Fuzzy Dunlop
Banned
Have the BAe Nimrod AEW be more successful and enter service.
You can even put the systems on to a different aircraft type or get foreign orders.
Much obliged!
Last edited:
Have the BAe Nimrod AEW be more successful and enter service
- Thread starter Fuzzy Dunlop
- Start date
Have the BAe Nimrod AEW be more successful and enter service.
You can even put the systems on to a different aircraft type or get foreign orders.
Much obliged!
My understanding that it was the weight of the computer systems, combined with the cooling systems required to keep them from overheating that contributed to the project being canned. Is there a way to have a simpler Radar System installed that might allow it to enter service, thus allowing electronics to catch up?
Riain
Banned
My old faithful British Cold War facts and figures has some handy info on the AEW3.
If Britain had chosen any other option than the one they did it's likely that the Nimrod AEW3 would have seen service. However it would not have looked like the bneast we know and loathe, it would likely have the flying-saucer rotodome of the E2 Hawkeye and E3 Sentry.
As for exports, it would be a mid-range AEW aircraft and even if it used mostly E2 electronics it would be considerably different because the E2 mostly datalinked it's 'take' back to the carrier CIC and only had 2 consoles and operators as well as a tactical coordinator on board. The Nimrod would be more akin to the E3 in that it had 6 consoles and operators as well as a tactical coordinator or 2 would would have used its sensor take onboard, more like an E3 Sentry which has 9-12 consoles and several Tactical coordinators. I doubt many countries would buy the Nimrod airframe but I imagine the sensor and electronics package could be installed into a medium sized airliner and sold to Air Forces which want a capable AEW aircraft that can operate independently but for whom the E3 is vast overkill.
Sigh!
Spyflight is a good source for the Nimrod story, but there are some disparate factors that need drawing in.http://www.spyflight.co.uk/nim aew.htm
- The RN-FAA acquired 50 Skyraider AEW1 in 1951, there were operated in a different, more independent fashion than USN aircraft. The Radar was the APS20.
- The RAF formed 1453 Vanguard flight with 4 Neptunes in 1953, to trial their APS20 radar in the AEW mode. The trails were half-arsed and despite some encouraging results were ended inn 1956 and AEW was not pursued by the RAF.
- The Gannet AEW3 entered squadron service in 1960, using APS 20 radars taken from Skyraiders. As stated in Post #1 the radar displays were tied into the aircraft Doppler navigation system, a radar amplifier, Doppler MTI and IFF interrogator were installed so the Gannet could track both friendlies and hostiles and direct interceptions. The AN/APS20E in the Gannet had a maximum range against fighters of 65 nm, so it cruised at 3000 feet.
The P139B was proposed in 1963 as a replacement for the Gannet AEW3, featuring Fore-Aft-Scanning-System and Frequency Modulated Interrupted Continuous Wave (FMICW). P139B development was cancelled in 1964 but work on the FASS and FMICW radar was continued.
A set of proposals came from BAC for an updated Gannet -two spearate schemes:
In 1971 as FAA carriers were taken out of service three the operational flights of NAS849 were disbanded and their APS20 radars, radar amplifier, Doppler MTI and IFF interrogator removed from the Gannet AEW3 and installed in 12 RAF Shackelton MR aircraft to give the RAF its first permanent AEW capability.
- A minimum change version of the existing AEW.3 with updated radar and systems.
- A stripped down and rebuilt version with all new systems, which became known as the AEW.7. (I think this is more pie in the sky than the ridiculous P139B)
Interest in FMICW radar waned during the 60s and in 1972 the funding was approved for the development of a Pulse Doppler radar for AEW.
At the time of the 1974 Defence Review there was the equivalent of 6 Nimrod MR Mk 1 squadrons and the OCU. These were Nos. 42, 120, 201 and 206 Squadrons in No. 18 Group of Strike Command and No. 203 Squadron in Malta plus detachments at Gibraltar and Singapore which were equivalent to a sixth squadron. The 1974 Defence Review cut the squadron at Malta (disbanded in December 1977) and the Singapore detachment, and some 8 Nimrods were ordered in 1973, so 8 brand new Nimrod airframes available with others no more than 5 years old.
In 1974 There were 4 options for the Nimrod AEW3.
Option 4 was chosen.
- Purchase the AN/APS-125 pulse-Doppler radar system and its associated avionics, as fitted to the E-2 Hawkeye, and fit them into the Nimrod.
- Purchase the AN/APS-125 radar and combine it with a British avionics package.
- Purchase the rotodome and antenna from the E-2 and combine with a British radar transmitter, receiver and avionics package.
- Develop a wholly British radar system and avionics package using a Fore Aft Scanner System (FASS) rather than the E-2 radome.
TBC...
If Britain had chosen any other option than the one they did it's likely that the Nimrod AEW3 would have seen service. However it would not have looked like the bneast we know and loathe, it would likely have the flying-saucer rotodome of the E2 Hawkeye and E3 Sentry.
As for exports, it would be a mid-range AEW aircraft and even if it used mostly E2 electronics it would be considerably different because the E2 mostly datalinked it's 'take' back to the carrier CIC and only had 2 consoles and operators as well as a tactical coordinator on board. The Nimrod would be more akin to the E3 in that it had 6 consoles and operators as well as a tactical coordinator or 2 would would have used its sensor take onboard, more like an E3 Sentry which has 9-12 consoles and several Tactical coordinators. I doubt many countries would buy the Nimrod airframe but I imagine the sensor and electronics package could be installed into a medium sized airliner and sold to Air Forces which want a capable AEW aircraft that can operate independently but for whom the E3 is vast overkill.
That assumes the US doesn't block Britain from selling a Nimrod with E2 kit on board to other countries.
Riain
Banned
True, but option 3 the only US kit would be the rotodome itself, the radar andmost of the other kit would be British.
Indeed it's likely that the Radar of the OTL Nimrod AEW3 would be installed in the rotodome, with the continuous scan removing the problem of synchronsing the 2 dishes in the FASS which kept losing tracks.
Nick P
Donor
A logical plan would be to use the Airbus 300 as the base aircraft for a European multi-capable platform. Airbus is a consortium involving the UK, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands and their airliners are used by every European airline. What it means for the other countries I'm not sure.
For the UK in the early 1980s this means:
A300 troop transport - replaces the DH Comet C2, 29 VC10 and stops the 9 Tristar buy.
A300 refueller - replaces the VC10, 40 Victor, 6 Vulcan and stops the Tristar buy. Could be combined with the transport role.
A300 AEW - Replaces the 30+ Nimrod fleet with 2 variants. One is intelligence gathering with side mounted radars like the RC-135 Rivet Joint, the other is an E-3 Sentry equivalent with top mounted radar disc.
The benefit of replacing at least 100 aircraft of 6 major types in favour of a common fleet of 60+ aircraft is economically huge for the RAF. A centralised maintenance site, less training needed for the many aircrew and the ability to empty out warehouses of 30 year old kit. And the expected lower running costs of modern engines.
Politically it shows the UK Govt backing British involvement in the EEC by building for the future (even if it is only the wings and engines) instead of dumping second-hand ex-airliners from failing airlines on the RAF while forcing them to keep on with ageing bombers.
For the UK in the early 1980s this means:
A300 troop transport - replaces the DH Comet C2, 29 VC10 and stops the 9 Tristar buy.
A300 refueller - replaces the VC10, 40 Victor, 6 Vulcan and stops the Tristar buy. Could be combined with the transport role.
A300 AEW - Replaces the 30+ Nimrod fleet with 2 variants. One is intelligence gathering with side mounted radars like the RC-135 Rivet Joint, the other is an E-3 Sentry equivalent with top mounted radar disc.
The benefit of replacing at least 100 aircraft of 6 major types in favour of a common fleet of 60+ aircraft is economically huge for the RAF. A centralised maintenance site, less training needed for the many aircrew and the ability to empty out warehouses of 30 year old kit. And the expected lower running costs of modern engines.
Politically it shows the UK Govt backing British involvement in the EEC by building for the future (even if it is only the wings and engines) instead of dumping second-hand ex-airliners from failing airlines on the RAF while forcing them to keep on with ageing bombers.
McPherson
Banned
Start with a bad airliner and one will have a bad AEW bird. I do not care if one bi-states the radar, puts a canoe architecture on it or a roto-dome. I LOATHE the Comet. My guess is that maybe one should have gone Airbus as @Nick P suggested. and plonked a canoe SAR dorsally and learned to racetrack the platform.
2010 국방화보 Rep. of Korea, Defense Photo Magazine 공중조기경보통제기(E- 737) E-737 Airborne early warning and control system
대한민국 국군 Republic of Korea Armed Forces - 공중조기경보통제기
As it turns out... (^^^) this is what the UK seems to want to replace the Nimrod/Sentry.
Last edited:
I think even option 4 might have been made to work eventually if it hadn’t had to squeeze into a Nimrod airframe. If the MR4 saga is anything to go by there were some issues with those aircraft beyond the lack of volume, and it’s not immediately obvious why the Nimrod airframe was the go-to choice rather than a VC10 or something similar from the inventory.
A nice modern airbus would be an even better choice but seems to go against the MoD tradition of being penny wise and pound foolish.
I think one of the largest arguments against the Nimrod A.E.W. was that the Nimrod production line had long gone before they were even close to being ready for production. They'd have had to convert existing airframes with who knows how many hours of slogging through the muck over the North Atlantic and there certainly wouldn't be any available for export. It was an expensive vanity project, even if they'd got it to work.
The computers were too slow and old to handle overland clutter such as Germany which is one of the places the RAF was intending to use them, the computers were the old Argus mini-computer which had been around since the mid 1960's and were not really powerful enough for the job. The system worked OK over water but once they were over land they had issues.
I’ve seen different stories on how many hours were on the candidate airframes for both the AEW and MRA4 projects. There may have been up to eight basically new aeroplanes available for the AEW (maybe?), but that still leaves the issues regarding spares availability, manufacturing variances and hull volume, to say nothing of the questionable safety aspects which later emerged. And why insist on the Nimrod which seems to offer no benefits?
Also that nonsense about using the fuel as a heat sink is mind boggling, what were they thinking?
McPherson
Banned
The same thing rocket motor designers think or auto engine designers think; a circulating fluid that can carry off heat.
The safety issue was to do mainly with an improvised in flight refueling system which was lashed together for the Falklands war. They also identified the problem that caused the in-flight explosion and that could have been remedied with some simple mods, one reason they did not was they didn't want any interference with the MRA4.
Poster boy for UK defence procurement fails and this was despite all the checks and balances put in to stop these projects before they fail. Airborne Early Warning (AEW) system that went from 7 years development at £319m to being 3 years overdue and needing an additional £192m to complete the last 20%. The project was finally canned 11 years after inception and an in-service system was ordered from the US for £860m even though this was £200m more than the cost of completing the UK project.
L
let's be honest GEC Marconi would have spent triple that and still would not have the delivered a usable system. The E3 the RAF bought had all the bells and whistles of the latest USAF system and had an actual upgrade/development path outlined which would have kept it fully updated until well into the future. The only problem was the MoD would not commit to the upgrade programme past the early 90's which meant the RAF E3's were getting further and further behind, the reason we are getting the E7 Wedgetail is that the cost of catching up on all those delayed updates was so expensive it was almost cheaper to buy new.
It's interesting that as AWAC was showing itself as not just a force multiplier but without it - you lose, why'd you'd skimp on it is unfathomable.
I helped build Nimrods and worked on a major rebuild of one. I've even been close up to the AEW version before it was scrapped. Back in the 80's I did maintenance work on the Dan Air Comet 4's.
Yes I'm old.
But a more labour intensive to build, poorly conceived, maintenance unfriendly aircraft you would be unlikely to find.
I remember being told that as the fuel tanks were used as heat sinks there was a prohibition on flying beyond a certain fuel level.
As others have said, dump a 1940's design and go for the A300 and equip it with inflight refueling
Yes I'm old.
But a more labour intensive to build, poorly conceived, maintenance unfriendly aircraft you would be unlikely to find.
I remember being told that as the fuel tanks were used as heat sinks there was a prohibition on flying beyond a certain fuel level.
As others have said, dump a 1940's design and go for the A300 and equip it with inflight refueling
Last edited:
From what I've read one of the major problems with the MRA4 was that BAE spent a lot of time and money making a lot of precision laser cut parts that were completely identical to micrometre tolerances, then found out that the planes they had all been put together by making some bits that were vaguely similar then having people (you, I suppose!) hit with them with hammers until they fit together, Apparently some of the Nimrods taken up for MRA4 had differences measured in metres.
Like most British aircraft of the time the most important thing was not the drawings or the build parameters or anything like that.What was important, vital even was 'Institutional knowledge'
You knew that part 'A' needed a few thou shaved off in order that it fit part 'B' even though the drawing did not show this. Production plan says to drill this hole now? If you do then when Fred comes to do his work then it won't line up with his parts.Far better to let Fred drill the hole.
British aircraft of that ERA were hand built and hand built by craftsmen (not me obviously, but everyone else) and as you point out each one was different.
As a young lad I built the fuel baffles for 125's . Each one despite every attempt at interchangeability was different.
It was impossible to take a part that had been drilled off on one aircraft and fit it to another.
It was only with the advent of the Airbus line in the late 70's that this began to change.
So yes you are right....I was that man with the hammer!
Edit.
Not lasers. Lasers produce heat and destroy the temper of the metal but early forms of CNC probably.
Last edited: