Reconnaissance after the Canberra

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Unlike most of my postings, this doesn't relate to the Sea Harrier.....or fleet air defence.

As we all know, the venerable old Canberra PR9 is due to bow out in a couple of years time. It would appear that their is nothing to replace it. Why? Strategic Reconnaissance is a key military capibility, as recent events have shown.

Lets make a few assumptions....

1. TACTICAL reconnaissance will be provided by tactical aircraft.
2. The Nimrod R1 will continue with the ELINT/SIGINT role.
3. ASTOR will come into service and provide a key asset, not too different from the US JSTARS.
4. Eurofighter will (eventually) reach front line service.

What has this got to do with Recon you may ask? Well, I propose that they (RAF/MOD/whoever) take some Tornado F3 airframes and convert then to a PR role. Lets be honest, a good number of them have been mothballed and have very little flying time. So I suggest that these aircraft are taken, stripped down, and have most of the Air to Air systems removed. But keep the ability to fire Sidewinders in self defence.

Take the Electro-Optical camara systems from the Canberra (or buy/develop new ones?) and fit it to the F3. Fit a JTIDS link if the Tornado F3 doesn't already have one. Then upgrade the ESM and ECM systems.

This would give the UK a capable Reconnaissance assest for a fairly low cost. Or is Strategic Reconnaissance yet another capability the Government thinks we no longer need?

[rotor tree]

I understand that in line with current UK defence policy that the replacement for the Canberra PR9 will either be the recently retired Wessex or possibly the Bulldog, if they haven't already all been sold.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Can't be the Bulldog....

Bulldog is a non PC name.

[MarkD]

how would ballpark range and endurance compare to PR9?

[Blacksheep]

Maybe someone has kept the drawings and we can have replacement Canberras licence built for us in India? After all, the Canberra is irreplaceable, it's already demonstrated that well enough... :(

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Imhotep]

Cant imagine the F3 reaching FL450+.

[XV208 SNOOPY]

Now where did I see those blue prints for TSR2 lying around here a while back??????;)

[TL Thou]

If my fading memory serves me correctly I *think* ASTOR can take on some of PR9 imagery stuff - but it is just an "option" at the moment.

The way things are going we will end up with a diverted Easy Jet 737with an Instamatic gaffa taped to the fuselage.

[Gainesy]

Probably end up with an unmanned thingy.:(

[Mach the Knife]

Imhotep,
I've been to FL450+ in an F3 so it can get there, didn't stay there long though! As a high level recce aircraft it would be as much use as an ashtray on a motor bike.
:cool:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It was only an idea.....

Surely it would be better than nothing? And AAR would extend its range...

[berramates]

Let's not forget the easiest ( and cheapest) solution to maintaining an effective strategic recce capability in the RAF. The Canberra PR9 has an OSD of 2006 but could remain in service for many years beyond that. All that's required is for a decision to be made that the capability is needed beyond 2006 and for the funds to be allocated. Why search for a replacement in the short term when you have an asset producing outstanding results and capable of doing so into the next decade!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Berramates

If the Canberra can keep going, then that would be the best solution. I must admit that I thought the problem was it was getting too old.

Apologies to to the Canberra guys.

Sadly, this goverment thinks its OK if we lose a lot of capabilities in the next few years :(

[solotk]

Super looking aircraft, fighter canopy, lovely in Hemp,with a "sharks mouth" on the front. If their airships stick them in the "used for sale" section of the Crown assets car park, I'll have one.

Maybe they can be re-engined and the main spars changed/overhauled?

Tony

[MarkD]

WEBF - F3+AAR=FL450...

well, it's how SR-71 used to get to FL800 wasn't it? Take off light, sip from KC-135 and off we go!

[ORAC]

They will almost certainly be replaced by more Global Express airframes. This would provide commonality with ASTOR in airframes, avionics, and data-link (BMDL) and allow common type qualifications and crewing on the same sqn.

