WW3 Battle of Britain
Coff, it's always down to money, as you know. The "top brass" seem to know better - every time. I fail to see how buying US F35's at some £35 million apiece (who knows the true cost of each A/C?) rather than many more F15/F18's for a fraction of the price can be a "No Brainer".
With today's technology, the A/C is purely a "launch" platform for highly sophisticated missiles/cruise missiles & air launched bombs/Nukes. Modern A/C only need high speed/endurance/long range weapon delivery & some stealth to succeed.
I would rather have 10 sqns of F18's than 1 sqn of F35's. The US can't manufacture these F35's in months should a really big shooting war start! For one F35 you could probably buy 20 serviceable F16's from Belgium or Holland...
Cameron & MOD have lost the plot. Don't even get me onto retention of expensively trained aircrew. I'm glad I got out when I did.
Anyway, there is & IMHO will never be another credible SAM defence of UK airfields/cities. There is no system commercially available at present other than Patriot, which really is short range. Israel could provide a solution but no UK Party would agree to upset the USA by purchasing from them.
With today's technology, the A/C is purely a "launch" platform for highly sophisticated missiles/cruise missiles & air launched bombs/Nukes. Modern A/C only need high speed/endurance/long range weapon delivery & some stealth to succeed.
I would rather have 10 sqns of F18's than 1 sqn of F35's. The US can't manufacture these F35's in months should a really big shooting war start! For one F35 you could probably buy 20 serviceable F16's from Belgium or Holland...
Cameron & MOD have lost the plot. Don't even get me onto retention of expensively trained aircrew. I'm glad I got out when I did.
Anyway, there is & IMHO will never be another credible SAM defence of UK airfields/cities. There is no system commercially available at present other than Patriot, which really is short range. Israel could provide a solution but no UK Party would agree to upset the USA by purchasing from them.
Last edited by SAMXXV; 25th Oct 2013 at 16:02.
In about 1978, we developed an attack profile against the West Raynham Bloodhound site. Follow the bomb steer, then when locked, break at 60° AoB through 90° to beam the CW illumination, reverse to hold it on the beam following the AEO's calls until it broke lock. Meanwhile the Nav Rad continued to keep the target in view. Once the lock broke, turn back at 60° AoB onto the bomb steer for another 10s or thereabouts until illuminated again. Keep up the process until inside the min. engagement range, then complete the bomb run.
Quite hard work at low level in the Vulcan and it called for a great deal of crew co-ordination. But it worked - and was great fun.
About 5 years later I tried the same thing against the Wattisham Bloodhound site when flying the F-4. Every time they nailed us! It seems that over the intervening years, the Bloodhound system had received an upgrade and our previous tactics were now null and void thanks to this 'new bit of kit'! But there were other benefits - the Bloodhounds were always asking for airfield attacks, which meant random beat ups of their site from various parts of the compass...
Until, that is, one chap went over OC Ops Wg's office at about 550 KIAS. Game Over...
Quite hard work at low level in the Vulcan and it called for a great deal of crew co-ordination. But it worked - and was great fun.
About 5 years later I tried the same thing against the Wattisham Bloodhound site when flying the F-4. Every time they nailed us! It seems that over the intervening years, the Bloodhound system had received an upgrade and our previous tactics were now null and void thanks to this 'new bit of kit'! But there were other benefits - the Bloodhounds were always asking for airfield attacks, which meant random beat ups of their site from various parts of the compass...
Until, that is, one chap went over OC Ops Wg's office at about 550 KIAS. Game Over...
BEagle:
The trouble with the F4 was it had 2 bloody noisy engines. The British engines were even louder on CW radar than the US Weasels. However, I kid you not that the Harrier was the most prominent on a CW scope/aural. After a couple of years operating Bloodhound (like any other system I suppose) I could identify most AC types on aural alone - the display always told you how many engines though.
The trouble with the F4 was it had 2 bloody noisy engines. The British engines were even louder on CW radar than the US Weasels. However, I kid you not that the Harrier was the most prominent on a CW scope/aural. After a couple of years operating Bloodhound (like any other system I suppose) I could identify most AC types on aural alone - the display always told you how many engines though.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
SAM ...
Many thanks ... agree 100%
Just think it makes good prudent sense to have a good/capable mix of AD Assets. There will always be a need IMHO to have "manned" Fighters go up and do the Biz, but a capable SAM Platform is a "must have" not a "nice to have" ... But as you say "it ain't going to happen".
Many thanks ... agree 100%
Just think it makes good prudent sense to have a good/capable mix of AD Assets. There will always be a need IMHO to have "manned" Fighters go up and do the Biz, but a capable SAM Platform is a "must have" not a "nice to have" ... But as you say "it ain't going to happen".
Originally Posted by CoffmanStarter
Just think it makes good prudent sense to have a good/capable mix of AD Assets. There will always be a need IMHO to have "manned" Fighters go up and do the Biz, but a capable SAM Platform is a "must have" not a "nice to have" ...
I don't think, also, that many readers realise that this formidable system used a memory feeble Argos 700 series computer (Am I right?) programmed using a jam-jar of graphite pegs.
The Argus 200 computer in the LCP Mk 1 was 1Kb of magnetic ferrite core store RAM, with the computer program pinned into a number of trays using ferrite pegs (the graphite pegs) like a cribbage board (4Kb of program store). No intergated circuits either, all the switches were transistors on pull out cards).
I assume that you were a Sgt/Chf Tech engineer whilst I was the snotty operator?
Have actually done a bit of SAM operating myself though, on the 6 wheel wagon on this video up in the wilds of Cumbria
Normally I'd be that guy at 4.17 having a ciggy when stood outside the SA-8, but not when the radars were transmitting, let alone letting loose a missile (which we didn't have anyway). Toasted inside and out would be effect on that bloke in real life
In fact was quite impressed with the way the Russians used valves on the kit in the video, until I discovered that BH1 had used similar methods 20 years earlier than the Russian kit!!!
I actually started researching Bloodhound after I found out the Swiss had preserved a complete missile section on the internet and started a website about it (which long since died seeing I've not had time to maintain it or do research). About 18 months ago I was contacted by an ex 25 Sqn T86 guy who has started up a preservation group to try and protect what remains of the Mk 2 equipment in the museums, as they are starting to rot because nobody will maintain anything bar the missiles and launchers (because they look cool). The main two aviation museums in the UK got everything needed to set up a two launcher T86 section (bar the secret and confidential bits), in the case of one, they have made efforts to protect the some of the kit not on display, the other one didn't and to avoid the LCP and T86 being scrapped, the group got ownership of them. The intent is for them to be displayed at Filton when the new museum there opens (along with a complete Mk 1 missile, Launcher and Trailer plus Mk 2 missile and Launcher along with other Bloodhound related bits).
I'll send you a link the group on a PM, as we are a bit short in knowledge on operating an LCP.
Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 30th Nov 2013 at 00:30.
In about 1978, we developed an attack profile against the West Raynham Bloodhound site. Follow the bomb steer, then when locked, break at 60° AoB through 90° to beam the CW illumination, reverse to hold it on the beam following the AEO's calls until it broke lock. Meanwhile the Nav Rad continued to keep the target in view. Once the lock broke, turn back at 60° AoB onto the bomb steer for another 10s or thereabouts until illuminated again. Keep up the process until inside the min. engagement range, then complete the bomb run.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Land of the Sabbath and of the Priest
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In the early days of 360 we argued for a war role, but never had a formal one when I left I 69. According to the RAF Historical Society record on their seminar on the Canberra in RAF Service, it never did get one.
Wanderoo, I think the RAFHS are in error on this point. At the disbandment Photocall one sunny but chiily November day, I asked one of the aircrew officers present if they had had a war role: "Comms Jamming" was the reply.
Wanderoo, I think the RAFHS are in error on this point. At the disbandment Photocall one sunny but chiily November day, I asked one of the aircrew officers present if they had had a war role: "Comms Jamming" was the reply.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In about 1978, we developed an attack profile against the West Raynham Bloodhound site. Follow the bomb steer, then when locked, break at 60° AoB through 90° to beam the CW illumination, reverse to hold it on the beam following the AEO's calls until it broke lock. Meanwhile the Nav Rad continued to keep the target in view. Once the lock broke, turn back at 60° AoB onto the bomb steer for another 10s or thereabouts until illuminated again. Keep up the process until inside the min. engagement range, then complete the bomb run.
Makes sense if you flew at a right angle to the radar beam, the vulcan would have no closing speed (staying the same distance away from the stationary radar), therefore radar returns would have the same wavelength and the Vulcan is not picked up.
I have pictures of my head of the Vulcan manoeuvring like a sailing yacht that's tacking into the wind.
Sorry, just had flashbacks of doing "radar theory" in my training and got all carried away. Perhaps the only thing I can remember from my training! I remember the instructor saying radar works by voodoo magic. I now wonder if I would have got a mark if I wrote that in the end of phase exam?
Last edited by gr4techie; 23rd Feb 2014 at 15:35.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now you see 'em, now you don't.
gr4techie,
The same principle is used in GCA (and other ?) airfield ground radars to produce the Moving Target Indicator (MTI) effect. Most of the "ground effects" are suppressed (but sometimes the leaves on trees, moving to an fro in a strong wind, will show up - and of course birds !)
The problem of aircraft going round you in a circle (parts of a circuit) remain. But as a GCA (you hope) has the aircraft coming directly towards you, and it cannot stop (except a helicopter !), all you have to worry about is a chap on finals (whom you cannot see) possibly coming round at your man.
Local and Runway Controllers are employed at vast expense to make sure that never happens.
In the Bloodhound case, would going round it in ever-decreasing circles be any good ? (just asking).
D.
The same principle is used in GCA (and other ?) airfield ground radars to produce the Moving Target Indicator (MTI) effect. Most of the "ground effects" are suppressed (but sometimes the leaves on trees, moving to an fro in a strong wind, will show up - and of course birds !)
The problem of aircraft going round you in a circle (parts of a circuit) remain. But as a GCA (you hope) has the aircraft coming directly towards you, and it cannot stop (except a helicopter !), all you have to worry about is a chap on finals (whom you cannot see) possibly coming round at your man.
Local and Runway Controllers are employed at vast expense to make sure that never happens.
In the Bloodhound case, would going round it in ever-decreasing circles be any good ? (just asking).
D.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Second star on the left
Posts: 124
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chairborne
I was on 360 between 75 and 77, we had a War Role of LoPro then. Best thing that we could do would be to transmit as we ran is so that the MEZ could be worked out when it went silent.
Heads down, look out for the flak
I was on 360 between 75 and 77, we had a War Role of LoPro then. Best thing that we could do would be to transmit as we ran is so that the MEZ could be worked out when it went silent.
Heads down, look out for the flak
