And now for something completely different...RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage.

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: And now for something completely different...RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage.
Volkodav 5/24/2009 4:55:42 AM

The Lightning was a contender for RAAF how serious a contender I don't know. The main choice always seemed to be between the Mirage and the Lockheed Starfighter with the Phantom and Lightning being only bit players. The Lightning was apparently ruled out due to it's lack of ground attack capability, not that the Mirage was a wiz in the air to ground department either. The RR Avon and Ferranti Airpass radar of the Lightning were actually considered for the baseline Mirage III EO as they would have offered significantly improved performance. Imagine now that the RAAF had selected an evolved derivative of the Lightning. Would we have used it in Vietnam? What modifications and improvements would it have incorporated? What upgrades would it received during its life? What weapons would it have been certified for,i.e. Sidewinder, Paveway? What would the sale to Australia have meant for the program as a whole and then for the British and Austrlaian aviation industries?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT

Volkodav 5/31/2009 7:30:53 AM

The Avon version wasn't as much more expensive as the government believed, the French claimed to be quoting the Atar's price in Australian Pounds but had mistakenly assumed the Australian Pound was worth the same as Pound Sterling, there by underquoting their own price by a significant degree.

Quote Reply

Heorot 5/31/2009 12:37:04 PM

And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell to you.

I believe the Yanks call it "Plausible deniability"

Quote Reply

Herald12345 U want to take up Bloodhound as a SAM. 5/31/2009 3:47:36 PM

Bloodhound 1.

Bloodhound 2.

Technical commentary:

Like the THUNDERBIRD which she closely resembles; BLOODHOUND as a SAM was a two step missile with four strap on solids driving her to operating speed and in her case a pair of THOR ramjet sustainers. The radars that drove and guided the bird were what I call three link, one set to detect and provide range and height data of the target to generate a predict track, one set to track the BLOODHOUND so that it could be compared to the target track and be intercept window corrected by telemetry in flight (command updated), and a third set to supply velocity data (clock compared tail to nose interferometry) to the BLOODHOUND so that it could employ a very primitive ground station computed Lambert solution (velocity predict match) during the ramjet burn (the missile thrust was throttled to match predict speed). It was a COMPLEX aggressive guidance solution that radar program used that preceded and which HAWK mimicked in many ways. This type architectire is called retramsmission homing guidance and is very difficult to design and use. It was very advanced for the day.

Given that HAWK was cheaper, simpler, and covered about 60% of the MER with a better battleproven PK (about 50% versus 35% over the engagement interval out to a 30,000 meter slant at the time.), I can see why HAWK became the Western land SAM of choice during the 60s and 70s. Nevertheless the BLOODHOUND was and is not a bad SAM. Its very complex though.

I would have looked at THUNDERBIRD instead.

THUNDERBIRD.

Technical comment. Same excellent radars. The big winner here, though, is the SOLID ROCKET MOTOR sustainer. That is one of the reasons Australia once picked it as the mobile SAM she would use (Never bought in, why?). The radar solution was the first pure CW SARH.that actually worked right (1959). (HAWK had to be tweaked until 1963 to be declared reliable)

What would make a good fixed site SAM for the era?

TALOS.

Better than NIKE HERCULES (which was a superb missile): PK was 80%+ IN BATTLE per missile used.

China Lake converted her from a beam rider to a pure SARH around 1964. When that happened she became one of the best killers of the era. .

The Navy missiles always had a much harder time than their landbased counterparts. The ocean does funny things to radar and rockets.........

Herald

Quote Reply

Lawman 5/31/2009 5:29:56 PM

Herald: On the issue of getting the Essex, I would not go down that path, due to the sheer cost of manning and running them. The Essex, if rebuilt to the Oriskany spec, would have been a brilliant capability boost (e.g. could have carried F-8s as well as Skyhawks, plus E-1 Tracers, S-2 Trackers, etc...), but without a lot of US funding, a complete no go.

Though unrelated to aircraft matters, the other issue would be the destroyer escort and air defence destroyer roles. As it was, the Perth class, i.e. modified Charles F Adams class, was chosen. One possibility here would be a more Aussie solution, utilising a common Leander-type hull, fitted out in much the same way as the USS Brooke and USS Garcia classes, i.e. an air defence ship and an ASW ship, all on the same base. The hangar should ideally be compatible with at least the Wessex, and preferably the Sea King.

As for the land based Talos, I agree wholeheartedly, it was an excellent system, and given its good capabilities, it might have also served as a coastal defence missile (as part of a SAM complex, not as a dedicated SSM). For more mobile purposes, then I do like Hawk, though there are some other possibilities, especially if we are talking about land basing naval SAMs, then RIM-24 Tartar could be a possibility too! It could offer a common missile, for the RAN onboard their destroyer escorts, for the RAAF protecting airbases and population centres, and for the Army as protection for forces in the field.

One possible twist in this whole scenario would have been the Konfrontasi going into high gear, and for much longer. Had the Soviet aid been more impressive, e.g. SA-2s, radars, lots of submarines and missile boats, a second Sverdlov, a hundred plus Mig 21s, and a couple of dozen Tu-16s. An American-backed ADF build up might have made some of the more ambitious plans more practical, though obviously constrained by fundamental manpower shortages.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 5/31/2009 8:57:41 PM

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=170058&d=1235608508" width="802" height="370" />

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll216/raymondhall64/Carriercomparison.jpg" alt="Photobucket" border="0" />

We really don't have much choice if we are going to have seagoing airpower beyond the capabilities of the Majestic Class.

The Buccaneer barely worked off the HMS Eagle as is. Unless we go Etendard, we cannot operate anything much beyond a Skyhawk off that flight deck. You need a takeoff run even with catapult assist.

I love the Leanders! In Australian service they were called the Rivers Class I think. Seacat has got to go though. Horrible missile. How can you base an anti aircraft missile on an anti-tank rocket?

The only GOOD American rocket that will fit a ship that small at that time, is TERRIER or maybe TARTAR which was TOO SLOW and too difficult to capture to engage a target at the time. Wessex was the better helo from a flying standp-oint though not sensors and load carrying standpoint..

Terrier

Why not just keep the Adams class destroyers and use the Leanders for the ASW part of the mussion? The Adams and Leanders together were better than anything we had in the Brookes and Garcias for the role at the time.

If we go the Tartar route then the missile has to matched to the Tartar radar system (Tartar Guided Missile Fire Control System or the Mk74) or the Yellow River Type 83 THUNDERBOLT radar setup. That missile will not work with anything else.

On another note:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=170058&d=1235608508" width="737" height="338" />

As you can see from the layout of HMAS Melbourne, the Trackers and Skyhawks can work, so the RB04 as a strike weapon to sink Mister Sverdlov:

Missile target-IRIAN.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/85/249508375_047967fa77.jpg?v=0" width="500" height="319" />

Based on what I know about the class? A pounding she could take. About eight rockets (Tartar/Terrier or RB04) could reduce her to shamb

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Essex 6/2/2009 8:01:49 AM

Apparently we were offerred one for free. We turned it down because we couldn't man it.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 One Two punch 6/2/2009 2:06:25 PM

Lansen

Contents

Background

By 1945, it was clear that future combat aircraft would be jet propelled. We got jet fighters in 1946, in the form of Vampires, but to find a replacement for our Saab 18 bomber was to take longer. That project was started in 1946. The first concepts had two de Havilland Ghost engines, with short in- and outlets. Flying wing concepts figured, and were strong contenders, but mainly because of accidents with foreign aircraft of that configuration, was abandoned.

Most concepts had four 20 mm cannon and an internal rocket launcher for a dozen 15-18 cm rockets. Other armaments was two 500 kg bombs or a missile type 303. In 1948 it was decided to go for a smaller, single engine aircraft "project 1150". The requirement was for an aircraft that "could carry its weapons - guns, rockets, bombs and missiles - from a centrally placed air base to any part of our 2000 km coast line, in under one hour, in any weather and during darkness" In 1949 it was awarded the designation "type 32". The name Lansen means The Lance.

By 1949, the design looked very much like what it became, apart from the stabilizer beeing placed halfway up on the fin. There was also a smaller, single-seat variant, which would have been a daylight interceptor.

Lansen was the first aircraft designed in Sweden where the design work was not based on ordinary blue-prints, but on a mathematical coordinate system. The airframe was designed to be used up to +8G and -3G and withstand +12G and -8G.

To test a large scale model of the wing, with 35 degrees sweepback, a half-scale was mounted on a Saab Safir, thus becoming the only Saab 202 (Saab 201 was a Safir with a half-scale Tunnan wing). It had both Fowler flaps and a leading edge slot. The slot was discarded as unnecessary after trials with the prototypes and never appeared on a series aircraft.

The engine intended for Lansen was the Swedish STAL Dovern (RM 4), which was an excellent engine. It was not finished in time for the prototypes, so a foreign engine had to be used for them. For several reasons, Rolls-Royce Avons came to be used on the series aircraft too.

The first Lansen prototype first flew on Nov 3:rd 1952.

Designations:

A, Attack  = Strike

J, Jakt    = Interceptor

S, Spaning = Reconnaissance

The different versions

A 32A

http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/img/saab/x_saaba32a.jpg" align="right" /> This was the ground attack and maritime strike version. It replaced Saab B 18 and was later replaced by Viggen.

In the years 1955-58 287 were delivered to the Swedish air force, where the last ones remained in service until 1978. Serial numbers were 32001-32287.

