Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Yeah, such a plane in AWACS configuration would have no problem taking of without catapults.

The weight of all the AWACS equipment and the fuel needed for long endurance... it would probably need an engine power increase... but as a cargo transport it would be interesting... too slow for inflight refuelling too.

the logical thing would be actually to deflect them down to create lift, but only if a comparable lift device at the front can prevent the nose from pitching down as a result.

Deflecting down wont create lift it would reduce forward acceleration and a rotational force on the aircraft that will need to be countered creating more drag to further slow you down at a time when you should be trying to accelerate as much as you can...

GarryB wrote:I agree, but extra lift also means extra drag so if it was close to its stall speed then flicking the nose up might be like applying an air brake and forcing the stall.... very close to the water.

It does not work like an air break, because it increases lift... as far as you do not increase drag more than you increase lift you are ok. Of course you cannot increase AoA to the point you are left with negative excess power...

A ski ramp is not compatible with heavy slow aircraft... they just can't take a high g push up on launch... their wings would break... otherwise all US carriers would have ski jumps... but they don't... even the carriers that operate Harriers.

I have not seen g values for the ramp take off, but it is essentially impossible that it is harder than the impact on landing, naval aircraft are tough...

The weight of all the AWACS equipment and the fuel needed for long endurance... it would probably need an engine power increase... but as a cargo transport it would be interesting... too slow for inflight refuelling too.

I guess it depends on how much automation you use on the plane. If you have many operators and their working consoles then it will be a heavy plane, with lots of space and weigh that cannot be used for fuel or radar equipment, but judging by the trends it seems such surveillance planes will try to increase persistence at the expenses of crew. A very high cruising speed is also not so relevant.

Deflecting down wont create lift it would reduce forward acceleration and a rotational force on the aircraft that will need to be countered creating more drag to further slow you down at a time when you should be trying to accelerate as much as you can...

Yes, it will create lift, you will have a vertical component of thrust pushing upwards, only it cannot be left uncompensated or it will pitch the nose down. The reduction of forward thrust will be small, if deflection angle is not very big. For instance, take 10 tf thrust and 0 or 10 deg down deflection (horizontal flight supposed)

0 deg:
Forward thrust 10 tf / vertical thrust 0

10 deg:
Forward thrust 9.8 tf
Vertical thrust 1.7 tf

If you have forward placed lift surfaces at the front you can create say 3-3.5 tf, assuming the torque arms of both lift contributions are similar. That is a very nice amount of lift at almost no cost in forward thrust. The forward lift surface are generating some drag that will counter forward thrust, but in a very small proportion:



I think you are confusing increasing drag with slowing the plane down, at that take off moment engines are working at max power and you are accelerating. You can reduce your acceleration as much as you want, if your excess power remain positive as said above, the plane will not fall.

Also you cannot talk about drag creation forgetting that you are at the same time increasing lift, in fact the definition of a plane is that L/D is bigger than one, therefore as far as the wings are working, you get more lift than you get drag and so increasing your AoA is going to reduce your stall speed accordingly, you need to keep the plane inside the flight envelope of course. This reduction of the stall speed translates directly in the distance needed for take-off and landing and therefore it is one of the main issues to be addressed in naval planes.

It does not work like an air break, because it increases lift...

But it increases drag, unlike an air brake it also increases lift... lift and drag are related.

as far as you do not increase drag more than you increase lift you are ok.

Drag slowing down forward motion by definition will reduced lift from all surfaces, so you might get more lift from your tail surface of canard forward surface, the increase in drag slowing the aircraft down will reduce lift from all surfaces generating lift...

I have not seen g values for the ramp take off, but it is essentially impossible that it is harder than the impact on landing, naval aircraft are tough...

Then why don't all aircraft carriers and indeed all conventional runways everywhere have ski jump ramps?

I guess it depends on how much automation you use on the plane. If you have many operators and their working consoles then it will be a heavy plane, with lots of space and weigh that cannot be used for fuel or radar equipment, but judging by the trends it seems such surveillance planes will try to increase persistence at the expenses of crew. A very high cruising speed is also not so relevant.

I would think a few crew consoles and crewmen in the aircraft would not be heavier than more fuel. More computing power means less interpretation and less human interference would be needed... In fact more crew means more human sized open areas where they can move between positions... essentially empty spaces. With electronics and a big radar and fuel the aircraft could be much heavier, but also much longer ranged.

I think you are confusing increasing drag with slowing the plane down, at that take off moment engines are working at max power and you are accelerating. You can reduce your acceleration as much as you want, if your excess power remain positive as said above, the plane will not fall.

Also you cannot talk about drag creation forgetting that you are at the same time increasing lift, in fact the definition of a plane is that L/D is bigger than one, therefore as far as the wings are working, you get more lift than you get drag and so increasing your AoA is going to reduce your stall speed accordingly, you need to keep the plane inside the flight envelope of course. This reduction of the stall speed translates directly in the distance needed for take-off and landing and therefore it is one of the main issues to be addressed in naval planes.

All so obvious and plain common sense, yet no US aircraft carriers use ski jumps... odd really...

GarryB wrote:Drag slowing down forward motion by definition

Drag is a force and it opposes thrust. If thrust is bigger than drag, the plane will keep accelerating. You obviously don't want to put the plane flat against the wind (stall the wings and make L/D close to zero) and make it crash.

will reduced lift from all surfaces, so you might get more lift from your tail surface of canard forward surface, the increase in drag slowing the aircraft down will reduce lift from all surfaces generating lift...

As said L/D of an airfoil is always much bigger than one (up to 100 or so in fact, see above), so unless you stall the wing it will give you more lift than it takes thrust away...

Then why don't all aircraft carriers and indeed all conventional runways everywhere have ski jump ramps?

Because they are not necessary, I guess, and it is far easier to make, operate and maintain a flat runway. Over land the risk of overshooting the ramp without enough speed is unnecessary, as well as the need for taking off in small distances by expediting the rotation of the plane. But in the Cold War when damaged runways were a real concern, some NATO bases where apparently equipped with them, or at least the issue was discussed IIRC.

I am not sure an airliner can take the stress of a ramp, but they also don't do no-flare landings as naval planes do, so their structure is clearly designed for different requirements. The sink rates naval planes withstand (that includes CODs, AWACS and everything else with a fixed wing) are quite extreme, I do not think the ramp is any worse than that.

All so obvious and plain common sense, yet no US aircraft carriers use ski jumps... odd really...

If you focus on gunboat diplomacy with low TWR bombers you need catapults, and if you have catapults you don't need ski jump...

But their marine carriers don't have cats and ski jumps were proven to be useful to Harrier type aircraft, which is what they operate on their carriers...

GarryB wrote:But their marine carriers don't have cats and ski jumps were proven to be useful to Harrier type aircraft, which is what they operate on their carriers...

Marine carrier are 40000+ ton, with a sky jump of 6,5° we were able to operate with ease AV-8+ from a ship of 10100 ton standard load.

Surely worth the effort, also considered that said ship was a fully armed 30knt capable cruiser, not just a floating airfield.

How I have said earlier, it's your own ambition and the scenario in which you decide to operate, compared to your force structure that determine the form of your fleet.

Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible.
In our case we had the advantage that all the military missions our carriers have taken part were in our "designated playground" or just a step farther or better said aside in case of Afg/Pak one.

There is however another enormous difference between IT's and brits pocket carriers and it lies in the different developmental path they stemmed off from,

While Invincible were conceived as a substitute for regular aircraft carrier, Garibaldi was the last of a series of Helicopter Cruisers but differently from them it came with a flat top and a sky jump to operate with AV-8B+, probably the better reception it received stemmed also from the fact that it was in any case a big step ahead.

It however worth to note how while we tend to concentrate ourself on the aircraft part, helicopters were always considered as an essential asset of such ships.
Same happened in SU with Leningrad and Kiev classes that sported however also a very heavy AA and ASuW armament.

British victory in the Falkland war spurred however an imitation wave that made the V/STOL carrier a popular concept but that didn't translate in a widespread adoption of such ships.
Only other model adopted was a twin derivation of an american design called Sea Control Ship than became the basis from both the Spanish Principe de Asturias than of the Thai Chakri Naruebet.
Result was discouraging in both cases: Chakri was a ship without a mission, completely avulse from the rest of the Thai Navy.
Principe de Asturias had the opposite problem:it weighted too much on the balance of the fleet at the time made of just six Oliver Perry frigates (read Ocean Escorts with a changed name).
They were at least useful to demonstrate, through the combined use of his main sponsored designs, how much Admiral Zumwalt's ideas were flawed: Principe de Asturias needed about all the other assets of the fleet around it to operate safely, leaving none to operate outside outside the (limited) range of its air assets .

it might be the sort of thing to sell to Indonesia so they could use it as a remote landing spot for patroling their enormous number of islands without needing to build a large number of airfields around the place and maintain them.

they r getting V-22s that can use make shift helipads on beaches & other open spaces; some planes with STOL ability can also be used for patrolling.
in keeping with the trend, I'm sure there will be a few more designs unveiled before any1 of them materializes.

Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible.

Every time there is a military conflict that involves the UK they seem to think when it is over that the military was over funded and just too well equipped so money has to be saved.

That led to them retiring perfectly good carriers for pocket carriers that were largely inadequate.

Britain has pinched and occupied land around the planet that they seem keen to hang on to.... if they didn't give a shit and could take it or leave it then they could get away with little carriers.

But they objected to Argentina threatening to take over islands that might have a lot of oil in the seas around them... and oil means money.

British victory in the Falkland war spurred however an imitation wave that made the V/STOL carrier a popular concept but that didn't translate in a widespread adoption of such ships.

A totally unwarranted boost, the Sea Harrier had an excellent radar but was essentially armed with Sidewinders only, which makes it a terribly weak and vulnerable ship based fighter. If Argentina had MiG-23s or MiG-29s the British would have lost.

The MiG-23s had ordinary AAMs but being able to load up four BVRs with two being SARH and two being IR guided the Harrier would have been in serious trouble.

The side mounted engine nozzles means an IR guided missile can get a lock on the Harrier from an enormous range of angles especially from the side, so the need to get onto the tail for a lock becomes redundant.. as the MiG-23 approaches it can launch its R-23Rs at 35-30km range with a chance of a kill, and is fast enough to be able to turn away and retreat a good distance before coming around again and having another go.. on the second attempt as the aircraft close it can launch an IR guided missile attack with a very good chance of a kill and then turn and head home... never getting within Sidewinder range and therefore never really coming under threat.

If they had MiG-29s they would be even more potent with R-27Rs and R-60s being more capable weapons...

Having said that with proper carriers having Phantoms with Skyflash missiles they could have used AWACS support to essentially ambush the Argentine aircraft using their speed and BVR missiles to engage them from safe distances.

The perimeter they could have set up to stop enemy aircraft would have meant their aircraft with Exocets would never have gotten close enough to any British ships to launch an attack, and the bomb attacks flying low over the islands in the radar shadow of the land would not have worked either with proper air based radar...

It however worth to note how while we tend to concentrate ourself on the aircraft part, helicopters were always considered as an essential asset of such ships.
Same happened in SU with Leningrad and Kiev classes that sported however also a very heavy AA and ASuW armament.

Those were anti sub helicopter carriers.... the fighters on board the Kievs were worse than useless because they were not cheap and had no real redeeming features other than pride.

Converting one to carry MiG-29s was an enormous boost to potential performance but a bigger ship would be better and more use despite costing more.

they r getting V-22s that can use make shift helipads on beaches & other open spaces; some planes with STOL ability can also be used for patrolling.
in keeping with the trend, I'm sure there will be a few more designs unveiled before any1 of them materializes.

A carrier is a fully equipped and defended fully stocked airfield. A patch on the ground is a place where something can land, but unless there is fuel or food or equipment there you might as well use amphibious aircraft and just land in the water.

Be-200 is probably cheaper than V-22 and likely more useful too.

I honestly hate this thread more than any other on the forum

For every tiny piece of news there's 10 pages of pointless regurgitated discussion

Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible

"Worked" is big word... they still lost couple of ships against an airforce that was using outdated jets and 4 or 5 super etandard with a stock of 3 or 4 exocet... and mostly operating at the limits of their max ranges.

If german made Argentinian subs worked as advertized they would have sunk one of the two carriers.

Isos wrote:

Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible

"Worked" is big word... they still lost couple of ships against an airforce that was using outdated jets and 4 or 5 super etandard with a stock of 3 or 4 exocet... and mostly operating at the limits of their max ranges.

If german made Argentinian subs worked as advertized they would have sunk one of the two carriers.

The frigates they sunk had notoriously bad AA, so that's not all that impressive aside from that they sunk some cargo ships and trawler.

They damaged some ships to but the actual losses for the brits were hardly bad. They were very good considering the situations.

The situation was bad for Argentina, not for UK.

The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that.

Isos wrote:The situation was bad for Argentina, not for UK.

The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that.

What bullshit are you making up now? Argen never got to attack the carriers lol or get in range. They tried but they fell for British return tactics and attacked an escort group over 40 miles away and lost the Skyhawks in the process.

You really don't know history that well, You are talking about the May 30th attack, and yeah that never got anywhere near the carriers.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:The situation was bad for Argentina, not for UK.

The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that.

What bullshit are you making up now? Argen never got to attack the carriers lol or get in range. They tried but they fell for British return tactics and attacked an escort group over 40 miles away and lost the Skyhawks in the process.

You really don't know history that well, You are talking about the May 30th attack, and yeah that never got anywhere near the carriers.

I said carrier's defence zone covered by its jets which covers the escort ships.

Btw it is said that one of the exocet was launch at one of carrier but was fooled by EW and chaffs and then locked on one of the merchand ship used as transport ship. Or meybe it was dma destroyer I don't remember.

Skyhawks managed to use dumb bombs against their frigates. That tell a lot about their air defence systems. Normally even the 76mm guns should be able to destroy such aircraft at close range.

One argentinian sub also tried to attack them but its german torpedoes didn't work.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:The situation was bad for Argentina, not for UK.

The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that.

What bullshit are you making up now? Argen never got to attack the carriers lol or get in range. They tried but they fell for British return tactics and attacked an escort group over 40 miles away and lost the Skyhawks in the process.

You really don't know history that well, You are talking about the May 30th attack, and yeah that never got anywhere near the carriers.

I said carrier's defence zone covered by its jets which covers the escort ships.

Btw it is said that one of the exocet was launch at one of carrier but was fooled by EW and chaffs and then locked on one of the merchand ship used as transport ship. Or meybe it was dma destroyer I don't remember.

Skyhawks managed to use dumb bombs against their frigates. That tell a lot about their air defence systems. Normally even the 76mm guns should be able to destroy such aircraft at close range.

One argentinian sub also tried to attack them but its german torpedoes didn't work.

and you are wrong, the attack never got close to the carrier group, they fell for British tricks and attacked an separate fleet over 40 miles away from the CV's,

The frigates they sunk had notoriously bad AA, so that's not all that impressive aside from that they sunk some cargo ships and trawler.

The Sheffield class ship was the best equipped in their navy and had both Sea Dart and Sea Wolf surface to air missiles... they didn't take any trawlers with them.

They damaged some ships to but the actual losses for the brits were hardly bad. They were very good considering the situations.

They were actually made worse because their mini carrier lacked decent AWACS capability to offer decent air defence and their lack of strike capacity also limited their usefulness too.

Not having enough anti sub helicopters meant the carriers spent lots of time sitting back from the conflict covering their own arses and spend less time covering the ships and troops of the naval force.

[qutoe]The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that. [/quote]

Indeed, with the mini carriers sitting back and subsonic interceptor aircraft with helicopter based AEW, their ability to protect the ships they were operating with was weak.

What bullshit are you making up now? Argen never got to attack the carriers lol or get in range.

The UK carriers remained outside of range of Argentine land based aircraft as a self defence measure.

The cost was ships lost and bugger all air support for ground forces.

Btw it is said that one of the exocet was launch at one of carrier but was fooled by EW and chaffs and then locked on one of the merchand ship used as transport ship. Or meybe it was dma destroyer I don't remember.

The Carriers never got close enough to be engaged, which is why they were not that effective.

Skyhawks managed to use dumb bombs against their frigates. That tell a lot about their air defence systems. Normally even the 76mm guns should be able to destroy such aircraft at close range.

With the carriers sitting so far back and the radar on their helicopter AEW not that long ranged the Argentines were able to perform sneak attacks by flying in low below the level of the hills on the Islands so they could roll over into the bays on the other side and attack British ships landing forces...

Very brave.

and you are wrong, the attack never got close to the carrier group, they fell for British tricks and attacked an separate fleet over 40 miles away from the CV's,

They never got near the carriers because the carriers were kept hidden and safe.... the loss of one carrier and the conflict would be over.

Of course if it had been an older bigger carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers it all might have been much much easier...

GarryB wrote:

Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible.

Every time there is a military conflict that involves the UK they seem to think when it is over that the military was over funded and just too well equipped so money has to be saved.

That led to them retiring perfectly good carriers for pocket carriers that were largely inadequate.

Britain has pinched and occupied land around the planet that they seem keen to hang on to.... if they didn't give a shit and could take it or leave it then they could get away with little carriers.

But they objected to Argentina threatening to take over islands that might have a lot of oil in the seas around them... and oil means money.

British victory in the Falkland war spurred however an imitation wave that made the V/STOL carrier a popular concept but that didn't translate in a widespread adoption of such ships.

A totally unwarranted boost, the Sea Harrier had an excellent radar but was essentially armed with Sidewinders only, which makes it a terribly weak and vulnerable ship based fighter.  If Argentina had MiG-23s or MiG-29s the British would have lost.

The MiG-23s had ordinary AAMs but being able to load up four BVRs with two being SARH and two being IR guided the Harrier would have been in serious trouble.

The side mounted engine nozzles means an IR guided missile can get a lock on the Harrier from an enormous range of angles especially from the side, so the need to get onto the tail for a lock becomes redundant.. as the MiG-23 approaches it can launch its R-23Rs at 35-30km range with a chance of a kill, and is fast enough to be able to turn away and retreat a good distance before coming around again and having another go.. on the second attempt as the aircraft close it can launch an IR guided missile attack with a very good chance of a kill and then turn and head home... never getting within Sidewinder range and therefore never really coming under threat.

If they had MiG-29s they would be even more potent with R-27Rs and R-60s being more capable weapons...

Having said that with proper carriers having Phantoms with Skyflash missiles they could have used AWACS support to essentially ambush the Argentine aircraft using their speed and BVR missiles to engage them from safe distances.

The perimeter they could have set up to stop enemy aircraft would have meant their aircraft with Exocets would never have gotten close enough to any British ships to launch an attack, and the bomb attacks flying low over the islands in the radar shadow of the land would not have worked either with proper air based radar...

It however worth to note how while we tend to concentrate ourself on the aircraft part, helicopters were always considered as an essential asset of such ships.
Same happened in SU with Leningrad and Kiev classes that sported however also a very heavy AA and ASuW armament.

Those were anti sub helicopter carriers.... the fighters on board the Kievs were worse than useless because they were not cheap and had no real redeeming features other than pride.

Converting one to carry MiG-29s was an enormous boost to potential performance but a bigger ship would be better and more use despite costing more.

Armed with Sidewinder only ? It was 1982 and they were L/M all aspect models i.e. the only efficient AAM NATO had at these times, the same that permitted IAF their spectacular kill ratio over Lebanon later same year.

I was only 14 teen then but I remember well the shockwave of enthusiasm of the period, not just in specialist but also in generalist press over the newfound effectiveness of western weaponries.

Believe me, young ones: Harriers, Exocet, UAV,Hawkeyes and Mervaka really made headlines that year!

Yes, pocket carriers were an evolution of helicopter cruiser, more than a degraded conventional one.

And ASW warfare was a major concern of such period, both for NATO than for SU/WP: it was not just Leningrad but also Kara and later Udaloj classes, all built to deal specifically against such treat.

Over Kiev however I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU, just noting how, for Russia as for my country, it was an evolutionary path from bottom to top not a falling down one.

GarryB wrote:

The frigates they sunk had notoriously bad AA, so that's not all that impressive aside from that they sunk some cargo ships and trawler.

The Sheffield class ship was the best equipped in their navy and had both Sea Dart and Sea Wolf surface to air missiles...  they  didn't take any trawlers with them.

WHAT?
Sorry GarryB but no one could write Type 42 and equipped in the same sentence. They were absolute jokes in 1982, a destroyer having a twin launcher but being able to engage just a target having just an illumination radar, a main gun with an abysmally low rof and two manually operated 20mm guns...

From wiki

These guns proved to be less reliable than the older 4.5 inch Mark V gun (redesignated Mark 6 gun mounting) during the Falklands War, being forced to cease fire on several occasions due to faults

Certainly they were still better than the bulk of their frigates, equipped with ludicrous Sea Cat but they were still a perfect example HOW NOT to build a military ship.

Not any trawlers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

Civilian trawlers converted to Extra-Deep Armed Team Sweep (EDATS) with some extempore acoustic and sonar equipment. They were manned by Royal Naval personnel, mainly from 1st MCM Squadron based at Rosyth. All five minesweepers were involved in clearing two minefields off Port Stanley.

HMS Cordella 1,238 GRT[5]
Lieutenant-Commander M. Holloway
HMS Farnella 1,207 GRT[5]
Lieutenant R. Bishop
HMS Junella 1,615 GRT[5]
Lieutenant-Commander M. Rowledge
HMS Northella 1,238 GRT[5]
Lieutenant-Commander J. Greenop
HMS Pict 1,478 GRT[5]
Lieutenant-Commander D. Garwood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

Skyhawks managed to use dumb bombs against their frigates. That tell a lot about their air defence systems. Normally even the 76mm guns should be able to destroy such aircraft at close range.

More than capable, a Compatto was credited of an effective range of 8km against sea skimmer missiles while Sea Wolf's maximum range was 10km

They never got near the carriers because the carriers were kept hidden and safe.... the loss of one carrier and the conflict would be over.

Of course if it had been an older bigger carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers it all might have been much much easier...

So distant and safe that one was engaged with an Exocet, was able to deceive it with chaffs but it keep on running and sank Atlantic Conveyor instead (meaning it was an engagement well inside its maximum range).

Armed with Sidewinder only ? It was 1982 and they were L/M all aspect models i.e. the only efficient AAM NATO had at these times, the same that permitted IAF their spectacular kill ratio over Lebanon later same year.

The Lima and Mike model Sidewinders finally had decent seekers that allowed head on launches, but the British pilots still tried to get on the tails of the enemy aircraft before launching their missiles.

Lack of range would make them horribly vulnerable to any enemy using BVR missiles.

I was only 14 teen then but I remember well the shockwave of enthusiasm of the period, not just in specialist but also in generalist press over the newfound effectiveness of western weaponries.

It was a heady time because after the experience in Vietnam these missiles lived up to their name as MISSiles.

Short range AAMs always performed better than their bigger longer ranged equivalents... mostly because the short range AAMs were for turning dogfights against fighter sized targets with 5-10kg warheads, while BVR missiles generally had warheads of 40kgs or more and were intended to be used against bombers and large heavy aircraft.

Believe me, young ones: Harriers, Exocet, UAV,Hawkeyes and Mervaka really made headlines that year!

Exocet and Harriers... and the Shieffield became famous... like the Scud and the Patriot did a few years later... or should I say in the case of Exocet and Scud infamous.

Yes, pocket carriers were an evolution of helicopter cruiser, more than a degraded conventional one.

It is what you get when the bean counters win...

@Tsavo Lion....

http://novyny. 24 tv.ua/skilki-kremlyu

A Ukrainian website... not even going to click the link...

Sorry GarryB but no one could write Type 42 and equipped in the same sentence.

On paper should have been able to deal with Exocet missiles...

Certainly they were still better than the bulk of their frigates, equipped with ludicrous Sea Cat but they were still a perfect example HOW NOT to build a military ship.

Have you read about the Sea Slug SAM... possibly the most appropriate name for it...

The Sheffield wasn't their worst...

Not any trawlers?

How much fish did they catch then?

You say yourself converted... what does that mean exactly?

Does it mean changed and no longer a trawler?

So distant and safe that one was engaged with an Exocet, was able to deceive it with chaffs but it keep on running and sank Atlantic Conveyor instead (meaning it was an engagement well inside its maximum range).

Which probably led to them pulling it back and rendering it ineffective.

GarryB wrote:
The Lima and Mike model Sidewinders finally had decent seekers that allowed head on launches, but the British pilots still tried to get on the tails of the enemy aircraft before launching their missiles.

Lack of range would make them horribly vulnerable to any enemy using BVR missiles.

I'm glad to inform you that even today fighter pilots try to gain an advantage position before launching their own ordnances.

For the horribly vulnerable part, let me reply using a DIRECT CITATION: It was a heady time because after the experience in Vietnam these missiles lived up to their name as MISSiles.

Because it is perfectly possible and understandable to made two self contradictory statements over the years.
In a same post quite less...

It was a heady time because after the experience in Vietnam these missiles lived up to their name as MISSiles.

Short range AAMs always performed better than their bigger longer ranged equivalents... mostly because the short range AAMs were for turning dogfights against fighter sized targets with 5-10kg warheads, while BVR missiles generally had warheads of 40kgs or more and were intended to be used against bombers and large heavy aircraft.

About this, actually we cannot say it for certain as the numbers or post- Cold war A2A engagements were way too few, too distant one another (and too unbalanced in most cases) to provide a reliable answer.
Hence because lesson learned in Falkland,  Lebanon (and Iraq/Iran conflict) are still of extreme importance.
Sarh missiles have however been completely phased out in the west.

Exocet and Harriers... and the Shieffield became famous... like the Scud and the Patriot did a few years later... or should I say in the case of Exocet and Scud infamous.

No, everyone (except Brits) loved them:they were french i.e. western.

Scud? AGAIN, GarryB? It was 1982, not 1991.

On paper should have been able to deal with Exocet missiles...

Have you read about the Sea Slug SAM... possibly the most appropriate name for it...

The Sheffield wasn't their worst...

To cite Shakespeare: the best p.o.s around is still a p.o.s.
And Type 42 were huge ones.

How much fish did they catch then?

You say yourself converted... what does that mean exactly?

Does it mean changed and no longer a trawler?

A lot of them, before and after the war, during it they catch them also but of just one type: round, metallic and with spikes all around.
They are akin to Medusas: easy to catch when the proper net is used but quite dangerous to handle.

Yes: Minesweepers and Trawlers both use a net laying device to operate so it is possible to convert one in another.
Still, the Trawler would not move faster, being more comfortable or survive better to hits and to cite the same poet again: even with another name, it would retain the same, sweet scent.

Put all that into context first.

Argentinians advanced jets and missiles could be counted on one hand's fingers and brits were familiar with all their stuff.

UK navy was supposed to be armed to face USSR within NATO.

Argentinians just FUCKED brits. No matter how you turn the story. You can even re-write the story it won't change.

A guy with 9mm and 4 rounds faced a brigade full of machine guns, snipers and tanks and inflicted huge losses.

For the horribly vulnerable part, let me reply using a DIRECT CITATION: It was a heady time because after the experience in Vietnam these missiles lived up to their name as MISSiles.

There were no BVR IR guided missiles used in the Vietnam conflict.

Short of operating F-4 Phantoms on the Argentine side the main alternative aircraft with BVR missiles would have been a MiG-23 which has R-23 air to air BVR missiles which come in SARH missiles of the type (of guidance) that were used and failed in Vietnam, but also in an IR model for which the design of the Harrier made it horribly vulnerable.

As far as I remember the only Harrier show down in the conflict was hit by an Ancient SA-7 which has a rather decidedly average IR seeker. In comparison the R-23T would have been very effective from distances the Sidewinder would not have been effective from.

The Lima and Mike Sidewinders were some of the first IR guided weapons that were all aspect, but an aircraft like the Sea Harrier had IR emissions along its side rather than poking out the rear and hidden by the rest of the aircraft.

The direct result was the Harrier was horribly vulnerable to IR guided missiles from any angle including the front... even IR guided weapons that were not all aspect.

They took the trouble to get on the tails of the Argentine aircraft because they were afraid that the older sidewinders would still lock head on on a Harrier because it has hot bits sticking out sideways that are visible from the front even in normal flight.

Because it is perfectly possible and understandable to made two self contradictory statements over the years.
In a same post quite less...

The short effective range of the Sidewinders made them vulnerable to any aircraft with BVR missiles as there is little they could do about that because they were the slowest fighters in service at the time.

Sarh missiles have however been completely phased out in the west.

Not true at all. The US Navy still uses the Sparrow missile as a ship launched anti aircraft missile and in the current block one model in service it uses SARH.

The next gen block two version is expected to enter service shortly but current ESSM missiles are SARH.

Scud? AGAIN, GarryB? It was 1982, not 1991.

If you read what I said I compared the BS regarding Exocets from the Falklands conflict with the further BS about Scud and Patriot A FEW YEARS LATER.

Still bullshit though. Scud was ordinary and inaccurate and Patriot was pathetic and expensive.

No, everyone (except Brits) loved them:they were french i.e. western.

Suspect the difference in impression comes from me living in a commonwealth country... but even then it shows western culture and morality when a French missile kills British Sailors it becomes "loved".

To cite Shakespeare: the best p.o.s around is still a p.o.s.
And Type 42 were huge ones.

But it is OK because as the British said... Exocet is a sea skimming missile and the Soviets don't have any sea skimming missiles....

Argentinians advanced jets and missiles could be counted on one hand's fingers and brits were familiar with all their stuff.

Both sides had Exocets and Sea Dart and Sea Cat naval SAMs in service... the Brits had no excuse to be so surprised.

Argentinians just FUCKED brits. No matter how you turn the story. You can even re-write the story it won't change.

On the islands the Brits won hands down, but on the sea and in the air it was very much touch and go...

the British bean counters made it very much harder for Britain than it should have been.... it is pretty clear their ships expected to have air control of the sea they would be operating in...

Their wonder missile, the Sea Wolf was actually rather ordinary in practise because so few ships even carried it and it was brand new and buggy.

For the Russians, the lesson of arming their ships better is meaningless because they arm their ships like they are on their own, but also that dinky little carriers with toy fighter planes might save money during peace time but when you actually have to use it in combat you will find you pay the cost then in blood.

GarryB wrote:
There were no BVR IR guided missiles used in the Vietnam conflict.

Short of operating F-4 Phantoms on the Argentine side the main alternative aircraft with BVR missiles would have been a MiG-23 which has R-23 air to air BVR missiles which come in SARH missiles of the type (of guidance) that were used and failed in Vietnam, but also in an IR model for which the design of the Harrier made it horribly vulnerable.

