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

"tomcervo" > wrote:

:Sounds like the Tornado tactic, fire and run. Dogfighting is great in
:the movies but I doubt it's as cost effective as BVR

However, setting your airplane up for BVR only relies on some very
crucial assumptions that, in time of war, are probably not going to be
upheld.

You have to convince the other guy to play your game and be detectable
at good BVR ranges so you can shoot him. He's probably going to avoid
this, particularly if he knows that getting to 'knife-fighting' range
means he gets an automatic win.

It only works once the hot war starts. If you are in a 'patrol'
situation where the other guy can get arbitrarily close to you before
the balloon goes up, you are going to lose an awful lot of aircraft in
the first real exchange of fire.

It assumes the other guy doesn't fly an LO platform, that he can't jam
or evade your missiles, etc.

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

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:47:22 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>"tomcervo" > wrote:
>
>:Sounds like the Tornado tactic, fire and run. Dogfighting is great in
>:the movies but I doubt it's as cost effective as BVR
>
>However, setting your airplane up for BVR only relies on some very
>crucial assumptions that, in time of war, are probably not going to be
>upheld.

I think the original post indicated BVR "preferred" not exclusive.
Bringing up the old Vietnam-era issue of gun-less Phantoms is
increasingly irrelevant. Technology has made BVR discrimination much
more positive and that means future conflict ROE is much more likely
to be supportive of BVR.
>
>You have to convince the other guy to play your game and be detectable
>at good BVR ranges so you can shoot him. He's probably going to avoid
>this, particularly if he knows that getting to 'knife-fighting' range
>means he gets an automatic win.

There's seldom any such thing as an "automatic" win in a knife-fight.
Closing to WVR is one thing, but slowing down to the turn-n-burn
engagement mode is avoidable in most situations. Maintaining mutual
support and high energy state is the best way to become "old" and with
modern weapons also offers a high probability of adding "bold" as
well.
>
>It only works once the hot war starts. If you are in a 'patrol'
>situation where the other guy can get arbitrarily close to you before
>the balloon goes up, you are going to lose an awful lot of aircraft in
>the first real exchange of fire.

Hard to imagine a scenario in which "patrol" doesn't involve
over-watch by a big brother platform as well as data fusion from a
number of sources--all of which mitigates against the closeness
factor.
>
>It assumes the other guy doesn't fly an LO platform, that he can't jam
>or evade your missiles, etc.

Critical in all of this discussion is role and mission. If the SHAR is
going to be a fleet air defender, then he's going to have a lot of
info available and a very good chance of salvoing against the inbound
threats while they are still BVR. If the SHAR is envisioned as
escorting ground attackers, then the probability of less info
increases as well as closing to tighter ranges.

Personally, I like the F-22 concept of air dominance a whole lot
better with LO, sensor fusion and still a highly agile platform in the
package. SHAR is the "make do with what we can afford" approach to air
superiority.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:47:22 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
>
>>"tomcervo" > wrote:
>>
>>:Sounds like the Tornado tactic, fire and run. Dogfighting is great in
>>:the movies but I doubt it's as cost effective as BVR
>>
>>However, setting your airplane up for BVR only relies on some very
>>crucial assumptions that, in time of war, are probably not going to be
>>upheld.
>
> I think the original post indicated BVR "preferred" not exclusive.
> Bringing up the old Vietnam-era issue of gun-less Phantoms is
> increasingly irrelevant. Technology has made BVR discrimination much
> more positive and that means future conflict ROE is much more likely
> to be supportive of BVR.
>>
>>You have to convince the other guy to play your game and be detectable
>>at good BVR ranges so you can shoot him. He's probably going to avoid
>>this, particularly if he knows that getting to 'knife-fighting' range
>>means he gets an automatic win.
>
> There's seldom any such thing as an "automatic" win in a knife-fight.

True. I was just reading this morning about the USN A-1 Spads dogfights with
MiG-17's over NVN. A couple of MiG pilots paid the price for thinking they
had easy pickings.

Brooks

> Closing to WVR is one thing, but slowing down to the turn-n-burn
> engagement mode is avoidable in most situations. Maintaining mutual
> support and high energy state is the best way to become "old" and with
> modern weapons also offers a high probability of adding "bold" as
> well.
>>
>>It only works once the hot war starts. If you are in a 'patrol'
>>situation where the other guy can get arbitrarily close to you before
>>the balloon goes up, you are going to lose an awful lot of aircraft in
>>the first real exchange of fire.
>
> Hard to imagine a scenario in which "patrol" doesn't involve
> over-watch by a big brother platform as well as data fusion from a
> number of sources--all of which mitigates against the closeness
> factor.
>>
>>It assumes the other guy doesn't fly an LO platform, that he can't jam
>>or evade your missiles, etc.
>
> Critical in all of this discussion is role and mission. If the SHAR is
> going to be a fleet air defender, then he's going to have a lot of
> info available and a very good chance of salvoing against the inbound
> threats while they are still BVR. If the SHAR is envisioned as
> escorting ground attackers, then the probability of less info
> increases as well as closing to tighter ranges.
>
> Personally, I like the F-22 concept of air dominance a whole lot
> better with LO, sensor fusion and still a highly agile platform in the
> package. SHAR is the "make do with what we can afford" approach to air
> superiority.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
> SHAR is the "make do with what we can afford" approach to air
>superiority.

