Nimrod to get bomber role

[ORAC]

Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650752,00.html)

[BEagle]

The Nimrod would be a somewhat inferior airframe, compared to the Vulcan, but the significant advances in weapons, electronics and computing would enusre that as a Storm Shadow platform, it would be pretty good.

Didn't someone write:

"Shame then, that the lesson of the value of strategic bombing wasn't properly acknowledged and we lost that capability.

A few Vulcans, suitably updated, could have been very useful self-designating LGB bombers in GW1. One a/c with perhaps with 12 LGBs - instead of 2 VC10Ks, 3 Tornados and a Buccaneer?

Dropping from a 'significant' altitude as well!"

Glad you took my advice, Sir Jock :p - and thanks for being one of the good guys at RAFC when I was a Flt Cdt!

[D-IFF_ident]

I guess, with their existing bomb-bay, it kind of makes sense. Can we dig out the old blueprints for the VC10 to be a bomber too? Please?

[Biggus]

The 'A' in MRA4 does stand for attack!! Using the MRA4 in this sort of role is not news, and as for converting MR2s, well, how long will that take.........

No doubt there will also be internal resistance from the fast jet boys, as a 'Nimrod' attack capability is the perfect excuse to get rid of another squadron of fast jets!!

[zedder]

The short-sightedness of the RAF coming home to roost yet again. Very early on post the MRA4 contract signing (probably about 1997), BAe approached MoD with a proposal to fit MRA4 with either 2 or 4 x Storm Shadow. In the big scheme of things, neither option would have involved significant extra cost at that stage. However, as Biggus implies, at that time the main men in DEC were all from FJ backgrounds. Consequently, the MoD decided there was no requirement for such a capability!

[Impiger]

This all makes good sense and is part of the rebalancing act that is going on in MODs across the West. Simple truth is we have so much traditional/conventional capability that no-one is prepared to fight us in the old ways. So we can afford to reduce tanks, some FJ and some ships to invest in more flexible platforms. Yes we need quantity to an extent but we need quality and versatility even more. In terms of achieveing effect, letting the weaponry do the work from greater height and or stand-off distance makes more sense than overflying possibly heavily defended territory.

The FJ fraternity (of which I am (almost still) one) will still have a glorious role to play in the closer in air-land battle but when it comes to strategic effect and shaping the battlespace then larger platforms capable of flexible re-targetting during a mission have got to be worth considering - especially as no one seems to want to come out and attack them with fighters anymore.

Longer-range land attack platforms operating from safer areas further back from the front-line might also prove more cost effective than the 2.9 - 3.5 £Bn floating airfields we seem hell bent on investing in but thats a story for a different thread!

[CWW]

Few of Britain’s potential enemies have submarines

Who are Britain's enemies anyway? I'm not sure, but if you ever happen to want to know where any of the "friendly" submarines operated by China, Colombia, Cuba, Greece, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, North Korea, South Korea, Algeria, Argentina, Libya or, er, Russia, are, who are you going to send?

[Jimlad]

"Longer-range land attack platforms operating from safer areas further back from the front-line might also prove more cost effective than the 2.9 - 3.5 £Bn floating airfields we seem hell bent on investing in but thats a story for a different thread!"

Let me guess, if someone offered to spend £3 billion on a pair of superlarge fixed airbases for the RAF you'd be jumping for joy? Why the hostility to a pair of new airbases which is effectively what we're buying? Frankly I regard a large fixed airbase as a darn sight more vulnerable than a moving carrier which can be 400 miles away within 24 hours. How many airbases have been attacked and seriously damanged / knocked out of action since the war and how many carriers have had the same? Try 0 for the carriers.

[BEagle]

400 miles in 24 hours for those little grey boats - unless there's an inconvenient piece of land in the way, of course!

Phase 6 Vulcan was going to have been able to carry 6 IRBM Skybolts. And that would have projected air power rather more effectively than those expensive carriers can ever hope to.

Perhaps the RAF would like to buy back XL426, XM655 and XM558 and upgrade them to carry Sky Shadow? Probably cost a lot less than those boats!

[SASless]

24 hours multiplied by 35-40 knots yields somewhat more than 400 miles fellas.

The fallacy of the argument is one needs more than a half dozen bombers to be able to have a "strategic" bomber force.

We have several hundred BUFF's setting in the Arizona desert....care to buy a few?

[GeeRam]

Perhaps the RAF would like to buy back XL426, XM655 and XM558 and upgrade them to carry Sky Shadow? Probably cost a lot less than those boats!

And there's XM603 at Woodford, and due to the dry climate preservation, XM573 at Offutt AFB, XM605 at Castle AFB and XM606 at Barksdale AFB could be added to the list as well....;)

Actually, with the activities of re-manufacture/servicing about to start on XH558, economies of scale could make re-activation a financially attractive prospect...relatively speaking.
Rolls-Royce may be a problem with wanting to overhaul/renew a sufficient number of Olympus engines though..??

Instead the RAF could always long term lease/buy half-a-dozen or more '52's from AMARC.....:hmm:

[jack-oh]

I belive we are wandering off the subject.

The Nimrod is an excellent choice for Storm Shadow, as would any ac be that could carry more than 1 at a time.

I am sure the FJ community would appreciate that a weapon that only requires you to fly around a medium level, not to close to the action, that once fired is soon forgotten, doesn't need to be strapped to the underside of a GR4. A Nimrod will now have the same capability as a 4 ship, and will thus allow that 4 ship to get on with close support and other more demanding tasks.
A sensible descision, but one that was no doubt taken with gritted teeth.

[ZH875]

Perhaps the RAF would like to buy back XL426, XM655 and XM558 and upgrade them to carry Sky Shadow?

Why would the RAF want fit an out of date ECM pod onto the Vulcan.

[BEagle]

Storm Shadow, sorry, I must have had a senior moment!

But I guess you knew that....

[ZH875]

We all have senior moments, but imagine a Vulcan with a bellyfull of Storm Shadow and a few Brimstone's carried on the underwing Skybolt mounts. Decent range, may justify losing the 3 VC10 tankers.

[Decent in Descent]

Err... Just a thought. What about the 6 Anglo-French, very fast Olympus-engined jets decommissioned very recently.

Could the government have bought them back at £1 each, stuck a bomb bay in the middle and given them a lick of paint...? :D

[bluetail]

Sorry guys, but the Nimrod MR2 has already been a Bomber so it would be just resurrecting a previous role.

In 1982 as part of a trial fit for Operation Corporate, just in case the mighty delta had problems, a Nimrod at ISK was loaded with at least 4 (might have been 6, times dull the memory a bit) 750lb Bombs, and a somewhat interesting bombsite.

Said jet was launched, and I believe dropped its bombs on good old Garvy Island. It was definately empty when it got back.

In the end of course Black Buck happened and the rest is history. Agree with the comments on Storm Shadow though, I gather a nice bit of kit.

[gowaz]

AT SAME TIME QUESTION WAS ASKED "EFFECTIVE RANGE OF OPERATION?"
" SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES"... CAME BACK THE REPLY.
"THAT DOESN'T SOUND MUCH?" SAYS BOFIN
"WELL THERE AND BACK IS..."
BOFFIN AND OTHER PEOPLE..."WE DIDN'T ASK YOU TO COME BACK, JUST GO!"

TRUE

[MarkD]

Some in these parts might, in answer to the question "how would Britain reduce its submarine threat from other countries" reply "sell them some".

[STANDTO]

Quote:

Britain has not had the capability to launch long-range airstrikes since a Vulcan bomber attacked Port Stanley airfield during the Falklands conflict in 1982.

If I remember rightly, the logistics in launching those raids were far beyond those envisaged to be needed for the a/c's original role. It was never a true strategic bomber in the sense of a B52

If the Mighty Hunter can be modified at a cost of less than buying an off the shelf solution from the States then fair enough. However, in the finest traditions of defence procurement, it is bound to go wildly over budget and not actually do what it is meant to.

Above all, would this modification involve removing the pie oven?

[rivetjoint]

There's very few UK airfields the B-52 can land at now due to the airfield lighting layouts.

[ZH875]

Above all, would this modification involve removing the pie oven?Quite the opposite, another oven will be fitted and another two WSO's, the empty pie trays will be used as Chaff.

[Biggus]

Bluetail

I thought the Nimrod was trialled with 'dumb' bombs in 1982 with a view to giving it the capability to attack any naval shipping (principally the Argentine carrier) it might come across while carrying out its normal maritime role - rather than as a fall back option if the Vulcans had problems as you seem to imply. This was before the Nimrod had any SSM capability.

A bit of a suicidal option for Nimrod crews I would have thought, but there were lots of wacky ideas floating around then!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Why stick a few bombs on a Nimbomber? Stick lots more on a K or a J.

The Argosy was kitted to carry 8 x 1 000 lb.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

DinD,

Err... Just a thought. What about the 6 Anglo-French, very fast Olympus-engined jets decommissioned very recently.

I believe an military variant Concorde (they may have had to think of a different name, Discord perhaps) was proposed, which would have carried three Blue Steel underslung. IIRC, the Concorde airframe incorporated suitable hard points. I have an artist's impression from the time, which I'll stick up if I can find it. As you say, a number of such airframes became available recently. These had benefited from being well looked after and recently upgraded.

I wonder if the problems that prevented civils ops (ie CoA and BAe cooperation) would have been surmountable in military service? It's an interesting thought.

[ZH875]

The Argentinians tried bombing from a Herc, it dropped bombs, but the accuracy was somewhat doubtful.

[bluetail]

Biggus

You may well be correct about the Mk2 using dumb bombs, me not being a "plumber" wouldn.t have known the difference,.

I allways thought Nimrod had a perfectly adequate anti ship weapon in the form of Harpoon at the time, and was trialled to bail out other platforms if it was required.

The only weapon fitted that I can recall that was for its own defence was AIM-9, which we fitted quite a while after Corporate.



BT

[Green Flash]

Surely, wth GPS or laser guided ordnance, the Mighty Kipper bomber will not need a bombsight? Just get it into the right area and let the satellites or FAC's get the stuff on target.

[Biggus]

Bluetail

I think you will find the Harpoon was introduced to the Nimrod after 1982. It only made it onto US aircraft for the first time in 1979!

[Stupid Boy]

ZH875, two more WSOs equals more work for WSOps when the poor darlings need feeding. Thanks for nothing....... :{

[MarkD]

ZH875

aren't the Yanks tossing daisy cutters out of Hercs? Accuracy of those is less important I imagine!

[SASless]

15,000 pound HE bombs do not require pinpoint precision....Knock...Knock!

[Gainesy]

How many of them there Doodlebug thingies could you get into the Lanc?:rolleyes:

[Navaleye]

400 miles in 24 hours for those little grey boats - unless there's an inconvenient piece of land in the way, of course!

Only very slow ones! I have vague memories of covering well over 700 (nautical) miles in one day and that beyond the range of most FJs.

[ORAC]

Let´s see a GFL get to Afghanistan then..... :}

[BEagle]

700 miles a day with a few helicopters and a handful of single-engined SHARs? Or was that in proper carriers with credible Air Wings?

Whereas the Vulcan would cruise at around 480 knots TAS at 40000+; in other words 700 nautical miles in less than an hour and a half........

Discuss.

And yes, you can't really hold cockers Ps on a Vulcan, I suppose. :p

[Biggus]

700nm+ in 24 hrs, an average of 29kts+ then.

Fine, what was the sea state at the time, try averaging 30kts when the sea state is up, what operations (i.e use of aircraft!) could you conduct while transitting at 30kts, and what is the speed of your escort ships (yes I know they should be able to do 30kts!!) and more importantly the ships in your supply chain. The average RFA would usually make about 20kts on a good day I would guess! The US might, but we don't build 30kt resupply vessels!!

[SASless]

The US Navy and the US Air Force had this battle in the past.....you will notice that we have both now. It was a very rude fuss when it was going on.

The beauty of a carrier is it can show up off the coast of a trouble spot much easier than can the Air Force move into the area.

Naval Air was used in Afghanistan operating from carriers at sea. They used Air Force refuellers to do the job as I recall.

[BillHicksRules]

Dear all,

What about all the B1s the Yanks have sitting at Davis-Monthan?

How about buying a couple of dozen of them?

I am sure they would be welcomed and Ice Station Kilo and perhaps reactivate somewhere on the west coast like Macrahanish or St Mawgan.

Cheers

BHR

[Razor61]

Naval Air was used in Afghanistan operating from carriers at sea. They used Air Force refuellers to do the job as I recall.

Didn't the RAF VC-10's and Tristars refuel a lot of USN sorties over Afghanistan flying out of Oman?
Think i've seen a few pics of F/A-18s refuelling from our hoses over there.

[ORAC]

The point being that there is a large percentage of the earth´s surface naval assets, even aircraft, cannot reach without the support of land based long range strategic assets.

The use of FJs to deliver ordinance is expensive and delivers little bang per buck. The USAF relearned the value of strategic bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only in being able to deliver large loads, but in being able to provide 24 hour CAS with PGMs. The B1 and B52 force dropped 72% of all ordinance delivered during the campaign.

The present heavy bomber force is supposed to last till 2038. But that was based on pre-Afghanistan and Iraq wars and flying rates. It was also based on unrealistic lose rates. Forget getting your hands on any of their spare airframes, they will be needed as attrition spares. And a new interim bomber might still be needed. Though I am not impressed by the suggested FB-22....

[steamchicken]

I seem to remember John Farley having some video of the Nimbomber trial...

The Argentines flew a couple of attempts to drop bombs out of a Hercules, one of them actually hit a ship - but not a British ship! A monster Liberian-flag oil tanker on its way round the Horn in ballast. They apparently thought it was going "to the task force" - why we'd send an empty tanker, riding high out of the water, was not explained, but it was eventually a kill. (not that it sank, but the owners eventually decided that removing the unexploded bomb would be uneconomic and scrapped the ship)

[Widger]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Vulcan, ha ha ha

see here (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-toma.html)

1300 miles at 500 knots...one way trip...oooh where did that come from????

