Nimrod vs C130 or B707
 

The RAF fitted AIM 9s on the Nimrod presumably in case they came across enemy mariitime patrol a/c such the Argentine 707 or C130. I've often wondered about the practicality of this. Somehow I just can't see a Nimrod being able to stay on the tail of 707 or Herc. They were certainly not built for aerobatics or dog fights. Were the AIM9s just for show?

AIM9,s were definately not fitted to the Nimrod just for show, there is good video of one actually firing one as part of the trials. and we did so many a MISSILE LOADEX,s throughout the 80,s & 90,s it had to be serious.

The best bit about the MOD was the sight, definately Heath & Robinson inspired, but apparently it worked, Two bits of Clear Plastic with a Cross on one, line up the hole with the cross and bobs your uncle, and only fitted to one side (P1), with the Tone fed in through a redundant intercom circuit.

I doubt the Nimrod could keep behind a Herc because of its pretty decent STOL performance but I reckon it could sort out a 707 no problem.

I,ve been in the back of a Nimrod on more than one occasion when its done a bit of dissimilar against Tornado & F-16 and basically as long as its a reasonably slow tight turning affair it usually doesn't fair to badly particularly against a Tornado, F-16 not so good because of its agility. A bit false I know because either of these would just use a longer range weapon and just pick it off.

I reckon it would easily do a 707 but it would be nice to know if any of our Kipper Fleet breathren have been in the situation.

The Nimrod would stay with the C130 and give it a hard time - the aerodynamics are similar - but it would easily outclass a 707, which has higher performance aerodynamics. But bear in mind that the vast majority of kills in any war are first pass, not through dogfighting.

Most aircraft are shot down without even knowing they're under attack. The intention was to sneak up and shoot them in the back when they weren't looking. The biggest asset in that regard was the radar, not turning performance.

What about when the missile ends it's journey? Is a dogfight missile like the AIM-9 really capable of knocking down such a big target?

But ORAC, if the radar is on, you can forget about the sneak up and **** over the head approach.

Noisy, as with any missile, it depends were it hits. An AIM-9 doesn't have to blow a jet to bits, but I reckon that a solid hit on an engine would have a good chance of leading to engine pylon failure which could damage the integrity of the wing which could turn things into a very bad day for the heavy pilot. etc, etc.

Size doesn't always matter.

Speed
 

I suggest a Nimrod could drop an AWACS but would be really struggling to do the same to a 707 unless it could get to Mach .89 without all the aerials et al.. falling off!

but the Mighty Hunter wouldn't need to stay on the tail of a 707, it would just need to crack the angles. What is the speed of an AIM9?;)

Does the AIM-9 pepper the target with shrapnel, which might upset the hydraulics/electrics? Or is it just a big loud bang?

is there a Plumber in the house?

It has, as I understand, an HE Annular blast fragmentation warhead; a direct hit will ruin your day. I'm not sure on the proximity fusing bit, but I reckon a detenation close by will ruin your day. I think peppering with shrapnel is a bit of an understatement........

If you really want to know, try this:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aim9.html

mmm.. That'll be a big loud bang then.

AIM 9L head on capability
 

Interesting article. This was not used in the Falklands. There were no successful head on interceptions. Argentine Mirage IIIs were encountered head on just once but AIM 9L could not acquire. The FAA stopped using the Scissors manouevre for this reason.

Generally proximity fusing will blow an annular (har har) ring of titanium rods at very high speed, cutting through anything hard like it was soft butter. It will at least hurt !!

I was very much a participant in the Falklands punch-up, and spent most of the war airborne south of Ascension in the C130. As I remember, the Nimrod AIM-9 fit was a self-defence measure which was felt necessary because some of their missions went well within range of Argentinian fast-jet operations. While it was unlikely that the Nimrod would score a successful engagement against an A4, Mirage or Etendard, the fact that they had something to shoot back with would hopefully dissuade the Argentinians from attempting a target-of-opportunity kill.

There was little chance of a Nimrod 'happening across' the Argentinian 707 or even the C130, and the idea of using the Nimrod as some kind of ad-hoc interceptor is laughable!

As for aerodynamic performance in a turning situation at low-level, while it's totally hypothetical and faintly ridiculous to envisage such a comparison, the C130 is very much more capable than either of the other two in this environment. Its extremely low stall speed coupled with its relatively high 'G' capability and the fact that it creates its own airflow make it a formidable turning machine - ask any FJ pilot who's tried to turn with it! Both the 707 and, to a lesser extent, the Nimrod have wings optimised for high-level, relatively high-mach cruise. These wings, even with lots of high-lift devices, will not generate the same manoeuvre capability as the C130's wing.

Just think, by the time the 'newrod' comes into service the airborne lazer will be operative thus rendering missiles obsolete!!

With the 'other' use of the mighty hunter, why not equip with Brimstone rather than task a FJ. If the Spyrod spots a tgt why not take it out there and then?

All 4 engined aircraft are capable of doing one thing, going in straight lines carrying load; this includes Nimrod, C130, B707, AWACS, C-17 etc

The aim of any heavy under attack is to buy time by either driving around in circles or retrograding as quickly as possible into the CAP or MEZ (Mode 4) until the 'threat' runs to bingo fuel or gets bored with whole event. The success of this depends on alot of luck on both sides.

Aim 9's will do little damage to a heavy as most of the destructive force will be directed into the engine, on the C130 and B707 this will leave the fuselage intact and the aircraft as a whole flyable. I suspect a Nimrod would not be so undamaged.

The question of Nimrod being an offensive AD aircraft is a non starter. Stand-off weapons is the future for this ageing airliner.

Anyone who doubts what an AIM-9 can do should think back. Though heavy, the AA-3 'Anab's warhead was primitive, and look what a mess one of those did to a KAL 747. The aircraft was already doomed when the second hit, I'm told.

And what did our Israeli chums use against that Libyan 727? And how about the airliner which went down after being hit by a stray AIM-9 somewhere in the Med, or am I dreaming that one?

Incidentally, the OR blokes at the time intended the Nimrod/AIM-9 fit as being a deterrent to the snooping Argie 707 and L-188 maritime patrol aircraft.

Of course, even if the Nimrod couldn't stay in the Herc's turning radius, what's to stop it converting it's speed to height, getting out of plane, and shooting dwn at it?

ENG

For how long? The catastrophic loss of an engine in violent circumstances, when the host aircraft will probably be in more than sedate manoeuvre, will surely lead, in most circumstances, to stress damage to the wing and possible structural failure. In my book, a direct AIM9 hit taking out an engine of a 707 type would most probably lead to a kill.

If what you say is correct, airliners have little to worry about from the HH SAM threat, as all the little popsicle would cause is irritation. I think not.

Doesn't have to knock it down, if it makes it unable to continue it's mission the the aim would have been achieved.