Another Falklands 'what if'
Tom
imagine the (penultimate) Ark Royal was still active (or in a state
where it could easily be reactivated) in 82. Below are just a few
thoughts for your perusal/amusement/increulity.
ISTR a maxim which stated "one aircraft carrier is useless without the
support of another" - I always assuemd this meant that if you were
miles form land and your carrier got sunk/damaged you'd have to ditch
the airwing to recover the crews. Would this consideration have
stopped the "Ark" being deployed?
Would you have still taken Hermes/Invincible along?
I have heard it said that the Sea Harrier operated in weather that
would have precluded conventional carrier operations. Is this true? I
used to know a fellow who worked on a smaller fleet carrier (Hermes I
think) during the Sea Vixen days and he reckoned they launched and
recovered in pretty much all weathers.
How would you employ the extra assets? The Gannets' radar was a pretty
old set wasn't it? was it capable of picking up low flying aircraft
over water? How much better was it than the set in the Phantom? At
least one gannet could be permanently on CAP towards the north-west of
the Islands, replacing the Type 42/22 pickets. ISTR there was an EW
gannet variant too, a couple of those woudl surely come in handy.
Phantoms would of course provide a much better degree of CAP
protection with their longer edurance ,BVM missiles and radar.
How would you use the buccs? they could roam the area looking for the
two argie battlegroups, but I imagine we'd prefer to use sub assets
against them as in the real thing. HOwever, a 10 bucc strike on
Stanley airfield with iron and cluster bombs would achieve far more
damage (for less fuel!) than the "epic" vulcan raids. With ARM martels
they could have done a better job on the radars too. They woudl be
useful in the close support role after the landings too, seeing as
they could haul more bombs and stick around longer.
Or do you think Galtieri banked on teh UK not being able to project
any sort of air power that far from home, and owuld never have tried
this if the UK still had conventional carriers?
Keith Willshaw
"Tom" <parr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa5c37da.02041...@posting.google.com...
> I'm sure this one has been discussed before but here we go anyway...
> imagine the (penultimate) Ark Royal was still active (or in a state
> where it could easily be reactivated) in 82. Below are just a few
> thoughts for your perusal/amusement/increulity.
>
> ISTR a maxim which stated "one aircraft carrier is useless without the
> support of another" - I always assuemd this meant that if you were
> miles form land and your carrier got sunk/damaged you'd have to ditch
> the airwing to recover the crews. Would this consideration have
> stopped the "Ark" being deployed?
>
No
>
> Would you have still taken Hermes/Invincible along?
>
Yes
> I have heard it said that the Sea Harrier operated in weather that
> would have precluded conventional carrier operations. Is this true?
According to the accounts of several pilots who previously flew
Phantoms from Ark Royal yes. I think the landing was more
an issue than takeoff and at least one commented that
being able to stop then land was easier than land then stop
when you were desling with a heaving deck.
I
> used to know a fellow who worked on a smaller fleet carrier (Hermes I
> think) during the Sea Vixen days and he reckoned they launched and
> recovered in pretty much all weathers.
>
> How would you employ the extra assets? The Gannets' radar was a pretty
> old set wasn't it? was it capable of picking up low flying aircraft
> over water? How much better was it than the set in the Phantom? At
> least one gannet could be permanently on CAP towards the north-west of
> the Islands, replacing the Type 42/22 pickets. ISTR there was an EW
> gannet variant too, a couple of those woudl surely come in handy.
> Phantoms would of course provide a much better degree of CAP
> protection with their longer edurance ,BVM missiles and radar.
>
The AEW Gannets would have been VERY useful as would the
greater range and BVR missiles on the F4
> How would you use the buccs? they could roam the area looking for the
> two argie battlegroups, but I imagine we'd prefer to use sub assets
> against them as in the real thing. HOwever, a 10 bucc strike on
> Stanley airfield with iron and cluster bombs would achieve far more
> damage (for less fuel!) than the "epic" vulcan raids. With ARM martels
> they could have done a better job on the radars too. They woudl be
> useful in the close support role after the landings too, seeing as
> they could haul more bombs and stick around longer.
>
The Buccaneers wouldhave been used in the ground attack
role.Not just hitting Stanley but for attacking troop concentrations
> Or do you think Galtieri banked on teh UK not being able to project
> any sort of air power that far from home, and owuld never have tried
> this if the UK still had conventional carriers?
I think he misread intention and will rather than capability
Keith
Iain Rae
> I'm sure this one has been discussed before but here we go anyway...
> imagine the (penultimate) Ark Royal was still active (or in a state
> where it could easily be reactivated) in 82. Below are just a few
> thoughts for your perusal/amusement/increulity.
>
> ISTR a maxim which stated "one aircraft carrier is useless without the
> support of another" - I always assuemd this meant that if you were
> miles form land and your carrier got sunk/damaged you'd have to ditch
> the airwing to recover the crews. Would this consideration have
> stopped the "Ark" being deployed?
No, Ark III used to operate by herself all the time, there is some
argument to not having one carrier full stop as it will invariably be in
refit when it's needed and it makes aircrew training more complicated.
>
> Would you have still taken Hermes/Invincible along?
>
Yes
> I have heard it said that the Sea Harrier operated in weather that
> would have precluded conventional carrier operations. Is this true? I
> used to know a fellow who worked on a smaller fleet carrier (Hermes I
> think) during the Sea Vixen days and he reckoned they launched and
> recovered in pretty much all weathers.
>
Could Phantom/Sea Vixen land on with the carrier in a zero visibility
fog (less than 50 feet)?
> How would you employ the extra assets? The Gannets' radar was a pretty
> old set wasn't it? was it capable of picking up low flying aircraft
> over water? How much better was it than the set in the Phantom? At
> least one gannet could be permanently on CAP towards the north-west of
> the Islands, replacing the Type 42/22 pickets. ISTR there was an EW
> gannet variant too, a couple of those woudl surely come in handy.
> Phantoms would of course provide a much better degree of CAP
> protection with their longer edurance ,BVM missiles and radar.
>
If the only aircraft available to ArkIV was the AEW Gannet it would
probably have been worth taking just for the AEW cover. The same sets
were being used by the RAF Shackletons in their AEW role.
> How would you use the buccs? they could roam the area looking for the
> two argie battlegroups, but I imagine we'd prefer to use sub assets
> against them as in the real thing. HOwever, a 10 bucc strike on
> Stanley airfield with iron and cluster bombs would achieve far more
> damage (for less fuel!) than the "epic" vulcan raids.
I suspect that they'd probably ave been used on the airfield in much the
same way the Harriers were after the "Surprise dawn raids", intermittent
lobbing of bombs onto the runway to try to prevent it being used.
> With ARM martels
> they could have done a better job on the radars too.
They'd have had the advantage that there could have been coordinated
attacks which would have forced the radars to continue to operate and
hence have a better chance of hitting it.
Hmm wonder why they didn't try a vulcan Shrike attack as part of a
coordinated attack by the SHARS
> They woudl be
> useful in the close support role after the landings too, seeing as
> they could haul more bombs and stick around longer.
>
> Or do you think Galtieri banked on teh UK not being able to project
> any sort of air power that far from home, and owuld never have tried
> this if the UK still had conventional carriers?
Bear in mind that one of the jobs Woodward had before 1982 was
contingency planning for a recovery of the Falklands from an Argentinian
invasion. I can't remember the dates but I think it would be early-mid
70's so that would be with Ark and possibly with Eagle.
Want to guess at the conclusion?
--
Iain Rae Tel:01316505202
Computing Officer JCMB:2148
Division of Informatics
The University of Edinburgh
Chris Manteuffel
<keith_w...@compuserve.com> arranged electrons in an arbitrary
pattern familiar to all as:
>According to the accounts of several pilots who previously flew
>Phantoms from Ark Royal yes. I think the landing was more
>an issue than takeoff and at least one commented that
>being able to stop then land was easier than land then stop
>when you were desling with a heaving deck.
But wouldn't it take a lot more sea state to get the same roll and
pitch from a 40k ship as compared to a 20k? There is a definite
difference in handling capabilities as your ships get bigger, Had we
loaned the Brits a Midway, at almost 70k, there would have less
movement still.
Chris Manteuffel
"...the war situation has developed not necessarily
to Japan's advantage..."
-Emperor Hirohito, August 14, 1945
Iain Rae
Umm, the comments I've seen have been wrt to the weather conditions
rather than the roll/pitch on the ship. I've also read at least one case
where harriers were operating off Invincible when fixed wing operations
had shut down on a USN carrier, this would be pre 1982.
Peter usually reels off the argument(*), which AFAICR gose something
like....with the Harrier you can pick the point on the deck which is
most stable and land on that, with a conventional carrier you're
committed to landing on one of the extremes of the deck which is going
to be moving a lot more.
And this is ignoring things like visibility.
(*) much better than I can, check deja. I can't remember the details off
the top of my head, in fact maybe we should summarise the arguments and
stick em in the FAQ.
or are they already there?
Keith Willshaw
"Chris Manteuffel" <cmanteuf*REMOVETHIS*@virginia.edu> wrote in message
news:3cbc596c...@news.virginia.edu...
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:07:01 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith_w...@compuserve.com> arranged electrons in an arbitrary
> pattern familiar to all as:
>
>
> >According to the accounts of several pilots who previously flew
> >Phantoms from Ark Royal yes. I think the landing was more
> >an issue than takeoff and at least one commented that
> >being able to stop then land was easier than land then stop
> >when you were desling with a heaving deck.
>
> But wouldn't it take a lot more sea state to get the same roll and
> pitch from a 40k ship as compared to a 20k? There is a definite
> difference in handling capabilities as your ships get bigger, Had we
> loaned the Brits a Midway, at almost 70k, there would have less
> movement still.
>
All I can tell you is that the pilot who said it (Sharkey Ward)
had flown F4's of Ark Royal.
Keith
Chris Manteuffel
arranged electrons in an arbitrary pattern familiar to all as:
> I've also read at least one case
>where harriers were operating off Invincible when fixed wing operations
>had shut down on a USN carrier, this would be pre 1982.
I've read that too, but what I read said that it was because of USN
policy, not that the pilots or CAG didn't think they could operate.
One of the many reasons not to trust anecdotal evidence for operating
conditions, not that we in the white hat world have anything better.
Iain Rae
The comment was that they could have taken off but that they would
probably have faced losses if they tried to land. At the same time on (I
think) the first operational deployment of the Sea Harrier they were
willing to fly in the same conditions. Now it's possible that the FAA
pilots were taking risks beyond what was necessary but you have to
figure that they'd start off with fairly conservative limits for
operating the aircraft and work outwards. Technically the aircraft
wasn't originally certified for night landings when originally embarked
but the FAA showed that it could operate at night.
Hmm... lets try this from another track, on USN carriers are helicopters
able to operate in conditions that shut down the deck for fixed wing
aircraft?
John Halliwell
<ia...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes
>Umm, the comments I've seen have been wrt to the weather conditions
>rather than the roll/pitch on the ship. I've also read at least one case
>where harriers were operating off Invincible when fixed wing operations
>had shut down on a USN carrier, this would be pre 1982.
I have a source that suggests that absolute minima for US Navy
operations were at the time 200ft ceiling and 880 yards visibility. I
believe the conditions were frequently well below that, something like
100ft ceiling and 300 yards visibility.
One Harrier supposedly landed in fog so thick the deck crew couldn't
find it.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Iain Rae
one of 801's piloted by a former sea king pilot, they used the sea king
recovery procedure (shine a searchlight straight up). I don't have
Sharkey's book to hand or I'd get his name.
Andrew Swallow
parr...@yahoo.com (Tom) writes:
[snip]
>
>Or do you think Galtieri banked on teh UK not being able to project
>any sort of air power that far from home, and owuld never have tried
>this if the UK still had conventional carriers?
>
The old saying "Generals prepare to fight the previous war" may
apply. Galtieri's previous war was the "Dirty War", where he
suppressed terrorists. Those sorts of rebels do not normally have
warships or aircraft. So Galtieri probably through that the RAF
and RN were irrelevant; except as security guards to stop his
initial attack.
Andrew Swallow
Andy Spark
<parr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sure this one has been discussed before but here we go anyway...
> imagine the (penultimate) Ark Royal was still active (or in a state
> where it could easily be reactivated) in 82. Below are just a few
> thoughts for your perusal/amusement/increulity.
Unfortunately, it's rather likely that her bottom would have dropped
out somewhere in the bay of Biscay: By all accounts she was in very
poor structural condition by the end....
Iain Rae
Yes, though the consensus was that Eagle could probably have lasted
until about then, of course she could only just operate Phantoms.
Paul J. Adam
news:3CBC4371...@dcs.ed.ac.uk...
> Hmm wonder why they didn't try a vulcan Shrike attack as part of a
> coordinated attack by the SHARS
What? Crab Air deigning to co-ordinate with the Airy Fairies? Not going to
happen back then.
Remember the RAF were meant to be providing fighter and AEW for the fleet
anyway...
--
Paul
Iain Rae
> "Iain Rae" <ia...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3CBC4371...@dcs.ed.ac.uk...
>
>>Hmm wonder why they didn't try a vulcan Shrike attack as part of a
>>coordinated attack by the SHARS
>
>
> What? Crab Air deigning to co-ordinate with the Airy Fairies? Not going to
> happen back then.
Yes I know, I particularly liked the fact that the RAF insisted on a
weapons tight order across the entire fleet whilst the black buck
attacks were in progress. And the diversion to Brazil.
>
> Remember the RAF were meant to be providing fighter and AEW for the fleet
> anyway...
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
Wasn't that what the sidewinder fit in the nimrod was for?
Andy Spark
<cmanteuf*REMOVETHIS*@virginia.edu> wrote:
> >According to the accounts of several pilots who previously flew
> >Phantoms from Ark Royal yes. I think the landing was more
> >an issue than takeoff and at least one commented that
> >being able to stop then land was easier than land then stop
> >when you were desling with a heaving deck.
>
> But wouldn't it take a lot more sea state to get the same roll and
> pitch from a 40k ship as compared to a 20k? There is a definite
> difference in handling capabilities as your ships get bigger, Had we
> loaned the Brits a Midway, at almost 70k, there would have less
> movement still.
It's all to do with the ski jump... -When a ship is pitching beyond a
certain amount the window when the flight deck is not pointing at the
grey crinkly stuff (ie when you can launch without firing an F14
straight into the 'oggin) becomes too short too safely risk launching.
-Granted a larger ship will pitch less than a smaller one, but when the
front end of the smaller ship is elevated up by 7 degrees or so,
combined with the fact that the aircraft leaves the deck on an upward
angle as well, you end up being able to launch in considerably worse
conditions that with a CTOL ship. -One of the reasons no doubt that the
Russians adopted the ski jump.
TMOliver
>
>
> It's all to do with the ski jump... -When a ship is pitching
> beyond a certain amount the window when the flight deck is
> not pointing at the grey crinkly stuff (ie when you can
> launch without firing an F14 straight into the 'oggin)
> becomes too short too safely risk launching. -Granted a
> larger ship will pitch less than a smaller one, but when the
> front end of the smaller ship is elevated up by 7 degrees or
> so, combined with the fact that the aircraft leaves the deck
> on an upward angle as well, you end up being able to launch
> in considerably worse conditions that with a CTOL ship. -One
> of the reasons no doubt that the Russians adopted the ski
> jump.
>
....As an old carrier (CTOL-type) OOD, I'd be willing to argue
that.
Cat launches on the rising side of a ship's pitch are not
difficult, since on the open sea in a large vessel pitch is a
quite protracted and predictable occurrence. The advantage to a
catapult equipped CV (already large having to house cats and
arresting gear) remains her ability to operate a/c (although
reduced payloads/fuel may be required) in conditions of wind and
weather in which smaller "ski-jump"equipped vessels will have
secured flight ops. Certainly, none of the video from the
Falkands I've seen revealed any Harrier ops during weather
conditions that would have shut down the flight deck of a US
CVN. Bad weather, sure, but 90,000 tons displacement slows a
lot of roll, and 1100 feet slows the period and amount of pitch.
I suspect that the RN's scheme to construct what seems to be a
conventional vessel of about 50,000 tons (or more) has something
to do with the ability to operate effectively in parameters
exceeding those available to smaller STO/VL boats.
TMO
Iain Rae
> Andy Spark pustulated:
>
>
>
>>
>>It's all to do with the ski jump... -When a ship is pitching
>>beyond a certain amount the window when the flight deck is
>>not pointing at the grey crinkly stuff (ie when you can
>>launch without firing an F14 straight into the 'oggin)
>>becomes too short too safely risk launching. -Granted a
>>larger ship will pitch less than a smaller one, but when the
>>front end of the smaller ship is elevated up by 7 degrees or
>>so, combined with the fact that the aircraft leaves the deck
>>on an upward angle as well, you end up being able to launch
>>in considerably worse conditions that with a CTOL ship. -One
>>of the reasons no doubt that the Russians adopted the ski
>>jump.
>>
>
> ....As an old carrier (CTOL-type) OOD, I'd be willing to argue
> that.
>
> Cat launches on the rising side of a ship's pitch are not
> difficult, since on the open sea in a large vessel pitch is a
> quite protracted and predictable occurrence. The advantage to a
> catapult equipped CV (already large having to house cats and
> arresting gear) remains her ability to operate a/c (although
> reduced payloads/fuel may be required) in conditions of wind and
> weather in which smaller "ski-jump"equipped vessels will have
> secured flight ops.
All the arguments I've seen relating to harriers operating in bad
weather have related to landing rather than takeoff.
> Certainly, none of the video from the
> Falkands I've seen revealed any Harrier ops during weather
> conditions that would have shut down the flight deck of a US
> CVN. Bad weather, sure, but 90,000 tons displacement slows a
> lot of roll, and 1100 feet slows the period and amount of pitch.
Do CVN's operate in thick fog?
>
> I suspect that the RN's scheme to construct what seems to be a
> conventional vessel of about 50,000 tons (or more) has something
> to do with the ability to operate effectively in parameters
> exceeding those available to smaller STO/VL boats.
>
> TMO
I think it has more to do with wanting to have a bigger air group,
remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
TMOliver
>
> All the arguments I've seen relating to harriers operating
> in bad weather have related to landing rather than takeoff.
While I suspect vertical landing may be more practical with
substantial deck movement, there's simply no comparison of how
the decks of 20,000 ton disp. vessels and 90,000 tonners act in
the same sea state. I recall an old ESSEX (43,000 full
load after conv.) operating a/c when her plane guard DDs could
not keep station.
>
>
>> Certainly, none of the video from the
>> Falkands I've seen revealed any Harrier ops during weather
>> conditions that would have shut down the flight deck of a
>> US CVN. Bad weather, sure, but 90,000 tons displacement
>> slows a lot of roll, and 1100 feet slows the period and
>> amount of pitch.
>
> Do CVN's operate in thick fog?
>
There are certainly conditions of thick fog which preclude
flight ops, but I suspect that near equal caveats apply to both
decks....I'm not sure any carrier aviator welcomes climbing into
the cockpit at 250' and a quarter mile. ;-)But then again, on
those early morning fog banks, a CVN would have an advantage, a
flight deck higher above the water, clearing earlier...
TMO
Iain Rae
An 801 harrier was recovered when the pilot couldn't see the carrier by
shining a searchlight vertically from the deck. The pilot spotted the
light above the fog layer, formated on it and went into a vertical
landing. Admittedly this isn't a trick you're going to need that often.
Stephen Shepherd
>
> > I suspect that the RN's scheme to construct what seems to be a
> > conventional vessel of about 50,000 tons (or more) has something
> > to do with the ability to operate effectively in parameters
> > exceeding those available to smaller STO/VL boats.
> >
> > TMO
>
> I think it has more to do with wanting to have a bigger air group,
> remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
>
I don't think the original design envisaged the carriage of any Harriers
_at all_. I may be incorrect, how far along the line was the design before
the decision was made to include the Harrier in what was a Helicopter ASW
platform?
Iain Rae
> Iain Rae wrote:
>
>
>>>I suspect that the RN's scheme to construct what seems to be a
>>>conventional vessel of about 50,000 tons (or more) has something
>>>to do with the ability to operate effectively in parameters
>>>exceeding those available to smaller STO/VL boats.
>>>
>>>TMO
>>
>>I think it has more to do with wanting to have a bigger air group,
>>remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
>>
>
>
> I don't think the original design envisaged the carriage of any Harriers
> _at all_.
well ok then
....originally built to carry ~8 Harriers.....
I may be incorrect, how far along the line was the design before
> the decision was made to include the Harrier in what was a Helicopter ASW
> platform?
>
I suspect that depends who you ask and how much you ply them with drink
before.
Stephen Shepherd
LOL - remarkable how much you learn sometimes at a Wardroom/Officers Mess
bar...
B F Lake
> CVN. Bad weather, sure, but 90,000 tons displacement slows a
> lot of roll, and 1100 feet slows the period and amount of pitch.
This is correct for period but not necessarily the amount-it ignores the
period of encounter? Lets say TMO's ship is a big carrier and the smaller
carrier acts like a cruiser (so I can use the numbers in the Good Book)
Natural period of roll carrier- 14-15 seconds; cruiser 11 seconds. Periods
of pitch about half that. But the key is the period of encounter with the
waves, which is the time interval between the passage of two successive wave
crests past any given point in the ship.
The movement of the ship depends on the relation between the period of
encounter and the ship's period of roll or pitch, the greatest movement
developing when there is synchronization. The period of encounter depends
on the wave length (which governs the wave speed) and also the course and
speed of the ship relative to the waves. Thus the period of encounter can
be varied by alteration of the ship's course and speed. It is possible the
smaller carrier can maintain the flying course and necessary speed longer in
a given sea?
Since we are comparing flight ops, another factor is that the ship with the
larger mass and a blunt bow such as a carrier is subject to more impact
damage in a head sea than a smaller ship with a finer bow. Since these are
both carriers, perhaps the larger will have to slow down before the smaller
one must just from having more mass. Whether slowing down affects flight
ops would depend on the relative wind remaining sufficient and what the new
period of encounter does to flight deck motion, and could go either way
since we don't have a specific example here.
It also depends on the individual ship's stability. Don't forget MIDWAY's
behaviour after last refit making her even less able to conduct flight ops
in a seaway than before. Also we were quite proud in BONAVENTURE in the
fall of 1968 in the Norwegian Sea heading north into a storm when we kept
the deck cycle going like the rabbit with the good battery while the larger
WASP had packed in flying because it was too rough.
These days, stabilizers on a smaller carrier are a "ringer" in this too.
Regards,
Barry
Justin Baker
> I think it has more to do with wanting to have a bigger air group,
> remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
I thought the air wing was originally 5 Sea Harriers and 9 Sea Kings, with
the Sea Harriers only officially there to deal with shadowing Bears?
I'm pretty sure that's what it says in 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands', but
I don't have the book to hand.
JB
Iain Rae
> "Iain Rae" <ia...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3CBED16...@dcs.ed.ac.uk...
>
>
>
>>I think it has more to do with wanting to have a bigger air group,
>>remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
>
>
> I thought the air wing was originally 5 Sea Harriers and 9 Sea Kings, with
> the Sea Harriers only officially there to deal with shadowing Bears?
>
I can't remember, just that 801 had 8 hence ~8 to spare my blushes.
> I'm pretty sure that's what it says in 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands', but
> I don't have the book to hand.
>
me neither (out on loan)
> JB
Brian Sharrock
big snip
>
> I think it has more to do with wanting to have a bigger air group,
> remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
>
No, repeat no! The original _Invincible_ through deck cruiser
C01, was designed to carry Sea King Helicopters (and SKR>WG32>EH101).
The Labour Government had stipulated that the FAA would _not_ repeat
NOT operate fixed-wing a/c nor _would_ repeat would the fleet
operate outside the range of land-based air cover.
You can't rewrite history this way, she was never originally
designed to carry any fixed wing a/c at all.
--
Brian
Iain Rae
I meant that the design the three carriers were built to was to carry ~8
harriers. I've taken this point elsewhere in the thread, no rewriting of
history was implied on intended.
B F Lake
> >>remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, repeat no! The original _Invincible_ through deck cruiser
> > C01, was designed to carry Sea King Helicopters (and SKR>WG32>EH101).
> > The Labour Government had stipulated that the FAA would _not_ repeat
> > NOT operate fixed-wing a/c nor _would_ repeat would the fleet
> > operate outside the range of land-based air cover.
> I meant that the design the three carriers were built to was to carry ~8
> harriers.
FWIW, 1974-5 Janes under "cruisers" has INVINCIBLE with some estimates of
her size etc, and says first of class order was made at Vickers 17 Apr 73.
Aircraft listed as ,"9 Sea Kings (could carry 6 Harriers)"
The 1973 drawing by Vickers shows her with four Harriers on deck and three
helos (the type from before Sea Kings) about the place. The remarks say
she will be through deck providing a "limited run for V/STOL aircraft."
Regards,
Barry
Peter McLelland
RAF had politically out manouevred them to get the carrier money for
their own aircraft. The RN always hoped to be able to get the Harrier
on the 'Through Deck Cruiser' so called to remove any suggestion that
they were carriers, but kept the plans secret until the logic of the
plan was understood politicaly. They even suppressed the designs for
the Ski Jump and in the process treated the officer who devised the
concept very badly.
Getting the Sea Harrier at all was a very difficult task, and the fact
that it succeeded was down to the lessons learnt over CVA01.
Peter
Iain Rae
> "B F Lake" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ubuab1k...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>>"Iain Rae" <ia...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message ,
>>
>>>>>remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, repeat no! The original _Invincible_ through deck cruiser
>>>>C01, was designed to carry Sea King Helicopters (and SKR>WG32>EH101).
>>>>The Labour Government had stipulated that the FAA would _not_ repeat
>>>>NOT operate fixed-wing a/c nor _would_ repeat would the fleet
>>>>operate outside the range of land-based air cover.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>I meant that the design the three carriers were built to was to carry ~8
>>>harriers.
>>
>>FWIW, 1974-5 Janes under "cruisers" has INVINCIBLE with some estimates of
>>her size etc, and says first of class order was made at Vickers 17 Apr 73.
>>Aircraft listed as ,"9 Sea Kings (could carry 6 Harriers)"
>>
>>The 1973 drawing by Vickers shows her with four Harriers on deck and three
>>helos (the type from before Sea Kings) about the place. The remarks say
>>she will be through deck providing a "limited run for V/STOL aircraft."
>>
>
> Remember the Navy was still smarting after the CVA01 debacle when the
> RAF had politically out manouevred them to get the carrier money for
> their own aircraft.
What did they buy with their money? (presumably in addition to getting
the buccs and phantoms from the FAA)
> The RN always hoped to be able to get the Harrier
> on the 'Through Deck Cruiser' so called to remove any suggestion that
> they were carriers, but kept the plans secret until the logic of the
> plan was understood politicaly. They even suppressed the designs for
> the Ski Jump and in the process treated the officer who devised the
> concept very badly.
>
> Getting the Sea Harrier at all was a very difficult task, and the fact
> that it succeeded was down to the lessons learnt over CVA01.
>
> Peter
Has anyone actually published anything that goes into detail about the
shennanigans that was involved getting the "through deck cruisers"
through parliament?
As I've posted in another thread here the AEW Sea King was put together
in an awfully short time and I'd bet someone somewhere hadn't done some
kind of design study on it and wouldn't be surprised if it hadn't been
planned to produce something like it all along.
Methinks the nation owes a fair debt to some fairly senior RN and
political people who were involved at the time.
Andy Spark
<olive(DEL)@calpha.com> wrote:
> ....As an old carrier (CTOL-type) OOD, I'd be willing to argue
> that.
And having served on an Invincible class carrier I'd take you up on the
argument.
-Ark Royal was involved in an exercise a couple of years before I
joined where the weather conditions specifically the sea state was
severe enough to prevent the CVN from launching for some hours. -Our
SHARs had to provide CAP for the entire exercise. Unfortunately I can't
remember the name of the exercise....
> Cat launches on the rising side of a ship's pitch are not
> difficult, since on the open sea in a large vessel pitch is a
> quite protracted and predictable occurrence. The advantage to a
> catapult equipped CV (already large having to house cats and
> arresting gear) remains her ability to operate a/c (although
> reduced payloads/fuel may be required) in conditions of wind and
> weather in which smaller "ski-jump"equipped vessels will have
> secured flight ops. Certainly, none of the video from the
> Falkands I've seen revealed any Harrier ops during weather
> conditions that would have shut down the flight deck of a US
> CVN. Bad weather, sure, but 90,000 tons displacement slows a
> lot of roll, and 1100 feet slows the period and amount of pitch.
>
> I suspect that the RN's scheme to construct what seems to be a
> conventional vessel of about 50,000 tons (or more) has something
> to do with the ability to operate effectively in parameters
> exceeding those available to smaller STO/VL boats.
Actually, the design of the vessel is not yet finalised, and is more
likely to be a larger carrier but carrying the STOVL variant JSF and
having a skijump. the increase in size being determined by the
requirement to operate a larger airgroup
Stephen Shepherd
> Peter McLelland wrote:
> > "B F Lake" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ubuab1k...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> >>"Iain Rae" <ia...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message ,
> >>
> >>>>>remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>No, repeat no! The original _Invincible_ through deck cruiser
> >>>>C01, was designed to carry Sea King Helicopters (and SKR>WG32>EH101).
> >>>>The Labour Government had stipulated that the FAA would _not_ repeat
> >>>>NOT operate fixed-wing a/c nor _would_ repeat would the fleet
> >>>>operate outside the range of land-based air cover.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I meant that the design the three carriers were built to was to carry ~8
> >>>harriers.
> >>
> >>FWIW, 1974-5 Janes under "cruisers" has INVINCIBLE with some estimates of
> >>her size etc, and says first of class order was made at Vickers 17 Apr 73.
> >>Aircraft listed as ,"9 Sea Kings (could carry 6 Harriers)"
> >>
> >>The 1973 drawing by Vickers shows her with four Harriers on deck and three
> >>helos (the type from before Sea Kings) about the place. The remarks say
> >>she will be through deck providing a "limited run for V/STOL aircraft."
> >>
> >
> > Remember the Navy was still smarting after the CVA01 debacle when the
> > RAF had politically out manouevred them to get the carrier money for
> > their own aircraft.
>
> What did they buy with their money? (presumably in addition to getting
> the buccs and phantoms from the FAA)
>
Well, IIRC, they were _meant_ to get the F111, but in a twist to the tail the government withfrew
funding for it (and I seem to remember the Defence Minister at the time nearly resigned over that
decision). There is a rumour that the RAF moved Australia 100 miles to the West to prove that
they could provide land based air cover to the RN anywhere on earth.
<snip>
Paul J. Adam
> Peter McLelland wrote:
> > Remember the Navy was still smarting after the CVA01 debacle when the
> > RAF had politically out manouevred them to get the carrier money for
> > their own aircraft.
>
> What did they buy with their money? (presumably in addition to getting
> the buccs and phantoms from the FAA)
Tonkas. (Tornados, both variants)
--
Paul
Brian Sharrock
> > >>remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8
Harriers.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > No, repeat no! The original _Invincible_ through deck cruiser
> > > C01, was designed to carry Sea King Helicopters (and SKR>WG32>EH101).
> > > The Labour Government had stipulated that the FAA would _not_ repeat
> > > NOT operate fixed-wing a/c nor _would_ repeat would the fleet
> > > operate outside the range of land-based air cover.
>
>
> FWIW, 1974-5 Janes under "cruisers" has INVINCIBLE with some estimates of
> her size etc, and says first of class order was made at Vickers 17 Apr 73.
> Aircraft listed as ,"9 Sea Kings (could carry 6 Harriers)"
>
Note the date of signature. If you don't realise the significance then
determine the personnel that formed the Administration in April 1973.
This was not the government that had phased out fixed wing aicraft from
the RN. I restate that C01 as designed by DG Ships at Bath was not
configured _originally_ for fixed wing aircraft. "Janes" reports what
it's told (or journalists find out) I think the statement should be
intreprated as "designed and specified to embark Nine Sea Kings, but
I've been told by those gee-whiz marketing types at Hawker-Siddeley
that one could get as many as Six Harriers on board , if only the
MoD DOR(Sea) could be persuaded to advocate such a course up the chain
of command). :) Of course, your experience and background may lead
you to differ.
> The 1973 drawing by Vickers shows her with four Harriers on deck and three
> helos (the type from before Sea Kings) about the place.
What type of drawing? Technical? Marketing? Deck Layout version RELEASE?
> .... The remarks say
> she will be through deck providing a "limited run for V/STOL aircraft."
