Airseeker On Time/Budget??

[NoFaultFound]

The Royal Air Force's first RC-135W Airseeker electronic intelligence aircraft is on track for delivery in December 2013, with conversion work running on schedule, says the UK's Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organisation.

Updating the status of a programme to convert three ex-US Air Force KC-135 tankers to the service's Rivet Joint surveillance configuration, the Ministry of Defence's procurement and support body says: "The glass cockpit that features in the RC-135 is well on its way to being embodied. The aircraft will be rolling out for painting next January in preparation for an extensive ground and flight-test acceptance programme."

Conversion activities on the first aircraft were launched in January 2011 in Greenville, Texas, with the work being led by prime contractor L-3 Communications and supported by the USAF's Big Safari programme office.

"A number of aircraft skins have been replaced to deal with corrosion and prepare the aircraft for its service life as an RC-135," DE&S says in its monthly publication Desider. Additional work has included removing the tanker's refuelling boom system, installing an air-to-air refuelling receiver system above the cockpit, and replacing every wire in the aircraft. Mission equipment racks have also been fitted in the rear cabin.

"Progress on the aircraft build is in on schedule, with delivery on track for December next year," DE&S says.

The RAF's future Airseeker fleet will assume the tasks previously conducted using its British Aerospace Nimrod R1s, the last of which was retired from duty with its 51 Sqn in 2011.

Flight Global Article (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uks-first-airseeker-on-track-for-2013-delivery-says-mod-376813/)

Thoughts?? Can it really be going that well... I suppose there is always a chance of a project actually coming in on time?

NFF:hmm:

[tucumseh]

1. Any project can be "on time" if you keep redefining the ISD.

2. A huge number of projects are delivered ahead of time, under cost and with exceptional performance by MoD. It is just that detractors don't like mentioning them. However, nor does MoD, as it raises the bar of expectation for those who deliver late, over cost and under performing kit. The latter are generally those who are promoted beyond their level of competence.:E

Next time you speak to anyone at 1 Star and above in DE&S, ask them to tell you about their 100 most successful projects. (In 1990 this was the benchmark for receiving a "Fitted for Promotion" marking to the second most junior grade in MoD(PE)). No, make that 10. No, one. Ah, don't waste your time.

[Small Spinner]

I'm interested in exactly what regulations and safety case the aircraft will be working under. How do they expect to validate an aircraft some 30+ years old under MAA rules, with a safety case, which may have sat in a desert for x amount of years, or have I got this all wrong and the airworthiness guys got this all sewn up?? Who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft, and under what registration?:confused:

[Just This Once...]

I'm interested in exactly what regulations and safety case the aircraft will be working under. How do they expect to validate an aircraft some 30+ years old under MAA rules, with a safety case...

Nobody said it would be easy...

[Party Animal]

"The glass cockpit that features in the RC-135 is well on its way to being embodied..."

This bit interested me. Are we still keeping a nav up front?

[Toadstool]

Yes. Well, slightly behind.

[Pontius Navigator]

Nav? They went years ago.

[Toadstool]

Yes they did. For some aircraft.

[Pontius Navigator]

No. All Navs went. Bit like Observers, they all went too and the survivors occupied nav positions. Now all the positions as WSO with some occupied by Navs. :)

[Party Animal]

Okay, to satisfy PN, I'll rephrase my question.

Are we still keeping a directional consultant (WSO(N)) up front, formerly known as navigator, formerly known as observer?

....and if it's a shiney new glass cockpit, then why????

P.N. - as a betting man, I would put money on you using the phrase 50p instead of 10 bob, although I would also guess you measure your height in feet and inches and your weight in stones? ;)

[Willard Whyte]

Most navigators I know call themselves navs, wear a nav's brevet etc. etc.

Doesn't matter what some chiseler with their head stuck up their backside arbitrarily changed it to, they're navigators.

And on the ME fleet they certainly don't operate weapon systems.

[Party Animal]

And on the ME fleet they certainly don't operate weapon systems


Sadly true whilst we no longer have an MPA....

[Toadstool]

Again yes, there will be a Nav.

[Party Animal]

Sounds like jobs for the boys. No nav on Tri*, C-17, C130J, Sentinel, Nimrod MRA4, new tanker etc.. Are we paying extra to have the FMS degraded?

Although, back to the original thread, it is nice to see something on time and budget. Well done to all concerned :ok:

[Rigga]

So. It seems there may be a "Nav"...but what is he going to do in a Glass Cockpit environment?

Clean the glass?

[iRaven]

A US RJ co-pilot said it all on another forum...

The cockpits that are glass, seem to be nav's nightmare, becuase the FMS in the glass sucks ass. It wasn't designed to fly the kind of stuff we fly....nor was it designed to used with nav either...

That said, the Nav runs about 5 different nav systems in the glass cockpits, 2 FMS, the Inertial, Radar, and manual fixing..all with one nav..now none of the systems are tied to together in such a way that a change can be easily made to the flight plans...say you get direct to this point instead of another, now the nav has to update at least 3 of the systems (FMS1,FMS2, LN20)...as pilots we are used to playing with FMS (at least I was, I was a pure glass baby in UPT T6 then T1) so its pretty easy to DTO myself and help the nav out...but there is some higher CRM that needs to be implemented with glass jets...as sometimes nav's don't like you playing with the FMS making changes, its hard cuz when you get cleared somewhere and nav doesn't even have ATC pulled up or is working on something, they freak out (I have been flying with a lot of baby navs...so don't freak out exprienced NAVs have their **** together)...so a lot of patience and good comm's are needed. As a pilot you need back the nav up on inputs and make sure all 3 boxes are giving you good poop, as it easy to get all three boxs going in different directions...and you only hope that the auto pilot is tied to the one going in the right direction...

Interaction with a NAV, is a different expereince, especially with coming out of UPT and all the stuff that is pounded in your head...with that said I won't comment on if its good or bad...it just different and takes some getting used to...again CRM really having to work...

Another comment on the glass in general...user interface sucks ass...the T6 and T1 had better glass. The displays are alright, but the jets really don't like glass. All the inputs are converted from anaglog to digital to anaglog to digital so many times that there are quirks...the autopilot for one....it won't level off, hold airspeed, etc.....so from my perspective the glass upgrades are mixed bag, a lot of the FMS functions are no workie just becuase they didn't buy the data for it...as a new UPT grad, you will have fits trying to learn the avionics as NOTHING, I mean NOTHING is tied to together...its very frustrating...you'll see it at the school house....but once you learn it, its fairly simple, and you build a routine...its just the shock of learning a new MDS, then add in its a step backwards as far as avionics go...

On some missions they carry 2 navigators!

iRaven

[Party Animal]

Thank you for that iRaven. It sounds like our newest and shiniest aircraft (when it comes into service) is going to have a glass cockpit that is a crock of sh1t!

[XV277]

Thank you for that iRaven. It sounds like our newest and shiniest aircraft (when it comes into service) is going to have a glass cockpit that is a crock of sh1t!

And a daft name.

[Toadstool]

Do you not like the name Rivet Joint?

[Stuff]

.. but we aren't calling it Rivet Joint. We picked something, erm, better!

[VX275]

Do you not like the name Rivet Joint?

As the airframes are all of 1964 vintage I call them Loose Rivet.:p

[Toadstool]

AFAIK the project is called Airseeker which includes the three aircraft and associated equipment. The aircraft themselves, unless anything changes, will still be called Rivet Joint.

[cuefaye]

That is also my understanding Toad

[cpants]

;)The yank that blew-the-whistle on the scandalous Rivet Joint inspection program should take a glance at the Airseeker prior to delivery. It’s rumored he won his law suit against the wicked commander and now peacefully works at the base gym whilst being paid an aircraft mechanic salary. What a waste of talent.