Raf Scooter Loadouts

[upnorth]

Hello all.

Completion of my RAF Scooter is a bit off yet, but I've been thinking about loadouts for it. I'm placing it in a mid 80s timeframe and will likely be cannibalising Airfix's 1/72 Jaguar for stores options. here's a few of the loadout options I'm thinking of:

Option 1:
PHIMAT pod and ECM pod on outboard pylons, Paveway II on one inboard pylon with fuel tank on the other, centreline pylon empty.

Option 2:
PHIMAT and ECM on outboard pylons, two BL.755s on each inboard pylon and centreline fuel tank.

Option 3:
1000 pound bomb on each outboard pylon, fuel tanks on the inboard pylons and three BL.755s on a TER on the centreline pylon.

Option 4:
One BL.755 on each wing pylon and fuel on the centrline

Option 5:
One BL.755 on each outboard pylon, fuel on the inboards and a pair of 1000 bombs on the centreline

Those are my initial ideas for a loadout if I limit myself to stuff from the Jaguar, but I'm certainly open to other ideas or corrections to the above ideas if one of them won't work with a Scooter.

As for my RAF Scooter, it has the A-4C as its basis and I'll be grafting on the nose from a GR.5 Harrier, so LRMTS is in its abilities and I've got five pylons to play with.

I'm excluding, as options from the Jaguar kit, the following:
2x 1000 pound bombs, it came with four but I've got two set aside for my Gannet.
TIALD pod, due to the mid 80s timeframe I'm going for.
Paveway IIIs, I think they'd just be way too much for the Scooter to handle.

So that leaves me with the four BL.755s, two 1000 pound bombs, two Paveway IIs, PHIMAT and ECM pods and the Jaguar style centreline fuel tank (which I've been thinking about swapping out with the Scooter one).

If we're to use the Jaguar fleet as a reference point, when exactly did the PHIMAT and ECM pod come into use? Are they appropriate to a mid 80s timeframe?

With the Paveway II, I know Harriers could carry them asymetrically, I'm assuming by the Scooter's small size, that if it had the ability to tote a Paveway II, it would also need to be an asymetric load, no?

Thanks in advance

[Howard of Effingham]

If we're to use the Jaguar fleet as a reference point, when exactly did the PHIMAT and ECM pod come into use? Are they appropriate to a mid 80s timeframe?

early to mid 1980's and i think with RAF Germany before those in the UK.

i could also see the option of a single AIM-9G on one of the outboard pylons. however
having said that i think that the RAN's A-4G's had an extra pylon under each wing
[three per wing then] for AIM-9's so you have a few options here.

trevor

[Hobbes]

Paveways are just a guidance kit on standard Mk81-84 bombs, no? So if the 2000 lb version is too heavy, why not use the 1000 lb version?

Besides, the A-4 was specced for ludicrous weapons loads: it could carry up to 10,000 lb/4.4 tons of bombs, so 2x2000 lb Paveways aren't out of the question.  

[grayman]

Perhaps a couple of Martels (1x anti-radar and 1xEO) combined with a 1-2 BL.775s on the centerline - Wild-Scooter-Weasel?

[GeorgeC]

The mid-80s weren't the highpoint of British air-to-ground weaponry.  With the emphasis on low-level penetration and delivery (and I mean LOW, 50'-100' AGL) the inventory had shrunk to 1000 lbs, mostly retarded for lay down attacks with 'slicks' for low, fast ' lofting' (if thats not a contradiction), and BL755.  The SNEB RP had been largely sidelined as you had to pull up to 2-300' to use it - high altitude for RAFG!  The primary weapon of interest during this time was still the WE177, despite 'flexible response'.  LGBs were limited to the UK 1000 lbs with Paveway heads and tails, but these, along with Martels, were almost entirely used by the Buccaneer fleet.  The Jaguars and Tornados only really started to widen their range of weapons post 91, when the RAF began to operate back at medium altitudes.

Your Scooter is, presumably, a Harrier/Jaguar CAS/Battlefield Interdiction substitute, so BL755 and 1000lbers is historically likely.  I am not sure a mixed load was ever used.  ECM, chaff and even AIM-9 were not too common given that the aircraft were supposed to operate so low that they avoided most interference through limiting exposure - the big trick was to avoid the ground.  Hence the problems with the Jaguar which, once you hung all ot these goodies and some tanks on the airframe, didn't have a lot of space left for bombs.  Single weapons on the outer wing pylons, tanks inner and a tandem pair of weapons on the centreline would be similar to 'Red Flag' loads.  

Unfortunately, this is boring as hell, so shove some interesting stuff on instead          

[Gervasius]

WE.177C on centerline pylon, 2 droptanks, ECM pod on right and AIM-9 on left outer pylon? Perfect for stopping Soviet tank armies...
(By the way, any good source for 1/48 WE.177C's? Sorry for threadjack).

Marko

[Scooterman]

having said that i think that the RAN's A-4G's had an extra pylon under each wing
[three per wing then] for AIM-9's so you have a few options here.

Sorry Trev, only ever two under each wing.

And I like Marko's suggestion if you can find the nuke.  Doesn't Belcher Bits make  instant sunshine?

[Mossie]

If you wanted to go with maritime strike like Buccanner, Sea Eagle would be your option.  Very similar to the radar version of Martel.

I think I've seen pictures of a Jag loaded up with ALARM, if so, it was probably just a mock up.  It's a little late for your timescale, ALARM's were first used operationaly on Tornado's in the 1st Gulf War & they were still experimental then, development being rushed through.  They were trialed throughout the 80's though, so you could pop them on in the yellow test colours as with Tonkas.  They weigh 540lbs so the Scooter should have no problem carrying them.  You could go with one on the centre line pylon & either one each on the inboard pylons, or even scratch up some double launchers, or use a AAM pylon like the Tonka.  The outbaord pylons should be able to take them too, but you'll probably want the Phimat & ECM there.





AGM.45 Shrike is a possibility for an anti-radar missile too, although unusual to see, RAF aircraft carried them throughout the seventies into the mid eighties.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Close Air Support missions flown with the intention of influencing the outcome of friendly forces engaged with the enemy would surely require something that was forward firing and in mass quantities.  

Guns and rockets are at the top of the list with the added advantage being that it is much easier to survive the attack if you do not have to over fly your target.  This is where the gun and forward firing rockets really come into play for those forces that are in need of close air support and require something quick and responsive.  There is nothing better in the inventory than forward firing rockets aimed at the people that are shooting at you.  General purpose bombs are also useful if you are attempting to make big holes in relatively flat terrain surfaces to make obstacles that armor would have to navigate through to their objective.  The one drawback to big holes in the ground is that they also afford the opposition a means of cover from direct fire weapons which then taxes your supporting artillery units and direct support mortar units with providing more indirect fire to destroy or neutralize the attacking forces.  

When you realize that a 2000 pound Mk84 general purpose bomb with make a hole in the ground that is approximately twenty feet deep and eighty feet in diameter, you can then ascertain that a 1000 pound bomb will make a slightly smaller hole in the ground albeit just as useful for attacking forces that need to take cover from direct fire.  The rocket is cheap and effective and in wide use due to the ability to cause a lot of death and destruction, similar to using a 12 bore shotgun in a telephone booth to shoot a duck except your "shot gun" is using 50mm - 127mm pellets all armed with high explosives or white phosphorus.  

Cluster munitions are excellent for saturation of targets that are "easy meat" (lightly defended) and that is not what you would have found in the meeting engagement between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces.  It would have been a real meat grinder and with all of that air defense situated with the advancing forces, it would have been a real challenge to remain intact if you had to make an attack across your own front lines into such an overwhelming air defense screen.  

General purpose bombs have their place for destruction of fixed targets and at the time that your WHIF Skyhawk would have been flying in RAFG colors it would have been fitted out with rocket pods and guns for direct close air support missions.  General purpose bombs for attacking rear areas that were in the immediate vicinity of the Corps area of interest (bridges, command posts, logistics centers, transportation hubs) that could directly influence the second echelon forces not yet in contact.  Precision guided weapons for the battle would have been few and not readily available as these weapons would require a partner/buddy to designate the target.  Targets for precision guided weapons would have been targets of opportunity such as a command post or radar station that was a threat within the Corps area of interest.  Most of your combat aircraft would have been going deep to take out the airfields in East Germany to prevent the returning aircraft from turning around for a follow-on attack.  With these airfields out of commission, the returning aircraft would have to fly further east to recover and rearm which would have reduced their weapons load for the second mission by requiring more fuel in lieu of weapons to achieve the range needed to perform the attack missions previously flown from airfield closer to the battle.  

An ideal load out for your Skyhawk would be the rocket pods, on outboard wing pylons, fuel tanks on the inboard pylons, and perhaps a tandem stores carrier for the centerline with a pair of BL755 cluster bombs.  This would have been as close to a normal combat load for opening day of the war.  Other more sinister weapons loads would have been fire bombs and cluster bombs for attacking POL and ammunition dumps since they are susceptible to this type of attack and with an area weapon such as a fire bomb, you don't really need to be that accurate, just close enough to get the fire started.  Gun pods would have been another weapon of choice for the close air support mission as this again allows the attacking aircraft to NOT over fly the target and pull off/out prior to doing and allowing them to return to base to fly again instead of becoming an attrition statistic for the bean counters.  

