The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Hambo]

Okay, new question for the floor. Assuming the RN gets the future surface fleet it expects (2 CVFs, 2 LPDs, 3 LSDs, 6 T45, 13 T26 and 12 MHPCs), how would they be positioned for the current commitments (inc Libya and reserve, training, refit etc)?

The problem has been Iraq and Afghanistan but if our forces do leave in 2014 and we aren't dragged into anymore conflicts (Iran) then we should be able to re structure and organise all the services so that surface fleet will be impressive and comparable with the French, with whom we should be co-operating with anyway.

There will be a lot of post afghanistan capabilities, especially in communications, Im thinking all that extra satellite bandwidth, maybe advantages if you wanted to network the fleets weapons systems , experience in UAV's, lighter and more deployable army units, the helicopter units will need something to do and the deck of the QE , POW(Ark 6) might get utilised.

We need a decade of no costly commitments and see what the next technological advances bring. Hopefully something like Hawkeye will come along, maybe a joint french squadron, that would be a leap and by 2020 the air doctrine will have changed with the F35s stealth and by then we should have a clue about what the son of Taranis will offer in terms of long range strike.

If the ASW picture changes then hopefully somewhere down the line we might look again at MPA options, possibly unmanned.

QE, one Type 45 and two Type23/26 , an Astute plus F35 and high end ASAC and Merlin is an impressive force. A similar 45/26 force to guard the Amphibs to allow us to deal with one serious conflict at a time if we went alone, leaving spare ships and SSN's for other tasks

 

[swerve]

why not something like the Sa'ar 5 corvettes the Israelis have? seems like its a fairly capabe ship to me.

Sa'ar 5-class corvette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totally unsuitable. Too much crammed into a small hull. Serious top weight issues. Nowhere near the range, endurance, or seakeeping needed by the RN. Why do you think only three were built, & the Israelis are now looking at something twice the size to do the same job?

 

[1805]

12 MHPC's probably isnt enough....

It will be interesting to see what the RAN plan is this space, they seem to have a similar requiremet c20 ships?

 

[Repulse]

Okay, assuming the RN has a surface fleet of 2 CVFs, 2 LPDs, 3 LSDs, 6 T45, 13 T26 and 15 MHPCs, I see it would be currently positioned as:

- UK home waters: 1 x T26, 4 x MHPC (3 fisheries and 1 MCM for SSNS)
- APT(N): 1 x T26
- APT(S): 1 x T26
- Caribbean: 1 x MHPC
- Falklands: 1 x MHPC
- Libya: 1 x CVF, 2 x T45, 1 x T26, 1 x MHPC
- Indian Ocean: 2 x MHPC
- Gulf: 1 x T26, 2 x MHPC
- Survey Duties: 1 x MHPC
- Operation Cougar: 1 x LPD, 2 x LSDs, 1 x T45, 1 x T26

Reserve / refit: 1 x CVF, 1 x LPD, 1 x LSD, 3 x T45, 7 x T26, 3 x MHPC

Assumes fleet can operate with 50% Of ships active - MHPC at 80%. I know you could argue some of it is not the norm, but very tight if you ask me, luckily RN ships rarely have accidents...

 

[StevoJH]

It will be interesting to see what the RAN plan is this space, they seem to have a similar requiremet c20 ships?

RAN requirement is 20 ships.

Replacing:
14 x Armidale Class Patrol Boats (First Commissions 2005)
6 x Huon Class Mine Hunters (First Commissioned 1997)
2 x Leeuwin Class Survey Ships (First Commissioned 2000)
4 x Paluma Class Survey Launch (First Commissioned 1989)

20 ships replacing 26. Wouldn't be surprised if the OPC's have less individual capability then the ships they replace in terms of mine hunting and survey.

 

[1805]

RAN requirement is 20 ships.

