Canberra Swansong

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the RAF website. (http://www.raf.mod.uk/stc/news_05_canberra.html)

Another capability gap beckons.....:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Indeed. In recent conflicts the most important RAF assets available to Force Commanders have been PR9s, tankers, and Nimrods of all versions.

RAF fast jets - you have GOT to be joking. Tornado F3 or F-15C? Let's think about that.... GR4 or F-15E? Even the Jaguar, which gave such good service in both Gulf Wars, has yet to be replaced.

The pointy-headed AirWheels with their fast jet blinkers have failed to grasp the notion that the PR9 needed replacement. So instead the only really useful RAF aircraft are now incredibly ancient and their replacements still years away from ISD.

If it wasn't so serious it'd be a sick joke.

[Jackonicko]

Well done WEBF, you've found a capability that we need, every time (unlike SHar, which we know is merely 'nice to have, just in case'.

It's also a capability that has been specifically requested time and time again by the USAF.

It's a capability that only a handful of U-2s can duplicate, and over mountainous Afghanistan, not without problems.

But it won't be a capability gap - it's a much more deliberate-sounding and benign 'capability holiday'.

[Roghead]

Now I wonder what retirement "in the near future means"? I trust that the clowns in charge of the circus have not miscalculated again and retired the trainer too long before the operational beast.:O

[cazatou]

BEagle,

Nothing new in this.

In 1936 there was a competion for an aircraft to provide Battlefield Support to the Army in the case of (read "inevitable") conflict with Germany.

The best performing aircraft was the Hawker Henley; a single seat Merlin powered ground attack aircraft with 4 forward firing machine guns. This was rejected out of hand as "no aircraft could perform this role without a competent navigator and a gunner to provide rear defence". The aircraft selected was the Fairey Battle - the Henley was relegated to the role of Target Tug.

[passpartout]

Which Jaguars took part in both Gulf Wars?

It certainly wasn't the French, and it wasn't ours.

Maybe it was the Nigerians

[BEagle]

Well, I class the activity Bliar condoned from mid-2002 as part of GW2.

Which included the Jags at Incirlik.......

[GeeRam]

Now I wonder what retirement "in the near future means"?

I've seen it posted elsewhere that the retirement date of the 4 x PR.9's will 31st July 2006.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Will be sad to see the old girl go. Even as a young'n I still enjoy the sight of the beige beast on the odd occasion Ernie decides to shoot an approach up here.
She has served us well (and still does of course)!

[recceguy]

Quote : "Which Jaguars took part in both Gulf Wars? It certainly wasn't the French, and it wasn't ours "

In 1991 (the real Gulf War) two Wings of French Jaguars (the 7° from Saint-Dizier AB, and the 11° from Toul AB) took part in the action, with aircraft detached from that total of six squadrons (roughly 20 aircraft ) They did attack the Koweiti airports the very first morning at low level... amongst the casualties was the famous one of the pilots's helmet crossed by a machine-gun bullet, just above the eyebrows - the blood-covered Captain managed to bring his aircraft back. After that they focused on bombing the Iraqi armored divisions which were digged in the desert North of Basrah.
By contrast the two FAF Mirage F1 Squadrons brought in the Gulf were only cleared to enter the action after the IAF Mirage F1 had disappeared from the skies....

So little passpartout before making comments - know the facts.

I was fortunate to fly an exchange tour in the RAF - for the Canberra I would have swimmed across the Channel - but instead I got my first knowledge of the wonderful Jag.... I also flew Hunter, Hawk... and the Shackleton !

And when I got my wings 25 years ago, I had Iraqi cadet pilots in my Sqn, flying AlphaJet also... they were really nice guys. I still remember one of our instructors, having said good bye to them, and learning some months after that one he especially disliked... had shot down an IIAF F14 !

[passpartout]

Recce Guy

Read my post - the French Jaguars DID NOT TAKE PART in both Gulf Wars - I don't recall claiming that they weren't there the first time.

Concentrate!

Our Jags were back in blighty before all the last nastiness kicked off, although I concede that it would depend when you think GW2 started - for me it was when the land invasion began

[Ewan Whosearmy]

The stuff that Beags refers to is officially ONW, not Operation Iraqi Freedom (or GWII, whatever you want to call it). OIF started on March 19, 2003.

[BEagle]

Op Resinate North, actually.....

Whatever.

Back to the thread, I note that the first PR9 prototype made its maiden flight on 8 July 1955...

The aircraft has served the RAF well - a crying shame that the cash-strapped Rental Air Farce of today will not receive a true successor when the last PR9 finally shuts down.

