Defence cuts.
21 October 2010, 01:08 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=hutton_d;9667691]
Strange, when did I 'admit' that
So you've finally admitted that you don't actually read any links put up by people here?
21 October 2010, 01:16 PM
#62
Laugh if you like but has anybody mentioned cyber warfare? It's all well and good having weapons, platforms to deploy them from and troops on the ground but they are all for naught in the modern battlespace without the means for deployment, command and control.
Stuxnet has shown that specific systems can be targeted and taking this method of attack one step further it's not just information flow which is disrupted. Considering this malware managed to successfully target and affect standalone systems it proves that all manner of systems are vulnerable: if not control software for power stations (as in Stuxnet) then how about guidance software or fire control software or fly by wire software?
Maybe this is a little fanciful but we're certainly going to see a change in how warfare is defined over the coming years and the government/MoD needs to adapt to this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11566145
Stuxnet has shown that specific systems can be targeted and taking this method of attack one step further it's not just information flow which is disrupted. Considering this malware managed to successfully target and affect standalone systems it proves that all manner of systems are vulnerable: if not control software for power stations (as in Stuxnet) then how about guidance software or fire control software or fly by wire software?
Maybe this is a little fanciful but we're certainly going to see a change in how warfare is defined over the coming years and the government/MoD needs to adapt to this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11566145
21 October 2010, 03:16 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VIFFing was just a propaganda exercise. There isn't any documented evidence of it actually being used.
Our Harrier GR7 and GR9s cannot carry radar guided AMRAAM so cannot do any meaningful air to air. They can't even carry ASRAAM so have to rely on legacy sidewinders which are way behind the technology of russian made missiles. They would be easy pickings.
Also, our Harriers cannot take off or land from a carrier with a heavy payload and when operating in higher temperature climates the situation gets far worse.
VSTOL is great for airshows and that's about it.
We should have kept our Sea Harriers though.
Our Harrier GR7 and GR9s cannot carry radar guided AMRAAM so cannot do any meaningful air to air. They can't even carry ASRAAM so have to rely on legacy sidewinders which are way behind the technology of russian made missiles. They would be easy pickings.
Also, our Harriers cannot take off or land from a carrier with a heavy payload and when operating in higher temperature climates the situation gets far worse.
VSTOL is great for airshows and that's about it.
We should have kept our Sea Harriers though.
Les
21 October 2010, 04:00 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The papers made a big thing of it during the Falklands war but it was never used.
Speed is everything is it not so losing all your energy is I guess a choice of last resort as it would leave you a sitting duck.
Anyway this is all academic if we are talking about air to air capability.
21 October 2010, 05:11 PM
#66
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 October 2010, 06:10 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway its manoeuverability is poorer than 4th generation fighters from the 1970s onwards.
So you would fancy your chances in a Harrier with no air to air radar, no BVR missile capability, no guns, no helmet mounted missile cueing and one trick up its sleeve that is well known to an opponent?
Apparently it's been brilliant in Afganistan for close air support for the troops on the ground but thats more down to the experience of the pilots than the weapons platform itself.
Carriers without aircraft is just unfathomable though. Even when we eventually get the JSF, apparently the Fleet Air Arm will be getting just 12 aircraft no earlier than 2020.
I don't see how you can defend a fleet with just that amount let alone do anything offensive especially considering the huge amount of maintenance stealth aircraft require.
21 October 2010, 06:29 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe that's why they put you on bombers
Anyway its manoeuverability is poorer than 4th generation fighters from the 1970s onwards.
So you would fancy your chances in a Harrier with no air to air radar, no BVR missile capability, no guns, no helmet mounted missile cueing and one trick up its sleeve that is well known to an opponent?
Apparently it's been brilliant in Afganistan for close air support for the troops on the ground but thats more down to the experience of the pilots than the weapons platform itself.
Carriers without aircraft is just unfathomable though. Even when we eventually get the JSF, apparently the Fleet Air Arm will be getting just 12 aircraft no earlier than 2020.
I don't see how you can defend a fleet with just that amount let alone do anything offensive especially considering the huge amount of maintenance stealth aircraft require.
Anyway its manoeuverability is poorer than 4th generation fighters from the 1970s onwards.
So you would fancy your chances in a Harrier with no air to air radar, no BVR missile capability, no guns, no helmet mounted missile cueing and one trick up its sleeve that is well known to an opponent?
Apparently it's been brilliant in Afganistan for close air support for the troops on the ground but thats more down to the experience of the pilots than the weapons platform itself.
Carriers without aircraft is just unfathomable though. Even when we eventually get the JSF, apparently the Fleet Air Arm will be getting just 12 aircraft no earlier than 2020.
I don't see how you can defend a fleet with just that amount let alone do anything offensive especially considering the huge amount of maintenance stealth aircraft require.
At least the Harrier can fly from our (single) aircraft carrier, and has some multi-role capability.
I would say projecting some airpower from a carrier is better than none!
21 October 2010, 06:32 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision is based on the likely £4 Billion pound support service for primary and major maintenance to 2018 and the £0.5 - £1Billion pound cost of future upgrades, so cutting circa £5 Billion for something that can be replaced overnight by Tornado fast jets seems a reasonable and decisive move to me.
21 October 2010, 06:48 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VIFFing was just a propaganda exercise. There isn't any documented evidence of it actually being used.
Our Harrier GR7 and GR9s cannot carry radar guided AMRAAM so cannot do any meaningful air to air. They can't even carry ASRAAM so have to rely on legacy sidewinders which are way behind the technology of russian made missiles. They would be easy pickings.
Also, our Harriers cannot take off or land from a carrier with a heavy payload and when operating in higher temperature climates the situation gets far worse.
VSTOL is great for airshows and that's about it.
We should have kept our Sea Harriers though.
Our Harrier GR7 and GR9s cannot carry radar guided AMRAAM so cannot do any meaningful air to air. They can't even carry ASRAAM so have to rely on legacy sidewinders which are way behind the technology of russian made missiles. They would be easy pickings.
Also, our Harriers cannot take off or land from a carrier with a heavy payload and when operating in higher temperature climates the situation gets far worse.
VSTOL is great for airshows and that's about it.
We should have kept our Sea Harriers though.
21 October 2010, 07:10 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 October 2010, 07:15 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 October 2010, 08:19 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 October 2010, 08:32 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the Tornado F3 can carry both but that too is being retired as the Typhoon comes into service.
The Tornado GR4 cannot carry either of those missiles.
21 October 2010, 08:41 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 October 2010, 03:32 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe that's why they put you on bombers
Anyway its manoeuverability is poorer than 4th generation fighters from the 1970s onwards.
So you would fancy your chances in a Harrier with no air to air radar, no BVR missile capability, no guns, no helmet mounted missile cueing and one trick up its sleeve that is well known to an opponent?
Apparently it's been brilliant in Afganistan for close air support for the troops on the ground but thats more down to the experience of the pilots than the weapons platform itself.
Carriers without aircraft is just unfathomable though. Even when we eventually get the JSF, apparently the Fleet Air Arm will be getting just 12 aircraft no earlier than 2020.
I don't see how you can defend a fleet with just that amount let alone do anything offensive especially considering the huge amount of maintenance stealth aircraft require.
Anyway its manoeuverability is poorer than 4th generation fighters from the 1970s onwards.
So you would fancy your chances in a Harrier with no air to air radar, no BVR missile capability, no guns, no helmet mounted missile cueing and one trick up its sleeve that is well known to an opponent?
Apparently it's been brilliant in Afganistan for close air support for the troops on the ground but thats more down to the experience of the pilots than the weapons platform itself.
Carriers without aircraft is just unfathomable though. Even when we eventually get the JSF, apparently the Fleet Air Arm will be getting just 12 aircraft no earlier than 2020.
I don't see how you can defend a fleet with just that amount let alone do anything offensive especially considering the huge amount of maintenance stealth aircraft require.
Just for your information though, we used to practice air to air with Lightnings and other fighters etc., it was effective training for us to evade their attacks, and for them to try to shoot us down.
The "Tin Triangle" was extremely manoeuverable at height and could out turn any of the fighters at the time. There were unable to get a shot at us because if they tried to turn with us they would get into the heavy buffet and were quite likely to flick into a spin! They very rarely ever got the chance to call "splash" on us. Even an F15 Eagle was unable to turn with us as we proved often enough. I once had a Lightning pilot who was training a new squadron pilot in a twin seater ask us to relax our turn to give him a chance to demonstrate a front gun attack on us.
The entire reason for that was the vastly better manoeuverability of the Vulcan at higher altitudes, which was of course the reason why I said that in the first place. The extra speed capability of the fighters was of no use to them because they were unable to pull sufficient G at altitude to turn with us!
It was another story at the low levels at which we flew an attack on a target. it is pretty difficult to get a bead on another aircraft at very low level especially when down in the valleys and through the mountain passes. Their look down shoot down capability on CAP either was not all that reliable and when we saw them painting us with their advanced radar we just jammed them anyway! In all the Red Flag exercises they never achieved a successful defensive shot on a Vulcan or a Buccaneer.
A more modern fighter with a delta wing form and canard flying controls would of course be expected to be able to turn quite easily with the bomber. Its extra "manoeuverability" and its low speed handling capability would give it a much better chance of course. it would still be hard pressed to achieve success at low level of course.
Did you realise that should we have a missile fired at us we had a tracking capability and also effective forms of defence against such an attack?
Do you in fact have any practical experience of dogfighting, or was it something you have read about? I hope you find the above useful anyway.
Les
22 October 2010, 05:02 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Bristol-ish
Posts: 2,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's probably worth pointing out that there are (were) two distinct types of harrier in use with the UK forces.
The ground attack GR varients (Harrier II) used by the RAF and the interceptor / strike varients (Sea Harrier) used by the Royal Navy.
The last UK Sea Harrier was withdrawn in 2007, which effectively left our naval fleets without any air support - the GR7 / 9 is fighter-bomber designed for conflicts over land. The Sea Harrier was a very capable aircraft with a relatively sophisticated air-to-air missile system, and was far superior to suposedly more modern jets, as demonstrated during various NATO exercises. The GR7 / 9 can take off and land from ships, but use the floating runway as a base for land operations rather than for any real naval purpose.
Similarly, the Tornado has two distinct variants - the F3 interceptor (to be withdrawn in favour of the Typhoon early next year) and the GR4, which is the RAF's main bomber aircraft. The GR4 has its limitations, but is supersonic and can carry a heavier payload than the Harrier, giving it advantages in these areas. However, the Tonka doesn't have the flexibility of a mobile airfield such as a Harrier / aircraft carrier combo.
For the new aircraft carriers, we will (eventually) have the 'cheeper', non-STOVL JSF, which I think will turn out to be a complete mistake - too big / complicated and probably a white elephant.
It's a shame we will be loosing the Harrier in the UK - a design that's 50 years young this year - the US Marine Corps, Spanish, Italian and Indian Navys will continue to operate them for the forseable future. There seems to be considerable un-joined up thinking in the defence review - aircraft carriers with no jets to support, and no Nimrod MR4 to support our very expensive submarines!
The last UK Harrier will fly in mid-December - only 8 weeks away!
The ground attack GR varients (Harrier II) used by the RAF and the interceptor / strike varients (Sea Harrier) used by the Royal Navy.
The last UK Sea Harrier was withdrawn in 2007, which effectively left our naval fleets without any air support - the GR7 / 9 is fighter-bomber designed for conflicts over land. The Sea Harrier was a very capable aircraft with a relatively sophisticated air-to-air missile system, and was far superior to suposedly more modern jets, as demonstrated during various NATO exercises. The GR7 / 9 can take off and land from ships, but use the floating runway as a base for land operations rather than for any real naval purpose.
Similarly, the Tornado has two distinct variants - the F3 interceptor (to be withdrawn in favour of the Typhoon early next year) and the GR4, which is the RAF's main bomber aircraft. The GR4 has its limitations, but is supersonic and can carry a heavier payload than the Harrier, giving it advantages in these areas. However, the Tonka doesn't have the flexibility of a mobile airfield such as a Harrier / aircraft carrier combo.
