By: Schorsch
- 26th April 2006 at 11:02Permalink- 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.
I did not forget it, it is just not the topic. The question which was raised here is if the Harriers had a hard time fighting the Argies or if it was a turkey shoot. the truth is somewhere in the middle. But sure is that the SHAR were mostly limited by their short range, long flight towards CAP zone (with the option to land close to it in case of fuel shortage), the limited radar and short range missiles. The quality of the enemy fighters was not a problem, the Mirage was faster but using its supersonic ability meant effectively to lose any chance to get back to base.
In the end the Harriers failed to defend the fleet better due to the inadequacy of the defence concept and the avilable technology (AEW, MRAAM, range). This was corrected by adding AEW-capability and MRAAM-capability to the Invicible class carriers, which still left the fleet with a rather limited self-defence capability. However, against a likewhise constrained contemporary it would be sufficient.
By: XN923
- 26th April 2006 at 14:42Permalink- 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
I suspect if Argentina had the slightest idea GB was prepared to defend the Falklands at all they would have been deterred, but there you are.
Carrier based Buccaneers could have paid for themselves many times over since 1978 in my view in the Falklands, both Gulf Wars, Kosovo... With decent upgrades they could still be considered one of the best strike aircraft around. But then I'm biased (see my forum name and avatar for clues...)
Any reason you can't mix CTOL and STOVL operations on the same carrier?
By: Schorsch
- 26th April 2006 at 15:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suspect if Argentina had the slightest idea GB was prepared to defend the Falklands at all they would have been deterred, but there you are.
Carrier based Buccaneers could have paid for themselves many times over since 1978 in my view in the Falklands, both Gulf Wars, Kosovo... With decent upgrades they could still be considered one of the best strike aircraft around. But then I'm biased (see my forum name and avatar for clues...)
Any reason you can't mix CTOL and STOVL operations on the same carrier?
You may be biased, but so are many and the Bucaneer has never had the chance to earn a good reputation, although it is a reasonable strike aircraft, especially no dumb general wanted it to be supersonic, "agile" or look like a fighter. the Bucaneer can sometimes perform than a Tornado, which if loaded has a lift/drag like an IKEA cubboard.
However, the decision to go for "flat deck" cruisers were surely of monetary nature.
Argentinia chose like many other "rogue states" a strategy of little expansion, mainly as a phychologic strategy to the inside. The British did not accept the loss of this worthless piece of junk, but the Americans did not support the British. The Americans however had a close look at the situation, any escalation by any side would have triggered a rather political spanking. UK was backed by the rest of Europe.
In my eyes due to the inability of the RN to deploy a really capable attack force and the even bigger inability of Argentinia to defend against this force (which operated 8000 miles of thei coast), the war was more bloody than one would expect. Sad for the loss of life. :(
By: XN923
- 26th April 2006 at 17:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You may be biased, but so are many and the Bucaneer has never had the chance to earn a good reputation
Operation Granby and many Red Flags say otherwise
However, the decision to go for "flat deck" cruisers were surely of monetary nature.
No arguments there - how much did it cost us in the long run?
Argentinia chose like many other "rogue states" a strategy of little expansion, mainly as a phychologic strategy to the inside. The British did not accept the loss of this worthless piece of junk, but the Americans did not support the British. The Americans however had a close look at the situation, any escalation by any side would have triggered a rather political spanking.
Plus ca change... Interesting to compare to the recent invasion of a middle Eastern country which one might uncharitably suggest was a 'psychologic strategy to the inside' - with no-one to provide the spanking. But I am getting off topic.
The war did at least lead to the end of the Junta which was probably the most positive outcome for Argentina as well. The Falklands may be 'worthless junk' strategically but I understand the people who live there rather like it and it is the right of every moderately civilised people not to be invaded...
In my eyes due to the inability of the RN to deploy a really capable attack force and the even bigger inability of Argentinia to defend against this force (which operated 8000 miles of thei coast), the war was more bloody than one would expect. Sad for the loss of life. :(
Very. But think how much less capable Britain's attack force would have been if Argentina had decided to invade two years later, after we had sold Invincible to Australia and scrapped Hermes? One of the few saving graces of this unfortunate, bloody little struggle was to prove beyond all doubt that the SHAR was far more capable than everyone (except possibly Sharkey Ward) could have imagined, and that 'Harrier Carriers' were a lot better than nothing.
