Saturday, 14 April 2012

Harrier,Storm Shadow And Brimstone


There are many people who believe that the Harrier aircraft could not carry the Storm Shadow and Brimstone missiles.

"The Tornados have delivered [MBDA] Storm Shadows to penetrate hardened buildings and the dual-mode Brimstone,neither of which could have been delivered by the Harrier."


Air Chief Marshal Dalton,the current head of the British Royal Air Force (R.A.F.),and a former Tornado pilot,may not have read our previous piece "What To Cut: Typhoon,Harrier And Nimrod Versus Tornado And F.S.T.A.". 







"The Harrier aircraft was withdrawn from service on 15 December 2010.

Prior to its withdrawal,it had an operational emergency clearance to operate Baseline Brimstone.

In order for the Harrier to use Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone,we would have had to extend the provision for the weapon and conduct a full trials programme on Harrier.

Although capable of carrying Storm Shadow,Harrier was not cleared to do so when it was withdrawn from service."


Nick Harvey also said in Parliament on Thursday 18 November 2010:


"The Ministry of Defence has assessed that it would in principle be technically feasible to launch the Storm Shadow missile,which is the UK's only air launched cruise-missile, from a number of in-service and future fixed-wing platforms other than the Tornado fast jet.


These include the Harrier GR9, Hercules C-130J, A400M, Typhoon and joint strike fighter."



Note how the opinions of senior Royal Air Force officers influence the opinions of government ministers who rely on their advice:

"The military advice is that the Tornado has a greater capability.

The primary capability advantages of the Tornado GR4 over the Harrier GR9 include greater payload and range and integration of capabilities,such as Storm Shadow,fully integrated dual-mode Brimstone,the Raptor reconnaissance pod and a cannon."


When Lord Astor says "the military advice is....",he probably means "Royal Air Force officers told us...".


Of course,what Royal Air Force officers say is not necessarily entirely correct.


On paper,theTornado has a range and payload advantage over the Harrier.


But wars are not fought on paper.



In the real World the Harrier would have had a significant range and payload advantage over the Tornado on recent operations in Libya.


The Harrier already had an "emergency clearance" to fire baseline Brimstone (dual mode Brimstone is almost identical).



Harrier could have carried Storm Shadow if it's integration had not been cancelled.



Harrier carried the Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod instead of Raptor pod.



Harrier had rocket pods instead of cannon.



Though the American Harriers do have cannon pods and they could probably have been carried by British Harriers also.

Note that this official Ministry of Defence aircraft hazards document lists both Brimstone and Storm Shadow as "weapon types capable of carriage" by the Harrier.

Note that this official Ministry of Defence document lists the Harrier as an aircraft which can carry Storm Shadow.


Note that this official Ministry of Defence document lists the Harrier as an aircraft which can carry Brimstone.

10 comments:

topman said...

who should the ministers ask about specific miltary matters but miltary officers? If answers were needed about tornado other services would have a small input but the raf would have the greatest input to the answer. Just as if the question were about the t42 retirements the navy would have the greatest input. I'm not sure why your surprised ? As to ss you keep repeating the same statements, so assuming all us crab air types are in some sort of plot to nobble the fishheads, ask yourself in these statements ( that you place great trust) how can they know there were no problems if it never flew with ss and never went past ground trials?

Gabriele said...

"if it never flew with ss and never went past ground trials?"

The real question is why the trials were never continued, while Storm Shadow and Brimstone have been announced as part of the GR9 package from as far back as 1996.

Casually, the time in which Jock Sirrup had to convince everyone that upgrading Sea Harrier FA2 was not right, and that the GR7 should get the upgrade instead.

Topman said...

Surely the trials weren't needed anyway? A government minister said there were no problems so there can't have been any. You said it yourself enough.

'Casually, the time in which Jock Sirrup had to convince everyone that upgrading Sea Harrier FA2 was not right, and that the GR7 should get the upgrade instead.'

If that's your starting premise to finding out why, you won't.

Topman said...

Apologies I misread part of your statement. Last comment was a bit OTT and out of context.

GrandLogistics said...

Hello Topman,

just to clear up your position,what you are saying is that Storm Shadow wasn't integrated on Harrier because nonexistant problems which hadn't been discovered during tests which hadn't been conducted?

Are you also saying that when a government minister announced in parliament that we would not proceed with Storm Shadow integration on Harrier he specifically said that it could carry the missile because he didn't want anyone to find out about these nonexistant problems which hadn't been discovered during tests which hadn't been conducted?

Further,are you saying that you,Bagman and other anonymous internet posters know all about these nonexistant problems which hadn't been discovered during tests which hadn't been conducted and which government ministers are trying to cover up by claiming that Harrier can carry Brimstone?



GrandLogistics.

Topman said...

GL, what you are saying is that Storm Shadow wasn't integrated on Harrier because nonexistant problems which hadn't been discovered during tests which hadn't been conducted?

No my understanding is; trials had been conducted but at the ground trial stage. They did not proceed beyond that ie it was never accepted to the airborne trial stage

'Are you also saying that when a government minister announced in parliament that we would not proceed with Storm Shadow integration on Harrier he specifically said that it could carry the missile because he didn't want anyone to find out about these nonexistant problems which hadn't been discovered during tests which hadn't been conducted?'


I've no idea what was in the minister's mind when he said that, you'll have to ask him.

'Bagman and other anonymous internet posters know all about these nonexistant problems which hadn't been discovered during tests which hadn't been conducted and which government ministers are trying to cover up by claiming that Harrier can carry Brimstone?'

Again you'll have to ask bagman for his thoughts. Anonymous yes as much you me and everyone else here. As to the DMS Bristone, Bagman covered it in his post on the subject.

Regards Topman

Anonymous said...

GL,

A question if I may?
Just so I too understand your position and your understanding of this issue.
Are you and the gov minister saying that you know SS would never had any problems throughout it's trial and full release capability tests despite the full trial never having taken place?

Regards Topman.

GrandLogistics said...

Hello Topman,

neither myself nor any minister has ever made such a claim to the best of my knowledge.
It would be illogical to do so.


GrandLogistics.

topman said...

my mistake, what is it that you claim?

GrandLogistics said...

Hello Topman,

merely that statements by government ministers contradict the many claims that Harrier could not carry Storm Shadow.
Many of the reasons given for that,for example that Harrier could not take off with two Storm Shadows because they would be too heavy,are clearly nonsense.


GrandLogistics.