Reconnaissance after the Canberra
Thread Starter
Reconnaissance after the Canberra
Unlike most of my postings, this doesn't relate to the Sea Harrier.....or fleet air defence.
As we all know, the venerable old Canberra PR9 is due to bow out in a couple of years time. It would appear that their is nothing to replace it. Why? Strategic Reconnaissance is a key military capibility, as recent events have shown.
Lets make a few assumptions....
1. TACTICAL reconnaissance will be provided by tactical aircraft.
2. The Nimrod R1 will continue with the ELINT/SIGINT role.
3. ASTOR will come into service and provide a key asset, not too different from the US JSTARS.
4. Eurofighter will (eventually) reach front line service.
What has this got to do with Recon you may ask? Well, I propose that they (RAF/MOD/whoever) take some Tornado F3 airframes and convert then to a PR role. Lets be honest, a good number of them have been mothballed and have very little flying time. So I suggest that these aircraft are taken, stripped down, and have most of the Air to Air systems removed. But keep the ability to fire Sidewinders in self defence.
Take the Electro-Optical camara systems from the Canberra (or buy/develop new ones?) and fit it to the F3. Fit a JTIDS link if the Tornado F3 doesn't already have one. Then upgrade the ESM and ECM systems.
This would give the UK a capable Reconnaissance assest for a fairly low cost. Or is Strategic Reconnaissance yet another capability the Government thinks we no longer need?
As we all know, the venerable old Canberra PR9 is due to bow out in a couple of years time. It would appear that their is nothing to replace it. Why? Strategic Reconnaissance is a key military capibility, as recent events have shown.
Lets make a few assumptions....
1. TACTICAL reconnaissance will be provided by tactical aircraft.
2. The Nimrod R1 will continue with the ELINT/SIGINT role.
3. ASTOR will come into service and provide a key asset, not too different from the US JSTARS.
4. Eurofighter will (eventually) reach front line service.
What has this got to do with Recon you may ask? Well, I propose that they (RAF/MOD/whoever) take some Tornado F3 airframes and convert then to a PR role. Lets be honest, a good number of them have been mothballed and have very little flying time. So I suggest that these aircraft are taken, stripped down, and have most of the Air to Air systems removed. But keep the ability to fire Sidewinders in self defence.
Take the Electro-Optical camara systems from the Canberra (or buy/develop new ones?) and fit it to the F3. Fit a JTIDS link if the Tornado F3 doesn't already have one. Then upgrade the ESM and ECM systems.
This would give the UK a capable Reconnaissance assest for a fairly low cost. Or is Strategic Reconnaissance yet another capability the Government thinks we no longer need?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that in line with current UK defence policy that the replacement for the Canberra PR9 will either be the recently retired Wessex or possibly the Bulldog, if they haven't already all been sold.
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
Maybe someone has kept the drawings and we can have replacement Canberras licence built for us in India? After all, the Canberra is irreplaceable, it's already demonstrated that well enough... 
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my fading memory serves me correctly I *think* ASTOR can take on some of PR9 imagery stuff - but it is just an "option" at the moment.
The way things are going we will end up with a diverted Easy Jet 737with an Instamatic gaffa taped to the fuselage.
The way things are going we will end up with a diverted Easy Jet 737with an Instamatic gaffa taped to the fuselage.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Still on the beach (but this one's cold).
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imhotep,
I've been to FL450+ in an F3 so it can get there, didn't stay there long though! As a high level recce aircraft it would be as much use as an ashtray on a motor bike.
I've been to FL450+ in an F3 so it can get there, didn't stay there long though! As a high level recce aircraft it would be as much use as an ashtray on a motor bike.
Last edited by Mach the Knife; 11th Apr 2002 at 05:46.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: kings lynn
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reconnaissance after the Canberra
Let's not forget the easiest ( and cheapest) solution to maintaining an effective strategic recce capability in the RAF. The Canberra PR9 has an OSD of 2006 but could remain in service for many years beyond that. All that's required is for a decision to be made that the capability is needed beyond 2006 and for the funds to be allocated. Why search for a replacement in the short term when you have an asset producing outstanding results and capable of doing so into the next decade!
Thread Starter
Berramates
If the Canberra can keep going, then that would be the best solution. I must admit that I thought the problem was it was getting too old.
Apologies to to the Canberra guys.
Sadly, this goverment thinks its OK if we lose a lot of capabilities in the next few years
If the Canberra can keep going, then that would be the best solution. I must admit that I thought the problem was it was getting too old.
Apologies to to the Canberra guys.
Sadly, this goverment thinks its OK if we lose a lot of capabilities in the next few years
Guest
Posts: n/a
Super looking aircraft, fighter canopy, lovely in Hemp,with a "sharks mouth" on the front. If their airships stick them in the "used for sale" section of the Crown assets car park, I'll have one.
Maybe they can be re-engined and the main spars changed/overhauled?
Tony
Maybe they can be re-engined and the main spars changed/overhauled?
Tony
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
They will almost certainly be replaced by more Global Express airframes. This would provide commonality with ASTOR in airframes, avionics, and data-link (BMDL) and allow common type qualifications and crewing on the same sqn.
It would also have the space and power to allow not only EOLOROP sensors but Comint and Elint sensors. This would all fit in perfectly with the other types operated by Waddington and the specialised support organisations. Such a platform would also be ideal for networking with the E3D and other platforms via L16/L22 and rear agencies via SATCOM.
The Global Express could also permit much more flexible tasking with changes of focal length, film types, loads etc being performed by the crew.
The ceiling and range of the Global Hawk is also suitable with an initial cruise ceiling of around 43K increasing to 51K and a range of over 6000nm and an AAR capability.
Fitted with suitable sensor systems it would also seem eminently suitable to eventually replace the Nimrod R-1 which will consist of a total fleet within a fleet of 3 aircraft with no commonality in avionics, cockpit, engines wing etc with the rest of the Nimrod fleet, presuming the MR-4A ever enter service!
It would also have the space and power to allow not only EOLOROP sensors but Comint and Elint sensors. This would all fit in perfectly with the other types operated by Waddington and the specialised support organisations. Such a platform would also be ideal for networking with the E3D and other platforms via L16/L22 and rear agencies via SATCOM.
The Global Express could also permit much more flexible tasking with changes of focal length, film types, loads etc being performed by the crew.
The ceiling and range of the Global Hawk is also suitable with an initial cruise ceiling of around 43K increasing to 51K and a range of over 6000nm and an AAR capability.
Fitted with suitable sensor systems it would also seem eminently suitable to eventually replace the Nimrod R-1 which will consist of a total fleet within a fleet of 3 aircraft with no commonality in avionics, cockpit, engines wing etc with the rest of the Nimrod fleet, presuming the MR-4A ever enter service!
Last edited by ORAC; 11th Apr 2002 at 01:51.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 67
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post ORAC - a measure of sense and optimism. Just let me have the budget authorisation in good time will you, old chap, don't want to get caught with our Malvinas pants down again, do we. BTW i thought that there was some R1>R4A idea - with the 3 chopped - but awaiting about 5 years until the primary MRa4 deed is done and the fatigue life on the R1s is deffo knackered.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Since they just cut the MR4A budget from 21 to 18 to stay inside the budget, I do not know where the money would come. Unless the idea is to use the 3 cut from the MR4 order to replace the R1s. Seems to me that at the unit price it would cheaper to buy a dozen Explorers. And that's at the unit price of the present contract on which BWoS have claimed they are losing £400 million. Love to see they're quote for adding another 3!
On a side issue, the R1 is really a strategic platform designed for the cold war. In the present climate where the threat is diverse and world-wide and Int collection platforms can be placed in harms way, the aim is platforms capable of real-time target acquisition and designation, the point has been reached where "more is better" and smaller, more plentiful platforms are needed both to reduce vulnerability and allow increased or contiuous on station time. Which is exactly what we are doing with Astor v JSTARS and the USAF with Global Hawk/U2R v EC-135s etc.
Your probably right however. They're bound to throw even more buckets of money at BWoS and there's nowt as stuck in the mud as Abbey Wood.
On a side issue, the R1 is really a strategic platform designed for the cold war. In the present climate where the threat is diverse and world-wide and Int collection platforms can be placed in harms way, the aim is platforms capable of real-time target acquisition and designation, the point has been reached where "more is better" and smaller, more plentiful platforms are needed both to reduce vulnerability and allow increased or contiuous on station time. Which is exactly what we are doing with Astor v JSTARS and the USAF with Global Hawk/U2R v EC-135s etc.
Your probably right however. They're bound to throw even more buckets of money at BWoS and there's nowt as stuck in the mud as Abbey Wood.
Last edited by ORAC; 11th Apr 2002 at 13:33.
