Sea Jet
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gravelbelly said;
I was working at Ferranti at that time. We had Blue Fox, Blue Parrot, Blue Vixen, etc. When we inherited Marconi's Milton Keynes site we used to refer to the Foxhunter radar as "Blue Circle" because so many of the F2/F3 aircraft, at that time, were flying with concrete ballast instead of a radar.
....And we now had the embarrassment of owning Foxhunter.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maryland
Age: 64
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sept. 21, N94422, XZ439 flew again gear retracted fine, and Art did "mild" aerobatics and returned with no new gripes. A true victory for the team. A great big thank you to all our supporters.
As always continue to check out nallsaviation.com for the latest.
As always continue to check out nallsaviation.com for the latest.
Following on from the previous post, N94422 (formerly XZ439) has recently been back up in the sky. This is of course recorded on the Nalls Aviation website, and there is also a video on YouTube. Seeing is believing....
The November 2008 edition of Air Forces Monthly contains a feature, by Kelvin Curnow, on British Aircraft Carriers. Surprisingly perhaps, the article seems to concentrate on current problems and the events of the (recent) past more than on CVF and the future. First of these is the lack of fixed wing aircraft on RN carrier decks post Sea Harriers, caused by the reduction in aircraft numbers, the commitment to Operation Herrick and the Harrier conversions from GR7 to GR9. The author notes that not so many years ago a CVS might be found with eight Sea Harriers embarked, and a similar number of GR7s. Now having fixed wing aircraft embarked is a rarity, with various skills fade issues for both pilots and flight deck personnel. This situation will improve next April when the Herrick commitment is taken over by the Tornado GR4.
He also mentions that the Sea Harrier got 23 confirmed air to air kills in 1982, which was doing well considering the lack of AEW or AAR support, the limited weapon load, and the limitations of Blue Fox radar. In contrast the mighty F14 Tomcat only achieved four kills in its career with the US Navy. Of course, the number of kills is only part of the story. The 453 Argentine sorties abandoned in 1982 because of the deterrent effect of the Sea Harrier are just as important if not more so, similarly I imagine that the strong air defence capabilities of US Carrier aircraft have had a similar deterrent effect on adversaries.
The article mentions that lack of investment meant that the Sea Harrier never achieved its potential. Apart from the planned more powerful engine, upgraded avionics and Link 16 that it was meant to get in the upgrade planned for 2002, he mentions proposed wing tip missile rails and leading edge route extensions, speculating that with all this it would have been able to carry a larger weapon load.
I was recently looking at websites stored in my favourites folder (I put things in there for later use then forget about them - so it contains all sorts of stuff) and found this page from Demobbed - Out of Service British Military Aircraft. Although there are a few discrepancies between that and Target Lock: Sea Harrier - Production (Royal Navy), it does show that the number of Sea Harriers at the Dummy Deck at Culdrose seems to have increased to ten plus two T8s, with additional aircraft delivered in the last eighteen months, plus additional aircraft stored at Culdrose (including the one painted bright blue), Yeovilton and other places. Infinitely better than the scrapyard....
Lastly, the restrictions on guests on PPRuNe appear to have been lifted as of early/mid September, hence over 1000 additional views in under a month. Which is nice!
The November 2008 edition of Air Forces Monthly contains a feature, by Kelvin Curnow, on British Aircraft Carriers. Surprisingly perhaps, the article seems to concentrate on current problems and the events of the (recent) past more than on CVF and the future. First of these is the lack of fixed wing aircraft on RN carrier decks post Sea Harriers, caused by the reduction in aircraft numbers, the commitment to Operation Herrick and the Harrier conversions from GR7 to GR9. The author notes that not so many years ago a CVS might be found with eight Sea Harriers embarked, and a similar number of GR7s. Now having fixed wing aircraft embarked is a rarity, with various skills fade issues for both pilots and flight deck personnel. This situation will improve next April when the Herrick commitment is taken over by the Tornado GR4.
He also mentions that the Sea Harrier got 23 confirmed air to air kills in 1982, which was doing well considering the lack of AEW or AAR support, the limited weapon load, and the limitations of Blue Fox radar. In contrast the mighty F14 Tomcat only achieved four kills in its career with the US Navy. Of course, the number of kills is only part of the story. The 453 Argentine sorties abandoned in 1982 because of the deterrent effect of the Sea Harrier are just as important if not more so, similarly I imagine that the strong air defence capabilities of US Carrier aircraft have had a similar deterrent effect on adversaries.
The article mentions that lack of investment meant that the Sea Harrier never achieved its potential. Apart from the planned more powerful engine, upgraded avionics and Link 16 that it was meant to get in the upgrade planned for 2002, he mentions proposed wing tip missile rails and leading edge route extensions, speculating that with all this it would have been able to carry a larger weapon load.
I was recently looking at websites stored in my favourites folder (I put things in there for later use then forget about them - so it contains all sorts of stuff) and found this page from Demobbed - Out of Service British Military Aircraft. Although there are a few discrepancies between that and Target Lock: Sea Harrier - Production (Royal Navy), it does show that the number of Sea Harriers at the Dummy Deck at Culdrose seems to have increased to ten plus two T8s, with additional aircraft delivered in the last eighteen months, plus additional aircraft stored at Culdrose (including the one painted bright blue), Yeovilton and other places. Infinitely better than the scrapyard....
Lastly, the restrictions on guests on PPRuNe appear to have been lifted as of early/mid September, hence over 1000 additional views in under a month. Which is nice!
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 9th Dec 2008 at 23:00. Reason: Small Typo!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
He also mentions that the Sea Harrier got 23 confirmed air to air kills in 1982, which was doing well considering the lack of AEW or AAR support, the limited weapon load, and the limitations of Blue Vixen radar.
Blue Vixen was the FA.2 radar. By way of atonement, read Sharkey Ward's book another five times.
He also mentions that the Sea Harrier got 23 confirmed air to air kills in 1982, which was doing well considering the lack of AEW or AAR support, the limited weapon load, and the limitations of Blue Fox radar.
The truth is that in late 1981 the MoD was undertaking 3 major airborne radar programmes, for Sea Harrier, Lynx and Sea King. (Blue Fox, Sea Spray and Sea Searcher). Only Sea Spray was reasonably mature. Development of the other two had to be cut short by a year and production launched. That so much kit made it South is testament to the flexibility of both companies – neither of which exist anymore. What the SHAR force got first was “B” Models – i.e. pre-production models. They lacked features from the intended specification, yet the basic quality and performance was so good Ferranti didn’t see them again for upwards of 8 years. The down side was that pilots noticed marked differences between aircraft – they should have been withdrawn as soon as possible but there is always a tendency for the Services to hang on to what they have.
While a simplification, largely because of this Blue Fox effectively became a Technology Demonstrator Programme for Blue Vixen and ECR90 (Typhoon’s radar). “B” Model Blue Vixen could be seen working in about 86 – meaning the requirement had been approved some years earlier (judging by the NSR number, maybe even during 82). It is a feature of these programmes, plus Merlin/Blue Kestrel, that the avionics were available many years before actually being put to use. For example, Merlin needed an avionic upgrade before she entered service (still waiting I think). This says something about the procurement methodology and planning, but I won’t go there.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otherwise, the casual reader is led to believe Blue Fox was somehow lacking in capability whereas to this day most of the worlds airforces would give their right arm for it.
Pontius
Not sure which version of BF you're talking about. Perhaps not post-JP or I/A?? There were 4 distinct standards, most comments relate to the first 2. Certainly, when the RN had removed BF and fitted BV, the RAF were looking for a new radar. BF more than met their spec, but the yoke was physically too wide for the a/c they had in mind. (Think the "bulbous" nose on SHAR). Of course, the penny then dropped - "If the RN have ditched something that's better than what we need, WTF are they getting?". Sorry, getting close to classified stuff here. Must shut up.
Not sure which version of BF you're talking about. Perhaps not post-JP or I/A?? There were 4 distinct standards, most comments relate to the first 2. Certainly, when the RN had removed BF and fitted BV, the RAF were looking for a new radar. BF more than met their spec, but the yoke was physically too wide for the a/c they had in mind. (Think the "bulbous" nose on SHAR). Of course, the penny then dropped - "If the RN have ditched something that's better than what we need, WTF are they getting?". Sorry, getting close to classified stuff here. Must shut up.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tucumseh
While a simplification, largely because of this Blue Fox effectively became a Technology Demonstrator Programme for Blue Vixen and ECR90 (Typhoon’s radar). “B” Model Blue Vixen could be seen working in about 86 – meaning the requirement had been approved some years earlier (judging by the NSR number, maybe even during 82).
Blue Vixen came out of Blue Falcon, an MPRF demonstrator that was a consolation prize for losing both Foxhunter and Nimrod. Not Blue Fox.
ECR90 came out of Blue Vixen, in general terms at least (i.e. the names of the different bits and the engineers who designed it). There are significant differences in the fundamental design of the two radars.
B model Blue Vixen was most certainly not available in 1986. I was programming the damn thing in 1988, so that would have been rather interesting. The A-model might have been doing some early trials, but then it was completely unflyable in a SHAR (the processor being the size of a medium-sized bookcase). Perhaps you are confusing the X-model that was a transmitter, a receiver, and a damn great tape recorder; which flew around in our tame BAC 1-11?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tucumseh
Certainly, when the RN had removed BF and fitted BV, the RAF were looking for a new radar. BF more than met their spec, but the yoke was physically too wide for the a/c they had in mind. (Think the "bulbous" nose on SHAR). Of course, the penny then dropped - "If the RN have ditched something that's better than what we need, WTF are they getting?". Sorry, getting close to classified stuff here. Must shut up.
Gravelbelly
Apologies. I have PM’d you to explain. I regret mentioning it as the nature of the beast prevents us developing the thread.
In certain MoD posts, perception of programme/design maturity is measured by other factors. In the same way an individual programme has a Risk Register with many risks, there are people to whom each programme is a single risk in their Register. At that time (85-87) Blue Vixen was not considered to be a problem, not least because of our confidence in the company and its staff. Risks were being satisfactorily mitigated, reliability was being tied down at LRU/module level and therefore financial and wider programme planning could be firmed up for the beancounters. It is at this level you also take a view on a company’s track record. Ferranti had never let me, or my predecessors down – and that counts for a lot, allowing one to relax a bit and concentrate resources on problematic programmes (risks). I cannot point you to who does this task now, it ceased in about 1992.
Of course, things changed dramatically with the International Signal business and, later, when I believe the RN changed the BV spec. Few could have foreseen the former, you are probably more aware of the impact of the latter than I.
Best wishes
Apologies. I have PM’d you to explain. I regret mentioning it as the nature of the beast prevents us developing the thread.
In certain MoD posts, perception of programme/design maturity is measured by other factors. In the same way an individual programme has a Risk Register with many risks, there are people to whom each programme is a single risk in their Register. At that time (85-87) Blue Vixen was not considered to be a problem, not least because of our confidence in the company and its staff. Risks were being satisfactorily mitigated, reliability was being tied down at LRU/module level and therefore financial and wider programme planning could be firmed up for the beancounters. It is at this level you also take a view on a company’s track record. Ferranti had never let me, or my predecessors down – and that counts for a lot, allowing one to relax a bit and concentrate resources on problematic programmes (risks). I cannot point you to who does this task now, it ceased in about 1992.
Of course, things changed dramatically with the International Signal business and, later, when I believe the RN changed the BV spec. Few could have foreseen the former, you are probably more aware of the impact of the latter than I.
Best wishes
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tucumseh,
Sorry mate but I'm really trying to understand your banter. You're talking about the Blue Fox in its later life as if it were a terrific bit of kit but I think we must be either discussing a different radar or I must have only flown aircraft with dodgy radars in them. It was, as you know, a pulse radar and subject to the limitations of that type of kit. Nobody in their right mind would be looking at installing a pulse radar in a replacement aircraft, so I really can't see why the Crabs would be saying it met all their needs but they just couldn't squeeze it into their aircraft. That and the fact that the FRS1 didn't have a bulbous nose has really got me quite confused.
Don't know I'm afraid because I don't know what those abbreviations mean. I flew the thing from the mid eighties onwards, so don't know if that affects the price of fish in your thinking.
Nope! I've re-read that so many times and I still can't see what you're trying to say. The Blue Vixen started making it's way onto the OEU in about 1992, so I presume this is the sort of time period you're talking about. I'll take your word for it that the RAF were looking for a new radar for something but what on earth would cause anyone to think the Blue Fox, that was being junked by the RN, was able to meet the specifications for anything other than a cloud spotting machine. It was a dated, pulse system that had no future then, let alone putting it in a new machine. As I said above, the FRS1 had a skinny nose and the radar was small, so I really am at a loss to imagine any aircraft they couldn't fit it to (if they were daft enough to) and your post to Gravelbelly has just got me even more confused.
At the end of the day, the radar was better than having nothing and was alright for finding prominent coastline features, big aeroplanes and, very importantly, Mother, if the fisheads weren't getting grumpy about us 'looking' at them and blocking the ECM chap's ears with the dulcet tones of the radar. It was certainly not the all singing and dancing bit of kit you seem to be suggesting it was and certainly nobody cried when the Blue Vixen came along and the teething snags got sorted out. As for Crabair wanting it for a new aircraft, you've really got me foxed (do you like what I've done there)
Sorry mate but I'm really trying to understand your banter. You're talking about the Blue Fox in its later life as if it were a terrific bit of kit but I think we must be either discussing a different radar or I must have only flown aircraft with dodgy radars in them. It was, as you know, a pulse radar and subject to the limitations of that type of kit. Nobody in their right mind would be looking at installing a pulse radar in a replacement aircraft, so I really can't see why the Crabs would be saying it met all their needs but they just couldn't squeeze it into their aircraft. That and the fact that the FRS1 didn't have a bulbous nose has really got me quite confused.
Not sure which version of BF you're talking about. Perhaps not post-JP or I/A
Certainly, when the RN had removed BF and fitted BV, the RAF were looking for a new radar. BF more than met their spec, but the yoke was physically too wide for the a/c they had in mind. (Think the "bulbous" nose on SHAR). Of course, the penny then dropped - "If the RN have ditched something that's better than what we need
At the end of the day, the radar was better than having nothing and was alright for finding prominent coastline features, big aeroplanes and, very importantly, Mother, if the fisheads weren't getting grumpy about us 'looking' at them and blocking the ECM chap's ears with the dulcet tones of the radar. It was certainly not the all singing and dancing bit of kit you seem to be suggesting it was and certainly nobody cried when the Blue Vixen came along and the teething snags got sorted out. As for Crabair wanting it for a new aircraft, you've really got me foxed (do you like what I've done there)
Suspicion breeds confidence
I remember going to get one or if needs be destroy it when "soapy" Watson parked his Shar on a Spanish freighter called the Alriago. The navy did not want anyone to get theirs paws on it even an ally. Yes it was a monopulse radar, so useless over land but next toimpossible to jam.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Spon 
,
I think you might be right but there would have had to been a shed load of gizzits from travelling salesmen to even make me lie about some of the marvelous capabilities that are being talked about here. I know you really loved the technology advances you got to experience when you got to the SHAR and started to find out what a real radar was like
As with everything else, I blame the Crabs
And now, apparently, it was almost impossible to jam
I suppose that was true for the Canberra but for any decent jammer it wasn't 
I recall getting closer and closer to a Buff one day just running the intercept on his 'spoke' but even with the gain turned as low as it would go the power of the wigglies coming from the Yank were so powerful that my poor old Fox couldn't cope and, as it was already in standby, just decided to switch itself off completely and then not play for the rest of the flight. I still blame the Crabs (obviously) but (a)it wasn't at all difficult to jam me that day and (b)the poxy Shermans completely buggered my parrot (or whatever we called it) 
,I think you might be right but there would have had to been a shed load of gizzits from travelling salesmen to even make me lie about some of the marvelous capabilities that are being talked about here. I know you really loved the technology advances you got to experience when you got to the SHAR and started to find out what a real radar was like
As with everything else, I blame the Crabs And now, apparently, it was almost impossible to jam
I suppose that was true for the Canberra but for any decent jammer it wasn't I recall getting closer and closer to a Buff one day just running the intercept on his 'spoke' but even with the gain turned as low as it would go the power of the wigglies coming from the Yank were so powerful that my poor old Fox couldn't cope and, as it was already in standby, just decided to switch itself off completely and then not play for the rest of the flight. I still blame the Crabs (obviously) but (a)it wasn't at all difficult to jam me that day and (b)the poxy Shermans completely buggered my parrot (or whatever we called it)
Suspicion breeds confidence
I still blame the Crabs (obviously
Bloody Crabs! Yes it was a long time ago and I wouldn't put anything past the Spams, they have better kit usually, but not always. The Type 1022 on a T42 could see all sorts of stuff they didnt want us to see and we were ordered to turn it off at times.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 60
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Yes it was a monopulse radar, so useless over land but next to impossible to jam"
PULSE=poor (not useless) over land
as opposed to:
MONOPULSE= resistant (not immune) to angle deception jamming
The rose tinted nostalgia of all the rubbish on this thread can only diminish the credibility of many of the posters and cause a hearty guffaw from those who actually flew the aircraft- be it FRS1,FRS2 or F/A2 for that matter. Out.
PULSE=poor (not useless) over land
as opposed to:
MONOPULSE= resistant (not immune) to angle deception jamming
The rose tinted nostalgia of all the rubbish on this thread can only diminish the credibility of many of the posters and cause a hearty guffaw from those who actually flew the aircraft- be it FRS1,FRS2 or F/A2 for that matter. Out.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I got a note from a contact in the Indian Navy. I'll paraphrase it as follows:
* The UK government is proposing the Eurofighter as a contender for the forthcoming fighter competition.
* At the same time the UK govt declines to sell the remaining FA2 stocks and refuses to supply surplus Blue Vixen equipped airframes to India.
How can these two issues be reconciled?
Navaleye
* The UK government is proposing the Eurofighter as a contender for the forthcoming fighter competition.
* At the same time the UK govt declines to sell the remaining FA2 stocks and refuses to supply surplus Blue Vixen equipped airframes to India.
How can these two issues be reconciled?
Navaleye
Navaleye,
Your contact is misinformed?
Your contact is misinformed?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne,
Possibly so, however I believe he is correct on the first point. Im also led to believe that india is looking for a Mig-21 replacement and the Typhoon has been mentioned in that context. If you know more, please share.
Long time no speak, happy new year BTW.
Possibly so, however I believe he is correct on the first point. Im also led to believe that india is looking for a Mig-21 replacement and the Typhoon has been mentioned in that context. If you know more, please share.
Long time no speak, happy new year BTW.
India will indeed be seeing the Eurofighter in a few weeks time; an existing Eurofighter customer will be sending some to Aero India 2009 at Yelahanka.
