Nimrod MR1 and Phase 3 Shack - progress but by how much?

[Jackonicko]

Obviously the Nimrods performance (speed, cruise speed, range) was streets ahead but with the same (?) ASV21D radar, Mk1c Sonar System (using the T9003 directional passive sonobuoy, and the T11514 directional active sonobuoy) how much of a leap was the original, pre Searchwater, pre AQS901 Nimrod?

Some say that MAD worked (which it never had on the Shack?) and that the integrated navigation tactical system and digital computer made a huge difference. Did it?

What did the Mk 1 Nimrod do for ESM? No Loral ARI.18240/1 and no Orange Harvest, so what was there?

Did the crew complement change?

[Stan Bydike]

Jackonicko

Yes the MAD worked.

We also had a LOFAR passive acoustics system the AQA 5 as well as the Mk 1c

ESM was the ARAR/ARAX which I recollect was a French system.

The Tactical system was the major leap forward, integrating all the analogue sensors and displaying data. it took away al the manual work required in the Shack and alowed the tacnav to concentrate on using the aircraft as a weapon !

Mind you the trappers always made sure that it was switched of for some portion of your annual check ride.

Crew composition was much the same as the present MR2 but I think was more than the Shack.

Hope that helps

Mike

It looks like our postings crossed.

Have you still got the shopping trolley presented to you when you left 42 Sqn :D

[Pontius Navigator]

Jackinoko,
To add to the other posts (and not contradict either), three Nimrods could cover the same piece of water in 24 hrs as 5 Shacks. True the Shack flew for longer but the Nimrod could transit quicker and go further so it was a force extender (same with less).

Weapons wise it could also use the SSQ41 pinger. This had a higher data rate than the 1c but no bearing.

The T24953 lofar could be used as a pair to get a Codar bearing. Individually we could get doppler and an esitmated range based on audio strength. With two or three we could get an LCL (logical comparsion lofar) fix by triangulating the audio strength - quick and dirty. If the target 'cooperated' by starting or stopping engines we could get a Hi-Fix which was based on received time difference for the same event on each sonobuoy.

The Hi-Fix was where the Tac Display came in to its own drawing out the respective circles to estimate the parabolic lines.

In addition to the same torpedoes as the Shack, the Nimrod added 2xNDB. I am not sure if the last Shacks had NDB too, I think it was possible.

The other benefit was that the crew was not quite as knackered after a 9 hour Nimrod flight as 12 hours plus in the Shack. You could also shut the toilet door in the Nimrod - remembering to take your headset with you. One trap ride, the AEO trapper got locked in the toilet without a headset. He was a bit poorly placed to attract attention.

I think the Nimrod also had more crew as the AEOps had to fill the radio, radar and ESM (Dry sensor operators) and Mark 1c - 2 receiver sets and Jez with two as well.

Each Jez set covered 4 buoys and through time sharing one operator could monitor 8 channels.

Jackinoko see PM

[buoy15]

Pontious

"I'm not sure if the last Shacks had NDB's"

They did!

Think! - It was an American weapon system and to be alllowed to drop it, you had to be commissioned, employing the 2 man principle
Hence. in the 60's all Shack NCO pilots and Navs went to clothing stores to get fitted out with officer uniforms - overnight!
Now we don't carry the American weapon any more, why aren't we recruiting NCO pilots and Navs

Love many, Trust a few, Always Paddle your own canoe!

[shack]

What about Autolycus I cry.

What the hell was that you cry!!!

[FJJP]

When I waz a Hair Cadet I woz told it was a big spark plug for all 4 ingins to save weight. Well, it woz, wozn't it?....

[BEagle]

A diesel sniffer used by seat sniffing AEOps.

The big spark plug it wasn't! That was for the ESM, I think. Orange Harvest? Not sure as it was before even my time.

[shack]

BEagle---------Go to the top of the class!!

Except they were not AEO's they were proper Siggies.

[Pontius Navigator]

Buoy 15, thanks for that. In the 60s I saw on the super-white detergent and avoided the smellies until the 80s.

Jackinocko see PM again.

Anyone remember the channel shortage on Jez buoys in the mid-70s? Always flew with a full complement of buoys but the plea from ISR not to drop some channels as they were in short supply?

[Shackman]

I'm intrigued JN- why the sudden interest in the Shack/things maritime? Mk 2c and now relative abilities.

With a good crew the Phase 3 Shack could do almost as well as the Mk1 Nimrod, but the jet had speed and comfort on its side. On the other hand there was an awful lot of experience in the older side of the Shack Force, many of whom were not 'selected' to go jets, or had problems with the course. These were the guys who could literally sniff out a submarine - even without Autolycus. I was but a lowly co-pilot in those days, so claim no ability for that, but it was impressive to see a good crew go to work. The other thing that it had going for it was because we were low and slow a goodly number of our certsubs were with the Mk 1 eyeball.

On exercise we regularly beat the P3s with their better kit - on one occasion taking out a sub that had a periscope up from right underneath a USN P3C. Our kit also worked - the 1C sonar may have been relatively old but it was very good in the right hands - we also had the 'pleasure' of being one of the first to catch a Polaris boat underwater that came into an exercise area (but that's another story).

The 'Spark Plug' came in two different shapes for different frequencies - in those days X and I band (if I recall correctly), and you had the appropriate one fitted for the task in hand, and again the Siggies could get as much info out of them as today's automatic computer driven systems.

Autolycus also worked quite well - we caught at least one diesel sub that was snorting in the middle of the Indian Ocean - however it was also a very broad brush weapon - sometimes the narrow trail you picked up could go a long way - to a chimney on Sumatra!

ASV21 was also one hell of a good radar - in the hands of a good operator. When the AEW fleet started up we had a load of ex Gannet observers posted in as the 'backbone' of the operating side of the Squadron, most of whom had used the AN/APS radar for a long time - and were very fixed in their views of how it should be used. We also had a few MR Siggies who came along to help set up the systems, as we still had MR2s for training. When these guys got on to the AEW radar they also made it sing - better than before . Funny old thing, they were suddenly posted.

When I first saw the Nimrod I must admit I was impressed - mostly by the loo, as the old Elsan really left its mark - mainly on the nasal passages. However, where were the 2 x 20 mil Hispanos which were great to fire, and which filled the whole fuselage up with cordite smoke and made you feel you'd had a good day!

Yes, the Shack could have soldiered on, but the Mk3 was shot, and the Mk 2 was tired and needed a good overhaul and a lot more modern equipment both at the front and to cope with the changing ASW threat. Unfortunately, when the AEW conversion was carried out it was driven by AEW operators - no one asked the then crews what could also be done to improve on board life, so a great chance was missed - there were mods that had been asked for in the early 60's which were refused 'because the ac would soon be going out of service' (how many times have I heard that since on just about every ac in service) which continued to cause us problems or worse on AEW.

Finally we did have the pleasure of attending Collyweston for our indoctrination. As buoy15 mentioned, a lot of very happy NCO aircrew were commissioned overnight, a lot against their wishes. Nevertheless it was fun having one as a captain ( or should I say Aircraft Commander in newspeak).

Sorry - got carried away on what was going to be a quick 2 liner reply!!!!

** Pertama **

[Yellow Sun]

Anyone remember the channel shortage on Jez buoys in the mid-70s? Always flew with a full complement of buoys but the plea from ISR not to drop some channels as they were in short supply?

PN,

Jez' buoys were bought in 31 channel sets and therein lay the root of the problem. Channel usage had to be monitored in order to ensure that adequate stocks of each channel were maintained. NODs/NEVs could have been a bit difficult otherwise!

Channel 15 was rarely in short supply, but I always wondered if the ones on the aircraft would have worked as they were always being loaded/unloaded.

Note for the non maritime reader:

Sono channel 15 was the SAR datum marker buoy. The one you put in just before you ditched yourself or used to mark located survivors. As far as possible a channel 15 buoy with an 8 hour setting was always kept loaded in one of the pressurised launchers. When you used a channel 15 buoy for normal purposes you tried to restrict it to a short life setting.

The increase to 99 channels on the MR2, closely followed by the introduction of channel selectable buoys made it all a thing of the past.

YS

[Jackonicko]

Why the interest?

Working on a largely historic overview of Kipper ops....

So when (what year) did these US NDBs come in? When was this 'mass elevation' of NCO aircrew?

What new threat drove the introduction of NDBs, or was it just taking advantage of their availability?

And didn't Autolycus make the jump to the Nimrod? I thought they still had it?

And when did NDBs disappear from the Kipper fleet?

[Yellow Sun]

Jacko,

And didn't Autolycus make the jump to the Nimrod? I thought they still had it?

AFAIK it was intended to but I do not believe that it was ever fitted to any of the operational airframes. The only vestige of Autolycus was the Autolycus/MAD switch.

And when did NDBs disappear from the Kipper fleet?

Sometime post 1988 probably after 1990 It was published in the press at the time. I recall reading it in the Telegraph. A Google search should turn up some details.

YS

[Pontius Navigator]

Shackman, Orange Harvest came with both frequency sets covered. They were I believe s and X although I never got one to work on 8. It might have worked but I never heard anything.

India and Xray are the same band used by some ships but mostly airborne radar. S or DEF is about 2-3 GHz cf I at 8-9. I am sure a siggy will come up with the exact numbers.

[Shackman]

PN

Thanks - I stand corrected as always. T'was X and S band under the 'old' nomenclature that was changed circa 1971, when of course X became I and S became D, E and F. Although the sets could receive either it was dependant on the aerial on top - on 8 we only ever had the X/I band spark plug which was the standard MR fit when they were converted, and no one thought to keep the other ones!

On one occasion we were tasked to investigate possible 'emanations' from a suspected new Soviet base in the Indian Ocean, and this required two aircraft - one with each aerial - to fly an approx 13-14 hour sortie, with the middle part flown in close formation at heights down to approx 100ft whilst listening for anything interesting.

Jacko

I can't say when the NDB came in, but out of habit should we be discussing this anyway?

Mass 'elevation' was roughly mid 60's, which must have been well after the weapon came into service, but when did the 'two man concept' come into being?

** Pertama **

[Jackonicko]

"Should we be discussing this anyway?"

It's history. History in that the whole NDB era is over anyway - even for the Nimrod - so that even the parametrics and the tactics are no more than a historical curiosity, and it's also history in that if it began in 1974 or before (which it obviously did) it will be in the ORBs in the Public Records Office anyway.

[Skylark4]

Allegedly.........You could get an awful lot of cigarrettes into that Autolycus 'dustbin' up the front end of a Shack.
Happy (groundcrew) days.

Mike W

[pmills575]

Orange Harvest needed more than just an aerial change to fully move to X or S band. In fact the aerial house two independent aerial systems. The four "windows" were the directional "wideband" side and the one at the very top under the black hat was the "narrow band" one. The narrow band required that the Oscillator (in the cupboard just above the radar op) matched the type of S or X aerial in use, so the appropriate one had to be fitted. There was also a mixer change but these were permanent fits. Bit a bodge really, the narrow band kit originally came curtesy of a certain 51 sqdn.

[Radar Riser]

I can't believe that I'm going to answer this as I'm going to be crucified as a cabbage. Ah, well, what the hell, here goes.

The old 'S' band is now 'E' (2 - 3 GHz) and 'F' (3 - 4 GHz).

What is now 'D' (1 - 2 GHz) used to be the old 'L' band.

The old 'X' band was from 8 - 12GHz. What is now known as 'I' band goes from 8 - 10 Ghz and usage includes most boat, little ship and big ship navigation radars as well as airborne cloud and clunk, fighter and airborne search radars.

Autolycus never made the jump to Nimrods. Don't rightly know why, but an educated guess would be because of the advent of nuclear subs.

The NDB was a yank weapon, called the 550lb bucket of sunshine :cool: . It went out of service with the kipper fleet circa 1991. The weapons release on the pilots yoke were a black covered button with a 'C' for conventional and a red covered button with an 'N' for nuclear. Or coffee with sugar and coffee NO sugar when asked by Joe Public when asked at static air shows.

Hope this helps. Standing by for flak:O

RR

[buoy15]

Autolycus was fitted to the Mk1 Nimrod and monitored at the Sonics 1 position - it was too sensitive, couldn't be de-sensitised, and due to temperature inversions etc, it could detect diesel trails from tankers over 2 weeks old: hence, after about 3 years, it was removed.

The 'S' Band Mod for ARAX/ARAR was incorporated to pick up Top Sail which was initially fitted to Kresta 2's.

Strange nobody has mentioned Linescan (SLIR), which was also too sensitive, producing a high false alarm rate - so never progressed.

As for sonobuoy channels - Mk1c was 750Khz spacing, Jez was 375 (overlap between 1 and 17) we were also signatories to the Quadrapartite agreement - remember that? Channel 16 etc?

The 2 man principle meant you had to hold hands and walkaround in pairs at crew-in and beyond. Sadly, in those days there were no girls on the crew.

The Ranger buoy was the most effective and economical confirmation tool in the inventory, and still is (about £80 a shot), however, as we had bought Cambs and Barra, the software was modified to remove the processing.

Policy decision (not from the operators) was that every radar riser would be investigated using a new DIP, which on average cost the price of a new Golf GTI!!

After 10 mins - "Capt - Port Beam, Fridge, 9 o'clock 200 yards"
"Roger, resume patrol - give us a steer Nav"


Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!

[BEagle]

"The 2 man principle meant you had to hold hands and walkaround in pairs at crew-in and beyond."

An imaginative excuse....:E

[Doptrack]

Ranger wasn't removed until well into the Mk2 days - circa mid-80's

Even then the code was only deleted as the UK didn't manufacture the buoys anymore!:hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

The secret Soviet IO base was probably Socotra. During WWII it had a 9,000 foot of so runway and was used by Wellingtons on ASW of all things.

In about 1972 there was lots of hush hush. Shackman might have been involved even earlier. Anyway a PR Canberra crew, poor sods, planned for a weekend in Nairobi down to the last detail - hotel, luggage, hire car, the lot.

Only they knew they were never going to make it. They had an engine 'failure' en route which required a 'humanitarian' emergency turn over, you guessed it, the target.

What had been a 9,000 foot runway was now two 4,000 foot runways with a 1,000 foot gap. Panic over.

We made Nairobi in the tin triangle but the cranberry didn't.

Jackinocko see pm again.

[Jackonicko]

The withdrawal of the B57 from the Kipper fleet seems to have been forced upon us by US policy:

"By June 1992, the United States completed the global withdrawal of all its ground and sea-launched tactical nuclear weapons. A total of 1,700 ground- launched warheads were withdrawn from abroad, including some 700 Lance missile warheads and 1,000 artillery shells. These, in addition to 150 Lance warheads and 300 artillery shells stored in the United States, are scheduled for dismantlement.

Also withdrawn were all 500 warheads routinely deployed at sea, including 100 W-80 submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) and 400 B-57 depth bombs and B-61 gravity bombs. In addition, 350 B-57 depth bombs deployed with land-based naval anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft were removed from service. About half of these 850 naval tactical nuclear weapons are slated for dismantlement. In January 1992, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell announced that the United States planned to retain 1,600 tactical nuclear warheads. These would apparently consist of 700 B-61 gravity bombs for tactical air forces in Europe and the United States, 550 B-61s stored in the United States for aircraft carriers, and 350 W-80 Tomahawk SLCM warheads stored in the United States for surface ships and nuclear-powered attack submarines.

........

In June 1992, the British Ministry of Defence stated that all (approximately 25) of the WE-177C nuclear strike/depth bombs carried by ASW helicopters and carrier-based aircraft will be removed from service and destroyed. Additionally, the U.S. withdrawal of B57 depth bombs from Europe makes them no longer available for the U.K.'s Nimrod ASW planes."

Never any WE177C for the Kipper fleet, then?

[BEagle]

Pontius Navigator, though it pains me to say this - but I'm going to anyway - will you once and for all SHUT THE F*CK UP about matters which were very highly classified not that long ago.

Jerkonicko does NOT need to know such things - if you want to meet for a mutual jerk-off spilling the beans over national nuclear secrets, proving what a crucial part you had to play in the Cold War, bloody well do it elsewhere!! You come across on PPRuNe as someone with marginally less integrity than the Rosenburgs or Klaus Fuchs....

[FJJP]

PN - please, I have agreed with Beags all along on this one. I am highly uncomfortable about the subject - some of it may inadvertantly be sensitive still in a variety of circles and circumstances.

If it all comes out under the FOI then so be it - but that will be after people at the appropriate level have had a chance to scrutinise what info has been requested.

Please lets have no more chat about nuclear subjects....

[PPRuNe Pop]

Guys. It is becoming clear that this thread is once again treading on the edge of the swamp. I have in the past pulled similar ones only to find that it is not as sensitive as it appeared. I am in that position now.

I can do three things. I can pull it, I can edit one or two of the posts or I can allow self-edit and self policing to take a hand. Just the way we like it. If help is needed to do that I can intervene. So, why don't we do a bit of housework and clean things up a bit - if that is what is genuinely required.

I could of course close the thread but I cannot see at this moment it would help.

[BEagle]

Don - Jackonicko is clearly trying to find out whether the WE177 was ever used in the Nimrod. He has absolutely no need to know that. Equally, Pontius Navigator seems to have an obsessive need to spill the beans about things which were national secrets not that long ago and which still should NOT be discussed in public.

Lock or delete the thread by all means if it'll shut them up - meanwhile, I hope that PN will remember that the 'Need to know' principle ALWAYS applies......and that he is still bound by the OSA!

[PPRuNe Radar]

The men in the black Omegas must be beating a path to this guys door ....

UK Nuclear Weapons History (http://www.keme.co.uk/~defcon/history.htm)

[Jackonicko]

PPRuNe Pop,

You might think, from BEagle's whingeing, that this thread is "treading on the edge of the swamp." But as you correctly surmise it is not half as sensitive as it appears. As the site in the 'Omegas' post would indicate, and as I'll try to demonstrate.

BEagle/FJJP,

I appreciate that 'things nuclear' were most secret during the Cold War, and while we still had more than just Trident. That secrecy extended back to ancient, superseded weapons like Red Beard. Fair enough. Rightly so.

But while reality has moved on, some of you ex-Vulcan flying blokes appear not to have done so. I don't doubt your motives or your sincerity for ONE moment BEagle, but you simply aren't qualified to be the arbiter as to what should or "should NOT be discussed in public."

You clearly aren't aware as to what is out there already - and with OFFICIAL sanction - and because of that you are hugely over-sensitive. You should know by now that I'm not the kind of journo who tries to push the boundaries (and that I hold back from asking qs about parametrics or tactics), but that I am the kind of lazy sod who'd prefer to ask a question here than to wade through turgid officialese in Humph's book or in ORBs - which would necessitate a dull day at Kew. And I wouldn't get the human side, either.

You are being childish and really rather offensive this time, mate. Comparing PN to Fuchs and the Rosenbergs and calling me Jerkonicko isn't banter, it's just a bit pathetic. I know that you're an intelligent, bright grown up, but I really wouldn't guess that from your last couple of posts. Bad show!

And this stable door has been deliberately and officially unbolted. These may be "matters which were very highly classified not that long ago" - like the Upkeep bouncing bomb or the Martini Henry rifle - but they are not any more.

The most comprehensive details of all weapons pre-1964 are now easily available in squadron ORBs. We know which squadrons had which weapons, when they swapped from toss to laydown, how much they trained, what the commitments were, etc. The only thing we don't know is exact targeting.

Even more is detailed in 'RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces', by Humphrey Wynn of the AHB, which was originally written as a classified account but, with the end of the Cold War, was subsequently declassified and published by HMSO. This gives the lie to your assertion that the 'Need to Know' always applies. When it comes to Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent in V Force days, it clearly doesn't apply any more. We're all allowed to know, whether we need to or not!

Details of all American weapons used by the UK have also been declassified, and US documents even reveal exactly how many new WE177 vaults were built at Marham and how many at Bruggen, even as the weapon was being withdrawn.

There was even an officially sanctioned article about WE177A/B in the RAF Yearbook in 1998 or 99. Please read some of that lot before hitching up your petticoats every time anyone mentions anything nuclear!

Joking comments about the

http://www.keme.co.uk/~defcon/history.htm

website apart, it contains NOTHING that isn't available from open sources, with the possible exception of the apparent revelation that the Shack used the B34 (the Mk 34 'Lulu') only while the Nimrod used the B57 only.

And I KNOW that Nimrod never carried WE177 (again, that's been openly announced) and was simply pointing out this US sources confirmation of the division of responsibility for WE177C vs B57 in response to someone's earlier supposition that the C-model 177 may have been a Nimweapon.