As far as the low level approach to the target, this is still valid but most attacking aircraft will still "pop up" to acquire the target and then make a shallow dive before releasing weapons.  In the case of close air support, this is where the FAC really earns his paycheck by giving proper directions to the incoming aircraft to vector them to the target with minimal deviation from the path.  If done properly, this will allow the aircraft to pop up and deliver weapons and egress from the target area without issue.  

While I was no FAC, I did attend the air-ground operations school at Sembach Air Base when I was on my second tour in Germany.  This provided me with a much better appreciation of what was officially available for air support to the Army.  Since I was attached to the 11th armored cavalry regiment at the time, I got a real good dose of reality on how important air support was to defending your positions.  Contrary to popular belief, the total number of precision guided weapons (LGB sorties) available to V Corps (US) was only one or two of all sorties available out of all the other conventional weapons sorties available for the first day of the conflict.  After that if there was anything left, who knows what would have been available for use in interdiction of the follow on forces.  It was not the best situation to be in and it made you keenly aware of the need for the nuclear weapons that were available only after the national command authority had released them for use to the tactical commanders.  Nothing quite as scary as having to participate in a planned nuclear weapons release across an entire Corps front with artillery fired atomic weapons.  Even though it was just an exercise, it really made you feel vulnerable and very aware that the same targeting processes were being applied on their side of the fence to destroy us if a war had been started.  


I have separated your options into the two types of air support missions that your Skyhawk would have flown based on the weapons, fuel, and counter-measures that you have indicated in your load outs.

Air Interdiction Missions aka BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction)

Option 1: PHIMAT pod and ECM pod on outboard pylons, Pave way II on one inboard pylon with fuel tank on the other, centerline pylon empty.  

This is an interdiction mission to attack a target well behind the battle area where the need for chaff, flares and electronic counter-measures would be required to protect the aircraft and only one specific type of target is to be attacked.  This mission would require a buddy to designate the target or someone on the ground with a hand held laser designator to paint the target for the mission to be successful.  Something similar to this was practiced by certain teams in 5th Special Forces Group for contingency plans in disrupting a possible Soviet invasion of Iran.  The targets required putting teams on the ground deep inside denied territory where they would be required to turn the laser designator on at a specified time to designate the target.  The attacking aircraft would fly by and release a PWIII LLGB that would then maneuver to the target and destroy it.  This was practiced often at a very remote location in the South Western United States to prove that the concept would work for the decision makers (I had to create the target folders for this project).


Option 2: PHIMAT and ECM on outboard pylons, two BL.755s on each inboard pylon and centerline fuel tank.

This is an interdiction mission to attack a target behind the battle area where the need for chaff, flares and electronic counter-measures would be required to protect the aircraft and only specific type of target is to be attacked.  This mission would be a quick in and out again with no loitering over the target area, strictly a pre-planned mission with a possible time line for the attack to disrupt an advance or remove a high value soft target such as a command post, or logistics center.


CAS (Close Air Support) Missions

Option 4: One BL.755 on each wing pylon and fuel on the centerline.  
This would be another Close Air Support (CAS) or an interdiction mission to attack a specific target type where cluster munitions would be effective in destroying or neutralizing the target such as logistic centers, radars, command posts, communications centers, soft targets that are vulnerable to this type of weapon.  and with no counter-measures carried by the attacking aircraft, the target would have to be relatively undefended to accomplish the mission.


Option 3: 1000 pound bomb on each outboard pylon, fuel tanks on the inboard pylons and three BL.755s on a TER on the centerline pylon.  
Option 5: One BL.755 on each outboard pylon, fuel on the inboards and a pair of 1000 bombs on the centerline.

These are Close Air Support (CAS) mission weapons loads that would be used to attack targets at or directly behind the battle area where there is a need for more than one type of weapon to be available for the type of targets that are to be attacked.  The centerline station of the A-4 was rated to carry at least 3000 pounds so three 1000 pound bombs or three BL755 cluster munitions would be possible but it would more likely that two of these weapons would be carried on a tandem store carrier due to the high drag created by these weapons. This type of load would be something that an "on call" aircraft would have carried.  This type of mission could also require the aircraft to orbit at a designated location behind the battle area to be available for immediate close air support against targets of opportunity that were identified by the FAC or the supported units fire support coordination element.

[upnorth]

Wow! Jeffry, that's a whole lot of insight, thanks very much. I may have to find Airfix's GR.3 Harrier for the rocket pods if I continue in the mid 80s RAFG vein wit hthis project.

Thanks everyone.

Considering that the Scotter had a pair of 20mm cannons built in, would it even be likely to carry a gun pod? If so, what sort?

Exploring Mossie's comment about the Sea Eagle (or even Martel for that matter) Would the Scooter actually have had the range  (I'm thinking at least two Sea Eagles, one on each inboard pylon plus a centre line fuel tank) from a land base like Lossiemouth or Kinloss to make it viable for the maritime strike role. Or would the target ships have to be so close to shore that the Nimrods or navy should have gotten them first?

