By: Obi Wan Russell
- 29th May 2010 at 15:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How many SH are still in service with Indian Navy? and what kind of role do they supposed to perform under present force projection?
Of 30 Sea Harrier FRS 51s purchased by India, 17 have been lost in accidents and only 11 are believed to be operational, plus about four two seaters. Some reports have stated that only eight of the singles seaters will recieve the LUSH upgrade, though it may include all of them. Their job is to maintain the IN FAA's FJ capability at sea until the Mig 29s can take on the burden. against local adversaries, they remain potent against air and surface threats.
By: PhantomII
- 31st May 2010 at 21:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pictures of Indian Sea Harriers with Derby's, Magics, or any other weapons are greatly appreciated!
Can the IN's SHar's carry Magics & Derbys at the same time? (Personally I never understood why the RN's Sea Harrier FA.2's couldn't carry the AIM-9 and AIM-120 at the same time while still retaining the cannon. Aren't AIM-120's fitted onto AIM-9 rails? Didn't they use dual AIM-9 rails? Just perplexed me...)
By: Boom
- 1st June 2010 at 09:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pictures of Indian Sea Harriers with Derby's, Magics, or any other weapons are greatly appreciated!
Can the IN's SHar's carry Magics & Derbys at the same time? (Personally I never understood why the RN's Sea Harrier FA.2's couldn't carry the AIM-9 and AIM-120 at the same time while still retaining the cannon. Aren't AIM-120's fitted onto AIM-9 rails? Didn't they use dual AIM-9 rails? Just perplexed me...)
swerve, the decision to go for the 2032/derby upgrade was taken after the FA.2 talks fell through, unless I'm much mistaken. the sticking point was the blue vixen radar and not the AMRAAM. IN didn't ask for AMRAAMs from UK IIRC.
By: swerve
- 1st June 2010 at 13:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
swerve, the decision to go for the 2032/derby upgrade was taken after the FA.2 talks fell through, unless I'm much mistaken. the sticking point was the blue vixen radar and not the AMRAAM. IN didn't ask for AMRAAMs from UK IIRC.
The contract for Derby was signed in February 2005.
The LUSH upgrade was officially announced some time before 18th June 2006 (interview with Rear Admiral S.M. Vadgaokar published that date), & was being publicly discussed, & stated to include EL/M-2032, in 2003.
The earliest statement about the decision not to proceed with buying ex-RN Sea Harriers I've found is October 2006. It was stated at the time that this was due to the lack of radar & missiles.
By: coldfire2005
- 1st June 2010 at 16:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Carefully check the second picture where worlds first underwater ejection was captured ,and 3rd picture shows Russian Admiral checking out Sea harrier cockpit :eek:
By: PhantomII
- 1st June 2010 at 19:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There appears to be both Derby & Magic training rounds on those dual launchers...makes sense to me.
Why didn't the RN do that with the AIM-9 and AIM-120? Surely, a few extra pounds (I believe the Derby is about 260 lbs. and the AMRAAM is around 345 or so) isn't the reason.........is it?
By: The Village Idi
- 5th June 2010 at 13:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supposedly one of the issues was weight (should I say mass), the added weight of the Blue Vixen radar and the kit to make AMRAAM work meant that it struggled in hot climates. The upgrade planned for 2002 included a more powerful version of the Pegasus engine. The MOD claimed this was technically risky, BAE Systems and Rolls Royce had worked out what to do.
The real issue, as always, was cost.
Post Falklands dual launchers were used for Sidewinder.
By: pagen01
- 5th June 2010 at 14:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Carefully check the second picture where worlds first underwater ejection was captured
:eek:
Most definately not! Maybe first Indian underwater ejection but it was performed in a Sea Hawk in March 1976 and there had been a few USN and RN ejections by then.
Surely the first was Lt McFarlane RN ejection from a Wyvern under the Albion in October 1955?!
Just to bring it back to topic, I love the dear old Sea Harrier, and am enjoying the thread!
By: Kramer
- 5th June 2010 at 21:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supposedly one of the issues was weight (should I say mass), the added weight of the Blue Vixen radar and the kit to make AMRAAM work meant that it struggled in hot climates. The upgrade planned for 2002 included a more powerful version of the Pegasus engine. The MOD claimed this was technically risky, BAE Systems and Rolls Royce had worked out what to do.
The real issue, as always, was cost.
Post Falklands dual launchers were used for Sidewinder.
what kit is required to make the AMRAAM work on the SHar ? that part on the Blue Vixen makes sense, the radome needed enlarging as well..that might explain why the IN simply kept the same radome on the LUSH SHar with the same antenna size on the Elta 2032 as was there on the earlier Blue Fox radar. smaller target detection and tracking range due to the smaller antenna, but the Derby doesn't really have a very long range anyway.
By: swerve
- 6th June 2010 at 15:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... The upgrade planned for 2002 included a more powerful version of the Pegasus engine. The MOD claimed this was technically risky, BAE Systems and Rolls Royce had worked out what to do.
....
Not from what I heard, which was that the initial engine upgrade attempt had failed: the desired thrust levels were achieved, but at the expense of greatly degraded reliability, enforcing a TBO which was considered completely unacceptable. RR reckoned the problem could be solved, but the MoD was skeptical about RRs claims for both timescale & cost, & didn't want to take the risk, both technical & financial.
By: Levsha
- 6th June 2010 at 16:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:eek:
Most definately not! Maybe first Indian underwater ejection but it was performed in a Sea Hawk in March 1976 and there had been a few USN and RN ejections by then.
Surely the first was Lt McFarlane RN ejection from a Wyvern under the Albion in October 1955?!
Just to bring it back to topic, I love the dear old Sea Harrier, and am enjoying the thread!
Yeah, good thread, IN SHARs are an interesting topic. When I read that 17 out of 30 SHARS delivered have been lost it reminded me of the Yak-38's safety record, which must be the worst of any modern combat aircraft, must be the nature of the beast I guess.
I agree with what you say above, I recall reading about a USN pilot ejecting from a submerged A-7 during the Vietnam war. I done some Google Fu to check it out, but I found this Youtube clip of a Yak-38 instead. Sorry for being off-topic:
By: pagen01
- 6th June 2010 at 16:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When I read that 17 out of 30 SHARS delivered have been lost
One engine providing motion and often lift, gliding abilities of a brick, operating in bird riddled airspace, operating of boats - they don't have much going in their favour!
By: Levsha
- 6th June 2010 at 17:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just watched that, was that an underwater ejection and parachuting back down on to the deck of the carrier!:eek:
It certainly was!:cool:
Let's just say that the Yak-38 had one or two 'issues' to deal with...
One of which was the fact that it had such a poor payload, so poor in fact, that when the ship it was operating off sailed in to more tropical high temperature zones the Yak couldn't carry any kind of payload at all, if it could even lift itself of the deck!:eek:
This provokes the question, to what extent are high temps a problem for the SHAR, do they degrade its payload capacity - bearing in mind we're talking about the Indian Navy here.
After all, aren't hot and high conditions a bigger problem for High-bypass turbofans like the Pegasus than for pure turbojets (as found on the Yak-38)?:confused:
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 29th May 2010 at 10:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not to steer from the OP, but did the RN certify ASRAAM for the Sea Harrier which would offer a HOBS capability?
Posts: 61
By: ZOOM - 29th May 2010 at 14:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How many SH are still in service with Indian Navy? and what kind of role do they supposed to perform under present force projection?
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 29th May 2010 at 15:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of 30 Sea Harrier FRS 51s purchased by India, 17 have been lost in accidents and only 11 are believed to be operational, plus about four two seaters. Some reports have stated that only eight of the singles seaters will recieve the LUSH upgrade, though it may include all of them. Their job is to maintain the IN FAA's FJ capability at sea until the Mig 29s can take on the burden. against local adversaries, they remain potent against air and surface threats.
Posts: 1,560
By: RayR - 29th May 2010 at 16:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure .. but I think only 10 remain.9 underwent LUSH upgrade of which 1 has crashed.
Posts: 228
By: The Village Idi - 30th May 2010 at 21:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sea Harrier parts are still being made - under licence.
Wasn't one of the crashed ones returned to the UK to be rebuilt by BAE Systems, then sent back to India?
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 31st May 2010 at 21:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pictures of Indian Sea Harriers with Derby's, Magics, or any other weapons are greatly appreciated!
Can the IN's SHar's carry Magics & Derbys at the same time? (Personally I never understood why the RN's Sea Harrier FA.2's couldn't carry the AIM-9 and AIM-120 at the same time while still retaining the cannon. Aren't AIM-120's fitted onto AIM-9 rails? Didn't they use dual AIM-9 rails? Just perplexed me...)
Posts: 889
By: Boom - 1st June 2010 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
larger image. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/News/Events/Presidents+Day+at+Sea/viraat01+039.jpg.html
swerve, the decision to go for the 2032/derby upgrade was taken after the FA.2 talks fell through, unless I'm much mistaken. the sticking point was the blue vixen radar and not the AMRAAM. IN didn't ask for AMRAAMs from UK IIRC.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 1st June 2010 at 13:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The contract for Derby was signed in February 2005.
The LUSH upgrade was officially announced some time before 18th June 2006 (interview with Rear Admiral S.M. Vadgaokar published that date), & was being publicly discussed, & stated to include EL/M-2032, in 2003.
The earliest statement about the decision not to proceed with buying ex-RN Sea Harriers I've found is October 2006. It was stated at the time that this was due to the lack of radar & missiles.
I'm not relying on memory, BTW.
Posts: 719
By: coldfire2005 - 1st June 2010 at 16:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sea Harrier which had crashed was rebuild and put up for display in Naval Aviation museum in goa
Picture was clicked using a 2 MP cell phone camera
Posts: 719
By: coldfire2005 - 1st June 2010 at 16:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Carefully check the second picture where worlds first underwater ejection was captured ,and 3rd picture shows Russian Admiral checking out Sea harrier cockpit :eek:
Posts: 889
By: Boom - 1st June 2010 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^^
that was in a seahawk.
swerve, no problems if you have better sources than my memory. :)
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 1st June 2010 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There appears to be both Derby & Magic training rounds on those dual launchers...makes sense to me.
Why didn't the RN do that with the AIM-9 and AIM-120? Surely, a few extra pounds (I believe the Derby is about 260 lbs. and the AMRAAM is around 345 or so) isn't the reason.........is it?
Posts: 228
By: The Village Idi - 5th June 2010 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supposedly one of the issues was weight (should I say mass), the added weight of the Blue Vixen radar and the kit to make AMRAAM work meant that it struggled in hot climates. The upgrade planned for 2002 included a more powerful version of the Pegasus engine. The MOD claimed this was technically risky, BAE Systems and Rolls Royce had worked out what to do.
The real issue, as always, was cost.
Post Falklands dual launchers were used for Sidewinder.
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 5th June 2010 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:eek:
Most definately not! Maybe first Indian underwater ejection but it was performed in a Sea Hawk in March 1976 and there had been a few USN and RN ejections by then.
Surely the first was Lt McFarlane RN ejection from a Wyvern under the Albion in October 1955?!
Just to bring it back to topic, I love the dear old Sea Harrier, and am enjoying the thread!
Posts: 1,031
By: Kramer - 5th June 2010 at 21:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what kit is required to make the AMRAAM work on the SHar ? that part on the Blue Vixen makes sense, the radome needed enlarging as well..that might explain why the IN simply kept the same radome on the LUSH SHar with the same antenna size on the Elta 2032 as was there on the earlier Blue Fox radar. smaller target detection and tracking range due to the smaller antenna, but the Derby doesn't really have a very long range anyway.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 6th June 2010 at 15:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not from what I heard, which was that the initial engine upgrade attempt had failed: the desired thrust levels were achieved, but at the expense of greatly degraded reliability, enforcing a TBO which was considered completely unacceptable. RR reckoned the problem could be solved, but the MoD was skeptical about RRs claims for both timescale & cost, & didn't want to take the risk, both technical & financial.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 6th June 2010 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, good thread, IN SHARs are an interesting topic. When I read that 17 out of 30 SHARS delivered have been lost it reminded me of the Yak-38's safety record, which must be the worst of any modern combat aircraft, must be the nature of the beast I guess.
I agree with what you say above, I recall reading about a USN pilot ejecting from a submerged A-7 during the Vietnam war. I done some Google Fu to check it out, but I found this Youtube clip of a Yak-38 instead. Sorry for being off-topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz8fOZxIdVg&feature=related
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 6th June 2010 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One engine providing motion and often lift, gliding abilities of a brick, operating in bird riddled airspace, operating of boats - they don't have much going in their favour!
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 6th June 2010 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just watched that, was that an underwater ejection and parachuting back down on to the deck of the carrier!:eek:
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 6th June 2010 at 17:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It certainly was!:cool:
Let's just say that the Yak-38 had one or two 'issues' to deal with...
One of which was the fact that it had such a poor payload, so poor in fact, that when the ship it was operating off sailed in to more tropical high temperature zones the Yak couldn't carry any kind of payload at all, if it could even lift itself of the deck!:eek:
This provokes the question, to what extent are high temps a problem for the SHAR, do they degrade its payload capacity - bearing in mind we're talking about the Indian Navy here.
After all, aren't hot and high conditions a bigger problem for High-bypass turbofans like the Pegasus than for pure turbojets (as found on the Yak-38)?:confused: