WT Forums

Imagine how fearless they would have been with no air opposition at all! The Brits might not have even challenged the invasion ( such as it was ) without the Harrier if it would have meant loosing nearly every asset they sent down there as soon as it got within Exocete range.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

you know the one thing that comes to mind about the falklands is that the British had training a daring on their side. On paper I dont think you can make a coherent arguement for them to have one that war. Argentina did everything they could to keep their home country waters out of the war, further decreasing the battle area to be covered by a highly over extended Royal Navy.

I also am forced to wonder why the Argentine airforce became so timid, did seems like they had very little fight in them. MUDD or somebody else might know did Argentine tatctics allow for flexibility allowing the pilots to fly thier profile or were they given a written script like the warsaw pact pilots allowing for very little deviation--making it hard for the pilots to take initiative when opportunities presented themselves.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I also am forced to wonder why the Argentine airforce became so timid, did seems like they had very little fight in them.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You must be thinking of their Navy and Army, the Air Force was not timid. They pressed the attack on ships, ignoring lethal air to air threats, taking heavy losses, but getting good hits.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????

Good thing the Brits had the Harrier eh? I love winning arguments <img src=newicons/anim_bow.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_bannana.gif border=0 align=middle>

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The Brits got damn lucky and dodged a major bullet.

I also should bring up the fact that they lost a destroyer to an Exocet. The Agrentine's placed a bunch of dumb ordance on the hulls of Britsh warships only to have it bounce off the side because the fuses were not set properly, even the Excocet that hit the Sheffield amidships did not explode, but rather punched a hole and set fire to the aluminum superstructure. The Argies were damn ballsy on the deck with their A-4's and Super Entendards. The Harrier did not provide the level of fleet air defense that the US Navy considers acceptable. The Brits had their noses bloodied in a big way, and had some of the weapons worked as they should have, things may have been worse...Luck was on ther side.

The U.S. Navy studied this conflict very closely, and their final analysis was they made the correct decesion to be committed to fixed winged conventional air power, and its ability to provide fleet air defense in the outer air realm.

Read "Command of the Seas" by the honorable John F. Lehman. He dedicates a complete chapter to the Falklands Conflict and how the results helped shape the 600 ship Navy he pushed for.



Edited by - chadrewsky on Feb 28 2006 08:36 AM

The gentleman that taught me Aircraft Battle Damage Repair (ABDR) learned it from the Brits as a result of the Falklands. Interesting repairs made during that conflict.

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.

So without the Harrier would the conflict have gone better or worse for the Brits? lol

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I'm sorry "senator".....I'm not qualified to make that assumption. LOL

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.

no doubt when you your only option is the harrier that is better than nothing. However, at the same time one must ask how much damage could have been prevented with a REAL fighter squadron in the area. You know some thing with legs, payload, and true fighter radar.

The Harrier was all the Brits had, so it was probably better than nothing. I will admit, the Brits managed to hold their own in the air despite the Harrier's limitations, all things considered. But...

The Brits would have probably come away fairly unscathed had they had a convential CV operating F-4K Phantom II's or what ever variant the Royal Navy operated last. Remember durring this time the F-14 had not quite grown out of its teething problems, the carnage the Brits suffered at the hands of both stand off anti shipping missiles, and near lethal encounters with dumb ordanance slinging A-4's more than justified staying the course with the USN's fleet air defense concept with the F-14 as its focal point, and further developing the AEGIS weapons system and steel built ships. How would the Royal Navy had done in a similliar conflict had the foe been equiped with Soviet airborne anti shipping weaponry? Who really knows, but I bet they didn't wish to find out.

If this seems a slam on the Harrier, it isnt...I just happen to be a proponent of convential aircraft carriers, operating convential fixed wing aircraft. Even if those aircraft are F-18E/F's...

I have a question?

What Flavor of barbeque sauce do you prefer with your Yak steaks?

HB's from britain is one of my favorites.

..Discuss

It was a woman who drove me to drink, and I never had the courtesy to thank her for it.
The cost of living has gone up another dollar a quart.Somebody left the cork out of my lunch.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So without the Harrier would the conflict have gone better or worse for the Brits? lol
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I would bet that most Royan Navy Admirals told the Prime Minister they would have preferred the air wing they had on the Herpes, er...Hermes, sorry, ten years earlier to the jump jet substitution. Just the F-4 alone would have given them a much better chance of seeing the enemy coming, intercepting them and killing them. Add on the airborne early warning plane they had and they would have had no sinkings to explain (Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do). What did they have, 6 sinkings, the Sheffield, the Atlantic conveyor, Sir Galahad, Ardent, Antelope, Coventry. Also, the Broadsword, Argonaut and Brilliant were badly damaged. There would have been much more but for those UXBs. It was not a brilliant showing for Royal Navy strategy and equipment, but the scoreboard shows a "W". <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????

I kinda look like at the Falklands like a preseason football game winning it but loosing your star RB, QB, and HB due to an undersized offensive line. Thank God the real season never came around with the Russian navy.

I'm a proponant of conventional CVs too, but you gotta go with what you have. The Harrier and eventually the F-35B is all the Brits, Italians and Spaniards will have for a very long time unless they find an awful lot of $$$ laying around that thier Pols dont want to spend on social programs.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

It is no accident that the country's you mentioned are American allies...I doubt very seriously that they would sortie expeditionary without the support of a NATO/ USN CV.

I dunno...I think VTOL is a fascinating concept, but like I said earlier I really do not believe that those types of strike fighters can operate independently in most circumstances. Just my humble opinion of course. I do agree that the Royal Navy Sea Harriers and Royal Air Force Harriers performed miracles durring the Falklands Conflict, I just wouldn't like to hedge my bets on those probablitys in the future if I were Lord of the Admiralty.




Edited by - chadrewsky on Feb 28 2006 5:57 PM

oh you mean they need our carriers to carry out their foreign policy. Can we bill them. lol

I agree with mudd, chad, and stress.

Forward basing is for helicopters, not jets.

BOOMS: " Good thing the Brits had the Harrier eh? I love winning arguments "

I'd say it was bad luck for them that the gov't didn't stick with CTOL carriers to begin with. Even obsolete Sparrow armed F-4Js would've given far better fleet air defense coverage then they got from the Harriers.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

yup, but Harriers is what they got and F-4s is what they dont.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It is no accident that the country's you mentioned are American allies...I doubt very seriously that they would sortie expeditionary without the support of a NATO/ USN CV.

Edited by - chadrewsky on Feb 28 2006 5:57 PM
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Soviet allies dont have any blue water air at all, they have to stay home if they dont want to loose naval inventory lol

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Jeeze talk about the thread that just won't die...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Soviet allies dont have any blue water air at all, they have to stay home if they dont want to loose naval inventory lol <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I beg to differ on that one. Iran for instance operates the SU-24 Fencer, which even without standoff weapons can reach out and touch just about any ship in the Persian Gulf. But, I am not sure how Harriers could operate in a "Foward From the Sea" Blue Water doctrin anyhow, so its really redundant, because many land based Russian designed strike aircraft, and even French for that matter have the legs to buzz the masthead of a "littoral deployed" STOL carrier.

Any blue water capability went away when the A-6E & F-14 were retired from service. The absence of the KA-6 tanker is what really hurt.



Edited by - chadrewsky on Mar 01 2006 07:59 AM

Naturally I was refering to counter air capability since that is what this entire thread has been about. Russians have lots of long range bombers to strike naval assets with.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Ok, then I still am not understanding your comment...

Sea Harriers have limitations as a maritime air superiority fighter regardless of the doctrin. Even durring the cold war the Soviets lacked a true "blue water" shipborne fixed wing strike fighter. But...we were still concerned enough with their land based strike aircraft, standoff missiles, and mantaining the ability to provide maritime air superiority for air strikes, amphibious assualts etc, that the USN developed a successor to the F-4 Phantom II, that clearly is still superior to the Harrier in that respect.

When was the last time the US Navy suffered losses on the scale that the Royal Navy endured durring the Falklands?

If I read your supplements correctly, you were maintaining that the Sea Harrier was a capable fleet defender. I believe that not only is it not capable in that mission profile, but a tremendous liability, regardless of the foe. The Royal Navy's money is better spent getting out of the carrier buisness completley, and letting the USN, or even the French Aero Navale provide its maritime air superiority needs. Today's Chinese or Iranian airborne anti shipping systems would be far less forgiving that the bloodletting they endured in the South Atlantic.

I feel like this thread is going in circles, so I am done posting, I think my point is pretty clear if not long-winded.

My point has always been the Harrier is better than nothing, why that isnt clear to anyone reading this is beyond me. A wet towel is better in a fight than nothing at all.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Well, this thread is a long one with lots of great points made and countered.

I agree, a harrier is better than nothing in a fleet war. One could also say that a knife is better than nothing when going up against a tank. Just a matter of degrees really.

As cool as the STOVL's and VTOL's are, I've yet to see one that can, like a helicopter, takeoff and land anywhere. The big problem is FOD. If you are operating a jet, you have to be concerned about the intake. Even the A-10 with it's high by-pass engines, mounted way up in the air, and the intakes overlapping the wings, can be FODed out. Just the nature of the beast. Operating from a ship makes it easy, but the Marines don't want to be tied to the boat. They want to get out and play in the mud. So for them, I don't think the Yak nor the F-35 will be the ultimate answer. We need a design with the intakes up high, sheiled from the ground, and with FOD screens that can be used at max thrust. Do this, and you have a viable bird. Without this, you need to loose the jet engine and go with something along the lines of helo's or the V-22.

Don't really want to start up a flame war, but what are your opinions on the FOD issue?

Just my 2 centabos.

"Slow is Fast - Fast is Slow"

_________________
Slow is Fast, Fast is Slow
Violence may not be the best option, but it IS an option

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Don't really want to start up a flame war, but what are your opinions on the FOD issue?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Invest R&D money in developing a mach 1+ attack helicopter...wait wasn't that Airwolf?