Calling Kipper Fleet veterans - Nimrod query!

[Jackonicko]

I have been putting together a table comparing various current ASW/MPA aircraft to accompany an article, and had hoped to include the Nimrod MR2 and MRA4 (along with the P-3C Update III) as benchmarks.

But while I've been able to get time on task figures for all of the current offerings (e.g. 8 hours at 1,000 nm for the Saab G6000-based Swordfish, 4 hours at 1,200 nm for the P-8A and 7 hours at 200 nm for the ATR72), I don't have any such examples for the two Nimrod versions, nor do I have a reliable absolute range figure for the MR2.

Published MR2 range figures vary from 3,800 nm to 4,500 nm - does anyone have an opinion as to which sounds more like it?

Many thanks.

[Pontius Navigator]

Jackoniko, there is a blast from the past.

[camelspyyder]

MR2 Mach.69 X 8 hours.

Should be close enough for cash.

MR1 was lighter and could manage an extra hour though

[The Old Fat One]

it will be trickier than you expect to get hard and fast ranges for the MR2 especially. The MK1 was a pretty clean beast and also we used to transit a great deal at FL370 up to FL390 and few times higher.

Following a renegotiation of military use of oceanic airspace circa mid eighties, it became pretty standard to transit at FL250 or lower, which knocked the range back a ton. Also the MR2 had a plethora of extra aerials and ducts, which probably didn't help the drag factor a whole lot. Finally as the old lady started to creak at the seams (pun intended) there were often fuel tank restrictions.

Bottom line. Nine hour sorties in the seventies in a mark one were completely standard (I have dozens of them in my log book, and there was no air-to-air refueling before the Falklands. Post Mark two I never flew a nine hour sortie, unless we were refueled in flight.)

I managed 8 hours 50 in a direct transit from the Canary Islands (yes, I do mean the Canary Islands, not the Azores!!!) circa 2000. We had a rescue callsign, so we lied to Shanwick and got up to FL390 ish. Quite funny seeing the reaction of the crew to fuel burn figures they had never witnessed before. We were supposed to refuel at Gib...went straight by....then St Mawgan...nope not stopping, did it in a oner with fuel to spare.

[The Old Fat One]

Inspired to do a little trip down memory lane..

I flew four Ocean Safari sorties (direct support, so a lot of low level work) in the South West Approaches out of St Mawgan, with the 206th (Captained by good ol 924 himself ;))

17th, 22nd, 23rd, 28th Oct 1977...9 hours, 9 hours 5 mins, 7 hours 40 mins & 8 hours 50 minutes.

Those were the days.

[Jackonicko]

So what do we think - six hours 1,000 nm out for the MR2?

(Fascinating that Saab claim eight hours at 1,000 nm for their G6000 based Swordfish, while Boeing give a figure of four hours at 1,200 nm)

A couple of quick follow-up Qs?

How many buoys could be stored on board in the racks on the MR.2? - MRA.Mk 4 had storage for 350, apparently…..

Was the MAD on the MR2 still the ASQ-10A?

(PN: I thought I was dead….!) :}

[The Old Fat One]

How many buoys could be stored on board in the racks on the MR.2? - MRA.Mk 4 had storage for 350, apparently…..

This was completely variable. As you will be aware the Nimrod was not blessed with a lot of cabin space so space in ordnance area was at a premium and frequently a compromise (between seats, if you were deploying with ground crew, extra kit depending on your task, and sonobuoys.)

I expect this would have been a even bigger issue if the MRA4 had got into service, because there was even less space/seating, down the back. Not that BAE would ever have admitted that.

Was the MAD on the MR2 still the ASQ-10A?

Yes.

[camelspyyder]

When search sonos went F size you could carry 3 times as many.
I certainly recall loading over 200 in a sortie this century against a fast and quiet nuclear target.


I have done one 10 hour sortie without tanking in a MR2, but it was a very atypical profile (no LL) and extended by diverting also.


MR2 got a new MAD in the 80's or 90's - AIMS or AN-ASQ 504 ISTR.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks all.

ASQ-504 was the MRA4 MAD, but I'm not familiar with AIMS.

I know that MRA4 was an airworthiness nightmare, and had major issues, but had it got into service and sorted the problems, it looks as though it would have had a VERY impressive spec.

P-8 impresses me less and less the more I learn about it….

[betty swallox]

Jackonicko. Your figures for P-8 are off. Those figures were the original base spec. The actual figures are similar to the MR2, and with AAR coming on line soon, will be well in excess.

[The Old Fat One]

I know that MRA4 was an airworthiness nightmare, and had major issues, but had it got into service and sorted the problems, it looks as though it would have had a VERY impressive spec.

Jeez Jacko, for an aviation journalist, that is one hell of an oxymoron :ok::ok:

[Janda]

My very first trip in a Nimrod was 10 hrs 20 mins Ks to Ks. That was January 1973 and I was a supernumerary. Captain was Jack Alcock the Sqn Boss.

[baigar]

Was there still the original computing hardware (Elliott 900 series computer) on board the MR2
as it went out of service?

[reynoldsno1]

I know of at least one MR1 sortie that was about 11.5 hrs ....

[camelspyyder]

AIMS / AN-ASQ 504 were the same piece of kit. It was carried over to the MRA4 because it was current, it worked, and we had 20+ sets I guess.

Unlike the sensor pod where the MRA4 was a retrograde step.

[Jackonicko]

You mean the MRA4's Northrop Grumman Nighthunter compared to the MR2's MX-15?

[Jackonicko]

Jackonicko. Your figures for P-8 are off. Those figures were the original base spec. The actual figures are similar to the MR2, and with AAR coming on line soon, will be well in excess.

The original figure given for the P-8A was four hours at 600 nm (US Navy P-8 website). Obviously without AAR.

What do you think the proper figure for the MR2 should be?

[JT Eagle]

While we are on this MPA subject, I have 9 hours endurance for the Kawasaki P-1, but not at what distance. Any better figures out there?

Also, what is the loaded take-off distance required for the P-1, and for that matter the P-8?

JT

[Shackman]

The original figure given for the P-8A was four hours at 600 nm

Even the MR2 Shack could do better than that. A (not uncommon) 12 hour sortie would give 5.30 at 600 miles; add the overload tank and still have a good bomb bay load would give nearly 7 hours on task!

[MFC_Fly]

(Captained by good ol 924 himself ;)) That'll be a pint please :=:=:=

[betty swallox]

Jackonicko

I'd have thought you'd have known the MR2 stuff with your background.

But. I guess not. Fairly easy to get a 9 hour stretch out of a full tank of gas. Mission dependent, more.

With AAR crew fatigue was the issue.

P-8 is similar, however the intent is to ASW at higher altitudes, thereby saving even more gas.

I'm curious about your statement though.

Why are you "less and less impressed"?

[YellowTom]

The P-8 hasn't been to war yet so we haven't needed to work out how to eeek out every extra bit of mileage! Give it time (and a generation of GEs who know what leaks are acceptable).

[Onceapilot]

The P-8 hasn't been to war yet so we haven't needed to work out how to eeek out every extra bit of mileage! Give it time (and a generation of GEs who know what leaks are acceptable).

YT
What are you trying to say? :confused:
The aircraft performance is known to the last kg of fuel used / available. As for GEs and leaks, there are very few, and the GEs will have every tiny fault correctly sorted!
Or, if you are trying to make some very bad slur,.. I suggest you make yourself clear right now or, FO! :mad:

OAP

[MFC_Fly]

The P-8 hasn't been to war yet so we haven't needed to work out how to eeek out every extra bit of mileage! Give it time (and a generation of GEs who know what leaks are acceptable).
MPA do their war role all the time. The P8 has completed several Ops already :ok:

[Roland Pulfrew]

Got to say I like the look of the Saab Swordfish, especially with its trendy digital camouflage, but.......

Lets have a look at some of the claims in the glossy (http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf)

Significant sonobuoy stowage What is that number? What types of buoy? What is the usage rate against a modern submarine?

No external stores What is the impact on range and endurance with external stores? How many torpedoes can be carried? How are those weapons kept conditioned in flight?

Superior working environment In comparison to what? Nimrod? P-8A?

Galley Well at least that's a step up from the P-8A!!

Swordfish might make a great peacetime platform, but not convinced of its viability in this role in wartime.

[Jackonicko]

Jackonicko
Why are you "less and less impressed"?

1) Cost
2) the inability to use anything but Size A buoys
3) Lack of MAD - still a useful confirmation sensor
4) Comparing the OEW with MTOW makes me suspect that payload/range will not be as impressive as the brochure suspects
5) I wonder whether the emphasis on (unproven) high altitude delivery of weapons and buoys is a matter of choice or whether it has been forced on the USN by platform limitations - fuel consumption, a relatively wide turn radius, fatigue, engine placement, etc.?
6) Lack of a 360 degree radar
7) Programmatically - the failure to integrate U.K. Weapon and buoy stocks - especially Stingray.
8) will demand massive investment in airfield infrastructure
9) fleet size. Two carriers, four SSBNs and a major maritime trading nation, with vital fisheries and EEZs and we're getting 9.Nine. Japan plans to get 70 P-1s.
10) I remain profoundly sceptical that one can accurately put a pattern of buoys in the water from FL nosebleed

I am sure that the P-8 will be a great maritime ISR platform, which is after all 90% of what the aircraft will do. In peacetime.

But I hear that a very senior Purple fellow revealed that the P-8 was not placed first in terms of ASW capability when the UK assessed competing MPAs.

And someone expressed the view that for ASW, alone and unafraid, he'd take an MRA4 over the P-8, while others aver that the P-8 "simply isn't an improvement over Nimrod...."

[Jackonicko]

Got to say I like the look of the Saab Swordfish, especially with its trendy digital camouflage, but.......

Lets have a look at some of the claims in the glossy (http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf)

Saab's briefer on Swordfish at various press things (ex-Nimrod) is extremely compelling.

What is that number? What types of buoy? What is the usage rate against a modern submarine?

Two ten-shot rotary launchers and two pressurised single launchers for smoke floats, bathy buoys etc. Racks for 112 A size (224 G or 336 F) buoys.

What is the impact on range and endurance with external stores? How many torpedoes can be carried? How are those weapons kept conditioned in flight?

More than 5.5 hours with weapons. Six torpedos can be carried, or four big ASMs. Because the MU90 uses new technology silver oxide aluminium batteries they don't need to be carried in an internal bay.

In comparison to what? Nimrod? P-8A?

Saab claim better than P-8.

Well at least that's a step up from the P-8A!!

I think Saab fully appreciate the importance of a mug of tea or a plate of 'honkers'!!!

Swordfish might make a great peacetime platform, but not convinced of its viability in this role in wartime.

Less than two thirds of the acquisition cost and half the Life Cycle Cost.

[Doptrack]

Was there still the original computing hardware (Elliott 900 series computer) on board the MR2
as it went out of service?

Think that the CTS still had 920ATC. Acoustics system replaced by then with Ultra kit.

[Pontius Navigator]

J, MAD is a two edged weapon. The greater the detection range, the less precise the fix. Counter detection would alert the target which can make considerable distance before the MPA can make a second pass, although good against a steel conventional.

MAD would enable an upgrade in detection probability and that a target was probably present at weapon release.

So yes, it does have its uses

[Jackonicko]

And you can now have MAD without the weight and cost penalty it used to impose....

[Pontius Navigator]

J, you can never remove cost. We had useful kit removed from the Nimrod as we needed to save money. Removing the cameras from the Nimrod meant the camera bay could be closed and the aircraft maintenance removed.

Adding MAD requires a MAD bay (infrastructure), engineers (establishment), training, etc.

[Jackonicko]

Yes of course I just meant that the kit is now cheaper and lighter

[Pontius Navigator]

So it comes down to cost benefit. MAD is really only a confirmation aid where better aids might obviate the need for MAD. That said we once caught a submarine where MAD was the initial sensor. We were investigating a radar contact when we got a MAD mark. The JEZ buoy picked up noise, a second MAD was gained and the sub confirmed. Pure luck, but crews used to make their own luck.

[Bloodhound Loose]

1) Cost
2) the inability to use anything but Size A buoys
3) Lack of MAD - still a useful confirmation sensor
4) Comparing the OEW with MTOW makes me suspect that payload/range will not be as impressive as the brochure suspects
5) I wonder whether the emphasis on (unproven) high altitude delivery of weapons and buoys is a matter of choice or whether it has been forced on the USN by platform limitations - fuel consumption, a relatively wide turn radius, fatigue, engine placement, etc.?
6) Lack of a 360 degree radar
7) Programmatically - the failure to integrate U.K. Weapon and buoy stocks - especially Stingray.
8) will demand massive investment in airfield infrastructure
9) fleet size. Two carriers, four SSBNs and a major maritime trading nation, with vital fisheries and EEZs and we're getting 9.Nine. Japan plans to get 70 P-1s.
10) I remain profoundly sceptical that one can accurately put a pattern of buoys in the water from FL nosebleed
"

Range has a number of variables, but assuming still air, no AAR in flight and LL 'turning and burning on-station', I'd plump for MR2 = 2 hours at 1200nm, MRA4 = 6 hours at 1200nm

2) Not really sure why that's important; you worried about running out of buoys? The P8 is very spacious inside. I am convinced you could put extra racks in and carry enough buoys to ensure you'd run out of fuel before sonobuoys.

3) MAD is desirable but not essential. Multi-Statics is a game-changer.

4) 4 hours at 1200nm was a key performance measure at initial test. It met the requirement.

5) The driver to operate at higher than traditional altitudes was nothing to do with ac limitations. Indeed, the increment 1 P-8A had to be able to operate at low level and it can. I hear a lot about how the 737 was not designed to operate at LL, but then neither was the comet or the Lockheed Electra. The first couple of P8 ac were used for flight envelope expansion. They had a whole raft of instrumentation devices attached all over the ac. This was then fed back into extremely accurate computer modeling so there is a deep understanding of fatigue issues during LL manouvre - this technology didn't exist when Nimrod and P3 ac were being developed.

6) Depends what you're trying to do with the mission. BAMS is seen as a partner of the P8 in terms of USN CONOPS for ASuW mission. The USN is also hanging its hat on multi static ASW in preference to radar detections.

7) Stingray was the only weapon planned and funded for MRA4. The P8 has a much broader suite of weapons. The databus/wing hard points on P8 offer significant weapon delivery options over the MRA4. You could try to put Stingray on it, but why? Buying off the shelf is cheaper to the taxpayer than making bespoke UK requirements - good enough is good enough.

10) I think you're looking at the problem through an old 'cold war' lens. Multi-statics is a game-changer. Maybe you don't need to drop a sonobuoy on 'a dime' anymore?

The arguments for COTS are well rehearsed. You buy 'off the shelf' you accept you're getting something that meets the host nation's requirements and CONOPS. As long as your requirements and CONOPS are not too different then you can get a product without having to fork out all the R&D costs - good enough is good enough.

The fact is that P8 is an on-time, on-budget, high-end war fighting platform that has achieved impressive maturity in the 7 years since first flight - look at platform and squadron numbers, number of nations flying the aircraft and the maturity of the training system in just 7 years; then compare that to MRA4 program. P8 development has been staggering.

IMHO, the P8 is a great buy for UK Defence that will fill a capability gap relatively quickly.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks very much for a considered, informative and lengthy reply, Bloodhound.

I don't dismiss the P-8, and the enthusiasm of chaps like you for the aircraft is naturally extremely persuasive.

It's clearly a very compelling maritime ISR aircraft, and an impressive performer.

In the light of a procurement that gave every appearance of having been a 'done and dusted' deal (even if that's a false impression), it is the journo's responsibility to ask questions and to try and struggle towards a proper understanding - and I'm grateful to all of those who are prepared to facilitate that.

I have to say that I remain slightly concerned about the cost/force size equation (though I am aware at the same time that manning considerations and the eventual MRA4 fleet size impose their own constraints).

I am also slightly concerned that the P-8 MAY have been selected without an exhaustive enough evaluation of alternatives, and especially of cheaper alternatives, some of which might, perhaps, have lived up to Bloodhound's phrase: "good enough is good enough"?

I also remain unconvinced that the P-8 would not be an even better (and more cost-effective and value-for-money) solution were it to be able to use existing UK sonobuoy stocks, by being able to use F and G sized buoys, and by being able to use the apparently highly regarded StingRay torpedo.

I appreciate that Multi-Statics is a game-changer, but was under the impression that:

a) this is not a unique-to-the-P-8A capability
and b) that while it is a game-changer, it should not be the only club in the capability golf bag, and that search radar, MAD, passive buoys, etc. all continue to have a role to play

I am afraid I do not understand modern ASW well enough to really appreciate the significance or otherwise of accurate sonobuoy placement, and of maintaining 'security of pattern', though naturally these concerns are not my own, but ones that people I've spoken to have raised. I would welcome any guidance on this.

Two questions:

4) 4 hours at 1200nm was a key performance measure at initial test. It met the requirement.

With what kind of weapon load? Did this include descents to low level to prosecute contacts?

5) The driver to operate at higher than traditional altitudes was nothing to do with ac limitations.

What was the driver, then?

I may very well be looking at the problem through an old 'cold war' lens. I haven't flown on an MPA sortie since the Nimrod MR.Mk 1.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sonobuoy placement, or rather misplacement is simple maths. With a not unrealistic 36 kt wind a sonobuoy will drift 20 yards per second. Dropped from height it could be a mile away from the computer mark. Adjacent buoys might be subject to slightly different wind speed or direction. A neat and evenly spaced line on the tac display would be anything but.

Accurate post drop determination of position, without on topping each buoy, will reveal any gaps.

Once at low level errors are smaller but without accurate location a torpedo might be dropped outside target acquisition range.

[Jackonicko]

That doesn't sound like "dropping a sonobuoy on 'a dime'", PN!

As a lay-person it sounds pretty significant……

What am I not getting, P-8A defenders?

[camelspyyder]

Things change.

I haven't flown Maritime for 10 years, but I'm a damn sight more current than PN. Jeez, GPS hadn't even been rolled out when he was a lad.

If the RAF guys that I know have been flying P-8 for the last 6 years tell me it's the best aircraft for the job, I'm happy to believe them.

Given that it is a current platform, how it goes about it's business maybe just too classified for Jacko, me or any of the other pundits on here.

It's certainly going to be a lot more advanced than the 40's airframe with 60's kit that was our last operational MPA.

[Dimmer Switch]

Jeez Camel-Toe - listening to the people who have current, first-hand knowledge of the topic/aircraft/capability under discussion ?!?!?!? Are you some kind of anarchist ?! :) It'll NEVER catch on here !

[Pontius Navigator]

CS, I was commenting on the need to know where your sonobuoy actually was rather than where you thought it was. That has nothing to do with currency.

Certainly, once you are drawing on one buoy it matters not where it actually is, what you do know is where the submarine is.

[camelspyyder]

Currency could also refer to Jacko wanting to use F and G size sonos from the dark ages, along with the 40 year old StingRay.

Just because we have some old tat in stock it doesn't make it automatically relevant to the next decade of Maritime warfare.

[albatross]

Thread drift but that reminds me of this: http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/guidance.html

[Jackonicko]

Currency could also refer to Jacko wanting to use F and G size sonos from the dark ages, along with the 40 year old StingRay.

Just because we have some old tat in stock it doesn't make it automatically relevant to the next decade of Maritime warfare.

Hmmm. Saab don't think that F and G sized buoys are from the dark ages, and nor do Ultra. And indeed it makes sense to me that with miniaturisation, etc. you can pack the same capability into a half-sized buoy as you used to get in a full-sized A size buoy……

Nor is is really fair to describe StingRay as 'old tat'. Lots of ASW folk seem to rate the Mod 1 version very highly, and Norway selected it in preference to the Eurotorp MU90 AND the Mk 54, which were rated in that order……

In any event, the fact that we are acquiring only nine MPAs (nine!) would suggest that we are not living in an era unconstrained by cost, so being able to use existing weapon and buoy stocks would seem to be a potentially sensible cost saving, had we adopted a slightly less supine negotiating position.

[RandomBlah]

Jackonico,

Have you factored in the cost and time of adapting P-8 for either G-size buoys or Stingray in your analysis? Or the proximity of the Stingray out of service date?

[Jackonicko]

I suspect that had Boeing thought that it was necessary to win the order, rather than feeling that they had it in the bag, then integration might have been done at company cost.

[Bloodhound Loose]

Jackonicko,

I sense that some in the Defense Industry are trying to denigrate P8 in order to try and bolster their own product. I won't comment anymore on that, other than to say it's easy to make an MPA look good....... on powerpoint. And 'good enough is good enough', only if it can meet a required a delivery timeline. The Defense Industry is very good at promising on-time, on-budget products via shiny powerpoint slides.

I think the size of buoys is a red herring; it's relevant only if you are short of space/weight.

The rest of your questions need answers that can't come via this forum. You are correct that multi-statics is a broad term and not unique to P8; however, the P8's multi-static capability will be unique.

There's lots of revolutionary capability inbound and, without a full read-in, it would difficult to fathom when viewed through a 'cold war lens'. I sense that the SAAB sales pitch you've received was delivered from a team with such a lens. I may be wrong.

PN has such a lens and everything he has said is entirely correct as to how the Nimrod was operated in certain ASW roles. His arguments don't carry across to the modern epoch due to new technology that Nimrod didn't have.

4 hours at 1200nm was a key performance measure at initial test. It met the requirement. I should have stated "4 hours operating low level at 1200nm was a key performance measure at initial test. It met the requirement.


What was the driver, then?

This is an open source article from 4 years ago, the quote below is from the article:

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/02/P8-ASW-upgrades.html

Relatively high altitudes for the P-8A are to enhance communications range with large-area buoy fields, as well as to enhance coverage from other onboard non-acoustic sensors.

Anyway, I think I've hit the limit of what should be said on this forum. I wish you the best with your article and it would be great if you post a link to it on here when complete.

There are always two sides to every story, but I can only emphasize my previous sentiment that the P-8A is a fantastic aircraft that will be a superb asset for UK Defence - and in very short order. We're blessed to be getting it. Finally, I wish SAAB all the best marketing their product to allied nations around the World.

[The Old Fat One]

^^ nice post.

[Pontius Navigator]

BL, I was not drawing any inference on modern systems simply that you need to know the relative location of one buoy to the next.

Jumping further back in past, at Jutland the relative position of the ship's could not be determine with complete accuracy as there was no time synchronization.

Today there are many means to determine relative positioning because it is essential, not a weaknesses as was the case with the older systems - note: I never mentioned the N-word.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I never mentioned the N-word. Was it the S-word in your day PN? Shackleton or Sunderland?

[Roland Pulfrew]

JN

P-8 MAY have been selected without an exhaustive enough evaluation of alternatives, and especially of cheaper alternatives What makes you think they weren't? Surely though, the most important thing is/was do they meet your requirement?

If the MoD direction was MOTS/COTS; what would the impact be on "paper" aircraft? Would a paper aircraft meet the "time" part of Performance/Cost/Time?

that the P-8 would not be an even better (and more cost-effective and value-for-money) solution were it to be able to use existing UK sonobuoy stocks ... and by being able to use the apparently highly regarded StingRay torpedo Possibly true, but then you have to factor in the cost of integrating new launchhers, buoys and weapons onto a platform; how much does it cost to carry out the software mods, test them, complete separation trials and clear a weapon/system onto a military aircraft? How long has it taken to get new weapons onto Typhoon? Lots of software there, so I guess it won't be cheap. Then of course you are potentially operating a bespoke fleet that differs from your key Allies also operating the P-8; how does that impact upon through-life costs?

Of course the original SAAB Swordfish, particularly when the UK started their programme was a twin-turboprop, not a twin-jet. https://image.slidesharecdn.com/saabairbornesurveillancemediabrief-fia2014-issue2print-140716040313-phpapp02/95/saab-airborne-surveillance-media-brief-farnborough-2014-12-638.jpg?cb=1405486361

Finally, be careful of senior officers pushing their own agendas; some aren't the best informed.

[Pontius Navigator]

RP thankfully N came before S, sadly S then followed. As for hard work I think the Nimrod won and also more rewarding. The other, with 1940s kit served far too long and frequently ineffective. It worked well with a cooperating target or if told where to look which rather defeated the object.

[Jackonicko]

Bloodhound and Roland - thank you for your intelligent and erudite responses - they were very compelling.

Thank you too for framing them so kindly and carefully - despite being in response to damn fool questions from a painfully ignorant journo.

I really am most grateful.

J

[baigar]

Think that the CTS still had 920ATC. Acoustics system replaced by then with Ultra kit.

Thanks - so the CTS (=central tactical system) still matched the original fit as I know from
S. Lavington's great book on Elliott Computers:

https://books.google.de/books?id=Dhk9wHXfQMkC&lpg=PA429&ots=JSBJGFb3Uc&dq=nimrod%20cts&hl=de&pg=PA429#v=onepage&q=nimrod%20cts&f=false

As these are my hobby (see e.g. Programmer Electronic Control (http://www.baigar.de/TornadoComputerUnit/index.html#CONTEXT)) - I'd
love to see one of them having survived ;-)

Thanks again,

Erik.

[Not Long Here]

Thanks - so the CTS (=central tactical system) still matched the original fit as I know from
S. Lavington's great book on Elliott Computers:

https://books.google.de/books?id=Dhk9wHXfQMkC&lpg=PA429&ots=JSBJGFb3Uc&dq=nimrod%20cts&hl=de&pg=PA429#v=onepage&q=nimrod%20cts&f=false

As these are my hobby (see e.g. Programmer Electronic Control (http://www.baigar.de/TornadoComputerUnit/index.html#CONTEXT)) - I'd
love to see one of them having survived ;-)

Thanks again,

Erik.


Sort of correct in that yes the 920 ATC was still fitted but, when we went to the colour Tac Display this included it's own Pentium based computing system (high spec then) which offloaded all of the Display processing from the 920 meaning that in general the system ran a lot more smoothly.


I am sure that there are plenty of former Tac Navs around who can remember the display issues we had as time went on with the old circular CRT.

[baigar]

I can imagine, that the Pentium based replacement was a substantial improvement. I only
found a very video on YouTube showing the circular CRT - this was really huge and I guess
the 920ATC controlled it as a X-Y-disply and this absorbed most of its performance?

Are there any better images out there of the station with the old display and/or maybe and
avionics bay photographs?

[Ogre]

the 920ATC

Ah yes, "ATC" stood for Advanced Technology Computer...

Several years ago a colleague and I spent an interesting lunchtime talking to a bunch on new computing grads, telling them the joys of 18 bit computing systems, programming in machine code and doing it while the system was actually running.....

[Jackonicko]

Bloodhound Loose,

I've been thinking (always dangerous!) and I'm not sure that the Saab folk have a Cold War lens (I'm happy to accept that I do, and even that my filter of what they and others say may give and undue Cold War influence). They do bang on about the company's competence in modern post-Cold War ASW, and especially about the fact that the company (in the shape of its new Kockums subsidiary) builds "the world’s most modern submarine".

I've also been thinking about MAC, high level ASW, etc.

The Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC) sonobuoy processing programme is extremely new, it began developmental testing in 2012 and operational testing in early FY13 (on P-3Cs, with P-8A testing deferred). My understanding is that it uses a mix of source and receiver buoys, employing non-coherent sources to produce the sounds that reflect off submarine targets (including multiple pings, optimized waveforms, and various ping durations); these echoes are then detected by receiver buoys. US Navy papers seem to indicate that it is primarily intended for large-area active acoustic searches for threat submarines.

I’m not sure as to how the US MAC concept differes from the Multistatic Active (MSA) that has been undergoing tests by a global community of military, industry and research communities for decades, but whose operational results have been modest, or at least not entirely robust in all situations and environments.

With this in mind I would ask a couple of questions:

Firstly, are we looking at a technology that does represent the future (though perhaps not as it is in its current form) but that is immature – like guided missiles were in the 1960s, when we raced to ditch the gun for air-to-air combat in favour of promising semi-active radar homing missiles….. which weren't actually operationally viable for another ten years or more?

Secondly, are we looking at a technology that will or should be augmenting existing ASW technologies (especially passive acoustic detection, which has been making great strides) rather than entirely replacing them?

Has the P-8A’s platform ethos and CONOPs been too closely and tightly based on MAC as a universal ASW panacea – rather than seeing Multistatic as one tool in the ASW toolbox (perhaps the most useful one?), but one that should be used alongside well-practiced and proved passive and active methods? Would the latter approach not mitigate against a medium-to-hgh level CONOPS?

Or are we expecting ROE that would allow one to engage a target based on a single source (acoustics) alone? P-8A has no MAD to confirm a target’s position, and from altitude, and against a sub-surface target EO/IR is presumably unlikely to be any more or less helpful than radar.

The P-8 enthusiasts always say that: “Operating at medium to high altitude maximizes sensor performance" I can see that is true of radar, and of ESM, but it isn’t true of EO/IR (where being below cloud is surely necessary?), it isn’t true of MAD and in acoustics, altitude surely brings greater possibilities of RF interference?

I’m also unconvinced that you can get buoys or weapons into the water as quickly or as accurately from medium-to-high altitude, nor that this consideration is no longer valid, and is purely Cold War thinking – though I’m open to being convinced on all these fronts.

I’m also wondering about the implications of dropping sonobuoys and weapons through layers of precipitation, variable winds and busy airspace…..

Questions, questions……

[baigar]

Hi, probably some people are following this thread who have been on board the Nimrod in the
1990ties? Over the years I restored some of the vintage Ferranti inertial navigation systems
and among them also two FIN1012s. Recently I got hands on a panel I guess being the
original Nimrod panel (3854/37714) I guessed having been used on the FIN1012:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x1272/dsc03664_5703aa1c9190a9665d6e7283ad5615ded7382d58.jpg

Of course I know most of the functions from the FIN1010 and the accompanying, very similar
panel as it was used on Tornado, but this Nimrod panel has some additional features I'd like
to know some details on (esp. related to the upper turn knob):

(1) What is shown if PP2 is selected (obviously this means present-position-2, but what is
the second present position?)?
(2) What does the panel show if the letters I, G or M are selected?

As I discovered during my repairs, the Cal alignment takes several hours on the FIN1012 (way
more than on a FIN1010 of Tornado) but it does not update the cal values - so is there some
trick or does anybody know what has to be selected (e.g. on the D1/D2 switch) to get
the values updated?

Would be great to hear on some experiences from actual aircrew on those systems, too!

Best wishes,

Erik.

P.S. If interested, you may look on my somewhat older video on the restored Tornado stuff:
YouTube

[drustsonoferp]

Afraid I cannot help, but I'm delighted you are doing this. I've just watched the Tornado video.

[baigar]

Afraid I cannot help, but I'm delighted you are doing this. I've just watched the Tornado video.

Thanks for the positive words. Indeed I want to preserve as much as possible
from this outstanding technology. I even filed a request at the Air Historic Branch
of the RAF to get some of the documentation released - but no response so
far. My fear is, that most stuff will get lost in the next years!

[1771 DELETE]

I have been out for 14 years now, latterly we had a RINS set, combined gps and ring laser gyro, which replaced the Fin1012, that is way further back than my memory can help you with. Someone with the old aircrew handbooks could help you.