Nimrod - how many crew?

[Jackonicko]

OK, the RAF website says of the MR2:

"two pilots and a flight engineer, two weapon systems officers (WSO) (tactical and routine), and a WSO who is the sensor and communications coordinator. He is, in turn, supported by a team of two ‘wet’ weapon systems operators (WSOps) and four ‘dry’ WSOps. The ‘wet’ team supervise the aircraft’s acoustic processors, which monitor active and passive sonobuoys, whilst the ‘dry’ team manage a range of radar and non-acoustic sensors, all of which are essential to delivering Nimrod’s full capability."

and says of the R1:

"The Nimrod R1 is operated by a four-man flight deck crew of two pilots, a flight engineer and a weapon systems officer, and an electronic reconnaissance crew of 24 reconnaissance- equipment operators commanded by a mission supervisor." (Though we believe this 'counts' one of the two ad hoc positions).

and of the MRA4:

"The MRA4 operating crew will consist of two pilots and eight mission crew members operating new state-of-the-art radar, Electronic Support Measures (ESM), electro-optic, acoustic and Magnetic Anomoly Detection (MAD) sensor systems."

Eight? Thought it was seven - Radar (+ MAD) and ESM (+ DASS) facing forward at the front, than three facing starboard on the Tac rail (Comms forward, then TACCO 1 and TACCO 2) and finally two acoustics aft, with an optional role fit work station in front of the dinette on the port side. What am I missing?

But crucially, how many for the MR1, though? And how did their job functions differ from those described for the MR2?

And how many would there have been for the AEW3, where would they have sat, and what would their functions have been?

[Wensleydale]

Nimrod AEW3:

2 x Pilots
Navigator
Flight Engineer

6 x Mission Consoles, one of which had additional Comms equipment (radio/data link etc).

1 x Mission System Technician (not originally planned for, but keeping the wretched kit going needed him).

Four x Extra seats in the galley for additional crew as required etc

I recall 6 x seats midships as well for additional crew(?). But its a long time ago....

http://8squadron.co.uk/history-images/nimrod_comms_1g.jpg

[grousehunter]

I think the plan for the MRA4 is:

3 Dry (Inc Lead Dry)
2 Wet
1 IM (Comms...R4:E)
2 Tacos
2 Pilots

Hope that helps

[DaveyBoy]

Correct, there is one more mission crewmember than there are consoles at the back.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks chaps, now where are the old, bold salty sea dogs who remember the Mk 1?

[Pontius Navigator]

Two pilots and flt eng.

Route Nav and Tac Nav.

Port side:

Radio
Radar
and IIRC Deer but then used for the MAR tapes.

Stbd,

Martel (AEO)
Two 1C Sonics
Two Jez
ESM ARAR/ARAX

Radio was a rotated position, trip and trip about between wet and dry teams. Usually a specially selected AEOp would do radio on important trips.

The Jez was a 2-man setup with the 3rd man on galley slave or buoy loading.
When we went Hot the 1C would be manned by the 3rd man and maybe 2nd wet leaving one to monitor the Jez.

So:
2 pilots
flt eng
2 nav
AEO
3 dry
3 wet
Total 12

[Jackonicko]

2 pilots
flt eng
2 nav
AEO
3 dry
3 wet
Total 12

eg 5 + 7.

But you also list:

Radio
Radar
Martel (AEO)
Two 1C Sonics
Two Jez
ESM ARAR/ARAX

8? Or were the two sonics and two Jez manned by three people? (eg the three Wet?)

[oxenos]

Pont. nav. is spot on for the Mk 1. However, around '76/'77 we got a number of ex Britannia Loadmasters. They were trained on lookout ( i.e. ship recognition ), camera, ordnance loading and of course, galley. As a result some lucky crews ( mine included ) had 13 in total.

[The Old Fat One]

Jacko,

Can't comment on the MRA4, R1 or AEW but for MR1, PN is correct and for MR2 add on 1 dry man.

Also the mimimum crew for pilot training/air displays etc was/is 7 (both MR1 and 2):

Normal flight deck
One nav
3 sensor

I wouldn't bother trying to tie the team down to individual bits of kit - way too many changes over the years!

