Keystone Kops Go flying!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keystone Kops Go flying!
Bl**dy Hell. Just found this in the Telegraph. What are we going to do with the Sea Harrier's AMRRAMs once that aircraft (the one with the radar that supports AMRAAM) gets scrapped.
RAF abandons missile system after near miss
By Macer Hall
(Filed: 23/06/2002)
The RAF has abandoned moves to arm its Tornado F3 aircraft with a £125 million medium-range weapon system after a radar failure led to fears that pilots could be put at risk by stray missiles.
Live firing tests found that the Foxhunter radar on the Tornado F3, the RAF's main air defence fighter, was not compatible with the Amraam [Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile system] bought by the Ministry of Defence.
An accident was narrowly avoided in one test after a missile fired by one RAF Tornado flew off course and threatened an escorting aircraft. In a major embarrassment for the MoD, officers admitted that Amraam, which was expected to come into service last month, cannot be used safely. There are no plans to replace the Foxhunter with an Amraam-compatible radar system.
Last night, the Conservatives urged the Government to reverse a cost-cutting decision to scrap the Navy's Sea Harriers. Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, said: "To spend £125 million on a missile system that cannot be used in combat is an absolute scandal. At present, this means the Sea Harrier is the only one of our fighter aircraft that can use this new missile effectively.
"This is another reason for the Royal Navy to keep the excellent Sea Harrier, which the Government has decided to scrap. With no plans to modernise the radar on the Tornado, it will never be able to effectively use Amraam." Originally ordered from British Aerospace in 1996, Amraam was seen as the most modern system for defences against air attacks. About 100 Tornado F3 aircraft were upgraded to carry it but the compatability problem means that a Tornado pilot cannot use radar to guide a missile towards a target.
In the live firing test, carried out within the past 12 months, Amraam was fired "blind" - without radar guidance - by pointing the aircraft at a target and launching a missile. An RAF officer said: "The Tornado F3 radar is unable to communicate with Amraam before or after firing. The missile is programmed to follow its host radar guidance system to its target. When that guidance is lacking, the missile reverts to a simple 'seek and destroy' mode: the first target that it sees is the one it goes for. The Amraam detected the Tornado aircraft that was escorting the firing aircraft and tried to intercept and destroy that aircraft."
It was only the airborne positions of the aircraft in the test that prevented an accident, the officer said.
He added: "This is a blatantly irresponsible way to try to engage an enemy. Following this operational practice could lead to friendly fighters - or even civilian aircraft - getting shot down."
A spokesman for the MoD said: "The Amraam missile is not part of the RAF's inventory at the moment." Tornado F3 aircraft regularly patrol the no-fly zone over southern Iraq and are a key weapon in the defence of British mainland airspace. The aircraft is expected to be replaced by the Eurofighter, which can use Amraam, in a few years.
Baaah Humbug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RAF abandons missile system after near miss
By Macer Hall
(Filed: 23/06/2002)
The RAF has abandoned moves to arm its Tornado F3 aircraft with a £125 million medium-range weapon system after a radar failure led to fears that pilots could be put at risk by stray missiles.
Live firing tests found that the Foxhunter radar on the Tornado F3, the RAF's main air defence fighter, was not compatible with the Amraam [Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile system] bought by the Ministry of Defence.
An accident was narrowly avoided in one test after a missile fired by one RAF Tornado flew off course and threatened an escorting aircraft. In a major embarrassment for the MoD, officers admitted that Amraam, which was expected to come into service last month, cannot be used safely. There are no plans to replace the Foxhunter with an Amraam-compatible radar system.
Last night, the Conservatives urged the Government to reverse a cost-cutting decision to scrap the Navy's Sea Harriers. Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, said: "To spend £125 million on a missile system that cannot be used in combat is an absolute scandal. At present, this means the Sea Harrier is the only one of our fighter aircraft that can use this new missile effectively.
"This is another reason for the Royal Navy to keep the excellent Sea Harrier, which the Government has decided to scrap. With no plans to modernise the radar on the Tornado, it will never be able to effectively use Amraam." Originally ordered from British Aerospace in 1996, Amraam was seen as the most modern system for defences against air attacks. About 100 Tornado F3 aircraft were upgraded to carry it but the compatability problem means that a Tornado pilot cannot use radar to guide a missile towards a target.
