different versions of the same aircraft...

[cokecan]

Ppruners,

i've been wondering for a while about the different capabilities of what are, theorectically, the same aircraft - notably the NATO E3A's vs the RAF's E-3D's. the NATO E-3A's have got lumps and bumps (sorry, just a brown job - don't know the technical bits and bobs...), whereas the RAF E-3D's aren't...

obviously a 'x can do z, but y can't' is probably not appropriate, but could ppruners say whether the NATO or RAF aircraft/systems are 'better' beause more money has been spent on them (or indeed less money, but more wisely..), or whether they are different beause they are configured for slightly different tasks?

in a similar vien i noticed that the GAF Tornado's use a Cerberus ECM/EW pod while the RAF Tornado's use the Sky Shadow - are they different pods for different jobs/threats, or different, but equal, solutions to the same threat, or is someone skimping with the cash?

again, obviously specifics probably aren't appropriate, but a general veiw?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Well obviously the British equipment is better because (a) it cost far more and (b) HMG naturally avoids trash as they would hate to break the military covenant...

As for the Tornados, which German ones are you looking at? If it's the ECR version, that is a different beast to our (and their) IDS derivatives.

[cokecan]

Torque,

i think its only ECM pod i've seen on any GAF Tornado, and i assume i've seen both IDS and ECR versions. its very reminicient of an AN/ALQ-119, but perhaps a little slimmer...

[Pontius Navigator]

There is some truth in what Torque says.

i've been wondering for a while about the different capabilities of what are, theorectically, the same aircraft - notably the NATO E3A's vs the RAF's E-3D's. the NATO E-3A's have got lumps and bumps (sorry, just a brown job - don't know the technical bits and bobs...), whereas the RAF E-3D's aren't...

The US built the E3A and NATO then bought the same aircraft, with some differences, and it was the NE3A.

For various reasons we followed the British is best route (mainly because NATO prevaricated and Maggie lost patience). Then we bought the E3D.

The USAF were a bit envious of the E3D as we had colour displays whereas they had a shed full of green jobs. We also got more efficient engines. We also had the Loral ESM pods fitted these were a major improvement over the pure radar versions. NATO was envious of our ESM capability so, on the principle of 'not invented here' went and bought a different system, your lumps and bumps.

The aircraft are all interoperable and have essentially the same capability, the differences are all down to date of entry in to service, money, and national pride.

Boeing, cunningly made the software almost identical with small differences which, for a huge amount of money, they could make an interoperability patch. We discovered that main difference was £ and #.

[Wensleydale]

Many differences in the various E-3s are down to kit availability when you buy it. eg, the colour displays were in the E-3D because the old green/black displays were no longer available when we bought the E-3D(same reason for the different mission system comms panels in the back etc). It was perfectly feasible for an operator from one nation's E-3 to operate another variant with very little training (I have operated in As, Cs and Ds with little cross-over training). However since the original buys, some E-3 operators have carried out their mid-life upgrades (no longer 1970 computer technology) and although the different aircraft have similar end user capabilities, the operators' MMI are completely different. Its all about cost over capability and whether you can still get the spares for the old system.

The humps and bumps on the E-3Cs and E-3As by the way are a retro-fit ESM system - the E-3D was fitted with Loral 1017 "Yellowgate" ESM on first build, and has wing-tip pods instead.

[vascodegama]

PN

I thought labour were in power when the Nimrod 3 was muted and Maggie lost patience when she came to power.

[Pontius Navigator]

Vasco, you're right. There was the decade long process of not ordering a land-based AEW and certainly Maggie lost patience. I thought it was also NATO that was slow in making the decision on the NATO aircraft so Maggie went for the Nimrod.

In 1977, the US had made an offer to NATO for purchasing several of the new Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft, which were being delivered to the US Air Force; this was intended to provide airborne early warning cover for Europe's NATO nations without having to rely on the US Air Force. However, the complex multi-lateral negotiations eventually led the United Kingdom to pursuit the all-British development

British Aerospace Nimrod AEW3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3#Background)

I remember MRs being delivered to ISK before the year end so the baron would get his gold and then flown back to Woodford to have the tails chopped off and the floor ripped out.

[Wensleydale]

The decision to go for Nimrod was well before Maggie....

The story as told to me was that the UK was going to be part of the joint buy for 24 E-3A for NAEW with the base to be at either Fairford or Brize (decision not yet made). However, the funding level between the 14 contributing nations could not be agreed and with the scrapping of the (old) Ark Royal and loss of the Gannet AEW on the horizon, the Brit Government gave an ultimation that we would pull out unless agreement was reached in a couple of months. The West Germans had an idea - if Britain pulls out then where will all the money go? The only practical choice was W Germany, and so the Germans did not sign. Britain pulled out and 18 NE-3A were ordered to be based at Geilenkirchen in Germany shortly after (all cash to go through German banks of course).

Meanwhile, UK was going on its own with an order for 6 x E-3A: however, in order to keep the unions quiet (it was the 1970s), the Gov't threw a small amount of cash at the British aerospace companies to see if anything Brit was available. Allegedly, GEC pocketed the cash for its shareholders and wheeled out its comet test-bed which was being used to develop the Tornado F2 radar antenna (the inverse cassegrain) and claimed this to be a solution (hence the rotten choice of radar parameters for a long range search radar, but that's another story). After all, everyone knew that the MOD was going to buy E-3As. Then there was a snap general election and Labour came back into power. "We are not buying American", they said. "We will have GEC's Nimrod".

The company gulped - they did not have a realistic product, but then the brainwave. They were awarded a "Cost Plus" contract. All development costs were paid and a percentage of these costs was added to cover the company. Ineffect, the longer GEC got things wrong then the more money they made. The rest is sorry history until Maggie ripped up the contact and GEC had to come up with the goods or lose the aircraft. They lost, and the RAF got a very good piece of kit from Boeing.

Story simplified somewhat but essentially what happened (allegedly).

[Pontius Navigator]

WD, that's probably as good as it gets. The Germans also stole a march on NATO too. Not only did they land the basing position but they also won the basing support which came to some huge percentage of the whole, 49% I was told, which covered billetting, transportation etc etc. The names might have had a cuddly US feel but that is where it ended.

[E-Spy]

@cokecan
IDS and ECR use the same pod, and yes it is for the same job as the GR4 Skyshadow. Any further differences/similarities are not for this forum.
Spy

[howiehowie93]

I was ground crew on the Nimrod AEW at Waddo in the late 80's and did wonder what the details were as to why the Labour Government made those decisions.

I can see a great deal of truth in what you are saying as the thing never worked properly at all that I could see ! :ugh:

The Engine bits were OK though !! :ok:

regards
H

[Wensleydale]

I was ground crew on the Nimrod AEW at Waddo in the late 80's


H,

So how mant times did you fall down the aircraft steps because of silicon oil coolant leaking out of the mission system?

[Shackman]

As a founder member of 8 Sqn (the AEW version), I remember the course of events slightly differently. Firstly, the AEW Shack was only ever meant to be a short term stop gap solution. The Navy were phasing out proper carriers, and Gannets were therefore going as well and did not have the long range required to cover the fleet at sea. There were plenty of Mk 2 Shacks lying around with lots of life in them (the Mk 3's, although newer, were totally mainspar lifex), and it was relatively easy and cheap to replace ASV21 with AN/APS 20 (again, a much older radar!). Having got it into service, rather than working with the fleet it became a Strike Command asset, working within the UKADR - and further afield - and not that often as top cover for the fleet, so useless for the Falklands, although I did hear rumours of an idea to put inflight refuelling on!

Anyway, I digress; at the same time work was going on to replace it. Remember at this time the USN were still operating EC121s, and AWACS was only just coming on stream. There were three initial industry bids - a revamped Andover, with longer wings and additional jet engines, Hawkeye and Nimwacs. Option Andover was rejected quite quickly, due to an appalling (projected) take off performance, Hawkeye was too small and range limited, leaving Nimwacs. Then Boeing saw the potential, and also entered the fray, but cost analysis took us to Nimwacs. At the same time NATO was looking to buy into the Boeing programme, which would have reduced the costs for us, so there was more delay, with the situation much as Wensleydale stated above - hence the decision to go with Nimwacs.

Then the fun started - unfortunately! As usual too many people got sucked into the project management, and apart from the story of the radar v airframe battles, many other battles went unrecorded. Some people seemed to want a 'newer' Shack or even Gannet, with no change in the way the crew operated (such as all the radios controlled by the copilot, who would change frequencies as required from the back), and did not seem to want any 'new-fangled' ideas foist on them. Three radar stations were good enough, so why have more, and many other little things. I attended one meeting and despaired! Eventually it did fly, and I must admit to being very impressed by what I saw on my one and only flight on it - when the radar worked. Again it wasn't for very long, and we RTB'd for more remedial work.

By now NATO had ordered their AWACs, and finally someone pulled the Nimwacs plug and we went the same way, albeit getting a newer model - and the rest, as they (and Wensleydale) say, is history.

[TT2]

'As a founder member of 8 Sqn,'

Crivvens, you must be a fair age.:D