Tornado Self Defence Suite and specs

[yahya]

Can the experts enlighten me please why Panavia Tornado generally used external (under-wing) ECM jammers and chaff/flare dispensing pods with the exception of the Italian version, which had an internally-mounted jammer ,instead of an internally-mounted electronic warfare suite? Did this happen because the technologies in the 1970s, when the aircraft was designed, did not allow the ECM jammers and chaff/flare dispensers to be mounted inside the fuselage or wings?

When mounted under the wings, did the GEC-Marconi Sky Shadow jammer perform better in terms of radio waves propagation compared to the fuselage-mounted jammers of that vintage?

Throughout their service, RAF Tornados apparently sported various types of RWRs (RHWRs) including the Hermes. Did these devices interface with the Sky Shadow ECM jammers at all, eg. to initiate jamming transmissions? How was the Sky Shadow controlled? Manually by the pilot when over hostile territorry?

 

[TomS]

with the exception of the Italian version, which had an internally-mounted jammer

Jane's All the World's Aircraft (1992-3) says that the German and Italian Air Force examples both used Cerberus jammer pods. That said, I can't find a single photo of an Italian IDS with any sort of jammer pod, so maybe Jane's is wrong?

 

[yahya]

Well, my question focused why Tornados generally had underwing ECM and chaff/flare dispensers instead of having them built into the fuselage or wings. Was this because the airframe generally had confined spaces?

Saab has an ad photo of their more recent BOZ EC that was installed under the left wing of an Italian Tornado. But it's a chaff/flare dispenser combined with MAWS, not an ECM (jammer). See here:

Countermeasure dispensing systems | Saab

Self-defence for airborne platforms means knowing whether anyone is observing you or making you a target. That requires keeping track of every type of signal and keeping your countermeasures close at hand.

www.saab.com

 

[timmymagic]

Jane's All the World's Aircraft (1992-3) says that the German and Italian Air Force examples both used Cerberus jammer pods. That said, I can't find a single photo of an Italian IDS with any sort of jammer pod, so maybe Jane's is wrong?

Same here. Every bit of aimagery I can find is 2 x BOZ. That includes aircraft operating in Desert Storm where they would defeinitely have carried ECM if available. I think Janes is wrong.

 

[yahya]

If two BOZ pods were used during the Desert Storm on Tornados, then why incidents like John Nichol's shootdown by an SA-14 took place?

 

[red admiral]

Well, my question focused why Tornados generally had underwing ECM and chaff/flare dispensers instead of having them built into the fuselage or wings. Was this because the airframe generally had confined spaces?

I would imagine so. Many potential integration issues e.g. physical space, field of regard, electrical power, cooling, EMI with other systems, fire risk if sharing bays with fuel lines etc.

 

[TomS]

If two BOZ pods were used during the Desert Storm on Tornados, then why incidents like John Nichol's shootdown by an SA-14 took place?

Pretty sure Timmy is talking about the Italian models, so the Nichols shootdown isn't the issue. But there was Legion #15 (Bellini and Cocciolone) who apparently pressed solo for a low-level attack on a defended target. There's only so much chaff and flares can do in that sort of event, and the ZSU-23-4 that got them apparently does pretty well against chaff. Also, expendables can run out, so they might have already used all their chaff -- they were only shot down on the egress from the target area.

Not Tornado related, but I understand that most or all of the OV-10 losses in the Gulf War happened when crews stayed over a target after they expended the last of their flares. MANPADS that had been avoidable with flares rapidly became lethal when the flares were gone.

To drag back to the issue of internal vs external jammers, it is probably down to lack of space inside the Tornado. But then, very few aircraft had built-in jammers in this era. Just the F-15, I think, really. Pods were better (larger and more powerful, usually), easier to swap out and update, and generally more flexible.

 

[timmymagic]

If two BOZ pods were used during the Desert Storm on Tornados, then why incidents like John Nichol's shootdown by an SA-14 took place?

TomS is correct I was talking about the Italian Tornado.

UK were all 1 x BOZ and 1 x Sky Shadow

 

[Fluff]

Building it into the airframe, limits you in terms of updates, and changes in hardware. I wouldn't assume that because a ECM pod looks the same 20 years later, that it is the same.

Also every aircraft is a trade off, you can add on board LOX generation, ability to self start, baggage space, satcom, etc etc, Tornado for RAF was replacing Vulcan, so you have to make some space compromises.

As above, GW1 RAF flew with one of each, Chaff especially would come back empty. In terms of being hit, especially by guns, the Iraqi's started massing guns at each end of the runway, and firing when they heard aircraft....very quickly we switched from JP233 to LGB-paveway, and started plinking HAS's, as the Iraqi's weren't coming out to play.

I vaguely recall you could put ECM into auto, but I cant recall being trained on the ECM pod, probably because it was fitted by armourers, and if faulty taken off and another one fitted, so not repaired on the wing. Also recall we had a lot of pods, sitting on the ground - broken- so another reason not to build it into the aircraft.

 

[yahya]

Thank you Colleagues for your answers. If I remember correctly, eg. early AN/ALQ-119 versions had very short MTBF, something around 20 hrs.or lower. I guess that the MTBF of the ECM pods of the 1960s must have been even shorter, and they required servicing after every mission. I agree that replacing an external pod is indeed very easy. However, I wonder if the jamming and chaff/flare pods created significant drag that slowed the aircraft and made high G maneuvers less possible? More contemporary high G-capable aircraft like Rafale or Su-27s have the jammers and chaff/flare dispensers embedded into the airframe. Was this caused by the smaller size of the Tornado?

Can the experts comment on how the Sky Shadow pod was controlled during a combat mission, please? Jane's reported many years ago about an upgrade made by GEC-Marconi, which enabled intercommunication between the pod and Tornado's ARI 18241/2 RHWR, which would be logical and reasonable. Do you know the output power of the jammer and if it inhibited RHWR's proper operation?

 

[thefrecklepuny]

Tornado IDS/GR1/4 is a compact airframe. But then again, the much bigger F-111 carried an external jammer as well. Under the rear fuselage.

 

[yahya]

Do you possess knowledge whether the RHWR in the cockpit interfaced with the Sky Shadow pod and how the setup performed?

 

[baigar]

Do you possess knowledge whether the RHWR in the cockpit interfaced with the Sky Shadow pod and how the setup performed?

I do not know much on the SkyShadow - the old computer of the first PODs (up until 1996 or so) had only one data link running to the panel in the cockpit (and some different connections for controlling the RF stuff which I also have no idea on). So in the very beginning of SkyShadow there probably was no interconnection. No idea what happened later...

 

[yahya]

I downloaded some old Tornado flight manuals and could not find any cockpit control panel that was responsible even for powering on the ECM pod. Considering your input, does it mean that the pod's operation could have been controlled via Tornado's on-board computer?

 

[baigar]

My interest in avionics was started in 2004 by obtaining a small black LRU from an surplus lot. In more than 10 years, I analyzed that and discovered that it is a complete computer (based on 8k of core memory and hundrets of small TTC chips)...

​

...and after some exciting years I had it working again in 2013: That is a 12 bit Elliott 900 series computer with very limited capability (compare it to some later HP pocket calculator). If interested, see my page on that project: http://www.programmer-electronic-control.de/

Only recently, I was told that this was part of the very early SkyShadow and located behind the "PLU access" plate on the POD's left side:

​

So for loading new software, the side panel obiously had to be removed with program loaded from paper tape (yes, the box has an interface for a paper tape unit). Now I have this computer and some other ones of the same architecture in my collecition...

​

...where I marked the SkyShadow-Computer and the panel going with it using red arrows. So long story short - I am pretty sure: Only the panel controlled the early POD, no other interfaces. According to a report on https://www.forecastinternational.com/ there was an upgrade in 1996 so all said here is obsolete since 27 years now and as later pods do not have the marked access door any more, I guess there have been additional digital connections to control the POD after 1996. But of course I would be highly interested in getting schematics of the old style blackbox (Part.No. 51-019-02, NSN1680-99-652-3419) to see what I got wrong in my analysis ;-)

 

[yahya]

Thank you for your very interesting input. That these machines were programmed using paper tapes is not surprising as these could hold relatively a lot of data. I would rather be surprised if that pod was programmed with punched cards.

 

[Flame2512]

I downloaded some old Tornado flight manuals and could not find any cockpit control panel that was responsible even for powering on the ECM pod. Considering your input, does it mean that the pod's operation could have been controlled via Tornado's on-board computer?

This is the Sky Shadow control panel:

Do you possess knowledge whether the RHWR in the cockpit interfaced with the Sky Shadow pod and how the setup performed?

This would suggest that the pod operated largely independently of the aircraft's other systems and worked out what to jam by itself.


Both excerpts come from some RAF documentation released under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[yahya]

Excellent material. Thank you!

 

[Gaznav]

From 1995 the Tornado F3 carried the Towed RADAR Decoy (TRD) on the left outer pylon as shown above. It was carried in a BOZ pod and consisted of a travelling wave tube (TWT) connected to a Zeus jammer’s techniques generator via a ~100m cable. The system gave exceptional performance against all SAM types of the day and went on to be developed in many other fast jet types including the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Once deployed (it was normal to fly with it stowed and only deployed when in high threat environments or when targeted), then the TWT was recovered by dropping it back at base with it’s small parachute. I did that a few times, and it was a bit of an art to work out where it was going to land! If the TWT was lost over hostile territory then no classified information could be gained from it - all of the clever stuff was in the aircraft and the pod - the TWT was just a normal TWT that everyone knows about. A very clever design and a world first for the RAF and Brits that designed, built and flew with it on a fast jet.

I was very happy that I was flying with it at the time!

This is a press release at the time: https://www.flightglobal.com/raf-uses-radar-decoys-on-tornados-in-bosnia/16450.article

A much more swept up system these days - here is a later brochure: https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18406495/Ariel_LQ_mm07735_.pdf?t=1538987424584

 

[baigar]

Quite clever idea having the power generation in the towed part ;-) Was the technology of signal generation in the TRD the same as in the SkyShadow pod the Gr.4 used to carry?