Nimrod Sidewinder Kill
 

At work there is a Story that a Sidwinder Equipped Nimrod shot down a Aircraft during the Falklands,

Is this Fact or another Liney Story?

If fact which Aircraft and what did it shoot down?

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuf.../falklands.htm

After an encounter between a Nimrod and an Argentinean Air Force Boeing 707 engaged in shadowing the Task Force, in which neither aircraft possessed the necessary means to attack the other, the decision was taken to arm the Nimrods with Sidewinder missiles. These utilised existing underwing hard points that had originally been incorporated into the design with a view to allowing the carriage of Martell anti-ship missiles. BAe Manchester was once again employed to design and fit suitable wing pylons to carry a pair of Sidewinders plus the associated wiring and cockpit controls. Again, this was rapidly expedited, the system being test flown on 26 May, cleared for service only two days later to enter service at the end of the month. A period of less than a week from the test flight of an aircraft weapons system to its service entry is really quite astonishing!

Thank you for your quick reply, that was the action that prompted the fitting of the sidewinders but after that event did the Nimrod go on to shoot down an aircraft?

Sorry my reseach has been into Nimrod safety and I am unable to answer your other question.

I've never heard of the Sidewinder being fired in anger from the Nimrod. There was always the rumour that the engineers couldn't decide which way to point the missiles, forwards for attacking the C-130s and 707s or backwards to defend against fastjet attack

No. The Nimrod never shot down any Argentine aircraft.

Thanks TEEEJ, another Liney story

Would you get a lock firing backwards? Beadwindow me if neccesary!

All you need for a lock is a heat source.

I understand that a Russian fighter has a rear firing missile.

Aerodynamics will be a factor although in a slow moving airframe, such as a Nimrod, probably insignificant.

In a fighter firing forward the missile may be given an extra 400-500 kts of energy. In a Nimrod firing backwards it would have a negative energy of -240 kts.

Against a 707 the issue is one of geometry as much as forward or backwards. The 707 can outrun the Nimrod at high level. A turn away outside the engagement envelope would cause the missile to abort.

Pont
Thanks. Was aware of the backwards Ivan (Su-30 ish?). I thought that might be a radar jobby. Assume friction will heat up an airframe enough, especially with modern detectors.

R-73 (AA-11 Archer) tested off Flanker. I don't think they went ahead with it after trials?

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/R-73.html

The more modern sidewinder has the ability to engage targets front on, I can't really say what the ability of an early '80s missile would be. I get the impression it was more for show due to the lack of air support during the early part of the Falklands conflict. Then again I may have been caught out by an old wives tale

A Nimrod has never shot down any aircraft with a Sidewinder.


In fact no enemy aircraft has ever been shot down by a RAF aircraft armed Winder (RN Harriers are a different matter!)

The only manned aircraft ever shot down by a RAF Winder was an RAF Jaguar!!!:ugh::ugh:

Of course we had only just acquired 9Ls for the SHAR. Doubtful if they would have held a set back for the Nimrod.

If the intended target was the 707 which used to probe ASI it might have been better to put a couple on a Vulcan interceptor - now that would have worked.

We didn't
That wasn't the rationale. There was no intention to launch a QRA Nimrod!! The primary aim was to provide a capability against the 707 on task,and the secondary purpose to provide a self defence capability. As I am sure will agree PN, in may cases even if you don't destroy the target deterring him can still achieve your objective. Whilst the Nimrod was not exactly the best intercept platform in the world, its presence could be enough to make the opposition a bit more circumspect. It would have taken some good tactical handling by the AAWC but a trap could have been sprung.
YS

YS, I agree. As for the idea of a Q platform at ASI, I understand that the 707 entered the Sea Dart MEZ and then exited before it could close to the kill zone.

Of course had the threat continued we could have sent F4s. In fact don't know why we didn't. Or as MJ alluded to, at least said we had. The idea of a threat is often far worse than the actual threat.

I like to think that Soviet submarines had to carry SAM in case they had to surface and could have been helpless in the face of a Nimrod BL755 attack. Just think of how much vodka had to be left behind to install an SA7.:}

IIRC the 707 stopped its visits to ASI when the Harrier aircraft were exchanged for the Phantoms.

Must have come as a bit of a shock to the 707 driver, expecting to turn round at the Harriers endurance limit, to come face to face with a Phantom.

The 707 was fired upon by HMS Cardiff, who engaged it with Sea Dart.

An account is here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...2&postcount=20
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...6&postcount=76

Full thread

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=67322

Acording to a now long-in-the-tooth ex-Nimod pilot, with whom I flew in the mid 80's, the 707 flew about 1nm past the nose of the Nimrod. That event prompted the fitting of the winders - on the off chance that it happened again!

We still did LOADEXs with the winders until the mid 90's. They have been withdrawn from the inventory now.

Tappers Dad is absolutely correct. The aircraft was ??229 (I didn't bother with the letters in my log book). The intention was to go for the flare towed by a Jindvik over Cardigan bay but because of the sighting device the missile acquired the Jindvik so I suppose you can actually say that a Nimrod has downed an aircraft. The sighting system was two bits a perspex on the coaming with cross hairs so when lined up on the target it was on the missiles boresight, the sidewinder growl was also present when it had the target's I/R. Further sophistication was provided by a circle around the cross hairs on the rear bit of perspex. When the 707's wings filled the circle it was ideal winder range.