[West Coast]

If its any consolation, they live on at NASA, among other places.

[EGAC]

Details of the WB-57F mission on the recent Shuttle launch:

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/launch/wb57_chasejets.html


Video which it shot on this page:

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/index.html


One is left to conclude that they used it "because they could" rather than for much practical value - short of having a ringside seat should the Shuttle explode.

[dopeonarope]

Perhaps when she does retire they add the Canberra to the RAF Historic Flight..... Sorry I mean BBMF.....

Capability gap does need to plugged when Canberra does bow out of service. Date to be set... could be ages yet!

I have fond memories as an Air Cadet throwing up in a Canberra at Wyton:yuk:

Hoist to crew winching over and out

[6foottanker]

I know the British Aircraft industry is a shadow of the shadow of its former self, but since the Canberra PR9's such a capable jet, can they not just re-engineer some new ones, rather than buying something which will cost 4 times as much and only do the job half as well?

[Jackonicko]

Though the jigs are long gone, it would surely seem certain that BAE could sell a reasonable sized batch of new-build Canberras as high altitude recce platforms, radar platforms (with operators 'migrated' to ground stations as the USAF plan to do with the E-3) and for Elint/ECM, etc. They might even carry a Storm Shadow or a recce UAV.......

Such an aircraft would be useful, especially if it was based on the NASA WB-57F airframe, with the PR9's current recce suite as a baseline.

Such an aircraft would offer massive performance advantages over any converted biz jet, and by basing it on an existing airframe development costs could perhaps be reduced to the point where unit cost might be manageable.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

It's not all the RAF's fault, it would seem.

The PR9 fleet is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and the aircraft are suffering from extensive fatigue problems. I was at 39 Squadron two weeks' ago and was told that the cracks being found in the jets are so widespread and severe that they are 'not repairable'. A quick look in the hangar revealed two jets that are already beyond repair. That leaves a meagre two more still available for Ops. Perhaps it's just a matter of pragmatism. Not sure how cost-effective rebuilding these airframes would be, Jacko.

Remember too that RR is no longer willing to support the aircraft's engines and there's yet another reason to bid the old girl farewell.

Beagle,

ONW, ORN, whatever. The fact is that the Jag did not serve in both Gulf wars.

[BEagle]

Beyond even speed tape and black bodge tape repairs?

Suggest a little editing of your post to remove any indication of operaional force strength levels and the associated attention of 'them', old bean!

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Beagle,

According to the warrant officer i/c of maintenance the cracks are appearing all over the airframe with such severity that they simply can't fix them safely. I didn't get into all the ins and outs with him, but he was quite adamant about it. I think the engines are also a cause for real concern.

The number of aircraft on strength at 39 Sqn is unclass (I checked), but thanks for the reminder.

[Jackonicko]

What a pity that when 39 reduced from a full squadron to a flight so many low-houred PR9s were disposed of, so quickly, and with so little thought for the future. Aircraft with long fatigue lives were given to Chile, put on gates or in museums, or summarily scrapped. Had they been slapped straight into store, we'd be able to run on the fleet for decades.

Ewan,

I didn't mean rebuilding. I meant building new ones!

J


BEagle,

Most spotters could give you the serials, not just the total number!

J

[Roland Pulfrew]

I have to say I am with JN on this one. The Canberra is arguably one of the best recce platforms currently in service (just look at the number of requests for support received from, and in particular, the US of A). The issue of a replacement is very difficult. Despite the trend towards UAVs these systems are incredibly expensive, not necessarily for the UAV itself but for the infrastucture to support the UAV whilst on station - perhaps this has something to do with the demise of the FOAS project?

A biz jet probably has the range and possibly even the altitude, except there are issues with performance on ASTOR, but can it outturn the average fighter at 50000' (can the average fighter reach and maintain 50000'?).:hmm: Can the biz jet reach/stay at that altitude when fitted out with all the systems that a Canberra can carry? :uhoh:

The Canberra is a good design - NB its longevity so far! Perhaps what we need are new build Canberras with more modern engines (and a bigger rudder?) think of the increased on station time of the Canberra with more fuel efficient engines. After all the airframe would appear to have proven itself! Just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean better....Dinosaur Check!

[Jackonicko]

I'll bet the USAF would take a few new-build WB-57Fs. And NASA.

And India, and virtually every air arm that has taken a special missions Gulfstream or Embraer.

With ten or so for the RAF, I'd guess that they could sell 50-60 without breaking sweat. And that should be enough to make production worthwhile.

[KPax]

Stupid question I suppose, but couldn't we buy some U2S.

[Navaleye]

OK in the air, but an expensive pain to operate. Someone has to drive behind it on landing to tell the pilot where the ground is. It's no spring chicken itself!

[Lima Juliet]

Hold on a sec, just 11 months ago we were all berating the Canberra as being a widow-maker (following the sad loss of 2 pilots in Sep 04). Now we want to save it?? Let her retire gracefully and bring on the Predator and Global Hawk - now that really is a recce capability.

LJ:ok:

[Squirrel 41]

Leon,

The tragic crash last year (RIP, gentlemen) was one in a long line of Canberra training crashes (see the thread(s)), but this does not talk to the capability of the aircraft - just that it needs a better desinged training regime / and trainer. :*

PR9 remains a fantastic capability, and from the (very jealous) outside, 39 looks like a wonderful place to be. Alas, even if it runs on "for some time", I doubt that I'll get a chance to join in the fun on the ground. (Even if I ask nicely, 39?)

It cannot, currently, be replaced by a UAV - those who need to know, know why. Global Hawk is incredible yes - but there are still thing it cannot do (or isn't allowed to). Would I like to see a WB-57F / PR9 new-build project with modern engines and avionics? Yes, of course. :D

Will it happen? No - as Navaleye has put in his link on the Sea Jet / CVF thread, the Equipment Programme is £18bn+ over budget (:uhoh: ) and we're not going to order 10+ and get the Americans in for 40+ -- irrespective of whether or not it is a (very) sensible call - unless we're prepared to bin something else (less) useful.

So, what would we swop from the future programme or get rid of now to fund new Canberras? I'd bin Trident (really really useless in the real world, esp. against AQ) and probably Tranche 3 Typhoon (if we can) and use the money for CTOL CVF with F-35C replacing the STOVL order, and the rest on some real C4ISTAR assets - like new Canberra, if it was affordable. (Pls note, light blue supporting dk blue here, WEBF!)

(Oh, and before anyone starts, I'm not a secret unilateralist; it's just that I can't see the point in a single use platform when we could better use the money for something else. If you wanted to stay in the nuclear club - a different argument - then you could always stick some sunshine ina cruise missile. Like CASOM before it became "conventional", no?! :rolleyes: Or if you still want it on a boat, even like Tomahawk! :hmm: )

S41

[rivetjoint]

The fact the U-2 needs a mobile makes it stupidly expensive? Hasn't stopped the US operating it for 50 years now and even Global Hawk uses a chase car. That's what we need, wait for the block 20 Global Hawk and you've got a winner.

[BEagle]

A very limited (in terms of where it may operate) 'winner'....

The beancounters are in a mistakenly back-slapping frenzy over the cost-cutting they think that UAVs will give them. But the reality is that UAVs would (not 'will') only provide a fraction of the capability of the PR9. And UAV operators will, for example, need Instrument Ratings to fly their little toys in Regulated Air Space.

Rental Air Farce or Royal Aeromodel Farce - if you want to play the big boys' game, you have to pay the big boys' rates!

[Onan the Clumsy]

Just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean better I remember my wife explaining that one to me, though her phraseology was markedly different. :ouch:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

If the Canberra was a world beater, just imagine what it could be if it was built with modern technology.......

CAD/CAM, new engines, glass cockpit, state of the art avionics, AAR capability etc.

[rivetjoint]

Years of delays, parts that didn't work together, materials that weren't suited for the job, the wrong design requirements...although the capability of aircraft designed today might be better the capability the aviation industry had around the 1960s will never be beaten.

[Roland Pulfrew]

LJ & RJ

Sadly the oldest air force in the world is highly unlikely ever to be able to afford to own and operate Predator and Global Hawk as an independant force. We CANNOT afford the infrastructure required to support these systems on our own.

However if and it is a big IF BWoS have learned the lessons of MRA4 then re-engining a new build Canberra, fitting it out with modern avionics and AAR, and obviously a bigger fin shouldn't be difficult. It has to be cheaper, and provide more capability than a few, currently unaffordable, UAVs. After all there must, surely, be a good reason that the MOD have ditched FOAS/FOAC!

[BEagle]

"IF BWoS have learned the lessons....."

"...a good reason that the MOD..."

BWOS learning a lesson and a good reason at MoD, Roly? You'll be telling us that there IS a Father Christmas next ;)

[Postman Plod]

This is a silly question, but dont the Americans have a habit of storing old aircraft in the desert rather than sending them to the scrappie as we do? If so, is it still likely they'll have some surplus B57's available?

I guess it may be a bit late due to the length of time they've been out of service, and I'm sure if they did have sufficient numbers in storage, they'd be pressed back into service (seeing as the USA is one of the countries asking for the capability), but I thought it was worth asking the question on here...

[GeeRam]

Up until about 18 months ago, the inventory at AMARC was available to see on their website, and I seem to recall there was only a few RB-57's left in store, may have even only been the one left in their 'museum' section...?

Alas, they have now withdrawn the online listings for security reasons.....

[rivetjoint]

The future of this area is UAVs and if history is anything to go by the RAF will probably rent a few from a partner and hang their own electronics off of them.

[Lima Juliet]

What...like a RAPTOR pod??

I found this on a spotter\'s site - now we know why the \'berra is going...

The British armed forces have not exactly had much success with UAV’s – to date the only UAV to enter operational service has been the ill-fated Phoenix. However, the inability of this poorly designed, unreliable and ill-equipped UAV to undertake operations in the high summer temperatures of Iraq led to MOD to approach the US about the possibility of operating the General Atomics Predator A.


The approach was obviously successful because, with almost no publicity, the RAF began to actually operate the Predator A. Early in 2004 the RAF formed 1115 Flight, also based at ISAFAF, Nevada, as part of a subordinate unit to the US Air Force’s 15th Reconnaissance Squadron. The exactly compliment of 1115 Flt is unknown, but if it follows US Air Force practice, the Predators will be flown by a GD pilot, supported by a WSO sensor operator (believed to be ex-Tornado crews) - interpretation of the data will be undertaken by various intelligence specialists in the US and UK. Individuals from 1115 Flt are operating the Predator in Iraq, as part of a 44 strong US/UK Combined Joint Predator Task Force, in support of UK forces operating around the Basra area.


A report in the Sunday Times on 3 Oct 04 suggested that personnel from 1115 Flt were operating from two sites, Balad, near Baghdad and Nellis AFB, Nevada – which I suspect is actually ISAFAF which is near Nellis. At Balad they were reported to be part of the teams responsible for take-off and recovery, whilst in flight the Predators were being controlled remotely from Nellis, via satellite link. Nevertheless, although the Predator detachment at Balad are undoubtably quite capable of controlling the aircraft throughout their mission, current practice appears to favour the actual control of the 18hr+ missions being conducted from ISAFAF, which has the benefit of cutting down the number of staff in theatre.

Further info from Flight International...

UK details recent Predator UAV operations

The UK Royal Air Force has provided further details of its use of US Air Force-owned General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Predator unmanned air vehicles in Iraq. Flown under a three-year urgent operational requirement deal contracted last year, UK-controlled Predators are required to provide persistent wide-area surveillance for 12h a day over Iraqi cities such as Basra and Fallujah, controlled by pilots and sensor operators based at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

The UK Ministry of Defence approved the deal due to the operational limitations of the British Army’s current BAE Systems Phoenix intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance UAVs in Iraq’s demanding environmental conditions, and to reign in the overland surveillance demands placed on the RAF’s BAE Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol fleet.

Predator Joint Task Force operations by the RAF’s 1115 Flight currently represent one system orbit in Iraq, with this equating to around 18% of the total Predator coverage supplied by the USAF’s R/MQ-1 air vehicles, says Gp Capt Andy Fryer from the RAF’s Headquarters 3 Group.

A 44-strong detachment supports the deployment, including eight pilots and seven sensor operators, plus intelligence, administration, meteorological and operations staff, including non-air force personnel.

Operations take place in concert with ground forces, with streaming video acquired by the Predator relayed to forward air controllers equipped with Rover terminals over a line-of-sight distance of up to 200km (110nm).

Future expansion to the UK’s capabilities could include the ability to use the Predator to support urban close-air support and combat search and rescue missions, Fryer told RUSI’s Unmanned Vehicle Systems conference in London on 12 July. However, there is currently no training in place to support such a development, he says.

[Jackonicko]

The NASA RB-57Fs may soon gain ex-C-141 Starlifter engines and an F-15 landing gear. They already have a glass cockpit and moving map. They routinely operate at 61-65,000 ft depending on payload (about three times that of a U-2) and carry a dedicated sensor operator. There are five airframes at MASDC, but these have been cannibalised.

One may soon be operating on this side of the Atlantic.

[A2QFI]

I was lucky enough to fly the PR9 in Cyprus 1964/5. It was my first tour and a real flying experience. Even then we had an autopilot coupled into the ILS although the out of trim forces with full flap made it a bit difficult for the autopilot to hold in and one had to compute and set the drift to enable to autopilot to hold the localiser. I was at a station Open Day near St*mf*rd the other day and found one the airframes I had flown 41 years ago, on the static display. The crew looked really young!