VIDEO:

In the 1982 Falkland Islands war, Argentina on the land continent of South America invaded the British-owned Falkland Islands to divert attention away from internal domestic issues. Ensconced on the Falkland islands, the Argentines waited for the British Royal Navy in a vast ad hoc armada of desperation amphibious ships to arrive. For an excellent brief history of the air war see Dr. Corum's article and the airpower magazine from Austria's in-depth coverage in the NOTES section. Another option is to watch the videos below:

Falklands War Over-View

This war was the "littoral" combat near shores that the Navy brass are so infatuated with and claim to be adapting to. If Red China invades nearby Taiwan, by the time the U.S. responds a good part of that nation's islands will be occupied---in other words the same belligerent gobbling up a nearby neighbor scenario as the Falklands. With over a billion hungry and thirsty for water, food and amenities people, a convenient land grab for Taiwan to rally everyone around the "one China" flag might be too appealing for the Red Chinese dictators to pass up.

However, this time Red China will have a complete surveillance strike complex (SSC) in place--there will be no gaps in radar, sonar and patrol aircraft coverage. The U.S. Navy's surface WILL be seen and targeted. If you can be seen, you can be hit. If you can be hit, you can be killed.

In modern naval combat, seaplane fighters should be on EVERY capital ship to provide their own AES and AAW/ASW cover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_naval_tactics

"The key to successful AAW is to destroy the launching platform before it fires, thus removing a number of missile threats in one go."

This is one thing, the British did well by cramming every Harrier they could onto their ships, saving their entire effort. That was 1982. Today, the British have UNDONE their force structure and UNlearnt this lesson to have adequate air cover by retiring their Sea Harriers! Its so shocking and stupid, we have had to add a point #12 on this web page to address this. The U.S. Navy followed this insanity by retiring their F-14 Tomcats with long-range Phoenix missiles, placing both fleets at risk of enemy ASM destruction due to non-existent or weak outer ring air covers. It looks like both navies need to relearn lesson #1 again--and quick.

AIR & SEA LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

1. Its the guided ASMs, stupid

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYUqC6VEuMI

The stunning truth of the 1982 Falkland Islands war is that had the Argentines did everything wrong that they did---but had 100 air-launched Exocet anti-ship missiles (ASMs) instead of the less than a dozen they did have, THE BRITISH FLEET WOULD HAVE BEEN SUNK OR TURNED AWAY.

They would have "won" the war. Not only did the British invasion fleet of 1982 lack an effective anti-ASM defense back then, surface ships today still lack the stealth to avoid and the anti-missile missiles and rapid-firing guns and heavy armor protection needed to survive multiple, modern naval guided missile strikes.

Here's some UNCLASS data on fairly common anti-shipping systems KNOWN to be available to Third World nations on an almost "cash & carry" basis, (and therefore available to sub-national adversaries):

Origin Name Range Notes

Russian Styx 80km I think everyone who hates us owns some
Russian Siren 90km Nominally sub-launched
Russian Silex 55km Not just ASW, there IS an anti-ship version
Russian Sandbox 550km Large missile, less likely
Russian Shipwreck 625km Large missile, less likely
French Exocet 65km We know it works, ask the RN
PRC Silkworm 80km Styx copy
PRC C701 15km Short range, less threat
PRC C101 45km
PRC FL7 32km Also produced by Iran
PRC HY2 95km Large missile, Iran has large stocks
PRC HY3 100km Large missile, land based coastal defense

This doesn't even include the missiles that probably are out of reach of sub-national groups or Third World advesaries. So, ignoring the really big missiles (around 10 meters long for the missile alone), and figuring that rarely do maximum range attacks work very well, a 65km safety bubble around the boat, is likely to work as a passive measure.

www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1449.cfm

HAS RUSSIAN AND CHINESE MISSILE TECHNOLOGY DOOMED THE U.S. NAVY IN THE UPCOMING PLANNED THIRD WORLD WAR?

Subtitle: The Russians have developed and deployed a supersonic cruise missile that travels so quickly as to defeat the U.S. Navy anti-missile defenses. This supersonic cruise missile also can carry a nuclear warhead. China has this Russian cruise missile! Is this why Chinese military leaders have warned us that, if we defend Taiwan, our Naval forces "die"?

NEWS BRIEF: U.S. Missile Gap Widen: Pentagon's hypersonic weapon program by 2010, WorldNetDaily,

www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_smith_news/20001003_xnsof_us_missile.shtml

by Charles Smith, October 3, 2000.

"Despite the Pentagon's development of a new generation of hypersonic missile, the U.S. is still a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise-missile design, according to defense analysts. According to the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, the U.S. military is developing a new hypersonic robot missile reported to be capable of traveling in excess of six times the speed of sound and armed with its own miniature smart bombs. The new weapon, called the Advanced Rapid Response Missile Demonstrator, or ARRMD, is designed to cruise at over 4,000 miles an hour and strike targets hundreds of miles away in only a few seconds."

Wow! This type of weapon would be a devastating weapon that could penetrate any defense system known today. A missile moving toward a target at 4,000 miles per hour would move so quickly through even the most sophisticated defense system that no computer could react quickly enough to shoot it down before it blew the targeted ship out of the water. Thank God we are working on it, and not the Russians and Chinese. Right? Wrong!!

"Nevertheless, defense analysts agree that the U.S. is fully a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise missile designs. Russia currently deploys and exports the supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile, NATO codenamed "Sunburn." The SS-N-22 is considered the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, and flies at over 2.5 times the speed of sound only a few feet from the surface of the water." [This speed amounts to almost 1,700 miles per hour, or 28 miles-per-minute].

Moskit ASM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMqyWotOUz0

Wait a minute! You mean that Russia not only has this type of missile, but they have already deployed it? Further, they are exporting it to other nations! Does this mean that China might have this missile? Does this mean that both China and Russia might be able to deploy this missile in the upcoming planned Third World War? Listen:

"The Sunburn missile has been sold to China. The SS-N-22s are part of a recent Chinese purchase of two Sovremenny-class destroyers. Each warship carries two quad SS-N-22 launchers providing eight missiles per destroyer. According to U.S. Navy documentation, each Sunburn missile can be armed with a nuclear warhead equal to over 200,000 tons of TNT. News reports of nuclear warheads on the new Chinese anti-ship missiles were first published in WorldNetDaily in 1999."

I cannot find any level of horror high enough to describe my feelings about China and Russia possessing this type of weaponry, as I know the planned Third World War and the roles each of these nations are planned to play. I can remember the veiled threats from Russian former premier Boris Yeltsin that Russia is still to be feared and respected even though she was having such great economic trouble. I can well remember the threats of Chinese military leaders that, if America intervened in a Taiwan battle, our Navy would die, and that maybe we might even lose Los Angeles. This article proves that China and Russia are cooperating instead of being enemies or of being neutral toward one another. Listen:

"The Sunburn in China has proven to be a great concern inside the Pentagon. China's acquisition of the SS-N-22 is providing the People's Liberation Army with insights into Russian ramjet technology that may be applied to China's new strategic cruise-missile program. China has previously tested a ground-launched supersonic ramjet weapon based on the SA-4 and SA-6 surface-to-air missiles produced by Russia."

This article demonstrates, beyond doubt, that Russia and China today are cooperating against the United States. Top-level meetings between leaders of the two countries have been ongoing at all levels, including the highest level, between the current leaders of Russia and of China. For President Clinton to state again and again that "China is not a threat", and neither is Russia, is ludicrous beyond belief. We may die because this Communist/Illuminist President has acted on this belief.

Let us now continue examining this article:

"In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. A senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington based think-tank, Fisher reported that the SS-N-22 may be capable of a dive speed of Mach 4.5 that would help it evade U.S. naval defenses. The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead."

Now we can begin to understand the effect this type of weapon might have on our Navy. If this missile can move so quickly that it would penetrate our current Phalanx point defense system would not have the time to plot a solution and fire in time to destroy the missile before it hits one of our ships.

But, what would happen if one of these weapons were outfitted with a warhead that was nuclear rather than conventional? What would happen if one or more of these missiles were outfitted with a warhead of the size mentioned, above, equal to 200,000 pounds of TNT? This terrible possibility is covered by another article.

"U.S. Eyes China First Strike Capability; Nuclear-tipped Missiles Set For Deployment On Destroyers", November 11, 2000,

www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19991111_xex_us_eyes_chin.shtml

by Charles Smith.

"The Pentagon is reportedly investigating allegations that China will deploy nuclear-tipped missiles on two Russian-built Sovremenny-class destroyers, said by one defense expert to be warships designed to start a nuclear war. Reports of nuclear warheads on the new Chinese anti-ship missiles first appeared inside a new book called 'Red Dragon Rising'. According to the book's co-author, William Triplett, each Chinese warship is equipped with eight nuclear-tipped, Russian-made Moskit anti-ship missiles -- each armed with a warhead equal to over 120,000 tons of TNT. 'The Sovremenny is strictly an offensive platform', stated Triplett during a WorldNetDaily interview."

My years with U.S. Army Intelligence has taught me that, for a public disclosure to be made about a new capability, deployment has already occurred. Since this second article was published November 11, and based upon a book written before that, we can assume safely that China has already deployed this fearsome weapon. In fact, this article later states that the Chinese have already deployed these type destroyers.

"According to the U.S. Naval Institute, in August 1999, the first of two 8,480-ton Russian Navy Project 956A destroyers built for China conducted trials in the eastern Baltic. Each 956A warship is armed with eight supersonic 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missiles (NATO code-named SS-N-22 'Sunburn') ... In 1996, the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy negotiated to buy the Yekaterinburg and another 956A class destroyer named the Alexandr Nevskiy. The Yekaterinburg is due for delivery by the end of 1999 and the second destroyer by the end of 2000."

We know that the Chinese Navy has had possession of one of these destroyers since the "end of 1999", and since we are currently at the "end of 2000", China has the second ship on the high seas right now. This means they have 16 "supersonic 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missiles" in their arsenal, each one nuclear-capable. Let us continue with this second article:

"Triplett also openly charged the missiles arming the new warships are nuclear-tipped. Each warhead is six times more powerful than the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima,' said Triplett. 'The new missiles are designed specifically to destroy American carriers and Aegis cruisers with a single nuclear blast'."

We are now at the point where we can understand the full import of our information from these two articles. The U.S. Navy might just have been rendered obsolete to the point where our ships are sitting ducks in a nuclear target gallery, rather than "State-of-the-Art fighting ships capable of defeating any foe in the world". If China were to fire just three of these missiles, each one with a nuclear warhead of 120,000 tons of TNT, in the air just above our fleet, and detonated them, an aircraft carrier, all of its Aegis cruisers and all support ships, would be annihilated instantaneously. The loss of life would be enormous, and total. Americans would panic beyond belief, as we try to cope with the combined news of war throughout the world, terrible loss of life, much of it by loved ones, economic collapse, and threats against our cities.