It would also have the space and power to allow not only EOLOROP sensors but Comint and Elint sensors. This would all fit in perfectly with the other types operated by Waddington and the specialised support organisations. Such a platform would also be ideal for networking with the E3D and other platforms via L16/L22 and rear agencies via SATCOM.

The Global Express could also permit much more flexible tasking with changes of focal length, film types, loads etc being performed by the crew.

The ceiling and range of the Global Hawk is also suitable with an initial cruise ceiling of around 43K increasing to 51K and a range of over 6000nm and an AAR capability.

Fitted with suitable sensor systems it would also seem eminently suitable to eventually replace the Nimrod R-1 which will consist of a total fleet within a fleet of 3 aircraft with no commonality in avionics, cockpit, engines wing etc with the rest of the Nimrod fleet, presuming the MR-4A ever enter service!

[Reheat On]

Good post ORAC - a measure of sense and optimism. Just let me have the budget authorisation in good time will you, old chap, don't want to get caught with our Malvinas pants down again, do we. BTW i thought that there was some R1>R4A idea - with the 3 chopped - but awaiting about 5 years until the primary MRa4 deed is done and the fatigue life on the R1s is deffo knackered.

[ORAC]

Since they just cut the MR4A budget from 21 to 18 to stay inside the budget, I do not know where the money would come. Unless the idea is to use the 3 cut from the MR4 order to replace the R1s. Seems to me that at the unit price it would cheaper to buy a dozen Explorers. And that's at the unit price of the present contract on which BWoS have claimed they are losing £400 million. Love to see they're quote for adding another 3!

On a side issue, the R1 is really a strategic platform designed for the cold war. In the present climate where the threat is diverse and world-wide and Int collection platforms can be placed in harms way, the aim is platforms capable of real-time target acquisition and designation, the point has been reached where "more is better" and smaller, more plentiful platforms are needed both to reduce vulnerability and allow increased or contiuous on station time. Which is exactly what we are doing with Astor v JSTARS and the USAF with Global Hawk/U2R v EC-135s etc.

Your probably right however. They're bound to throw even more buckets of money at BWoS and there's nowt as stuck in the mud as Abbey Wood.

[ChristopherRobin]

They've just got an SR-71 up at Duxford - perhaps they could get that fired up and working!

[Reheat On]

Memories of anon. LAC turning up to ? Barksdale AFB to 'nick' the Vulcan gate guardian AAR probe pre Malvinas - or am I imagining that!!!

[overstress]

Like Mach the Knife, I took an F3 to FL490 and rolled inverted to recover, whereupon the RH engine locked in surge and would not auto-sort itself.

The engine was trashed, but that's not the point - an F3 could never get up there in the 'vaulted halls' or whatever the poem said.

We need a Canberra to replace the Canberra.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

About a million years ago, in 1995 (or '96 maybe) I was a student at my local college of further education and spent quite a bit of time in the local public libary. One of the periodicals they had in those days was Flight International.

One day I read an article that claimed that there was a possibility of the RAF obtaining some U2 high altitude aircraft.

How would that compare (in terms of capability, cost, flexability, real time data etc) with either keeping the Canberra PR9 in service or getting more Global Hawks?

[ORAC]

WEBF, you are suffering under a misapprehension. We are not, at the moment (at least publically), buying Gloabal Hawks. The Global Hawk is a UAV:

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/usaf_products/global_hawk/images/ghawk_3.jpg

What we are buying, in ASTOR, is a militarised version of the Bombardier Global Express, which is a manned executive jet:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/astor/images/astor_radar1.jpg

As to a comparison in performance of the U2S v Global Express:

U2S:

Crew Pilot: 1, Mission Crew: 0
MTOW 41,000lb
Speed .58M
Ceiling 70K
Range 7,000 miles
Endurance 10 hours
AAR No
Pri Sensor ASAR-2
Airframe $53 million


Global Express:

Crew Pilot: 2, Mission Crew: 3
MTOW 95,000lb
Speed .88M
Ceiling 50K
Range 6,500 miles (Unrefuelled)
Endurance 14 hours
AAR Yes
Pri Sensor ASAR-2
Airframe $43 million

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Really - comparing an F3 with the 'Berra ..... you are kidding aren't you?! The solution you are proposing already exists in the guise of the GR4A and that has (almost) the same performance as the F3. Sorry, chum there isn't a viable alternative for the time being....

[West Coast]

Hard to believe the express can push .88 with all the external fairings

[ORAC]

Accepted. I'd guess the fuel economic speed is probably going to be about the .8/.82M mark?

[BEagle]

Plus with all the external equipment, ASTOR will be unlikely to fly as high as Global Express. It will not, I understand, be fitted with an AAR probe as the lateral stability is already degraded by the large external fittings and a probe would have pushed it outside the limit (I guess the nose mounted probe shown in the photograph is an instrumentation boom?). Perhaps an AAR slipway so that if could use the boom technique?

8 hours crammed into a bizjet would be bad enough - the prospect of extending beyond that time with AAR would be beyond the endurance of the sensor operators, I would imagine!

[ORAC]

Quite right, the boom shown on the demonstrator's nose is an instrumentation boom. The production aircraft are supposed to have an AAR probe on the right side of the SATCOM fairing, as shown below.

Or are you saying it has been dropped from the specification?

"The platform for Raytheon’s ASTOR is the Bombardier-Shorts Global Express business jet. Capable of flying up to 50,000 feet, its endurance is 14 hours, although an in-flight refueling capability allows much longer flights, limited only by engine oil use and crew fatigue".

"Each ASTOR aircraft will be able to operate at altitudes of 15,250 meters (50,000 feet) or higher for 13 hours, and will have inflight refueling capability to extend endurance. ASTOR will two pilots and three electronics system officers, and will have have additional seats and bunks for relief crews. Raytheon selected the Bombardier Global Express over the comparable Gulfstream V, since the Global Express had greater cabin volume and electrical power capability".

(Standard operating altitude around 47,000 Ft)


http://www.airmenaircrew.freeserve.co.uk/aircraft/images/astor1.jpg

ps. Nice cockpit. I'm sure the RAF will clutter it up with Saturn radios and the like. Which seat does the army get? :D

http://www.learjet.com/en/3_0/3_2/3_2_1/img/i3_multi2.jpg

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Oops my mistake

BTW, Why has the SHAR thread been deleted?

[BEagle]

The army still apparently thinks that it can partly crew ASTOR.

But as a senior officer said to me last year,"How does the army think that someone trained to Gazelle PPL standard will be able to cope with this aeroplane??"

I suppose that they could put a few signallers in the back though?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Perhaps what the Army really mean is have a SNCO/Officer in the rear for "liason", the argument being that the AAC are soldiers and will therefore have a greater understanding of the tactical situation, and what different vehicles etc are.

[ORAC]

Of course the Army will put an Occifer in the back!
The front is just where the NCO driver (airframe) chappie sits!!

(Wouldn't put it past em to send NCOs either, just as a wind up).

[BEagle]

Certainly the analysts should include army personnel who will probably have a better understanding of their requirements and the implications of the surface picture on the forces on the ground.

No doubt an army pilot, given the appropriate training, could fly the ASTOR. However, it seems that the training envisaged is merely the manufacturer's type conversion course, the entry standard for which assumes that the pilot is already trained to at least CPL/IR standard...........

[WE Branch Fanatic]

On that topic BEagle, why don't the Nimrod crews contain a member of the RN? Seems to me that that would haelp solve a LOT of problems with misinterpretation etc.

Or would that be the wrong sort of jointery?

[TimC]

Personally I don't see why anyone from the RN should be part of a standard nimrod crew. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the RAF crews know what they are doing :). I could understand RN peeps being carried on specialist missions, but not all the time?

It does make me think of another question though. Is there any/much opportunity for exchange postings between the RAF and RN (nav/obs or even snco aircrew)? It might provide an opportunity for a bit more diversity in peoples careers, or just an escape route from Kinloss :D.

[eye_spy]

Any of your RAF or Army Photo Interpreters/Imagery Analysts log any time as observers in any of your current platforms?

Seems that they would be the guys/gals with the training to pick out what's on the ground if the sensor feed is displayed in the cabin. Or maybe have the sensor pic datalinked to a ground station so only mission essential pers are onboard...thinking out loud here.

Shame about the PR9...darn good platform...want some RF-111's? lol. Whoever mentioned the idea about getting the Indians to make some new Canberras for you might have a solution...Bit off the subject but read today in Defense News that the Ruskies are offering the Indians their MiG-21 factory to buy and relocate because of the hassles the Indians have had with parts etc. Apparently they have lost 220 MiG-21's in crashes which leaves them with 700ish.. faark.. lot of Acft.

What other platform could be easily adapted to carry the PR9 sensors and still have some semblance of being a military aircraft, as opposed to a modded bizjet? And offer comparable performance (FL500 etc)

[biggles819]

I really dont think that a 17 year old school leaver has more knowledge on battlefield equiptment than an officer. comon speak sense

[biggles819]

Mr Timc, I would like to remind you, that when a Sea Harrier Pilot comes to terms with landing a multi million pound aircraft on a couple of hundred feet of concrete in the middle of the North Atlantic during the night, they wouldnt really want to:
(have you tried to land a Nimrod?!?)

a:Sit in the rear of a Nimrod

or

b:be associated with a the so called 'Mighty Hunter' or even any other blind organisation that cannot understand the need for Naval Air Operations.

Lets face it when was the last time the RAF shot anything down, if i recall correctly it was one of her own Jaguars!

[TimC]

Totally agree with you. I wasn't talking about pilots though :).

I have tried flying and landing a Nimrod, if only in the simulator at Kinloss. I nearly got it on the runway! :D

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Surely some cross over between RN Observers and Aicrewmen and their RAF (Nimrod) counterparts would benefit both camps?

[TimC]

That's what I was suggesting :D. But then again, I know £*** all about naval aircrewmen :).

[bad livin']

There have been and are RN people on exchange to the RAF and doubtless Army too. I met a bag obs at Wadddington workin on the E3, and I have a friend who is a Flt Ops officer in the air force currently working at sea on a CVS. Answer your question? Also met a Warfare Branch FCer at Coltishall last year working on exchange.

Rgds TimC and hope you enjoyed ISK!

BL

[eye_spy]

biggles819 - You don't think a "17 year old school leaver" could have more knowledge of battlefield equipment than an officer? Have you heard of training and experience? Do you know what you are talking about?

If it came down to a "school leaver" enlisted intelligence person or a logistics officer trying to discern what military equipment and phase of operations is happening on the ground I know which one I'd rather have! Hint - It's not the logistics officer.

Another point since I'm here. If you are going to have a go at "17 year old school leavers" you should maybe have stayed at school longer given this spelling effort.

Quote "I really dont think that a 17 year old school leaver has more knowledge on battlefield equiptment than an officer. comon speak sense" End Quote

Military Aircrew have to be able to spell better than that. Looks like you have some work to do if you want to become one.

[eye_spy]

Slightly off the point, something I forgot to add in my last post.

/rant on

biggles819 - If you are under the impression that there is a massive gap in the education level of officers and enlisted personnel nowadays I think in all but the extreme cases you may be flogging a dead horse. It was true 100 years ago, not so now.

For example I am an NCO in the RAAF. My initial education requirements for entry into my trade at the enlisted level were higher than all but Pilot, Navigator and Engineer (who as it happens are commissioned officers). So why am I not commissioned? I can't do this job as an officer...and apart from aircrew this is the only job I'd want to do in the military.


/rant off

That feels better!

[Imhotep]

WEBF,
for info, at Kinloss there are 2 RN Observer exchanges and 1 PO Aircrewman exchange. They are fully integrated into Nimrod crews as navigators or sonics operator.