Sea Harrier FA2 - a modern-day F6D Missileer?

There was an issue of World Air Power Journal (RIP) that I once owned
that most definitely had a short feature on SHARs carrying AIM-120s,
and I seem to recall the four-shot loadout in some of the pics. But
that was a long time ago and I sold off my collection of WAPJs a few
years back, so I can't give you a specific issue.

Might have been the same source, but I've seen SHARs with 4 -120s on more
than one occassion. Dwarfed the fighter and really put its size in
perspective!

But let's assume that somehow the UK gets into an "us and nobody else"
conflict. Offhand, I can only imagine the Falklands or maybe Gibraltar,
neither
of which is very likely. Gib could benefit from land-based air, so let's
assume

I agree 100% with your general sentiment. The F-22 is bloody brilliant.
Period. But when is the last time that A-A was a serious threat? 1980
Israel-Lebanon/Syria? That's 26 years ago! Now there are very few
countries that can afford the top cover (radar) and training that go along
with NATOs forces. And it's very rare for NATO countries to go alone (even
the US operates with allies most of the time). So what's the urgent need
for fleet fighter air defense for the RN? Sure, it'd be nice to have. But
it would be nice to have naval versions of the F-22, with pilots who fly 5
hours a day, as many days as they can. But you have to balance cost vs.
reward, and I think the low-tech, low-end threat is a much more serious
problem to the RN than worrying about aerial attack (with all due respect to
Murphy and his laws). At least, that's my two cents.

Guy Alcala wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...

So you've got a DECADE of gap in Naval air?

Ouch!


All courtesy of that nice Mr Blair (and his side-kick /subordinate Brown)!

The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?

Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?

I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with its
immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!

I think FAD isn't quite so bleak as you believe (always assuming, of course,
that the CVFs actually get built, which goes firmly in my "I'll believe it when
I see it" file). There are very few potential conflicts where the UK would have
to go it alone, and none (I can think of) where the lack of the FA.2 is likely
to be a major handicap. The need now is primarily for precision A/G capability,
and the FA.2 was just too limited in bring-back weight in hot weather as well as
number of pylons to play in that game.

But let's assume that somehow the UK gets into an "us and nobody else"
conflict. Offhand, I can only imagine the Falklands or maybe Gibraltar, neither
of which is very likely. Gib could benefit from land-based air, so let's assume
Malvinas Round 2. The FA.2's hot weather limitations wouldn't be a big deal
there, and the radar and AIM-120 would be nice to haves. But they're not
essential, because Argentina's FAA and CANA are even more outclassed now than
they were in 1982. Out of all the kills scored in 1982, only three involved the
SHAR's own radar getting contact; the rest were visual interceptions. The Brits
now have AEW cover, their biggest tactical lack in 1982. The GR.9s can stay on
station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW cover allows them to orbit at
altitude instead of down low, increasing their endurance even more.
Additionally, even though certification of the GR.9 for ASRAAM was stopped a few
years back, that decision would be reversed in a hurry if the prospect of a
shooting war developed, and you can bet that qualification would take a matter
of weeks instead of years. British strike range is far greater and the weapons
are now PGMs.

I could list several other developments that improve the RN's odds against
Argentina vis a vis 24 years ago, but the biggest one is the fact that Argentine
governments haven't been willing/able to spend much money on the FAA and CANA to
noticeably upgrade or in many cases, even maintain their past capability.
Argentina's newest tactical a/c were built in 1983 or so; most are considerably
older, as are their weapons. They don't even have the nominal head-on
capability they had in 1982, as the R.530s were retired years ago, and AFAIK
they haven't bought a modern replacement.

Guy

The A-4AR Fightinghawk refurbished from the ex-USMC A-4M in the 1990's
carries AIM-9L. It also has radar, ARG-1, a downsized APG-66.

http://www.hangardigital.com.ar/bajolapieldel_a4.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../2268/a4ar.htm
http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSa...5C04/index.htm

However when Lieutenant Steve Thomas tried to fire an AIM-9L head-on
against one of the two approaching Mirage IIIEAs on the 1st of May
1982, he couldn't get a lock. He closed into the rear of the Mirage
piloted by Captain Garcia Cuerva and damaged it with an AIM-9L.

On the same day an Israeli-made Shafrir 2 fired head-on by a Dagger
forced a Sea Harrier to dive from 15,000 to 5,000 feet to evade it.

Guy Alcala wrote:

: But "other birds", such as the F-15, can carry four of them *plus* a couple
: of AIM-9's and *still* have their gun to fall back on.
:
:4/4, 6/2, or 8/0. The F-15E and export siblings, at least, can carry AIM-120s on
:the pylon shoulder stations. I don't know if the As through Ds are so wired. I
:remember an article a few years ago saying that there was a bit of a conflict
:between armorers and F-15E pilots, at least at the base mentioned in the article.
:They typically were carrying 2/2 on the pylon shoulders. IIRR the pilots wanted
:the AIM-9s on the outsides, to improve seeker FOV for lock-on, while the armorers
:wanted the AIM-120s there because there was limited space for loading/unloading
:them on the inside of the pylons. I've seen photos of them both ways, as well as
perational a/c carrying four of one or the other.

Essentially what the Super Hornet can do - 8 AAMs in pretty much any
combination, plus the gun. That can probably go up to 10 AAMs in any
combination if they ever routinely start fitting the outermost under
wing stations and clear them for AIM-120. That leaves a belly station
for a tank, if you need it.

Ordinary Hornets carry up to 4 and 2, plus a belly tank, I think.

--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer

KDR wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...

So you've got a DECADE of gap in Naval air?

Ouch!


All courtesy of that nice Mr Blair (and his side-kick /subordinate Brown)!

The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?

Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?

I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with its
immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!

I think FAD isn't quite so bleak as you believe (always assuming, of course,
that the CVFs actually get built, which goes firmly in my "I'll believe it when
I see it" file). There are very few potential conflicts where the UK would have
to go it alone, and none (I can think of) where the lack of the FA.2 is likely
to be a major handicap. The need now is primarily for precision A/G capability,
and the FA.2 was just too limited in bring-back weight in hot weather as well as
number of pylons to play in that game.

But let's assume that somehow the UK gets into an "us and nobody else"
conflict. Offhand, I can only imagine the Falklands or maybe Gibraltar, neither
of which is very likely. Gib could benefit from land-based air, so let's assume
Malvinas Round 2. The FA.2's hot weather limitations wouldn't be a big deal
there, and the radar and AIM-120 would be nice to haves. But they're not
essential, because Argentina's FAA and CANA are even more outclassed now than
they were in 1982. Out of all the kills scored in 1982, only three involved the
SHAR's own radar getting contact; the rest were visual interceptions. The Brits
now have AEW cover, their biggest tactical lack in 1982. The GR.9s can stay on
station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW cover allows them to orbit at
altitude instead of down low, increasing their endurance even more.
Additionally, even though certification of the GR.9 for ASRAAM was stopped a few
years back, that decision would be reversed in a hurry if the prospect of a
shooting war developed, and you can bet that qualification would take a matter
of weeks instead of years. British strike range is far greater and the weapons
are now PGMs.

Since the Harrier GR9 does not have radar or a Link 16 terminal, I
believe the AEW helo would have to direct the Harrier by voice
communication. The Harrier pilot in turn would have to acquire the
bogey with his Mk1 eyeball.

Yes, exactly how it was done in all but three kills in 1982.

Wouldn't it improve the Harrier pilot's air-to-air situational
awareness to fit a Link 16 terminal into the Harrier GR9 even if it
still lacks radar?

Certainly, but again that's a nice to have.

Or does it already have one?

No idea.

snip

Guy

KDR wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:Fleet fighter cover is currently gapped until the F-35s show up...

So you've got a DECADE of gap in Naval air?

Ouch!


All courtesy of that nice Mr Blair (and his side-kick /subordinate Brown)!

The three 'Invincible class, Through-Deck-Cruiser, vessels that were
inherited are to be replaced by _two_ something? ; although nobody is yet
cutting metal, onto which will be embarked something else?

Meanwhile the RN FAA's and the RAF's Harrier entities have been absorbed
into 'Joint Force Harrier' and somewhere along the way the RN's
Fighter/Strike aircraft have been .... ?

I'm too _young_ to have direct experience of the RNAS cum RFC merger but
combined with my direct experience of Healey's Defence White Paper, with its
immortal phrase - the fleet will not fight out of range of land based
aircraft-, I've got a horrible feeling of deja-vu!

I think FAD isn't quite so bleak as you believe (always assuming, of course,
that the CVFs actually get built, which goes firmly in my "I'll believe it when
I see it" file). There are very few potential conflicts where the UK would have
to go it alone, and none (I can think of) where the lack of the FA.2 is likely
to be a major handicap. The need now is primarily for precision A/G capability,
and the FA.2 was just too limited in bring-back weight in hot weather as well as
number of pylons to play in that game.

But let's assume that somehow the UK gets into an "us and nobody else"
conflict. Offhand, I can only imagine the Falklands or maybe Gibraltar, neither
of which is very likely. Gib could benefit from land-based air, so let's assume
Malvinas Round 2. The FA.2's hot weather limitations wouldn't be a big deal
there, and the radar and AIM-120 would be nice to haves. But they're not
essential, because Argentina's FAA and CANA are even more outclassed now than
they were in 1982. Out of all the kills scored in 1982, only three involved the
SHAR's own radar getting contact; the rest were visual interceptions. The Brits
now have AEW cover, their biggest tactical lack in 1982. The GR.9s can stay on
station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW cover allows them to orbit at
altitude instead of down low, increasing their endurance even more.
Additionally, even though certification of the GR.9 for ASRAAM was stopped a few
years back, that decision would be reversed in a hurry if the prospect of a
shooting war developed, and you can bet that qualification would take a matter
of weeks instead of years. British strike range is far greater and the weapons
are now PGMs.

I could list several other developments that improve the RN's odds against
Argentina vis a vis 24 years ago, but the biggest one is the fact that Argentine
governments haven't been willing/able to spend much money on the FAA and CANA to
noticeably upgrade or in many cases, even maintain their past capability.
Argentina's newest tactical a/c were built in 1983 or so; most are considerably
older, as are their weapons. They don't even have the nominal head-on
capability they had in 1982, as the R.530s were retired years ago, and AFAIK
they haven't bought a modern replacement.

Guy

The A-4AR Fightinghawk refurbished from the ex-USMC A-4M in the 1990's
carries AIM-9L. It also has radar, ARG-1, a downsized APG-66.

http://www.hangardigital.com.ar/bajolapieldel_a4.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../2268/a4ar.htm
http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSa...5C04/index.htm

Thanks, I couldn't remember if they'd been allowed to upgrade the A-4AR's avionics;
APG-66 would make a big difference compared to Cyrano IIbis, and the AIM-9L helps
too. But even APG-66/AIM-9L against ASRAAM and AEW is a very tough job, even before
you add in British Sea Dart/Sea Wolf and follow-ons (whenever the Type 45s finally put
in an appearance).

However when Lieutenant Steve Thomas tried to fire an AIM-9L head-on
against one of the two approaching Mirage IIIEAs on the 1st of May
1982, he couldn't get a lock. He closed into the rear of the Mirage
piloted by Captain Garcia Cuerva and damaged it with an AIM-9L.

Yes, it's been postulated that the Mirages were taking the normal FQ counter tactic
against an all-aspect IRM and had gone idle prior to the merge. IIRR there was at
least one other AIM-9L head-on lock attempt during the war, that also failed. It may
well have been a missile failure in that case; the same missile later launched itself.

On the same day an Israeli-made Shafrir 2 fired head-on by a Dagger
forced a Sea Harrier to dive from 15,000 to 5,000 feet to evade it.

Yeah, this one has always been a bit weird. From the pilot's (Martin Hale) account it
does seem to have tracked, although the pilot probably wasn't taking the time to
calmly judge the situation. RN pilots also reported several other head-on missile
shots taken on them that were almost certainly tank jettisons. It's also instructive
to read some of the Argentine Dagger pilots' opinion of the Shafrir 2; I do recall one
describing it as a piece of outdated crap, but we have to allow for a certain bit of
defensiveness there; the Israelis certainly found the Shafrir 2 quite serviceable from
1970 on, although clearly not in AIM-9L territory. One Israeli ace reports Shafrir 2
kill rates in his squadron that are virtually identical to USN AIM-9Gs in Vietnam:
23/46 (various US sources give 23/46 to 23/50 for the AIM-9G). The simple fact is
that no Argentine pilot ever got in position to take a high-probability shot with
Shafrir 2 or Magic.

Guy

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

: But "other birds", such as the F-15, can carry four of them *plus* a couple
: of AIM-9's and *still* have their gun to fall back on.
:
:4/4, 6/2, or 8/0. The F-15E and export siblings, at least, can carry AIM-120s on
:the pylon shoulder stations. I don't know if the As through Ds are so wired. I
:remember an article a few years ago saying that there was a bit of a conflict
:between armorers and F-15E pilots, at least at the base mentioned in the article.
:They typically were carrying 2/2 on the pylon shoulders. IIRR the pilots wanted
:the AIM-9s on the outsides, to improve seeker FOV for lock-on, while the armorers
:wanted the AIM-120s there because there was limited space for loading/unloading
:them on the inside of the pylons. I've seen photos of them both ways, as well as
perational a/c carrying four of one or the other.

Essentially what the Super Hornet can do - 8 AAMs in pretty much any
combination, plus the gun. That can probably go up to 10 AAMs in any
combination if they ever routinely start fitting the outermost under
wing stations and clear them for AIM-120. That leaves a belly station
for a tank, if you need it.

14 AAMs max. if all pylons are fitted. Dual launchers on inboard and intermediate
pylons, singles on the O/Bs and tips (AIM-9 only in the latter case, IIRR), and single
AIM-120s in each fuselage well. Not a very realistic load, to be sure, but I know
the USN has flown F-18Cs with 12, and they've probably loaded the F-18E/F up to the
max. for giggles.

Ordinary Hornets carry up to 4 and 2, plus a belly tank, I think.

Depends. Even during Desert Shield, USMC Hornets flying BARCAP were carrying 3 x
AIM-7s and 4 x AIM-9s plus two tanks.

Guy

If you look he
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123019067
you will see 3xAIM-120 and 1xAIM-9.
(Plus 2xGBU-12, 2xGBU-38, 2x600 gal fuel tank, LANTIRN Nav pod &
Sniper targeting pod. And the VHF/UHF antenna for radio 1.
Interesting load out.)

That it is.
I wouldn't have expected the asymetric AA load out; do you think there
might have been a couple items on those other stations when he left the
field?

In sci.military.naval Guy Alcala twisted the electrons to say:
The GR.9s can stay on station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW
cover allows them to orbit at altitude instead of down low, increasing
their endurance even more.

I think I've become slightly confused wrt the Harriers versions. Is the
following correct?

GR7 + systems upgrade = GR9
GR7 + engine upgrade = GR7A
GR7 + both upgrades = GR9A

In which case, does this mean there will still be "ordinary" GR7s around
the place, at the end of this? (ie: Are we effectly back to "fleet of
fleets" again?)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Alistair Gunn wrote:

In sci.military.naval Guy Alcala twisted the electrons to say:
The GR.9s can stay on station far longer than the SHARs could, and AEW
cover allows them to orbit at altitude instead of down low, increasing
their endurance even more.

I think I've become slightly confused wrt the Harriers versions. Is the
following correct?

GR7 + systems upgrade = GR9
GR7 + engine upgrade = GR7A
GR7 + both upgrades = GR9A

Yes.

In which case, does this mean there will still be "ordinary" GR7s around
the place, at the end of this? (ie: Are we effectly back to "fleet of
fleets" again?)

Not as I understand things. Try here (although the explanation seems about
as clear to me as John Cleese's master explaining which hook to hang your
coat on in "The Meaning of Life"):

http://www.harrier.org.uk/technical/Harrier_GR9.htm

I don't know if that's the most current thinking.

Guy