Adious Nimrod R1, all welcome the older Rivet Joint?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
f4,
IF TRUE, then c. £600m for three RJs seems like brilliant value to me; heaven only knows how much BAE would have wanted for the MRA4 conversion (let alone how much it would cost to make them actually work after BAE whine about the contract etc etc)
RJ - great news, well done!
S41
IF TRUE, then c. £600m for three RJs seems like brilliant value to me; heaven only knows how much BAE would have wanted for the MRA4 conversion (let alone how much it would cost to make them actually work after BAE whine about the contract etc etc)
RJ - great news, well done!
S41
I am told that even using the MRA4 development aircraft as 'flatbeds', rolling on the existing R1 mission kit (Tigershark for Comint and the Marlborough Comms Elint suite), would have resulted in a better all round Sigint solution than is offered by the Rivet Joint, and would have leveraged on the MRA4 support arrangements, making it value for money, too. The main R5 solution proposed was even better, since it packaged together all of the winning kit from 'Helix'.....
And we'd have had modern kit in modern, supportable airframes, rather than on an orphan fleet of antique KC-135As (the three airframes selected were built as KC-135As).
And we'd have had modern kit in modern, supportable airframes, rather than on an orphan fleet of antique KC-135As (the three airframes selected were built as KC-135As).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S41,
Not only heaven knows the cost of the R5. Having taken a hit on the MRA4, it was pitched at a figure which was not only unaffordable, but astronomical.
Plus it was called Nimrod, which to the politicos, was a dirty word.
Shame really, as Jacko alludes to above, the capability would have been outstanding.
Not only heaven knows the cost of the R5. Having taken a hit on the MRA4, it was pitched at a figure which was not only unaffordable, but astronomical.
Plus it was called Nimrod, which to the politicos, was a dirty word.
Shame really, as Jacko alludes to above, the capability would have been outstanding.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacknicko,
And what exactly is the the Helix kit, the project never got to the stage of building kit? RJ will provide an excellent Sigint capability at relatively little cost and even less risk. I wouldn't trust BWoS to provide anything on time and within cost. Yes there are compromises, but we can't afford to spend even more on an unproven capability!
And what exactly is the the Helix kit, the project never got to the stage of building kit? RJ will provide an excellent Sigint capability at relatively little cost and even less risk. I wouldn't trust BWoS to provide anything on time and within cost. Yes there are compromises, but we can't afford to spend even more on an unproven capability!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets hope that the maintainence has all been done on this a/c before they are delivered to the RAF.
Whistleblower raises maintenance concerns of aging aircraft at Air Force base - KansasCity.com
Whistleblower raises maintenance concerns of aging aircraft at Air Force base - KansasCity.com
Whistleblower raises maintenance concerns of aging aircraft at Air Force base Sat, Nov. 29, 2008
Poor maintenance may be compromising the flight safety of reconnaissance aircraft carrying some of America’s most advanced electronic equipment, according to current and former aircraft mechanics.
The RC-135 aircraft are maintained at Offutt Air Force Base and fly global intelligence-gathering missions. While they are among the oldest in the Air Force’s aging fleet, the planes carry the latest equipment for detecting troop movements, enemy radio transmissions and nuclear emissions.
But George Sarris, a senior civilian aircraft mechanic at Offutt with more than 30 years experience, told The Kansas City Star that he has been waging a years-long battle to bring maintenance concerns to light about the RC-135 fleet and became so frustrated that he decided to go public.
“I have found inspections that are 17 years past due, hydraulic and fuel hoses that should have been changed 15 years ago, and recently several emergency system hoses that were 30-plus years past time change,” Sarris said, adding that he believes at least one landing gear assembly also was improperly installed.
Sounds familiar eh!! 
Daf,
Kit was selected for Helix and for R5. It included Tigershark 2 and the Marlborough Communications Elint suite.
It kicks Rivet Joint's overall balanced capability into a cocked hat, I'm told.
Kit was selected for Helix and for R5. It included Tigershark 2 and the Marlborough Communications Elint suite.
It kicks Rivet Joint's overall balanced capability into a cocked hat, I'm told.
TD
The RC135V/W upgrade took this...
to this...
Note the new engines (and there is a lot of work to swap out hydraulic and fuel hoses for the newer CFM-56s).
