drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) (04/10/91)
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb)
Urban Fredriksson (urbanf@yj.data.nokia.fi)
wrote recently about the Swedish FSR-890 phased-array radar for
AEW. This system has been in development for a few years and was
the cover story of an IDR issue (1) a few years ago under the name
Ericsson PS-890.
One thought I had at the time related to the lack of organic AEW
in the British fleet. This was an outgrowth of the doctrinal decision
made in the mid seventies which reduced British carrier operations
to near-home ASW roles, and produced a fleet of carrierlets which
could not support fixed-wing operations required for AEW aircraft such
as the E-2C Hawkeye. This deficiency was sorely evident in the South
Atlantic War several years later.
If the Brits were able to mount the PS-890 on a VTOL aircraft such
as the V-22 Osprey and operate them from the "ski-jump" carriers
could they not reclaim much of the blue ocean capability lost in
the seventies?
Reference:
(1) Sweetman, Bill, "Leading-edge technology for Swedish AEW", in
_International Defense Review_, v21 #3, 1988, pp 277-278.
Donald Newcomb * You can measure a programmer's perspective
drn@pinet.aip.org * by noting his attitude on the continuing
drn@aip.bitnet * validity of FORTRAN.
* Alan J. Perlis (Epigrams on Programming)henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/14/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) >If the Brits were able to mount the PS-890 on a VTOL aircraft such >as the V-22 Osprey and operate them from the "ski-jump" carriers >could they not reclaim much of the blue ocean capability lost in >the seventies? They've already got a certain amount of it back using helicopter-mounted radar systems, which were *almost* ready for combat in the late phases of the Falklands War, after a hasty development project. There was a lot of talk then about more sophisticated systems on STOL aircraft (you don't really need VTOL for operations off Invincible-class carriers; these are hefty carriers by WW2 standards, small only compared to the USN's monsters), but I don't believe anything has come of it. Although the helicopter-mounted radars are smaller, and have shorter airborne endurance and lower altitude capability than aircraft ones, they do have one or two advantages of their own. Particularly notable is that they can operate off other helicopter-capable ships, leaving the carriers free for fighters. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if something like the V-22 is a tad big for elevators on the Invincible class, and it certainly would be an inconveniently bulky craft to maneuver in the hangar. (This is particularly significant because the RN doesn't share the USN's willingness to park aircraft on deck more or less permanently: perhaps as a result of more historical experience in foul-weather operations, the RN prefers to stow inactive aircraft below.) -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
stevew@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Wilson x2580 dept303) (04/17/91)
From: wyse!stevew@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Wilson x2580 dept303) drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) writes: >If the Brits were able to mount the PS-890 on a VTOL aircraft such >as the V-22 Osprey and operate them from the "ski-jump" carriers >could they not reclaim much of the blue ocean capability lost in >the seventies? I don't think so...certainly not in the same sense as what a U.S. Supercarrier is capable. For instance, can these carriers deploy any aircraft capable of refueling other aircraft? Though the Harrier is truly a remarkable aircraft, is it capable of air defense of a carrier task force at 200 miles out? (Mid air refueling would come in handy here ;-) Do the Harriers have the capability of doing bombing runs in all-weather conditions? In the U.S. configurations these missions have different aircraft types typically assigned to fill that nitch(also implying that the nitch will be better filled by a specialist aircraft...) This to me is the big difference between a U.S. carrier operation and the British carriers. Also, just being bigger, the U.S. carriers can carry more aircraft. Consequently, the combat power of a U.S. Carrier is significantly larger. Steve Wilson
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/19/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: wyse!stevew@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Wilson x2580 dept303) >... Do the Harriers have the capability of doing bombing runs in >all-weather conditions? Depends on precisely what you mean, but the general answer is "yes". The Sea Harrier, in particular, is radar-equipped. One noteworthy aspect of this is that Harriers can land on carriers in conditions that would close down conventional flying, because Harriers normally land in VTOL mode. The landing is at the deck center, where deck motion is least, rather than at one extreme end where it's worst. Also, the pilot can take his time during landing and consequently can work in poorer visibility. During the Falklands War, Harriers operated off Hermes and Invincible in seas described as "mountainous" and visibility of roughly one ship length. (This was the open Atlantic in winter, remember.) "It's much easier to stop and then land than to land and then try to stop." >In the U.S. configurations these missions >have different aircraft types typically assigned... Increasingly less so, with the F-18 being touted as the answer to everything. The days of specialist aircraft are rapidly drawing to a close in both the USAF and the USN. (Not everyone thinks this is a good idea, mind you.) >... Also, just being bigger, >the U.S. carriers can carry more aircraft. Consequently, the combat >power of a U.S. Carrier is significantly larger. A standard USN argument, but a very dubious one. The question is not the combat power of one carrier, but the combat power of a carrier task force. A Nimitz is about four times the displacement of an Invincible and carries about four times as many aircraft under similar operating rules, but costs much more than four times as much. It also has the liability of being a single large target instead of several small ones; its greater durability doesn't entirely make up for this. Supercarriers have to be justified based on the ability to operate better aircraft, not just more of them. (Note, by the way, that "US carriers" is poor terminology. About half the US's aircraft carriers are roughly Invincible class!) (If you can't figure out which ones I'm referring to, a hint: for political reasons they are not called "aircraft carriers".) -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (04/19/91)
From: scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) replies to someone who said: >>>In the U.S. configurations these missions >>>have different aircraft types typically assigned... >> Increasingly less so, with the F-18 being touted as the answer to >> everything. The days of specialist aircraft are rapidly drawing to a >> close in both the USAF and the USN. (Not everyone thinks this is a good >> idea, mind you.) That's the way it's _supposed_ to be, but it's not true in reality. Most people have conceeded that the F-18 merely fulfills the light attack bomber (A-7) role because of it's tepid performance. Although the Hornet is much more capable as a fighter than the A-7, it's not as capable as the Tomcat for long-range intercept. And though the F-18 has much more sophisticated ground attack capability than the A-7, in general, it's not as good as the A-6 (short range, small payload, one crewman). Carrier groups of the future, with their attack bombers replaced by F-18's, won't be nearly as effective as they are now! The Navy realizes this and is scrambling to do something to replace it's venerable Intruders with something worthy of the honor (the Advanced Intruder A-6F program was cancelled because of the A-12). One idea is the "stretch" Hornet, but from what John Lehman (former Secretary of Navy) says, this has a dubious chance of making it. He thinks the Navy is going to "reconstitute" the Avenger program, calling it the "A-X". They will apply modern technologies which were too late for the current A-12 design. This new Avenger would hopefully have a much better chance of fulfilling it's original performance requirements (long range, fast, and stealthy with a large payload). Another idea is the strike version of the F-14D Super Tomcat. I don't know how this idea is appealing to the Navy. I suppose the ATF program will have a significant impact on Grumman's chances here. I was really disappointed when I heard the A-6F was cancelled. It's amazing the Navy would get distracted on so many other peripheral issues when the very focus of the carrier battle group is it's attack bombers! How could they get themselves caught with 30 year old airplanes and no currently active program to back them up or replace them? [I think attack bombers are just an excuse to have aircraft carriers, and don't really interest the Navy as much as the sexy carrier defense fighters. A carrier task force is a multi-billion dollar way of getting the 34 or so bombers near a target. --CDR] -- Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu
bsh031@cck.cov.ac.uk (Chris Male) (04/22/91)
From: bsh031@cck.cov.ac.uk (Chris Male) >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: wyse!stevew@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Wilson x2580 dept303) >>... Do the Harriers have the capability of doing bombing runs in >>all-weather conditions? >Depends on precisely what you mean, but the general answer is "yes". The >Sea Harrier, in particular, is radar-equipped. Surely the Harriers main bomb is the PAVEWAY laser guided bomb. In bad weather conditions (especially mist or fog) the laser which guides the PAVEWAY to its target is seriously impaired, therefore the Harrier is reduced to using conventional free-fall bombs. Therefore, the Harrier losses some of its capability but is still able to operate. -- Chris Male bsh031%cck.cov.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk