SinoDefence Forum

bd popeye · 07-28-2006

Nice "PS" Obi Wan. Very nice indeed....

Great Idea..probally a billion dollars worth of upgrades.....

Too bad Uncle Sam won't sell a used LHA to anyone. Imangine your design with say..oh...16 or so F-35 JSF. Coupled with about 10 SH-60's and 4 Super Cobra's...Nice.....Oh well ..I guess the USN will be sinking the USS Saipan in the next couple of years... Maybe the US will lossen up and sell the LHA to Austraila, Japan..ouch, or maybe even Canada.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-28-2006

Photo shop? I wish! Basic microsoft Paint! But seriously, I was just trying to illustrate the potential within the LHA/LHD design. By the way, don't forget to include a flight of AEW Helos in that air group, either EH101s with searchwater radar or a variant of the V-22 Osprey would be my choice. I've always assumed the reason the design of these ships was restricted had a lot to do with the influence of the pro-CVN lobby in the USN (remember the debates in the 70's about Admiral Zumwalt's Sea Control Ship programme? The SCS was never intended to compete with the CVN, rather it was a replacement for the Essex class CVS.), who would vehemently oppose anything that might be construed as an alternative to a full deck carrier. These improvements could more easily be incorporated in the next generation of LHDs, and as I said if you can only afford one big ship, multi role is the way to go. In the design I mocked up the port side deck extension would allow for an increase in internal volume and rearrangement of compartments allowing the Hangar deck to be extended forward without reducing troop carrying capacity. In the debate about the Aussie LHD program the most heated debate appears to revolve around carrying fighters verses carrying troops, well if you make more room inside you can do both (simplistic I know but possible nonetheless).

Jeff Head · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

If you want to hear a first hand account of the Harriers performance rather than third hand rumours and speculation I suggest you read "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" by Commander Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward, who commandded 801 Naval Air Squadron flying from HMS Invincible during the campaign.

Great read! Another GREAT account that I would highly recommend is "The Battle for the Falklands", by Hastings and Jenkins. It gives am excellent account about the buildup, and particularly good accounts about all of the Air, Sea, and land battles, and the thinking and planning behind them. Although but a relatively small AO and actual fight, it was an amazing accomplishment by the UK, and some spirited (and costly to the UK) defense, particularly by the Argentine air force.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-28-2006

Remember, the Falklands war wasn't just about liberating the islands, for the Royal Navy it was a fight for it's very survival against ill considered defence cuts brought in by yet another batch of ignorant politicians. Almost two thirds of the Royal Navy's strength was dispatched to the South Atlantic even though most of the major units were scheduled for premature disposal, including both carriers (Invincible was to be sold to Australia in early 1983 and Hermes was to be scrapped around the same time, leaving just the yet to be completed Illustrious and Ark Royal. The two LPDs Fearless and Intrepid were also due to be sold,- to Argentina! If they had waited a year it would have been a very different story) and a large number of destroyers and frigates. British losses in the campaign can directly be attributed to decades of defence cuts that left the British forces woefully short of equipment.
The prime minister Margaret Thatcher was so ill informed about the state of the RN at the start that when she asked about what ships were being sent, she was shocked to discover that the (old) Ark Royal wouldn't be going as she had been sold for scrap two years earlier! Ark's F4s and Buccaneer strike aircraft had been handed over to the RAF and so would be unable to contribute anything to the task force, and the failure to replace the Fairey Gannet AEW aircraft was little short of criminal negligence.

Ultimatley I believe that the Falklands war proves that a weak defence posture only makes conflict more likely, and strong armed forces are the best way to keep the peace. Argentina invaded because they (wrongly) believed Britain had neither the will or the means to fight back, and that was an easy mistake to make given Britain's continued dismemberment of it's own armed forces in the preceding years.

Jeff Head · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Remember, the Falklands war wasn't just about liberating the islands, for the Royal Navy it was a fight for it's very survival against ill considered defence cuts brought in by yet another batch of ignorant politicians.

Ultimatley I believe that the Falklands war proves that a weak defence posture only makes conflict more likely, and strong armed forces are the best way to keep the peace. .

Amen and spot on on all counts. The book I suggested talks to these issues in some detail. Fact is, the UK had to literally scrape together a force...and that force then went down there and performed admirably, despite the losses.

bd popeye · 07-28-2006

Obi Wan sez...

Quote:

By the way, don't forget to include a flight of AEW Helos in that air group, either EH101s with searchwater radar or a variant of the V-22 Osprey would be my choice

First off..thanks for bringing some mature sanity to our forum! You are my new favorite poster.

I forgot about the Osprey. Which by the way the USMC is buying as it is now going into production. I was thinking about the capacity of such a re-worked ship while I was at work...Lets see what the air wing would be..

12 F-35 JSF, 6 V-22 Osprey, 2 EH101(don't know if the USN would go for that)...4 Super Cobras, 4 SH-60R...for ASW & SAR. And of course the troops, about 1,000, and all their assoicated equipment.

You know the USN and USMC is developing the LHA(R). Which will be a replacement for the LHA's.

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/amphibs/amphibs_lhaR.htm

The LHA(R) amphibious assault ship is designed specifically to meet future Navy-Marine Corps requirements, able to support the expanded capability of 21st century expeditionary strike platforms such as the MV-22 Osprey helicopter and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter airplanes. LHA 6, the first ship of the LHA(R) program, will be able to operate and support a detachment of 20+ Joint Strike Fighters. LHA 6 features several aviation capabilities enhanced beyond previous amphibious assault ships. These include an enlarged hangar deck, realignment and expansion of the aviation maintenance facilities, a significant increase in available stowage for parts and support equipment, and increased aviation fuel capacity.

LHA 6 will be multi-functional and versatile, modifying existing Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) spaces to allow for flexible mission dependent reconfiguration. LHA 6 will also have increased cargo magazine capacity, better survivability, and greater service life margins.

LHA 6 will use the same gas turbine propulsion plant, zonal electrical distribution and electric auxiliary systems being designed and built for LHD 8, the final of the Wasp class amphibious assault ships.

Jeff Head · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Lets see what the air wing would be..

12 F-35 JSF, 6 V-22 Osprey, 2 EH101(don't know if the USN would go for that)...4 Super Cobras, 4 SH-60R...for ASW & SAR. And of course the troops, about 1,000, and all their assoicated equipment.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/lhar.jpg

In the Sea Control role, I would expect to see more F-35's. maybe as many as 24, along with an AEW variant of the Osprey (3-4 asicraft), and an ASW variant of the same )6 aircraft), along with 6-8 Seahawks.

In fact, I would like to see an ASW Opsrey variant on the CVNs to replace the Vikings. At least they would have much longer legs than the helos and more weapon capacity than the helos if developed that way. I believe that removing the Vikings from the ASW role was premature...it is what they were designed to do...and to give that type of ASW reach with significant loiter capability and weapon capacity.

Kampfwagen · 07-28-2006

Very nice pic, Obi. And thank you for the information! I am not to well versed in the subject of modern military aviation, so I about the only thing I knew about the Harrier was it's superior turn radius that caught the Argies off guard. But, that's about it.

So thanks again

Obi Wan Russell · 07-29-2006

As to the idea of the USN buying the EH101, well your president thinks it's good enough to replace the Sea Kings he uses to hop from the white house lawn to ... well the local supermarket for all I know. As the US101, it almost qualifies as an American chopper now since it is being marketed and developed by Lockheed Martin and it must be good to picked in preference to the latest Sikorsky product. Sikorsky's contribution to the evolution of military and naval helicopters has been second to none, but the Merlin was designed by two of Sikorsky's 'apprentices', Westland Helicopters and Agusta. They learned their craft building licenced copies of Sikorskys designs and managed to equal and even surpass their teacher. The US101 models will be assembled in the states, and the order for the Presidents VIP craft may well lead to more...

Whilst the American military establishment has a long history of being fiercely patriotic, they also recognise a good idea or product when they see it (they weren't slow to buy the Harrier back in 1969, putting them into service before the RAF!) and the Merlin would make a good partner and eventual successor to the SH-60 Sea Hawk, as well as complementing the Osprey.The V-22 is another reason for adding the portside sponson to the basic LHD design, the Osprey's landing 'footprint' is a lot wider than conventional helos and there have been reports of asymmetric thrust on landing and takeoff from the decks of LHAs/LHDs due to one engine being over the ship while the other is over the sea. The starboard engine creates a cushion of air under it as it pushes down against the deck while the port engines exhaust/downdraft is dissipated over the side of the ship. My solution? make the deck wider!

This picture of ospreys on the deck of an LHD illustrates my point. If the deck were extended to the same width as the deck edge lift then operating the V-22 becomes less of a squeeze. An ASW variant of the Osprey (SV-22?) would have the potential to be the best all round ship based ASW platform in the world, combining the speed and range of a fixed wing aircraft (eg a P3 Orion) with the ability to stop, hover, and lower a dipping sonar like a helo. Submarines would never know what hit them!

sumdud · 07-29-2006

Nice Ospreys, they are in service?!

But one problem: This is about the Harrier, not its mothership.
Just open another thread. (Nice topic anyway.)

---------
Found this from airwar.ru
http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/fighter/harrier7.html

Top speed: Mach 1.1
Combat range:
STOL: 2722
VTOL: 277
Payload: 4170kg/3 tonnes in 9 HP

9 HP?! That's rather.............much for such a small plane with small wings........
I can't really imagine loading it with that much stuff. If it isn't VTC controlled, I doubt it can manuver much. And that's a drastical change in range....

I wonder though, can it perform manuvers like those of the Flankers and Fulcrums?

Obi Wan Russell · 07-30-2006

Well we could open another thread but this one seems to have successfully evolved into the broader subject of VSTOL /STOVL operations. Context is everything, and talking about the harrier in isolation from the context of its operational environment would prove ultimately unsatisfying for all concerned. The original question was "Is the Harrier supersonic?" well no it isn't unless you put it into a steep dive. Asked and answered. The harrier family are brilliant aircraft, world beaters, but the basic design is 40 years old, no longer in prodution and the existing aircraft are now holding the line until replaced by the new F-35B Lightning II. We'd be happpy to answer any more questions on the Harrier, but the discussion in this thread appears to have broadened beyond that, like any good conversation (thats half the fun of talking, seeing where you end up).
The Harrier is a weapon system, but it is also part of a larger system of systems especially in the maritime context. The torch is being passed from the Harrier to the Lightning II and also branching out with the V-22 Osprey. As FAA pilots like to say; "It's a lot easier to stop and land than it is to land and stop." as well as "It's a lot less bovver in the Hover!"
And to answer your question, The Harrier can do any manouvre the Flankers and Fulcrums can, plus it can fly backwards! Convential Aircraft design has been playing catch up with the Harrier for the last four decades. When the Harrier was designed, everyone else was trying to be faster than the competition, manouverability wasnt' the priority it is now. The only thing the Harrier can't do (but the new F-35 can) is fly supersonic straight and level.

Sea Harrier F/A 2 of 800 NAS from HMS Ark Royal, circa 2002

RAF Harrier GR 7s of 1(F)sqn aboard HMS Illustrious with Navy Sea Harriers from 801 NAS aft. 800 NAS has now reformed with Harrier GR7/7As and 801 NAS will reform in september with Harrier GR 9s.

and here's my 'mods' applied to the new LHA(R) design.

bd popeye · 07-30-2006

Nice idea Obi wan...Nice paint job.

As a person that served in the USN for 20 years I have always wondered why the USN never adopted the ski-jump for it's Harriers. Now the USMC will soon have JSF's F-35's. Any idea's any one?

Obi Wan Russell · 07-30-2006

I did mention earlier about the opposition from the pro-CVN lobby to anything less than a full deck carrier. Perhaps they were worried the USMC would show them up if they were allowed to operate the Harrier to it's full potential. There's always been a lot of (friendly) rivalry between the marine aviators and their navy colleagues, but to be honest it's always been a mystery to me too.

bd popeye · 07-30-2006

Quote:

There's always been a lot of (friendly) rivalry between the marine aviators and their navy colleagues, but to be honest it's always been a mystery to me too.

So very, very true. The US Marines can't stand the fact they they come under the Dept of the US Navy..it burns them up...

You know the Marines have refused Super Hornets? They see only a little improvement in the Super Bug. They just have to be different. Oh well. Every USN CVW now has USMC squadrons attatched. Some even have USMC commanders.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-31-2006

On this side of the pond the Royal Marines are proud to be a part of the Navy, It's when people mistakenly describe them as being part of the Army they get annoyed. All RMs are Commandos, elite spearhead troops, while they regard the regular army as being good for marching in parades and not much else. Army basic training lasts six weeks, RM basic training lasts thirty weeks and failure to pass the Commando course means you are out. The only part of the British army that comes close to RM standard is the Parachute Regiment, also a spearhead force. The RMs used to have an air element known as 3 Cdo Bgde Air Sqn flying Lynx and Gazelle anti tank Helos, but this was redesignated as 847 NAS some years ago, and frequently operates from the LPH HMS Ocean in support of Amphibious ops.

I can understand the USMCs descision to reject the Super Hornet, it is a great plane but the Marine corps are probably concerned that buying it will bring them more into the USNs sphere of operations (ie supplementing USN sqns aboard CVNs as they are now) and restrict the numbers of F-35Bs they purchase. The Lightning II will be able to operate from the LHA/LHD force as the Harrier does now directly in support of Marine corps ops whereas those sqns stationed aboard CVNs will just be used by the Navy to make up numbers. Understandably, the USMC wants to keep its' air assets for its own use and moving away from flying the same types as the Navy is one way of doing this subtley. If all current USMC combat aircraft were Harriers, would the Navy still want them to make up numbers on their CVNs? I suspect they would be reluctant to add another type to the the inventory, complicating the supply chain just as the Navy is trying to reduce the numbers of different types it operates at sea in its quest for commonality to cut costs. Just a theory anyway.

SinoDefence Forum

Harrier supersonic?

Harrier supersonic?

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster