UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I appreciate your passion for an "R5" Nimrod, but the three prototype MRA4 airframes can still be upgraded to operational MRA4 configuration. I know that this hasn't happened yet, but sanity will at some prevail - possibly post SDR 2010.
"R5" precludes this - making RC-135 a good choice irrespective of the the "commonality with the USAF" arguments. And I for one have no whatsoever faith that BAES could deliver an "R5" programme to time or on budget.
S41
I appreciate your passion for an "R5" Nimrod, but the three prototype MRA4 airframes can still be upgraded to operational MRA4 configuration. I know that this hasn't happened yet, but sanity will at some prevail - possibly post SDR 2010.
"R5" precludes this - making RC-135 a good choice irrespective of the the "commonality with the USAF" arguments. And I for one have no whatsoever faith that BAES could deliver an "R5" programme to time or on budget.
S41
Jacko,
"...BAE have given a good idea of the extra cost of adding 3 R5s to existing MRA4 support arrangements."
What existing MRA4 support arrangements? When defence contracts are announced these days they are normal trumpeted, in terms of jobs created/saved, and cost savings achieved, on MOD websites, general defence publications, company magazines, etc.
I have recently seen contracts announced for Harrier engine support, 5 years of Typhoon support, etc, but don't remember an MRA4 support contract being announced?
Squirrel
Sanity may prevail, but I doubt very much whether a budget will. With budget tightening all around post the next election whoever wins (the Tories call them "cuts", which at least is honest, Labour call them "adjustments", which is an insult to most people's inteeligence), 9 MRA4 will almost certainly be all the RAF ever get.
"...BAE have given a good idea of the extra cost of adding 3 R5s to existing MRA4 support arrangements."
What existing MRA4 support arrangements? When defence contracts are announced these days they are normal trumpeted, in terms of jobs created/saved, and cost savings achieved, on MOD websites, general defence publications, company magazines, etc.
I have recently seen contracts announced for Harrier engine support, 5 years of Typhoon support, etc, but don't remember an MRA4 support contract being announced?
Squirrel
Sanity may prevail, but I doubt very much whether a budget will. With budget tightening all around post the next election whoever wins (the Tories call them "cuts", which at least is honest, Labour call them "adjustments", which is an insult to most people's inteeligence), 9 MRA4 will almost certainly be all the RAF ever get.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
The budget is all about choices - hard choices, but choices nonetheless. I heard a figure of £100m to upgrade the three MRA4 test airframes to operational configuration, whilst Boarding Score Alliance (or Continuity in Education Allowance, if you prefer) is (source: bar int) costing us £200m p.a..
Now, I've seen neither of the figures, so cannot vouch for veracity of either (this is a rumour network, after all....) but if either are close to accurate, I'd take the MRA4 upgrade over boarding schools every day and twice on Sunday.
(Cue much outraged ranting.)
These are difficult decisions, no doubt. But tough times require it.
Now, back to the important things - ie, the 5th Test!
S41
The budget is all about choices - hard choices, but choices nonetheless. I heard a figure of £100m to upgrade the three MRA4 test airframes to operational configuration, whilst Boarding Score Alliance (or Continuity in Education Allowance, if you prefer) is (source: bar int) costing us £200m p.a..
Now, I've seen neither of the figures, so cannot vouch for veracity of either (this is a rumour network, after all....) but if either are close to accurate, I'd take the MRA4 upgrade over boarding schools every day and twice on Sunday.
(Cue much outraged ranting.)
These are difficult decisions, no doubt. But tough times require it.
Now, back to the important things - ie, the 5th Test!
S41
And I for one have no whatsoever faith that BAES could deliver an "R5" programme to time or on budget.
JN, the R5 would be a disaster - to do everything we need to do we need an airframe with space inside, and outside for the antenna arrays, rather than being another Nimord "squeezed in like sardines!".
Finally, the SIGINT role is ideal for UAV/UASs and that may be the future after the RJ contract finishes?
The B Word
Although drones clearly make good surveillance platforms, I'm not convinced that propagation delay when associated with fine adjustment of SIGINT equipment, particularly where accurate direction-of-arrival is needed, makes them 'ideal' for such a role.
