Sea Harrier FA2 - a modern-day F6D Missileer?

Below is quote from a Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 pilot in an article in
the International Air Power Review vol. 16.

"Our tactics are based around the capabilities of our jet. For
instance, we do not like to go into the visual arena. We much prefer
engaging our targets from long range and that is why our main
configuration comprises four AMRAAMs. For target designation, we use
our left thumb to move a target-marker on the radar screen. When faced
with multiple enemies, we can ripple-fire our AMRAAMs in quick
succession."

From a mission point of view, it looks like the Sea Harrier FA2 could
be considered as a modern-day single-seat F6D Missileer in effect. Of
course Sea Harrier FA2 could bomb as well, although no better than the
Harrier GR7.

The original Sea Harrier FRS1 was conceived in the early 1970's as a
mean to drive off / shoot down the Russian long-range maritime
reconnaissance aircraft. When the FRS2 (FA2 after 1994) was projected
after 1983, what was the main threat - Backfires? MiG fighters? or
still the same Bears? - it was supposed to counter?

KDR wrote:
From a mission point of view, it looks like the Sea Harrier FA2 could
be considered as a modern-day single-seat F6D Missileer in effect. Of
course Sea Harrier FA2 could bomb as well, although no better than the
Harrier GR7.

Sure, but I wonder if tactics for any modern fighter - especially in
fleet defense business - really differ from the one mentioned in Air
Power Review. From layman's point of view IR missiles are useful only
for combat in cases where there is restrictive ROE or enemy has very
sophisticated EW equipment. This is due to fact that modern BVR
missiles don't require constant radar contact, and via sensor fusion
they don't even need targetting information from firing platform's own
radar. I wonder if AMRAAM could be given targeting information via
IRST?

I would guess that IR missiles exist mainly as self-defense and backup
weapons. And the gun? Well, if there wasn't any weight in the nose the
aircraft might prove to be unstable : )

Ps. OT post, what the f...?

wrote:

:I would guess that IR missiles exist mainly as self-defense and backup
:weapons. And the gun? Well, if there wasn't any weight in the nose the
:aircraft might prove to be unstable : )

The United States built an aircraft without a gun back when missiles
originally came in and everyone thought they would make having a gun
obsolete. It was the F-4 Phantom. A lot of them got chopped up over
Southeast Asia until we put the gun back in.

If there is any chance the other guy can get in close and get you into
a knife fight (and there is always that chance) then you will always
need a gun.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

I'm wondering if the Sea Harrier FA2 had enough range to prevent Soviet
naval Backfire bombers from firing their AS-4 Kitchen air-to-surface
missiles to the Royal Navy ASW carrier group.

In the latter half of the 1980s, NATO's naval war plan was to place
British ASW carriers at least 200 miles ahead of US strike carriers to
clear the path of hostile submarines. The RN carriers must have had to
fend for themselves against air attack that far away. Or were they
supposed to be covered by USAF F-15s from Iceland and RAF Tornado F3s
from Scotland?