of the topic of the article. Even without target designation from US Navy ships of the em uro or cr uro class (which, if produced, was more likely in the NTDS BIUS, and not in the Aegis, with which the Bataan is not equipped), a Wasp-type dku, which is what the dku is " Bataan" are equipped with quite a variety of OVC avionics: SPS-48E, SPS-49(V)9, Hughes Mk23 TAS. Of these, at least SPS-49(V)9 is included in the NTDS BIUS. For a long time now, this is open information, American fighters have installed equipment for receiving data from the BIUS. Due to the weight and dimensions of the aircraft, this is only receiving equipment; tactical aircraft do not provide data on detected targets in the BIUS. The digital data transmission channel Link-11 or Link-16 was used; this communication equipment was installed on the Bataan control center, and apparently is also installed on the aircraft. Regarding the advisability of using UVP aircraft, I would argue; the fuel consumption to ensure vertical operation of the engines is high; after a couple of hovering in the air, the aircraft will have to return. So the fact we have is rather a matter of chance. and not the purposeful use of an aircraft to provide air defense.
  9. 0
    19 February 2024 20: 19
    Recently there was a video online showing the first flight of an aircraft with an extremely short takeoff and landing. A biplane with 8 electric motors mounted on the lower wings.
    It should be a cool thing for hunting drones if you put it on a shotgun like this.
    I wonder if they will figure out how to use it in this capacity.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. The comment was deleted.