LONG RANGE SAR
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,558
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
There would be no problem with an E-3 coordinating a major SAR effort - the sensors, communications and datalink fit are all fully compatible with what is needed. Indeed, the E-3 trains for and has been used operationally in overland CSAR. As high level (30,000 ft) top cover for C3, it has no equal. However, SAR visual search is impossible and the E-3 has no bomb bay to drop equipment from so it does have its limitations.
The main problem is that the E-3D is not scaled for SAR operations. There are insufficient airframes and trained crews to maintain NATO tasking and also to run a standby commitment. The E-3 takes quite a big lead time to get airborne without prior notice and therefore could probably only be useful if already in the vicinity. I will add (and I have stated this on many other threads) that the E-3D is tasked by NATO and the RAF does not have the authority to routinely place an E-3 on standby for SAR (ask the SOs who used to ring Waddington to ask for an E-3 to be placed on QRA to be told to contact Force Command at SHAPE where it was regularly refused because there was an E-3A on alert at GK).
The E-3D has successfully achieved maritime tasks, including counter drugs and SAR in the past - it is just an impractical aircraft for SAR standby commitment - technically, operationally, and currently financially. It could be used in such a role, but it would take a big increase in funding, training, and resources to make it effective.
The main problem is that the E-3D is not scaled for SAR operations. There are insufficient airframes and trained crews to maintain NATO tasking and also to run a standby commitment. The E-3 takes quite a big lead time to get airborne without prior notice and therefore could probably only be useful if already in the vicinity. I will add (and I have stated this on many other threads) that the E-3D is tasked by NATO and the RAF does not have the authority to routinely place an E-3 on standby for SAR (ask the SOs who used to ring Waddington to ask for an E-3 to be placed on QRA to be told to contact Force Command at SHAPE where it was regularly refused because there was an E-3A on alert at GK).
The E-3D has successfully achieved maritime tasks, including counter drugs and SAR in the past - it is just an impractical aircraft for SAR standby commitment - technically, operationally, and currently financially. It could be used in such a role, but it would take a big increase in funding, training, and resources to make it effective.
Oh do keep up 007...
When did I say that Typhoons would do the whole SAR thing. I'm just saying that if you want some eyes and ears in a disaster area quick then UK QRA can be used - this would be the first part of the Search. However, just like the Grimrod, there is no possibility of Rescue!!!
I've been asked to go look for missing sailing boats and an Army Patrol in the Falklands in a Tornado. At the end of the day, if someone is in trouble you would use any available asset to help. I seem to remember that a CASTLE class did the rescue of the sailing boat and that the Army Patrol that we found was picked up by a Chinook.
Oh, and the authorisation is broad and planning is done 'on the hoof' on QRA for a variety of missions. In days of old there were 2 in the jet doing it, but these days just one - however the FCs on frequency provide valuable resource for airborne replanning!
Yes, Wensleydale, I agree wholeheartedly. However, if we had an airliner go down mid Atlantic, I suspect that the NAEW FC would authorise an E-3 to be there pretty sharpish.
LJ
Typhoons doing SAR? Absolutely f'ing hilarious
I've been asked to go look for missing sailing boats and an Army Patrol in the Falklands in a Tornado. At the end of the day, if someone is in trouble you would use any available asset to help. I seem to remember that a CASTLE class did the rescue of the sailing boat and that the Army Patrol that we found was picked up by a Chinook.
Oh, and the authorisation is broad and planning is done 'on the hoof' on QRA for a variety of missions. In days of old there were 2 in the jet doing it, but these days just one - however the FCs on frequency provide valuable resource for airborne replanning!
Yes, Wensleydale, I agree wholeheartedly. However, if we had an airliner go down mid Atlantic, I suspect that the NAEW FC would authorise an E-3 to be there pretty sharpish.
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 16th Mar 2014 at 00:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
So in harsh reality - why would you bother?
. Well strangely enough, the 50-odd aircraft and 50-odd ships currently searching for a 777 would suggest that you would bother. Only right now the UK wouldn't bother as we don't have a capability to do so. I think LJ must have been on something stronger than ale whilst watching the 6N
So in harsh reality - why would you bother?
. Well strangely enough, the 50-odd aircraft and 50-odd ships currently searching for a 777 would suggest that you would bother. Only right now the UK wouldn't bother as we don't have a capability to do so. I think LJ must have been on something stronger than ale whilst watching the 6N
And i wouldn't be the man i am today without all those pies...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,558
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Yes, Wensleydale, I agree wholeheartedly. However, if we had an airliner go down mid Atlantic, I suspect that the NAEW FC would authorise an E-3 to be there pretty sharpish.
What E-3? FC refused to allow CinC Strike to keep an E-3 on permanent QRA standby in the early days of the aircraft, and without an aircraft and crew allocated then the ability of Waddington to get a serviceable E-3 and full crew airborne at short notice is very limited (unless the availability requirement is increased, in which case much more cash would need to be invested). In theory, the E-3D can carry out the task - in practise, it will need much more investment for other than opportunity tasking for an already airborne aircraft.
What E-3? FC refused to allow CinC Strike to keep an E-3 on permanent QRA standby in the early days of the aircraft, and without an aircraft and crew allocated then the ability of Waddington to get a serviceable E-3 and full crew airborne at short notice is very limited (unless the availability requirement is increased, in which case much more cash would need to be invested). In theory, the E-3D can carry out the task - in practise, it will need much more investment for other than opportunity tasking for an already airborne aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OP raised the scenario of an airliner ditching at 30W.
This scenario constitutes a Mass Rescue Operation.
I recall attending a large, high level, well attended, international SAR conference some years ago (probably over 10) that discussed responses to MRO. The conference concluded that no country was well placed to deal with an MRO, particularly that of an airliner ditching at range (as opposed to a sinking ship).
Delegates were brigaded into syndicates and played out scenarios to explore the issues. There was a reasonable cadre of UK RAF Nimrod and SARF attendees (of which I was one). After spending two days with our international colleagues exploring how such a scenario would be managed, it became very clear to all that, other than in a limited number of very narrow circumstances, a good outcome for an airliner ditching at range (even with rapid MPA response and rapid location) was unlikely.
At the risk of over simplifying the challenges (we did a fair bit of maths and plotting over the week) the main problems are not associated with location but with the inability to either drop enough ASRA (or ASRAesque) equipment or to actually recover enough people. Once you're in the water your stuffed (if you're really lucky and get into one of the airliner's liferafts you may do better).
Assuming a passenger capacity for a 777 of 300 or so people (it's more likely to be higher) and then divide that by the number of liferafts you need to drop. Multiply that by the number of aircraft needed to carry them.
The only good outcome is if there is surface traffic nearby with the capacity to assist. For MRO at range, other than post-hoc location, air capability is pretty helpless really.
Sun
This scenario constitutes a Mass Rescue Operation.
I recall attending a large, high level, well attended, international SAR conference some years ago (probably over 10) that discussed responses to MRO. The conference concluded that no country was well placed to deal with an MRO, particularly that of an airliner ditching at range (as opposed to a sinking ship).
Delegates were brigaded into syndicates and played out scenarios to explore the issues. There was a reasonable cadre of UK RAF Nimrod and SARF attendees (of which I was one). After spending two days with our international colleagues exploring how such a scenario would be managed, it became very clear to all that, other than in a limited number of very narrow circumstances, a good outcome for an airliner ditching at range (even with rapid MPA response and rapid location) was unlikely.
At the risk of over simplifying the challenges (we did a fair bit of maths and plotting over the week) the main problems are not associated with location but with the inability to either drop enough ASRA (or ASRAesque) equipment or to actually recover enough people. Once you're in the water your stuffed (if you're really lucky and get into one of the airliner's liferafts you may do better).
Assuming a passenger capacity for a 777 of 300 or so people (it's more likely to be higher) and then divide that by the number of liferafts you need to drop. Multiply that by the number of aircraft needed to carry them.
The only good outcome is if there is surface traffic nearby with the capacity to assist. For MRO at range, other than post-hoc location, air capability is pretty helpless really.
Sun
Wensleydale
From 2007 I know, but there was an E-3D supporting this mission reported in the Torygraph. It was not a NATO tasked jet and we held it on 60-90 minutes standby for it (depending on what the MC required). That is well after the 'early days of E-3 and STC'.
RAF jets intercept eight Russian bombers - Telegraph
Sun Who
Well said.
A 30W airliner ditching only needs an MPA to help with everyone else to find bodies and wreckage!
LJ
From 2007 I know, but there was an E-3D supporting this mission reported in the Torygraph. It was not a NATO tasked jet and we held it on 60-90 minutes standby for it (depending on what the MC required). That is well after the 'early days of E-3 and STC'.
RAF jets intercept eight Russian bombers - Telegraph
Sun Who
Well said.
A 30W airliner ditching only needs an MPA to help with everyone else to find bodies and wreckage!LJ
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, for all the naysayers about an MPA/MMA. It's disgraceful that we can't help. From the bbc...
"They are also asking countries to provide assistance in the search for the plane, including satellite data and analysis, ground-search capabilities, and maritime and air assets."
"They are also asking countries to provide assistance in the search for the plane, including satellite data and analysis, ground-search capabilities, and maritime and air assets."
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,558
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
LJ,
The E-3D can change a planned mission with the permission of FC provided that the original mission was a routine training sortie but did not provide the minimum agreed quantity of training for the crew. It may well be that Waddington requested the change to "QRA" from such a sortie. In any event, the permission of FC would have to have been obtained to carry out the tasking (unless, of course, a routine training sortie was planned in the UK that day, and it was held on the ground to meet the Q commitment). It became a quite frequent occurrence for the E-3D to move TACON to the UK if a continental TACON could not provide any aircraft to control.
The E-3D can change a planned mission with the permission of FC provided that the original mission was a routine training sortie but did not provide the minimum agreed quantity of training for the crew. It may well be that Waddington requested the change to "QRA" from such a sortie. In any event, the permission of FC would have to have been obtained to carry out the tasking (unless, of course, a routine training sortie was planned in the UK that day, and it was held on the ground to meet the Q commitment). It became a quite frequent occurrence for the E-3D to move TACON to the UK if a continental TACON could not provide any aircraft to control.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,558
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Fair enough mate, I've never worked at FC. However, I did draft the note that fessed up that the UK would only have 6ac instead of the original 7.
Only 6 of the aircraft were assigned to NATO. The seventh aircraft was for ab-initio training and flight trials which were a national, rather than NATO, responsibility. ZH105 disappeared after my time at Waddington so I am not sure of the current declared requirement and whether we still declare 5 or 6 aircraft.
Only 6 of the aircraft were assigned to NATO. The seventh aircraft was for ab-initio training and flight trials which were a national, rather than NATO, responsibility. ZH105 disappeared after my time at Waddington so I am not sure of the current declared requirement and whether we still declare 5 or 6 aircraft.
Last edited by Wensleydale; 18th Mar 2014 at 09:26.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ,
It's a good job that the search has been going on for a week and likely to be ongoing - it'll take a while for any worthwhile UK assets to get there!
Duncs
It's a good job that the search has been going on for a week and likely to be ongoing - it'll take a while for any worthwhile UK assets to get there!
Duncs
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
That wasn't really my point.
Again, from the BBC...
"Late on Monday, US officials said the US navy ship USS Kidd had been taken off the search because the enlarged search area meant that "long-range patrol aircraft" were "more suited" to the mission."
That wasn't really my point.
Again, from the BBC...
"Late on Monday, US officials said the US navy ship USS Kidd had been taken off the search because the enlarged search area meant that "long-range patrol aircraft" were "more suited" to the mission."
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and it really is time to stop talking solely of an "MPA". We must get our head round the concept of an MMA. The days of a pure MPA are long gone.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Utilising MPA for the search in this scenario is of course obvious,however this extremely rare event and the fact that any MPA would not be able to have saved anyone in Western European waters is hardly the evidence or persuading argument that will convince the government to go out and buy a fleet.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long range SAR at 30W for a downed airliner would be as I have already said purely be a search for wreckage. There would be no rescue and an identical scenario in the UK area of responsibility would be terrible but, no MPA/MMA would make the blindest bit of difference to the outcome.