+SkippyBing 8 Posted June 9, 2008 Does the UK Type 42s had MM-40 launchers? No, but there were a few Exocet fitted Leanders, plus two T22 and possibly the T21s. T42 can use Sea Dart in the anti surface role. Exocet has been phased out of RN service in favour of Harpoon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) "Why were the FA.2s retired so early? " Politics and bolony, my dear boy. The British, bless us, have a history of having designing and making something really good, world beating, in many different fields. Yet those who ought to know better would flitter all this away for nothing. Well, usually it's for monetary reasons. Am I bitter, you bet I am. The FA.2 is a case in point. Excellent radar, well armed for BVR (AMRAAM), superb at dogfighting and capable of shooting down sea-skimming missiles. Just what you need for Fleet defence. The decision to withdraw the FA.2 was taken back in 2002 and they disppeared in 2006. Let's just hope that we don't suffer another "rethink" with the F-35. OK, I give up, what is a FA.2? Edited June 9, 2008 by Jug Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted June 9, 2008 Sea Harrier FA.2, the successor to the FRS.1 used in the Falklands. Full pulse doppler radar and AMRAAM integration plus various other upgrades. Significantly more useful than the Harrier GR.9 for fleet defence on account of having a radar, less good for dropping bombs because it only had 4 under wing hardpoints. Still won the last Joint Force Harrier bombing contest before it was retired... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Hinchinbrooke 36 Posted June 9, 2008 No, but there were a few Exocet fitted Leanders, plus two T22 and possibly the T21s. T42 can use Sea Dart in the anti surface role. Exocet has been phased out of RN service in favour of Harpoon. The two County Class destroyers that served off the Falklands ('Glamorgan' and 'Antrim') also carried Exocet. Ironically, 'Glamorgan' survived a hit from an Argentine Exocet. I would have liked to have had Exocet working on my County model, but discovered that only one working missile was viable and I was determined to use my already-built Seaslug!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted June 10, 2008 (edited) Australia did not have a carrier I am sure the HMAS Melbourne was moth balled w/to much rust. I'll bet not all you know that the RAN was to get some Harriers and a carrier from UK, but that deal was squashed when the Faulklands Conflict started. Australia wanted to purchase Invincable, but was offered Hermes it was the oldest in the fleet and they would have been back in the same hole in the water inwhich to throw more money. The nunber of Harriers I do not know the planes would either be AV-8B or Sea Harriers. That would be a cool fictional skin for somone to take on. Edited June 10, 2008 by MAKO69 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turkeydriver 4 Posted June 10, 2008 OK, I give up, what is a FA.2? Also, IIRC, the FA.2's radar is (at least up to the Typhoon's Captor, and F-22's APG-77) the best radar for the AIM-120 AMRAAM. I read a quote stating that from International Air Power Review. What that means, I do not know, other than it was probablly optimized to maximize all of the AMARAAMs modes of fire and provided the best track for the missile in all environments.-that is if it truly was the best radar for AMRAAM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crl848 9 Posted June 10, 2008 As an aside, anyone watching the Warship programme on the UK's Channel 5 I'd like to say the rest of the Navy isn't that amateurish, and 814 are a bunch of pansies! I taped last night's episode but haven't watched it yet. It is sad that a carrier can clear the Suez Canal without any fixed wing aircraft on board. On the subject of losing fleet air defence with the SHAR, I wonder if we couldn't have leased some cheap AV8s from the US or othe operators until the supposed arrival of the JSF? Amazing that no-one learned the lessons from the Falklands and the lead up to the war: don't trust the RAF to defend the fleet! Anyone interested in the post WWII prime of the fleet air arm should read this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fly-Navy-View-Cock...618&sr=1-14 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted June 10, 2008 Also, IIRC, the FA.2's radar is (at least up to the Typhoon's Captor, The Blue Vixen radar was used to develop the Typhoon's Captor. I'm pretty sure it was the first radar designed to be used with AMRAAM from the outset. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted June 10, 2008 Amazing that no-one learned the lessons from the Falklands and the lead up to the war: don't trust the RAF to defend the fleet! Anyone interested in the post WWII prime of the fleet air arm should read this book: That is what the RAF claimed or hoped to achieve (according to some biased FAA people) - and if it was true it totally came unstuck in this conflict. Wonder if they thought that sending a few Vulcans being able to reach the Falklands was acceptable coverage! "Picking up 39 contacts heading towards the fleet - looks like an attack force - 30 mins till they reach us" "Dont worry the RAF are scrambling their Vulcans and tanker support as we speak - should be here by tommorow doh!" In line with speaking about the press - they did a good job promoting RAF involvement - because I grew up thinking those SHARs were RAF - had no idea the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) existed tbh. Although sying that isnt FAA also "Fuerza Aérea Argentina" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syrinx 13 Posted June 10, 2008 In line with speaking about the press - they did a good job promoting RAF involvement - because I grew up thinking those SHARs were RAF - had no idea the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) existed tbh. Migbuster ! ...it's probably what some in the RAF would like people to believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted June 10, 2008 Migbuster ! ...it's probably what some in the RAF would like people to believe. Thats pretty much what some of the FAA pilots thought about the RAF - they dont sound to pleased at all in their books. The 801 commander makes a point of ripping the RAF apart at every opportunity - particularly the Black Buck missions direct quote: "801 was inevitably tasked with waking up the airfield defences for just before the Vulcan arrived on the scene, I got airborne with three 1000lb bombs , and at the pre-briefed time delived them on target. Then, as briefed, I continued to fly around the target area to attract the attention of the ground radars. The Vulcan arrived on scene, was quickly detected by the alerted ground radars, and when it fired its missiles the Argentines switched their radars off. The operators on the ground had already proved to be bright and professional, and had cottoned onto what was happening pretty quickly. The Vulcan returned home with 220,000 gallons of aviation fuel down the drain and no result. They would try again. I returned to the deck wondering how long the V-bomber Pantomine was going to continue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted June 10, 2008 The Buccaneers could have hit targets (ie: airbases) on the mainland easily. Ergo, no Etendard problem. However, in reality I expect ROE would have forbidden it. Actually you may be right here - depends on what means the Argentines had for tracking low level targets - did any of their jets have look down radars for example - if not then relatively easy - well compared to a Soviet fleet. And as for the Argentine IADS (if there was one) would it have been any where near Iraqs 1991 level even - potentially the jets would would be on their way home before the AAA would even know they were coming! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crl848 9 Posted June 11, 2008 Thats pretty much what some of the FAA pilots thought about the RAF - they dont sound to pleased at all in their books. Sharky Ward is pretty bitter, but then again so is everyone else who has written a book. You should read what the RAF GR.3 pilots thought of the Navy ("RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands" by Sqn Ldr Jerry Pook). Sample chapter headings: "Ch. 17 More Navy cockups" and "Ch. 19 Yet more Navy cockups". In my readings around the war, everyone gets a good slagging off by everyone else. The navy by the RAF, the RAF by the Navy, the ground commanders & units by each other, the Flag by er, everyone including most of the Navy Captains. That's the one thing they all agree on, that Woodward was an idiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted June 11, 2008 It is rumoured that Nigel "Sharkey" Ward is actually Chuck Norris with a different beard trim - no other way to explain his feats Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted June 11, 2008 It is rumoured that Nigel "Sharkey" Ward is actually Chuck Norris with a different beard trim - no other way to explain his feats The saddest "cockup" of the Falklands war is a question. Contained within is the largest "cockup" of all. What would our British friends send today? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted June 11, 2008 The saddest "cockup" of the Falklands war is a question. Contained within is the largest "cockup" of all. What would our British friends send today? a white flag and a trade deal. And they'd have to contract out the ship to carry it there.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syrinx 13 Posted June 11, 2008 a white flag and a trade deal. And they'd have to contract out the ship to carry it there.... Typh...it pains me to say it but you are correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jayo 0 Posted August 6, 2008 801 sqn on Invincible was tasked as the Anti-Air Warfare Control and as you probably know commanded by 'Sharkey' Ward who was also in command of the developemnt trials of the Sea Harrier.He knew what the FRS.1 was capable of right from the start and,before the war started was very open about its excellant combat capabilities,in particular as a dogfighting aircraft,with it having argueably no equal. Initial combat trials were against the F-5 Aggressors at Alconbury,with a kill ratio in favour of the FRS.1 reading 12;1 9;3 and 6;6 giving an aggregate of 27 to 10.Next came the Bitburg F-15's for 2v2 combat,head on at 40nm.No head-on claims were made by the F-15's and the debrief concluded a 7 to 1 kill ratio in the SHAR's favour. Unfortunatly,Hermes basically ignored the air-defence tasking signals from Invincible that designated CAP stations for all SHAR's operating from both carriers to form an 'up-threat' barrier from the task force. Hermes also showed a distinct lack of faith in the SHARs' capability (remember that Hermes was the flag with a Rear-Admiral,not an aviator,and his staff) and also the Blue Fox radar,and did not bother to learn how to align their nav.+weapon system platforms.So,to most personnel in Hermes,the SHAR radar was "useless",and the nav. system "unreliable/unusable".This was the message given to the Admiral and his staff. This lack of faith in the radar by Hermes induced a lack of faith in the efficacy of a solid CAP barrier,evident on May 4th when the southerly CAP station was sent by Hermes on a wild goose chase looking (visually!!) for non-existant surface contacts which could easily have been verified on the SHARs' radar whilst on CAP! Whilst off station,the Etendard came in thruogh the gap and fired the Exocet that sank the Sheffield. Also,800 sqn refused to CAP at low level (801 CAP at 250ft "up-threat" around San-Carlos) preferring to sit above the task force at 20'000ft waiting to be called down when the amphib force came under attack.Three times 800 cost lives with thi policy-Coventry.was sunk when the N.W low-level CAP staion should have been filled with 800sqn,at 20'000ft they were too late to prevent the loss.The same happened with the Ardent, A-4's came in low-level thru the gap left by 800 and again with Sir Galahad+Sir Tristram,A-4's snuck in low level. I reckon if both 800/801 adopted the high-level CAP policy then more ships would have been lost and possibly a dismal defeat for the Brits. Incidentally,when the RAF Harrier force read the combat report against the Agressors and F-15's,an Air-Vice Marshall stormed into the Agressor squadron commanders' office demanding to know what the f**k was going on!!! Clearly the RAF didnt like the idea of the SHAR bettering their Harriers. And it was also the RAF that managed to stop the FRS.2 going into production. So what do we have now? Radar-less GR7/9s with no air-defence capability,no long range/over the horizon surveillance capability.......go figure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted August 8, 2008 Dude where were you this was a month ago Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jayo 0 Posted August 9, 2008 Dude where were you this was a month ago yeah i know,dead n' buried,first time cruising in this part of the forum,and when you gotta rant...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted August 9, 2008 Know what you mean Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
