I'd guess at not very good, but as someone pointed out, there is a Sampson located on a hill in the area, maybe it could be/is tied in and can be used to target more accurately than those in the harbour.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
gr9 capability
can anyone provide the air defence capabilities of the gr9 as currently used on the invincible carriers.......
ie;
does it have any radar at all and can it be equipped with amraam or double sidewinder/asraam rails as per the sea harrier fa2?....
.i am aware that the harrier currently used my the us marines has these capabilities but are the british aircraft totally dependant on external radar sources etc?
in fact are the current rn/raf harrier flyers now trained for air to air combat now their aircrasft are so ground attack orientated?
can anyone provide the air defence capabilities of the gr9 as currently used on the invincible carriers.......
ie;
does it have any radar at all and can it be equipped with amraam or double sidewinder/asraam rails as per the sea harrier fa2?....
.i am aware that the harrier currently used my the us marines has these capabilities but are the british aircraft totally dependant on external radar sources etc?
in fact are the current rn/raf harrier flyers now trained for air to air combat now their aircrasft are so ground attack orientated?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
They do not have a radar on the platform, so the sensors they have at their disposal can only utilise Sidewinder, however theoretically they could receive targeting data from the Sea King AEW via Link 16 for locking AMRAAM onto a target.
citizen578
New Member
Defence jobs at risk as MoD drops jump jet fighter engine - Telegraph
MoD to ditch F-35B for F-35C ??
I hope so, but I'll wait for a more official source.
MoD to ditch F-35B for F-35C ??
I hope so, but I'll wait for a more official source.
It would be nice to see the CV variant instead of the B, but it will limit the number of uses. Apart from that the entire article is riddled with complete crap. For one thing, the engine being dropped has little to do with the variant we are buying, it would go into the C version just as well as the B version, its just that the US don't want to fund F136 anymore and we don't want to pay more to keep it alive.
The GR9 represents one of the best CAS platforms currently available, particularly with the new surveillance pods coupled with the latest generation paveways. With regard to CAP, I was wondering whether the GR9 flying from the Invincible Class could leverage off the escorting T45 PAAMS system, which I understand is designed not only to detect and destroy enemy assets, but also control friendly's. Could not the T45 vector GR9's onto target, until the planes own defensive radar picked up the incoming hostiles. Not an ideal solution, but one which could at least provide a degree of CAP in a maritime environment (Falklands scenario)?
One suspects the pilots will continue to train for CAS as part of the their own defensive training in the event they are 'bounced' during a sortie by enemy forces.
Reference the F35, there's a couple of interesting possibilities here, going for the conventional carrier version does bring advantages - range, payload, price etc. The need for STOVL has also been mitigated in some ways by Apache, particularly for the forward deployed AT role. If we look back at Harrier, the idea of deploying it aboard ships was driven by the UK's decision to cancel the last conventional carrier. This argument is now largely irrelevant because of the size of the new QE Class, so is a STOVL version still needed? The only question is catapult design and the need to manufacture steam, so not only will the flight decks be altered, but also dedicated boilers will need to be added. If the UK go for the conventional version then RR could still try and push for the 136 engine design. I know the US military would like to see more than one option for the their land and carrier based F35's. Also I still believe there are problems with the F35B design with regards to bring-back weight, the conventional carrier version represents the 'safe option', the UK can't afford anymore precurement overruns and cock-ups.
I also note that the UK, under project Julius, has agreed to upgrade the entire fleet of 48 Chinook HC.2/2A/3 medium-lift transport helicopters, fitting them with FLIR, more powerful engines and glass cockpits. The pressure about the need for new upgraded helo's means that Peter will have to rob Paul. The Carrier project is under intense pressure because everyone's focused on A-STAN and the need for MRAPS and improved lift.
I still don't hold off on the remote chance that we may end up with a single conventional carrier due to cost over runs and MOD cock-ups, which becomes closely aligned with the existing French carriers availability, cross decking of French / UK sqn's to form the basis of a single European carrier strike group on immediate stand-by protected by Horizons and T45's.
Last edited:
As i always say don't trust the any non defence paper. agree their especialy as sticking all the CATOBAR kit will be at present a pain I.E Donkey boiler if its a steam system or hoping EMALS work and works early enough for the carriers and sending of 100 odd aircrew and 400 odd maint crews for training in the USA.
Seems the telagraph seems to be confusing two issues the STOVL and CATOBAR supporters and the F-136 which isn't dead yet as the house of reps voted overwelmingly to support it
HR 3326: FY 2010 House Defense Bill Offers Challenges
F136 engine for the F-35 fighter family. Again. $560 million for the Joint Strike Fighter’s GE/Rolls Royce F136 alternate engine program, while cutting 2 F-35Bs to get 28 planes in FY 2010: 10 F-35As, 14 F-35Bs, and 4 F-35Cs. This conflicts with The Pentagon’s plans, and the Senate bill too, but the Senate bill removed the funding via an anonymous voice vote. The F136 has attracted indirect veto threats, but has strong House support – and also has support from Congress’ own GAO auditors. That last item makes a veto very politically problematic. Advantage: House.
Last edited:
I thin they will only go for the CV if the EMALS system can be shown to work, I don't think they'll go back and put boilers in. If EMALS does work then I think it would be the better option.
As a side note, the CV is bigger than B, but does it take up less storage space with the partially folding wings? Anyone got figures on this?
And as for your last idea, I shudder at the thought of having to share our carrier capability with the French, despite the fact the EU practically demand the idea.
citizen578
New Member
on a cold day in hell.
Swerve, which programme was it on, on R4? I'd like to look it up on iPlayer.
I'm guessing that it's the same Quentin Davies quote they refer to here:
F-35C variant has the MoD's eye - Defence Management
Because of the large amount of time needed to keep CATOBAR pilots qualified and the ability of STOVL aircraft to operate from smaller carriers and the Juan Carlos class if purchased by the RN, that the F35B is still the better choice for the RN, even with a relative loss of capabality vs the F35C.
Additionally the RN could be reinforced with F35B's from the RAF quicker than F35C's as it would take less time for them to become carrier qualified.
Additionally the RN could be reinforced with F35B's from the RAF quicker than F35C's as it would take less time for them to become carrier qualified.
The Today programme. Sometime between 8 & 9 am. And yes, Quentin Davies.
I found it odd that the article argued that interoperability increases with the C variant, when every carrier capable ally of ours can land a STOVL aircraft, but only the French and US can land the C version. Correct me if i'm worng but couldn' a Nimitz class or CDG recieve a Harrier if needed?
Still I like the C version more than B
Still I like the C version more than B
The number of "carriers" that can land, refuel/rearm and launch a F-35B is huge. It opens the door to operating off USMC LHD's, Spanish /italian /Australian LHD/carriers as well as other RN ships in the future. While not an often used capability it could become more important in the future when/if the USN is maxed out or if US verse close allies policy disagrees (more likely).
The numbers of B's that the UK is looking at getting isn't huge. B's and C's can be launched from the same platform. Spain, Australia are possible countries that would/could be interested in unwanted F-35B's from the UK having not placed any orders but will have ships capable of using them.
Its not like the F-35B is going to be an unwanted, orphened platform. Or have significantly reduced capabilities in real operations.
The F-35B will be flying before the EMAL's are working operationally. Do you really want to push out a working carrier for britian past 2020?
The numbers of B's that the UK is looking at getting isn't huge. B's and C's can be launched from the same platform. Spain, Australia are possible countries that would/could be interested in unwanted F-35B's from the UK having not placed any orders but will have ships capable of using them.
Its not like the F-35B is going to be an unwanted, orphened platform. Or have significantly reduced capabilities in real operations.
The F-35B will be flying before the EMAL's are working operationally. Do you really want to push out a working carrier for britian past 2020?
Its large compared with everybody else 138 will make it the largest operator after the USA(I know thats only prelimary numbers and other nations are quite close to that number) the UK will still be the second largest user of the F-35.
agree the B makes more sense especialy as the its been proven that the users of the Harrier family can cross deck very easily (thinking last year with Lusty with the Spanish, Italian and USMC) all within months of each other
kev 99
Member
At the risk of being called pessimistic I'd be delighted if we did buy 138, but I rather suspect it will be less than that.
As long as it isn't as low as the 66 being thrown around on here then it should be ok, minimum 85 would be alright. I mean we operate around 60 Harriers now don't we? And we almost never have any embarked on the carriers, so we obviously need more to make CVF worthwhile.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
There are 60-70 Harriers in Inventory, however only a bit over half that number are with operational units at any one time.
citizen578
New Member
Cheers for the programme details, Swerve.
I can anticipate this become yet another procurement saga to become absolutely sick to the back teeth of, but here's another 'C vs B' development:
Confusion surrounds F-35B and C - Defence Management
The only solid facts were those given by a reader, in the comments section!
I can anticipate this become yet another procurement saga to become absolutely sick to the back teeth of, but here's another 'C vs B' development:
Confusion surrounds F-35B and C - Defence Management
The only solid facts were those given by a reader, in the comments section!
Stupid article. You can't cancel something that hasn't been ordered. All Davies is doing is reiterating the official line as it has been for several years, i.e. -
No final decision has been made.
F-35B is the preferred option.
Current planning is based on the F-35B.
He can't say "We will buy F-35B", because by doing so he would be claiming the authority to make a decision which isn't for him to make alone. One can criticise the government for not having made that decision yet, but not Davies (in this instance: he can be criticised for other things, IMO) for what he is saying.
No final decision has been made.
F-35B is the preferred option.
Current planning is based on the F-35B.
He can't say "We will buy F-35B", because by doing so he would be claiming the authority to make a decision which isn't for him to make alone. One can criticise the government for not having made that decision yet, but not Davies (in this instance: he can be criticised for other things, IMO) for what he is saying.