Nimrod to get bomber role
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The point being that there is a large percentage of the earth´s surface naval assets, even aircraft, cannot reach without the support of land based long range strategic assets.
The use of FJs to deliver ordinance is expensive and delivers little bang per buck. The USAF relearned the value of strategic bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only in being able to deliver large loads, but in being able to provide 24 hour CAS with PGMs. The B1 and B52 force dropped 72% of all ordinance delivered during the campaign.
The present heavy bomber force is supposed to last till 2038. But that was based on pre-Afghanistan and Iraq wars and flying rates. It was also based on unrealistic lose rates. Forget getting your hands on any of their spare airframes, they will be needed as attrition spares. And a new interim bomber might still be needed. Though I am not impressed by the suggested FB-22....
The use of FJs to deliver ordinance is expensive and delivers little bang per buck. The USAF relearned the value of strategic bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only in being able to deliver large loads, but in being able to provide 24 hour CAS with PGMs. The B1 and B52 force dropped 72% of all ordinance delivered during the campaign.
The present heavy bomber force is supposed to last till 2038. But that was based on pre-Afghanistan and Iraq wars and flying rates. It was also based on unrealistic lose rates. Forget getting your hands on any of their spare airframes, they will be needed as attrition spares. And a new interim bomber might still be needed. Though I am not impressed by the suggested FB-22....
I seem to remember John Farley having some video of the Nimbomber trial...
The Argentines flew a couple of attempts to drop bombs out of a Hercules, one of them actually hit a ship - but not a British ship! A monster Liberian-flag oil tanker on its way round the Horn in ballast. They apparently thought it was going "to the task force" - why we'd send an empty tanker, riding high out of the water, was not explained, but it was eventually a kill. (not that it sank, but the owners eventually decided that removing the unexploded bomb would be uneconomic and scrapped the ship)
The Argentines flew a couple of attempts to drop bombs out of a Hercules, one of them actually hit a ship - but not a British ship! A monster Liberian-flag oil tanker on its way round the Horn in ballast. They apparently thought it was going "to the task force" - why we'd send an empty tanker, riding high out of the water, was not explained, but it was eventually a kill. (not that it sank, but the owners eventually decided that removing the unexploded bomb would be uneconomic and scrapped the ship)
Air Force.....Royal or Ex-Colonial....equals non-Navy asset, okay!
A few questions....
1. Can Storm Shadow (or similar) armed Nimrods (or similar) compete with the sortie rates that CVF promises?
2. Without compromising their other roles?
3. Can this ever be as versitile as the ability to carry aircraft for air defence, ground/maritime attack, ASW/ASuW (or whatever they are now called), C2 and ISTAR, Junglies, Chinooks, Apaches - or a combination therof?
4. Do strategic aircraft not need overflight rights - which cannot be relied on 100% of the time?
5. Do they not need AAR support?
6. So the distance covered by a ship in 24 hours can be covered by an aircraft in one hour. Can the logistics, engineering and other facilities, and weapon and fuel stores be moved at the same rate?
7. Who/what is going to provide fighter sweeps/escorts for the Nimrod? Do land based fighters have the legs to escort them, without needing more tankers than we have? Perhaps the Sea Harrier could have done it, if the Government hadn't axed it?
8. Didn't USN carrier based fighters act as escorts for B52s in Vietnam - during Linebacker II etc?
2. Without compromising their other roles?
3. Can this ever be as versitile as the ability to carry aircraft for air defence, ground/maritime attack, ASW/ASuW (or whatever they are now called), C2 and ISTAR, Junglies, Chinooks, Apaches - or a combination therof?
4. Do strategic aircraft not need overflight rights - which cannot be relied on 100% of the time?
5. Do they not need AAR support?
6. So the distance covered by a ship in 24 hours can be covered by an aircraft in one hour. Can the logistics, engineering and other facilities, and weapon and fuel stores be moved at the same rate?
7. Who/what is going to provide fighter sweeps/escorts for the Nimrod? Do land based fighters have the legs to escort them, without needing more tankers than we have? Perhaps the Sea Harrier could have done it, if the Government hadn't axed it?
8. Didn't USN carrier based fighters act as escorts for B52s in Vietnam - during Linebacker II etc?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could the Sea Harrier loiter, provide its own ISTAR, drop more than 1 x 1000lb bomb and then serve a 3 course meal to the whole crew, as well as providing comms links for the troops on the ground..?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Can Storm Shadow (or similar) armed Nimrods (or similar) compete with the sortie rates that CVF promises? ?Not necessary; we're talking about an aircraft armed with multiple stand-off precision weapons, rather than a FJ required to penetrate all the way to target.
2. Without compromising their other roles? Swing or multi-role is the way ahead for most platforms. The Nimrod is a great example of increased capability and role diversity.
3. Can this ever be as versitile as the ability to carry aircraft for air defence, ground/maritime attack, ASW/ASuW (or whatever they are now called), C2 and ISTAR, Junglies, Chinooks, Apaches - or a combination therof? Apples and oranges; one aircraft type obviously will not replace everything CVF promises - but we have Nimrod now, and CVF remains an aspiration. The Nimrod already has maritime, overland, ASW/ASuW and ISTAR capabilities
4. Do strategic aircraft not need overflight rights - which cannot be relied on 100% of the time? It depends on the DOB location. During Op TELIC (and now, for that matter) aircraft flew from Al Udeid up the Gulf, over Kuwait and into Iraq. This would be exactly the same for aircraft launched from a naval asset.
5. Do they not need AAR support? Not always - the open-source endurance range quoted for Nimrod MR2 is 10 hours/4000KM
6. So the distance covered by a ship in 24 hours can be covered by an aircraft in one hour. Can the logistics, engineering and other facilities, and weapon and fuel stores be moved at the same rate? Why would you want to? Long range and endurance allows the ability to place your launch point to the rear. Why expose assets to the threat if you don't need to?
7. Who/what is going to provide fighter sweeps/escorts for the Nimrod? Do land based fighters have the legs to escort them, without needing more tankers than we have? Perhaps the Sea Harrier could have done it, if the Government hadn't axed it? Are you suggesting the unrefuelled range of the SHAR exceeds that of a CTOL land-based fighter? Also see the answer to point 6; if you don't need to penetrate enemy airspace then the CAP/Sweep requirements diminish
8. Didn't USN carrier based fighters act as escorts for B52s in Vietnam - during Linebacker II etc Yes, in the same way that carrier-based fighters provided similar cover for Afghanistan and Iraq raids.
My point is that the Nimrod is a pretty versatile machine and if you look beyond the politics and PR that always seem to surround the aircraft then not only is it good at its main role, it carries the potential (realised already in some cases) for expansion into other areas. And no, I'm not a Nimrod man!
SBG
2. Without compromising their other roles? Swing or multi-role is the way ahead for most platforms. The Nimrod is a great example of increased capability and role diversity.
3. Can this ever be as versitile as the ability to carry aircraft for air defence, ground/maritime attack, ASW/ASuW (or whatever they are now called), C2 and ISTAR, Junglies, Chinooks, Apaches - or a combination therof? Apples and oranges; one aircraft type obviously will not replace everything CVF promises - but we have Nimrod now, and CVF remains an aspiration. The Nimrod already has maritime, overland, ASW/ASuW and ISTAR capabilities
4. Do strategic aircraft not need overflight rights - which cannot be relied on 100% of the time? It depends on the DOB location. During Op TELIC (and now, for that matter) aircraft flew from Al Udeid up the Gulf, over Kuwait and into Iraq. This would be exactly the same for aircraft launched from a naval asset.
5. Do they not need AAR support? Not always - the open-source endurance range quoted for Nimrod MR2 is 10 hours/4000KM
6. So the distance covered by a ship in 24 hours can be covered by an aircraft in one hour. Can the logistics, engineering and other facilities, and weapon and fuel stores be moved at the same rate? Why would you want to? Long range and endurance allows the ability to place your launch point to the rear. Why expose assets to the threat if you don't need to?
7. Who/what is going to provide fighter sweeps/escorts for the Nimrod? Do land based fighters have the legs to escort them, without needing more tankers than we have? Perhaps the Sea Harrier could have done it, if the Government hadn't axed it? Are you suggesting the unrefuelled range of the SHAR exceeds that of a CTOL land-based fighter? Also see the answer to point 6; if you don't need to penetrate enemy airspace then the CAP/Sweep requirements diminish
8. Didn't USN carrier based fighters act as escorts for B52s in Vietnam - during Linebacker II etc Yes, in the same way that carrier-based fighters provided similar cover for Afghanistan and Iraq raids.
My point is that the Nimrod is a pretty versatile machine and if you look beyond the politics and PR that always seem to surround the aircraft then not only is it good at its main role, it carries the potential (realised already in some cases) for expansion into other areas. And no, I'm not a Nimrod man!
SBG
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, give it a rest about bl00dy carriers 
Yes, they have their uses and yes it was yet another crime of the politicians to axe the SHAR, BUT carriers are not the be all and end all, they are not the answer to everything in the military. Get used to the fact that there are other military assets that are just as good, and often better, at certain jobs as the carrier and its embarked aircraft.
MadMark!!!
Yes, they have their uses and yes it was yet another crime of the politicians to axe the SHAR, BUT carriers are not the be all and end all, they are not the answer to everything in the military. Get used to the fact that there are other military assets that are just as good, and often better, at certain jobs as the carrier and its embarked aircraft.
MadMark!!!
Ah, valid point. But one must have a carrier or two for them to be assets....and allow for some flexibility in operations. A place called the Falklands springs to mind for some reason.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer the question, WEBF. You continually espouse the virtues of the SHAR and the Carriers but seem happy to ignore the shortcomings of either. Maybe I should turn the question around then - what is that embarked aviation can do (other than turn up 12 miles offshore in a few days/weeks) that land-based aviation cannot? And more importantly, how many roles are there that are not carried out by said embarked assets that are performed by the likes of Nimrod and many other types?
No disrespect to our dark blue brethren - you do a fantastic job and we will be the worse for the loss of the SHAR. Just a little tired of the continual SHAR/CVS PR spouted above.
SBG
Anyway - back to the point...strap a few Storm Shadows to the 'mighty hunter' and see what effect we can achieve...after all, we are in the business of effects-based operations!
No disrespect to our dark blue brethren - you do a fantastic job and we will be the worse for the loss of the SHAR. Just a little tired of the continual SHAR/CVS PR spouted above.
SBG
Anyway - back to the point...strap a few Storm Shadows to the 'mighty hunter' and see what effect we can achieve...after all, we are in the business of effects-based operations!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Dark blue can provide an eye-ball to eye-ball presence for a lot longer than an jet. The Cod Wars spring to mind.
Whilst a Nimrod arrested a fishing boat it took a ship to bring it to port.
As an offensive platform otoh a Nimrod could reach places the ships can't reach in the outer defence zone - which probably wouldn't be needed if the CVS wasn't there in the first place and so it goes on.
A ship, whilst being a semi-permanent presence is also in a 'fixed' for a few hours whereas the aircraft is only fixed in time and space for a few minutes.
A ship can move out of harms way at 30 kts and aircraft can move out of harms way at 400 kts. The ship is also rather more vulnerable to mines, sampans, junks and submarines than an aircraft - provided the aircraft doesn't try and mix it too close <g>.
Whilst a Nimrod arrested a fishing boat it took a ship to bring it to port.
As an offensive platform otoh a Nimrod could reach places the ships can't reach in the outer defence zone - which probably wouldn't be needed if the CVS wasn't there in the first place and so it goes on.
A ship, whilst being a semi-permanent presence is also in a 'fixed' for a few hours whereas the aircraft is only fixed in time and space for a few minutes.
A ship can move out of harms way at 30 kts and aircraft can move out of harms way at 400 kts. The ship is also rather more vulnerable to mines, sampans, junks and submarines than an aircraft - provided the aircraft doesn't try and mix it too close <g>.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A ship, whilst being a semi-permanent presence is also in a 'fixed' for a few hours whereas the aircraft is only fixed in time and space for a few minutes.
A ship can move out of harms way at 30 kts and aircraft can move out of harms way at 400 kts. The ship is also rather more vulnerable to mines, sampans, junks and submarines than an aircraft - provided the aircraft doesn't try and mix it too close <g>."
Again how many carriers have been knocked out by enemy action since WW2?
Carriers are only vulnerable if their captain parks them too close to said minefields, sampans and junks. Go more than 12 miles off shore and outside most 3rd world navies comfort zones and the problem is sorted. People here seem to assume that an aircraft carrier anchors down off a coast within site of the bad guys, which is simply not the case.
Surely to compare aircraft carrier vs aircraft is disingenous, it should be to compare a highly mobile asset like a CVF to a fixed and therefore vulnerable location like an airbase.
A ship can move out of harms way at 30 kts and aircraft can move out of harms way at 400 kts. The ship is also rather more vulnerable to mines, sampans, junks and submarines than an aircraft - provided the aircraft doesn't try and mix it too close <g>."
Again how many carriers have been knocked out by enemy action since WW2?
Carriers are only vulnerable if their captain parks them too close to said minefields, sampans and junks. Go more than 12 miles off shore and outside most 3rd world navies comfort zones and the problem is sorted. People here seem to assume that an aircraft carrier anchors down off a coast within site of the bad guys, which is simply not the case.
Surely to compare aircraft carrier vs aircraft is disingenous, it should be to compare a highly mobile asset like a CVF to a fixed and therefore vulnerable location like an airbase.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The comparison was between strategic aviation, in particular bombers, and tactical aviation.
Happy to limit it to a discussion of the advantages of comparable launch platforms, if you can advise me of a carrier capable of operating a bomber of comparable range and payload to a B1, B2 or B52....
Happy to limit it to a discussion of the advantages of comparable launch platforms, if you can advise me of a carrier capable of operating a bomber of comparable range and payload to a B1, B2 or B52....
advise me of a carrier capable of operating a bomber of comparable range and payload to a B1, B2 or B52....
It's Here!!!
ORAC,
Fleet carriers have both a tactical and strategic aviation role....granted the "strategic" role they play is not quite in the same concept as you want to discuss....i.e. big bombers with massive bomb loads....which I would class as being a discussion on the need for "big" bombers or not.
Fleet carriers have both a tactical and strategic aviation role....granted the "strategic" role they play is not quite in the same concept as you want to discuss....i.e. big bombers with massive bomb loads....which I would class as being a discussion on the need for "big" bombers or not.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Carriers need escorts. Escorts also get hit. Now we really are talking numbers.
There was the one the Echo 2 hit in the Med. There was the one that got dhowed in Aden. There was the one, capable of 30 kts that had to shoot down an aircraft doing 400 kts.
I am sure there are more incidents where the presence of the carrier caused the escorts to stand in harms way. I don't mention the FI of course.
Then I read the New Jersey's ROE. This was peacetime but she still had to stop somewhere in the Med. Bottom line, she would let fly with 15 inch guns.
Aircraft? They just go home.
There was the one the Echo 2 hit in the Med. There was the one that got dhowed in Aden. There was the one, capable of 30 kts that had to shoot down an aircraft doing 400 kts.
I am sure there are more incidents where the presence of the carrier caused the escorts to stand in harms way. I don't mention the FI of course.
Then I read the New Jersey's ROE. This was peacetime but she still had to stop somewhere in the Med. Bottom line, she would let fly with 15 inch guns.
Aircraft? They just go home.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
which I would class as being a discussion on the need for "big" bombers or not.
Which I thought was the exact point I was raising and, in the present non-cold war climate, the relevance and need of the, conventional, strategic bomber......
Which I thought was the exact point I was raising and, in the present non-cold war climate, the relevance and need of the, conventional, strategic bomber......
Last edited by ORAC; 15th Jun 2005 at 04:36.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Carriers need escorts. Escorts also get hit. Now we really are talking numbers.
There was the one the Echo 2 hit in the Med. There was the one that got dhowed in Aden. There was the one, capable of 30 kts that had to shoot down an aircraft doing 400 kts.
I am sure there are more incidents where the presence of the carrier caused the escorts to stand in harms way. I don't mention the FI of course"
Escorts would exist regardless of whether a carrier is there or not. Love to know more about this echo two incident. The Aden one happened in a port when alongside, which sadly ships have to do.
How many airfields have been mortared, bombed or overrun in the past 60 years? How many airmen killed through terrorists or the like? I think you'll find its far more than the number of ships attacked. The problem is that some in the RAF fail to understand that the carrier and the escort complement each other, rather than one requiring the other as its raison d'etre.
There was the one the Echo 2 hit in the Med. There was the one that got dhowed in Aden. There was the one, capable of 30 kts that had to shoot down an aircraft doing 400 kts.
I am sure there are more incidents where the presence of the carrier caused the escorts to stand in harms way. I don't mention the FI of course"
Escorts would exist regardless of whether a carrier is there or not. Love to know more about this echo two incident. The Aden one happened in a port when alongside, which sadly ships have to do.
How many airfields have been mortared, bombed or overrun in the past 60 years? How many airmen killed through terrorists or the like? I think you'll find its far more than the number of ships attacked. The problem is that some in the RAF fail to understand that the carrier and the escort complement each other, rather than one requiring the other as its raison d'etre.