PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 25th Dec 2012, 19:07   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: sussex
Posts: 739
At least Boeing knew where to mount ze engines...
longer ron is online now   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 19:23   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 64
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.

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.
zero1 is offline   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 19:33   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Behind the wire.
Posts: 283
£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!
High_Expect is offline   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 20:36   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 52
Tony, sorry to disappoint, but, no they weren't!
LoeyDaFrog is offline   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 20:45   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 50
Posts: 678
Quote:
£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?
brickhistory is offline   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 21:31   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 286
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

Last edited by Phoney Tony; 25th Dec 2012 at 21:37.
Phoney Tony is offline   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 21:50   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,867
Photos: Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1 (801) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net


Picture of 49 at Cosford recently.



SGC

Last edited by Sir George Cayley; 25th Dec 2012 at 21:51.
Sir George Cayley is offline   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 22:24   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 376
Zero1

Quote:
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 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
iRaven is offline   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 23:09   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 72
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.
Small Spinner is offline   Reply
Old 25th Dec 2012, 23:10   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 443
Quote:
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

-RP

Last edited by Rhino power; 25th Dec 2012 at 23:16.
Rhino power is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 00:36   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 50
Posts: 678
small spanner, thanks for that.
brickhistory is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 00:52   #32 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,184
"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
Milo Minderbinder is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 06:56   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 72
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.
Small Spinner is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 07:39   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
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......
tucumseh is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 09:39   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Behind the wire.
Posts: 283
Make it £20.
High_Expect is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 12:05   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 110m overhead
Age: 54
Posts: 1,958
Hmm. Multi million $/£ aircraft surrounded by piles of shyte and not a single piece of racking or component storage in sight.

QA Heaven
glad rag is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 12:17   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 110m overhead
Age: 54
Posts: 1,958
Hmm, big filters on doors perhaps....
glad rag is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 13:53   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in the zone
Age: 14
Posts: 301
It's not often that so much hoop is uttered by so few ill informed posters in such a short space of time. Most of the information to refute what so many of you say is freely available. Why don't you look it up instead of such lazy speculation the sort of which so many of you are so quick to criticise the press. Out of the desert, my arse!

All as I said in my earlier post, albeit it in far fewer words and far more to the point. Maybe why it was deleted.

Merry Christmas. I'm off to sort out the Chateauneuf!

BGG
BigGreenGilbert is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 21:42   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House (and I'm not really Age: 86, I may in fact be dead, or might as well be)
Age: 86
Posts: 1,469
Only senior officers and tossers, be they not the same, will call it airseeker.
Willard Whyte is offline   Reply
Old 26th Dec 2012, 22:29   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Quote:
Err, welcome to the MoD
I thought it was called 'adding value'.

Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 26th Dec 2012 at 22:30.
eaglemmoomin is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 21:34.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network