Sea Jet
Biggus
It was the Chief of General Staff, not me, that said the UK could contribute a force of 5000 or so troops on the ground. I suspect the UN would be more likely to authorise an oil embargo than putting trops on the ground.
rivetjoint
As part of the "war on terror" there are maritime interdiction operations in the Med, Red Sea and Arabian Gulf. These are all multinational in nature, as was the arms embago off of Bosnia. A lot of people would see a purely American force as unacceptable.
It was the Chief of General Staff, not me, that said the UK could contribute a force of 5000 or so troops on the ground. I suspect the UN would be more likely to authorise an oil embargo than putting trops on the ground.
rivetjoint
As part of the "war on terror" there are maritime interdiction operations in the Med, Red Sea and Arabian Gulf. These are all multinational in nature, as was the arms embago off of Bosnia. A lot of people would see a purely American force as unacceptable.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Sep 2004 at 19:39.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
"Are you saying radar is pointless unless you have AMRAAM?
If it is desirable for USMC Harriers aboard a LPH (presumably a Wasp?) that can provide air defence for an amphibious group so that it is not 100% dependent on USN aircraft then surely the same argument applies to a UK task group?"
I can totally see where you're coming from. But I'm afraid I disagree. I spent years flying a GR7 thinking that if I had a radar I'd be unstoppable (and even more unbearable to be in a bar with). However the reality of life with an APG-65 on the nose is very different from what I thought it would be.
Firstly there's the training - USMC pilots do not fly anywhere near as much as we do. When they do fly they are absolutely paranoid about having a 'mishap' and spend long hours figuring out how to minimize the risks of the flight. ACM and BFM are considered to be extremely risky (probably cause the Hornet community keep swapping paint while doing it). On average I reckon a USMC guy is going to get around 5 hours of ACM/BFM a year. My point is that they're just not very good at it, and they don't seem to care that they're not very good at it - ie they don't represent any kind of capable defence for the LHA(= Tarawa class) or LHD(= Wasp).
I can't speak for the Blue Vixen, but APG-65, particularly with the software load that the USMC have, is not the answer to all your prayers, especially if you don't have a mx. It's great for finding the tanker, for finding your wingman when he goes off somewhere on his own and for sampling traffic around you to see if they're a factor. But in the air-air role its utility is less obvious as I said in my previous post. The thing I most love about it is air-ground ranging so you can drop dumb bombs VERY accurately (but how often are you going to drop dumb bombs these days??).
Integrating a radar onto the GR would take so long and take so much money it's not even worth thinking about - you're talking about an airframe change with associated testing requirements, huge c of g issues, upgrading the generator, the wiring looms, the mission computer, the display processors, the avionics cooling system, changing hotas functionality etc etc. You're almost starting from scratch. And all you get for your effort is a little help in the administrative parts of the flight and an upgrade to the DMT air-ground ranging.
I wouldn't have thought that dropping a Link 16 box into the airframe would be simple either, but I think it would be a little quicker and cheaper. You'd get even more SA on the admin flying stuff AND have SA while notching threats + a whole load of other benefits.
So I'm not saying radar is pointless without Amraam, but if you gave me the money to put radar on the GR9 I wouldn't. I'd put Link 16 in instead and spend the left over cash on things of real use ie more TIALD pods, Triple Ejector Racks (so you can carry 2xGBU-12 on a pylon like the F-16), Small Diameter Bomb, datalink the JRP and maybe then think about Asraam and HMS/HMD. And if you run out of money, scrap Brimstone.
The demise of the SHar is definitely not something that I celebrate as a Good Thing. But to my mind it is something that we can live with (if for no other reason than the fact that the MEUs have lived without that sort of air cover for years and have no plans to live otherwise). Faced with the reality of life, that the CVS will have GR7/9 for the next decade, where do we go from here? And my answer is Link 16 - the RN can argue loudly about the air-air benefits, while the RAF can talk up its benefits in the air-ground arena. So here's a thought, we could put aside inter-service rivalry for a minute and both pull in the same direction.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
"Are you saying radar is pointless unless you have AMRAAM?
If it is desirable for USMC Harriers aboard a LPH (presumably a Wasp?) that can provide air defence for an amphibious group so that it is not 100% dependent on USN aircraft then surely the same argument applies to a UK task group?"
I can totally see where you're coming from. But I'm afraid I disagree. I spent years flying a GR7 thinking that if I had a radar I'd be unstoppable (and even more unbearable to be in a bar with). However the reality of life with an APG-65 on the nose is very different from what I thought it would be.
Firstly there's the training - USMC pilots do not fly anywhere near as much as we do. When they do fly they are absolutely paranoid about having a 'mishap' and spend long hours figuring out how to minimize the risks of the flight. ACM and BFM are considered to be extremely risky (probably cause the Hornet community keep swapping paint while doing it). On average I reckon a USMC guy is going to get around 5 hours of ACM/BFM a year. My point is that they're just not very good at it, and they don't seem to care that they're not very good at it - ie they don't represent any kind of capable defence for the LHA(= Tarawa class) or LHD(= Wasp).
I can't speak for the Blue Vixen, but APG-65, particularly with the software load that the USMC have, is not the answer to all your prayers, especially if you don't have a mx. It's great for finding the tanker, for finding your wingman when he goes off somewhere on his own and for sampling traffic around you to see if they're a factor. But in the air-air role its utility is less obvious as I said in my previous post. The thing I most love about it is air-ground ranging so you can drop dumb bombs VERY accurately (but how often are you going to drop dumb bombs these days??).
Integrating a radar onto the GR would take so long and take so much money it's not even worth thinking about - you're talking about an airframe change with associated testing requirements, huge c of g issues, upgrading the generator, the wiring looms, the mission computer, the display processors, the avionics cooling system, changing hotas functionality etc etc. You're almost starting from scratch. And all you get for your effort is a little help in the administrative parts of the flight and an upgrade to the DMT air-ground ranging.
I wouldn't have thought that dropping a Link 16 box into the airframe would be simple either, but I think it would be a little quicker and cheaper. You'd get even more SA on the admin flying stuff AND have SA while notching threats + a whole load of other benefits.
So I'm not saying radar is pointless without Amraam, but if you gave me the money to put radar on the GR9 I wouldn't. I'd put Link 16 in instead and spend the left over cash on things of real use ie more TIALD pods, Triple Ejector Racks (so you can carry 2xGBU-12 on a pylon like the F-16), Small Diameter Bomb, datalink the JRP and maybe then think about Asraam and HMS/HMD. And if you run out of money, scrap Brimstone.
The demise of the SHar is definitely not something that I celebrate as a Good Thing. But to my mind it is something that we can live with (if for no other reason than the fact that the MEUs have lived without that sort of air cover for years and have no plans to live otherwise). Faced with the reality of life, that the CVS will have GR7/9 for the next decade, where do we go from here? And my answer is Link 16 - the RN can argue loudly about the air-air benefits, while the RAF can talk up its benefits in the air-ground arena. So here's a thought, we could put aside inter-service rivalry for a minute and both pull in the same direction.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Last edited by SSSETOWTF; 27th Sep 2004 at 01:59.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF, when I said "a perfect world", I suppose I should have qualified it by saying "in relation to the SHar"!
On the whole I agree with your point of view and the best kit feasible should be put on the GR7's as soon as possible. It's just a bad thing to lose all the SHar's before JSF actually arrives (assuming, of course, that it ever does).
BTW, does the RAF practice AA combat with GR.7s? Is the GR.7 wing as good as the SHar wing for ACM? I know it carries more but it is slower and if it sheds more energy in a turn than the original (Sea)Harrier wing then the GR7/9 isn't going to be a great fighter - not that it is designed to be one LERX not withstanding. Mind you, the original Harrier wasn't designed for air combat either despite it's success in that role.
Does superior training and tactics make a GR.7 effective if it should meet some mad dictator's Mig 21 or Mirage? Would an AEW operator feel happy vectoring Harriers onto such a threat?
OK, so AMRAAM is never going to be fitted, but what about Meteor (if, again, it ever arrives . . .)? Isn't it Active homing? If it is, then is radar on the firing platform necessary or can it be fired off on a heading passed on from an AWACS or similar platform in the hopes that it's on-board radar will pick up the target? OK this is getting off topic but I am curious. Perhaps a new thread?
On the whole I agree with your point of view and the best kit feasible should be put on the GR7's as soon as possible. It's just a bad thing to lose all the SHar's before JSF actually arrives (assuming, of course, that it ever does).
BTW, does the RAF practice AA combat with GR.7s? Is the GR.7 wing as good as the SHar wing for ACM? I know it carries more but it is slower and if it sheds more energy in a turn than the original (Sea)Harrier wing then the GR7/9 isn't going to be a great fighter - not that it is designed to be one LERX not withstanding. Mind you, the original Harrier wasn't designed for air combat either despite it's success in that role.
Does superior training and tactics make a GR.7 effective if it should meet some mad dictator's Mig 21 or Mirage? Would an AEW operator feel happy vectoring Harriers onto such a threat?
OK, so AMRAAM is never going to be fitted, but what about Meteor (if, again, it ever arrives . . .)? Isn't it Active homing? If it is, then is radar on the firing platform necessary or can it be fired off on a heading passed on from an AWACS or similar platform in the hopes that it's on-board radar will pick up the target? OK this is getting off topic but I am curious. Perhaps a new thread?
Suspicion breeds confidence
The GR7 will out turn a Shar at low level, apart from having a longer range it has few if any advantages in AAC. Its a bomber so air to air engagements are not high up the priority list,
The FAA on the other hand will have to practise ACM with the GR9/A. The extra donk might help. I expect that they will have to revert to the old FRS1 routines and substitute SKW radar for Blue Fox.
I would not be surprised if ASRAAM found its way on to the Navy Harriers before too long. The extra range and better detection might help mitigate the loss of the SHar somewhat. Its still a typically British shambles though.
The FAA on the other hand will have to practise ACM with the GR9/A. The extra donk might help. I expect that they will have to revert to the old FRS1 routines and substitute SKW radar for Blue Fox.
I would not be surprised if ASRAAM found its way on to the Navy Harriers before too long. The extra range and better detection might help mitigate the loss of the SHar somewhat. Its still a typically British shambles though.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR7 ACT
Pureteenlard,
The RAF practices ACT regularly with the GR7, albeit only visual combat! The GR7's wing is better than the Shars, and will comfortably out-rate the smaller-winged Shar at low AND medium level, especially with 100% LERX fitted. Yes, the bigger wing will bleed energy quicker, but the bigger engine makes up for that.
I should point out to all my Shar friends that I am not slagging off their jet in the slightest as I am only too aware that they will have shot at me before I've even got to the merge!
I'd certainly have a go at a Mig21, colleagues of mine have had success against them, though there are many different types of fight out there!
At the end of the day though, I'd feel a lot more comfortable dropping bombs on stuff.
The RAF practices ACT regularly with the GR7, albeit only visual combat! The GR7's wing is better than the Shars, and will comfortably out-rate the smaller-winged Shar at low AND medium level, especially with 100% LERX fitted. Yes, the bigger wing will bleed energy quicker, but the bigger engine makes up for that.
I should point out to all my Shar friends that I am not slagging off their jet in the slightest as I am only too aware that they will have shot at me before I've even got to the merge!
I'd certainly have a go at a Mig21, colleagues of mine have had success against them, though there are many different types of fight out there!
At the end of the day though, I'd feel a lot more comfortable dropping bombs on stuff.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
You don't, unless you've been eating a lot of carrots! I'm not in the slightest trying to imply that the GR7 is good for AD, just trying to answer one of the previous posters questions on the Mud Jet.
Soz if I caused any offence
You don't, unless you've been eating a lot of carrots! I'm not in the slightest trying to imply that the GR7 is good for AD, just trying to answer one of the previous posters questions on the Mud Jet.
Soz if I caused any offence
Suspicion breeds confidence
None taken at all. I just wanted to make the point that we have lost all BVR for the fleet and have lost night time WVR cover as well. So as long as an enemy comes along who doesn't have any BVR capacity and doesn't like flying at night then everything is peachy.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt you'll find many MiG 21's up after dark either.
So the RAF does practice visual AAC in the GR.7. Does it hold it's own? Are training and tactics more important than what you fly anyway? Would a GR.7 with good AWACS support be more useful that a SHar without?
Damn . . . off topic again . . .
So the RAF does practice visual AAC in the GR.7. Does it hold it's own? Are training and tactics more important than what you fly anyway? Would a GR.7 with good AWACS support be more useful that a SHar without?
Damn . . . off topic again . . .
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Does the GR7 hold its own?"
I don't think there's a simple answer to that question. I've flown in 2 and 4-ships that have got in amongst F-3s, F-16s, F-18s, M2Ks etc and got off some valid shots. I've defeated lots of shots, both semi-active and active. But I've also been 'shot' more times than I care to remember. Air-air combat depends on a huge number of variables such as training & tactics, currency, how many are on each side, aircraft performance, countermeasures, intelligence, atmospherics. Probably the biggest variable is situational awareness. If you can do some kind of exploding watermelon funky chicken manoevre in your GR7 that trashes the threat's SA, while maintaining your own, then you've got a good chance. Knowledge of your opponent's tactics is a huge benefit too. If you can second guess when he's going to mate/meld (SHars don't have to though do they?), or what his shot/abort ranges are it helps tremendously. At the end of the day though you can't escape the fundamentals that the GR7 is one of the slowest jets out there, with the shortest 'stick'.
GR7 + Link 16 + AWACS vs SHar only would certainly be an interesting one and hard to call. Stalemate perhaps with one side eventually disengaging for fuel? But it's never that simple either cause there'll be a bigger picture. Is it day VMC or night and IMC? Is it a pure fight for air superiority for both sides (ie you're just trying to get air-air kills)? Or is one side trying to get around the fighter threat to strike a target? How important is that target - is it a chemical Scud fueling to launch on Israel, or is it a bridge downtown Baghdad that we can back off from, call in F-15Cs to clear out the air threat, and engage later? Are red air part of an integrated air defence, trying to lure us into a SAM engagement kill zone or trying to get us to go low, into a huge ZSU-23/SA-18 belt? Is red air just trying to 'soft kill' us ie get us to jettison our bombs and go home? Do the fighters have to go 'high risk' ie risk losing some of their own in order to absolutely prevent the strikers because they're the last line of defence protecting the lone carrier, or are they trying to break up the raid into smaller units that coalition Patriots can engage more easily? Is there airspace to try to split and sidestep red air, or do I have the Baghdad super-MEZ on my left and Iran on my right? Hopefully you get the picture that the answer really is 'that depends' - sorry if that's not the one word answer you were looking for.
One day I'll learn how to write short posts....
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I don't think there's a simple answer to that question. I've flown in 2 and 4-ships that have got in amongst F-3s, F-16s, F-18s, M2Ks etc and got off some valid shots. I've defeated lots of shots, both semi-active and active. But I've also been 'shot' more times than I care to remember. Air-air combat depends on a huge number of variables such as training & tactics, currency, how many are on each side, aircraft performance, countermeasures, intelligence, atmospherics. Probably the biggest variable is situational awareness. If you can do some kind of exploding watermelon funky chicken manoevre in your GR7 that trashes the threat's SA, while maintaining your own, then you've got a good chance. Knowledge of your opponent's tactics is a huge benefit too. If you can second guess when he's going to mate/meld (SHars don't have to though do they?), or what his shot/abort ranges are it helps tremendously. At the end of the day though you can't escape the fundamentals that the GR7 is one of the slowest jets out there, with the shortest 'stick'.
GR7 + Link 16 + AWACS vs SHar only would certainly be an interesting one and hard to call. Stalemate perhaps with one side eventually disengaging for fuel? But it's never that simple either cause there'll be a bigger picture. Is it day VMC or night and IMC? Is it a pure fight for air superiority for both sides (ie you're just trying to get air-air kills)? Or is one side trying to get around the fighter threat to strike a target? How important is that target - is it a chemical Scud fueling to launch on Israel, or is it a bridge downtown Baghdad that we can back off from, call in F-15Cs to clear out the air threat, and engage later? Are red air part of an integrated air defence, trying to lure us into a SAM engagement kill zone or trying to get us to go low, into a huge ZSU-23/SA-18 belt? Is red air just trying to 'soft kill' us ie get us to jettison our bombs and go home? Do the fighters have to go 'high risk' ie risk losing some of their own in order to absolutely prevent the strikers because they're the last line of defence protecting the lone carrier, or are they trying to break up the raid into smaller units that coalition Patriots can engage more easily? Is there airspace to try to split and sidestep red air, or do I have the Baghdad super-MEZ on my left and Iran on my right? Hopefully you get the picture that the answer really is 'that depends' - sorry if that's not the one word answer you were looking for.
One day I'll learn how to write short posts....
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pureteenlard,
Why not? Night flying is merely a factor of training, pilot currency and even the oldest variants of Fishbed are capable of such flying. I've seen plenty of Fishbeds tooling around at night.
Regards,
M2
I doubt you'll find many MiG 21's up after dark either.
Regards,
M2
Suspicion breeds confidence
The Indians certainly fly them at night. It was designed as an all weather day/night interceptor after all.
Would it be possible to hang AMRAAM on a GR7 and let its homing head do the work? The RAF throught the idea was a goer for the Flying Fin. Its got to be better than nothing.
Would it be possible to hang AMRAAM on a GR7 and let its homing head do the work? The RAF throught the idea was a goer for the Flying Fin. Its got to be better than nothing.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMRAAM's semi-active homing, isn't it? In which case unless the firing aircraft is illuminating the target, the AMRAAM's homing head will have no reflected radar signal on which to home.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AMRAAMs is active. It is certainly feasible, but it would probably need an initial fix to make it worth while. That could be provided from on offbaord sensor using L16.
The makers of the Predator are pushing hard to try to get the AMRAAM onboard Predator 2 with guidance and launch authority coming from the E3D.
The next USAF ace probably won´t be a pilot or a WSO but a weapons controller.....
The makers of the Predator are pushing hard to try to get the AMRAAM onboard Predator 2 with guidance and launch authority coming from the E3D.
The next USAF ace probably won´t be a pilot or a WSO but a weapons controller.....
Last edited by ORAC; 29th Sep 2004 at 12:10.
The possibility of the GR7/9 carrying AMRAAM and firing it using data from the SKW (via data link) for initial targeting was discussed earlier on these pages, and discounted as being impractical.
I notice nobody has commented on the "Red Sea Roulette" scenario.
On another note, www.warplane.co.uk, notes that there has recently been an exercise of of Scotland involving Invincible, and both 801 NAS and 899 NAS are soon going to ACMI. Anyone know any details (apart from the links below)?
Edited (yet again) to add these links:
INVINCIBLE - exercise off of the coast of Scotland
More news from INVINCIBLE - another exercise involving the Sea Harrier
So this is the second exercise this year in which the Sea Harrier has played a part in a multinational scenario....
I notice nobody has commented on the "Red Sea Roulette" scenario.
On another note, www.warplane.co.uk, notes that there has recently been an exercise of of Scotland involving Invincible, and both 801 NAS and 899 NAS are soon going to ACMI. Anyone know any details (apart from the links below)?
Edited (yet again) to add these links:
INVINCIBLE - exercise off of the coast of Scotland
More news from INVINCIBLE - another exercise involving the Sea Harrier
So this is the second exercise this year in which the Sea Harrier has played a part in a multinational scenario....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 30th Sep 2004 at 09:40.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fife
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seve
Good to see you contributing from the other side of the world, you sound so well-informed anyone would guess you'd applied for test-pilot school in the recent past. Are you doing the Cresta this year?
Navaleye et al
As for Amraam integration on platforms withour radars, there would be a kinematic loss in performance but more pertinently there is a massive problem with ROE. A platform without a radar is unlikey to be given any automous ROE which would prove restrictive for both Amraam and Asraam shooting. Even if you came up with suitable ROE and employed a data-link system that gave guidance data, you'd have to have great confidence in the robustness of the system and the pilot would find it very restrictive. Even this sort of system would not utilise the full potential of each missile.
Good to see you contributing from the other side of the world, you sound so well-informed anyone would guess you'd applied for test-pilot school in the recent past. Are you doing the Cresta this year?
Navaleye et al
As for Amraam integration on platforms withour radars, there would be a kinematic loss in performance but more pertinently there is a massive problem with ROE. A platform without a radar is unlikey to be given any automous ROE which would prove restrictive for both Amraam and Asraam shooting. Even if you came up with suitable ROE and employed a data-link system that gave guidance data, you'd have to have great confidence in the robustness of the system and the pilot would find it very restrictive. Even this sort of system would not utilise the full potential of each missile.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I see your point about missiles wandering around the sky choosing their own target. Less of a problem with asraam though which is largely WVR.
ROE didn't stop the RAF trying to fire them sans data link from the F3 I recall.
ROE didn't stop the RAF trying to fire them sans data link from the F3 I recall.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Brit in Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
"Less of a problem with asraam though which is largely WVR"
Really ? What do you class as WVR?
Given ASRAAMs capabilities I would not want to be in the neighborhood of an ASRAAM that had lost lock post launch.
"ROE didn't stop the RAF trying to fire them sans data link from the F3 I recall"
Why should it ? The missile was primed with accurate target data prior to launch.
I was taught whats important is the quality of the data; if you're trying to use offboard target data LATENCY is usually the killer. L16 is v. poor in this resect.
KM-H
"Less of a problem with asraam though which is largely WVR"
Really ? What do you class as WVR?
Given ASRAAMs capabilities I would not want to be in the neighborhood of an ASRAAM that had lost lock post launch.
"ROE didn't stop the RAF trying to fire them sans data link from the F3 I recall"
Why should it ? The missile was primed with accurate target data prior to launch.
I was taught whats important is the quality of the data; if you're trying to use offboard target data LATENCY is usually the killer. L16 is v. poor in this resect.
KM-H
Suspicion breeds confidence
Really ? What do you class as WVR?