Adious Nimrod R1, all welcome the older Rivet Joint?

[NutLoose]

yup looks like it, taking bets that some baffoon in the MOD does not realise there are several versions of the CFM56 and that they get a none compatible variant.,

UK to finally get Rivet Joint?

The UK MoD is set to announce a long-expected deal to buy three Boeing RC-135 ‘Rivet Joint’ aircraft.
Gary Parsons - 14-Jan-2010
http://www.key.aero/central/images/news/inline/1404.jpg (http://www.key.aero/central/images/news/1404.jpg)
UK RC-135s will look similar to this USAF RC-135U fitted with CFM-56 engines as seen at RAF Mildenhall earlier this year. Key - Gary Parsons
January 14: Flightglobal reports that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is set to announce a long-expected deal to buy three Boeing RC-135 ‘Rivet Joint’ aircraft as replacement for its fleet of Nimrod R1s operated by 51 Squadron at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.

One Nimrod R1 was withdrawn last year, leaving just two in service with the squadron. With the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence of the early withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 fleet by April, maintaining the pair of R1s will become more difficult and costly as Nimrod maintenance contracts are withdrawn.

The report says that the three RC-135s will be modified for UK use by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems in the USA and are expected to be fitted with CFM-56 engines to provide commonality with the RAF’s fleet of E-3D Sentrys. Ironically the RC-135 airframes are expected to be even older than the Nimrods they will replace, the latter being constructed in the early 1970s.

UK to finally get Rivet Joint?: Key.Aero, Military Aviation (http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=1404&thisSection=military)

suppose if this falls through, we could re-engine the Shackletons that are lying about :E

[TheTiresome1]

hahahahaha

Another case of "It must be invented/built in UK".

Remember when we rejected the C-130?
Remember NimWACS, because we had spare airframes after we were kicked out of Malta?

I know, and understand, the the UK Govt has to try to support UK Industry, but we've been bogging this sort of thing for DECADES. We always end up producing kit that costs a fortune, is late and over-budget, has ZERO overseas sales potential [OK, exempt Tornado to date] and doesn't quite do the job.

How many £BILLIONS have been wasted over the last 25 years ensuring a "Made in UK" stamp on the kit? And then buying foreign anyway?

[pr00ne]

TheTiresome1,

What on earth are you prattling on about?

Do you know ANYTHING about that of which you speak?

The C-135 is manufactured by Boeing, a US company.

The special fit is designed, manufactured and installed by L-3, a US company.

The CFM-56 engines are a JV between the French and the US..............

Little bit more research and/or knowledge required before opening mouth?

[TheTiresome1]

I am duly chastened - I actually thought there was a chance we were "Buying British", but I missed the bit about GE powerplants :ok:

No chance of a quick-fix Airbus 330 "Rivet France"? Oh well, c'est la vie.

[grandfer]

Let's hope they don't try & fit ex. Nimrod re-fuelling probes to save a few quid !


:eek::eek:

[TheTiresome1]

Grandfer, there will be no problem ... once the UK has converted the AAR fleet from Probe and Drogue to The Boom. :\

It's called compatilibert ... comprabilyiby ... ask the Americans to help. ;)

[Lima Juliet]

Hooray! More kit and a good capability. I can't wait :D

That is what we should be saying!

But like "Grumpy Old Men" we start to enter the malaise and moaning that is PPrune's want...

http://thenigelhaversimperium.4ya.nl/homepage/show/1002587.jpg

[grandfer]

Silly me , then perhaps we can buy some KC-135s -50s vintage , about 20 should do for our 3 Jointed Rivets .

:ok::ok:

[NutLoose]

Hooray! More kit and a good capability. I can't wait :D

Well that is all well and good, buying everyone else's cast offs is not exactly building in longevity to the fleet, no doubt it is a capable airframe, but one wonders how much shelf life it has left in it before one is looking for another replacement.

Somewhere down the line the US Military must have deemed them to be getting long in the tooth to be releasing them from service..


I often wonder especially with the predicament in the transport fleet with the aging VC10s etc why the MOD simply do not just purchase or lease as is the norm a load of the 737-900 series aircraft from Airlines that have gone to the wall and are currently stored at Lasham........ A cheap (in this time of excessive Civilian fleets) alternative of low houred transports, the saving in the fuel budget alone would be staggering over the VC10 and they could then be moved on at a later date back into the Civilian market.

One wonders when uniforms will be sourced from the Army Navy surplus stores

[TheTiresome1]

I think the issue is not the age of the airframes, but the kit that goes inside and the opportunity to share support with the US instead of operating just 2 ac with unique UK systems. I have heard on another forum that Rivet Joint is not quite as capable as the R1, but at least we'll have 3 systems in service.

[Flyingblind]

I would suggest rather simply that;
(a) UK is broke,
(b) you need the capability,
(c) UK is broke, and
(d) its offered by 'them'.

No disrespect intended.

[Metman]

So progress is replacing a capable but old system with a less capable (certainly by the accounts I've seen on here and elsewhere) and even older system? Whats wrong with a unique UK system in comparison to a unique US system that we don't have control over? Are we getting the full capability, particularly given the fuss over F35 code?

When exactly are we looking at introducing these into service, and will there be any sort of capability "holiday"?

Beyond engines, how much commonality is there really between this and the E3? Are we just buying ourselves a bigger problems in buying 3 aircraft that we can support less well than the 3 we are replacing?

[Ivan Rogov]

We are skint but this project doesn't fill me with confidence, this sticking plaster approach only creates a bigger problem and costs later on. I'd rather see it gapped and the correct solution found and funded if that’s what it takes.
Wonder how the idea came about?
BRIT - Hi Chuck, we have a problem with the old R1s, need to replace them a tad early.
USAF - Hey Limey, no problem you can have some of our RJs real cheap for refit!
RAF - Oh spiffing, thanks old man I'll call the contractors and ask if they can do it.
USAF - Have a nice day now!
More dialling:
RAF - Hello is that the honest, fine, upstanding contractor?
CONTRACTOR - Yes
RAF - Can you convert 3 old 135s to the latest RJ spec, new engines, etc?
CONTRACTOR - Yes (giggling in back ground)
RAF - Can we do it quickly on the cheap we are skint?
CONTRACTOR - Yes (laughing in background)
RAF - Are you sure you know what happened last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, etc?
CONTRACTOR - Mmmmmmm.......... YES! (hysterics, party music, corks popping and the sound of cash tills in the background)
RAF – Excellent I'll just get the cheque book, toodle pip.
CONTRACTOR – Yes.........yes........yes……………..oh he’s gone, right bonuses all round, who wants a new car, house, holiday, etc!

Yes it's Friday and my glass is half empty :(

[TheTiresome1]

@ pr00ne and others - I apologise for the substantial lack of clarity in my post No 2 which led to misinterpretation. My point, so badly expressed, was that at least on this occasion we weren't going to try and build a UK replacement for the R1s, and were going to buy from the US instead.

Subsequent reading here and in other places now suggests this may not be such a good deal after all, but as flyingblind said, what are the options? Soldier on with 2 R1s? Accept RJ as a "better than nothing" solution? Spend £Bns on a completely new system?

Or perhaps accept that these days poor old UK Mil plc simply can't afford to sustain all these capabilities any more, and forget the entire thing?

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Are these a/c any younger than the Nimrods they are intended to replace?

[Valiantone]

In a word....No

The youngest KC/RC-135s are fiscal year 1963/64 so were built around that timespan. Although they were purchased with funds from that FY that does not mean they were built that year, but they wouldn't be that far behind it.

V1

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Why not just rebuild the R.1s then?

Does anybody know how old the 3 Nimrods are? (2 orig R.1 + the converted MR one)

Or, Which three actual airframes are intended to be converted?

There's plenty right old ones, wfu, in the Boneyard!

[Metman]

Why was an MRA4 derivitive never considered?

[TEEEJ]

Metman wrote

Why was an MRA4 derivitive never considered?

It was proposed. See following threads. All the pros and cons debated on the following.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/354701-nimrod-r1-replacement.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/313207-raf-borrow-usaf-aircraft.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/346000-uk-applies-purchase-rivet-joint-aircraft.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/309239-uk-considers-alternatives-nimrod-r-1-upgrade.html

TJ

[PIK3141]

So, rather than use the 3 largely new (wings, engines, etc) Nimrod MRA4 prototype airframes PA1, PA2 and PA3, which become redundant shortly, and which would have not a little compatability with the 8 in-service MRA4 airframes, we are to take older than Nimrod R1, KC135, not RC135, airframes from the desert, send them somewhere for conversion taking several years, then deliver them to to UK for 2 or 3 more years messing around, before release them to service, maybe, as oddball aircraft ? And meantime the conversion jobs are exported to the USA. That all seem very clever. Might be understandable if we were taking off the shelf RC135s, but beyond my comprehension taking KC135s and converting them. :ugh:

[Daf Hucker]

This is not the first time that KC-135s have been converted to RC-135 standard. There seems to be a presumption that converting an airframe to SIGINT platform standard is a simple process - it ain't! At least the Yanks have done this before, and recently; conversion of MRA4 airframes would be a complete and utter unknown and who the hell will provide the mission system, or are you suggesting that we spend vast amounts of money moving the existing kit into an MRA4 airframe.

The KC-135 airframes will effectively be zero lifed, in a similar manner to the MRA4 airframes, so the relative age argument is largely specious.

This may not be the perfect solution, but should provide a capability in reasonably quick time with very low risk!

By the time the RJ airframes are due retirement, I suspect that UAS technology will have developed enough to provide a platform for a SIGINT payload.

[OHP 15M]

http://imgur.com/cL9ro.jpg

[TEEEJ]

PIK3141 wrote

but beyond my comprehension taking KC135s and converting them.

As already point out the conversion of 135 airframes into RC frames is nothing new for the US.
The US has been converting their tanker 135s into intel collection airframes since the early 1960s.

The USAF during the late 1990s increased their Rivet Joint fleet by several airframes (C-135B conversions).
In 2006 the latest Rivet Joint conversion from a 135 airframe was delivered to the USAF.

TJ

[brit bus driver]

Good job 'they' decided to specify a boom on FSTA in order to provide AAR for these and any future platforms using boom refuelling......:ugh:

[XV277]

Unless the yanks are already at work on these, looks like another capability gap coming up!!

[Aus_AF]

Are you getting baseline 11's or a previous model? Will 51SQN now be combined with the other RJ flying units doing the same job?

[Ginger Beer]

CAS, Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton quoted on Monday that the Nimrod R1 will be in service until 2015 not 2011, so there may not be a capability gap?

[NutLoose]

No truth in the rumour that some of them coming off the line at Woodford will simply be scrapped??

[Frustrated....]

A little birdy tells me we have now signed up for RJ in PR10.

So are we going to buy booms to fit to our FSTAs, or are we going to try and ignore the fact we will have 3 RAF aircraft types that take recepticle refueling (C17, E3 and RJ)?

F

[Daf Hucker]

At last a decision!
UK approves Rivet Joint purchase (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/22/339763/uk-approves-rivet-joint-purchase.html)

[OHP 15M]

http://imgur.com/mc9F4.jpg

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Well, I was hoping never to see this in the UK.......

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/pugwash09/Aircraft/RC-135.jpg

[bit-twiddler]

Perhaps the goosejacker should make the cheque 'post dated' ;)

Also wonder how U.K. Opposition Cries Foul On Pre-election Awards - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4547137&c=POL&s=TOP) would affect it, given that 'exportability' might be an issue and it's specifically mentioned as one of the projects.

[Squirrel 41]

Pugwash, why not?

A good decision for once (though consistently delayed from what I hear). Looking forward to them arriving asap...

