Well, yes I do in a sense. You have to look at it in terms of relative capability vs. the rest of the region. In that respect the Mirage 3 in 1970 was the same as the F/A-18A in 1990, not much had changed relative to the threat.
Cheers.Mate, I love your enthusiasm, but please take note of the following:
1. There is absolutely no way when loaded for operations are you going to have a harrier go 3,300km (assumedly) 1650km radius from the carrier. You should read 'Sharkey' Wards book on the combat employment of the Harriers during the Falklands War and how limited they were in terms of what could be carried and how far. Falklands War was 1982 - I'm assuming that's maybe twice as long ago as you have been on the planet.
2. Speaking of 1982 - we are talking about a design that dates from the late 1950's (prototype flew in 1960). It's heyday has come and gone for its extremely limited mission and capabilities. There is a reason why it wasn't operated as frontline CAS/Interdiction/Airsuperiority roles by any other forces that didn't need the unique VTOL characteristics of the machine - that was that it wasn't that brilliant an aircraft in the first place. You are advocating purchasing a design that goes back 50 years, - clapped out airframes with many hours and putting a pilots butt into them to face many more capable machines? I'm glad they have a Martin Baker onboard - I'd be using it as soon as I saw anything more capable than a PC-9 coming after me!
---->many hours of flight, or 1/3-4-5-6... of their life, a radar of f18 is capable against other jets, so it is amraam, also without it it can eliminate hostile UAV´s, it can launch special UAV´s at 15000 mts altitude at 1000 kms, and the other capabilities apart than facing enemy last generations jets.
3. Even if you were able to get them for $10M each (too much but lets run with that) the cost of support, spares (a whole new inventory) training, simulators, deeper level maintenance facilities etc is going to be ten times that cost per year at a minimum. For only 5 airframes to be costing a half a billion dollars is a massive expense for bugger all return. That cost would buy a couple more A330 tankers to provide a whole shedload more support from our existing fixed wing assets.
---->10 mill euro or dollar with the radars is good price, for 1/8 of lifed consumed, 5 jets 50, plus 10 mill human resources (10 years, 30 people), plus 10 millions spares (?!) (or depend on us and buy when needed..), plus x (<50 i think sure) mill for pc simulators (x-plane 7 has the sim of the Royal Navy sea harrier among others models), real sims, weapons, machinery, integration of other weapons. Deeper level maintenance facilities are in the raaf probably. I dont think 500 mill the total, disagree completelynfloorl:
4. Two for training/attrition replacements (you'd need way more than that given the age of the machines and their complexity, and the way they alarmingly seem to fall from the sky fairly regularly - they are a demanding beast to fly apparently). 3 Harriers deployed is bugger all. You'd need 3 birds minimum to fly a CAP on the carrier just for starters. What provides air support? How about a bird goes down due to a need for maintenance/battle damage, what effect will 2 x Harriers have?
---->It flys with us, uk, italy, spain, with spain crashed 2 i think out of 18 or 19, but in 30 years.
The principe de asturias pda has a superior sea state level launching capacity to other carriers, the lhd is thought in the same way, with the retractile wings-fins of the lhd maybe such a sea state level launching capacity remains, if you can launch a harrier and the other cant launch his jet you may achieve a real kamikaze target with the automatic pilot:el
5. The space required and the redesign to accomodate the munitions and increased bunkerage will add massively to the cost of these vessels and reduce their utility (the original design intent).
---->I dont think you have to redesing much, the ship is thought for jets, minor problem.
6. The PR effect of having them zoom over the crowd's heads can be accomplished by F/A-18's, Super Hornets, F-35's (in future) etc already in the inventory. The most impressive aircraft from a crowd demo perspective was the F111 doing its 'dump and burn' routine - if PR was that important we'd retain a few of them - it isn't and we're not.
----->You can make an stationary flight with the harrier shooting the cannon in the beach..
7. Finally, as you have been reminded a few times, this topic isn't to be discussed as it isn't going to happen. Unless you can show us documents showing this option is being seriously considered by the higher eschelons of the ADF or the minister, please drop it.
----->I wait for a moderators warning, but if someone comments on my commentts i can extend a bit.
Cheers,
I think the Harrier was a great plane in its day and still has mileage but it is a transonic fighter/bomber really comparable to the Hawker Hunter, why would the RAN buy them when they could buy F35b's. But in any case the RAN has decided it does not need fixed wing carriers and from what has been said by others this looks like the right decision. I think you have to accept the view of the room and just agree to differ on this one.
It is not that the ADF has decided it does not need the F-35B, rather it is that they cannot be properly afforded. One must keep in mind though that the whole situation needs to be viewed in context.
In saying they did not need them, I was express the views a number of people had made that the RAN did not need them because either RAAF could provide cover or RAN would be operating as part of a task force where the USN would have carriers. So small point but I stand by "didn't need" rather than your "does not have the budget". Because the argument has been made that if there was more budget it would be better spent elsewhere.
$10 mil for 30 people for 10 years for the people costs? You are dreaming my friend. People costs: On average the salary of those 30 people you talk about would be $75,000 (pilots and senior maintainers, CO's Ops officers etc would be above that, junior staff below that. As most employers know, the true on costs includiung super, health, uniforms replacements for holidays, maternity leave etsc as well as compliance costs and payroll taxes you should double that salary as a rule of thumb. So, $150,000 per year for 30 people is $4.5 million dollars. Times 10 is $45million dollars. That's quite a long way different to your figures... Assuming you could even operate 5 of these with 30 people...
Umm... No. You are still overlooking or ignoring the support infrastructure required to operate fixed wing aircraft, it is a very expensive thing to do. In a case like the one suggested, the cost per aircraft gets to be prohibitively expensive relative to the capability gained. The various Harrier models in operational condition are not new aircraft, and being V/STOL and operating from carriers (or assault ships if USMC Harriers) at sea just increase the strain and exposure of the aircraft, thus driving maintenance costs higher still.
as a self defence resource of each ship itself, inherent to it, her bodyguards.It takes a lot more than three Lighting IIs to provide a sufficient CAP over the fleet and a carrier. A whole lot more. If you are not going to provide CAP 24-7 seven days a week, why bother?Thanks for your messages and attention: to rectify somethings:
-one of the configuration in principe de asturias pda carrier: 12 harrier and 12 helicopters, for 208 people embarked as "air unit", so for example 120 for the jets and 88 for the helos, so 120/12=10 people per jet, ok it can be 150 for the jets... etc, so the ratio of personnel per jet is not excessive...just looking at that i would buy 10 jets, 3 for each ship
-let me correct that the lhd with a spanish maxima configuration of, for example, 16 jets+12 helicopters, would need an air unit embarked of 160+90=250, plus the 250 of the ship itself (amount for lhd, maybe for carrier is less), so 500 no 200-300.:shudder
-if the ran choosed mistral ship then she, the ran, would have 4000 or 7000 tonnes less in each lhd, a harrier weights 7 tonnes.. so imagine you have the mistral then you have to adapt to it, there is margin for a bit more of lhd-capacity than mistral+3 jets and we are all happy.
-Thanks ed.mod. for the information of the configuration of munition warehouse (600 m2), and configuration of jp5 ship tank/s (800 tonnes)...so the ran had to chosee and choosed nothing for jets, but it can be changed i suppose whenever they want. one thing is the ran says 0 % per jets, but you can say 10% space for jets later, and that doesnot decreases the amphhibious-lhd capacity, because the 80-90% for the helos is a lot still, maybe is more than a mistral of 20000 would give.
-Anyway i understand you, and i understand me.
-Cheers.
Yes it is very familiar and has been beaten to death. So unless some solid news comes out the mods are reinstating an old policy.
Well, as the limitation of French's technology, Mirage III, which is about the same technology level as early model MIG-21, is already become obsolete even on 1960s, when compare with the then super fighter F-4 Phantom or the F-104G (which is the first light fighter to have a ground mapping radar). And by 1970s, air forces in the region already have lots of MIG-21bis, F-104G or even F-4D/E (Japan and South Korea), which are same class if not better than RAAF's MirageIIIO.
I think the Mirage III was significantly superior to the MiG 21 IMO, both as an aircraft and as a weapons system. And lets remember in 1965 the Mirage represented a comparable capability edge to the Hornet in 1985. And as far as allied nations having superior platforms to the Mirage III, remember the JASDF was flying F-15J's while we were happy with the Hornets.
Again my point was relative to the threat the introduction of the F/A-18A in the mid 90's was comparable to the introduction of the Mirage III in the mid 60's. True BVR capability was as much of a capability edge as the ability to get to Mach 2 + all aspect engagement. The only real difference is it took a little longer for regional air forces to acquire a comparable BVR capability through AIM-7, AIm-120 and R-27.So it is a yes and no for the RAAF's F/A-18A/B: in generation wise, it is not a revolution as many air force in the region also introducing early model F-16A/B block15 and area defence capable destroyers about the same time as RAAF's F/A-18. But in capability wise, as our hornets have built in capability for AIM-7 and harpoons, which most of their F-16 doesn't until the later upgrades on 1990s, the out-range advantage is a revolution..........
RAN had been working with USN and G&C to pull the numbers down. In fact they were quite comparable in the end.