By: Doug97
- 26th April 2006 at 18:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the end the Harriers failed to defend the fleet better due to the inadequacy of the defence concept and the avilable technology (AEW, MRAAM, range).
I agree. If Sea Dart and Rapier had worked as advertised, things would have gone much more smoothly for the British.
Another example of the MoD accepting substandard equipment, and only fixing it AFTER lives have been lost.
It would also have helped if half the Sea Harrier pilots had bothered to get their radars to work.
By: XN923
- 27th April 2006 at 09:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would also have helped if half the Sea Harrier pilots had bothered to get their radars to work.
The mixed results of Blue Fox are a matter of record and have not been satisfactorily explained in my view. While never blessed with a particularly long range, one squadron (801 I think) claimed to be able to get around 25 (nautical) miles out of it (which even surprised Ferranti) while the other (800) squadron failed to get more than about 12. This seemed to result in a change in tactics whereby visual reconnaissance was used (not very effective considering the amount of sea that had to be covered) and a belief that CAP wasn't worth the spent fuel. Ferranti was called in to sort out the underperforming radars, which they may have, but the damage was done and habits had been formed.
I think there was potentially something more systemic going on in any case; the Royal Navy has traditionally been reluctant to rely on aircraft for air defence and preferred to consider that the natural protection of the ships themselves (AA weaponry and armour) should be sufficient. This thinking led to the loss of HMSs Glorious, Repulse and Prince of Wales among others in the Second World War, just about every ship that was lost in the Falklands and looks like it might have infiltrated again with idea of the Joint Harrier Force.
The lessons of the Falklands were learned for a while it seems but after a few more years things return to the default position.
By: Schorsch
- 27th April 2006 at 09:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Operation Granby and many Red Flags say otherwise
I wanted to be positive. Bucaneer was not proven in combat. The marking during Gulf War doesn't count in my eyes. But it is as I said a reasonable design a little bit like the A-6 or A-7, which never really amazed the aircraft community.
No arguments there - how much did it cost us in the long run?
A conventional carrier is at minimum 45000 to 55000 tons. Invincible is half the size. Costs rise with weight, its nomrally a pretty linear function.
Very. But think how much less capable Britain's attack force would have been if Argentina had decided to invade two years later, after we had sold Invincible to Australia and scrapped Hermes? One of the few saving graces of this unfortunate, bloody little struggle was to prove beyond all doubt that the SHAR was far more capable than everyone (except possibly Sharkey Ward) could have imagined, and that 'Harrier Carriers' were a lot better than nothing.
The Harrier performed much better than expected. However, it was not designed for that mission. Sometimes aircraft can perform roles they were never intended to, normally due to lack of other capable aircraft. But never can you get rid of the inherent weaknesses.
The lack of any land-based aircraft made the Harriers the best around. The Argie's were not able to deliver any consistent air power.
By: XN923
- 27th April 2006 at 10:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wanted to be positive. Bucaneer was not proven in combat. The marking during Gulf War doesn't count in my eyes. But it is as I said a reasonable design a little bit like the A-6 or A-7, which never really amazed the aircraft community.
The Buccaneer target-marked for Tornados in Operation Granby and also dropped bombs itself. Generally thought to be a far superior strike aircraft to the A-6, which was contemporary but a generation behind in terms of design (but I don't want to get into one of those ludicrous 'which is better' arguments) - its design enabled it to fly at very fast subsonic speeds at zero feet with astounding stability. At these altitudes it could outrun most fighters (which had to throttle back due to turbulence) and was much better in this regime than the Tornado. It also had much better range than the Tornado. Pretty much unbeatable whenever it turned up at Red Flag.
A conventional carrier is at minimum 45000 to 55000 tons. Invincible is half the size. Costs rise with weight, its nomrally a pretty linear function.
I meant what did it cost us in terms of sunk ships and post Falklands upgrades?
The Harrier performed much better than expected. However, it was not designed for that mission. Sometimes aircraft can perform roles they were never intended to, normally due to lack of other capable aircraft. But never can you get rid of the inherent weaknesses.
The lack of any land-based aircraft made the Harriers the best around. The Argie's were not able to deliver any consistent air power.
True, but the Harrier could do things no land based fighter could do. In exercises it has beaten far better material than Argentina managed to throw at it.
By: swerve
- 27th April 2006 at 11:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Buccaneer target-marked for Tornados in Operation Granby and also dropped bombs itself. Generally thought to be a far superior strike aircraft to the A-6, which was contemporary but a generation behind in terms of design (but I don't want to get into one of those ludicrous 'which is better' arguments) - its design enabled it to fly at very fast subsonic speeds at zero feet with astounding stability. At these altitudes it could outrun most fighters (which had to throttle back due to turbulence) and was much better in this regime than the Tornado. It also had much better range than the Tornado. Pretty much unbeatable whenever it turned up at Red Flag.
Aaaah, the Buccaneer! I've long wished that the TSR.2 (technically superb but a flawed concept IMO) had been strangled at birth & instead the Buccaneer developed to its full potential*. What it could have been, with better avionics! That was the one area in which the A-6 was clearly better.
*and a few other things done differently, but that's too far off topic. Far enough already . . .
By: Schorsch
- 27th April 2006 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Buccaneer had inferior avionics compared to the A-6 and less lifting capability, on the other hand it was faster and better in low-level flight. The A-6 would better be titled "B-6". Main advantage of that design is its sacrifice of supersonic speeds, making the design easier and better suited. The Tornado mostly lacks on his excessive external storages, without (or with limited amount of) it is faster and can ride smoother than the Buccaneer.
Which fighter exactly is slower at those altitudes? A Phantom can go M1.2 in low-level, surely no pleasure. A fighter would always come from above and not pursue the attacker same level. Considering the missions in 1991 Gilf War a Buccaneer with upgraded avionics would have performed similar to the Tornado most of the time.
True, but the Harrier could do things no land based fighter could do. In exercises it has beaten far better material than Argentina managed to throw at it.
What exactly? Land vertically? Of course, that was its rationale. However, the Argis did not exactly throw aircraft against the Harrier, they threw aircraft against the British fleet and did not care about the Harriers.
By: XN923
- 27th April 2006 at 13:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which fighter exactly is slower at those altitudes? A Phantom can go M1.2 in low-level, surely no pleasure. A fighter would always come from above and not pursue the attacker same level. Considering the missions in 1991 Gilf War a Buccaneer with upgraded avionics would have performed similar to the Tornado most of the time.
An F4 may well be able to do Mach1.2 at 500ft, I doubt it could at 150ft. Most aircraft can't tolerate supersonic speeds at very low levels. Buccaneers used to carry a delay fuse bomb as a defensive weapon against fighters chasing them that low.
What exactly? Land vertically? Of course, that was its rationale. However, the Argis did not exactly throw aircraft against the Harrier, they threw aircraft against the British fleet and did not care about the Harriers.
They can change direction faster than anything else in the sky at 'dogfight' speeds, a function of the vertical landing capability. Only with thrust vectoring and what have you are the latest breed of fighters getting close to the Harrier's ability to stop in mid air or step neatly out of the way.
By: swerve
- 27th April 2006 at 13:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Buccaneer had inferior avionics compared to the A-6 and less lifting capability, on the other hand it was faster and better in low-level flight. ..
The oft-quoted superior lifting capability of the A-6 is based on adding up the maximum theoretical load of the pylons, i.e. 4 x 3600lb + 1 x 3700lb = 18100lb. However it never took off with that load. It could have done from land, but not with full internal fuel. And in any case, there don't seem to have been any combinations of stores which would take the pylons up to maximum load. Adding up the weights of stores which were available & could be fitted on the pylons, you get a maximum real load of about 15000lb, which also nicely fits in between the maximum clean weight & the maximum T/O weight. It did actually carry - and drop - that load. The Buccaneer could originally lift 12000lb of bombs (limited by pylons), but by 1970 that had been increased to 16000lb, i.e. 16 x 1000lb bombs (3 on each pylon + 4 internal) - and with that the Buccaneer could take off with full internal fuel. The pylons were stressed to more, but I've not been able to find out what.
By: Schorsch
- 27th April 2006 at 16:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The oft-quoted superior lifting capability of the A-6 is based on adding up the maximum theoretical load of the pylons, i.e. 4 x 3600lb + 1 x 3700lb = 18100lb. However it never took off with that load. It could have done from land, but not with full internal fuel. And in any case, there don't seem to have been any combinations of stores which would take the pylons up to maximum load. Adding up the weights of stores which were available & could be fitted on the pylons, you get a maximum real load of about 15000lb, which also nicely fits in between the maximum clean weight & the maximum T/O weight. It did actually carry - and drop - that load. The Buccaneer could originally lift 12000lb of bombs (limited by pylons), but by 1970 that had been increased to 16000lb, i.e. 16 x 1000lb bombs (3 on each pylon + 4 internal) - and with that the Buccaneer could take off with full internal fuel. The pylons were stressed to more, but I've not been able to find out what.
Sure thing. But we can agree that it still has more lifting power than a Buccaneer? A-6 flew combat sorties with 12 500lb bombs without air2air refueling.
They can change direction faster than anything else in the sky at 'dogfight' speeds, a function of the vertical landing capability. Only with thrust vectoring and what have you are the latest breed of fighters getting close to the Harrier's ability to stop in mid air or step neatly out of the way.
Was this trained? I can only think that some test pilots figured it out. In normal combat that would be rather complicated thing to do. The question is, if against something like a Mirage III it would help. This aircraft would not searchs its luck in a turning fight, but use its superior power.
An F4 may well be able to do Mach1.2 at 500ft, I doubt it could at 150ft. Most aircraft can't tolerate supersonic speeds at very low levels. Buccaneers used to carry a delay fuse bomb as a defensive weapon against fighters chasing them that low.
The chasing aircraft must be pretty close . :D
Low flying aircraft are always a pain in the a##. Stories about crashing MiG when chasing a Tornado (or F-111?) in Iraq 1991 are well known. But for modern look-down shoot-down radar won't be a problem.
By: swerve
- 27th April 2006 at 17:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure thing. But we can agree that it still has more lifting power than a Buccaneer? A-6 flew combat sorties with 12 500lb bombs without air2air refueling.
I'd say not really. I'd put their lifting power as about the same. The A-6 lifted more in combat, but only because it was tasked with different missions. Its weapons load was limited by the weight it could take off at, not its pylons.
The Buccaneer was limited by its pylons, which could (though in practice they didn't) carry more than the weight the A-6 could lift. It didn't operate up to its weight limit, except in South African service, where it was often taking off a bit high & very hot, so the weight limit was reduced. In practice, it didn't even operate up to its pylon limits in British service. It could have carried more if anyone had ever wanted it to, e.g. if it had been used in a war like Vietnam where nobody was worried about its bring-back limit, because it was going to drop its bombs, come what may.
By: Vega ECM
- 27th April 2006 at 22:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, but the Harrier could do things no land based fighter could do.
"Viffing" i.e vectoring the thrust in normal flight was both known about and practiced by the Fleet Air Arm pilots who flew in the Falklands, but it was not used in either of the ACM engagement with the Argy Mirages.
Another comment I remember from Nigel Wards post Falklands lecture was that during the Falklands the SHAR could VTOL from the centre of the Carrier deck(i.e where it was relatively pitch neutral), and hence they were able to fly operations in sea states which would have prevented a conventional carrier from operating its aircraft (Nigel Ward was an ex Phantom & Sea Vixen carrier pilot so he had a pretty good understanding of conventional carrier operations). This, he put forward, as a significant SHAR concept advantage and he had nothing but praise for the SHAR........ but he did say the Invincible class carriers were too small for the task expected from them.
By: XN923
- 28th April 2006 at 09:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You got that right; now we are expected to believe the Type 45's are as good at providing air cover as the scrapped Sea Harriers were.
I can't help feeling we've been here before. At the risk of getting this thread moved to Historical Aviation, the first time the British fleet with aircraft carriers present was attacked by enemy bombers in the Second World War, the fighters were moved to the hanger and their fuel tanks drained to minimise fire risk in the event of bomb strikes!
By: Schorsch
- 28th April 2006 at 12:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't help feeling we've been here before. At the risk of getting this thread moved to Historical Aviation, the first time the British fleet with aircraft carriers present was attacked by enemy bombers in the Second World War, the fighters were moved to the hanger and their fuel tanks drained to minimise fire risk in the event of bomb strikes!
Which represents a usable tactic when the enemy attacks in larger numbers with little warning time. See the American tactics against Japanese attacks. The truth is that a Nimitz-class carrier needs about half of his aircraft to defend (if attacks not excessively strong). A smaller carrier is actually not easier to defend, it needs exactly the same number and quality of aircraft. that is the reason why small flat deck cruisers are unusable as power projecting force. You can't scare anybody with 12 SHAR. I think by the world Navys figured it out and accepted, that little carriers are of little use, if real warfare is needed.
Of course, even an Invicible can add valuable capability to your fleet. If no-one attacks you with land-based aircraft, its Harriers rule the sky (though not too much of it, because range is limited). For limited wars like those UK fought in Iraq, the enemy air force is a limited threat. However, it might achieve a lucky hit. So you can't risk it. Anything like the Falkland war would be unaccceptable in terms of losses nowadays.
By: Schorsch
- 28th April 2006 at 12:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd say not really. I'd put their lifting power as about the same. The A-6 lifted more in combat, but only because it was tasked with different missions. Its weapons load was limited by the weight it could take off at, not its pylons.
The Buccaneer was limited by its pylons, which could (though in practice they didn't) carry more than the weight the A-6 could lift. It didn't operate up to its weight limit, except in South African service, where it was often taking off a bit high & very hot, so the weight limit was reduced. In practice, it didn't even operate up to its pylon limits in British service. It could have carried more if anyone had ever wanted it to, e.g. if it had been used in a war like Vietnam where nobody was worried about its bring-back limit, because it was going to drop its bombs, come what may.
Nowadays, aircraft designers generally do what the A-6 designers did, & make sure that all the hardpoints on a plane are as flexible as possible. They build in as many as possible, & stress some of them to allow big loads, so the plane can carry individually heavy weapons. Pylon designers make sure their pylons can carry both single large weapons and large numbers of small ones. The net effect is to maximise the variety of loads the plane can carry, & has the unimportant side effect of giving a huge theoretical maximum load. IIRC, the pylons fitted to the A-6 were the same as used on some other US aircraft.
The Buccaneer was behind the times in this respect. It had only 4 hardpoints for external loads, of which only two were plumbed for fuel tanks (though it also had an internal bomb-bay, & a fuel tank to fit in it). But more limiting was what was available to fix to those hardpoints. The original pylons could carry only one 1000lb bomb. They were also too small to carry a Martel missile, so had to be replaced by larger ones when Martels were bought. The larger pylons allowed the use of a triple rack which could carry 3 bombs - and the largest bomb which fitted was 1000lb. The maximum load per hardpoint was tripled without any airframe change or limits on performance, simply by fitting a new pylon. I don't know what could have been hung under a Buccaneer if it had better pylons available to it, but the limit was in the equipment available to fit the plane, not the plane itself. One of the many failures to exploit the capabilities of the airframe. Sad.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 26th April 2006 at 11:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I did not forget it, it is just not the topic. The question which was raised here is if the Harriers had a hard time fighting the Argies or if it was a turkey shoot. the truth is somewhere in the middle. But sure is that the SHAR were mostly limited by their short range, long flight towards CAP zone (with the option to land close to it in case of fuel shortage), the limited radar and short range missiles. The quality of the enemy fighters was not a problem, the Mirage was faster but using its supersonic ability meant effectively to lose any chance to get back to base.
In the end the Harriers failed to defend the fleet better due to the inadequacy of the defence concept and the avilable technology (AEW, MRAAM, range). This was corrected by adding AEW-capability and MRAAM-capability to the Invicible class carriers, which still left the fleet with a rather limited self-defence capability. However, against a likewhise constrained contemporary it would be sufficient.
Posts: 1,114
By: XN923 - 26th April 2006 at 14:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suspect if Argentina had the slightest idea GB was prepared to defend the Falklands at all they would have been deterred, but there you are.
Carrier based Buccaneers could have paid for themselves many times over since 1978 in my view in the Falklands, both Gulf Wars, Kosovo... With decent upgrades they could still be considered one of the best strike aircraft around. But then I'm biased (see my forum name and avatar for clues...)
Any reason you can't mix CTOL and STOVL operations on the same carrier?
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 26th April 2006 at 15:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You may be biased, but so are many and the Bucaneer has never had the chance to earn a good reputation, although it is a reasonable strike aircraft, especially no dumb general wanted it to be supersonic, "agile" or look like a fighter. the Bucaneer can sometimes perform than a Tornado, which if loaded has a lift/drag like an IKEA cubboard.
However, the decision to go for "flat deck" cruisers were surely of monetary nature.
Argentinia chose like many other "rogue states" a strategy of little expansion, mainly as a phychologic strategy to the inside. The British did not accept the loss of this worthless piece of junk, but the Americans did not support the British. The Americans however had a close look at the situation, any escalation by any side would have triggered a rather political spanking. UK was backed by the rest of Europe.
In my eyes due to the inability of the RN to deploy a really capable attack force and the even bigger inability of Argentinia to defend against this force (which operated 8000 miles of thei coast), the war was more bloody than one would expect. Sad for the loss of life. :(
Posts: 1,114
By: XN923 - 26th April 2006 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Operation Granby and many Red Flags say otherwise
No arguments there - how much did it cost us in the long run?
Plus ca change... Interesting to compare to the recent invasion of a middle Eastern country which one might uncharitably suggest was a 'psychologic strategy to the inside' - with no-one to provide the spanking. But I am getting off topic.
The war did at least lead to the end of the Junta which was probably the most positive outcome for Argentina as well. The Falklands may be 'worthless junk' strategically but I understand the people who live there rather like it and it is the right of every moderately civilised people not to be invaded...
Very. But think how much less capable Britain's attack force would have been if Argentina had decided to invade two years later, after we had sold Invincible to Australia and scrapped Hermes? One of the few saving graces of this unfortunate, bloody little struggle was to prove beyond all doubt that the SHAR was far more capable than everyone (except possibly Sharkey Ward) could have imagined, and that 'Harrier Carriers' were a lot better than nothing.
Posts: 417
By: Doug97 - 26th April 2006 at 18:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree. If Sea Dart and Rapier had worked as advertised, things would have gone much more smoothly for the British.
Another example of the MoD accepting substandard equipment, and only fixing it AFTER lives have been lost.
It would also have helped if half the Sea Harrier pilots had bothered to get their radars to work.
Posts: 1,114
By: XN923 - 27th April 2006 at 09:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The mixed results of Blue Fox are a matter of record and have not been satisfactorily explained in my view. While never blessed with a particularly long range, one squadron (801 I think) claimed to be able to get around 25 (nautical) miles out of it (which even surprised Ferranti) while the other (800) squadron failed to get more than about 12. This seemed to result in a change in tactics whereby visual reconnaissance was used (not very effective considering the amount of sea that had to be covered) and a belief that CAP wasn't worth the spent fuel. Ferranti was called in to sort out the underperforming radars, which they may have, but the damage was done and habits had been formed.
I think there was potentially something more systemic going on in any case; the Royal Navy has traditionally been reluctant to rely on aircraft for air defence and preferred to consider that the natural protection of the ships themselves (AA weaponry and armour) should be sufficient. This thinking led to the loss of HMSs Glorious, Repulse and Prince of Wales among others in the Second World War, just about every ship that was lost in the Falklands and looks like it might have infiltrated again with idea of the Joint Harrier Force.
The lessons of the Falklands were learned for a while it seems but after a few more years things return to the default position.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 27th April 2006 at 09:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wanted to be positive. Bucaneer was not proven in combat. The marking during Gulf War doesn't count in my eyes. But it is as I said a reasonable design a little bit like the A-6 or A-7, which never really amazed the aircraft community.
A conventional carrier is at minimum 45000 to 55000 tons. Invincible is half the size. Costs rise with weight, its nomrally a pretty linear function.
The Harrier performed much better than expected. However, it was not designed for that mission. Sometimes aircraft can perform roles they were never intended to, normally due to lack of other capable aircraft. But never can you get rid of the inherent weaknesses.
The lack of any land-based aircraft made the Harriers the best around. The Argie's were not able to deliver any consistent air power.
Posts: 1,114
By: XN923 - 27th April 2006 at 10:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Buccaneer target-marked for Tornados in Operation Granby and also dropped bombs itself. Generally thought to be a far superior strike aircraft to the A-6, which was contemporary but a generation behind in terms of design (but I don't want to get into one of those ludicrous 'which is better' arguments) - its design enabled it to fly at very fast subsonic speeds at zero feet with astounding stability. At these altitudes it could outrun most fighters (which had to throttle back due to turbulence) and was much better in this regime than the Tornado. It also had much better range than the Tornado. Pretty much unbeatable whenever it turned up at Red Flag.
I meant what did it cost us in terms of sunk ships and post Falklands upgrades?
True, but the Harrier could do things no land based fighter could do. In exercises it has beaten far better material than Argentina managed to throw at it.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 27th April 2006 at 11:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aaaah, the Buccaneer! I've long wished that the TSR.2 (technically superb but a flawed concept IMO) had been strangled at birth & instead the Buccaneer developed to its full potential*. What it could have been, with better avionics! That was the one area in which the A-6 was clearly better.
*and a few other things done differently, but that's too far off topic. Far enough already . . .
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 27th April 2006 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Buccaneer had inferior avionics compared to the A-6 and less lifting capability, on the other hand it was faster and better in low-level flight. The A-6 would better be titled "B-6". Main advantage of that design is its sacrifice of supersonic speeds, making the design easier and better suited. The Tornado mostly lacks on his excessive external storages, without (or with limited amount of) it is faster and can ride smoother than the Buccaneer.
Which fighter exactly is slower at those altitudes? A Phantom can go M1.2 in low-level, surely no pleasure. A fighter would always come from above and not pursue the attacker same level. Considering the missions in 1991 Gilf War a Buccaneer with upgraded avionics would have performed similar to the Tornado most of the time.
What exactly? Land vertically? Of course, that was its rationale. However, the Argis did not exactly throw aircraft against the Harrier, they threw aircraft against the British fleet and did not care about the Harriers.
Posts: 1,114
By: XN923 - 27th April 2006 at 13:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An F4 may well be able to do Mach1.2 at 500ft, I doubt it could at 150ft. Most aircraft can't tolerate supersonic speeds at very low levels. Buccaneers used to carry a delay fuse bomb as a defensive weapon against fighters chasing them that low.
They can change direction faster than anything else in the sky at 'dogfight' speeds, a function of the vertical landing capability. Only with thrust vectoring and what have you are the latest breed of fighters getting close to the Harrier's ability to stop in mid air or step neatly out of the way.
I do enjoy arguing with you Schorsch.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 27th April 2006 at 13:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The oft-quoted superior lifting capability of the A-6 is based on adding up the maximum theoretical load of the pylons, i.e. 4 x 3600lb + 1 x 3700lb = 18100lb. However it never took off with that load. It could have done from land, but not with full internal fuel. And in any case, there don't seem to have been any combinations of stores which would take the pylons up to maximum load. Adding up the weights of stores which were available & could be fitted on the pylons, you get a maximum real load of about 15000lb, which also nicely fits in between the maximum clean weight & the maximum T/O weight. It did actually carry - and drop - that load. The Buccaneer could originally lift 12000lb of bombs (limited by pylons), but by 1970 that had been increased to 16000lb, i.e. 16 x 1000lb bombs (3 on each pylon + 4 internal) - and with that the Buccaneer could take off with full internal fuel. The pylons were stressed to more, but I've not been able to find out what.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 27th April 2006 at 16:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure thing. But we can agree that it still has more lifting power than a Buccaneer? A-6 flew combat sorties with 12 500lb bombs without air2air refueling.
Was this trained? I can only think that some test pilots figured it out. In normal combat that would be rather complicated thing to do. The question is, if against something like a Mirage III it would help. This aircraft would not searchs its luck in a turning fight, but use its superior power.
The chasing aircraft must be pretty close . :D
Low flying aircraft are always a pain in the a##. Stories about crashing MiG when chasing a Tornado (or F-111?) in Iraq 1991 are well known. But for modern look-down shoot-down radar won't be a problem.
Thanks. :)
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 27th April 2006 at 17:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd say not really. I'd put their lifting power as about the same. The A-6 lifted more in combat, but only because it was tasked with different missions. Its weapons load was limited by the weight it could take off at, not its pylons.
The Buccaneer was limited by its pylons, which could (though in practice they didn't) carry more than the weight the A-6 could lift. It didn't operate up to its weight limit, except in South African service, where it was often taking off a bit high & very hot, so the weight limit was reduced. In practice, it didn't even operate up to its pylon limits in British service. It could have carried more if anyone had ever wanted it to, e.g. if it had been used in a war like Vietnam where nobody was worried about its bring-back limit, because it was going to drop its bombs, come what may.
Posts: 417
By: Doug97 - 27th April 2006 at 17:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You got that right; now we are expected to believe the Type 45's are as good at providing air cover as the scrapped Sea Harriers were.
Posts: 472
By: Vega ECM - 27th April 2006 at 22:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Viffing" i.e vectoring the thrust in normal flight was both known about and practiced by the Fleet Air Arm pilots who flew in the Falklands, but it was not used in either of the ACM engagement with the Argy Mirages.
Another comment I remember from Nigel Wards post Falklands lecture was that during the Falklands the SHAR could VTOL from the centre of the Carrier deck(i.e where it was relatively pitch neutral), and hence they were able to fly operations in sea states which would have prevented a conventional carrier from operating its aircraft (Nigel Ward was an ex Phantom & Sea Vixen carrier pilot so he had a pretty good understanding of conventional carrier operations). This, he put forward, as a significant SHAR concept advantage and he had nothing but praise for the SHAR........ but he did say the Invincible class carriers were too small for the task expected from them.
Posts: 1,114
By: XN923 - 28th April 2006 at 09:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't help feeling we've been here before. At the risk of getting this thread moved to Historical Aviation, the first time the British fleet with aircraft carriers present was attacked by enemy bombers in the Second World War, the fighters were moved to the hanger and their fuel tanks drained to minimise fire risk in the event of bomb strikes!
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 28th April 2006 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which represents a usable tactic when the enemy attacks in larger numbers with little warning time. See the American tactics against Japanese attacks. The truth is that a Nimitz-class carrier needs about half of his aircraft to defend (if attacks not excessively strong). A smaller carrier is actually not easier to defend, it needs exactly the same number and quality of aircraft. that is the reason why small flat deck cruisers are unusable as power projecting force. You can't scare anybody with 12 SHAR. I think by the world Navys figured it out and accepted, that little carriers are of little use, if real warfare is needed.
Of course, even an Invicible can add valuable capability to your fleet. If no-one attacks you with land-based aircraft, its Harriers rule the sky (though not too much of it, because range is limited). For limited wars like those UK fought in Iraq, the enemy air force is a limited threat. However, it might achieve a lucky hit. So you can't risk it. Anything like the Falkland war would be unaccceptable in terms of losses nowadays.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 28th April 2006 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
swerve,
please read my post I just made in a different thread. It is about pylon design. Maybe interesting to read in the scope of this discussion.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=912405&postcount=10
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 28th April 2006 at 13:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Definitely interesting & relevant.
Nowadays, aircraft designers generally do what the A-6 designers did, & make sure that all the hardpoints on a plane are as flexible as possible. They build in as many as possible, & stress some of them to allow big loads, so the plane can carry individually heavy weapons. Pylon designers make sure their pylons can carry both single large weapons and large numbers of small ones. The net effect is to maximise the variety of loads the plane can carry, & has the unimportant side effect of giving a huge theoretical maximum load. IIRC, the pylons fitted to the A-6 were the same as used on some other US aircraft.
The Buccaneer was behind the times in this respect. It had only 4 hardpoints for external loads, of which only two were plumbed for fuel tanks (though it also had an internal bomb-bay, & a fuel tank to fit in it). But more limiting was what was available to fix to those hardpoints. The original pylons could carry only one 1000lb bomb. They were also too small to carry a Martel missile, so had to be replaced by larger ones when Martels were bought. The larger pylons allowed the use of a triple rack which could carry 3 bombs - and the largest bomb which fitted was 1000lb. The maximum load per hardpoint was tripled without any airframe change or limits on performance, simply by fitting a new pylon. I don't know what could have been hung under a Buccaneer if it had better pylons available to it, but the limit was in the equipment available to fit the plane, not the plane itself. One of the many failures to exploit the capabilities of the airframe. Sad.