As far as I remember the only Harrier show down in the conflict was hit by an Ancient SA-7 which has a rather decidedly average IR seeker. In comparison the R-23T would have been very effective from distances the Sidewinder would not have been effective from.
The short effective range of the Sidewinders made them vulnerable to any aircraft with BVR missiles as there is little they could do about that because they were the slowest fighters in service at the time.

So the best alternative for Argentina, a far right dictatorship at time, notorious for mass killings of leftist militants would have been to buy weapon from Soviet Union?

Let's be real: neither Argentina nor UK planned the war in advance, it just happened and they had to adapt what they had to it.

Sea Harrier had obvious limitations but they worked and validated the V/STOL carrier concept, all successive carriers however used second gen Harriers with long range missiles.
British surface fleet sucked great time instead (but a great kudo to auxiliary one ).

Not true at all. The US Navy still uses the Sparrow missile as a ship launched anti aircraft missile and in the current block one model in service it uses SARH.

The next gen block two version is expected to enter service shortly but current ESSM missiles are SARH.

It should have been obvious that I was referring to A2A ones, also because MMI still uses Aspide a lot and it is still an excellent System..

Still bullshit though. Scud was ordinary and inaccurate and Patriot was pathetic and expensive.

Exocet was then and still is a good system, for an average navy is still a good choice.

No, everyone (except Brits) loved them:they were french i.e. western.

Suspect the difference in impression comes from me living in a commonwealth country... but even then it shows western culture and morality when a French missile kills British Sailors it becomes "loved".

Given this sensibility I wouldn't cite you the longest running joke in Italian Navy...

On the islands the Brits won hands down, but on the sea and in the air it was very much touch and go...

the British bean counters made it very much harder for Britain than it should have been.... it is pretty clear their ships expected to have air control of the sea they would be operating in...

Their wonder missile, the Sea Wolf was actually rather ordinary in practise because so few ships even carried it and it was brand new and buggy.

For the Russians,  the lesson of arming their ships better is meaningless because they arm their ships like they are on their own, but also that dinky little carriers with toy fighter planes might save money during peace time but when you actually have to use it in combat you will find you pay the cost then in blood.

Russians and even more Italians arm their ships like they are on their own because they expect (with full reason) they would be used that way.
Infact they still both spend a lot of efforts into naval guns.

So the best alternative for Argentina, a far right dictatorship at time, notorious for mass killings of leftist militants would have been to buy weapon from Soviet Union?

Turkey... HATO member... buys S-400s from Russia.

If the Soviets knew the Argentinians intended to seize back the Malvinas they might have gifted them a few aircraft and some missiles to test.

AFAIK the Harrier shot down was shot down with an SA-7 Grail, so it is not like they didn't have any Soviet weapons.

Let's be real: neither Argentina nor UK planned the war in advance, it just happened and they had to adapt what they had to it.

The Argentines didn't plan well, but they didn't just accidentaly find they had stumbled into the islands and then made a snap decision to pretend they invaded on purpose.

I rather suspect the Argentinians looked at the situation... the big carriers are gone... only little unproven carriers with little unproven Harriers... and a woman in charge... what are the chances they will sail 10,000km for a few farmers and a few sheep on those wind swept rocks...

Sea Harrier had obvious limitations but they worked and validated the V/STOL carrier concept, all successive carriers however used second gen Harriers with long range missiles.

I don't agree. If the Island in question was off the coast of a Russian ally they would have been stuffed.

Harrier was stuck with sidewinders till the 1990s when AMRAAM became ready... so facing MiG-29s and Su-27s they would be dead.

Even against MiG-23s they would be dead and against MiG-21s they would have struggled.

It should have been obvious that I was referring to A2A ones, also because MMI still uses Aspide a lot and it is still an excellent System..

Completely phased out means not used at all. In any capacity.

Exocet was then and still is a good system, for an average navy is still a good choice.

I really don't think it would have been a threat to Soviet ships of the period... unless you had thousands and used them in concentrated attacks... but trying to assemble enough to defeat the defences would alert those defences and make them harder to defeat...

Given this sensibility I wouldn't cite you the longest running joke in Italian Navy...

Just out of good taste I wont mention the things they say in commonwealth military circles about the French and Italian allies... they are ridiculous and degrading of countries that are supposed to be our allies...

Russians and even more Italians arm their ships like they are on their own because they expect (with full reason) they would be used that way.
Infact they still both spend a lot of efforts into naval guns.

And their ship design is so much the better for that.