Cold War days - A/C turnaround times
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cold War days - A/C turnaround times
If this information is still classified I obviously understand why it cannot be discussed here. But here goes.
Some of you may recall I was developing a scenario for a commercial wargame to do with a WW3 Battle of Britain type scenario.
It's still going on, mostly because a few of us have been waiting for some game updates.
However quite a big bone of contention is still being thrown about. This time to do with sortie turnaround rates.
As a standard the game gives a 6 hour turnaround rate, with some exceptions. For example Air Defense types can have a 2 hour turnaround, probably because their mission is so much simpler. (Fishing rod in river, bites expected)
This arbitrary number is obviously causing us Geeks to throw their toys out of their prams and start name calling.
So if any anyone can share any experiences that do not have Plod banging on your door I would like to have them.
Bear in mind we are looking at Wartime sortie rates. As in "Launch or Grimsby gets it" times.
The devs of the game are building a module to simulate this facet of Air Ops and also gives them the scope to enhance other things that affect turn around times.
As always, any help, p*ss takes or virtual thrown items are welcome.
PS - one of the scenario testers asked why Grimsby keeps getting attacked by so many Backfires. My ex comes from a little village about 10 miles away from there. And I added a POL site to the village. Not that I am bitter.
Some of you may recall I was developing a scenario for a commercial wargame to do with a WW3 Battle of Britain type scenario.
It's still going on, mostly because a few of us have been waiting for some game updates.
However quite a big bone of contention is still being thrown about. This time to do with sortie turnaround rates.
As a standard the game gives a 6 hour turnaround rate, with some exceptions. For example Air Defense types can have a 2 hour turnaround, probably because their mission is so much simpler. (Fishing rod in river, bites expected)
This arbitrary number is obviously causing us Geeks to throw their toys out of their prams and start name calling.
So if any anyone can share any experiences that do not have Plod banging on your door I would like to have them.
Bear in mind we are looking at Wartime sortie rates. As in "Launch or Grimsby gets it" times.
The devs of the game are building a module to simulate this facet of Air Ops and also gives them the scope to enhance other things that affect turn around times.
As always, any help, p*ss takes or virtual thrown items are welcome.
PS - one of the scenario testers asked why Grimsby keeps getting attacked by so many Backfires. My ex comes from a little village about 10 miles away from there. And I added a POL site to the village. Not that I am bitter.
To be honest, if it's Grimsby, what's the rush? Well, you did invite piss takes.
Simple, unclassified answer. Completely and deliberately inaccurate numbers. There is no single figure. Add together the following. 5 mins to taxi in, 5 mins to winch back into HAS and shut down. 5 mins to do paper work. 15-25 mins to refuel and do servicing. Weapons upload, depends how many weapons were expended on previous sortie. Give it 30 minutes. Crew acceptance and aircraft cocking, 20 minutes. Back "on state".
Now, all of that requires a fully serviceable jet, all the engineering teams immediately available, no interruptions to the turn round by enemy action, ground crew not in full NBC kit, no delays in the arrival of fuel boser (who else is being turned round), weapons, etc, etc.
If the aircrew is staying with the jet, can they turn round in the same time? Normally yes. But if the jet lands with a snag that cannot be carried, the timescale goes up by the diagnostic time, delivery of spares and appropriate technicians and repair time. That may also require a full weapons download/upload.
Is that complicated and vague enough? Sorry. Remember in a shooting war it may be acceptable to carry more snags than in peacetime.
Best,
Courtney
Simple, unclassified answer. Completely and deliberately inaccurate numbers. There is no single figure. Add together the following. 5 mins to taxi in, 5 mins to winch back into HAS and shut down. 5 mins to do paper work. 15-25 mins to refuel and do servicing. Weapons upload, depends how many weapons were expended on previous sortie. Give it 30 minutes. Crew acceptance and aircraft cocking, 20 minutes. Back "on state".
Now, all of that requires a fully serviceable jet, all the engineering teams immediately available, no interruptions to the turn round by enemy action, ground crew not in full NBC kit, no delays in the arrival of fuel boser (who else is being turned round), weapons, etc, etc.
If the aircrew is staying with the jet, can they turn round in the same time? Normally yes. But if the jet lands with a snag that cannot be carried, the timescale goes up by the diagnostic time, delivery of spares and appropriate technicians and repair time. That may also require a full weapons download/upload.
Is that complicated and vague enough? Sorry. Remember in a shooting war it may be acceptable to carry more snags than in peacetime.
