NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/military/12741

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 3.8 KB | 85 lines

Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
From: Paul Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tornado F3 replacement
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Sci.Military Login)
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:37:43 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 72


From Paul Griffiths <[e-mail]>

Jerry Han <[e-mail]> writes:


>From Jerry Han <[e-mail]>

>In article <[e-mail]> Paul Griffiths
><[e-mail]> writes:
[My ranting about harrier deleted for sanity]
>
>[Note: A whole bunch of stuff on Tornado and Harrier deleted.]

>Hmm.  A little emphatic about it aren't we?  (:-)
;-)

>I have two problems with the Harrier as an RAF interceptor/air superiority
>aircraft.

>1)  The GR.5 has almost NO capability Look Down/Shoot Down at BVR ranges.
>(Even with AMRAAM; the radar isn't up to it.)

The current radar setup in the harrier is lacking, no argument from me
there.  This is AGAIN due to the silly sods in MOD, listening to the
wrong people, and playing the politics of inter-service fights. Time
and Time again the leading proponents of the Harrier have had to fight
to get the MOD to realize the full potential of the CURRENT radar installed
in the harrier, let alone start asking for improvements.  The main reason
for this lack of confidence in the radar lies with the faulty attitude and
manner in which the trials and testing are done.

>2)  How do you catch a supersonic aircraft with a subsonic Harrier?  If a
>bunch of Harriers were scrambled to intercept me, I'd just make a
>supersonic run past them.  Or fire stand-off weapons if they stayed near
>my target.

Hmm... This sounds great on paper, just hit the A/B's  and flog off
into the sunset.  I'm sure this kind of thinking was in the minds of
the F-15 pilots, when they were tasked with 'dogfighting' the harriers.
In an excercise called 'Alloy Express', a flight of F-15's was put up
against a flight of Harriers. The F-15's had both the speed and radar advantage,
yet they lost! Why?!  F-14's from the Navy also lost! Why?! The harriers did
loose a few planes...but the kill ratio was a 4-1 in favour of the  harriers.
If this sounds like bullshit to you, imagine how the top brass in the American
forces felt. Commander 'Sharkey' Ward, who flew in these excercises wrote a full
report on how by using the BlueFox radar and Harrier tactics he was able to
consistently blow the F-15's/14's outta the sky. Needless to say this report
was not met well by the American Brass, and also not suprisingly by the RAF
top brass.

  Now before I get written off as a militant Harrier lover...I'll be the first
to admit it's faults, and problems.  Subsonic performance being right up there
with short range. I still feel though that if the confidence in the plane, that
is shared by 'most' of it's pilots, was even acknowledged by the upper muckity
mucks in the MOD, and a bit of money thrown in for more 'avionics' development,
the RAF, and what's left of the Air Arm of the Navy, could actually have a plane
that would in the very least, make the attacking 'enemy' think twice before
just charging through.


>--
>Jerry Han-CRC-DOC-Dept. of Behavioural Research-"[e-mail]"
>///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>/   The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the opinions /
>/         of the DOC or any branch of the Federal Government.           /

-Paul Griffiths
-Acuson Computed Sonography

I'm not really a raving lunatic, I just act like one.