UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely UAVs would only be useful for a few mission types, two way data links are not very covert when you want to sneak about. UAVs could always gather data covertly for post flight analysis, but AFAIK 51 is well respected due to their operators timely dissemination of info, that can't be done post flight.
What about converting two or three of the E-3Ds to ELINT and keeping the spare bits for the rest of the fleet, still leaves four or five. Then get something smaller (Global Express for commonality?) to complement it for the jobs that don't require the whole capability.
Never understood why we keep in squeezing all that kit into a Nimrod, apart from the RAF always doing it the hard way!
I seem to remember the US were going to put all their eggs in one basket at one point with the E-10, how would it be in 2 places at once?
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/767%20mc2a.htm
But it seems to have been canned, talk about HVAA. Think the USN is looking at MMA or a divertive.
What about converting two or three of the E-3Ds to ELINT and keeping the spare bits for the rest of the fleet, still leaves four or five. Then get something smaller (Global Express for commonality?) to complement it for the jobs that don't require the whole capability.
Never understood why we keep in squeezing all that kit into a Nimrod, apart from the RAF always doing it the hard way!
I seem to remember the US were going to put all their eggs in one basket at one point with the E-10, how would it be in 2 places at once?
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/767%20mc2a.htm
But it seems to have been canned, talk about HVAA. Think the USN is looking at MMA or a divertive.
Last edited by Ivan Rogov; 8th Feb 2008 at 12:26.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want an equivalent sized militarized airframe I'd suggest talking to Boeing about a 767 (KC-767) or 737 (P-8A) frame or, as Beagle suggest, Airbus
Exactly what i suggested (the P-8A anyway).
The B737-900 variant would seem plausable in terms of size and endurance is pretty good too (it has to be for the USN to choose it for the P-8 MARPAT) and with extended endurance via IFR it could make a decent platform.
But we are talking about the UK Government here and they go backwards at the best of times so we are looking for aircraft that are on their last legs from former airlines probably.
Airbus would be good for commonality with the Air Tanker fleet, but hang on... we have to get the Air Tankers first and how much of a wait will that be? And even those are 'leased' and privately financed.
What's next? Privately financing our ELINT/SIGINT platforms?
What about converting two or three of the E-3Ds to ELINT and keeping the spare bits for the rest of the fleet, still leaves four or five. Then get something smaller (Global Express for commonality?) to complement it for the jobs that don't require the whole capability.
The B707 airframes are just as bad i assume than those of the Nimrods.
The oldest KC-135 in the USAF today is what, 49yrs old or so?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Hypothetically" speaking one or two in theatres. 
I'm sure one has been on station over Afghanistan before?
We certainly don't have enough airframes to send up north or east on patrol on R1 duties.
Then you have maintenance issues with going unserviceable also. I don't think it can be done using existing E-3D's
I'm sure one has been on station over Afghanistan before?
We certainly don't have enough airframes to send up north or east on patrol on R1 duties.
Then you have maintenance issues with going unserviceable also. I don't think it can be done using existing E-3D's
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS I hope you don't get a reply on here 
I know 51 have opened up a little, but seriously!
Think we have 7 E-3D (one is a little bent) and they were the last off the line in the late 80's? We got 7 to defend the UK and NATO from the entire Warsaw Pact, do we still need 7?
Plenty of Air Forces have only one or two platforms to carry out 51's role, and the RAF is half the size it was when we justified 3 R1s. Not sure we should be keeping enough just for exercises, a mixed fleet would give us the ability to deploy the required capability to most areas.
I know 51 have opened up a little, but seriously!Think we have 7 E-3D (one is a little bent) and they were the last off the line in the late 80's? We got 7 to defend the UK and NATO from the entire Warsaw Pact, do we still need 7?
Plenty of Air Forces have only one or two platforms to carry out 51's role, and the RAF is half the size it was when we justified 3 R1s. Not sure we should be keeping enough just for exercises, a mixed fleet would give us the ability to deploy the required capability to most areas.
1) Why as big as a Nimrod/Why manned?
see my post at *9
2) Why three when the RAF is "half the size it was when we justified 3 R1s?"
Because it's a capability that is even more 'in demand' in this unstable post Cold War world than it was during the Cold War.
Because it's a capability we need every time we go on ops, and in between - it's not a useful, niche capability that we haven't needed for years and many never need (cf carriers....)
