Sea Jet
Jesus Christ.......are we now suggesting that the Harrier II is a good AA platform in today's world?? Get a grip.
I spoke to a Liverpool fan once who told me that they were a really good football club..............
Of course the II can out turn a Sea Jet, the II has a wing and the Sea Jet doesn't. Doesn't mean it's a good AA fighter. Have you clowns any knowledge of air combat? No? Though not.
But my mate said....................
Sorry, flash over.
And sorry to any Liverpool fans!
I spoke to a Liverpool fan once who told me that they were a really good football club..............
Of course the II can out turn a Sea Jet, the II has a wing and the Sea Jet doesn't. Doesn't mean it's a good AA fighter. Have you clowns any knowledge of air combat? No? Though not.
But my mate said....................
Sorry, flash over.
And sorry to any Liverpool fans!
The EADS press release seems to suggest that the Spanish upgrade is to bring their non-radar AV-8Bs up to a similar overall avionics standard to the AV-8B+ but without the addition of radar
Although various sources talk about bringing commonality between the AV-8Bs and the AV-8B+ , it would seem that this means in terms of having NVG compatible cockpits, mission planning systems, various improved software, Have Quick and the like; there's no mention that a radar will be put into the airframes.
Although various sources talk about bringing commonality between the AV-8Bs and the AV-8B+ , it would seem that this means in terms of having NVG compatible cockpits, mission planning systems, various improved software, Have Quick and the like; there's no mention that a radar will be put into the airframes.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" Are we suggesting the Harrier is a good A-A platform ? "
Yes, if it carries AMRAAMS !
On BOL launcher rails too, for those who understand the significance of that.
Yes, if it carries AMRAAMS !
On BOL launcher rails too, for those who understand the significance of that.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
I and the cine camera pods I ran ( + stills given the chance ) were on the first fit, carriage and release trials of the AMRAAM on FA2 ( or FRS2 as it was then ).
I don't know if you saw my post saying I was on the Sea Harrier 1 & 2, GR5, 7 ( + export Hawk ) TRIALS DEVELOPMENT TEAM - so I have probably had a lot more to do with AMRAAMS and their requirements than most people posting here.
Thus hardly suggesting putting them on a radar-less aircraft...
As I've mentioned before, for a staged P.R. shot - hardly a trial - I once photographed a 2+ configured with SIX AMRAAMS, all on BOL launcher rails ( I trust you know their significance ) .
Seemed pretty impressive to me, though I don't know what the 'bring-back' issues would be for carrier use.
I remember the Navy Test Pilot with us for a time mentioning that with the big engine, a 2+ could keep up with a Bear at altitude, which the Seajet couldn't.
Lower down of course, the Harrier 2 gave away about 100 knots on the Harrier 1 Seajet generation due to the drag of the big wing.
I'm sure you know the FA2 was never the aircraft hoped for - while it did its' job admirably, the original British ( BAe Kingston + Navy, possibly in that order ! ) plan was to fit a large but not bomb-oriented wing, Lithium alloy was the material of choice, with 2 AMRAAMS under the fuselage & 2 on the wings, + tanks.
- on trials it was discovered that the under-fuselage missiles suffered pretty badly from acoustic vibration, and the Navy hardly if ever carried expensive real rounds there, considering it a war option-.
It was also to have a modern 'blown' canopy & wingtip AIM9 / ASRAAM rails & JTIDS from the outset.
I have a photo of the projected cockpit rig, which looked the part.
Then it ( politics & money ) all got amalgamated with the AV-8B as the next generation, and the FA2 was lucky to get the Blue Vixen, some new HUD software and some minor alterations to the wing leading edge.
The only time I've bothered with MSFS was to mix it with a WW2 add-on, giving the opportunity to use an FRS1 against the wartime Luftwaffe - what fun !
Otherwise I don't use it, just sit here in my rocking chair with my memories of real aeroplanes and some great people - as mentioned previously, I chucked BAe when I saw how true professionals with collectively thousands of years of experience were being treated, as the accountants took over.
I and the cine camera pods I ran ( + stills given the chance ) were on the first fit, carriage and release trials of the AMRAAM on FA2 ( or FRS2 as it was then ).
