The demise of the Sea Harrier

Tiger wrote:

Henry J Cobb wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...28/ixhome.html
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "With the demise of the
Sea Harrier, the Royal Navy will be left with a capability gap. But we
believe that that is an acceptable risk."

-HJC

So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.

Guy

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..


Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.


Problem is that these seem unlikely to stop, say, a couple of
Super Etendards loaded with Exocet missiles, approaching
too low to be detected by the radar of the destroyers...

After the Flakland war, Sea Harriers were modified to carry
AMRAAM to give the fleet a BVR defence capability against
such attacks. Apparently it is losing that now.

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/



I take your point Emmanuel - but 'modified' is a bit of an
understatement for the major redesign that resulted in the SHAR FA.2.

BTW, there is a good article in the latest issue if Air Forces Monthly
on the decommissioning of 800 Naval Air Sqn and its Sea Harier FA.2's.

They painted ZD613/127 with a striking red 'arrowhead' design on the
upper wing surface to mark the occasion.

Ken Duffey

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.

Problem is that these seem unlikely to stop, say, a couple of
Super Etendards loaded with Exocet missiles, approaching
too low to be detected by the radar of the destroyers...

Which is why, post Falklands, they bought Sea King AEW.2s (and now AEW.7s).
A Harrier GR.9 has equal low altitude capability as the SHAR FRS.1 -- the
latter's radar was unusable when looking down over land or rough sea and/or
at low level, the GR.9 lacks one. OTOH, if such a go-it-alone war such as
the Falklands were to happen, you can bet that the ASRAAM would be cleared
for GR.9 use in very little time.

Of course, the RN is taking the calculated risk that they will be always
fighting as part of a coalition which will provide any CAP required, as has
been the case in the last several conflicts, until the JSF enters service.
As a practical matter, with the exception of Falklands - the Sequel, I can't
imagine them needing to fight a war on their own -- there just aren't that
many scattered British territories where only the Brits are directly
concerned, and where they could go it alone with a reasonable chance.

After the Flakland war, Sea Harriers were modified to carry
AMRAAM to give the fleet a BVR defence capability against
such attacks. Apparently it is losing that now.

Yes, but the critical lack then was AEW capability, not the lack of BVR
missiles. BVR is nice but not essential for that conflict, given the
limited Argentine capability.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:



Which is why, post Falklands, they bought Sea King AEW.2s (and now AEW.7s).
A Harrier GR.9 has equal low altitude capability as the SHAR FRS.1 -- the
latter's radar was unusable when looking down over land or rough sea and/or
at low level, the GR.9 lacks one. OTOH, if such a go-it-alone war such as
the Falklands were to happen, you can bet that the ASRAAM would be cleared
for GR.9 use in very little time.


Didn't they axe that idea of ASRAAMS on the GR.9 instead giving the
missles to the long suffering F.3 Tornados instead so that they could
use them as a way of "self defence" just incase they find themselves
caught up with real fighters whille performing their SEAD mission?

Guy- So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
BRBR

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.


"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Guy- So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
BRBR

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at
sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got
beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do
the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Frijoles wrote:
Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.

Aren't the Super Hornets supposed to be the tankers for the JSFs? ;-)

-HJC

On 4/23/04 13:04, in article
et, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.



Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
models which can carry more payload and will be more capable. Better to
scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead--especially now that the
airframe is 2500-3000 lbs overweight.

--Woody

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Guy- So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
BRBR

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at
sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got
beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do
the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

"Woody Beal" wrote...

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --

Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
models which can carry more payload and will be more capable.

I'm confused...

How can the JSF have better legs than the Hornet E/F but less range than the
Hornet A/C?!? Are we disallowing drop tanks and/or external/non-conformal
stores?

Please "picture" (configure) those 3 apples...

John R Weiss wrote:

"Woody Beal" wrote...

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --

Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
models which can carry more payload and will be more capable.

I'm confused...

How can the JSF have better legs than the Hornet E/F but less range than the
Hornet A/C?!? Are we disallowing drop tanks and/or external/non-conformal
stores?

Please "picture" (configure) those 3 apples...

He means the F-35B has shorter legs than the F-35A/C, not the F-18A/C.

Guy