Because it's something we do very, very well, - such that R1s and PR9s have often been the first UK capabilities that coalition commanders have asked for - it is a capability that gives us greater influence in coalition ops.
3) Why not E-3/707 based?
The 707 is now out of production (with the end of the E-3/E-6 lines) so the 737/C-40/P-8 or 767 would be Boeing's offerings - and the A320 or 300/310/330 would be better options.
see my post at *9
2) Why three when the RAF is "half the size it was when we justified 3 R1s?"
Because it's a capability that is even more 'in demand' in this unstable post Cold War world than it was during the Cold War.
Because it's a capability we need every time we go on ops, and in between - it's not a useful, niche capability that we haven't needed for years and many never need (cf carriers....)
Because it's something we do very, very well, - such that R1s and PR9s have often been the first UK capabilities that coalition commanders have asked for - it is a capability that gives us greater influence in coalition ops.
3) Why not E-3/707 based?
The 707 is now out of production (with the end of the E-3/E-6 lines) so the 737/C-40/P-8 or 767 would be Boeing's offerings - and the A320 or 300/310/330 would be better options.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
1/ Range, endurance, capability, capacity, comfort, future growth, self deploy, etc. Think you answered the question yourself in #9
2/ Is true of almost any asset we have.
I would say it is a niche capability, an extremely useful one which 51is very good at, but it is only as a force multiplier (or what ever it is called now).
Sounds like something I would read in the RAF News, PR spin.
Why should we maintain more capacity than we require when we are so desperate for cash throughout the Forces, we are not here to bolster other countries lack of capability.
3/ True 707 is out of production, but it will be supported for a good few years yet. I wouldn't advocate buying more 707's but how long do we intend to operate the E-3D for, if some were converted then we would retain much of the airframe comonality keeping support cost down, rather than introducing another type.
1/ Range, endurance, capability, capacity, comfort, future growth, self deploy, etc. Think you answered the question yourself in #9
2/ Is true of almost any asset we have.
I would say it is a niche capability, an extremely useful one which 51is very good at, but it is only as a force multiplier (or what ever it is called now).
Because it's something we do very, very well, - such that R1s and PR9s have often been the first UK capabilities that coalition commanders have asked for - it is a capability that gives us greater influence in coalition ops.
Why should we maintain more capacity than we require when we are so desperate for cash throughout the Forces, we are not here to bolster other countries lack of capability.
3/ True 707 is out of production, but it will be supported for a good few years yet. I wouldn't advocate buying more 707's but how long do we intend to operate the E-3D for, if some were converted then we would retain much of the airframe comonality keeping support cost down, rather than introducing another type.
Champagne anyone...?
Ivan me old fruit, wasn't referring to 51 - I know full well what they do. Was referring of course to the mighty EARWAX. So what do they do? Some spare capacity there surely?
Ivan,
Not a 707 because the E-Ds won't last that long - and commonality with FSTA will be more useful than commonality with a smaller, shorter lived fleet.
Not a UAV because while it can do Elint, it can't do it as well as an R1, can't do it in the same way, and is limited by bandwidth, etc.
Big because 51 and the EWAU (the experts in this field) feel that big crews, manually tuning receivers and interpreting and exploiting, is the best way of doing the job. I think they have demonstrably shown that they know their onions better than you or I in this field.
In today's world, having this degree of capability is useful for the UK for its own interests, and not just for supporting coalition ops.
It is far more relevant to today's ops (and in the GWAT) than Trident, FRES, Type 45, Brimstone, Meteor, the Household Division, Challenger, or Typhoon.
And much more useful than bloody aircraft carriers, which we haven't needed since '82.
Cutting down from three Elint platforms would be short-sighted and stupid, and there are good reasons to consider doubling the number, and giving them other ISTAR capabilities as well as Elint.
Not a 707 because the E-Ds won't last that long - and commonality with FSTA will be more useful than commonality with a smaller, shorter lived fleet.
Not a UAV because while it can do Elint, it can't do it as well as an R1, can't do it in the same way, and is limited by bandwidth, etc.
Big because 51 and the EWAU (the experts in this field) feel that big crews, manually tuning receivers and interpreting and exploiting, is the best way of doing the job. I think they have demonstrably shown that they know their onions better than you or I in this field.