I don't know if you saw my post saying I was on the Sea Harrier 1 & 2, GR5, 7 ( + export Hawk ) TRIALS DEVELOPMENT TEAM - so I have probably had a lot more to do with AMRAAMS and their requirements than most people posting here.
Thus hardly suggesting putting them on a radar-less aircraft...
As I've mentioned before, for a staged P.R. shot - hardly a trial - I once photographed a 2+ configured with SIX AMRAAMS, all on BOL launcher rails ( I trust you know their significance ) .
Seemed pretty impressive to me, though I don't know what the 'bring-back' issues would be for carrier use.
I remember the Navy Test Pilot with us for a time mentioning that with the big engine, a 2+ could keep up with a Bear at altitude, which the Seajet couldn't.
Lower down of course, the Harrier 2 gave away about 100 knots on the Harrier 1 Seajet generation due to the drag of the big wing.
I'm sure you know the FA2 was never the aircraft hoped for - while it did its' job admirably, the original British ( BAe Kingston + Navy, possibly in that order ! ) plan was to fit a large but not bomb-oriented wing, Lithium alloy was the material of choice, with 2 AMRAAMS under the fuselage & 2 on the wings, + tanks.
- on trials it was discovered that the under-fuselage missiles suffered pretty badly from acoustic vibration, and the Navy hardly if ever carried expensive real rounds there, considering it a war option-.
It was also to have a modern 'blown' canopy & wingtip AIM9 / ASRAAM rails & JTIDS from the outset.
I have a photo of the projected cockpit rig, which looked the part.
Then it ( politics & money ) all got amalgamated with the AV-8B as the next generation, and the FA2 was lucky to get the Blue Vixen, some new HUD software and some minor alterations to the wing leading edge.
The only time I've bothered with MSFS was to mix it with a WW2 add-on, giving the opportunity to use an FRS1 against the wartime Luftwaffe - what fun !
Otherwise I don't use it, just sit here in my rocking chair with my memories of real aeroplanes and some great people - as mentioned previously, I chucked BAe when I saw how true professionals with collectively thousands of years of experience were being treated, as the accountants took over.
Last edited by Double Zero; 25th Jul 2008 at 07:14.
00
I think you've finally hit the nail on the head -- POLITICS and MONEY! Of course we want an AD Harrier, but even the II+ isn't that good with AMRAAM and it introduces a lot of limitations. It is, and will always be a stop-gap until the FAA gets an AD carrier jet.
If we had the money to spare then yes, buying some II+s is a possible option. But we'd need lots of money. The project would be late, and probably massively over budget. In the meantime, we don't have enough war-fighting kit for the role of the GR9.
I think you've finally hit the nail on the head -- POLITICS and MONEY! Of course we want an AD Harrier, but even the II+ isn't that good with AMRAAM and it introduces a lot of limitations. It is, and will always be a stop-gap until the FAA gets an AD carrier jet.
If we had the money to spare then yes, buying some II+s is a possible option. But we'd need lots of money. The project would be late, and probably massively over budget. In the meantime, we don't have enough war-fighting kit for the role of the GR9.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood - I thought you were advocating AMRAAM on a mud-Harrier bomber, rather than on the old SeaJet fighter.
Radar Harrier + AMRAAM? Definitely worthwhile!!
Radar Harrier + AMRAAM? Definitely worthwhile!!
I'm feeling a little dizzy as we seem to be going around and around....
I was considering bumping the Sea Jet thread following the new Argentine threats to the Falklands, reported here in the Telegraph.
The Argentine Government can huff and puff all it likes, but it is in no position to mount a major seaborne operation to capture the Falklands. The forces maintained there day to day should be able to deal with any attack that comes from out of the blue. The Argentine Navy is not in a particularly good state, and has no real amphibious capability. Regenerating that capability would take time, a lot of time, longer than it would take to generate the few Sea Harriers at the RNSFDO Dummy Deck, reconvert some pilots (lucky that a pair of Harrier T8 trainers were also retained), and mount a response. Therefore the Sea Harrier is still a deterrent.
The suggestion of integrating a radar (Blue Vixen? APG 65?) into the Harrier GR9 is a bit of a non starter. It is possible, but it isn't just a case of altering the aerodynamics and recalculating the centre of gravity. There are other technical issues, such as power, EMC and thermal management. Dealing with these would obviously cost money at a time when the defence budget is under severe pressure, and the beancounters are not likely say yes. Additionally it would mean taking aircraft out of service for a while - which might result in having no Harriers at sea for (say) 12 - 18 months.
However, integrating Link 16 into the GR9 (as was predicted by Magic Mushroom on this thread) would enhance the air defence capability of the GR9 and also its ground attack capability. Likewise, integrating ASRAAM would be feasible.
hulahoop
Back in January 2006 I wrote to my MP, very much a last ditch attempt, suggesting that in light of all the things that happened since 2002 (CVF delayed, T45 delayed and cut, frigate/destroyers numbers cut) the Government should consider keeping some Sea Harriers in storage. The letter is on this thread.
However, when 801 does disband, instead of either scrapping the aircraft or selling them to museums or people who want to put them in car parks, why not put some aircraft into storage, complete with engines and avionics, so that they can be brought out of mothballs if needed. Keeping them in storage would create uncertainty for potential aggressors, and therefore have a deterrent effect. The pilots would be flying Harrier GR9s and exchanges with the RAF and with the US Navy and Marine Corps would help keep air-air skills alive.
That's pretty much what has happened with the dummy deck aircraft, although regrettably there are no RN Typhoon pilots. I am also encouraged by the reference to "War Reserve" Jaguars in this thread. Therefore I conclude that Shar still deters.
cokecan
Errr, maybe you've missed the point that Sea Harrier was a naval aircraft? I don't see what point you're trying to make. I don't believe that BAE Systems have been asked to assess integrating a radar onto GR9.
Double Zero
On this thread (or it might have been another) Nozzles made reference to the Navy's plan post 1982 to turn the Sea Harrier into a "mini Tomcat".
Changing topic, some of you may have noticed that recently the Sea Jet thread, and other inactive threads, has for the last few months been receiving less additional views than before. I have concluded that people tend not to follow links from other PPRuNe threads, and therefore most of the additional views came from visitors from search engines and people following links on other forums. I discussed the issue here, and it seems that people can follow links to PPRuNe threads but only if the IP address assigned to them by their ISP has not been used to log in. These (temporary) restrictions are due to misusers. The archived versions have no restrictions, and links to them always work.
You do sometimes see guests on PPRuNe, and I've noticed a correlation between links to the Sea Jet thread being placed on other forums and the number of views increasing. On Sunday evening I bumped a thread on ARRSE discussing the latest Argentine threats (and with a link to the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread of the first page) to the top of the Current Affairs forum. There were seven extra views on Monday. The Future Carrier thread was on page two all this time, there where no other threads containing links to the Sea Jet thread on page one. Ergo these views were from people following links.
QED, or perhaps OCD?
Whilst it is good (is it?) to see these issues being discussed again I personally don't wish to go over old ground (at least not more than I have already). At last real progress is being made with the new Carriers and with F35B (and the other versions), which will finally close this capability gap.
I was considering bumping the Sea Jet thread following the new Argentine threats to the Falklands, reported here in the Telegraph.
The Argentine Government can huff and puff all it likes, but it is in no position to mount a major seaborne operation to capture the Falklands. The forces maintained there day to day should be able to deal with any attack that comes from out of the blue. The Argentine Navy is not in a particularly good state, and has no real amphibious capability. Regenerating that capability would take time, a lot of time, longer than it would take to generate the few Sea Harriers at the RNSFDO Dummy Deck, reconvert some pilots (lucky that a pair of Harrier T8 trainers were also retained), and mount a response. Therefore the Sea Harrier is still a deterrent.
The suggestion of integrating a radar (Blue Vixen? APG 65?) into the Harrier GR9 is a bit of a non starter. It is possible, but it isn't just a case of altering the aerodynamics and recalculating the centre of gravity. There are other technical issues, such as power, EMC and thermal management. Dealing with these would obviously cost money at a time when the defence budget is under severe pressure, and the beancounters are not likely say yes. Additionally it would mean taking aircraft out of service for a while - which might result in having no Harriers at sea for (say) 12 - 18 months.