This new naval capability must be behind the threat by Chinese leaders of late that we had best not defend Taiwan or our Naval forces would "die". I fear very much for the safety of American armed forces in this coming Third World War. We have a bona fide, proven Communist/Illuminist President in Bill Clinton [Read NEWS1315, "Bill Clinton Much More Than A "Stealth" Communist President: He Is An Illuminist" for full details]. When the chips are down, and quick decisions have to be made in order to defend our armed forces and defeat an enemy that might be attacking, will Bill Clinton give the order? If we learn that these Chinese naval vessels are beginning to arm and track their nuclear-tipped missiles and are in a position to fire them above an American carrier fleet, will Bill Clinton do everything in his power to diplomatically or militarily dissuade the Chinese from attacking?

After all, not only is Clinton a Communist/Illuminist, but he is proven to have taken so much money from the Chinese government for his 1996 reelection campaign, that he could be fairly thought of as "in their back pocket". Will he order an overwhelming American response in order to protect our fleet, and our brave and capable American Soldiers and Seamen?

I have one other concern: one of the most consistent threads running in New Age and New World Order books is that globalist leaders of the New World Order consider their personal loyalty to belong to the global government they are creating, and not to the government of which they are citizens. American presidents from Woodrow Wilson to William Clinton have been globalist to the core. They are not patriots, even though they have certainly tried to portray themselves as such. They consider patriotism to be such a serious obstacle to the final establishment of their global system that they have done everything in their power to weaken and destroy patriotism in the minds of their subjects. Thus, American schools have been teaching the value of a global government for a number of decades now. Many Americans today are not the firm and fanatic American patriots of their predecessors.

As Clinton and others lead the American people through the Third World War designed to produce Antichrist and dissolve our traditional Republic form of government, they consider patriotism to be their last great enemy. In fact, these leaders tie American patriotism and Gun Ownership advocates together. Could it be possible that our troops might be led into battle in such an inept manner that they might be annihilated wholesale?

One of the greatest shocks I received was the realization that top Admirals were as committed to the New World Order as any of their civilian bosses. I walked out of the June, 1999 Naval War College Strategy Session shaking my head, not sure anymore that our top military men owed their allegiance to this country first of all, and to their troops secondly of all.

FYI: the Bush crime family are all illuminist/globalists, too! NEW THREAT: Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBMs) as ASMs

Editor of G2mil.com, Carlton Meyer warns us:

"A big danger to aircraft carriers are ballistic missiles. G2mil has an article 'Can an ICBM hit a ship'. I'm sure the Russians could hit one in port in the USA. With a conventional or no warhead, a big missile warhead coming down at Mach 5 would slice right through the ship. An Iraqi SCUD nearly hit an LHA in port in Saudi during the first Gulf war. There was an article in Proceedings about it. The author noted with that ship full of fuel and ammo, it would have been very bad. So if you put some IR guidance on an SCUD, the Navy is in trouble. It is developing anti-missile missiles SM-3s which seen to work, but only against a single known target in tests. If someone fired a dozens guided SCUDs at a carrier I say several would hit it. Do the math, Aegis radar looks out only 100 miles, (E-2C provide a much bigger look, but don't look up high) so a Mach 5 (~3000 mph) incoming missile provides a battlegroup with just a couple seconds to track, ID, fire, and intercept, e.g. impossible to defend against."

Carlton

BAD SHIP CAMOUFLAGE

Falklands War 1982: picture of a British surface ship in all gray color sitting in medium blue water too close to the grassy green shore being attacked by Argentine aircraft who are visually aiming cannon fire and iron "dumb" bombs. Would painting the ship in blaze orange with a bull's eye be any more damaging?

Let's have some honesty here, ok?

Navies paint their ships in GRAY when water is BLUE because:

a. they are non-warfighting bureaucrats and ships primarily show the flag at civilian ports that we are not warmongers when we are

b. they are afraid of colliding with each other

Because...if they were serious about warfighting they'd paint their ships in the blue color of the ocean they are in!

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

Yet the USN and marines who say they base their warfare to prevail in the guided missile age, have not taken this lesson to heart and are continuing with their high-technification of WW2 mentality where guided missiles were not prevalent. In fact, the Navy/marines racketeers "pork-ize" SeaBasing for themselves with even more expensive, vulnerable amphib ships. Nevermind that none of the plan below would help us one iota deep inland in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are packing even more men into vulnerable surface ships for untimely deaths by a rain of enemy missiles, torpedoes and sea mines.

DefenseNews.com
July 14, 2005

New U.S. Navy Sea Base Plan Includes Assault Ships

By Christopher P. Cavas

The future makeup of the U.S. Navy's new Sea Base squadrons has been dramatically changed, moving from a collection of modified prepositioning ships based on commercial designs to include three large-deck assault ships per squadron and modified versions of Navy supply ships.

Up to nine LHD or LHA(R) big-deck assault ships are included in the plan - three per squadron. Those ships would be beyond current fleet requirements, which call for about nine to 11 assault ships to deploy marine expeditionary units.

How many squadrons are needed for the plan is not yet clear, according to the Navy, but the number is "between one and three," service spokesman Capt. Tom Van Leunen said July 14. He called the new plan a "significant" change from previous ideas.

The revision could be a boon for shipbuilders, particularly Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, which has built all 13 of the Navy's assault ships, and General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding (NASSCO) in San Diego, which is building the new T-AKE dry cargo ammunition ships and has built a number of T-AKR roll-on/roll-off ships for the current pre-positioning forces.

Details of the new plan were provided to Congress June 6, when Navy acquisition chief John Young sent a report to the chairmen of the House and Senate defense committees. Further details appeared in a briefing for Congress prepared by the marine corps. Copies of each report were obtained by Defense News.

As now envisioned by the Navy, the plan includes:

* Two LHA(R) large-deck amphibious ships fitted with marine Expeditionary Brigade command-and-control facilities.

* One LHD amphibious ship, fitted for aviation command and control.

* Three modified LMSR roll-on/roll-off ships, similar to those now in service with joint prepositioning forces.

* Three Combat Logistic Force ships, variants of the T-AKE dry cargo ammunition ships now under construction at NASSCO.

* Three Mobile Landing Platform ships, a new type able to embark 1,112 marines.

* Two "dense packed" ships, using prepositioning ships already in service.

Van Leunen emphasized that although Navy and marine corps leaders have signed off on the new plan, no official proposals have been released to industry to build the new ships. Initial briefings on the plan to top Pentagon leaders have been "received positively," he said, but the scheme is still "awaiting formal approval."

Already, thousands of marines and sailors are routinely packed on board aircraft and amphibious carriers that will simply not survive if a rain of ASMs land upon them. These surface ships are visible from space and air to facilitate enemy targeting. The USMC has absurdly wasted $BILLIONS on an over-the-horizon (OTH) assault capability via the failed V-22 convertible helicopter-plane and the EFV high water speed bloated light armored tractor just so their mother ships can remain 25 miles off shore and under the curvature of the earth to avoid enemy coast defenses. The foolishness of this approach is that it ASS U MEs that we are only going to attack the enemy from one direction---what if the enemy has already landed on the friendly islands we want to take back and came from a nearby continental mainland? Launching an OTH assault from 25 miles off the shore of a "satellite" island only puts the mother ships that much CLOSER TO THE CONTINENTAL MAINLAND where thousands of ASMs from ground and air launchers can then rain down upon them. And Red China indeed has many ASMs of increasingly sophisticated types that will indeed overwhelm our surface navy if it ventures into the littorals to defend Taiwan.

Editor of G2mil.com, Carlton Meyer writes:

"The Navy likes to brag that a missile could not sink an aircraft carrier, that is probably true, provide the carrier has no fuel or ordnance aboard. One hit in the right spot can send a carrier burning out of control, or could blow it apart if the magazine is hit. Imagine if a couple F/A-18s each loaded with thousands of pounds of bombs were hit on deck. Read about the USS Forrestal off Vietnam. I think it was a 20mm gun fired accidentally that hit a loaded aircraft on deck and then almost the whole ship was lost. The ship was saved, thereafter called the 'Forrest Fire' by sailors."

Carlton

FIXES:

* The V-22 and EFV should be cancelled in favor of CH-53 SkyCranes helicopters that can lift troops with tracked armored fighting vehicles like M113 Gavins with waterjets called "Amphigavins" to enable amphibious and sealift mother ships to remain completely out of enemy ASM range. Unlike puny V-22s that even if they worked would limit troops to unarmored "dune buggies", the Air Assault/Heliborne Amphigavin force would have Air-Mech-Strike capabilities to fight with mounted, armored 3D maneuver.

www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/amphigavins.htm

Offload of sealift ships must be expedited by LCAC/ACVLAP interface:

www.geocities.com/strategicmaneuver

* All existing surface ships must be drastically up-armored and increased in ASM countermeasures and counter-weapons.

Ship wakes: still a vulnerability today!

* Future surface ships must be heavily armored and have their wakes dissipate by the time they reach the stern to be invisible from air/space. ALL ships must be painted in sea blue or "dazzle" paint and too bad if it looks "war like".

GOOD SHIP CAMOUFLAGE

Notice above, the Royal Navy submarine on the surface is in a dark blue to blend in with the water. Even the U.S. Navy's subs are in a dark color for camouflage. Why not the surface navy?

www.combatreform2.com/camie.htm

* Submarine aircraft carriers must be fielded.

www.combatreform2.com/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm

* USMC must get out of the bloated amphib ship and bloated amtrack mentality and obtain seaplane transports

www.combatreform2.com/seaplanetransports.htm

www.geocities.com/armorhistory/amphibiousinfantrytanks.htm * Face fact that ships WILL be sunk and re-equip Sailors to survive explosions, fires and being thrown into the water

2. Ocean Patrol Planes must be able to fight, and they should be capable of in-flight refueling and better yet be jet seaplanes to refuel from ships

One of the things that saved the Royal Navy (RN) was that Argentine unarmed 707 jet airliners tailing their invasion fleet were run off by SeaHarrier STOVL jets. The Argentines had a hard time without space satellites and ocean patrol planes to locate the RN fleet to launch Exocet ASM and dumb bomb attacks until the fleet stopped offshore the Falkland Islands to offload ground forces. In fact, since the British chased off Argentine 707s from ocean surveillance with SeaHarrier jets during the Falklands war, the "lessons learned" migrated to their own ocean surveillance Nimrods which can be armed with AIM-9L air-to-air missiles to self-protect. I think we need to get longer ranged AMRAAMs on our patrol planes so the enemy fighter can be kept farther away/shot down.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

In 2000, an unarmed USN EP-3 Aries II patrol plane was intimidated and then brought down by a Communist jet fighter after a collision. If prior to a war, a capable enemy blinds/disables/shoots down our ocean surveillance satellites, we will be in the same emasculated position as the Argentines were in 1982.

