Tornado TFR question
Day TFR in IMC was not permitted,merely because it violated the Low Flying weather minima.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We would have seen you
Okay my memory may dull as I get older but here goes
Back in Mid 80's at Spade. We were in the Ops room waiting for a 2 or 4 ship GR1 flight doing a FRA on the make believe field at Prior Lancy
They had checked in and the straight away went blind to our state of the art Search Radar - the AR-15.
Anyway the Range Controller, who may have been Pancho Painting (RIP Sir), had MUTES, T3 and the Prior Lancy chaps scanning and sweeping.
Now this is where my memory gets a bit dull. But the gist of it is true.
We had a Jammer called the T2 I think. I'm not sure if was just one of it's modes or it was dedicated to TFR jamming. Anyway, the T2 guy in charge says over the net "I have them bearing 287, another one bearing 289" or something like that.
The boss asked him how he had detected them and why no range to targets. GIC at T2 says "Our kit detected the TFR emissions"
Long story short, we had to send a signal to Strike detailing how and where the Tornado TFR was picked up and details of the engagements.
The rumor network at Spade went mad. "We had found how to track and kill TFR equipped a/c, and no one on the Tornado project had thought about it etc etc"
Of course we hadn't but I do remember some behind very closed doors meetings with the Range Occifers and the Int Flt Lt (AEO if I remember correctly)
Being a bit of a cabbage back then I loved it all.
Back in Mid 80's at Spade. We were in the Ops room waiting for a 2 or 4 ship GR1 flight doing a FRA on the make believe field at Prior Lancy
They had checked in and the straight away went blind to our state of the art Search Radar - the AR-15.
Anyway the Range Controller, who may have been Pancho Painting (RIP Sir), had MUTES, T3 and the Prior Lancy chaps scanning and sweeping.
Now this is where my memory gets a bit dull. But the gist of it is true.
We had a Jammer called the T2 I think. I'm not sure if was just one of it's modes or it was dedicated to TFR jamming. Anyway, the T2 guy in charge says over the net "I have them bearing 287, another one bearing 289" or something like that.
The boss asked him how he had detected them and why no range to targets. GIC at T2 says "Our kit detected the TFR emissions"
Long story short, we had to send a signal to Strike detailing how and where the Tornado TFR was picked up and details of the engagements.
The rumor network at Spade went mad. "We had found how to track and kill TFR equipped a/c, and no one on the Tornado project had thought about it etc etc"
Of course we hadn't but I do remember some behind very closed doors meetings with the Range Occifers and the Int Flt Lt (AEO if I remember correctly)
Being a bit of a cabbage back then I loved it all.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a cabbage I always thought something along those lines.
We had done some trials work with the Tornado chaps when they were carrying some new jammer pod, name escapes me.
Basically they trolled up and down a race circuit while we laid various stuff onto them. We were plotting them on the Radar Bomb Scoring system and when they called 'Gadget On' (or similar) we lifted the pen to mark the call, the sites called out the jamming levels they saw and we recorded them
I do recall it being very very boring.
But one of the sites said something like "We are burning through this easy" only for someone with greater knowledge to say "They are not on the Wartime setting"
Next on my 'Pull up a sandbag" posts - "How we saw UFO's over LFA 13 during a Mallet Blow"
We had done some trials work with the Tornado chaps when they were carrying some new jammer pod, name escapes me.
Basically they trolled up and down a race circuit while we laid various stuff onto them. We were plotting them on the Radar Bomb Scoring system and when they called 'Gadget On' (or similar) we lifted the pen to mark the call, the sites called out the jamming levels they saw and we recorded them
I do recall it being very very boring.
But one of the sites said something like "We are burning through this easy" only for someone with greater knowledge to say "They are not on the Wartime setting"
Next on my 'Pull up a sandbag" posts - "How we saw UFO's over LFA 13 during a Mallet Blow"
Gulf War Readings - RAF Participation
Pious Pilot,
You might be interested in RAF - Operation Granby which includes a Campaign Diary. Also, the book Thunder & Lightning by Charles Allen HMSO ISBN 011 701 625 X was put together drawing on the personal experiences of 150 RAF personnel who were involved at all relevant locations - there is even a pic of me in it !
You might be interested in RAF - Operation Granby which includes a Campaign Diary. Also, the book Thunder & Lightning by Charles Allen HMSO ISBN 011 701 625 X was put together drawing on the personal experiences of 150 RAF personnel who were involved at all relevant locations - there is even a pic of me in it !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks RAF Eng, I'll take a look.
On a side subject, what was the thinking behind IDS having wing mounted boz pods ecm chaff and flare whilst the ADV is tail and fuselage mounted? I realise the later ADV jets got phimat?? Just interested in the reasons rather than classified technical specifics.
I'd have thought the ADV solution freeing up wing space would be better??
Again, not a statement, just a question.
On a side subject, what was the thinking behind IDS having wing mounted boz pods ecm chaff and flare whilst the ADV is tail and fuselage mounted? I realise the later ADV jets got phimat?? Just interested in the reasons rather than classified technical specifics.
I'd have thought the ADV solution freeing up wing space would be better??
Again, not a statement, just a question.
Pious Pilot,
Tornado GR1 was designed from the outset to carry a Skyshadow ECM pod and BOZ 107 chaff/flare pod on under wing outboard stations with other under wing and under fuselage stations being used for the required combinations of weapons and fuel drop tanks. The fitment of these pods also mitigated fatigue consumption by relieving wing bending - when insufficient Skyshadow pods were available, 2 BOZ pods were fitted for ballast.
Tornado F2/F3 was not originally provided with any chaff/flare capability. AN/ALE-40 chaff/flare dispensers were fitted for Op GRANBY / Gulf War 1 scabbed onto the rear engine doors. The function of the Radar Homing Warning Receiver (RHWR) fitted to Tornado F3 was to alert the crew to threats - not jam them.
AN/ALE-40 on Tornado F3:
Tornado GR1 was designed from the outset to carry a Skyshadow ECM pod and BOZ 107 chaff/flare pod on under wing outboard stations with other under wing and under fuselage stations being used for the required combinations of weapons and fuel drop tanks. The fitment of these pods also mitigated fatigue consumption by relieving wing bending - when insufficient Skyshadow pods were available, 2 BOZ pods were fitted for ballast.
Tornado F2/F3 was not originally provided with any chaff/flare capability. AN/ALE-40 chaff/flare dispensers were fitted for Op GRANBY / Gulf War 1 scabbed onto the rear engine doors. The function of the Radar Homing Warning Receiver (RHWR) fitted to Tornado F3 was to alert the crew to threats - not jam them.
AN/ALE-40 on Tornado F3:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the F3 had no ECM at all?
Is there much info about on the EF-3? I remember reading about it being a great natural platform for SEAD owing to its rhwr suite.
I've always wondered why it was required seeing as the GR1/4 could carry more ALARM. Also why did some GR ac carry ALARM on the outer tank pylon and not all of them. The deployment of ALARM must have been very novel too, direct attack or parachute loiter, seems an ideal weapon and why was it taken oos?? Would like to read about the choices that presented the operator, was loiter mode given pre or post takeoff, did it have to be launched in a time/location window, what happened if you didn't launch, could it be reprogrammed during flight? How long would it take to designate and get a missile away at a target of opportunity (classified I bet), how would a target be designated, via aircraft systems or missile itself?
Apologies for the questions, getting carried away now.
Is there much info about on the EF-3? I remember reading about it being a great natural platform for SEAD owing to its rhwr suite.
I've always wondered why it was required seeing as the GR1/4 could carry more ALARM. Also why did some GR ac carry ALARM on the outer tank pylon and not all of them. The deployment of ALARM must have been very novel too, direct attack or parachute loiter, seems an ideal weapon and why was it taken oos?? Would like to read about the choices that presented the operator, was loiter mode given pre or post takeoff, did it have to be launched in a time/location window, what happened if you didn't launch, could it be reprogrammed during flight? How long would it take to designate and get a missile away at a target of opportunity (classified I bet), how would a target be designated, via aircraft systems or missile itself?
Apologies for the questions, getting carried away now.
ExRAFRadar
T2 was a bit of kit if memory serves, Never saw it myself, but knew a guy who worked on it at the time and he told me he had successfully jammed a F-111 TFR with the aircraft doing a high G pull up and a rather loud 'Oh Sh!t' coming out of the aircraft on the radio. I would be surprised if we didn't have such a device on one of the EW ranges seeing the Russians are into that type of ground based ECM. Look at SPN-40 Dog Cart on the link below.
Russian/Soviet/WarPac Ground Based ECM Systems
T2 was a bit of kit if memory serves, Never saw it myself, but knew a guy who worked on it at the time and he told me he had successfully jammed a F-111 TFR with the aircraft doing a high G pull up and a rather loud 'Oh Sh!t' coming out of the aircraft on the radio. I would be surprised if we didn't have such a device on one of the EW ranges seeing the Russians are into that type of ground based ECM. Look at SPN-40 Dog Cart on the link below.
Russian/Soviet/WarPac Ground Based ECM Systems
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up High
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the GR1 the back seat could not monitor the TFR. The TFR display was via a Scope just below the coaming on the left hand side of the front instrument dash. There were differences in display between RAF, German and Italian machines.
When using TFR the whole process was a crew effort. The nav would monitor what was coming up on the GMR, pylons, hills and valleys, and the pilot would then try to rationalise these as they were displayed on the TFR coming in from 8 miles. There was a constant commentary between both seats as to what was going on.
I never used the TFR to find a tanker: I always used the GMR to find the tanker when flying in the back seat.
We did use auto TFR both IMC and at night. As previously mentioned, IMC TFR was usually used in Goose Bay, where entering cloud as a 4-ball at 200' and coming out the other side after some serious turning in the correct place was always entertaining.
Regarding ALARM, the mission was planned using the desired mode: we didn't change the mode of firing in flight although it was possible.
When using TFR the whole process was a crew effort. The nav would monitor what was coming up on the GMR, pylons, hills and valleys, and the pilot would then try to rationalise these as they were displayed on the TFR coming in from 8 miles. There was a constant commentary between both seats as to what was going on.
I never used the TFR to find a tanker: I always used the GMR to find the tanker when flying in the back seat.
We did use auto TFR both IMC and at night. As previously mentioned, IMC TFR was usually used in Goose Bay, where entering cloud as a 4-ball at 200' and coming out the other side after some serious turning in the correct place was always entertaining.
Regarding ALARM, the mission was planned using the desired mode: we didn't change the mode of firing in flight although it was possible.
F-111 Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions
Found this on-line which might be of interest to anyone who wants to compare Tornado GR1/GR4 to the F-111: F-111 Aardvark Pilot's Flight Operating Manual - United States Air Force - Google Books
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 1984 GAF Tonka crash in Bavaria is believed to have been caused by interference from a large radio transmitter nearby. At the time of the incident, the aircraft had been flying at low level in TFR automatic mode. The No. 2 crew observed their formation leader suddenly and violently veering towards the ground.
The Tornado crewmembers here probably know more about this.
The Tornado crewmembers here probably know more about this.
Exhorder, I remember being told about that.
Rather than an interference with the TFR I had understood it was more a case or EMC/EMI issues from the transmitter coupling with the wiring controlling the rear tailerons - leading to some sort of full deflection command or similar with disasterous consequences.
I understood the Tornado TFR was Texas Instruments in the end, despite the pioneering work by Ferranti & TSR-2. Was this TI kit fundamentally the same as that in the F-111, or a derivative?
Who made the Vulcan TFR - which I recall was in the bulb under the IFRProbe?
Rather than an interference with the TFR I had understood it was more a case or EMC/EMI issues from the transmitter coupling with the wiring controlling the rear tailerons - leading to some sort of full deflection command or similar with disasterous consequences.
I understood the Tornado TFR was Texas Instruments in the end, despite the pioneering work by Ferranti & TSR-2. Was this TI kit fundamentally the same as that in the F-111, or a derivative?
Who made the Vulcan TFR - which I recall was in the bulb under the IFRProbe?
The Bavaria crash was, AFAIK, not a problem with the TFR but the CSAS (Command Stability Augmentation System) which was the link between the stick & the flying controls.
The Tornado TFR was a TI derivative of the F-111 TFR.
The Tornado TFR was a TI derivative of the F-111 TFR.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it not a unanticipated maneuver alongside a somewhat agitated aircrewmember with a paranoia over high power transmissions?
Having said that, my first task [after getting my haircut under the auspices of a certain deranged WO
] at Rects Sqdn TTTE, was to man a cordon around the back end of a GAF GR as experiments were being carried out to the susceptibility of said CSAS system to external EMF's.
Oddly enough, when you backed the aircraft up to the main power input lines of the hangar the tailerons were actually twitching
........that aside, fantastic times, being right on the cutting edge of NATO aircraft capability improvements.
Now you could ask about all the retrofits carried out to the avionics "crate" re emc, but hey that's an post OSD tale.
Having said that, my first task [after getting my haircut under the auspices of a certain deranged WO
] at Rects Sqdn TTTE, was to man a cordon around the back end of a GAF GR as experiments were being carried out to the susceptibility of said CSAS system to external EMF's. Oddly enough, when you backed the aircraft up to the main power input lines of the hangar the tailerons were actually twitching
........that aside, fantastic times, being right on the cutting edge of NATO aircraft capability improvements. Now you could ask about all the retrofits carried out to the avionics "crate" re emc, but hey that's an post OSD tale
.