UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two comments:
I am sure if 51 Sqn needed new aircraft because of a severe risk to their operations money would be found from "someone" or "somewhere" pretty sharpish, even today.
Would buying Airbus allow for the possibility that non-UK/US personnel may have to board the aircraft for maintenance?
I am sure if 51 Sqn needed new aircraft because of a severe risk to their operations money would be found from "someone" or "somewhere" pretty sharpish, even today.
Would buying Airbus allow for the possibility that non-UK/US personnel may have to board the aircraft for maintenance?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ivan,
You suggest that the 3 Nimrod R1 were sufficient back when the RAF was larger and now it is down-sized we can get away with fewer... A nice idea in principle but flawed IMHO. Consider the requirement for deep maintainance - thats two aircraft available for ops from three - now consider any one of a number of problems on the a/c about to launch - well we'll launch the spare... ...the who? We scrapped it!
How would you cover the problem of persistance too for long ops? Three of anything is pushing things - its called critical mass and below it you will fail to fulfil the role required, same true here.
However, I agree with your assesment of other matters for we can not forecast future conflicts. Falklands, GW1, GW2, Kosovo, Bosnia... the list is incomplete but all have comonality in the surprise with which they hit us (in varying degrees). We may be short on cash but we must not remove capablities to deal with it as this is the slippery slope. We may not have *needed* carriers since the falklands (although they have proved very handy - Al Faw assult possible without Ocean et al?), but then the Tornado F3 has hardly ever fired a shot in anger (I am sure there are a few occasions that I forget but in bean counter terms enough for the expense!?) so on this basis why the Typhoon?
We chip away at our brother service's capabilities at our peril. Money is tight and we must prioritise to an extent, however wholesale removal of capability or its reduction to sub-critical mass is not in UK Plc's interest and it is our duty to act accordingly.
You suggest that the 3 Nimrod R1 were sufficient back when the RAF was larger and now it is down-sized we can get away with fewer... A nice idea in principle but flawed IMHO. Consider the requirement for deep maintainance - thats two aircraft available for ops from three - now consider any one of a number of problems on the a/c about to launch - well we'll launch the spare... ...the who? We scrapped it!
How would you cover the problem of persistance too for long ops? Three of anything is pushing things - its called critical mass and below it you will fail to fulfil the role required, same true here.
However, I agree with your assesment of other matters for we can not forecast future conflicts. Falklands, GW1, GW2, Kosovo, Bosnia... the list is incomplete but all have comonality in the surprise with which they hit us (in varying degrees). We may be short on cash but we must not remove capablities to deal with it as this is the slippery slope. We may not have *needed* carriers since the falklands (although they have proved very handy - Al Faw assult possible without Ocean et al?), but then the Tornado F3 has hardly ever fired a shot in anger (I am sure there are a few occasions that I forget but in bean counter terms enough for the expense!?) so on this basis why the Typhoon?
We chip away at our brother service's capabilities at our peril. Money is tight and we must prioritise to an extent, however wholesale removal of capability or its reduction to sub-critical mass is not in UK Plc's interest and it is our duty to act accordingly.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing in mind that much of the mission equipment on the R1 is in the space occupied by the bomb bay on MRs, would a 737-derived airframe (P-8) have enough ground clearance for what 51 are likely to want to hang underneath it? (Thinking back to their Comets).
Would A320/21 be a better bet?
Most likely to get second hand airliners these days though!
Would A320/21 be a better bet?
Most likely to get second hand airliners these days though!
Ground clearance would favour the A320 over the 737.
Servicing requirements would favour any aircraft with a great big cargo door (they always used to empty the Comet Rs before majors or mods with industry).
Power generation requirements, range, endurance and survivability would favour a four-jet.
A340, please.
Servicing requirements would favour any aircraft with a great big cargo door (they always used to empty the Comet Rs before majors or mods with industry).
Power generation requirements, range, endurance and survivability would favour a four-jet.
A340, please.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moray
Age: 58
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, the decision to consider an earlier replacement of the R1 than was first envisaged has NOTHING to do with what is currently happening with the MR2!!
Think more along the lines of future support for only 3 aircraft once the MR2 is out of service... Do you honestly think that factories will stay open to provide parts for an aircraft type that is so old and of such few numbers? Do you think Rolls-Royce will keep a build-line operating to provide engines in such few quantities as would be required, when that engine type is otherwise extinct? (and yes, it's different to the MR2's engines).
Think "Rivet Joint".
Think more along the lines of future support for only 3 aircraft once the MR2 is out of service... Do you honestly think that factories will stay open to provide parts for an aircraft type that is so old and of such few numbers? Do you think Rolls-Royce will keep a build-line operating to provide engines in such few quantities as would be required, when that engine type is otherwise extinct? (and yes, it's different to the MR2's engines).
Think "Rivet Joint".
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are they going to do with the old VC-10 C1s when FSTA comes in......
Conways to support, high-houred, and thoroughly knackered now, let alone when FSTA finally comes in? I hope to goodness that they put the old girls out to grass, with as many of them as possible preserved to show future generations what a beautiful airliner can look like.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Witty, you have a point re 3 a/c to provide enough frames for Ops (and even exercises which are essential for training and developing tactics).
Even with my very limited knowledge of the R1 I won't comment on numbers in use etc. or when and where they are used.
I am not advocating 2 frames for the role but 2 or 3 large aircraft that are all singing, all dancing and then more of a smaller type with the capability required for less complex missions, ideally they would be reconfigurable, and not carry all the equipment all of the time. In reality this would provide more assets for Ops/Exercises, it might be that you have to accept short periods when no large platform is available.
I think the A330 way too large and the point about true widebody is virtually irrelivant for a non cargo role a/c. Personally, although a new build airliner type would be the gold plated solution what are the chances of it happening?
I don't think 4 engines is as much of a issue as it used to be, the USN seem happy enough to go for the P-8 for extended patrol. A B737 size a/c is probably good enough, the P-8 airframe would fit the bill as it is "miltaryised" including protection, armour and DAS, increased AUW, EPM hardened?, bombbay, wing hard points for extra pods, sensors, etc. and I think it can provide more electrical power, the P-8A equipment is not required, it is a shame the Airbus equivilant is still a drawing. Unfortunatly I think it will be considered over engineered for the role and mission profile and they will end up essentially flying a civilian airframe in hostile conditions
I've looked round a couple of RC-135 variants and one definitly had a cargo door, although it is desirable it is not essential, although it might be useful for self deployment as well as re- roleing or mods.
Finally, I'm glad no one has mentioned using a few MRA4 airframes as that would only solve a few issues, most the space issues etc. would remain. It would provide some airframe commonality but I can't see it being anywhere near a cheap to operate as a modern airliner type and again it is possibly over engineered.
I'm going to bow out of the hypothetical debate now before I either breach the OSA or bore you fine chaps (or chapesses) as I am starting to repeat myself
Those who really know what is needed can't comment and I can't explain my rational on here, apart from that I am mostly guessing
Even with my very limited knowledge of the R1 I won't comment on numbers in use etc. or when and where they are used.
I am not advocating 2 frames for the role but 2 or 3 large aircraft that are all singing, all dancing and then more of a smaller type with the capability required for less complex missions, ideally they would be reconfigurable, and not carry all the equipment all of the time. In reality this would provide more assets for Ops/Exercises, it might be that you have to accept short periods when no large platform is available.
I think the A330 way too large and the point about true widebody is virtually irrelivant for a non cargo role a/c. Personally, although a new build airliner type would be the gold plated solution what are the chances of it happening?
I don't think 4 engines is as much of a issue as it used to be, the USN seem happy enough to go for the P-8 for extended patrol. A B737 size a/c is probably good enough, the P-8 airframe would fit the bill as it is "miltaryised" including protection, armour and DAS, increased AUW, EPM hardened?, bombbay, wing hard points for extra pods, sensors, etc. and I think it can provide more electrical power, the P-8A equipment is not required, it is a shame the Airbus equivilant is still a drawing. Unfortunatly I think it will be considered over engineered for the role and mission profile and they will end up essentially flying a civilian airframe in hostile conditions
I've looked round a couple of RC-135 variants and one definitly had a cargo door, although it is desirable it is not essential, although it might be useful for self deployment as well as re- roleing or mods.
Finally, I'm glad no one has mentioned using a few MRA4 airframes as that would only solve a few issues, most the space issues etc. would remain. It would provide some airframe commonality but I can't see it being anywhere near a cheap to operate as a modern airliner type and again it is possibly over engineered.
I'm going to bow out of the hypothetical debate now before I either breach the OSA or bore you fine chaps (or chapesses) as I am starting to repeat myself
Those who really know what is needed can't comment and I can't explain my rational on here, apart from that I am mostly guessing
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Cynically, give them the three L1011-500s and let civil charter take up the AT load. The remaining life will suffice till a replacement is needed at the rate the hours are used, and we already have the support in place. More than enough room to ensure only minor engineering work is required.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can comment on the Need for 3 ELINT Aircraft
In my Experiance Roughtly
25% of any Fleet are in Mainternance
25% Training for aircrew
and the rest on Ops
From that it is easy to work out 3 aircraft is a minimum for any fleet
1 in Mainternance (Equlized or Major with regards to the Nimrod, not including Non scheduled Mainternance)
1 for Aircrew Training, Ops is required
1 on Ops
In my Experiance Roughtly
25% of any Fleet are in Mainternance
25% Training for aircrew
and the rest on Ops
From that it is easy to work out 3 aircraft is a minimum for any fleet
1 in Mainternance (Equlized or Major with regards to the Nimrod, not including Non scheduled Mainternance)
1 for Aircrew Training, Ops is required
1 on Ops
Which is why, with an enduring task (home-based/Russia etc) and the real likelihood of two overseas ops at any one time, we should perhaps be looking at the ability to have three aircraft on ops - eg a six aircraft fleet!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the skill sets required down the back of a SIGINT platform, I suggest that getting 3, 6, 50 or however many jets you want is the easy bit.
