Nimrod Strategic/CAS platform?

[Razor61]

Probably been discussed somewhere before but another thread elsewhere on the internet got me discussing the following.

How many Paveway IV's could a Nimrod MRA4 carry internally if they were correctly configured (hyperthetically)?

As the MR2 already has a decent ISTAR capability together with communications relay and command features... the MRA4 together with its new systems already fitted could i'm sure be effectively configured for a combined ISTAR/C3 and CAS platform.

The USAF already use the B-1B Lancer in the Close Air Support role in Afghanistan using a SNIPER pod located under the cockpit.

The Nimrod could easily have a SNIPER or another targetting pod such as the LITENING III located on a hardpoint under the wings and have a bomb bay riddled with JDAMs or Paveways.

Obviously it comes down to cost and the MoD/Government being short sighted as they could have had a very capable platform doing several mission profiles at once whilst orbiting over theatre.
With Air Refuelling it could be doing the same type of mission as the B-1B but coupled with ISTAR as well from height. Saving the need for more fast air and ISTAR platforms and be on station for a considerable time supporting large scale assaults with both surveillance, targetting help and indeed close air support.

It would also give the RAF back a strategic bombing platform if needed and would give the Argies something to think about other than Typhoons.

Was this option ever looked at? Or overlooked?

I know i'm in wishful thinking mode and obviously we have no money to do such a thing but would it save "money" in the end if we did have such a programme in progress?

[Biggus]

Razor 61, see

Aviation News Magazine - NIMROD MRA.4 – The Advanced Hunter (http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/nimrod-mra4.html)

If this article is correct, and I assuming it is, then MRA4 can, in theory, carry Maverick and Storm Shadow, so no doubt other munitions such as Paveway should not be impossible.

While your suggestion of using MRA4 (the A stands for "attack" after all) in a CAS role undoubtably has some merit, there are several reasons why it won't happen:

1) The FJ centric RAF hierarchy won't want their thunder stolen, or any reason for the procurement of less FJs.

2) No doubt the maritime world will be too dyed in the wool "maritime centric" to push for this sort of role for MRA4.

3) With only 9 airframes there won't be enough to spare any for a CAS type of commitment.

4) The RAF/MOD is just not that good at "thinking outside the box"

5) Clearances for any weapons other than torpedoes probably haven't been trialled in order to save money.

No doubt there are yet more reasons which others will point out in due course...

[SpotterFC]

The Nimrod could easily have a SNIPER or another targetting pod such as the LITENING III located on a hardpoint under the wings and have a bomb bay riddled with JDAMs or Paveways

Yes it COULD have one hung under a hard point easily enough but integrating it into the Mission System will be a nightmare and both Boeing and BWOS will charge UK the other arm and leg for the pleasure. Easily? No!

[bvcu]

Do recall the trials with MR2 during falklands campaign when good old 1000 pounders were dropped on Larkhill range to prove it could be done , sighting was courtesy of 'chinagraph' !! If i recall correctly only 4 could be carried ?

[baffy boy]

2) No doubt the maritime world will be too dyed in the wool "maritime centric" to push for this sort of role for MRA4.


Biggus,
If you think the 'maritime world' has not considered what it could do with the theoretical potential of the aircraft you don't know much about the maritime world. And don't accuse the maritime bit of the RAF of not being able to think outside the box. If you had any real idea about what the Nimrod and it's crews have done you would have left those couple of lines out.

[Squirrel 41]

Indeed, it could indeed be done.

But it won't be, because as has already been said, we're currently getting a maximum of 9, though others could better state exactly how many are on firm contract. Whatever happens, it's a racing certainty that we're not going to get more than 9.

This also neatly highlights the problem of Afghan-centric ops and project definition. It could be super helpful to cram a Vulcan's capacious bomb-bay full of 500lb EPIVs (and no, I've no idea how many it could carry - presume that it would bulk out before it ran out of lifting capacity) and have it cruise around over Helmand at FL400 ready to snot any Talib who fancied martyrdom.

But we haven't done it. And not only because we've not got any - but because they'd be very vulnerable to a modern IADS and we can't (unlike the US) afford to have niche - and very expensive - capabilities. Consequently, if the high priced help want to play in the high intensity warfare game, then they're going to have to cut their cloth accordingly, and the clue is in the Typhoon shaped piece of cloth they've come up with.

So are FJs optimal in Helmand with limited surface to air and no air to air threat? Probably not, but we're using them because we've got them. Is this the right choice? Yes, in my opinion.

Just my 0.02,

S41

[Yellow Sun]

During Corporate the Nimrod did indeed carry retarded 1000lb bombs and Cluster bombs. The aiming system was a litle more sophisticated than chinagraph marks (but not much) bearing some similarity to the Vulcan Copilot's Visual Bomb Sight (CVBS).

A less well known episode was the plan (?) to carry Laser Guided Bombs (LGB). An entertaining Sunday afternoon was spent measuring up the bomb bay and the proposed stores but it progressed no further as the war ended shortly afterwards. We did enquire who would be the doing the target designation for LGB operations but received no reply.

YS

[Ivan Rogov]

If only the MR2 fleet had thought of this 6 (or was it 7) years ago (seem that wasn't the first time YS:ok:) and suggested it, still I expect the FJ mafia would have killed off the idea PDQ :mad:

At the moment Reaper/Predator are the best ISR/CAS platform for theatre, but the next best for ISR are long endurance manned platforms, add some weapons and hey presto more persistent ISR/CAS without an increase in airframes/types, personnel, ground footprint, fuel, tankers, supply etc. and the ability to rapidly deploy ISR/CAS a few thousand miles away at very short notice, a pair of MRA4 could provide near 24hrs coverage without AAR.

No need for an extra targeting pod, most EO cameras are capable of designating if you buy optional extras. MRA4s camera looks huge (reminds me of a ball turret on a B17!) so I would guess it could be upgraded, if not plenty of space for a nice MX20 with all the extras.

S41, that is the same mentality that the Army used to justify Snatch Landrover for so long rather than getting the correct equipment for task, it took us long enough to buy Reaper. I do get the impression that many of the UK air assets in theatre at the moment are there trying to justify their existence by showing us what they can do and not what is needed, they go out with the answer looking for a question.
We need a balanced Air Force, we will not evolve effectively by constantly using platforms not suited to the task.

P.S. Not sure it would be useful to "cram" a Vulcan full of 500lbers, we aren't carpet bombing them, 4 is more than enough for 99% of missions.

[Gainesy]

[QUOTE]we aren't carpet bombing them[QUOTE]

They have more carpets than we have bombs, so just as well probably. Anyway, don't we have the USAF covering this niche mission with B-1s, B-2s and B-52s where needed?

On MR.2/LGB a very vague memory says two internal and optional two external was one option, I don't think it got much further than the measuring tape/pencil/graph paper stage though.

I think Charlie Luncher and Starboard Beam may know more?

[getsometimein]

If only the MR2 fleet had thought of this 6 (or was it 7) years ago (seem that wasn't the first time YS) and suggested it, still I expect the FJ mafia would have killed off the idea PDQ

It has been noted numberous times by many a semi-senior officer and pretty much every person on the Nimrod fleet.

But since the RAF is run by fast jet jockey's, there's no chance you'd ever have someone consider disbanding the GR4's in favour of a few nimrods.

On the question of weapons. There has been pics of the MRA4's 4 wing hardpoints plus the bomb bay. Add a targeter to the EOS replacement. That would give you an aircraft with 14hrs flight time unrefuelled, 4 Storm Shadow's on the wings and probably 6 paveway in the bomb bay, or in my opinion a couple of dozen brimstone.

ps. The aircraft is wired for pretty much anything, so I see no reason why a Sniper pod or whatever wouldn't work with the current systems.

[Gainesy]

Original Poster, my boldface:
It would also give the RAF back a strategic bombing platform if needed and would give the Argies something to think about other than Typhoons.


Was that a slip of the keyboard? Hard to tell with Typhhon ref.

[Yellow Sun]

On MR.2/LGB a very vague memory says two internal and optional two external was one option, I don't think it got much further than the measuring tape/pencil/graph paper stage though.


Your memory is not vague, it is fantasy. External carriage was never an option, if it was we would have carried Harpoon underwing and thus had a motor on rail launch capability. Anything much larger than the AIM9 installation would have caused serious problems and mounting anything further outboard was a non-starter due to Vmcg issues.

YS

[Ivan Rogov]

Not too sure about carrying stuff on the wings (did anyone really take those Nimrod 2000 pictures seriously) there would be problems from drag reducing range and performance, A symmetric effect (isn't that why GR7/9 carried weapons on the inboards to reduce it?), psychological effect (much better to hide them in the bomb bay, the sheer presence of an aircraft may be enough to send the right message) and the large bomb bay is empty so why not put them there.
As for which weapons, I think it is better to work back from what you want to target. There are some quite effective smaller weapons in development and use now Viper Strike, SDB etc. I'm sure I read about the US looking one that could fit in the sonobuoy tubes (UAVs too!), if it was to target a few insurgents on foot then for example then a weapon that size should be OK and Nimrod could carry well over 100! MRA4 has a 1553B databus so should be able to interface with most weapons.

What about a small deployable UAV that could be dropped on a target, controlled by the aircraft to loiter (if needed) for final target ID and then be used as the weapon, man in the loop right up to impact and the ability to abort and/or re-target?
Bit of Googleing and
Undersized drone promises extended maritime surveillance. | Surveillance Technology from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/854182-1.html)

[dctyke]

Original Poster, my boldface:
Quote:
It would also give the RAF back a strategic bombing platform if needed and would give the Argies something to think about other than Typhoons.


With what is left of the RAF and Navy I wouldn't be suprised if they haven't thought a lot about the 'Islas Malvinas' lately! Just wait for a bit of snow in the UK and walk in!

[Biggus]

baffy boy,

You say..."If you had any real idea about what the Nimrod and it's crews have done......"

What makes you think I haven't?

[foldingwings]

This has been rumbling around the MOD for over 10 years and certainly in the late 90s when I was working in OR(Air) procuring Storm Shadow, Paveway III, Brimstone and others! There was an eminent and outspoken very senior officer (named after a blended Whisky) who was determined to promote the use of a strategic bombing/mx launching Tristar and/or Nimrod. He was also behind a concentrated effort to cancel Eurofighter and purchase off-the-shelf F-16s instead.

The issue, of a strategic missile launcher with long stand-off range, was sound but unaffordable as there was not enough funding to equip all the FJs with SS, for example, let alone assets that, at that time, were required for other essential roles.

However, the role of CAS is usually undertaken at the tactical level of warfare and strategic HVAAs like Nimrod and Tristar would be rather too vulnerable to enemy fire (OK - not in the 'Stan, perhaps) given the limited stand-off ranges of weapons like PW and JDAM. More so for us Brits as the numbers that we are talking about are so few.

So, it's a nice idea at the strategic level but tactically, IMHO, a bit of a non-starter.

Foldie:ok:

[HunterMRA4]

We have put CASOM on it, I have photos at work. It has a Mil Std 1760 databus and stores management system from the F-18E/F, anything is possible. However, it is not a requirement..........such a shame

[TurbineTooHot]

P.S. Not sure it would be useful to "cram" a Vulcan full of 500lbers, we aren't carpet bombing them, 4 is more than enough for 99% of missions.

Just a question about numbers chaps. How many crew many the MR2/MRA4?
What's the fully extended loiter time? What is the deployed footprint?

There is a good reason why CAS platforms are traditionally small and agile (AC-130 excepting). Easier to deploy closer to the action, greater survivability, not so high value both monitarily and in human cost.

As Ivan said, 4 bombs is quite enough, and over a pair of GR4s, you've got more way more than that, for less cost.

I realise that it is sexy to tool up the bigger aircraft. I'm all for it, stick a few more things on that go bang. But we've got aircraft doing the job well at the moment. And as for future conflicts, I'd bet on Fast Air taking the bulk of offensive operations.

TTH, your humble FJ Mafia rep.

[Gravelbelly]

We did enquire who would be the doing the target designation for LGB operations but received no reply.

AIUI, two Ferranti LTMs were deployed with Royal Artillery FOO parties on Op CORPORATE. One of the LTMs was destroyed by its own tac party when they thought they were about to be captured; the other served until the end.

There's also the fairly well-known story about how the taking of the hills above Port Stanley put the LTM in line of sight. One LGB was used to destroy a troublesome 155mm arty piece; the list of the next night's targets (including Gen Menendez' HQ) was transmitted in clear...

[Ivan Rogov]

Foldie, I agree Nimrod would not be a "day one" CAS platform in an all out war (you might be surprised how far forward it has operated during hostilities) but as soon as you have air superiority it would provide a very efficient and persistent platform with an extremely fast sensor to shooter cycle.

I know very little about the world of mud but is CAS always tactical and what is it called when it isn't close to friendlies? The target sets may not always be tactical, eg: Scud hunting, Sadam via Elint, etc. but they do require persistence and rapid engagement.

A long range rapidly (hours) deployable ISR/CAS platform must be very useful in most of our current contingency plans? The US have modified the B-1 and B-52 to provide persistent CAS/ISR although they are expensive to operate, an ISR/CAS MRA4 would be much cheaper while still retaining all it's other roles, the RAF needs to look for smarter ways to operate and stop clinging to Cold War dogma of everything pointy, otherwise it will disappear.

TTH thanks for humouring me, not sexy at all to "tool up the bigger aircraft", for us it would mean even more training and checks, greater risk by carring things that go bang, more deployments, reducing our pie loadout, etc. but I do think it would be more efficient and relevent than current assets, maybe that's why it hasn't happened? As for future confilcts I would also bet on fast air taking the bulk of offensive ops as they are the only ones who currently can :E
MRA4 crew 10 (not sure what min crew would be, MR2 is 7)
Groundies less than 10 I would guess
So 2 aircraft and ground shifts for a total of 40ish including XO, Ops O etc.

[foldingwings]

I know very little about the world of mud but is CAS always tactical and what is it called when it isn't close to friendlies?

That's BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) but it is no longer in the NATO doctrine lexicon so your are left with AI which very much covers the whole of the battlefield on the other side of the FSCL (if you have a fixed linear one which is doubtful these days).

The real problem is the JFLCC needs rapid response time for CAS as he uses it (or should) only when his LF are engaged in 'close' combat (whites of the eyes stuff) and precision air is required to assist with kill and/or disengage of opposing forces. It all used to be controlled by a FAC or equivalent (probably still is) and accuracy is vital to avoid fratricide. So even JDAM may not be permissible in many circumstances and only visually laid or laser-guided weapons will do the trick. So if your MRA4 is not prioritised by the JFACC to CAS (cos, let's say, it's being used for CSAR - a higher JFACC priority) and it only has JDAMs because it cannot guide laser guideds (and nobody else is available on the day). Then your troops engaged are on a sticky wicket and the JFLCC now detests the JFACC!

Does that help? If you are serving, get yourself on a course at AWC Cranwell and learn more!

Foldie :ok:
RAF FJ Mud (Rtd)

[foldingwings]

Why does the system put an @ in the word laser? I didn't!

Foldie

[Ivan Rogov]

FSCL, is that the latest version of FEBA/FLOT? I think you have set me straight on the CAS ability/availability of an asset tasked on a different mission on the ATO. The weapon issue could apply to any asset (Quite varied in MNF Ops) that hasn't got the weapon type the JTAC (FAC) wants, they seem quite able to make the most of what is offered though. Not sure Land and Air get on at the best of times in the CAOC :}

Although I and others have called it CAS I think we actually mean an armed ISR platform (armed ISTAR?) for over watch and area denial, ECAS, TST, CSAR, POL etc. Many more medium sized UAV are getting armed since the CIA demonstrated how effective they could be, and now Iraqi/US King Airs and the USMC are developing armed C130 with ISR, after day one or two of a conflict these platforms are ideal.

The courses I have attended at AWC were very good and I'd like to go on more, but at my rank we generally only get on those related to out current role. Getting time to off to attend is difficult too, but I think I might have some spare time after March :{

[foldingwings]

Ivan,

FSCL = Fire Support Coordination Line. During the old Cold War days it was linear and beyond the FEBA and defined the range of artillery pieces positioned on or about the FEBA. Consequently it was an area of the battlefield where coordination of assets was essential.

However, as I think I stated previously, today any FSCL (if it even exists) could not be linear - hence we have Kill Boxes etc to effectively do a similar thing.

Foldie

[BEagle]

Why does the system put an @ in the word l@ser? I didn't!

Foldie - it's to stop those stupid and annoying 'tailored adverts' which infest PPRuNe from automatically advertising high-powered la.sers which ne'er-do-wells might buy to shine at aircraft.

All this mud-moving is all very well; personally I'd opt for the WE177 and nuke 'em till they glow!

[Vage Rot]

Why does the system put an @ in the word l@ser? I didn't!


I think you will find that the correct term is "Freaking layser" !!:)