>
Once again; in 1973, the FAA didn't have Harriers, it was probably
Vickers co-operating with H-S to advocate the use of this perceived
capacity. In 1973 there were plenty of FAA (mainly Observers
coincidentally) saying; 'a naval aircraft must be two seater, the
situation is far too complicated for one man to pilot the aircraft
and fight a battle! It's alright for CrabAir but the Navy needs a
real aircraft'. Of course, your experience and background may lead
you to dispute this.
--
Brian
Brian Sharrock
> > >>remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8
Harriers.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > No, repeat no! The original _Invincible_ through deck cruiser
> > > C01, was designed to carry Sea King Helicopters (and SKR>WG32>EH101).
> > > The Labour Government had stipulated that the FAA would _not_ repeat
> > > NOT operate fixed-wing a/c nor _would_ repeat would the fleet
> > > operate outside the range of land-based air cover.
>
>
> FWIW, 1974-5 Janes under "cruisers" has INVINCIBLE with some estimates of
> her size etc, and says first of class order was made at Vickers 17 Apr 73.
> Aircraft listed as ,"9 Sea Kings (could carry 6 Harriers)"
>
Note the date of signature. If you don't realise the significance then
determine the personnel that formed the Administration in April 1973.
This was not the government that had phased out fixed wing aicraft from
the RN. I restate that C01 as designed by DG Ships at Bath was not
configured _originally_ for fixed wing aircraft. "Janes" reports what
it's told (or journalists find out) I think the statement should be
intreprated as "designed and specified to embark Nine Sea Kings, but
I've been told by those gee-whiz marketing types at Hawker-Siddeley
that one could get as many as Six Harriers on board , if only the
MoD DOR(Sea) could be persuaded to advocate such a course up the chain
of command). :) Of course, your experience and background may lead
you to differ.
> The 1973 drawing by Vickers shows her with four Harriers on deck and three
> helos (the type from before Sea Kings) about the place.
What type of drawing? Technical? Marketing? Deck Layout version RELEASE?
> .... The remarks say
> she will be through deck providing a "limited run for V/STOL aircraft."
>
Once again; in 1973, the FAA didn't have Harriers, it was probably
B F Lake
>
> > FWIW, 1974-5 Janes---snip
> Note the date of signature. If you don't realise the significance then
> determine the personnel that formed the Administration in April 1973.
> This was not the government that had phased out fixed wing aicraft from
> the RN. I restate that C01 as designed by DG Ships at Bath was not
Just making conversation with a ref to the FWIW bit that was in Janes.
Don't shoot! I didn't do nothing (nufing?) It was the other guy! I'm
telling my mum!
> What type of drawing? Technical? Marketing? Deck >Layout version RELEASE?
Same sort of artist's impression painting you see now for the CVF.
Regards,
Barry
Guy Alcala
> John Halliwell wrote:
<snip>
> > One Harrier supposedly landed in fog so thick the deck crew couldn't
> > find it.
> >
>
> one of 801's piloted by a former sea king pilot, they used the sea king
> recovery procedure (shine a searchlight straight up). I don't have
> Sharkey's book to hand or I'd get his name.
Charlie Cantan. Sharkey tried to get him an AFC for it but it was denied.
Guy
Andy Spark
<shep...@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I think it has more to do with wanting to have a bigger air group,
> > remember the Invincibles were originally designed to carry ~8 Harriers.
> >
>
> I don't think the original design envisaged the carriage of any Harriers
> _at all_. I may be incorrect, how far along the line was the design before
> the decision was made to include the Harrier in what was a Helicopter ASW
> platform?
Sorry, I was referring to the design of the CVF being larger to
accomodate a larger air group.....
Re the Invincible design. -They were not originally intended to carry
the Harrier, and the "Through Deck Cruiser" Design was intended to mask
the design of a small carrier. -I have been told that Dennis Healey the
SoS for Defence was only shown side shots of the new design in order
that he wouldn't notice that he was ordering a carrier.... (But that's
probably apocryphal
Andy Spark
<lorna...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > What did they buy with their money? (presumably in addition to getting
> > the buccs and phantoms from the FAA)
>
> Tonkas. (Tornados, both variants)
MRCA -"Must Replace Canberra, -Again"
Which is still flying right up there with the U2 and its
descendants......
Keith Willshaw
"Andy Spark" <andy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:190420022201008543%andy_...@hotmail.com...
Nitpick
Must Refurbish Canberra Again
Keith
Evan Brennan
>> Remember the Navy was still smarting after the CVA01 debacle
>> when the RAF had politically out manouevred them to get the
>> carrier money for their own aircraft.
>
> What did they buy with their money? (presumably in addition to
> getting the buccs and phantoms from the FAA)
I'm not sure what action you're referring to, but there was a degree
of scandal in the purchase of Rolls-Royce powered Phantoms. The UK
economy was sagging but the British government actually put further
burden on their taxpayers by unnecessarily doubling the costs in the
deal for RAF Phantoms. Some were F-4Ks diverted from the navy, but
the majority were F-4Ms bought directly from McDonnell-Douglas.
Extensive redesign, development delays, extra equipment and political
pressure to subcontract almost half of the parts to British firms
eventually drove up the price of the F-4M to twice that of a standard
F-4D. Rolls-Royce Spey engines had better acceleration and fuel economy,
but the General Electric J79 engines were superior above 40,000 feet
and produced a higher max speed.
The Royal Navy claimed that they bought the F-4K with Speys because
extra thrust was needed due to the shorter catapult runs on British
carriers. Fuel savings afforded by turbofans was especially welcomed
in a shipboard environment where there is not much room for error.
The Phantom also proved its value in the RAF but they were nonetheless
bitter that the UK government forced them to buy 118 Spey-powered
F-4Ms, because they could have gotten twice as many new F-4Ds for
the same price!
To compensate for the F-4Ms sent to the Falklands in 1982, the RAF
bought fifteen ex-US Navy F-4Js and considered these to be their
best performing Phantoms for high altitude interceptions.
Peter D Rieden
news:1018965652.1252.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> The AEW Gannets would have been VERY useful as would the
> greater range and BVR missiles on the F4
OK, so I've come into this rather late, but my 0.03Euro's worth:
I doubt the BVR missiles would have been of any great value for >90% of the air
battle. Most of the air action was defending the moored fleet at San Carlos, and
this involved identifying and intercepting aircraft which were using terrain
masking until the final minute or so of the attack. Targets had to be identified
and engaged at very short ranges, so a BVR capability wouldn't have added much -
this is the forte of the "knife-fighting range" dogfight missile like the
'winder.
Subsequent analysis has suggested that even if the FRS-1 had been AMRAAM capable
they'd probably only have loaded 'winders for these sorties, and the only
increase in capability that would have significantly improved effectiveness
would have been to increase the number of AMRAAMs which could be carried and
fired.
Ironically the twin AIM9 pylon was under development and was actually trialed at
Boscombe during the firts couple of days of the war, but the installation had
been hurried by wartime priorities and the inspectors failed to spot a wiring
error which sunsequently took quite a long time to diagnose. Had the
installation been cleared the mod-kits would have been delivered to the fleet
for first-line embodiment within a few days (as happened with the ALE40
Chaff/Flare dispenser installation), but it was not to be.
PDR
Matt Clonfero
<peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
>> The AEW Gannets would have been VERY useful as would the
>> greater range and BVR missiles on the F4
>
>OK, so I've come into this rather late, but my 0.03Euro's worth:
>
>I doubt the BVR missiles would have been of any great value for >90% of the air
>battle. Most of the air action was defending the moored fleet at San Carlos, and
>this involved identifying and intercepting aircraft which were using terrain
>masking until the final minute or so of the attack. Targets had to be identified
>and engaged at very short ranges, so a BVR capability wouldn't have added much -
>this is the forte of the "knife-fighting range" dogfight missile like the
>'winder.
Dear oh dear. The reason the FAA was fighting the point-defence battle
was because the absence of AEW denied them the ability to fight the
outer air battle.
With an AEW aircraft up nice and high, it would have been possible to
detect the Argentinians early, and `shoot them in the face' with Sparrow
/ Sky Flash.
>Subsequent analysis has suggested that even if the FRS-1 had been AMRAAM capable
>they'd probably only have loaded 'winders for these sorties, and the only
>increase in capability that would have significantly improved effectiveness
>would have been to increase the number of AMRAAMs which could be carried and
>fired.
Sure, just adding a BVR missile doesn't help. You need the AEW too.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy
Paul J. Adam
>"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:1018965652.1252.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> The AEW Gannets would have been VERY useful as would the
>> greater range and BVR missiles on the F4
>
>OK, so I've come into this rather late, but my 0.03Euro's worth:
>
>I doubt the BVR missiles would have been of any great value for >90% of the air
>battle.
What about coupled to AEW, though?
>Most of the air action was defending the moored fleet at San
>Carlos, and
>this involved identifying and intercepting aircraft which were using terrain
>masking until the final minute or so of the attack. Targets had to
>be identified
>and engaged at very short ranges, so a BVR capability wouldn't
>have added much -
Again, AEW might get you out of this by extending the horizon (either
detecting the Argentinian aircraft while they were approaching at
altitude, before they descended to stay under surface radars; or forcing
them to come in low over longer distances, with even harsher effects on
their fuel state.
Not sure what the ROE would be for targets in the exclusion zone headed
at the Falklands after a raid warning from the submarines that certainly
weren't providing that sort of alert, and whether you'd be able to loose
off some weapons BVR.
The increased weapon load would be nice, as would the longer ranges in a
stern chase.
>Subsequent analysis has suggested that even if the FRS-1 had
>been AMRAAM capable
>they'd probably only have loaded 'winders for these sorties, and the only
>increase in capability that would have significantly improved effectiveness
>would have been to increase the number of AMRAAMs which could be carried and
>fired.
Does this include combining AMRAAM or Sky Flash with AEW? I can see why
without extra sensors, the weapons aren't that much use.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Iain Rae
> In article <3cc837ce$1...@pull.gecm.com>, Peter D Rieden
> <peter....@baesystems.com> writes
>
>>"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>news:1018965652.1252.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>The AEW Gannets would have been VERY useful as would the
>>>greater range and BVR missiles on the F4
>>
>>OK, so I've come into this rather late, but my 0.03Euro's worth:
>>
>>I doubt the BVR missiles would have been of any great value for >90% of the air
>>battle.
>
>
> What about coupled to AEW, though?
>
>
>>Most of the air action was defending the moored fleet at San
>>Carlos, and
>>this involved identifying and intercepting aircraft which were using terrain
>>masking until the final minute or so of the attack. Targets had to
>>be identified
>>and engaged at very short ranges, so a BVR capability wouldn't
>>have added much -
>
>
> Again, AEW might get you out of this by extending the horizon (either
> detecting the Argentinian aircraft while they were approaching at
> altitude, before they descended to stay under surface radars; or forcing
> them to come in low over longer distances, with even harsher effects on
> their fuel state.
>
Actually what AEW gives you that's mst useful is early detection of
attacks against the carrier group, so instead of lurking well to the
East of East Falkland you can shift the whole Logistics "loitering" area
closer in to land. I guess what else you do depends on what you've
got. with Ark, Eagle and CVA01 you'd probably group Ark and Eagle
together and alternate the two interdicting aircraft west of west
Falkland (more realistically CVA01 would be in refit and Ark would
periodically lose one of her props.
> Not sure what the ROE would be for targets in the exclusion zone headed
> at the Falklands after a raid warning from the submarines that certainly
> weren't providing that sort of alert, and whether you'd be able to loose
> off some weapons BVR.
Invincible operated west of west Falklands and the Harriers closed to
within visual range of the Oil rigs of the Argentine Coast, same ROE
applied.
>
> The increased weapon load would be nice, as would the longer ranges in a
> stern chase.
>
>
>>Subsequent analysis has suggested that even if the FRS-1 had
>>been AMRAAM capable
>>they'd probably only have loaded 'winders for these sorties, and the only
>>increase in capability that would have significantly improved effectiveness
>>would have been to increase the number of AMRAAMs which could be carried and
>>fired.
>
>
> Does this include combining AMRAAM or Sky Flash with AEW? I can see why
> without extra sensors, the weapons aren't that much use.
>
>
In terms of the Harriers it would be because the Blue Fox wouldn't be
able to pick up the incoming aircraft against the ground clutter.
Guy Alcala
> In article <3cc837ce$1...@pull.gecm.com>, Peter D Rieden
> <peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
> >> The AEW Gannets would have been VERY useful as would the
> >> greater range and BVR missiles on the F4
> >
> >OK, so I've come into this rather late, but my 0.03Euro's worth:
> >
> >I doubt the BVR missiles would have been of any great value for >90% of the air
> >battle. Most of the air action was defending the moored fleet at San Carlos, and
> >this involved identifying and intercepting aircraft which were using terrain
> >masking until the final minute or so of the attack. Targets had to be identified
> >and engaged at very short ranges, so a BVR capability wouldn't have added much -
> >this is the forte of the "knife-fighting range" dogfight missile like the
> >'winder.
>
> Dear oh dear. The reason the FAA was fighting the point-defence battle
> was because the absence of AEW denied them the ability to fight the
> outer air battle.
>
> With an AEW aircraft up nice and high, it would have been possible to
> detect the Argentinians early, and `shoot them in the face' with Sparrow
> / Sky Flash.
"Dear oh dear" is right. I hope Peter was pulling our legs, because I don't see how
he could have meant any of the above to be taken seriously. Much of the Falklands
conflict was exactly what the F-4/Sparrow combo was designed for - unambiguous BVR
shots taken head-on. Any civilian a/c stupid enough to fly into the TEZ would have
deserved to be shot down. The odds that Super Etendards would have been slaughtered
long before they got to launch range against the CVBG would have been extremely high,
assuming of course that Woodward would have used them properly (I'm just re-reading
his and Ward's books. Although Ward's often extremely biased, I'd tend to agree with
his inference that Woodward was a subdriver and surface ship driver who just didn't
grok air power, much like Spruance. It may be that Woodward also based his actions
on what 800 Sq. rather than 801 Sq. was telling him was doable, although Sharkey's
hardly the most objective source on that subject).
> >Subsequent analysis has suggested that even if the FRS-1 had been AMRAAM capable
> >they'd probably only have loaded 'winders for these sorties, and the only
> >increase in capability that would have significantly improved effectiveness
> >would have been to increase the number of AMRAAMs which could be carried and
> >fired.
>
> Sure, just adding a BVR missile doesn't help. You need the AEW too.
Actually, having a BVR missile and a PD lookdown radar that would allow you to patrol
at medium/high altitude while still spotting targets coming in on the deck would be a
huge advantage, considerably increasing CAP time on station (as much as two or three
times). While the F-4K's High-PRF PD set wouldn't be all that good over land, it
should do just fine over water, and its much greater range (Friedman lists the spec
as a 5ft.^2 target at 60nm) compared to Blue Fox would have forced Argentine a/c down
even sooner, decreasing their payloads even more. Because you can spot low targets
better, you could move the carriers in closer to San Carlos Water, improving your CAP
on-station times that way as well, or you can just keep them back and tank the CAPs
with Buccs. In either case,you can move at least some of the CAPs west of West
Falkland, increasing the Argentine headaches.
BTW, even the Blue Fox had some ability to spot targets somewhat below at low
altitude over the sea, at least when it was calm. In his book, Sharkey Ward
describes the Canberra interception on 1 May, when his squadron's SHARs at 3,000 feet
were able to pick up three Canberras on the deck at 24 miles. One was splashed, and
the others chased off. If they'd been a section of F-4s with Skyflash and four x
AIM-9s each, I expect they'd have gotten them all, not to mention blowing the Mirage
high CAPs out of the sky.
Guy
Peter D Rieden
news:6YSrCVAe...@ntlworld.com...
>
> Dear oh dear. The reason the FAA was fighting the point-defence battle
> was because the absence of AEW denied them the ability to fight the
> outer air battle.
>
> With an AEW aircraft up nice and high, it would have been possible to
> detect the Argentinians early, and `shoot them in the face' with Sparrow
> / Sky Flash.
Yes, but now you're postulating a MUCH bigger effort. I glosses over the issue
in my post because I thought it was self-evident, but perhaps it wasn't. Firstly
you have to have 24/7 AEW cover - say four to six Gannets. Then you've got to
dedicate about 50% of your fighter force to protecting the AEW platforms and 10%
to protecting your (sole CV capable) carrier - an issue made all the more
important by the inability of CV aircraft to recover onto frigates, destroyers
or even freighters in the event of temporary or permanent diabling of the only
available deck. Whilst the remaining 40% of your fighter force could be more
effectively deployed with AEW cover, the analysis suggests that there is a
significantly higher possibility of disrupting the attacks by use of a
nemerically-greater point-defence then with an AEW-guided interdict force
further out. Even the longer time-on-station of Phantoms (all the more so with
the RN's Spey-engined ones) doesn't compensate.
This situation was essentially unique to this particular battlefield, and
related to the fact that the "targets" were moored in a fixed location which had
a limited number of viable attack tracks, leading to defendable "choke points".
Had the fleet been dispersed at sea it would have been a very different story.
But as has been said many times, the Falklands was a fortuitously unique
conflict, one which matched the SHAR's capabilities alarmingly perfectly. John
Fozzard once said "We were convinced that the SHAR was an effective weapon, but
there were many who doubted this. What we needed was a nice little war somewhere
a long way away to prove our point, and Maggie conveniently obliged by provoking
the Falklands conflict a mere 18 months after we got into service!".
> >Subsequent analysis has suggested that even if the FRS-1 had been AMRAAM
capable
> >they'd probably only have loaded 'winders for these sorties, and the only
> >increase in capability that would have significantly improved effectiveness
> >would have been to increase the number of AMRAAMs which could be carried and
> >fired.
>
> Sure, just adding a BVR missile doesn't help. You need the AEW too.
Sloppy typing on my part - my paragraph makes a lot more sense the way I
originally intended it - I was talking about increasing the number of AIM9s with
a twin *sidewinder* pylon. Apologies!
PDR
Matt Clonfero
<peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
>> Dear oh dear. The reason the FAA was fighting the point-defence battle
>> was because the absence of AEW denied them the ability to fight the
>> outer air battle.
>>
>> With an AEW aircraft up nice and high, it would have been possible to
>> detect the Argentinians early, and `shoot them in the face' with Sparrow
>> / Sky Flash.
>
>Yes, but now you're postulating a MUCH bigger effort.
Sure - like having a real carrier present. I know that that wasn't an
option; but this is a what-if, after all... (AEW Gannets and Phantoms
were being discussed).
>I glosses over the issue
>in my post because I thought it was self-evident, but perhaps it wasn't. Firstly
>you have to have 24/7 AEW cover - say four to six Gannets.
Call it four embarked - a roulement of three, and a spare.
(That's pretty accurate for the old embarked flight on HMS ARK ROYAL)
And why 24 hour? The FAA showed no willingness to operate at night. The
only platform that was even remotely night-capable (in the strike role)
was the Entendard; and I'm not sure that the FAA had practised air-to-
air refuelling at night.
>Then you've got to
>dedicate about 50% of your fighter force to protecting the AEW platforms
Why, With limited Air-to-Air threat ?
(Basis: The FAA didn't really make an effort to combat the Harrier CAP;
which didn't have either AEW cover or BVR missiles. Taking out a handful
of Sea Harriers would have made the minimal CAP untenable. Yet no effort
was made. This indicates that such an attack would probably not be made
on a more capable air-to-air force.
> and 10%
>to protecting your (sole CV capable) carrier - an issue made all the more
>important by the inability of CV aircraft to recover onto frigates, destroyers
>or even freighters in the event of temporary or permanent diabling of the only
>available deck.
With a more capable air defence, the carrier may do better to operate
more up-threat - leaving only one fleet to defend. After all, now that
single fleet can be defended in depth.
>Whilst the remaining 40% of your fighter force could be more
>effectively deployed with AEW cover, the analysis suggests that there is a
>significantly higher possibility of disrupting the attacks by use of a
>nemerically-greater point-defence then with an AEW-guided interdict force
>further out. Even the longer time-on-station of Phantoms (all the more so with
>the RN's Spey-engined ones) doesn't compensate.
I'm not sure that follows, either. When you bounce a flight of four+
strike aircraft with a two-ship CAP, the unengaged two usually make a
run for the targets and scoot.
When a similar flight looses two ships to BVR missiles well away from
the target area, and the threat warning receiver is illuminated, the
remainder of the strike may well abort.
With 12 Phantoms, you can keep a two-ship CAP (i.e. equal in numbers to
that provided by Sea Harrier) all day. Again, 12 happens to be the
squadron size for ARK ROYAL. If you let her exchange her Buccaneers (14)
for a second squadron, you can keep a four ship flight up...
>This situation was essentially unique to this particular battlefield, and
>related to the fact that the "targets" were moored in a fixed location which had
>a limited number of viable attack tracks, leading to defendable "choke points".
Well, an invasion fleet is usually tied to its beach. And the limited
ingress points still didn't allow point defence to provide a decent CAP.
>> >Subsequent analysis has suggested that even if the FRS-1 had been AMRAAM
>capable
>> >they'd probably only have loaded 'winders for these sorties, and the only
>> >increase in capability that would have significantly improved effectiveness
>> >would have been to increase the number of AMRAAMs which could be carried and
>> >fired.
>>
>> Sure, just adding a BVR missile doesn't help. You need the AEW too.
>
>Sloppy typing on my part - my paragraph makes a lot more sense the way I
>originally intended it - I was talking about increasing the number of AIM9s with
>a twin *sidewinder* pylon. Apologies!
If you limit the scope of the discussion to the CVSs, then yes - the
two-rail AIM-9L launcher is a better option than AMRAAM.
Guy Alcala
> In article <3ccd341e$1...@pull.gecm.com>, Peter D Rieden
> <peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >I glosses over the issue
> >in my post because I thought it was self-evident, but perhaps it wasn't. Firstly
> >you have to have 24/7 AEW cover - say four to six Gannets.
>
> Call it four embarked - a roulement of three, and a spare.
>
> (That's pretty accurate for the old embarked flight on HMS ARK ROYAL)
>
> And why 24 hour? The FAA showed no willingness to operate at night. The
> only platform that was even remotely night-capable (in the strike role)
> was the Entendard; and I'm not sure that the FAA had practised air-to-
> air refuelling at night.
I'd put six, onboard, myself. ISTR that was planned and/or postulated for Eagle
during the '50s, although the a/c may have been AEW Skyraiders rather than Gannets.
Six allows two AEW stations up during critical periods, widening the search front and
making it that much harder for SuE's or whatever to do an end around. Friedman
quotes 80nm range for a 2MW transmitter with the 8 ft. (carrier a/c) antenna,
apparently on a 1m^2 target. On a 5m^2 target that should get you 120nm, AOTBE.
<snip>
> With 12 Phantoms, you can keep a two-ship CAP (i.e. equal in numbers to
> that provided by Sea Harrier) all day. Again, 12 happens to be the
> squadron size for ARK ROYAL. If you let her exchange her Buccaneers (14)
> for a second squadron, you can keep a four ship flight up...
Rule of thumb is that you can maintain 1/3rd of your a/c on CAP, so 12 a/c should
allow you to maintain two CAP sections up. I don't know if Ark's peacetime
complement could be expanded to the same extent as Hermes' and Invincible's were, but
if they could you'd expect that they'd be able to put at least 18 F-4s on board, plus
the rest of the air wing. Manning them would probably be the bigger problem, as
they'd have to recall everyone who'd previously flown them, and then get them
car-qualed again, which would be rather difficult if the ship was already on its way
to the South Atlantic. I suppose they could have taken some time and done it at
Ascension, or else we'd probably have been willing to help on the sly, if we'd had a
carrier near the U.K.
Anyway, for the Falklands I think I'd be willing to give up 6-8 Buccs for the same
number of F-4s, if they wouldn't have fit any other way. You'd still want some
Buccs for tankers, as well as for maritime strike (Martel at the time, IIRR) and land
attack. They should be a lot more effective and cost effective than sending Vulcans
down from Ascension with their 10-12 tankers. Offhand, I don't remember if the RN
Buccs had Martel capability at the time, but many of the RAF ones that did were
apparently ex-RN machines, so the fit should be possible (assuming the system was
car-qualed). 809 might have borrowed some RAF WSOs with Martel experience if
necessary.
>> >Subsequent analysis has suggested that even if the FRS-1 had been AMRAAM
>> >capable
> >> >they'd probably only have loaded 'winders for these sorties, and the only
> >> >increase in capability that would have significantly improved effectiveness
> >> >would have been to increase the number of AMRAAMs which could be carried and
> >> >fired.
> >>
> >> Sure, just adding a BVR missile doesn't help. You need the AEW too.
> >
> >Sloppy typing on my part - my paragraph makes a lot more sense the way I
> >originally intended it - I was talking about increasing the number of AIM9s with
> >a twin *sidewinder* pylon. Apologies!
>
> If you limit the scope of the discussion to the CVSs, then yes - the
> two-rail AIM-9L launcher is a better option than AMRAAM.
Assuming that they're still FRS.1s, true. If we're dealing with hypothetical AM-120
capability then they're presumably F/A.2s with Blue Vixen (and you've also got Sea
King AEW.2s), and in that case I'd take AIM-120 and maybe some AIM-9s and leave the
guns home, or else fly mixed sections, one loaded primarily BVR and the other leaning
more towards WVR. Say 3 x AIM-120 and 2 x AIM-9 on one a/c, assuming such assymetric
loads are allowed on the SHAR - Marine F-18s in DS operated with 3 x AIM-7s and 4 x
AIM-9, with two of the latter carried dual on one O/B pylon, and a single AIM-7 on
the other one. Otherwise, either 4 x AIM-120, or else two plus two or four AIM-9.
Guns and four AIM-9s, or a similar load, on the other one. Of course, I'm assuming
that the a/c can recover with that load; in 52 deg. S. temps in late fall I expect it
wouldn't be a problem.
Guy
Matt Clonfero
<g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>Matt Clonfero wrote:
>
>> In article <3ccd341e$1...@pull.gecm.com>, Peter D Rieden
>> <peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >I glosses over the issue
>> >in my post because I thought it was self-evident, but perhaps it wasn't.
>Firstly
>> >you have to have 24/7 AEW cover - say four to six Gannets.
>>
>> Call it four embarked - a roulement of three, and a spare.
>>
>> (That's pretty accurate for the old embarked flight on HMS ARK ROYAL)
>>
>> And why 24 hour? The FAA showed no willingness to operate at night. The
>> only platform that was even remotely night-capable (in the strike role)
>> was the Entendard; and I'm not sure that the FAA had practised air-to-
>> air refuelling at night.
>
>I'd put six, onboard, myself.
Would be nice; but the data is based around the ARK ROYAL air group -
the carrier `most likely' to have been available in a what-if game.
>> With 12 Phantoms, you can keep a two-ship CAP (i.e. equal in numbers to
>> that provided by Sea Harrier) all day. Again, 12 happens to be the
>> squadron size for ARK ROYAL. If you let her exchange her Buccaneers (14)
>> for a second squadron, you can keep a four ship flight up...
>
>Rule of thumb is that you can maintain 1/3rd of your a/c on CAP,
I wouldn't like to have to maintain that over a month or so; but it's
probably accurate for shorter roulements.
[snip]
>Anyway, for the Falklands I think I'd be willing to give up 6-8 Buccs for the
>same
>number of F-4s, if they wouldn't have fit any other way. You'd still want some
>Buccs for tankers, as well as for maritime strike (Martel at the time, IIRR) and
>land
>attack. They should be a lot more effective and cost effective than sending
>Vulcans
>down from Ascension with their 10-12 tankers. Offhand, I don't remember if the
>RN
>Buccs had Martel capability at the time, but many of the RAF ones that did were
>apparently ex-RN machines, so the fit should be possible (assuming the system
>was
>car-qualed). 809 might have borrowed some RAF WSOs with Martel experience if
>necessary.
Hmm. I'm not sure that the Bucc's would have brought that much to the
game - anti-shipping was best done using SSNs to deter the Argentine
Fleet from interfering; and helos and RN warships could tidy up the
minor units that attempted to run supplies etc. I don't remember the
Bucc being able to buddy-refuel; but I'd be happy to be corrected.
>> If you limit the scope of the discussion to the CVSs, then yes - the
>> two-rail AIM-9L launcher is a better option than AMRAAM.
>
>Assuming that they're still FRS.1s, true. If we're dealing with hypothetical
>AM-120
>capability then they're presumably F/A.2s with Blue Vixen (and you've also got
>Sea
>King AEW.2s), and in that case I'd take AIM-120 and maybe some AIM-9s and leave
>the
>guns home, or else fly mixed sections, one loaded primarily BVR and the other
>leaning
>more towards WVR. Say 3 x AIM-120 and 2 x AIM-9 on one a/c, assuming such
>assymetric
>loads are allowed on the SHAR -
Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of a jump;
but yes, if we'd had them and the AEW Sea Kings, they'd probably have
carried 4 x AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9L.
Andrew McCruden
"Matt Clonfero" <Matt@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of a jump;
> but yes, if we'd had them and the AEW Sea Kings, they'd probably have
> carried 4 x AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9L.
2 AIM-120 and 4 AIM-9L surely?
martin.sinclair
>
> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of a jump;
Too true. Even in the mid-1980s, as I understand it, they were hand
selecting those processors from the production run that were able to
operate at the required clock speed. Blue Vixen just wouldn't have
been possible in time for the Falklands.
One story was that Ferranti had offered the RN a pulse-doppler
Radar for the FRS.1, but the combination of higher price and lack
of perceived need (after all, it only needs to see Bears and Badgers,
looking up against a clear blue sky, if it's to operate ASW in the
North Atlantic......) meant that the RN went with the cheap and
cheerful Blue Fox option.
ObPhysicist: Andy would be pleased to know how many of the Vixen
designers were physicists; good maths / RF skills, combined with
traditional British (lack of) budget-driven build-the-kit-yourself DSP
skills....my first supervisor had started in Andy's line of work :-)
Martin
First of Foot, Right of the Line
(currently preoccupied with firstborn, and the remaining time training for
my "sport of choice"....)
David Henderson
>And why 24 hour? The FAA showed no willingness to operate at night. The
>only platform that was even remotely night-capable (in the strike role)
>was the Entendard; and I'm not sure that the FAA had practised air-to-
>air refuelling at night.
Yet had the task force excellent defenses during the daytime only, when
do you think they would have come? :-)
What I've been thinking is: could, with a bit of jury-rigging of arrestor
gear, the gannets have operated from Hermes? I can't find takeoff run
details, but with a ramp I'm sure they could get off OK, and since we're
not talking F-14s here, would it have been possible to rig some kind of
arrestor gear for them?
Were Harriers/Helos parked on the centreline all the time? Would arrested
landings be impossible because of this? Hermes did have a slight overhang
at the starboard from its fleet carrier days, so could an angled approach
have been used?
I'm given to thinking that Gannets being in service is more likely the
limiting factor than the Ark. :-)
--
David.
Peter D Rieden
news:slrnacvuou...@dh219.factsline.co.uk...
> What I've been thinking is: could, with a bit of jury-rigging of arrestor
> gear, the gannets have operated from Hermes?
You can't really "jury rig" arrestor gear. It's big, bulky stuff that needs to
be firmly mounted to enable it to handle som very large forces.
> I can't find takeoff run details, but with a ramp I'm sure they could get off
OK,
This isn't as easy as it appears. The undercarriage oleos have to be stressed
for the load and balanced (nose-to-mains) to ensure that the aircraft leaves the
ramp at a positive AoA. Then there's the small matter of prop clearence...
> Were Harriers/Helos parked on the centreline all the time?
No, hardly ever in fact, and certainly not during flight ops.
While you're at it, where are you going to store the spares and special-to-type
equipment required to maintain a fleet of Gannets on a carrier which *already*
has trouble finding storage space for the SHAR support equipment & spares?
PDR
Andrew McCruden
<martin....@firenet.uk.com>
wrote in sci.military.naval
> "Matt Clonfero" <Matt@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:<jiNN8eAn...@ntlworld.com>...
>>
>> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of
a
>> jump;
>
> Too true. Even in the mid-1980s, as I understand it, they were
> hand selecting those processors from the production run that
> were able to operate at the required clock speed. Blue Vixen
> just wouldn't have been possible in time for the Falklands.
>
Hmm when is the Tornado F3's Out of service date? (it should be
really obvious where i'm leading with this....)
--
Andrew McCruden
"Sometimes we break the system, Sometimes the system breaks us"
Guy Alcala
> In article <3CCE401C...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net>, Guy Alcala
> <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >I'd put six, onboard, myself.
>
> Would be nice; but the data is based around the ARK ROYAL air group -
> the carrier `most likely' to have been available in a what-if game.
If we can alter her air group to have more F-4s, there's no reason that we can't
alter it again. After all, this is war not peacetime.
> >> With 12 Phantoms, you can keep a two-ship CAP (i.e. equal in numbers to
> >> that provided by Sea Harrier) all day. Again, 12 happens to be the
> >> squadron size for ARK ROYAL. If you let her exchange her Buccaneers (14)
> >> for a second squadron, you can keep a four ship flight up...
> >
> >Rule of thumb is that you can maintain 1/3rd of your a/c on CAP,
>
> I wouldn't like to have to maintain that over a month or so; but it's
> probably accurate for shorter roulements.
With standdown periods for bad weather to let your pilots catch up on their sleep,
and the maintainers to catch up with the squawks, you can go for a long time, even
figuring 67% MC rates. The SHARs did a lot better than that in the Falklands,
although the F-4's a lot more complex (and older).
> [snip]
>
> >Anyway, for the Falklands I think I'd be willing to give up 6-8 Buccs for the
> >same
> >number of F-4s, if they wouldn't have fit any other way. You'd still want some
> >Buccs for tankers, as well as for maritime strike (Martel at the time, IIRR) and
> >land
> >attack. They should be a lot more effective and cost effective than sending
> >Vulcans
> >down from Ascension with their 10-12 tankers. Offhand, I don't remember if the
> >RN
> >Buccs had Martel capability at the time, but many of the RAF ones that did were
> >apparently ex-RN machines, so the fit should be possible (assuming the system
> >was
> >car-qualed). 809 might have borrowed some RAF WSOs with Martel experience if
> >necessary.
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure that the Bucc's would have brought that much to the
> game - anti-shipping was best done using SSNs to deter the Argentine
> Fleet from interfering; and helos and RN warships could tidy up the
> minor units that attempted to run supplies etc.
Except that Woodward didn't know where the Armada's CVBG was, because the Subs hadn't
been able to find it; it was a SHAr doing a night radar search that located them
early in the morning of 2 May, and there wasn't an SSN anywhere around when he needed
it. But if he'd had a flight of Buccs ready to go, who cares, he could take out 25
de Mayo, Belgrano, and any other targets he was able to find, a whole lot faster.
Hell, fire Martel ARMs to take down the Type 42s combat capability, and Allara
probably would have gone scuttling back to base without further ado.
And if Woodward was worried by an air-launched Exocet threat, just think how much
more worried Admiral Allara would have been facing a bunch of Buccs with stand-off
weapons, with only two Sea Dart-equipped ships, a few Sea Cats, no Sea Wolf and far
less effective ECM.
> I don't remember the
> Bucc being able to buddy-refuel; but I'd be happy to be corrected.
SOP for naval Buccs at least, using a Flight Refueling Mk.20B or 20C pod on one
inboard station (photos I have only show them on the right), with a tank on the other
side.
> >> If you limit the scope of the discussion to the CVSs, then yes - the
> >> two-rail AIM-9L launcher is a better option than AMRAAM.
> >
> >Assuming that they're still FRS.1s, true. If we're dealing with hypothetical
> >AM-120
> >capability then they're presumably F/A.2s with Blue Vixen (and you've also got
> >Sea
> >King AEW.2s), and in that case I'd take AIM-120 and maybe some AIM-9s and leave
> >the
> >guns home, or else fly mixed sections, one loaded primarily BVR and the other
> >leaning
> >more towards WVR. Say 3 x AIM-120 and 2 x AIM-9 on one a/c, assuming such
> >assymetric
> >loads are allowed on the SHAR -
>
> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of a jump;
> but yes, if we'd had them and the AEW Sea Kings, they'd probably have
> carried 4 x AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9L.
Not possible short of dual AIM-120/AIM-9 launchers (I've never seen anything of the
sort on the SHAR, only dual AIM-9 carriage), so I presume you meant either 3 and 2,
or else 2 and 4 as another poster mentioned. But just giving the task force a couple
of AEW Sea Kings a month or two earlier with the SHARs they had would make the whole
thing a lot less a 'close run thing.'
Guy
Guy Alcala
> In article <m1S8JhAZ...@ntlworld.com>, Matt Clonfero wrote:
> >And why 24 hour? The FAA showed no willingness to operate at night. The
> >only platform that was even remotely night-capable (in the strike role)
> >was the Entendard; and I'm not sure that the FAA had practised air-to-
> >air refuelling at night.
>
> Yet had the task force excellent defenses during the daytime only, when
> do you think they would have come? :-)
Never, because with the exception of the Etendard, which is somewhat capable,
they weren't equipped or trained for it. The middle of a war is hardly the
time to begin to learn how to fly on the deck at night in lousy weather,
while employing your nav/sensor/weapon systems, unless you're capable of
absorbing very high attrition in training.
Guy
Iain Rae
> Matt Clonfero wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3CCE401C...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net>, Guy Alcala
>><g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>I'd put six, onboard, myself.
>>
>>Would be nice; but the data is based around the ARK ROYAL air group -
>>the carrier `most likely' to have been available in a what-if game.
>
>
> If we can alter her air group to have more F-4s, there's no reason that we can't
> alter it again. After all, this is war not peacetime.
>
>
>>>>With 12 Phantoms, you can keep a two-ship CAP (i.e. equal in numbers to
>>>>that provided by Sea Harrier) all day. Again, 12 happens to be the
>>>>squadron size for ARK ROYAL. If you let her exchange her Buccaneers (14)
>>>>for a second squadron, you can keep a four ship flight up...
>>>
>>>Rule of thumb is that you can maintain 1/3rd of your a/c on CAP,
>>
>>I wouldn't like to have to maintain that over a month or so; but it's
>>probably accurate for shorter roulements.
>
>
> With standdown periods for bad weather to let your pilots catch up on their sleep,
> and the maintainers to catch up with the squawks, you can go for a long time, even
> figuring 67% MC rates. The SHARs did a lot better than that in the Falklands,
> although the F-4's a lot more complex (and older).
>
It's be interesting to see comparisons of downtime, There's anecdotal
evidence that during one exercise Ark was down to Gannets and one
slightly sick Phantom, though operating procedures change (improve) over
time of course.
--
Iain Rae Tel:01316505202
Computing Officer JCMB:2148
Division of Informatics
The University of Edinburgh
Guy Alcala
> Guy Alcala wrote:
<snip>
> > With standdown periods for bad weather to let your pilots catch up on their sleep,
> > and the maintainers to catch up with the squawks, you can go for a long time, even
> > figuring 67% MC rates. The SHARs did a lot better than that in the Falklands,
> > although the F-4's a lot more complex (and older).
> >
>
> It's be interesting to see comparisons of downtime, There's anecdotal
> evidence that during one exercise Ark was down to Gannets and one
> slightly sick Phantom, though operating procedures change (improve) over
> time of course.
Of course, in peacetime you don't have the logistic support, nor the same motivation to
get it done now and done right. Woodward and others mentions this latter effect during
the war. After all, if that F-4 may be the only thing protecting you from getting
smacked by an AM-39, you do tend to take your job a lot more seriously.
Guy
Iain Rae
yes, but I'm talking about comparing downtime of say Ark Royal IV's
airgroup with Ark Royal V's airgroup, which is probably like with like.
Tom Schoene
"David Henderson" <dh...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnacvuou...@dh219.factsline.co.uk...
> >And why 24 hour? The FAA showed no willingness to operate at night. The
> >only platform that was even remotely night-capable (in the strike role)
> >was the Entendard; and I'm not sure that the FAA had practised air-to-
> >air refuelling at night.
>
> Yet had the task force excellent defenses during the daytime only, when
> do you think they would have come? :-)
In the real event, the Task Force's defenses really were worse at night .
The Argentines still didn't attempt many night sorties. They simply lacked
the skills, equipment, and mindset, to make it work.
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the
past; and we must respect the past, knowing that once it was all that
was humanly possible. - George Santayana
David Henderson
>> What I've been thinking is: could, with a bit of jury-rigging of arrestor
>> gear, the gannets have operated from Hermes?
>You can't really "jury rig" arrestor gear. It's big, bulky stuff that needs to
>be firmly mounted to enable it to handle som very large forces.
Well, Hermes used to have it, so what are the possibilities or reinstalling
a couple of wires underway? If the space has been turned into magazine or
something it couldn't be done, but if it were berthing or something, then
is it feasible.
We're talking Gannets, not exactly the heaviest thing to land on a carrier,
and probably only three of them -- so traps only happen a few times per day.
>> I can't find takeoff run details, but with a ramp I'm sure they could get off
>OK,
>This isn't as easy as it appears. The undercarriage oleos have to be stressed
>for the load and balanced (nose-to-mains) to ensure that the aircraft leaves the
>ramp at a positive AoA. Then there's the small matter of prop clearence...
Hmm, what's the possibility of being airbourne before reaching the ramp? With
the carrier making 20+ knots, could the things clear the ramp if using all the
flightdeck? Again, only a few launches per day to disrupt procedures.
>While you're at it, where are you going to store the spares and special-to-type
>equipment required to maintain a fleet of Gannets on a carrier which *already*
>has trouble finding storage space for the SHAR support equipment & spares?
You can probably hash something up during wartime. If you were so minded to
take the above risks to get AEW, you'd probably not mind loosing three
Harriers to have the Gannets on board. ISTR Harriers were rotated off to
Argus or somewhere for maintenence anyway, could we squeeze three more
onto her? Also, what's the feasibility of helo-ing bulkier supplies from
Argus, Atlantic Conveyor or $OTHER_SHIP?
Then again, presumably the fleet didn't consider AEW a priorty anyway,
else Sea King AEW might have been ready to join them faster. Damned
impressive that someone had that on the back burner to start with.
--
David.
Andrew McCruden
> In article <3cd0...@pull.gecm.com>, Peter D Rieden wrote:
> >> What I've been thinking is: could, with a bit of jury-rigging of
arrestor
> >> gear, the gannets have operated from Hermes?
> >You can't really "jury rig" arrestor gear. It's big, bulky stuff that
needs to
> >be firmly mounted to enable it to handle som very large forces.
>
> Well, Hermes used to have it, so what are the possibilities or
reinstalling
> a couple of wires underway? If the space has been turned into magazine or
> something it couldn't be done, but if it were berthing or something, then
> is it feasible.
I'm fairly sure yuor looking at a task of not dissimilar magnitude as
putting a Searchwater Radar on a few Sea Kings writing software for it in an
Air search role and running trials before sending a couple of them South.
Matt Clonfero
<g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Would be nice; but the data is based around the ARK ROYAL air group -
>> the carrier `most likely' to have been available in a what-if game.
>
>If we can alter her air group to have more F-4s, there's no reason that we can't
>alter it again. After all, this is war not peacetime.
Fair point.
>> Hmm. I'm not sure that the Bucc's would have brought that much to the
>> game - anti-shipping was best done using SSNs to deter the Argentine
>> Fleet from interfering; and helos and RN warships could tidy up the
>> minor units that attempted to run supplies etc.
