Illustrious heads to sea - with an airgroup
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern Elmo,
You're right I'm not a radar expert, but I believe the high regard the Blue Vixen is / was held in is common knowledge.
APG 65 'Cut down' as it has a smaller dish to fit the airframe, which obviously won't improve it, and even the full size job did not match Blue Vixen as far as I was told.
Love the quip about "taking tail numbers !" I was a technical photographer on the development team of Sea Harrier FRS1 & FRS-later FA2, plus the GR5/7 and various Hawks.
The only reason I'd take tail numbers is if it was a bad day and I wanted to make sure I was on the right aircraft !
As for the Harrier 2 with 6 AMRAAM's, it was a trial fit in a hangar, partly for sales demo' purposes, and didn't fly then though such a configuration may well have since.
I suspect that 'bring-back' to a carrier may have been an issue.
You're right I'm not a radar expert, but I believe the high regard the Blue Vixen is / was held in is common knowledge.
APG 65 'Cut down' as it has a smaller dish to fit the airframe, which obviously won't improve it, and even the full size job did not match Blue Vixen as far as I was told.
Love the quip about "taking tail numbers !" I was a technical photographer on the development team of Sea Harrier FRS1 & FRS-later FA2, plus the GR5/7 and various Hawks.
The only reason I'd take tail numbers is if it was a bad day and I wanted to make sure I was on the right aircraft !
As for the Harrier 2 with 6 AMRAAM's, it was a trial fit in a hangar, partly for sales demo' purposes, and didn't fly then though such a configuration may well have since.
I suspect that 'bring-back' to a carrier may have been an issue.
Blue Vixen Vs AN/APG65
Given Blue Vixen is a product of the 80s (early 80s at that) surely direct comparison with AN/APG65 is futile? The point is, as it was regarded as cutting edge right up to its out of service date, Blue Vixen was way ahead of its time; but that time is now gone (although, of course, key elements of the design remain in Typhoon – which itself is only late 80s).
Remember, it a common feature of MoD aircraft procurement that the specified avionics are developed, built and sit on the shelf for years awaiting the air vehicle. That is why Merlin, for example, was in need of a mid-life upgrade before the ISD, the avionics having been mostly available in the mid-80s, and in some cases late 70s!!
Remember, it a common feature of MoD aircraft procurement that the specified avionics are developed, built and sit on the shelf for years awaiting the air vehicle. That is why Merlin, for example, was in need of a mid-life upgrade before the ISD, the avionics having been mostly available in the mid-80s, and in some cases late 70s!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An aircraft that is subsonic, has limited range and can only carry 4 missiles is never going to be a great fighter. Add a massively over-hyped radar, no/limited L16 and an abysmal turn performance and really the SHar was very average. Personally I would use that sort of airframe for something like CAS!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the absence of anything left to play Air Defence with, the concept has been left to quietly wither on the vine; AAWOs (Anti Air Warfare Officers) have dropped the first A (on account of the lack of any form of stick to wield); Fighter Controllers have largely been relegated to the equivalent of Flight Ops personnel (who may get thrown the occasional 2v2 (close control) bone every once in a while to keep the logbook looking pretty. The GR7s don't particularly like coming to play at sea anyway due to the hugely restricted sortie times required by the fixed deck cycles and the necessity to hold a load of gas for marshalling / diversion.
As people with any operational experience of "proper" air defence slowly but surely leave / get promoted out of harms way, the levels of core experience will continue to decline. It will be fascinaing to view (from afar) the reinvention of the wheel that takes place when the next generation of Air Defence assets eventually emerge.
As people with any operational experience of "proper" air defence slowly but surely leave / get promoted out of harms way, the levels of core experience will continue to decline. It will be fascinaing to view (from afar) the reinvention of the wheel that takes place when the next generation of Air Defence assets eventually emerge.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greenfreddie,
As I have heard it, the main reasons the GR7s 'don't like coming to play at sea' is that they just don't like 'coming to sea' full stop. Add in their Afghan tasking, plus clear pressure from the top of the RAF not to support maritime air, and they have plenty of excuses (some good) for not 'coming to play'.
Deck cycles aren't fixed - they are built around the flying requirements, or were on the three carriers I served in. GR7s could get as much flying as they liked, if they came out to play.
The most depressing part of the previous post was that they are 'holding gas for marshalling/diversion'. That indicates firstly, the GR7s aren't flying 'blue water' (i.e. non-diversion) and secondly that essential skills in planning and executing fuel efficient joins and landing patterns are being lost. To be maintained, these skills require both aircrew and ship teams to practice building and executing flying programmes. It's not something you can get from the books.
Backwards PLT - Blue Vixen was not over-hyped. If anything it was under sold. As for L16, SHAR FA2 with JTIDS was one day away from flying at Dunsfold when the order came to 'stop work'. Guys I know and respect who built it tell me that it was more a more advanced fit than Typhoon and possibly better than JSF's.
I'm not blind to the SHAR's many deficiencies - but the FA2 was the first UK fighter ever to enter service with a fully working radar, and it's radar/missile integration was, to use a hackneyed phrase, 'world class'. Let's give a little credit where credit might be due.
As I have heard it, the main reasons the GR7s 'don't like coming to play at sea' is that they just don't like 'coming to sea' full stop. Add in their Afghan tasking, plus clear pressure from the top of the RAF not to support maritime air, and they have plenty of excuses (some good) for not 'coming to play'.
Deck cycles aren't fixed - they are built around the flying requirements, or were on the three carriers I served in. GR7s could get as much flying as they liked, if they came out to play.
The most depressing part of the previous post was that they are 'holding gas for marshalling/diversion'. That indicates firstly, the GR7s aren't flying 'blue water' (i.e. non-diversion) and secondly that essential skills in planning and executing fuel efficient joins and landing patterns are being lost. To be maintained, these skills require both aircrew and ship teams to practice building and executing flying programmes. It's not something you can get from the books.
Backwards PLT - Blue Vixen was not over-hyped. If anything it was under sold. As for L16, SHAR FA2 with JTIDS was one day away from flying at Dunsfold when the order came to 'stop work'. Guys I know and respect who built it tell me that it was more a more advanced fit than Typhoon and possibly better than JSF's.
I'm not blind to the SHAR's many deficiencies - but the FA2 was the first UK fighter ever to enter service with a fully working radar, and it's radar/missile integration was, to use a hackneyed phrase, 'world class'. Let's give a little credit where credit might be due.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the main reasons the GR7s 'don't like coming to play at sea' is that they just don't like 'coming to sea' full stop
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversion
I thought running with a diversion was a temporary thing and I thought that this had just recently been fixed with some electronic gadgets. i.e. the GRs don't have a radar to find the ship.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always kill the archer, don't waste your effort killing his arrows unless you have no alternative.............
Unless you are an operational analyst where only an engagement is typically assessed, one bomber splashed is one less to come back tomorrow. That's why.
Unless you are an operational analyst where only an engagement is typically assessed, one bomber splashed is one less to come back tomorrow. That's why.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archer and Arrow
I think the Darings can kill the archer.. even over the horizon. But you wouldn't want to risk it unless the environment was completely clean of Boeings and Airbuses. So for most real life situations you need a CAP / AEW to get out there and spot and plot the bad guys before they get close.
So in the old Falklands scenario ... yes a 45 could take a shot at the first pop up and hopefully get the archer too.
So in the old Falklands scenario ... yes a 45 could take a shot at the first pop up and hopefully get the archer too.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree - I happen to think that a proper AEW solution (MARRS?) is actually the most pressing issue. Fighters are nice to look at and really exciting, but when you have the best surface-to-air cover in UK forces already in T45, better ISTAR might just bring more to the battle than another shooter with limited endurance.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Darings can kill the archer.. even over the horizon.
With the help of an airborne platform to provide OTH target detection and tracking, IFF interrogation, and datalinking of same.
With the help of an airborne platform to provide OTH target detection and tracking, IFF interrogation, and datalinking of same.
What is the range of the main missile system of the Type 45 (I'm sure there are unclassified figures out there)?
If it is in the order of 40-50 miles, which I thought it was, then you won't kill the archer....
If it is in the order of 40-50 miles, which I thought it was, then you won't kill the archer....
OA
The acronym you are looking for is MASC, which is more than just AEW. The fundamentals of maritime air defence haven't changed - the further away you kill the bomber, the better it is for all concerned. I suspect the old FOTIs and ATP/EXTAC have now been rewritten to support the "modern" theories. Regardless, for an attacker, good long range targetting + good stand-off missile range will always cause a defender to expend missiles to no good purpose. Do a silo count on a T45, then read how many raids a "primitive" air force like the FAA managed twenty-five years ago............
The acronym you are looking for is MASC, which is more than just AEW. The fundamentals of maritime air defence haven't changed - the further away you kill the bomber, the better it is for all concerned. I suspect the old FOTIs and ATP/EXTAC have now been rewritten to support the "modern" theories. Regardless, for an attacker, good long range targetting + good stand-off missile range will always cause a defender to expend missiles to no good purpose. Do a silo count on a T45, then read how many raids a "primitive" air force like the FAA managed twenty-five years ago............
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kill the archer
My understanding is that the 45 can send its missile off after it spots the 1st pop up... that is the attacking aircraft coming above the horizon to look for targets. The missile is sent on a computer predicted route, but over the horizon uses its own tracker to locate, track and destroy the aircraft.
Obviously, as it passes over the horizon threshold the missile is on its own, and you don't want it locking on to a Airbus which happened to be passing with a full load of holiday makers - therefore you need AEW and fighter eyes on in anything but the most sterile combat environment.
Obviously, as it passes over the horizon threshold the missile is on its own, and you don't want it locking on to a Airbus which happened to be passing with a full load of holiday makers - therefore you need AEW and fighter eyes on in anything but the most sterile combat environment.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely theres a couple of elephants in the room here? One- any MASC aircraft itself needs protecting from the enemy. Topically, with Konkan going on, wasn't this demonstrated painfully last time the RN played with the Indians? There was a rumour elsewhere that the RN's AEW helos were being repeatedly "shot down" by the Indians and that a couple of Indian SHAR's had to be embarked to prevent further embarrasment and to enable the exercise to continue?
Secondly, an "archer" delivering a wingload of supersonic sea skimmers doesn't need to "pop up" into a T45's radar- it can stay under the horizon, fire off its missiles and depart without the T45 ever knowing it was there- untill the moskits approach at Mach 4.
Can't help thinking that we are deluding ourselves if we think the T45 is the answer to all scenarios.
Secondly, an "archer" delivering a wingload of supersonic sea skimmers doesn't need to "pop up" into a T45's radar- it can stay under the horizon, fire off its missiles and depart without the T45 ever knowing it was there- untill the moskits approach at Mach 4.
Can't help thinking that we are deluding ourselves if we think the T45 is the answer to all scenarios.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't the answer to all, but it is sufficent to meet any threat we are likely to face alone until CVF comes online.
And you shouldn't be counting the number of sorties Argentina launched in relation to the number of silos on the T45, you should be estimating how many sorties they would have launched had the first 48 aircraft sent against the taskforce not come back
And you shouldn't be counting the number of sorties Argentina launched in relation to the number of silos on the T45, you should be estimating how many sorties they would have launched had the first 48 aircraft sent against the taskforce not come back