However, integrating Link 16 into the GR9 (as was predicted by Magic Mushroom on this thread) would enhance the air defence capability of the GR9 and also its ground attack capability. Likewise, integrating ASRAAM would be feasible.
hulahoop
Back in January 2006 I wrote to my MP, very much a last ditch attempt, suggesting that in light of all the things that happened since 2002 (CVF delayed, T45 delayed and cut, frigate/destroyers numbers cut) the Government should consider keeping some Sea Harriers in storage. The letter is on this thread.
However, when 801 does disband, instead of either scrapping the aircraft or selling them to museums or people who want to put them in car parks, why not put some aircraft into storage, complete with engines and avionics, so that they can be brought out of mothballs if needed. Keeping them in storage would create uncertainty for potential aggressors, and therefore have a deterrent effect. The pilots would be flying Harrier GR9s and exchanges with the RAF and with the US Navy and Marine Corps would help keep air-air skills alive.
That's pretty much what has happened with the dummy deck aircraft, although regrettably there are no RN Typhoon pilots. I am also encouraged by the reference to "War Reserve" Jaguars in this thread. Therefore I conclude that Shar still deters.
cokecan
Errr, maybe you've missed the point that Sea Harrier was a naval aircraft? I don't see what point you're trying to make. I don't believe that BAE Systems have been asked to assess integrating a radar onto GR9.
Double Zero
On this thread (or it might have been another) Nozzles made reference to the Navy's plan post 1982 to turn the Sea Harrier into a "mini Tomcat".
Changing topic, some of you may have noticed that recently the Sea Jet thread, and other inactive threads, has for the last few months been receiving less additional views than before. I have concluded that people tend not to follow links from other PPRuNe threads, and therefore most of the additional views came from visitors from search engines and people following links on other forums. I discussed the issue here, and it seems that people can follow links to PPRuNe threads but only if the IP address assigned to them by their ISP has not been used to log in. These (temporary) restrictions are due to misusers. The archived versions have no restrictions, and links to them always work.
You do sometimes see guests on PPRuNe, and I've noticed a correlation between links to the Sea Jet thread being placed on other forums and the number of views increasing. On Sunday evening I bumped a thread on ARRSE discussing the latest Argentine threats (and with a link to the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread of the first page) to the top of the Current Affairs forum. There were seven extra views on Monday. The Future Carrier thread was on page two all this time, there where no other threads containing links to the Sea Jet thread on page one. Ergo these views were from people following links.
QED, or perhaps OCD?
Whilst it is good (is it?) to see these issues being discussed again I personally don't wish to go over old ground (at least not more than I have already). At last real progress is being made with the new Carriers and with F35B (and the other versions), which will finally close this capability gap.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 13th Sep 2008 at 18:29.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Please stop.
"Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here."
Please stop.
"Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here."
Suspicion breeds confidence
Tourist,
Webf does make a valid point that Link 16 and full ASRAAM integration would be a good halfway house pre Dave. It was planned but canned.
Webf does make a valid point that Link 16 and full ASRAAM integration would be a good halfway house pre Dave. It was planned but canned.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave B v Dave C
Genuine question.....
Despite the fact that F-35 BF-1 has now flown conventionally, there are persistent rumours that it's going to canned by the USMC in favour of Dave-Cs.
So it was interesting to hear someone pontificating that though the UK prefers Dave-B, no decision has been made yet, and that we could yet end up with Dave-C, and CVF with Cats and Traps.
Q1. Is this true?
Q2. Given the ostensibly "convertible" nature of the CVF / PA2 design, how late can the decision be made to go for CV CTOL design and still meet the 2014 ISD of QEII?
(Appreciating that as IOC for UK Daves is unlikely to be before 2018, and that this would mean operating increasingly knackered Harriers off a CTOL CV minus ski jump).
Cheers
S41
Despite the fact that F-35 BF-1 has now flown conventionally, there are persistent rumours that it's going to canned by the USMC in favour of Dave-Cs.
So it was interesting to hear someone pontificating that though the UK prefers Dave-B, no decision has been made yet, and that we could yet end up with Dave-C, and CVF with Cats and Traps.
Q1. Is this true?
Q2. Given the ostensibly "convertible" nature of the CVF / PA2 design, how late can the decision be made to go for CV CTOL design and still meet the 2014 ISD of QEII?
(Appreciating that as IOC for UK Daves is unlikely to be before 2018, and that this would mean operating increasingly knackered Harriers off a CTOL CV minus ski jump).
Cheers
S41
Suspicion breeds confidence
At the moment not even the LM account team know what the final selection will be. I am led to believe that EMCAT cooperation discussions are still undeway at a very high level.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the Navy Test Pilot with us for a time mentioning that with the big engine, a 2+ could keep up with a Bear at altitude, which the Seajet couldn't.
Lower down of course, the Harrier 2 gave away about 100 knots on the Harrier 1 Seajet generation due to the drag of the big wing.
Lower down of course, the Harrier 2 gave away about 100 knots on the Harrier 1 Seajet generation due to the drag of the big wing.
I know I'm beig 'picky' but I really do think some of your stats are questionable. I'm absolutely 100% positive Mike would never have said such a thing about the Bear, especially as I have a photograph (in fact 4) of he and I perched on either wing of one during a big NATO exercise some years ago. Likewise the speed comparison between the SHAR and the II/II+. There may, perhaps, possibly been a couple of knots difference down low but absolutely nowhere near 100. In fact I would be so bold as to suggest the extra oomph from the II+ donk more than compensated for the extra drag and actually gave it a bit more speed down low (although it has been some time, so I can't guarantee that statement). The SHAR did have a higher MMO than the II+ but that was almost totally irrelevant as the only time you ever went near supersonic was in a screaming Jesus dive during the test flights.
For what it's worth, I always thought the II+ with AMRAAM would have been an excellent bunch of toys for the RN. The Spanish capability leapt a thousand fold when they got theirs and very good users they proved to be. Unfortunately the RN had, by the time the II+ came into being, committed all their £££s to the JSF, so it was never going to be an option. I think the JSF will be an excellent platform for future RN ops and just hope the 'mericans fit a vane just for giggles
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius,
Re. the 'Bear' I was directly quoting the Navy Test pilot of the period - though as he was a rather difficult guy for me & others to get on with ( a one-off in that respect ) it's hard to know if he was just anti Seajet - which had provided him with a good career inc. Falklands - or ranting.
At that time the standard GR5 / AV-8B didn't have the big engine of course, and was very widely quoted by Flight Test etc as giving away around 100 knots to the Seajet.
A PROJECTED ISD for the F-35 makes me think 2+ or a home grown version would be a pretty long-lived 'stop-gap'.
Late Arm Live,
As we both mentioned before, politics and money are the answer to all evils;
It would obviously be far more sense to buy ready-made 2+ and I appreciate the radar / AMRAAM combi' is not quite as good as Blue Vixen, which I suppose had the luck to be tailored specifically for it, probably with a lot of American input.
It's indeed a mystery that it came from the same stable as Blue FOX, late correction - & Foxhunter !
However having seen a little of the way budgets work, I am convinced the money is there ( in my day, £5,000 + for an oxygen bottle trolley etc etc ) but it's a case of how one gets at it.
There was a case a few years ago when a Type 42 destroyer managed to get 'T-boned' by a supertanker, efectively writing it off ( I heard that a young inexperienced officer had been left in charge, and when an experienced guy quickly appraised the situation he radio'd the tanker " for christ's sake keep going ! " - the warship was only prevented from sinking by the tanker's bulbous bow.
Now, there was NO budget for a new replacement warship, but there was a 'repair' budget - as I was told it, the repaired ship actually cost more than a new one...
Similarly I suspect an 'upgrade' for a few GR9's - and I understand lack of actual airframes is not your most pressing problem ? - might find funding.
I maintain it has been done before, so should not be so difficult as some think.
As for CG, even I was surprised to see Art Nalls' qoute that he reckon's he's lost only 60lb weight from forward, though I'll check if that was the radar before he bought the aircraft, or other kit since - yes I know the Seajet 2 had an aft fuselage plug, mainly as I understood it to fit more boxes, but I think the 2+ is the same AV-8B airframe.
Re. the 'Bear' I was directly quoting the Navy Test pilot of the period - though as he was a rather difficult guy for me & others to get on with ( a one-off in that respect ) it's hard to know if he was just anti Seajet - which had provided him with a good career inc. Falklands - or ranting.
At that time the standard GR5 / AV-8B didn't have the big engine of course, and was very widely quoted by Flight Test etc as giving away around 100 knots to the Seajet.
A PROJECTED ISD for the F-35 makes me think 2+ or a home grown version would be a pretty long-lived 'stop-gap'.
Late Arm Live,
As we both mentioned before, politics and money are the answer to all evils;
It would obviously be far more sense to buy ready-made 2+ and I appreciate the radar / AMRAAM combi' is not quite as good as Blue Vixen, which I suppose had the luck to be tailored specifically for it, probably with a lot of American input.
It's indeed a mystery that it came from the same stable as Blue FOX, late correction - & Foxhunter !
However having seen a little of the way budgets work, I am convinced the money is there ( in my day, £5,000 + for an oxygen bottle trolley etc etc ) but it's a case of how one gets at it.
There was a case a few years ago when a Type 42 destroyer managed to get 'T-boned' by a supertanker, efectively writing it off ( I heard that a young inexperienced officer had been left in charge, and when an experienced guy quickly appraised the situation he radio'd the tanker " for christ's sake keep going ! " - the warship was only prevented from sinking by the tanker's bulbous bow.
Now, there was NO budget for a new replacement warship, but there was a 'repair' budget - as I was told it, the repaired ship actually cost more than a new one...
Similarly I suspect an 'upgrade' for a few GR9's - and I understand lack of actual airframes is not your most pressing problem ? - might find funding.
I maintain it has been done before, so should not be so difficult as some think.
As for CG, even I was surprised to see Art Nalls' qoute that he reckon's he's lost only 60lb weight from forward, though I'll check if that was the radar before he bought the aircraft, or other kit since - yes I know the Seajet 2 had an aft fuselage plug, mainly as I understood it to fit more boxes, but I think the 2+ is the same AV-8B airframe.
Last edited by Double Zero; 29th Jul 2008 at 20:29.
S41,
I had not heard anything (so far) about Dave-B being canned. It would be a HUGE thing for the Marines.
The entire justification for the existence of the force, on the scale that it does, rests on its being able to project self-sufficient fighting units without the presence of a CV. That's because the CVs are assumed to be engaged elsewhere, and because CVs don't go anywhere without the associated battlegroup.
Moreover, the Marines require independent air because of Guadalcanal.
Self-sufficient has always included CAS, independent of the CVs. Take that (and air defense) away and the level of threat that the USMC can go up against diminishes sharply.
So as long as nobody wants to ask the basic question (I know we need an air force, and I know that the navy and the army need their own air force, but does the Navy's army need its own air force?) Dave B is essential.
Where there is an unresolved dispute - one that has been tabled at the express orders of the top Navy command levels - is over the B/C split. The "Department of the Navy" JSF buy is 680 aircraft. It's pretty much accepted that one-third of those will be Bs and one-third Cs. The remaining third are needed to fill Marine squadrons attached to CV wings, but the Grunts want them to be Bs and the big-deck Navy wants them to be Cs.
Mr Boffin, once he breaks away from a fond embrace with Ms Widdecombe, could tell us when the cat-versus-STOVL decision has to be taken.
I had not heard anything (so far) about Dave-B being canned. It would be a HUGE thing for the Marines.
The entire justification for the existence of the force, on the scale that it does, rests on its being able to project self-sufficient fighting units without the presence of a CV. That's because the CVs are assumed to be engaged elsewhere, and because CVs don't go anywhere without the associated battlegroup.
Moreover, the Marines require independent air because of Guadalcanal.
Self-sufficient has always included CAS, independent of the CVs. Take that (and air defense) away and the level of threat that the USMC can go up against diminishes sharply.
So as long as nobody wants to ask the basic question (I know we need an air force, and I know that the navy and the army need their own air force, but does the Navy's army need its own air force?) Dave B is essential.
Where there is an unresolved dispute - one that has been tabled at the express orders of the top Navy command levels - is over the B/C split. The "Department of the Navy" JSF buy is 680 aircraft. It's pretty much accepted that one-third of those will be Bs and one-third Cs. The remaining third are needed to fill Marine squadrons attached to CV wings, but the Grunts want them to be Bs and the big-deck Navy wants them to be Cs.
Mr Boffin, once he breaks away from a fond embrace with Ms Widdecombe, could tell us when the cat-versus-STOVL decision has to be taken.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero:
"It would obviously be far more sense to buy ready-made 2+ and I appreciate the radar / AMRAAM combi' is not quite as good as Blue Vixen, which I suppose had the luck to be tailored specifically for it, probably with a lot of American input.
It's indeed a mystery that it came from the same stable as Blue FOX, late correction - & Foxhunter !"
I can't resist correcting this... having spent ten years working at Crewe Toll.
The Blue Fox was designed by Ferranti, in Edinburgh. Zero American input. Blue Vixen was also designed in Edinburgh, although there was some collaboration with Ericsson (go to Janes "All the world's radars", and compare the pictures of PS/05a and Blue Vixen), there was no collaboration with the Americans. The other radars from the same stable are Seaspray (in Lynx) and Blue Kestrel (in Merlin); it was a home-grown design team. Remember Blue Parrot? AIRPASS in the Lightning? The TSR.2 Terrain Following Radar? Same mob.
In the late 1980s, Ferranti was trying to gain the mass needed to stay a prime contractor, and bought a US firm called International Signal and Control; turned out to be involved in $400 million of fraud, and Ferranti went down in 1990 as a result.
Bits of Ferranti were picked off by other defence contractors - including GEC-Marconi, who were busy getting caned by MoD for Foxhunter and Nimrod AEW. GEC bought Ferranti Defence Systems, who coincidentally were competing with them for a whole lot of projects, including the Typhoon radar.
By all accounts (and after several rounds of "best and final", "really best and final", "now we'll get each team to critique the other") the Ferranti-led ECR90 was well ahead in price and performance over the German-led, GEC-member, MSD-2000 radar. The Germans were hoping to tart up the APG-65 which they'd just spent a fortune fitting into their Phantom upgrade, so that they could get some jobs for the boys while fitting it to the Eurofighter. What was embarrassing for them was when they had to import the lads from Hughes to answer any difficult systems questions, having claimed that they had the expertise to do the design.
Anyway, ECR90 (now CAPTOR) won, coincidentally about the same time that GEC withdrew from the MSD-2000 consortium (leaving it without a data processor), and with Malcolm Rifkind (the then Defence Minister) facing re-election in Edinburgh in what might well be a fairly marginal contest.
As a mark of their confidence in their own radar team, having bought Ferranti, GEC promptly put Borehamwood et al under Ferranti Radar Systems Division control... meanwhile Hughes sued GEC for stealing APG-65 secrets. And failed. And we now had the embarrassment of owning Foxhunter.
We (Ferranti) used to quote a processor power comparison of 6:1 for Blue Vixen over APG-65; hardly surprising, as the US designs relied upon a general-purpose computer which they could upgrade as they churned out the kit; while Ferranti relied on tailored hardware designs for each stage in the processor chain (a bugger for software maintenance, but then we were only making 50-odd of them, and the performance made it worthwhile). Given that the US was claiming three-fold improvements for APG-73 over APG-65, you can guess the rest. A Janes' article on PURPLE STAR 96 revealed that the US a/c weren't used to having AMRAAM cued and fired in TWS, which says a lot about APG-65 and APG-70
Helped by the Americans, indeed 
Meanwhile, FA2 came out before AV-8B+, so it's no surprise that when McD fitted APG-65, they did it the same way (half at the front, half at the back, and fibre-optics between).
"It would obviously be far more sense to buy ready-made 2+ and I appreciate the radar / AMRAAM combi' is not quite as good as Blue Vixen, which I suppose had the luck to be tailored specifically for it, probably with a lot of American input.
It's indeed a mystery that it came from the same stable as Blue FOX, late correction - & Foxhunter !"
I can't resist correcting this... having spent ten years working at Crewe Toll.
The Blue Fox was designed by Ferranti, in Edinburgh. Zero American input. Blue Vixen was also designed in Edinburgh, although there was some collaboration with Ericsson (go to Janes "All the world's radars", and compare the pictures of PS/05a and Blue Vixen), there was no collaboration with the Americans. The other radars from the same stable are Seaspray (in Lynx) and Blue Kestrel (in Merlin); it was a home-grown design team. Remember Blue Parrot? AIRPASS in the Lightning? The TSR.2 Terrain Following Radar? Same mob.
In the late 1980s, Ferranti was trying to gain the mass needed to stay a prime contractor, and bought a US firm called International Signal and Control; turned out to be involved in $400 million of fraud, and Ferranti went down in 1990 as a result.
Bits of Ferranti were picked off by other defence contractors - including GEC-Marconi, who were busy getting caned by MoD for Foxhunter and Nimrod AEW. GEC bought Ferranti Defence Systems, who coincidentally were competing with them for a whole lot of projects, including the Typhoon radar.
By all accounts (and after several rounds of "best and final", "really best and final", "now we'll get each team to critique the other") the Ferranti-led ECR90 was well ahead in price and performance over the German-led, GEC-member, MSD-2000 radar. The Germans were hoping to tart up the APG-65 which they'd just spent a fortune fitting into their Phantom upgrade, so that they could get some jobs for the boys while fitting it to the Eurofighter. What was embarrassing for them was when they had to import the lads from Hughes to answer any difficult systems questions, having claimed that they had the expertise to do the design.
Anyway, ECR90 (now CAPTOR) won, coincidentally about the same time that GEC withdrew from the MSD-2000 consortium (leaving it without a data processor), and with Malcolm Rifkind (the then Defence Minister) facing re-election in Edinburgh in what might well be a fairly marginal contest.
As a mark of their confidence in their own radar team, having bought Ferranti, GEC promptly put Borehamwood et al under Ferranti Radar Systems Division control... meanwhile Hughes sued GEC for stealing APG-65 secrets. And failed. And we now had the embarrassment of owning Foxhunter.
We (Ferranti) used to quote a processor power comparison of 6:1 for Blue Vixen over APG-65; hardly surprising, as the US designs relied upon a general-purpose computer which they could upgrade as they churned out the kit; while Ferranti relied on tailored hardware designs for each stage in the processor chain (a bugger for software maintenance, but then we were only making 50-odd of them, and the performance made it worthwhile). Given that the US was claiming three-fold improvements for APG-73 over APG-65, you can guess the rest. A Janes' article on PURPLE STAR 96 revealed that the US a/c weren't used to having AMRAAM cued and fired in TWS, which says a lot about APG-65 and APG-70
Helped by the Americans, indeed Meanwhile, FA2 came out before AV-8B+, so it's no surprise that when McD fitted APG-65, they did it the same way (half at the front, half at the back, and fibre-optics between).
Last edited by Gravelbelly; 15th Sep 2008 at 12:52.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maryland
Age: 64
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,After 10 months of weekend repairs and nearly 3 years to the day since I purchased the Sea Harrier,(XZ439 N94422) she leaped back in the air, where she belongs! You'd never know anything was every wrong.The countless hours of gear cycles, sheet metal repair, inspections, and modifying the aircraft systems, all paid off. I did four takeoffs and landings (always nice to have those numbers match) and returned to the hangar with only a few, very minor discrepencies. We plan to address those on Saturday and fly again this coming Sunday.This is all due to the hard work of a group of dedicated volunteers. They gave up their weekends, holidays, and evenings with Momma, just to make this happen. I am eternally grateful to their efforts, as none of this would have been possible without them. Thank you. ART here's a picture off her taking off 9/14/08 
check out Nallsaviation.com for the latest.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Art, glad to see she's back in the air and up where she belongs. Looking back through my logbook, she was one of the last Sea Harriers I flew but that was before she had a blunt nose stuck on the front (even if it did contain a great radar which, at the time, we were learning to play with). Although a very tenuous link, I even did a few displays in her, so I'll trawl the Internet and see if there are any photos from the venues at which she got so well 'shown off'