[rivetjoint]

But there is also the matter of respect, while our government may decide to quietly publish what was a few years back classified you should know that here is not where people enjoy talking about such matters, regardless of their status today.

[BEagle]

Methinks he doth protest too much....

[Jackonicko]

I'm not making anyone talk about anything they don't want to talk about. Those who are comfortable and who do enjoy discussing historical dates relating to long-vanished nuclear weapons (not tactics, not parametrics, not politics, not targeting) can do so, and those (like BEagle) who wish to zip their lips when it comes to the Scampton Vulcan Wing and its WE177As (or whatever) can do so. I respect that.

But people who do far less than confirm what was in document Air 02 13789 19th August 1994 (see the Omegas site referred to above) should not be subject to attempted censorship by people who do not know what is and isn't still sensitive, or to ill-judged and ill-mannered abuse.

When you've read the WE177 article in the Yearbook, and when you've read the Wynn book, BEagle, I'll be interested in what you then have to say about what should and shouldn't be discussed, and why. Until then you're an empty vessel to me.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Have we not already been down the " Fu@k off and fish else where Jacko" route just a few weeks ago:rolleyes:

For one so informed................why come in here?

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Jackonicko]

You've certainly been inhospitable and unwelcoming before, Always Dull. Nice to see that some things never change.

Note that three of you have expressed reservations about this thread (and then only about NDBs, when they cropped up - not in response to any direct q from me, originally), while 12 people have shared their reminiscences about aircraft which are long out of service, and about an era that's long passed. But don't let that get in the way of your tired prejudice.

[FJJP]

OK, I readily admit to not being aware what is in the public domain - clearly much more than I believed possible.

However, I still reserve the right to keep zipped on those subjects I am uncomfortable discussing; I don't mind the odd anecdote to make life a bit more interesting - I'll leave the hard facts and confirmation to those who have the right to divulge...

FJJP

[BEagle]

Precisely my view as well, FJJP.

Let journos go fishing elsewhere; discussion of matters which may, according to them, have been declassified might well lead to inadvertant disclosures about others which remain highly classified.

Not everything ended with the end of the 'Scampton Vulcan Wing' (sic).

[Jackonicko]

BEagle,

When it comes to nuclear stuff, you don't need to take my word for anything. Just look at what is in the public domain.

Flicking open Wynn at random I see that the V-Force (Medium Bomber Force) began QRA on 1 January 1962 (one aircraft per squadron at 15 minutes readiness) raising from three to four Valiants (and from four to eight Canberras) later that year. The assignment of the MBF to SACEUR began on 23 May 1963. By 1963, all V-Bombers had weapons that were releasable at low level, or at 'pop up' height.

For low level ops, the Vulcan (for example) was fitted with four types of ECM - ARI 18105 passive receivers, ARI 5919 active tail warning equipment (being replaced by ARI 5952), rapid blooming window and IR decoy flares, for pop-up and high level (limited war) ops they additionally had ARI 18074 comms jammer, ARI 18075 radar jammers, and 18051 window (gravity launched). There's similar detail on the nav kit required and fitted for low level ops, and considerable detail on Blue Steel delivery profiles, and the exact number of missiles procured and the number used for in service proof firings and operationally.

Another snippet is the fact that by 1966 (when the number of dispersal airfields was reduced) Waddington's freefall Vulcan B1As and B2s used Finningley and Marham as 'near dispersals' and Wattisham, Filton, Manston, Macrahanish, Valley and Brawdy as 'distant' ones. Scampton's Blue Steel B2s used Coningsby and Bedford, and Kinloss, Lossie, and Boscombe. Cottesmore's freefall B2s used Honington and Leconfied, and Pershore, Leuchars, Leconfield, Ballykelly and Leeming. Wittering's Blue Steel toting Victors used Gaydon, Wyton and Coltishall as near dispersals, and St Mawgan as a distant. Middleton, Cranwell, Prestwick, Llanbedr, Burtonwood, Bruntingthorpe and Elvington were given up.

Another is that as Polaris phased in the MBF was reduced to 72 weapon systems on 30 September 1968, and to 64 on 31 December (with the disbandment of the Victor squadrons). The final transfer of responsibility for the strategic deterrent to the RN took place on 30 June 1969.

Or the fascinating fact that the much reduced 'tactical' Vulcan force, post Polaris, could deliver more Megatons than its 'strategic' predecessor!

Another fascinating section of the book describes how and why the V-Force phased out Project 'E' weapons - which coincidentally coincided with the introduction of the very US depth bombs for the Shack that we have been discussing. This is discussed in mind numbing detail, which station phased out which weapon and when, what UK weapon was used instead (Yellow Sun on the important V-bombers - Red Beard on the rest!). The perceived disadvantages and problems surrounding the US weapons are fascinating.

"Not everything ended with the end of the 'Scampton Vulcan Wing' (sic)."

Indeed. But everything DID end with the retirement of the last WE 177s. The weapon was retired from service in March 1998, and dismantling was completed by the end of August 1998. That's only seven years ago, and I personally wouldn't want anyone talking about more than dates - though ironically weapon numbers and disposition, and some details of procedures and even tactics have been released already.

But at the end of the day, does it matter? The threat against which a UK tactical nuclear capability was relevant has gone. The Ministry of Defence had once indicated a need to replace the WE-177 bomb, which was acknowledged to be approaching the end of its service life, with a tactical air-to-surface missile (TASM). To this end, the United Kingdom asked the U.S. firm Martin Marietta to carry out preliminary definition studies for the TASM, and considered joint development of the French ASLP. However, on October 18, 1993, the government decided to scrap plans for a new air-launched nuclear missile, canceling a project which would have cost an estimated $4.5 billion.

The point of all this is to point out how very innocuous the NDB discussion here has been......... Of course no-one should divulge anything unless they know it to be in the public domain already - or unless it's more than 25 or 30 years old.

[rivetjoint]

Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean it should be reproduced without good reason, in my view.

[Navaleye]

Jacko old chap, I think you've probably worked out by now that you are unlikely to get ex servicemen discussing this subject at all. You may have more luck on strategypage's forums where speculation is the order of the day.

[Jackonicko]

I'd tend to agree, which is why I would not post an uncensored version of the following passage, though I'm not sure why not - it's probably because it's more recent than Granby, and thus seems 'sensitive' to my indoctrinated brain:

"The U.S. Air Force's ******* ****** ****** accidentally revealed a British national secret. Marham Air Base in Britain and Bruggen Air Base in Germany are two Royal Air Force airbases having the capability to store nuclear weapons. On ****** the ******* Air Force Base ******* ****** ****** issued a little-noticed press release announcing the $** million sale of ** "Weapon Storage and Security Systems" (WS3), providing "storage of tactical nuclear weapons within the floors of hardened aircraft shelters" to Britain. The release stated ** vaults were installed at Marham Air Base in Britain by ******, and ** more at Bruggen Air Base in Germany by ******. These vaults became available because the ******* decision to reduce the number of vaults occurred only after *** vaults were built, leaving an excess of **."

But posting what is available in a mainstream published book (one published by HMSO and written by the AHB) is of a different order. It's INTENDED to be disseminated (like the press release referred to above), it was officially released AND it concerns what is ancient history.

[Navaleye]

Jacko,

I think the material you posted is very interesting indeed. The problem is that what you have quoted may be in the public domain, but any comment on it or addendum to it by anyone from this board may be crossing the line. I don't think you'll get any takers.

[Jackonicko]

Navaleye,

Of course I'm interested in all of this - it's an interesting subject. But all I wanted to know was how the Nimrod MR 1 differed from the last of the Shacks, capability wise.

I hadn't thought of any nuclear dimension to the question, until someone mentioned it. Any questions I had as to the narrow subject of nukes on RAF maritime patrol aircraft have been answered.

The Shack used Mk 34 'Lulu' from 1965-1971 - probably deploying them in response to the threat posed by the first PRACTICAL Soviet SLBMs.

The Nimrod used a new weapon (the Mk 57) from 1970 until 1991, and were withdrawn as part of the USA's global withdrawal of all its ground and sea-launched tactical nuclear weapons, which included the 350 B-57 depth bombs deployed with land-based naval anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft, which rendered them no longer available for the UK's Nimrods.

That level of detail is all I want or need, and it shouldn't expose me to abuse for asking, nor should those who provide that level of information to hysterical twittering from the terminally confused retirees on the board. In fact, the answers came from elsewhere, but had an ex-Kipper man known the answers, and known that they were in the public domain, and chosen to post them, he would have been doing nothing wrong. Nor can I see any harm in colourful anecdotes about the mass promotion of NCO aircrew and the 'Coffee' and 'coffee - No sugar' buttons on a Nimrod's yoke.

Pointing out the level of detail that has deliberately been put into the public domain is not intended to provoke further disclosures, only to provide a reality check to those wanting threads to be closed down or censored inappropriately.

There's also the issue of a public 'right to know' to be weighed against the 'need to know'. In the example above, it is clear that HMG spent $***m to provide enhanced storage for ** weapons that were known to be going out of service, without replacement, for a period of only * years. There is a clear issue of a staggering, massive waste of public money lying behind these asterisks! If the Cold War was still raging, security concerns would, in my view, completely outweigh pedestrian concerns about spending, but since the weapons concerned and the threat they were designed to counter have evaporated, having the detail in the public domain seems to be a no-brainer.



Thanks to those who've PM'ed messages of support - they were entirely unexpected and much appreciated.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think that the robust attack on Jackinoko is wonderful. It is a superb testament to tha training and indoctrination you all received decades ago. It is the same dedication and loyalty that would have enabled you to ride without a shed of cynicism into Russia atop a bucket of sunshine.

It is the same loyalty that the UK stay behind forces showed with many keeping the secret to their graves. A friend of mine in ASU30 would say nothing; only the publication of a book by his commanding officer unsealed his lips and then only slightly.

Simiarly I sought to read the 540 and 541 entries when my uncle served on XXX sqn. I was allowed to read the books under supervision, I was not allowed to photocopy the pages and they were a bit nervous about the notes I was making. This was about 1997 before they disbanded.

My uncle was killed in 1943 before I was born.

At Waddington in the 60s we had SECRET targetting maps of HAMBURG a mere 20 years old. Do get real.

Just like then, the USA has bases in the old USSR and that less than 10 years after the war.

Jackinocko see PM again.

[Jackonicko]

In 1993 Hansard revealed that:

Nimrod

Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Nimrod aircraft was first certified to carry nuclear weapons ; and whether this certification applied to the United Kingdom as well as United States weapons.

Mr. Hanley : The Nimrod aircraft was certified for carriage of American nuclear depth charges from its entry into service in 1969. It has never been certified to carry British nuclear weapons.

[MightyHunter]

....getting back to the original question about the improvement in capability that the Nimrod MR1 delivered over the Shack. While I was fortunate never to have flown the Shack, I spent some time tracking Soviet SSNs, SSBNs and SSGNs in the MR1 based on information from the venerable AQA-5, both with and without the Emmerson Mod. This was the major advance in capability as it allowed the passive tracking of submerged nuclear powered submarines. Yes you could only monitor 8 buoys, the only directional info was CODAR, SLP and HYFIX were not that accurate, but of course Doppler nerver lied; and it worked!

The ability of the Central Tactical System to display sensor data and target DR position to the TACNAV was also a major enhancement, allowing better decision making and markedly increasing SA.

Jacko,
With ref to your Qs about the nuclear capability, the point you forget it is that most Pruners will not be exactly sure what is and what is not in the public domain, which makes it likely that some idiot will post some info that is still classified. While you may not agree with the OSA, one should not ignore it lightly!

Some people get easily carried away when indulging in a bout of public grandstanding about something they know a little about!

[richlear]

I am sure there is a lot of often contradictory information in the public domain. Folk corroborating public facts & figures on here is still getting very close to the OSA.

rich

[Benzimra]

"While I was fortunate never to have flown the Shack"


Shouldn't that read "unfortunate"?

[Jackonicko]

What's that saying about rules being for the guidance of wise men and the slavish obedience of fools?

I'm not calling anyone a fool here, and I have the utmost respect for those who find it preferable to stay 'shtum' on this subject, but I'm less tolerant if they want to gag equally intelligent, equally patriotic people who have thought about the matter, and have come to the conclusion that common sense dictates that this level of discussion is harmless.

The point in this case is that if you're talking about nuclear weapons in an RAF maritime context, you're talking about (ancient) history. A secondary point is that since no-one is talking about parametrics, tactics, authentication procedures, etc. but only about weapon designations and dates (again, from more than 12 years ago!) it's pretty harmless stuff. Moreover, after 1 January, this stuff will all become very much easier, I suspect.

[BEagle]

So you'll just have to wait a few more days then....

...if your theory is correct.

[Jackonicko]

Well no BEagle, I won't, because thanks to those who've posted on this thread, and thanks to those who've been in touch, I now feel I know more than I need to about the Shack and the early Nimrod MR.Mk 1 (a type that hasn't been in service since 1983 or so) for my article, and more besides.

And I've learned the following about RAF maritime use of nukes (which was not the original point of this thread).
1) All were US weapons
2) They were W34 Lulu on the Shack (though I learned that elsewhere), and B57 on the Nimrod
3) No WE177 (though I learned that elsewhere)
4) When Coastal got nukes there was a mass commissioning of NCO navs and pilots.

Think that the men in Black Omegas would give a f*ck? Not prepared to admit that you've been a bit over cautious and paranoid? Feel you can detect a security breach of any significance?

[Radar Riser]

Jackonicko

So you are less tolerant about people who want to gag other equally intelligent people who have come to the conclusion that common sense dictates?

These people have signed the OSA, full stop. It is not for these people to decide what should and should not be discussed in an open forum. Other people in the know, with all the full facts, decide that. Thats their job.

Please don't berate those that remind others that when they joined, they signed the OSA, whether they liked it or not. It was one of the deals they made for getting to play with big boy's toys.

As you're not a serviceperson, you would not understand that ideal. As a journalist, you want to know and uncover everything. But please don't slag off anybody on these forums, otherwise you might find people will send you to Coventry, and you wouldn't want to loose a good source of info, albeit unclassified and disclosed.

RR

[Jackonicko]

Radar Riser,

That's an excellent point, very well made, though you make some off base assumptions about what I want. (I do NOT want to uncover everything, at all, and I don't want to publish everything that I learn. I see a great deal of sense in keeping a great deal of information secret for 20 or sometimes even 25 years, though I think that 30 is often excessive. I don't and didn't support extending FOI legislation in its current form to the MoD and Armed Forces, though I do believe that something needed to be done to streamline the release of information that could be released without harm. I don't think this FOIA was it, however! Having lived in a service dominated environment, my attitudes have been shaped as much by service attitudes as by 'journalistic' ones.)

On one level, the argument that OSA is and should be paramount is compelling. Equally, many intelligent and flexibly minded servicemen (who are equally deserving of my respect and admiration) see a place for common sense where ancient history is concerned. Others see a need to breach it in order to draw attention to serious criminal wrongdoing that might otherwise be protected by the OSA (Deepcut, perhaps?). I find the way in which they are condemned is sometimes a little bit lacking in tolerance, respect, or the mental flexibility that is so often a hallmark of a service-trained mind, and that one might expect from comrades in arms.

Looking beyond absolute rules and a black/white interpretation of OSA for a moment, can you actually see any harm in this thread , thus far? Do you not see any merit in using the OSA where it's necessary to do so, and to use common sense elsewhere. I remember the Bulldog FRCs and student study guide being 'Restricted' and thus unavailable for use by the owners of what was then one of only two civvy Bulldogs on the UK register. Was that sensible?

[Radar Riser]

Jackonicko

I understand completely what you're saying, and in some cases I agree with you. Indeed, Deepcut is a good example. But, if I belive that some doctrine, info, whatever is out of date and it's release is not prejudicial, who am I to say "Hello world, look at this".

I might not be in full possession of the facts. Indeed, something that seems totally innocuous might have a knock on effect. That's what I was trying to put across.

Hope this clears up any mis-understanding.

RR

PS The Bulldog FRC's were RESTRICTED due to copyright and commercial reasons. If you look up the full meaning for RESTRICTED, using the DW handbook, you'll see what I mean.
Didn't want a journo getting the last word on that one!:E

[Tartan Giant]

Nato Eyes Only

I have read the posts, I agree with all those who do NOT wish to talk about past things marked SECRET.
It might be "history" but those who know of those old secrets would do well to keep them from the likes of journos.

There are bits of the jig-saw that those who don't know, would be glad to hear/see coming from those who did know.

Having flown as a "Co" and then a "Skipper" on the Shack (flown the Mk2.2 to 3.3) I agree with my learned friend Shackman,

With a good crew the Phase 3 Shack could do almost as well as the Mk1 Nimrod, but the jet had speed and comfort on its side. On the other hand there was an awful lot of experience in the older side of the Shack Force, many of whom were not 'selected' to go jets, or had problems with the course. These were the guys who could literally sniff out a submarine - even without Autolycus. I was but a lowly co-pilot in those days, so claim no ability for that, but it was impressive to see a good crew go to work. The other thing that it had going for it was because we were low and slow a goodly number of our certsubs were with the Mk 1 eyeball.

Having also done a tour on the Mk1 Nimrod (72-75), if somebody wanted to find and track a sub then give me a good Shack crew.
I (my crew - yes it was a good crew!) had more unalerted detections on the Shack than ever I had on the Nimrod.
A classic example from my Shack days - we found two Soviet Nuces on the same day, and nobody knew up to that point they were there, never mind within hours of each other! It was a historic mission, and never repeated, even by a Nimrod. I was kippering from 66-75!


I am old fashioned, but a SECRET is for keeping and not for public discussion.

The old sayings come to mind; loose talk costs lifes. Navaleye has the idea.

If this country is stupid enough to open its secrets to those who have to ask, then the game is over.


Take care,

TG

[buoy15]

Ok Guys, check your figures

The NDB 550 was so called because it weighed 550 lbs

The Mk 44 (passive) Torpedo because it weighed 440 lbs

The Mk 46 (semi-active) Torpedo because it weighed 460 lbs

BEAGS - Yes, the 2 man principle was difficult to employ on a Vulcan without holding hands, but with a 13 man Nimrod crew it was strictly enforced from arrival at the ac to airborne.

By the way, on a check ride on the simulator rig , a failure during a crew response - ie - ONE wrong answer- could cost the crew their status - 11F9 Ring a bell?

[Shackman]

And the Mk 30 torpedo - presumably the time in seconds between the battery warning light coming on and a b***dy great bang!

[buoy15]

Shackman

Was it the Mk44 which used OTTO fuel, or both?

Very scary stuff, particularly when the armourers dropped them on the pan during loading/unloading.

A - I'm an armourer, B - I'm an armourer etc. etc.

[Blacksheep]

Information on nuclear weapons is already in the public domain. For example, the Ombudsman has already forced disclosure of information.
She (the Ombudsman) wrote : "It is therefore difficult to envisage the release of information about events that happened some time ago to weapons that no longer exist could cause harm if made more widely available."
The MOD then disclosed the requested information on nuclear weapons, including several accidents that had occurred on foreign soil, where we had never previously acknowledged the presence of such weapons to the local government.

If you want to know just about anything about our old nukes Google will fetch it for you. Nothing secret about them anymore after the Ombudsman's actions. An initial search gets you the weapon designations then you can mine as deep as you like.

So of course, Jacko could have got all the information he says he needed from Google, without bothering to ask anyone on this forum... :hmm:

[rivetjoint]

I'd still rather my country embarassed itself through official channels than through the mil aircrew forum on pprune though!

[Jackonicko]

While I just wanted some simple confirmation of the broadest historical fact, and didn't want to embarrass anyone or anything.

And googling Nimrod and nuke (or W44, or B57, etc. really doesn't come up with much - and certainly wouldn't have brought me the 'Coffee' and 'Coffee - No Sugar' story)......

[Blacksheep]

Just tried a very simple Google search using a single word and got a list on page one with all the nuclear weapons used on all the RAF aircraft from the Valiant to the Tornado, complete with dates, Jacko.

No coffee stories though.

[rivetjoint]

And don't tell me that one word in the context of this conversation is classified? :)

[Blacksheep]

Of course its not. All you need to know is the military designation of the weapon carried by the Tornado/Buccaneer/Vulcan etc.

You can get that from Google too, but since 'Freedom of Information' is here to stay why make it easy? This isn't the place for handing out freebies after all... :hmm: