A-10 article

[pourts]

Yeah, fuck those poor saps lifting weights on the LHA, they deserve to get smoked by a YJ-91 because it offends our delicate sensibility that jump-jets have AMRAAM.

I am the dude on the LHD right now, as a FAC.

What I am worried about, is that the theater commander says "The LHD? They are OK. Worst case scenario the Harriers will defend the ARG." Instead, I want him to lose sleep thinking about defending the ARG. That, or send a cruiser our way. Or park us near the CSG.

Honestly, I would feel the same if it was 6 JSF's instead of 6 Harriers aboard. Because 6 is never really 6; and 6 isn't enough. Its a time and space problem, regardless of the asset flying the DCA. Its good to know that the upgrade didn't cost much, though. And I think the Intrepid Tiger II pod is a nice capability, even if it wasn't the community's top priority.

 

[Hotdogs]

Historically.... for the sake of discussion, how do the Harriers in the Falklands make an argument for or against this? I am under the impression that they had some success with GCI and AIM-9s. Is it unreasonble to assume that with a radar and BVR missile it potentially could have prevented the launch of a couple of exocets? and the loss of a couple of surface combatants?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I am the dude on the LHD right now, as a FAC.

What I am worried about, is that the theater commander says "The LHD? They are OK. Worst case scenario the Harriers will defend the ARG." Instead, I want him to lose sleep thinking about defending the ARG. That, or send a cruiser our way. Or park us near the CSG.

Honestly, I would feel the same if it was 6 JSF's instead of 6 Harriers aboard. Because 6 is never really 6; and 6 isn't enough. Its a time and space problem, regardless of the asset flying the DCA. Its good to know that the upgrade didn't cost much, though. And I think the Intrepid Tiger II pod is a nice capability, even if it wasn't the community's top priority.

Harriers already were the plan. Before AMRAAM it was just with AIM-9's. That's why this is kind of a silly argument.

 

[pourts]

Historically.... for the sake of discussion, how do the Harriers in the Falklands make an argument for or against this? I am under the impression that they had some success with GCI and AIM-9s. Is it unreasonble to assume that with a radar and BVR missile it potentially could have prevented the launch of a couple of exocets? and the loss of a couple of surface combatants?

I am interested in hearing that answer and will try to do a little research with my slow-ass internet.

I do know that the Brits had helicopters as flying missile sponges in the Falklands. Kinda like starboard D, except your job is to take one for the team when the missile comes so as to protect the ship.

 

[jmcquate]

The performance of Sea Harriers in the Falklands, albeit 35 years ago, proved it can be effective in the air to air role (20-0 in air to air engagements). Just because the MUEs don't have the best option for fleet air defense doesn't mean it shouldn't have a slightly better one.

 

[pilot_man]

This whole conversation is proof of how political the ARG / JSF / Harrier debate really is.

Here's a novel idea. Don't put the ARG in a position where the defense of the ARG is supported by a couple of Harriers with a couple of AMRAAM and really old, really shitty radars. If only there was some sort of collection of boats that could be used for defense of the ARG. That collection could have CVNs with aircraft that are more than capable of defending both the CSG and ARG as well as CRUDES which would be used for Air, Surface and Sub-surface defense.

And please don't think that a CVN with Block II Super Hornets is any less capable at the DCA mission than our brothers in blue in their C models are.

I guess the point to all of this is that if there is a threat that requires AESA radars and C model AMRAAMs on a Harrier then we are probably sticking our ARG noses where they don't belong.

 

[Flash]

Historically.... for the sake of discussion, how do the Harriers in the Falklands make an argument for or against this? I am under the impression that they had some success with GCI and AIM-9s. Is it unreasonble to assume that with a radar and BVR missile it potentially could have prevented the launch of a couple of exocets? and the loss of a couple of surface combatants?

The British task force originally sailed with Sea Harriers whose primary job was air defense, equipped with radars and trained to the task. AV-8B's with APG-65's have more capability than the Sea Harriers back then, they were equipped with Blue Fox A/A radars but did not have the capability to launch radar missiles and only later gained AMRAAM's after radar upgrades.

The big difference though is that they carried a lot more numbers, I believe 12 on one carrier and 8 on the other just to begin with and later supplemented by more Sea Harriers and RAF GR.3's. Even then though they had serious gaps in their air defenses because they backed the task force off the islands to get further from the Super Entendards and their Exocets and they just did not have the numbers to have more than one or two CAPs at one time. That coupled with a lack of AEW allowed the Argentinian Air Force to get through a lot more strikers and inflict serious damage to the task force, including several gators. They later fixed the AEW problem with modified Sea Kings, but that was after the war and they are nowhere near as capable as an E-2.

So yes, given enough aircraft and more emphasis on air-to-air training AV-8B's could provide a credible air defense but with only 6 birds and no AEW along with competing demands of supporting the guys on the ground (Sea Harriers were almost exclusivelyA/A) I don't think it is realistic.

 

[usmarinemike]

So leaving the MEU/ARG out alone vs a credible Gen 4 threat is unlikely. Every F-15/16/18 pilot on the planet would be angling to go to that AO. And guess what (speaking of politics), the CFACC isn't going to be a Harrier guy. On top of that, in 2012 when the Odyssey Dawn rescue went down, someone in the CAOC had to convince the leaders there that the Harrier wasn't day VFR-only. This is after the Harrier had been dropping JDAM for 10 years with self generated coordinates.

When I finish flying A/A, I say to myself that this must be how everybody else feels trying to hack high tempo high/medium threat CAS, and if I ever have to do it for real I'm getting out and punching the first F-15 guy I see in the crank.

 

[wlawr005]

... in the crank.

I see what you did there.

Well played.

 

[whitesoxnation]

So yes, given enough aircraft and more emphasis on air-to-air training AV-8B's could provide a credible air defense but with only 6 birds and no AEW along with competing demands of supporting the guys on the ground (Sea Harriers were almost exclusivelyA/A) I don't think it is realistic.

Its an airplane, it's a helicopter, it's an AEW radar...

... the Plopdar

 

[nittany03]

Its an airplane, it's a helicopter, it's an AEW radar...

What is "the answer to a question no one's asking," Alex?

I'll take "choker whites and dinings out" for $400, please.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Historically.... for the sake of discussion, how do the Harriers in the Falklands make an argument for or against this? I am under the impression that they had some success with GCI and AIM-9s. Is it unreasonble to assume that with a radar and BVR missile it potentially could have prevented the launch of a couple of exocets? and the loss of a couple of surface combatants?

I did a paper on Falklands air defense at school for a Cold War class. Tactics and technology-wise, was not unlike the air battle vs kamikazes off Okinawa in 1945. With no AEW and no radar-missile capable fighters or long-range interceptors, the Brits had to rely on radar picket destroyers (that's what Sheffield and Coventry were doing when they got hit) and may-as-well-be-overhead CAP. And Exocet was about as accurate as the kamikazes. And once the Brits began the landings at San Carlos and were in confined waters, the Argie Scooters were making low-as-fuck iron bomb runs against the ships and landing force. The British air defense weapons were awful: everyone knew Seacat was worthless even before the campaign, and most close-in defense was Oerlikon and Bofors guns - WWII technology.

The Brits did as well as they could with the stuff they had; they're really good at improvising when they have to and muddling along with what they've got - the guys who fought the Falklands were the generation who grew up with post-war rationing and the collapsing Empire. They needed AEW, primarily. They needed raid warning capability and better SAMs and CIWS. They needed fast sealift and better amphibious landing capability. They needed at least a credible threat of strategic strike - even the cobbled-together Vulcan raids did a lot - to keep the Argies off-balance. All stuff we have and no MEU would ever sail into that kind of threat picture without it.

The Harriers were one of the few British weapon systems that performed as designed; there was a lot more to it than "Harrier carriers vs ASM-carrying jets".

 

[Flash]

Fester summarized it much better than I and gets it spot on. With their limited capabilities the Brits rarely intercepted the Argentinians before they were able to strike. In most cases when they actually did intercept the Argentinians they were able to shoot some of the guys down but with only 20 kills it show you how many guys they missed. That and their were no real 'dogfights' the entire war, basically the Argentinian defense was to dump their bombs and run away when intercepted (they were at the ragged edge of their range when they got to the islands) and the Brits shot them down if they got in range.

 

[armada1651]

This conversation has gotten so stupid I think it's time for it to die, but I feel the need to point out that this has at no point been about F-18s doing all the air-to-air, or about Hornet guys not wanting to give AIM-120s because of "their egos." The truth, as a Hornet guy, is that the FA-18 is NOT a good DCA asset either. If we actually want to defend an asset as significant as any variety of carrier, it would be idiotic to try to do it purely with the aircraft which are currently organic.

 

[Hotdogs]

...leave it to an F/A-18 dude to make the discussion all about himself....