*Was* the make-do approach: the SHar was very recently retired.



Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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?

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

:Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...

So you've got a DECADE of gap in Naval air?

Ouch!

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> :Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...
>
> So you've got a DECADE of gap in Naval air?
>
> Ouch!
>

All courtesy of that nice Mr Blair (and his side-kick /subordinate Brown)!

The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?

Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?

I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with its
immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!

--

Brian

In sci.military.naval Brian Sharrock twisted the electrons to say:
> The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
> inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
> cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?

Well to be honest there's really only two Invincibles left (Illustrious &
Ark Royal), since it looks unlikely that Invincible herself will ever go
to sea again ...

> Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
> into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
> Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?

.... but if they spent the money replacing the engines on the FA2s, then
what would happen to the moreschoolsandhospitals?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Jacek wrote:
>I guess there are never any "back-up" weapons - but only different
>weapons for various scenarios.

Isn't that just a nicer way to put it? :) Anyway, BVR missiles are the
primary weapon of any modern fighter aircraft, but as you put it, there
are certain cases in which IR missiles are also useful.

Mvh,
Jon K

Brian Sharrock wrote:
>I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
>combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with its
>immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
>aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!

On the other hand, what would have been realistic budget alternatives,
if taking money somewhere else is ruled out? At least the FAA has a
hope of a better future to come... when JSF arrives, late...

Mvh,
Jon K

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In sci.military.naval Brian Sharrock twisted the electrons to say:
>> The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
>> inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
>> cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?
>
> Well to be honest there's really only two Invincibles left (Illustrious &
> Ark Royal), since it looks unlikely that Invincible herself will ever go
> to sea again ...
>
>> Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
>> into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
>> Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?
>
> ... but if they spent the money replacing the engines on the FA2s, then
> what would happen to the moreschoolsandhospitals?

the moreschoolsandhospitals I can probably live with, it's the money
wasted whilst indecisive/incompetent morons make their minds up I have
trouble with.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,,1710772,00.html?gusrc=rss

£600,000 a day to pay contractors to stand around and do
nothing...<shakes head>
I suspect most of the Shar cost savings got used up in that one farce.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFETh0yPtE9aGlEHpERAhchAJsGgE9LPDKXeOslU9vjYQ eT3scZmgCfStq9
ylQyAwsYubgTRsiYYA/k7OA=
=B/kg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
. ..
> In sci.military.naval Brian Sharrock twisted the electrons to say:
>> The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
>> inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
>> cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?
>
> Well to be honest there's really only two Invincibles left (Illustrious &
> Ark Royal), since it looks unlikely that Invincible herself will ever go
> to sea again ...
>
Are you a Tonie Phonie? I wrote "_three_ ... inherited",; count 'em;-
Invincible, Ark Royal, Illusttious - all vessels in the fleet in 1997. The
sad fact that the vessels are not availlable currenntly is a
product/artefact of the CND members that now occupy Downing Street.
The sad decline of the CVS assets from three to two is not a justification
for only having two 'replacements' ... ! You're not chanting 'Three Ships
bad! Two ships better!" ; are you?
{Neither is RY Brittania, the paying-off ceremony for which B-Liar didn't
attend - He had another engagement in his diary - now, what was it? Oh, yes!
He was _welcominig_ Gerry Adams and cohorts to Downing Street! :( ]


>> Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
>> into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
>> Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?
>
> ... but if they spent the money replacing the engines on the FA2s, then
> what would happen to the moreschoolsandhospitals?
> --
> These opinions might not even be mine ...
> Let alone connected with my employer ...

--

Brian

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>>I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
>>combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with
>>its
>>immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
>>aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!
>
> On the other hand, what would have been realistic budget alternatives,
> if taking money somewhere else is ruled out? At least the FAA has a
> hope of a better future to come... when JSF arrives, late...
>
>
The FAA only has a future if it AAA acquires aircraft (almost any aircraft)
and
BBB Pilots for said aircraft ... the 'papers report that FAA recruitment is
'cause for concern' :(

--

Brian

In sci.military.naval Brian Sharrock twisted the electrons to say:
> "Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
> > Well to be honest there's really only two Invincibles left (Illustrious &
> > Ark Royal), since it looks unlikely that Invincible herself will ever go
> > to sea again ...
> Are you a Tonie Phonie?

I dunno, what is a "Tonie Phonie"??? (A phoney Tony would presumably be
someone pretending to be called Tony?)

> The sad decline of the CVS assets from three to two is not a justification
> for only having two 'replacements' ... ! You're not chanting 'Three Ships
> bad! Two ships better!" ; are you?

No, because if I was going to say that I *would* have said that. My
point was that the reduction to two ships has already happened.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

jokoch wrote:
> What's the maximum no. of AMRAAM FA2 can carry? It has 2 wing pylons,
> and if it uses 2 double rail pylons, that would be 8 on 2 wings.
> However, I've seen drawings with 2 AMRAAM on the fuselage. That makes
> 10 AMRAAM altogether!!! Wonder what other plane carry more AMRAAM than
> FA2 apart from superbug?
>

The Sea Harrier FA.2 can't carry anything like 10 AMRAAM; the twin rail
pylon is for Sidewinder only. My understanding is that the max missile
load is more like 4 AMRAAM (2 on the fuselage in place of the gun pods
and two on the outer wing stations) or 2 AMRAAM (on the fuselage) and 4
Sidewinder (twins on the outer wing stations).

The inner wing stations are almost invariably loaded with fuel tanks.
I've never heard of them hanging missiles there; those pylons may not
even be wired for AMRAAM.

Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads
seem to be rare as hen teeth.

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote ...
> jokoch wrote:
>> What's the maximum no. of AMRAAM FA2 can carry? It has 2 wing pylons,
>> and if it uses 2 double rail pylons, that would be 8 on 2 wings.
>> However, I've seen drawings with 2 AMRAAM on the fuselage. That makes
>> 10 AMRAAM altogether!!! Wonder what other plane carry more AMRAAM than
>> FA2 apart from superbug?
>>
>
> The Sea Harrier FA.2 can't carry anything like 10 AMRAAM; the twin rail
> pylon is for Sidewinder only. My understanding is that the max missile
> load is more like 4 AMRAAM (2 on the fuselage in place of the gun pods and
> two on the outer wing stations) or 2 AMRAAM (on the fuselage) and 4
> Sidewinder (twins on the outer wing stations).
>
> The inner wing stations are almost invariably loaded with fuel tanks. I've
> never heard of them hanging missiles there; those pylons may not even be
> wired for AMRAAM.
>
> Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads seem
> to be rare as hen teeth.
>

Rumor has it that aside from the blue, inert exercise "concrete" versions,
the budget only stretched to a couple of dozen, held in a secret bunker
somewhere in Yorkshire, plugged in like recharging cell phones, awaiting the
summons to Armageddon...

I suspect an actual weapons load of two per a/c is about all the acquisition
budget will stretch to, but the big occasion is Mess Night, when the active
pilots draw lots to select the lucky individual chosen to fire this fiscal
year's single training round, one of the half dozen spares in inventory.

TMO

"Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
. ..
> In sci.military.naval Brian Sharrock twisted the electrons to say:
>> "Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
>> > Well to be honest there's really only two Invincibles left (Illustrious
>> > &
>> > Ark Royal), since it looks unlikely that Invincible herself will ever
>> > go
>> > to sea again ...
>> Are you a Tonie Phonie?
>
> I dunno, what is a "Tonie Phonie"??? (A phoney Tony would presumably be
> someone pretending to be called Tony?)
>
A Tonie Phonie is someone who says one thing ' Trust me, I'm a straight
kinda guy! ' while being as bent as a left-handed corkscrew!

>> The sad decline of the CVS assets from three to two is not a
>> justification
>> for only having two 'replacements' ... ! You're not chanting 'Three Ships
>> bad! Two ships better!" ; are you?
>
> No, because if I was going to say that I *would* have said that. My
> point was that the reduction to two ships has already happened.

And to bedeplored ... not to be used as an excuse for announcing that only
two will be ordered in replacement. YMMV

--

Brian

jokoch wrote:
> What's the maximum no. of AMRAAM FA2 can carry? It has 2 wing pylons,
> and if it uses 2 double rail pylons, that would be 8 on 2 wings.
> However, I've seen drawings with 2 AMRAAM on the fuselage. That makes
> 10 AMRAAM altogether!!! Wonder what other plane carry more AMRAAM than
> FA2 apart from superbug?

The max number of AMRAAM missiles a Sea Harrier FA2 can carry is four,
one each under each outer wing pylon and the other two under the
fuselage.

The FA2's Blue Vixen radar is claimed to be capable of tracking 10
targets and sending guidance commands to four separately targeted
AMRAAMs in flight.

Invincible WILL go to sea again, but it will be flying an Indian flag.

In message >, TOliver
> writes
>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote ...
>> Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads seem
>> to be rare as hen teeth.
>
>Rumor has it that aside from the blue, inert exercise "concrete" versions,
>the budget only stretched to a couple of dozen, held in a secret bunker
>somewhere in Yorkshire, plugged in like recharging cell phones, awaiting the
>summons to Armageddon...

Not *quite* that bad; the UK AMRAAM buy was sufficient to arm the Tonka
F.3s as well as give the deployed carrier her Blue Book loadout, with
enough left over (assuming we don't actually shoot any in anger) to tide
the Typhoons over until Meteor deliveries start.

Which isn't to say there are surplus AIM-120s piled up in corners, just
that for once Tom's overstating it :)

>I suspect an actual weapons load of two per a/c is about all the acquisition
>budget will stretch to,

The problem was rather one of the inevitable weight growth of ageing
aircraft, coupled to the high cost of a bigger engine, and expected
operations in weather charitably described as "too bloody hot for
comfort": in air temperatures of over forty degrees modern, a SHar with
four AMRAAMs couldn't hover at more than 'flameout in seconds' fuel
states. (Hence, in part, its premature retirement)


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote ...

TOliver > > writes
>>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote ...
>>> Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads
>>> seem
>>> to be rare as hen teeth.
>>
>>Rumor has it that aside from the blue, inert exercise "concrete" versions,
>>the budget only stretched to a couple of dozen, held in a secret bunker
>>somewhere in Yorkshire, plugged in like recharging cell phones, awaiting
>>the
>>summons to Armageddon...
>
> Not *quite* that bad; the UK AMRAAM buy was sufficient to arm the Tonka
> F.3s as well as give the deployed carrier her Blue Book loadout, with
> enough left over (assuming we don't actually shoot any in anger) to tide
> the Typhoons over until Meteor deliveries start.
>
> Which isn't to say there are surplus AIM-120s piled up in corners, just
> that for once Tom's overstating it :)
>
>>I suspect an actual weapons load of two per a/c is about all the
>>acquisition
>>budget will stretch to,
>
> The problem was rather one of the inevitable weight growth of ageing
> aircraft, coupled to the high cost of a bigger engine, and expected
> operations in weather charitably described as "too bloody hot for
> comfort": in air temperatures of over forty degrees modern, a SHar with
> four AMRAAMs couldn't hover at more than 'flameout in seconds' fuel
> states. (Hence, in part, its premature retirement)
>
Thanks, Paul. I was engaged in a bit of ritual, nay liturgical,
cistern-chain pulling. I do doubt we'll ever see a harrier or any other
birds for that matter, RAF or USAF, actually "actively employed" with 4
AIM-120s aboard. A mixed loadout really makes more sense, and needing to
pull the gun pack to add 2 to the Harrier sort of narrows the a/c's
potential employment roles.

TMO

"TOliver" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote ...
>
> TOliver > > writes
>>>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote ...
>>>> Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads
>>>> seem
>>>> to be rare as hen teeth.
>>>
>>>Rumor has it that aside from the blue, inert exercise "concrete"
>>>versions,
>>>the budget only stretched to a couple of dozen, held in a secret bunker
>>>somewhere in Yorkshire, plugged in like recharging cell phones, awaiting
>>>the
>>>summons to Armageddon...
>>
>> Not *quite* that bad; the UK AMRAAM buy was sufficient to arm the Tonka
>> F.3s as well as give the deployed carrier her Blue Book loadout, with
>> enough left over (assuming we don't actually shoot any in anger) to tide
>> the Typhoons over until Meteor deliveries start.
>>
>> Which isn't to say there are surplus AIM-120s piled up in corners, just
>> that for once Tom's overstating it :)
>>
>>>I suspect an actual weapons load of two per a/c is about all the
>>>acquisition
>>>budget will stretch to,
>>
>> The problem was rather one of the inevitable weight growth of ageing
>> aircraft, coupled to the high cost of a bigger engine, and expected
>> operations in weather charitably described as "too bloody hot for
>> comfort": in air temperatures of over forty degrees modern, a SHar with
>> four AMRAAMs couldn't hover at more than 'flameout in seconds' fuel
>> states. (Hence, in part, its premature retirement)
>>
> Thanks, Paul. I was engaged in a bit of ritual, nay liturgical,
> cistern-chain pulling. I do doubt we'll ever see a harrier or any other
> birds for that matter, RAF or USAF, actually "actively employed" with 4
> AIM-120s aboard.

You'd lose that bet in a hurry. F-15's routinely carry AIM-120's and can
realistically haul even more. Even the F-16 on a pure air-to-air tasking can
carry four. A photo of the latter, with one AIM-120 having just been
launched, can be found at:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/surface-launched/images/Slamraam_6.jpg

A close up showing the wingtip and outer pylons of a Falcon loaded with
AIM-120's, with the armorer doing his thing:

http://home.pages.at/godi/bewaffnung/aim120amraam/aim120f16.jpg

A mixed loadout really makes more sense, and needing to
> pull the gun pack to add 2 to the Harrier sort of narrows the a/c's
> potential employment roles.

But "other birds", such as the F-15, can carry four of them *plus* a couple
of AIM-9's and *still* have their gun to fall back on.

Brooks

>
> TMO
>

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads
> seem to be rare as hen teeth.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene
> To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

There was an issue of World Air Power Journal (RIP) that I once owned
that most definitely had a short feature on SHARs carrying AIM-120s,
and I seem to recall the four-shot loadout in some of the pics. But
that was a long time ago and I sold off my collection of WAPJs a few
years back, so I can't give you a specific issue.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "TOliver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote ...
> >
> > TOliver > > writes
> >>>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote ...
> >>>> Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads
> >>>> seem
> >>>> to be rare as hen teeth.
> >>>
> >>>Rumor has it that aside from the blue, inert exercise "concrete"
> >>>versions,
> >>>the budget only stretched to a couple of dozen, held in a secret bunker
> >>>somewhere in Yorkshire, plugged in like recharging cell phones, awaiting
> >>>the
> >>>summons to Armageddon...
> >>
> >> Not *quite* that bad; the UK AMRAAM buy was sufficient to arm the Tonka
> >> F.3s as well as give the deployed carrier her Blue Book loadout, with
> >> enough left over (assuming we don't actually shoot any in anger) to tide
> >> the Typhoons over until Meteor deliveries start.
> >>
> >> Which isn't to say there are surplus AIM-120s piled up in corners, just
> >> that for once Tom's overstating it :)
> >>
> >>>I suspect an actual weapons load of two per a/c is about all the
> >>>acquisition
> >>>budget will stretch to,
> >>
> >> The problem was rather one of the inevitable weight growth of ageing
> >> aircraft, coupled to the high cost of a bigger engine, and expected
> >> operations in weather charitably described as "too bloody hot for
> >> comfort": in air temperatures of over forty degrees modern, a SHar with
> >> four AMRAAMs couldn't hover at more than 'flameout in seconds' fuel
> >> states. (Hence, in part, its premature retirement)
> >>
> > Thanks, Paul. I was engaged in a bit of ritual, nay liturgical,
> > cistern-chain pulling. I do doubt we'll ever see a harrier or any other
> > birds for that matter, RAF or USAF, actually "actively employed" with 4
> > AIM-120s aboard.
>
> You'd lose that bet in a hurry. F-15's routinely carry AIM-120's and can
> realistically haul even more. Even the F-16 on a pure air-to-air tasking can
> carry four. A photo of the latter, with one AIM-120 having just been
> launched, can be found at:
>
> http://www.army-technology.com/projects/surface-launched/images/Slamraam_6.jpg
>
> A close up showing the wingtip and outer pylons of a Falcon loaded with
> AIM-120's, with the armorer doing his thing:
>
> http://home.pages.at/godi/bewaffnung/aim120amraam/aim120f16.jpg