In the live firing test, carried out within the past 12 months, Amraam was fired "blind" - without radar guidance - by pointing the aircraft at a target and launching a missile. An RAF officer said: "The Tornado F3 radar is unable to communicate with Amraam before or after firing. The missile is programmed to follow its host radar guidance system to its target. When that guidance is lacking, the missile reverts to a simple 'seek and destroy' mode: the first target that it sees is the one it goes for. The Amraam detected the Tornado aircraft that was escorting the firing aircraft and tried to intercept and destroy that aircraft."
It was only the airborne positions of the aircraft in the test that prevented an accident, the officer said.
He added: "This is a blatantly irresponsible way to try to engage an enemy. Following this operational practice could lead to friendly fighters - or even civilian aircraft - getting shot down."
A spokesman for the MoD said: "The Amraam missile is not part of the RAF's inventory at the moment." Tornado F3 aircraft regularly patrol the no-fly zone over southern Iraq and are a key weapon in the defence of British mainland airspace. The aircraft is expected to be replaced by the Eurofighter, which can use Amraam, in a few years.
Baaah Humbug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It was only the airborne positions of the aircraft in the test that prevented an accident, the officer said.
That would be "everything stuffed in a corner,execute last best move - GO" ?
I will freely admit, I know zippo about AI radar, so maybe someone qualified can tell me why Tornado isn't equipped with the same radar suite/software as the SHAR?
Tony
That would be "everything stuffed in a corner,execute last best move - GO" ?
I will freely admit, I know zippo about AI radar, so maybe someone qualified can tell me why Tornado isn't equipped with the same radar suite/software as the SHAR?
Tony
In which case, wouldn't it be cheaper to $hitcan the inadequate Tornado T Mk 3 altogether and to lease some proper fighters from Uncle Spam's extensive desert boneyard? As well as keeping SHAR 2, of course.....
Until, that is, 't Bungling Baron Waste o'Space gets 't finger out and deliverrrs some Bureaufighterrs to't Airr Forrce...??
Until, that is, 't Bungling Baron Waste o'Space gets 't finger out and deliverrrs some Bureaufighterrs to't Airr Forrce...??
Last edited by BEagle; 23rd Jun 2002 at 21:18.
What is wrong with Foxhunter?
Some of you might be surprised to see me taking an interest in an aircraft other than the Sea Harrier, and you can see my dark blue bias miles off, and maybe I'm a tw@t who is talking nonsense but......
Correct my if I am wrong, but isn't the Foxhunter radar VERY powerful? Obviously the technical details of radar systems is classified, but I don't believe that it can be a problem with the microwave (tubes, amplifiers, antennae et al) side of the radar. After all it does have a good range, lots of power, and was developed to give a BVR capability with Skyflash.
I would guess that the problem is more likely to be something to do with the signal processing and (particularly) software side of things. Surely this can be modified? Modern systems are software driven, which means they can be modified with relative ease. Why can't the MOD get BAE Systems, AEI, ERA, the DPA, Qinetiq or the RAF thelmselves (plenty of good Engineers in light blue) or a combination of them to sort out what the problem is (AMRAAM not getting the right sort of data) and then modify OR re-write the software?
Didn't the Luftwaffe make theit Phantoms AMRAAM capable by retrofitting them with APG-65 radar? Why can't we do the same, perhaps getting BAES to knock out some more sets of Blue Vixen?
Correct my if I am wrong, but isn't the Foxhunter radar VERY powerful? Obviously the technical details of radar systems is classified, but I don't believe that it can be a problem with the microwave (tubes, amplifiers, antennae et al) side of the radar. After all it does have a good range, lots of power, and was developed to give a BVR capability with Skyflash.
I would guess that the problem is more likely to be something to do with the signal processing and (particularly) software side of things. Surely this can be modified? Modern systems are software driven, which means they can be modified with relative ease. Why can't the MOD get BAE Systems, AEI, ERA, the DPA, Qinetiq or the RAF thelmselves (plenty of good Engineers in light blue) or a combination of them to sort out what the problem is (AMRAAM not getting the right sort of data) and then modify OR re-write the software?
Didn't the Luftwaffe make theit Phantoms AMRAAM capable by retrofitting them with APG-65 radar? Why can't we do the same, perhaps getting BAES to knock out some more sets of Blue Vixen?
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's possible that the hardware architecture of the Foxhunter is incompatible with the operating system required for utilising the AIM-120, thus precluding the possibility of software upgrades.
If that is the case (a bit like trying to run a Mac program on an IBM) then the only option is to change either the electronics in the missile, which is probably not feasible, or the radar in the aircraft, which is possibly not economic.
BEagle's idea makes perfect sense.....but if the powers that be were looking for another excuse to bin the SHar, wouldn't it be convenient if they had to refit the F3 with Blue Vixen, and that the only economically viable means of doing so was by utilising existing units?
If that is the case (a bit like trying to run a Mac program on an IBM) then the only option is to change either the electronics in the missile, which is probably not feasible, or the radar in the aircraft, which is possibly not economic.
BEagle's idea makes perfect sense.....but if the powers that be were looking for another excuse to bin the SHar, wouldn't it be convenient if they had to refit the F3 with Blue Vixen, and that the only economically viable means of doing so was by utilising existing units?
Yes, had a similar thought to you Blue Wolf. Seem to recall that BWoS had/have a Tornado F2/F3 which has an IRST and other goodies which went under the unlikely moniker of TIARA - from what I remember, this was fitted with a Blue Vixen, instead of Foxhunter. Tony's chums could avoid all embarassment over SHAR by shurgging shulders and regretfully announcing that the Blue Vixens are needed for urgent refitting to the F3.
Of course, they're more likely to scrap the SHAR and use this as an excuse to bin more F3 Squadrons to enable Derry Irvine to renew his wallpaper (the current stuff must be at least five yearsold by now, after all).
Allowing the 'Keep the SHAR' campaign to win would be terribly embarrassing for Uncle Tony and cousin Gordon (although a 'Give the GR9 a radar' push might have a bit more luck?)
Of course, they're more likely to scrap the SHAR and use this as an excuse to bin more F3 Squadrons to enable Derry Irvine to renew his wallpaper (the current stuff must be at least five yearsold by now, after all).
Allowing the 'Keep the SHAR' campaign to win would be terribly embarrassing for Uncle Tony and cousin Gordon (although a 'Give the GR9 a radar' push might have a bit more luck?)
But there are not enough sets of Blue Vixen to fit the Tornado F3 fleet......surely?
But why didn't the MOD combine the Blue Vixen and Foxhunter projects in the 1980s? It would have saved money, and given AMRAMM capability to both RAF and RN.
And why can't Skyflash soldier on for a few more years?
But why didn't the MOD combine the Blue Vixen and Foxhunter projects in the 1980s? It would have saved money, and given AMRAMM capability to both RAF and RN.
And why can't Skyflash soldier on for a few more years?
My understanding is that the problem is primarily financial, rather than technical.
The Tornado F3 CSP (Capability Sustainment Programme) was originally intended to give the aircraft full AMRAAM and ASRAAM compatability, but that both missiles were integrated less fully to save money.
In the case of ASRAAM, the integration was not digital, restricting it to AIM-9 acquisition modes and making it impossible to use ASRAAM's full off boresight potential. Nor was a helmet sight funded. This would not have been technically challenging.
In the case of AMRAAM, the decision was taken that it would be ok to launch these on an inertial track, without the two mid-course updates which give the aircraft much of its deadly accuracy, allowing the missile to alter course before its onboard active seeker took over. Senior MoD sources decided that the required datalink was unaffordable, that simulations showed that "you are better off not using mid course guidance with AMRAAM" and that enemy aircraft could be picked off using ASRAAM as they made "evasive manoeuvres against the F3's initial AMRAAM shots". The planned AMRAAM optimisation programme was therefore cancelled.
There is little doubt that this modest and inexpensive programme would have given the F3 a more robust AMRAAM capability, and would have prevented the present 'situation'. Is it not thus the case that fingers should be pointed more at short-sighted and money-fixated senior officers, civil servants and politicians than at any supposed shortcomings in the F3 itself?
It was interesting that the Telgraph quoted an MoD source as saying that: "The Amraam missile is not part of the RAF's inventory at the moment."
I was under the impression that AMRAAM had already entered service (with squadrons and not just the OEU). I was even slightly convinced that the weapon had been deployed on Resinate South. Does this mean that the weapon has actually been withdrawn from use?
The Tornado F3 CSP (Capability Sustainment Programme) was originally intended to give the aircraft full AMRAAM and ASRAAM compatability, but that both missiles were integrated less fully to save money.
In the case of ASRAAM, the integration was not digital, restricting it to AIM-9 acquisition modes and making it impossible to use ASRAAM's full off boresight potential. Nor was a helmet sight funded. This would not have been technically challenging.
In the case of AMRAAM, the decision was taken that it would be ok to launch these on an inertial track, without the two mid-course updates which give the aircraft much of its deadly accuracy, allowing the missile to alter course before its onboard active seeker took over. Senior MoD sources decided that the required datalink was unaffordable, that simulations showed that "you are better off not using mid course guidance with AMRAAM" and that enemy aircraft could be picked off using ASRAAM as they made "evasive manoeuvres against the F3's initial AMRAAM shots". The planned AMRAAM optimisation programme was therefore cancelled.
There is little doubt that this modest and inexpensive programme would have given the F3 a more robust AMRAAM capability, and would have prevented the present 'situation'. Is it not thus the case that fingers should be pointed more at short-sighted and money-fixated senior officers, civil servants and politicians than at any supposed shortcomings in the F3 itself?
It was interesting that the Telgraph quoted an MoD source as saying that: "The Amraam missile is not part of the RAF's inventory at the moment."
I was under the impression that AMRAAM had already entered service (with squadrons and not just the OEU). I was even slightly convinced that the weapon had been deployed on Resinate South. Does this mean that the weapon has actually been withdrawn from use?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
UK MOD DPA:
"MOD has previously purchased AMRAAM missiles from the US Government on a Foreign Military Sales basis. It is currently proposed that this stock of missiles will be used on RN Sea Harriers and, in cases of operational emergency, shared by the RAF for use on Tornado F3".
===============================
BAE SYSTEMS Investment Brief - July 2001:
"The Tornado AMRAAM Optimisation Programme contract was signed on 8 June with the UK Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) for the provision of a mid-course guidance capability for AMRAAM on Tornado F3 aircraft. Major sub-contractors include BAE SYSTEMS Avionics and Alenia Marconi Systems".
"MOD has previously purchased AMRAAM missiles from the US Government on a Foreign Military Sales basis. It is currently proposed that this stock of missiles will be used on RN Sea Harriers and, in cases of operational emergency, shared by the RAF for use on Tornado F3".
===============================
BAE SYSTEMS Investment Brief - July 2001:
"The Tornado AMRAAM Optimisation Programme contract was signed on 8 June with the UK Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) for the provision of a mid-course guidance capability for AMRAAM on Tornado F3 aircraft. Major sub-contractors include BAE SYSTEMS Avionics and Alenia Marconi Systems".
Last edited by ORAC; 24th Jun 2002 at 16:07.
Re: AMRAAM optimisation programme.
Obviously cancelled then reinstated. Full story anyone?
ASRAAM integration on the Harrier GR7 has gone the same way as integration on Shar and Jag, I believe. Jag 3As are actually wired for ASRAAM (for a full digital integration with the helmet sight) and a trial digi-ASRAAM installation was completed on the QinetiQ (then DERA) Nightcat aircraft before a production integration was quietly binned.
Obviously cancelled then reinstated. Full story anyone?
ASRAAM integration on the Harrier GR7 has gone the same way as integration on Shar and Jag, I believe. Jag 3As are actually wired for ASRAAM (for a full digital integration with the helmet sight) and a trial digi-ASRAAM installation was completed on the QinetiQ (then DERA) Nightcat aircraft before a production integration was quietly binned.
According to the MoD's webpage bit about defence in the meeja:
Problems are alleged to prevent the AMRAAM missile being carried by Tornado F3 aircraft.
Comment: An integration programme for the aircraft and weapon is nearing completion.
So - the MoD appears to be saying that there's nothing in the story. Now, call me a tired old cynic (thank you), but this usually means that the story must be ture. However, wonder if, for once, the bad news isn't as bad as thought?
(Now call me a naive optimist...)
Problems are alleged to prevent the AMRAAM missile being carried by Tornado F3 aircraft.
Comment: An integration programme for the aircraft and weapon is nearing completion.
So - the MoD appears to be saying that there's nothing in the story. Now, call me a tired old cynic (thank you), but this usually means that the story must be ture. However, wonder if, for once, the bad news isn't as bad as thought?
(Now call me a naive optimist...)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ah the memorys come flooding back.
oct 14 1998, a lovely afternoon, csp(or it might have been 2g*, seems utterly irrelevant now), and ocw lets us lose with some rot. we ran around lota c shouting "fighting dog" at anything that moved. some of the chaps even planned an f3 wall into a grind. our day had come!
nice to see things have moved along since then! i think i've still got the software at home, well a piece of A4 with some distances a shar mate gave us in the bar.
happiest days of my life, apart from all my moaning and q.
regards to all.
noody.
oct 14 1998, a lovely afternoon, csp(or it might have been 2g*, seems utterly irrelevant now), and ocw lets us lose with some rot. we ran around lota c shouting "fighting dog" at anything that moved. some of the chaps even planned an f3 wall into a grind. our day had come!
nice to see things have moved along since then! i think i've still got the software at home, well a piece of A4 with some distances a shar mate gave us in the bar.
happiest days of my life, apart from all my moaning and q.
regards to all.
noody.
Last edited by NOODY; 25th Jun 2002 at 00:29.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spend the money on SHAR, or fix the problems intergrating AMRAAM to Foxhunter? Tricky question.
Firstly, to answer WE- ("A Bit Fat, and Can't Iron Trousers", Question) I'll keep it simple, for a civilian (That can't iron trousers).
Foxhunter is very powerfull, but that doesn't mean "Clever". What I mean is.........$%(*&&**^%^%$$$#@@^%thg7^&.
Sorry, it had to encryped for security, I'm sure you'll understand.
Needless to say, moving SHARS radar to the F3 would be a smart move. Better still, give us ECR90, there's probably nothing going to need that for years!!
Rota
Firstly, to answer WE- ("A Bit Fat, and Can't Iron Trousers", Question) I'll keep it simple, for a civilian (That can't iron trousers).
Foxhunter is very powerfull, but that doesn't mean "Clever". What I mean is.........$%(*&&**^%^%$$$#@@^%thg7^&.
Sorry, it had to encryped for security, I'm sure you'll understand.
Needless to say, moving SHARS radar to the F3 would be a smart move. Better still, give us ECR90, there's probably nothing going to need that for years!!
Rota
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points:
Putting a different, or even worse, new radar into an aircraft is a huge project that would take a long time and would be massively expensive - so it ain't gonna happen.
People are very cynical (rightly) about MoD statements, but could I perhaps suggest that journalists perhaps aren't the best informed people and might have just heard a rumour in a bar or from a mate of a mate and tried to make a story of it. They may even - shock horror - embellish it to sound really dangerous! It might even be really old news!!!!!!!! Has anyone ever seen an article in a newspaper (such as the Telegraph) about military aviation that they new was absolutely correct (or even close)? Personally, I find that articles are written by civilians who have no understanding of military aviation, and are often factually incorrect. Example: GR4 crashes, photo of F3! It's not that hard, is it?
Sorry if this has gone onto an anti media rant, nothing personal Jacko,I'm sure your Jag articles are flawless!
Putting a different, or even worse, new radar into an aircraft is a huge project that would take a long time and would be massively expensive - so it ain't gonna happen.
People are very cynical (rightly) about MoD statements, but could I perhaps suggest that journalists perhaps aren't the best informed people and might have just heard a rumour in a bar or from a mate of a mate and tried to make a story of it. They may even - shock horror - embellish it to sound really dangerous! It might even be really old news!!!!!!!! Has anyone ever seen an article in a newspaper (such as the Telegraph) about military aviation that they new was absolutely correct (or even close)? Personally, I find that articles are written by civilians who have no understanding of military aviation, and are often factually incorrect. Example: GR4 crashes, photo of F3! It's not that hard, is it?
Sorry if this has gone onto an anti media rant, nothing personal Jacko,I'm sure your Jag articles are flawless!
Hey Rota
I am not fat, in fact I'm the right weight for my height. I might well be a stupid, complete waste of space of a loser, but NOT fat.
My comments were partly based on what a journalist/enthusiast fried told me.
I am not fat, in fact I'm the right weight for my height. I might well be a stupid, complete waste of space of a loser, but NOT fat.
My comments were partly based on what a journalist/enthusiast fried told me.