And as for the boom on FSTA, no chance. It was dropped years ago and it's a PFI don't you know - in other words, we're shafted if we want to change the contract. Pity - some KC-45Bs with RR Trent would fit the job very nicely - and rather better than the plain-vanilla-at-Savoy Grill-prices deal we've got coming to us.

(edited to add: but nice picture - good effort!)

S41

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Squirrel,
The arguments for and against have been aired in this and similar threads for some time. I know that the US Increments have been converging with the Helix capability, but it seems a step backward, given the terms under which the RJs are being acquired and will be operated. Clearly, the "operational sovereignty" issue has been overcome, or more likely, ignored.

Oh, and I can't take any credit for the image either, nice though it is.

[Willard Whyte]

I feel people should disassociate the airframe from the systems. The former is largely unimportant as long as it lasts longer and costs less to buy and operate than any given alternative. One can only assume that the '135 was cheaper and hardy enough to last until pilots and crew are no longer required.

[TEEEJ]

Defense News is reporting that the first RAF RC-135 will be delivered in 2014. The capability gap from Spring 2011 will be filled by RC-135s partly crewed by the RAF.

USAF Planes To Help U.K. Fill SIGINT Gap - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4549506&c=AME&s=AIR)

'The first plane is to be delivered in 2014, three years after the RAF plans to withdraw the last two of its Nimrod R1 signals aircraft. A third R1 retired last year.

The gap in Britain's electronic intelligence capabilities is likely to be filled by U.S. Rivet Joints tasked and partly crewed by the RAF, sources said.

That could be a controversial move; for at least three years, the British will forgo control of what the defense secretary said in a statement March 22 to Parliament was a "vital capability."

An MoD spokesman said that between "2011 and 2014, the U.K. will enter into a partnering arrangement with the U.S. that will safeguard U.K. personnel core competencies."

The spokesman declined to provide more details.

The U.K. will have "full sovereignty of the aircraft when received in 2014," the spokesman said.

The spokesman said there were no details available on program costs; initial contracts will be placed in June.'

TJ

[Headstone]

Excuse me if I've got this wrong but the bit where it says
- The spokesman said there were no details available on program costs; initial contracts will be placed in June -

So does that mean we have decided to buy something but we don't know how much it will cost? How do we know there is not a cheaper alternative? As contracts have not been signed then presumably delivery times and schedules are just a best guess at what the customer would like so he can be got on a hook before putting in the small print and get outs in the actual contract.

I am so glad we have MoD experts looking after our country's money and interests

[Jimlad1]

"- The spokesman said there were no details available on program costs; initial contracts will be placed in June -"

No it means that the costs are commerically sensitive and are not being publicly released at present.

[f4aviation]

Cost as notified by the DSCA to Congress in 2008 was $1.068 billion. Even makes Nimrod start to look value for money...

[Squirrel 41]

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

[Jackonicko]

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).

[Cpt_Pugwash]

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.

[Daf Hucker]

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!

[Tappers Dad]

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 (http://www.kansascity.com/2008/11/29/915014/whistleblower-raises-maintenance.html)

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!! :ugh:

[Jackonicko]

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.

[The B Word]

Jacko - sorry pal, but capability is 'need to know' and you don't need to :ok:

[The B Word]

TD

The RC135V/W upgrade took this...

http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/rc-135_01.jpg

to this...

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Misc/RedFlag0702/Highlights/Rc135Takeoff.jpg

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 (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/rivet_joint.htm)

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.

:ok:

[Jackonicko]

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....

[Jackonicko]

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 B Word]

I guess it's a bit "Noddy" because capability is not for open discussion? :confused:

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.

[Jackonicko]

I expect they came from the same original source, B-word.

[Jackonicko]

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).

[Navaleye]

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.

[Lima Juliet]

JN

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),

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!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/3696871075_5ae7064d3c.jpg?v=0 Nimrod R1

http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/09/14/nimrod_mra4.jpg 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 :ok:

[Jackonicko]

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.