Replacing:
14 x Armidale Class Patrol Boats (First Commissions 2005)
6 x Huon Class Mine Hunters (First Commissioned 1997)
2 x Leeuwin Class Survey Ships (First Commissioned 2000)
4 x Paluma Class Survey Launch (First Commissioned 1989)

20 ships replacing 26. Wouldn't be surprised if the OPC's have less individual capability then the ships they replace in terms of mine hunting and survey.

I assume it is to early to have any info on an outline spec but the requirement seems very similar to the RN C3. Prehaps c40 hull would be a great number to spread outline and hull design costs.

 

[StevoJH]

I assume it is to early to have any info on an outline spec but the requirement seems very similar to the RN C3. Prehaps c40 hull would be a great number to spread outline and hull design costs.

It probably depends what Customs get with their new Cape Class ships. Depending on what size and spec they are, the Navy might get an enlarged version of those, similar to the Armidale class being the 'big brother' to the Bay class.

They'd presumably be built at Henderson, WA. Quite a large shipbuilding complex there.

 

[t68]

Comparing a Queen Elizabeth class carrier to an earlier Midway class of nearly the same displacement and size, I am wondering why a Midway class can handle nearly double what a Queen Elizabeth handle in aircraft numbers.

A Queen Elizabeth carrier can take a maximum of 40 aircraft, but i am sure i read somewhere it could take 50 under extreme circumstances, where as a Midway class (at retirement) its standard mix was 75 aircraft which at that time had the F4 Phantom which compares weight wise and size at max take off with F35C.But having more aircraft also means more facility to service them and parts/ munitions storage fuel plus all the extra people needed to make it run efficiently.

How would they load the extra aircraft compared to a Queen Elizabeth class
USS Midway, as retired (1992)


USS Midway (CV-41), 1991
Displacement: 69,873 tons full load
Length: 976 feet (297.5 meters)
Beam: 263.5 feet (80.3 meters) at flight deck
Draft: 35 feet (10.7 meters)
Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h)
Power: 212,000 hp (158 MW)
Drive: 4 screws; geared turbines
Aircraft: 75

Queen Elizabeth class
Overall Length
284m
Beam (Waterline)
39m
Beam (Overall)
73m
Draught (Keel to Waterline)
11m
Length at Waterline
250m
Full Load Displacement
65,000t

 

[StevoJH]

Its a different operational concept.

The Midway was designed to put many aircraft in the air at a single time for a maximum effort Strike.

The QE class are designed to meet a specific sortie rate per day. Aka. As many sorties per day as possible, rather then a maximum number in the air at one specific time.

 

[1805]

Comparing a Queen Elizabeth class carrier to an earlier Midway class of nearly the same displacement and size, I am wondering why a Midway class can handle nearly double what a Queen Elizabeth handle in aircraft numbers.

A Queen Elizabeth carrier can take a maximum of 40 aircraft, but i am sure i read somewhere it could take 50 under extreme circumstances, where as a Midway class (at retirement) its standard mix was 75 aircraft which at that time had the F4 Phantom which compares weight wise and size at max take off with F35C.But having more aircraft also means more facility to service them and parts/ munitions storage fuel plus all the extra people needed to make it run efficiently.

How would they load the extra aircraft compared to a Queen Elizabeth class
USS Midway, as retired (1992)


USS Midway (CV-41), 1991
Displacement: 69,873 tons full load
Length: 976 feet (297.5 meters)
Beam: 263.5 feet (80.3 meters) at flight deck
Draft: 35 feet (10.7 meters)
Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h)
Power: 212,000 hp (158 MW)
Drive: 4 screws; geared turbines
Aircraft: 75

Queen Elizabeth class
Overall Length
284m
Beam (Waterline)
39m
Beam (Overall)
73m
Draught (Keel to Waterline)
11m
Length at Waterline
250m
Full Load Displacement
65,000t

I am sure there is some truth in the focus on sortie rate and not volumes, but you are right the numbers are quite adift and out of line with most other carriers. Particularly when you consider the Midway was one of thoses designs which faced major reconstruction so would tend to be less efficient and is a c70 year old design originally as a fast fleet carrier (i think also armoured!).

I suspect the RN was building in "stretch on top of stretch" which they thought they were being clever sneaking past the politicans, a common theme. Hopefully they will recover from this error of judgement but its a powerful lession that it nearly proved fatal.

The right size would appear to be nearer the LHA(6) USS America/CDG

 

[1805]

Okay, assuming the RN has a surface fleet of 2 CVFs, 2 LPDs, 3 LSDs, 6 T45, 13 T26 and 15 MHPCs, I see it would be currently positioned as:

- UK home waters: 1 x T26, 4 x MHPC (3 fisheries and 1 MCM for SSNS)
- APT(N): 1 x T26
- APT(S): 1 x T26
- Caribbean: 1 x MHPC
- Falklands: 1 x MHPC
- Libya: 1 x CVF, 2 x T45, 1 x T26, 1 x MHPC
- Indian Ocean: 2 x MHPC
- Gulf: 1 x T26, 2 x MHPC
- Survey Duties: 1 x MHPC
- Operation Cougar: 1 x LPD, 2 x LSDs, 1 x T45, 1 x T26

Reserve / refit: 1 x CVF, 1 x LPD, 1 x LSD, 3 x T45, 7 x T26, 3 x MHPC

Assumes fleet can operate with 50% Of ships active - MHPC at 80%. I know you could argue some of it is not the norm, but very tight if you ask me, luckily RN ships rarely have accidents...

Yes it is tight, it also neatly demonstrates the inflexibility the wooden tops at the RN have forced apon themselves by insisting on maintain 2 classes of top tier escorts for AWD/ASD. If you were to do the same exercise with a Burke equivilant (before the detail brigade start on the actual merit of the 20 year old design vers the scared T45, I'm talking about concept not actual ships).

How about 12 Multi Role (MR) T45 & 24 MR light frigates (to 3 fit standard basic, fit for but not with much and near full fit (no TAS)). With construction at a level 4 MR T45 and 8 MRLF a decade.

So what would need to be done to make the T45 MR?? could it be cost neutral allowing for the gold plating in the original design.

On the subject of gold plating, where some people seem to be getting confused...my definition is not capability as such, although obviously in extreme example it could be, it is more (I hate to use the example but), Tescos Value v Standard (Blue brand?) v Finest.

bespoking is another problem sometimes even worse than gold plating my example would be the differential between: "ready made curtains and say made to measure" the diference is huge but if they have what you want the quality can be the same or even better.

 

[Repulse]

Yes it is tight, it also neatly demonstrates the inflexibility the wooden tops at the RN have forced apon themselves by insisting on maintain 2 classes of top tier escorts for AWD/ASD. If you were to do the same exercise with a Burke equivilant (before the detail brigade start on the actual merit of the 20 year old design vers the scared T45, I'm talking about concept not actual ships).

How about 12 Multi Role (MR) T45 & 24 MR light frigates (to 3 fit standard basic, fit for but not with much and near full fit (no TAS)). With construction at a level 4 MR T45 and 8 MRLF a decade.

So what would need to be done to make the T45 MR?? could it be cost neutral allowing for the gold plating in the original design.

On the subject of gold plating, where some people seem to be getting confused...my definition is not capability as such, although obviously in extreme example it could be, it is more (I hate to use the example but), Tescos Value v Standard (Blue brand?) v Finest.

bespoking is another problem sometimes even worse than gold plating my example would be the differential between: "ready made curtains and say made to measure" the diference is huge but if they have what you want the quality can be the same or even better.

I think you are right you either build more T45 and make it GP and cancel the T26; though I would go for 15. Or, you dumb down the T26 to be just a ASW frigate and build a few more T45s.

Either way the RN needs a Light Frigate which is capable of filling the APT gaps, but enough said on that.

 

[Hambo]

Bored Sunday musings of an alternative post falklands history.
The Harrier outclassed a limited argentine airforce that fought at 400 miles from home, with limited BVR capability. Let's say a more realistic picture was painted, after horrendous ship losses, the admirals, with kudos high and the ear of thatcher could have convinced the politicians that we needed a proper carrier and a high spec fighter?
Invincible gets sold, the funds used towards a no frills cat and trap carrier. 30 or so fast jets. There must have been a large number of ex ark and eagle crew still on the service? Let's say an ISD of 1989. Illustrious has just been finished, ark a year into build. The 34 original Shar remain with no upgrade, the obvious candidate is the F18, in service with the USMC in 1983, delivered to the Australians between 1984-1990 so perhaps there was a window for a small number for the FAA.
The SHAR Fa2 development started in 1984, if this never happened them no development costs, no upgrade to 29 machines and no 22 new build, money going into the carrier/f18 calculation.
Now the hard part, finding the cash. Post falklands the tornado F2 gets binned, it was a dog anyway, some development had started but fir industrial reasons give the RAF a few more GR1s, the ADVs fuselage plug and extra speed could come in handy for the nuclear strike role. The RAF gets some more surplus US F4Js, more than adequate to shoot down soviet bombers, so the bulk of the F2 budget goes to the FAA F18 purchase, giving the Uk a far superior fighter innthe long run. Illustrious and the ark remain in the ASW role up up the collapse of the soviet union at which time one becomes a LPH so no early 90,s cash spent on ocean.
The uk therefore has one carrier, a wing compatible with the USN in the north Atlantic scenario and one capable of protecting uk interests, perhaps with one working ship, the first gulf war would have seen a meaningful contribution from the FAA ( even from land bases).
Dependent on what the cost was of the carrier circa 1980s prices,I would suggest that would be preferable to our current carrier gap. Done projects may have continued, maybe blue vixen as an F4 or F18 upgrade path( the phantoms were planned to retire in 2002 anyway). With a cat and trap fighter already in service the history of typhoon might be different, perhaps carrier capable.
Of course money in the early 1980s was tight but we did spend an awful lot on SHAR and tornado ADV in any case, could that have been used to support a couple of FAA squadrons of hornet?
Anyway just a thought on a boring evening.

 

[1805]

Bored Sunday musings of an alternative post falklands history.
The Harrier outclassed a limited argentine airforce that fought at 400 miles from home, with limited BVR capability. Let's say a more realistic picture was painted, after horrendous ship losses, the admirals, with kudos high and the ear of thatcher could have convinced the politicians that we needed a proper carrier and a high spec fighter?
Invincible gets sold, the funds used towards a no frills cat and trap carrier. 30 or so fast jets. There must have been a large number of ex ark and eagle crew still on the service? Let's say an ISD of 1989. Illustrious has just been finished, ark a year into build. The 34 original Shar remain with no upgrade, the obvious candidate is the F18, in service with the USMC in 1983, delivered to the Australians between 1984-1990 so perhaps there was a window for a small number for the FAA.
The SHAR Fa2 development started in 1984, if this never happened them no development costs, no upgrade to 29 machines and no 22 new build, money going into the carrier/f18 calculation.
Now the hard part, finding the cash. Post falklands the tornado F2 gets binned, it was a dog anyway, some development had started but fir industrial reasons give the RAF a few more GR1s, the ADVs fuselage plug and extra speed could come in handy for the nuclear strike role. The RAF gets some more surplus US F4Js, more than adequate to shoot down soviet bombers, so the bulk of the F2 budget goes to the FAA F18 purchase, giving the Uk a far superior fighter innthe long run. Illustrious and the ark remain in the ASW role up up the collapse of the soviet union at which time one becomes a LPH so no early 90,s cash spent on ocean.
The uk therefore has one carrier, a wing compatible with the USN in the north Atlantic scenario and one capable of protecting uk interests, perhaps with one working ship, the first gulf war would have seen a meaningful contribution from the FAA ( even from land bases).
Dependent on what the cost was of the carrier circa 1980s prices,I would suggest that would be preferable to our current carrier gap. Done projects may have continued, maybe blue vixen as an F4 or F18 upgrade path( the phantoms were planned to retire in 2002 anyway). With a cat and trap fighter already in service the history of typhoon might be different, perhaps carrier capable.
Of course money in the early 1980s was tight but we did spend an awful lot on SHAR and tornado ADV in any case, could that have been used to support a couple of FAA squadrons of hornet?
Anyway just a thought on a boring evening.

Although a capable aircraft what could it have done more than was achieved by FA2 or land based RAF Tornados?

A much more interesting history would have been if the RN brought of the shelf AV-8B Harrier II+, these would have been much more difficult for the RAF to make a case not to upgrade, and unlike the GR9 have radar capable of using BVR missiles.

Also the RN decide not to build HMS Ocean instead just directly replace HMS Intepid with a 25,000t ship base on the USN Wasp concept called HMS Hermes, which have just started to enter service. A sister ship (HMS Albion) followed in 1998 and a third in 2002 (HMS Bulwark). Under pressure to meet defence cuts in 1997 to ensure their 45 AV-8B Harrier II+ are fully upgraded, the RN agree to pay off HMS Invincible & HMS Ilustrious relying on the Ark Royal & Hermes & Albion which although not designed to operate Harriers permanently have a full ski ramp.

The nearly new HMS Bulwark will be transfered to the RAN as part of a package to secure the procurement of 2 of the class with the other built between a UK & yard in Australia.

 

[StevoJH]

A much more interesting history would have been if the RN brought of the shelf AV-8B Harrier II+, these would have been much more difficult for the RAF to make a case not to upgrade, and unlike the GR9 have radar capable of using BVR missiles.

AV8-B+ (the one with the radar) wasnt available until 1993 at the earliest. FA.2 became available at the same time, but development began in 1984, so was AV-*B+ already under development when FA.2 was approved? Plus wasnt Blue Vixen a better radar then APG-65?

Also the RN decide not to build HMS Ocean instead just directly replace HMS Intepid with a 25,000t ship base on the USN Wasp concept called HMS Hermes, which have just started to enter service. A sister ship (HMS Albion) followed in 1998 and a third in 2002 (HMS Bulwark). Under pressure to meet defence cuts in 1997 to ensure their 45 AV-8B Harrier II+ are fully upgraded, the RN agree to pay off HMS Invincible & HMS Ilustrious relying on the Ark Royal & Hermes & Albion which although not designed to operate Harriers permanently have a full ski ramp.

Wasp is ~40,000t and requires a very large crew. Up until the latest ship they were still powered by steam turbines as well.

An new-design LHD would have probably been considerably more expensive then either the Albion class or HMS Ocean.

The nearly new HMS Bulwark will be transfered to the RAN as part of a package to secure the procurement of 2 of the class with the other built between a UK & yard in Australia.

RAN got scared off second hand kit after K & M. The only reason they got Largs is because she was so cheap and there was an immediate need to get an Amphib that actually work into the fleet.

 

[swerve]

Although a capable aircraft what could it have done more than was achieved by FA2 or land based RAF Tornados?

A much more interesting history would have been if the RN brought of the shelf AV-8B Harrier II+, these would have been much more difficult for the RAF to make a case not to upgrade, and unlike the GR9 have radar capable of using BVR missiles.

We already had a production line building our own version of Harrier II - why buy some off the US line? Why not just build GR5s/7s with a radar nose, instead of sticking with the more limited airframe of the FRS1?

AV8-B+ (the one with the radar) wasnt available until 1993 at the earliest. FA.2 became available at the same time, but development began in 1984, so was AV-*B+ already under development when FA.2 was approved? Plus wasnt Blue Vixen a better radar then APG-65?

Yep. Buying AV-8B+ OTS instead of developing FA2 would have required a crystal ball. But the Harrier II was flying when FA2 development began, so basing the new Sea Harrier on the new land-based Harrier was entirely feasible. Would have meant all-new though, no upgraded FRS1s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Bored Sunday musings of an alternative post falklands history.
The Harrier outclassed a limited argentine airforce that fought at 400 miles from home, with limited BVR capability. Let's say a more realistic picture was painted, after horrendous ship losses, the admirals, with kudos high and the ear of thatcher could have convinced the politicians that we needed a proper carrier and a high spec fighter?

What is remotely realistic about that? NOTHING. The Royal Navy Sea Harrier was the best fighter in the world in 1982. It not only proved it over the Falklands but also BEFORE the war thumping USAF F-15 and F-5 Aggressor units in air to air combat practice.

The only shortfall of the Sea Harrier in the Falklands was one of two squadrons not being fully qualified on it and the fleet command staff officer aviation having no idea how to use the aircraft. The sinking of HM Ships Sheffield and Coventry were directly attributable to incompetence in Sea Harrier operation by STAVO and 800 Squadron (respectively). If the Task Force had a competent STAVO and 800 Squadron had been brought up to the technical competence on the Sea Harrier as 801 Squadron then the war results would have been very different.

There has been an awful lot of misinformation passed around after the Falklands War by the usual suspects. Uninformed journalists and incompetent officers trying to cover up their mistakes. The blow by blow details paint a very different picture. The Sea Harrier combined an excellent radar-nav system with a small, highly agile fighter that was fast and enduring and could get in and out of the air with ease for a carrier aircraft. It was able to win the war with one hand tied behind its back. If the initial Argentine invasion schedule had gone ahead (January 83) it is likely with key personnel changes the Sea Harrier force would have been far more capable in action.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We already had a production line building our own version of Harrier II - why buy some off the US line? Why not just build GR5s/7s with a radar nose, instead of sticking with the more limited airframe of the FRS1?

For a very good reason: speed. The second generation Harrier (AV-8B/GR5) had a bigger and draggy wing. The big wing enabled more payload to be carried but cost speed and acceleration. The Sea Harrier could carry enough payload for the naval fighter attack mission and the loss of speed with the bigger wing would be crucial for successful intercepts.

Yep. Buying AV-8B+ OTS instead of developing FA2 would have required a crystal ball. But the Harrier II was flying when FA2 development began, so basing the new Sea Harrier on the new land-based Harrier was entirely feasible. Would have meant all-new though, no upgraded FRS1s.

It would have also provided a far less capable Naval fighter. FA.2 was customised around the AIM-120 missile/Blue Vixen radar based on all of the experience of the Falklands. This provided the FA.2 with amazing air to air capability. The combination of signature, radar sensitivity and processing, aircraft speed and agility, missile capability across all ranges and aspects made a FA.2 with four AIM-120As supremely lethal in ATA. An AV-8B+ would not have the same performance in many of these crucial areas.

 

[Hambo]

What is remotely realistic about that? NOTHING. The Royal Navy Sea Harrier was the best fighter in the world in 1982. It not only proved it over the Falklands but also BEFORE the war thumping USAF F-15 and F-5 Aggressor units in air to air combat practice.

The only shortfall of the Sea Harrier in the Falklands was one of two squadrons not being fully qualified on it and the fleet command staff officer aviation having no idea how to use the aircraft. The sinking of HM Ships Sheffield and Coventry were directly attributable to incompetence in Sea Harrier operation by STAVO and 800 Squadron (respectively). If the Task Force had a competent STAVO and 800 Squadron had been brought up to the technical competence on the Sea Harrier as 801 Squadron then the war results would have been very different.

