UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade
The RC-135V/W is known as Rivet Joint (RJ).
Chris Pocock's piece in AIN is predictably pro American. Chris argues JSF over Typhoon, RC-135 over R1, and (doubtless) P-8 over MRA4 too.
Normally, a 'pro US equipment' stance would be entirely reasonable, but not in this case.
RC-135 may be inevitable, but that don't make it right.
Chris Pocock's piece in AIN is predictably pro American. Chris argues JSF over Typhoon, RC-135 over R1, and (doubtless) P-8 over MRA4 too.
Normally, a 'pro US equipment' stance would be entirely reasonable, but not in this case.
RC-135 may be inevitable, but that don't make it right.
JN
From open source Factsheets : RC-135V/W Rivet Joint USAF official factsheet.
Done the reading and I read "27" mission crew, which is greater than your R1 figure - and I know they can mix and match as we do on R1 for a particular mission. EWOs or Ravens can augment above the number of 3. We will also get a say in what type of aircrew (WSO, WSOp or AT) we employ on RAF RJ.
Here are some more pictures of the other "roomier parts" of the RJ!
Next you'll claim I've photo-shopped the images!
He does have a point. I for one am fed up with under-performing, over-budget and late offerings from t'Bungling Baron (to quote BEagle) - Mantis is already late by 6 months and they've only been building it for a year or so. I have flown one of their products for over a decade and recently converted to a US aircraft - chalk and cheese comes to mind!
So go ahead, believe that we should buy British (which is nearly always more expensive) and then have to replace/modify it with UOR (which is also more expensive) when it doesn't perform for ops. Urgent radar mods, software upgrades, defensive aids, weapon changes have mostly been my experience of THEIR products when going to war - the US aircraft now on ops needed none of this.
I believe it is time to say "enough is enough" and it is time for the MoD's Defence Budget to stop bailing out t'Bungling Baron of Blackburn - or how about a profit share if we do (they did make £1.75bn last year!)???
The B Word
Crew: (flight crew) five (augmented) - three pilots, two navigators; (mission flight crew) 21-27, depending on mission requirements, minimum consisting of three electronic warfare officers, 14 intelligence operators and four inflight/airborne maintenance technicians
Done the reading and I read "27" mission crew, which is greater than your R1 figure - and I know they can mix and match as we do on R1 for a particular mission. EWOs or Ravens can augment above the number of 3. We will also get a say in what type of aircrew (WSO, WSOp or AT) we employ on RAF RJ.
Here are some more pictures of the other "roomier parts" of the RJ!
Next you'll claim I've photo-shopped the images!
Chris argues JSF over Typhoon, RC-135 over R1, and (doubtless) P-8 over MRA4 too.
So go ahead, believe that we should buy British (which is nearly always more expensive) and then have to replace/modify it with UOR (which is also more expensive) when it doesn't perform for ops. Urgent radar mods, software upgrades, defensive aids, weapon changes have mostly been my experience of THEIR products when going to war - the US aircraft now on ops needed none of this.
I believe it is time to say "enough is enough" and it is time for the MoD's Defence Budget to stop bailing out t'Bungling Baron of Blackburn - or how about a profit share if we do (they did make £1.75bn last year!)???
The B Word
Well done BAE, your F-16 is 25 years late!
As written in the RAF Brize Norton station magazine The Gateway Magazine in April 1985:
(Whatever the European aircraft manufacturers might say, one can't help feeling that the EFA, ACX, ACA, EAP or whatever they call it next will have to be pretty revolutionary if it's to be better than just an F-16 20 years too late! - Ed.)
My boss agreed with me - I was the Editor!
Not sure about visionary - I'm still in shock that BEags once did a secondary duty such as Station Magazine editor (even if it was in the days of papyrus paper and ink quills 
). I always had him down as a "station secondary duties are for career chasing, gas using, shiny ar$ed losers"! Is this where it all went wrong (or right!) - did the Scottish Gp Capt / Air Officer have you sacked for your editorial leaders ...?