Guns

This version had four 20 mm guns in the nose, covered by shutters. The shutters were opened upon "safety off", but had to be closed by command. Empty casings were kept from the air intakes by a pair of small plates under the nose. As they then impacted the fuel tank, its nose were covered in neoprene to protect it.

Radar

The radar used in A 32A was designated PS-431/A and was of French design, built in Sweden.

As these aircraft always operated in groups, and as an economy measure only about 25% of them were given radars. It also seems like not all aircraft had navigators aboard, so it's likely that everybody just followed the boss.

Instrumented ranges were 8, 20, 80 and 160 km. Used to aim RB 04 antiship missiles and dropping of illumination flares.

Radar altimeter 0-200 m. Not used very much.

Sight

Gyro sight interconnected with barometric altimeter. Compensated for wind and target movement. For bombs, after pressing release button pull

Quote Reply

Volkodav 6/3/2009 9:31:01 AM

There were 3 ways to kill a Sverdlov, heavy height torpedo's, free fall nuclear bombs or lots and lots of medium calibre projectiles. If we acquired nukes then the Skyhawk could have done the job, while both the Battle and Daring class Destroyers retained heavy weight torpedoes and the Oberon class subs were available for order from the UK.

As for the gun solution the proposed guided missile cruiser for the RN during the mid to late 50's looked quite good with 2 twin Mk26 6" turrets forward, 4 twin Mk6 3" midrift and either Seaslug, Terrier or Talos aft and a Type 984 3D radar atop the bridge. The design anticipated replacing 2 of the 4 3" mounts with Tartar don't know whether they were looking at the Mk11, 13 or 22 launcher though. Too bad it was , a) cancelled, b) expensive and c) needed a crew of over 1000, otherwise 3 of them would have done very nicely in the RAN instead of the Adams class DDG's. Imagine a Terrier variant receiving NTU in the late 80's early 90's.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/3/2009 12:29:34 PM

There is another way to kill a Sverdlov. The punch of a Mach 1.7+ projectile, even if it is a TERRIER will pierce into the hull or upper works of that ship. The 100 kgs of fill doesn't seem like much of an explosive charge, but if hits there is more energy delivered as total energy than a 12' naval shell at its typical speed of Mach 1.25.

I HATE Seaslug. As a configuration the RAE completely goofed up the first two design iterations. They were constrained by three major considerations:

1. The missile stack had to be compact in length to fit the rather smnall ships the RN was allowed to build by the Exchequer. Remember that the ships of the day stored these missiles's parts in racks like torpedoes, and that these missiles were staged together from these components inside a deck house before being presented to a laumcher. On a COUNTY Class almost half of the ship's amidship storage and upper works was used to store, assemble, and handle the Sea Slig under cover from the weather! The type of solid fuel candles and the thick walled motor casings available to the UK at the time meant, that the first step boosters had to be either twin or quad pullers instead of a sharp burn single candle thin cased booster in line with the killbody, as was used to boost the American naval SAMs.

2. The British wanted to solve the the inverted pendulum rocket problem without resorting to all the vanes and fins that they used on the THUNDERBIRD and BLOODHOUND. The British of the day, HATED the lift strakes and canard fin controls of the American missiles. because they thought that solution was clumsy and overcomplex. The British solution also offered the elegant solution of the whole missile body gyro spin to control nose point drift at initial launch The Sea Slug solution as a composite did outrange Terrier's slant range by 50% for a missile of approximately the same length missile. The British solution did have its advantages!

3. The British solution however fouled the forward antenna array of the Sea Slug during the early critical flyout. SARH was almost impossible with that configuration. They were stuck with a beam rider through out the missile's existence. The later version used a retransmission command update telemetry, but twas never as good as the THUNDERBIRD.

The British solition for Sea Slug was the X-puller configuration.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/3/2009 3:26:17 PM

There are a few problems with that idea.

1. The Tartar could not be side loaded onto a Mark13 single arm launcher from a deckhouse magazine. You would have to stow the missiles as ready rounds in a revolver magazine as we developed for the Perry's and Charles Adams class. With that said, the Tartar could be a good choice for the 1965 to 1975 era for you Adams destroyers as they are modified with the NUU upgrade.

2. Manning. Australia already had trouble with finding the manpower for her carriers, and destroyers. Why match type against type? The cure for a Sverdlov was an Oberon and the appropriate airpower. Besides if a Sverdlov met an Adams, the Sverdlov's life expectancy could be measured in minutes.The Terrier/Tartar combo was designed from the start with an anti-ship bombardment feature. These were SARH missiles. They didn't care WHAT they hit as long as the radar target reflected return was coded for their missile receivers. How many equivalents to a PLUNGING 12' naval shell could a Sverdlov take again? Eight?.KABOOM!

Herald

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT