The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Including the Mirage IIIs? Strange that they would launch sorties at high altitude with nothing but air to air missiles and fuel tanks if their target was ships?
The Shafir had a very good combat record in Israeli service. Anyway the Defa guns on Mirages have shot down many more aircraft than all the world’s Sidewinders. Why weren’t they good enough for the Argentine Air Force?
In fact there were cases of Argentine Miros (or Daggers) getting SHARs in their gun sights but not being able to finish the job. Because of the SHARs much higher snap turn rate they could just jink away, turn the tables, and get the kill (which happened after Argentine tactical surprise and superior positioning). If the SHARs had older Sidewinders then they probably would have scored as many kills using guns. There weren’t many cases where the AIM-9L made a decisive difference.
This was only a problem because the Miros dropped their tanks at the sight of SHARs to improve their performance. They soon ran out of tanks. They covered this up by claiming they had to go defend BA from Vulcan bombers which the RAF loved to hear as untrue as it was. They had enough fuel to get to the Falklands engage in combat and make it home. If they had kept their tanks or gone toe to toe with the SHARs after dropping them then they may have made more of a difference.
This is not true. The only Super Etendard attack right at the task force was the one that sunk the Sheffield. It would have been intercepted and both aircraft destroyed expect for poor British command. The Sea Harrier was there waiting for them and a second in position for a follow up slashing attack (if needed) until they were ordered away before the Super Etendards arrived. The second Super Etendard attack (that sunk the Atlantic Conveyor) was a very long range dog leg to the north to come down behind the RN’s CAP screen. Now why would the Argentine Navy do such a thing if they like you shared the belief that the SHAR was useless against the Super Etendard? The final Super Etendard attack was escorted by Skyhawks and just bounced a detached frigate force away from the task force.
They never tried to. They were ordered not to attack the Port Stanley airfield after the first day mission. After that the SHARs would just lob a single bomb into the airfield and the start of each mission to keep the Argies on their toes.
They could have done much more but due to the leadership on HMS Hermes not trusting the nav attack system of the SHAR no major night attacks were launched. They had the capability to hit Port Stanley precisely with bombs and rockets every night when the Argentine defences were limited but were ordered away from doing so.
Their aircraft were no worse than the ones the Israelis flew against swarms of MiGs and Hunters. Yet the Argentine air force couldn’t score a single kill. So either the Argentines have a terrible air force or the SHAR was a very superior aircraft.
You fail to see the context. When 801 Sqn meet the F-15s it was in free flight air combat with one force entering from stage right and the other from stage left to see who comes out on top with the most kills. As to the result of that I don't hear any American's complaining about Ward's claims. To allege that this needs verification after being undisputed in press for over 20 years is pretty conspiracy theory level crazy.
When the SHARs meet the French Miros before the Falklands it was a quick test to see how the comparative aircraft perform across altitudes. So they would take up a range of pro forma BFM and see how it goes. This is not an ACM exercise. If the French were boosting about how good the Miro was then they were idiots because they were taking it out of context.
Yeah it’s called the AIM-120. Until then they were always going to be at a disadvantage.
Perhaps not, but it would have been able to land safely on a hot day without having to jettison those very expensive AIM-120s, & therefore might not have been scrapped only 13 years after service entry, & less than 8 years after the last one was delivered. Was it worth building it, for that?
It was a great dogfighter in cold weather but never used that capability in action. It had a superb missile/radar combination, but that could have been fitted to aircraft without its performance limitations. It couldn't take the more powerful engines fitted to the GR9, & an attempt to increase thrust within the restrictions imposed by the airframe failed - but it had a higher empty weight. In my opinion, that, & the consequential operating restrictions, doomed it.
Obviously I would have wanted the British version of the same aircraft. The rest of your post is a bit odd...hardly crystal ball at the time the descision to build the FA2 was questioned as it was very expensive. Even the manufacturers were not that keen on retaining production for only 25 new aircraft, when they were ramping up for Harrier II. The only advantage was the upgrade of existing airframes (and I think that would have been tiny compared to the development costs of the FA2 v off the shelf Harrier II.
The Harrier II didn't just happen is had been a long time in the planning, it was all running at the same time. Fitting the Blue Vixen Radar would have been a realistic option.
The FA2, was a good aircraft maybe as a fighter better than the Harrier II+ but I can't comment on aircaft performance, but the wrong decision for the FAA. As the Phantom/P1154 was also and it looks like the F35b/c will be now. I have always wondered if the RN had wanted a carrier version of the Typhoon would the French have stayed in(probably not?).
If the P1154 had been built the impact on the UK aircraft industry/Falklands war?
Sure. But realistically in the mid 1980s to mid 1990s if you were to walk around the FAA telling everyone that in 10 years time the only game in town is going to be Persian Gulf operations people would have thought you a nutter. With the changed envinronmentals the solution to the problem was re-winging the SHAR. With an all composite, lightweight wing of identical aerodynamics like the Intruder upgrade. The weight savings will restore your lift margin and you would have zero hours to boot. But the RN was a long way from 1980s when it could still promote and manage timely programs to stay ahead of the game.
I didn't mean you would try and do a direct copy of the Wasp with steam turbines on 15,000t less displacement. An Ocean with a dock; are you suggesting building Ocean and 2 Albions LPD (2 designs) would be cheaper than building 3 ships of the same design configured as Mistral/JCI,, built to the standard of Ocean, of about similar combined tonnage? I doubt it but even if it was surely it would be worth the small cost of doing so? The construction of such a ship (unlikely the RN in the lead for a change...but hardly radical as only what the USN had had for 15 years+) might have radically change ship building for the UK, could have lead to the design being exported to potentially Spain/Holland/Australia/France/Brazil (ok not France!)
I'm sure you are right around performance but even then the RN didn't have the money/volumes to independent develop the Harrier independently, they should have gone with the Harrier II. It is an interesting debate that they could have financed development of that more of a fighter focused aircraft.
Harrier II would have cost a lot more than FA.2. Re-winging the FA.2 with a composite wing would actually be very cheap. The key thing is the outer mould line is kept the same so aerodynamics aren't changed. You just reap a weight advantage. Re-winging is quite a common and simple process as long as you don't change the wing type. Cost per aircraft wound be under 500,000 quid if conducted under commercial practices.
Its interesting what you say, it is prehaps one of the great "what ifs" have the RN gone with the P1154 Hawker Siddeley P.1154 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia rather than the Phantom
The original Harrier which the FRS1 was based on was limited to c 25,000lb MTW and 21,000 thrusts. The P1154 had a larger engine c 26,000lb but with afterburn 34,000lb and MTW c40,000lb. It may have been inferior to the Phantom for the RN but actual RN usage was short lived. But on paper more capable than the Harrier II (31,000lb MTW 23500lb thrust.
It may have been expensive but when you think of all the money wasted on the TSR2 & Tornado when they could have just brought more Buccaneers and retain Vulcans (as the USAF has B52s).
Crystal ball because FA2 development began before the AV-8B+. By the time the AV-8B+ was available off the shelf, FA2 was already in production.
Thats not the case the Harrier II/AV-8B was already under development in the early 80s, before the FA2 was agreed, the specific development of a BVR radar Blue Vixen is quite separate to the airframe it was put in. The RN should not have gone down that route. The P1154 would have been a bit of a crystal ball/hindsight thing afterall who would have been able to predict the USMCs love affair with the Harrier.
The P1154 was tied up with CVA-01 and if it had gone ahead its such a different Royal Navy we would have had the current mass cuts 10 years ago…
The P1154 was developed in two versions, one for the RAF and the other for the RN. The RAF version had a radar and a nav system like the Sea Harrier so was far superior to the Harrier, Jaguar and Harrier II despite its much bigger engine and performance capability. The RN version had two Speys, a big SARH illuminating radar and a WSO. It was basically a Phantom that could do VTOL.
It’s arguable if the P1154 cost more than redesigning the Phantom, building them plus Jaguar and building Harriers. As to the utility of the Buccaneer and Vulcan they were both not combat survivable against a serious Soviet threat in the 70s and 80s. The RAF would have suffered hugely if it had to fly Canberras and Vulcans against the Soviet air defences in the 1970s.
Back to VTOL and don’t forget the AV-16 with the bigger Pegasus 15 engine. This was the real Harrier II project to produce a Harrier able to fly twice as far carrying twice as much (2x AV-8 = AV-16). It was also to provide the Sea Harrier capability. But was cancelled by the UK in 1975 because they lacked the money to support it.
