RAF Rivet Joint

[ORAC]

Ares: Leaked Image Shows First RAF Rivet Joint (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3afd132b93-a775-4e88-bcd8-8a8067cafc0a)

An image leaked on the internet shows what appears to be the first RC-135 Rivet Joint destined for the U.K. Royal Air Force.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/TonyO/RJ_600px.jpg

The RAF has three RC-135s on order, making the U.K. the first export customer for the RC-135V/W Sigint jets. The aircraft have been converted from a trio of 1964-vintage Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers which had been sitting in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB.

The three aircraft were ordered by the Ministry of Defence in March 2010 and the first aircraft is expected to roll out early next year. Once in service, the aircraft will be operated by No. 51 Sqn which famously operated the Nimrod R1, an aircraft which for many years the RAF refused to disclose as being in operation because of the type’s intelligence gathering capabilities. In preparation for the Rivet Joint’s arrival, 51 Sqn crews have been flying missions with the 55th Wing to gain experience on the type. It is understood that the aircraft will be christened Airseeker in RAF service.

Sharp-eyed readers of this blog will notice the aircraft distinctly lacks an air-to-air refuelling probe and given the RAF has not ordered a boom for its Voyager tankers, the new Airseekers will end up being dependent on USAF or tankers from other nations for refuelling.

[iRaven]

IIRC the use of CFM-56 engines has significantly increased the fuel efficiency and so lessens the need for AAR. Also there is not too much space on board for extra crew to rotate for crew duty and also to fit a probe would require a complete redsign and cost £££££££s.

That said, NATO always have ANG KC-135s on standby for the AEW aircraft. There is usually a shortage of drogue AAR on Coalition ops, not boom.

So it is a desicion that probably wasn't taken lightly but was the best one to keep HELIX/AIRSEEKER alive. Furthermore, it cements the UK/USA 'special relationship', which should not be underestimated.

iRaven

[Phoney Tony]

Loads of factual errors in ORAC's report, but good to see a contractor delivering on time, indeed months a head of schedule. Lets hope the other pieces required to ensure the UK has full military capability are deliverd by DES and the other stakeholders:ok:.

I wonder if the ac will look as shinny ofter a few months of UK ownership?

[NutLoose]

If that's the scheme they have wasted the opportunity to add the lightning flash the RAF used on most aircraft including the VC10..

[Kluseau]

There's something about this picture that raises a question: is the "Royal Air Force" painted on, or Photoshopped on?

[Rhino power]

photoshop...

-RP

[Finnpog]

The paint job in the photo makes me a touch nostalgic for VC10s in Transport Command livery, a bit like...

http://www.singas.co.uk/Changi_Aircraft/VC10_2.jpg

picture by Simon Moore.

[Laarbruch72]

Yep it's a photoshop onto a US Air Force model, the font is the American style one. "Royal Air" has simply been pasted on the top.

Can't see RAF Rivet Joints having a US style colour scheme like either, I'd bet it'll just be grey all over.

[NutLoose]

Not hemp?

..

[GalleyTeapot]

I'd be surprised if we didn't use the US colour scheme. The aircraft is stuffed with equipment that produces heat and a completely new paint scheme would change the thermal properties. Why pay more and introduce extra risk?


Total Bollo€ks

[Phoney Tony]

The R1s were airdefence blue at the end of their time.



The MR2s were hemp to provide CCD protection whilst on the ground!!

[Shackman]

Thank you Finnpog

AAHHHH Changi and the 38Gp Pan- the last time I went through that gap they had to put the gates down as well (only we were doing about 250kts and ATC were a bit worried about a double decker bus coming along the road). The AOC wasn't very pleased either, but that's another story!

[Lima Juliet]

This was the expected colour scheme when I was working around the project...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/9263F942_5056_A318_A882F60B6FDB3818.jpg

I seem to remember the glossy white top was required to reflect heat when on the ground in sandy/hot places or the thing turns into an oven!

So it should have a red goose on the fin, roundels and City of Lincoln crest under the flight deck window.

Merry Christmas all :ok:

LJ

[Sir George Cayley]

Rivet Joint or Pop Rivet?

One question I've yet to see answered is whether the operational requirement takes a post Afghan theatre into account.

And if so, what and where might that be?

SGC

[Milo Minderbinder]

Damn, that must be some kind of Dorian Grey aircraft?
Look at the reflection in the water - you can see it hasn't aged from new

[capewrath]

Image in the water is not a reflection. It is a USAF aircraft with US insignia :)

[thing]

The R1s were airdefence blue at the end of their time.

Really? I saw the last ones fly out of Waddo (in fact saw the last one) and they def weren't airdefence blue.

[Willard Whyte]

MMmmmmm, hemp....


Why pay more and introduce extra risk? Err, welcome to the MoD

[RedhillPhil]

The paint job in the photo makes me a touch nostalgic for VC10s in Transport Command livery, a bit like...

http://www.singas.co.uk/Changi_Aircraft/VC10_2.jpg

picture by Simon Moore.
Bit more nostalgia is the Brit. in the background.

[Rosevidney1]

They will be the oldest new aircraft that we've ever bought! :sad:

[longer ron]

At least Boeing knew where to mount ze engines... ;)

[zero1]

As for the 'special relationship', want a lot of s, h, one t. It is and always will be one way, which has been repeated several time in history. We have just scraped one old bird to buy another this is maddiness and as for the on time, on budget, trust me the Yanks will recover any charges via the "change control" process just as much as BAe systems would have done. :ugh:

One more lost capability....

And another reason to add to this sorry list is the loss of the tanker contract to Boeing despite a better solution being offered by EADS.

Rant mode off.... Have a nice Christmas or as the Yanks say have a nice holiday.

[High_Expect]

£5 says with the advent of the MAA that thing will never be granted Airworthiness. TSR2, MR4A, Rivetjoint - and it won't be the last!

[LoeyDaFrog]

Tony, sorry to disappoint, but, no they weren't!

[brickhistory]

£5 says with the advent of the MAA that thing will never be granted
Airworthiness. TSR2, MR4A, Rivetjoint - and it won't be the last!


How do the USAF RC-135s fly in UK airspace given this logic?

[Phoney Tony]

LDF,

In what way am I wrong?

I have seen pictures of 49 on a lo-loader going to Cosford, definately looks Air Defence blue or as near as dulux could get it.


PT

[Sir George Cayley]

Photos: Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1 (801) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Hawker-Siddeley-Nimrod/2106680/&sid=afeef4eecec3a1f898d6cadb66dd5d17)


Picture of 49 at Cosford recently.



SGC

[iRaven]

Zero1

As for the 'special relationship', want a lot of s, h, one t. It is and always will be one way

No it isn't. Have a look at this UKUSA Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement) and then if you're really bored go to the links at the bottom for the detail on the original agreement. There's also lots of background in the Wiki references.

There are also lots of books on how the UK has benefitted the USA for intelligence in the past and not so distant past. Of course, you will not get an 'official line' for at least 50 years!

iRaven

[Small Spinner]

brickhistory
That would be because USAF RC-135s are US registered, whereas Airseeker will have to be UK registered, unless there is a lot of jiggery pokery, and they somehow register it as a US a/c, service it as a US a/c but fly it with UK crews. Can't see it myself, and being able to trace all the airworthiness aspects of a 40+ year old a/c that has sat in a desert for years is nigh on impossible. This is something the MAA or MOD has never done before, and will surely be interesting to watch unfold.:hmm:

[Rhino power]

I have seen pictures of 49 on a lo-loader going to Cosford, definately looks Air Defence blue or as near as dulux could get it.

As per Sir GC's link, the final Nimrod colours were, i think, camouflage grey, or is it barley grey? Certainly not even remotely blue...

Photos: Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1 (801) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Hawker-Siddeley-Nimrod/1965293/L/&sid=94dd3a776dc51c90d50bed24bbeb3c7f)

-RP

[brickhistory]

small spanner, thanks for that.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"they somehow register it as a US a/c, service it as a US a/c but fly it with UK crews"

When the purchase decision was first announced, that is exactly how some of the newspapers described the deal. The implication was that the UK was simply funding three extra airframes for a joint pool.
Now I can't remember where I read that, but at the time the impression was clear. These would be UK financed USA aircraft with UK crews - according to those press reports

[Small Spinner]

Not sure from a governance viewpoint how that would work MM. The MAA have to be responsible for the safety of a UK crew, and therefore under their rule set, it would have to be UK registered. As I said this has not been done before, and I am not sure they really know the implications of any one particular route.
What happens if there was a UK only operation, that the US disagreed with, could we use the capability? etc. etc.

[tucumseh]

Can't see it myself, and being able to trace all the airworthiness aspects of a 40+ year old a/c that has sat in a desert for years is nigh on impossible. This is something the MAA or MOD has never done before, and will surely be interesting to watch unfold.


This is the nub of the problem. It doesn’t matter that the aircraft are of foreign origin etc. The rules are well known, albeit MoD cancelled the relevant Def Stan a few years ago without bothering to replace it, and no longer have a complete copy (!) Essentially, the aircraft and their equipment are designated Category 5 or 6 (in my opinion 5, but no doubt MoD will try to save money at the expense of safety), and you follow the regs. (A different “Cat 5” to the one most here recognise).


The issue here is the audit trail, or more specifically, how to manage without one. The MAA has a real problem here, not of their making. They referred to it at the recent MAA Conference, but the speaker couldn’t elaborate, not least because to do so in any detail would have exposed the lies (or incompetence) of other speakers. That is, the MAA owe their every existence to past senior staffs ruling that the mandated audit trail is not necessary, and making no compensatory provision to manage the inevitable outcome. This was exposed in the 1992 CHART report (Chinook, Puma & Wessex), but the MAA can’t mention this because it would mean acknowledging the Haddon-Cave lie that the problems only commenced in 1998. In this case, they must be seen to do something or it calls their existence into question; it may be this is the case which forces them to acknowledge the truth.




Zero 1, you mentioned “change control”, which is one component of the overarching process which delivers a maintained Safety Case. You are correct that it is an area of MoD’s business that is poorly controlled, and hence ripe for overcharging and unnecessary work. The underlying reason is the same as above. The RAF Chief Engineer’s organisation issued an edict 20 odd years ago to rundown this entire area and, since then, MoD has not had a trained cadre of specialists to manage it effectively. (The last team was disbanded in June 1993). And, as I said, the Def Stan has been cancelled without replacement. The MAA has tried to reinvent this wheel, but the part of their new suite of documents that tries to deal it has been written by someone who has not a single clue and has obviously never bothered to speak to anyone who has. As Small Spinner says, it will be interesting......

[High_Expect]

Make it £20.

[glad rag]

Hmm. Multi million $/£ aircraft surrounded by piles of shyte and not a single piece of racking or component storage in sight.

QA Heaven :E

[glad rag]

Hmm, big filters on doors perhaps....

[Willard Whyte]

Only senior officers and tossers, be they not the same, will call it airseeker.

[eaglemmoomin]

Err, welcome to the MoD

:D I thought it was called 'adding value'.

[Phoney Tony]

Following on from the other ISTAR platforms:

SENTINEL

SENTRY

how about

SENILE

PT

[BEagle]

Air Creaker?