In the aftermath of 9/11, US-based F-16s were patrolling with 4 x AIM-120 and 2 x
AIM-9s (plus 3 tanks).

> A mixed loadout really makes more sense, and needing to
> > pull the gun pack to add 2 to the Harrier sort of narrows the a/c's
> > potential employment roles.
>
> But "other birds", such as the F-15, can carry four of them *plus* a couple
> of AIM-9's and *still* have their gun to fall back on.

4/4, 6/2, or 8/0. The F-15E and export siblings, at least, can carry AIM-120s on
the pylon shoulder stations. I don't know if the As through Ds are so wired. I
remember an article a few years ago saying that there was a bit of a conflict
between armorers and F-15E pilots, at least at the base mentioned in the article.
They typically were carrying 2/2 on the pylon shoulders. IIRR the pilots wanted
the AIM-9s on the outsides, to improve seeker FOV for lock-on, while the armorers
wanted the AIM-120s there because there was limited space for loading/unloading
them on the inside of the pylons. I've seen photos of them both ways, as well as
operational a/c carrying four of one or the other.

Guy

>
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > TMO
> >

Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
>> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote ...
>>
>>> Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads
>>> seem
>>> to be rare as hen teeth.

[snip]

> Which isn't to say there are surplus AIM-120s piled up in corners, just
> that for once Tom's overstating it :)

Hey, I didn't say the missile's don't exist, just that pictures of them
are hard to find.

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

Typhoon502 wrote:
> Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, pictures of real Sea Harriers with live missile loads
>>seem to be rare as hen teeth.
>>
>
> There was an issue of World Air Power Journal (RIP) that I once owned
> that most definitely had a short feature on SHARs carrying AIM-120s,
> and I seem to recall the four-shot loadout in some of the pics. But
> that was a long time ago and I sold off my collection of WAPJs a few
> years back, so I can't give you a specific issue.

I might well have that one in a box somewhere. I'll look. In the
meantime, there are a couple of Sea Harrier/AMRAAM images here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7605/seaharrier.html

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:23:47 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>4/4, 6/2, or 8/0. The F-15E and export siblings, at least, can carry AIM-120s on
>the pylon shoulder stations. I don't know if the As through Ds are so wired. I
>remember an article a few years ago saying that there was a bit of a conflict
>between armorers and F-15E pilots, at least at the base mentioned in the article.
>They typically were carrying 2/2 on the pylon shoulders. IIRR the pilots wanted
>the AIM-9s on the outsides, to improve seeker FOV for lock-on, while the armorers
>wanted the AIM-120s there because there was limited space for loading/unloading
>them on the inside of the pylons. I've seen photos of them both ways, as well as
>operational a/c carrying four of one or the other.
>
>Guy

All of the remaining USAF F-15A-D aicraft have MSIP, which allows
AMRAAM on 2A, 2B, 8A, 8B. I think all of the LAU-114 launchers (AIM-9
only) are gone and only LAU-128 launchers remain.

If you look here:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123019067
you will see 3xAIM-120 and 1xAIM-9.
(Plus 2xGBU-12, 2xGBU-38, 2x600 gal fuel tank, LANTIRN Nav pod &
Sniper targeting pod. And the VHF/UHF antenna for radio 1.
Interesting load out.)

--Rolf

> There was an issue of World Air Power Journal (RIP) that I once owned
> that most definitely had a short feature on SHARs carrying AIM-120s,
> and I seem to recall the four-shot loadout in some of the pics. But
> that was a long time ago and I sold off my collection of WAPJs a few
> years back, so I can't give you a specific issue.

Might have been the same source, but I've seen SHARs with 4 -120s on more
than one occassion. Dwarfed the fighter and really put its size in
perspective!

> But let's assume that somehow the UK gets into an "us and nobody else"
> conflict. Offhand, I can only imagine the Falklands or maybe Gibraltar,
> neither
> of which is very likely. Gib could benefit from land-based air, so let's
> assume

I agree 100% with your general sentiment. The F-22 is bloody brilliant.
Period. But when is the last time that A-A was a serious threat? 1980
Israel-Lebanon/Syria? That's 26 years ago! Now there are very few
countries that can afford the top cover (radar) and training that go along
with NATOs forces. And it's very rare for NATO countries to go alone (even
the US operates with allies most of the time). So what's the urgent need
for fleet fighter air defense for the RN? Sure, it'd be nice to have. But
it would be nice to have naval versions of the F-22, with pilots who fly 5
hours a day, as many days as they can. But you have to balance cost vs.
reward, and I think the low-tech, low-end threat is a much more serious
problem to the RN than worrying about aerial attack (with all due respect to
Murphy and his laws). At least, that's my two cents.

Guy Alcala wrote:
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
> > "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> > >
> > > :Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...
> > >
> > > So you've got a DECADE of gap in Naval air?
> > >
> > > Ouch!
> > >
> >
> > All courtesy of that nice Mr Blair (and his side-kick /subordinate Brown)!
> >
> > The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
> > inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
> > cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?
> >
> > Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
> > into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
> > Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?
> >
> > I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
> > combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with its
> > immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
> > aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!
>
> I think FAD isn't quite so bleak as you believe (always assuming, of course,
> that the CVFs actually get built, which goes firmly in my "I'll believe it when
> I see it" file). There are very few potential conflicts where the UK would have
> to go it alone, and none (I can think of) where the lack of the FA.2 is likely
> to be a major handicap. The need now is primarily for precision A/G capability,
> and the FA.2 was just too limited in bring-back weight in hot weather as well as
> number of pylons to play in that game.
>
> But let's assume that somehow the UK gets into an "us and nobody else"
> conflict. Offhand, I can only imagine the Falklands or maybe Gibraltar, neither
> of which is very likely. Gib could benefit from land-based air, so let's assume
> Malvinas Round 2. The FA.2's hot weather limitations wouldn't be a big deal
> there, and the radar and AIM-120 would be nice to haves. But they're not
> essential, because Argentina's FAA and CANA are even more outclassed now than
> they were in 1982. Out of all the kills scored in 1982, only three involved the
> SHAR's own radar getting contact; the rest were visual interceptions. The Brits
> now have AEW cover, their biggest tactical lack in 1982. The GR.9s can stay on
> station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW cover allows them to orbit at
> altitude instead of down low, increasing their endurance even more.
> Additionally, even though certification of the GR.9 for ASRAAM was stopped a few
> years back, that decision would be reversed in a hurry if the prospect of a
> shooting war developed, and you can bet that qualification would take a matter
> of weeks instead of years. British strike range is far greater and the weapons
> are now PGMs.
>
> I could list several other developments that improve the RN's odds against
> Argentina vis a vis 24 years ago, but the biggest one is the fact that Argentine
> governments haven't been willing/able to spend much money on the FAA and CANA to
> noticeably upgrade or in many cases, even maintain their past capability.
> Argentina's newest tactical a/c were built in 1983 or so; most are considerably
> older, as are their weapons. They don't even have the nominal head-on
> capability they had in 1982, as the R.530s were retired years ago, and AFAIK
> they haven't bought a modern replacement.
>
> Guy

The A-4AR Fightinghawk refurbished from the ex-USMC A-4M in the 1990's
carries AIM-9L. It also has radar, ARG-1, a downsized APG-66.

http://www.hangardigital.com.ar/bajolapieldel_a4.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/2268/a4ar.htm
http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSaorbats/G5C04/index.htm

However when Lieutenant Steve Thomas tried to fire an AIM-9L head-on
against one of the two approaching Mirage IIIEAs on the 1st of May
1982, he couldn't get a lock. He closed into the rear of the Mirage
piloted by Captain Garcia Cuerva and damaged it with an AIM-9L.

On the same day an Israeli-made Shafrir 2 fired head-on by a Dagger
forced a Sea Harrier to dive from 15,000 to 5,000 feet to evade it.

Guy Alcala > wrote:

:> But "other birds", such as the F-15, can carry four of them *plus* a couple
:> of AIM-9's and *still* have their gun to fall back on.
:
:4/4, 6/2, or 8/0. The F-15E and export siblings, at least, can carry AIM-120s on
:the pylon shoulder stations. I don't know if the As through Ds are so wired. I
:remember an article a few years ago saying that there was a bit of a conflict
:between armorers and F-15E pilots, at least at the base mentioned in the article.
:They typically were carrying 2/2 on the pylon shoulders. IIRR the pilots wanted
:the AIM-9s on the outsides, to improve seeker FOV for lock-on, while the armorers
:wanted the AIM-120s there because there was limited space for loading/unloading
:them on the inside of the pylons. I've seen photos of them both ways, as well as
:operational a/c carrying four of one or the other.

Essentially what the Super Hornet can do - 8 AAMs in pretty much any
combination, plus the gun. That can probably go up to 10 AAMs in any
combination if they ever routinely start fitting the outermost under
wing stations and clear them for AIM-120. That leaves a belly station
for a tank, if you need it.

Ordinary Hornets carry up to 4 and 2, plus a belly tank, I think.

--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer

KDR wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> >
> > > "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > :Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...
> > > >
> > > > So you've got a DECADE of gap in Naval air?
> > > >
> > > > Ouch!
> > > >
> > >
> > > All courtesy of that nice Mr Blair (and his side-kick /subordinate Brown)!
> > >
> > > The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
> > > inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
> > > cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
> > > into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
> > > Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?
> > >
> > > I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
> > > combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with its
> > > immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
> > > aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!
> >
> > I think FAD isn't quite so bleak as you believe (always assuming, of course,
> > that the CVFs actually get built, which goes firmly in my "I'll believe it when
> > I see it" file). There are very few potential conflicts where the UK would have
> > to go it alone, and none (I can think of) where the lack of the FA.2 is likely
> > to be a major handicap. The need now is primarily for precision A/G capability,
> > and the FA.2 was just too limited in bring-back weight in hot weather as well as
> > number of pylons to play in that game.
> >
> > But let's assume that somehow the UK gets into an "us and nobody else"
> > conflict. Offhand, I can only imagine the Falklands or maybe Gibraltar, neither
> > of which is very likely. Gib could benefit from land-based air, so let's assume
> > Malvinas Round 2. The FA.2's hot weather limitations wouldn't be a big deal
> > there, and the radar and AIM-120 would be nice to haves. But they're not
> > essential, because Argentina's FAA and CANA are even more outclassed now than
> > they were in 1982. Out of all the kills scored in 1982, only three involved the
> > SHAR's own radar getting contact; the rest were visual interceptions. The Brits
> > now have AEW cover, their biggest tactical lack in 1982. The GR.9s can stay on
> > station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW cover allows them to orbit at
> > altitude instead of down low, increasing their endurance even more.
> > Additionally, even though certification of the GR.9 for ASRAAM was stopped a few
> > years back, that decision would be reversed in a hurry if the prospect of a
> > shooting war developed, and you can bet that qualification would take a matter
> > of weeks instead of years. British strike range is far greater and the weapons
> > are now PGMs.
>
> Since the Harrier GR9 does not have radar or a Link 16 terminal, I
> believe the AEW helo would have to direct the Harrier by voice
> communication. The Harrier pilot in turn would have to acquire the
> bogey with his Mk1 eyeball.

Yes, exactly how it was done in all but three kills in 1982.

> Wouldn't it improve the Harrier pilot's air-to-air situational
> awareness to fit a Link 16 terminal into the Harrier GR9 even if it
> still lacks radar?

Certainly, but again that's a nice to have.

> Or does it already have one?

No idea.

<snip>

Guy

KDR wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > Brian Sharrock wrote:
> >
> > > "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > :Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...
> > > >
> > > > So you've got a DECADE of gap in Naval air?
> > > >
> > > > Ouch!
> > > >
> > >
> > > All courtesy of that nice Mr Blair (and his side-kick /subordinate Brown)!
> > >
> > > The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
> > > inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
> > > cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
> > > into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
> > > Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?
> > >
> > > I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
> > > combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with its
> > > immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
> > > aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!
> >
> > I think FAD isn't quite so bleak as you believe (always assuming, of course,
> > that the CVFs actually get built, which goes firmly in my "I'll believe it when
> > I see it" file). There are very few potential conflicts where the UK would have
> > to go it alone, and none (I can think of) where the lack of the FA.2 is likely
> > to be a major handicap. The need now is primarily for precision A/G capability,
> > and the FA.2 was just too limited in bring-back weight in hot weather as well as
> > number of pylons to play in that game.
> >
> > But let's assume that somehow the UK gets into an "us and nobody else"
> > conflict. Offhand, I can only imagine the Falklands or maybe Gibraltar, neither
> > of which is very likely. Gib could benefit from land-based air, so let's assume
> > Malvinas Round 2. The FA.2's hot weather limitations wouldn't be a big deal
> > there, and the radar and AIM-120 would be nice to haves. But they're not
> > essential, because Argentina's FAA and CANA are even more outclassed now than
> > they were in 1982. Out of all the kills scored in 1982, only three involved the
> > SHAR's own radar getting contact; the rest were visual interceptions. The Brits
> > now have AEW cover, their biggest tactical lack in 1982. The GR.9s can stay on
> > station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW cover allows them to orbit at
> > altitude instead of down low, increasing their endurance even more.
> > Additionally, even though certification of the GR.9 for ASRAAM was stopped a few
> > years back, that decision would be reversed in a hurry if the prospect of a
> > shooting war developed, and you can bet that qualification would take a matter
> > of weeks instead of years. British strike range is far greater and the weapons
> > are now PGMs.
> >
> > I could list several other developments that improve the RN's odds against
> > Argentina vis a vis 24 years ago, but the biggest one is the fact that Argentine
> > governments haven't been willing/able to spend much money on the FAA and CANA to
> > noticeably upgrade or in many cases, even maintain their past capability.
> > Argentina's newest tactical a/c were built in 1983 or so; most are considerably
> > older, as are their weapons. They don't even have the nominal head-on
> > capability they had in 1982, as the R.530s were retired years ago, and AFAIK
> > they haven't bought a modern replacement.
> >
> > Guy
>
> The A-4AR Fightinghawk refurbished from the ex-USMC A-4M in the 1990's
> carries AIM-9L. It also has radar, ARG-1, a downsized APG-66.
>
> http://www.hangardigital.com.ar/bajolapieldel_a4.html
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/2268/a4ar.htm
> http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSaorbats/G5C04/index.htm

Thanks, I couldn't remember if they'd been allowed to upgrade the A-4AR's avionics;
APG-66 would make a big difference compared to Cyrano IIbis, and the AIM-9L helps
too. But even APG-66/AIM-9L against ASRAAM and AEW is a very tough job, even before
you add in British Sea Dart/Sea Wolf and follow-ons (whenever the Type 45s finally put
in an appearance).

> However when Lieutenant Steve Thomas tried to fire an AIM-9L head-on
> against one of the two approaching Mirage IIIEAs on the 1st of May
> 1982, he couldn't get a lock. He closed into the rear of the Mirage
> piloted by Captain Garcia Cuerva and damaged it with an AIM-9L.

