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

"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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[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