.

[Milo Minderbinder]

SEDENTARY ???

[CoffmanStarter]

SUPPOSITORY

[Squirrel 41]

PT wrote:

Following on from the other ISTAR platforms:

SENTINEL

SENTRY


....SENTER (of attention)?

(Hat, coat, etc...)

S41

[Mend em]

'Senator' - it's American and a member of the 'upper and less numerous' forum!

[Lima Juliet]

SPAMCAN???

SEPTIC TANK???

[High_Expect]

White Elephant II?

[Squirrel 41]

Given the Boeing lineage, and the final roles of the 192 Sqn examples, perhaps RIVET JOINT should be Washington II?

I'm not sure if the last Washington B1s were still on strength when 192 was renumbered 51 in '58 - sure someone in the Pprunosphere can inform me!

S41

[Willard Whyte]

Given its age, why not 'Senior Citizen'?

[Willard Whyte]

S41, 192's B-29s went out of service in Feb '58, a few months before the change to 51.

[Squirrel 41]

WW - thanks, I wasn't sure whether to trust wikipedia on this. So, Washington II to support Lightning II? Or Chuck to support Dave?

S41

[Roadster280]

SENSELESS?

[Wensleydale]

Considering the cargo...

SIGGIE?

[ZH875]

Shackleton V

Well if the Shackleton was 20,000 rivets in close formation, why not join them all together with a big Rivet Joint

[dragartist]

All this discussion on colour schemes. I think the pic at Cosford proves the point. I remember when the R was white top and first painted hemp- grey under. we did some experiments to strip the paint from the bomb bay using dry ice (went right through!) once the 7 layers of paint was off we could see all the way to Moscow without crossing the border. I feel the RJ will be good for the UK and 4 powers. as for the special relationship. always been the case (or some of it anyway) we did have some organic capability. pitty to have lost the ability to develop systems in house we once had at EWAU/D

[dragartist]

Well Tuc is spot on as always. someone will sign up the RTS probably with a CLE to begin with. one thing for certain Q2 will make a fortune as usual reguritating "evidence" to support the safety case. lots of lessons learned in recent years since 230 and C HC. The E3 has a similar pedigree and that has not been grounded. These things are too important. as we have seen no one will have the balls to declare these expensive things unsafe. Questions would be asked in the House. The PAC and Defence Select Ctee would have a field day.

Out of interest does any one know if the two preserved R1s still have the racks and equipment fitted? I know there are some of the Starwindow and earlier LRUs in a museum somewhere in Norfolk.

On alternate names - we did call the crew "the formation eating team" and as most of them were senior in age we had "beware of old people" road signs up in the C flight crew room. I noticed the average age of the crews did reduce once we became more computerised.

[tucumseh]

dragartist

I still speak to some old colleagues from R1 days, including the Starwindows PM, and the first thing they mention is always the loss of EWAD. There were some super people there, and in SRB. (Although some would say the best job they did was the hack on Amstrad satellite boxes:ok:).

[Rhino power]

Out of interest does any one know if the two preserved R1s still have the racks and equipment fitted?

I'm sure XW664 at East Midlands Aeropark is pretty much complete internally...

-RP

[tucumseh]

BGG

We each form our opinions based on experiences. Mine are based, primarily, on the period 90-93 and I have nothing but good memories of EWAD and SRB. They never let me down which automatically puts them in the top 5% in my book. I’m sorry your own experience is a little tainted.

[BUCCANEER SCAMP]

RP, XW664 is nearly complete pictures can be found here.
Nimrod - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scotty2681/sets/72157629854650601/)

[Rhino power]

BUCCANEER SCAMP, thanks for the link. I was told that the plan originally was that the RAF was going to strip out all the sneaky beak stuff because of concerns about latent signals data still being left in the cabling and avionics(?) However when it came round to it, the aeropark were told 'we don't want the gubbins, keep em...'(or words to that effect) May be an apocryphal tale, but who knows..?

-RP

[BUCCANEER SCAMP]

Burnswannabe, As I said nearly complete!
I took Mrs Scamp to look round 664 in the summer and they were telling us the Raf were thinking about buying it back earlier this year.

[ORAC]

...latent signals data still being left in the cabling... Till someone told them it wasn't current? :p

[Load Toad]

Well if the information isn't that important it probably just crawls along the wires and lets more important information overtake. So of course some messages just got stuck when the plane was switched off.

[ORAC]

If someone broke in to steal it, would it be classed as a ram raid? :O

[chopper2004]

How many rivets are there in the actual airframe construction? :p

@ Willard, you can't call it Senior Citizen :cool:unless the four lovely CFM-56 mysteriously be replaced by 4 sorry make that 8 Pegasus :ok::cool::cool: and then requires the full load of the Voyager to keep it afloat (ahem ) in the sky after take off :)

Forget the old saying about Black and White at least its theres some white and some grey or maybe

Fifty Shades of Grey - E L James (http://www.eljamesauthor.com/books/fifty-shades-of-grey/)

:cool:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Till someone told them it wasn't current?

So funny it Hertz!

[zetec2]

OHM my goodness, PH

[JRHeilig]

I'm fairly sure the OP's photo is real, not a Photoshop job. If it is a PS job, it's well done, by someone who knows the airplane. The "AIR FORCE" sits further aft than on USAF examples, because the word "ROYAL" is longer than "U.S.". Also, note the piles of brown craft paper and tape on the floor - this is a paint hangar. The fact that there is no sort of tail number or other ID on it tells me this is just after the major paint work was done, but before any detail stuff was done. I strongly suspect this is the scheme - at least to start with - that the RAF will be using.

Here's what she might look like in full 51 Squadron colors... :)

http://users.pemtel.net/jrh/ZZ664.jpg

[Milo Minderbinder]

Ah, so they ARE getting refuelling probes.......

[chopper2004]

Love the retro roundel lol :sad:

[dragartist]

Thanks for the link to Scottys pics on Flickr. Just as I remember it with a few post Starwindow changes. It was all super secret in my day. no pictures ever left 4H or 86A. suprised to see all the LRUs in situe. who pinched all the cup holders?!

And yes Tuc we did have some good people in spite of what BGG says! however there was only a few who should have not been let loose near aircraft.

I too remain in touch with one or two folks from the era.

Oh and all you photo shoppers- I think the "Royal Air Foce" should be on the white top side! How are the Formation Eating Team going to get through that small crew door and up the stairs?

[Basil]

So what was wrong with using the brand new Nimrods which were trashed?
1964 airframes? I've just sold a 16yo Merc which I loved because it was going to be too expensive to maintain.
If the Nimrods were unsuitable did we consider an A340 airframe?

[Biggus]

It's called "buying off the shelf", something which many people here say we should do more often, and avoids all those very, very, expensive development costs, especially for a 3 aircraft buy!



Unfortunately the only thing available on the shelf was a 1960s vintage airframe, albeit undoubtedly with some fairly modern avionics down the back.

[Corporal Clott]

...and an extended holiday in the dry air in the 'boneyard'...

...and a brand new set of CFM-56 engines...

...and new metal let in with a thorough rivet-level inspection...

...and none of those robbing g!ts from WOS involved...

..."off the shelf" sounds like the logical choice to me :ok:

CPL Clott

[Milo Minderbinder]

whats the fatigue life of the finished aircraft?
is it "as new"?

[iRaven]

Fatigue life? I suspect we might run out of AVTUR first...

Here is the data for the KC-135R from which ours will be based. This should be worst case.

The March 2004 Defense Science Board Task Force Report on Aerial Refueling Requirements found that "Usage, which induces material fatigue, is not the driving problem. Total flying hours are relatively low for the KC-135s: the current airframe average is about 17,000 hours. Fatigue life is estimated to be 36,000 hours for the E, 39,000 hours for the R. Cycles are commensurately low on average (3800 for the R and 4500 for the E). Thus, the airframes should be capable to the year 2040 based on current usage rates."

Source
KC-135R Stratotanker (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-135r-life.htm)

[Cows getting bigger]

Steering clear of the vital paint job discussion, might I be so bold as to offer that this particular purchase is perhaps the most important RAF procurement since C17?

[SASless]

Milo has a real talent for creating that impression on others for some reason.

[Phoney Tony]

How do you zero life ac components?

[Biggus]

P T,

Using the "zero life" magic wand, or "zero life" pixie dust obviously.....







I don't know, what do they teach youngsters today! :ugh:

[Lima Juliet]

In a similar fashion to this type of thing that has been going on since the Wright Brothers...

Zero-Time Rebuilt Engines - Lycoming (http://www.lycoming.com/engines/service/zero-time-rebuilt-engines.html)

[thunderbird7]

Using the "zero life" magic wand, or "zero life" pixie dust obviously.....

I think it's on the preferences palette in photoshop. As used at the start of this thread.... :8

[Phoney Tony]

Leon Jabachjabicz,

If it walks like a duck and qwacks like a duck it must be a turtle.

How many times can you zero-life ac components? Surely there is a limit.

PT

[herkman]

I note for the CFM engine this is an upgrade available at rebuild.

Better fuel economy

Longer time on the wing

More thrust

Twenty years on the wing.

If these statements are true will the RAF go for it on delivery.

Regards

Col

[Rhino power]

All three are ex-KC-135Rs, the CFM-56 is the current engine for the KC-135R, and the RC-135W for that matter, so why would it be an upgrade option? Can't see them being delivered with old TF-33s somehow...

-RP

[Lima Juliet]

How many times can you zero-life ac components? Surely there is a limit.

I don't believe there is. Most of the aircraft flying over your head right now have:

1. Zero-timed components
2. Re-manufactured compnents
3. Re-conditioned components
4. Second-hand components (inspected and issued a Form 1)

I think, with all the modern non-destructive inspection techniques applied to newly manufactured or re-worked components, it would hard to fault the process. In fact, this kind of inspection has revealed issues way before failure that would have been missed before - thus you could argue that the practise makes flying safer.

Finally, if you took the old KC-135Rs and dismantled them into their metallic components, then melted/smelted them, rolled/milled/cast them and then re-assembled them back into a KC-135R then you could run the risk of introducing manufacturing defects not present before!

I think it is time to trust the re-use of properly re-manufactured and/or inspected components and to stop be-littling it. If we have some significant losses because the system starts to fail, then stop it, but at the moment I can't think of any major losses attributed to this practise.

LJ

[dragartist]

Good post jab. Cleary some on here have not studied the subject. I think it was Boeing that introduced safe life designs to reduce weight. These jets are not going to see the cycles of public transport aircraft of the same design. If it ain't broke don't fix it. goodness knows how much deteriation and catastrophic failures have been brought about to components by needless disasembly and reassembly. Clearly there are certain critical components designed down to the bone where it is sensible to dispose of them after a number of cycles in a particular environment with a good margin.

I do hope the lessons from the ageing aicraft programmes have been learned and the risks (hazards) properly identified and catagorised. not so with Nimrod as CH-C discovered.

[turbroprop]

MSG3 LOGIC

Most modern aircraft are maintained in accordance with the above mentioned maintenance programme. In simple terms most items are maintained on condition. However items that are identified as Structurally or Functionaly Significant maintained to a hard time based on hours, cycles or time.

Most of the structure is maintained using the zonal maintenance concept.

The maintenance programme is written by the operator based on information from the manufacture. This takes in account of how the operator uses the airframe. Inspection and maintenance times can be varied depending on defects etc.

Although the B707 airframe was built before the MSG LOGIC came into being it can be applied to older airframes. The original MSG LOGIC 1 came in with the B747. By using MSG LOGIC heavy maintenance checks on a B747 required a fraction of the man hours compared with the B707 using maintenance based on hard time principles.

I am sure the AIR FORCE have applied MSG LOGIC to the Senrty Fleet and will apply it to the Rivet Joint aircraft. Although both are derived from the B707 the advantage of the MSG system is it's flexibility.

Selecting airframes with enough hours / cycles to cover the planned flying and life of the project would rate higher than trying to "zero life" the airframe.

Applying MSG LOGIC and an ageing aircraft maintance programme will mean the age of the airframe is not a major issue.

[Sir George Cayley]

In plural will they be Rivet Joints or Rivets Joint?

SGC

[Squirrel 41]

SGC wrote:

In plural will they be Rivet Joints or Rivets Joint?

Airseekers!

(Hat, coat, etc)

S41

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

I am sure the AIR FORCE have applied MSG LOGIC to the Senrty Fleet and will apply it to the Rivet Joint aircraft.

Any logic applied to RAF aircraft will be carried out by a third party. The RAF no longer has the capability to apply MSG3 (RCM in RAF speak) to any aircraft. RCM at RAF Wyton was wound up in October 2011. I believe that this was a big mistake by the MoD bean counters, sanctioned by the RAF, to save a few pounds.

Shortly after the Sentry entered service the RAF handed over responsibility for the Sentry RCM to the Sentry PT who, I believe, passed it on to Grummon.



Aaron.

[Phoney Tony]

Turboprop,

Quote:

'The maintenance programme is written by the operator based on information from the manufacture. This takes in account of how the operator uses the airframe. Inspection and maintenance times can be varied depending on defects etc,

I think the problem will be that we will not be able to get the info from the manufacturer. In addition the DA for the ac is BS which must complicate the assurance trail.

[turbroprop]

AARON and P TONY

Sounds like it is going to be fun or a ball ache which every way you look at it for whoever has to sort out the maintance requirements, but it's a Boeing so no probs.

[NoVANav]

There is quite a lot of mis/uninformed information and comments in the previous posts. Thought I would clear the air.
KC-135s converted for the RAF all come from the last batch of KC-135s built for the USAF. All FY 1964 procurements. This is the same year that the RC-135V and U models came from and are the last of the -135s built. Some of the FY 1962 RC-135Ws now have over 50,000 flying hours and are not subject to the same limitations as the KC-135 fleet.

RC-135s are modified and upgraded by L3 corp at their facility at Majors Field, Greenville, TX and are incorporated into the normal USAF RC-135 upgrade and maintenance schedule (not really a "Boeing" aircraft as L3 has responsibiity for both airframe and equipment). Any idea that these are "old" aircraft without any documentation, or that they will be treated any differently than USAF RCs is pure bunk. The RAF will be incorporating them into the routine L3 upgrade cycle in the future. Essentially, except for some minor comm and equipment changes, they will be the same as the USAF Rivet Joints. Back end mission equipment will be to the same standards.

Sharing of, and joint operations of, airborne SIGINT assests between the RAF and USAF has been a longstanding operation, dating back many years. I've even flown on a Nimrod R.1 mission as a USAF Captain during the Cold War.

Paint is called a "White-top" and is vital to cool the aircraft on the ground. I understand L3 looked at an "RAF colour scheme" and ran into trouble with the cooling issue, hence the standard USAF scheme. I would have liked to see something different, but L3 has a great paint facility and system to provide a very hard, long-lasting finish to the aircraft (electric sputter application, I believe). Even the nose radome is a hard glossy finish, which lets the bugs slide off much easier when you are doing pattern work.

Given all the problems with the Nimrod, and the need for more interior room for expanded mission equipment, the Rivet Joint was the only cost effective approach for RAF needs. It will be great to see the 51 Sqn Red Goose on the tail!

[Roland Pulfrew]

One wonders why, given that we are getting some Gucci new tankers, we didn't just buy some A330 airframes and add the relevant systems? A330 has high altitude, long endurance/range, plenty of available conditioning and electrical generation, space, ability to carry plenty of GSE/people when deploying, space, commonality with Voyager etc. Too late now of course, but just a thought.

[Biggus]

Roland,

Post 79!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just This Once
we have yet to buy a single A330; Voyager remains a PFI owned aircraft.


Really? FSTA a PFI? Why did no-one tell me?? :} It's probably easier than doing a Post 80 though. And regardless, it would still have commonality with FSTA, which would have allowed a common support chain and the benefit of a modern aircraft from which to operate.

Biggus, the only aircraft available???? A340 would have been over the top, but an A330 v an RC135?

[Willard Whyte]

One wonders why, given that we are getting some Gucci new tankers, we didn't just buy some A330 airframes and add the relevant systems? A330 has high altitude, long endurance/range, plenty of available conditioning and electrical generation, space, ability to carry plenty of GSE/people when deploying, space, commonality with Voyager etc. Too late now of course, but just a thought.

One wonders how much an Airbus would've cost to spec up to 'RJ standard'. A sight more than incorporating ours with the USAF's, on the known entity that is the Boeing, I should think.

[Lima Juliet]

One wonders why, given that we are getting some Gucci new tankers, we didn't just buy some A330 airframes and add the relevant systems? A330 has high altitude, long endurance/range, plenty of available conditioning and electrical generation, space, ability to carry plenty of GSE/people when deploying, space, commonality with Voyager etc. Too late now of course, but just a thought.

Mate, that is incredibly naive, if I may be so bold? Have a look at the picture below. Just how difficult do you think it would be to cut metal to accept all those antennae and the 2x collosal arrays just in front of the wings? Furthermore, increase the output from the generators to power all the new kit and also increase the cabin conditioning? Then adapt the wiring looms, the conditioning trunking, cut holes in bulkheads and aircraft skin, conduct an EMI survey and then ensure that it is secure from emitting its secrets to snooping recievers? You are looking at years and lots of £££s.

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

Unless, of course, you were hoping to deliver a capability in 2020+? Probably late? And definately over budget...

LJ

[Finnpog]

And interoperability with the USAF is a key issue here, so no point going and barking up the wrong tree again just because it might be made nearer to the UK.

[lynx-effect]

So we are going from the Worlds first jet airliner to the Worlds second jet airliner.

Two words
.
.
.

False Economy.
:D

[Willard Whyte]

Why l-e? There's nothing particularly wrong with the E-3, for example, that can be attributed to its heritage. Other than a cramped and claustrophobic flight deck.

Commonality with the USAF's frame & systems is a good thing, in my opinion.

[Lima Juliet]

Willard

Loads of room on the RJ flight deck - as there is no Flt Eng! :ok:

LJ

[Biggus]

Roland,

How about you actually read post 79!! :ugh::ugh:

Who in the world has an "off the shelf" A330 Sigint aircraft we can purchase? As LJ rightly pointed out, it's a bit more complicated than buying a modern aircraft and filling it full of gucci wiggly stuff. The whole point is to avoid expensive development costs, delays, etc.

You buy a known product, with a known performance, for a known delivery date, at a known price...... get it?

Like it or lump it, this known product comes with a 40+yr old airframe.

[rjtjrt]

With regards to better solutions ( A330, different paint, etc), I am reminded of the American expression "better is the enemy of good enough".

I hope military procurement officials in UK and here have learned that this expression should be at the forefront of any procurement - a lot of money and lost capability would have been saved if it had in the past.

Edit - seems the phrase may not be American , but it is a very useful expression.

[BEagle]

To develop an A330 Aircreaker would take years and cost zillions - don't forget that 'mañana' is far too urgent a concept for some and that, sadly, 'Fabricado en España' all too often seems to translate into English as 'Does not work'....:hmm:

[NoVANav]

I continue to be amused by the idea that the C-135 airframe is outdated because it is 40+years old and that it is easy to transfer a comprehensive SIGINT package to any new jet.

All C-135s had new wing skins in the 80s. The RCs have a new, specific glass cockpit different from the KC-135 PACER CRAG, new engines, entirely new mission equipment and systems (cooling, lighting, power, distribution in the backend. These are not 40+ year old airframes in most all respects. Every three years, or so, L3 does an upgrade on each airframe, stripping out most of the wiring, backend equipment. The entire airframe is gone over for corrosion (especially under the toilet area in the aft end) and stress. Voila! A totally upgraded airframe with the latest Block equipment. The RAF Rivet Joints will be Block 11 aircraft, the latest coming off the L3 line. (BTW, all RJs are never all the same Block as they are continually changing the backend capability).

Now to just converting some Airbus version to a SIGINT aircraft. Working on emission control and interference, while building equipment to detect, locate and copy low-power signals is not something you do overnight. Working with the same airframes since the early 70s has a tremendous advantage over shifting to a new aircraft. You really must understand some basics about airborne signals collection in today's RF environment to see how absurdly difficult and costly it is to switch to a new airframe, especially for a contract for three aircraft. (Same applies to moving the Nimrod R.1 mission to a new aircraft).

The RJ is the best at what it does because of the history of long development by a single office and contractor (albeit with different owners over the years). Besides, a switch to Airbus, with the fly-by-wire controls, would be a whole new set of problems inside the backend.

RAF has made the best, most cost-effective and mission effective choice.

[camelspyyder]

You'll need a bigger boat soon.

Also I was talking to some 51 Sqn guys this week, they are not getting probe and drogue refuelling as per the photoshop above, but boom receptacle only as per USAF fit.

[NoVANav]

I flew on an R.1 not too soon after Operation Corporate and was really surprised at the air refueling lash-up. A flexible pipe ran from the overhead, at the end of the probe, down the wall at the back of the cockpit and into the floor. About 8 or 9 inches in diameter (not sure as this guess if from memory from 1982. In my response to how they managed to add them so quickly, the station commander said H.S. had engineered and offered the probe when the Nimrods were first developed but the Air Ministry did not take them up on the accessory. Even then, the R.1s had to add the strake under the aft fuselage to correct a nasty dutch roll tendency with the probe fitted.

Heck, even the a/r receptacle in the Rivet Joint would occasionally leak hydralic fluid. First indication would be a warm fluid dripping down the back of my flight suit. Never had an fuel leaks there.

[BEagle]

...they are not getting probe and drogue refuelling...

So how will the RAF attempt to refuel its own aircraft in flight?

I recommended to the ShabbyWood FSTA mob years ago that at least the boom option should be considered. But no, MoD assured them that the RAF would 'never' have a boom-only receiver.

Memo to MoD: "Never say never!".

[Wensleydale]

Beags,

The E-3D has both refuelling systems by default - it was considered too expensive and impractical to remove the Boom receptical from the air-frame. Since then, the USAF boom receptical has been the most used by far. I understand from the flight-deck types tha,t not only is the US system much faster to transfer fuel but, is also simpler in operation. We also found that there were many more Boom tankers in theatre than drogue draggers.

