From: griffith@acuson.com (Paul Griffiths)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Harrier ranting cont.
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:00:30 GMT
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California


From Paul Griffiths <griffith@acuson.com>

wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:


>From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

>In article <C143p2.382@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
>Paul Griffiths <griffith@acuson.com> writes: 

>[some rather emphatic comments on the RAF leadership deleted]
>> A better example of this was found in the not so long ago war in 
>> the Falklands.  The task force actually ended up being defended by
>> 25 Sea Harriers based on both the Invincible and the Hermes. The
>> RAF came nowhere near bringing a CAP force forward.  Indeed the
>> only time the lightblue crabs showed up was in a Vulcan (there
>> were three vulcan flights, each flight had to be refueled 10
>> times to make the long flight) and the only hit they got out
>> of the 30 or so bombs they dropped was a small corner of Port
>> Stanley airfield. 
>The RAF also provided several Harriers for ground attack.  I know its small but
>give them some credit.  Also, the Vulcan raids apparently kept the Argentinians
>from deploying supersonic fighters to the Falklands.  If the Harriers had had
>to deal with supersonic Mirage IIIs with enough fuel for real supersonic
>sprints their effectivenesss woud have been much worse.  

That is true, by the end of the 'air' conflict the RAF had five
GR.3`s onboard the Hermes. So, some credit is due. 
As for the Vulcan raids, they did little or nothing 
to deter the Argentines from using Port Stanley Airfield.  The official
RAF line was "the Mirage III`s were withdrawn from Southern Argentina
to Buenos Aires to add to the defences following the Vulcan raids on
the islands." The logic being that if the Vulcan could hit Port Stanley,
then Buenos Aires was well within range and vunerable to the similar attacks.

The four Vulcan raids are nothing to brag about, and certainly couldn't
be thought of as a detering the Argentines.  The first mission produced
a bomb hit that clipped the edge of the runway.  The second mission 
also missed, and to add insult to injury, after the long 3500 mile trip,
it appears 'someone' forgot to arm the bombs, so the fact that their
bombs fell west of the target mattered little.  The third mission too,
failed. A fourth mission from the Acension was scrubbed after the Vulcan
reported cabin pressurisation failure when approaching high level, after
all the aircraft involved in the mission (one vulcan, thirteen tankers)
dumped fuel to land-on weights, it was found that the 'failure' had
been cuased by one of the cockpit windows being left open.  
Rough (and conservative) figures would indicate that the cost of 
getting the one bomb on the edge of the runway was about 400,000
lbs of fuel.  This fuel would equate to about 785 bombing sorties
from the carrier group, and allow for the delivery of 2357 bombs
on Port Stanley.  Most of the bombs that hit Port Stanley airfield
and there were a few, were dropped by 801 squadron, as they made
it SOP to lob off a bomb or two, each time they started their
CAP's.  

The truth of the matter was that the Mirage III`s and other aircraft
had been outclassed by the the Sea Harrier on day one of air combat
and as a result, all Argentine pilots were instructed to keep out of
the way when the SHAR was around.  (This was confirmed in Argentina
following the war).  One Argentine pilot confirmed after the war
he was turned back four times before he eventually got through to
his target.  Also most of the Mirage III`s had lost most of their
Centre-line fuel tanks on the first day of combat and couldn't
sustain CAP over the Falklands for any length of time.  
 



>[stuff deleted for space]

>Of course the RAF does operate a LARGE force of Harrier GR.3,5, and 7 forattack
>and close air support.  They like it, but not as a fighter.
>Where exactly do these Harriers land in the North Sea?ok  Interception missions
>demand long unrefueled range.  Stoping for pit stops really cuts into
>effectiveness.  You mention the Falklands.  Harriers did do very well there. 
>Harriers also had severe time on station problems largely related to their
>small size, which is in turn related to VSTOL.  Harrier also suffers from a
>lack of internal volume for the upgraded electronics you want.  The new Harrier
>II Plus and Harrier FRS.2 which have a useful radar capability also have some
>fnacy work just to fit the radar; the main systems are well away from the
>antenna and require special wiring (fiber-optics, I think) and these radars
>aren't in the same league with serious interceptor radars.  Finally, Harriers
>lack the speed to make timely intercept.  Supersonic speed requires more
>exotic, and expensive, engine technologies like plenum chamber burning.  By
>the time you add enough volume for the powerful radar, more fuel, (and a second
>crewman).  You have a much larger AC than Harrier.  Add enough power to give
>the speed necessary for a real interceptor and this plane is no longer cheap.
>It may be great but few users could afford it.

Ok, this is where I felt compelled to join the argument initially.  The reason
the RAF is in the predicament they are...which is looking for a fighter
that is capable of long range, supersonic flight, is because they
basically snatched up all the RN's Defense vote/monies, by saying they
will defend the fleet at sea.  Had they allowed the Royal Navy to
maintain it's fleet and squadron's of the Sea Harrier`s they wouldn't
be in this position.  From a budgeting sense it's worse, the new
Sea Harrier MKII costs about half that of the Tornadoa and the EFA,
has AMRAMM capability, with a sophisticated radar that can look
down over land and rough sea. (It can also carry the Sea Eagle, a
long range a-s sea-skimmer) 


>Don't get me wrong, I love Harrier but NO aircraft can do everything.  The
>AHrrier is a very good attack aircraft which has been pressed into service as a
>fighter and aquited itself well but it is not a miracle plane.

I probaly came across as saying the Harrier is the end all of flying
machines. I suspect my enthusiasm for this plane might be high, and
I'll add the usual disclaimer, of "I'll admit the harrier has faults!"
But the British Government has blown it by not marketing/using
the Harrier as a Fighter. It's proven itself against many of the so
called 'fast, high tech' fighters time and time again. It shows that
speed and G are not the end all of air combat.
How? Well I have to answer to another post, that questions the Harrier's 
fighting ability... I'll answer it there. ;-)

>> 
>Tom Schoene

-Paul Griffiths
-Acuson Sonography