In 1984, then Flight Lieutenant, James (known as Tony) Cowan wrote an article for Air Clues entitled ‘Maritime Air Power: The Neutral Battleground’ whilst he was a pilot on the Nimrod Flight Trials Unit based at RAF Kinloss. In it, he outlined the importance of maritime operations and examined the characteristics he would desire in any future maritime patrol aircraft. Thirty-five years later, the now retired Squadron Leader Cowan revisits the subject. Both articles are reproduced here with the author’s kind permission. For more articles on air power visit our website.
One step forward, two steps back? — 2019
In March 1984 I wrote an Air Power article titled, ‘Maritime Air Power — The neutral battleground’ for Air Clues, the RAF’s flight safety magazine. In those days, Air Clues gave anyone with a flair for writing an opportunity to share ideas relating to air power in its ‘Air Power’ section — something that the RAF has always been very good at, and a tradition that has now migrated to, and expanded in, Air Power Review. Selected articles, including this one, were then used in the same year as the subject for a question in the promotion examination for junior officers.
At that time, 35 years ago, I’d recently joined №51 Squadron, after spending some 5 years, which included the Falklands conflict, with №201 Squadron which was part of 18 Group and affectionately called the ‘Kipper Fleet’. I was fortunate, after a previous tour flying the C-130 Hercules, to progress steadily from co-pilot, to first pilot with a navigator captain (air electronics officers could also become aircraft captains of maritime patrol aircraft) to the captain of my own crew. Crew 7, the ‘Shiny Seven’ of №201 Squadron. Tracing its heritage back to №1 Squadron of the Royal Naval Air Service, which was formed in 1914, 201 Squadron was one of the most senior squadrons in the RAF.
Nimrod MR2
As well as becoming the captain of what was already a very good crew, I was fortunate as well when, in early 1982, the then OC of №201 Squadron, Wg Cdr Chris Barber selected Crew 7 to be the first to convert from the Nimrod MR1 to the ‘new’ Nimrod MR2. Just in time for the Falklands conflict later the same year! During this bitter struggle to liberate the Falkland Islands from occupation by the military forces of Argentina, we were to complete the longest operational sortie over the South Atlantic, which lasted over 19 hours. Along the way we also acquired and became proficient in the use of new weapons. These included the general purpose 1,000 lb retarded bomb (in lieu of depth charges to attack submarines on the surface) the Harpoon anti-ship missile and the AIM 9G Sidewinder air to air missile to engage Argentinian reconnaissance aircraft, in particular the Boeing 707 that was becoming a particular nuisance. For attacking submarines underwater we also had our primary ASW weapon, the Mk 46 light weight torpedo. The new, Sting Ray torpedo had not yet entered service. With a bomb bay full of weapons and fuel tanks full to the brim we also had a dispensation to exceed the aircraft’s normal maximum take-off weight to get airborne from our forward operating base at Ascension Island where the Nimrod Wing was under the command of Wg Cdr (later Air Vice Marshal) Dave Emmerson.
Nimrod MRA4
At the end of my tour of duty with 201 Squadron, I and most of my crew were ‘loaned’ to the newly formed Nimrod Flight Trials Unit, also at RAF Kinloss. Like many others at the time, I started to speculate on what type of aircraft would replace the Nimrod as the RAF’s maritime patrol aircraft in the not too distant future, at the end of the 20th Century. At that time, I was not aware of the debacle that was to ensue with the order for the much modified Nimrod MRA4 (originally named Nimrod 2000) which was ordered by the Ministry of Defence in 1996 and cancelled 14 years later in 2010! To be honest, the Nimrod was a good aircraft and, for its size, very agile. As exemplified when photographing small fishing vessels during fishery patrols and when conducting fighter affiliation sorties with the F-4 Phantom. However, it was always a ‘one off’, an aircraft that was ordered for the RAF whilst all the other air forces in the West purchased either the Lockheed P-3 Orion, or the Dassault-Breguet Atlantic. The Atlantic is, like the Lockheed P-2 Neptune before it, one of the very few post-war land based aircraft designed specifically for maritime patrol duties.
