Brits reinventing the wheel

[beerdrinker]

The 135 (in different forms) has been flying for years but (from Flight Global):

The UK will have to use additional methods to complete the certification of the Royal Air Force's future fleet of three RC-135 Airseeker signals intelligence aircraft, a senior defence procurement official has cautioned.

Service introduction for the US Air Force-standard surveillance aircraft is planned to start with the delivery of one example in late 2013. The asset is currently being converted from a retired KC-135 tanker by L-3 Communications in Greenville, Texas.

Referring to the certification requirements mandated by the UK Military Aviation Authority (MAA), Air Marshal Simon Bollom, chief of materiel (air) for the nation's Defence Equipment & Support Organisation, says: "The evidence [on Airseeker] may be limited, or not exist at all." Speaking at the MAA's Military Air Safety conference in London on 24 October, he added: "We must be able to look at other processes."

[Heathrow Harry]

all those people in Whitehall and at BAe to be kept in jobs ...........

It'll add at least £ 100 mm to the bill

[beardy]

Maybe they should employ an industrial archeologist to find the original paperwork.

[hval]

135 Airseeker is different enough to other 135's to require further certification. Mind you, there is probably a requirement from an age point of view as well; after all the aircraft first flew in 1964' ish.

[bvcu]

Just imagine the USAF buying a retired DH Comet and using the modern military system to certificate it ? Same era ! Would be very difficult. Aircraft of that era wont meet modern airworthiness regs either military or civil, so there will be a lot of 'exemptions' to get them into service .....

[Neptunus Rex]

hval
The prototype for the KC 135/ B707 was the Boeing 367 and first flew on 15th July 1954, some 58 years ago!

For comparison, the prototype de Havilland Comet first flew on 27th July 1949, almost five years ahead of Boeing.

[Faithless]

hval
The prototype for the KC 135/ B707 was the Boeing 367 and first flew on 15th July 1954, some 58 years ago!

For comparison, the prototype de Havilland Comet first flew on 27th July 1949, almost five years ahead of Boeing.

Ooooo someone's tired! :ugh:

[Wander00]

What's that about a Comet being used as the basis of an "intelligence gatherer" - I'll just get my coat........

[SASless]

The 135's are still flying.....and the Comets?

[Roadster280]

That'll be hundreds of 135s.

[hval]

Neptunus Rex,

My apologies, I wasn't clear in what I wrote. the airframes that we are getting are from 1964.

[Tester_76]

all those people in Whitehall and at BAe to be kept in jobs ...........

It'll add at least £ 100 mm to the bill


Why mention BAE? It'll undoubtedly be QinetiQ as the UK MOD "Customer friend" that will provide the additional safety certification....

[billynospares]

Work for BAE by any chance tester ?

[hval]

Tester_76,

It'll undoubtedly be QinetiQ as the UK MOD "Customer friend"

QinetiQ will then immediately sub the contract out to BAE. :)

[Rigga]

This sort of certification "difference" is exactly why the JAA & EASA was started - and why they were based on the FAA model. The mulitiple certification of a single type, just thoughout europe, cost manufacturers and owners a fortune when most of he work was already done, but written to a slightly different spec.
Perhaps this is what is meant by Bollom when he said "We must be able to look at other processes."

[Phoney Tony]

How about this for a plan:

Survey operational pilots and determine what limits they feel happy to operate their aircraft too. Then use these limits to define your RTS. If a big enough sample was taken, the evidence gathered could be used in a court of law as a burden of proof based on subject matter expert judgement.

This would be a very cost effective way of providing legal evidence to support your risk mitigation plan/RTS. Of course it does not provide you with a safe ac or operating procedures, but when has that mattered!

[ORAC]

Just be careful what tools are used during the testing........

http://discity.com/kc135/aircraf4.jpg

[thunderbird7]

I suspect all those above questioning the need for a rigorous certification and testing schedule for a 'new' type into RAF service, much modified from its original spec will be the first to jump on the post-Haddon-Cave bandwagon* should anything go wrong in future..... sound familiar? ;)


*by that, I mean demanding the correct certification procedures have been followed and 'heads must roll' if short-cuts are taken....

[Xercules]

The title of this thread appears somewhat disparaging but it can pay to be cautious.

In the '90s I was in MoD on one of the ATAAR desks. The E3D was fairly new in service and one hot summer's day took off for a mission over Bosnia. Flying into a flock of birds immediately after T/O led to a double engine failure. Apparently, it then only just cleared the trees which were noted obstacles in the climb out area, alarming all involved with the programme.

The E3D office, manned in those days mainly by ex-Shackleton AEW people, came to us for advice. They furnished me with the ODM and all the pertinent details as a result of which I informed them that instead of missing the trees he should have hit them and my only advice was that they should get the E3D working to BCARs (as they then were) instead of using the USAF ODM which was postulated, as far as I could see, on gross performance and balanced fields. Even on the Hercs we used something approximating to BCARs in most cases.

Such an explanation was clearly beyond understanding and in any case was dismissed as too expensive even before any real consideration. I then suggested that, at least as an interim, they should add 35 feet to all obstacles and calculate take off weights to clear the additional height. The only reaction that created was that that would mean carrying less fuel and thus shorten sortie lengths.

I never did hear what eventually happened but I now quote this as a reason for caution and, at the very least, making sure you fully understand all aspects of what it is you are buying and not just accepting somebody else's promises that all is well. Let me also add I am not now and never have been an advocate of elf and safety and its a*** covering approach to all things which appears to be the current fashion.

[SASless]

This flying American Aircraft must be frustrating. The other side has been operating the things for almost fifty years and thus, unless completely stupid, have probably got a pretty good grasp on how to operate the things.

You reckon just maybe....one could start from there and perhaps not go clear back to the drawing board (which was probably how the first of these aircraft were designed) and just build upon what has been proven to work?

There very likely might be two right answers to the question you know.

[hval]

SASless,

The other side has been operating the things for almost fifty years

That may be true, but the UK have modified them sufficiently and this requires further safety documentation. For instance the glass cockpit is different, they have UK air to air refuelling systems, new wiring, new systems, mission system racks, different weight loadings and the such like.

[Just This Once...]

Thought they were identical to the US version?

[Rigga]

When receiving aircraft from other operators I have very rarely gone back to birth on scheduled maintenance details but I have always researched all Modifications and mandated inspections to the airframe, engines, gears and electrics including the avionics.

You'd be surprised at how often a new pair of eyes sees the errors that have become 'norms'...and I trust civvy records far more than military records that could be ditched every few years.

SASless, I have to paraphrase a quote from Haddon-Cave's review..."Nimrod flew for 40 years with no significant problems". And the difference here is...?

[hval]

Just this once,

Not quite. Much is, but not everything.

[SASless]

Rigga,

It is not a Nimrod for a start.

And far more importantly....there is a very slight difference in the size of the fleet and total number of hours of operation, cycle counts, and all manner of other factors that should be weighed when trying to compare the Nimrod, Haddon Cave, and the Boeing that is being RAF'd after being a USAF horse for so many years.

As to age issues....look to the DC-3....still earning a living in places all around the World yet. Or...the B-52....still visiting gloom and doom on Bad guys after about three generations of Crew.

By all means convince yourself the aircraft is in good nick, the Mods have been done right, flight test to confirm there are no surprises of Operational Crews....but the focus should be more on what is new than re-hasing certification work and the half century or so of service the Fleet has had.

If we look for the "perfect" aircraft....all us working Joes are going to be out of a job and our Countries will not have the assets we need to defend our home.

[hval]

SASless,

US safety systems are not as daft as UK ones, so don't be silly. :E

[Flying Fixer]

As far as I'm aware the UK Rivet Joint aircraft are identical to 17 the USAF fly. Hval says "they have UK air to air refuelling systems" and "the Glass Cockpit is different". Not so. The whole fleet will get the Rivet Glass and refuelling system modifications.

[Tester_76]

billynospares (http://www.pprune.org/members/156740-billynospares)

Nope - not anymore. I also don't work for QQ anymore.

[thefodfather]

SASless, that of course, assumes that the contract to purchase the aforementioned aircraft requires the US to tell the buyer about the occurrences and risks faced by Rivet Joint during its many years of service. It would also assume that the buyer has sufficient knowledge to process that much information and come to the right conclusions.

[Rigga]

And Foddy hits the nail very squarely on the head.

If the handover of military aircraft between operators includes a culture of deceipt and lying about safety information then you may as well buy it from a picture on e-bay with promises of nice cups of tea on signing it over.

SAS, Big old airplanes with new Mods are my bread and butter. Spotting lemons a speciality.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Never saw this coming!;)


Duncs:ok:

[GreenKnight121]

If the handover of military aircraft between operators includes a culture of deceipt and lying about safety information

No, that describes the buyer, not the seller.

[BEagle]

When the UK goes cap-in-hand to Uncle Spam for yet more 'pre-loved' aircraft, to me it conjures up images of some naïve procurement officer being led around an Arizona boneyard by the aviation equivalent of 'good 'ole boy' used car dealer, clutching his Glass's Guide to Old Jets...

"Howdy! Ya'll want a beer? F-4s, ya' say. Sure, we got plenty. How many d'ya'll want? Forty, fifty?"

"Um, say a dozen. If the price is right."

"Okey dokey. Tell ya' what - we got some great low mileage F-4Js fresh from the Navy. Never raced, never rallied, one careful owner. Hell, I'll even throw in some whitewalls and a noo paint job if ya'll buy a dozen. How's that sound?"

"Fine. Where do I sign?"

And so the RAF became the proud owners of some ancient ex-USN F-4Js which had spent years on the boat being energetically flown by 'Aviators With Wings of Gold'.....:rolleyes: Which meant that 74 Sqn were finding dead lizards lurking inside their jets for quite a few months after they'd got them home.

[Biggus]

"Buyer beware!"

[Pontius Navigator]

to me it conjures up images of some naïve procurement officer being led around

I was at a wedding breakfast with said naïve procurement officer who was pleased as punch having just bought East African's VC10s for a knockdown price of £100k (not sure if that was each or all).

I am sure BEagle knows how good a buy that was.

[BEagle]

That was more of a liquidation sale. East Af. was falling apart due to squabbles between the 3 countries which formed it and finally collapsed owing $120M to creditors.

A popular story is that a zero was missed off the cheque and the liquidators didn't notice.....

[Pontius Navigator]

Well the Wg Cdr didn't say that but it might have been missed off the contract. OTOH I believe the mod states were something else again.

[ASRAAM]

Hmm,
I see potential echoes of the chinook deal here, that one where they were all grounded while the argument over software went on for years

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Rigga is quite correct - proving the Technical Airworthiness of an aging aircraft that has been well used by another airworthiness authority (the USAF) is a nightmare.

Even if, and a big if post HC, the MAA/RAF is willing to credit the USAF for this aircraft's Technical Airworthiness Clearance, the Basis of Certification (BoC) for RJ is most likely rooted firmly in the 60's, as soon as the RAF wants to add any extra toys or capability, the BoC needs to be re-examined and newer standards applied (most likely) to the Type Design of the aircraft. Given that older aircraft - especially designed on this side of the North Atlantic, have difficulty in meeting Def Stan 970 I'd say the MoD has managed to create a huge risk multiplier into this programme.

CWD (formally RAF)

[dervish]

I agree with Rigga and Wokka but the most worrying bit has got to be that this strategy was agreed after Hadden-Cave reported. Is there no one in MoD who can see the link between the two? ASRAAM has also got it right IMO. If this is anything like the Chinook fiasco good advice from MoD's experienced people is being ignored. OTOH, the best advice is often to be found right here on pprune.

[SASless]

the RAF became the proud owners of some ancient ex-USN F-4Js which had spent years on the boat being energetically flown by 'Aviators With Wings of Gold'..... Which meant that 74 Sqn were finding dead lizards lurking inside their jets for quite a few months after they'd got them home.


Rule One of Business....."Let the Buyer Beware!"

You get what you pay for.....if you wanted new FJ's....then pay the price!

[500N]

Not blaming the US but Australia suffered with the $1 billion Sea Sprite purchase
and following re fit out fiasco.

IMHO, the US saw us coming a long way off.

[GreenKnight121]

Hmmmm.. the Kiwis seem to be doing fine with their SH-2Gs.

Oh, yeah... they didn't specify a new & unique CMS no one else uses, and then change the airworthiness requirements repeatedly during the development, requiring significant changes in the flight-control software every time.

[BBadanov]

Not blaming the US but Australia suffered with the $1 billion Sea Sprite purchase and following re fit out fiasco.
IMHO, the US saw us coming a long way off.

It was not the USN's fault, it was ours. Aus bought 11 old SH-2 airframes with an idealistic wishlist spec to make these all-singing autonomous, glass-cockpit, 21st-century orphans. The prime (Rockwell, I think) was duped into thinking the avionics integrator (Litton) would be capable of satisfying the spec.

Problems were an unachievable spec, with a very limited production run of orphans we could never afford.

Result was no Super Seasprite, an MH-60R replacement, and - at last - a MOTS mentality with no "Australianisation" mods.

[porch monkey]

Fault for that fiasco lies a lot closer to home, 500n:*

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Not just a problem for those Down Under, or the Brits. The RCN thought they had a great deal when they purchased 4 Upholder Class SSKs from the RN back in the 90's. The now Victoria Class subs still aren’t operational.

If a deal seems to good to be true - it probably is to good to be true!
CWD

[500N]

I agree it was ours, my post just came aross the wrong way.

They still saw us coming and I don't blame them, why look
a gift horse in the mouth ??? !!!

I see it in business, we have seen it numerous times in purchases,
trying to save a few cents costs us millions.


"and - at last - a MOTS mentality with no "Australianisation" mods."

Well, well, well, amazing. I still think some might try !!!

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

You need to shoot the good idea fairy right after the requirements have been agreed to and turned into contractual obligations.

[Lonewolf_50]

I was mildly familiar with the original program to convert SH-60B and SH-60F helicopters via an overhaul and remanufacture. Tired old airframes had some serious problems being so remanufactured. Something like a half a billion into the program (in mid 1990's dollars) and someone realized "buy new" made more sense from all angles.

I think the Brits are right to dig in and understand all of the things USAF has "learned to live with" regarding the RC-135 airframe, and then make an informed risk decision.

A little due diligence now will save some money and (perhaps) lives later on. Fewer surprises in service. Sounds like an airworthiness thing, eh? ;)