UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade

[Tappers Dad]

Safety concerns have prompted moves to significantly reorganise UK plans to upgrade Royal Air Force (RAF) British Aerospace Nimrod R.1 electronic intelligence (ELINT)-gathering aircraft and to start efforts to find an alternative platform.

The loss of a RAF Nimrod MR.2 maritime patrol aircraft - which has the same airframe as the R.1 variant - in a mid-air fire over Afghanistan in September 2006 was subsequently linked by investigators to safety problems with the aircraft's fuel systems. Jane's understands that this has forced the UK to think again about the GBP400 million (USD786 million) Project Helix to sustain the three-strong Nimrod R.1 fleet in service until 2025.

UK military sources have told Jane's that alternative platforms are now being considered and proposals have been made in the current defence spending round to secure additional funding to allow the Helix mission system to be installed in a different airframe.

[Chicken Leg]

UK military sources have told Jane's that alternative platforms are now being considered

At last, I mean, the airframe design is only 60 years old! Such an important capability must be given a more modern platform than the comet. It's a shame that wasn't realised 10 years or so ago in time for the MRA4 procurement.

[Green Flash]

OK chasps, what would be the front runners for a new cab, then? Would a Sentinal type be too small? Would an Airbus be too big? What about a 146 varient? (I'm trying to keep it to an airframe type in service).

[themightyimp]

Sentinel is too small for ASTOR (3 rear crew) never mind R1 replacement. Airbus would include some space. EMP proof? Not a chance.................

[tonker]

Global Hawk

Sorry that's cutting edge proven technology, anything lying around in Cosford it is, especially if my mate Wupert has shares in it.:mad:

[Green Flash]

If it's to be manned, I'd go for a 146 derivative, as we've allready got the type. Get some of the second hand 146's laying about Exeter. Bonus if you can get some freighters as you could palletise (spake the expert!) the mission kit and multitask the frame? Or am I talkin' oot ma @rrrse? Again? Range/endurance??

[Razor61]

I'm sure the BAe146 has not got the legs/endurance for a replacement platform and maybe too small.
I wonder if a variant of the new P-8 Poseidon would do the job, basically all you need is a C-40 fitted out including IFR probe.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mma/

Germany has looked at the Global Hawk (EuroHawk) to replace their ELINT Atlantic's. One was flown from Edwards to Nordholz and tested over the North Sea extensively.

I wonder what the ruskies would think about intercepting an unknown aircraft and finding out it had no pilot!!

[speeddial]

I would imagine that to deliver the expected outputs from the R1 platform you would need something in the Nimrod/707/RC-135/VC-10 class?

[Jackonicko]

No.51 Squadron remain rightly tight-lipped about what they do, and how they do it, but I learned a lot about R1 a couple of years ago when I had to write about 51, and was lucky enough to talk to a number of former squadron members.

There's no compelling reason why you couldn't use a smaller airframe (basically with just the flight crew) or a UAV, datalinking the take back to ground stations. Apart from bandwidth and situational awareness and technical issues, that is, which have led the leading exponents to continue to practise Elint using airborne operators, on-scene, in the jet (or turboprop, as the case may be).

Even then there are markedly different philosophies - with some emphasising greater automation and differing levels of inboard interpretation/exploitation, and with 51 stressing manual tuning of receivers at the other end of the spectrum. They can carry up to 28 crew on the R1s - which are extremely cramped - and if we want to continue to have excellence in this area (and the EP-3 and RC-135 blokes seem to rate 51 very highly indeed) then we need to let 51 do things the way they do things, and therefore we need a BIG airframe, and one with widely dispersed, very rigid and stable mountings for some of the antennas. If you're going to triangulate, you don't want your antennas bouncing up and down at the end of a very flexible wing, after all.

And if you want to give them a few Global Hawks as airborne antenna platforms, augmenting the manned assets, I'm sure they'd work out interesting ways of using them!

[Green Flash]

(More) E-3's, then, differently configured? OR, there must be a few 707 frames at AMARC that could be re-engined, ie E-3 without the radar disc?

[Razor61]

The 707's are just as old as the Nimrod however obviously perfect for the job in which case just buy mothballed RC-135 airframes.

[Green Flash]

R61
Thanks for that, I didn't know if any Rivet Joints had been parked in the desert. So, new engines, our kit, and away you go!

[Jobza Guddun]

Why is the age of the R1 a concern when I would suggest that the RC/EC-135family are arguably older and still going strong? As are the KC's?

Not looking for a fight BTW.

[air pig]

Why not go into the market for something A330 sized tied in with the future tanker requirement giving some sort of fleet airframe comonality.

[L J R]

Why does it have to be manned???

Do you know how much real estate exists in your recently acquired MQ-9??

[Rakshasa]

The RC135 is doable. I think the Saudis aquired some modified 135s not too many years ago. And certainly E8 JSTARS has been a success.

I guess, as usual, it'll come down to budget...

[BEagle]

I would suggest the A300 as a replacement for the Nimrod R1. There are plenty around and, if greater range is needed, could also be fitted with additional center tanks. Although it would have an endurance of around 9 hours with the normal 55 tonne fuel load.

Elbeflugzeugwerke have been doing bespoke A300 freighter conversions for some years - I understand that Filton also has expertise in this area.

Additionally, the A300 is smaller than the A330, so perhaps easier to base at most RAF aerodromes. Overall length 177 ft, wingspan 147 ft, so in the VC10 size category, more or less.

[ORAC]

The USAF scoured the world buying up 707s to strip them of their engines, pylons, tailplanes, undercarriages etc. There was also an article last week in AW&ST abut the work having to be done to try and stretch out the life of the KC-135 fleet to it's out of service date.

In short, forget about trying to find 3/4 good condition airframes and spares to last long enough to make it cost effective. Also one of the driving factors in Boeing changing to the KC-767.

If you want an equivalent sized militarized airframe I'd suggest talking to Boeing about a 767 (KC-767) or 737 (P-8A) frame or, as Beagle suggest, Airbus.

Though I am sure BWoS will have a great plan to buy some second hand 757s and refurbish them at a special low price, guaranteed not to rise Your Honour....

[Wensleydale]

In these days of financial constraint, the requirements of a replacement aircraft to meet a specified military capability will be ignored by the bean counters and we will be given a completely inadequate sum of cash to meet only part of the requirement. Once we have the compromise in service then we will not have the ability to achieve our operational tasks effeciently which will undoubtedly lead indirectly to loss of lives on the ground.

No matter what is said about suitable aircraft both in this forum or within the appropriate IPT, we will not get what we need when we need it unless the Treasury has a change of heart, and that is not likely to happen for at least 3 years unless we are very fortunate.

[battletech]

I suspect it may be because they have not ruled out the Wescam camera fit as a possible cuase of the explosion

[Ivan Rogov]

Surely UAVs would only be useful for a few mission types, two way data links are not very covert when you want to sneak about. UAVs could always gather data covertly for post flight analysis, but AFAIK 51 is well respected due to their operators timely dissemination of info, that can't be done post flight.
What about converting two or three of the E-3Ds to ELINT and keeping the spare bits for the rest of the fleet, still leaves four or five. Then get something smaller (Global Express for commonality?) to complement it for the jobs that don't require the whole capability.
Never understood why we keep in squeezing all that kit into a Nimrod, apart from the RAF always doing it the hard way!

I seem to remember the US were going to put all their eggs in one basket at one point with the E-10, how would it be in 2 places at once?
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/767%20mc2a.htm
But it seems to have been canned, talk about HVAA. Think the USN is looking at MMA or a divertive.

[Razor61]

If you want an equivalent sized militarized airframe I'd suggest talking to Boeing about a 767 (KC-767) or 737 (P-8A) frame or, as Beagle suggest, Airbus.

Exactly what i suggested (the P-8A anyway).
The B737-900 variant would seem plausable in terms of size and endurance is pretty good too (it has to be for the USN to choose it for the P-8 MARPAT) and with extended endurance via IFR it could make a decent platform.

But we are talking about the UK Government here and they go backwards at the best of times so we are looking for aircraft that are on their last legs from former airlines probably.

Airbus would be good for commonality with the Air Tanker fleet, but hang on... we have to get the Air Tankers first and how much of a wait will that be? And even those are 'leased' and privately financed.
What's next? Privately financing our ELINT/SIGINT platforms?

What about converting two or three of the E-3Ds to ELINT and keeping the spare bits for the rest of the fleet, still leaves four or five. Then get something smaller (Global Express for commonality?) to complement it for the jobs that don't require the whole capability.

I don't think we have 8 airframes available do we? One is in deep maintenance due to a prang from high winds... one or two deployed in theatres, one or so always off to the US for Exercises and then that leaves two or three available for UK exercises and support (including Europe)...

The B707 airframes are just as bad i assume than those of the Nimrods.
The oldest KC-135 in the USAF today is what, 49yrs old or so?

[StopStart]

Genuine question -

one or two deployed in theatres

Where?

As I said, genuine question - what are they involved with these days?

[Razor61]

"Hypothetically" speaking one or two in theatres. :}
I'm sure one has been on station over Afghanistan before?

We certainly don't have enough airframes to send up north or east on patrol on R1 duties.

Then you have maintenance issues with going unserviceable also. I don't think it can be done using existing E-3D's

[Ivan Rogov]

SS I hope you don't get a reply on here :eek: I know 51 have opened up a little, but seriously!
Think we have 7 E-3D (one is a little bent) and they were the last off the line in the late 80's? We got 7 to defend the UK and NATO from the entire Warsaw Pact, do we still need 7?
Plenty of Air Forces have only one or two platforms to carry out 51's role, and the RAF is half the size it was when we justified 3 R1s. Not sure we should be keeping enough just for exercises, a mixed fleet would give us the ability to deploy the required capability to most areas.

[Jackonicko]

1) Why as big as a Nimrod/Why manned?

see my post at *9

2) Why three when the RAF is "half the size it was when we justified 3 R1s?"

Because it's a capability that is even more 'in demand' in this unstable post Cold War world than it was during the Cold War.

Because it's a capability we need every time we go on ops, and in between - it's not a useful, niche capability that we haven't needed for years and many never need (cf carriers....)

Because it's something we do very, very well, - such that R1s and PR9s have often been the first UK capabilities that coalition commanders have asked for - it is a capability that gives us greater influence in coalition ops.

3) Why not E-3/707 based?

The 707 is now out of production (with the end of the E-3/E-6 lines) so the 737/C-40/P-8 or 767 would be Boeing's offerings - and the A320 or 300/310/330 would be better options.

[Ivan Rogov]

Jacko
1/ Range, endurance, capability, capacity, comfort, future growth, self deploy, etc. Think you answered the question yourself in #9
2/ Is true of almost any asset we have.

I would say it is a niche capability, an extremely useful one which 51is very good at, but it is only as a force multiplier (or what ever it is called now).

Because it's something we do very, very well, - such that R1s and PR9s have often been the first UK capabilities that coalition commanders have asked for - it is a capability that gives us greater influence in coalition ops.
Sounds like something I would read in the RAF News, PR spin.
Why should we maintain more capacity than we require when we are so desperate for cash throughout the Forces, we are not here to bolster other countries lack of capability.

3/ True 707 is out of production, but it will be supported for a good few years yet. I wouldn't advocate buying more 707's but how long do we intend to operate the E-3D for, if some were converted then we would retain much of the airframe comonality keeping support cost down, rather than introducing another type.

[StopStart]

Ivan me old fruit, wasn't referring to 51 - I know full well what they do. Was referring of course to the mighty EARWAX. So what do they do? Some spare capacity there surely?

[Ivan Rogov]

Sorry Stoppers, I shall go stand in the corner :O
That's the second time I have got the wrong end of the stick on recent posts :{

[Jackonicko]

Ivan,

Not a 707 because the E-Ds won't last that long - and commonality with FSTA will be more useful than commonality with a smaller, shorter lived fleet.

Not a UAV because while it can do Elint, it can't do it as well as an R1, can't do it in the same way, and is limited by bandwidth, etc.

Big because 51 and the EWAU (the experts in this field) feel that big crews, manually tuning receivers and interpreting and exploiting, is the best way of doing the job. I think they have demonstrably shown that they know their onions better than you or I in this field.

In today's world, having this degree of capability is useful for the UK for its own interests, and not just for supporting coalition ops.

It is far more relevant to today's ops (and in the GWAT) than Trident, FRES, Type 45, Brimstone, Meteor, the Household Division, Challenger, or Typhoon.

And much more useful than bloody aircraft carriers, which we haven't needed since '82.

Cutting down from three Elint platforms would be short-sighted and stupid, and there are good reasons to consider doubling the number, and giving them other ISTAR capabilities as well as Elint.

[EdSet100]

It must be a medium sized turbo-fan powered aircaft, such as B767, A300 or similar, to faciliate autonomous deployment with all tehnicians, spares and personal kit, with the capability to fly high on ops above the SAM threats.

Ed

[L J R]

Quote:


Not a UAV because while it can do Elint, it can't do it as well as an R1, can't do it in the same way, and is limited by bandwidth, etc.


Another well informned piece...

[Father Jack Hackett]

What about Herc / A400M + pallletised mission kit and consoles?

[Roland Pulfrew]

What about Herc / A400M + pallletised mission kit and consoles?

Noise? Yes I know the USN use the EP3 but do they do the sensor work in the same way as 51 (and no I do not really want an answer to that).

[Ivan Rogov]

Hi Jacko, when you say commonality with FSTA do you mean buy A330 or just that it would be an Airbus?
For your point 1 I was advocating a manned solution, not UAV and agree with your point.
I have no idea of the E3D out of service date but I'd guess 15ish years, I believe we have more than we need, so for the next 15 years it would make sense to convert a couple. This would also allow us to purchase new in 15 years time when the US have brought in new platforms, we can learn from their mistakes etc. maybe even purchase similar platforms for improved coalition integration.
I didn't say cut down size of the fleet, but purchase an intermediate size platform for situations where all capabilities are not required, hopefully this would actually increase the availability.

I enjoy reading your post, and it is good to see different points of view, but you do tend to have your favourite list of kit and refuse to accept that anything else is useful, I liked having Challenger looking after me in Iraq, Jack is desperate for modern AD ships, Typhoon is coming along nicely by the sound of things and Trident does more for UK interest than the rest of the Forces put together. Do you know what future conflicts we may be involved in? Yes Iraq and Afghanistan are on going but we can not ignore emerging threats, there is more to UK defence than the light blue.

[Backwards PLT]

And much more useful than bloody aircraft carriers, which we haven't needed since '82.

Jacko don't you realise how many cocktail parties the RN have had on the "carriers"?:}

It does seem the obvious choice for R1 replacement is A300 (ish) or B767 (ish). Superficially the A300 is more palateable politically/economically as it is European and already part built in the UK (standing by to be corrected!)

Commonality is generally good, but I wouldn't mind betting that a modern Boeing/Airbus is cheaper to run then an ancient design that we happen to still have.

[Jackonicko]

Ivan,

I'm a big fan of many of the pieces of kit which I describe as less useful AT THE MOMENT than Nimrod R (and the capability it offers). I would not advocate not buying Tranche 3 of Typhoon, for example.

I just view the 51 Squadron capability as being of really pivotal and vital importance.

As to platforms, I'd see the A330 - especially if Airbus ever build a short one - or an A300 with a 330 cockpit as being pretty well-suited to the role, and with good commonality with the FSTA platform.

Or perhaps an A340....

Or if money's really too tight, then buy a bunch of A320s for ISTAR, future AEW, and Blair Force One type duties.....

Anything much smaller than a Nimrod and you could not accomodate the full mission crew, and all the equipment (and pies) required. Indeed, 51 would doubtless say that today's Nimrod is just a little bit more cramped than they'd like, and that the fact that they've lost key non-operational facilities on board is a testament to the lack of space on the jet.

The Nimrod R way of doing things, including the crew size, is most assuredly not broken, so a 'fix' involving a smaller type with a smaller crew does not strike me as being a great idea.

Indeed, there'd be something to be said for giving the aircraft some EO-LOROP/FLIR capabilities, with a couple of extra crew positions and rather better crew rest, toilet and galley facilities.

While the idea of waiting for the US and selecting a common platform, my understanding is that they have very different philosophies and doctrine - such that what the US Navy would look for to replace the EP-3E would be a different size and class of aircraft to what the USAF would want/need as a next generation Rivet Joint - which might, in turn, be different to what 51 would want as an optimised aircraft, and which would almost certainly be 767 based - a choice that would make sense for the US, but not for the UK.

LJR,

Easy to make cheap cracks, mate, but obviously a bit harder for you to articulate your objections....

Are you claiming that a UAV can do Elint in the same way as Nimrod R and Rivet Joint do? Or that you'd have the same ability to do real time exploitation and interpretation regardless of bandwidth considerations? Or even that existing UAVs would be as suitable as Nimrod R for mounting the various antennas required?

[BEagle]

Jacko, there is absolutely no chance of a 'A300 with an A330 cockpit'! A while ago, a full-glass cockpit was proposed, but there really isn't any need as the 'half-glass' is good enough for the purpose.

A 'short' A330 is not needed. Neither is any commonality with the A330 needed.

Another good reason to use an A300B4 freighter is that fitting any temporary 'mission equipment' is a lot easier with a cargo door. Plus, unlike the 767, it has a true wide-body fuselage with the same cross-section as the A330.

[Landing Lamp]

Iagree with ORAC a 757 or 767 would be the best bet, boh have good range, still many in service so spares would not be a problem and you could buy a few cheap off BA when they get there new jets in the next few years.

[LowObservable]

The P-8A platform would seem to be the most immediate choice in terms of volume and real estate. Payload-range of the 737/A320 family is better than you might think, with A319s in 48-seat form routinely flying transatlantic.

[speeddial]

Two comments:

I am sure if 51 Sqn needed new aircraft because of a severe risk to their operations money would be found from "someone" or "somewhere" pretty sharpish, even today.

Would buying Airbus allow for the possibility that non-UK/US personnel may have to board the aircraft for maintenance?

[Something witty]

Ivan,

You suggest that the 3 Nimrod R1 were sufficient back when the RAF was larger and now it is down-sized we can get away with fewer... A nice idea in principle but flawed IMHO. Consider the requirement for deep maintainance - thats two aircraft available for ops from three - now consider any one of a number of problems on the a/c about to launch - well we'll launch the spare... ...the who? We scrapped it!

How would you cover the problem of persistance too for long ops? Three of anything is pushing things - its called critical mass and below it you will fail to fulfil the role required, same true here.

However, I agree with your assesment of other matters for we can not forecast future conflicts. Falklands, GW1, GW2, Kosovo, Bosnia... the list is incomplete but all have comonality in the surprise with which they hit us (in varying degrees). We may be short on cash but we must not remove capablities to deal with it as this is the slippery slope. We may not have *needed* carriers since the falklands (although they have proved very handy - Al Faw assult possible without Ocean et al?), but then the Tornado F3 has hardly ever fired a shot in anger (I am sure there are a few occasions that I forget but in bean counter terms enough for the expense!?) so on this basis why the Typhoon?

We chip away at our brother service's capabilities at our peril. Money is tight and we must prioritise to an extent, however wholesale removal of capability or its reduction to sub-critical mass is not in UK Plc's interest and it is our duty to act accordingly.

[XV277]

Bearing in mind that much of the mission equipment on the R1 is in the space occupied by the bomb bay on MRs, would a 737-derived airframe (P-8) have enough ground clearance for what 51 are likely to want to hang underneath it? (Thinking back to their Comets).

Would A320/21 be a better bet?

Most likely to get second hand airliners these days though!

[Jackonicko]

Ground clearance would favour the A320 over the 737.

Servicing requirements would favour any aircraft with a great big cargo door (they always used to empty the Comet Rs before majors or mods with industry).

Power generation requirements, range, endurance and survivability would favour a four-jet.

A340, please.

[Secretsooty]

TD, the decision to consider an earlier replacement of the R1 than was first envisaged has NOTHING to do with what is currently happening with the MR2!!

Think more along the lines of future support for only 3 aircraft once the MR2 is out of service... Do you honestly think that factories will stay open to provide parts for an aircraft type that is so old and of such few numbers? Do you think Rolls-Royce will keep a build-line operating to provide engines in such few quantities as would be required, when that engine type is otherwise extinct? (and yes, it's different to the MR2's engines).

Think "Rivet Joint".

[XV277]

Servicing requirements would favour any aircraft with a great big cargo door (they always used to empty the Comet Rs before majors or mods with industry).

Power generation requirements, range, endurance and survivability would favour a four-jet.


So what are they going to do with the old VC-10 C1s when FSTA comes in......

[Jackonicko]

Conways to support, high-houred, and thoroughly knackered now, let alone when FSTA finally comes in? I hope to goodness that they put the old girls out to grass, with as many of them as possible preserved to show future generations what a beautiful airliner can look like.

[Ivan Rogov]

Hi Witty, you have a point re 3 a/c to provide enough frames for Ops (and even exercises which are essential for training and developing tactics).
Even with my very limited knowledge of the R1 I won't comment on numbers in use etc. or when and where they are used.
I am not advocating 2 frames for the role but 2 or 3 large aircraft that are all singing, all dancing and then more of a smaller type with the capability required for less complex missions, ideally they would be reconfigurable, and not carry all the equipment all of the time. In reality this would provide more assets for Ops/Exercises, it might be that you have to accept short periods when no large platform is available.

I think the A330 way too large and the point about true widebody is virtually irrelivant for a non cargo role a/c. Personally, although a new build airliner type would be the gold plated solution what are the chances of it happening?

I don't think 4 engines is as much of a issue as it used to be, the USN seem happy enough to go for the P-8 for extended patrol. A B737 size a/c is probably good enough, the P-8 airframe would fit the bill as it is "miltaryised" including protection, armour and DAS, increased AUW, EPM hardened?, bombbay, wing hard points for extra pods, sensors, etc. and I think it can provide more electrical power, the P-8A equipment is not required, it is a shame the Airbus equivilant is still a drawing. Unfortunatly I think it will be considered over engineered for the role and mission profile and they will end up essentially flying a civilian airframe in hostile conditions :(

I've looked round a couple of RC-135 variants and one definitly had a cargo door, although it is desirable it is not essential, although it might be useful for self deployment as well as re- roleing or mods.

Finally, I'm glad no one has mentioned using a few MRA4 airframes as that would only solve a few issues, most the space issues etc. would remain. It would provide some airframe commonality but I can't see it being anywhere near a cheap to operate as a modern airliner type and again it is possibly over engineered.

I'm going to bow out of the hypothetical debate now before I either breach the OSA or bore you fine chaps (or chapesses) as I am starting to repeat myself :oh: Those who really know what is needed can't comment and I can't explain my rational on here, apart from that I am mostly guessing:E

[Razor61]

So what are they going to do with the old VC-10 C1s when FSTA comes in......

To St Athan to be chopped up like the few that have already been done so like that.

[ORAC]

Cynically, give them the three L1011-500s and let civil charter take up the AT load. The remaining life will suffice till a replacement is needed at the rate the hours are used, and we already have the support in place. More than enough room to ensure only minor engineering work is required.

[Nimrod Liney]

I can comment on the Need for 3 ELINT Aircraft

In my Experiance Roughtly
25% of any Fleet are in Mainternance
25% Training for aircrew
and the rest on Ops

From that it is easy to work out 3 aircraft is a minimum for any fleet

1 in Mainternance (Equlized or Major with regards to the Nimrod, not including Non scheduled Mainternance)
1 for Aircrew Training, Ops is required
1 on Ops

[Nimrod Liney]

I do realize I have basically repeated Witty

[Jackonicko]

Which is why, with an enduring task (home-based/Russia etc) and the real likelihood of two overseas ops at any one time, we should perhaps be looking at the ability to have three aircraft on ops - eg a six aircraft fleet!

[Boldface]

With the skill sets required down the back of a SIGINT platform, I suggest that getting 3, 6, 50 or however many jets you want is the easy bit.

Where do the guys and gals come from?!

[Nimrod Liney]

They are all WSOps Recruited as everyone else is in the RAF

[Jackonicko]

They may be WSOps, in that they wear that brevet (though I'll bet most of them still wear AE and S brevets, in practice).

But they are very specialised roles on 51, requiring long and specialised training (and requiring particular qualifications in the case of one crew 'specialisation') and 51's excellence is very much founded on having a core of lengthy experience in the role - such that when I was writing about 51 a couple of years ago there were still blokes on the unit who'd served on the Canberra and Comet, which were phased out of service in 1973-76!

It would be difficult to 'grow' new crews of sufficient experience, and with such highly-developed skills and instincts, quickly, though one gets the impression that the squadron could operate at least one more jet than it has now....

The unit's previous practice of operating a big, multi-engined type and a smaller one (Comet and Canberra) makes me wonder whether something similar would not be appropriate today. The Canberras (carrying a pilot, nav and single operator (either Sigint or Comint depending on the mission) were used for particular tasks that did not require a Comet, or to augment the Comets, or, it seems, for ops in particular areas, or where higher altitude performance was required, or for 'feints' designed to elicit a response from enemy defences.

A flight of converted Typhoon two-seaters (OK, redundant F.Mk 3s if you must), UAVs or Global Expresses might be 'nice to have' - though I don't see it happening!

[Boldface]

They are all WSOps Recruited as everyone else is in the RAF


Really!!!:rolleyes:

[WhiteOvies]

JN,
Surely the RAF will have been training up sufficient WSOps to continue. And as the procurement cycle is likely to be a lengthy process this should give the planners an idea of how many personnel with the correct training will be required. However, if the critical experienced personnel all PVR then 51 are screwed and they will have to make do with a lesser experience level to do the same job (sound familiar?:rolleyes:).

Worst case is that the government decides that ELINT is too expensive for a nation our size and takes a 'capability gap' whilst hanging onto the skirts of USAF RJ's.

[TEEEJ]

Boldface wrote

Where do the guys and gals come from?!

One of the trades in the rear

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/weaponsysoplinguist.cfm

From

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/aircrew.cfm

Some of the linguists transfer to aircrew from this trade.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/intelanalystvoice.cfm

[Double Zero]

Either people ( politicians ) take this issue seriously, with appropriate kit -

or why not use a Cessna Caravan with a 'spotter & his scanner in the back, and a bloke with a good set of bino's ?

I have a horrible feeling which they'd choose !

As others have mentioned, there are some large airframes going secondhand - I can't help thinking this should be instead / would have to be - a buy of new large airframes - C-17 anyone ?

As far as FSTA goes, seems to me they're re-inventing the wheel - slowly, but with 'Euro' stamped on it.

[Boldface]

Thanks TEEEJ, I know where the WSOp(L)s come from!!

It was a rhetorical question based on how long it takes to get them up to useful proficiencies!!!!!!

[thunderbird7]

This was looked at in the 90s wrt tying in to the tanker replacement program. Believe an A330 was considered but shelved due to cost I think. Oh, and cos its a crappy scarebus with a horrible blue cockpit :)

[moggiee]

Any reason why an MRA4 airframe can't be used? Now that the airframe bugs have been worked out, surely that would do the job.

It may not be the biggest, but it has commonality advantages and the MRA4 airframe will be in service for a very long time now.

[ORAC]

There must be more extravant ways of throwing bundles of money into a gaping maw than asking BWoS to quote for that job. :rolleyes:

I mean, I can't think of any at the moment, but there must be, surely?

[Boldface]

Any reason why an MRA4 airframe can't be used? Now that the airframe bugs have been worked out, surely that would do the job.



:mad:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jackonicko]

Any reason why an MRA4 airframe can't be used?

BAE Systems kicking aside, there are some good reasons why the Nimrod isn't the best choice.

The R.Mk 1 is great, but it's cramped and already lacks space. If we're acquiring a new airframe, then why not let's have one that could accomodate better lavatory provision, a proper galley (at least like the MR2), some crew rest accomodation, and, who knows, space for relief crewmembers and even travelling groundcrew.

It might even be advantageous to have a widebody to allow a better, more efficient layout of consoles, which are, at the moment, effectively strung out along one side of the aircraft (they're actually on both sides, but can never be back to back, with choke points at the forward facing consoles).

If we could also have space to accomodate new sensors and new specialists to operate those, that would be great, while a cargo door would be a huge advantage for all of the reasons alluded to on this thread.

A340.

747SP ;)

[moggiee]

Fair enough - just asking:)

I remember lack of space being a "bit of a problem" on the AEW3, so I suppose this is a case where size matters.

Sort of off topic, but do the MR2 chaps feel that the MRA4 is still big enough to do the job? Not so much a question about whether or not they'd like a bigger airframe (most of us would) but whether or not the MRA4 is actually big enough for the role.

[OHP 15M]

Old Fat One,

Agreed - if there's not enough stowage space to store all the ingredients for the 'Honkers', then it's a definite scrub in my book.:ok:

[davejb]

A vast improvement would be made, regardless of any other consideration, if the RAF would pay for competent computer consultancy (alliteration yet!) rather than turning to BAe etc and saying 'here's 50 squillion quid, please hire a computer geek'.

Unfortunately, from my very limited experienece of 'design committee' style work, what you get is a civil servant chair who knows very little, some company men who know about the same, a few tech rep types who know which side the butter is on, and a bunch of RAF guys who eventually die of frustration or start spin-off businesses to supply the glaring need. Due to poor business acumen their company folds inside 5 years.

(There is also a fair amount of 'free lunch' in this - I, personally, was always more than a little annoyed at how cheaply the company thought I could be bought, and how readily my colleagues went for it).

The home PC boom in the 80's saw huge numbers of aircrew getting into programming and stuff, the odd square peg made it to the square hole (others pretended to be square so they could avoid flying), the net result being that whilst the RAF quite rightly (in my view) distrusts complete automation/computation in favour of man hour intensive skill development (which is why we're the best, naturally) it lost out on the ability of computing to streamline decision making - and perhaps more importantly, to provide even the weaker practitioners with a safety net that ensured a basic level of competence.

I would be amazed if some of the R job were not open to computerisation, requiring little more than an O level standard of ability - the problem being that the RAF subcontracts that side of things to people who don't understand it themselves, it is 'staffed' by people who have no idea beyond an inherent distrust of geeks.

As I (used to) lean out of radar, on all those sorties where we concentrated on wet stuff, I couldn't help but wonder why so many people in 'the loop' were gut-feeling location, course, depth, speed when it's trigonometry.... computers are good at trig - I used to wonder why the various players weren't maybe looking at a computer generated set of solutions, picking the most likely, instead of doing it all from scratch?

Don't get me started on 8" floppy disks...what idiot settled for that as a programming method (and as my ex-colleagues will agree, continual RE-programming method) - when solid state memory devices were on the commercial market?

My vote is for two platforms - one does everything, including taking old mates for nice jollies... being a really old git this is probably now only 2 or 3. The second platform is highly computerised, required a small crew, and goes for say 75% of the possible take. You do not need full capability on every trip, you do need one of the right type of platform (and crew) for every trip.

Out.

[green granite]

In today's cost cutting climate the answer is obvious: An A380, the ELINT equipment on the upper deck and passengers on the lower one. :E

[Double Zero]

Green Granite,

it's been done before ! :E

DZ

[Jackonicko]

The perils of secrecy.......

Few people have even the faintest clue as to how Nimrod R compares with its rivals, in terms of what it can do, and what it can't. What it does better than brand X, and what it does less well, and why you'd actually need to launch brand X and brand Y to do some Nimrod R tasks.

Few people have a clue about the implications of having this as a real, National capability, and many are dazzled by the advantages of common and pooled fleets with our major partners and allies.

It's perhaps understandable that many might think that replacement by another, better-known, better-advertised platform would be an improvement. A better option. However wrong they are.

So expect rounds of applause when the Nimrod R replacement is unveiled, but don't be surprised by the long faces of those who will have to use it and who knew what Nimrod R could do.

[Tappers Dad]

It looks as though its a done deal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3296568.ece

THE RAF is being forced to borrow American spy planes and paint roundels on them to replace its fleet of Nimrod R1 signals intelligence aircraft.
The crews of the US Rivet Joint spy planes masquerading as RAF aircraft will not even be totally British with US personnel expected to take control on some missions......

The MoD said last week a final decision had not yet been taken. But Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of the air staff, briefed air crew during a visit to the Middle-East just before Christmas.
“He told the R1 crew that he had brought them an early Christmas present,” one source said. But when he described the plan to use the RC135 Rivet Joint spy planes the response was blunt.

[XV277]

Think "Rivet Joint".

Guess they did.....

[0497]

Wanna see a 737 AEW&C 'Wedgetail' get built?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxcrav5V5Hk

[Magic Mushroom]

No. But I suspect that a few of your 2 Sqn guys would prefer to see a video of a Wedgetail working properly though!:}

[Pontius Navigator]

A vast improvement would be made, regardless of any other consideration, if the RAF would pay for competent computer consultancy (alliteration yet!) rather than turning to BAe etc and saying 'here's 50 squillion quid, please hire a computer geek'.

A CCC? Almost as great an oxymoron and intelligence officer. Even if the CCC is found and makes the right choice you still need the money and politicial balls to make it work.

As for not turning to BAe, as soon as you set up a bid all the likely contenders go "Oooh, TFD, lets set up a consortia led by . . . "

Unfortunately, from my very limited experienece of 'design committee' style work, what you get is a civil servant chair who knows very little, some company men who know about the same, a few tech rep types who know which side the butter is on, and a bunch of RAF guys who eventually die of frustration or start spin-off businesses to supply the glaring need. Due to poor business acumen their company folds inside 5 years.

Indeed.

(There is also a fair amount of 'free lunch' in this - I, personally, was always more than a little annoyed at how cheaply the company thought I could be bought, and how readily my colleagues went for it).

The home PC boom in the 80's saw huge numbers of aircrew getting into programming and stuff, the odd square peg made it to the square hole (others pretended to be square so they could avoid flying), the net result being that whilst the RAF quite rightly (in my view) distrusts complete automation/computation in favour of man hour intensive skill development (which is why we're the best, naturally) it lost out on the ability of computing to streamline decision making - and perhaps more importantly, to provide even the weaker practitioners with a safety net that ensured a basic level of competence.

On the Magic Mushroom a complete software lab was set up and highly skilled technicians set to with a will to learn Jovial and make Mr Boeing's software really zing. But how much do you pay an SAC or a Cpl?

As I (used to) lean out of radar, on all those sorties where we concentrated on wet stuff, I couldn't help but wonder why so many people in 'the loop' were gut-feeling location, course, depth, speed when it's trigonometry.... computers are good at trig - I used to wonder why the various players weren't maybe looking at a computer generated set of solutions, picking the most likely, instead of doing it all from scratch?

Gut feeling because the target was driven not by computers but by humans. yes, it might be following a line x=y+2 but could the computer anticipate a manouevre?

I remember (dry) 55 plus contacts on the screen, chinagraph of course, on the ASV21. Got the target on the 3rd contact. Why, it was a gut feeling and operator intuition and skill - Mr Murgatroyd - who just know it was the target. Why not straight there? Partly covert and partly because the first 2 were en route.

[John Blakeley]

At the risk of being too controversial why does the R1 replacement have to be a large aircraft at all? Given that the RAF happily operates Predators, soon even for combat missions, from half way round the world relying on data links, why not put the sensors and processors and a limited number of mission "managers" to monitor and "optimise" the mission and provide an element of airborne "redundancy" on an aircraft such as Global Express (commonality with ASTOR and faster, higher and further than the R1) or GV and send the data back to be analysed on the ground in real time? Also less aircrew at risk. I know, because I was part of the Team, that a US systems company made such a proposal to MOD at least 10 years ago, and had carried out a wide ranging study of the concepts. Sensors and particularly computers and data links have got a lot smaller since then. Needless to say such a radical proposal was not well received by MOD!

JB

[EdSet100]

Restrictions on the use of hot-air pipes following the inquiry into their deaths has sent temperatures inside the already cramped Nimrod R1s soaring above 50 degrees Celsius.


I wouldn't take that at face value.

Ed Sett

[davejb]

PN
Gut feeling because the target was driven not by computers but by humans. yes, it might be following a line x=y+2 but could the computer anticipate a manouevre?

- That's 'what he's gonna do next.' The discussion about 'where he is now, which way he's going, how fast and how deep' could have been simplified to a degree I feel. 'Where he's going next' isn't worth a hoot if you got 'here he is now' wrong in the first place.

Mick Murgatroyd - I knew a Derek, and a Mick Muttit (who, with something like 19,000 flying hours didn't find contacts, he willed them into place)....

[Pontius Navigator]

Mick Murgatroyd - I knew a Derek, and a Mick Muttit (who, with something like 19,000 flying hours didn't find contacts, he willed them into place)....

Derek Murgatroyd, our lead dry. Mick Muttit, on the OCU when I went through. Sitting in Port Beam RTB from Malta and west of Portugual:

"Port beam, Foxtrot, 10 o'clock."

Followed moments later by 4 Foxtrot, one Don.

We were at 35k.

One of the last times the Sovs did a surface rotation.

Gents both.

[airsound]

Boeing Awarded EPX Concept Refinement Contract


ST. LOUIS, Feb. 07, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] yesterday was awarded a $1.25 million concept refinement contract for the U.S. Navy's EPX program. EPX is a manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting aircraft that will replace the Navy's EP-3 signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform.

As part of the five-month contract, Boeing will work with partner Argon ST to help define program requirements and develop initial system concepts for the EPX multi-intelligence system. Argon ST, based in Fairfax, Va., is a leading designer and developer of SIGINT sensors and information operations systems.

"We're happy for the opportunity to work on the EPX program and believe Boeing is well qualified to help the Navy define a capable and cost-effective solution that capitalizes on existing investments," said Paul Summers, Boeing director of airborne SIGINT campaigns. "The EPX will operate in concert with the P-8A Poseidon, and as the prime contractor for that program we can leverage logistics, maintenance, support, training and other relevant data."

During the concept refinement phase Boeing and Argon also will review requirements and determine potential cost, schedule and technical risks; analyze operational scenarios and assess achievability; develop risk mitigation plans; identify opportunities to leverage investments in Navy, DoD or other non-developmental item programs; and identify opportunities to reduce system life-cycle costs.

Following completion of concept refinement, the Navy will solicit proposals and select contractors for the technology development phase of the program. The Navy is expected to downselect to one contractor for the EPX system development and demonstration phase in late 2011 or early 2012.

[0497]

Boeing Awarded EPX Concept Refinement Contract

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 07, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] yesterday was awarded a $1.25 million concept refinement contract for the U.S. Navy's EPX program. EPX is a manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting aircraft that will replace the Navy's EP-3 signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform.


From Flight 2-years ago:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/01/26/204338/boeing-unveils-new-737-signals-intelligence-concept.html

[Navaleye]

This appeared on Strategypage today.

Here (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20080207.aspx)

[parapauk]

Would the R-135 be an 'as well as' or an 'instead of' the R1?

[Jackonicko]

More debate at:

http://www.eureferendum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5886&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

and

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/5440/t/Possibly-OT-Nimrod-Project-Further-Consequences.html?page=1

[EODFelix]

Has anyone else head the rumour that HELIX is now canned with Joint Rivet the likely benefactor?

[Biggus]

EODFelix

Surely that is what the previous 87 entries have been saying...?

And, no, I don't know anything, and neither have I read all 87 previous entries - but it might be worth you doing so, you will probably find an answer to your question??

[Jig Peter]

While all this is highly interesting, remember that the A300 and A310 are both well out of production, so if either of those were chosen, they'd have to be well-used second-hand ones - and both designs date from the '70s.
But there seems to be nothing available "off the shelf" for the duties you're talking about, and any conversions are going to take many a moon to go through all the to-ing and fro-ing that seems to be "re-equipment procedure".
Gloomy picture, innit ?
:confused:

[Jackonicko]

I believe that the replacement has already been ordered. Three of the suckers.

[EODFelix]

Jacko,

Thats what I'd heard. At least thats left the 12 MRA4s alone (as it would have been 9 allowing for the option of 3 HELIX conversions). That said any idea how 12 MRA4s will do the work of 15 MR2s given that the curent commitment is for 18?

[Guzlin Adnams]

They'll be some 340's coming out from Quatar before long....bags of power there.:8

[bit-twiddler]

Dragging the thread back up from the past, looks like the local papers are starting to carry the RJ story (even though it contains a few errors)

this is lincolnshire- news, entertainment, jobs, homes and cars (http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156153&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156136&contentPK=21176445)

And the MoD confirmation at the end.

I hear there are still a few wrinkles in the plans though due to what the UK want to do with them and what the US want to let the UK do with them.

And the words 'capability gap' appearing due to delivery timescales.

[Pontius Navigator]

bit-t, hush your mouth. Capability gap indeed. When the CinC, now CAS, dismissed CG, he said we now take capability holidays.

A gap can exist and remain whereas a holiday . . .






Yes, I thought it b0ll0cks at the time and still do. :)

[bit-twiddler]

Well the confirmation of replacement airframe for R1 was pretty much bolstered today by one of the JOB advertisments appearing for the civil service.

They were advertising for someone to supervise the out of service of the MR2 and R1.

Still no official announcement though :mad:

Apparently the run down of the R1 and replacement with RJ are being actioned as separate projects to avoid concerns with civil service issues e.g. Tupe etc. Also worth noting that a lot of people in one of the support units were offered early release by next April today...totally unconnected of course.

Edit: The early release scheme is the current MoD civil service attempt at reducing numbers by offering early retirement and voluntary redundancy to people.

[KeepItTidy]

Well I know nothing but at a guess replacements need to be very sooner rather than later.

[circle kay]

This appears to point to Jacko being right.

DSCA Press Release (http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/UK_08-89.pdf)

[tucumseh]

The Government of the United Kingdom has requested …………U.S. government and contractor representative technical and logistics personnel services….

and

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the United Kingdom.



Given the announcement that UK staff can apply for early retirement, effective next year, does this mean the existing aircraft are already largely supported by US staff and/or support is to be carried out at a US base?



By acquiring this capability, the United Kingdom will be able to provide the same level of protection for its own forces and those of the United States.

Is this spin for “The UK is downgrading its capability to that of the US?” :}

[blandy1]

How the hell hell is this cheaper than converting another 3 nimrods to MRA4 airframe standard and bunging the helix systems in instead of the MRAish stuff. Got to be doable for less than a billion dollars.

:confused::confused:

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Anyone know the unit cost of the MRA4 right now? Suspect between that and wiring all the shiny spangly new stuff into a shiny spangly new computer-driven airframe you'd be knocking on the door of a billion $... and it would take about a million years!

[Wader2]

The 'Comet' airframe is probably spacing limiting and the MRA4 is probably near weight limiting.

Waddo already has 707s so 135s could use the same maintenance shed.

Then of course the UK could also mod the 135s to share commonality with the E3.

So, any guesses on engines and flight deck?

[XV277]

The 135Rs have CFM56 engines (not sure if the same model as the E3s) but in almost every other respect (except the nose) the airframe is very different from E-3. And for the RJ they will probably amend the nose profile anyway!

At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'

[bit-twiddler]

Well the OSD of the R1 seems to have been mentioned in the RAF management plan as March 2011 so they had better get a move on.

Replacement due 2012 so no gap there then..... No chance of slipages either. :rolleyes:

Wonder when it will be most politically prudent to announce the $1b American order.

As a small fallout, one of the organisations at Waddo that support the R1 mission system have been told to start run down. 20% of staff by next March, a further 50% by 2010 and rest by March 2011 from what I gather.

[Aeronut]

XV277 Said ;

"the airframe is very different from E-3"

erm....Oh no it isnt.

and

"At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'"

What are you on? That sort of attitude got us into this situation.

[Green Flash]

old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'"

Probably in tiny little bits in Williamsons yard by now.

[Sideshow Bob]

XV277 Said ;

"the airframe is very different from E-3"

erm....Oh no it isnt.
erm....Yes it is.

The E-3 is based on a 707, the RC-135 is based on the C-135. The C-135 was developed in tandem with the 707, both being based on the "Dash 80" (Boeing 367-80), but with differing lineage. The main visible differences being the airframe dimensions and flight deck.

[BackfromIraq]

What space in Alpha Hangar? There's always one E-3 in the shed having a major, and another in minor. They're having enough trouble fixing the one that was spanked by the towing assembly because they're space limited.

Will it fit in 51 Sqn's hangar without the dome?

I suppose the bean counters have already decided that the flight-deck crews will be dual qualified...

[Pontius Navigator]

The 51 Sqn hangar was designed for the pre-war bombers, wartime bombers and successive aircraft were all designed to fit. At 130 feet it is 10 feet wider than a Victor 2 was. It would be a very tight fit.

Also what is the height of the fin? Add fin doors?

[Sentry Agitator]

The E-3 is 41' 9" or 12.7m

FAS state the RC as 42' 6" or12.9m

[Aeronut]

Bob, this is like a pantomime! erm....Oh no it isn't "very different" then if they were both based on the dash 8. I'm implying they will have some commonality. It all depends on your definition of "very different". I do not know the proportion though, I will admit.

[fltlt]

US DSCA notifies Congress of possible 'Rivet Joint' sale to UK
The UK's potential acquisition of three RC-135V/W 'Rivet Joint' signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft to replace its existing Nimrod R.1s moved a step closer on 2 October 2008, when the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a potential USD1.07 billion 'Rivet Joint' sale to the UK Royal Air Force. The DSCA noted that, if approved, the three aircraft will be based on existing CFM56-powered KC-135R tankers - rather than 'Rivet Joint' aircraft taken from the US Air Force fleet - modified for the SIGINT role by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems at its facility in Greenville, Texas

[XV277]

"At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'"

What are you on?

Laphroaig that night iirc, it's called humour, man!!


However, I stand by:

"the airframe is very different from E-3"

At first glance, they look the same. (I beleive every Boeing from the 707/717/C-135/727 and 737 (legacy) line used the same tooling for the nose and cockpit shapes) However, the lines diverged at that point.

The fuselage of the 135 is narrower than that on the 707. and the 135 lacks the 'double bubble' of the 707, the wings and wing roots are quite different from the -320B series 707 that the E-3 is based on. The USAF did re-engineer a number of 135s with tailplanes from redundant 707s, so there is some commonality there!

There may be smaller degrees of commonality in terms of things like u/c components (I'm not that familiar with either airframe) But different fuselage and different wings do not make 'essentially the same airframe'

[Tappers Dad]

UK Yet To Confirm Nimrod SIGINT Replacement: AIN Online (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/uk-yet-to-confirm-nimrod-sigint-replacement/)

UK Yet To Confirm Nimrod SIGINT Replacement

Senior RAF officers have said that the Nimrods perform a vital task, and they last month promised the UK Parliament that there would not be “a capability gap” when the Nimrods are withdrawn from service in 2011. But the Nimrod SIGINT replacement seems to have fallen foul of the UK’s defense budget squeeze. The MoD told AIN that a decision would be made late this year, and the R1s would be extended in service if necessary.


Looks like the R1 may have to keep going a little longer :ugh:

[Jackonicko]

An informed US source also addressed British concerns that the Rivet Joint system concentrates on COMINT at the expense of electronic intelligence (ELINT). He said: “I know that the RAF [mission systems operators] are not happy but they will get over it. An Rivet Joint configuration is not as ELINT-oriented, but today’s environment doesn’t really need an ELINT-heavy system.”

Thank goodness we're friends with everyone who might have an integrated air defence system, and that there's no need to eavesdrop on Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. and certainly no need to bother over much about radar and that kind of thing.........

[Wensleydale]

the wings and wing roots are quite different from the -320B series 707 that the E-3 is based on.


....and, I believe, one of the E-3Ds has different wings to the rest of the fleet.

[Data-Lynx]

So if we are getting 3x RC-135V, just how old are bits of the airframe - 40 years plus? Shaun Connor caught one at Mildenhall 3 months ago.

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1174655M.jpg

[Jackonicko]

Though the USAF is desperately short of tankers - and especially KC-135Rs, there are apparently three sitting in the boneyard that we can have. These are the aircraft that will be converted (taking an unknown period at Tinker AFB, followed by 18 months at E-Systems, each) for the RAF.

I'll bet they're in great condition.

And they'll cost more than the Nimrod R5, and cost more to operate.

Apart from that, good plan, crack on!

[lonsdale2]

Jacko

Do you have the information as to the cost of an R5?
If so please share it with the rest of us.
How long would Wasteofspace take to get it to the frontline?
Maybe if we called it Nimrod 2020 that would give them enough time.

[StrathmayStacker]

The first 2 VC10 C1Ks are up for disposal next year....there's a thought. Proven in service, only 43 years old - one careful owner. :ok:

[Jackonicko]

Lonsdale,

NB that the UK MoD already owns three surplus MRA4 airframes.

NB also that BAE have given a good idea of the extra cost of adding 3 R5s to existing MRA4 support arrangements.

The MRA4 has, of course, not been a great advert for BAE. But no worse an advert than the 737 AEW&C or the P-8 have been for Boeing.

My understanding is that you could get one RC-135 into service more quickly than one R5, but that getting all three aircraft on charge would be quicker with the UK solution.

But the key point is that while the -135 is great for Afghanistan, the Nimrod is a better solution overall.

[Squirrel 41]

Jacko,

I appreciate your passion for an "R5" Nimrod, but the three prototype MRA4 airframes can still be upgraded to operational MRA4 configuration. I know that this hasn't happened yet, but sanity will at some prevail - possibly post SDR 2010.

"R5" precludes this - making RC-135 a good choice irrespective of the the "commonality with the USAF" arguments. And I for one have no whatsoever faith that BAES could deliver an "R5" programme to time or on budget.

S41

[Biggus]

Jacko,

"...BAE have given a good idea of the extra cost of adding 3 R5s to existing MRA4 support arrangements."

What existing MRA4 support arrangements? When defence contracts are announced these days they are normal trumpeted, in terms of jobs created/saved, and cost savings achieved, on MOD websites, general defence publications, company magazines, etc.

I have recently seen contracts announced for Harrier engine support, 5 years of Typhoon support, etc, but don't remember an MRA4 support contract being announced?


Squirrel

Sanity may prevail, but I doubt very much whether a budget will. With budget tightening all around post the next election whoever wins (the Tories call them "cuts", which at least is honest, Labour call them "adjustments", which is an insult to most people's inteeligence), 9 MRA4 will almost certainly be all the RAF ever get.

[Squirrel 41]

Biggus,

The budget is all about choices - hard choices, but choices nonetheless. I heard a figure of £100m to upgrade the three MRA4 test airframes to operational configuration, whilst Boarding Score Alliance (or Continuity in Education Allowance, if you prefer) is (source: bar int) costing us £200m p.a..

Now, I've seen neither of the figures, so cannot vouch for veracity of either (this is a rumour network, after all....) but if either are close to accurate, I'd take the MRA4 upgrade over boarding schools every day and twice on Sunday.

(Cue much outraged ranting.)

These are difficult decisions, no doubt. But tough times require it.

Now, back to the important things - ie, the 5th Test!

S41

[The B Word]

And I for one have no whatsoever faith that BAES could deliver an "R5" programme to time or on budget.


Me too!

JN, the R5 would be a disaster - to do everything we need to do we need an airframe with space inside, and outside for the antenna arrays, rather than being another Nimord "squeezed in like sardines!".

Finally, the SIGINT role is ideal for UAV/UASs and that may be the future after the RJ contract finishes?

The B Word

[BEagle]

Although drones clearly make good surveillance platforms, I'm not convinced that propagation delay when associated with fine adjustment of SIGINT equipment, particularly where accurate direction-of-arrival is needed, makes them 'ideal' for such a role.

Neither Comet- nor Boeing 707-derived platforms are in their first flush of youth. Both have 4 engines because they needed them back in the 1950s, with all the associated maintenance requirements.

An aircraft of roughly the same physical size as the VC10, yet which has 2/3 the burn rate is becoming available. The Luftwaffe are replacing their VVIP A310s with A340s; the A310 would have all the electrical power and space needed for the mission requirements of the role. Same fuselage cross section as an A330 and plenty of room for mission specialists and their equipment.

Price would probably be right too - and no worries about 't bungling Baron Waste o' Space trying to modify a 60 year old aeroplane design.

[The B Word]

Although drones clearly make good surveillance platforms, I'm not convinced that propagation delay when associated with fine adjustment of SIGINT equipment, particularly where accurate direction-of-arrival is needed, makes them 'ideal' for such a role.

I would argue that Global Hawk would beg to differ!

Even manned platforms have to offload the collection as there simply isn't the people or processing power available - try flying with several Cray supercomputers the size of a car showroom with the same size coolers and you'll see why. The man in the loop on the aircraft is useful but not dispensible and 2 seconds of delay is nothing in this world. Some of the cryptonanalysis probably take months if not years...

All the adjustments are automated these days. These days are gone!

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01251/Wireless_Operator_1251093c.jpg

Face it BEags the days of men/women driving/operating things are coming to an end - I even heard on Radio 4 that they reckon that unmanned haulage might be on the road in 10-15yrs time! :sad:

The B Word

[Modern Elmo]

I'm not convinced that propagation delay when associated with fine adjustment of SIGINT equipment, particularly where accurate direction-of-arrival is needed, makes them 'ideal' for such a role.

Beagie, are you seriously suggesting that a 21st C. SIGINT platform must have people aboard twiddling frequency tuning knobs?

... This direction-of-arrival business: do you have in mind a loop antenna that physically rotates atop the fuselage?

[BEagle]

Loop antennae - hardly. Specialist on board, probably. But is a 2 sec delay to a 1 sec burst a problem.....ICATQ as I don't know.

Those who do know what's needed are not going to post on here. I have no direct knowledge of what goes on in such air platforms, but if the drone alternative is so good then I'm surprised the bean counters haven't already suggested it.

Of course they are some areas over which drones will not be allowed to fly - at least, not for many years. So there very probably will be a need for an airliner-based manned platform to replace the current Nimrod R.

Unmanned road haulage? At the moment the Germans can't even get their tracking and road tariff system working properly, let alone an automatic guidance system.... Mercedes press demonstration of their automatic braking system was hardly a resounding success as they suddenly realised it didn't like being inside a steel warehouse building due to RF reflections confusing the radar. So they tried to cheat by putting a block of wood on the ground, then stamping on the brakes as they crossed it, stopping before hitting the car ahead. Worked fine in practice; unfortunately on the day either someone had tidied away the piece of wood or the S-Class suspension was so good the driver didn't notice the wood, so the result was 3 rather crumpled S-Class and a lot of red faces when the 'fog' finally cleared...

[Pontius Navigator]

The problem with unmanned sensors is that they are computer driven and computer software is designed to operate to closely defined parameter. A human operator can operate outside pre selected limits.

For instance a computer might have display thresholds set and ignore anything outside the limits by way of noise reduction. One famous example was NASA and the ozone layer. The computer's rejected the evidence as the programmers had set the limits. British meteorologists, operating from observations, detected the ozone layer and then had to persuade NASA that their computer model was wrong.

In elint the human operator might spot 'random' events and short transients that a computer might be programmed to miss.

[Wensleydale]

May I also add that the bandwidth needed to pass every intercept back to an operator on the ground - probably through Satcom, would be very great. By having the man in the loop, he can filter out the "trash" and only send on the good gen thus relieving bandwidth.

Bandwidth is a big issue within ISTAR, and with the Government wanting more and more of it to sell off to commercial enterprise then the less we have to use - the better. (I have also heard rumours that the Gov't want to charge the MOD for the use of the EM spectrum and therefore we will have to minimise on the number of frequencies that we use).

[BEagle]

Quite so.

Humans do art and science, computers can only do science. Admittedly rather well!

[The B Word]

I have also heard rumours that the Gov't want to charge the MOD for the use of the EM spectrum and therefore we will have to minimise on the number of frequencies that we use

They only charge for transmitting not for recieving - ie. SIGINT. Plus if we don't transmit within the UK FIR they can't charge anyway!

The interesting thing about SIGINT birds (like R1 and RJ) is that they rely on getting the info back to other govt agencies for analysis, granted there are real time jobs to do as well but I would estimate that 50% of the work is done off-board of the manned asset. So the bandwidth issue may not be as bad as you think. I understand that the biggest issue is antenna size, however, they have done clever things with small antennas before by summing up their collect - such as the very large array radio telescope system...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/USA.NM.VeryLargeArray.02.jpg/300px-USA.NM.VeryLargeArray.02.jpg

[Wensleydale]

They only charge for transmitting not for recieving - ie. SIGINT. Plus if we don't transmit within the UK FIR they can't charge anyway!


So if we need to send the other 50% off board then we will need to double the bandwidth of transmission. If the receiver is in the UK, then we will take up the bandwidth and will be charged by HMG. They will charge for use of the spectrum - including reception - if we use extra frequencies then the comercial side cannot is their twisted argument. (unless we wish to share our SIGINT frequencies with comercial interests - I think not).

[FJJP]

An Airbus would be an ideal platform - stilted u/c allowing a 'boat' full of antennae slung underneath [good, unobstructed reception] + cargo space for fly-away packs. And plenty of room to carry the groundcrew for deployment.

Young, modern, fuel efficient, long endurance, room to expand internally - the list is endless.

Drones have their place on the battlefield, alongside the human. SIGINT benefits from the experienced operator who can instantly, for example, take the intonation in the voice and add it to all the other observed factors to reach a quick conclusion. That's how it works, so why throw away a top class methodology?...

[Jackonicko]

There's no doubt that an A310 would be a superb R1 replacement.
Bif, wide body fuselage, cargo door, plenty of space underfloor, big enough dimensions for good aerial placement. But funding means that it needs to be more off the shelf than that.

The B Word said:
the R5 would be a disaster - to do everything we need to do we need an airframe with space inside, and outside for the antenna arrays, rather than being another Nimord "squeezed in like sardines!".

The RC-135 is hardly any more spacious than the Nimrod R, and if you added in the same number of Elint consoles and operators it would be far less spacious.

The B Word said:
Even manned platforms have to offload the collection as there simply isn't the people or processing power available - try flying with several Cray supercomputers the size of a car showroom with the same size coolers and you'll see why. The man in the loop on the aircraft is useful but not dispensible and 2 seconds of delay is nothing in this world. Some of the cryptonanalysis probably take months if not years...

All the adjustments are automated these days. These days are gone!

Modern Elmo said:
Beagie, are you seriously suggesting that a 21st C. SIGINT platform must have people aboard twiddling frequency tuning knobs?

The 51 Squadron capability is one of the few that the UK can offer that really is in advance of what others can. Its capability is based upon manual tuning by highly experienced operators. The man in the loop is absolutely essential to how 51 does the job, and to the reputation for excellence that the squadron enjoys.

The B Word said:
Finally, the SIGINT role is ideal for UAV/UASs and that may be the future after the RJ contract finishes?

I would argue that Global Hawk would beg to differ!

Nonsense. As the Marineflieger are about to find out.

[The B Word]

If the receiver is in the UK, then we will take up the bandwidth and will be charged by HMG

How about uplink/downlink from other places than the UK - FIs, SBAs or Assie? Where there's a will there's a way!

Another solution, you could fly your UAV SIGINT collect from LOS missions in theatre and then use the land forces EW detachment personnel? How's that for value for money?

Finally, the SIGINT role is ideal for UAV/UASs and that may be the future after the RJ contract finishes?

I would argue that Global Hawk would beg to differ!

Nonsense. As the Marineflieger are about to find out.

JN, there are several air-breathing unmanned assets, on top of GHs, in the ME that are already collecting very nicely - no details or the beads will rattle my window (if you catch my drift?). So, I discount your cry of "nonsense" with "it's already doing very nicely, thank you".

Finally, having been inside an R1 and an RJ (@ Offut) there is a lot more space in the RJ.

A good debate, this one. Keep it coming.

The B Word

[Jackonicko]

There are 3 Elint ops on an RJ. Three!

Cram on enough to do the full R1 role and the RJ would be more than merely crowded.

And even now, the RJ isn't that much more spacious (and has even fewer windows.......)

As to unmanned - a UAV can do Elint and Comint in the same way that a U-2 can. What it can't do is RJ or R1 style Sigint missions.

[The B Word]

There are 3 Elint ops on an RJ. Three!


There are 3 minimum on the RJ. You can take 34+ people on an RJ - 3 Flight Deck and 31 mission crew (compared to 25 mission crew on R1 - that really is a squeeze as well!).

http://www.afisr.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/080926-F-1726K-009.jpg

You definately can't stand about inside an R1 like this unless the USAF employ midgets!

The B Word

PS. Just found this - the inside of the R1. Spot the difference in space, you can't even stand up straight!!!

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/bae%20nimrod/Nimrod%20R1%20cabin.jpg

[Jackonicko]

You've picked the roomiest part of an RJ, there!

And it's three. Ravens 1-3. Not a 'minimum of three'

Then there's AMSATS, IMT and OPR 1-12 plus 15 SSO and 16 SSO.

That's a mission crew of 19.

Versus 10 Elint, 13 Comint and two ad hoc on the R1.........

"You do the math" as the cousins would say.

[Yeoman_dai]

Don't know if anyone's posted this, I didn't check the whole thread but

Death Spiral for HELIX? Britain Wants RC-135 Rivet Joint Planes (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Death-Spiral-for-HELIX-Britain-Wants-RC-135-Rivet-Joint-Planes-05102/#more-5102)

Who mentioned RC135's?

[Jackonicko]

The RC-135V/W is known as Rivet Joint (RJ).

Chris Pocock's piece in AIN is predictably pro American. Chris argues JSF over Typhoon, RC-135 over R1, and (doubtless) P-8 over MRA4 too.

Normally, a 'pro US equipment' stance would be entirely reasonable, but not in this case.

RC-135 may be inevitable, but that don't make it right.

[The B Word]

JN

Crew: (flight crew) five (augmented) - three pilots, two navigators; (mission flight crew) 21-27, depending on mission requirements, minimum consisting of three electronic warfare officers, 14 intelligence operators and four inflight/airborne maintenance technicians

From open source Factsheets : RC-135V/W Rivet Joint (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=121) USAF official factsheet.

Done the reading and I read "27" mission crew, which is greater than your R1 figure - and I know they can mix and match as we do on R1 for a particular mission. EWOs or Ravens can augment above the number of 3. We will also get a say in what type of aircrew (WSO, WSOp or AT) we employ on RAF RJ.

Here are some more pictures of the other "roomier parts" of the RJ!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/RC-135_Rivet_Joint_maintenance_2006-11-16.jpg/120px-RC-135_Rivet_Joint_maintenance_2006-11-16.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/RC-135W_Rivet_Joint_interior.jpg/120px-RC-135W_Rivet_Joint_interior.jpg

Next you'll claim I've photo-shopped the images! :ugh:

Chris argues JSF over Typhoon, RC-135 over R1, and (doubtless) P-8 over MRA4 too.


He does have a point. I for one am fed up with under-performing, over-budget and late offerings from t'Bungling Baron (to quote BEagle) - Mantis is already late by 6 months and they've only been building it for a year or so. I have flown one of their products for over a decade and recently converted to a US aircraft - chalk and cheese comes to mind!

So go ahead, believe that we should buy British (which is nearly always more expensive) and then have to replace/modify it with UOR (which is also more expensive) when it doesn't perform for ops. Urgent radar mods, software upgrades, defensive aids, weapon changes have mostly been my experience of THEIR products when going to war - the US aircraft now on ops needed none of this.

I believe it is time to say "enough is enough" and it is time for the MoD's Defence Budget to stop bailing out t'Bungling Baron of Blackburn - or how about a profit share if we do (they did make £1.75bn last year!)??? :}

The B Word

[Lima Juliet]

Deliverance

I concur. In these frugal days of public spending then it is time for industry to stand on its own 2 feet.

LJ

[BEagle]

Well done BAE, your F-16 is 25 years late!

Hmmm...

As written in the RAF Brize Norton station magazine The Gateway Magazine in April 1985:

(Whatever the European aircraft manufacturers might say, one can't help feeling that the EFA, ACX, ACA, EAP or whatever they call it next will have to be pretty revolutionary if it's to be better than just an F-16 20 years too late! - Ed.)

My boss agreed with me - I was the Editor!

[The B Word]

I can hear the protestations now from t'Bungling Baron - but it's got 2 engines!!!

BEagle - I take it all back, you are indeed a visionary :ok:

[Wrathmonk]

Not sure about visionary - I'm still in shock that BEags once did a secondary duty such as Station Magazine editor (even if it was in the days of papyrus paper and ink quills ;)). I always had him down as a "station secondary duties are for career chasing, gas using, shiny ar$ed losers"! Is this where it all went wrong (or right!) - did the Scottish Gp Capt / Air Officer have you sacked for your editorial leaders ...?:p

[BEagle]

Secondary duties could be a source of much innocent fun, if you played the system!

For example, for the Gateway I used to demand 3 days off per month to do the editing, layouts and check the final galleys from the printer. Boss was happy with that - but whether or not I actually did the work then was something he didn't need to know.

We ran a spoof so sucessful about the BAe146P as a 'low observable' special duties jet with 'A Radio Frequency Illumination Limiting Loop' (A RFIL loop) in the April edition that Air Clues ran with the story and pinched the photo of a couple of lads fiddling with a broomstick painted white stuck on top of the BAe 146 development flight's jet. I had to ring them up and point out that 'A RFIL loop' was an anagram....:hmm:

Much mirth at the UAS when I was the Fire Officer. I requested a survey of our building from the Command Fire people and they went nuts! It was a death trap. So I produced a long list of issues for the boss to deal with.... Soon afterwards someone else took over as Sqn Fire Officer.

Silliest was 'Squadron Sports Officer'. Someone was clearly taking the pi$$. But the UAS people at Cranwell kept hosing us down with dosh, because our scale of entitlement was based on the number of students we had. Real rugby shirts for the team, 'spectator facilities' (bench and table sets for the barbecue really), ceramic hockey sticks, competition rugby balls, full sets of cricket gear - you name it, we had it! Horrid Kevball shirts had been ordered by my predecessor, but as Stop Start will recall, we decided that Kevball was not an appropriate game for potential young officers, so they remained firmly under lock and key!

At Brize, my Sqn boss used to vet the squadron's Gateway submission written by a chum. Which I took rather a dim view of - and often ran the original instead. The boss never noticed......

I only had one of those stupid Officers Mess secondary duties once - Silver Member at Wattisham. Trying to reconcile the hoard of dented plunder and 'borrowed items' in the silver store with the property book was a total nightmare - we had loads more than the book said we had! 56(F) used to volunteer for quite a few mess secondary duties, much to the surprise of OC Eng, the PMC. Being non-aircrew, he hadn't noticed that we consequently had a huge majority whenever the Mess Committee needed to make a decision.....:E

[Jackonicko]

B Word.

I was looking at an official interior diagram of a for real Baseline 8 RC-135. The crew positions are exactly as I listed. Two of them (your LH pic) are inflight maintenance techs. The RH pic looks like a Baseline 6 mission commander or DLO - who have nearly as much space as the Ravens.

There aren't consoles to support a mission crew of 27 on the current RJ - there are just 17, plus techs, navs and pilots. There is 'rest accomodation' for relief crew, which there really isn't (1-2 ad hocs excepted) on the R1. There are, however, 24 consoles on the R1, plus nav, plus pilots.

They have three Ravens and the largely automated AEELS Elint kit on an RC-135V/W. Further aft is all Comint/Special Signals, and they are packed just as close as those in an R1.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Jackonicko/Picture3-3.png

There are some appalling BAE products, but the R1 has a justifiably excellent reputation - since it effectively rolls three quarters of an RC-135V/W and three quarters of an RC-135U into a single airframe, giving a capability that is in advance of that of the RJ in many ways.

There are also some dire US products. It's not all F-15 vs Tornado F3. Merlin is better than the H-92. American is not always best, as the P-8 quite clearly shows.


Deliverance,

JSF will, one day, be a great tactical fighter. At a price. One hopes, however, that they are more successful with integrating a helmet than they were with the F-22. Typhoon is far more than an F-16, 25 years late.

As to UK industry's world-beaters, I'd suggest to you that the R1 is just such an aircraft.

[Jackonicko]

Deliverance,

The Typhoon is no F-22 (despite that aircraft's flaws), and it could be argued that it is only half a generation ahead of the teen series when it should be a full generation ahead, should have full LO, etc. but it is leagues ahead of the F-16 - in terms of performance, SA, and kit.

It will never be as useful a strike fighter as the F-35.

But by today's standards Typhoon should be something we take a degree of pride in. A supportable, deployable, capable strike fighter, though with only five squadrons planned, how there will ever be enough to do more than UK AD, QRA and the Falklands beats me.

Like you, I am sceptical when I hear the old "Well, we may be a small force, but our kit/training is better than the US", because normally it's simply not the case. But there are odd exceptions to the "American is better" rule.

And when specific UK capabilities are specifically requested by US commanders, and when USAF people in particular communities laud their UK counterparts, you know you're hitting on one of those exceptions. As the RADEOS PR9 was. As the Nimrod R1 is.

[Lima Juliet]

I've just watched this from 1953 - where did we go wrong? :{

British Pathe - BRITAIN'S AIRCRAFT OF TOMORROW (http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=31214)

Maybe JN is a 1950's throwback? :E

LJ

PS here's one just for you... British Pathe - NIMROD AIRCRAFT (http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=45434)

[bit-twiddler]

The line that made me laugh in the AIN article was the one about "The MoD told AIN that a decision would be made late this year, and the R1s would be extended in service if necessary."

As they are shutting down the primary establishment that looks after the mission sytems in March 2011, with a reduction to 40% of the original staff from March 2010 that seems a little incorrect. The technical staff there have pretty much been told they no longer fit into the MoD view of 'decider not provider', but they could relocate to Abbey Wood and become project managers......

Also Interesting to see that the DES Nimrod group have 3 posts set up for handling TUPE if you check the email list on the great DII system.

[Jackonicko]

BGG,

Quite right. Meant UK Plc, rather than BAE per se. The BAE bit of R1 is of passing interest only.


Leon,

Interesting. It was about then that it did all go wrong. Two V-bombers into service and two insurance policies flown, one of them also into service. Swift AND Hunter, DH110 AND Javelin, all from a small industry that needed to be consolidated.

[Gravelbelly]

Typhoon or JSF? I'd wager that when JSF enters service it will be a better AD platform, have a radar that works properly,

Do tell. Exactly what is wrong with CAPTOR? Have you ever seen one work, or talked to people who have? (I'm biased, I helped design it, and I'm proud of it).

Are you sure you aren't regurgitating old Foxhunter stories as a stick to beat British industry?

[Pure Pursuit]

What's wrong with CAPTOR?

Plenty of things, none of which are suitable for open forum.

[Jackonicko]

That's not what the users say about it.

Nor is it what evaluation pilots from foreign air forces have said.

The biggest single problem with Captor often seems to be that it's so good that it makes the case for a replacement AESA weaker.

This really isn't Foxhunter.

[The B Word]

AI 24 Foxhunter is a good radar after the mods at the start of the millenium - especially with some of the automatics that were introduced. Stage 1+ was the start of the long process of better performance, Stage 2 was a huge leap again and Stage 3 saw it becoming a good bit of kit (shame we didn't sort it like the US did with APG-63 in the early 80s - it too was a piece of cr@p until they spent $$$$M on it to get the performance!!!).

CAPTOR does have "issues" but name me a radar that doesn't when it is first fielded? Both, Blue Fox and Blue Vixen had "teething troubles" - and don't forget that Blue Vixen is the mother of CAPTOR, so you could say that CAPTOR's issues have been worked over many years from its first use as Blue Vixen?

Finally, I would put CAPTOR in the category of "High to Above Average", but there is definately room for improvement.

The B Word

[Jig Peter]

Who would have thought that four years after that memory-strings-tugging film, the dreaded Mr. Sandys would storm all over RAF procurement, to be followed by a monumental series of ministerial/industrial interference (in the engineering sense) ?
B U T ...
What if the Swift had been selected "from the drawing board"? Or the Sperrin? Was the Javelin a "better" choice than the DH110? How to choose between the Victor and Vulcan at that stage?
Agreed, the industry needed to be "sorted out" (it wouldn't sort itself out because too many high-personality knights were involved, of course), but I do remember being told how offended people at Radlett were when a visiting USAF officer remarked about Victor final assembly "Sure it's a fine airplane, but why d'ja have to build it in a hobbies shop?".
But in 1953, we all thought we could do it all, and the P A I N was still to come. Eheu fugaces !

[Sideshow Bob]

Nice to see some things don't change, £2,500,000 for a Nimrod MR1 in 1968, which in today’s terms is £33,400,000 for each MR1!! Why ho why do we keep paying over the odds for equipment that barely matches up to off the shelf alternatives.

[PingDit]

Leon,

Loved the Nimrod footage!
However, it did mention in there somewhere that it would 'fly at 500kts to it's operational area......'

We obviously piled too much inside it when it came into service; I only managed 500kts once in the Mk1 and that was with the assistance of a rather good jetstream going in our direction!

[bit-twiddler]

Nice little rumour or two doing the rounds at the moment.

Seems to be they are trying to force the treasury's hand wrt RJ at maingate by destroying any chance of extending the life on the R1s.

When the first plane shortly goes out of service it will be cut up and the fuselage only, sans wings, sold off to a local air museum inside 3 months of arrival.

Second airframe sold off to a different museum a few months later, but that would at least have a set of wings attached.

So any defence review or change of government that says, for example, "why are we bothering buying this? We could just extend the R1". Would get the reply "What R1s?".

[Squirrel 41]

Actually, where can you send an R1 that is anything other than a shell to a museum? Presumably nowhere private - so one to the RAF Museum, one to Duxford and one to the USAF Museum?

And yes, I would preserve an R1 in the US.

Out of interest, were any of the Comet Rs preserved?

S41

[Jackonicko]

All four Comets and all four of 51s last Canberras all initially survived in some form.

WJ768 'Y' went to Akrotiri, where the fire section had their wicked way with her quite soon.
WJ775 'Z' went to CSDE at Swanton Morley, where she stayed for MANY years, somehow she escaped the proper preservation she deserved and ended up at Bodney, from where her nose has just been rescued.
WT301 'W' went to Chattendon, where she also survived for many years, before being scrapped in the late 80s/early 90s.
WT305 'X' ended up on the gate at Wyton, until the 'one gate, one gate guard' ruling, when she was carefully dismantled. There were rumours that her nose survived, but it's never reappeared.

XK655 'A' was retired to Strathallan, her undercarriage collapsing on arrival! Repaired, she was on display for many years, but was broken up when the collection was dispersed. I think her nose went to Gatwick.
XK659 became the Westward Ho bar at Pomona Dock, Liverpool. see: FLYING WITH THE SNOWMAN – FLYING IN A DEHAVILAND COMET JET AIRCRAFT – ATHENAEUM LIBRARY OF PHILOSOPHY (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/flyingsnowman.htm)
She was later broken up
XK695 'C' was retired to Duxford, where you could walk through her, looking at the two nav stations and the rows of twin equipment racks (all empty). She succumbed to corrosion, and was broken up, her fuselage going to the dogs (literally) at Newton. Her nose ended up at London Colney.
XK697 'D' was not a mission aircraft, but a standard transport used for training. She stayed at Wyton with the Air Scouts until undercarriage corrosion did for her!

[bit-twiddler]

Apparently the R1 fuselage is destined for Newark air museum and an equipped (as near as possible) one destined for Duxford.

[XV277]

XK655 'A' was retired to Strathallan, her undercarriage collapsing on arrival! Repaired, she was on display for many years, but was broken up when the collection was dispersed. I think her nose went to Gatwick.


And is now in Sharjah

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/288546-sharjah-old-airport-3.html#post3559491

You could walk through her at Strathallan as well, again with all the equipment racks.

[f4aviation]

Rumoured to be the last flight for R1 XW665 today at RAF Waddington - if so it would be a fair guess that XW664 won't be far behind in retiring? That only leaves XV249 'Anneka' on strength...

[Jackonicko]

If that's true, then it's evidence that a decision has already been taken in favour of Rivet Joint.

That's not a good thing, for all of the reasons previously trotted out, but it's particularly not a good thing for our democratic processes.

I say that because no such decision has been announced to Parliament, and indeed the Ministers are still insisting that Helix (as an upgrade to existing R1 airframes or to MRA4s) remains an option that is being considered, and since even BAE's own MRA4-based R5 proposal has not been finally ruled out - though the company has been told that it needs to come up with a proposal that meets the Government's entirely arbitrary ISD.

But for the Helix bids to be seriously considered, then retiring R1s to Duxford and Newark is not an option - these airframes may be needed for another 16 years, or at least as a stop-gap pending delivery of an MRA4 based Helix.

Such underhand manoeuvring is not surprising (all the tea leaves in my cup spell RC-135 these mornings) but it is unusually shabby even by the 'standards' of this gang of rogues.

[TEEEJ]

From the Newark Air Museum website

News and Information (http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/newsItem.php?id=137)

'Following reports on some web fora and various direct communications to the museum – the museum trustees would like to confirm that they are in negotiations over the possible acquisition of a Nimrod R1 airframe.

The museum trustees made the following additional details available at 1430 hours on 28 October, 2009.'

“Newark Air Museum has been given to understand that a Nimrod R1 aircraft will be retired from operational service sometime before the end of this financial year and then potentially dismantled to be sold as scrap. Eager to see this historic and prestigious aircraft preserved instead, initial enquiries have already been made to the RAF into the possible acquisition of this aircraft for display in the Museum, once it has been officially deemed surplus to requirements. It is still too early for the MOD to make any commitment at this time and the exact cost has yet to be established, but we are confidently aspiring to purchase the complete aircraft sometime in 2010.”

[XV277]

So our Elint/Sigint capacity is reduced by a third? Of course, those that know won't sya, and the rest of us don't need to know!

[Squirrel 41]

Good luck to Newark if they can get an R1, but I would've thought that the RAF would demand that it be kept undercover - and does Newark have the hanger space available?

S41

[HaveQuick2]

Why would they insist it be hangared?

They haven't particularly been so for the last 40 years?


Good luck to Newark if they can get an R1, but I would've thought that the RAF would demand that it be kept undercover - and does Newark have the hanger space available?

S41

[Gainesy]

They've always been undercover jets Shirley.

[RumPunch]

Woodford will cease to exist when the final MRA4 PA12 leaves production. If an order for a replacement is not done soon then there will be no MRA4/R1 replacement, not to say it will be another type though.

They cannot use the first 3 production a/c as PA03 has been dismantled and as far as im aware it looks like PA01 and PA02 will be disposed of at Kinloss although I cannot confirm 100% on that.

Tbh I think its too late in the game now to refit an MRA4, lack of funds the RAF were lucky to get 9 frames. 30 mins I believe the defense minister came to chopping the MRA4 earlier this year. Swift talking by seniors of 2 services saved the project..

[standrews]

Lastest edition of Janes Defence Weekly, quote 'BAE Systems has been dropped from the competition to provide a replacement for the UKs aging Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1 electronic intelligence gathering aircraft', :(

[Jackonicko]

Not strictly true.

As recently as last month, the Minister said that the R1 and MRA4 remained possible options (with Helix, and thus part of an L3 bid), along with the favoured Rivet Joint.

He did make it clear that BAE's latest proposal (a proposal, not a commercial bid) did not meet his required ISD, but he did not slam the door on a revised proposal from BAE.

However, though Parliament has not been told, all the indications are that the decision has already been made, and that the Minister was playing silly b*ggers.

[thunderbird7]

Its the planned capability gap that will be the political hot potato.

[ConingsbyFlyingClub]

I have heard a rumour that EWAD who are very involved with the R1 is disbanding in about 2 years time so no EWAD no R1 me thinks!

[Ivan Rogov]

It seems slightly ironic that an MRA4 will make it to a museum almost before an MR1/R1/MR2 :ooh: