Sea Jet
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for not laughing too much chaps 
Just seems such a huge step back to lose SHAR and AMRAAM. Sea King ASW/Asac and its radar seems a v capable platform by all accounts, and if Sea Kings can be fitted with Exocet then surely it can't be be beyond.... oh well, I'll shut up now before I reveal any more ignorance
Just seems such a huge step back to lose SHAR and AMRAAM. Sea King ASW/Asac and its radar seems a v capable platform by all accounts, and if Sea Kings can be fitted with Exocet then surely it can't be be beyond.... oh well, I'll shut up now before I reveal any more ignorance
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One problem with firing a missle like AMRAAM from a chopper would be a considerable reduction in range as it would miss the kinetic enegy element at launch provided by the SHAR's speed.
Is it not possible to increase the power of the missile motor? What do they do for ground based versions of AAM, e.g Sea Sparrow evolved from Sparrow. I believe there is a SAM system based on ASRAAM already out there, but couldn't swear to it.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLAWS
CLAWS [Complementary Low Altitude Weapon System]
HUMRAAM [ HMMWV Launched AMRAAM]
have a look half way down this
site it gives details of a surface launched AMRAAM. Neat.
HUMRAAM [ HMMWV Launched AMRAAM]
have a look half way down this
site it gives details of a surface launched AMRAAM. Neat.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR or laser guided AAMs on helos are not new. The majority of modern AH are procured with some sort of air-air capability. Most are modified MANPADS such as starstreak or mistral due to their smaller weight. Even with these however, there have been some problems with motor ignition blast and missile seperation from the airframe.
Further back, the US used to have a variant of early model AIM-9s called Sidearm on their AH-1's which was optimised for anti radar attacks.
I've never heard of something as large as a Sparrow or AMRAAM being successfully tested on a helo (although I stand ready to be corrected). I would imagine that the weight and blast of one of those wazzing off a helo would be a severe test to helo aerodynamics and airframe. Ground and vehicle based variants of AMRAAM have been around for a while, but I'd suggest that this would be somewhat different however.
Even if such problems could be overcome however, the integration costs would preclude procurement.
Following on from earlier discussions on this thread regarding fitting radar onto the GR9, it was formally stated in the House recently that the cost of integrating Blue Vixen and AMRAAM onto the GR9 would be approx £600m! There ain't no way that that sort of money is available.
Regards,
M2
Further back, the US used to have a variant of early model AIM-9s called Sidearm on their AH-1's which was optimised for anti radar attacks.
I've never heard of something as large as a Sparrow or AMRAAM being successfully tested on a helo (although I stand ready to be corrected). I would imagine that the weight and blast of one of those wazzing off a helo would be a severe test to helo aerodynamics and airframe. Ground and vehicle based variants of AMRAAM have been around for a while, but I'd suggest that this would be somewhat different however.
Even if such problems could be overcome however, the integration costs would preclude procurement.
Following on from earlier discussions on this thread regarding fitting radar onto the GR9, it was formally stated in the House recently that the cost of integrating Blue Vixen and AMRAAM onto the GR9 would be approx £600m! There ain't no way that that sort of money is available.
Regards,
M2
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 31st Jan 2004 at 06:46.
While Helos haven't launched big AAMs, they have carried and launched some pretty large weapons. Sea King is cleared with Sea Eagle (India), Exocet (Pakistan and others) for instance.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Agreed. However, the those weapons are sea skimmers which are designed to...err, well...skim the sea. As JF says, AMRAAM needs max kinetic energy to ensure that they can climb fast and maintain enough energy to ensure sufficient range and end game manoeverability. Check out the ranges for the surface launched AMRAAM variants against those for the air-air variant.
I just can't see a helo launched AMRAAM variant being viable, even if we could afford the intergation costs.
Regards,
M2
Agreed. However, the those weapons are sea skimmers which are designed to...err, well...skim the sea. As JF says, AMRAAM needs max kinetic energy to ensure that they can climb fast and maintain enough energy to ensure sufficient range and end game manoeverability. Check out the ranges for the surface launched AMRAAM variants against those for the air-air variant.
I just can't see a helo launched AMRAAM variant being viable, even if we could afford the intergation costs.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMRAAM with more powerful engine is indeed in service as SAM:
NASAMS -- NORWEGIAN ADVANCED SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM
The air defence chaps are oh so proud of it!
NASAMS -- NORWEGIAN ADVANCED SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM
The air defence chaps are oh so proud of it!
Cheaper to keep the Sea Harrier going!
Following on from earlier discussions on this thread regarding fitting radar onto the GR9, it was formally stated in the House recently that the cost of integrating Blue Vixen and AMRAAM onto the GR9 would be approx £600m! There ain't no way that that sort of money is available.
Meanwhile, you might be interested in these pages - and the pages that link from them and the information on those pages (including the news sections):
800 NAS
801 NAS
899 NAS
Also the First Sea Lord has recently made some comments about the state of the Navy, the future and public perceptions.
The First Sea Lord's comments
Bearing in mind that he has to tow the party line, which of the following comes to mind?
"Read between the lines"
"Jam tommorow"
"Sea blindness"
"Public apathy"
Following on from earlier discussions on this thread regarding fitting radar onto the GR9, it was formally stated in the House recently that the cost of integrating Blue Vixen and AMRAAM onto the GR9 would be approx £600m! There ain't no way that that sort of money is available.
Meanwhile, you might be interested in these pages - and the pages that link from them and the information on those pages (including the news sections):
800 NAS
801 NAS
899 NAS
Also the First Sea Lord has recently made some comments about the state of the Navy, the future and public perceptions.
The First Sea Lord's comments
Bearing in mind that he has to tow the party line, which of the following comes to mind?
"Read between the lines"
"Jam tommorow"
"Sea blindness"
"Public apathy"
Returning to a point I made in a earlier post:
I have been told by a reliable source that the potential missile engagement I enquired about is possible. Blue Vixen is capable of tracing small fast moving targets such as missiles, AMRAAM can engage them. Obviously the exact deatails are classified.
You might wonder why I asked this question. When (Dr?) Lewis Moonie was interviewed on Newsnight regarding the Sea Harrier issue in April or May 2002 he stated that the most serious threat to (surface) ships was from missiles "that the Sea Harrier is no defence against". Apart from the issue of dealing with anti ship missile armed aircraft BEFORE they fire (and before they get within Sea Dart range) I thought he may have been less than honest during that interview.
I assume that the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination could also deal with surface, subsurface or land launched missiles as well as air launched ones. Given how widespread these things are can we afford to lose that capability?
Even against an enemy with no aircraft, we could still find ourselves facing multiple missile attacks. Surely dealing with them at the greatest possible range would be preferable?
I have been told by a reliable source that the potential missile engagement I enquired about is possible. Blue Vixen is capable of tracing small fast moving targets such as missiles, AMRAAM can engage them. Obviously the exact deatails are classified.
You might wonder why I asked this question. When (Dr?) Lewis Moonie was interviewed on Newsnight regarding the Sea Harrier issue in April or May 2002 he stated that the most serious threat to (surface) ships was from missiles "that the Sea Harrier is no defence against". Apart from the issue of dealing with anti ship missile armed aircraft BEFORE they fire (and before they get within Sea Dart range) I thought he may have been less than honest during that interview.
I assume that the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination could also deal with surface, subsurface or land launched missiles as well as air launched ones. Given how widespread these things are can we afford to lose that capability?
Even against an enemy with no aircraft, we could still find ourselves facing multiple missile attacks. Surely dealing with them at the greatest possible range would be preferable?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last Sunday BBC 2 had a most interesting programme War at Sea. The battle of Toranto was featured where pedestrian bi planes did for the Italian navy. Only 2 went down, remarkable considering the AA they had to fly through.
The Illustrious was lost as a direct result of lack of air support.
So, my questions
1) If an aircraft of limited technology can stroll through air defence, do we really need all this expensive high tech stuff? Remember what AQ did to the USN with a dinghy. What will Astor do against a few rag heads in a small boat filled with three tonnes of HE
2) If a capital ship can be lost because of non effective or no AD why bin the SHar?
Your starter for 10
The Illustrious was lost as a direct result of lack of air support.
So, my questions
1) If an aircraft of limited technology can stroll through air defence, do we really need all this expensive high tech stuff? Remember what AQ did to the USN with a dinghy. What will Astor do against a few rag heads in a small boat filled with three tonnes of HE
2) If a capital ship can be lost because of non effective or no AD why bin the SHar?
Your starter for 10
Suspicion breeds confidence
AMRAAM low level
Webf,
I've never seen any published data on AMRAAMs low level capabiility against missiles. However, it is safe to assume that AMRAAM is more effective than Sea Sparrow. Sea Sparrow and ESSM both have low level capability, so its safe to assume AMRAAM does too.
I have heard that a GR7 with AIM9 can take out a Sunburn or a Moskit
I've never seen any published data on AMRAAMs low level capabiility against missiles. However, it is safe to assume that AMRAAM is more effective than Sea Sparrow. Sea Sparrow and ESSM both have low level capability, so its safe to assume AMRAAM does too.
I have heard that a GR7 with AIM9 can take out a Sunburn or a Moskit
GR9 + AIM9 vs Sunburn or Moskit? Really?
FEBA Terrorists in boats on suicide attacks can't be defeated with missiles - of any kind ( by which I was refering to FEBA's reference to Aster. Shipborne anti air (or anti ship) missiles are not suitable for anti terrorist defence blah blah blah etc. Sea Skua from a Lynx is though! ). People armed with small arms, and small calibre fitted to ships weapons, are. As is the big machine gun that the Lynx can carry.
Meanwhile - this from Navy News
Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal returns to Scottish waters this week to conduct flying operations off the east coast before a visit alongside at Babcock Rosyth Dockyard over the coming weekend.
The carrier sailed from her home port of Portsmouth earlier this week and has been conducting work-up of her embarked Tailored Air Group (TAG), including Sea Harriers from 800 Naval Air Squadron and Mark 7 airborne early warning (AEW) and Mark 6 utility Sea King helicopters from 849A and 771 Naval Air Squadrons respectively.
Four RAF Tornado F3 aircraft have been simulating the enemy and providing a plausible threat to the warship.
See
The full story here.
FEBA Terrorists in boats on suicide attacks can't be defeated with missiles - of any kind ( by which I was refering to FEBA's reference to Aster. Shipborne anti air (or anti ship) missiles are not suitable for anti terrorist defence blah blah blah etc. Sea Skua from a Lynx is though! ). People armed with small arms, and small calibre fitted to ships weapons, are. As is the big machine gun that the Lynx can carry.
Meanwhile - this from Navy News
Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal returns to Scottish waters this week to conduct flying operations off the east coast before a visit alongside at Babcock Rosyth Dockyard over the coming weekend.
The carrier sailed from her home port of Portsmouth earlier this week and has been conducting work-up of her embarked Tailored Air Group (TAG), including Sea Harriers from 800 Naval Air Squadron and Mark 7 airborne early warning (AEW) and Mark 6 utility Sea King helicopters from 849A and 771 Naval Air Squadrons respectively.
Four RAF Tornado F3 aircraft have been simulating the enemy and providing a plausible threat to the warship.
See
The full story here.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 13th Feb 2004 at 17:54.
Terrorists in boats on suicide attacks cann't be defeated with missiles
WEBF, could you clarify the para that sentence appears in please?It doesn't quite make sense at the moment. Presume you mean that a Lynx with HMG pod could be useful against Mr Al-Terrorist and his dinghy, but not certain...
For those of you who have read the whole thread you will see that my previous entry was complimentary to both the Sea Harrier and its pilots, but come on guys, wake up and smell the roses.
27 pages on this thread (at least on my screen) 395 entries and some 21600 odd views, AND THE SEA HARRIER WILL STILL BE RETIRED AS CURRENTLY PLANNED!! Nothing said here will/can make the slightest bit of difference, and in a couple of months yet further cuts (probably big ones) will be announced. Is the Sea Harrier a capable platform, YES! Is that the point of the arguement for its demise, NO!!!!
It is about money, priorities, and what we as a nation can/are prepared to spend on defence. Our % of GDP spent on defence has gone down from about 4% 10-20 years ago to about 2% now (I sure ORAC can provide the accurate figures!!). Most of the people on this site are military, and so we do not think that is right, but what about Joe Public. Defence is not an issue to them (and it doesn't get the politicians votes), Education, Health, Law and Order, Immigration might be, but not Defence. If you think it should be then try persuade the public, your MP, etc. But writing how effective a JTIDS equipped Sea Harrier would be at defeating sea skimming missiles with AMRAAM is pissing into wind!!!!!!!!
Lets just pray that Defence doesn't become an issue as a result of a major terriost incident in the UK.
27 pages on this thread (at least on my screen) 395 entries and some 21600 odd views, AND THE SEA HARRIER WILL STILL BE RETIRED AS CURRENTLY PLANNED!! Nothing said here will/can make the slightest bit of difference, and in a couple of months yet further cuts (probably big ones) will be announced. Is the Sea Harrier a capable platform, YES! Is that the point of the arguement for its demise, NO!!!!
It is about money, priorities, and what we as a nation can/are prepared to spend on defence. Our % of GDP spent on defence has gone down from about 4% 10-20 years ago to about 2% now (I sure ORAC can provide the accurate figures!!). Most of the people on this site are military, and so we do not think that is right, but what about Joe Public. Defence is not an issue to them (and it doesn't get the politicians votes), Education, Health, Law and Order, Immigration might be, but not Defence. If you think it should be then try persuade the public, your MP, etc. But writing how effective a JTIDS equipped Sea Harrier would be at defeating sea skimming missiles with AMRAAM is pissing into wind!!!!!!!!
Lets just pray that Defence doesn't become an issue as a result of a major terriost incident in the UK.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Gus
I'm with you and you are right, the question is however, should you be right.
Remember that Defence like the NHS, has the ability to turn around and bite a PM squarely in the arse. It can (and maybe will, over GW2) bring down a government. When the next PM organised sham into WMD is firmly rejected by the opposition and the humble prols, and the government walls begin to crack and crumble, the loss of the SEA Harrier could become a very useful lever with which to prize new labour out of Westminster. So; should we keep the debate running, write to our MP's, or should we let teflon Tony get away with it again ?
I'm with you and you are right, the question is however, should you be right.
Remember that Defence like the NHS, has the ability to turn around and bite a PM squarely in the arse. It can (and maybe will, over GW2) bring down a government. When the next PM organised sham into WMD is firmly rejected by the opposition and the humble prols, and the government walls begin to crack and crumble, the loss of the SEA Harrier could become a very useful lever with which to prize new labour out of Westminster. So; should we keep the debate running, write to our MP's, or should we let teflon Tony get away with it again ?
Just in case your interested
The third (and final) part of War At Sea will be broadcast on BBC2 at 7pm. It will cover the Royal Navy post World War II. This includes the Falklands - which should make it of great interest to everyone who has read this thread.
Who knows, it might also speculate about the future.....?
Biggus - unfortunately I think you are right about public perceptions etc. Time perhaps to resurrect my thread about defence, the media and public perceptions?
Who knows, it might also speculate about the future.....?
Biggus - unfortunately I think you are right about public perceptions etc. Time perhaps to resurrect my thread about defence, the media and public perceptions?
FEBA,
Be VERY careful what you wish for!
If,as you appear to hope, the fuss over GW2 and WMD forces Labour out of Office, resulting in a Conservative administration I foresee an absolute disaster for our armed forces.
The loss of the PM's credibility over GW2 will ensure that we virtually never again venture forth on Expeditionary Ops, no Govt will ever again consider the risk worthwhile. In that scenario you can imagine what a Govt that has just comitted itself to £35Billion public expenditure cuts will do to the defence budget.
You will see cuts that will make 1957 and Options for change and Front line first seem like mere pin pricks.
BTW,
"thw loss of the Sea Harrier could become a very useful lever with which to prize new Labour out of Westminster"
How on earth do you work that one out! The public could not care less about any particular fast jet type, let alone the SHAR.
Be VERY careful what you wish for!
If,as you appear to hope, the fuss over GW2 and WMD forces Labour out of Office, resulting in a Conservative administration I foresee an absolute disaster for our armed forces.
The loss of the PM's credibility over GW2 will ensure that we virtually never again venture forth on Expeditionary Ops, no Govt will ever again consider the risk worthwhile. In that scenario you can imagine what a Govt that has just comitted itself to £35Billion public expenditure cuts will do to the defence budget.
You will see cuts that will make 1957 and Options for change and Front line first seem like mere pin pricks.
BTW,
"thw loss of the Sea Harrier could become a very useful lever with which to prize new Labour out of Westminster"
How on earth do you work that one out! The public could not care less about any particular fast jet type, let alone the SHAR.
Suspicion breeds confidence
War at Sea last night
Thought last night's prog was excellent. Sharkey Ward (apart from looking ancient) said that only two people shared his belief that the Shar would prove a war winning asset - him and Sandy Woodward.
Come off it Sharkey! - your book makes it clear that you had little or no confidence in the "Flag" as far as the Shar was concerned. Sandy makes it quite clear that he knew little or nothing about the Shar's capabilities at the time. This sounds like a bit of mutual backslapping 20 years after the event.
Come off it Sharkey! - your book makes it clear that you had little or no confidence in the "Flag" as far as the Shar was concerned. Sandy makes it quite clear that he knew little or nothing about the Shar's capabilities at the time. This sounds like a bit of mutual backslapping 20 years after the event.
Last edited by Navaleye; 16th Feb 2004 at 23:38.