It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nimrod Bomber?...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
This is aimed at Waynos primarily, but of course I would apreciate input anyone.

The Nimrod (ASW varient at least) fulfills a role not far away from that of a bomber, it has fantastic range, it has several hard points, as well as "the longest bomb bay of any nato country". It therefore seems feasible that it would be able to fulfil a role as a some sort of "soft" bomber, perhaps to either drop weapons on an isolated poorly defended location, or else to lauch stand off weaponary such as the Storm Shadow.

As far as I see, the RAF has been lacking an effective long range, heavy strike platform since the removal of V-Force, many moons ago. This could be something to do with the

Has any consdieration ever been put into this?, and what modifications, if any, would it require?

Jensy

P.S I have not included this in the existing Nimrod thread as I feel that it would be distasteful to talk of a plane who's primary concept would be to kill human life, in a thread part dedicated to the 14 men who died leaving behind families.

[Edited due to my poor memory]

[edit on 5/9/06 by jensy]




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Yes, I also remember that UK had a project to refit Nimrod to be a bomber. But I haven't seen details.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Considering the MR.4 version can carry the following ALARM, ASRAAM, AIM 9, SLAMMER, ARM, Harpoon missiles or Stingray torpedoes, i don't think it'd be too hard to equip the aircraft to carry iron bombs as suggested. Mind you with the above weaponary, the Nimrod can certainly pack a punch and cause havoc in a low to medium threat environment.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Ah, just found this:

2005 article

Wonder what became of this concept.

Jensy



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Bring back the vulcan thats what i say it might not be supersonic but it has a good range
which was proved when it bombed stanley airfield in the falklands. and also apparently it could out manouver quite a few fighter jets at high altitude.

this video is of the last flying vulcan which was grounded in 1993 but is being restored and will be on the uk airshow circuit next year.

video.google.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The question in the original post is precisely why the MR.1 and MR.2 designations of the current a previous versions have been superceded by MR/A.4 for the latest model (the missing mark was the aborted AEW.3). In this latest version the 'A' stands for 'Attack'



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Waynos:
I have reached my U2U quota, please check your email.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I know about the MR1, the MR2 and upgraded MR/A4 versions of this fine aircraft.

I'm just wondering how the very rare and secretive SIGINT R1 version fits into all of this (and did this also have an almost never used bombing/attack option)?

Has it and it's separate and unique requirement quietly gone the way of old age and been retired and superseded by the new (or maybe ucav?) or are they still quietly operating in the background, anyone know?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I really think they should bring back a variant of the Vulcan. Update the technology and it would be more than up to the job. Give the enemy a blast of those engines and they would be running for the hills...



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
The R.1 is still in servive with 51Sqn, as far as I know there are no plans to replace them or retire them at the moment. I remember reading recently that an MR.2 was removed from service for conversion to R.1 standard in order to replace a crashed R.1 in the last two years or so.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Jesus - why the hell did they retire the vulcan?
The village where i live has no post office but does have its own air museum with a gutted vulcan (its nice to live in the only village in europe with its own independent nuclear deterant)
seriously, they'd give a B-52 a run for its money in any respect: Range, Payload (well, not quite) speed, and it looks like its from the thunderbirds.

Honestly i cant see the point in converting a nimrod into a bomber - I mean when you think about it, at its heart its a 50's passenger plane - If you wanted to turn it into a bomber why not use something more modern... Think of the payload on an A380... That said, Ground to air targeting an A380 would be fairly simple: Just aim up and your bound to hit part of it.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
@ Waynos, now that I know the 'A' seems so obvious, i feel something of a mupet!!

In my mind however was more the oportunity of new build Nimrods which might be optimised for bombing. A bit crazy building a design who's basis is over 50 years old I know. However, I believe BAe was offering them to the US in the US Navy's Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) competition. I dont know what the unit cost of such aircraft would be but it would nice to have the capability to have aircraft which could loiter and strike without requiring numerous tankers.

Also isnt the R1 being replaced by the Raytheon Sentinel? Or are they going to work along side each other





@tronied

A wonderful dream but alas just a dream!! Personally, at the risk of being unpopular, out of all the V bombers (even the Sperrin!!) I thought the Vulcan was the least attractive. I would quite like to see and upgraded Victor taking to the skies in a stunning black and camo (night bomber) colour scheme (like a Lancaster on speed!!!).

Jensy



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Jensy, its not muppetry just because you didn't know


I do believe they will operate side by side as the Sentinel has a different role overall. The Sentinels are going into servie with 5 Sqn, an ex-Tornado F.3 interceptor squadron.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I know about the MR1, the MR2 and upgraded MR/A4 versions of this fine aircraft.

I'm just wondering how the very rare and secretive SIGINT R1 version fits into all of this (and did this also have an almost never used bombing/attack option)?

Has it and it's separate and unique requirement quietly gone the way of old age and been retired and superseded by the new (or maybe ucav?) or are they still quietly operating in the background, anyone know?


I remember reading somewhere that there are or were tentative plans to fit out second hand Airbus A320 family liners (A319 I think) with the ELINT kit from the R1's when they have to be retired. I'll try and dig out the reference.


ISJ

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bens13
Bring back the vulcan thats what i say it might not be supersonic but it has a good range
which was proved when it bombed stanley airfield in the falklands


Yes it certainly did after about 3 in-flight refuels each way, even the Victor tankers, were refuelling each other


Vulcan was a true classic British heavy bomber, but that was the decades ago, heavy bombers just aren't required these days, least not by the RAF - ergo why the Nimrod hasn't been converted.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join