Best,
Courtney
An arbitrary turnaround is far too simplistic.
To calculate a reasonable time you need to know:
- Did the previous sortie expended any stores; weapons, flare, chaff etc
- Is the subsequent sortie planned for the same fit, if not, could I accept the previous fit rather than re-role.
- Do any of the fuze settings need to be changed?
- How long has the aircraft flown since the last oil change (can we squeeze in an ERCC?)
- Did the aircraft go U/S for any reason? I love the idea of every snag being fixed in 6 hours
- Is the subsequent task pre-planned or reactive - is the turn round limit a airframe limitation (time taken to service, refuel and rearm) or a crew limitation (are they are still in the planning room reacting to late info)
Edit: Meh, Courtney beat me to it
To calculate a reasonable time you need to know:
- Did the previous sortie expended any stores; weapons, flare, chaff etc
- Is the subsequent sortie planned for the same fit, if not, could I accept the previous fit rather than re-role.
- Do any of the fuze settings need to be changed?
- How long has the aircraft flown since the last oil change (can we squeeze in an ERCC?)
- Did the aircraft go U/S for any reason? I love the idea of every snag being fixed in 6 hours
- Is the subsequent task pre-planned or reactive - is the turn round limit a airframe limitation (time taken to service, refuel and rearm) or a crew limitation (are they are still in the planning room reacting to late info)
Edit: Meh, Courtney beat me to it
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I saw an F6 do a TR from landing to airborne in minutes.
Landed at Luqa, straight on to the ORP, missile pack dropped and reloaded, refuelled and off.
On another exercise, Harriers from 1 Sqn did 100 sorties per day for 3 days operating from hides at RAF West Raynham. They did a bus route, take off, bomb Holbeach range, rtb, rearm and repeat.
We also had some interesting times on Nimrods.
Ps, I also saw a 4-ship Fishbeds recover at Luxor just before the Yom Kippur war. As each landed they turned off at different high speed turn offs and continued at high speed to 4 different HAS sites. This avoided a bunched target in the open, avoided queues at the sites, and created 4 targets with only one aircraft at each - very impressive and clearly operational work up with lessons learnt from the previous war.
Landed at Luqa, straight on to the ORP, missile pack dropped and reloaded, refuelled and off.
On another exercise, Harriers from 1 Sqn did 100 sorties per day for 3 days operating from hides at RAF West Raynham. They did a bus route, take off, bomb Holbeach range, rtb, rearm and repeat.
We also had some interesting times on Nimrods.
Ps, I also saw a 4-ship Fishbeds recover at Luxor just before the Yom Kippur war. As each landed they turned off at different high speed turn offs and continued at high speed to 4 different HAS sites. This avoided a bunched target in the open, avoided queues at the sites, and created 4 targets with only one aircraft at each - very impressive and clearly operational work up with lessons learnt from the previous war.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Other factors are has it flown in a NBC environment, are you landing back in one etc, as decontamination becomes a factor.
Real all out war though you would be doing BDR and not playing by the normal rules.
..
- Did the aircraft go U/S for any reason? I love the idea of every snag being fixed in 6 hours
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 22nd Oct 2014 at 21:49.
For a simulation (which I'd love to see one day), do you all think that for a normal turn round my rough numbers, an additional, random element of system snags with random repair times, factors for weapons expenditure, re tasking (Stuff's point) and Battle Damage Repair (previous sortie or on ground) would work?
Just trying to be helpful for a change.
Just trying to be helpful for a change.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Yes agree, but lots of factors can come into it, battle damage to the airfield for one, a winch is great until you have no power etc. Similar damaged taxiways, I often though it's great having a HAS site but daft only having one entrance to it.
The Israeli Air Force (which I am led to believe takes this stuff seriously) "routinely" used war time turn round times of under ten minutes to refuel and rearm. Pilots flew up to eight or so sorties a day. This "force multiplier" caused the other sides to claim that this proved the IAF was being assisted by hundreds of US and Brit aircraft. Referring to 67 and 73 here, rather than 56 when Brit and French actually were. ...... ..LFH
Last edited by Lordflasheart; 22nd Oct 2014 at 22:33. Reason: clarification - obviously not US in 56
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other factors are has it flown in a NBC environment, are you landing back in one etc, as decontamination becomes a factor.
Most decontamination on leading surfaces would take place in flight via ablation and most physical agents would be found on the underside picked up when the ac taxied through contamination on the airfield. If there was surface contamination, canopies, optics etc would be treated with something non corrosive. If Grimsby was about to get it, any decontam would be quick and dirty - the issue was decontaminating the area so the aircrew could get out and AR5 themselves to the HAS/COLPRO/UCP/HCP etc. That was where most effort was imagined. On the plus side, if things are about to go nuclear it's nearly all over. Excellent. Time to hit the NAAFI.
T/Rs are generally a lot quicker if the weapons/fuel fit doesn't change. AD and Harrier would probably be the best examples for a WWIII scenario. Also, if an AD jet is partially rearmed it can still scramble and do a partial job. Not necessarily so for mudmovers in general.
Next point would be whether the jets were being turned round at home plate, same role base, NATO base or somewhere in the sticks. It's all a bit different if you are working out of a WWII nissen hut on a civvy airfield in the Middle of Nowhere (or Stornoway, as it is more commonly known)
As our groundcrew on Tornado F3 discovered on numerous detachments, half the LRU "failures" could be solved by shuffling the boxes into different jets. One of the last 'black arts' that!
p.s. Grimsby would never have 'got it', for the same reason we didn't try to assassinate Hitler.
oh, and remember that most aircrew were T/R certified. For two-crew AD missions, one can go the the brief whilst the other helps the T/R crew (I've done that!) It's the weapons guys and snag wizards that matter.
Next point would be whether the jets were being turned round at home plate, same role base, NATO base or somewhere in the sticks. It's all a bit different if you are working out of a WWII nissen hut on a civvy airfield in the Middle of Nowhere (or Stornoway, as it is more commonly known)
As our groundcrew on Tornado F3 discovered on numerous detachments, half the LRU "failures" could be solved by shuffling the boxes into different jets. One of the last 'black arts' that!
p.s. Grimsby would never have 'got it', for the same reason we didn't try to assassinate Hitler.
oh, and remember that most aircrew were T/R certified. For two-crew AD missions, one can go the the brief whilst the other helps the T/R crew (I've done that!) It's the weapons guys and snag wizards that matter.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Quote:
Other factors are has it flown in a NBC environment, are you landing back in one etc, as decontamination becomes a factor.
Nutty,
Most decontamination on leading surfaces would take place in flight via ablation and most physical agents would be found on the underside picked up when the ac taxied through contamination on the airfield. If there was surface contamination, canopies, optics etc would be treated with something non corrosive. If Grimsby was about to get it, any decontam would be quick and dirty - the issue was decontaminating the area so the aircrew could get out and AR5 themselves to the HAS/COLPRO/UCP/HCP etc. That was where most effort was imagined. On the plus side, if things are about to go nuclear it's nearly all over. Excellent. Time to hit the NAAFI.
Other factors are has it flown in a NBC environment, are you landing back in one etc, as decontamination becomes a factor.
Nutty,
Most decontamination on leading surfaces would take place in flight via ablation and most physical agents would be found on the underside picked up when the ac taxied through contamination on the airfield. If there was surface contamination, canopies, optics etc would be treated with something non corrosive. If Grimsby was about to get it, any decontam would be quick and dirty - the issue was decontaminating the area so the aircrew could get out and AR5 themselves to the HAS/COLPRO/UCP/HCP etc. That was where most effort was imagined. On the plus side, if things are about to go nuclear it's nearly all over. Excellent. Time to hit the NAAFI.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to hate those ac decontam courses - agreed though, it was a miserable job for the groundcrew and you have my sympathies to this day. I think you did it for reasons which were never properly challenged, truth be told. It was done because it looked punchy etc, but how often did we exercise something knowing that the drill wasn't always the important thing, rather, the experience that went into it - a little like contact drills.
The introduction of the Karcher for 1990 helped but the downside was that the downwind spray and plume created nightmares. The decontamination suit was good for losing a few pounds quickly in but the MK1 bucket and stirrup pump was good for doing your patio and that was it. In fact, it wasn't even good for doing that.
Doctrine at Winterbourne Gunner was always that we would fight dirty if Europe ever kicked off. That all changed for Granby where to fight clean was to fight with happy faces. Mainly, it has to be said, due to the high ambient temperatures evaporating thickened contamination more quickly and creating an intense immediate vapour hazard but an overall much lesser contact one over the medium/longer term.
The introduction of the Karcher for 1990 helped but the downside was that the downwind spray and plume created nightmares. The decontamination suit was good for losing a few pounds quickly in but the MK1 bucket and stirrup pump was good for doing your patio and that was it. In fact, it wasn't even good for doing that.
Doctrine at Winterbourne Gunner was always that we would fight dirty if Europe ever kicked off. That all changed for Granby where to fight clean was to fight with happy faces. Mainly, it has to be said, due to the high ambient temperatures evaporating thickened contamination more quickly and creating an intense immediate vapour hazard but an overall much lesser contact one over the medium/longer term.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: very west
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, the fastest turnaround times we averaged during Taceval etc would be around two hours IF there were no big snags (not a common occurrence).
Fastest I remember? One night, Mayday call on the radio. One of our kites doing circuits and bumps, lands immediately and taxies in. The bowser was arriving as he shut down. Refuel to brimming followed by the biggest re-role I ever saw. Every 1.75" flare on the station into large ally tubs and thrown inside where there was room. No role equipment chart for this trip. A couple of ground crew volunteers for observers, and the old girl was off. Total time probably around 40 minutes.
Although this happened during the Cold War, others can decide on its relevance to the OP' request for info.
The Mayday? From a Bucc over the North Sea who saw a splash. Sadly, it was his wingman. A bad day.
Camlobe
Fastest I remember? One night, Mayday call on the radio. One of our kites doing circuits and bumps, lands immediately and taxies in. The bowser was arriving as he shut down. Refuel to brimming followed by the biggest re-role I ever saw. Every 1.75" flare on the station into large ally tubs and thrown inside where there was room. No role equipment chart for this trip. A couple of ground crew volunteers for observers, and the old girl was off. Total time probably around 40 minutes.
Although this happened during the Cold War, others can decide on its relevance to the OP' request for info.
The Mayday? From a Bucc over the North Sea who saw a splash. Sadly, it was his wingman. A bad day.
Camlobe
Long time ago (f-4), we did practice (simulated) hot refueling with running engines outside the HAS during exercise. There was even a checklist available. I think it was skipped later on due to the risk of hot brakes, as it saved only time when the chute was not used. With running engines the chute couldn't be replaced.
Normal turnaround with nothing broken before under 1 hour?
Normal turnaround with nothing broken before under 1 hour?
I'm sure some distinguished gentlemen who were at Gutersloh in the 70's will recall the turnaround times 19 and 92 were achieving during Mini and Tacevals. I recall being told by a 92 liney that once an aircraft had reached its revetment (pre-HAS days of course ) it was not in there very long before it was on its way again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big thank you as always
Apologies for long post
Thanks to everyone who replied. Excellent posts all and much food for thought. I am collating all this stuff and will feed back to the Devs.
Turnaround time is becoming a real live wire topic for this sim. Especially for the Mud Movers. Some of the types from the Soviet Strategic Air Arms are taking 24 hours to turnaround ! But these are your Backfire and Bears doing their AS4 strategic strike thing.
FA units flying out of captured NATO bases, East Germany etc are doing the 6 hour shuffle.
Over the year or so the sim has been out the Cabbage Nerds (me included) have come out of the woodwork. It really is a Spotters delight but along with that comes Spotter knowledge. A real world B1B Weapons chap got online to point out a database error on a munition type the thing can carry.
Following recent events in Sweden there is currently thread going on over Mini Subs in the sim. Someone has noticed that there does not appear to be any in it so about 25 posts are there discussing these things. One of the posts says this:
"One major difference between Triton-NN and Triton-2 is that NN can hydroplane and travel much faster on the surface. "
The Devs are now adding both variants to the database.
That is the level of involvement people take over this sim.
Some specific replies:
Courtney - "For a simulation (which I'd love to see one day) "
So would I
This thing is like writing a novel. Change 1 thing and it rolls down to all the other events. This Turnaround time is going to be a game changer.
Biggest problem we had was to do with AAR. You would order aircraft to go to the Tow Line and they would sometimes bimble off, get there and not join. Other times they would just ignore your order. Aircraft on CAP would RTB at Bingo but refuse all orders to go to a Tanker instead. Another 'feature' was that aircraft would only RTB to homeplate, not any other airfield. And setting up a Falklands Vulcan raid would just be a nightmare. Few of us tried it once and there were Tankers all over the place doing their thing. None of it to do with refueling each other
The new routines are much, much better.
Strike Planning was also a pain. The whole thing had to be micromanaged otherwise you would see things like 208 Sqn Bucc's barrel in at low level, fire their ASM's at a big fat juicy Ivan Carrier and then popup to 30K feet, go to cruise power and RTB. Right in the middle of the SAM envelope.Sad day at Lossie that day.
Whole new Strike Package tool is being developed which apparently will mimic real world software.
There is a major patch due out soon so I am waiting to see what comes out of that.
Fox3 - "p.s. Grimsby would never have 'got it', for the same reason we didn't try to assassinate Hitler."
Bit rough on Hitler.
camlobe - This is the sort of Turnaround thing that I think is going to be hard to simulate but I wish it could.
The whole thing about 'Going to War with snags/incomplete info' etc is very difficult to get down pat.
Fatigue for example is not modeled. Not a big thing at the moment as most scenarios are around 3 days long at the most.
But there are plans to try and model campaigns, the Falklands being one, so it would have to be factored in. I know our Sky Gods can fly and fight for weeks on end without resorting to Red Bull but no one believes me.
Again, thank you all for replying.
Thanks to everyone who replied. Excellent posts all and much food for thought. I am collating all this stuff and will feed back to the Devs.
Turnaround time is becoming a real live wire topic for this sim. Especially for the Mud Movers. Some of the types from the Soviet Strategic Air Arms are taking 24 hours to turnaround ! But these are your Backfire and Bears doing their AS4 strategic strike thing.
FA units flying out of captured NATO bases, East Germany etc are doing the 6 hour shuffle.
Over the year or so the sim has been out the Cabbage Nerds (me included) have come out of the woodwork. It really is a Spotters delight but along with that comes Spotter knowledge. A real world B1B Weapons chap got online to point out a database error on a munition type the thing can carry.
Following recent events in Sweden there is currently thread going on over Mini Subs in the sim. Someone has noticed that there does not appear to be any in it so about 25 posts are there discussing these things. One of the posts says this:
"One major difference between Triton-NN and Triton-2 is that NN can hydroplane and travel much faster on the surface. "
The Devs are now adding both variants to the database.
That is the level of involvement people take over this sim.
Some specific replies:
Courtney - "For a simulation (which I'd love to see one day) "
So would I
This thing is like writing a novel. Change 1 thing and it rolls down to all the other events. This Turnaround time is going to be a game changer. Biggest problem we had was to do with AAR. You would order aircraft to go to the Tow Line and they would sometimes bimble off, get there and not join. Other times they would just ignore your order. Aircraft on CAP would RTB at Bingo but refuse all orders to go to a Tanker instead. Another 'feature' was that aircraft would only RTB to homeplate, not any other airfield. And setting up a Falklands Vulcan raid would just be a nightmare. Few of us tried it once and there were Tankers all over the place doing their thing. None of it to do with refueling each other
The new routines are much, much better.
Strike Planning was also a pain. The whole thing had to be micromanaged otherwise you would see things like 208 Sqn Bucc's barrel in at low level, fire their ASM's at a big fat juicy Ivan Carrier and then popup to 30K feet, go to cruise power and RTB. Right in the middle of the SAM envelope.Sad day at Lossie that day.
Whole new Strike Package tool is being developed which apparently will mimic real world software.
There is a major patch due out soon so I am waiting to see what comes out of that.
Fox3 - "p.s. Grimsby would never have 'got it', for the same reason we didn't try to assassinate Hitler."
Bit rough on Hitler.
camlobe - This is the sort of Turnaround thing that I think is going to be hard to simulate but I wish it could.
The whole thing about 'Going to War with snags/incomplete info' etc is very difficult to get down pat.
Fatigue for example is not modeled. Not a big thing at the moment as most scenarios are around 3 days long at the most.
But there are plans to try and model campaigns, the Falklands being one, so it would have to be factored in. I know our Sky Gods can fly and fight for weeks on end without resorting to Red Bull but no one believes me.
Again, thank you all for replying.
OTR times on Jags, Tornados and Phantoms were easily under 30 minutes from chocks in to taxi. Rearm, refuel, Replens.
I am reticent to give some of the spectacular times some of our teams would manage, but after repeated base ex, minival, maxeval, taceval etc, they would become really well honed.
I am reticent to give some of the spectacular times some of our teams would manage, but after repeated base ex, minival, maxeval, taceval etc, they would become really well honed.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Flash, thanks for that. I will now confirm the F6 time quoted was as near operational as could be done and was 6 minutes. It was an exchange pilot and he nailed the bomber he had missed on the previous launch before it reached the target.
Bomber at 240 miles when F6 recovered. At about 120 when the F6 landed, 72 when it scrambled and about 50 when splashed. (Just a rough guess)
Bomber at 240 miles when F6 recovered. At about 120 when the F6 landed, 72 when it scrambled and about 50 when splashed. (Just a rough guess)