Military AviationA 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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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......
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!