Rivet Joint

[Thelma Viaduct]

U.K. Signs Near-$1B Rivet Joint Support Deal - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7042952&c=EUR&s=AIR)

The article says it will cost the UK $1 Billion.

What really winds me up is that these aircraft are only ever going to used for supporting spam exploits around the globe, so why is the UK taxpayer subsidising their dubious activities?

It would be a different story if the UK had the balls to do their own raping and pillaging without the spams approval, but that's never going to happen.

[iRaven]

Pious

You are wrong, the UK will operate its own RJs from 2013/14. Also, if you knew a lot about the nature of their work you would realise how the RJ (and the previous R1) forms a BIG part of the "special relationship" and so they are unlikely to ever operate outside of this arrangement. They will be ours to task and fly with our crews from that date. They are also incorporating UK modifications to our aircraft (which the US are likely to want to retrofit).

By the way, it is RIVET JOINT capital letters as a BIG SAFARI program.

Finally, I note that you're from Lancashire - there was never a cat in hells chance of those idiots at Warton in delivering anywhere near the capability for £680M. So in my mind the RC-135 V/W RIVET JOINTs were an absolute bargain.

iRaven

[ZH875]

The three RAF airframes are former United States Air Force KC-135Rs, all of which first flew in 1964 but will be modified to the latest RC-135W standard before delivery. The three airframes on offer to the UK are the youngest KC-135s in the USAF fleet. The aircraft have approximately 23,200; 22,200 hours; and 23,200 flying hours respectively, as of September 2010, and are expected to remain in service until 2045.

That is older than the Nimrod R1 and even the MR1.

[iRaven]

Younger than the MRA4s that we didn't introduce into service!!!

[ZH875]

Younger than the MRA4s that we didn't introduce into service!!!


Oh no it isn't. The MR1 was designed in 1964, first flying in 1967. Even if any of the MR1 aircraft remained in service via the MR2 conversion and were 'lucky' enough to get converted to the MRA4, they are still younger than the RIVET JOINT aircraft we will be getting

[iRaven]

These were the last 3 KC-135As off the production line, all 1964 models, 64-14827, 64-14828, and 64-14829. All were converted to the KC-135R standard in the 1980s. Once the RAF conversion begins, the USAF MDS will become RKC-135Rs until the Boom equipment is removed, then RC-135K for the RAF. The RAF tail numbers will be ZR135, ZR136 and ZR137. They will be stripped right back to bare metal and new metal introduced where needed. They will also get new CFM-56 engines and an updated avionics suite (front end and back end!). Other mods will also be carried out to bring them up to required standard.

Now they could go to the effort of smelting down all the metal and rebuilding it again but why bother if the structure is sound? It reduces cost and carbon footprint!

iRaven

[iRaven]

The Nimrod is essentially a Comet 4C with an unpressurised weapons bay added on underneath, creating a ‘double bubble’ effect that gives the aircraft its distinctive appearance. However, the original Comet was designed back in the late 1940’s and first flew on 27 Jul 49, so the basic Nimrod design that evolved from the Comet 4C owes more to the 1950’s than to any other period and, although this has had many advantages, it has also had some significant disadvantages. The Nimrod MR1 first flew on 23 May 67 and the aircraft eventually entered service with 236 OCU at RAF St Mawgan on 2 Oct 69 – the first of 46 aircraft eventually delivered to the RAF. From the late 1970’s to the mid 1980’s, 35 Nimrod’s were fitted with upgraded detection systems, including the EMI Searchwater radar, and were re-designated Nimrod MR2s.

35 of the original 48 MR1s became MR2 and then 21 were going to become MRA4 - that in the end would be 3 development and 9 production variants.

If you are meaning "age" as date of manufacture then you are correct (by 3 years out of a total of 44 years since 1967). But if we regard "age" as useage then in airframe life then the RJs are definately younger.

iRaven

[Exrigger]

Now they could go to the effort of smelting down all the metal and rebuilding it again but why bother if the structure is sound? It reduces cost and carbon footprint!

So its ok to do this for the complete airframe of the Rivet Joint, an older airframe time wise, but not a Nimrod MRA4 fuselage (which was almost the only bit that was not brand new build and was also structurally sound), oh the irony of that quoted comment above.

So not only are these going to cost more than quoted when Air Publications, GSE, DO support, training, spares and hangar builds/alterations are added to the cost of the airframes, oh and don't forget the MOD goalpost moving which will add to the cost and will probably be late, so where's the money coming from post SDRS if they are cutting back and decimating the armed forces when the country and the MOD is apparently broke.

[WillDAQ]

So its ok to do this for the complete airframe of the Rivet Joint, an older airframe time wise, but not a Nimrod MRA4 fuselage

It's fine to update aircraft, it's the billions of pounds wasted along the way that people objected to.

[Piggies]

And yet again, it's all about Nmrod...

UKSerials.com has the RJ being ZZ 664-666 (Neat as the numbers are the same as the original R1). Duff gen?

(Interesting ZM400 etc is marked as allocated to Airbus Atlas. Is this what we're calling the Grizzly? Get's my vote if so.)

[jamesdevice]

why don't they leave the booms on the RIVET JOINTS so they can refuel each other? Nothing else in the UK fleet will be able to refuel them


As for the Nimrod age - weren't many of the fuselage / wing parts long-lead-time left overs / spares from when the Comet 4 production line closed? That would date some of the parts (if not the complete airframes) from the late 1950's

[Party Animal]

Changing tack slightly but still an RJ question. Do we have traditional navs and flt eng's going through training in Nebraska? Which in turn leads to the question - are the variants we eventually receive 2 pilots only flight decks?

Just interested, that's all. Any offers?

[sturb199]

Piggies,

I know what you mean, can we not just let the Nimrod die and get on with it, some one will be along in a minute to tell us how good the Harrier was and why did we keep the GR4!!! :ugh:

[Willard Whyte]

PA - Navs certainly going through the course at Offut. Hard to imagine there will be many Navs left in '45, the youngest Navs in the RAf at the moment must be 25(?). Bound to be a MLU in the late 20s, I should think.

[iRaven]

No Flt Eng on any RIVET JOINT aircraft. 3 man flight deck only (sometimes 4th Nav carried for longer and more complex missions).

The 2045 OSD is a bit ambitious. The USAF are looking at the MQ-L, a large blended-wing bodied (BWB) UAS, to replace the RJ, AWACS, KC-135 and B-52 from 2025 onwards. So 2035 might be more realistic.

Here's a pic of what it might look like:

http://www.the-one-true-scale.co.uk/HBM%20X48.jpg

The X-48 is about 10% scale of the real thing and is a BWB design originally from Cranfield University. Although unmanned someone decided to paint on flight deck windows to stop too much speculation when rolled out over 6 years ago - even now there are some doubters on the use of unmanned systems for ISTAR, AAR and Strike roles.

Details of MQ-La/b/c can be foundin here: http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/briefingslide/339/090723-D-6570C-001.pdf

iRaven

[Sideshow Bob]

By the way, it is RIVET JOINT

No it's not, UK aircraft will be known as AIRSEEKER.

[iRaven]

A bit like Sentry AEW Mk1 instead of Boeing E-3D AWACS :yuk:

But they have stuck with Sea King, Chinook and Globemaster :ok:

iRaven

[Basil]

I speak from a position of relative ignorance but, since that hasn't stopped me before, isn't there a suitable Airbus for conversion?

[iRaven]

Basil

I'm sure there is a suitable Airbus for conversion but it would cost many €€€s to design, build and incorporate the many modifications to change it from an airliner to an AAR capable SIGINT aircraft. That is why the RIVET JOINT deal is such a good one when compared to a new build or modification of another existing airframe - the US has already paid for the previous modifications over the RIVET JOINT program's life. All we are paying for are 3 KC-135 from the boneyard and then having all the mods carried out by L3 at Greenville - plus a bit of contracted maintenance provision.

Trust me, we have got an absolute steal and also this strengthens a very strong relationship. The US have got the use of some of the best operators in the game for a couple of years until our aircraft are ready, so they also gain from the deal by bringing on some of their younger folks.

iRaven

[Squirrel 41]

iRaven is right - this is a win/win/win for the UK, and does good things for the USAF and the overall relationship. Can't wait to see them in the circuit at Waddo.

S41

[Basil]

Thank you for your comments.
I did a short ground tour at Wyton in 1973 in ATC.

[LowObservable]

Will it have a refuelling probe? The Sentry AEW.1 design would be pretty close, would it not?

[Wensleydale]

Will it have a refuelling probe? The Sentry AEW.1 design would be pretty close, would it not?

The Sentry has both the probe and the US Boom-Receptacle system for AAR. The US system was only retained because it cost money to remove it from the design - however, this system is faster and more reliable for big aircraft tanking - in addition, there are usually more USAF tankers airborne during coalition ops. The probe gives some flexibility, but the flt deck crews prefer taking fuel from the boom. Also note that pilots need to qualify and stay current on both systems.

[iRaven]

At present there are no plans for a refuelling probe. Yes, the E-3D has both a probe and a boom refuelling receptacle, but to put this on RJ would introduce further cost and delay - the aircraft are different in both structure and fuel system. That would mean Boeing designing the modification, someone fitting it, flight trials, reciever checks and then a training program roll out - all expensive.

So I doubt we'll see it anytime soon until George and HMT give us more cash - hang on is that a flying pig? But who knows the nickname of the RJ is the "Hog" after all!

For now we have to rely on NATO allies to provide Boom AAR (US, France, Netherlands, etc...). That said the E-3D crews have seen far more boom tanking in recent years than probe and drogue.

iRaven

[VX275]

The big question about Rivet Joint and Air to Air refuelling is; does the current installation meet post Hadden Cave airworthiness requirements?
(Big hint - It doesn't even meet PRE Hadden Cave requirements)

[Lima Juliet]

Hadden Cave requirements?

If you are referring to Charles Haddon-Cave QC, what "requirements" would these be then? He made recommendations, but no "requirements" as far as I'm aware. Does it meet the acceptable level of airworthiness? Well that depends on whether the USAF are a "competent organisation" or not; they're hardly killing their people left, right and centre (or should that be center?) are they?

I've been listening to the idiots at DOSG for the past 3 years about how dangerous the Americans are with their weapons handling - I see no evidence of this, considering the US magnitude of effort is massive compared to ours. I also do not see the sky raining RJs from AAR issues. Maybe that is why Haddon-Cave recommended wrestling the management of risk away from the engineering fraternity, who, in my opinion, had become blinkered and had backed themselves into a safety corner - the only natural path for their culture was to ultimately cease all flying all together!!

LJ

[jamesdevice]

does rather beg the question though, wouldn't it have been more cost-effective to simply strip the AWACS gear out of those (three?) mothballed UK Sentrys and place the SIGINT gear into those?

[Lima Juliet]

James

No it wouldn't. You would need to de-modify the E-3Ds and then modify them to become RJs. Much cutting of metal and replacing wiring = MEGABUCKS $$$$$$$$

Its a bit like taking a AVRO Shacketon and converting it to be an AVRO Lancaster!

LJ

[iRaven]

LJ

Correct! The RJ is based upon the Boeing Model 717 (not to be confused with the Boeing 717) and the E-3D is based upon the Boeing 707-320. Here's the difference:

This military version of the Model 367-80 is identified as the Boeing Model 717: it differs primarily from the later Model 707 by having a smaller-diameter fuselage, deletion of cabin windows, reduced size and weight, and accommodation for 80 passengers or an equivalent weight of cargo on the main deck.

So to use the ONE E-3D in mothballs would indeed take megabucks and a complete redesign of the RJ's design drawings.

iRaven

[jamesdevice]

OK, I hear what you're saying, but surely fitting the new gear into the E-3 airframe is no more than an electronic refit? You've got an electronically hardened airframe which is bigger than the C-135 so making it physically fit should not be an issue. As for the wiring / databus - well that would have to be retrofitted whatever aircraft you choose
You don't need to do that much metal-bashing surely?

However if theres only one in mothballs then the question is academic anyway - I was under the impression three had been mothballed by the recent cuts

[iRaven]

From this...
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcollegecranwell/rafcms/mediafiles/797CD2CC_5056_A318_A8CF3C62AC64E4DB.jpg
To this...
http://www.thunderinthevalleyairshow.com/admin/images/uploads/RC-135-Rivet-Joint.jpg

Please tell me you're having a laugh if you think you can do it cheaper!:eek:

Let alone removing a 7T RADAR, look at all the antenna mods you would have to make (and they're all very accurately placed - get them out of place and things won't work).

iRaven

[iRaven]

BGG

Fair dos! That'll teach me not to look closer!

Here is a bone fide RIVET JOINT...

http://www.unmanned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/RC-135-Rivet-Joint-aircraft-with-unmanned-systems..jpg

Shows what is needed a lot better than the COMBAT SENT picture as well :ok:

iRaven

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Trust me, we have got an absolute steal and also this strengthens a very strong relationship.

Why should I? I don't know who you are or what you do, except you speak like a knowledgeable spotter.:8

[iRaven]

Rog

The "trust me" was directed at Basil; unless, of course, you are confused as to which PPRuNe logon you're using? :=

iRaven :ok:

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

I understand that iRaven, but my comments remain valid. You are rather sparing with your personal details. If it seems too good to be true then it is!:)

[Lima Juliet]

ROG

That sounds like Mrs LJ's logic - "if it's cheap it must be crap". Then I remind her of the piece of sh!t Land-Rover that she drives that is far from cheap or reliable!

LJ

[iRaven]

Rog

There is a reason my profile is rather barren and yours is not - I still serve and you do not (if your profile is correct).

Anyway, happy with "knowledgable", but not so keen on "spotter" :ok:

iRaven

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Fair enough, have a (virtual) drink on me. If you send me a PM showing me yours I'll respond and show you mine, 'cos there's much more to reveal:E. and I still think that if it's too good to be true etc.

[mindenbrush]

Maybe a bit late on this thread but I worked on the Nimrod MR4 in 1999 when Cobham was refurbishing 3 fuselages.
The airframes had been coccooned in a wood and were rotten, We replaced at least 60% of the structure on one and another was 1 complete frame bay short - lack of parts during the last builds at Chester I suspect.
A good part of the blame for the cost overuns and hence the cancellation of the programme must be laid at the feet of Bae Systems who were in control - and I use that term very loosely. Most of their advisory team were never on site so there were delays after delays. They should also have done a decent survey of the airframes and refused to accept such rotting carcases from the RAF.
The RAF will not be without their share of the blame with constant changes and mods being added on - I worked on the Tucano builds at Shorts and that was a nightmare.
Overall I think the Nimrod (Comet) was a much better plane than the Joint Rivet (707) - my son has worked on both in the RAF - and was better suited to the maritine missions.
Reminds me of Harold Wilson all over again cancelling the TSR2 and buying F111's that were then cancelled with a large penalty paid.
One day goverments will wake up and ask someone who uses the tools what they really need to do a proper job.

[Safeware]

LJ,
Maybe that is why Haddon-Cave recommended wrestling the management of risk away from the engineering fraternity, who, in my opinion, had become blinkered and had backed themselves into a safety corner - the only natural path for their culture was to ultimately cease all flying all together!!

is a bit contradictory, since if it were the case, H-C would never have been needed.

sw

[Fox Four]

iRaven, how are things going on the JIVET JOINT sales team?

[Kaynar]

I've read the various threads lamenting the loss of the R1 and how great the new AIRSEEKER will be (who thought that name up?)

Nobody seems to have mentioned the fact the the old R1 back end stuff was tailored to the UK crews having much more more skill and knowledge than their US counterparts and that RIVET JOINT had much more automation because their crews weren't as good (much shorter tours) and needed to rely on the hardware more.

It was one of the big 'us verses them' arguments. It seems all that experience is going to be wasted sitting and watching flashing lights. They'll end up making the tea (or should I say coffee) and put the taxi drivers at the front out of a job.

[bobward]

The former Voldemort (the jet that mustn't be named) RAF crews are currently assigned to the 55th RW, to maintain proficiency and train on the new kit. If that's already happening, and the aircraft are fulfilling a UK need, why are we buying the three airframes under discussion?

Couldn't we just continue with the present arrangement, and save the defence budget a few millions? That money could be better spent on giving our service personnel decent housing and a proper living wage for their efforts, couldn't it?

Excuse what may appear to be a stupid question. I'm a civvie, and a taxpayer and get a bit grumpy when I see how much tax various Chancellors have taken off me each month.

[Lima Juliet]

Bob

It is a temporary manning agreement where we both get benefit - US get their younger crews exposed to the knowledge of the UK's more experienced crews, the UK get training and more proficient on their new equipment.

I very much doubt the USAF would be content for us to borrow their kit indefinately - much as it would be cheaper for us!!!

As a user of R1 and RJ over combat zones for many years, I have always found the product/capability from both mainly similar - the only difference was that the grammar and diction from the R1 was always better! :ok:

LJ

[Willard Whyte]

Is the oven on RJ up to the job of 24/7 curries and pies though?

