Nimrod - how many crew?
Thread Starter
I was writing something on Nimrod (sketchy, not at all in depth, and without enough space to go into this level of detail) and realised that the sources didn't agree, and that I didn't understand the subject properly (I like to know it in more detail than I write it, if that makes sense). While it was in my brain, I thought that I'd ask the question and get my notes updated.
I am due to be writing something on AEW3, so expect more damn fool questions.
I am due to be writing something on AEW3, so expect more damn fool questions.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Jacko, I think from the responses you will see that the Nimwacs was specified as an improved radar on a jet platform to improve on the Shack whereas the E3 was probably designed as an improved EC121.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOFO,
You say:
"for MR2 add on 1 dry man."
Do you mean that the MR2 crew is as for MR1, plus one extra Dry man, or do you mean that the MR2 crew is as described on the RAF website (below), plus one dry?
"two pilots and a flight engineer, two weapon systems officers (WSO) (tactical and routine), and a WSO who is the sensor and communications coordinator. He is, in turn, supported by a team of two ‘wet’ weapon systems operators (WSOps) and four ‘dry’ WSOps."
You say:
"for MR2 add on 1 dry man."
Do you mean that the MR2 crew is as for MR1, plus one extra Dry man, or do you mean that the MR2 crew is as described on the RAF website (below), plus one dry?
"two pilots and a flight engineer, two weapon systems officers (WSO) (tactical and routine), and a WSO who is the sensor and communications coordinator. He is, in turn, supported by a team of two ‘wet’ weapon systems operators (WSOps) and four ‘dry’ WSOps."
MR2 Originally the former; currently, go with the website. They seem to have dropped a wettie, somewhere along the way. After my time. I guess, sorry for the confusion.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manning or Womaning
Jacko
Your problem is an evolving manning issue for the MR community. So many answers from so many eras may have confused the issue. Also the sensors are often 'fitted for but not with' hense more confusion.
Having knowledge of all MR marks, I will try and clarify.
MR1 - 2 Pilots, 1 Eng, 2 Navs, 1 AEO, 3 Wet, 3 Dry and for a short period in the 70's could have 1 ALM (Male)
Equipment Fitted and used
Radar, ESM (ARAR ARAX), MAD and Radio, Jez and 1C (Acoustics)
Equipment often quoted but not used in service.
DEER, Linescan and AUTOCYCLUS (was used in the Shackleton)
Other equipment fitted over the years, but always in support of main sensors and no extra manpower, (with the exceptions of ALMs for a short while).
MR2 - 2 Pilots, 1 Eng, 2 Navs, 1 AEO, 3 Wet, 4 Dry
Equipment
Radar, ESM (ARAR ARAX replaced by Yellogate). MAD, Radio, Acoustics (AQS 901 replaced by AQS 971), latterly Electro optics
Modifications made throughout service but always the same basic sensor suite. The only manpower changes being the reduction of 1 wet man with the introduction of different acoustics.
MRA4 - 2 Pilots, 2 TACOS, 3 Dry, 2 Wet and 1 Radio Op (now a dedicated posn)
Equipment
The same as before but later generation equipment.
As for manning, the RAF tried to rationalise the 'Trade' of Navigator and AEO as there was deemed no need for a 'Vasco da Gama' any more. Sensor ops and ALMs were also reviewed. They came up with WSO and WSOp, in theory you have a basic aircrew training and can swap between trades as and when. Designed for the latest generation aircraft the crossover within the MR2 community may cause confusion. (Trust me, they have 2 Navs and an AEO on the MR2 whatever their title and brevet says.)
But there again, I left over 2 years ago and it may have all changed.
As for AEW, I know nothing of the manning but believe the RADAR was quite advanced for the time, more advanced than the E3. However, the aircraft was too small, the installation flawed. It might well have worked if we had put the money into the development and companies motivated to succeed. Alas that was not forthcoming and the project was doomed to failure. I might add that it was a typical example of how we procure aircraft, but there again my knowledge is purely from rumour and hearsay from those who were involved.
As for the R1 well it has...................(I haven't a clue)
Hope that helps, or have I confused? I have not included dates of changes, I need to read my books for that, but it outlines the basic manning over the years. Remembering, of course, that since the mid 90's for 'man' you can just as easily read 'woman' for all aircraft positions except Eng.
As I started this I intended just a few lines, but the more you think about it the longer and more complex it becomes, so I'll stop now and respond to any questions denials and insults as required.
Your problem is an evolving manning issue for the MR community. So many answers from so many eras may have confused the issue. Also the sensors are often 'fitted for but not with' hense more confusion.
Having knowledge of all MR marks, I will try and clarify.
MR1 - 2 Pilots, 1 Eng, 2 Navs, 1 AEO, 3 Wet, 3 Dry and for a short period in the 70's could have 1 ALM (Male)
Equipment Fitted and used
Radar, ESM (ARAR ARAX), MAD and Radio, Jez and 1C (Acoustics)
Equipment often quoted but not used in service.
DEER, Linescan and AUTOCYCLUS (was used in the Shackleton)
Other equipment fitted over the years, but always in support of main sensors and no extra manpower, (with the exceptions of ALMs for a short while).
MR2 - 2 Pilots, 1 Eng, 2 Navs, 1 AEO, 3 Wet, 4 Dry
Equipment
Radar, ESM (ARAR ARAX replaced by Yellogate). MAD, Radio, Acoustics (AQS 901 replaced by AQS 971), latterly Electro optics
Modifications made throughout service but always the same basic sensor suite. The only manpower changes being the reduction of 1 wet man with the introduction of different acoustics.
MRA4 - 2 Pilots, 2 TACOS, 3 Dry, 2 Wet and 1 Radio Op (now a dedicated posn)
Equipment
The same as before but later generation equipment.
As for manning, the RAF tried to rationalise the 'Trade' of Navigator and AEO as there was deemed no need for a 'Vasco da Gama' any more. Sensor ops and ALMs were also reviewed. They came up with WSO and WSOp, in theory you have a basic aircrew training and can swap between trades as and when. Designed for the latest generation aircraft the crossover within the MR2 community may cause confusion. (Trust me, they have 2 Navs and an AEO on the MR2 whatever their title and brevet says.)
But there again, I left over 2 years ago and it may have all changed.
As for AEW, I know nothing of the manning but believe the RADAR was quite advanced for the time, more advanced than the E3. However, the aircraft was too small, the installation flawed. It might well have worked if we had put the money into the development and companies motivated to succeed. Alas that was not forthcoming and the project was doomed to failure. I might add that it was a typical example of how we procure aircraft, but there again my knowledge is purely from rumour and hearsay from those who were involved.
As for the R1 well it has...................(I haven't a clue)
Hope that helps, or have I confused? I have not included dates of changes, I need to read my books for that, but it outlines the basic manning over the years. Remembering, of course, that since the mid 90's for 'man' you can just as easily read 'woman' for all aircraft positions except Eng.
As I started this I intended just a few lines, but the more you think about it the longer and more complex it becomes, so I'll stop now and respond to any questions denials and insults as required.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martel and Beams
Thats the problem, so many extra bits that confuse.
Martel was another item considered and possibly tested but never used in service. The AS12 was on the list but I never saw it fitted. Along with the beams and their vista tracks, the Nimtan Sights were also available but were rubbish. You could lock up the navs computer if you pointed the 2 vista tracks at each other, oh what fun on an 8 hr LROFE.
The on top sight was briefly tested but was considered too fragile, shame that could be useful for 126 photography, oh yes forgot about the cameras as well. Thats a long story, including a Whiskey, F135 the chigaco flash and Fincastle or was it Ayrd Whyte, can't remember.
You see you switched the nostalgia switch on!!
