Nimrod MR1 and Phase 3 Shack - progress but by how much?
Thread Starter
I'd tend to agree, which is why I would not post an uncensored version of the following passage, though I'm not sure why not - it's probably because it's more recent than Granby, and thus seems 'sensitive' to my indoctrinated brain:
"The U.S. Air Force's ******* ****** ****** accidentally revealed a British national secret. Marham Air Base in Britain and Bruggen Air Base in Germany are two Royal Air Force airbases having the capability to store nuclear weapons. On ****** the ******* Air Force Base ******* ****** ****** issued a little-noticed press release announcing the $** million sale of ** "Weapon Storage and Security Systems" (WS3), providing "storage of tactical nuclear weapons within the floors of hardened aircraft shelters" to Britain. The release stated ** vaults were installed at Marham Air Base in Britain by ******, and ** more at Bruggen Air Base in Germany by ******. These vaults became available because the ******* decision to reduce the number of vaults occurred only after *** vaults were built, leaving an excess of **."
But posting what is available in a mainstream published book (one published by HMSO and written by the AHB) is of a different order. It's INTENDED to be disseminated (like the press release referred to above), it was officially released AND it concerns what is ancient history.
"The U.S. Air Force's ******* ****** ****** accidentally revealed a British national secret. Marham Air Base in Britain and Bruggen Air Base in Germany are two Royal Air Force airbases having the capability to store nuclear weapons. On ****** the ******* Air Force Base ******* ****** ****** issued a little-noticed press release announcing the $** million sale of ** "Weapon Storage and Security Systems" (WS3), providing "storage of tactical nuclear weapons within the floors of hardened aircraft shelters" to Britain. The release stated ** vaults were installed at Marham Air Base in Britain by ******, and ** more at Bruggen Air Base in Germany by ******. These vaults became available because the ******* decision to reduce the number of vaults occurred only after *** vaults were built, leaving an excess of **."
But posting what is available in a mainstream published book (one published by HMSO and written by the AHB) is of a different order. It's INTENDED to be disseminated (like the press release referred to above), it was officially released AND it concerns what is ancient history.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Jacko,
I think the material you posted is very interesting indeed. The problem is that what you have quoted may be in the public domain, but any comment on it or addendum to it by anyone from this board may be crossing the line. I don't think you'll get any takers.
I think the material you posted is very interesting indeed. The problem is that what you have quoted may be in the public domain, but any comment on it or addendum to it by anyone from this board may be crossing the line. I don't think you'll get any takers.
Thread Starter
Navaleye,
Of course I'm interested in all of this - it's an interesting subject. But all I wanted to know was how the Nimrod MR 1 differed from the last of the Shacks, capability wise.
I hadn't thought of any nuclear dimension to the question, until someone mentioned it. Any questions I had as to the narrow subject of nukes on RAF maritime patrol aircraft have been answered.
The Shack used Mk 34 'Lulu' from 1965-1971 - probably deploying them in response to the threat posed by the first PRACTICAL Soviet SLBMs.
The Nimrod used a new weapon (the Mk 57) from 1970 until 1991, and were withdrawn as part of the USA's global withdrawal of all its ground and sea-launched tactical nuclear weapons, which included the 350 B-57 depth bombs deployed with land-based naval anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft, which rendered them no longer available for the UK's Nimrods.
That level of detail is all I want or need, and it shouldn't expose me to abuse for asking, nor should those who provide that level of information to hysterical twittering from the terminally confused retirees on the board. In fact, the answers came from elsewhere, but had an ex-Kipper man known the answers, and known that they were in the public domain, and chosen to post them, he would have been doing nothing wrong. Nor can I see any harm in colourful anecdotes about the mass promotion of NCO aircrew and the 'Coffee' and 'coffee - No sugar' buttons on a Nimrod's yoke.
Pointing out the level of detail that has deliberately been put into the public domain is not intended to provoke further disclosures, only to provide a reality check to those wanting threads to be closed down or censored inappropriately.
