RAF Rivet Joint
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
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.
Hull Loss « Air Refueling Archive
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.
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.
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 ?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 20th May 2013 at 20:41.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Last edited by tucumseh; 21st May 2013 at 09:20.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RAF, USAF work on Rivet Joint refueling deal
I/C
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.
...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.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Airseeker Ops in UK..
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Buy back Manston 10/28 : 2748 x 61 m 
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.
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.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 8th Jul 2013 at 15:22.
USAF Bomber FOLs in UK
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).
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).
It appears only Marham, Brize and Fairford have 10000+ ft runway lengths.
BCE would be a good home for Rivet Joint, plenty of room and a nice big shed when needed.
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.
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.
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.....
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
you'd then have a degree of commonality of spares, and could use them for aircrew training so reducing hours on the Rivit Joints
In an age that the likes of yourself and I could only dream of (computers, efficient planning)...
Which is more than can be said for a certain other MRTT programme....
Hecho en España = no funciona!
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Jul 2013 at 21:19.
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"
Smudge
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"
Smudge