Read the forum code of contact
By: - 24th April 2006 at 07:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Below is quote from a Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 pilot in an article in the International Air Power Review vol. 16."Our tactics are based around the capabilities of our jet. For instance, we do not like to go into the visual arena. We much prefer engaging our targets from long range and that is why our main configuration comprises four AMRAAMs. For target designation, we use our left thumb to move a target-marker on the radar screen. When faced with multiple enemies, we can ripple-fire our AMRAAMs in quick succession."
From a mission point of view, it looks like the Sea Harrier FA2 could be considered as a modern-day single-seat F6D Missileer in effect. Of course Sea Harrier FA2 could bomb as well, although no better than the Harrier GR7.
Cheers,
Sunho
Not quite. The FA.2 still holds some reserves for WVR combat. No pilot really wants to go within visual range, especially not in dogfight range, because you tend to lose oversight here. In combat gainst most aircraft, especially at lower altitudes, the Harrier will be inferior in top speed manouvers but equal for lower speeds. A Harrier FA.2 was designed under the impression of the Falklands, which identified the threats for the Britisch fleet as fighter-bombers and long range bombers. Both would not be in the mood for a clash against the Harrier. Against land-based fighters on air2air missions the Harrier would not be competitive. After all, it is a stop-gap measure for a stop-gap carrier.
By: - 24th April 2006 at 09:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not quite. The FA.2 still holds some reserves for WVR combat. No pilot really wants to go within visual range, especially not in dogfight range, because you tend to lose oversight here. In combat gainst most aircraft, especially at lower altitudes, the Harrier will be inferior in top speed manouvers but equal for lower speeds. A Harrier FA.2 was designed under the impression of the Falklands, which identified the threats for the Britisch fleet as fighter-bombers and long range bombers. Both would not be in the mood for a clash against the Harrier. Against land-based fighters on air2air missions the Harrier would not be competitive. After all, it is a stop-gap measure for a stop-gap carrier.
Again, not quite. The comment above notes rightly that the FA2 pilots want to play to the aircraft's strengths. The Blue Vixen is the only targeting radar designed around AMRAAM, consequently it is the most effective for this missile currently in service. The Sea Harrier proved in the Falklands and in numerous exercises against other NATO air forces that in a dogfight it can more than hold its own, even against land based air superiority fighters like the F15 and F16. Other recent articles about the phasing out of the SHAR reflect this and note some of the unique tactics employed by SHAR pilots in combat to considerable effect.
By: - 24th April 2006 at 09:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again, not quite. The comment above notes rightly that the FA2 pilots want to play to the aircraft's strengths. The Blue Vixen is the only targeting radar designed around AMRAAM, consequently it is the most effective for this missile currently in service. The Sea Harrier proved in the Falklands and in numerous exercises against other NATO air forces that in a dogfight it can more than hold its own, even against land based air superiority fighters like the F15 and F16. Other recent articles about the phasing out of the SHAR reflect this and note some of the unique tactics employed by SHAR pilots in combat to considerable effect.
I didn't say it loses all the time. A "modern" dogfight is not very likely to happen. the Harrier has an advantage of low IR signature due to high thrust without afterburner. However, the Harrier has some serious disadvantages (esp. lack of afterburner).
The Falklands were a special thing as you cannot call these engagements dogfights. The Falklands showed, that fighters on the edge of their combat radius can succesfully defeated by a Harrier, even more effective if an MRAAM is available. If the Harriers had to fight similar engagements within the air2air radius of the Mirages, the result would have been less desirable. After all, the real winner of Flakland air2air engagements was the AIM-9L though the performance of the Harrier was astonishing.
By: - 24th April 2006 at 22:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how much trouble would I be in if I moved this thread to the Historic forum? :diablo:
By: - 25th April 2006 at 03:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well the Sea Harrier FRS1 was also handicapped in endurance, although I do not know the exact figure compared with the Mirage IIIEA.
BTW I read Lieutenant Steve Thomas's recollection about the first crucial engagement between the Sea Harrier FRS1 and Mirage IIIEA on 1st May 1982 in a Mirage book written by Salvador Mafe Huertas. There he commented that the two Mirages approached the opposing two Sea Harriers head-on in so poor a tactical formation – the wingman right behind the leader - that they were not even aware of the presence of the Sea Harrier flown by Flight Lieutenant Paul Barton.
One Mirage was shot by an AIM-9L fired by Paul Barton who closed into the Mirage’s six o’clock unnoticed and Steve Thomas’s AIM-9L damaged the other. Tragically the damaged Mirage was shot down by their own side while attempting to land at Port Stanley airfield. The downed Mirage pilots were senior air-to-air experts of the Argentine Air Force.
Cheers,
Sunho
By: - 25th April 2006 at 03:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm wondering if the Sea Harrier FA2, whose development contract was awarded to BAe in January 1985, had enough range to prevent Soviet naval Backfire bombers from firing their AS-4 Kitchen air-to-surface missiles to the Royal Navy ASW carrier group.
In the latter half of the 1980s, NATO's naval war plan was to place British ASW carriers at least 200 miles ahead of US strike carriers to clear the path of hostile submarines. The RN carriers must have had to fend for themselves against air attack that far away. Or were they supposed to be always covered by USAF F-15s from Iceland and RAF Tornado F3s from Scotland?
Cheers,
Sunho
By: - 25th April 2006 at 07:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mirage had neither any radar warning nor had they any fuel for air2air engagement. Their tactic was to be in and out in shortest possible time. Under these favorable conditions and with plenty of radar information the complete British fleet was unable to defend against conventional bomb attacks. I think everybody in the RN was afterwards sobered by the inadequacy of the air defence. The FA.2 was the minimum one could request after such a disaster.
The Russian tactics only worked under some cirsumstances. Target needed to be detected and a Harrier with external fuel can loiter for some time 150nm away from the carrier. However, normally support of American Tomcats would have been very helpful.
By: - 25th April 2006 at 08:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how much trouble would I be in if I moved this thread to the Historic forum? :diablo:
Does an aircraft that went out of service a few weeks ago count as 'historic' then? :confused:
In that case I suggest you move all threads relating to the F14 as well!
By: - 25th April 2006 at 08:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mirage had neither any radar warning nor had they any fuel for air2air engagement. Their tactic was to be in and out in shortest possible time. Under these favorable conditions and with plenty of radar information the complete British fleet was unable to defend against conventional bomb attacks. I think everybody in the RN was afterwards sobered by the inadequacy of the air defence. The FA.2 was the minimum one could request after such a disaster.The Russian tactics only worked under some cirsumstances. Target needed to be detected and a Harrier with external fuel can loiter for some time 150nm away from the carrier. However, normally support of American Tomcats would have been very helpful.
Air defence during the Falklands is a moot point; early warning was potentially a greater issue. The first two ships sunk were on radar 'picket' duty. Mirage IIIs had long range fuel tanks but ditched them at the first sign of trouble rather than tangle with the SHARs. They soon ran out of drop tanks and lost the option.
Tactics were also an issue. 801 squadron claimed they could make the Ferranti radar work. 800 squadron said they couldn't so they didn't use it. There is also a suggestion that the Flag had limited commitment to Combat Air Patrol.
Many Argentinian bombs failed to explode because the aircraft were unable to fly high enough to release them with time to arm without being shot out of the sky - the fleet was hardly 'unable to defend itself' although improvements were clearly needed. Sadly we have no SHARs at all now so we had better hope Dubya's Super Hornets aren't busy the next time we want to go to war.
By: - 25th April 2006 at 09:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many Argentinian bombs failed to explode because the aircraft were unable to fly high enough to release them with time to arm without being shot out of the sky - the fleet was hardly 'unable to defend itself' although improvements were clearly needed. Sadly we have no SHARs at all now so we had better hope Dubya's Super Hornets aren't busy the next time we want to go to war.
If the majority of the British fleet loses several ships against an enemy with a handful of modern ASM and generally a bunch of unsuitable aircraft, how well can the defence be called?
It showed again how vunerable ships are against air strikes and that only aircraft can actively control airspace and deny it to intruders. The RN concluded, that they need real aircraft carriers as replacement.
By: - 25th April 2006 at 10:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The biggest failing of the Sea Harrier force in the Falkland's was that there wasn't enough SHAR's to provide air cover where it was needed, when it was needed.
If the task force could have sailed with HMS Illustrious and extra SHAR's or just a few Sea King AEW helicopters the results would have been different.
By: - 25th April 2006 at 11:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the majority of the British fleet loses several ships against an enemy with a handful of modern ASM and generally a bunch of unsuitable aircraft, how well can the defence be called?
It showed again how vunerable ships are against air strikes and that only aircraft can actively control airspace and deny it to intruders. The RN concluded, that they need real aircraft carriers as replacement.
Define unsuitable. The Dassault Super Etendards and Mirage Vs were doing what they were designed for weren't they? And the A-4 was considered to be so effective against fighters it was used as an Aggressor for years. OK, so it wasn't the most up to date air force in the world but it still posed a considerable threat. As SteveO points out, it wasn't so much the capabilities of the aircraft involved as the lack of them and the paucity of decent AEW.
By: - 25th April 2006 at 12:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Define unsuitable. The Dassault Super Etendards and Mirage Vs were doing what they were designed for weren't they? And the A-4 was considered to be so effective against fighters it was used as an Aggressor for years. OK, so it wasn't the most up to date air force in the world but it still posed a considerable threat. As SteveO points out, it wasn't so much the capabilities of the aircraft involved as the lack of them and the paucity of decent AEW.
Argentina's air force had no real long-range fighter, all aircraft were operating at their range limit. There were no aircraft to detect and track British ships, the pilots went in without any proper knowledge of the threat. There was no usable ECM available for Argi's aircraft.
If they had better long-range tactical aircraft like A-6 or Su-24 with up-to-date missiles (or just more Exocet) and avionics, the British would have had much more losses.
Don't see this as insult against RN capability, just as an assessment of the real capabilities and a "lessons-learned" from that limited conflict. After that conflict all navys reconsidered their air defence.
By: - 25th April 2006 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Argentina's air force had no real long-range fighter, all aircraft were operating at their range limit."
According to "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" by Nigel Ward (801 Sqd Commander, SHAR pilot & first hand witness to events in the Falklands) the SHARs were also forced to fight many of the air to air engagements on minimum fuel load. This was inpart due to the British carriers being operated well out to the east of the Falklands because of the fear that the Argentineans could extend the attack range of their aircraft by using either, their own aircraft carrier, operations form the Falklands Port Stanley Airfield or with the Navel A-4 air to air refuelling from C130's ("100 Days" by Sandy Woodward ..Task force Commanders ...recounts detecting a lone A-4 at well beyond its radius of action range) . Also you failed to mention that the Mirages didn't have to return to/find a moving aircraft carrier with the uncertainness with regards to fuel.
"with plenty of radar information"
As all the long range British radar systems were located in ships, hence the low level radar coverage was somewhere between poor and non existent. Due to the skillful low flying of the Argy pilots most of ships that were hit had only a bare minimum warning.
"If the Harriers had to fight similar engagements within the air2air radius of the Mirages, the result would have been less desirable."
Although the Nigel Wards account acknowledges that most of the 32 air to air kills were fairly straight forward rear aspect ambushes, it does give details of two instants of real air combat manoeuvring with Mirages, one described in datafuser post (6) and one more on the 21May (2 SHARS vs 3 Mirages..... 3 Mirage Kills).
"the real winner of Falkland air2air engagements was the AIM-9L"
As for the 9L being credited with a big portion of the success, All Sidewinder Kills were rear aspect and according to Nigel Ward during a presentation which he gave shortly after the conflict were he said nearly all of the kills would have been well within the capability of earlier generation AAM.
Schorsch - Your suggestion that Argentina had all the disadvantages where as the Brits had all the advantages is nonsense.......the real effectiveness of the Fleet air arm pilots & Sea Harriers is clearly indicated by the simple figures, .....32 air to air kills without a single air to air loss, of which five Mirages were engaged and destroyed during ACM. (source "Splash One" by Ivan Rendall)
By: - 26th April 2006 at 01:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The SHAR is the one which would have to worry about endurance. No IFR, small 100 gallon combat tanks plus reserves needed for vertical landing. Under tropical conditions, thermal expansion makes it even heavier.
Why is so unbelievable that the SHAR, an excellent dogfighter, beat a crappy Mirage? :rolleyes:
By: - 26th April 2006 at 06:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How effective do you guys think the Royal Navy would have been if, let's say the RN had kept its conventional carriers and its fleet of Buccaneer S.2 and Phantom FG.1 aircraft......
Just imagine.......sending the Phantom and Bucc equipped Royal Navy down to the Falklands. The Buccs certainly have no range handicap like the Harrier GR.3, and as such could hit surface targets much farther away from the fleet, or conversely have a much longer loiter time to look for surface targets.
Then the Phantom fleet......with Skyflash and AIM-9L plus SUU-23/A cannon pods......would the Argentine Air Force have suffered worse than they did?
Would the Super Etendard Exocet strikes have succeeded? Would any Royal Navy ships have been sunk by dumb bombs from Skyhawks and Mirages/Neshers?
I realize hindsight is all 20/20, and I'm not taking anything away from either Harrier variant that flew in that conflict because they both performed incredibly well. One could say they were thrown into a type of conflict that the original Harrier designers had never envisioned....and yet they prevailed.
I'm simply trying to get opinions on how people think the RN would have done with its Bucc/Phantom fleet?
I believe that the RN's conventional carriers would have performed just as effectively today as the Harrier carrier fleet and Joint Force Harrier have. Upgraded Buccs with laser-guided weapons, weapons like Maverick, and perhaps JDAM, and then upgraded Phantom FG.1's with perhaps AIM-120 and AIM-9M and improved or a newer radar maybe like Blue Vixen......
Any thoughts anyone?
By: - 26th April 2006 at 07:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My guess is Argentina would have been deterred from invading the Falklands in the first place.
The Ark Royal surely had more punch and AEW - 12 Phantoms, 14 Buccaneers & 4 Gannets - but in adverse weather CTOL operations are more restricted than STOVL.
Cheers,
Sunho
By: - 26th April 2006 at 08:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" by Nigel Ward (801 Sqd Commander, SHAR pilot & first hand witness to events in the Falklands) the SHARs were also forced to fight many of the air to air engagements on minimum fuel load.
You are right, the Harriers worked on their range limit, too. But they could always divert to the British landing strip and make an emergency landing. I am not sure but I think one or two Harriers took this option.
As all the long range British radar systems were located in ships, hence the low level radar coverage was somewhere between poor and non existent. Due to the skillful low flying of the Argy pilots most of ships that were hit had only a bare minimum warning.
Which shows the inadequacy of ground-based radars for this task. However, it prevented the Argies from more desirable attack paths.
Although the Nigel Wards account acknowledges that most of the 32 air to air kills were fairly straight forward rear aspect ambushes, it does give details of two instants of real air combat manoeuvring with Mirages, one described in datafuser post (6) and one more on the 21May (2 SHARS vs 3 Mirages..... 3 Mirage Kills).
No doubt about that. But still that means 3 over 32, so barely 10%. My statement still fits: there was no real challenging air2air combat.
Schorsch - Your suggestion that Argentina had all the disadvantages where as the Brits had all the advantages is nonsense.......the real effectiveness of the Fleet air arm pilots & Sea Harriers is clearly indicated by the simple figures, .....32 air to air kills without a single air to air loss, of which five Mirages were engaged and destroyed during ACM. (source "Splash One" by Ivan Rendall)
The British had to defend sitting ducks. That was the major disadvantage. I do not belittle the achievements of the Royal Navy in this conflict, they are rather big considering the fact that one US CVBG would have done the same job much easier (which shows the capability shortfall of "flat-deck" cruisers).
The problems that occured clearly showed that naval air defence was anything else than tight. Maybe you can look in your book shelf about the oppinions concerning this topic before 1982.
By: - 26th April 2006 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BTW With 3 minutes for combat manuvering and reserves for vertical landing, the SHAR has a range of 450 miles.
By: - 26th April 2006 at 09:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You forgot the thing the Argentina's bombs most where duds. The fusing was not adapted to low delivery techniques used.
Posts: 479
By: datafuser - 24th April 2006 at 06:23 - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 11:40
Below is quote from a Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 pilot in an article in the International Air Power Review vol. 16.
"Our tactics are based around the capabilities of our jet. For instance, we do not like to go into the visual arena. We much prefer engaging our targets from long range and that is why our main configuration comprises four AMRAAMs. For target designation, we use our left thumb to move a target-marker on the radar screen. When faced with multiple enemies, we can ripple-fire our AMRAAMs in quick succession."
From a mission point of view, it looks like the Sea Harrier FA2 could be considered as a modern-day single-seat F6D Missileer in effect. Of course Sea Harrier FA2 could bomb as well, although no better than the Harrier GR7.
Cheers,
Sunho