UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'Comet' airframe is probably spacing limiting and the MRA4 is probably near weight limiting.
Waddo already has 707s so 135s could use the same maintenance shed.
Then of course the UK could also mod the 135s to share commonality with the E3.
So, any guesses on engines and flight deck?
Waddo already has 707s so 135s could use the same maintenance shed.
Then of course the UK could also mod the 135s to share commonality with the E3.
So, any guesses on engines and flight deck?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 135Rs have CFM56 engines (not sure if the same model as the E3s) but in almost every other respect (except the nose) the airframe is very different from E-3. And for the RJ they will probably amend the nose profile anyway!
At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'
At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the OSD of the R1 seems to have been mentioned in the RAF management plan as March 2011 so they had better get a move on.
Replacement due 2012 so no gap there then..... No chance of slipages either.
Wonder when it will be most politically prudent to announce the $1b American order.
As a small fallout, one of the organisations at Waddo that support the R1 mission system have been told to start run down. 20% of staff by next March, a further 50% by 2010 and rest by March 2011 from what I gather.
Replacement due 2012 so no gap there then..... No chance of slipages either.
Wonder when it will be most politically prudent to announce the $1b American order.
As a small fallout, one of the organisations at Waddo that support the R1 mission system have been told to start run down. 20% of staff by next March, a further 50% by 2010 and rest by March 2011 from what I gather.
XV277 Said ;
"the airframe is very different from E-3"
erm....Oh no it isnt.
and
"At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'"
What are you on? That sort of attitude got us into this situation.
"the airframe is very different from E-3"
erm....Oh no it isnt.
and
"At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'"
What are you on? That sort of attitude got us into this situation.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
XV277 Said ;
"the airframe is very different from E-3"
erm....Oh no it isnt.
"the airframe is very different from E-3"
erm....Oh no it isnt.
The E-3 is based on a 707, the RC-135 is based on the C-135. The C-135 was developed in tandem with the 707, both being based on the "Dash 80" (Boeing 367-80), but with differing lineage. The main visible differences being the airframe dimensions and flight deck.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oop North (where the beer is best)
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What space in Alpha Hangar? There's always one E-3 in the shed having a major, and another in minor. They're having enough trouble fixing the one that was spanked by the towing assembly because they're space limited.
Will it fit in 51 Sqn's hangar without the dome?
I suppose the bean counters have already decided that the flight-deck crews will be dual qualified...
Will it fit in 51 Sqn's hangar without the dome?
I suppose the bean counters have already decided that the flight-deck crews will be dual qualified...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The 51 Sqn hangar was designed for the pre-war bombers, wartime bombers and successive aircraft were all designed to fit. At 130 feet it is 10 feet wider than a Victor 2 was. It would be a very tight fit.
Also what is the height of the fin? Add fin doors?
Also what is the height of the fin? Add fin doors?
Bob, this is like a pantomime! erm....Oh no it isn't "very different" then if they were both based on the dash 8. I'm implying they will have some commonality. It all depends on your definition of "very different". I do not know the proportion though, I will admit.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US DSCA notifies Congress of possible 'Rivet Joint' sale to UK
The UK's potential acquisition of three RC-135V/W 'Rivet Joint' signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft to replace its existing Nimrod R.1s moved a step closer on 2 October 2008, when the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a potential USD1.07 billion 'Rivet Joint' sale to the UK Royal Air Force. The DSCA noted that, if approved, the three aircraft will be based on existing CFM56-powered KC-135R tankers - rather than 'Rivet Joint' aircraft taken from the US Air Force fleet - modified for the SIGINT role by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems at its facility in Greenville, Texas
The UK's potential acquisition of three RC-135V/W 'Rivet Joint' signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft to replace its existing Nimrod R.1s moved a step closer on 2 October 2008, when the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a potential USD1.07 billion 'Rivet Joint' sale to the UK Royal Air Force. The DSCA noted that, if approved, the three aircraft will be based on existing CFM56-powered KC-135R tankers - rather than 'Rivet Joint' aircraft taken from the US Air Force fleet - modified for the SIGINT role by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems at its facility in Greenville, Texas
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, I stand by:
"the airframe is very different from E-3"
The fuselage of the 135 is narrower than that on the 707. and the 135 lacks the 'double bubble' of the 707, the wings and wing roots are quite different from the -320B series 707 that the E-3 is based on. The USAF did re-engineer a number of 135s with tailplanes from redundant 707s, so there is some commonality there!
There may be smaller degrees of commonality in terms of things like u/c components (I'm not that familiar with either airframe) But different fuselage and different wings do not make 'essentially the same airframe'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Yet To Confirm Nimrod SIGINT Replacement: AIN Online
UK Yet To Confirm Nimrod SIGINT Replacement
Looks like the R1 may have to keep going a little longer 
UK Yet To Confirm Nimrod SIGINT Replacement
Senior RAF officers have said that the Nimrods perform a vital task, and they last month promised the UK Parliament that there would not be “a capability gap” when the Nimrods are withdrawn from service in 2011. But the Nimrod SIGINT replacement seems to have fallen foul of the UK’s defense budget squeeze. The MoD told AIN that a decision would be made late this year, and the R1s would be extended in service if necessary.
An informed US source also addressed British concerns that the Rivet Joint system concentrates on COMINT at the expense of electronic intelligence (ELINT). He said: “I know that the RAF [mission systems operators] are not happy but they will get over it. An Rivet Joint configuration is not as ELINT-oriented, but today’s environment doesn’t really need an ELINT-heavy system.”
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,562
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
the wings and wing roots are quite different from the -320B series 707 that the E-3 is based on.
Though the USAF is desperately short of tankers - and especially KC-135Rs, there are apparently three sitting in the boneyard that we can have. These are the aircraft that will be converted (taking an unknown period at Tinker AFB, followed by 18 months at E-Systems, each) for the RAF.
I'll bet they're in great condition.
And they'll cost more than the Nimrod R5, and cost more to operate.
Apart from that, good plan, crack on!
I'll bet they're in great condition.
And they'll cost more than the Nimrod R5, and cost more to operate.
Apart from that, good plan, crack on!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Do you have the information as to the cost of an R5?
If so please share it with the rest of us.
How long would Wasteofspace take to get it to the frontline?
Maybe if we called it Nimrod 2020 that would give them enough time.
Do you have the information as to the cost of an R5?
If so please share it with the rest of us.
How long would Wasteofspace take to get it to the frontline?
Maybe if we called it Nimrod 2020 that would give them enough time.
Lonsdale,
NB that the UK MoD already owns three surplus MRA4 airframes.
NB also that BAE have given a good idea of the extra cost of adding 3 R5s to existing MRA4 support arrangements.
The MRA4 has, of course, not been a great advert for BAE. But no worse an advert than the 737 AEW&C or the P-8 have been for Boeing.
My understanding is that you could get one RC-135 into service more quickly than one R5, but that getting all three aircraft on charge would be quicker with the UK solution.
But the key point is that while the -135 is great for Afghanistan, the Nimrod is a better solution overall.
NB that the UK MoD already owns three surplus MRA4 airframes.
NB also that BAE have given a good idea of the extra cost of adding 3 R5s to existing MRA4 support arrangements.
The MRA4 has, of course, not been a great advert for BAE. But no worse an advert than the 737 AEW&C or the P-8 have been for Boeing.
My understanding is that you could get one RC-135 into service more quickly than one R5, but that getting all three aircraft on charge would be quicker with the UK solution.
But the key point is that while the -135 is great for Afghanistan, the Nimrod is a better solution overall.