Neither Comet- nor Boeing 707-derived platforms are in their first flush of youth. Both have 4 engines because they needed them back in the 1950s, with all the associated maintenance requirements.
An aircraft of roughly the same physical size as the VC10, yet which has 2/3 the burn rate is becoming available. The Luftwaffe are replacing their VVIP A310s with A340s; the A310 would have all the electrical power and space needed for the mission requirements of the role. Same fuselage cross section as an A330 and plenty of room for mission specialists and their equipment.
Price would probably be right too - and no worries about 't bungling Baron Waste o' Space trying to modify a 60 year old aeroplane design.
Neither Comet- nor Boeing 707-derived platforms are in their first flush of youth. Both have 4 engines because they needed them back in the 1950s, with all the associated maintenance requirements.
An aircraft of roughly the same physical size as the VC10, yet which has 2/3 the burn rate is becoming available. The Luftwaffe are replacing their VVIP A310s with A340s; the A310 would have all the electrical power and space needed for the mission requirements of the role. Same fuselage cross section as an A330 and plenty of room for mission specialists and their equipment.
Price would probably be right too - and no worries about 't bungling Baron Waste o' Space trying to modify a 60 year old aeroplane design.
Although drones clearly make good surveillance platforms, I'm not convinced that propagation delay when associated with fine adjustment of SIGINT equipment, particularly where accurate direction-of-arrival is needed, makes them 'ideal' for such a role.
Even manned platforms have to offload the collection as there simply isn't the people or processing power available - try flying with several Cray supercomputers the size of a car showroom with the same size coolers and you'll see why. The man in the loop on the aircraft is useful but not dispensible and 2 seconds of delay is nothing in this world. Some of the cryptonanalysis probably take months if not years...
All the adjustments are automated these days. These days are gone!
Face it BEags the days of men/women driving/operating things are coming to an end - I even heard on Radio 4 that they reckon that unmanned haulage might be on the road in 10-15yrs time!
The B Word
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not convinced that propagation delay when associated with fine adjustment of SIGINT equipment, particularly where accurate direction-of-arrival is needed, makes them 'ideal' for such a role.
Beagie, are you seriously suggesting that a 21st C. SIGINT platform must have people aboard twiddling frequency tuning knobs?
... This direction-of-arrival business: do you have in mind a loop antenna that physically rotates atop the fuselage?
Beagie, are you seriously suggesting that a 21st C. SIGINT platform must have people aboard twiddling frequency tuning knobs?
... This direction-of-arrival business: do you have in mind a loop antenna that physically rotates atop the fuselage?
Loop antennae - hardly. Specialist on board, probably. But is a 2 sec delay to a 1 sec burst a problem.....ICATQ as I don't know.
Those who do know what's needed are not going to post on here. I have no direct knowledge of what goes on in such air platforms, but if the drone alternative is so good then I'm surprised the bean counters haven't already suggested it.
Of course they are some areas over which drones will not be allowed to fly - at least, not for many years. So there very probably will be a need for an airliner-based manned platform to replace the current Nimrod R.
Unmanned road haulage? At the moment the Germans can't even get their tracking and road tariff system working properly, let alone an automatic guidance system.... Mercedes press demonstration of their automatic braking system was hardly a resounding success as they suddenly realised it didn't like being inside a steel warehouse building due to RF reflections confusing the radar. So they tried to cheat by putting a block of wood on the ground, then stamping on the brakes as they crossed it, stopping before hitting the car ahead. Worked fine in practice; unfortunately on the day either someone had tidied away the piece of wood or the S-Class suspension was so good the driver didn't notice the wood, so the result was 3 rather crumpled S-Class and a lot of red faces when the 'fog' finally cleared...
Those who do know what's needed are not going to post on here. I have no direct knowledge of what goes on in such air platforms, but if the drone alternative is so good then I'm surprised the bean counters haven't already suggested it.
Of course they are some areas over which drones will not be allowed to fly - at least, not for many years. So there very probably will be a need for an airliner-based manned platform to replace the current Nimrod R.
Unmanned road haulage? At the moment the Germans can't even get their tracking and road tariff system working properly, let alone an automatic guidance system.... Mercedes press demonstration of their automatic braking system was hardly a resounding success as they suddenly realised it didn't like being inside a steel warehouse building due to RF reflections confusing the radar. So they tried to cheat by putting a block of wood on the ground, then stamping on the brakes as they crossed it, stopping before hitting the car ahead. Worked fine in practice; unfortunately on the day either someone had tidied away the piece of wood or the S-Class suspension was so good the driver didn't notice the wood, so the result was 3 rather crumpled S-Class and a lot of red faces when the 'fog' finally cleared...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The problem with unmanned sensors is that they are computer driven and computer software is designed to operate to closely defined parameter. A human operator can operate outside pre selected limits.
For instance a computer might have display thresholds set and ignore anything outside the limits by way of noise reduction. One famous example was NASA and the ozone layer. The computer's rejected the evidence as the programmers had set the limits. British meteorologists, operating from observations, detected the ozone layer and then had to persuade NASA that their computer model was wrong.
In elint the human operator might spot 'random' events and short transients that a computer might be programmed to miss.
For instance a computer might have display thresholds set and ignore anything outside the limits by way of noise reduction. One famous example was NASA and the ozone layer. The computer's rejected the evidence as the programmers had set the limits. British meteorologists, operating from observations, detected the ozone layer and then had to persuade NASA that their computer model was wrong.
In elint the human operator might spot 'random' events and short transients that a computer might be programmed to miss.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,571
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes
on
31 Posts
May I also add that the bandwidth needed to pass every intercept back to an operator on the ground - probably through Satcom, would be very great. By having the man in the loop, he can filter out the "trash" and only send on the good gen thus relieving bandwidth.
Bandwidth is a big issue within ISTAR, and with the Government wanting more and more of it to sell off to commercial enterprise then the less we have to use - the better. (I have also heard rumours that the Gov't want to charge the MOD for the use of the EM spectrum and therefore we will have to minimise on the number of frequencies that we use).
Bandwidth is a big issue within ISTAR, and with the Government wanting more and more of it to sell off to commercial enterprise then the less we have to use - the better. (I have also heard rumours that the Gov't want to charge the MOD for the use of the EM spectrum and therefore we will have to minimise on the number of frequencies that we use).
I have also heard rumours that the Gov't want to charge the MOD for the use of the EM spectrum and therefore we will have to minimise on the number of frequencies that we use
The interesting thing about SIGINT birds (like R1 and RJ) is that they rely on getting the info back to other govt agencies for analysis, granted there are real time jobs to do as well but I would estimate that 50% of the work is done off-board of the manned asset. So the bandwidth issue may not be as bad as you think. I understand that the biggest issue is antenna size, however, they have done clever things with small antennas before by summing up their collect - such as the very large array radio telescope system...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,571
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes
on
31 Posts
They only charge for transmitting not for recieving - ie. SIGINT. Plus if we don't transmit within the UK FIR they can't charge anyway!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Airbus would be an ideal platform - stilted u/c allowing a 'boat' full of antennae slung underneath [good, unobstructed reception] + cargo space for fly-away packs. And plenty of room to carry the groundcrew for deployment.
Young, modern, fuel efficient, long endurance, room to expand internally - the list is endless.
Drones have their place on the battlefield, alongside the human. SIGINT benefits from the experienced operator who can instantly, for example, take the intonation in the voice and add it to all the other observed factors to reach a quick conclusion. That's how it works, so why throw away a top class methodology?...
Young, modern, fuel efficient, long endurance, room to expand internally - the list is endless.
Drones have their place on the battlefield, alongside the human. SIGINT benefits from the experienced operator who can instantly, for example, take the intonation in the voice and add it to all the other observed factors to reach a quick conclusion. That's how it works, so why throw away a top class methodology?...
There's no doubt that an A310 would be a superb R1 replacement.
Bif, wide body fuselage, cargo door, plenty of space underfloor, big enough dimensions for good aerial placement. But funding means that it needs to be more off the shelf than that.