On the matter of the Martel IIRC, the Airfix 1/72 Buccaneer showed the Martel loadout to include a data link pod of some sort, was that always needed for the Martel or just some missions. If i did a Martel armed Scooter would the data link be better on the centreline or an outboard wing pylon, or would it matter?

[Howard of Effingham]

And I like Marko's suggestion if you can find the nuke.  Doesn't Belcher Bits make  instant sunshine?

they certainly do!

look for their 'british nuclear weapons set' and usually available from aeroclub. i
know that this is available in 1/72 but am not sure about 1/48.

[Mossie]

The Scooter & the Bucc's combat radius are very similar, (about 600 miles with tanks) so you shouldn't have a problem there.  And like you say, if the Scooter has in built cannon it's unlikely there'd be a need for an external gun, if you want to point & shoot the RP's are probably going to be strapped on, unless an RAF version had the cannon removed?

I didn't know about Bucc's carrying data pods for Martel, but I'd guess that since they were set up for the maritime role, they didn't have the various whizzy bits for the Martel.  As far as I know, no other aircraft carried a datalink, but since I missed it on the Bucc, don't take my word for it!

[Shasper]

Considering that the Scotter had a pair of 20mm cannons built in, would it even be likely to carry a gun pod? If so, what sort?

Why not the 30mm Aden? Better yet, swap-out the Colts for a single or dual Aden guns (the Israelis did this w/their A-4Ns)



sHas B)

[Scooterman]

Why not the 30mm Aden? Better yet, swap-out the Colts for a single or dual Aden guns (the Israelis did this w/their A-4Ns)

Skyhawk Guns 101


The Israeli Scooters had/have 30mm DEFA guns which because of their bigger breech assembly have the guns in pods under the wingroots with the breech in the std. cannon bays.

The ADENs however have been installed in Skyhawks before.  Little known but Singapore's TA/A-4S/SUs came from Douglas with them installed in the same position as the Mk.12 Colts and fitted quite well resulting in no extrenal differences except for the bigger barrel bore and the cooling sleeve around the end of the barrel has holes in it (Colts are smooth.)

Late in service, the Argentines also installed ADEN in their remaining A-4B/C/P/Qs but it wasn't as clean as the factory job.  Where the barrel exited the leading edge, there was a slight bulge or lip around the lower part of the exit area.

So IMHO I think the RN and RAF would have installed/ordered the ADENs for the bigger punch and better reliability.

So endth the lesson.    

[GeorgeC]

Jeffry,

Your points are spot on and absolutely valid for the USAF in the Cold War and pretty much all Western air forces post 91.  However, the RAF did have a significantly different view of air ops from about 65 to 91.  From Vietnam onward, the USAF invested in Wild Weasels, jammers, LGBs, stealth and ARMs to allow medium-altitude penetration of even Soviet-style air defences, and practiced large-package missions to use these techniques.  The RAF made a concious decision that it could not afford all of that and maintain its front line strength, and developed a faith in very-low-level penetration instead.  RAFG and Strike Command planned to operate in pairs and 4-ships at 100' and below, using terrain masking and extremely-short exposure times to mitigate the threat - the late-70s Buccaneer Red Flag video footage manouvering at about 15' AGL (no exaggeration) was a typical example.  As you point out, this would have made the aircraft vulnerable to AAA and small arms fire, but, right or wrong, this was viewed as less of a threat than climbing into Missile and Fighter Engagement Zone.  Consequently, the actual weapons available to RAFG were very limited compared to the USAF - 1000lbs and BL755s making up the majority of the conventional load, augmented, eventually with the equally-low level JP233 anti-airfield weapon (which Tornados climbed to use).  Even guns and rockets became less 'popular' as they needed a 'pop up' above 100' to become effective, and definately no napalm at 50'!

Now, within about a week of the start of the 91 Gulf War, it became apparent that, if you can smash an opponent's air defence system, then the USAF approach became absolutely valid, thus, overnight, the RAF moved to medium altitude, bought CVR7, deployed Buccaneers into theatre as designator and begged, borrowed and stole LGBs.  Since then, the UK MOD has invested in a range of PGMs, jamming and rockets and has largely given up on the ultra-low flight regime, as can be seen in the far smaller number of crashes and fatalities in the last 15 years.  As to whether the USAF could have smashed a full-blow WARPAC Integrated Air Defence system against 3:1 odds or if the ultra-low level approach was better, thank the Lord we never got to find out

And On Martels...

Just to finish off, TV Martel needed a data link pod, Anti-radar didn't.  French Jaguars and Mirage uesd the ARM, while the Buccaneer S2B had a TV screen jammed onto the nav's floor and could use both.  It wasn't a very friendly weapon for single-seat operation, unless you were prepared to stooge about at medium level for a while while you concentrated on guiding the missile in.