Martel was another item considered and possibly tested but never used in service. The AS12 was on the list but I never saw it fitted. Along with the beams and their vista tracks, the Nimtan Sights were also available but were rubbish. You could lock up the navs computer if you pointed the 2 vista tracks at each other, oh what fun on an 8 hr LROFE.
The on top sight was briefly tested but was considered too fragile, shame that could be useful for 126 photography, oh yes forgot about the cameras as well. Thats a long story, including a Whiskey, F135 the chigaco flash and Fincastle or was it Ayrd Whyte, can't remember.
You see you switched the nostalgia switch on!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"1 x Mission System Technician (not originally planned for, but keeping the wretched kit going needed him)."
I volunteered for that job on the AEW. However, I remember the job title advertised as "Flying Air Radar Technician".
I must admit Mission System Technician (MST) has a better ring to it.
I volunteered for that job on the AEW. However, I remember the job title advertised as "Flying Air Radar Technician".
I must admit Mission System Technician (MST) has a better ring to it.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS11/12 was indeed fitted but I beleive the stat for AS11 training was dropped about 1974. I also seem to think that AS12 was essentially for 203 in Malta with the better visibility and for anti-FPB.
Ah! Plan Bluebell, all is forgiven.
I remember the Vista track scam, b*****ds.
Ah! Plan Bluebell, all is forgiven.
I remember the Vista track scam, b*****ds.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIM Tricks
An even better one was to short out the Spam cutters (11 point dividers) by hanging them on the call light and touching the intercom pannel screws. Tiny spark and 'Oops crew we seem to have a lock up, go have a cup of tea while we re-program', good for another 20 mins break.
Say this very quietly, but I do know of someone who did this several times so that in the end we had a scrub while they sorted out the machine.
Say this very quietly, but I do know of someone who did this several times so that in the end we had a scrub while they sorted out the machine.
Autolycus was apparently named after a Shakespearean character who was " the snapper-up of hidden trifles". If you look him up in Greek mythology he is described as the greatest liar of his time. Given the success rate with Autolycus, whoever named it either did not know his mythology, or he did know it and had a wicked sense of humour
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest,
does anyone here KNOW why we went to 4 drymen on the MR2? Radio, Radar, ESM were pretty much as per MR1 after all as far as needing bums on seats went - on the Mk1 we probably swapped kit a bit more often (dry men on 1C in 807, the odd wet man doing radio for a trip to Kef perhaps, or maybe having a shot on the ASV), then MR2 came along and suddenly we needed a 4th dryman?
A 4th dry wasn't uncommon on MR1 crews by around 1980, so when did who decide we actually needed the extra bod, and why dry rather than either?
Dave
does anyone here KNOW why we went to 4 drymen on the MR2? Radio, Radar, ESM were pretty much as per MR1 after all as far as needing bums on seats went - on the Mk1 we probably swapped kit a bit more often (dry men on 1C in 807, the odd wet man doing radio for a trip to Kef perhaps, or maybe having a shot on the ASV), then MR2 came along and suddenly we needed a 4th dryman?
A 4th dry wasn't uncommon on MR1 crews by around 1980, so when did who decide we actually needed the extra bod, and why dry rather than either?
Dave
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Not quite where I'd like to be
Age: 65
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know WHO decided an MR2 crew would have 4 dry men, but it made a lot of sense. With the way the (then new) acoustics was set up, you would be using all six sensor ops during, for instance, a datum investigation. It made a lot of sense to have a spare bod, and as I remarked earlier, I think somebody wise looked at what happened with the loadies on board and decided it was a good idea.
Of course, we could have got the AEO to load the ordnance - some of them MUST have recognised it because they walked through it to get to their seats!
Of course, we could have got the AEO to load the ordnance - some of them MUST have recognised it because they walked through it to get to their seats!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Was it a case of surpluses with fewer MR2? We got the ALMs as surplus when the transport fleet lost some of its aircraft, Britannians and Andover IIRC.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think the 4th dry man came from the realisation that radio was usually operated by a dry guy and also that when ordnance was needed down the back, most wetties were fully engaged.
Ping
Ping