There's also the issue of a public 'right to know' to be weighed against the 'need to know'. In the example above, it is clear that HMG spent $***m to provide enhanced storage for ** weapons that were known to be going out of service, without replacement, for a period of only * years. There is a clear issue of a staggering, massive waste of public money lying behind these asterisks! If the Cold War was still raging, security concerns would, in my view, completely outweigh pedestrian concerns about spending, but since the weapons concerned and the threat they were designed to counter have evaporated, having the detail in the public domain seems to be a no-brainer.
Thanks to those who've PM'ed messages of support - they were entirely unexpected and much appreciated.
Of course I'm interested in all of this - it's an interesting subject. But all I wanted to know was how the Nimrod MR 1 differed from the last of the Shacks, capability wise.
I hadn't thought of any nuclear dimension to the question, until someone mentioned it. Any questions I had as to the narrow subject of nukes on RAF maritime patrol aircraft have been answered.
The Shack used Mk 34 'Lulu' from 1965-1971 - probably deploying them in response to the threat posed by the first PRACTICAL Soviet SLBMs.
The Nimrod used a new weapon (the Mk 57) from 1970 until 1991, and were withdrawn as part of the USA's global withdrawal of all its ground and sea-launched tactical nuclear weapons, which included the 350 B-57 depth bombs deployed with land-based naval anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft, which rendered them no longer available for the UK's Nimrods.
That level of detail is all I want or need, and it shouldn't expose me to abuse for asking, nor should those who provide that level of information to hysterical twittering from the terminally confused retirees on the board. In fact, the answers came from elsewhere, but had an ex-Kipper man known the answers, and known that they were in the public domain, and chosen to post them, he would have been doing nothing wrong. Nor can I see any harm in colourful anecdotes about the mass promotion of NCO aircrew and the 'Coffee' and 'coffee - No sugar' buttons on a Nimrod's yoke.
Pointing out the level of detail that has deliberately been put into the public domain is not intended to provoke further disclosures, only to provide a reality check to those wanting threads to be closed down or censored inappropriately.
There's also the issue of a public 'right to know' to be weighed against the 'need to know'. In the example above, it is clear that HMG spent $***m to provide enhanced storage for ** weapons that were known to be going out of service, without replacement, for a period of only * years. There is a clear issue of a staggering, massive waste of public money lying behind these asterisks! If the Cold War was still raging, security concerns would, in my view, completely outweigh pedestrian concerns about spending, but since the weapons concerned and the threat they were designed to counter have evaporated, having the detail in the public domain seems to be a no-brainer.
Thanks to those who've PM'ed messages of support - they were entirely unexpected and much appreciated.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I think that the robust attack on Jackinoko is wonderful. It is a superb testament to tha training and indoctrination you all received decades ago. It is the same dedication and loyalty that would have enabled you to ride without a shed of cynicism into Russia atop a bucket of sunshine.
It is the same loyalty that the UK stay behind forces showed with many keeping the secret to their graves. A friend of mine in ASU30 would say nothing; only the publication of a book by his commanding officer unsealed his lips and then only slightly.
Simiarly I sought to read the 540 and 541 entries when my uncle served on XXX sqn. I was allowed to read the books under supervision, I was not allowed to photocopy the pages and they were a bit nervous about the notes I was making. This was about 1997 before they disbanded.
My uncle was killed in 1943 before I was born.
At Waddington in the 60s we had SECRET targetting maps of HAMBURG a mere 20 years old. Do get real.
Just like then, the USA has bases in the old USSR and that less than 10 years after the war.
Jackinocko see PM again.
It is the same loyalty that the UK stay behind forces showed with many keeping the secret to their graves. A friend of mine in ASU30 would say nothing; only the publication of a book by his commanding officer unsealed his lips and then only slightly.
Simiarly I sought to read the 540 and 541 entries when my uncle served on XXX sqn. I was allowed to read the books under supervision, I was not allowed to photocopy the pages and they were a bit nervous about the notes I was making. This was about 1997 before they disbanded.
My uncle was killed in 1943 before I was born.
At Waddington in the 60s we had SECRET targetting maps of HAMBURG a mere 20 years old. Do get real.
Just like then, the USA has bases in the old USSR and that less than 10 years after the war.
Jackinocko see PM again.
Thread Starter
In 1993 Hansard revealed that:
Nimrod
Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Nimrod aircraft was first certified to carry nuclear weapons ; and whether this certification applied to the United Kingdom as well as United States weapons.
Mr. Hanley : The Nimrod aircraft was certified for carriage of American nuclear depth charges from its entry into service in 1969. It has never been certified to carry British nuclear weapons.
Nimrod
Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Nimrod aircraft was first certified to carry nuclear weapons ; and whether this certification applied to the United Kingdom as well as United States weapons.
Mr. Hanley : The Nimrod aircraft was certified for carriage of American nuclear depth charges from its entry into service in 1969. It has never been certified to carry British nuclear weapons.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Adelaide Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....getting back to the original question about the improvement in capability that the Nimrod MR1 delivered over the Shack. While I was fortunate never to have flown the Shack, I spent some time tracking Soviet SSNs, SSBNs and SSGNs in the MR1 based on information from the venerable AQA-5, both with and without the Emmerson Mod. This was the major advance in capability as it allowed the passive tracking of submerged nuclear powered submarines. Yes you could only monitor 8 buoys, the only directional info was CODAR, SLP and HYFIX were not that accurate, but of course Doppler nerver lied; and it worked!
The ability of the Central Tactical System to display sensor data and target DR position to the TACNAV was also a major enhancement, allowing better decision making and markedly increasing SA.
Jacko,
With ref to your Qs about the nuclear capability, the point you forget it is that most Pruners will not be exactly sure what is and what is not in the public domain, which makes it likely that some idiot will post some info that is still classified. While you may not agree with the OSA, one should not ignore it lightly!
Some people get easily carried away when indulging in a bout of public grandstanding about something they know a little about!
The ability of the Central Tactical System to display sensor data and target DR position to the TACNAV was also a major enhancement, allowing better decision making and markedly increasing SA.
Jacko,
With ref to your Qs about the nuclear capability, the point you forget it is that most Pruners will not be exactly sure what is and what is not in the public domain, which makes it likely that some idiot will post some info that is still classified. While you may not agree with the OSA, one should not ignore it lightly!
Some people get easily carried away when indulging in a bout of public grandstanding about something they know a little about!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Aberdeen or Santa Barbara
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure there is a lot of often contradictory information in the public domain. Folk corroborating public facts & figures on here is still getting very close to the OSA.
rich
rich
Thread Starter
What's that saying about rules being for the guidance of wise men and the slavish obedience of fools?
I'm not calling anyone a fool here, and I have the utmost respect for those who find it preferable to stay 'shtum' on this subject, but I'm less tolerant if they want to gag equally intelligent, equally patriotic people who have thought about the matter, and have come to the conclusion that common sense dictates that this level of discussion is harmless.
The point in this case is that if you're talking about nuclear weapons in an RAF maritime context, you're talking about (ancient) history. A secondary point is that since no-one is talking about parametrics, tactics, authentication procedures, etc. but only about weapon designations and dates (again, from more than 12 years ago!) it's pretty harmless stuff. Moreover, after 1 January, this stuff will all become very much easier, I suspect.
I'm not calling anyone a fool here, and I have the utmost respect for those who find it preferable to stay 'shtum' on this subject, but I'm less tolerant if they want to gag equally intelligent, equally patriotic people who have thought about the matter, and have come to the conclusion that common sense dictates that this level of discussion is harmless.
The point in this case is that if you're talking about nuclear weapons in an RAF maritime context, you're talking about (ancient) history. A secondary point is that since no-one is talking about parametrics, tactics, authentication procedures, etc. but only about weapon designations and dates (again, from more than 12 years ago!) it's pretty harmless stuff. Moreover, after 1 January, this stuff will all become very much easier, I suspect.
Thread Starter
Well no BEagle, I won't, because thanks to those who've posted on this thread, and thanks to those who've been in touch, I now feel I know more than I need to about the Shack and the early Nimrod MR.Mk 1 (a type that hasn't been in service since 1983 or so) for my article, and more besides.
And I've learned the following about RAF maritime use of nukes (which was not the original point of this thread).
1) All were US weapons
2) They were W34 Lulu on the Shack (though I learned that elsewhere), and B57 on the Nimrod
3) No WE177 (though I learned that elsewhere)
4) When Coastal got nukes there was a mass commissioning of NCO navs and pilots.
Think that the men in Black Omegas would give a f*ck? Not prepared to admit that you've been a bit over cautious and paranoid? Feel you can detect a security breach of any significance?
And I've learned the following about RAF maritime use of nukes (which was not the original point of this thread).
1) All were US weapons
2) They were W34 Lulu on the Shack (though I learned that elsewhere), and B57 on the Nimrod
3) No WE177 (though I learned that elsewhere)
4) When Coastal got nukes there was a mass commissioning of NCO navs and pilots.
Think that the men in Black Omegas would give a f*ck? Not prepared to admit that you've been a bit over cautious and paranoid? Feel you can detect a security breach of any significance?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ice Station Kilo
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
So you are less tolerant about people who want to gag other equally intelligent people who have come to the conclusion that common sense dictates?
These people have signed the OSA, full stop. It is not for these people to decide what should and should not be discussed in an open forum. Other people in the know, with all the full facts, decide that. Thats their job.
Please don't berate those that remind others that when they joined, they signed the OSA, whether they liked it or not. It was one of the deals they made for getting to play with big boy's toys.
As you're not a serviceperson, you would not understand that ideal. As a journalist, you want to know and uncover everything. But please don't slag off anybody on these forums, otherwise you might find people will send you to Coventry, and you wouldn't want to loose a good source of info, albeit unclassified and disclosed.
RR
So you are less tolerant about people who want to gag other equally intelligent people who have come to the conclusion that common sense dictates?
These people have signed the OSA, full stop. It is not for these people to decide what should and should not be discussed in an open forum. Other people in the know, with all the full facts, decide that. Thats their job.
Please don't berate those that remind others that when they joined, they signed the OSA, whether they liked it or not. It was one of the deals they made for getting to play with big boy's toys.
As you're not a serviceperson, you would not understand that ideal. As a journalist, you want to know and uncover everything. But please don't slag off anybody on these forums, otherwise you might find people will send you to Coventry, and you wouldn't want to loose a good source of info, albeit unclassified and disclosed.
RR
Thread Starter
Radar Riser,
That's an excellent point, very well made, though you make some off base assumptions about what I want. (I do NOT want to uncover everything, at all, and I don't want to publish everything that I learn. I see a great deal of sense in keeping a great deal of information secret for 20 or sometimes even 25 years, though I think that 30 is often excessive. I don't and didn't support extending FOI legislation in its current form to the MoD and Armed Forces, though I do believe that something needed to be done to streamline the release of information that could be released without harm. I don't think this FOIA was it, however! Having lived in a service dominated environment, my attitudes have been shaped as much by service attitudes as by 'journalistic' ones.)
On one level, the argument that OSA is and should be paramount is compelling. Equally, many intelligent and flexibly minded servicemen (who are equally deserving of my respect and admiration) see a place for common sense where ancient history is concerned. Others see a need to breach it in order to draw attention to serious criminal wrongdoing that might otherwise be protected by the OSA (Deepcut, perhaps?). I find the way in which they are condemned is sometimes a little bit lacking in tolerance, respect, or the mental flexibility that is so often a hallmark of a service-trained mind, and that one might expect from comrades in arms.
Looking beyond absolute rules and a black/white interpretation of OSA for a moment, can you actually see any harm in this thread , thus far? Do you not see any merit in using the OSA where it's necessary to do so, and to use common sense elsewhere. I remember the Bulldog FRCs and student study guide being 'Restricted' and thus unavailable for use by the owners of what was then one of only two civvy Bulldogs on the UK register. Was that sensible?
That's an excellent point, very well made, though you make some off base assumptions about what I want. (I do NOT want to uncover everything, at all, and I don't want to publish everything that I learn. I see a great deal of sense in keeping a great deal of information secret for 20 or sometimes even 25 years, though I think that 30 is often excessive. I don't and didn't support extending FOI legislation in its current form to the MoD and Armed Forces, though I do believe that something needed to be done to streamline the release of information that could be released without harm. I don't think this FOIA was it, however! Having lived in a service dominated environment, my attitudes have been shaped as much by service attitudes as by 'journalistic' ones.)
On one level, the argument that OSA is and should be paramount is compelling. Equally, many intelligent and flexibly minded servicemen (who are equally deserving of my respect and admiration) see a place for common sense where ancient history is concerned. Others see a need to breach it in order to draw attention to serious criminal wrongdoing that might otherwise be protected by the OSA (Deepcut, perhaps?). I find the way in which they are condemned is sometimes a little bit lacking in tolerance, respect, or the mental flexibility that is so often a hallmark of a service-trained mind, and that one might expect from comrades in arms.
Looking beyond absolute rules and a black/white interpretation of OSA for a moment, can you actually see any harm in this thread , thus far? Do you not see any merit in using the OSA where it's necessary to do so, and to use common sense elsewhere. I remember the Bulldog FRCs and student study guide being 'Restricted' and thus unavailable for use by the owners of what was then one of only two civvy Bulldogs on the UK register. Was that sensible?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ice Station Kilo
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
I understand completely what you're saying, and in some cases I agree with you. Indeed, Deepcut is a good example. But, if I belive that some doctrine, info, whatever is out of date and it's release is not prejudicial, who am I to say "Hello world, look at this".
I might not be in full possession of the facts. Indeed, something that seems totally innocuous might have a knock on effect. That's what I was trying to put across.
Hope this clears up any mis-understanding.
RR
PS The Bulldog FRC's were RESTRICTED due to copyright and commercial reasons. If you look up the full meaning for RESTRICTED, using the DW handbook, you'll see what I mean.
Didn't want a journo getting the last word on that one!
I understand completely what you're saying, and in some cases I agree with you. Indeed, Deepcut is a good example. But, if I belive that some doctrine, info, whatever is out of date and it's release is not prejudicial, who am I to say "Hello world, look at this".
I might not be in full possession of the facts. Indeed, something that seems totally innocuous might have a knock on effect. That's what I was trying to put across.
Hope this clears up any mis-understanding.
RR
PS The Bulldog FRC's were RESTRICTED due to copyright and commercial reasons. If you look up the full meaning for RESTRICTED, using the DW handbook, you'll see what I mean.
Didn't want a journo getting the last word on that one!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nato eyes only
Nato Eyes Only
I have read the posts, I agree with all those who do NOT wish to talk about past things marked SECRET.
It might be "history" but those who know of those old secrets would do well to keep them from the likes of journos.
There are bits of the jig-saw that those who don't know, would be glad to hear/see coming from those who did know.
Having flown as a "Co" and then a "Skipper" on the Shack (flown the Mk2.2 to 3.3) I agree with my learned friend Shackman,
Having also done a tour on the Mk1 Nimrod (72-75), if somebody wanted to find and track a sub then give me a good Shack crew.
I (my crew - yes it was a good crew!) had more unalerted detections on the Shack than ever I had on the Nimrod.
A classic example from my Shack days - we found two Soviet Nuces on the same day, and nobody knew up to that point they were there, never mind within hours of each other! It was a historic mission, and never repeated, even by a Nimrod. I was kippering from 66-75!
I am old fashioned, but a SECRET is for keeping and not for public discussion.
The old sayings come to mind; loose talk costs lifes. Navaleye has the idea.
If this country is stupid enough to open its secrets to those who have to ask, then the game is over.
Take care,
TG
I have read the posts, I agree with all those who do NOT wish to talk about past things marked SECRET.
It might be "history" but those who know of those old secrets would do well to keep them from the likes of journos.
There are bits of the jig-saw that those who don't know, would be glad to hear/see coming from those who did know.
Having flown as a "Co" and then a "Skipper" on the Shack (flown the Mk2.2 to 3.3) I agree with my learned friend Shackman,
With a good crew the Phase 3 Shack could do almost as well as the Mk1 Nimrod, but the jet had speed and comfort on its side. On the other hand there was an awful lot of experience in the older side of the Shack Force, many of whom were not 'selected' to go jets, or had problems with the course. These were the guys who could literally sniff out a submarine - even without Autolycus. I was but a lowly co-pilot in those days, so claim no ability for that, but it was impressive to see a good crew go to work. The other thing that it had going for it was because we were low and slow a goodly number of our certsubs were with the Mk 1 eyeball.
I (my crew - yes it was a good crew!) had more unalerted detections on the Shack than ever I had on the Nimrod.
A classic example from my Shack days - we found two Soviet Nuces on the same day, and nobody knew up to that point they were there, never mind within hours of each other! It was a historic mission, and never repeated, even by a Nimrod. I was kippering from 66-75!
I am old fashioned, but a SECRET is for keeping and not for public discussion.
The old sayings come to mind; loose talk costs lifes. Navaleye has the idea.
If this country is stupid enough to open its secrets to those who have to ask, then the game is over.
Take care,
TG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Guys, check your figures
The NDB 550 was so called because it weighed 550 lbs
The Mk 44 (passive) Torpedo because it weighed 440 lbs
The Mk 46 (semi-active) Torpedo because it weighed 460 lbs
BEAGS - Yes, the 2 man principle was difficult to employ on a Vulcan without holding hands, but with a 13 man Nimrod crew it was strictly enforced from arrival at the ac to airborne.
By the way, on a check ride on the simulator rig , a failure during a crew response - ie - ONE wrong answer- could cost the crew their status - 11F9 Ring a bell?
The NDB 550 was so called because it weighed 550 lbs
The Mk 44 (passive) Torpedo because it weighed 440 lbs
The Mk 46 (semi-active) Torpedo because it weighed 460 lbs
BEAGS - Yes, the 2 man principle was difficult to employ on a Vulcan without holding hands, but with a 13 man Nimrod crew it was strictly enforced from arrival at the ac to airborne.
By the way, on a check ride on the simulator rig , a failure during a crew response - ie - ONE wrong answer- could cost the crew their status - 11F9 Ring a bell?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shackman
Was it the Mk44 which used OTTO fuel, or both?
Very scary stuff, particularly when the armourers dropped them on the pan during loading/unloading.
A - I'm an armourer, B - I'm an armourer etc. etc.
Was it the Mk44 which used OTTO fuel, or both?
Very scary stuff, particularly when the armourers dropped them on the pan during loading/unloading.
A - I'm an armourer, B - I'm an armourer etc. etc.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Defence of Jacko...
Information on nuclear weapons is already in the public domain. For example, the Ombudsman has already forced disclosure of information.
The MOD then disclosed the requested information on nuclear weapons, including several accidents that had occurred on foreign soil, where we had never previously acknowledged the presence of such weapons to the local government.
If you want to know just about anything about our old nukes Google will fetch it for you. Nothing secret about them anymore after the Ombudsman's actions. An initial search gets you the weapon designations then you can mine as deep as you like.
So of course, Jacko could have got all the information he says he needed from Google, without bothering to ask anyone on this forum...
She (the Ombudsman) wrote : "It is therefore difficult to envisage the release of information about events that happened some time ago to weapons that no longer exist could cause harm if made more widely available."
If you want to know just about anything about our old nukes Google will fetch it for you. Nothing secret about them anymore after the Ombudsman's actions. An initial search gets you the weapon designations then you can mine as deep as you like.
So of course, Jacko could have got all the information he says he needed from Google, without bothering to ask anyone on this forum...
Last edited by Blacksheep; 4th Jan 2005 at 05:36.