For the new aircraft carriers, we will (eventually) have the 'cheeper', non-STOVL JSF, which I think will turn out to be a complete mistake - too big / complicated and probably a white elephant.
It's a shame we will be loosing the Harrier in the UK - a design that's 50 years young this year - the US Marine Corps, Spanish, Italian and Indian Navys will continue to operate them for the forseable future. There seems to be considerable un-joined up thinking in the defence review - aircraft carriers with no jets to support, and no Nimrod MR4 to support our very expensive submarines!
The last UK Harrier will fly in mid-December - only 8 weeks away!
22 October 2010, 07:17 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's probably worth pointing out that there are (were) two distinct types of harrier in use with the UK forces.
The ground attack GR varients (Harrier II) used by the RAF and the interceptor / strike varients (Sea Harrier) used by the Royal Navy.
The last UK Sea Harrier was withdrawn in 2007, which effectively left our naval fleets without any air support - the GR7 / 9 is fighter-bomber designed for conflicts over land. The Sea Harrier was a very capable aircraft with a relatively sophisticated air-to-air missile system, and was far superior to suposedly more modern jets, as demonstrated during various NATO exercises. The GR7 / 9 can take off and land from ships, but use the floating runway as a base for land operations rather than for any real naval purpose.
Similarly, the Tornado has two distinct variants - the F3 interceptor (to be withdrawn in favour of the Typhoon early next year) and the GR4, which is the RAF's main bomber aircraft. The GR4 has its limitations, but is supersonic and can carry a heavier payload than the Harrier, giving it advantages in these areas. However, the Tonka doesn't have the flexibility of a mobile airfield such as a Harrier / aircraft carrier combo.
For the new aircraft carriers, we will (eventually) have the 'cheeper', non-STOVL JSF, which I think will turn out to be a complete mistake - too big / complicated and probably a white elephant.
It's a shame we will be loosing the Harrier in the UK - a design that's 50 years young this year - the US Marine Corps, Spanish, Italian and Indian Navys will continue to operate them for the forseable future. There seems to be considerable un-joined up thinking in the defence review - aircraft carriers with no jets to support, and no Nimrod MR4 to support our very expensive submarines!
The last UK Harrier will fly in mid-December - only 8 weeks away!
The ground attack GR varients (Harrier II) used by the RAF and the interceptor / strike varients (Sea Harrier) used by the Royal Navy.
The last UK Sea Harrier was withdrawn in 2007, which effectively left our naval fleets without any air support - the GR7 / 9 is fighter-bomber designed for conflicts over land. The Sea Harrier was a very capable aircraft with a relatively sophisticated air-to-air missile system, and was far superior to suposedly more modern jets, as demonstrated during various NATO exercises. The GR7 / 9 can take off and land from ships, but use the floating runway as a base for land operations rather than for any real naval purpose.
Similarly, the Tornado has two distinct variants - the F3 interceptor (to be withdrawn in favour of the Typhoon early next year) and the GR4, which is the RAF's main bomber aircraft. The GR4 has its limitations, but is supersonic and can carry a heavier payload than the Harrier, giving it advantages in these areas. However, the Tonka doesn't have the flexibility of a mobile airfield such as a Harrier / aircraft carrier combo.
For the new aircraft carriers, we will (eventually) have the 'cheeper', non-STOVL JSF, which I think will turn out to be a complete mistake - too big / complicated and probably a white elephant.
It's a shame we will be loosing the Harrier in the UK - a design that's 50 years young this year - the US Marine Corps, Spanish, Italian and Indian Navys will continue to operate them for the forseable future. There seems to be considerable un-joined up thinking in the defence review - aircraft carriers with no jets to support, and no Nimrod MR4 to support our very expensive submarines!
The last UK Harrier will fly in mid-December - only 8 weeks away!
What do we have for airborne anti-sub warfare now that the new Nimrod is canceled?
Should have built a navalised Typhoon now we are going to catapults etc on one of the new carriers.
I could support either having proper carrier capability or not depending upon the outcome of a proper strategic review of needs, as it is now we just have a half-arsed solution which seems to be good for nothing except defense jobs?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
unclebuck
Non Scooby Related
1
07 February 2003 03:15 PM
