If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Military Aviation | 29 | October 7th 03 06:30 PM |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Naval Aviation | 20 | September 16th 03 09:01 PM |
Here's to Arafat's Speedy Demise | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 0 | September 12th 03 07:45 AM |
Harrier thrust vectoring in air-to-air combat? | Alexandre Le-Kouby | Military Aviation | 11 | September 3rd 03 01:47 AM |
Osprey vs. Harrier | Stephen D. Poe | Military Aviation | 58 | August 18th 03 03:17 PM |