Where do the guys and gals come from?!
Where do the guys and gals come from?!
They may be WSOps, in that they wear that brevet (though I'll bet most of them still wear AE and S brevets, in practice).
But they are very specialised roles on 51, requiring long and specialised training (and requiring particular qualifications in the case of one crew 'specialisation') and 51's excellence is very much founded on having a core of lengthy experience in the role - such that when I was writing about 51 a couple of years ago there were still blokes on the unit who'd served on the Canberra and Comet, which were phased out of service in 1973-76!
It would be difficult to 'grow' new crews of sufficient experience, and with such highly-developed skills and instincts, quickly, though one gets the impression that the squadron could operate at least one more jet than it has now....
The unit's previous practice of operating a big, multi-engined type and a smaller one (Comet and Canberra) makes me wonder whether something similar would not be appropriate today. The Canberras (carrying a pilot, nav and single operator (either Sigint or Comint depending on the mission) were used for particular tasks that did not require a Comet, or to augment the Comets, or, it seems, for ops in particular areas, or where higher altitude performance was required, or for 'feints' designed to elicit a response from enemy defences.
A flight of converted Typhoon two-seaters (OK, redundant F.Mk 3s if you must), UAVs or Global Expresses might be 'nice to have' - though I don't see it happening!
But they are very specialised roles on 51, requiring long and specialised training (and requiring particular qualifications in the case of one crew 'specialisation') and 51's excellence is very much founded on having a core of lengthy experience in the role - such that when I was writing about 51 a couple of years ago there were still blokes on the unit who'd served on the Canberra and Comet, which were phased out of service in 1973-76!
It would be difficult to 'grow' new crews of sufficient experience, and with such highly-developed skills and instincts, quickly, though one gets the impression that the squadron could operate at least one more jet than it has now....
The unit's previous practice of operating a big, multi-engined type and a smaller one (Comet and Canberra) makes me wonder whether something similar would not be appropriate today. The Canberras (carrying a pilot, nav and single operator (either Sigint or Comint depending on the mission) were used for particular tasks that did not require a Comet, or to augment the Comets, or, it seems, for ops in particular areas, or where higher altitude performance was required, or for 'feints' designed to elicit a response from enemy defences.
A flight of converted Typhoon two-seaters (OK, redundant F.Mk 3s if you must), UAVs or Global Expresses might be 'nice to have' - though I don't see it happening!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN,
Surely the RAF will have been training up sufficient WSOps to continue. And as the procurement cycle is likely to be a lengthy process this should give the planners an idea of how many personnel with the correct training will be required. However, if the critical experienced personnel all PVR then 51 are screwed and they will have to make do with a lesser experience level to do the same job (sound familiar?
).
Worst case is that the government decides that ELINT is too expensive for a nation our size and takes a 'capability gap' whilst hanging onto the skirts of USAF RJ's.
Surely the RAF will have been training up sufficient WSOps to continue. And as the procurement cycle is likely to be a lengthy process this should give the planners an idea of how many personnel with the correct training will be required. However, if the critical experienced personnel all PVR then 51 are screwed and they will have to make do with a lesser experience level to do the same job (sound familiar?
).Worst case is that the government decides that ELINT is too expensive for a nation our size and takes a 'capability gap' whilst hanging onto the skirts of USAF RJ's.
Boldface wrote
One of the trades in the rear
http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/w...oplinguist.cfm
From
http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/aircrew.cfm
Some of the linguists transfer to aircrew from this trade.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/i...alystvoice.cfm
Where do the guys and gals come from?!
http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/w...oplinguist.cfm
From
http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/aircrew.cfm
Some of the linguists transfer to aircrew from this trade.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/i...alystvoice.cfm
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either people ( politicians ) take this issue seriously, with appropriate kit -
or why not use a Cessna Caravan with a 'spotter & his scanner in the back, and a bloke with a good set of bino's ?
I have a horrible feeling which they'd choose !
As others have mentioned, there are some large airframes going secondhand - I can't help thinking this should be instead / would have to be - a buy of new large airframes - C-17 anyone ?
As far as FSTA goes, seems to me they're re-inventing the wheel - slowly, but with 'Euro' stamped on it.
or why not use a Cessna Caravan with a 'spotter & his scanner in the back, and a bloke with a good set of bino's ?
I have a horrible feeling which they'd choose !
As others have mentioned, there are some large airframes going secondhand - I can't help thinking this should be instead / would have to be - a buy of new large airframes - C-17 anyone ?
As far as FSTA goes, seems to me they're re-inventing the wheel - slowly, but with 'Euro' stamped on it.