Sea Jet
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
On a lighter note, (for once), when on exchange myself and one of the other 2 USMC officers had an informal competition about the attainable altitude in a Night Attack AV-8B with the 408 engine (same as the big motor in the GR7). He won by 200 feet.
I have HUD video showing 51,220 feet.
P.S. Please, don't any of you spotters out there tell me about the height limits on the OBOGS and pressurisation. There's a little bit of Farley in all of us.
I believe Ward mentions that he got one over 40,000 ft on the trip to the South Atlantic.
I have HUD video showing 51,220 feet.
P.S. Please, don't any of you spotters out there tell me about the height limits on the OBOGS and pressurisation. There's a little bit of Farley in all of us.
"I have HUD video showing 51,220 feet".
FRS1 altitude spec was increased in late 80s. Caused all sorts of problems, particularly with radar power supply encapsulation which failed at about 45k, but well above orignal spec. Fix found and testing programme planned. MoD Beancounter - "How do you plan to test it at 50,000ft if you need two test engineers, test equipment and, presumably, a pilot?" Ferranti Chief Test Engineer - "Using a f****** long cable".
FRS1 altitude spec was increased in late 80s. Caused all sorts of problems, particularly with radar power supply encapsulation which failed at about 45k, but well above orignal spec. Fix found and testing programme planned. MoD Beancounter - "How do you plan to test it at 50,000ft if you need two test engineers, test equipment and, presumably, a pilot?" Ferranti Chief Test Engineer - "Using a f****** long cable".
IIRC doesn't Ward refer to a Soapy Watson (his wingman) as being previously RW (a pinger?)?
Flying for a very professional outfit on the south coast now!
Suspicion breeds confidence
He was a Sea King pilot before tranferring to the Shar. Maybe his thick glasses helped him find the Spanish container ship Alraigo when he got separated from mother 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
Not the same Soapy. Soapy senior was the 801 NAS CO, Soapy junior (known as Suds) was the Spanish freighter embarkation specialist.
I'm not quite sure why there's a sudden fixation on ex rotary guys flying fixed wing after a period of time. It's a well trodden path in the light as well as dark blue.
Not the same Soapy. Soapy senior was the 801 NAS CO, Soapy junior (known as Suds) was the Spanish freighter embarkation specialist.
I'm not quite sure why there's a sudden fixation on ex rotary guys flying fixed wing after a period of time. It's a well trodden path in the light as well as dark blue.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone told me that someone said... (as all the best rumours begin?)
"The US are considering pulling out of the JCA/JSF project"...
Surely this will mean the RN/RAF will be left high-and-dry. Anyone?
(I've been following this thread for ages, but with 67+ pages it's difficult to check if this has already been discussed?)
"The US are considering pulling out of the JCA/JSF project"...
Surely this will mean the RN/RAF will be left high-and-dry. Anyone?
(I've been following this thread for ages, but with 67+ pages it's difficult to check if this has already been discussed?)
Suspicion breeds confidence
The US has just been through a $20bn defence cut. Rumours have been flying around since the project's inception that one or more of the types make face the axe, first it was the A version for the USAF now the STOVL B version. The truth is that they are just rumours. No decision has been made on anything. The chances are all will be built but in reduced numbers,
FB11 I am sorry for my replies being a bit delayed - but I've been busy of late. As for missiles, searching on Google reveals the nasty things currently on the market. Krypton.....
However you did say "...........we will have it again in the not too distant future.". Yes, but when exactly?
On a different note - what analysis (mathematical modelling perhaps?) has been done to asess the effectiveness of different combinations of weapon systems in an anti air scenario with different types of attack?
However you did say "...........we will have it again in the not too distant future.". Yes, but when exactly?
On a different note - what analysis (mathematical modelling perhaps?) has been done to asess the effectiveness of different combinations of weapon systems in an anti air scenario with different types of attack?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE,
I don't know and it's absolutely irrelevant to the points made. I say again, the decision to gap an organic AD capability is not ideal, finding yet another "delay in JCA" article in the Times et al is just as irritating to me as it is to you.
How long it takes to get a replacement, if indeed a replacement for Sea Harrier capability is indeed another manned aircraft, adds nothing to the discussion.
Lots I'm sure but nothing that I could quote. The figures for maintaining any kind of full coverage aircraft based AD cover speak for themselves though.
As for Krypton? Having flown against sub-sonic ASMs with Blue Vixen, knowing exactly when they were going to be fired and from where and along which bearing, I'll bet on the ship SAM over any radar equipped aircraft to defend against an ASM; let alone a supersonic one.
However you did say "...........we will have it again in the not too distant future.". Yes, but when exactly?
How long it takes to get a replacement, if indeed a replacement for Sea Harrier capability is indeed another manned aircraft, adds nothing to the discussion.
On a different note - what analysis (mathematical modelling perhaps?) has been done to asess the effectiveness of different combinations of weapon systems in an anti air scenario with different types of attack?
As for Krypton? Having flown against sub-sonic ASMs with Blue Vixen, knowing exactly when they were going to be fired and from where and along which bearing, I'll bet on the ship SAM over any radar equipped aircraft to defend against an ASM; let alone a supersonic one.
Suspicion breeds confidence
what analysis (mathematical modelling perhaps?) has been done to asess the effectiveness of different combinations of weapon systems in an anti air scenario with different types of attack?
Probability of successful flight: 75%
Probability of successful fuzing: 90%
Probability of single missile hit: 51%
The latter means salvo firing against aircraft to achieve a satisfactory kill probability. 23 years later, you could realistically improve those numbers somewhat against aircraft, but the figures regarding subsonic ASM's are an order of magnitude worse and a supersonic ASM even worse still.
Data on SS-N-26 Yakhont:
Russia is offering the NPO MASH Yakhont-M land attack super-sonic cruise missile with its KONDOR-E radar targeting satellite for export. The Yakhont flies at tree top level to avoid radar detection. The missile flies at speeds in excess of Mach 2. In an extended range mission, the Yakhont climbs to 46,000 feet before diving to below 50 feet as it closes to within 22 miles of its target. Terminal attack speed is reported to be .4 miles per second. The Yakhont can be air launched using the ALFA system, sea-launched from its container/canister or fired from a shore based mobile launcher called BASTION. Yahont can also be fired from a standard torpedo tube from conventional submarines.
OK. We have determined that Sea Dart has at best a marginal capability against this type of threat, anyone care to guess how Phalanx will cope with a 9,000lb sea skimmer travelling at .4 mile per second?
Surely the elimination of the launch platform is the only viable option?
Last edited by Navaleye; 7th Dec 2005 at 03:36.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
I agree. Elimination at source is the desired option, particularly as the SS-N-26 has a range of 162nm.
If you wanted Sea Harrier (combined with some asset that can provide sufficient warning time) to counter a threat aircraft at a realsitic launch range of 150nm, you'd need to fly 4 times as many sorties as earlier in the thread. By simple estimates, you'd need a carrier with 24 FA2 on board. Just to do CAP. Nothing else.
That is, of course, if the SS-N-26 was launched from an aircraft. As opposed to a ship, or sub or from land.
Your choice of SS-N-26 adds further weight to counter the stance both you an WEBF have on keeping the FA2.
But back to the first paragraph. By diverting the money saved from FA2 into the GR9 (as has been done) I and my pilots can get on targeting the aircraft at their base. Or the ships/subs in harbour/en route (well, maybe not the subs en route); or the land based sites....... None of which can be done as effectively/at all with FA2 compared to GR7/9.
Just give me an idea how SS-N-26 was supposed to build a case for keeping FA2?
I agree. Elimination at source is the desired option, particularly as the SS-N-26 has a range of 162nm.
If you wanted Sea Harrier (combined with some asset that can provide sufficient warning time) to counter a threat aircraft at a realsitic launch range of 150nm, you'd need to fly 4 times as many sorties as earlier in the thread. By simple estimates, you'd need a carrier with 24 FA2 on board. Just to do CAP. Nothing else.
That is, of course, if the SS-N-26 was launched from an aircraft. As opposed to a ship, or sub or from land.
Your choice of SS-N-26 adds further weight to counter the stance both you an WEBF have on keeping the FA2.
But back to the first paragraph. By diverting the money saved from FA2 into the GR9 (as has been done) I and my pilots can get on targeting the aircraft at their base. Or the ships/subs in harbour/en route (well, maybe not the subs en route); or the land based sites....... None of which can be done as effectively/at all with FA2 compared to GR7/9.
Just give me an idea how SS-N-26 was supposed to build a case for keeping FA2?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest is the AV-8B Plus II not a cheaper option if we feel that the air threat against carriers is that great. It seems bizarre that the Plus II which has a good air to air capability isn't even considered as a stop gap even in the form of buying a Squadron load .
Suspicion breeds confidence
Isn't bombing SAM defended airfields awfully dangerous? I thought we had chosen not to do that after GW1? If I were Johnny Foeigner with a mind to use these things I would be inclined to pre-empt by letting them loose before the GRs even got to my airfield. That assumes also that you have the intel to know I have the weapons them in the first place. The SS-N-26 is just one of a family of weapons which post Shar render us less capable to deal with. The AMRAAM brochure says it has a look down capability against aircraft and missiles.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye, (RileyDove your answer is at the bottom)
This may come as a surprise but most warfare is dangerous. I'm confused, didn't you say you wanted to hit the SS-N-26 carrier at source? Or have you picked the niche area which is a.) the launch platform is an aircraft and b.) the aircraft is out of range of it's own defences (SAM/aircraft etc) but in range of ours. Sounds a bit like a blue water war from your favourite era of the chily 80's.
That's why we're buying (for the moment at least) an aircraft in the F-35 that can penetrate the kinds of defences aircraft such as Typhoon will never be capable of.
I guess we could fill the deck of a CVS with defensive aircraft (any comment on the amount of FA2 required to mount anything other than a short duration token CAP?) and just fly them purely to defend ourselves. Yet again, I say that this just adds fuel to the 'self licking lollipop' fire of the anti-CVS/CVF brigade.
You skillfully avoid, as always, the hard facts from my last few posts.
I should hope so, that's why we bought it. Let's hope that the sub-sonic missile/aircraft is inbound in the first few days of the deployment when we have enough serviceable jets. Oh yes, and it's not in a part of the world where the temperature gets much above about 30 centigrade when the FA2 can't get back on board with any kind of useful load.
I still agree. As I always have.
RileyDove,
The reason we retired the FA2 early was to reduce the logistics and support footprint of two different airframes. Harrier II+ was considered as a stop gap and an "FA3" based on that was proposed a few years ago. Money, as always, was the issue. If the organic air defence issue was deemed that important, the compromise would have been to shoe-horn the big motor into FA2 and upgrade the avionics. This would still not have addressed the many issues you will find about the limitations of a 1960's airframe, multiple previous posts refer.
For all of the above, the way we use the aircraft today would mean that few, if any, jets would be available to purely sit on CAP above the task group. They're away knocking out the critical nodes that stop the SS-N-26 missile being launched.
Isn't bombing SAM defended airfields awfully dangerous?
That's why we're buying (for the moment at least) an aircraft in the F-35 that can penetrate the kinds of defences aircraft such as Typhoon will never be capable of.
I guess we could fill the deck of a CVS with defensive aircraft (any comment on the amount of FA2 required to mount anything other than a short duration token CAP?) and just fly them purely to defend ourselves. Yet again, I say that this just adds fuel to the 'self licking lollipop' fire of the anti-CVS/CVF brigade.
You skillfully avoid, as always, the hard facts from my last few posts.
The AMRAAM brochure says it has a look down capability against aircraft and missiles.
The SS-N-26 is just one of a family of weapons which post Shar render us less capable to deal with.
RileyDove,
The reason we retired the FA2 early was to reduce the logistics and support footprint of two different airframes. Harrier II+ was considered as a stop gap and an "FA3" based on that was proposed a few years ago. Money, as always, was the issue. If the organic air defence issue was deemed that important, the compromise would have been to shoe-horn the big motor into FA2 and upgrade the avionics. This would still not have addressed the many issues you will find about the limitations of a 1960's airframe, multiple previous posts refer.
For all of the above, the way we use the aircraft today would mean that few, if any, jets would be available to purely sit on CAP above the task group. They're away knocking out the critical nodes that stop the SS-N-26 missile being launched.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11 - Interesting points . My knowledge of the Sea Harrier airframe stems from a knowing the structure quite well of it's very close relative the GR.3. There wasn't really a sensible option
of doing any serious amount of engine upgrades to the Sea Harrier simply because they would shake themselves to death even more.
As for the first strike capability of the F-35 - interesting idea but the reality is that the high value targets would have already have been taken out by 'son of Predator'. Add to that the
capability of submarine launched missiles and the need for a stealthy F-35 becomes somewhat questionable.
Whilst the notion that the CAP was always only there to take out incoming and basically a protective force for the carrier group - past experience in the Falklands War showed the ability
of aircraft like the Sea Harrier to intercept ELINT aircraft whilst on the way to the islands.
I would love to think that the need for dedicated CAP machines to defend the fleet has gone but we seem to be the only nation to adopt that view and in some ways it's a bit like leaving the back door unlocked at night - you might be alright
but then again you might not!
of doing any serious amount of engine upgrades to the Sea Harrier simply because they would shake themselves to death even more.
As for the first strike capability of the F-35 - interesting idea but the reality is that the high value targets would have already have been taken out by 'son of Predator'. Add to that the
capability of submarine launched missiles and the need for a stealthy F-35 becomes somewhat questionable.
Whilst the notion that the CAP was always only there to take out incoming and basically a protective force for the carrier group - past experience in the Falklands War showed the ability
of aircraft like the Sea Harrier to intercept ELINT aircraft whilst on the way to the islands.
I would love to think that the need for dedicated CAP machines to defend the fleet has gone but we seem to be the only nation to adopt that view and in some ways it's a bit like leaving the back door unlocked at night - you might be alright
but then again you might not!
The reason we retired the FA2 early was to reduce the logistics and support footprint of two different airframes.
QED.
As for dealing with air launched anti ship missiles, I thought one of the conclusions from 1982 is that the best defence against missile armed aircraft was using fighters to prevent them from getting within missile range? Perhaps this explains why Spain and Italy have been so keen to get carrierborne fighters, and then give them AMRAAM?
As for surface and submarine launched missiles, how is the GR7/9 any better placed to deal with the threat. Frigates/Destroyers (and their helicopters), Submarines, Nimrods..........but GR9?
Navaleye's choice of missile does seem odd. Perhaps he should have said one of these, particularly something like Krypton, very nasty and up for export to any regime anywhere, as this link proves. Or perhaps the C801, also exported.
In June 1997 Iran tested two Chinese-built C-801 air-launched cruise missiles from an F-4 fighter. And how many other nations have this capability?
Going back to an earlier point......
The Defence Image Database contains over eighty Sea Harrier pictures - including one of a Sea Harrier landing during operations in the Adriatic (the picture is on the last page if you enter "Sea Harrier" into search - for some reason I cannot post a link). That aircraft appears to be carrying two AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders and a AAR probe.
I don't know how hot it was there but it makes me wonder:
a) Is the payload in the hotter parts of the world really reduced to a single AMRAAM and no other stores, or just one AMRAAM plus other stores.
b) Surely a pair of Sea Harriers, with one AMRAAM each, would still deter a third world MiG driver?
c) What about just using Sidewinder? The radar must make it more capable than the GR7/9 surely?
d) If air to air refuelling is possible, then that must allow longer CAP sorties, reducing the number of aircraft need to achieve the same level of defence
QED.
As for dealing with air launched anti ship missiles, I thought one of the conclusions from 1982 is that the best defence against missile armed aircraft was using fighters to prevent them from getting within missile range? Perhaps this explains why Spain and Italy have been so keen to get carrierborne fighters, and then give them AMRAAM?
As for surface and submarine launched missiles, how is the GR7/9 any better placed to deal with the threat. Frigates/Destroyers (and their helicopters), Submarines, Nimrods..........but GR9?
Navaleye's choice of missile does seem odd. Perhaps he should have said one of these, particularly something like Krypton, very nasty and up for export to any regime anywhere, as this link proves. Or perhaps the C801, also exported.
In June 1997 Iran tested two Chinese-built C-801 air-launched cruise missiles from an F-4 fighter. And how many other nations have this capability?
Going back to an earlier point......
The Defence Image Database contains over eighty Sea Harrier pictures - including one of a Sea Harrier landing during operations in the Adriatic (the picture is on the last page if you enter "Sea Harrier" into search - for some reason I cannot post a link). That aircraft appears to be carrying two AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders and a AAR probe.
I don't know how hot it was there but it makes me wonder:
a) Is the payload in the hotter parts of the world really reduced to a single AMRAAM and no other stores, or just one AMRAAM plus other stores.
b) Surely a pair of Sea Harriers, with one AMRAAM each, would still deter a third world MiG driver?
c) What about just using Sidewinder? The radar must make it more capable than the GR7/9 surely?
d) If air to air refuelling is possible, then that must allow longer CAP sorties, reducing the number of aircraft need to achieve the same level of defence
Suspicion breeds confidence
Webf, Fraid its encrypted to stop you doing what you want to do! I still find it strange that the Indians are upgrading their Shars to a standard comparable to the FA2, yet anticipate no problems operating them in the Turkish bath known as the Bay of Bengal as they have done for the last 20 yrs+.
Last edited by Navaleye; 10th Dec 2005 at 22:44.