Yes, it's been postulated that the Mirages were taking the normal FQ counter tactic
against an all-aspect IRM and had gone idle prior to the merge. IIRR there was at
least one other AIM-9L head-on lock attempt during the war, that also failed. It may
well have been a missile failure in that case; the same missile later launched itself.

> On the same day an Israeli-made Shafrir 2 fired head-on by a Dagger
> forced a Sea Harrier to dive from 15,000 to 5,000 feet to evade it.

Yeah, this one has always been a bit weird. From the pilot's (Martin Hale) account it
does seem to have tracked, although the pilot probably wasn't taking the time to
calmly judge the situation. RN pilots also reported several other head-on missile
shots taken on them that were almost certainly tank jettisons. It's also instructive
to read some of the Argentine Dagger pilots' opinion of the Shafrir 2; I do recall one
describing it as a piece of outdated crap, but we have to allow for a certain bit of
defensiveness there; the Israelis certainly found the Shafrir 2 quite serviceable from
1970 on, although clearly not in AIM-9L territory. One Israeli ace reports Shafrir 2
kill rates in his squadron that are virtually identical to USN AIM-9Gs in Vietnam:
23/46 (various US sources give 23/46 to 23/50 for the AIM-9G). The simple fact is
that no Argentine pilot ever got in position to take a high-probability shot with
Shafrir 2 or Magic.

Guy

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> :> But "other birds", such as the F-15, can carry four of them *plus* a couple
> :> of AIM-9's and *still* have their gun to fall back on.
> :
> :4/4, 6/2, or 8/0. The F-15E and export siblings, at least, can carry AIM-120s on
> :the pylon shoulder stations. I don't know if the As through Ds are so wired. I
> :remember an article a few years ago saying that there was a bit of a conflict
> :between armorers and F-15E pilots, at least at the base mentioned in the article.
> :They typically were carrying 2/2 on the pylon shoulders. IIRR the pilots wanted
> :the AIM-9s on the outsides, to improve seeker FOV for lock-on, while the armorers
> :wanted the AIM-120s there because there was limited space for loading/unloading
> :them on the inside of the pylons. I've seen photos of them both ways, as well as
> :operational a/c carrying four of one or the other.
>
> Essentially what the Super Hornet can do - 8 AAMs in pretty much any
> combination, plus the gun. That can probably go up to 10 AAMs in any
> combination if they ever routinely start fitting the outermost under
> wing stations and clear them for AIM-120. That leaves a belly station
> for a tank, if you need it.

14 AAMs max. if all pylons are fitted. Dual launchers on inboard and intermediate
pylons, singles on the O/Bs and tips (AIM-9 only in the latter case, IIRR), and single
AIM-120s in each fuselage well. Not a very realistic load, to be sure, but I know
the USN has flown F-18Cs with 12, and they've probably loaded the F-18E/F up to the
max. for giggles.

> Ordinary Hornets carry up to 4 and 2, plus a belly tank, I think.

Depends. Even during Desert Shield, USMC Hornets flying BARCAP were carrying 3 x
AIM-7s and 4 x AIM-9s plus two tanks.

Guy

> If you look here:
> http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123019067
> you will see 3xAIM-120 and 1xAIM-9.
> (Plus 2xGBU-12, 2xGBU-38, 2x600 gal fuel tank, LANTIRN Nav pod &
> Sniper targeting pod. And the VHF/UHF antenna for radio 1.
> Interesting load out.)

That it is.
I wouldn't have expected the asymetric AA load out; do you think there
might have been a couple items on those other stations when he left the
field?

In sci.military.naval Guy Alcala twisted the electrons to say:
> The GR.9s can stay on station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW
> cover allows them to orbit at altitude instead of down low, increasing
> their endurance even more.

I think I've become slightly confused wrt the Harriers versions. Is the
following correct?

GR7 + systems upgrade = GR9
GR7 + engine upgrade = GR7A
GR7 + both upgrades = GR9A

In which case, does this mean there will still be "ordinary" GR7s around
the place, at the end of this? (ie: Are we effectly back to "fleet of
fleets" again?)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Alistair Gunn wrote:

> In sci.military.naval Guy Alcala twisted the electrons to say:
> > The GR.9s can stay on station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW
> > cover allows them to orbit at altitude instead of down low, increasing
> > their endurance even more.
>
> I think I've become slightly confused wrt the Harriers versions. Is the
> following correct?
>
> GR7 + systems upgrade = GR9
> GR7 + engine upgrade = GR7A
> GR7 + both upgrades = GR9A

Yes.

> In which case, does this mean there will still be "ordinary" GR7s around
> the place, at the end of this? (ie: Are we effectly back to "fleet of
> fleets" again?)

Not as I understand things. Try here (although the explanation seems about
as clear to me as John Cleese's master explaining which hook to hang your
coat on in "The Meaning of Life"):

http://www.harrier.org.uk/technical/Harrier_GR9.htm

I don't know if that's the most current thinking.

Guy

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message et>,
> Thomas Schoene > writes
>
>> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Which isn't to say there are surplus AIM-120s piled up in corners,
>>> just that for once Tom's overstating it :)
>>
>>
>> Hey, I didn't say the missile's don't exist, just that pictures of
>> them are hard to find.
>
>
> It's okay, Tom, I was taking a rare opportunity to pick on TMO.
>

Oops. Never realized TMO was a "Tom" too.

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"