Somewhat OT: Harriers and Helicopters

[Webstral]

For several years, I have been thinking about some highly speculative military fiction. I want one of the themes to be creativity in problem solving and using the tools at hand. In 2002, several of the European allies had escort carriers that could operate a combination of Harriers and helicopters. France had Jeanne d’Arc, a specialized helicopter carrier, as well as a fleet carrier. I started thinking about whether European light carriers operating Harriers and helicopters could operate against strategic targets ashore. I know the Harriers can carry weapons that would be effective against factories, but naval helicopters are an unknown for me. I know Canada manufactures a type of powerful pod rocket firing on a flat trajectory, but I don’t know how easily the helicopters one would find aboard Jeanne d’Arc, Giuseppe Garibaldi, and other European light carriers could be refitted to carry them. There are many, many unknowns for me about the idea of using Harriers and helicopters to attack industrial and other strategic targets ashore. Any feedback?

[Raellus]

If the enemy is short on local AA defenses (interceptors, SAMs, & AAA) then sure, no problem. If the enemy has a few on MiG-29s on CAP or something like that, then those Harriers would likely be dead meat.

Most naval ASW helicopters can be armed with unguided rockets in a pinch. If they have a land-based counterpart (eg. Seahawk/Blackhawk or Lynx/Sea Lynx), they can likely be fitted to use ATGMs. I mean, if a Blackhawk can carry RAK 052 Oerliken/SURA 81mm rockets, Hughes M-261 19x70mm FFARs, quadruple HOT, TOW, or Hellfires, a Seahawk probably could too. I wonder if SSM like the Penguin or Sea Skua could be modified to attack shore-based targets? That would probably take a lot of doing, if it was possible at all.

According to my copy of Modern Fighting Helicopters* (thank God I didn't get rid of all my Cold War "kid" books), the SA 316B Alouette III, Puma/Super Puma, SA 341/342 Gazelle, AS 250/AS 355 Ecureuil, SA 365 Dauphin/Panther, and Agusta A109A can all carry various rocket pods, gun pods, and ATGMs, as well as several types of ASMs.

*MCH, Bill Gunston & Mike Spick, Salamander Books, c. 1986

[Badbru]

I'd be thinking generally, if it flys then it can drop bombs. From thinking old school WW1 style, Sopwith Camel pilots dropping 60mm mortar rounds out the cockpit to CH46/CH47/CH53 cargo helo's dropping Daisy Cutter FAE bombs down the rear cargo ramp! It'll all depend upon the defence at the target as to success. Most Industrial targets dont respond well to fire and an FAE bomb creates massive fire.

I also rate the Sea Harriers. In the Falklands war the Brits creamed the Argies and the Argies were good pilots with sometimes better weapons. I vaguely recall the Argies using a newer verion of the sidewinder than the Brits were.

Atlantic Conveyer was a Container Cargo ship they flew a Sea Harrier and a CH47 Chinook off of. You don't even need your pocket carrier Webstral.

[95th Rifleman]

If Vietnam proved anything, it proved that you can put almost anything on a helicopter.

Transports can readily do double duty as gunships with a bit of shop time and the Americans have experimented with Chinook gunship concepts similar to the C130.

It's viable, in theory, to mount an artillery piece in the back of a Chinook!

[TicToc]

Professionally I work with military aircraft and utilize them in an attack role. That being said helicopters are not really designed or capable of engaging "strategic" targets. They simply cannot carry the needed ordnance required to really make a distinct effect on that type of target. In addition Strategic targets typically have the highest level of AA defense, and even the most modest AA system can be exceptionally lethal to rotary wing aviation. Helos are best used in a support role, or in attacking tactical targets.

Harriers are great fixed wing birds but have some major limitations. They are incredible small which has a couple of effects. First their fuel capacity is not really very large which translates to a small combat radius and limited playtime. It also is important to note that if they Harrier is conducting VSTOL operations its combat radius is dropped by a significant margin. VSTOL operations burns though fuel in a nearly unbelievable way. The second effect of a small frame bird is limited ordnance. Not only in the number of weapons that it can carry but in the overall weight. Now none of this says that the Harrier cant be used to attack strategic targets it simply means that it isnt really the best option to do it.

[Canadian Army]

Here are a couple things to take in account:

I know Canada manufactures a type of powerful pod rocket firing on a flat trajectory

1.) The rocket pod in question is the CRV7 and here what I found out about the pod: The CRV-7 is a multiple-function rocket weapon. Each pod contains 17 rockets, which are ripple launched together at the target. The rockets are fitted with a high-explosive Armour-piercing warhead for attack on lightly protected installations and ships, or a Kinetic Energy Penetrator, which contains no explosives, but relies on its kinetic energy to destroy armored targets.

2.) There is also a new version the CRV7-PG (Precision Guided); meets the requirement for a low-cost precision weapon the fills the gap between unguided 2.75 inch rockets and more expensive precision weapons such as Hellfire.
Here is a picture of the CRV7-PG:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I also found this story on wikipedia:

"The CRV7 had just been introduced into Canadian Air Force service when it was entered as a part of a general competition in France. One part of the competition required the contestants to hit a tower with unarmed rockets. The Canadian pilot hit it on his first try, but aimed as if firing the much lower-powered Mk 40 and was therefore close enough that the rocket motor was still firing. The motor shattered and destroyed the tower, and the pilot was disqualified because the judges refused to believe it was unarmed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRV7)

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Badbru

I'd be thinking generally, if it flys then it can drop bombs. From thinking old school WW1 style, Sopwith Camel pilots dropping 60mm mortar rounds out the cockpit to CH46/CH47/CH53 cargo helo's dropping Daisy Cutter FAE bombs down the rear cargo ramp! It'll all depend upon the defence at the target as to success. Most Industrial targets dont respond well to fire and an FAE bomb creates massive fire.

I also rate the Sea Harriers. In the Falklands war the Brits creamed the Argies and the Argies were good pilots with sometimes better weapons. I vaguely recall the Argies using a newer verion of the sidewinder than the Brits were.

Atlantic Conveyer was a Container Cargo ship they flew a Sea Harrier and a CH47 Chinook off of. You don't even need your pocket carrier Webstral.

I agree that the Harriers did well over the South Atlantic, but do remember they was playing defence against aircraft that was there to attack ships, not play with the defenders any more than they have to: never did any Argie aircraft go out with the specific mission of peeling back the CAP. If they had, I think the record of the Harrier wouldn't have been as good down that way, and they might have done better at knocking back the RN with their attack aircraft.

That said, they did do better than a lot of folks would have guessed before the whole thing got kicked off.

[Sanjuro]

The Task Force went south with, among other things, 100 AIM9-L Sidewinders- then the latest version- the first truly effective all-aspect version. This was one of the unpublicised pieces of US support- on the personal authority of President Reagan, the UK were permitted to take 100 missiles from NATO war stocks, with the US guaranteeing to replace them. The Argentines had no equivalent weapon; it is doubtful if they would have had the training or doctrine to mount an effective CAP-busting mission.

[Canadian Army]

Here are couple of ways the Apache has been used:

"The Apache operated extensively with close air support aircraft such as the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II and the USMC's McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, often acting as a target designator so the Apache could conserve its own munitions."

"During Operation Desert Storm on 17 January 1991, eight AH-64As guided by four MH-53 Pave Low IIIs destroyed a portion of the Iraqi radar network;the first attack of Desert Storm, an act to allow attack aircraft into Iraq without detection."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...tional_history

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

I agree that the Harriers did well over the South Atlantic, but do remember they was playing defence against aircraft that was there to attack ships, not play with the defenders any more than they have to: never did any Argie aircraft go out with the specific mission of peeling back the CAP. If they had, I think the record of the Harrier wouldn't have been as good down that way, and they might have done better at knocking back the RN with their attack aircraft.

That said, they did do better than a lot of folks would have guessed before the whole thing got kicked off.

I don't know how other countries teach Harrier fighting, but the US Marines are heavy into "VIFFing" -- Vectoring In Forward Flight. A Harrier can do things with VIFFing like rolling over and dropping right onto the six of an enemy, push the Harrier into tighter turns, pitch the nose up or down quickly, do short faster climbs, or perform an Immelman easier then a normal aircraft. The downside is that when VIFFing you can easily bleed off airspeed faster than you expected, leading to an unexpected stall, and that the heat signature of the Harrier blooms when VIFFing.

[Webstral]

It seems that my initial thinking is supported by many of the comments here. Harriers aren’t the ideal platform for attacking strategic targets, but they can do the job with limitations. Helicopters are even further from the ideal, but they can move some ordinance to the target. Wise use of these assets would involve steering clear of defended targets. The MI types will have to identify all the nodes in the defender’s strategic assets, and the operations people will have to figure out which nodes can be attacked with the greatest negative impact on the enemy’s disposition with acceptable risk/losses to friendly forces. Nothing new, really. The limits on the air assets means that the supply chain might have to be attacked in unconventional ways.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I don't know how other countries teach Harrier fighting, but the US Marines are heavy into "VIFFing" -- Vectoring In Forward Flight. A Harrier can do things with VIFFing like rolling over and dropping right onto the six of an enemy, push the Harrier into tighter turns, pitch the nose up or down quickly, do short faster climbs, or perform an Immelman easier then a normal aircraft. The downside is that when VIFFing you can easily bleed off airspeed faster than you expected, leading to an unexpected stall, and that the heat signature of the Harrier blooms when VIFFing.

Yup, the technique was pioneered by the Royal Navy and battle tested in the Falklands.

It was the reason the Harrier could beat the Mirage. On paper the Mirage had all the advantages but when you take into account the harrier's unique characteristics the Argentines couldn't compete.