[SASless]

Air Force.....Royal or Ex-Colonial....equals non-Navy asset, okay!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

1. Can Storm Shadow (or similar) armed Nimrods (or similar) compete with the sortie rates that CVF promises?
2. Without compromising their other roles?
3. Can this ever be as versitile as the ability to carry aircraft for air defence, ground/maritime attack, ASW/ASuW (or whatever they are now called), C2 and ISTAR, Junglies, Chinooks, Apaches - or a combination therof?
4. Do strategic aircraft not need overflight rights - which cannot be relied on 100% of the time?
5. Do they not need AAR support?
6. So the distance covered by a ship in 24 hours can be covered by an aircraft in one hour. Can the logistics, engineering and other facilities, and weapon and fuel stores be moved at the same rate?
7. Who/what is going to provide fighter sweeps/escorts for the Nimrod? Do land based fighters have the legs to escort them, without needing more tankers than we have? Perhaps the Sea Harrier (www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) could have done it, if the Government hadn't axed it?
8. Didn't USN carrier based fighters act as escorts for B52s in Vietnam - during Linebacker II etc?

[Compressorstall]

Could the Sea Harrier loiter, provide its own ISTAR, drop more than 1 x 1000lb bomb and then serve a 3 course meal to the whole crew, as well as providing comms links for the troops on the ground..?

[Spotting Bad Guys]

1. Can Storm Shadow (or similar) armed Nimrods (or similar) compete with the sortie rates that CVF promises? ?Not necessary; we're talking about an aircraft armed with multiple stand-off precision weapons, rather than a FJ required to penetrate all the way to target.

2. Without compromising their other roles? Swing or multi-role is the way ahead for most platforms. The Nimrod is a great example of increased capability and role diversity.

3. Can this ever be as versitile as the ability to carry aircraft for air defence, ground/maritime attack, ASW/ASuW (or whatever they are now called), C2 and ISTAR, Junglies, Chinooks, Apaches - or a combination therof? Apples and oranges; one aircraft type obviously will not replace everything CVF promises - but we have Nimrod now, and CVF remains an aspiration. The Nimrod already has maritime, overland, ASW/ASuW and ISTAR capabilities

4. Do strategic aircraft not need overflight rights - which cannot be relied on 100% of the time? It depends on the DOB location. During Op TELIC (and now, for that matter) aircraft flew from Al Udeid up the Gulf, over Kuwait and into Iraq. This would be exactly the same for aircraft launched from a naval asset.

5. Do they not need AAR support? Not always - the open-source endurance range quoted for Nimrod MR2 is 10 hours/4000KM

6. So the distance covered by a ship in 24 hours can be covered by an aircraft in one hour. Can the logistics, engineering and other facilities, and weapon and fuel stores be moved at the same rate? Why would you want to? Long range and endurance allows the ability to place your launch point to the rear. Why expose assets to the threat if you don't need to?


7. Who/what is going to provide fighter sweeps/escorts for the Nimrod? Do land based fighters have the legs to escort them, without needing more tankers than we have? Perhaps the Sea Harrier could have done it, if the Government hadn't axed it? Are you suggesting the unrefuelled range of the SHAR exceeds that of a CTOL land-based fighter? Also see the answer to point 6; if you don't need to penetrate enemy airspace then the CAP/Sweep requirements diminish


8. Didn't USN carrier based fighters act as escorts for B52s in Vietnam - during Linebacker II etc Yes, in the same way that carrier-based fighters provided similar cover for Afghanistan and Iraq raids.


My point is that the Nimrod is a pretty versatile machine and if you look beyond the politics and PR that always seem to surround the aircraft then not only is it good at its main role, it carries the potential (realised already in some cases) for expansion into other areas. And no, I'm not a Nimrod man!

SBG

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Are you suggesting the unrefuelled range of the SHAR exceeds that of a CTOL land-based fighter?

No but a carrier will often be nearer to the action.

[BEagle]

And, ipso facto, at far greater risk.....

[Mad_Mark]

WEBF, give it a rest about bl00dy carriers :zzz:

Yes, they have their uses and yes it was yet another crime of the politicians to axe the SHAR, BUT carriers are not the be all and end all, they are not the answer to everything in the military. Get used to the fact that there are other military assets that are just as good, and often better, at certain jobs as the carrier and its embarked aircraft.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[SASless]

Ah, valid point. But one must have a carrier or two for them to be assets....and allow for some flexibility in operations. A place called the Falklands springs to mind for some reason.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Answer the question, WEBF. You continually espouse the virtues of the SHAR and the Carriers but seem happy to ignore the shortcomings of either. Maybe I should turn the question around then - what is that embarked aviation can do (other than turn up 12 miles offshore in a few days/weeks) that land-based aviation cannot? And more importantly, how many roles are there that are not carried out by said embarked assets that are performed by the likes of Nimrod and many other types?

No disrespect to our dark blue brethren - you do a fantastic job and we will be the worse for the loss of the SHAR. Just a little tired of the continual SHAR/CVS PR spouted above.

SBG

Anyway - back to the point...strap a few Storm Shadows to the 'mighty hunter' and see what effect we can achieve...after all, we are in the business of effects-based operations!

[Pontius Navigator]

Dark blue can provide an eye-ball to eye-ball presence for a lot longer than an jet. The Cod Wars spring to mind.

Whilst a Nimrod arrested a fishing boat it took a ship to bring it to port.

As an offensive platform otoh a Nimrod could reach places the ships can't reach in the outer defence zone - which probably wouldn't be needed if the CVS wasn't there in the first place and so it goes on.

A ship, whilst being a semi-permanent presence is also in a 'fixed' for a few hours whereas the aircraft is only fixed in time and space for a few minutes.

A ship can move out of harms way at 30 kts and aircraft can move out of harms way at 400 kts. The ship is also rather more vulnerable to mines, sampans, junks and submarines than an aircraft - provided the aircraft doesn't try and mix it too close <g>.

[Jimlad]

"A ship, whilst being a semi-permanent presence is also in a 'fixed' for a few hours whereas the aircraft is only fixed in time and space for a few minutes.

A ship can move out of harms way at 30 kts and aircraft can move out of harms way at 400 kts. The ship is also rather more vulnerable to mines, sampans, junks and submarines than an aircraft - provided the aircraft doesn't try and mix it too close <g>."

Again how many carriers have been knocked out by enemy action since WW2?

Carriers are only vulnerable if their captain parks them too close to said minefields, sampans and junks. Go more than 12 miles off shore and outside most 3rd world navies comfort zones and the problem is sorted. People here seem to assume that an aircraft carrier anchors down off a coast within site of the bad guys, which is simply not the case.

Surely to compare aircraft carrier vs aircraft is disingenous, it should be to compare a highly mobile asset like a CVF to a fixed and therefore vulnerable location like an airbase.

[ORAC]

The comparison was between strategic aviation, in particular bombers, and tactical aviation.

Happy to limit it to a discussion of the advantages of comparable launch platforms, if you can advise me of a carrier capable of operating a bomber of comparable range and payload to a B1, B2 or B52....

[Widger]

advise me of a carrier capable of operating a bomber of comparable range and payload to a B1, B2 or B52....




It's Here!!! (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/data/gallery/thumb/1105443208t.jpg)

[SASless]

ORAC,

Fleet carriers have both a tactical and strategic aviation role....granted the "strategic" role they play is not quite in the same concept as you want to discuss....i.e. big bombers with massive bomb loads....which I would class as being a discussion on the need for "big" bombers or not.

[Pontius Navigator]

Carriers need escorts. Escorts also get hit. Now we really are talking numbers.

There was the one the Echo 2 hit in the Med. There was the one that got dhowed in Aden. There was the one, capable of 30 kts that had to shoot down an aircraft doing 400 kts.

I am sure there are more incidents where the presence of the carrier caused the escorts to stand in harms way. I don't mention the FI of course.

Then I read the New Jersey's ROE. This was peacetime but she still had to stop somewhere in the Med. Bottom line, she would let fly with 15 inch guns.

Aircraft? They just go home.

[ORAC]

which I would class as being a discussion on the need for "big" bombers or not.

Which I thought was the exact point I was raising and, in the present non-cold war climate, the relevance and need of the, conventional, strategic bomber......

[Jimlad]

"Carriers need escorts. Escorts also get hit. Now we really are talking numbers.

There was the one the Echo 2 hit in the Med. There was the one that got dhowed in Aden. There was the one, capable of 30 kts that had to shoot down an aircraft doing 400 kts.

I am sure there are more incidents where the presence of the carrier caused the escorts to stand in harms way. I don't mention the FI of course"

Escorts would exist regardless of whether a carrier is there or not. Love to know more about this echo two incident. The Aden one happened in a port when alongside, which sadly ships have to do.

How many airfields have been mortared, bombed or overrun in the past 60 years? How many airmen killed through terrorists or the like? I think you'll find its far more than the number of ships attacked. The problem is that some in the RAF fail to understand that the carrier and the escort complement each other, rather than one requiring the other as its raison d'etre.

[Ray Dahvectac]

I was on one [of several] Nimrod MR2 to drop [IIRC] 1,000lb (not 500lb) bombs on Garvey Island early in 1982, although I cannot recall the reason given for being given that capability. The DH looked impressive from the bomb-bay periscope. :eek:

And a major factor in the ineffectiveness of the Argie C-130 bombing, was the low altitude they were dropping from not allowing the weapon to fuse prior to impact. But the droning bespectacled MoD spokesman of the time apparently pointed that out one evening on the BBC, allowing them to rectify that minor flaw in their tactics. :rolleyes:

[Mad_Mark]

And a major factor in the ineffectiveness of the Argie C-130 bombing, was the low altitude they were dropping from not allowing the weapon to fuse prior to impact. But the droning bespectacled MoD spokesman of the time apparently pointed that out one evening on the BBC, allowing them to rectify that minor flaw in their tactics.

I think you'll find that problem was with the Skyhawks, not the C130.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[diginagain]

And they were briefed to bomb the 'liddle sheeps'

[The Proctologist]

HHHMMMM!

Still sounds like the Kipper Fleet's 13 man UAV is desperately looking for a role!!!

[zedder]

The Proctologist or Rectal Surgeon. How apt!! With such an obvious interest in rear ends (having picked that username) you must be a fudge-packer as well!

[Pontius Navigator]

Jimlad, I can't remember the name of the USN cruiser involved in the 70s but they had clearly got the rag of the boat skipper. He was at high speed, at periscope depth, periscope aimed in his 6 and firmly rammed the port quarter. The photo showed sailors running out of the way.

[Navaleye]

How many airfields have been mortared, bombed or overrun in the past 60 years?

B.A.N Puerto Argentino. Almost exclusively from warships and UK naval airpower. The RAF did manage to drop 21 fused bombs and 21 unfused bombs to be fair at a huge cost in fuel time and resources. Surely no one is seriously suggesting that 12 kipper bombers can match the sorties and weapons delivery rates of a CVF equipped with 3 Squadrons of F35? They were getting 50 sorties a day out of 14 aircraft in the Falklands. I beleive the first day rate is 100 sorties.

[Pontius Navigator]

Navaleye. ooh!

But it was a cunning plan to max out the EOD teams so that you could Sea Slug em <g>.

[Widger]

How many airfields have been mortared, bombed or overrun in the past 60 years?



Here are some. Although not all Airfields, the process was the same.


1982
It is worthwhile to briefly describe the success-
ful commando raid against the small Argentine airfield on
Pebble Island.
On May 14, approximately fifty members of the Special
Air Service and the Special Boat Service attacked the air-
field. Assisted by naval gunfire, the teams destroyed
eleven Pucara close air support aircraft and several other
light aircraft on the ground, an ammo dump and a mobile
land-based radar unit.

1982 again
While the British ground forces ashore were assaulting the Argentine perimeter in a series of brutal attacks, Royal Navy warships were pounding the Argentinean ground forces with continuous naval gunfire.

1991
USS Wisconsin returned to war when Iraqi dictator Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In February 1991, Wisconsin fired her 16-inch guns at targets just north of Khafji, Saudi Arabia, the ship assisted shore-based ground units in their tasks. Wisconsin shared gunnery duties with USS Missouri (BB 63) and the two battleships continued to hammer at their targets with 16-inch gunnery. Near the end of the month, Wisconsin turned her big guns on Faylaka Island and Kuwait City in support of the ground offensive. Iraq agreed to a cease fire agreement on 28 Feb. 1991.

Whilst I accept that the likes of Missouri and co. will never be seen again, there are developments in the pipeline such as extended range ammunition.

extract here:

A key driver for the programme is to examine the feasibility of using standard 155mm ammunition in a naval environment; this would provide commonality with land-based ammunition stocks. The development of charge-handling technology able to achieve an adequate rate of fire (in the order of 20rds/min) has been identified as a major challenge. A range in the order of 100km is the eventual target.

I also appreciate that 100km is a lot less than the range available to most FW assets however, the platform can stay on station for days and lay down a whole lot more ordnance within the same timscale.

[Navaleye]

I think you'll find that problem was with the Skyhawks, not the C130.

The argentines resorted to rolling bombs off the ramp of a C-130. This was done by spacing the bombs so that they rolled off in 2 second intervals and flying over the length of the ship and hoping one would hit. The problem was that in order for this heath robinson arrangement to work it always meant flying too low for the bombs
to fuse. They did hit at least one neutral ship however.

[Mad_Mark]

Well Navaleye, as they say, you learn something new every day.

Though I do think it extremely unusual to use a big C130 to fly at such low levels that the bomb doesn't have time to arm, when your target is a hostile ship - pretty suicidal!

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Onan the Clumsy]

Assisted by naval gunfire, the teams destroyed eleven Pucara close air support aircraft and several other light aircraft... Should have just got some studes to take 'em round the pattern :}

[Junglie]

Back to the thread somewhat i think the nimrod would make an excellent ss platform, long range, able to carry more storm shadow than anything else and with a toilet on board.!! Of course it flies at medium level but then don't a huge percentage of recent operational ROE demand medium level bombing anyway surely the higher the better for ss giving it more legs?

So pleased that the RAF still dedicate so much time and money training for low level bombing when realistically are they ever going to do it again in action with the proliferation of SAMs??

Sorry off on a tangent;)

[Bob Viking]

Perhaps not as often as in the past but it is still a realistic option. Particularly if we ever go on ops again without our American cousins.
Have you ever heard the term 'skill fade'? It's a skill that takes a lot of practice and needs to be kept up to date. Besides if we only ever did medium level training with the UK weather we'd probably get, ooh, about 20 hours a year!
BV

[Junglie]

Ah but we won't be doing any operations without the help of our American cousins ask WEBF on the Sea Jet forum!! It would mean unless the RAF bombers were within reasonable range of a friendly airfield with first class int of a limited SAM threat and brit air defence cover surely the op would be suicide, something that the Brit government and public would not accept in this day and age. Of course if that land base was not available it would mean the mighty GR7 going it alone with no top cover from the carrier due to the demise of the Sea Jet. That would mean little or no SAM threat and no air threat to justify a low level mission with no air defence. Do you want to be on that one ?? Oh the joys of a desk job!! i do love these threads:O :=

Oh and Bob have you ever heard the term "patronising"? it's a skill that takes alot of practice and needs to be kept up to date :p

[Mad_Mark]

It would mean unless the RAF bombers were within reasonable range of a friendly airfield with first class int of a limited SAM threat and brit air defence cover surely the op would be suicide, something that the Brit government and public would not accept in this day and age. Of course if that land base was not available it would mean the mighty GR7 going it alone with no top cover from the carrier due to the demise of the Sea Jet. That would mean little or no SAM threat and no air threat to justify a low level mission with no air defence.

It would also be a lot more hazardous for crews operating with the RN as, if VecVec is to be believed (from another thread), they have no IntO's or Int cells, so the "with first class int" bit of your quote would dash their chances ;)

MadMrk!!! :mad:

[Pontius Navigator]

Just this Once,

Given that flying a Herc low and slow over the target is quite sporty there was another way to improve the chances of arming.

Pull the fusing lanyard and unwind the fuse by hand before pushing it out the back.

Guaranteed to improve cardiovascular activity and involuntary muscle clenching.

[RAF QWI]

Not convinced that stories of the Nimrod hitting Garvie Island with a stick of dumb bombs is relevant to its potential as a Stormshaddow carrier. The Island is 107 ft tall so any aim short or long has to be significant in order to miss, it is more than 500 ft wide on the usual bombing attack tracks, so left/right errors, even with a strong cross wind, would have to be immense. The base of the Island is at sea level, so an acurate height above target would be very easy to achieve. Overall, the Island is very difficult to miss.

I have no doubt that the Nimrod would make a wonderful SS carrier - but it would require local air superiority if not supremacy. Should the area of release be sausage-side, or within the range of hostile air threat or ground threat (I'm thinking Flanker MKK with AA12 or PL12, SA10 and SA20 up the Eastern Chinese coastline, not a couple of Mirage F1s with AphidB and a few SA8s 200 nms inside Iraq) then significant numbers of support assets will be required to keep it safe - regardless of its pont of origin. Additionally, say your one Nimrod on the ATO goes u/s, or simply has a wpns management snag airborne which means the SS can't be dropped within ROE constraints; you lose all the SS. A formation of 4 GR4s affords redundancy. More pertinently, a formation of 4 Typhoon, or even better 4 JSF, (Oy Jock, please call them Spitfires) won't need escort or sweep, would provide redundancy, speedy retargetting/reroling flexibility after airborne, and can very quickly be retasked/reroled after landing. The JSF (lets all call it the Spitfire and see if it catches on) can even use carriers, ours and the USNs. As a flexible Stromshaddow platform, I think some more thought is required before committing any more cash to BAe. Anyway, recent industry thoughts include a paletised magzine of SS for the back of a C130. If the idea for the Nimrod is taken as valid, then this has to have more mileage.



The points regarding the lack of tactical application of low flying are ill considered. As a means of penetrating and operating within Iraqi airspace, it wasn't necessary given the threat. Therefore, using what happened in Iraq is irrelevant. To those who consider low level flying of little or no use, I would encourage you to read the trial reports of each of the various EW defensive maneouvre/tactics trials which have been run over the past 15 years - and in particular those of the last 18 months. Additionally, consider the skills a pilot requires to be able to carry out CAS, ECAS, a show of force and other more specific weapons events where the ROE may require PID of the critical element (CE) or DPI, when there is a cloud base. Ask the GR7 mates when they get back from Afghanistan whether years of low flying training in the UK was of any use to them when called upon at short notice, after a period of in theatre skill-fade.

Sat in the anti-room during a visit to Waddo the other day listening to a Wg Cdr from the MRA4 team talk about the MRA4 / SS combo. Some valid and interesting points. However, the main thrust seemd to be an assertion that the Nimrod would look after the stationary targets with SS whilst the FJ mates looked after the tagets that moved. This is ridiculously simplistic. I hope to goodness that some attack specialists get to see this team's final recommendations before Glen Torpy et al are convinced to sign it off.

[rivetjoint]

It'd make a good first strike weapon against an enemy which wasn't expecting you.

[Tourist]

Just have to ask..
Which ship was suposedly hit by bombing from a Herc?
This is totally new to me, and I've spent a lot of time in the South Atlantic.

[BEagle]

On 29 May 82, MV British Wye was hit by a bomb rolled off the ramp of an Argentine C-130 of the Grupo 1 de Transporte Aereo. The bomb did not explode and little damage was done.

On 8 Jun 82, Liberian registered tanker MV Hercules was hit by bombs dropped by an Argentine Canberra B-62 of the Grupo 2 de Bombardeo. An unexploded bomb in the ship's starboard side was too deemed too dangerous to attempt to remove and the ship was later scuttled of the coast of Brazil.

[Tourist]

Bloody hell thats some serious aiming/guestimating skill!

[Navaleye]

The word insurance fraud springs to mind regarding the MV Hercules. She just happened to be a VLCC at a time when they unprofitable. I've spoken to an RN Bomb disposal officer about this and he said that the story about being too difficult to move was complete bo**ox. You emtpy the ship dump the fuse and if it works the ship is safe. If it isn't then it goes down anyway. Many RN ships, particularly Argonaut had several difficult bombs to dispose of. Were they scuttled - no. QED

[BEagle]

Navaleye, that was exactly my opinion at the time as well. Very convenient that the ship was scuttled so quickly at a time when it was becoming increasingly unprofitable to operate.........

[DuaneDibley]

It's a while ago now, but QWI has effectively capped this thread.

As an ex-kipper mate it is sometimes painful to see the successive justifications being trotted out as to why MRA4 is the panacea for all ills. MR2 is still doing a sort of business but, in truth, THE business could also be done by other rangier, more cost-effective and less vulnerable assets (for that reason the kipper force deserves large kudos).

All in all though, IHMO the MRA4 apologists should stop appearing to be so desparate - it's just so unseemly!

[Mad_Mark]

Duane,

I think your few words...

As an ex-kipper mate

says it all. Not being in the fleet any more may limit your view on what we do these days.

Think more along the lines of the ac being airborne on another task, with weapons loaded, just-in-case. That just-in-case scenario appears and someone, somewhere finds a new TST target that needs to be 'taken out'. Targeting request goes up the chain and the big cheese thinks (or more likely is told be one of the coal-face workers!) "Hang on, we have an asset with things that go bang already airborne, within range. Let's retask that asset rather than prep and launch a fresh one, as that may take some time."

So, I think good ol' Norman isn't being "desparate" but is in a position to be a useful weapons platform, especially for TST.

Norman has many roles these days, it's not like the old Cold War days any more.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[RAF QWI]

Sorry if this sounds like an " Ah yes but you said......"

Think more along the lines of SS being not the kind of weapon one can use for TST, or indeed any airborne retasking, (almost impossible, particularly if the target has limited exposure and other factors outside the scope of this thread), regardless of the platform. Other weapons? Well, anyone flying a Nimrod close enough to a tgt to spike it or throw off EPWII or EPWIII against it would deserve a special medal.

As I intonated previously, discussion and then decision needs to be informed, that means using people who are informed.

[DuaneDibley]

MM - I'm not that "ex" me old and, furthermore, am fully up to speed with your current roles as a result of my current employment - I'd hoped my opinion regarding kudos to the MR2 mates might've given you a clue as to that. Also, your stance reference being unaware of the current roles has a flipside - maybe you're actually too close to the issue to see the wider picture - you know tunnel vision etc. Nothing personal though but QWI still wins out.

[DP Harvey]

I totally agree with qwi and DD. It is far too easy to use the current theatres, with the lack of any credible counter air threats, as the basis for fitting any offensive weapons to an airliner.

Lets get real.

[Pontius Navigator]

And what of the other little essentials like AUW and fuel? What is the payload?

On that other well know bomb truck (V) it was always a bonus to dispense with a 10-ton deadload.