Reconnaissance
 

A quick question for those in the know,
Tactical, Fighter and Photographic Reconnaissance, how do they relate to one another? I was never sure if Tactical and Fighter/Armed recce were one and the same, or divided on whether the aircraft is armed or not? Photo recce, I've always thought referred more specifically to the high altitude stuff carried out by the Canberra PR7/9s for example.

FB

PS Here's an acronym relating to reconnaissance, SRPR.

FWIW, maritime / carrier wise:
The F8 Crusader became the RF-8 (slick) unarmed recce bird in the USN. (VFP-63 is the last squadron I recall having it)
The RF-4 IIRC (memory hazy) had a photo capability.
F-14 Tomcat in its later years had something similar. (TARPS was but one add on, but then, so was ground attack! :p )
All of the above are/were USN aircraft.

More recently, there is some interesting imagery that current fighter aircraft can provide to the ISR team using their targeting pods. The F-16's did some very nice "non Traditional ISR" over Iraq during OIF. (But I am going back nearly two decades in recalling that).

Other 'pods' attached to an aircraft would, I expect, blur the distinction you seem to be referring to as the years have gone by.

FB - in early 60's I was on 58 Sqn at Wyton with Canberra PR7 & 9's. We were purely photo- recce (high & low!) with no armament (unless you include photo-flashes for night work!) i seem to remember (?) several FR sqns. with Hunter/Swift aircraft who carried guns and cameras - mainly in 2 TAF. I guess they were able to "look after" themselves if in trouble!
Bill

Hi Bill,

Was there a difference in that regard between Fighter/Armed Reconnaissance and Tactical Reconnaissance? I'm thinking of the Canberra PR era in Germany, I always imagined that the PR7s of 17, 31 and 80 could only be employed on a tactical mission pre and post strike, but unarmed just the same.

FB

I remeber having the mick taken out of me when at AAFCE I suggested to a USAF Major who had flown F-100s in Vietnam and F-4s in the QRA role in Alaska, that Zweibrucken's 26th TRW had scrambled. He made some joke about the crew ernestly clicking away at the intruder.

FB

In RAF(G), the aim of armed recce was to find and destroy targets of opportunity in a defined area/line search. Intelligence gathering was of secondary importance. With reconnaissance missions, the primary aim was intelligence gathering but self-defence weapons would be carried.

Mog

In RAF terms, you are mixing apples and pears to a certain extent. Fighter Recce and Photographic Recce usually applied to designation of the platform - FR (and later GR types, such as the Harrier) were (or could be) armed, PR types were usually unarmed.

Tactical and strategic really apply to the task and product - e.g. a Canberra PR9 could provide tactical intelligenece for the fieid commander, or strategic intelligence for the Command depending on the mission role

Dave F68 and Mogwi,

I think you've answered my query.

I, believe 3 Squadron rather than 4, was tasked with secondary armed reconnassance. Given their origins one would have thought it was the other way round. But I welcome any correction.

FB

In Harrier GR1/3 times, 4 Squadron was the recce squadron.

Yes, 4 had a declared recce rôle with the pod carried on the c/l pylon. This had a fan of oblique cameras plus a vert camera (ex-TSR2) which took offset pairs of negatives. 3 (and 20) had a port-facing F95 (large format, 8/16 [I think] frames per sec, selectable) that was quite adequate for recce and the pilots were also recce trained. The doctrine was for the pilot to note all possible int as he flew past the target and try to get imagery as a bonus. The SHAR carried a stbd- facing F95 with the option of 3” or 6” lenses.

Armed recce was flown so that if the leader failed to get weapons on target because of a late sighting, the #2 could rack across and drop. Bloody good fun until the bullets start coming back at you🙁

MOG

And could we get the pilots to pass us Met ........... I think there was a silly code TARWI ? which nobody understood and nobody used. We accepted that the missions were exceptionally busy and indeed white knuckle, but it would have been nice to have an update for the next mission.

I didn't mind be wrong, I objected to not knowing I was wrong.

This lack of feedback was a constant theme for all my service and I am sure is there today. Quite simply, it is not a priority, and I accept that.

TARWI: 0081X. Always.

So I didn't imagine it!

​​​​​​​https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/...AL_ENG_PDP.pdf

The Marines also operated the RF-4, not sure if we had RF-8s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMFP-3

I thought as much but I've red conflicting claims before. But this certainly makes more sense.

FB

Indeed 4 Sqn were the primary RAFG Harrier recce providers in the late 70's, However 3 Sqn also kept it as a secondary commitment and their "Recce Weeks" were a delight to support from 4 Sqn RIC , working directly with them on their premises.

Timelord NB and Mission " As briefed" :)

I am disappointed that all my careful TARWI reporting went in the bin. The TARWI code was a simple, accurate and descriptive code that when used well, could give a very good idea of target weather. It recorded cloud amount, cloud base, visibility, significant weather and suitability for mission. As an example, 3467HSVY:

3/8 cloud, base 2000’
Vis 6 nm
Snow
En-route weather predominantly VFR
Wind from NW quadrant
Weather better to the south
Weather marginal for mission

Having said that, 0081X was the lazy pilot’s fall-back.🙁

Mog

Thank you, and I am sorry. I am certain that Met. did not bin it.

I did three years at EDUO 1967-1970 with Hunters and I can honestly say that no TARWI crossed my desk, perhaps they had not been invented!

My next tour was as a senior weatherguesser at JHQ and we very, very occasionally saw a TARWI. In context, whereas the TARWI was meant for "on station" consumption, it should have reached me because I was responsible for the SIGWX forecast that was used for all NW Europe ............. and indeed would have been the primary document in a TTW scenario.

My third tour was as C Met O RAFG / 1BR Corps. The outstation S Met Os routinely whinged about lack of feedback, so I routinely whinged to SASO. To little effect.

I totally accept that a shagged out low-level pilot has a lot on his plate and I totally accept that a TARWI is well down on the priority list. **** happens, and we won the Cold War. Result.

Just a slightly off thread question, can anyone remember the original OSD for the Tornado? I believe it was 2024, but can't find anything anywhere to back that up?

FB