Nimrod to get bomber role
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The Nimrod would be a somewhat inferior airframe, compared to the Vulcan, but the significant advances in weapons, electronics and computing would enusre that as a Storm Shadow platform, it would be pretty good.
Didn't someone write:
"Shame then, that the lesson of the value of strategic bombing wasn't properly acknowledged and we lost that capability.
A few Vulcans, suitably updated, could have been very useful self-designating LGB bombers in GW1. One a/c with perhaps with 12 LGBs - instead of 2 VC10Ks, 3 Tornados and a Buccaneer?
Dropping from a 'significant' altitude as well!"
Glad you took my advice, Sir Jock
- and thanks for being one of the good guys at RAFC when I was a Flt Cdt!
Didn't someone write:
"Shame then, that the lesson of the value of strategic bombing wasn't properly acknowledged and we lost that capability.
A few Vulcans, suitably updated, could have been very useful self-designating LGB bombers in GW1. One a/c with perhaps with 12 LGBs - instead of 2 VC10Ks, 3 Tornados and a Buccaneer?
Dropping from a 'significant' altitude as well!"
Glad you took my advice, Sir Jock
- and thanks for being one of the good guys at RAFC when I was a Flt Cdt!
The 'A' in MRA4 does stand for attack!! Using the MRA4 in this sort of role is not news, and as for converting MR2s, well, how long will that take.........
No doubt there will also be internal resistance from the fast jet boys, as a 'Nimrod' attack capability is the perfect excuse to get rid of another squadron of fast jets!!
No doubt there will also be internal resistance from the fast jet boys, as a 'Nimrod' attack capability is the perfect excuse to get rid of another squadron of fast jets!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The short-sightedness of the RAF coming home to roost yet again. Very early on post the MRA4 contract signing (probably about 1997), BAe approached MoD with a proposal to fit MRA4 with either 2 or 4 x Storm Shadow. In the big scheme of things, neither option would have involved significant extra cost at that stage. However, as Biggus implies, at that time the main men in DEC were all from FJ backgrounds. Consequently, the MoD decided there was no requirement for such a capability!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all makes good sense and is part of the rebalancing act that is going on in MODs across the West. Simple truth is we have so much traditional/conventional capability that no-one is prepared to fight us in the old ways. So we can afford to reduce tanks, some FJ and some ships to invest in more flexible platforms. Yes we need quantity to an extent but we need quality and versatility even more. In terms of achieveing effect, letting the weaponry do the work from greater height and or stand-off distance makes more sense than overflying possibly heavily defended territory.
The FJ fraternity (of which I am (almost still) one) will still have a glorious role to play in the closer in air-land battle but when it comes to strategic effect and shaping the battlespace then larger platforms capable of flexible re-targetting during a mission have got to be worth considering - especially as no one seems to want to come out and attack them with fighters anymore.
Longer-range land attack platforms operating from safer areas further back from the front-line might also prove more cost effective than the 2.9 - 3.5 £Bn floating airfields we seem hell bent on investing in but thats a story for a different thread!
The FJ fraternity (of which I am (almost still) one) will still have a glorious role to play in the closer in air-land battle but when it comes to strategic effect and shaping the battlespace then larger platforms capable of flexible re-targetting during a mission have got to be worth considering - especially as no one seems to want to come out and attack them with fighters anymore.
Longer-range land attack platforms operating from safer areas further back from the front-line might also prove more cost effective than the 2.9 - 3.5 £Bn floating airfields we seem hell bent on investing in but thats a story for a different thread!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few of Britain’s potential enemies have submarines
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Longer-range land attack platforms operating from safer areas further back from the front-line might also prove more cost effective than the 2.9 - 3.5 £Bn floating airfields we seem hell bent on investing in but thats a story for a different thread!"
Let me guess, if someone offered to spend £3 billion on a pair of superlarge fixed airbases for the RAF you'd be jumping for joy? Why the hostility to a pair of new airbases which is effectively what we're buying? Frankly I regard a large fixed airbase as a darn sight more vulnerable than a moving carrier which can be 400 miles away within 24 hours. How many airbases have been attacked and seriously damanged / knocked out of action since the war and how many carriers have had the same? Try 0 for the carriers.
Let me guess, if someone offered to spend £3 billion on a pair of superlarge fixed airbases for the RAF you'd be jumping for joy? Why the hostility to a pair of new airbases which is effectively what we're buying? Frankly I regard a large fixed airbase as a darn sight more vulnerable than a moving carrier which can be 400 miles away within 24 hours. How many airbases have been attacked and seriously damanged / knocked out of action since the war and how many carriers have had the same? Try 0 for the carriers.
400 miles in 24 hours for those little grey boats - unless there's an inconvenient piece of land in the way, of course!
Phase 6 Vulcan was going to have been able to carry 6 IRBM Skybolts. And that would have projected air power rather more effectively than those expensive carriers can ever hope to.
Perhaps the RAF would like to buy back XL426, XM655 and XM558 and upgrade them to carry Sky Shadow? Probably cost a lot less than those boats!
Phase 6 Vulcan was going to have been able to carry 6 IRBM Skybolts. And that would have projected air power rather more effectively than those expensive carriers can ever hope to.
Perhaps the RAF would like to buy back XL426, XM655 and XM558 and upgrade them to carry Sky Shadow? Probably cost a lot less than those boats!
24 hours multiplied by 35-40 knots yields somewhat more than 400 miles fellas.
The fallacy of the argument is one needs more than a half dozen bombers to be able to have a "strategic" bomber force.
We have several hundred BUFF's setting in the Arizona desert....care to buy a few?
The fallacy of the argument is one needs more than a half dozen bombers to be able to have a "strategic" bomber force.
We have several hundred BUFF's setting in the Arizona desert....care to buy a few?
Perhaps the RAF would like to buy back XL426, XM655 and XM558 and upgrade them to carry Sky Shadow? Probably cost a lot less than those boats!
And there's XM603 at Woodford, and due to the dry climate preservation, XM573 at Offutt AFB, XM605 at Castle AFB and XM606 at Barksdale AFB could be added to the list as well....
Actually, with the activities of re-manufacture/servicing about to start on XH558, economies of scale could make re-activation a financially attractive prospect...relatively speaking.
Rolls-Royce may be a problem with wanting to overhaul/renew a sufficient number of Olympus engines though..??
Instead the RAF could always long term lease/buy half-a-dozen or more '52's from AMARC.....
And there's XM603 at Woodford, and due to the dry climate preservation, XM573 at Offutt AFB, XM605 at Castle AFB and XM606 at Barksdale AFB could be added to the list as well....
Actually, with the activities of re-manufacture/servicing about to start on XH558, economies of scale could make re-activation a financially attractive prospect...relatively speaking.
Rolls-Royce may be a problem with wanting to overhaul/renew a sufficient number of Olympus engines though..??
Instead the RAF could always long term lease/buy half-a-dozen or more '52's from AMARC.....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I belive we are wandering off the subject.
The Nimrod is an excellent choice for Storm Shadow, as would any ac be that could carry more than 1 at a time.
I am sure the FJ community would appreciate that a weapon that only requires you to fly around a medium level, not to close to the action, that once fired is soon forgotten, doesn't need to be strapped to the underside of a GR4. A Nimrod will now have the same capability as a 4 ship, and will thus allow that 4 ship to get on with close support and other more demanding tasks.
A sensible descision, but one that was no doubt taken with gritted teeth.
The Nimrod is an excellent choice for Storm Shadow, as would any ac be that could carry more than 1 at a time.
I am sure the FJ community would appreciate that a weapon that only requires you to fly around a medium level, not to close to the action, that once fired is soon forgotten, doesn't need to be strapped to the underside of a GR4. A Nimrod will now have the same capability as a 4 ship, and will thus allow that 4 ship to get on with close support and other more demanding tasks.
A sensible descision, but one that was no doubt taken with gritted teeth.
Perhaps the RAF would like to buy back XL426, XM655 and XM558 and upgrade them to carry Sky Shadow?
We all have senior moments, but imagine a Vulcan with a bellyfull of Storm Shadow and a few Brimstone's carried on the underwing Skybolt mounts. Decent range, may justify losing the 3 VC10 tankers.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Little Britain
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err... Just a thought. What about the 6 Anglo-French, very fast Olympus-engined jets decommissioned very recently.
Could the government have bought them back at £1 each, stuck a bomb bay in the middle and given them a lick of paint...?
Could the government have bought them back at £1 each, stuck a bomb bay in the middle and given them a lick of paint...?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: NEAR TO ISK
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys, but the Nimrod MR2 has already been a Bomber so it would be just resurrecting a previous role.
In 1982 as part of a trial fit for Operation Corporate, just in case the mighty delta had problems, a Nimrod at ISK was loaded with at least 4 (might have been 6, times dull the memory a bit) 750lb Bombs, and a somewhat interesting bombsite.
Said jet was launched, and I believe dropped its bombs on good old Garvy Island. It was definately empty when it got back.
In the end of course Black Buck happened and the rest is history. Agree with the comments on Storm Shadow though, I gather a nice bit of kit.
In 1982 as part of a trial fit for Operation Corporate, just in case the mighty delta had problems, a Nimrod at ISK was loaded with at least 4 (might have been 6, times dull the memory a bit) 750lb Bombs, and a somewhat interesting bombsite.
Said jet was launched, and I believe dropped its bombs on good old Garvy Island. It was definately empty when it got back.
In the end of course Black Buck happened and the rest is history. Agree with the comments on Storm Shadow though, I gather a nice bit of kit.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Shropshire,uk
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AT SAME TIME QUESTION WAS ASKED "EFFECTIVE RANGE OF OPERATION?"
" SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES"... CAME BACK THE REPLY.
"THAT DOESN'T SOUND MUCH?" SAYS BOFIN
"WELL THERE AND BACK IS..."
BOFFIN AND OTHER PEOPLE..."WE DIDN'T ASK YOU TO COME BACK, JUST GO!"
TRUE
" SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES"... CAME BACK THE REPLY.
"THAT DOESN'T SOUND MUCH?" SAYS BOFIN
"WELL THERE AND BACK IS..."
BOFFIN AND OTHER PEOPLE..."WE DIDN'T ASK YOU TO COME BACK, JUST GO!"
TRUE
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some in these parts might, in answer to the question "how would Britain reduce its submarine threat from other countries" reply "sell them some".
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Britain has not had the capability to launch long-range airstrikes since a Vulcan bomber attacked Port Stanley airfield during the Falklands conflict in 1982.
If I remember rightly, the logistics in launching those raids were far beyond those envisaged to be needed for the a/c's original role. It was never a true strategic bomber in the sense of a B52
If the Mighty Hunter can be modified at a cost of less than buying an off the shelf solution from the States then fair enough. However, in the finest traditions of defence procurement, it is bound to go wildly over budget and not actually do what it is meant to.
Above all, would this modification involve removing the pie oven?
Britain has not had the capability to launch long-range airstrikes since a Vulcan bomber attacked Port Stanley airfield during the Falklands conflict in 1982.
If I remember rightly, the logistics in launching those raids were far beyond those envisaged to be needed for the a/c's original role. It was never a true strategic bomber in the sense of a B52
If the Mighty Hunter can be modified at a cost of less than buying an off the shelf solution from the States then fair enough. However, in the finest traditions of defence procurement, it is bound to go wildly over budget and not actually do what it is meant to.
Above all, would this modification involve removing the pie oven?