Based on my experience of 'merkin inflight 'cuisine' uplifted when stateside, US crews seem to exist purely on bran and fruit. Which would lead one to think the toilets are up to the task, if nothing else.

[iRaven]

USAF crews pay for and supply their own "in flight" - don't tell the MoD beancounters though; oops, I think I may just have...:eek:

[giblets]

Will the Airseeker be identical the US Rivet Joint, or will there be any scope to add in any of the 'Unique' capabilities that we are told the R1 had? (and I don't mean all those curries)

I am aware that the UK will be involved in agreeing further upgrades of the fleet down the line.

[Akrotiri bad boy]

During a recent visit to Davis Monthan I think I saw Auntie Betty's latest aquisitions.

Visible amongst the plethora of airframes being re-worked by AMARG were three RC135 types sporting slightly different markings. Are these the three RIVET JOINTS bound for the UK?

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Giblets,

To answer your earlier post, the RJs will be identical to the US fleet (which are all at various Increments anyway) . However, there will be a limited scope for the addition of UK unique equipments ....

[iRaven]

Bad Boy from Akrotiri

I'm pretty sure that at least the first RAF RJ is in the shed at Greenville, TX. I also believe that the mods take about 18-24 months, so they should have started already or the first aircraft will be late :eek:

iRaven

[giblets]

The first Kc-135 for conversion arrived back in March (http://www.airforcesreview.com/news-article/2011/03/21/140/First-KC-135-arrives-for-Rivet-Joint-conversion-for-RAF.html).

From what I have read, the RAF had the pick of the KC-135 fleet, and picked the three lowest cycle/ hours aircraft available (it's all relative as 14833 was manufactured in '64, so will be delivered on its' 50th birthday!).

Interesting the Reg's chosen, as the R1's were XW664 on (IIRC).

RJ18/18773 ZZ664 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14833
RJ19/18778 ZZ665 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14838
RJ20/18770 ZZ666 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14830

[The Blue Parrot]

Doesn't bode well for ZZ666 then?

[Wrathmonk]

The R1s were numbered similarly if I recall.

And XW666 was that aircraft (http://www.aeroventure.org.uk/xw666.php).

[muppetofthenorth]

And anyway, '666' is not a demonic or bad number, the original translation was wrong. 616 is the number of the beast.


/pointless trivia

[Pontius Navigator]

WM, I think we had worked that out.

[thunderbird7]

The christening of ZZ666

[Sir George Cayley]

Doesn't bode well for 665 The Neighbour of the Beast :ok:

Just remind me what the operational requirement is for these a/c?

Sir George Cayley

[Rallyepilot]

If you don't know, you probably don't need to know.

[Kitbag]

If you don't know, you probably don't need to know.

I do hate pompous and silly answers

Sir George a few moments on Google will show the need, just because we have taken 'Capability Holidays' on other requirements doesn't mean we should make it a habit

The USA operates 15 of these in-demand aircraft, which have been used in both Iraq wars, and can also be found over missions like Bosnia, Haiti, et al. Their extended “thimble” noses and cheek fairings are very recognizable, and have given them the nickname “hogs”. The USAF’s fleet went from 14 to 15 in 1999 with the addition of a converted C-135B, and currently stands at 17.
If this contract goes through, Britain will become the only Rivet Joint operator in the world outside of the United States. The sensitivity of its technologies are such that only a very few countries would even be considered for a sale. Australia, Britain, Canada, and possibly Japan would likely exhaust the potential list.
Rivet Joint aircraft are so important that they are assigned tasks at the national level, above even theater commanders like CENTCOM. Their crews’ job is to collect and relay signals and communications, snooping on enemy transmissions and radar emissions. The planes are advanced enough to precisely locate, record and analyze much of what is being done in the electromagnetic spectrum within their coverage area, which is large enough to cover most countries over the course of a mission flight. They can convey this information, or relay other high bandwidth communications, using a communications array that includes satellite channels, the Tactical Digital Information Link (TADIL/A), the Tactical Information Broadcast Service (TIBS), and other options.


There are many open source documents like that above.

[Rallyepilot]

Yo, Kitbag. Keep your hair on!

Your mini-briefing is all very nice, but Sir George didn't ask what sort of thing the RJ could do. His question was "What is the (UK's?)Operational Requirement for these aircraft. A different question entirely. No doubt the answer will be contained in the AIR SEEKER Operational Requirements Document - if such a thing exists - and if it does, will almost certainly be somewhat classified. Hence my "need-to-know" reply which applies to you and me too.

Oh, and I am willing to bet that you will not find it set out on the internet..mmmmm ....on the other hand...what, with ministers taking friends to classified meetings and tossing confidential documents in bins in a public park, I could be seriously mistaken! :confused:

No offence meant, Sir George and Kitbag. Keep the posts coming.

[Kitbag]

Project Helix will provide a rapidly deployable airborne electronic surveillance
capability, against an evolving and increasingly complex target set up to
2025. The capability will support operations where it will collect, analyse,
fuse and disseminate a coherent and readily interpretable electronic
surveillance picture in support of national, joint and coalition operations.
This information will support targeting and combat identification.
The original concept of the Project was for the procurement of
a modern mission system to fit into existing Nimrod R1 aircraft,
together with ground analysis facilities, training facilities and a
support solution to the planned Out of Service Date of 2025.
The procurement strategy to realise this concept was selection of
a preferred bidder by a competitive and phased‐down selection
process. Following a submission to the Defence Board by
Nimrod IPTL and the Director of Equipment Capability (ISTAR),
the Investment Approvals Board directed in 2008 that an
additional option focused on the US Rivet Joint system should be
considered. This was included in the Main Gate business case.
Thanks to the NAO Major Projects Report

Of course one could just see what the MoD says about it here (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DES/OurTeams/AirSupportTeams/AirseekerTeam.htm)

[Rallyepilot]

Got to admit, it's not a bad overview for general public consumption. Not exactly what I would call a statement of requirement, but it would probably satisfies Sir George's curiosity. Pity you didn't direct him to that site in the first place.

Kitbag 1 :D Rallye pilot 0 :{

[RAFEngO74to09]

J just came across this on You Tube - RAF crews undergoing training at Offutt AFB:

RAF Trains at Offutt.mov - YouTube

[APG63]

Wouldn't mind that myself. Thanks for the link, RAFEng. Bit of a role change, but better than sitting behind a desk.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Article on MOD News website:

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Training and Adventure | Commander-in-Chief visits new RAF intelligence aircraft training programme (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/TrainingAndAdventure/CommanderinchiefVisitsNewRafIntelligenceAircraftTrainingProg ramme.htm)

[Melchett01]

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but surely the whole RJ media piece is a prime example of the difference between being cleared to know and needing to know?

I was always told that it was far more sporting to let your oponents find things out for themselves rather than simply handing the info to them on a plate.

[Kreuger flap]

You are a bluff old traditionalist, but please don't call me surely.

[JRHeilig]

iRaven stated: "These were the last 3 KC-135As off the production line, all 1964 models, 64-14827, 64-14828, and 64-14829."

Not quite so. The last three KC-135s off the line were 64-14838, '839, and '840. Serial number 64-14827 was an AGM-45A Shrike.

(PS: How does quoting a previous post work on this forum? I can't find a way to do it)

J

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

How does quoting a previous post work on this forum? I can't find a way to do it


Select the text you want to quote, copy and paste it into the reply box, then select it again and click on the "Wrap Quote tags around selected text" icon (third from the right on the toolbar above the reply box).:8

[iRaven]

Yup, I got it wrong. Serials 830, 833 and 838 will become ZZ666, ZZ664 and ZZ665 respectively (so I'm told). So that makes 665 in "the last 3".

Apologies...

iRaven

[sprucemoose]

ZZ666? Oh dear, I didn't think they'd go down that route again after the ditching incident with Nimrod R1 XW666, or "Damian". Heard of tempting fate, anyone?!

[Nimman]

Got to keep the same numbers - as they add up to 51.

[JRHeilig]

666 is the sign of the beast, if you believe in that kind of fairy tale :)


Why on earth would the RAF not assign the serials in numerical order? How confusing...

[BEagle]

Bulldog XX666 was also written off in an accident. This was at RAF Leuchars on 5 Mar 1999; both crew members suffered major injury......

[mikip]

But as any one who watches QI will know the number 666 is probably a mistranslation of the book of revelations and the number should really be 616 if you believe that sort of nonsense