Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: PS-890 radar
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.070829.13824@amd.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 17:49:46 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.033318.3949@amd.com> <1991Apr17.055507.13632@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 48
Approved: military@amd.com


From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)


>From: wyse!stevew@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Wilson x2580 dept303)
>... Do the Harriers have the capability of doing bombing runs in
>all-weather conditions?

Depends on precisely what you mean, but the general answer is "yes".  The
Sea Harrier, in particular, is radar-equipped.

One noteworthy aspect of this is that Harriers can land on carriers in
conditions that would close down conventional flying, because Harriers
normally land in VTOL mode.  The landing is at the deck center, where
deck motion is least, rather than at one extreme end where it's worst.
Also, the pilot can take his time during landing and consequently can
work in poorer visibility.  During the Falklands War, Harriers operated off
Hermes and Invincible in seas described as "mountainous" and visibility of
roughly one ship length.  (This was the open Atlantic in winter, remember.)
"It's much easier to stop and then land than to land and then try to stop."

>In the U.S.  configurations these missions
>have different aircraft types typically assigned...

Increasingly less so, with the F-18 being touted as the answer to everything.
The days of specialist aircraft are rapidly drawing to a close in both the
USAF and the USN.  (Not everyone thinks this is a good idea, mind you.)

>... Also, just being bigger,
>the U.S. carriers can carry more aircraft.  Consequently, the combat
>power of a U.S. Carrier is significantly larger.

A standard USN argument, but a very dubious one.  The question is not the
combat power of one carrier, but the combat power of a carrier task force.
A Nimitz is about four times the displacement of an Invincible and carries
about four times as many aircraft under similar operating rules, but costs
much more than four times as much.  It also has the liability of being a
single large target instead of several small ones; its greater durability
doesn't entirely make up for this.  Supercarriers have to be justified
based on the ability to operate better aircraft, not just more of them.

(Note, by the way, that "US carriers" is poor terminology.  About half
the US's aircraft carriers are roughly Invincible class!)  (If you can't
figure out which ones I'm referring to, a hint:  for political reasons
they are not called "aircraft carriers".)
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry