NATO Basic Military Requirements (NBMR)
- Thread starter hesham
- Start date
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,286
- Reaction score
- 4,130
Ah, thanks Hesham. So those "sideways mounted engines with sideways facing intakes" refers to the podded (and vector-nozzled) lift-jets. Now I get it.
Addendum to AGARD Report No.710 Special Course on V/STOL Aerodynamics: An Assessement of European Jet Lift Aircraft, RS Williams, BAe Kingston, 5.3 Subsonic Transports, pg. 3 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a155604.pdf
hesham said:
Addendum to AGARD Report No.710 Special Course on V/STOL Aerodynamics: An Assessement of European Jet Lift Aircraft, RS Williams, BAe Kingston, 5.3 Subsonic Transports, pg. 3 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a155604.pdf
- Joined
- 20 January 2007
- Messages
- 953
- Reaction score
- 1,137
NBMR.4: Chris Gibson's On ATLAS Shoulders.
The good reason for contradictions in tales of all NBMRs is that we approach them assuming today's processes of priced open tenders, but t'was not thus, then. CJG enhances our access to interplay between National and NATO Requirements.
You will find other persons writing that HS681, Do.31 and others were "designed to NBMR.4".
Nothing was "designed" to NBMR.4; little was "designed" to NBMR-anything. The enormous lists of NBMR.3 and 4 "submissions" here in Designation Systems are misleading. NATO had no money, no Procurement Executive, no decision-making Authority. Its Nations did/do. Its Experts in Working Groups "promulgated" NBMRs. None was ever funded. NATO guessed that NBMR.3 (VTOL strike) would lead to 800 sales...to Nations. Until the AWACS/Geilenkirchen Unit, NATO itself had nothing: it was a Battle Manager, not a procurer.
This is what happened on the Light Tactical Transport: it lost its verticality and was renamed C-130.
UK Theatre Transport OR.351 issued 3/61; 5/61 bids included HS681, "selected" 12/61, not then funded: STOL vectored Pegasus+ VTOL Option RB.162 pods.
NBMR.4 issued early-1961; responses in 22/11/61: Light VTOL Transport. People sent in slim marketing brochures, not Bids - no prices, because NATO was interested, not in R&D but in the art of the techno-possible. So: tiltwings, folding rotors, turboprop...surprised no Wing-in-Ground-Effect. Geek heaven. Abandoned 11/62.
Firms competed against themselves - Dornier on BAC.208 as well as an outline of their then-thinking on schemes begun in 1959. Shorts were in 3 brochures: one was an Unlight variant of Belfast. HSAL with DHCanada (to be Buffalo), plus sending in a copy of a HS681 brochure, although evidently non-compliant with Light, and a DH/Bell/Nord Avn./Avs.Fairey scheme, HS129, which Brits report as "winner". BAC also failed to understand Light and put in a blown flap licenced C-130, competing with a collaborative new scheme.
Redefined Lighter, Shorter as NBMR.22, brochures submitted, process abandoned 6/3/63. Italy solo 5/63 funded its perception of the "winner" as FIAT G.222 (Darts+RB.162 pods). That is not the machine eventually morphing into C-27J.
FRG funded Dornier Do.31 2/62. UK/FRG made a Memorandum of Understanding 13/4/64, pooling all extant V/STOL (rigs, schemes). Its Report, 11/65 melded Do.31 and HS129 as DoHS-1 (2xSpey, 12 or 14 RB.162), then DoHS-2 (Spey+ 12 RB.189/XJ99). Lapsed. Dornier/FRG persevered with schemes as Do.131, Do.231.
VFW eventually won FRG's Light VTOL Transport, with CH-53G; RAF won the Chinooks it had sought since 1961.
The good reason for contradictions in tales of all NBMRs is that we approach them assuming today's processes of priced open tenders, but t'was not thus, then. CJG enhances our access to interplay between National and NATO Requirements.
You will find other persons writing that HS681, Do.31 and others were "designed to NBMR.4".
Nothing was "designed" to NBMR.4; little was "designed" to NBMR-anything. The enormous lists of NBMR.3 and 4 "submissions" here in Designation Systems are misleading. NATO had no money, no Procurement Executive, no decision-making Authority. Its Nations did/do. Its Experts in Working Groups "promulgated" NBMRs. None was ever funded. NATO guessed that NBMR.3 (VTOL strike) would lead to 800 sales...to Nations. Until the AWACS/Geilenkirchen Unit, NATO itself had nothing: it was a Battle Manager, not a procurer.
This is what happened on the Light Tactical Transport: it lost its verticality and was renamed C-130.
UK Theatre Transport OR.351 issued 3/61; 5/61 bids included HS681, "selected" 12/61, not then funded: STOL vectored Pegasus+ VTOL Option RB.162 pods.
NBMR.4 issued early-1961; responses in 22/11/61: Light VTOL Transport. People sent in slim marketing brochures, not Bids - no prices, because NATO was interested, not in R&D but in the art of the techno-possible. So: tiltwings, folding rotors, turboprop...surprised no Wing-in-Ground-Effect. Geek heaven. Abandoned 11/62.
Firms competed against themselves - Dornier on BAC.208 as well as an outline of their then-thinking on schemes begun in 1959. Shorts were in 3 brochures: one was an Unlight variant of Belfast. HSAL with DHCanada (to be Buffalo), plus sending in a copy of a HS681 brochure, although evidently non-compliant with Light, and a DH/Bell/Nord Avn./Avs.Fairey scheme, HS129, which Brits report as "winner". BAC also failed to understand Light and put in a blown flap licenced C-130, competing with a collaborative new scheme.
Redefined Lighter, Shorter as NBMR.22, brochures submitted, process abandoned 6/3/63. Italy solo 5/63 funded its perception of the "winner" as FIAT G.222 (Darts+RB.162 pods). That is not the machine eventually morphing into C-27J.
FRG funded Dornier Do.31 2/62. UK/FRG made a Memorandum of Understanding 13/4/64, pooling all extant V/STOL (rigs, schemes). Its Report, 11/65 melded Do.31 and HS129 as DoHS-1 (2xSpey, 12 or 14 RB.162), then DoHS-2 (Spey+ 12 RB.189/XJ99). Lapsed. Dornier/FRG persevered with schemes as Do.131, Do.231.
VFW eventually won FRG's Light VTOL Transport, with CH-53G; RAF won the Chinooks it had sought since 1961.
- Joined
- 20 January 2007
- Messages
- 953
- Reaction score
- 1,137
NBMR.3: Flight 7/6/62 has contenders by then reduced to Mirage IIIV, Fokker/Republic D.24, BAC 584, P.1154. Others have it that by then the Reqt. had been split, with NBMR.3a (supersonic) "won" by Mirage IIIV and P.1154; NBMR.3b by VAK-191B (melding FW1262+FIAT G.95/6)
While HSAL's 10/1/62 P.1154 Bid was a weighty 3 volumes...there was nothing there, nor in any other "Bids", on which a Public Procurer could base a price or time. Decisions in those days were made on WAGs (wild-ass guess) until JFK's Sec.Def McNamara (RSM) introduced such novel notions as fixed prices. UK's Defence Chief Scientific Advisor would write of frustration, trying to interest RSM in P.1127, though he “never received a real plan (how it) was being managed (e.g: engine) overhaul (life. He) was not going to (buy without) the kind of detailed plan he was demanding” S.Zuckerman,Monkeys,P268.
Then and as the Donald has declared, now, US was/is NATO's paymaster. In 1962 RSM had less interest in NBMR.3 “bids” than in getting more bang for his buck at home. So he chose: 3/62: USN/USAF common F-4s, 12/62: F-111s; chop for B-70, B-58B, Skybolt, (12/63) X-20 Dyna-Soar. NATO inc. USAFE were well kitted through 1970 on F-4C/F-104G. So he took no* interest in VTOL until 2/65**, when he funded a share of EWR/Republic AVS, seen as their candidate successor.
With no magic NATO/US money tree, France persevered with Mirage IIIV, solo, to 11/66; UK, P.1154A to 2/65; FRG, VJ101D to 4/64, then joint AVS to 1/68 (RSM's last deletion); FRG/Italy, VAK-191B to 2/68. So, why were they all chopped?
NATO Ministers made 2 acts of faith and hope:
- that runways would be dibbed by HE, not deleted by AW. So: admit Long-TOL Tornado, F-111E/F; and:
- that CTOL types could become reliable, operable by conscripts/Reservists, such that affordable quantities could be bought - impossible with, say AVS: VG+VTOL.
(7/6/17: * "no" interest is unfair: 21/5/62 he agreed to part-fund R&D, and 16/1/63 to buy a share of 1965's Kestrel TE Sqdn; he allowed MWDP to part-fund BS.100 R&D, 6/61-12/63).
(18/12/23: ** Overscan's AVS finds clarify: multiple US+FRG Studies, then 14/3/67: EWR Fairchild Intnl GmbH A400S, System Definition, RR/Allison/M.A.N.Turbo XJ99: to supplement F-104G/F-4C/D; paused 1/68, canx. 19/3/68: US did F-15, 3x NATO did Tornado).
While HSAL's 10/1/62 P.1154 Bid was a weighty 3 volumes...there was nothing there, nor in any other "Bids", on which a Public Procurer could base a price or time. Decisions in those days were made on WAGs (wild-ass guess) until JFK's Sec.Def McNamara (RSM) introduced such novel notions as fixed prices. UK's Defence Chief Scientific Advisor would write of frustration, trying to interest RSM in P.1127, though he “never received a real plan (how it) was being managed (e.g: engine) overhaul (life. He) was not going to (buy without) the kind of detailed plan he was demanding” S.Zuckerman,Monkeys,P268.
Then and as the Donald has declared, now, US was/is NATO's paymaster. In 1962 RSM had less interest in NBMR.3 “bids” than in getting more bang for his buck at home. So he chose: 3/62: USN/USAF common F-4s, 12/62: F-111s; chop for B-70, B-58B, Skybolt, (12/63) X-20 Dyna-Soar. NATO inc. USAFE were well kitted through 1970 on F-4C/F-104G. So he took no* interest in VTOL until 2/65**, when he funded a share of EWR/Republic AVS, seen as their candidate successor.
With no magic NATO/US money tree, France persevered with Mirage IIIV, solo, to 11/66; UK, P.1154A to 2/65; FRG, VJ101D to 4/64, then joint AVS to 1/68 (RSM's last deletion); FRG/Italy, VAK-191B to 2/68. So, why were they all chopped?
NATO Ministers made 2 acts of faith and hope:
- that runways would be dibbed by HE, not deleted by AW. So: admit Long-TOL Tornado, F-111E/F; and:
- that CTOL types could become reliable, operable by conscripts/Reservists, such that affordable quantities could be bought - impossible with, say AVS: VG+VTOL.
(7/6/17: * "no" interest is unfair: 21/5/62 he agreed to part-fund R&D, and 16/1/63 to buy a share of 1965's Kestrel TE Sqdn; he allowed MWDP to part-fund BS.100 R&D, 6/61-12/63).
(18/12/23: ** Overscan's AVS finds clarify: multiple US+FRG Studies, then 14/3/67: EWR Fairchild Intnl GmbH A400S, System Definition, RR/Allison/M.A.N.Turbo XJ99: to supplement F-104G/F-4C/D; paused 1/68, canx. 19/3/68: US did F-15, 3x NATO did Tornado).
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,841
- Reaction score
- 13,373
NBMR 25 was according to Friedman the NATO requirement for a short range ASW escort, at least 24 knot top speed with an operational radius of 3,000 nautical miles at 18 knots.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,841
- Reaction score
- 13,373
With regards as to NBMR-3, the requirement was originally for a supersonic VTOL interceptor before it was modified into the two stage (subsonic/supersonic) requirement for VSTOL strike/reconnaissance aircraft.
- Joined
- 28 November 2006
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 728
As for the NMBR-1 the most interesting contender is obviously the least known: the SIPA S.800. Does anybody have any information on that project?
Allegedly there was also SIPA S.801. In the post: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sipa-designations.15974/#post-312978 both S.800 and S.801 are mentioned:
Presumably "fitted with Hipano-Suiza" is about engines for the S.801.
If S.800 was to have one Orpheus (as other NMBR-1 projects), then probably the "Hispano-Suiza" engine must have been the R.800 (or its derivative) and I would rather think that the S.801 was to have two such engines. Any comments?
Piotr
Allegedly there was also SIPA S.801. In the post: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sipa-designations.15974/#post-312978 both S.800 and S.801 are mentioned:
Presumably "fitted with Hipano-Suiza" is about engines for the S.801.
If S.800 was to have one Orpheus (as other NMBR-1 projects), then probably the "Hispano-Suiza" engine must have been the R.800 (or its derivative) and I would rather think that the S.801 was to have two such engines. Any comments?
Piotr
- Joined
- 28 November 2006
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 728
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 34,684
- Reaction score
- 15,511
From Pegase 2011,
we can add;
Avro Canada ?
Breguet Br.1115
Focke Wulf FW.1161
Fiat G95/6
Attachments
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,365
- Reaction score
- 6,683
Rather than starting a new thread, does anyone know if the Defence Planning Questionnaires (DPQ) are ever declassified and made available anywhere? I think JFC Fuller posted a 1959 one in another thread.
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,286
- Reaction score
- 4,130
Some of the earlier NBMR numbers missing in that Global Security list can be found in a 28 Feb 1962 NATO document - Standing Committee: Status of NATO Research, Development and Production Projects.
Unfortunately, NBMR-22 is the last number listed so the 'missing' NBMR-25 and NBMR-35 remain so. Still, more than half of this 148-page document is made up of as-yet unnumbered NBMR projects and proposals. Some of these are mentioned in the Global Security number list but do not match the listed order (in other words, no useful suppositions can be made as to later numbers).
A summary of the known 'missing numbers' follows:
NBMR-8 - Data Handling System for Small Ships
NBMR established 08 March 1961
NBMR proposed by CICHAN (Commander-in-Chief Channel)
NBMR-12 - Main Battle Tanks (Short Term)
NBMR established 06 Sept 1961
NBMR proposed by SACEUR
NBMR-14 - Very Low Altitude Surface/Air Weapon for Local Defense
NBMR established 19 Sept 1961
SACEUR favouring FIM-43 Redeye missile
NBMR-15 - Anti-Tank Weapons
NBMR established 12 Oct 1961
NBMR-16 - Air/Surface Weapon (Short Range) (ASAP)
NBMR established 28 Nov 196l
Considering AS-30 and Bullpup
NBMR-19 - Self-Propelled 105 mm Gun
NBMR established 25 Jan 1962
Project Military Advisor (PMA): SACEUR
NBMR-20 - ASW Ocean Escort Vessel (ASAP)
NBMR established 25 Jan 1962
03 Oct 1960 - SACLANT proposes NBMRs for a NATO ASW Coastal Escort and a NATO ASW Ocean Escort.
(RDC 7/10Ö/I, 12 Oct 50}
25 Oct 1960 - CINCHAN proposes an NBMR.
02 Nov 1960 - SACEUR proposes an NBMR for escort vessels.
08 Dec 1960 - SACLANT proposes NBMR for a NATO DE (Ocean Escort).
-----------------------------------
I found, in a forgotten box, some poor quality photostats, without any headline but, I think, for internal use by Agusta technical offices, dealing with transport convertiplane entries for RAF OR-351 and NBMR-4 requirements. The photostats containing some very basic sketches, purely notional, but with some interesting notes. The projects are divided by countries of origin.
I report the captions verbatim here, adding my own comment.
USA
“Hiller (Chance Vought)”: 4 turboshafts GE T64
The notional sketch can be applied to Hiller Model 1048A or 1058B but the reference to Vought make one think of XC-142.
“Curtiss Wright”: 4 turboshafts GE T64
The formula appears to be tha same of the X-19 but with larger size.
“Douglas”: 4 turboshaft FE T64 (mounted on the upper fuselage)
Same general layout of the Curtiss-Wright entry with the four tilt prop/rotors in nacelle at wingtips (the drawing shows the main wing with what appears to be an optional larger span wing); The solution is totaly different from the Douglas D-791/MH-3 already shown in this blog.
Bell D-252A: two tilt rotors
Like V-22 Osprey.
Bell D-2064: 4 tilting ducted props
Ducted props are at the wingtips of the canard wings.
CANADA
“Canadair”: 4 GE T64 turboprops
To be noted that T64 in that instance are quoted as turboprops; the aircraft probably is the CL-62-1.
“De Havilland Caribou”: 2 turboprop GE T64 and 4 turbolift RR.162
“Turbolift” means lift jet (RB.162); there is only a front section, with the two turboprops in the usual position and two paired nacelles with the lift jets horizontal with exhausts deflected. I lack any information about that “jumping” Caribou...
ENGLAND
“Bristol”: 2 Pegasus vectored thrust and 8 4,000 kg/st turbofans
I think this aircraft is BAC-224.
“De Havilland 129”: 2 RB.168 5,160 kg/st turbofans with vectored thrust and 16 1,850 kg/st turbolifts
This aircraft is the Hawker-Siddeley HS.129 (former deHavilland DH.129) with two underwing RB.168 and two largewing pods with two group of four jet lifts each.
“Herald”. 2 turboprops GE T64 and 18 1,850 kg/st RR.162 turbolifts
Two jet lift were in the nose and four clusters of fours each (with deflected exhausts under the wings). I don’t have any information about that contraption...
“Short”: 4 2,650 HP turboprops RR Dart and 24 1,850 g/st RR.162 turbolift
The sketch shows an aircraft with high wing with the four Tynes and tuo side “batteries” of 12 jet lift each; I’m unable to identify this project.
“Westland Rotodyne”
The aircraft is wellknown but I see it ever associated to the Fairey brand (no indication on the photostat about engines).
GERMANY
“Bölkow”: 2 rotors with JT8D1 4,750 HP turbines and 2 Pratt & Whitney JT8B turbojets
The aircraft seems to be a composite helicopter with two large rotors and two underwing nacelle for the turbojets.
“Weser-Fokker ERNO”: 2 Pegasus vectored-thrust and 8 BS.59/7 turbolifts
There is only a front view depicting the two Pegasus in underving nacelles and the jet lifts in wingtip pods. No other information.
FRANCE
“Breguet 943R”: 4 1,775 HP Gnome turbines and 4 lift turbojet
This project is an already known version of the Br.941.
“Nord Aviation 4500”: 2 Double Bastan II turboprops and 8 4,000 kg/st turbofans
The two turboprops are in the wing conventional position; the turbofans are, in fact, lift jets vertically mounted in wing nacelles. I don’t have information.
“Sud Aviation”: 2 Pegasus vectored thrust and 6 turbofans
The sketch depicts the two Pegasus in underwing nacelles and two wingtip pods. No other information.
“Dassault”: 2 11,500 lbs/st TF.100 turbojets and 10 2,000 kg/st RB.162 turbolift
No othe information.
There is another photostat devoted to the Italian entries in NBMR-4 but the matter was already discussed on this blog.
Nico S.
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,286
- Reaction score
- 4,130
The slipstream deflection Canadair CL-62-1 was a very early concept to powered by 4 x 2,500 shp Lycoming T55s.
The Canadair submission to NBMR-4 was the much later CL-62C powered by 4 x 3,750 shp GE T64s. The engine were coupled to interconnected shafts so, technically, they were turboshafts rather than straightforward turboprops.
The de Havilland Canada submission would be a combination of two existing projects. The first was the realised RCAF 5303 conversion - the prototype DHC-4 re-engined with T64s at General Electric's request. The second was a proposal for an improved DHC-4A for the US Army with twin fuselage-mounted turbojets with rotating nozzles. In that proposal, the jets were to be 2,450 lbf J85-GE-7s.
So, most probably, that 'turbolift' installation refers not to liftjets (as might be expected with RB.162) but to the more powerful jets being installed in a similar way to that of the planned J85s. In other words, those engines would have been positioned in the aft fuselage above the rear ramp. A closeable intake above would duct air to slightly splayed engines with each RB.162 exhausting through a rotating nozzle on either side
The Canadair submission to NBMR-4 was the much later CL-62C powered by 4 x 3,750 shp GE T64s. The engine were coupled to interconnected shafts so, technically, they were turboshafts rather than straightforward turboprops.
The de Havilland Canada submission would be a combination of two existing projects. The first was the realised RCAF 5303 conversion - the prototype DHC-4 re-engined with T64s at General Electric's request. The second was a proposal for an improved DHC-4A for the US Army with twin fuselage-mounted turbojets with rotating nozzles. In that proposal, the jets were to be 2,450 lbf J85-GE-7s.
So, most probably, that 'turbolift' installation refers not to liftjets (as might be expected with RB.162) but to the more powerful jets being installed in a similar way to that of the planned J85s. In other words, those engines would have been positioned in the aft fuselage above the rear ramp. A closeable intake above would duct air to slightly splayed engines with each RB.162 exhausting through a rotating nozzle on either side
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 34,684
- Reaction score
- 15,511
My dear Nico,it's PD.55.
I think it was Erno-611.
May it was P.310,
please can you send them ?.
Similar threads
-
NBMR-4 requirement: the other Italian contenders- Started by Skybolt
- Replies: 10
-
Early Mirage III competitors (1953-1956)
- Started by Archibald
- Replies: 11
-
-
-