SinoDefence Forum

adeptitus

A bit OT, but like they said, hindsight is always 20-20.

Had Argentina waited 1-2 years, the RN would've decommissoned/sold off carriers, LPDs sold to Argentina. Argentina might've been able to buy the decommissioned RN carriers for scrap, just in case.

The Argentine AF had ordered 14 Super Etendard fighters and 14 air-launched Exocets, but at the time only 5 planes and 5 missiles had been delivered. If they had waited a year, they'd have received another 5+5. The additional exocet missiles would've done a lot more damage to the RN.

Also, the Argentine AF had purchased the Israeli Nesher (Dagger) fighters, which was under-going upgrades to the Kfir C.2 standard in 1982 when war broke out. Ironically the upgrade equipment was made by British Marconi and, needless to say, incomplete. During the Falklands War the Argentine Daggers were sent out on 150+ sorties, and 11 were lost.

Due to the political-economic situation, the military leadership of Argentina couldn't wait. They needed a war to distract the population from paticipating in civil unrest. If they had waited, they didn't know if they'd even be in power by 1983.

Overall, I think the Harriers performed superbly during Falklands War, winning the air war by a land-slide. Had the RN not achieved air superiority, the Argentine strike aircraft would've been able to unload their munitions at optimal altitude against RN ships. With Harriers flying cap, the Argentine planes had to come in low, with insufficient altitude for the bomb fuses. As the result many bombs scored hits but didnt' detonate.

IMO the British are quite proud of the Harrier as a "domestic product". It represented a time when the British were the ones who designed and built the V/STOL fighter, and everyone else, including Americans, were the customers. When UK joined the F-35 program, they didn't want to become the customer/client-state to US technology, it'd be a reversal of roles at expense to British pride and autonomy. This is prolly why they demanded equal partner status as well as full access to source code and tech transfers. If US wasn't willing to give, they'd have opted for navalised version of the Typhoon.

Finn McCool

I know that this is but does the navalized Typhoon have VSTOL capability? Other than France, no European country would buy it as their carriers are too small to operate aircraft like the Typhoon (if it's not VSTOL). And France has the Rafale. The only other navy I could think of would be Italy when it gets the Cavour later in 2007. I'm not sure how big it is but I think that the Cavour could be big enough.

__________________
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
-Winston Churchill

Gollevainen

Well Typhoon isen't VSTOL plane...Only VSTOL planes around are harrier and JSF (And ofcourse the already retired Yak-38 and the never materialized Yak-41).

The navalized Typhoon is/was planned by the Brithish (french don't use Eurofighter, they have Rafale, remember) to the new carrier. It was only premilinary planning however and never even got to the stage of making prototypes.

__________________

Obi Wan Russell

The navalised Typhoon (N) is still being used by British politicians as a bargaining tool with the Americans in the ongoing saga over the F-35B Lightning II. I don't think it is a realistic option though, as the Typhoon airframe and Landing gear simply weren't designed for Carrier ops. It is at present too weak to withstand deck landings and isn't stressed for catapult launches, whereas the Rafale M was designed from the start for this. A little fore thought on the part of the British government back in the late eighties and development of a naval variant could have been in hand from day one. The officail British position is that if the F-35B were to fail to be produced, plan B is the Typhoon (N), but no serious work has been done on the project other than a few artists impressions! (But don't tell the Americans, we're still trying to haggle over the price of the F-35B!)

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

adeptitus

As a last resort, they could buy Rafale M from France, or spend $ to develop the BAE-Saab JAS-39 Gripen for carrier operations.

The French seem to have a good track record of developing AF aircraft for carrier use (i.e. Dassault Super Étendard).

Another far-fetched option is to follow India's example and buy Russian. Very slim chance of this happening however.

bd popeye

US Marines also hate to be identifed as soliders. They are Marines. Their basic training is 12 weeks..then all Marines are sent to Infantry Training battalion for 11 weeks. After that they are sent to there technical schools. They consider the army much as the RM's do....Good for a parade and occupation.

Your assesment of a Navalized Typhoon is 100% correct. It has no real sea legs. You just can't put an arresting hook on an aircraft and say it's ready for sea duty. That sort of duty requires a speicalized air frame that can take the pounding of arrested landings.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

Obi Wan Russell

I remember reading a long time ago that the kinetic energy absorbed by an aircraft's landing gear when it hits the deck of a carrier is the same as that needed to boot a one ton elephant one mile vertically in the air. I'm sure we'd all pay good money to see that experiment but seriously, one has to bear in mind landing on a moving deck at sea is a world away from a leisurely landing on a 3 mile long runway. A catapult launch is likewise no picnic, accelerating a 20 ton aircraft from 0 to 130+knots in 200ft and 2 seconds would rip a normal land based plane to pieces. Typhoon is a great plane, but by naval standard it's made of tissue paper. The Harrier family got round these problems by learning to stop, then land, and to take off by going over a hump backed bridge (and not coming down the other side).

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

FuManChu

Rafale was really another threat that John Reid discussed with the French to put pressure on the Americans. Gripen was another "possibility", but that was even less likely than Rafale.

At the end of the day, the bluff worked and we got the deal over JSF. The RN always wanted F-35s for the Queen Elizabeth class, so unless the project somehow crash and burns that is what they will order.

adeptitus is right in that Harrier will always remain a source of pride for the UK. As to why we didn't want to simply be the US' customer, there's been growing concern (whether founded or not) that we're too dependent on the US as it is in regards to arms. It was a good idea to get the tech agreement I think.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

DennisDaMenace

Well if the Brits decide on the Rafale, they will have to get new carriers because their carriers dont have arresting cables. I know it may seem that the Yanks are a bit shy about selling the F35 to other countries in its true form, but its only because its more advanced then the F22, it doesnt even have a HUD. Its built into your Helmet. The advancements in the F35 will then be added to the later blocks of the F-22 Its like big brother and little brother. Big brither stronger but little brother smarter. The same companies have collaberated in the design of both fighters.

If you ever heard of a Craig (sp) super computer, there's the equal of 3 in the F22 and F35, with the room for add ons. There are countries in the world buying time to be able to access these computers in American Universities, and theres the equall of 3 on one aircraft.
If you want the best. You got to give up bucks.

Obi Wan Russell

I assume you are referring to the Invincible class not having Arresting gear? Well they are too small to operate CTOL aircraft anyway. Reconstructing them as part of a SLEP (service life extension program) was considered and part of the proposals included cutting the ships in two in order to insert a new hull section to make them longer, thus increasing hangar capacity, but was rejected due to the high cost and limited results that would be achieved (only four more aircraft could be carried) and the fact that it would delay replacing the ships until they were sixty years old. The CVF project was always going to be the more cost effective and flexible option, and they are going to be fitted for but not with catapults and arresting gear so that retro fitting them at a later date (or even before completion) will not be difficult or expensive.
I believe that when the Invincibles leave service with the RN, other navies will buy them as they will still be very modern command and control ships and second hand will be a lot cheaper than buying a new carrier. India tops the list of potential customers, but it will be interesting to see who else joins the queue. Chile for example has a long history of buying ex RN ships, has a large area of the South Pacific to patrol and a long history of rivalry with the other major South American navies. Perhaps Pakistan might decide to upgrade it's navy to one that can actually stand against India's (without a carrier it can never win a sea war). The Invincibles are too good to waste, but then so is the Sea Harrier.

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

Obi Wan Russell

Just a little note before anyone points this out, most western land based combat aircraft built in the last forty years actually already have arresting hooks for use with runway RHAG systems (Rotary Hydraulic Arresting Gear). In the fifties when early jets were in service most of them were fitted with braking parachutes as they would otherwise need VERY long runways to slow down after landing. Naval aircraft used Arrestor gear fitted to their runways for dummy deck practice as the aircaft already had hooks and fitting a parachute was superfluous. In the sixties, the USAF along with several foreign airfoces began to adopt Naval aircraft as their standard combat equipment (eg F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair, A-1 Skyraider, A-3 Skywarrior which became the B-66 Destroyer, in Britain it was the F-4 and the Blackburn Buccaneer S2) due to their superiority over contemporary land based aircraft and it made sense to adopt arrestor gear for runways as well since all these types were designed to use it anyway. when the next generation of land based combat aircraft came along in the seventies (F-15 Eagle, F-16, Tornado MRCA etc) all their prospective airbases were already fitted with RHAG so adding hooks to the airframes was a logical step. Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale (land based variants) all have, to the best of my knowledge, arrestor hooks fitted for use with land based RHAG, but none of them are designed to withstand the shock of a deck landing.

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

Obi Wan Russell

Oh by the way, this is what a supersonic Harrier would have looked like...

Sadly it wasn't to be.

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

ahho

hmm i like the shape and the intake of the original harrier than the prototype of supersonic harrier. Just a question, how old is the harriers engine design???

Obi Wan Russell

The Bristol (later Rolls Royce) Pegasus engine started development as long ago as 1957 and made its' first appearance in the Hawker P1127 technology demonstrator in 1960. Since then it has been uprated and improved so much that whilst it still has the same configuration, the performance has changed immensely. The first pegasus engine was rated at 11,300lbs thrust, whereas modern examples as fitted to AV-8Bs produce twice as much power, and the engine intended for the P1154 supersonic Harrier was rated at 33,000lbs thrust with Plenum Chamber Burning (hot exhaust from the front nozzles as well as the rear).

The project fell apart because they were really trying to design two completely different Aircraft, the P1154RN was a two seat high altitude supersonic interceptor while the P1154RAF was a single seat low altitude strike aircraft with terrain following radar. First the Navy pulled out in 1964 and ordered the F-4K Phantom instead, then the project was cancelled by the Labour Government who were out to destroy the British Aviation Industry. The RAF was given the consolation prize of a 'developed' P1127RAF, which inherited the name allocated to the P1154, Harrier.

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

DennisDaMenace

Obi Wan
Yea, I remember that. The RF4-C had a hook. I never botherd to think about it. Or why durring emergency landings it was always throottle to idle, hook down and shoot deployed. I was always thinking, what the heck is the hook going to do except knotch some concrete. I always thought of it catching between two slabs of concrete and comming to the most abrubt halt. LOL