So, although the probe was occassionally used for a spot of heavyweight jousting, I am sure that if it was the case of one vs the other, then the receptical wins hand down - it is also cheaper! After all, we do not want another Nimrod type lash-up on the aircraft do we?

[Biggus]

....and in the UK only ops scenario? Or is that now "officially" never going to happen again?

[Lima Juliet]

Biggus

I don't know what the exact figures are for RJ, but comparing it to "Dragmaster 9000" E-3D (with a 7T RADAR in the breeze) the RJ should fly for at least 12-14 hours unrefuelled if the internal fuel loads are the same. So for "UK only", where there are no friendly (NATO E-3 component, US, Dutch, Turkish or Israeli) boom tankers about, then that is still a worthwhile capability - worst case estimate on flight time would give, I would imagine, ~1,800nm radius with a 2 hour collect before ~1,800nm return. In my opinion that's pretty damn good.

You're right, in a perfect world we should have a probe - but the world isn't perfect...Hence we have no AAR on Sentinel, Shadow, Puma and Reaper plus no UK means to A-A refuel Chinook, Merlin and now RJ. As an aside, does the UK have anything that can refuel our C-130s either?

LJ :ok:

[Sideshow Bob]

does the UK have anything that can refuel our C-130s either?

Tristar is cleared to but you need to toboggan.

[BEagle]

Biggus, that was my point!

As for refuelling helicopters, A400M could do that, although I understand that the UK's won't have a tanker option....:hmm:

When Sentinel was being developed, it was originally to have had a probe. But a chap from Boscombe, who was in the know, told me that it barely met its target spec without a probe and adding one would have been the straw on the camel's back.....:\

Many of us have had many, many VC10K AAR sessions with the C-130. Usually boring as hell and the hose would often run in at the slightest nudge of foreplay. But I did once refuel a C-130 in the hold at KKIA during Gulf War 1 as we waited for the cloudbase to lift. He would have lost his mission slot if he'd had to land to refuel, so he took some off us, landed when the cloud liftes, offloaded his cargo and was off again in time to meet his slot. It caused much mirth amongst the air traffickers!

[BlackadderIA]

When Sentinel was being developed, it was originally to have had a probe. But a chap from Boscombe, who was in the know, told me that it barely met its target spec without a probe and adding one would have been the straw on the camel's back.....

Allegedly when Raytheon showed Bombardier where they would be screwing a big agricultural refuelling probe on their sleek, lightweight Bizjet it took several minutes for the Bombardier chaps to stop laughing.

[Phoney Tony]

LJ,

Sadly, I think the length of Rwy and RJ performance will mean the duration of flight is very much shorter than your optimistic estimation from most airfields.

[Lima Juliet]

Phoney

Granted, Waddo might be a bit short on certain days. But gas and go from Heathrow, Gatwick, Brize or Boscombe and you should be able to haul out maximum gas in most UK weather for a "UK only" op. Don't forget Offutt is only 11,700ft and is nearly 1,100ft up and the RJs, I believe, lift out maximum gas.

I agree, my figures are probably slightly off, but I'd be really surprised if you could not get 12 hours out of an unrefuelled RJ. Cruising at around 370kts GS that would give you ~1800nm out and ~1800nm back with 2hrs on station at endurance and a divert fuel for something close.

These are all fag-packet numbers having flown a similar type with the same engines. I have never flown an RJ and do not know of its LIMFACS, but I doubt I am wildly out with my estimation that even without UK AAR support it is likely to be very useful unrefuelled.

LJ

[ancientaviator62]

Sideshow Bob,
we always 'toboganned ' whenever we took on fuel for real even from another C130. I am interested to hear you say that the Tristar is cleared to refuel the Herc. I seem to recall (C 130K) that when it was trialled the props did not appreciate the secondhand air they encountered from the Tristar. Perhaps the props on the 'J' are not so fussy. But it seems so long ago I may not have recollected this exactly.

[NoVANav]

Key to RJ operations is maximum time on orbit. Cold War ops was 450kts TAS cruise to the operations area, orbit at around 360kts TAS, based on weight, and return. This was with the old TF33s. The F108s provide a bigger capability to take-off with higher weights and burn less fuel in both cruise and orbit.

Our un-refueled missions were built around eight to nine hours with the TF33, flying with start takeoff weights around 285-288,000 lbs on longer runways (Kadena, not Mildenhall). In-flight gross weight was 299,000, which did not fill all the tanks. I believe the F108s will give you about three-four hours above that.

The longer you need to drive to the ops area the more you need an a/r top-off prior to arrival there. Remember, the reason for the mission is max time on the collection orbit.

With both the Sentry and Airseeker with receptacles maybe it is time for the UK to look at leasing dual-capable tankers. Of course, the RAF can always book production slots now for wholly-owned KC-46s.

[Mamfe]

Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266417/Embarrassment-MoD-new-650million-spy-Airseeker-planes-refuel-mid-air.html)

Item from today daily mail

[Phoney Tony]

LJ,

I think the Daily Mail is using the same fag packet as you!

Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266417/Embarrassment-MoD-new-650million-spy-Airseeker-planes-refuel-mid-air.html)

[bit-twiddler]

I'll be more surprised when they actually start any building work for it at Waddington.

Nice to see the balanced Daily Mail comments under the story :D

[Sideshow Bob]

ancientaviator62,

Definitely cleared Herc all marks, can't say I ever refuelled one though. As you know, just because it's cleared doesn't mean it's practical.

[ORAC]

ancientaviator62,

ATP-56B, Annex YD4 - UK (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/BFD0C831_5056_A318_A804CCD52C914045.pdf) Tanker/ Receiver Compatibility:

Tristar - C130 Hercules C1/3/4/5 (RAF).

[ancientaviator62]

SideShow Bob and ORAQ,
thanks for the correction. It must be my memory playing tricks. I have been through my log books and although the Victor, VC10 and Herc appear the Tristar does not. Perhaps this has coloured my memories. I wonder if anyone out there can remember refuelling from a Tristar in the Herc.

[Biggus]

Never refueled from a Tristar in Herc, so can't help there.

However, to add to your list, I did refuel from a Vulcan in a Herc. I don't remember "tobogganing" for that. Indeed I don't remember always having to toboggan for another Herc, certainly not at lighter weights.

[andyy]

Back in post 102, NoVANav said, "Essentially, except for some minor comm and equipment changes, they (the RAF RJs) will be the same as the USAF Rivet Joints. Back end mission equipment will be to the same standards".


Now that's fine but I have a recollection that one of the successes of the R1 was that it had different capabilities to the RJ and so could be used to complement each other and fill in for each other's gaps in sensor performance. If the RAFs RJ are now the same as the USAFs then presumably the previous gaps in capability will remainand cannot be filled by complimentary systems??

[pr00ne]

andyy,


Maybe the answer to your question lies in your own quote?

"Except for some minor comm and equipment changes"

So, the equipment is NOT all the same.

[NoVANav]

In talking with current ops folks the big difference was that the R.1 is configured more for ELINT collection and has a better analysis section. THe COMINT section is smaller.
The RJ has three ravens for ELINT, up to 15-17 COMINT collection and resporting personnel and a couple of folks for "other" tron collection.

The collection emphasis is tailored to the capabilities, but I believe both aircraft can cover the same spectrum. RJs have a better suite against the "other" targets and a more robust communication suite for getting the info off the jet.
Additionally, the RJ guys in theater always mentioned the R.1 folks and the constant PR campaign they conducted. When the RAF RJ was first announced there was a lot of whinging from the 51 Sqn types about the different equipment emphasis. I would too if I was an ELINT guy going to an aircraft that had fewer positions for my speciality.

Besides, if there is a shortfall in any capability then the next Block upgrade will be developed to address it.

Just read the Daily Mail article - too many errors to mention in this post. Let's just say it is the normal hyperbolic, inaccurate, quote-the-old-retired guy 'bravo sierra' you normally get when the press takes on a complex aviation issue. :ugh:

[PhilipG]

I am obviously prepared to be shot down but subject to EMC etc could a probe not be attached to the front of the Rivet Joint that was plumbed into the existing refuelling piping, that seems to have been performing safely for a number of years. It could look a little like the probe on a Nimrod. Not quite sure how many million Boeing or BAE would charge for doing this though...

[NoVANav]

I added this to cover the usual possible changes in communications radios, usually in the cockpit for air traffic and military use.

I am not sure if there are any changes at all in the Airseeker, vice the USAF Rivet Joints, but the UK usually requires some UK-sourced radios when they purchase equipment from abroad. This was one of the big changes in the original RAF Hercules.

Just think of all the changes needed when the UK required Spey-powered Phantoms instead of using J79 engines. Lots of cost and a loss of performance.

We do the same with aircraft the US purchases, including the original Harriers.

[Willard Whyte]

Of course it's possible.

The only questions are: is it necessary, would it delay RJ's introduction',and is it affordable*.

*by which, before the circling pedants jerk 'emselves off, could be taken to mean how many mission hours would be lost if omitted yadda, yadda, yadda, etc. ad infinitum.

[PhilipG]

WW my point was that it was being said that it was a real problem etc that the RJ's could not be refuelled by a UK Tanker, in a way seriously reducing the operational range for a pure UK only mission. If yes a big if the RJ was to deployed to Ascension due to a Falklands situation, could it get there and back safely, using only UK assets? If not it would seem a moderately small project to put a probe on the RJ would seem sensible and in my view if project managed appropriately should not cost the earth or take 10 years...
Just a thought after looking at the video of one refuelling.

Philip

[andyy]

prOOne, maybe, but the quote said "minor" changes, that doesn't imply different capability to me but hey ho.

[Lima Juliet]

it would seem a moderately small project to put a probe on the RJ

Mate, you're having a laugh. You'd have to cut serious metal, do loads of trials, start a new fatigue monitoring program, get the Design Authority's agreement, and, and, and...

It would probably be cheaper to buy another couple of RJs and 3 more crews to fly them!

LJ:ok:

[Squirrel 41]

The correct question is BEagle's - why the hell didn't we specify booms on the A330 tankers? It would've supported the E-3Ds, C-17s and now the Rivet Joints. More importantly, it would have provided a significant UK addition to coalition ops (especially those minus the US), and if we'd have thought just a bit more, we could even have specified a UARRSI port on the tankers themselves. Who'd've thunk it?!? :ugh:

S41

[Lima Juliet]

S41 - yup, you are 110% correct... :ok:

[Mk 1]

Can the booms be retrofitted? The Aussie tankers are so equipped - even if the boom is not yet operational iirc (few issues with in flight weight shedding etc);)

[NoVANav]

Just some points to remember:
- Two important RAF assets, the C-17s and the upcoming Rivet Joints, are only boom capable.
- Flow rates are about one-third less using probe and drogue which makes a difference with large on-loads for big aircraft.
- Boom refuelling is easier in turbulent air and reduces pilot finesse and fatigue
- Any boom can be fitted with a drogue

There are some advantages in probe and drogue systems, including ease of modification (US Navy aircraft only need to carry a pod).

First RAF electronic warfare officers began training this week.

[PARALLEL TRACK]

RAF EWOs trg - at Pensacola?

[beerdrinker]

Surely the obvious solution (and therefore the one that will not be adopted) is to convert three of the Voyager orders to MRTTs. The later Voyagers have not been built yet or even started so the change should not be a problem for Airbus.

[The Helpful Stacker]

"Surely the obvious solution (and therefore the one that will not be adopted) is to convert three of the Voyager orders to MRTTs. The later Voyagers have not been built yet or even started so the change should not be a problem for Airbus."

They are under a PFI contract, any changes would surely just allow Airtanker to squeeze the MoD for a nice tidy sum?

[cokecan]

there would have to be a cost - however the mitigation is AirTankers costs are likely to be minimal if the decision were to be made now, and thereforefairly easily absorbed by MOD - and political: if AirTanker quote a ridiculous price the MOD can start making noises in the media about dodgy PFI deals, and whether its lawyers should start looking at whether they can be ditched.

the government has a somewhat larger stick than AT - it writes the law.

[Pontius Navigator]

if AirTanker quote a ridiculous price the MOD can start making noises in the media about dodgy PFI deals,

No, that is far too political. MOD is not nasty like that.

[Heathrow Harry]

Don't AirTanker want an aircraft they can also use in the civvy market when the MoD don't want to use them?

not many civvy street planes have booms attached.......

[ORAC]

I believe Airbus have ably demonstrated that they are removable......

[Willard Whyte]

There is, apparently, talk of extending Waddo's runway to the South.

A quick look on Google Earth suggests, in theory, another couple of thousand feet could be added.

Presumably the extra 2000' can be folded away and packed in the back of a C-17 whenever the RJ deploys to a similarly inadequately runwayed airfield.

[dragartist]

"There is, apparently, talk of extending Waddo's runway to the South."

WW statement stired up memories of the first Nimrod R take off at 109,000 lb ZFW. I can't rememeber when probably 1990 somethin. Bill Bateman was our weight and ballance engineer and suggested selling tickets in a grandstand by Burge's Garage. Bill was brilliant. I remember taking the a/c down to Boscombe to weigh it post a big mod we had completed. he was only one pound out and quite close to the CoG. (so much of the weight was electric string)

All this talk of flight refuelling probes is getting me down. Should the need arise I am sure the treasury would spring the cash. Marshall turned the C130s round in 19 days back in 1982. It may take a month now!!

Oh and most of our radios in those days were of US origin. Have Quick WW and even the RC HF9000 (first use of fibre optic on an RAF A/C) we used the GPS to time the radios. it took an age to get clearance to feed the twin Carosel IN and Tacan from the GPS. had a similar problem on the C130 a couple of years back (with clearances) so as back in Nimrod days declared UDI and fitted a stand alone system.

DA

[NoVANav]

No. At Offutt. RJ training is at the 55th Wing.

Basic EW training is at Pensacola. The RJ-specific training is done at Offutt. They have a great simulator for the entire backend.

[Willard Whyte]

They have a great simulator for the entire backend.

I hope they pipe in the smell of curry & pies for max realism.

[howiehowie93]

There is, apparently, talk of extending Waddo's runway to the South.

They'd better hurry up then - there's either the Eastern Lincoln Bypass and/or 35,000 houses going on that land !!

[The B Word]

Plus also knock down Coleby Church as they will be obstacle limited!

[Willard Whyte]

They'd better hurry up then - there's either the Eastern Lincoln Bypass and/or 35,000 houses going on that land !!

I'm sure the the MoD has thought of every---Oooohhh sh*t...

[XV277]

I notice 'Squarebasher' in Private Eye having a go at the Rivet Joint acquisition.

It's the usual mix of rumopurs and speculation, but one of his points caught my eye - is the RJ procurement under a UOR?

[iRaven]

Nope, not UOR. It is a core program...:ugh:

[NoVANav]

I presume this means "Urgent Operational Requirement".

[XV277]

Nope, not UOR. It is a core program...:ugh:

Thanks. Thought so.

NoVANav, yes - I live in a world of TLAs (Three letter acronymns!)

[NoVANav]

UOR means the same in "DoD/USAF-ese".

[Daf Hucker]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/253354_516117585114446_155795259_n.jpg

Just rolled out

[Mk 1]

Oh look... It's been raining - what a surprise in the UK...

(dons armour, ducks for cover)

[FATTER GATOR]

Is it here already?:)

[Al R]

Who, and what, determines the finish - what happened to the overall matte grey/hemp paint jobs? Ser5ious question too, why is the nose sometimes black; doesn't that absorb solar radiation/heat?

[uffington sb]

Mk 1, looks more like the USA than the UK.

Shirley this is a joke paint scheme.

[StopStart]

Close inspection reveals the RAF intake blanks magically reflect as USAF ones in the puddles.....

[uffington sb]

I was right, it is a joke.
Good spot StopStart. I thought it looked a bit like a dodgy photoshop job.
The pitot tube on the fin is angled up, and the mainwheels are two wheel units and are displaced, the port ones are forward of the starboard ones. Should make for some interesting landings!!

[TEEEJ]

Well spotted, StopStart.

The image credit from the RAF Waddington Facebook page is 'USAF via RAF Waddington'. Photographed at L-3's facilities in Greenville, Texas.

The reflection on the starboard side clearly shows a v-shaped logo. The winged USAF symbol?

https://www.aircraftcovers.com/media/images/kc135-1.jpg

Link to Offutt RC-135 showing intake cover.

USAF Boeing RC-135W Rivet Joint 62-4138 KDMA by James O'Rear acm1208 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/james_orear/4458112156/)

[StopStart]

I just wonder if they didn't have any suitable blanks so photoshopped some gopping RAF rounded ones on.... The reflected "Royal" looks real enough.

[TEEEJ]

Other images at following links. Linked due to images exceeding 850 wide.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/966788_516117591781112_1346194634_o.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/966788_516117588447779_728105123_o.jpg

From

https://www.facebook.com/RAFWaddington

[Stuffy]

The ubiquitous Boeing 707.

With an airline logo.

I love modern aircraft.

[Surplus]

Oh look... It's been raining - what a surprise in the UK...

(dons armour, ducks for cover)

As already pointed out, picture taken in the USA, also it just appears to have been raining in the 50m around the nice clean aircraft. :ugh:

[VX275]

also it just appears to have been raining in the 50m around the nice clean aircraft.

You're assuming the ground is wet because of rain but considering the age of the airframe it could be a fuel leak. :)

[dragartist]

I think they are trying to replicate the photo Leon put up at #14.

[NoVANav]

First: "White top" scheme is necessary to keep the interior of the aircraft cool while on the ground. Remember the interior is packed with electronics.
Second: The photo is taken at Majors Field, Greenville, TX-the location of the L-3 Comm RC-135 depot. This has been the RC-135 facility since the first conversions by E-Systems over 40 years ago.
Third: It does rain in Texas but it appears they wet down the ramp to produce a more dramatic photo. L-3 continues the Greenville legend of outstanding photography of all their products. Every delivery of an RC after a maintenance/upgrade is photographed from the edge of the runway just after liftoff on the delivery flight. We even briefed the photographers where the rotate point would be, based on conditions, so they could position for the best shot. Besides, a "wet" ramp is more like the environment in the UK.
The aircraft has the Lincoln shield under the cockpit and the Red Goose on the tail. National markings are missing but will probably be added upon delivery to the RAF. Most foreign-bought aircraft are delivered in US registry, probably for legal reasons.
Fourth: With new conversions from KC-135Rs these aircraft can really be considered new airframes as L-3 has worked everything from airframe inspection, corrosion mitigation, all mission equipment installation, and external airframe mods. All flight testing is done by the USAF detachment and company personnel. Truly an L-3 maintained aircraft, with Boeing doing only the engine mods and basic 135 fleet-wide issues.

[Phoney Tony]

Lets hope the MAA have such a positive view as NoVANav.

The KC 135 incident on the 3 May could not come at a worse time.

[NoVANav]

I fail to see the correlation between an accident, reason undefied, for a KC-135 at a foreign base, taking off into a known bad weather and a brand new RC-135W being purchased by the MoD.
That would be similar to relating the original Comet 1 accidents to the Nimrod catastrophe in the Afghan AOR a few years ago. Same basic airframe but absolutely nothing in common about the particular causes.

You must understand, the RC airframes, especially these new conversions, are essentially new aircraft. Not zero-timed, but absolutely everything is inspected, updated and ready to go. After all, the RCs have been flying, in various models, since the late '60s. All of the accidents to any model have been from pilot error, not the airframe.

At what point do you folks give up on the "age of the airframe" argument? Has nothing to do with the RCs, given the ongoing upgrade cycle. It is unlike anything that is done in the commercial aviation community.

[Roadster280]

I wonder if the RAF will spend money erasing the perfectly legible "ROYAL AIR FORCE" and apply the stylised version that other RAF aircraft have, c/w slanty "Y"?

Or perhaps the terms of the supply contract forbid such nonsense?

[tucumseh]

NoVAnav

I don't want to go over old ground, but would reflect on MoD's assertion that the Chinook HC Mk1 and HC Mk2 were unrelated (stated by Adam Ingram, Minister for the Armed Forces, under advisement by MoD), and that this utterly clueless statement led directly to the papers being revealed that MoD knew, 21 years ago, that neither was airworthy.

What you've said about the differences between the KC-135 and RC-135W is exactly what was said when comparing Nimrod MR2 and MRA4, yet the latter was cancelled and scrapped precisely because the audit trail tracking the evolution of the Comet > MR1 > MR2 > MRA4 was not seamless, so ultimately no-one was prepared to sign for airworthiness.

This time, I sincerely hope MoD has not ignored these basics and the MAA is satisfied. My main worry would be where did MoD find such a person, given the discipline has been ignored, as a matter of policy, since 1991.

[Roadster280]

I know absolutely nothing about airworthiness regulations, but if the item in question is ubiquitous with millions of hours of service, then surely that can be leveraged?

My thought train goes like this: A bicycle is a simple, inexpensive device that can be inspected, fitted with operable brakes, reliable bearings and chain, and can be declared safe. The consequences of a failed bicycle are generally minor injury, but with the potential of more serious injury or even death, rarely.

A car is more complex than a bicycle, but can be engineered safely, and the lessons of thousands of designs have been learned over the years to make a safer motor car. If a part fails in service, it is replaced, even if that requires a recall of hundreds of thousands of vehicles. The consequences of a safety failure in a car are likely severe injury or death.

Are not aircraft safety regimes much the same? The consequences of failure are almost certainly death, so it is that much tougher. But with millions of hours of operation of the 707 and derivatives, surely the delta from a bog-standard airframe is the prime area of concern rather than the whole thing?

I appreciate this is a vastly more complicated affair than I simplistically illustrate above, but for the MRA4, with a genesis period of over 10 years and billions of pounds spent on a tiny fleet, it seems that it could have been signed off, but for the want of a bit of reasoned thought and risk analysis. Even the safest aircraft may have an accident due to incorrect fuels/oils being used, or dare I say, crew error. It's always a risk going aviating.

[tucumseh]

R280

I was very careful just to state facts, as I know nothing of the 135 variants. I wanted to point out the flawed argument used by MoD over many years, especially very recently on Nimrod, was being repeated. I wouldn't like to see other history repeating itself. I'd like to think the MAA will ensure it isn't, but given their proven inability to learn lessons, and lack of original thinking, one can never be sure.


PS By my reckoning, the MRA4 genesis period was well over 20 years! The tendering was under way in 1993, so there would have been substantial effort well before that. I attended a Design Review for the radar upgrade on the day Maggie left #10!

[Chugalug2]

NoVANav:-
All of the accidents to any model have been from pilot error, not the airframe.
That would be as determined by the Air Accident Investigation Authority, which is the same as the Airworthiness Authority, which is the same as the Owner/Operator? Yeah, right...

[Phoney Tony]

I think the RAF Rivet Joint will get some sort of RTS when it is delivered by the USAF. HOWEVER, I think it will be because the embarrassment of not clearing it for RAF use will out weigh the risk. I hope the Duty Holders stand in front of the new aircraft and crews and have their picture taken so we all know who made the decision.

[Chugalug2]

I think the RAF Rivet Joint will get some sort of RTS
The MOD has been adept in the past at issuing "some sort of RTS", to the extent of one restricted to Switch On purposes only. That should have restricted it to ground training use. Sadly that small detail was not imparted to the Squadrons who flew it operationally until the inevitable happened. The small detail cost 29 lives...

[Rigga]

NoVanNav said "...can really be considered new airframes..."


ermmm....NO!

I don't know how many times you've bought a 50,000-mile car and considered it "new", but I've never.

These are OLD airframes that have been repaired and reworked - not rebuilt and renovated - and also heavily modified from their original design structural and electrical loadings and other parameters. Technically they may not be much safer, structurally, from many over-modified ex-Nimrods.

The very best of designers can cock things up - look at any new aircraft design you like to see my point. The only difference here is that we hope that someone will sign something to state that they are fit for purpose and possibly airworthy too. And possibly the MAA may wait til after the designers say so?

Rant off.


Added bit:
"It is unlike anything that is done in the commercial aviation community. "
Ever wondered why?

[NoVANav]

Since most posters do not know the airframe history I will assume cannot comment on my comments are only general in nature and not specifically directed at the RC-135 jets.
There have been no RC-135 accidents that were not attributable to anything other than pilot error, with one exception. The RC-135E, Rivet Amber, disappeared in a flight between Shemya and Eielson AFBs without a cause every being identified. This was a one-off specially modified program, lost many years ago, and no relation to today's Rivet Joints.

RC airframes are not only re-worked but, in many areas, are new over the years. All -135 wing skins were replaced in the '80s-'90s; the engine pylons were replaced when the F108s were hung, along with landing gear upgrades. RC-135 fuselage skins are replaced where necessary and the addition of external antennas, cheeks, extended nose, internal equipment results in many components being replaced to accommodate the heavier equipment and airframe changes.

You cannot compare this mod to the Nimrod upgrade to the MRA4. From my sources at RAF and the company the MRA4 conversion was costing a huge amount of money as each airframe upgrade was actually an individual custom-fitted kit, as the original airframes were not to a standard build. The Airseeker original airframes were near the last of 820 -135s built and are pretty standardized. There are now 20 conversions to Rivet Joint standard and others to the various RC-135S, U, and X models. Quite a bit more experience than four attempted MRA4s.

I'm am not familiar with the official certification hoops within MoD but the contracts would not have been signed if there were a problem.

And, back to the original question: there is still no correlation between the latest KC-135R accident in the AOR and the airworthiness of the RC-135.

[Surplus]

You're assuming the ground is wet because of rain but considering the age of the airframe it could be a fuel leak. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

No, I'm assuming the ground is wet because they've just washed the aircraft for the photo.

[Phoney Tony]

NoVANav,

Your statement,

I'm am not familiar with the official certification hoops within MoD but the contracts would not have been signed if there were a problem.

Unfortunately, contracts are signed by the MoD, when significant issues have not been resolved. The lack of information, resistances to share information and legal constraints can make RTS extremely difficult.

There have been many near misses with the RJ over the years from which the USAF has learnt valuable lessons. Will we benefit from these lessons or have to relearn them?

[tucumseh]

I'm am not familiar with the official certification hoops within MoD but the contracts would not have been signed if there were a problem.


Examples familiar to most here:

Nimrod AEW
Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4 (in fact, any Nimrod contract!)
Chinook HC Mk2
Chinook HC Mk3 (in fact, any Chinook contract!)


and so on, and on.....


In each case, an upgrade contract was signed knowing the aircraft to be upgraded was not airworthy. It follows that delays were inevitable, and predicted, because without that stable baseline any programme is built on sand.

I'm not claiming the 135s satisfy this MoD policy :E but I have no confidence whatsoever that anyone in the MoD has had the balls to ignore this policy, which the MAA has consistently stated itself to be content with.

Conversely, successful MoD aircraft and equipment upgrade programmes share one common denominator - the Build Standard, Safety Case and Airworthiness certification have been stabilised and verified, as the #1 Risk Reduction activity.

[Heathrow Harry]

for the record:-

Rivet Amber was a special, somewhat experimental and very costly ($35 million in 1960's dollars) RC-135E, highly modified with a large section of the metal fuselage having been replaced with fiberglass to house a large, state-of-the-art and very unique phased array airborne radar built by Hughes Aircraft that was capable of transmitting seven megawatts

[Milo Minderbinder]

Rivet Amber (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/rivet%20amber.htm)

[Chugalug2]

NoVANav:-
There have been no RC-135 accidents that were not attributable to anything other than pilot error
Well so you keep saying, but attributed by who? You? The USAF? Boeing? With all due respect none of those are proven impartial accident investigators. Indeed they seem to have as much partiality as the RAF and the MOD, who have a track record of finding by default the first people on the scene of an accident to be responsible for it. Pilot error saves a whole lot of trouble; to aircraft manufacturers, operators, and in particular to airworthiness authorities. Given the present military aircraft arrangements I wouldn't buy a used car, let alone an aircraft, from any of them on either side of the pond.
The most impartial review of 135 accidents easily available is Wikki (and doesn't that say a whole lot about where we're at?) With engine and tail separations alone a noted feature, you seem to demand a lot of your pilots and little of their superiors.
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation It Kills!

[Rigga]

Designing airframes, engines, avionic and electrical circuitry and their subsequent modifications is one of the worlds best guessing games based mainly on lessons learned from previous accidents and incidents where resulting investigations could reliably form positive root causes.

The mere fact that these particular frames have undergone bridging checks in order to transfer ownership as well as (properly approved) heavy modifications does not make them perfect. They can only be considered less imperfect than they were before the Mods / Checks.

The fact that the 707/135 series has (as stated on this thread) undergone so many severe structural changes during their normal development life is..."a concern" to me.

But then, what do I know? I won't be flying in them or responsible for them in any way. I have enough other "used" aircraft to care about.

[Heathrow Harry]

however many committees and studies we have you can't guarantee safety

You have to take a balanced view - is the additional capability worth the risk?

You get different answers in war-time - just remember how fast various systems were designed & issued in the Falklands War, and Gulf War 1 & 2

[Chugalug2]

HH, it isn't per se the additional capacity that brings risk, it is whoever assesses that risk. If they be objective professionals, free of all pressure to bend to the will of others, whether manufacturers or operators, then that risk can be reduced to a minimum. If they be one and the same as the operator, who also investigates its own accidents and risk assessments, then it can't.
Unless and until the regulatory and investigation authorities are separate from, and independent of, the operators (as they are in civil aviation) risks will be unnecessarily high, leading to more and more avoidable accidents and fatalities.
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!

[tucumseh]

What concerns me is the number of BoI reports that present causal factors as revelations, despite them having been identified early on, formally notified and staff instructed to ignore the risk when there was an opportunity to mitigate it long before the aircraft entered service. Nimrod, Hercules XV179, Tornado ZG710, Sea King ASaCs are some of the well known ones.

If permitted to get on with the job and implement regulations, risks are generally reduced to ALARP. The prevailing ethos I describe is what must change.

Yes, some UORs are delivered quicker but the safety obligation is not allowed to be ignored. It is the foreshortening of the approvals process that makes it seem quicker. If a Project Manager ignores instructions from above and simply follows the mandated regulations, he is just as likely to meet the UOR timescales we see.

And senior staffs don't like the concept of "standing risks" but the sensible PM knows what they are. Typically, Build Standards, and hence Safety Cases, will not have been maintained (for example, all the above cases). Some because it has never been contracted in the first place; others (e.g. ASaC) where it was contracted but then cancelled by a non-engineer who deemed it unnecessary. It is the very first question a PM asks of the Design Authority. His answer determines your workload and risk mitigation for the entire Concept, Assessment and Development Phases; and to a great extent helps establish an accurate cost. The problem is MoD has too few who know how to do this, even if they were allowed to, which is why so many projects are "over budget" but do not exceed a fair and reasonable cost.

[NoVANav]

Your comment shows a misunderstanding of commercial vs. military use. Commercial aircraft are used at high intensity levels with, usually, a multiple flight cycles each day. Maintenance is a profit costing item and only those required inspections are accomplished.
Commercial aircraft do not undergo major upgrades every few years where most of the interior is removed, equipment and structure inspected and upgraded.

RJs are on a modification cycle that requires upgrades to current Block standards. This is a continuing cycle and the entire RJ fleet is NEVER the same Block version. For example, RAF RJs will be Block 11, I believe. USAF RJs delivered last year were Block 10s. Those in 2014 will probably be Block 14s.
This is NOT a commercial-type program.

If everyone is so concerned with using the -135 airframe, I am sure L-3 would modify any new, comparable airframe to a SIGINT platform. Of course, 40 years of working RFI and other mission-related issues would need to be worked from scratch. How many other RAF units, of the diminished number remaining, is MoD willing to cut to pay the enormous bill this would require.

One question I have with modern aircraft, especially those designed only for airliners, is how robust the basic structure is when you cut and add all the different bits to make an RJ-like aircraft? The -135 was very overbuilt and has had many, many mods involving holes, cheeks, noses, antennas, blisters, probes and other things added and removed all over the airframe. Will the composite aircraft of the future be able to take all this needed work without a complete (costly) redesign?

[NoVANav]

Previous quote: "The most impartial review of 135 accidents easily available is Wikki (and doesn't that say a whole lot about where we're at?) With engine and tail separations alone a noted feature, you seem to demand a lot of your pilots and little of their superiors. Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation It Kills!'

I mentioned only RCs, where I am familiar with all accidents. Only the Rivet Amber could possibly be attributed to not implementing a required upgrade.
I know of no situation where the USAF does not take responsibility. The comment about "Self regulation" is confusing. Who would take responsibility for a military aviation incident? In the US NTSB is not involved in military accidents.

[Chugalug2]

NVN:-

Who would take responsibility for a military aviation incident? In the US NTSB is not involved in military accidents.
The UK AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Board) is not responsible for investigating UK Military Air Accidents, but may be involved if invited. The MAAIB is the responsible body which, together with its stable-mate the MAA, is part of the MOD. Thus a similar set up exists in the UK and the USA, whereby Military Airworthiness Regulation and Air Accident Investigation are subsidiary functions of the owner/operators, ie the DOD/MOD and their dependent Services. That is why UK Military Airworthiness and Air Accident Investigation are both in a state of crisis.

You ask who would take responsibility for investigating Military Air Accidents. I would suggest that whoever it might be, they must be separate from, and independent of, the DOD/MOD and the Airworthiness Authority, which must be separate and independent also. Easy to say and very difficult to do, I admit, but the last 30 years has shown that the clash of interests that the present incestuous system allows for has cost much blood and treasure.

In short, in the UK the MAA and MAAIB must become separate and independent of the MOD and of each other. Only then can we expect Airworthiness Provision and Air Accident Investigation that can be relied upon. I would respectfully suggest that a similar course might benefit US Military Aviation Safety also.

[Rigga]

"Commercial aircraft do not undergo major upgrades every few years where most of the interior is removed, equipment and structure inspected and upgraded"

Yes, they do. Boeings commonly have C & D checks at which seating positions are often changed. This type of modification, as you should know, means Primary Structural changes to the whole airframe to protect the passengers new positions.

And because civil aircraft of the same type do so many different flight profiles the inspection severity and periodicity is adapted to suit each particular airframe and/or operation. This could mean that civil aero-maintenance companies would reduce the inspections of (as Nova Nav implies) low-use airframes because over-maintenance is also a waste of time and money. The military "norm" (from my past experience) is to continue with whatever (single) maintenance policy is published/available whatever the use of any airframe within any fleet - a really big mistake in my humble opinion.

Another major principle of PRACTICE states that, if you keep messing with structural loadings you will eventually weaken some part of it in a way you did not intend...

By the way; I have no doubt that all of the employees at Boeing, L3 and all those others trying to ensure the best outcome of these events are doing their utmost, honest and best work. I am just trying to put across the notion that even the best of intentions sometimes has unexpected outcomes and old aeroplanes are old aeroplanes whatever the work conducted on them.

[VX275]

Here's a link to a US website archiving the world of Air refuelling (with an obvious American bias) listing all known 135 hull losses.
Hull Loss « Air Refueling Archive (http://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/tag/hull-loss/)
The RC135R retains many systems of the original KC135A, therefore I still find this a worrying list even if all piloting/non CFM56 engine incidents are discounted.

[Lonewolf_50]

I would suggest that whoever it might be, they must be separate from, and independent of, the DOD/MOD and the Airworthiness Authority, which must be separate and independent also.
With respect, Chugalug, you are talking a bit out of your backside.

For example, in the USN & USMC, there are a minimum of two accident investigations for any mishap: a safety investigation, usually led by an O-5 or higher from squadron other than the one who had the crash and with safety privilege as a method that American courts have supported over and over ... and a JAG manual (criminal) investigation, which does not offer privilege that the safety investigation does.

I've been involved in both.

When findings are presented, they are subject to minute scrutiny and endorsement (and not infrequently, inquiries for more info/clarification) from within and without the operational chain of command.

Your accusation that this investigation method, which has been going on for about fifty years, is insufficient or not impartial is loaded with crap.

I'll add to my dismay at your post that it is insulting to a hell of a lot of officers and ranks who get assigned to those investigations (which are exhaustive and exhausting) and the Safety Center who provides a hell of a lot of technical support.

The USAF has a similar set up but I won't comment further on them, as I wasn't USAF.

On top of that, in the Navy, if pilot error is suspected or shown to be a causal factor, another investigation (Field Naval Aviator Evaluatoin Board) is convened to make recommendations to the convening flag officer regarding whether or not the pilot/pilots/aircrew ought to fly anymore, or not. (Providing they are still alive).

Now, is there a problem with manufacturers having to get their teeth pulled in some cases to get critical performance or spec info during such an investigation? Yes, sometimes.

Are there problems with the endorsing chain disagreeing with one another on the import of the findings? I have seen it.

Is that your concern, or are you on the "the military is involved in a cover up" bandwagon ? :mad:

[Chugalug2]

Lonewolf, I am not insulting anyone, our people are just as diligent, dedicated, and hard working as those you mention. The subversion of airworthiness and investigatory procedures here happened at the top of the food chain. They happened because they could. That was a great shock to me, having served in the RAF and been proud of its Flight Safety record.

Threads on this very forum account for 62 deaths in airworthiness related fatal accidents, 29 of which occurred in one tragedy alone. The deceased pilots were found Grossly Negligent by Higher Command. Only many years later was that finding set aside, but still the Gross Unairworthiness of the aircraft at RTS has still to be acknowledged.

Under an independent and separate MAAIB inquiry that injustice could have been avoided and the Airworthiness Authority brought to account. This is not just about justice, it is about life and death, about maintaining operational effectiveness. In short it is about ensuring that our military airpower is sustained and not lost to avoidable accidents and death.

Now, it is of course your prerogative to reject all that I warn of. I would suggest though that the possible award of an RTS into the RAF makes the issue our business. Hence this thread. Hence my remarks.

[tucumseh]

I don’t think Chug was calling into question the US system or the 135. I certainly wasn’t, although you are right, Lonewolf, to mention that certain companies are less than helpful. From our (UK) perspective, the problem is the toothless system and spineless leadership that allows them to do this and protects them at every turn. Chinook ZA721, Mt Pleasant Feb 1987 is a good example. Essential safety modifications arising from our AAIB investigators’ report remained unschemed, never mind embodied, when ZD576 crashed in June 1994. What Chug is referring to, in part, is this rendered the aircraft unairworthy, compounded by the RAF completely omitting the requirement from certification. We don't trust a system which allows, in fact encourages, this behaviour.





We share a concern that our Military Aviation Authority (MAA) is equally spineless and ineffective, continuing in the same vein as their predecessors to whom, in many cases, the hierarchy owe their elevated rank. They have existed for 3 years now and, very recently (last month), were party to Ministerial briefings and correspondence openly criticising anyone connected with MoD who advocates airworthiness and adherence to mandated regulations. With leadership like that, even a perfectly airworthy RC-135 Rivet Joint soon won’t be!

[Ian Corrigible]

RAF, USAF work on Rivet Joint refueling deal (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_05_2013_p0-593999.xml)
Officers close to the Airseeker program tell Aviation Week they hope to have the MoU in place by the end of this year when the first RAF Rivet Joint arrives in the UK...

...According to officials the endurance of the RC-135 will be limited from the 9,000 ft. runway of the aircraft’s planned homebase of RAF Waddington...

...Questions remain about what happens if the Rivet Joints are required for use in a non-coalition operation which does not involve the U.S., for example an operation in the South Atlantic and the Falkland Islands.

I/C

[NoVANav]

will be from RAF Mildenhall, alongside the USAF, as it appears the Waddington runway will be closed for repairs.

One of the problems we had in planning ops in the '70s and '80s from the UK was the lack of long runways at RAF bases. It appears only Marham, Brize and Fairford have 10000+ ft runway lengths. A serious lack that should be been identified and corrected decades ago. I'm sure this is one reason Brize is the UK base for deployed B-52s.

[CoffmanStarter]

Buy back Manston 10/28 : 2748 x 61 m :ok:

Ogin on the doorstep ... North Sea access not a problem ... Quick transit down the Channel ... Western Approaches and the North Atlantic all in easy reach.

[RAFEngO74to09]

NoVANav,

RAF Fairford (not RAF Brize Norton) is the designated USAF heavy bomber FOL in Europe. Following GW2, it was significantly upgraded with: 50+ heavy bomber parking slots for B-2A/B-1B/B-52H, 4 x large Jet Fuel Supply Installations, hydrant refueling, a Bomber Operations Facility (adjacent to ATC) and a 2-dock B-2 hangar. Although all uniformed USAF personnel have been withdrawn, it is still kept on a "care and maintenance" basis by personnel assigned to 420 ABS under 501 CSW.

Also, most of the 10,000 ft runways in the UK were actually built specifically for use by SAC B-47s and later B-52s - Brize Norton (now full of RAF stuff !), Fairford, Greenham Common (closed) and Upper Heyford (closed).

[VX275]

It appears only Marham, Brize and Fairford have 10000+ ft runway lengths.

On the other hand there is always the 10500 ft runway at MOD Boscombe Down, of course its not exactly flat.

BCE would be a good home for Rivet Joint, plenty of room and a nice big shed when needed.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Machrahanish?

[RAFEngO74to09]

Milo,

Machrihanish was sold by MOD for GBP 1 in May 2012 !

BBC News - Sale of former RAF airbase at Machrihanish confirmed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18235180)

[Milo Minderbinder]

Surely that was only so it could be bought back for a few million quid later, thus injecting some cash into the local dignataries pockets (sorry I mean local economy)

[BEagle]

The UK Royal Air Force and the USAF are working on a memorandum of understanding which will give the UK access to tankers equipped with refueling booms to support its fleet of RC-135 Rivet Joint intelligence-gathering aircraft.

Officers close to the Airseeker program, which will cover the procurement of three Boeing RC-135W Rivet Joints, tell Aviation Week they hope to have the MoU in place by the end of this year when the first RAF Rivet Joint arrives in the UK. The support is essential as the UK does not have any air-to-air refueling aircraft fitted with a boom, and there are no plans to add a probe to refuel from drogue-equipped aircraft in a bid to reduce costs in the Foreign Military Sales program.

What a complete and utter cluster. Why didn't anyone spot this when the idea of acquiring these brand-new 50 year old aircraft was first proposed?

Renegotiate the Voyager programme to include 3 x Voyagers with booms - the RAF could even support its C-17A and E-3D AAR needs (although the latter is also probe-and-drogue capable) as well as supporting ATARES F-16 requirements for NATO.....

[smujsmith]

Beags,

Everything you say points to the necessity for "joined up thinking"? The state that MOD is in we will be lucky to see any thinking that makes sense. In an age that the likes of yourself and I could only dream of (computers, efficient planning) we can clearly see that little or no money or time is spent on coordination, planning and preempting. It's sad, how much better it all could be.

Smudge

[Milo Minderbinder]

instead of changing the Voyagers, just buy some spare KC-135 tankers

you'd then have a degree of commonality of spares, and could use them for aircrew training so reducing hours on the Rivit Joints

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle with such clear and incisive thinking like that we better get you signed up again quickly ... :ok:

[BEagle]

In an age that the likes of yourself and I could only dream of (computers, efficient planning)...

Oddly enough, that's precisely what we've provided to the Luftwaffe / RCAF A310 MRTT progamme - which has now been in operational service (including combat proven experience in both Libya and Mali) for over 4 years...and is now being upgraded to include further mission planning / management options in support of more complex mission scenarios.

Which is more than can be said for a certain other MRTT programme....:rolleyes:

Hecho en España = no funciona!

[Milo Minderbinder]

BGG
have you never heard of humour? or sarcasm?
Oh sorry.....you've a monopoly on that haven't you?

[smujsmith]

Beags,

No truer word spoken. It seems that to get reliable platforms we may need to buy through the "Yankees", even if they are Airbus airframes, to get a working system. Unfortunately, we seem to be in a "cheapest bid gets the contract" situation these days. The race for the bottom.

"toDSaH political neH pol motlh, Quch" :rolleyes:

Smudge

[NoVANav]

I meant Fairford, of course.

[NoVANav]

Could the decision be tied to the problems Airbus was having with their boom development?

[thunderbird7]

This isn't 'new' news? As far as I knew it was always just going to have a boom system - shame the usual ranters on here didn't pick up on that when the original contract was issued and maybe they could have individually contacted the MOD to point out the error of their ways.... they could have re-written the contract! If they bothered to read this stuff.. :rolleyes:

[Jet In Vitro]

Any news on why the KC 135 blew up mid air over the Stans a few weeks ago?

How's the RTS going?

Where will the RJ be delivered to? Waddo bolt hole soon?

[OafOrfUxAche]

Any news on why the KC 135 blew up mid air over the Stans a few weeks ago?

How's the RTS going?

Where will the RJ be delivered to? Waddo bolt hole soon?


The answer to one of these questions was posted on this thread less than 24 hours before your post. If there are any answers/updates on the other two issues, they will be equally easy to find...

[Hueymeister]

Beags,
We don't need to AAR our C-17's. We do fine without. Even with our own Sim, the proposed Trg burden is beyond our current and forecast resourced funding. Personally I'd love to do it. There's just no appetite to pay for it.

[Jet In Vitro]

UK RJ is moving under it's own power at Greenville Tx!

It has now completed first flt. Hurray!!!!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

It has now completed first flt


As in, first flight since refurb and 30 years sat gathering dust in the desert?

[TEEEJ]

TorqueOfTheDevil wrote

As in, first flight since refurb and 30 years sat gathering dust in the desert?

Have they been sitting in the desert for 30 years?

ZZ664 Boeing RC-135W (64-14833)

Here is 64-14833 pictured operational with the USAF during May 2009.

Photos: Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker (717-148) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-KC-135R-Stratotanker/1691273/L)

ZZ665 Boeing RC-135W (64-14838)

Here is 64-14838 pictured operational with the USAF during November 2011

Photos: Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker (717-148) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-KC-135R-Stratotanker/2193851/L)

ZZ666 Boeing RC-135W (64-14830)

Here is 64-14830 pictured operational with the USAF during April 2013

Photos: Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker (717-148) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-KC-135R-Stratotanker/2259821/L)

Serials from

http://www.militaryaircraftmarkings.co.uk/MAMupdate68-2011.pdf

[Heathrow Harry]

well that shot his fox and no mistake ;)

[Toadstool]

I do love people who post without knowing the facts.

[FATTER GATOR]

Great news that it flew yesterday. When does 51 squadron get it?

[OafOrfUxAche]

ZZ664 Boeing RC-135W (64-14833)

Here is 64-14833 pictured operational
with the USAF during May 2009.

Photos: Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker (717-148)
Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-KC-135R-Stratotanker/1691273/L)

ZZ665 Boeing RC-135W (64-14838)


Here is 64-14838 pictured operational with the USAF during November
2011

Photos: Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker (717-148)
Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-KC-135R-Stratotanker/2193851/L)

ZZ666 Boeing RC-135W
(64-14830)

Here is 64-14830 pictured operational with the USAF during
April 2013

Photos: Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker (717-148)
Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-KC-135R-Stratotanker/2259821/L)



Ah, so they are war-weary?

[dragartist]

Great pictures Oaf. One question from me - Will the formation eating team have to enter though the crew door in front of the nose wheel? I assume the large cargo door is panelled over to mount that sideways looking thingy. We used to have a devils own job to get some of the racks into the Nimrod. how do they manage on this thing? I guess that Astral Box is now smaller than a match box!
Drag

[Rhino power]

Ah, so they are war-weary?

War weary, maybe, but stored in a desert gathering dust for 30 years as previously suggested?, no... :)

-RP

[Dan Winterland]

War weary? The 64 prefix in their registration means they were delivered in 1964. Older than the VC10 which are being scrapped right now. Just weary!

[NoVANav]

Please look up some accurate facts, guys.

The three KCs being converted are in the last ten KC-135 built and NONE have been "stored" in the desert. The last KC is 64-14840.
The very last -135s are all RCs:
RC-135V: 64-14841 to14846 and 14848
RC-135U: 64-14847 and 14849.
14849 is the last -135 of any model.
All the RCs were originally RC-135Cs when initially built and began service flying around 1967, replacing the RB-47Hs in the SIGINT reconnaissance role.

The KC-135s have considerably less airframe hours than many RC-135s. The three RAF aircraft will be the low-time members of the Rivet Joint fleet as some of the RC-135Ws now have over 50,000 total airframe hours. (The -Ws were originally RC-135Ms and built up tremendous hours during the Vietnam war flying 18-hr COMBAT APPLE missions off the N Vietnam coast.)

None of this has anything to do with the viability of the airframe as modifications by Boeing (wing re-skins in the '70s and '80s) and L-3 (previously E-Systems and Raytheon) at Greenville have kept these jets in very good condition. Age of a modern airframe means very little, unless there is an original flaw which finally manifests itself. Given the size of the -135 fleet any such issue has surfaced already, unlike the Nimrod problems (given the small fleet and added systems problems - A/R).

If anything, the Nimrods displayed considerably more issues due to age of design and airframe than has the -135.

[Jet In Vitro]

Dragartist,

I think you can now get Astral Box as an iPhone app now!

[NoVANav]

Any search for RC-135 photos will probably show the fuselage cargo door opens as usual. The cheek fairing is attached to the door itself. There is a solid panel insert "weather door" with an approx. 36in sliding door, through which you enter.

If equipment needs to be removed/installed then the weather door panel can be removed.

The crew entry door is used for last minute entry, especially if the engines are running. Kept open, with ladder installed, until just prior to taxi.

[Blanket Stacker]

The 64 prefix means the aircraft was ordered that year; delivery year could be very different.

[Willard Whyte]

The 64 prefix means the aircraft was ordered that year; delivery year could be very different.

Given the rate at which '135s rolled off the production line the delivery year was probably not that different at all!

[dragartist]

Thanks JIV,
I found the StarWindow app for my Galaxy III. It's almost as good as the real thing! Don't let Mr Snowden know though will you.

NoVaNav,
Thanks for the gen on the doors - had I gone to Greenville I would have known.

Drag

[Daf Hucker]

Does it matter when the airframes were built? What we've got is what we've got; the best that is available within the budget constraints of the MOD. The RC-135V/W has been flying for a number of years and is the de facto "Gold Standard" for manned airborne SIGINT, what else should the RAF have aspired to in the current financial environment?
The platform is far more capable than the R1 ever was, don't believe all the hype about the RJ v R1. We're lucky to have been included in the RJ club and the UK will continue to gain from the joint UK/US investment until manned SIGINT is overtaken by events.

Daf

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Does it matter when the airframes were built? What we've got is what we've got; the best that is available within the budget constraints of the MOD. The Nimrod MR2 has been flying for a number of years and is the de facto "Gold Standard" for manned airborne reconnaissance, what else should the RAF have aspired to in the current financial environment?

The platform is far more capable than the P-3 ever was, don't believe all the hype about Nimrod v P-3. We're lucky to have been included in the Nimrod club...

[Surplus]

The platform is far more capable than the P-3 ever was, don't believe all the hype about Nimrod v P-3. We're lucky to have been included in the Nimrod club...

And should you ever get a replacement, you'll be most welcome back into the P3 Club.

[VX275]

The crew entry door is used for last minute entry, especially if the engines are running. Kept open, with ladder installed, until just prior to taxi.

The crew entry door is also a parachute exit, but of course the RAF crews will not be able to use it as such because they will not be issued parachutes (is this a WW1 commemorative thing?).

If there were to be an accident where the crew are lost, but if parachutes had been available could have survived, how many senior officers will be prosecuted?

NB provision of parachutes does not guarantee survival but its better than riding the wreckage down and dying in the normal manner.

[NoVANav]

I have some experience with -135s and parachutes.
As a new 2Lt in KC-135s we were required to wear parachutes during air refueling operations (at least when the Standardization check folks were onboard http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif). Four months into my ops flying career we were refueling F-4Cs flown by new fighter pilot students. One young 1Lt managed to get himself into a PIO under our boom and hit us in the aft left fuselage, removing almost all the boom, putting a crease in the left stabilizer and tearing up the leading edge of the left elevator. We pitched over to -1.5G but the autopilot stayed connected (not supposed to with that pitchover) and pulled us back to straight and level. Although the experienced boom operator tried to bail out the aft hatch, we were still pressurized and he could not open the hatch. Resulted in a landing at Edwards with no hydraulics and manually cranking down the gear and flaps. And some awards and decorations for a safe recovery. The F-4 student had previous problems with fighter upgrade and ended up as a co-pilot of a B-52.

As a result of the accident investigation it was determined that ALL previous C-135 accidents where bailout was possible were successfully recovered. ALL previous C-135 accidents that involved a catastrophic collision or failure resulted in NO successful bailouts. After that, SAC removed the requirement for wearing parachutes during operations and they were carried only on the aircraft sitting on nuclear alert duty.

We carried parachutes on the RC-135 long past the SAC KC requirement but a review of all operations determined that the weight of 34 chutes, required periodic inspections, and availability of only two hatches (fore and aft) for bailout would not result in successful bailouts except under conditions that would allow the aircraft to be recovered. The chutes were recovered. The EP-3E collision in April 2001 also showed that even a fairly severe collision could be successfully recovered.

Hence, no parachutes are carried on RC-135s and haven't been carried for many years.

Seems odd that this would be raised on a site with lots of former RAF types as the V-bombers were woefully deficient in having ejection seats only for the pilots, especially as a retired navigator. I had one flight in the Vulcan as a college student/journalist and was not comfortable with the lack of a seat during the low-level portion. I was not bothered by the lack of a parachute during my one flight in a Nimrod R.1.

[thowman]

The Airseeker is due soon - I read according to this article

UK Rivet Joints - will the RAF get a new 'Damien'? - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/uk-rivet-joints-will-the-raf/)

Any idea if it's actually going to arrive soon or not?

[Phoney Tony]

Our first airframe is ready at Greenville.

Hopefully MoD will accept it soon and it will be flown to its new home.

[downsizer]

It seems the MAA is getting cold feet wrt RJ....

Rivet Joint Airworthiness Questioned by UK MAA | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2013-10-30/rivet-joint-airworthiness-questioned-uk-maa?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

[Party Animal]

So will the first aircraft that is 'ready' be sat on the ground until next spring waiting on MAA clearance?

I was at an unclassified presentation the other day that said Airseeker was due to go out of service in 2025. Is this correct, or is it just a planning figure with an inevitable life extension programme to follow? 11 years worth of capability seems a poor return from 6 years of planning and preparation.

That is of course if it has received the clearance to fly by then!

Anyone in the know care to comment?