Here's a link detailing some of the upgrades:
RIVET JOINT
I rather suspect that the whistle blower in your article was talking about the earlier RC135B and RC135C variants. The latter RC135V/W are "re-engined refurbs" much like the MRA4 program. The V/W variants are of the type that the RAF will get.
The RC135V/W upgrade took this...
to this...
Note the new engines (and there is a lot of work to swap out hydraulic and fuel hoses for the newer CFM-56s).
Here's a link detailing some of the upgrades:
RIVET JOINT
I rather suspect that the whistle blower in your article was talking about the earlier RC135B and RC135C variants. The latter RC135V/W are "re-engined refurbs" much like the MRA4 program. The V/W variants are of the type that the RAF will get.
I certainly don't 'need to know'.
Nor do the good folk of PPRuNe, which is why it's best to deal in generalisations.
However, when folk who fly and who have flown on each type each tell me the same thing, then I listen, and the informed consensus seems to be that while the RJ enjoys obvious advantages (number of Comint ops, connectivity), AEELS does not offer R1 levels of capability when it comes to Elint. Nor does it need to for the USAF, they have other assets. Nor should we be surprised - just look at the difference in crew composition, and numbers dedicated to different tasks.
Do you dispute that? If so, you contradict some heavyweight sources who really should know, and who do need to.....
But I do half agree with you. I don't need to know....
Nor do the good folk of PPRuNe, which is why it's best to deal in generalisations.
However, when folk who fly and who have flown on each type each tell me the same thing, then I listen, and the informed consensus seems to be that while the RJ enjoys obvious advantages (number of Comint ops, connectivity), AEELS does not offer R1 levels of capability when it comes to Elint. Nor does it need to for the USAF, they have other assets. Nor should we be surprised - just look at the difference in crew composition, and numbers dedicated to different tasks.
Do you dispute that? If so, you contradict some heavyweight sources who really should know, and who do need to.....
But I do half agree with you. I don't need to know....
Last edited by Jackonicko; 5th Apr 2010 at 20:23.
TD's story concerns current 55th Wing V/Ws. Any whistleblower would have to be terribly old to remember RC-135Cs and Ms.
The ancient, clapped out R model tankers that we're getting may be even more problematic. Can you even imagine how clapped they must be, given the shortage of Rs, if the USAF parked them in the desert?
The three aircraft were the last 3 KC-135As off the production line, 64-14827, 64-14828, and 64-14829. They were converted to KC-135R standards in the 1980s.
They will be redesignated as RKC-135Rs while undergoing conversion (to V/W standards), and reportedly as RC-135Ks when delivered to the RAF. The RAF serials will be ZR135, ZR136 and ZR137, but not necessarily in USAF serial order. More information that I don't need to know.....
Your pictures show an RC-135V (about Baseline 7) and a Baseline 10 RC-135W. This demonstrates the fact that, like the Nimrod Rs, the Rivet Joints have had a frequent upgrade cycle, and not a one-step upgrade. I would suggest that your linked source is a bit 'noddy' since it doesn't even mention the Baseline standards.
The ancient, clapped out R model tankers that we're getting may be even more problematic. Can you even imagine how clapped they must be, given the shortage of Rs, if the USAF parked them in the desert?
The three aircraft were the last 3 KC-135As off the production line, 64-14827, 64-14828, and 64-14829. They were converted to KC-135R standards in the 1980s.
They will be redesignated as RKC-135Rs while undergoing conversion (to V/W standards), and reportedly as RC-135Ks when delivered to the RAF. The RAF serials will be ZR135, ZR136 and ZR137, but not necessarily in USAF serial order. More information that I don't need to know.....
Your pictures show an RC-135V (about Baseline 7) and a Baseline 10 RC-135W. This demonstrates the fact that, like the Nimrod Rs, the Rivet Joints have had a frequent upgrade cycle, and not a one-step upgrade. I would suggest that your linked source is a bit 'noddy' since it doesn't even mention the Baseline standards.
I guess it's a bit "Noddy" because capability is not for open discussion? 
Most of the R1 guys and gals that I know are pretty excited and very upbeat about this happening; which juxtaposes your sources. But once again naming names and details is certainly not for an unclass bulletin board.
Anyway, R5 is dead (imho - thank the Lord!) and as a user of both RJ and R1 capability in the past, I very much welcome hearing a Brit accent from the back-end of a RAF RJ in the future.
By the way, your post looks spookily like a post on airliners.net!
Most of the R1 guys and gals that I know are pretty excited and very upbeat about this happening; which juxtaposes your sources. But once again naming names and details is certainly not for an unclass bulletin board.
Anyway, R5 is dead (imho - thank the Lord!) and as a user of both RJ and R1 capability in the past, I very much welcome hearing a Brit accent from the back-end of a RAF RJ in the future.
By the way, your post looks spookily like a post on airliners.net!
Those were the last 3 KC-135As off the production line, all 1964 models, 64-14827, 64-14828, and 64-14829. All were converted to the KC-135R standard in the 1980s. Once the RAF conversion begins, the USAF MDS will become RKC-135Rs until the Boom equipment is removed, then RC-135K for the RAF. The RAF tail numbers will be ZR135, ZR136 and ZR137, but I don't know which RAF tail number is going on which USAF tail number.
At the end of the day, it depends whether you think that harmonisation with the USAF, and providing the US and coalition with additional platforms and units is more important than securing autonomous national capabilities.
Most people I've spoken to who know this world believe that the loss of Nimrod R and EWAD represents a massive loss of national capability.
And a specific reduction in Elint capability, too.
(And R5 promised to be very good indeed, and rather more supportable, sustainable and autonomous than Rivet Joint).
Most people I've spoken to who know this world believe that the loss of Nimrod R and EWAD represents a massive loss of national capability.
And a specific reduction in Elint capability, too.
(And R5 promised to be very good indeed, and rather more supportable, sustainable and autonomous than Rivet Joint).
Suspicion breeds confidence
Are we seeing history repeating itself? The Comet lost out to the 707in the 50s, space and capacity being prime reasons. The Boeing fuselage is a lot bigger, that has to be a factor when it comes to future proofing. Just a thought.
JN
Unfortunately, some of your sources seem dubious. For example,
I'm afraid that most of what you talk of would require the cutting of metal - hardly "roll on, roll off" that your source is indicating. Just take a look at some (open source) pictures of the R1 compared to MRA4 and see how many antenna holes you would need to cut for starters!
Nimrod R1
Nimrod MRA4
As ever, in aviation, if it only it were as simple as you've been told
From my time at Waddington, I believe there is/was a lot of bad feeling within EWAD that may be jaundicing your source's viewpoint (people who had been there for years and enjoyed what they're doing - if you catch my drift?).
The RJ is a very good deal, it allows us to keep a Sovereign capability (albeit US made - just like E-3D), it continues to buy us into a very select group of collectors and most of all it provides heaps of capability to ours and the Coalition's Forces where its needed.
LJ
Unfortunately, some of your sources seem dubious. For example,
I am told that even using the MRA4 development aircraft as 'flatbeds', rolling on the existing R1 mission kit (Tigershark for Comint and the Marlborough Comms Elint suite),
Nimrod R1 Nimrod MRA4As ever, in aviation, if it only it were as simple as you've been told
From my time at Waddington, I believe there is/was a lot of bad feeling within EWAD that may be jaundicing your source's viewpoint (people who had been there for years and enjoyed what they're doing - if you catch my drift?).
The RJ is a very good deal, it allows us to keep a Sovereign capability (albeit US made - just like E-3D), it continues to buy us into a very select group of collectors and most of all it provides heaps of capability to ours and the Coalition's Forces where its needed.
LJ
LJ,
My sources are many, and nearly as many of them hail from Nebraska as from Lincs and Lancs.
I don't think anyone uses the term 'flatbed' to imply ro-ro - just an empty shell which would be cut and modded to allow kit to be installed - just as one of the existing R1s started life as a 'flatbed' MR2.
Rolling it on, perhaps, but not rolling it off.
I like your pics, which are very good illustrations of your point.
You will have PM. But not before the morrow.
My sources are many, and nearly as many of them hail from Nebraska as from Lincs and Lancs.
I don't think anyone uses the term 'flatbed' to imply ro-ro - just an empty shell which would be cut and modded to allow kit to be installed - just as one of the existing R1s started life as a 'flatbed' MR2.
Rolling it on, perhaps, but not rolling it off.
I like your pics, which are very good illustrations of your point.
You will have PM. But not before the morrow.
