Upgrade the engines. That is about all I can think of that they needed, really. For use in low-level threat environments they were perfect. Faced with SAMs they weren't, so perhaps some ECM and defensive gear but that might be too late. I am assuming that you're talking about 1965 when they were meant to be replaced by the F-111?
I am assuming that you're talking about 1965 when they were meant to be replaced by the F-111?You're spot on Rickshaw, I'm thinking GAF has the skill and knowledge to apply such a SLEP to the Canberra's they'd built, don't you think?
Very interesting idea! Low level strike or anti shipping missions. Definitely need a refueling probe and up to date efficient engines like you said. Did they already carry ECM or targeting pods?
Then there were the secondary roles. Refueller, ELINT and recon?
Just a thought; for the time frame you are considering, suitably sized turbofan engines do not yet exist and I doubt the RAAF would want to go the route of the RB-57F; so consider re-engining with J52's and get the same thrust in a smaller package. If there was a second re-engining in the late Seventies or early Eighties, I could see dry F404s or RB199s being used.
Engine: | Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7 Mk.109 | Rolls Royce Conway Rco.12 | Spey Mk 250 | Rolls Royce Olympus 101 |
Length: | 126 in (3,200 mm) | 132.4 in (3,360 mm) | 111 in (2,819.4 mm) | 127.1 in (10.59 ft; 3.23 m) |
Diameter: | 35.7 in (907 mm) | 42 in (1,100 mm) | 43.0 in (1092.2 mm) | 40 in (3.3 ft; 1.0 m) |
Dry weight: | 2,890 lb (1,310 kg) | 4,544 lb (2,061 kg) | 4,093 lb (1856 kg) | 3,615 lb (1,640 kg) |
Maximum thrust: | 7,400 lbf (36 kN) | 17,500 lb (77.8 kN) @ 9980 rpm (100%) | 12,140 lbf (54 kN) | 11,000 lbf (49 kN) |
Just a thought; for the time frame you are considering, suitably sized turbofan engines do not yet exist
Just finish reading an interesting 'What If' about RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage, from which some of this fine forums members appeared to have participated.
I wonder if the wing of the Canberra would support the weight of a RB04?
Just finish reading an interesting 'What If' about RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage, from which some of this fine forums members appeared to have participated.
Can you post a link to this please.
I wonder if the wing of the Canberra would support the weight of a RB04?
Well they could support AS.30s which isn't that far removed in size:
The RB.168 Spey 202 OAL includes the afterburner, which obviously isn't going to be used in
a Canberra installation. The 250/251, as used in Nimrod, OAL is 117".
I'm assuming these pictures are RAF Canberra's, what with carrying/trialing of AS.30's?
Did anyone notice that two of the armourers are wearing flip-flops or barefooted? My NCO would have cut my @(&%*$#&^% off if I did that.
How about a Canberra with a pair of AS.34 Kormorans (600Kg) or AM39 Exocet (670Kg) and dedicated ASW radar in the nose (possibly a Thomson-CSF Agave radar or other)?1980's or mid/late 1970's update? At least for the Agave radar since it was not flown until the mid-1970's.
The Airfix 'new tool' 1/72 Canberra B(I).8 kit I've got, has a couple of large Air to Surface missiles that hang off the outer wing pylons. I can't remember what they're called though --- :-X
The Airfix 'new tool' 1/72 Canberra B(I).8 kit I've got, has a couple of large Air to Surface missiles that hang off the outer wing pylons. I can't remember what they're called though --- :-X
Good find Robert. They are AS.30s.
Look at step 32 in the instructions.
https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/6/4/122364-67-instructions.pdf (https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/6/4/122364-67-instructions.pdf)
https://www.super-hobby.com/products/English-Electric-Canberra-B-I-8-1538951.html (https://www.super-hobby.com/products/English-Electric-Canberra-B-I-8-1538951.html)
I was thinking mid-late '70s. The Exocet, Kormoran and Agave were all in the same timeframe there. That said, other radars might be added might include something like the AI.23 Airpass II "Blue Parrot" as used on the Blackburn Buccaneer. This could add in not only weapon guidance but also terrain following. Hell, for that matter, why not consider a developed version of the Canberra as an alternative/compliment to the Bucc'. One could also give it not only ASW missiles but also maybe a pair of AIM-9s for self defence. If done in a later '80s scenario, one might even add in Kormoran 2s or Sea Eagles."Blue Parrot", AS30's, and dry Spey's for a mid-1960's update? With the Agave and later ASM's for a late-1970's follow-on CILOP program (with or without another engine replacement)?
Where would be a practical location for an In-Flight Refueling probe to be mounted as part of a SLEP upgrade for the Canberra and B-57?
Where would be a practical location for an In-Flight Refueling probe to be mounted as part of a SLEP upgrade for the Canberra and B-57?
I'm guessing a fixed probe to the right of the cockpit, similar to the A-4G's, or a folding probe in the same place, similar to the A-7's - depending on how much work you wanted to put into maintaining a more streamlined shape.
Where would be a practical location for an In-Flight Refueling probe to be mounted as part of a SLEP upgrade for the Canberra and B-57?
I'm guessing a fixed probe to the right of the cockpit, similar to the A-4G's, or a folding probe in the same place, similar to the A-7's - depending on how much work you wanted to put into maintaining a more streamlined shape.
I like the idea of having both refueling capabilities. It costs a bit in weight and complexity, but it allows you to refuel from any tanker out there and I consider that a useful trait.Where would be a practical location for an In-Flight Refueling probe to be mounted as part of a SLEP upgrade for the Canberra and B-57?
I'm guessing a fixed probe to the right of the cockpit, similar to the A-4G's, or a folding probe in the same place, similar to the A-7's - depending on how much work you wanted to put into maintaining a more streamlined shape.
Pretty much the same conclusions I had with the IFR probe. On the Canberra it would probably be best to go with the A-4/A-3 style probe attached along the side of the fuselage. On the B-57 there might be a bit more wiggle room for an A-7 or Tornado style semi-retracting probe as there would be room for the extension/retraction mechanism within the fuselage. My own personal preference for the B-57 would be to have both the boom receptacle and probe and drogue style IFR features on the aircraft. The A-7/Tornado style along the side of the fuselage and the boom receptacle located behind the canopy on top of the fuselage. An alternate location for the boom receptacle might be on the inboard wing leading edge (like the F-84G Thunderjet).
I'd question installing a flight refueling probe on an RAAF Canberra. The RAAF didn't have any flight refuellers available before their acquisition of ex-QANTAS 707s in 1988, So, unless you want to purchase some flight refuellers as well as updating your Canberras, they won't be doing much refueling while flying.
I'd much rather go for updated engines, more avionics (ie radar, ECM) and new guided weapons (Exocet. Kormoran, Penguin, RB04)
As to where to put the probe, running it down the side of the fuselage to some point where it would connect to the main fuel tanks would make the most sense. Something like the A-3 Skywarrior.
Canberra with Refueling probe:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Canberra_WK143_%2821196780350%29.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner052/1240712-large_zpswojasq1v.jpg)
And also operating in a buddy refuelling style role:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner053/21-2_zpsmwgtvdfs.jpg)
Some additional thoughts for this, assuming we are looking at a RAAF platform:
- Maybe have the scenario be that in the early 60s when the RAAF was considering the Canberra replacement, there is a recession or at least economic slowdown (or perhaps simply the options to replace are deemed too expensive). Either way, the decision is made to not replace the Canberras but rather to keep them in service. This removes the F-111 etc from the picture and gives a reason for upgrades.
- Another, less savoury scenario, is that in the 1960s as countries started to condemn Sth Africa over its apartheid policies, Australia decides to stand with Sth Africa. As such sanctions also are applied to Australia (or at least major orders such as F-111s etc are prevented from occurring. As such, the Canberras are forced to soldier on.
The issue with these scenarios though is that they might restrict the sort of fancy upgrades some are thinking of.
Just a thought, perhaps the SLEP might also include the B-57's rotary bomb bay? I can see that simplifying a few things. I know EE looked at doing one but could never sell it to the RAF.
All the more reason, then, for the RAAF to adopt it for their Canberra SLEP. If they get aerial refueling support earlier, perhaps some of the saved money could go toward purchasing Buccaneers?Just a thought, perhaps the SLEP might also include the B-57's rotary bomb bay? I can see that simplifying a few things. I know EE looked at doing one but could never sell it to the RAF.
Probably because of the RAF's aversion to the Buccaneer that the Navy was trying to push onto them ---- ;D
As the B-57 was essentially a Canberra with the exception of the nose and the rotating bomb bay
The B57 nose would also give you the safety of twin ejection seats, as opposed to the B(I)8 set up of ejector seat for the pilot, out the side door for the navigator
In 1969, the USAF had successfully modified sixteen Martin B-57B's into Martin B-57G's under the project name 'Tropic Moon' The interesting thing to me is that these B-57G's were equipped with a laser guidance system that supported the carrying and launching of up to four 500-lb "smart bombs" on the underwing pylons. These B-57G were used in combat from September 1970.
So I'm thinking, with US approval, the laser guidance system and Paveway might be made available to the RAAF and utilised on the SLEP Canberra Mk 20's for stand-off precision strike. 😯
I think you'd need B-57 noses to make that actually work. Nose changes were relatively simple as the Canberra proved. All you needed to do was unbolt the nose at the pressure joint and bolt a new one on.
This could also possibly spur a Sapphire Sabre as well instead of the Avon Sabre...
Did Aus ever consider the Nimrod? If so then the
Spey 250/251 would make sense for the Canberra
SLEP due to commonality.
Did Aus ever consider the Nimrod? If so then the
Spey 250/251 would make sense for the Canberra
SLEP due to commonality.
Wonder if that would have also seen the RAN acquiring late-model F11F-1s with the J65/Sapphire?This could also possibly spur a Sapphire Sabre as well instead of the Avon Sabre...
I just remembered that the North American FJ-3 and FJ-4 Fury both had a J65 so perhaps my idea is not so far-fetched after all. Therefore a RAAF B.20 fitted with Armstrong Siddeley Sapphires could also result in the CAC Sabre being the Sapphire Sabre. this would also result in commonality with the A-4Gs squired later on. We may even see a Sapphire Mirage development (mirroring the real world Avon Mirage). Ah, the twists one simple change to history could take...
Speys were available from approximate 1964 onwards. Conways were available before that in the late 1950s. Both were turbofan engines.
Basically you'd have at this point in time from the UK, the following engines. All could fit into the wings of the Canberra (with a little bit of a shoehorn):
-Rickshaw
The RB.168 Spey 202 OAL includes the afterburner, which obviously isn't going to be used in
a Canberra installation. The 250/251, as used in Nimrod, OAL is 117".
-jcf
I had thought of LGB equipped Canberras as well - especially when i saw this image in my searches:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/be/74/03/be74037ab0b567e5e0e5df007196e031.jpg)
Of course there are other options too, depending upon era. For instance, one could simply fit a AN/AVQ-10 Pave Knife targeting pod (as was used on some Vietnam era F-4s and A-6s:
The B57 nose would also give you the safety of twin ejection seats, as opposed to the B(I)8 set up of ejector seat for the pilot, out the side door for the navigator.
With the B57 nose you could add the B57G equipment fit "easily" without the need to try and fit it round the B(I)8 nose set up.
Fingers twitching for B57G Style GAF Canberra profiles!!
Cheers
Mark
The B57 nose would also give you the safety of twin ejection seats, as opposed to the B(I)8 set up of ejector seat for the pilot, out the side door for the navigator
I don't think so, the other crew were also on ejection seats.
Top pic shows where the two crew behind the pilot sat on theirs (for the bubble canopy variants), bottom pic shows the hatch above the navigator (for the B(I).8 types)
The B57 nose would also give you the safety of twin ejection seats, as opposed to the B(I)8 set up of ejector seat for the pilot, out the side door for the navigator.
With the B57 nose you could add the B57G equipment fit "easily" without the need to try and fit it round the B(I)8 nose set up.
Fingers twitching for B57G Style GAF Canberra profiles!!
Cheers
Mark
Love your enthusiasm Mark!! 👍
Just collating an email in response to your last mate. I'll include some thought, we'll chew the fat, and hopefully eleviate that twitch 😂😂
M.A.D
I was thinking mid-late '70s. The Exocet, Kormoran and Agave were all in the same timeframe there. That said, other radars might be added might include something like the AI.23 Airpass II "Blue Parrot" as used on the Blackburn Buccaneer. This could add in not only weapon guidance but also terrain following. Hell, for that matter, why not consider a developed version of the Canberra as an alternative/compliment to the Bucc'. One could also give it not only ASW missiles but also maybe a pair of AIM-9s for self defence. If done in a later '80s scenario, one might even add in Kormoran 2s or Sea Eagles.
Did Aus ever consider the Nimrod? If so then the
Spey 250/251 would make sense for the Canberra
SLEP due to commonality.
It was, apparently offered the Nimrod but chose the P-3 instead. Nimrod would be interesting with leaping Kangaroos on it.
So does the forum think that the Spey 250/251 would fit into the existing Canberra Mk20's engine cowling (what with the difference in diameter between the existing Avon and proposed Spey? I think it goes without saying that an engine change would be a major part of this Canberra SLEP project, but so would it's cost contribution, if it nesesitated a major engineering rework or the existing engine mount......
Standard Canberra B.20 Engines: Avon R.A.3 Mk.101-3 Engine Weight: 1518kg Engine Diameter: 0.991m Engine Length: 3.2m Engine Thrust: 6500lb | Nimrod MR.2 (and also potentially modified Canberra SLEP) Engines: Spey RB.168 Mk.250 Engine Weight: 1243kg (thus lighter than Avons) Engine Diameter: 0.826m (thus smaller than Avons) Engine Length: 2.972m (thus smaller than Avons) Engine Thrust: 11995lb |
I think it goes without saying that an engine change would be a major part of this Canberra SLEP project
What do you think is the most efficient/effective way we'd carry the 'Pave Knife' on the Canberra Mk20 Greg? Semi-recessed in the bomb bay? Under one of the outer wings (keeping in mind the size and weight of the Rb 04 or Walleye I'm envisaging.....
Quote
I don't think so, the other crew were also on ejection seats.
Top pic shows where the two crew behind the pilot sat on theirs (for the bubble canopy variants), bottom pic shows the hatch above the navigator (for the B(I).8 types)
I hate to argue (just ask my wife!) but the B(I)8 was designed with the bombardier/navigator sitting below and to the right of the pilot.
“It was obvious to everyone that a new intruder Canberra needed the new fighter-type cockpit arrangement and it was also proposed that the navigator/bomb-aimer’s seat should be moved forward and repositioned beside the pilot, inside the fuselage. This was a logical arrangement, but only the pilot was to be given an ejection seat and it was decided that the navigator would rely instead on manual egress through the fuselage door. This was undoubtedly a bad decision for an aircraft that was destined to spend most of its fl ying time at low level and even more than fifty years later it is still difficult to understand why the “intruder” Canberra’s peculiar arrangement was adopted, especially when the Canberra had already captured the interest of the USAF and the American manufacturer Martin had swiftly devised a much better tandem seating arrangement for its B-57 derivative. Why English Electric never embraced a similar design (or simply adopted the design created by Martin) is a mystery.”
Aeroplane Illustrated – Aeroplane Icons
Canberra – Britain’s first jet bomber
British engineering at it's best. Stick the nav inside the fuselage, where he had to shove open a door to get out!
Stages 6 to 10 of the Airfix instructions sort of show the arrangement.
https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/6/4/122364-67-instructions.pdf (https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/6/4/122364-67-instructions.pdf)
Cheers
Mark
Did Aus ever consider the Nimrod? If so then the
Spey 250/251 would make sense for the Canberra
SLEP due to commonality.
It was, apparently offered the Nimrod but chose the P-3 instead. Nimrod would be interesting with leaping Kangaroos on it.
Did you read the post immediately beforehand?
Rather like my B-57E Super Canberra ([url]https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=43839.msg770802#msg770802[/url])
([url]http://imagizer.imageshack.com/a/img922/3500/6r8BpV.jpg[/url])
In the timeframe mentioned earlier was it possible to buy used or new Canberras to use as refuelers?
Australia also had a few Canberras spare in the mid-late-1960s after they had been replaced by the F-111s.
Australia also had a few Canberras spare in the mid-late-1960s after they had been replaced by the F-111s.
Mid to late '60s? Only if we change the timeline further. The RAAF F-111s didn't arrive in Australia until 1973 (hence why we had F-4Es from 1970-73). The Canberras might have started being offered in the early '70s at best.
Canberra squadrons started disbanding in the late 1960s. No 1 Squadron ceased operating Canberras in 1968. No.6 Squadron ceased operating Canberras in 1970. No.2 operated the Canberra until 1982.
We don't seem to have a Canberra ideas and inspiration topic so I hope no one objects to me using this one.
I wonder if the wing of the Canberra would support the weight of a RB04?
Well they could support AS.30s which isn't that far removed in size:
([url]http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Canberra-WH961/Canberra_B_15_WH967_with_Nord_AS_30_missiles.sized.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Canberra-WH961/Canberra_WH961_B_15_being_loaded_with_a_Nord_AS_30_at_Labuan.sized.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Canberra-WH961/Canberra_B_15_WH959_with_Nord_Missile.sized.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Canberra-WH961/Canberra_B_15_WH967_fitted_with_Nord_AS_30_missiles.sized.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Canberra-WH961/Canbera_WH973_wth_Nord_AS30_Photo_Gordon_Fraser_Campbell.sized.jpg[/url])
So going by these pictures, the Nord AS.30 missile never required an aircraft-mounted radar to support its targeting/guidance?
So going by these pictures, the Nord AS.30 missile never required an aircraft-mounted radar to support its targeting/guidance?
No it did not because the AS.30 AS-30 used a simple MCLOS guidance with the pilot aligning the flares located near the missile's rear with the target and controlling the missile in flight after launch with a small joystick, sending steering commands to the missile via a radio link. It was all visual.
The later AS.30L used laser guidance though:
(https://en.missilery.info/files/styles/article_image/public/m/as30l/as30l2.jpg)