In today's world, having this degree of capability is useful for the UK for its own interests, and not just for supporting coalition ops.
It is far more relevant to today's ops (and in the GWAT) than Trident, FRES, Type 45, Brimstone, Meteor, the Household Division, Challenger, or Typhoon.
And much more useful than bloody aircraft carriers, which we haven't needed since '82.
Cutting down from three Elint platforms would be short-sighted and stupid, and there are good reasons to consider doubling the number, and giving them other ISTAR capabilities as well as Elint.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be a medium sized turbo-fan powered aircaft, such as B767, A300 or similar, to faciliate autonomous deployment with all tehnicians, spares and personal kit, with the capability to fly high on ops above the SAM threats.
Ed
Ed
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Not a UAV because while it can do Elint, it can't do it as well as an R1, can't do it in the same way, and is limited by bandwidth, etc.
Another well informned piece...
Not a UAV because while it can do Elint, it can't do it as well as an R1, can't do it in the same way, and is limited by bandwidth, etc.
Another well informned piece...
What about Herc / A400M + pallletised mission kit and consoles?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jacko, when you say commonality with FSTA do you mean buy A330 or just that it would be an Airbus?
For your point 1 I was advocating a manned solution, not UAV and agree with your point.
I have no idea of the E3D out of service date but I'd guess 15ish years, I believe we have more than we need, so for the next 15 years it would make sense to convert a couple. This would also allow us to purchase new in 15 years time when the US have brought in new platforms, we can learn from their mistakes etc. maybe even purchase similar platforms for improved coalition integration.
I didn't say cut down size of the fleet, but purchase an intermediate size platform for situations where all capabilities are not required, hopefully this would actually increase the availability.
I enjoy reading your post, and it is good to see different points of view, but you do tend to have your favourite list of kit and refuse to accept that anything else is useful, I liked having Challenger looking after me in Iraq, Jack is desperate for modern AD ships, Typhoon is coming along nicely by the sound of things and Trident does more for UK interest than the rest of the Forces put together. Do you know what future conflicts we may be involved in? Yes Iraq and Afghanistan are on going but we can not ignore emerging threats, there is more to UK defence than the light blue.
For your point 1 I was advocating a manned solution, not UAV and agree with your point.
I have no idea of the E3D out of service date but I'd guess 15ish years, I believe we have more than we need, so for the next 15 years it would make sense to convert a couple. This would also allow us to purchase new in 15 years time when the US have brought in new platforms, we can learn from their mistakes etc. maybe even purchase similar platforms for improved coalition integration.
I didn't say cut down size of the fleet, but purchase an intermediate size platform for situations where all capabilities are not required, hopefully this would actually increase the availability.
I enjoy reading your post, and it is good to see different points of view, but you do tend to have your favourite list of kit and refuse to accept that anything else is useful, I liked having Challenger looking after me in Iraq, Jack is desperate for modern AD ships, Typhoon is coming along nicely by the sound of things and Trident does more for UK interest than the rest of the Forces put together. Do you know what future conflicts we may be involved in? Yes Iraq and Afghanistan are on going but we can not ignore emerging threats, there is more to UK defence than the light blue.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And much more useful than bloody aircraft carriers, which we haven't needed since '82.
It does seem the obvious choice for R1 replacement is A300 (ish) or B767 (ish). Superficially the A300 is more palateable politically/economically as it is European and already part built in the UK (standing by to be corrected!)
Commonality is generally good, but I wouldn't mind betting that a modern Boeing/Airbus is cheaper to run then an ancient design that we happen to still have.
Ivan,
I'm a big fan of many of the pieces of kit which I describe as less useful AT THE MOMENT than Nimrod R (and the capability it offers). I would not advocate not buying Tranche 3 of Typhoon, for example.
I just view the 51 Squadron capability as being of really pivotal and vital importance.
As to platforms, I'd see the A330 - especially if Airbus ever build a short one - or an A300 with a 330 cockpit as being pretty well-suited to the role, and with good commonality with the FSTA platform.
Or perhaps an A340....
Or if money's really too tight, then buy a bunch of A320s for ISTAR, future AEW, and Blair Force One type duties.....
Anything much smaller than a Nimrod and you could not accomodate the full mission crew, and all the equipment (and pies) required. Indeed, 51 would doubtless say that today's Nimrod is just a little bit more cramped than they'd like, and that the fact that they've lost key non-operational facilities on board is a testament to the lack of space on the jet.
The Nimrod R way of doing things, including the crew size, is most assuredly not broken, so a 'fix' involving a smaller type with a smaller crew does not strike me as being a great idea.
Indeed, there'd be something to be said for giving the aircraft some EO-LOROP/FLIR capabilities, with a couple of extra crew positions and rather better crew rest, toilet and galley facilities.
While the idea of waiting for the US and selecting a common platform, my understanding is that they have very different philosophies and doctrine - such that what the US Navy would look for to replace the EP-3E would be a different size and class of aircraft to what the USAF would want/need as a next generation Rivet Joint - which might, in turn, be different to what 51 would want as an optimised aircraft, and which would almost certainly be 767 based - a choice that would make sense for the US, but not for the UK.
LJR,
Easy to make cheap cracks, mate, but obviously a bit harder for you to articulate your objections....
Are you claiming that a UAV can do Elint in the same way as Nimrod R and Rivet Joint do? Or that you'd have the same ability to do real time exploitation and interpretation regardless of bandwidth considerations? Or even that existing UAVs would be as suitable as Nimrod R for mounting the various antennas required?
I'm a big fan of many of the pieces of kit which I describe as less useful AT THE MOMENT than Nimrod R (and the capability it offers). I would not advocate not buying Tranche 3 of Typhoon, for example.
I just view the 51 Squadron capability as being of really pivotal and vital importance.
As to platforms, I'd see the A330 - especially if Airbus ever build a short one - or an A300 with a 330 cockpit as being pretty well-suited to the role, and with good commonality with the FSTA platform.
Or perhaps an A340....
Or if money's really too tight, then buy a bunch of A320s for ISTAR, future AEW, and Blair Force One type duties.....
Anything much smaller than a Nimrod and you could not accomodate the full mission crew, and all the equipment (and pies) required. Indeed, 51 would doubtless say that today's Nimrod is just a little bit more cramped than they'd like, and that the fact that they've lost key non-operational facilities on board is a testament to the lack of space on the jet.
The Nimrod R way of doing things, including the crew size, is most assuredly not broken, so a 'fix' involving a smaller type with a smaller crew does not strike me as being a great idea.
Indeed, there'd be something to be said for giving the aircraft some EO-LOROP/FLIR capabilities, with a couple of extra crew positions and rather better crew rest, toilet and galley facilities.
While the idea of waiting for the US and selecting a common platform, my understanding is that they have very different philosophies and doctrine - such that what the US Navy would look for to replace the EP-3E would be a different size and class of aircraft to what the USAF would want/need as a next generation Rivet Joint - which might, in turn, be different to what 51 would want as an optimised aircraft, and which would almost certainly be 767 based - a choice that would make sense for the US, but not for the UK.
LJR,
Easy to make cheap cracks, mate, but obviously a bit harder for you to articulate your objections....
Are you claiming that a UAV can do Elint in the same way as Nimrod R and Rivet Joint do? Or that you'd have the same ability to do real time exploitation and interpretation regardless of bandwidth considerations? Or even that existing UAVs would be as suitable as Nimrod R for mounting the various antennas required?
Jacko, there is absolutely no chance of a 'A300 with an A330 cockpit'! A while ago, a full-glass cockpit was proposed, but there really isn't any need as the 'half-glass' is good enough for the purpose.
A 'short' A330 is not needed. Neither is any commonality with the A330 needed.
Another good reason to use an A300B4 freighter is that fitting any temporary 'mission equipment' is a lot easier with a cargo door. Plus, unlike the 767, it has a true wide-body fuselage with the same cross-section as the A330.
A 'short' A330 is not needed. Neither is any commonality with the A330 needed.
Another good reason to use an A300B4 freighter is that fitting any temporary 'mission equipment' is a lot easier with a cargo door. Plus, unlike the 767, it has a true wide-body fuselage with the same cross-section as the A330.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iagree with ORAC a 757 or 767 would be the best bet, boh have good range, still many in service so spares would not be a problem and you could buy a few cheap off BA when they get there new jets in the next few years.
The P-8A platform would seem to be the most immediate choice in terms of volume and real estate. Payload-range of the 737/A320 family is better than you might think, with A319s in 48-seat form routinely flying transatlantic.