Not only are our current P-3C Orion patrol planes unarmed, the Navy wants to buy yet another civilian airliner, a 737 commuter jet to replace them at great cost but with little improvements in combat power. The time has come to face the facts that in naval combat RANGE achieved through a multi-engined fixed-wing plane means a plane vulnerable to shoot down by smaller, faster enemy fighter jets flying from nearby land or sea bases. If we sail to defend Taiwan, WE WILL BE GOING INTO THE CHINESE ENEMY'S BACKYARD WHERE HE WILL HAVE THOUSANDS OF MISSILES AND JET PLANES to shoot down our P-3C or warmed-over 737 airliner patrol planes.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/70087_boeing13.shtml

Boeing 737 may be enlisted as a warplane

Monday, May 13, 2002

By JAMES WALLACE

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

ST. LOUIS -- Flying off the Washington state coast recently, a Boeing 737 suddenly swooped low above the dark waters of the Pacific.

P-I GRAPHIC

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/pdf/737military.pdf

View a graphic showing the main attributes of the 737 business vs. military versions and the primary competition (Acrobat PDF, 120K).

When the jet was just a couple hundred feet above the waves and banking sharply, power was cut to one of the two jet engines -- a maneuver that no commercial pilot would deliberately make with a planeload of passengers.

But this was no commercial flight. It was a demonstration for the U.S. Navy.

Boeing wants the Navy to select the world's most frequently flown commercial jetliner as a replacement for the aging fleet of Lockheed Martin P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and the EP-3C planes that gather intelligence.

The purpose of the demonstration flight was to simulate an attack on an enemy submarine and show Navy officers on board that a two-engine jetliner designed to carry passengers at nearly Mach 0.80 can make a very good replacement for the lumbering four-engine turboprop Navy planes that often fly low and slow for anti-submarine operations.

It also was an effort to show that the 737 can operate safely and effectively in such an environment, even on one engine.

If Boeing wins the competition, it would mean a lot more 737s rolling down the Renton assembly line.

"We are looking at a global market, but the heart and soul of the program is the U.S. Navy's requirement for about 200-plus planes," said Jack Zerr, general manager of Boeing's maritime aircraft program.

The maritime version of the 737 that Boeing is offering the Navy would be based on the Boeing Business Jet, which has a 737-700 fuselage and the bigger wing of the 737-800 to handle extra weight, including additional fuel tanks.

But rather than being outfitted to carry business executives in plush comfort, the maritime version of the 737 for the Navy would likely have missile racks on its wings and a bomb bay in its belly to carry everything from mines and depth charges to the sonobuoys used to track submarines.

"This plane can do the mission, no question," Zerr said during an interview in his office at the St. Louis headquarters of Boeing's Military Aircraft and Missile Systems.

The company submitted its proposal to the Navy on May 3.

Next month, the Navy is expected to pick several prime contractors for an 18-month initial concept development phase of the program, which is known as the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft, or MMA. The winning contractor would be selected in 2004.

The Navy wants the first planes to be operational by late 2010.

Boeing faces strong competition. Lockheed Martin is offering the Navy a modern and re-engineered version of its P-3. And BAE Systems of Britain is proposing the new version of its Nimrod maritime patrol plane that it is already building for the United Kingdom.

Interestingly, BAE Systems has approached Boeing about becoming its partner in the competition. So one Boeing team could end up competing against another.

Boeing is already a major subcontractor for BAE Systems on its new Nimrod plane, known as the MRA4.

Boeing's chances of winning may well hinge on funding.

The Navy, already facing proposed cuts for its fighter programs, could have a difficult battle to get all the money it wants to replace its P-3s and EP-3s.

"If there is an off-the-shelf jetliner solution for MMA, Boeing's 737 wins," said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation and defense analyst with the Teal Group.

"That's the good news. The bad news is that I don't think the Navy is ready for a jetliner-based solution. Those turbofans and swept wings are terrible for swooping and diving to low altitudes, as patrol aircraft need to do.

"And the absence of any carriage bays means the 737 would either need to cooperate with armed planes, a terrible approach, or Boeing would need to develop a 737 with large munitions and sonobuoy bays. The development costs associated with gouging these large cavities in a round pressurized fuselage would erase many of the cost savings of going with an off-the-shelf jetliner."

He believes the Navy probably will go with the modernized P-3.

But don't count out the newly designed Nimrod, he said.

Navy officers have privately told reporters who cover the defense industry that the new Nimrod would make a very good P-3 replacement.

The Navy initially was not going to allow a foreign prime contractor to enter the competition. That would have forced BAE Systems to look for a partner. But the Navy changed its mind.

"Like the 737, it's a jet, but it has straight wings, so its a good compromise," Aboulafia said of the new Nimrod. "It has huge bomb bays. And it would reward our close ally, Britain. Nimrod can be seen as a promising dark horse."

Boeing's recent 737 demonstration flight for the Navy was done in part to counter the perception -- like Aboulafia's -- that the two-engine jetliner would not be ideal for the kinds of low-altitude missions often flown by the P-3C Orion turboprop planes.

Boeing received permission from one of its airline customers to use a 737-700 whose delivery was delayed because of the Sept. 11 attacks.

At the controls was a Navy pilot and P-3 wing commander. The co-pilot was a Boeing test pilot.

Zerr, a former Navy fighter pilot, was a passenger. The plane took off from Boeing Field and headed out over the Washington coast to simulate an anti-submarine warfare mission.

"They were doing typical ASW maneuvers at 200 feet," Zerr said of the March 5 flight.

It was during one 60-degree banking maneuver that power was deliberately cut to one engine.

"There was no adverse handling," Zerr said. "They leveled the wings, put power on the good engine and climbed right out of there. It was impressive."

Although the 737 is best-known as a workhorse of the commercial airline fleet, it is also used by the military.

Boeing has built 737-700s for the Navy. The C-40A, as the plane is known, is used to carry passengers and cargo for fleet logistics.

And Boeing is developing a 737 for airborne warning and control. Australia has ordered the electronics-laden plane and Boeing is negotiating with Turkey for several more.

But the maritime patrol version presents unique challenges, since the jet would have to carry weapons, some of which would likely be carried on the wings because of the limited size of the bomb bay.

Zerr said wind tunnel testing has been done on a 737 model configured with a bomb bay to determine the handling characteristics of the jet with the doors open. The test results were good, he said.

Additional high-speed wind-tunnel testing will be done in August. Next year, wind-tunnel testing will examine what happens when weapons are dropped from the wings.

"Weapons separation characteristics are one of the items on our risk chart," he said. "But we have a fair amount of experience in this part of The Boeing Co. with dropping weapons from airplanes. It as much an art and craft as engineering and science....

"But separation of weapons from this plane should be no where near as complicated as dropping weapons off airplanes such as fighters, where speed and conditions are considerably more demanding."

Another challenge for the 737 is low-level operations.

"At low altitude, the P-3 does a little better than us," Zerr acknowledged.

But the 737 has a much higher ceiling, and it also has the advantage of speed.

The P-3 and EP-3 replacement planes wanted by the Navy must be able to perform multiple missions. In addition to intelligence-gathering, they must be able to direct what will be a growing fleet of Navy unmanned aerial vehicles.

Navy officials have said they want a plane that can act more like an "airborne node."

But the bottom line remains affordability. One of the program requirements is to reduce what the Navy calls "total ownership costs," and well as reduce current P-3 and EP-3 cost-per-flight-hour by 17 percent.

"We are expecting to do considerably better than that," Zerr said.

Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems are equally confident.

BAE Systems is planning to fly one of its new Nimrod MRA4 patrol planes to the Naval Air Station at Patuxent River in Maryland next year to give the Navy and look -- and a ride.

FIXES:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mg_PHcoFxU

* Its time to stop this airliner BS and to obtain real maritime combat patrol planes like the Russian A-40 jet seaplane patrol bomber that can land on the water to refuel, dip sonar, lay seamines and attack enemy surface and sub-surface ships and stay on patrol, by being able to refuel at sea from friendly ships/sub and not have to return to distant land bases. The British Nimrod ASW/maritime patrol bomber has in-flight refuel capability, our P-3C Orions do not. Even with in-flight refueling, the British had to refuel one Vulcan bomber 11 times to make it to bomb Stanley airfield. This is not efficent. The ideal would be a SEAPLANE maritime patrol bomber that can refuel in flight and land on the water and refuel from any ship using the same JP-5 heavy fuel the ship uses for increased safety over more volatile JP-8. If we set our mind to this, we can develop the JP-5 burning turbofan engines and the maritime seaplane patrol bomber starting with the A-40. When heavy bombers can get fuel, they are the most efficient air-delivered firepower means we have.

We should build A-40s under license from the Russians and arm them with AMRAAM beyond-visual range air-to-air missiles (AAMs) so if they encounter enemy fighters they can shoot them down and not only survive but continue the mission. If we do not do this, our patrol planes could get shot down and turned away as the German Fw200 Condors were defeated by Hurricane fighters launched from merchant sealift ships by Jet Assisted Take-Offs (JATO) in WW2. Without the Condors to locate enemy ships, the German U-Boats (submarines) were hard pressed to mass together into wolfpacks to effectively gang up on surface ship convoys that were increasingly better defended by anti-submarine warfare (ASW) blimps, sonar, radar and depth charges. The U.S. Navy at one time fully utilized seaplane patrol bombers to win WW2, but right when they had a jet seaplane patrol bomber, the P-6M Seamaster that was actually faster than the USAF B-52, the "carrier mafia" in the USN cancelled the program out of sheer "us" and "them" egotism.

Subj: Fwd: Role of seaplanes
Date: 08/18/2003 11:34:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Richard Wagner

"Although I don't agree with all of your posions regarding potential roles for seaplanes I do believe they have a definite place. I have always been intrigued by them but was convinced by the Falklands War.

Imagine Seamasters or even Tradewinds bombing the airfield at Stanley instead of that farcical 14,000+ mile multi-refueling Vulcan strike that essentially failed. In the absence of signicant air defense those seaplanes could have pounded the airfield day and night while also mining the sea lanes.

Instead of surface ships exposing themselves to air strikes in confined waters with little room to maneuver Tradewinds could have flown in, deposited their loads, and exited before the Argentines could have launched an airstrike from the mainland.

With AEW even the relatively slow Tradewinds could have avoided attack even by jet fighters. With any kind of warning they could have easily withdrawn beyond range as AWACS planes do now and would have the advantage if an incoming attack was detected they would not need to return all the way to base. They could have withdrawn to a safe distance and "loitered on the surface" until the threat departed.

I envisage an AEW version of the Tradewind with a limited tilt-wing, not for VTOL but for low speed take off and landings. Such a plane could be deployed forward of the fleet on a combined surface/air, land/fly operation that would give it tremendous endurance. Actually, a very large gyroplane similar to the Fairey Rotodyne might make a good seaplane for amphibious landings and AEW.

Speed is much over rated in some situations. It certainly is not that essential if you have a radar good enough so that one can avoid the incoming. Either approach would have been superior to Britain's cobbled up AEW helicopters which lacked speed, range, payload, and the ability to loiter on the surface.

In the case of the Falklands War the Seaplanes and Tradewinds would not have been restricted to operations from the open sea in bad weather. They could have operated from the nearly landlocked harbor at South Georgia island.

All in all, landplanes have superior performance but undoubtedly seaplanes' unique abilities add definite advantages that can not be matched, not even by VTOL or helicopters, in many situations."

Richard Wagner

* Exploit technology that tail chase nor even nose pointing are even necessary for AAM firing: arm ALL aircraft; especially 2-seat trainers making them into observation/attack aircraft

Here a Brazilian AT-29 SuperTucano trainer/attack plane shows an AAM armament. The Brazilians definitely learned this lersson from their neighbors down south. Are we so rich and arrogant that we can afford planes that can't fight when we need 2 seaters for observation/attack? Do you realize the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter does not have a 2-seat version planned? We will use "simulators" to train JSF pilots. Yeah, right. Watch when we start killing JSF student pilots and everyone will run around like their heads were cut off desperate for a 2-seater.

Notice the Eurofighter already has a 2-seater:

The Argentine MB 339 jet trainers had some success attacking British ships. Had they been better equipped with anti-ship weaponry "icing" they would have been devastatingly effective. Not only is it no longer needed to get into a tail chase position to launch short-range infared AAMs, its now longer needed to have the nose pointed at the target!

Its become clear to me that had the Argentine Mirages/A-4s had the kind of AAMs (good icing) that the British Harriers had that could fire as soon as a target was spotted and in range without requiring tail-chase position, even though they were short of fuel to maneuver due to poor basing decisions and a lack of in-flight refuel tanker planes (bad cake), they would have shot the Harriers down, gaining air superiority to such a degree that the Royal Navy would have had to leave or be sunk.

We don't think the RN's anti-aircraft missiles on their weakly armored ships alone could have enabled them to keep from getting sunk.

Good icings like all-aspect AAMs and helmet aiming should be applied to ALL of our aircraft because on the non-linear battlefield no place is safe from anything. Notice we are not doing this in our snobbiness.

What we are trying to do is replace durable, manned platforms (good cake) with disposible unmanned platforms that we can use as ordnance (icing). In other words, all icing, no cake. That's RMA DoD's madness, spend little money/thought on platforms and humans*, just spend money on "precision" ordnance. In other words, instead of empowering humans they want to either further human snobbery (reserve technologies to only favored cliques) or take humans out of the fight (alleged humanitarian reasons actual motivation is technosnobbery: the man pushing the button is king, you ain't involved, you ain't shit).

The problem with all-icing-and-no-cake (to continue the analogy), is that you can't get it into your mouth ie; you need the cake (platform). To get from A----->B there are minimalist approaches indeed, the V-1 cruise missile and V-2 ballistic missile, the battleship/artillery gun come to mind. However, as we know DoD permeated with RMA mentalities think all human warfare is is FIREPOWER bombardment, if they can turn everything into a video game they think they will win. They are totally out of touch with what war really is, a contest of whose will (ideas) dominates and the need for the MANEUVER of human platforms (minimalist: the body is a platform) to control the ground which people live on.

We see UAV/UCAVs as ordnance "icings" not durable "cake" platforms that we can rely on to come back and do missions again and again. We still need manned cake platforms to MANEUVER to find the enemy to attack themselves as well as send in UCAVs to "pour it on".

However, at rate we are going we are headed for a military disaster when we find that we had spent too much money/thought on mental directed firepwer icing and not enough getting us good, physical cake (insuring our ships do not get sunk or aircraft shot down, ground troops with MAS etc.).

The Red Chinese are ahead of our USAF/USN/Mc, but we are now finally fielding helmet-mounted weapons sights in our fighters so the pilot if he turns his head and sees a threat, he can fire AAMs at it without wasting precious seconds steering his nose to face the threat.

So yes, if we applied helmet mounted sighting systems like we have had for years to steer AH-64 Apache helicopter gunship's 30mm cannon to A-10s, A-4s, AY-65s and our slower MAS aircraft they could blast the sexy MIGs from the sky if they try to engage us.

Countries with tighter budgets than ours have learned lessons from the Falklands war and are applying shoot-from-any-direction AAMs to ALL of their aircraft even trainer/attack planes to GAIN FORCE-WIDE capabilities while our fighter jock egotists conveniently keep such technologies to themselves and their ego platforms. For example, our A/C-130s, C-17s, P-3C Orion ASW and E-2C Hawkeye AEW planes should have helmet sights/AAMs to defend themselves. We are living in la-la land if we think no MIGs are ever going to leak through and attack these "support" planes.

* Even the AMRAAM might not be enough to ward off enemy fighters due to its range letting them also get within their own medium missile ranges. War is an extreme activity that comfortable peacetime garrison practices may simply not yield enough of an advantage over the enemy to win. We need to develop a way for two F-16 or A-4 SkyHawks and jet ski/floats or two F-35B STOVL fighters with AMRAAM/Sidewinder SRAAMs to meet up with the A-40 after separate take-offs and then "hook up" to a wingtip towing cable on the A-40's wings so they can by with the A-40 while on patrol but appear to be one radar blip to the enemy. If the enemy scrambles fighters to intercept the A-40, the two "parasite" fighters can detach and meet the threat to shoot it down. The parasite fighters if undamaged could hook back up to the A-40 or divert to a submarine aircraft carrier or surface ship to land.

3. Do you want a Navy or don't you? ALL surface ships need STOVL attack jets

One of the things the Brits realized was that they did not have enough deck space for all the Harrier STOVL jets their surface ships needed to survive against Argentine air attacks. They crammed extra Harriers on the Atlantic Conveyor, Atlantic Causeway container ships made into an expedient aircraft carrier using ISO containers to form walls to break the wind/sea spray. They also refueled and rearmed Harriers from the stern flight deck of destroyers and frigates.

The main British HMS Ocean amphibious carrier, is a CONVERTED MERCHANT SHIP. They are hanging on with their fingernails just to exist.

Could Britain retake the Falklands today?

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com

Fri 5 Apr 2002

Soldiers celebrate after taking Mount Tumbledown, a key moment in the campaign.

http://news.scotsman.com/email.cfm?id=365372002

Could Britain retake the Falklands today?

Gethin Chamberlain

WHEN the British task force set sail for the Falklands 20 years ago today, confident, cheering crowds waved off the troops, buoyed by a sense of moral outrage at the most serious affront to the nation's sovereignty since the Second World War.

But even before the strains of Don't Cry for Me Argentina and We Are Sailing had faded away, military strategists were questioning whether Britain still had the capability to conduct a war 8,000 miles away in another hemisphere.

Today, the anniversary of the start of Britain's last colonial war, those questions are still being asked, but 20 years of cuts to defence spending have fuelled the fears of those who believe that the country no longer has the capability to mount such an ambitious military adventure.

Even 20 years ago, the prospects for a British victory were by no means certain. Margaret Thatcher, then the prime minister, was aware she was taking a gamble that would destroy her if it failed to come off.

Luck played as big a part as military bravado and flair.

Had the Argentines waited a few months longer, the outcome might have been very different.

John Nott, the defence secretary at the time, was proposing to sell off two of Britain's carriers, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, and get rid of the assault ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. If the cuts had gone ahead, it is doubtful whether the task force could ever have set sail.

Twenty years on, the navy is in an even more parlous state. According to the military historian Trevor Royle, many of the factors that helped Britain to victory no longer exist.

During the Falklands War, the Sea Harrier fighters operating from the decks of the carriers were a match for the Super Etendards and Mirages of the Argentine air force, but he believes a modern task force operating so close to its opponents' home airfields today would find itself far more vulnerable to air attack.

"The Sea Harriers, which operated as fighters, are being replaced by ground attack versions of the veteran aircraft, and they can no longer be expected to provide effective fighter cover," he said.

Britain still has three small carriers - HMS Ark Royal, HMS Illustrious and HMS Invincible - but plans for two large aircraft carriers are still in their infancy, with no realistic chance of the vessels becoming operational for another decade, if ever.

Carriers capable of carrying a range of modern aircraft, including reconnaissance and early warning planes, are seen as crucial to Britain's ability to conduct a future Falklands-style operation.

Commodore Michael Clapp, the commander of the naval task group during the Falklands War, believes successive British governments have failed to learn the lessons of 1982.

"I think we are in an extremely dangerous position until the carriers come and the Argentines know it once again. That's why they invaded last time, because they thought we were selling the carriers and the landing ships and we weren't interested in defending the place.

"I find the politicians beyond belief because the defence budget has gone right down and it is so small compared to what it used to be, even in the '60s.

"We have still got these other dramas and if Blair wants to keep us in Afghanistan and all those other places he really ought to give the services a bit more money because we are going to get caught out again. They are stretched all over the place."

Defence spending has more than halved as a share of gross domestic product since the Falklands War and the British armed forces have suffered as a consequence.

Last month, the assault ship HMS Fearless was retired eight months ahead of schedule and the navy has only one amphibious support ship, HMS Ocean, a converted merchant ship. The navy now has only 31 frigates and destroyers, down from 50 in 1982, and four landing ships instead of six.

All three services are smaller than when the Argentine junta gave the order to invade and the army is 15,000 below strength.

During the Falklands War, commercial ships such as the Canberra played a vital role in transporting the troops to the islands, but with many British-registered vessels now under foreign ownership, no guarantee could be made that they would be made available for such an operation.

Other factors also played a crucial part in the British victory. The loss of even one carrier would have placed the entire operation in jeopardy, but the carriers escaped attack from the Argentine air force.

The failure of the Argentines to set the fuses on their bombs to explode on impact might have spared six ships and saved the entire operation.

At least six bombs smashed through British ships without detonating. Lord Craig, the former marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked: "Six better fuses and we would have lost."

But despite the pessimism over the resources available, Royle believes one important factor would still enable such an operation to succeed - political willpower.

"I believe Tony Blair would try it, even with the limitations," he said. "He's shown himself well capable of that . He made such a noise in Washington about sending British combat troops that eventually they took him up on his word.

"He has the same instincts that Maggie Thatcher had, that there is a direct relationship between military success and political popularity."

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

We snobby American however, will sneer that our "super carriers" and other expensive warships have plenty of deck and hanger space for all the attack jets we could ever want, in fact more capable planes than STOVL types because we use catapults and arrestor wires to snag tailhooks. First, because of bureaucratic stupidity, USN/Mc naval aviation is dying; S-3 Viking ASW/tanker planes are retired. F-14 Tomcats with long-range AAMs are almost gone. A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II and A-4 SkyHawk attack planes are gone. Other than helicopters, all the supercarriers have are under-powered, bloated F-18s trying to do every mission and C/E-2C Hawkeye radar planes. So the Hawkeye sounds the alarm that enemy ASMs and fighters are in bound. WHAT WILL THE SUPER CARRIER DO ABOUT IT? Baton down all hatches and take the punishment? Or try to launch all planes off the deck? What if the ASMs start landing before all planes are removed? USS Forrestal fire all over again?

The knocking out of our supercarriers by enemy ASMs, diesel-electric submarines or seamines means the rest of the surface fleet would be without ANY air cover and forced to flee the battlefield. Victory for the enemy.

FIXES:

Notice the second helicopter in shrink-wrap plastic to double combat power on this British surface ship rear flight deck

* Its high time we start facing the possibility that our expensive carriers will be wiped out and to start routinely deploying a F-35 STOVL JSF with ASW helicopters on the stern deck of our frigates, destroyers and cruisers. With a light cannon and AAM load, they should be able to take-off vertically for air defense missions. At least 6 could be on an Iowa class battleship if brought back to duty:

www.combatreform2.com/battleships.htm

* We need to hurry up and get the safe lift-fan F-35B STOVL attack jet into service.

* Folding-wings should be standard on ALL F-35 JSFs to fit at least two aircraft on the back of small surface ships

* Develop a heavy fuel jet engine for F-35 JSF so it can burn the same JP-5 the ship uses

* Field several "Container Ship Aircraft Carriers" with STOBAR operating capabilities so aircraft can fly to them and operate when the supercarriers are knocked out of action. Details:

British have already done it: Container Ship Conversion to Aircraft Carrier: Arapaho, SCADS and SkyHook

SCADS: Shipboard Containerized Air Defense System

http://home.planet.nl/~alder010/Future/Future.html

Future and Specials

In the late 1960s the U.S. Navy had conceived the "Arapaho" programme, under which a container ship would be modified to permit testing of its suitability to operate special mission helicopters. The aim at that time was to allow a significant proportion of wartime convoy escort and sealane protection tasks to be performed by such ships, manned by USN reservists. The Arapaho concept involved an LPD-size flight deck 200 feet (61m) long and 64 feet (19.5m) wide, and a 4,000 sq ft (372m²) hangar large enough to accommodate four Sea King [amphibious] helicopters. The complete installation weighed 900 tons, and could be installed on a container vessel in less than 18 hours.

In 1982 such an installation was emplaced on the 18,000-ton Export Leander, and 178 helicopters landings and take-offs were performed. In the following year the Arapaho equipment was leased by McDonnell and installed by Camel Laird at Birkenhead on the 27,900-ton MV Astronomer (subsequently renamed RFA Reliant) for tests in the South Atlantic.

In efforts to exploit the sales potential of the Sea Harrier, which rested largely on its ability to operate from small, inexpensive ships, British Aerospace proposed the installation of ski-jump decks on commercial vessels, and the "Skyhook" concept that would allow such aircraft to operate in the VTOL mode from ships without any form of aircraft deck.

"Skyhook" was invented by Heinz Erwin Frick (a BAe test pilot of Swiss descent) and the corresponding specification No.2104014 was filed with the British Patent office in 1982. Frick had been struck by the ease with which a Sea Harrier can be hovered with great precision, regardless of wind variations. It occurred to him that if this hovering accuracy could be combined with a space-stabilised "Skyhook" on a ship, then it could provide the means for the aircraft to recover to a highly mobile deck. If the design of the ship precluded the use of a ski-jump take-off, then the aircraft could depart from the "Skyhook", although its warload radius performance would then be much more limited.

The concept required very little modification to the aircraft itself - simply a hoisting point above the centre of the gravity and possibly some local strengthening. If the operator wanted to refuel the aircraft while suspended from the "Skyhook", this would require modification of the fuel system, but it would still represent a minor expense. The major development task would be the advanced technology crane, presumably with an inertial platform in its base sending commands to a fast-acting hydraulic system that would keep the head of the crane moving linearly through space.

The computations for the crane system were based on the RN's 4,250-ton Sheffield class of destroyers, and the design allowed for sea state 6, to give uninterrupted operations in the North Atlantic for 97% of the time. Using a special form of display attached to the crane head to assist the pilot to hover accurately, it was concluded that the aircraft could easily be placed within the 'capture envelope' of the "Skyhook". Engagement was to be performed by a robot system, scanning IR-absorbent patches bonded to the upper surface of the aircraft around the pick-up probe, and moving the hook accordingly. An IR engagement-control system was proposed in order that the aircraft could be illuminated in night recoveries without affecting the pilot's night vision.

Despite the very limited warload-radius performance available from the "Skyhook" launch (which would be less restricted in the case of an AV-8B), the concept undoubtedly has some potential in the context of convoy protection and in providing an outer defensive perimeter by making use of radar picket ships around a conventional carrier. However, BAe estimated in the mid-1980s that the system would cost around $12 million to develop. The company also insisted on acting as prime contractor for "Skyhook", rather than granting a licence (eg, to a company in Japan, where the concept might have special attractions). In the event, UK-MoD showed no great interest and BAe was unwilling to invest its own funds in the project, so "Skyhook" has been filed away, at least for the present.

www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1304.msg11194

After the idea of SCADS BAe also came up with the SkyHook idea. The initial idea saw BAe propose two ships, one in their patent application (www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4523729&id=IcEyAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP2&dq=heinz+frick) and one used in publicity brochures.

Both relied on SkyHook for take-off and landing, probably not too practical.

However, VT designed a "proper" ship around the concept and this featured a skeletal ski-jump atop the supersturcture for take-off. This increased payload, with recovery via SkyHook. Aircraft were stowed in a hangar with lateral doors for entry/exit, SkyHook being used to move aircraft to the launch position.

2x 25mm Sea Dragon CIWS, 1 medium gun, plus 16 x VLS missiles for defence.

5,200 tons diplacement, 416 feet 8in OA

45,000 shp = 26kts

5 x Sea Harriers, one helo.

The idea was to use the ship as a "forward base", allowing greater endurance in CAP patrols, with the aircraft returning to a large carrier for major maintenance. In other words, a naval version of the Harrier's land-based use of forward operating strips.

4. Bring back heavily armored gun missile battleships

HMS Antelope hit and burns fiercely, her aluminum structure melting and the ship was later abandoned.

The Argentines did not sail the (former too-light Washington Treaty cruiser USS Phoenix) Belgrano light cruiser with 6 inch and other guns (but no modern ASW/anti-air war weaponry) into Stanley harbor long before the British arrived to act as a mobile AAA battery to defend the 4, 000 runway there from British aircraft attacks. If they had, they would have been able to use her guns to bombard for the Argentine ground forces. Instead, they tried to sail the Belgrano as an escort to their lone aircraft carrier and got her sunk by a British nuclear submarine's torpedoes. The Argentine surface fleet then turned around and did a "Jutland" and refused to fight for the rest of the war. The British used their tiny 4.5 inch guns to try to help ground troops with fire support but had to be close to shore and paid for this dearly by several ships sunk by Argentine A-4 SkyHawks.

The USS Phoenix/General Belgrano was a Washington Treaty limited LIGHT cruiser with inadequate armor even by WW2 standards.

During WW2, it kicked ass in the hands of American Sailors using AAA firepower to shoot down enemy planes in the inner defense ring and offensively bombarded shore targets to facilitate U.S. ARMY ground maneuver, hence its lack of glory because it wasn't helping the USMC BS worship-thyself propaganda machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)

However, at the end of WW2, we sold it to Argentina who did not fix its armor problems so the following comes as a stern (pardon the pun) warning about our own class of under 10, 000 ton destroyers/cruisers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

At 15:57 on May 2, [submarine HMS] Conqueror fired three conventional Mk 8 mod 4 torpedoes, each with an 800 lb (363 kg) Torpex warhead, two of which hit the General Belgrano. The Conqueror was also equipped with the newer Mark 24 Tigerfish homing torpedo, but there were doubts about its reliability. The Mk 8 dated back to the 1920s and was not a homing design. [1]

One of the torpedoes struck between 10 and 15 metres back from the bow, outside the area protected by either the ship's side armour or the internal anti-torpedo bulge. The effect of this was to blow the bow of the ship off, but the internal bulkheads held and the forward powder magazine for the 40mm gun did not detonate. There was nobody in that part of the ship at the time of the explosion.

The second torpedo struck about three-quarters of the way along the ship, just outside the rear limit of the side armour plating. The torpedo punched through the side of the ship before exploding in the after machine room. The explosion tore upwards through two messes and a relaxation area called "the Soda Fountain" and finally ripped a twenty metre long hole in the main deck. Later reports put the number of deaths in the area around the explosion at 275 men. There was no fire after the explosion, but the ship rapidly filled with smoke. The explosion also damaged the Belgrano's electrical power system, preventing her putting out a radio distress call.

Though the forward bulkheads held, water was rushing in through the hole created by the torpedo and could not be pumped out because of the electrical power failure. The ship began to list to port and to sink towards the bow. Twenty minutes after the attack at 16:24 Captain Bonzo ordered the crew to abandon ship. Inflatable life rafts were deployed and the evacuation began without panic.

The two escort ships were unaware of what was happening to the Belgrano, as they were out of touch with the Belgrano in the gloom, and had not seen the distress rockets or lamp signals. Adding to the confusion, the crew of the ARA Bouchard felt an impact that was possibly the third torpedo striking at the end of its run (an examination of the ship later showed an impact mark consistent with a torpedo). The two ships continued on their course westward and began dropping depth charges. By the time the ships realised that something had happened to the Belgrano it was already dark and the weather had worsened scattering the life rafts.

Argentine and Chilean ships rescued 770 men in all from May 3 to May 5. In total 323 of the Argentine crew were killed in the attack.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

The USMC says it wants Iowa class battleships that are extremely heavily armored and with 16 inch guns to render fire support ashore that can keep the ship at least 20 miles away, but have not told Congress to take 4, 000 man-slots from their bureaucratic empire to pay for the sailors needed. The USN in their needing a constant excuse not to fight, keeps buying fragile, unarmored surface ships full of gadgets when what they need is Iowas bristling with modern anti-aircraft and anti-missile guns/missiles to keep their carriers, cruisers, frigates, destroyers afloat in a surface action group.

Iowa class battleships can also sail into the narrow straits between Red China and Taiwanese islands to sink the many CHICOM amphibious ships and swimming light tanks with lots of gunfire. We cannot afford to expend $ million dollar missiles on every CHICOM amphibious tank we spot.

www.geocities.com/armorhistory

FIXES

* Bring back two Iowa class battleships immediately

* Take the two Iowas back from the possibly money grubbing museum folk in Hawaii and Pennsylvania

Message to any of the USS New Jersey and USS Missouri museum folks who would oppose these ships being returned to duty to defend America:

1. FU*K YOU.

2. If we do not have a dam country because we have several cities turned to ashes in nuclear war with Red China we will not have any dam time to be visiting your fu*king floating museums and dropping dollars at the door. If you are such "patriots" start acting like it.

5. Ski Jumps and Expeditionary Dispersed Operations of aircraft ashore

AT SEA...

ON LAND...

The British operate their Harriers with ski jumps to gain a boost of lift/altitude upon take-off, even on land they have ski jumps composed of medium girder bridge sections; USMC does not and has a horrendous death/accident rate, see the connection?

On the Falklands Islands, Stanley airport had a 4, 200 foot runway that was 148 feet wide [Battle for the Falklands: Air Force, Roy Braybrook, page 8]. A-4 Skyhawks can have JATO bottles fitted to take-off in 2, 000 feet and land as extremely short as you want with their tail hooks snagging arrestor wires like USMC did at Chu Lai in Vietnam. The runway was/is wide enough for two aircraft to take off in pairs. Had the Argentines placed A-4 Skyhawks with AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs that can shoot down aircraft from any direction (not requiring tail chase position) and even dumb unguided bombs on Stanley airport they could have achieved air superiority versus the SeaHarriers coming from the mini-carriers and container ships and sank those ships. They would have had lots of range to venture out and aggressively attack British surface ships packed full of troops. In a nutshell, by doing A-4 SkyHawk EDO ops on Stanley airport the Argies would have sunk the British fleet and changed the course of military thinking for the better.

Instead, the Argentines kept their SkyHawks in centralized air bases on the South American mainland very far from the Falklands Islands so when they did attack they had no fuel for maneuver to do effective air combat against the British or evade air defenses to sink their ships. They could not repel the invasion fleet which landed ground forces who marched across the islands and took them back. If you cannot beat the British Army Soldier on the ground, you had best not let him land by sinking him in his invasion ships.

The British realized the possibility of EDO use of A-4 SkyHawks on Stanley airfield and tried to crater the runway with long-range Vulcan bomber strikes. We know that the Argentines used JATO for their C-130s to make downwind take-offs from Stanley airport during the war, so why they didn't exploit this with their A-4 SkyHawks remains a mystery. Some war gamers should refight the Falklands war with EDO SkyHawks and see what the outcome could have been.

The British had to use 11 Victor tankers to get the single Vulcan land-based bomber from England to the Falklands to get one bomb load onto Stanley airport; the airport was NOT closed. So why didn't the Argies extend the runway for A-4 SkyHawks without JATO/arrestor gear could operate from there to sink British ships?

In contrast to the Argentine's missed opportunity to use the A-4/EDO combination, the British built a 800-foot aluminum mat runway at San Carlos for their land-based RAF GR.3 Harriers to operate using a short take-off roll and vertical landing to improve their responsiveness to ground force attack needs.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

The USN/Mc's F-18s have tailhooks but no brackets for JATO. Harrier STOVLs can do EDOs but are ducted direct thrust fanjets and unsafe with high accident rates. They need some rolling take-off and a boost of lift as a safety margin but USMC doesn't use MGB ski jumps ashore nor does USN have ski jumps on the end of LHA/LHD amphibious carriers. Lift-fan F-35B JSFs will be safer but they still need ski jumps.

Compare can-do Indian Navy to can't-do U.S. Navy....disgusting....they add a small portursion off port side to make an angled deck for STOBAR operations of MIG-29Ks and are building their own navalized fighter, too!

Meanwhile we can't do the same thing on our LHAs/LHDs so Harrier pilots can't kill themselves during take-offs?

INS Viraat, ex-HMS Hermes (of Falklands fame), is India's current and sole aircraft carrier after Vikrant was decomissioned. It also operates Sea Harriers and other aircraft and will be retired before 2010.

INS Vikramaditya, ex-RUS Gorshkov, is currently undergoing a huge refit. It will operate at least 16 x MiG-29Ks and possibly Sea Harriers as well. It will enter active service by 2008.

India's also building an indigenous aircraft carrier in the Air Defense Ship project. It will enter service around 2010, giving India a two-carrier navy, again. It will carry MiG-29Ks, and Navalized Tejas LCAs.

The LCA-Ns will take to the air around 2008-9.

New Gorshkov refit pics

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31750&highlight=vikramaditya

BEFORE

AFTER

www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Hancock.htm

Major Ben D. Hancock, a marine writes in "The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter in Support of the 21st Century marine corps" that we must;

"develop and refine STOVL employment concepts that includes ramps (ski jumps) and smaller EAFs and it must fund the hardware and structural improvements that allow STOVL aircraft to operate in their intended environment. If we envision maintaining a primarily sea-based approach to conducting operations and we require responsive day/night air support in all-weather conditions, then we need to fundamentally change how we operate fixed-wing jets off amphibious ships. The most significant contribution that the Navy could make to STOVL air and helicopter-borne power projection is adding a ramp to all LHA/LHD class amphibious ships. A dedicated 'JSF carrier', such as an LHA/LHD with a ramp and updated radars, would serve as the optimum mobile forward base. Although the most effective means of employing the JSF would be to base it ashore as soon as possible, it should remain sea based for as long as possible where it can be more easily provided with fuel, ordnance, and maintenance without becoming a logistical burden. Seabasing may remain the best means of enhancing sustainability and reducing vulnerability.

Basing flexibility is the only reason to buy STOVL Joint Strike Fighters. This flexibility increases the number of airfields from which to conduct operations, allows for more assets to be brought into theater, decreases the response time of aircraft, and provides dispersal for high-value assets, thus reducing vulnerability to attack by weapons of mass destruction. [16]

Some critics have attacked the STOVL JSF variant for driving up cost and slowing the schedule, and they contend that the marine corps and Navy should both buy the Air Force version. Senior Pentagon acquisition officials believe that the Air Force and Navy should buy the STOVL version, "a capability that would let the Air Force operate from shorter, rougher fields, thus moving closer to the battlefield and providing wider deployment and basing options."[17]

A Development Study on the JSF conducted by ten students from the Navy, marine corps, and Air Force at the Air War College in 1996 emphatically states that the JSF must be expeditionary and capable of performing in the littoral arena and that the STOVL JSF should be the choice of the U.S. The JSF should be one aircraft, not three derivatives. [18]

The main advantage of Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (VSTOL) aircraft is the ability to operate from various bases and not be tied to traditional runways and airfields.[31]

Modern runways, long and wide, are inviting targets. Runways will always be susceptible or vulnerable to attack, and the need for aircraft to take off with little or no runway will always be desirable. The major attraction of VSTOL type aircraft is their liberation from runways. Pre-emptive enemy action in the form of air attack or cruise missile attack forces the debate of the vulnerability of aircraft on the ground at fixed airfields. Aircraft or their runways and other facilities may be wrecked.

Historical Justification. History is replete with examples of extensive damage inflicted by attacking enemy airfields. During the Ardennes offensive, on New Year's Day, 1945, 1,000 Luftwaffe warplanes attacked 27 air bases in Belgium and Holland and destroyed 300 Allied aircraft on the ground for the loss of 93 of their own.[32] In 1967, the synchronized strike by Israel against 16 Arab fields determined the course of the Six Day War. On that first day, the Israelis destroyed over 250 Arab aircraft on the ground in only three hours.[33] One of the most persuasive arguments for the STOVL concept comes from the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. Forty-eight hours after the start of hostilities a Pakistani airfield at Dacca had been attacked repeatedly. A squadron of Pakistani Super Sabre jets remained intact under the protection of their hardened shelters, yet they never flew a single sortie because the runway had been cratered.[34]

STOVL aircraft could have taken off vertically or on short sections of usable runway and could have been employed. The Harrier is most productive on ship when used in the STOVL mode versus being forced to perform a vertical takeoff due to limited deck space. A normal mission involves a short takeoff followed by a vertical landing at the end of the mission when the aircraft has expended its ordnance, burned most of its fuel , and has the thrust-to-weight ratio required for a vertical landing. A Harrier is simply not going to get airborne with any substantial load of fuel and ordnance in a pure vertical takeoff. For every foot of deck roll and knot of wind over the deck, the payload increases substantially. All shipboard combat operations by USMC Harriers in Desert Storm involved a Short Takeoff (STO). Vertical takeoffs are performed on ship only for maintenance checks and airshows. The JSF is going to operate in the same manner off of ships. It could perform a pure vertical takeoff but with a huge resultant penalty in payload. The most effective means of takeoff for STOVL jets utilizes a ski jump. "The most significant contribution that the Navy could make to STOVL air and helicopter-borne power projection is adding a ramp (ski jump) to all Tarawa- and Wasp-class amphibious ships."[76]

It is ironic that although the U.S. is the largest operator of Harriers and amphibious ships in the world, it is also the only navy in the world that does not have ramps on its Harrier platforms. The UK, India, Italy, and Spain all have ramp-equipped ships that optimize the combat power of the Harrier. The British discovered that if the ship's deck were curved upward the last 100 feet or so, the aircraft would exit the bow with a ballistic trajectory (speed builds up during the ballistic portion of the flight until the aircraft attains normal wing-borne flight). The U.S. Navy studied ship designs featuring ski jumps with exit angles of up to 12 degrees but rejected the concept as too costly in design weight of the ship and perceived loss of helicopter spots.[77] The ramp for Harrier operations significantly improves aircraft performance, payload, safety, and deck utilization. A ramp not only dramatically improves a STOVL aircraft's takeoff performance, it facilitates concurrent fixed-and rotary-wing operations afloat.[78]

A STOVL aircraft does not require a catapult to operate at sea. After a short full-power deck run, the pilot vectors the thrust downward as he approaches the ship's bow. He then transitions to conventional flight by vectoring thrust aft and accelerates. The basic principle of ramp technology is that because the aircraft is imparted a ballistic trajectory, it can exit the deck at a lower speed and a higher gross weight than would be possible with a flat deck. For certain takeoffs, the ship need not steam at high speed because the ramp provides an effect equivalent to additional wind-over-the-deck (WOD). Tests indicate that ramps reduce WOD requirements by 10-20 knots. [79] The aircraft can also leave the ski-jump at any point in the ship's pitching cycle because the upward trajectory cancels the effects of the bow-down part of the cycle. The former Soviet Navy recognized the advantages of ramps in adapting MiG-29 and Su-27 aircraft (high thrust-to-weight fighters) for carrier operations; the Soviets kept the arresting gear to bring the aircraft aboard but installed 12 degree inclined-ramps for takeoffs.[80]

The heaviest Harrier launch ever--31,000 pounds--from the deck of any ship was from the ramp-equipped Spanish Principe de Asturias with a deck run of only 400 feet. "An aircraft whose weight precluded its launch from any LHA or LHD, even using the entire deck, used the ski jump to take off in approximately one-half that distance."[81]

Skeptics who insist that ramps will displace helicopter landing spots are wrong. "On a 12 degree ski jump approximately 150 feet long, the slope gradually increases from zero up to 12 degrees at the bow. The first half of the ski jump has a slope no greater than that of an LHA during wet-well operations with the well-deck flooded--both Harriers and helicopters can land on it." [82]

Ramps also provide a margin of safety to the pilot in takeoff emergencies. The upward vector off the bow offers the pilot extra precious seconds to handle takeoff emergencies and an expanded ejection envelope if required. Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Meyers believes that the price of one saved STOVL aircraft would probably fund several ramps on amphibious ships.[83]

FIXES:

* Add ski jumps to end of LHA/LHDs, they can retract when not in use so quit your whining that a helicopter deck landing spot would be lost. The monies saves in preventing Harrier crashes will pay for the ship modifications.

* Create a centerline bomb rack with brackets for 1-4 JATO bottles for short take-offs from EDO landing strips ashore

* Be prepared to get off amphibs and come ashore to do "Cactus Air Force" by bringing arrestor gear, bulldozers and Rhino Snot to seal dirt runways

www.geocities.com/usarmyaviationdigest/fighterinabox.htm

6. ASW helicopters with ASMs can kill ships/submarines

Not often reported, British ASW helicopters operating off fantail decks of small surface ships sank several Argentine resupply ships and one diesel-electric submarine using ASMs.

US/MC Lessons not learned:

Ironically, the USN's Seasprite and SeaHawk ASW helicopters can fire ASMs (see photo above). Attaboy.

The USMC's AH-1W SuperCobras, UH-1N Hueys, CH-46 SeaKnights, CH-53E SuperStallions cannot. Excuse will be; "Its not our job, man". You damn well better hope the enemy doesn't overwhelm your mother ships with dozens of ASM armed ships and patrol boats, because if your carrier is in flames you ain't going to be landing on any beaches. You will be in the water playing Leonardo DiCaprio--but without Kate Winslet and without any seaplanes to rescue you from drowning, sharks, and dying from exposure. Continue to be narrow-minded and see how long the USMC exists in the modern era.

FIXES:

* ALL helicopters must be armed with ASM and AAMs because in a pinch surface ship survival WILL depend on it.

7. If you don't have RANGE you better range or close proximity via EDO you better have tankers in the air

Because the Argentines had to fly so far from the mainland, they could not use aggressive flight routes nor afterburner to avoid being shot down. Not thinking ahead, they only had 2 x C-130 air tankers when the war began. In contrast, the Brits not only had C-130 and Victor jet air tankers, they rushed parts out of museums to make Vulcan bombers into air tankers.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

The USN retired S-3 Vikings and now absurdly try to have fuel hungry F-18s tank other fuel hungry F-18s.

FIXES:

USN/Mc should obtain A-10s sitting in desert in Arizona and make them into CAS/MAS/tanker/ASW/ASUW aircraft creating navalized "SeaHogs".

www.combatreform2.com/aircommandos.htm

8. If you don't stop the submarines, they will sink you

What can a modern torpedo do to a flimsy surface ship?

Lacking maritime patrol aircraft, the Argentines didn't put any of the British submarines at risk, and they had a field day. The lack of Argentine ASW capability resulted in the Belgrano being sunk and the rest of their surface Navy being AWOL from the war. All the Argentines had to do was sink one of the British Navy's small aircraft carriers and they would have won the war according to Admiral Woodward, the commander of that force in afterwar interviews.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

Not only has ASW capabilities in the USN been dying through retirement of S-3 Vikings and the wearing out of the P-3Cs doing land surveillance because the USAF/Army are idiots who refuse to employ manned, fixed-wing observation/attack aircraft:

www.geocities.com/usarmyaviationdigest/grasshoppersmustreturn.htm

THE ENTIRE QUASI-WW2 NAVY/Mc SURFACE SHIP FORCE STRUCTURE IS NOW AT RISK TO A MONUMENTAL CATASTROPHE IN COMBAT WHERE A GOOD THIRD WORLD COUNTRY COULD SINK SEVERAL SHIPS WITH INEXPENSIVE DIESEL-ELECTRIC SUBMARINES AND END AMERICAN SUPER POWER STATUS IN ONE BAD NEWS FLASH ON CNN.

That the USN/Mc need to get their heads out of their asses and quick are not strong enough words here.

www.geocities.com/usnavyindanger

FIXES

* Return S-3 Vikings to carrier duty and make more

* Create A-10 SeaHogs for CAS/MAS/ASW/ASUW/air-refueling

9. Don't forget sea mines!

Had the Argentines invested in thousands os cheap, WW2-style floating mines like Saddam used to stop the USMC from landing in the first Iraq war, the British would not have been able to land. All they needed to do was back trucks to the water's edge and send sea mines out from likely landing locations and the combination of inability to land troops by water landing craft and fighter-bombers attacking the ships would have forced the British to at least back off and regroup or possibly go home in defeat.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

* The USN is playing with robots and cannon on helicopters to "plink" at sea mines. We do not have time to be playing Robert Ballard and National Geographic.

* There are ways to carry LCAC hovercraft on top of sealift ships using cranes and receive rolling stock from RO-RO ramps using floating causeway sections pieces so LCACs can fly 8 feet over the water and avoid sea mines. The USN/Mc bureaucracy lies to Congress and the American people that the only way LCACs can be operated is by expensive flooding well-deck amphibious ships that they lust for to increase their bureaucratic empire handfuls at a time, when we need to get the lead out and IMMEDIATELY get our forces coming from the sea offloaded fast and over possible sea mines. The British need to get LCACs, too.

10. Airborne Early Warning radar: only by land-based AWACS jet airliners that need long runways or Hawkeye fixed-wing turboprop aircraft that need catapults? What if the enemy shoots your AEW down?

Modern naval tactics:

Airborne early warning

The key to successful AAW is AEW. If attacking units can be identified before they reach their launch points then the battle can occur at the outer air-battle screen rather than the inner screen. An AEW unit in a race-track loiter 100 nautical miles (190 km) ahead of the PIM, with a fighter escort, is perfect.

The outer air battle

In this area the interceptor aircraft of the Combat Air Patrol (CAP) are the principal element, whether originating from a CVBG or land base. CAP units protecting units other than their home base are called LORCAP (LOng Range CAP). The CAP is usually positioned 160 to 180 nautical miles (300 to 330 km) from the units to be protected, along the expected threat axis. At this point the units will wait in a fuel saving loiter to engage incoming groups with AA missiles. As the engagements progress, relief units are dispatched to the CAP to ensure that later attacks are met with full weapon loads. If attacking units penetrate the outer defenses they can be intercepted with aircraft in ready-5 status, if used.

One of the oft-cited "lessons learned" the USN bureaucracy loves to cite from the Falklands war is the Royal Navy's lack of AEW radar aircraft to alert them to air attacks that they smugly proclaim justifies large, vulnerable catapult equipped aircraft carriers to launch E-2C Hawkeye radar planes. We all know about logistics as the "tail wagging the dog", but is this the bottom line reason why we need large carriers, just to get a long endurance airplane with a radar dish on top?

The British fitted an AEW system on Sea King helicopters out of desperation but as we all know that means high fuel cost and low range/endurance.

The RN simply could not afford the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and had to go with "thru-deck cruiser" STOVL carriers with Harrier jumpjets and helicopters.

However, the truth is that there are other ways to complete a SSC system with AEW other than a large, nation-budget busting aircraft carrier:

a. Seaplanes with AEW radar
b. Large LTA blimps with AEW radar
c. Aerostat blimps with AEW radar aloft above surface ships

The easiest of the 3 AEW options is using Lighter-Than-Air to get indefinite endurance via an aerostate held by a cable above a surface ship. Why the British Navy did not do this to compensate for a lack of a large carrier with AEW aircraft is still a mystery, since they are now risking financial ruin with the purchase of two large aircraft carriers that can operate turboprop AEW planes. The U.S. Navy has been enormously successful with LTA blimps for ASW and had an AEW variant in service when to its shame they gave up on them in the early 1960s. A seaplane with AEW could be refuelled at sea to stay aloft for coverage for the fleet and have added benefits of being able to attack/defend itself if some "leakers" should reach it.

And whatever AEW system we use, it needs to be ARMED with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles to defend itself from likely "AWACS Killer" SU-27s. This means we need to arm our E-2Cs with AMRAMMS ASAP.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

Yet, after the Falklands none of this AEW "out-of-the-box" thinking occurred, the USN/Mc bureaucracy smugly proclaimed their infallibility via large carriers/E-2C Hawkeye AEW aircraft not not only squelch any LTA and seaplane improvements to radar coverage but to write off the ENTIRE Falklands experience as a result of a lack of British AEW. In the arrogant American mind, as long as it has AEW, NONE of what befell the British would ever happen to the U.S. Navy/marines. This naval version of the "Maginot Line" hubris begs for a human tragedy and military defeat at the hands of a cunning foe.

FIXES:

* Immediately develop a navalized Aerostat for improved radar coverage

* Field LTA blimps for ASW/AEW back into the Navy

* Buy Russian A-40 seaplane jet patrol bombers and fit some to be AEW providers

The U.S. Navy in the '50s used JATO & tail-hooks to STOBAR P-2 Neptune ASW patrol planes to get a nuclear strike capability.

* Fit JATO bottle brackets so E-2C AEW aircraft can operate STOBAR from LHA/LHDs and emergency container ship aircraft carriers when supercarriers are sunk

* Fit AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles to every E-2C and C-2 in the fleet to defend themselves in an all-out shooting war so we don't lose them.

* Develop a tilt-wing AEW/ASW/COD/LA aircraft like the Canadair CL-84

11. Reduce number of Troops exposed onboard surface ships via Airborne Operations

Quicktime video clip of a C-130 landing on the USS Forrestal supercarrier

Legendary war futurist, Ralph Zumbro writes:

"Mike;
Remember the Doolittle raid in 1942??? update that. a C130 can take off from an aircraft carrier with a diasycutter on board.....or paratroopers, or an M113 Gavin. Oddball fact, the aircraft carrier is much faster then its published speed. A coastguardsman I know was off the Dominican Republic/Haiti, when a carrier was sent from Norfolk....ship arrived next DAY. He figured either they have TWO USS Kennedys or that ship can do 70 knots with the hammer down. If that kind of speed is actually available. the Carriers can serve as mid-ocean fuel stops for fully laden 130s.

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when the pilot decided to ride a nuke down....That needs to be done with every officer above Colonel in the military today....mabe THEN we get some action. The present generation of Generals and Admirals are of the SAME mentality that had to be cleansed for WWII...just like the British Generals at Balaclava had won their spurs against Napoleon."

His idea of using land-based C-130 Airborne forces stopping temporarily onboard a supercarrier is a sound one. It is the Doolittle Raid in modern form. 2d Para and 3d Para could have used this in the Falklands war if they had had bigger carriers instead of cramming them in cruise ships.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned

First off, the biggest hindrance we have is the USMC, everything is driven by their ego.

They should already have the marines slated to link up with pre-po ships on parachute jump status so we do not need to secure a runway to airland them.

Why?

BECAUSE AIRBORNE IS AN "ARMY" THING AND THEY HATE THE ARMY BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY ARE BETTER (EXTERNAL SNOBBERY).

The Army's prepo ship personnel will not jump because THE ARMY AIRBORNE THINKS ITS BETTER THAN THE "MECH PUSSIES" AND THEY ARE "NOT WORTHY" OF JUMPING in (INTERNAL SNOBBERY). Stay-in-your-lane, do only your narrow-minded mission sets etc. Again, EGO driving everything instead of get-the-job-done practicality.

If we were smart and frugal (we are not) would we have all these expensive aircraft carriers and not have a parachute forced-entry (Airborne) capability from them?

If we were not so defeatist and narrow-minded, the 2-engine C-27J "Baby Herk" fitted with folding wings, a tail hook and landing gear for cat shots would do COD better than the smaller C-2 Greyhound and could drop paratroops and a M113 Gavin off its large rear ramp. And a daisy cutter bomb to blast open a drop zone would also be an option.

Yes, we could use 4-engine C-130 from carriers but they are too big to store there, we could carry several C-27Js without leaving no space for OA-10B SeaHogs, F-18s (yuk), F-35 JSF (better) etc.

12. You need Air Cover, Stupid!

This is the sad adjunct to point #1 that ASMs are the primary threat to surface ships in modern naval combat.

The 1944 U.S. Navy War Instructions, Chapter 7 even then realized this truth:

www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/WarInst/WarInst-7.html

739. The primary defense during daylight against an air attack is fighter interception. The accomplishment of this depends upon good radar detection in addition to good communications.

740. Fighter protection destroys trailing or shadowing enemy aircraft.

Yet, both the American and British navies obsessed with bombing Iraq and blind to the threat someday waking up and not allowing them to use aircraft carriers as floating, inferior air bases are "betting the house" on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter coming into service as they retire their F-14s and Sea Harriers. This is betting on a company that is notorious for "cost over-runs" and naked money grabs once they have you dependant upon them for their excellent aircraft design.

USN/Mc Lessons not learned:

You should not get rid of your air cover assets that you need to spoil enemy air attacks in order to survive on the surface of the water until you have their replacement IN HAND.

FIXES:

* Both the American and British navies need to buy some commercial, off-the-shelf seaplanes and operate them from EVERY non-aircraft carrier ship and submarine they can because they are going to need every single AMRAAM firer they can scrape up if they want to have any hope at all of surviving massed ASM attacks.

* As soon as F-35B STOVL fighters become available, they need to be supplied to every surface ship possible to insure their is adequate outer ring air cover.

* DON'T DO THIS EVER AGAIN!

BAD NEWS: TONY BLAIR NEOCONS EMULATING AMERICAN AIRCRAFT STUPORCARRIER STUPIDITY!

As a free market corporation shill, the recent British governments have watched their industries and jobs out-source overseas and multi-billion dollar (pound) prijects like the new CVF aircraft carriers are funded.

UK's Queen Elizabeth Class CVF SuperCarriers: Not CATOBAR

The French version of the UK CVF will have CATOBAR capability to operate fixed-wing CTOL tail-hook planes like the E-2C Hawkeye AEW and an ASW plane if they chose to create a new one or bring back the contraprop Gannet etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_French_aircraft_carrier

By not being able to operate fixed-wing planes for AEW/ASW/anti-UAV defense the UK's CVFs are going to be fatally vulnerable, more than even American CATOBAR carriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATOBAR

CATOBAR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) is a system used for the launch and recovery of aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Aircraft launch using a catapult assisted take-off. However, these are conventional, rather than STOVL aircraft, and thus require arrestor wires to land on the ship. Only three countries operate carriers that use the CATOBAR system; the U.S. Nimitz class, USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), France's Charles De Gaulle, and Brazil's NAeL São Paulo.

Will they have CATOBAR 24/7 E-2C Hawkeye AEW coverage or not? Where's the fixed-wing ASW planes? Anti-UAV planes?

LAND LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

Artwork by Paul Chappell

The following Lessons Learned are derived from Major Wheen's lecture to the USMC in 1986. Its also on the bottom of this web page. Excerpts are in italics

www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/WDG.htm

As insightful as Major Wheen's two lectures were (see bottom) his lessons to be learned are not forthcoming other than some quick, safe platitudes at the end. We are going to tackle this job head-on, but first let's set the context:

The Falklands War was a nation-state war in a rural, open wet, terrain with some mountains setting. The closest situation America is now fighting in would be Afghanistan but much drier and firmer; actually arid conditions.

1. Use the best Light Mechanized Concept of Operations possible

Light tracks like this Scorpion can be heli-lifted or airlanded/paradropped from fixed-wing aircraft

The Brits were short on ships that could rapidly discharge men much less vehicles resulting in a helicopter (air assault) and foot infantry (dismounted) back by towed howitzers, naval guns and Harrier jump jet CAS concept of operations. When the container ship aircraft carrier, SS Atlantic Conveyor was sunk, they lost 3 CH-47 Chinook helicopters and switched their CONOPS to dismounted infantry combat. This kind of "feel good" infantry war was nearly identical to what a Vietnam light infantryman fought against the NVA except in much colder terrain. What is lost when we delve into how to do foot infantry combat better discussions is the FACT THAT LIGHT MECHANIZED MANEUVER OPERATIONS would have worked better. U.S. Army "tank and Brads" (33-ton medium and 70-ton heavy tanks) with ground pressures of over 12 PSI could not have traversed the Falklands. Nor could the bloated USMC 26-ton medium AAV-7 Amtracks or 30+ PSI LAV-1 trucks. If you doubt this assessment, the Argies landed troops to take Stanley by AAV-7s and DID NOT keep them on shore for inland mobility. Light infantry must have LIGHT tracked AFVs for a light mechanized capability in addition to 3D air transportable maneuver (helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft) interfaces, which we call an "Air-Mech-Strike" force.

www.geocities.com/air_mech_strike

Excerpt:

After Goose Green's heavy casualties the Scimitar/Scorpion 8-ton light tanks were aggressively used to render direct fire support because their low ground pressure tracks were mobility creating. So the point is that instead of using their ships to carry so many helicopters, had they carried large numbers of LIGHT tracked armored personnel carriers like the Spartan version of the Scorpion family or the Bv202 articulated two body oversnow vehicle used as mobile command posts or the American 10.5 ton M113 Gavin the British light infantry could have rapidly crossed the boggy terrain under armor and not lost time and so many men to mortar and arty fire and landmines. Furthermore, the M113s can be fitted with waterjets (ARIS SPA "Arisgator" we call "Amphigavins") to SWIM IN THE OCEAN and could have delivered themselves to the beach as their own landing craft if RO-RO container ships had a Mexeflote barge piece underneath the vehicle ramps for them to splash into the water.

USMC/Army Lessons Not Learned

The thing that is telling about the Falklands war experience is that the Royal Marines have bought the BV10S "Viking" enlarged version of the Bv206S which is an armored improvement over the Bv202s they used in the war. With a PSI of less than 2, they have now a light mechanized capability but we have some doubts about this choice. First, the BV10S is propelled by its tracks only in the water, can it swim from ship-to-shore, even if the "mother" ship risks its own destruction and gets it close, say less than 4, 000 meters? We think not. To avoid missile destruction, mother ships need to stay away from defended beaches; how well does the Bv10S fly by helicopter? Not well. It cannot fit inside the CH-47 like the narrower Bv206S and must be slung underneath the Chinook itself split into two "cars". External sling loads mean the helicopter itself can only fly straight ahead and slow less than 100 mph speed, severely hindering its ability to avoid getting shot down by an enemy Pucara, attack helicopter or from ground fire. We think that the Bv10S since it cannot swim from ship-to-shore nor fly inside a Chinook is a poor choice for the Royal Marines but at least it IS a light mechanized capability IF it can get itself ashore. Its not helping the Navy to avoid being sunk.

However, if you look at the U.S. military its light infantry is even in worse shape than the RMs and the Paras for they have ZERO armored vehicles. The 172nd and 173rd Brigades that are in Alaska and Italy where oversnow mobility are vital are getting rid of their unarmored Bv206 tracked vehicles when they should be getting armored versions and/or M113 Gavins. The USMC persists with its bloated amtracks and LAVs the former can swim to shore but not fly by helicopter, that latter can't swim but can fly.

www.geocities.com/armorhistory/amphibiousinfantrytanks.htm

If the American light infantry were faced with a Falklands-esque situation, they would end up humping heavy weights on their backs after their helicopter and truck rides conk out and can bring them no farther forward; ie the mess we are in now in Afghanistan!

FIXES

We should fix this immediately by supplying our Army Delta weapons companies and anti-tank platoons/mortar platoons in every light infantry battalion light tracks to render armored mobility for A, B and C companies as needed in addition to improving their heavy weapons direct fire support capabilities.

www.combatreform2.com/itmaneuversabattalion.htm

USMC should use M113 Amphigavins

www.geocities.com/armorhistory/amphibiousinfantrytanks.htm

www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/amphigavins.htm

2. If you use dismounted operations, make them as mobile as possible

OK, you are crossing the island in your light tracks and come upon MOUNTAINS, now what do you do? In the case of the British they walked and were very tired and came upon mountains to assault. Either you are on foot already or you get out (dismount) from your light tracks and take the NO-GO terrain for vehicles from the enemy. You are at point B from A. Here is indeed where both heavy and light units fail. The "heavy" units refuse to train their infantry to do completely on foot offensive attacks as the Brits did in the Falklands citing "lack of training time" and other flimsy excuses. This is where they get the "mech pussy" label. The facts are that the terrain may not allow your even light tracked AFV to be with you close by to take objectives in difficult terrain types that are NO-GO. The tracks might have to support-by-fire. On the other hand, the "light" units are guilty for not having light tracks as their baseline way of ground maneuver to carry heavy but vital equipment like laser target designators so fast-mover jets can assist in some way and not drop bombs on friendly troops. The result of this lack of ground Forward Air Control due to Soldier's load problems, unarmored, fast-mover Harriers STOVL jets were ineffective at the bloody battle of Goose Green and one was shot down when the pilot tried to bird dog his own targets to strafe.

The "lightfighters" also fail to realize that all it takes for a man to become an immobile 200 pound weight is to get hit once. This macho over-estimation that the Soldier will remain able-bodied with two good legs is naive as you can see from the accounts below.

Soldiers WILL get hit and immobilized and they will need to be moved, so you need to have the tracks and human powered mobility means to move them: rucks with wheels, bikes, carts, sleds, stretchers, SKEDCOs which the Brits did not have, but the Argies did:

USMC/Army Lessons Not Learned

Neither the Army nor the USMC narcissistic infantry communities train realistically with men becoming immobile casual