1974 | 1545 | Flight Archive
Its interesting what you say about the RAF flying Canberras/Vulcans... would that be vunderable, yet shot out the sky like Tornados over the Gulf if operated like the RAF. But just as the Tornado came in the move to stand off weapons was well on the way so paltform performance becomes less important.
An easy way for Argentian to win the Falklands was to have brought more Canberras and fitted them for Exocets before the war. 24 Camberras flying with 2 missiles each, 2 mass raids and its all over. 96 missiles launched at 20 miles (or whatever the range of Sea Dart was at that time they would have known exactly). Escorted by everything else they could get up. The launch of 48 missiles will greatly increase the hit rate as they will lock on to something, even if it wasn't the original target. The mass attack (could be 2 waves of 12) swamps the air defences...for what they were.
No range problems, a doddle for the Camberra, and two close raid no chance for countermeasures.
look now the RAF even considered an airliner as a platform to launch cruise missiles.
For starters the Tornado loss rate was not as extreme as the casual observers like to make out, nor was it the cause of their low level attacks. If any aircraft in a central front campaign had suffered as low a loss rate as the Tornado they would be pretty happy. But back to the point a TSR.2 is going to be far more survivable penetrating Soviet airspace with TFR compared to Canberras and Vulcans. Just the same as the Tornado would have suffered far less than Canberras and Vulcans if the later had fought the Gulf War.
LOL. Straight from Tom Clancy. The Argentines sortied one mass Canberra attack and it was massacred by SHARs a long, long way from the task force. But of course why would the Argentines go to all the trouble of acquiring old Canberras (where from?), upgrading with with radars when they could just operate two Super Étendard for each Canberra. Now even ignoring the likely response that Argentina’s acquisition of a maritime strike wing would generate in the UK. How could they deploy this force?
LOL. Well for one to launch 24 aircraft together and coordinated is a massive intelligence tell. For Canberras to fly that far they have to fly high enabling their detection from radar pickets. They would also be flying much slower than a Mirage so an escort screen would be very problematical. Certainly not achievable to a range required to hit the task force.
This Canberra package would be decimated by SHARs long before they got to Exocet range. The Canberras would have the choice of staying straight and level to get to their firing position in which case the SHARs could just go form one to one hitting them with guns. Or they could break up and evade in which case it’s a mission kill and they would still lose most of their planes.
Ahh strategic range (x,000 km) missiles. About as relevant to this as Chinese anti ship ballistic missiles.
But not the radar version, the AV-8B+, which is what we've been discussing. The original AV-8B had no radar. Look at a picture of an original AV-8B, & compare it with an AV-8B+. Only the latter has a nose you can fit a radar in.
As I keep saying, FA2 was well on the way before AV-8B+ development began.
We are going round in circles there, the point I was trying to make was; by all means go ahead and develop a UK radar with Blue Vixen, but use the Harrier II airframe which would have been able to take upgrades as they came online with the later GRs/AV-8Bs. Not that we should have brought the AV-8B+. The reason for the FA2s withdrawal was nothing to do with the radar, it was the difficulty of upgrading engines. The off the shelf side related to the AV-8B/Harrier II not the radar.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The thing is though, the FA.2, including the engine was sufficient for where the RN expected it to spend most of its time operating. Ie. The the mid lattitudes north and south of the equator (north and south atlantic).
It would require a fortune teller for them to know that 20 years down the track they would be spending most of their time operating in the heat of the persian gulf and horn of africa.
And on top of this, from a performance perspective, the Harrier 1 derived FA.2 design was more capable as a fleet air defense fighter (you know, its primary operational tasking) then the Harrier II, whether AV-8 based or GR.5/7 based could ever be.
Did the British respond to the ARA acquistion of Exocet/Super Etendards....why should they have done anymore for upgrading Camberras rather than buying new aircraft.
Obviously the point about the Camberras is that they have a good range and bombload over a Super Etendard(SE), so as you say just fly 2 SE you would require 48 SE to achieve the same load, that would be difficult to do I agree. Actually just 18Camberras, gives you 32 missiles, or if they could carry 3-4? Wasn't the SE flying with a drop tank at near max range.
Also I don't know but I am assuming the cost of another 7 - 13 2nd hand Camberras would compared very favourably to new built SE.
I'm a great fan of the Sea Harrier, but the chances of them getting a high percentage of Camberras in the initial raid firing stand off missiles and with cover from Mirages? They didn't get any of the SE before launching in the actual war.
Anyway what would we have done if we had lost 10 ships in one day?