Author Topic: Harrier and Sea Harrier  (Read 47304 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Radish

  • His (or Her) Majesty, Queen Caroline of the Midlands, Resident Drag Queen
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 11840
Harrier and Sea Harrier
« on: March 12, 2003, 10:55:41 am »
The radar fit of the Sea Harrier 2 is brill, esp when combined with the new missiles, AMRAAM???
Hence, for fleet defence, the Sea Harriers are probably good enough, being easily able to outmaneover any opposition, plus knock it down. We'd just need MORE of them instead of the silly numbers HMG buys. Great for peacetime flybies, but the RAF/RN, etc., are never funded for wartime/effective use, just really to look pretty and provide photo opportunities for the establishment. The key factor is funding.
Phantoms, in the F-4J version would still be effective further out.
Super Etendard?   CRAP!!!!!!!!!
If you want an attack plane, go for A-4M or A-7E, depending on the size of the carrier.
If you want a really heavy weight item, go for an updated Buccaneer!!! Of course, the Brick would be just the job to sock it to the Argie fleet, or even soften up the mainland!
 :pl
Once you've visited the land of the Loonies, a return is never far away.....

Still His (or Her) Majesty, Queen Caroline of the Midlands, Resident Drag Queen

Cheshirecat

  • Guest
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2003, 08:10:32 am »
Hi again,

I was thinking that after the victory in the Falklands; the Royal Navy realizes that though the Sea Harrier was a great aircraft it was not up to the task of Fleet defense, and against better trained pilots would be greatly out classed.   They begin an upgrade program for the Harrier but decide that what is really needed is a trade for thier F-4s back.  They trade the Sea Harriers to the RAF.  The RAF pairs the Sea Harriers (now painted in two tone green/grey camoflage) with the Gr.3s.  They are used for attack but more importantly to escort the Gr.3.  One of the upgrades allows them to carry LGB and shrike ARMs.  

Cheers,

Liam

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Don't need no stinking instructions
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 3380
  • What-If's "Uncle Jeffry"
    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffryfontaine
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2003, 03:36:41 pm »
One thing to consider is the logistics of trying to maintain a front line combat effective ship such as an aircraft carrier.  The Essex class were good in their time, but by the time the RN gave up on fixed wing naval aircraft, these carriers were long gone from service.

I would rather see a pair of Forrestal or Kitty Hawk class CVs donated to the RN to allow them to return with dignity to the high seas and the realm of fixed wing conventional take off- arrested landing type aircraft.  

Considering these later class of CV were much younger, had less wear and tear on them, it would have been a very practical move by the RN to take over a pair of these carriers and convert them to their needs and mission requirements.  

I could imagine the name of one being the "HMS Nelson" or something along those lines.  The sheer size of the Forrestal/Kitty Hawk class would allow for a considerable number of aircraft to flesh out the air wing and still have plenty of room left over for other and missions. 

Another advantage of the Forrestal and Kittyhawk class is that there is enough room on board for a sizeable number of Royal Marines which would provide a credible landing force when required. 
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 09:38:50 pm by jeffryfontaine »
Unaffiliated Independent Subversive
----------------------------------
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline lancer

  • Has never been to Hull
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10449
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2003, 08:37:51 am »
Interesting thought Liam, but I think I see a couple of flaws.
Firstly, to get the F4's back the navy would need new carriers of at least the size of the old Ark Royal, and I couldn't see HMG stumping up the cash for them. Secondly, the F4 was pretty outdated by the time the Falklands was on, so the navy would have to go for either F14's and they were bloody expensive or look at other options - Super Entandards??.
Besides, the tactics developed by the Sea Harrier pilots 'VIFING' for instance would have helped a great deal in a dogfight situation
If you love, love without reservation; If you fight, fight without fear - THAT is the way of the warrior

If you go into battle knowing you will die, then you will live. If you go into battle hoping to live, then you will die

F-32

  • Guest
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2003, 02:29:58 am »
I agree that the Essex class is the wrong carrier, sorry I was getting my classes mixed up there.

The trouble with getting a bigger carrier is that we would have to man it, this would be a problem as Ark Royal in the Gulf is currently under crewed, we just don't have the man power anymore.

Still, as this is a 'what if' I'm sure that we could find it from somewhere and re-introduce daily rum rations at the same time!

Offline lancer

  • Has never been to Hull
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10449
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2003, 07:44:27 am »
If we had got the Forrestal / Kitty Hawk class, there would be a definate need for some new build bricks with upgraded avionics.
Apart from Buccs, what else would be in the air wing??
If you love, love without reservation; If you fight, fight without fear - THAT is the way of the warrior

If you go into battle knowing you will die, then you will live. If you go into battle hoping to live, then you will die

Geoff_B

  • Guest
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2003, 08:49:41 am »
Hi

Interesting idea using Sea Harriers as Harrier escorts, but wouldn't they had gone Air Defence Grey as they are fighters.
It you applied the original FRS2 conversion it would have had wingtip sidwinder rails, so you could fit shrike or possibly an early alarm on the outer pylons.

If you like Harriers, how about the Hawker 1154, the harrier we should have had

[a href=\"http://www.hannants.co.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?Mode=view&Database=cat&R=MKPX036\" target=\"_blank\"]RN 1154[/a]

[a href=\"http://www.hannants.co.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?Mode=view&Database=cat&R=MKPX038\" target=\"_blank\"]1154 RAF[/a]

Cheers

Offline Radish

  • His (or Her) Majesty, Queen Caroline of the Midlands, Resident Drag Queen
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 11840
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2003, 10:55:13 am »
The radar fit of the Sea Harrier 2 is brill, esp when combined with the new missiles, AMRAAM???
Hence, for fleet defence, the Sea Harriers are probably good enough, being easily able to outmaneover any opposition, plus knock it down. We'd just need MORE of them instead of the silly numbers HMG buys. Great for peacetime flybies, but the RAF/RN, etc., are never funded for wartime/effective use, just really to look pretty and provide photo opportunities for the establishment. The key factor is funding.
Phantoms, in the F-4J version would still be effective further out.
Super Etendard?   CRAP!!!!!!!!!
If you want an attack plane, go for A-4M or A-7E, depending on the size of the carrier.
If you want a really heavy weight item, go for an updated Buccaneer!!! Of course, the Brick would be just the job to sock it to the Argie fleet, or even soften up the mainland!
 :pl
Once you've visited the land of the Loonies, a return is never far away.....

Still His (or Her) Majesty, Queen Caroline of the Midlands, Resident Drag Queen

F-32

  • Guest
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2003, 09:01:04 am »
The Phantom wasn't as outdated by the time the Falklands finished as you might think.  

The RAF kept theirs until the early 90's and it was only the end of the cold war that meant they had to go in favour of the Tornado F3, there were plans to update them.

Maybe the US could have been pursuaded to sell us one of their Essex class carriers.  We could have updated it, put some go fast stripes on it and named her HMS Essex.

I know that the US Navy didn't traditionally fly F4's from these carriers but then again they didn't fly the Corsair from carriers until the Fleet Air Arm showed them how to do it.

Thats not a put down by the way.

Geoff_B

  • Guest
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2003, 09:17:30 am »
Hi F32

Quote
Maybe the US could have been pursuaded to sell us one of their Essex class carriers.  We could have updated it, put some go fast stripes on it and named her HMS Essex.

I know that the US Navy didn't traditionally fly F4's from these carriers but then again they didn't fly the Corsair from carriers until the Fleet Air Arm showed them how to do it.

The US Essex class were already mothballed by this time, with only Lexington in any from of active service. We would have needed a Forrestal class as a minimum as the Midways were as old and used as the old Ark Royal. If the US could have got one working i am sure they would have sold one earlier to the likes of Australia or Brazil to replace thier small British light fleet carriers.

McDonnell did propose in 1968 an F4 (HL) variant using the RR engines, a revised wing shape/size and lengthened fuselage. All designed to allow the F4 to operate from smaller carriers such as Eagle, without major carrier rebuilds. This would have also allowed for the French F8 to be replaced and operations from the Essex class carriers perhaps extending thier active service lives.

Cheers

GeoffB

Offline Mike Wren

  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 1760
    • http://www.wicked-obvious.co.uk
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2003, 02:58:27 pm »
I pretty much had the same idea: FAA decided to invest in a Harrier II-based FRS.1 replacement so got an AV-8B (with Blue Vixen radar and multi-barrelled 25mm Avenger cannon instead of non-working 25mm Adens), which was called Sea Harrier FA.3 (the 'actual' FA.2 got cancelled).

I've got a Hasegawa AV-8B Plus on the pile which will be slightly modified; loosing the FLIR over the nose and getting a slightly more rounded nose cone, along with the extra Sidewinder rails. It'll probably get done alongside my FAA Hornet FA.1 (F/A-18D) flying from a conventional carrier when I get round to it...

Geoff_B

  • Guest
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2003, 12:22:23 pm »
Hi

Just recieved the Model Alliance Sea Harriers FA2 set and a Hasegawa Haarrier II AV-8B+ (The Sea Harrier FRS-1 i ordered never appeared !!!!, nor is on the invoice as to follow ?) from Hannants. The Model Alliance set is nice as it has decals and the resin conversion parts to make a FA2, but it is a bit expensive, it also designed for the ESCI kit so i will now have to await Italeri's re-release later this year.

I also ordered the AV-8B+ kit as Model Alliance's nose conversion for the Airfix kit with 100% LERX was the same price as the Hasegawa kit!!!.

However i intend to build the AV-8B+ as a Sea Harrier II FA17 (the RAF versions go upto 12 now, 13 would never be used for an aircraft and the 14,15,16 are associated with other US combat aircraft).
She will have the blue vixen radar fitted to the GR-9 aircraft and be armed with a mix of AMRAAM and ASRAAM.
Any idea what other mods i should consider ? perhaps the US Guns as the UK never got our to work ?

Cheers

Thorvic

Geoff_B

  • Guest
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2003, 03:25:45 pm »
Hi Mike

Sounds good, just thought what if we modified the FLIR above the radar to an optical tracker as per the Su 27 Flankers.
I've already done a GR7 in 893 Sqd markings, so the FA 3 will be in one of the 800-809 sqdns. The extra sidewinder rail will come from a spare Italeri kit, I wonder how much load these could carry as i am thinking of 4 AMRAMM and 2 - 4 ASRAAM

I've also got Airfix's T10 which i may graft on a Blue Vixen nose, or possibly do as a Tanker or Wild Weasel variant

Cheers

T

Offline Captain Canada

  • "but this time it's different. I was drunk when I agreed to it."
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28556
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2003, 05:57:49 am »
I thought that they had been using the cannon all along ? Maybe I was just dreaming....I has also thought that the big strakes were just on Yankee birds ?

Maybe I ought to start paying attention in class again, eh ?!

Cheers
CANADA KICKS arse !!!!

Long Live the Commonwealth !!!
Vive les Canadiens !
Where's my beer ?

Offline Mike Wren

  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 1760
    • http://www.wicked-obvious.co.uk
Re: Harrier and Sea Harrier
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2003, 10:20:54 am »
RAF GR.5/7s were originally supposed to carry a new 25mm cannon, although development problems meant it was seriously delayed, I doubt it will probably ever be used.

You can tell if they are being carried (as opposed to empty pods) because the barrel of the cannon protrudes out of the front of the pod (like the Hawk gun pod). British aircraft usually carry emtpy pods instead of strakes although a/c carrying TIALD pods carry them on the port strake position...

HTH