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 dArc, 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 dont know how easily the helicopters one would find aboard Jeanne dArc, 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)

[Webstral]

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

The limitations on the Harriers combat radii and ordnance would be one of the themes of planning creatively. They have shorter legs and carry a lighter load than bomber/attack aircraft of the USN. The USN isnt available in my make-believe scenario because other operations have soaked up the available fleet carriers. The Europeans are on their own for this one in terms of carriers.

I absolutely agree that ADA would be a serious problem for rotary wing assets. Getting around this problem would be one of the themes of the story. How do you plan your missions and use your assets such that risks are minimized while important targets are damaged, neutralized, or destroyed when the weapons you have available for the job are not at all the ones youd like to be using

Thanks for the reference, CA. It seems that the CRV-7 might be suitable for attacking trains, rail yards, factories (under certain conditions or with a huge weight of fire), and other links in the supply chain that might not enjoy the highest level of protection.

The operating assumption is that the attackers enjoy something close to air supremacy because the defending air force has been shot down, grounded for damage or lack of spares, or (in a few cases) destroyed in their shelters by assets that are no longer available for further air action.

[95th Rifleman]

The CVR7 was also adopte by the RAF for their own harriers and jags.

Could be an alternative source of ordnance.

[James Langham]

The Apache can be operated from British ships, some were used this way in Libya. This gives a nice punch to the force.

[95th Rifleman]

The Apache can be operated from British ships, some were used this way in Libya. This gives a nice punch to the force.

A roll on/roll off ferry like the Atlantic conveyor would make a cool "Q" ship packing apaches or ASW helicopters.

[Panther Al]

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

[DigTw0Grav3s]

Relating back to the Falklands, weren't the Argentinian fighters on a very tight fuel schedule I've read that they were so stretched for fuel that a slight deviation in flight plan would have had the pilot ditching in the drink.

[Legbreaker]

That was discussed here http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=3348 a few weeks back.