>
>Except that Woodward didn't know where the Armada's CVBG was, because the Subs
>hadn't
>been able to find it; it was a SHAr doing a night radar search that located them
>early in the morning of 2 May, and there wasn't an SSN anywhere around when he
>needed
>it. But if he'd had a flight of Buccs ready to go, who cares, he could take out
>25
>de Mayo, Belgrano, and any other targets he was able to find, a whole lot
>faster.
>Hell, fire Martel ARMs to take down the Type 42s combat capability, and Allara
>probably would have gone scuttling back to base without further ado.
Well, one submarine put the entire Argentine Navy out of the war.
>> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of a jump;
>> but yes, if we'd had them and the AEW Sea Kings, they'd probably have
>> carried 4 x AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9L.
>
>Not possible short of dual AIM-120/AIM-9 launchers (I've never seen anything of
>the
>sort on the SHAR, only dual AIM-9 carriage), so I presume you meant either 3 and
>2,
>or else 2 and 4 as another poster mentioned. But just giving the task force a
>couple
>of AEW Sea Kings a month or two earlier with the SHARs they had would make the
>whole
>thing a lot less a 'close run thing.'
Although I haven't seen it done, I thought that the SHAR could carry two
AMRAAM on the inboard stations, two in lieu of gun pods, and two
Sidewinder outboard?
Guy Alcala
> In article <3CD06543...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net>, Guy Alcala
> <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Hell, fire Martel ARMs to take down the Type 42s combat capability, and Allara
> >probably would have gone scuttling back to base without further ado.
>
> Well, one submarine put the entire Argentine Navy out of the war.
Yup. Of course, at the time Woodward didn't know that would happen. And if the
Belgrano group had made a sprint for the Birdwood bank, as Woodward was afraid they
might, then Conqueror would have been left behind. Remember that Woodward was also
worried about an air attack from 25 de Mayo the morning of the same day; the reason
it didn't come off is in dispute, but there's no doubt he would have ordered the
carrier sunk if a sub had been around. It wasn't, and having the option of sinking
it or disabling by an air attack sure would have been nice.
> >> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of a jump;
> >> but yes, if we'd had them and the AEW Sea Kings, they'd probably have
> >> carried 4 x AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9L.
> >
> >Not possible short of dual AIM-120/AIM-9 launchers (I've never seen anything of
> >the
> >sort on the SHAR, only dual AIM-9 carriage), so I presume you meant either 3 and
> >2,
> >or else 2 and 4 as another poster mentioned. But just giving the task force a
> >couple
> >of AEW Sea Kings a month or two earlier with the SHARs they had would make the
> >whole
> >thing a lot less a 'close run thing.'
>
> Although I haven't seen it done, I thought that the SHAR could carry two
> AMRAAM on the inboard stations, two in lieu of gun pods, and two
> Sidewinder outboard?
Not to my knowledge on the I/B stations (I could be wrong); AFAIK it's two in lieu of
the gun pods, and two on the O/Bs (one on each), or two sidewinders on each O/B
pylon, carried on a dual launcher. But the early Harriers have really got to carry
external fuel for CAP or interception in any case, especially with that load which
would probably be quite draggy. And then there may be a bringback weight problem
(ca. 2,000 lb. including the launchers) from all that expensive ordnance, which you
can't just jettison like it was a 1,000 lb. dumb bomb.
Guy
David Henderson
>I'm fairly sure yuor looking at a task of not dissimilar magnitude as
>putting a Searchwater Radar on a few Sea Kings writing software for it in an
>Air search role and running trials before sending a couple of them South.
Which was done because they pulled the radar off the Shackleton (and prev. off
the Gannet). I was postulating the Gannet still being in servicable condition.
--
David.
Andrew McCruden
off
> the Gannet). I was postulating the Gannet still being in servicable
condition.
Was it? I don't recall the Shackeltons having Searchwater, IIRC the radars
in question for the Gannets and Shakeltons were American APS-20 sets.
Andrew Spark
"Andrew McCruden" <use...@beyond-comprehension.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > a couple of wires underway? If the space has been turned into magazine or
> > something it couldn't be done, but if it were berthing or something, then
> > is it feasible.
>
> I'm fairly sure yuor looking at a task of not dissimilar magnitude as
> putting a Searchwater Radar on a few Sea Kings writing software for it in an
> Air search role and running trials before sending a couple of them South.
Well, at the time I was at school in Lutterworth, and someone I knew of
had previously bought up (for some unknown reason) allegedly all the
spare Gannet engines, which the MOD promptly purchased in April 1982.
-Or so I was told anyway!!
Iain Rae
and as someone pointed out they were off the AEW1 Skyraiders before that.
Iain Rae
> Matt Clonfero wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3CD06543...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net>, Guy Alcala
>><g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Hell, fire Martel ARMs to take down the Type 42s combat capability, and Allara
>>>probably would have gone scuttling back to base without further ado.
>>
>>Well, one submarine put the entire Argentine Navy out of the war.
>
>
> Yup. Of course, at the time Woodward didn't know that would happen. And if the
> Belgrano group had made a sprint for the Birdwood bank, as Woodward was afraid they
> might, then Conqueror would have been left behind. Remember that Woodward was also
> worried about an air attack from 25 de Mayo the morning of the same day; the reason
> it didn't come off is in dispute, but there's no doubt he would have ordered the
> carrier sunk if a sub had been around.
And like Belgrano the Order would have been pulled, though hopefully the
delay in getting it put back wouldn't have been too great
> It wasn't, and having the option of sinking
> it or disabling by an air attack sure would have been nice.
>
From memory they would have prepared a SHAR strike but they lost
contact with the type 42's transmissions, the SHAR was tasked from
Invincible rather than by the Flag otherwise there might have been a
SHAR strike waiting. If conqueror hadn't been in contact with Belgrano
and 25 May had launched a strike then it's probably a fair bet that we'd
have seen SHAR's taking on the 25 May and the 42's with bombs and
rockets (not pretty).
Matt Clonfero
<g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>Yup. Of course, at the time Woodward didn't know that would happen.
As an ex-submariner with three attached SSNs, he would probably be
planning to either force the argentine surface forces to withdraw or
defeat them in detail through submarine attacks.
>And if the
>Belgrano group had made a sprint for the Birdwood bank, as Woodward was afraid
>they
>might, then Conqueror would have been left behind.
Hence the attack...
> Remember that Woodward was
>also
>worried about an air attack from 25 de Mayo the morning of the same day; the
>reason
>it didn't come off is in dispute, but there's no doubt he would have ordered the
>carrier sunk if a sub had been around. It wasn't, and having the option of
>sinking
>it or disabling by an air attack sure would have been nice.
A fair point. Reminds me of a comment I heard from an Army logistics
officer when some analyst was discussing the benefits of `Just-in-time'
shipping:
"In the Army, supplies should not be shipped just in time; but just in
case"
>> Although I haven't seen it done, I thought that the SHAR could carry two
>> AMRAAM on the inboard stations, two in lieu of gun pods, and two
>> Sidewinder outboard?
>
>Not to my knowledge on the I/B stations (I could be wrong); AFAIK it's two in
>lieu of
>the gun pods, and two on the O/Bs (one on each), or two sidewinders on each O/B
>pylon, carried on a dual launcher.
Any takers?
> But the early Harriers have really got to
>carry
>external fuel for CAP or interception in any case, especially with that load
>which
>would probably be quite draggy.
Did the SHAR FA.2 get additional tankage in the fuselage?
Iain Rae
> In article <3CD204EE...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net>, Guy Alcala
> <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yup. Of course, at the time Woodward didn't know that would happen.
>
>
> As an ex-submariner with three attached SSNs, he would probably be
> planning to either force the argentine surface forces to withdraw or
> defeat them in detail through submarine attacks.
>
He didn't have the SSN's attached, they were operating independently of
the Carrier group under the command of (I guess FOSM) in Northwood. He
had no authority to order any of them to attack and when he did order
Conqueror to sink Belgrano the signal was removed from the satellite.
Guy Alcala
> In article <3CD204EE...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net>, Guy Alcala
> <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Yup. Of course, at the time Woodward didn't know that would happen.
>
> As an ex-submariner with three attached SSNs, he would probably be
> planning to either force the argentine surface forces to withdraw or
> defeat them in detail through submarine attacks.
Unfortunately for him, and to his great distress, he didn't have tactical command of
the subs. He goes into the problems in his book in some detail.
<snip>
> > But the early Harriers have really got to
> >carry
> >external fuel for CAP or interception in any case, especially with that load
> >which
> >would probably be quite draggy.
>
> Did the SHAR FA.2 get additional tankage in the fuselage?
Again, not to my knowledge. Shortly after the war the 190 (Imp.) Gal.combat tank was
cleared for use, replacing the 100 (Imp.) Gal. one, which helped endurance and
range. At least one of the a/c held back in the UK for trials was involved in its
testing, but IIRR one of them crashed while going off the land-based ski-jump, owing
to Cg problems related to the 330 gal. ferry tanks it was carrying (lack of
sufficient tank baffles allowing fuel slosh?). Hopefully Peter D. Rieden can tell
us. ISTR the SHARs got the dual AIM-9 launcher about the same time.
Guy
David Henderson
>> the Gannet). I was postulating the Gannet still being in servicable
>condition.
>Was it? I don't recall the Shackeltons having Searchwater, IIRC the radars
>in question for the Gannets and Shakeltons were American APS-20 sets.
Ah, OK. My mistake. Apologies.
--
David.
David Nicholls
"Andrew Spark" <andy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:andy_usenet-3286...@news2.cableinet.net...
I was in Devonport in 1982 (Fleet maintenance Base) and there was an attempt
to use Bulwark for Gannet AEW ops. (we had to assess some spares from the
old Depot Ship Maidstone). The problem of using Gannets on Hermes or
Invincible was the skijump, which the Gannet could not have managed.
David
Andy Spark
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3cd53...@news1.mweb.co.za>, David Nicholls
<nich...@mweb.co.za> wrote:
> > Well, at the time I was at school in Lutterworth, and someone I knew of
> > had previously bought up (for some unknown reason) allegedly all the
> > spare Gannet engines, which the MOD promptly purchased in April 1982.
> >
> > -Or so I was told anyway!!
>
> I was in Devonport in 1982 (Fleet maintenance Base) and there was an attempt
> to use Bulwark for Gannet AEW ops. (we had to assess some spares from the
> old Depot Ship Maidstone). The problem of using Gannets on Hermes or
> Invincible was the skijump, which the Gannet could not have managed.
ahhhh... welll... that makes sense.
Wasn't the Rusty B well and truly living up to her name by that point
though?
How far did you get? -One of my relatives told me about the attempts to
resucitate Bulwark foundered on her extremely poor material
condition....
And I still remember the Tugg cartoon which featured one matelot
telling another that he'd heard they were dragging the Rusty B out and
wondering what they would think of next, whilst the Victory is sailing
out of Pompy dockyard in the background....