There has been an awful lot of misinformation passed around after the Falklands War by the usual suspects. Uninformed journalists and incompetent officers trying to cover up their mistakes. The blow by blow details paint a very different picture. The Sea Harrier combined an excellent radar-nav system with a small, highly agile fighter that was fast and enduring and could get in and out of the air with ease for a carrier aircraft. It was able to win the war with one hand tied behind its back. If the initial Argentine invasion schedule had gone ahead (January 83) it is likely with key personnel changes the Sea Harrier force would have been far more capable in action.

Sounds like a precis of Wards book but after the drivel he has come out with recently Im not sure I believe his account anymore, far too ego driven. Prior to the war, the french mirage pilots will claim a good record against it when a rushed exercise was run.
The SHAR stayed low to medium, avoiding the Mirage at altitude, so as a fleet defense fighter its fine as long as the enemy dont stay high and fast and dont have a decent missile, or dont bother with ECM etc and who are at the limits of their range.

I didnt see the USN buying any after the war? the only buyer was the Indians, that might say something for a fighter with a 20 and 0 record.

A great aircraft but I think one that covered the gaps, it fought a great one off war in a set of circumstances that might not have been played out in other warzones. It had a very limited payload (3x 1000lbs), short legs and even in the FA2 upgrade a poor bring back capability despite a fantastic radar but that came a lot later than '82.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sounds like a precis of Wards book but after the drivel he has come out with recently Im not sure I believe his account anymore, far too ego driven.

LOL. You can’t judge someone talking crap in their retirement and then extrapolate that what they wrote 20 years earlier based on after action reports and actual recorded events was somehow just as crap. The facts are facts. There is no room to shade them out of existence no matter the personal qualities of the people involved.

Was there a Sea Harrier on CAP right where the two ARA Exocet carrying aircraft were on course for Sheffield and was this Sea Harrier alerted by the air defence commander for trade due to RWR reports of the Agave radar and was this Sea Harrier then ordered to leave its CAP point and fly at wave top height southwards for a visual surveillance mission by STAVO? Yes, yes, yes and yes. It doesn’t matter how much of a jerk Sharkey Ward may appear to other people not involved in what he was the facts remain such.

Prior to the war, the french mirage pilots will claim a good record against it when a rushed exercise was run.

Pointless. An exercise to develop tactics against the Miro is all about experimentation. Not about getting the most kills. The RN and RAAF are still arguing over the results of the ATA battles when Invincible visited down under after the Falklands. Much of the RAAF’s kill claim basis is dodgy missile results. They would have been thumped if it was the real thing. The RAAF Miro force was very far from a second rate force.

The SHAR stayed low to medium, avoiding the Mirage at altitude, so as a fleet defense fighter its fine as long as the enemy dont stay high and fast and dont have a decent missile, or dont bother with ECM etc and who are at the limits of their range.

You say this like it’s a bad thing? If the Mirages wanted to do anything other than drop their fuel tanks into the ocean they had to come down and fight. By staying in the thicker air the Sea Harrier’s deprived the Miro of its one significant advantage (speed). The Miros had adequate missiles, guns, RWR and fuel to fight over the Falklands but they knew they just didn’t have the ATA understanding to go against a serious aircraft.

I didnt see the USN buying any after the war? the only buyer was the Indians, that might say something for a fighter with a 20 and 0 record.

LOL. In case you didn’t notice it is a VSTOL fighter. Not really a big market out there for that. Especially since it is so very hard to land.

A great aircraft but I think one that covered the gaps, it fought a great one off war in a set of circumstances that might not have been played out in other warzones. It had a very limited payload (3x 1000lbs), short legs and even in the FA2 upgrade a poor bring back capability despite a fantastic radar but that came a lot later than '82.

BS. The SHAR would have smashed MiGs and others just as it did the Argentine Miros. 3x 1,000 lbs bombs is pretty much standard payload. With its nav radar system it could drop them very accurately so didn’t need to carry 12 500 lb bombs to cover the spread. 90 minutes CAP at 100 NM isn’t so bad. Hornets or F-16s can’t do much more.

It always amazes me how people can rationalise just about anything if they want to. No matter what the facts are.