LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThe Harrier must light up like a Christmas tree on a radar screen from the front side. Those blades are not very far into the air intake.Originally Posted by TIN MAN
Which let the radar be centrally mounted and controlled the airflow. Two tricks for the price of one!What do you mean, bearing in mind that the Starfighter has fixed inlets??
Oh, I see, that was your point...
Come to think of it, so were the inlets on the EE Lightning!
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
The Harrier must light up like a Christmas tree on a radar screen from the front side. Those blades are not very far into the air intake.
Yes, compressor blades aside I think the Harrier has a plethora of radar reflectors. There are lots of knobbly bits all over the aircraft.Stealth wasn`t a consideration when designing the jet. It`s best defence is low level flying to avoid radar where possible.
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
On the F-4B's APQ-72 radar, the Sea Harrier was almost invisible if it was flying low over water. It was easily lost in the sea returns. Very nasty business if the Brits wanted to surprise us. It was a different story with the AWG-9 on the F-14 or AWG-10 on the F-4J as both had good doppler. Still the detection range was not all that great against a low flying Sea Harrier.
Thank you sir, that`s quite a surprise! The Harrier is actually quite a small aircraft, also hard to pick up visually with those tiny wings I would imagine. It at least explains the low level stuff practiced. Wonder how the USN did against the Bucaneer? Those guys used to fly in very low and very fast. Apparently the Bucc` was very stable, even in that extreme of the envelope.
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
That was the design philosophy, to go at high subsonic speed at extremely low level. During Red Flag exercises they were virtually untouchable. The A-6 Invader seems to have been its American counterpart.
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
...And thank you, sir.
I knew the Bucc` had a fearsome reputation. I remember reading of a Bucc` sortie from the Ark` in the 1970`s maybe? It was a very long range mission at low level with IFR that surprised the Russian Navy, I think the RN just wanted to let them know they could do it.
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
The Bucaneer, like the F-111 and A-6, was intended to penetrate Soviet air defenses at low level. It was very good at what it did. The Bucaneer also had plenty of fuel, making it a very viable long range attack platform. It's low level gust response was very good, high wing loading will do that. So, it was stable. That makes for a good bombing platform. We exercised against the Bucaneers often using them as stand ins for Soviet cruise missiles. In the F-4B days, we would fly out at low level using our radar to look up and out for incoming Bucaneers. That was effective, but trying to look down at them was a waste of time. Because by the time we got them on radar it was too late.
It got a little better when the F-4J entered the fleet. The look down radar was fairly good. It was designed to separate a fast mover from the sea clutter. Still against a small target detection range was limited. When we got the F-14 and more importantly, the AWG-9, we finally got decent detection range against smaller low flying targets. The IRST added some useful information as well. Especially in cold weather, the Bucaneer's heat signature was more visible than on radar especially against rough seas. All told, I would say the Bucaneer was the best British naval attack aircraft ever built. It stood up with the best land based types too. (The RAF operated them even during Desert Shield/Storm.)
Does new AESA technology help in sorting out the target from the noise of background sea, trees, etc? Cheers.
HD Ready?
Thanks WABPILOT, it is a pity we didn`t replace the Bucc` with a similar platform. Come to think of it, it`s a pity we didn`t replace the Ark Royal with a similar carrier!
I would think that an AESA radar would pick out targets against clutter with ease, considering the beam agility, narrowing capability they are supposed to have.
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
You're welcome.
I have said it before, The building and operating costs of CVA01 and her associated escorts, air group and support for forty years or so would have been more than offset by the cost of not having to run Operation Corporate. And, had the UK spent a few pennies on CVA01 and adequate naval aviation, think of the thousands of lives, Argentine and British that would have been saved. The Romans were right, if you seek peace, prepare for war.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: