The demise of the Sea Harrier

Prowlus wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

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?

Yes they did. Now re-read the following:

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.

They decided that the GR.9 will not now be equipped or cleared for ASRAAM, just like the GR.1/3 wasn't equipped or cleared
forAIM-9s until the Falklands, when it was re-wired and cleared for them inside of 2 weeks from the word go. It's amazing
how quickly you can accomplish something in wartime, given serious enough need. Do I think they will ever do this? Only if
Argentina is stupid again.

Guy

Woody Beal wrote:

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.

How are you going to put an F-35A/C on an LHD? And how are the other countries
with navies who are planning to buy it (the Brits, Italians, etc.) going to put
an F-35A/C on their STOVL carriers? How are you going to operate F-35A/Cs from
FOLS/FARPS? The weight problems are clearly there now, but then that's par for
the course for just about every a/c; we'll have to see if they can pare it down.
There was a good article in AvLeak recently on what steps were being taken to
prune the weight. I forget all the details, but apparently one area where they
think they're going to be able to save a fair amount of weight is on the
(production vice development) engine, with the usual knock-on effects elsewhere.

Guy

Nice try. Applying your rationale Woody, we should also ___can the Navy
variant. Just think about what kind of performance we could get from the
'C' without the weight penalties for cat and trap...

"Woody Beal" wrote in message
...
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

What is "...more capable?"

"Woody Beal" wrote in message
...
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

Pechs1 wrote:

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.

Pechs, I'd have thought you'd been around long enough to know better.
Please name one ship lost in the Falklands due to aluminum construction.

Can't be done, because there are none. The Type 42s (Sheffield, Coventry)
had steel construction. The Type 21s (Ardent, et al) had aluminum
superstructures but were lost to catastrophic damage -- 500- and 1000-lb
bombs detonating well inside the ship don't care much about construction
materials.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

It is of note that the weather conditions during the Falklands war were such
that it was (on occasions) outside the operating limits of launch/recovery
of fast jets on conventional CV's (re the previous 54,000 ton Ark Royal).
At no time did the Hermes and Invincible stop Sea Harrier ops.

David Nicholls
RN rtd.

"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

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

Yep, but not better than the CV based JSF...

The conventional CVs will not have a pack of STOVL JSFs onboard.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Woody- Better to
scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead- BRBR

Agree or build for export for those countries that can't afford a CV...and the
USMC, of course..

The cost of s CV ain't in the hull, but in the onboard systems. A small deck
CVEN that is capable costs almost the same as a big deck CVN, w/o the aircraft
capability of the CVN...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Icepick- Nice try. Applying your rationale Woody, we should also ___can the
Navy
variant. Just think about what kind of performance we could get from the
'C' without the weight penalties for cat and trap... BRBR

Nice tryx2..the weight and payload penalties for short takeoff/vertical landing
far outweigh those for a cat and trap.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

On 4/24/04 4:39, in article ,
"Guy Alcala" wrote:

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



Precisely. Sorry for the ill-defined comm-brevity, JR.

--Woody