Lockheed Martin P-3 Orion
However, at that time it was the P-3 Orion that was probably the best maritime patrol aircraft in service, with four fuel efficient turbo-prop engines, a search radar with 360 degree scan with one antenna in the nose and another in the tail under the boom for the magnetic anomaly detection system, and large windows for the flight deck crew. In addition the P-3 could (unlike the Nimrod) carry and fire a Harpoon sea skimming missile from under each wing. The Nimrod had the underwing hard points but the fin and tailplane gave insufficient control authority to fire one Harpoon missile whilst countering at the drag of a second missile under the other wing! So, the approved launch technique, for the Nimrod, was to climb to sufficient height to be able to launch the missile from the bomb bay. As the missile glided towards the surface the engine would fire up and off it would go, hopefully hitting the designated target. This was not ideal as it gave plenty of warning to any warship that was under attack!
Boeing P-8 Poseidon
Anyone reading my Air Power article in 1984, particularly those who were serving, or had served with the ‘Kipper Fleet’, would have recognised that my preference for a Nimrod replacement would have been an aircraft that would have been an improvement on the very successful Lockheed P-3 Orion, possibly the Lockheed P-7 that was, unfortunately cancelled in 1990; or the Orion 21: an updated new-build version of the earlier and very successful Lockheed P-3. At the time that the Nimrod was due to be replaced, in the late 1990’s Lockheed, now Lockheed Martin, also offered to build, for the RAF, 24 brand new P-3s. An offer, as one of my former Nimrod colleagues noted at the time, that was too good to be true! In the event, as we now know, commercial and political interests took over and the ‘new’ Nimrod MRA4 gained overwhelming support. The rest is, as they say, history. Now, 9 years after the Nimrod MRA4 was cancelled in 2010, the new RAF maritime patrol aircraft will be the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, a development of the very successful airliner, the Boeing 737–800, that has been ordered by the US Navy, Australia, India, New Zealand, Norway and South Korea. Time will tell if, like the Nimrod, another airliner with jet engines, in this case two CFM56 high-bypass turbofan engines, will succeed. There is no doubt the the Boeing 737–800 has been very successful at doing what it was designed for. For carrying up to 189 passengers from A to B with a reported range of around 3,000 miles.
On paper, the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, with a crew of 9 is reported to have a combat radius of 1,200 miles, with 4 hours on station when engaged in an anti-submarine warfare mission. But, to be honest, this is not much better than the Nimrod MR2 which was good for 8 hours from take-off to landing, without in-flight refuelling. Would it have been better to insist on an aircraft with turbo-prop engines, like the Lockheed Martin P-3 and the Dassault-Breguet Atlantic, to give the aircraft greater endurance with, if necessary, additional crew members? Also, will the CFM56 turbofan engines of the P-8 Poseidon prove to be more susceptible to bird ingestion, on take-off and when on patrol at low level, than a turboprop engine such as the Rolls-Royce AE210O that powers the Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules.
Conclusion
I have no doubt that after 35 years many of the aircraft systems, radar, acoustics, navigation, communications and weapons carried by the Boeing P-8 Poseidon will be much improved over those available in 1984. Nevertheless, in 1984, at the top of my ‘wish list’ was an aircraft with a flight endurance of at least 12 hours. Anti-submarine warfare, the primary role of a maritime patrol aircraft, is a long game against an enemy that measures time in days, weeks and months. In 1982, during the Falklands conflict the range and endurance of the Nimrod MR2 was extended with in-flight refuelling with, generally, two refuelling brackets on the outbound leg, to the operating area, and a third bracket on the return flight. At the same time, both the Lockheed P-3 Orion and Dassault-Breguet Atlantic, both with fuel efficient turboprop engines, were reported to have a flight endurance in the order of 16 to 18 hours without having to refuel in flight. In 1972 a P-3 Orion of №5 Squadron, RNZAF was credited with an un-refuelled flight lasting 21.5 hours!
A further concern is that the P-8 Poseidon, the Poseidon MRA1 in RAF service, has a refuelling receptacle on the upper forward fuselage which is not compatible with the probe and drogue system used by the RAF. Also, an order for just nine Poseidon MRA1s for the RAF, to be delivered at just one aircraft per year for the next decade, is very difficult to understand. Even when all nine aircraft have been delivered the ‘Rule of Thirds’ will mean that just three aircraft can be expected to be operationally available when maintenance, preparation, training and other factors are taking into account. However capable they might be as individual platforms, will nine aircraft be able to deliver the same effect that the 35 Nimrod MR2s were able to achieve 35 years ago? Or will this be another case of taking one step forward and two steps back? Again, time will tell!
MARITIME AIR POWER: The Neutral Battleground — 1984
An Illustration of Flexibility
It’s 0700 hours and still dark as the Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol aircraft gathers speed along runway 26 at RAF Kinloss. The end of the runway seems very close as the nose of the aircraft rises and the machine climbs slowly into the night sky. Suddenly the flashing red anti-collision light is lost to view as the aircraft enters a bank of low cloud. Inside the Nimrod the after-take-off checks are completed and the aircraft is cleared by air traffic control to climb to the west and contact the Sector Operations Centre. Within the hour the aircraft will arrive at its operational area, to the west of the Shetlands, and relieve a United States P‑3C Orion which is carrying out an anti-submarine patrol. Five minutes after the departure of the first Nimrod, a second roars down the runway and departs to the north. The mission of the second aircraft is to search for, and shadow, an ‘enemy’ surface group which has been reported in the Norwegian Sea, heading south. The Nimrod, the Mighty Hunter, is on patrol. Both aircraft have departed their base in darkness and it will be dark again before they land. Both crews briefed some two hours before take-off, although the senior members of each crew were planning their sorties an hour before the briefing. The missions require both skill and stamina. The first aircraft will be searching for a nuclear submarine which is believed to be commencing a patrol in the North Atlantic. The target is fast and elusive. The briefing officer will have told the Nimrod crew what the target is, but it is the aircrew that will have to locate it. Possibly the crew of the P‑3C will have gained contact with the target, their patrol started yesterday and they will return to the NATO base at Keflavik in Iceland.
The second Nimrod has a different mission. Ships are less elusive than submarines, but they can detect an aircraft more easily, and they can hit back. The surface group is believed to consist of an aircraft carrier, an oiler and escort of four destroyers or frigates. Once the group of warships has been located the Nimrod will shadow it until the aircraft reaches its prudent limit of endurance. The Nimrod crew will then land at Andoya, in Norway, for debriefing. The first aircraft is armed with torpedoes, the second is carrying the Harpoon anti-ship missile. Both aircraft are fitted with the Sidewinder air-to-air missile for self-defence.
The Nimrods arrive at their respective patrol areas. The first relieves the P-3C and begins to drop and monitor sonobuoys, the second begins a radar search from high level. Back at Kinloss a third Nimrod gets airborne and heads east to begin a fishery protection patrol on behalf of the ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. A fourth crew is at a standby aircraft which is designated for search and rescue duties, the aircraft must be given a pre-flight inspection and prepared for immediate use. As the day progresses further crews arrive, brief and get airborne. One crew is programmed to carry out crew training in the local area. Two crews brief together as they are to practise formation flying before training in air-to-air refuelling later in the week. Air-to-air refuelling is a new skill for the maritime pilot; perfected during the South Atlantic conflict, it permits maritime air power to be extended over ranges that were previously unheard of.
With one hour left on task the first Nimrod airborne gains contact with its target. Time has passed quickly and the crew is still fresh, but air-to-air refuelling has not been planned and the aircraft must soon return to base. At the nominated time another Nimrod arrives in the area and takes over the ‘hot’ target. The first crew are disappointed that they cannot capitalise on their success. If only the Nimrod had greater endurance; shutting down engines and flying at endurance speed helps, but bad weather can mean that engines have to be kept running and the use of anti-icing systems increases fuel flow. However, the Nimrod airframe is a development of the de Havilland Comet and some compromises must be expected following a change from airliner to maritime patrol aircraft. Perhaps a new, more fuel-efficient engine would help, or is the turbo-prop the answer? Our NATO allies seem to think so.
The Nimrod to the north has located its targets more quickly. The Nimrod MR2 carries Searchwater, the best airborne search radar in the free world, and at high level and high speed the aircraft is in its element. The operator at the electronic support measures (ESM) console reports an ‘enemy’ ship-borne search radar to the north and the radar operator soon reports and identifies the southbound warships. The aircraft carrier has been nominated as the high value unit and a simulated attack with Harpoon is practised. The exercise has been deceptively simple, but it would have been more difficult without such a unique radar, and it would certainly have been more time-consuming at medium level in a turbo-prop.
The fishery patrol is progressing smoothly, but some of the fishing vessels are badly weathered and their registration marks cannot be read at the aircraft’s high passing speed. Several passes are made on one particular group of purse-seiners. The aircraft needs room to manoeuvre and each vessel has to be photographed. Whilst the virtues of the nav/tac system are appreciated, could not a slower, more manoeuvrable and less sophisticated aircraft do the job just as well?
There is a sudden air of anticipation, the controller at the MHQ has requested a phone-patch with the aircraft captain; a fishing vessel to the north of Ireland has requested help following a serious accident to one of the crew. A rescue helicopter is en-route from Prestwick, the Nimrod is to give navigation and communication assistance. With the assistance of air traffic control the Nimrod climbs and flies a straight line to the fishing vessel’s reported position. The Nimrod arrives at the search area within 25 minutes and orders the fishing vessel to fire a flare to identify it from a fleet of similar vessels. An accurate position is passed to the helicopter which will arrive in 30 minutes. The decision is made to transfer the injured seaman to shore, however the sea is rough and the fishing vessel has little deck space. The winch operation is difficult and time-consuming. Fuel and time is running out for both aircraft, and the helicopter is out of radio contact with the shore. The Nimrod crew make arrangements for the nearest airfield, Machrihanish, to be opened outside its normal working hours. At last the winch operation is complete and both aircraft turn onto east and head for the Scottish coast.
The next day the Nimrod crew that carried out the ASW patrol is in the squadron coffee bar. The crew that started the day on fishery patrol, but finished on search and rescue, is also there. The conversation revolves around the events of the previous day. If only the Nimrod had greater endurance for ASW patrols against an enemy that measures time by days rather than by minutes and hours. If only it were possible to fly the aircraft more slowly for the identification and photography of fishing vessels. But what about the search and rescue action? The operation had been copybook and the aircraft had been able to jump from one area to another within minutes, so quickly that it had been unnecessary to scramble the dedicated search and rescue aircraft. Apparently, the radar search to the north had also been a complete success and the aircraft had been able to land at Andoya 90 minutes earlier than expected.
The Maritime Past
At the beginning of World War 2, Coastal Command, as it was then, was ill-equipped for the task that lay ahead. The most modern land-based maritime patrol aircraft was the Lockheed Hudson, but only one squadron was equipped with this aircraft. The majority of squadrons had the Avro Anson which had a range of 500 miles, with a bomb load of 250 lb! A variety of types, mostly converted bombers, but also the Sunderland and Catalina flying boats, followed the Anson into service. The most effective maritime aircraft of that period was probably the Consolidated Liberator. The Liberator was fitted with early models of the ASV air-search radar and the Leigh Light, for night attacks. The main weapon was the depth charge and the aircraft could patrol for 16 hours. At the end of the war many of the maritime aircraft were converted for trooping with Transport Command. Following the war the maritime air force was equipped with the Avro Shackleton MR1 which was developed from the Lincoln bomber. ASV radar was retained in a ventral radome, while the Leigh Light was replaced by an interesting, and probably dangerous, system of flares. Sonobuoys were carried for the location of underwater targets, but magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) equipment, which had been used to detect and destroy submarines during the war, was not fitted. The Shackleton retained the advantage of long endurance and 24 hours flights were possible. Although the Shackleton was purchased by the government of South Africa it did not enjoy the same success as its North American contemporary the Lockheed Neptune. The latter was flown by the RAF and became the standard maritime patrol aircraft of the majority of NATO countries. It was successfully converted from piston engine to turbo-prop by the Japanese.
Today’s Maritime Muscle
After 18 years’ service the Shackleton was replaced by the Nimrod MR1. Again, the RAF chose to develop an existing aircraft rather than call for a purpose-built machine, although, on this occasion, an airliner was chosen rather than a bomber. Today the Nimrod MR2 carries some of the best sensors and weapons that industry can produce. But although sensors and weapons have steadily improved any further improvement of the aircraft itself, airframe and engines, would seem limited. The addition of in-flight refuelling is, in many respects, a welcome addition but it has yet to be exploited in the North Atlantic environment. The Nimrod cannot escape its ancestry: it was designed to cross the Atlantic at high level and is therefore suited to the high level radar search. But ASW is a waiting game, the anti-submarine aircraft requires endurance; its enemy is, by comparison, moving at a snail’s pace. The turbo-prop is less thirsty and has the edge in these circumstances. The Nimrod, like the Comet, also requires the sophistication of the international airport, long runways and ground support are essential, but will they be available in any future conflict?
With the Tornado IDS entering a squadron service and the ADV variant in the pipeline the requirements of the Central Front and air defence will, it is hoped, have been satisfied. Is it time to turn our attention once again to the ‘back door’, the North Atlantic, and consider the threat and its counter? The Soviet Union has acquired a naval strength that is far in excess of that required for defence. The new build of Soviet warships is both powerful and numerically impressive. The Soviet submarine force is no less impressive than the surface force. A high percentage of the submarine fleet has been developed from the best German designs of World War 2, and in the anti-shipping role is no less lethal than its nuclear stablemate. The words Sir Winston Churchill used following the Battle of Britain will never be forgotten. Less well known, but of equal import, are the words he chose during the Battle of the Atlantic:
“It might be true to say that the issue of the war depends on whether Hitler’s U-boat attacks on Allied tonnage, or the increase and application of Allied air power, reach their full fruition first”.
The student of history will confirm that the result of World War 2 was decided in the North Atlantic. Any future conflict of which a North Atlantic supply line is a part could be decided on the same battleground; a prospect that could be attractive to both eastern and western ideologies, if viewed against the prospect of a nuclear wasteland in Europe.
The RAF’s maritime patrol aircraft, the Nimrod, and its predecessor the Shackleton, have not enjoyed the same success, in commercial terms, as other British aircraft such as the Hunter, the Harrier and the Hawk. The most successful maritime aircraft of post-war design is probably the Lockheed Neptune which is still in service, but has largely been replaced by the Lockheed P-3 Orion/Aurora. This aircraft fulfils the maritime role for the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands and Japan. The other NATO maritime aircraft is, of course, the Dassault-Breguet Atlantic which is used by France, West Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. Is it possible that, for ASW, the turbo-prop is more efficient than the turbo-jet? Our NATO and Commonwealth allies seem to think so, as do the Soviets who also use a turbo-prop, the Tupolev Bear, for maritime patrol. The turbo-prop has, against the turbo-jet, the greatest advantage of a 50% less fuel burn when operated at low level in an ASW search. In addition, the propeller, with reverse pitch, gives a field performance that the turbo-jet would find hard to match, an asset which is invaluable if the runway is contaminated or battle damaged.
The Maritime Future — An Exciting Prospect
If we are to presume that the Bae Nimrod will give the same length of service as its predecessor the Shackleton, then the RAF may expect to take delivery of a new maritime patrol aircraft by the end of the decade. What are the attributes that this aircraft should be expected to possess? The following list covers the essentials but is not exhaustive:
· Good endurance, at least 12 hours when flying at range speed at low level, and with a full ordnance load.
· A high accuracy inertial navigation system.
· A development of the Searchwater radar, with a 360 degree scan.
· The Loral electronic support system.
· A sensitive magnetic anomaly detection system.
· A comprehensive range of anti-submarine, anti-ship and self-defence weapons.
· An advanced communication system to include satcom and data-link.
· Excellent look-out from the flight-deck and designated observation points, together with advanced electro-optical viewing systems.
· Good field performance to permit the use of dispersed and battle damaged airfields.
Based upon experience gained from operations using the Nimrod, and in view of the choice of aircraft by our NATO allies, is it possible that the next RAF maritime patrol aircraft will be a turbo-prop equipped with developments of the sensors and weapons carried by the Nimrod MR2? One option would be to fall in line with that part of NATO which favours the P-3 Orion, but with British sensors and weapons. A second option would be to form a liaison in Europe to build a maritime aircraft. Would it be possible to develop the Atlantic, which is already powered by British engines? The Atlantic is a purpose-built maritime aircraft and has those essential features that one would expect: excellent look-out, acoustic, ESM and MAD systems, and because it is in a ventral radome, a radar that can scan through 360 degrees. Would it be possible to enhance the performance of the Atlantic by fitting British sensors — particularly the Searchwater radar? A third option would be to go it alone and design a new, or modify an existing aircraft. But can we afford a new aircraft and is there any British aircraft that could be modified for the exacting role of anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare?
Maritime Radar Reconnaissance
If the future RAF maritime patrol aircraft is designed to include those attributes listed in the preceding paragraphs it will be a medium speed, medium altitude, long endurance submarine hunter with the capability to give direct support to the Fleet. The described aircraft would not have the capability, in terms of speed and cruise altitude, to exploit the range and flexibility of modern radar and ESM systems. The range of maritime activities is such that a second, less complex, aircraft could be used for the following:
· Maritime radar reconnaissance (MRR).
· Fishery protection and the patrol of the exclusive economic zone.
· Search and rescue.
Some nations have decided to use the medium sized turbo-prop, for example the Fokker F‑27 Maritime, for these secondary maritime roles, but it could be argued that MRR and SAR demand the reactive response that can only be achieved with the turbo-jet. Although fishery protection duties could, in some circumstances, be performed more easily in a slower aircraft, this should not be allowed to influence the choice of a military aircraft; fishery protection must be viewed as a red herring! A second aircraft would not require those special qualities listed for the submarine hunter. It could be adapted from the wide range of twin-jet aircraft available to the corporate market. For example, the Falcon Guardian has been chosen by the French Navy and the US Coastguard and the Gulfstream 3 is in squadron service with the Royal Danish Air Force for SAR and fishery protection. A development of the Gulfstream 3, the Gulfstream 4, will be powered by the new Rolls-Royce Tay turbo-fan to give a high-level cruise range of 4,000 miles at Mach 0‑8. A second maritime aircraft of the type discussed could, if introduced into the RAF in the near future, extend the life of the Nimrod MR2 whilst its replacement is developed and manufactured.
***
This article will, I hope, give the reader an insight into the development and future of maritime air power within the RAF. It is a role that does not have the apparent sparkle of air defence, or the immediately identifiable results of the strike/attack mission. However, if there is any doubt as to the vital nature of this role I must assume that the reader is not a student of military history, or alternatively he has suffered an illusion that can occur when operations are conducted many miles from any friendly, or even enemy, shore. Maritime air power is varied and is demanding on both aircraft and their crews. But above all it is important, and it is happening now — on, above and below the neutral battleground.