The B Word said:
The RC-135 is hardly any more spacious than the Nimrod R, and if you added in the same number of Elint consoles and operators it would be far less spacious.
The B Word said:
Modern Elmo said:
The 51 Squadron capability is one of the few that the UK can offer that really is in advance of what others can. Its capability is based upon manual tuning by highly experienced operators. The man in the loop is absolutely essential to how 51 does the job, and to the reputation for excellence that the squadron enjoys.
The B Word said:
Nonsense. As the Marineflieger are about to find out.
Bif, wide body fuselage, cargo door, plenty of space underfloor, big enough dimensions for good aerial placement. But funding means that it needs to be more off the shelf than that.
The B Word said:
the R5 would be a disaster - to do everything we need to do we need an airframe with space inside, and outside for the antenna arrays, rather than being another Nimord "squeezed in like sardines!".
The B Word said:
Even manned platforms have to offload the collection as there simply isn't the people or processing power available - try flying with several Cray supercomputers the size of a car showroom with the same size coolers and you'll see why. The man in the loop on the aircraft is useful but not dispensible and 2 seconds of delay is nothing in this world. Some of the cryptonanalysis probably take months if not years...
All the adjustments are automated these days. These days are gone!
All the adjustments are automated these days. These days are gone!
Beagie, are you seriously suggesting that a 21st C. SIGINT platform must have people aboard twiddling frequency tuning knobs?
The B Word said:
Finally, the SIGINT role is ideal for UAV/UASs and that may be the future after the RJ contract finishes?
I would argue that Global Hawk would beg to differ!
I would argue that Global Hawk would beg to differ!
If the receiver is in the UK, then we will take up the bandwidth and will be charged by HMG
Another solution, you could fly your UAV SIGINT collect from LOS missions in theatre and then use the land forces EW detachment personnel? How's that for value for money?
Finally, the SIGINT role is ideal for UAV/UASs and that may be the future after the RJ contract finishes?
I would argue that Global Hawk would beg to differ!
Nonsense. As the Marineflieger are about to find out.
I would argue that Global Hawk would beg to differ!
Nonsense. As the Marineflieger are about to find out.
Finally, having been inside an R1 and an RJ (@ Offut) there is a lot more space in the RJ.
A good debate, this one. Keep it coming.
The B Word
There are 3 Elint ops on an RJ. Three!
Cram on enough to do the full R1 role and the RJ would be more than merely crowded.
And even now, the RJ isn't that much more spacious (and has even fewer windows.......)
As to unmanned - a UAV can do Elint and Comint in the same way that a U-2 can. What it can't do is RJ or R1 style Sigint missions.
Cram on enough to do the full R1 role and the RJ would be more than merely crowded.
And even now, the RJ isn't that much more spacious (and has even fewer windows.......)
As to unmanned - a UAV can do Elint and Comint in the same way that a U-2 can. What it can't do is RJ or R1 style Sigint missions.
There are 3 Elint ops on an RJ. Three!
You definately can't stand about inside an R1 like this unless the USAF employ midgets!
The B Word
PS. Just found this - the inside of the R1. Spot the difference in space, you can't even stand up straight!!!
Last edited by The B Word; 25th Aug 2009 at 00:28.
You've picked the roomiest part of an RJ, there!
And it's three. Ravens 1-3. Not a 'minimum of three'
Then there's AMSATS, IMT and OPR 1-12 plus 15 SSO and 16 SSO.
That's a mission crew of 19.
Versus 10 Elint, 13 Comint and two ad hoc on the R1.........
"You do the math" as the cousins would say.
And it's three. Ravens 1-3. Not a 'minimum of three'
Then there's AMSATS, IMT and OPR 1-12 plus 15 SSO and 16 SSO.
That's a mission crew of 19.
Versus 10 Elint, 13 Comint and two ad hoc on the R1.........
"You do the math" as the cousins would say.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if anyone's posted this, I didn't check the whole thread but
Death Spiral for HELIX? Britain Wants RC-135 Rivet Joint Planes
Who mentioned RC135's?
Death Spiral for HELIX? Britain Wants RC-135 Rivet Joint Planes
Who mentioned RC135's?