canberra kid Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 RPM and Kes, I've found these three photos that you may find interesting, This one I find quite interesting, 4 x twin pylon mounted sidewinder's John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) Interesting indeed! Mock up installation? Can't see it but probabably XP693? It made sense for them to be installed where Mr B Philpot suggested, being forward of the ventral tank, which is where other installations like rockets missiles and Vinten camera array were placed in that removable section between the missile pylons? An equipment bay perhaps? The 1984 publication on this closed with 'Full details of the installation are not yet available for publication' I've seen a photo (I have it in one of my books somewhere?) of an F6 in a hangar at RAF Binbrook fitted with at least one sidewinder (couldn't see the left side from the right side profile photo?) . . . Kes (who has deep envy for Johns photo collection!) Edited June 3, 2016 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Kes two more for you, a Saudi Lightning with the camera pack and a drawing with the various equipment bays which would displace the weapons. John 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Always learning here! Is that a Bullpup shape? Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Always learning here! Is that a Bullpup shape? Richard Looks like it. Bullpup was already in UK use ath the time with the RN's Scimitar and Buccaneer, of course, so it would seem a logical choice. Cheers, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Looks like it. Bullpup was already in UK use ath the time with the RN's Scimitar and Buccaneer, of course, so it would seem a logical choice. Cheers, Andre I did think Bullpup too, but it's not my field of expertise. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Yup that's a Bullpup alright. Part of the inventory for the Scimitar as mentioned. Considering the system required a guidance pod (which would presumably be carried on the other pylon), it would make the Lightning a one shot ride in that configuration. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 I guess Yup that's a Bullpup alright.Part of the inventory for the Scimitar as mentioned. Considering the system required a guidance pod (which would presumably be carried on the other pylon), it would make the Lightning a one shot ride in that configuration. I guess the white shape that's not a bomb on the stand could be the acquisition pod? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 I've never seen a guidance pod on the Scimitar but have seen two Bullpups so I'm off to do some looking up ! Richard Sorry for going a wee bit off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 From a quick read in the Air Britain 'bible' it would appear that there was no guidance pod. The front of the three parts in the missile was the guidance part. It was controlled by a joystick in the cockpit which could give the basic four movements (up down left right) but only one at a time.There were flares in the rear third of the missile for the pilot to keep visual. Further evidence of no pod is that the Scimitar was cleared to carry four missiles. In the pictures shown then the Lightning could have carried two. Could the long pod in the picture be a fuel tank? Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) Bullpup was purely sight guided by the operator using a joystick as standard, also fitted to Sea Vixen of course. The other 'shapes' I'm guessing are alternative stores, the one furthest left looks like early WE177 to me. The sidewinder fit looks good! Edited June 4, 2016 by 71chally 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 While the Bullpup was controlled visually, this missile required a radio link capable of transmitting the steering signals from the aircraft. The systems used were the AN/ARW-73 or 77. Some aircrafts had this transmitter installed internally, others had it in an external pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 While the Bullpup was controlled visually, this missile required a radio link capable of transmitting the steering signals from the aircraft. The systems used were the AN/ARW-73 or 77. Some aircrafts had this transmitter installed internally, others had it in an external pod. Thanks Giorgio, that would explain the following from the Sea Vixen illustrated parts catalogue, the parts are refuted to as "control pod" and looks like the one in the Lightning photo. Strangely there is no mention in the Sea Vixen Mk.2 pilots notes regarding the Bullpup system. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 While the Bullpup was controlled visually, this missile required a radio link capable of transmitting the steering signals from the aircraft. The systems used were the AN/ARW-73 or 77. Some aircrafts had this transmitter installed internally, others had it in an external pod. Thank you Giorgio, absolutely spot on! From a quick read in the Air Britain 'bible' it would appear that there was no guidance pod. The front of the three parts in the missile was the guidance part. It was controlled by a joystick in the cockpit which could give the basic four movements (up down left right) but only one at a time.There were flares in the rear third of the missile for the pilot to keep visual. Further evidence of no pod is that the Scimitar was cleared to carry four missiles. In the pictures shown then the Lightning could have carried two. Could the long pod in the picture be a fuel tank? Richard The flares would be used by the pilot to visually track the missile whilst he controlled it using the joystick. It would need to be commanded by a data link as Giorgio describes, the front part of the missile merely translating the pilot's transmitted commands into missile responses. One of the reasons why the Bullpup was unpopular was that it needed the pilot to keep visual track of it and control it, effectively flying behind the track of the missile in order to maintain a good data link from the transmitter, all this whilst trying to fly the aircraft and avoid any return fire from those who were the intended target of the missile. Corpulent though the Scimitar's fuselage is, I'd be very surprised if there was any room for the required avionics to transmit control signals to the Bullpup particularly as the Bullpup was a later addition to the aircraft's inventory and a role fit, I suspect somewhere, like the Sea Vixen, there is such a pod mentioned within the AP. Without the data link, the missile becomes little more than a 250lb with a rocket motor attached, any aircraft can fire it but they wouldn't be able to control it. I suspect the reason you don't see photos of the Scimitar with the pod is simply because the aircraft looks better in photos with four missiles than three (the RN have always been shameful self-publicists), I suspect that's why you often see pictures of FJ-4 Furies with 6 Bullpups, looks good but the jet's got no range and can't control the missiles. Going back to the Lightning photo, either of the two shapes to the left of the aircraft could be the control pod for the Bullpup, the Americans have produced avionics pods in what looks like a bomb type shell, although my money would be on the longer, thinner pod without fins as being the control pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 This link shows the pod on a Fury : http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234914499-fj-4-fury/ I will now have to trawl through copious amounts of Scimitar photos to find something similar. Richard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 This link shows the pod on a Fury : http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234914499-fj-4-fury/ I will now have to trawl through copious amounts of Scimitar photos to find something similar. Richard Thanks for that link Richard. As for trawling through copious pictures of Scimitars, I somehow think that won't be too much of a hardship for you! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Well Wez as usual I got diverted after photo 125 or thereabouts but I did find this which I had forgotten I had : http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0343600 This permits you to download the A&AEE's report on the Scimitar's Bullpup trials. It gives the clearance to release four missiles so this could have been an operational fit rather than a photo opportunity. Further into the report it states that the radio transmitter is fitted in the port ammunition bay so it would appear from that that the Scimitar didn't need the pod. So regardless of that,back to the photos! Richard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Interesting indeed! Mock up installation? Can't see it but probabably XP693? I Appears that it was XN725 and it was only ever in mock up form according to various on-line references. Richard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Back to the Lightning and Genie. See about 3/4 way down the page for the reference in the National Archives but it appears not available to public. Interesting snippet though on how it would have been made available to us from America and its use by the Lightning http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-555852.html RG 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 I realise it needed a data link unit or pod, I read that as somewhat different to a guidance or acquisition pod though. Familiar with the Sea Vixen system, the FAW,2 was listed as Bullpup capable and is shown in the tactical manual and parts catalogue, A missile on each outer wing pylon and the datalink pod inboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Could it be that there was less room in the Sea Vixen hence the need for the pod? To muddy the waters further,the Buccaneer could carry 4 Bullpups. All that aside,it appears to have been a pretty poor weapon. Imagine having to keep your target in sight whilst watching the flare on the missile and only being able to control it in one axis at a time. Hope the bad guys weren't shooting back! Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Well Wez as usual I got diverted after photo 125 or thereabouts but I did find this which I had forgotten I had : http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0343600 This permits you to download the A&AEE's report on the Scimitar's Bullpup trials. It gives the clearance to release four missiles so this could have been an operational fit rather than a photo opportunity. Further into the report it states that the radio transmitter is fitted in the port ammunition bay so it would appear from that that the Scimitar didn't need the pod. So regardless of that,back to the photos! Richard That's very useful and explains a lot. Do you notice how it meant giving up an ammo bay to provide the capability? You can only guess what that would mean for the Lightning? The whole weapon pack would have to be given over to it - whilst it showed the possibilities, operationally I'm sure it would be a one way trip. The Lightning really epitomises the smallest airframe wrapped around the biggest engine philosophy, you only have to look at the introduction of the cable ducts to the F.1A in order to provide a UHF radio capability to the F.1, just shows there was very little room within the airframe to allow much expansion! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Could it be that there was less room in the Sea Vixen hence the need for the pod? To muddy the waters further,the Buccaneer could carry 4 Bullpups. All that aside,it appears to have been a pretty poor weapon. Imagine having to keep your target in sight whilst watching the flare on the missile and only being able to control it in one axis at a time. Hope the bad guys weren't shooting back! Sea Vixen had internal room, but also had six pylons available so a simpler set up was to hang a pod and two missiles. I think the Scimitar was more dedicated to the ground attack role and the four Bullpup fit was seen as more important. I can't imagine the Lightning really getting on in the Bullpup air to ground role, a lot of work for the pilot to guide and to keep following it - possibly avoiding enemy fire! I suppose the Lightning had the advantage of being able to swap over dedicated weapons packs, would think best solution would be two 'pups with datalink fitted within the dedicated pack. Odds & Ordnance do a 1/72 resin Genie fit for the Lightning, I wonder if they found drawings of the proposed installation. Bullpup must be the only ground attack weapon missing in this shot http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/G-AXEE.jpg ! Edited June 5, 2016 by 71chally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 The Bullpup was indeed a failure, at some point in Vietnam it was dropped as an unguided bomb, the worst end for what had been introduced as the vanguard of a new breed of weapons. Seeing a Bullpup under a Lightning is very interesting though, shows how BAC was trying to improve the potential of this type. That the Bullpup was probably one of the worst weapons to propose on a Lightning is a different story of course... John, thanks for posting the drawing of the Sea Vixen pod, the text clearly states it was an AN/ARW-73 unit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now