Post Nimrod

[hidetheelephants]

Harpoon was on the list of weapons for Nimrod so that doesn't explain it.

[Eric Mc]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Sigh.

No Eric, it means they had a Tactical Limitation to (try) to overcome, which meant that they were/are less effective than was Nimrod MR2.

There are a whole host of other reasons why P3 and Atlantique were less capable than Nimrod MR2, although in the ASuW role (Anti-Surface Unit Warfare), the P3 was certainly more effective.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Friday 15th May 00:13

No need to sigh. It was a genuine question. I was wondering if it was such a poor piece of kit why it was, numerically, the most important sub hunting aircraft for over 40 years.

Even if it was not as good as the Nimrod, it must have been a half decent sub-hunter.

[mph1977]

Eric Mc said:

No need to sigh. It was a genuine question. I was wondering if it was such a poor piece of kit why it was, numerically, the most important sub hunting aircraft for over 40 years.

Even if it was not as good as the Nimrod, it must have been a half decent sub-hunter.

numerically - the US military 'aid' to NATO nations meant money talks ... and a set of keys to some nominally US tac nukes must have helped , as in the west it;s only the french who have/ had a completely seperate full range of products nuclear weapons program , the UK while operationally and physics w independent has used US made 'rockets' for it;s ICBMs although the free fall bombs pre ICBM and the tac nukes were UK designed and built - the UK can do it just found it easier to share parts with the US for the ICBMs - where it could be argued the French flounced themselves into a corner meaning the FdF had to be indigenously designed and built ...

[Eric Mc]

France withdrew from NATO in 1966 so it really had to "go it alone" for quite a long time.

How did/does the Atlantique perform as a sub hunter?

And of course, we used Gannets, and after their retirement, helicopters for such jobs.

[andy97]

I doubt the sales success of the Orion had anything to do with nukes - most countries didn't play the n card and , if in NATO, were under the US nuclear umbrella antyway. I suggest it had more to do with large numbers in the US inventory meant lower capital cost and possibly lower through life costs for spares and upgrades. I assume that a turboprop is cheaper to operate, too?

Maybe the Orion was an 80% solution compared to the Nimrod, but if you can't afford the 100% solution.......

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

hidetheelephants said:

What's the reason for this?

IIRC the P3 could carry up to 4 Harpoons on underwing pylons whereas Nimrod could only carry 2 in the bomb bay.

This meant that P3 could effectively fire the Harpoon from straight and level flight directly off the pylon ie the rocket motor was initiated whilst the weapon was still on the pylon. Nimrod had to 'free fall' the weapon out of the bomb bay before it was initiated. Thus Nimrod had to climb from low level to fire the weapon - not ideal when you are going up against something like a Kirov!

Nimrod's preferred tactic was to act as the Tactical Director for other ASuW assets such as Buccaneer/Tornado with Sea Eagle.

Probably the 'best' ASuW assets wre the B52s out of Loring AFB in Maine - they carried a shed load of Harpoons!

[Mojocvh]

Harpoon pffttt...




M3.5 and 1m CEP......

Or even

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_%28missile%29

"The Shaurya missile was revealed to be designed specifically to be fired from submarines. A top DRDO scientist has confirmed this and further said that after taking off and reaching a height of about 50 km, the missile starts flying like a Hypersonic cruise missile. Once it reaches the target area it manoeuvres towards the target before striking with an accuracy of 20 to 30 m within the target area.[5]..

It doesn’t need an explosive warhead at all just a 1000lb lump of self fragmenting DU...where's your aircraft carrier now? on the seabed that’s where!


edited for ]!

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 15th May 17:21

[hidetheelephants]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

IIRC the P3 could carry up to 4 Harpoons on underwing pylons whereas Nimrod could only carry 2 in the bomb bay.

I guess the MRA4's wing hardpoints would have corrected this deficiency.

[saaby93]

Mojocvh said:

Harpoon pffttt...



M3.5 and 1m CEP......

Or even

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_%28missile%29

"The Shaurya missile was revealed to be designed specifically to be fired from submarines. A top DRDO scientist has confirmed this and further said that after taking off and reaching a height of about 50 km, the missile starts flying like a Hypersonic cruise missile. Once it reaches the target area it manoeuvres towards the target before striking with an accuracy of 20 to 30 m within the target area.[5]..

It doesn’t need an explosive warhead at all just a 1000lb lump of self fragmenting DU...where's your aircraft carrier now? on the seabed that’s where!

Mach 7.5
Is that typical of competitive missiles?