[Pontius Navigator]

Radio
Radar
Martel (AEO)
Two 1C Sonics
Two Jez
ESM ARAR/ARAX

8? Or were the two sonics and two Jez manned by three people? (eg the three Wet?)

Clearly I did not make this clear. The Sonics was a short range ASW localisation aid and of no use whatever in open ocean search or tracking scenario apart from the potential to monitor the audio from low channel jez buoys, but if I tell you why I'll have to kill you.

Yes 3 dry, 3 wet. As we only had 2 dry sensors the lot for radio usually fell to dry on wet sorties.

I thought about the loadies but as they were only a short term stop gap I left them out. Fascinating experiment if it could be called that. One of two were not interested. Several were brilliant and it is 'fair' to say that one of two got commisions on the strength of their reports.

What was particularly interesting was that we had an extra, relativly useless man foisted on us whose sole experience, as far as we knew, was ordering flight rations and operating the galley.

They soon started to carve a niche. They did the rations it is true, but soon got into ship recce and camera work. During the intensive ops ordnance loading was quite high pressure with many bouys being dropped and the need to flag up which was loaded where. Also hard work lugging them from the rack under mild g and turbulence. Nne of your mini-bouys is for wimps :)

Although Cambs and barra came in much heavier.

[Jackonicko]

TOFO,

You say:

"for MR2 add on 1 dry man."

Do you mean that the MR2 crew is as for MR1, plus one extra Dry man, or do you mean that the MR2 crew is as described on the RAF website (below), plus one dry?

"two pilots and a flight engineer, two weapon systems officers (WSO) (tactical and routine), and a WSO who is the sensor and communications coordinator. He is, in turn, supported by a team of two ‘wet’ weapon systems operators (WSOps) and four ‘dry’ WSOps."

Wensleydale,

Re AEW3 - interesting - a much smaller crew than on the E-3D, by the sound of it? Just six consoles/mission crew, compared to what, 11 in an E-3D?

RAF website: "11-man mission crew. The mission crew comprises a tactical director (mission crew commander), a fighter allocator, three weapons controllers, a surveillance controller, two surveillance operators, a data-link manager, a communications operator and an electronic-support- measures operator."

What was the breakdown of the six on the AEW Nimwacs? How did the Shack AEW compare? Wasn't the Shack 2 Pilots, 1 Air Engineer, 2 Navigators (one running the radios) and 4 mission crew (Tactical Coordinator (TACO), Controller, and 2 Operators), with the radio navigator later being replaced by an additional mission crew member?

Which five positions on the E-3D are new, in other words?




Arising..... and I hesitate in asking, and am entirely happy if it remains unanswered......

Was the crewing of XV230 (with two SRR personnel - one Army, one Royal) when she was lost, usual or uncommon in theatre? Would it be safe to assume that they were there for MX15 and Broadsword?

[sargs]

More to what PN was saying, I think MR1 sensors were operated according to different sqn / crew procedures, perhaps varying over time also. My crew, on 201 late 70's, didn't have a loadie although the odd one was still about (remember "Loadie" Brown on 42)? Only the dry team did radio, although we dabbled with "one nominated wetman". He wasn't very good though, and didn't like sitting there. Third sonics was done by one of the junior dry team (i.e. me), thus allowing the Lead wet to monitor sonics / jez / tac nav. As soon as I went "hot" on Sonics 3, the buoy would be taken off me, given to one of the wettys on their (decent) sonics receivers, and I would be given another cold one to monitor. Not a pleasant experience in D807 on a windy night, with two pipe-smoking old crustys sat on either side of me.......

I should make it clear Third Sonics was an add on to the original fit. It was a simple audio receiver, placed between the two Mk1c Sonics displays. All I had to do was listen to the active buoy "ping", and if I heard a return, tell the Lead wet behind me. I also had a sonics stopwatch to roughly measure the range.

When we converted to the MR2, the dry team went up to four (I think based in part on the earlier success of the Loadies), making a crew of 13.

[Rossian]

Was on my crew; and he was gradually given "sitting by Nellie" type training on the sensors and eventually went on to convert to AEOp and became a "wettie" himself.
The Ancient Mariner

[Wader2]

RAF website: "11-man mission crew. The mission crew comprises a tactical director (mission crew commander), a fighter allocator, three weapons controllers, a surveillance controller, two surveillance operators, a data-link manager, a communications operator and an electronic-support- measures operator."

9 mission consoles. The data link manager and the comms op were not part of the hand-on mission crew but operated the data links and comms. (IIRC)

How did the Shack AEW compare? Wasn't the Shack 2 Pilots, 1 Air Engineer, 2 Navigators (one running the radios) and 4 mission crew (Tactical Coordinator (TACO), Controller, and 2 Operators), with the radio navigator later being replaced by an additional mission crew member?

Yes, however the 'mission crew' was a mix of commissioned navs and AEOs until about 1982 when more positions were opened up to AEOps. I believe this was a planned escape route from ISK to bring EW skills to the Nimwacs. Some, but not all, AEOps stayed the course and made it through to the E3, others bailed out along the route.

Which five positions on the E-3D are new, in other words?

Data links and comms, and 3 of the operators, take your pick. On the Shack the mission progression was operator (surveillance) to controller to tacco and it was probbaly intended to be a similar route on the Nimwacks, in other words weapons controller was not a separate discipline as in the E3 but one of progression from surveillance.

The E3 setup more closely parallels the ADGE setup whereas the limited number of positions on the Nimwacs required multi-skilling.

[Wensleydale]

Manning for Nimrod AEW.

6 Consoles (5 "ordinary" consoles plus one with additional comms kit).

Crew could be mix and match depending who was on board and the mission (remember we only flew trials and training for trials - the seating was a little different for data collection).
usual fit was:

1 x Tactical Coordinator (IC mission)
1 x SSO (Senior Surveillance Officer - SC equivalent in Sentry)
1 x SO/Comms
(carried out surveillance function and ran data link/comms hardware)
1 x SO/ESM (surveillance functions and ESM)
1 x Fighter Allocator
1 x Weapons Controller

The consoles ran sideways down the left side of the fuselage. Numbering from the right (front), a typical set up could be:

1: SO/Comm
2: SO ESM
3: SSO
4: TaCo
5: FA
6: WC

Note that Nimrod planned to have more automated systems than the E-3D and therefore the concept was for less crew. The tracker in Nimrod was fully automated (as was data link and ESM) and in theory the system ran itself. The problem was that the radar generated noise also produced a great number of false tracks, and as the system only generated tracks (no sensor data on view) then you did not know which was real and which was false. The SOs managed the tracks to be broadcast on the data link.

The allocation of frequencies to radios was also automatic (AMRICS System) and therefore it was deemed not necessary to have the Comms personnel that were on the E-3D. Comms functionality was carried out by one of the Surveillance Operators in addition to his main tracking duties.

The computers were managed by the SSO - again it was deemed unnecessary to carry a specific Display Technician. The SSO would also be responsible for keeping the sensors running, but we experienced so many problems here that a ground engineer was carried on all flights (something akin to the Radar Technician on the E-3D.) He sat on a camp stool by the equipment racks in the rear!

However, despite the automatic functions in Nimrod, data was input to the computers by a hierarchy system of switch actions that went down to about 6 levels before data could be input (the routes were not logical either). So when voicetelling a track (for example), the Nimrod took 63 button pushes per track - the E-3D takes about 15 for the same functions! There was no digital map with the Nimrod, and therefore, map data was achieved by blutacking a perspex cover with an engraved map at a set scale over the display!! The picture was then slewed to a datum position on the screen. Parallax was a big problem but at least we could chinagraph onto the perspex.

Bottom line - The E-3D, although being a mandraulic and older system, is a much more capable beast and is actually capable of carrying out the tasks allotted to it. These tasks include Airborne Battle Management and Air to Ground direction - something that it was not precured to do showing the expansion capabilities of the E-3D platform. Nimrod was, in effect, a super Shackleton AEW platform. The E-3D with its extra capacity adds so much more than the AEW task that it was procured for.

As a postcript,

The Shackleton AEW carried 5 x Mission Crew to man 3 x consoles:

1 x Tactical Coordinator (IC Mission)
1 x Controller (directed aircraft and optimised the sensors)
1 x Operator (carried out AEW duties - ie voicetel etc)

1 x SO or Controller who acted as Radio Operator.
(Manned the HF radios - took over the roll from 2nd Nav post 1981 cuts)

1 x SO or Controller "resting off console" in the Galley (or the cook)!

Personnel posted to Shackleton Mission Crew started life as an operator. They then upgraded on the Sqn to Controller then TaCo as they gained more experience with the aircraft. The Controller did not have a formal "Ticket" and controlled under the "supervision" of a fighter controller on the ground. This was really useful on QRA in the Iceland/Faroes Gap which we did regardless.

We too had a couple of LMs posted in (about 1984?). They were trained up as Operators I seem to recall but did not stay long with the aircraft. Fighter Control/TG12 personnel arrived in about 1982 and were the first to be awarded the FC Brevet (At the first awards ceremony for the first ever badge, a reporter asked if FC Brevet was an Italian Football Team)!

A photograph of the inside of the Sheckleton appears in the history section of the 8 Squadron website (should anyone be interested in what it looked like). There is also a photograph of Nimrod AEW Console 1.

[Wader2]

1 x Controller (directed aircraft and optimised the sensors)

On our crew the controller ccupied the Charlie seat in isolation with the SO (Operator) in the Alpha running the computer overseen by the Tacco, at first McSporran or Spoon and then Flt Lt BB with FS BB as the Op. The advantage of that was the FS BB became more expert at operating the kit and I didn't have to worry about switching it on, something that I couldn't do to save my life.

Rotating all the rear crew throught he Alpha seat meant you only got to get proper hands-on once evey 4 trips - no good.

[Wensleydale]

Wader:

Concur that crews often did each others' tasks routinely. It was not unknown for the TACO to sit on the spar by the captain's box with the controller in the "B" seat, the senior operator controlling and the junior operator handling the sensors from "A". However, I do not remember learning how to optimise the sensors on the OCU course prior to joining a crew - mind you, that is over 25 years ago and age is a great leveller......and I didn't remember much from the course at the time!

As an afterthought - I came from a crew of mostly smokers, and our non-smoker used to bag the "C" seat whenever possible so that he could curtain himself away from the rest of us! Oh the joys of chain smoking through 8 hours of voicetel, with the paper cup of water slowly filling with tab ends as you lit your next from the stub of the last. "Mandate Moonbeam, this is.... new track...."

[Wader2]

I do not remember learning how to optimise the sensors on the OCU course prior to joining a crew - mind you, that is over 25 years ago and age is a great leveller......and I didn't remember much from the course at the time!

29 years.

I remember one lesson vididly - our USAF XO - telling us that he was going to instruct us on the intercom system and would be using chalk and talk and an actual intercom box as an instructional aid.

As he was teaching a bunch of aircrew with well over 10,000 hours and all of whom had used the identical box zzzzzzz after the ritual p1ss-take of course.

'twas he too that said "That'll be another beer in the bothy" as I casually (I confess) hit the transmit button and 360 equally casually recorded it and played it back for the next hour during the CC.

[BlackIsle]

and the point of this thread is..........?

[sargs]

and the point of this thread is..........?


The point is, it's a thread started by somebody seeking information, continued by people providing some of that requested info, and who at the same time are reminiscing about types they've flown in.

And the reason for your question was.................?

[BlackIsle]

Sargs - reason for my question was much the same as your answer to mine - just curious about the original request for info - no offence intended mate!

[sargs]

OK Blackie, I'll calm down now! None taken......

[Jackonicko]

I was writing something on Nimrod (sketchy, not at all in depth, and without enough space to go into this level of detail) and realised that the sources didn't agree, and that I didn't understand the subject properly (I like to know it in more detail than I write it, if that makes sense). While it was in my brain, I thought that I'd ask the question and get my notes updated.

I am due to be writing something on AEW3, so expect more damn fool questions.

[Pontius Navigator]

Jacko, I think from the responses you will see that the Nimwacs was specified as an improved radar on a jet platform to improve on the Shack whereas the E3 was probably designed as an improved EC121.

[The Old Fat One]

TOFO,

You say:

"for MR2 add on 1 dry man."

Do you mean that the MR2 crew is as for MR1, plus one extra Dry man, or do you mean that the MR2 crew is as described on the RAF website (below), plus one dry?

"two pilots and a flight engineer, two weapon systems officers (WSO) (tactical and routine), and a WSO who is the sensor and communications coordinator. He is, in turn, supported by a team of two ‘wet’ weapon systems operators (WSOps) and four ‘dry’ WSOps."

Jacko,

MR2 Originally the former; currently, go with the website. They seem to have dropped a wettie, somewhere along the way. After my time. I guess, sorry for the confusion.

[AQAfive]

Jacko

Your problem is an evolving manning issue for the MR community. So many answers from so many eras may have confused the issue. Also the sensors are often 'fitted for but not with' hense more confusion.

Having knowledge of all MR marks, I will try and clarify.

MR1 - 2 Pilots, 1 Eng, 2 Navs, 1 AEO, 3 Wet, 3 Dry and for a short period in the 70's could have 1 ALM (Male)

Equipment Fitted and used

Radar, ESM (ARAR ARAX), MAD and Radio, Jez and 1C (Acoustics)

Equipment often quoted but not used in service.

DEER, Linescan and AUTOCYCLUS (was used in the Shackleton)

Other equipment fitted over the years, but always in support of main sensors and no extra manpower, (with the exceptions of ALMs for a short while).

MR2 - 2 Pilots, 1 Eng, 2 Navs, 1 AEO, 3 Wet, 4 Dry

Equipment

Radar, ESM (ARAR ARAX replaced by Yellogate). MAD, Radio, Acoustics (AQS 901 replaced by AQS 971), latterly Electro optics

Modifications made throughout service but always the same basic sensor suite. The only manpower changes being the reduction of 1 wet man with the introduction of different acoustics.

MRA4 - 2 Pilots, 2 TACOS, 3 Dry, 2 Wet and 1 Radio Op (now a dedicated posn)

Equipment

The same as before but later generation equipment.

As for manning, the RAF tried to rationalise the 'Trade' of Navigator and AEO as there was deemed no need for a 'Vasco da Gama' any more. Sensor ops and ALMs were also reviewed. They came up with WSO and WSOp, in theory you have a basic aircrew training and can swap between trades as and when. Designed for the latest generation aircraft the crossover within the MR2 community may cause confusion. (Trust me, they have 2 Navs and an AEO on the MR2 whatever their title and brevet says.)

But there again, I left over 2 years ago and it may have all changed.

As for AEW, I know nothing of the manning but believe the RADAR was quite advanced for the time, more advanced than the E3. However, the aircraft was too small, the installation flawed. It might well have worked if we had put the money into the development and companies motivated to succeed. Alas that was not forthcoming and the project was doomed to failure. I might add that it was a typical example of how we procure aircraft, but there again my knowledge is purely from rumour and hearsay from those who were involved.

As for the R1 well it has...................(I haven't a clue)

Hope that helps, or have I confused? I have not included dates of changes, I need to read my books for that, but it outlines the basic manning over the years. Remembering, of course, that since the mid 90's for 'man' you can just as easily read 'woman' for all aircraft positions except Eng.

As I started this I intended just a few lines, but the more you think about it the longer and more complex it becomes, so I'll stop now and respond to any questions denials and insults as required.

[Wader2]

Not to forget the Martel position, stbd side or the On Top drift sight and beam look outs and we also forgot the MAD man.

[AQAfive]

Thats the problem, so many extra bits that confuse.

Martel was another item considered and possibly tested but never used in service. The AS12 was on the list but I never saw it fitted. Along with the beams and their vista tracks, the Nimtan Sights were also available but were rubbish. You could lock up the navs computer if you pointed the 2 vista tracks at each other, oh what fun on an 8 hr LROFE.

The on top sight was briefly tested but was considered too fragile, shame that could be useful for 126 photography, oh yes forgot about the cameras as well. Thats a long story, including a Whiskey, F135 the chigaco flash and Fincastle or was it Ayrd Whyte, can't remember.

You see you switched the nostalgia switch on!!

[Wasser]

"1 x Mission System Technician (not originally planned for, but keeping the wretched kit going needed him)."

I volunteered for that job on the AEW. However, I remember the job title advertised as "Flying Air Radar Technician".

I must admit Mission System Technician (MST) has a better ring to it.

[Wader2]

AS11/12 was indeed fitted but I beleive the stat for AS11 training was dropped about 1974. I also seem to think that AS12 was essentially for 203 in Malta with the better visibility and for anti-FPB.

Ah! Plan Bluebell, all is forgiven.

I remember the Vista track scam, b*****ds.

[AQAfive]

An even better one was to short out the Spam cutters (11 point dividers) by hanging them on the call light and touching the intercom pannel screws. Tiny spark and 'Oops crew we seem to have a lock up, go have a cup of tea while we re-program', good for another 20 mins break.

Say this very quietly, but I do know of someone who did this several times so that in the end we had a scrub while they sorted out the machine.

[davejb]

Autolycus,
just to be pedantic ;)

[AQAfive]

Davejb

Many thanks, speeling and Greek Mythology not my strongest subject.

[oxenos]

Autolycus was apparently named after a Shakespearean character who was " the snapper-up of hidden trifles". If you look him up in Greek mythology he is described as the greatest liar of his time. Given the success rate with Autolycus, whoever named it either did not know his mythology, or he did know it and had a wicked sense of humour

[Ray Dahvectac]

whoever named it either did not know his mythology, or he did know it and had a wicked sense of humour

Same person who came up with the name Jezebel then? :hmm:

[davejb]

Just out of interest,
does anyone here KNOW why we went to 4 drymen on the MR2? Radio, Radar, ESM were pretty much as per MR1 after all as far as needing bums on seats went - on the Mk1 we probably swapped kit a bit more often (dry men on 1C in 807, the odd wet man doing radio for a trip to Kef perhaps, or maybe having a shot on the ASV), then MR2 came along and suddenly we needed a 4th dryman?

A 4th dry wasn't uncommon on MR1 crews by around 1980, so when did who decide we actually needed the extra bod, and why dry rather than either?

Dave

[Jackonicko]

Good question.

[sargs]

I don't know WHO decided an MR2 crew would have 4 dry men, but it made a lot of sense. With the way the (then new) acoustics was set up, you would be using all six sensor ops during, for instance, a datum investigation. It made a lot of sense to have a spare bod, and as I remarked earlier, I think somebody wise looked at what happened with the loadies on board and decided it was a good idea.

Of course, we could have got the AEO to load the ordnance - some of them MUST have recognised it because they walked through it to get to their seats! :E

[Pontius Navigator]

Was it a case of surpluses with fewer MR2? We got the ALMs as surplus when the transport fleet lost some of its aircraft, Britannians and Andover IIRC.

[PingDit]

I think the 4th dry man came from the realisation that radio was usually operated by a dry guy and also that when ordnance was needed down the back, most wetties were fully engaged.

Ping

[Jackonicko]

During the course of writing, I had cause to look at the BoI report into the tragic loss of XV230 (RIP), and saw that the wet team were referred to as S1 and S2 (S for Sonics?) and the dry team as R1 to R4 (R for ???).

I don't know why I ask the question, other than an anally retentive desire for completeness......

[spheroid]

Radar................................

[PingDit]

Radio......................

[spheroid]

Rupert.........................

[Jackonicko]

Don't tell me - Ree Ess Emm and Rartel,



........... Rad!

[spheroid]

Hmmm I much prefer the Rupert....... I can just imagine the intercom...


"Rupert 2 this is Rupert 3 over"

[AQAfive]

I have no idea but with the MR2 came more sonobuoys and more channels and therefore a more complex signaling system, so maybe the concept of an ordinance man was thought prudent. Just like the USN except we would use a sensor op.

Always though R stood for Radio. Rupert? Surely not, that was used instead of 'Roger' if you were feeling really bored.

Did have a Nav who had problems with his 'R's, always wanted the pilots to turn left for some reason.

I do remember there was talk that with the dry men just moving from ESM to Radar there was no chance for a break and concentration levels would fall, maybe that was it.