). I always had him down as a "station secondary duties are for career chasing, gas using, shiny ar$ed losers"! Is this where it all went wrong (or right!) - did the Scottish Gp Capt / Air Officer have you sacked for your editorial leaders ...?
Secondary duties could be a source of much innocent fun, if you played the system!
For example, for the Gateway I used to demand 3 days off per month to do the editing, layouts and check the final galleys from the printer. Boss was happy with that - but whether or not I actually did the work then was something he didn't need to know.
We ran a spoof so sucessful about the BAe146P as a 'low observable' special duties jet with 'A Radio Frequency Illumination Limiting Loop' (A RFIL loop) in the April edition that Air Clues ran with the story and pinched the photo of a couple of lads fiddling with a broomstick painted white stuck on top of the BAe 146 development flight's jet. I had to ring them up and point out that 'A RFIL loop' was an anagram....
Much mirth at the UAS when I was the Fire Officer. I requested a survey of our building from the Command Fire people and they went nuts! It was a death trap. So I produced a long list of issues for the boss to deal with.... Soon afterwards someone else took over as Sqn Fire Officer.
Silliest was 'Squadron Sports Officer'. Someone was clearly taking the pi$$. But the UAS people at Cranwell kept hosing us down with dosh, because our scale of entitlement was based on the number of students we had. Real rugby shirts for the team, 'spectator facilities' (bench and table sets for the barbecue really), ceramic hockey sticks, competition rugby balls, full sets of cricket gear - you name it, we had it! Horrid Kevball shirts had been ordered by my predecessor, but as Stop Start will recall, we decided that Kevball was not an appropriate game for potential young officers, so they remained firmly under lock and key!
At Brize, my Sqn boss used to vet the squadron's Gateway submission written by a chum. Which I took rather a dim view of - and often ran the original instead. The boss never noticed......
I only had one of those stupid Officers Mess secondary duties once - Silver Member at Wattisham. Trying to reconcile the hoard of dented plunder and 'borrowed items' in the silver store with the property book was a total nightmare - we had loads more than the book said we had! 56(F) used to volunteer for quite a few mess secondary duties, much to the surprise of OC Eng, the PMC. Being non-aircrew, he hadn't noticed that we consequently had a huge majority whenever the Mess Committee needed to make a decision.....
For example, for the Gateway I used to demand 3 days off per month to do the editing, layouts and check the final galleys from the printer. Boss was happy with that - but whether or not I actually did the work then was something he didn't need to know.
We ran a spoof so sucessful about the BAe146P as a 'low observable' special duties jet with 'A Radio Frequency Illumination Limiting Loop' (A RFIL loop) in the April edition that Air Clues ran with the story and pinched the photo of a couple of lads fiddling with a broomstick painted white stuck on top of the BAe 146 development flight's jet. I had to ring them up and point out that 'A RFIL loop' was an anagram....
Much mirth at the UAS when I was the Fire Officer. I requested a survey of our building from the Command Fire people and they went nuts! It was a death trap. So I produced a long list of issues for the boss to deal with.... Soon afterwards someone else took over as Sqn Fire Officer.
Silliest was 'Squadron Sports Officer'. Someone was clearly taking the pi$$. But the UAS people at Cranwell kept hosing us down with dosh, because our scale of entitlement was based on the number of students we had. Real rugby shirts for the team, 'spectator facilities' (bench and table sets for the barbecue really), ceramic hockey sticks, competition rugby balls, full sets of cricket gear - you name it, we had it! Horrid Kevball shirts had been ordered by my predecessor, but as Stop Start will recall, we decided that Kevball was not an appropriate game for potential young officers, so they remained firmly under lock and key!
At Brize, my Sqn boss used to vet the squadron's Gateway submission written by a chum. Which I took rather a dim view of - and often ran the original instead. The boss never noticed......
I only had one of those stupid Officers Mess secondary duties once - Silver Member at Wattisham. Trying to reconcile the hoard of dented plunder and 'borrowed items' in the silver store with the property book was a total nightmare - we had loads more than the book said we had! 56(F) used to volunteer for quite a few mess secondary duties, much to the surprise of OC Eng, the PMC. Being non-aircrew, he hadn't noticed that we consequently had a huge majority whenever the Mess Committee needed to make a decision.....
B Word.
I was looking at an official interior diagram of a for real Baseline 8 RC-135. The crew positions are exactly as I listed. Two of them (your LH pic) are inflight maintenance techs. The RH pic looks like a Baseline 6 mission commander or DLO - who have nearly as much space as the Ravens.
There aren't consoles to support a mission crew of 27 on the current RJ - there are just 17, plus techs, navs and pilots. There is 'rest accomodation' for relief crew, which there really isn't (1-2 ad hocs excepted) on the R1. There are, however, 24 consoles on the R1, plus nav, plus pilots.
They have three Ravens and the largely automated AEELS Elint kit on an RC-135V/W. Further aft is all Comint/Special Signals, and they are packed just as close as those in an R1.
There are some appalling BAE products, but the R1 has a justifiably excellent reputation - since it effectively rolls three quarters of an RC-135V/W and three quarters of an RC-135U into a single airframe, giving a capability that is in advance of that of the RJ in many ways.
There are also some dire US products. It's not all F-15 vs Tornado F3. Merlin is better than the H-92. American is not always best, as the P-8 quite clearly shows.
Deliverance,
JSF will, one day, be a great tactical fighter. At a price. One hopes, however, that they are more successful with integrating a helmet than they were with the F-22. Typhoon is far more than an F-16, 25 years late.
As to UK industry's world-beaters, I'd suggest to you that the R1 is just such an aircraft.
I was looking at an official interior diagram of a for real Baseline 8 RC-135. The crew positions are exactly as I listed. Two of them (your LH pic) are inflight maintenance techs. The RH pic looks like a Baseline 6 mission commander or DLO - who have nearly as much space as the Ravens.
There aren't consoles to support a mission crew of 27 on the current RJ - there are just 17, plus techs, navs and pilots. There is 'rest accomodation' for relief crew, which there really isn't (1-2 ad hocs excepted) on the R1. There are, however, 24 consoles on the R1, plus nav, plus pilots.
They have three Ravens and the largely automated AEELS Elint kit on an RC-135V/W. Further aft is all Comint/Special Signals, and they are packed just as close as those in an R1.
There are some appalling BAE products, but the R1 has a justifiably excellent reputation - since it effectively rolls three quarters of an RC-135V/W and three quarters of an RC-135U into a single airframe, giving a capability that is in advance of that of the RJ in many ways.
There are also some dire US products. It's not all F-15 vs Tornado F3. Merlin is better than the H-92. American is not always best, as the P-8 quite clearly shows.
Deliverance,
JSF will, one day, be a great tactical fighter. At a price. One hopes, however, that they are more successful with integrating a helmet than they were with the F-22. Typhoon is far more than an F-16, 25 years late.
As to UK industry's world-beaters, I'd suggest to you that the R1 is just such an aircraft.
Deliverance,
The Typhoon is no F-22 (despite that aircraft's flaws), and it could be argued that it is only half a generation ahead of the teen series when it should be a full generation ahead, should have full LO, etc. but it is leagues ahead of the F-16 - in terms of performance, SA, and kit.
It will never be as useful a strike fighter as the F-35.
But by today's standards Typhoon should be something we take a degree of pride in. A supportable, deployable, capable strike fighter, though with only five squadrons planned, how there will ever be enough to do more than UK AD, QRA and the Falklands beats me.
Like you, I am sceptical when I hear the old "Well, we may be a small force, but our kit/training is better than the US", because normally it's simply not the case. But there are odd exceptions to the "American is better" rule.
And when specific UK capabilities are specifically requested by US commanders, and when USAF people in particular communities laud their UK counterparts, you know you're hitting on one of those exceptions. As the RADEOS PR9 was. As the Nimrod R1 is.
The Typhoon is no F-22 (despite that aircraft's flaws), and it could be argued that it is only half a generation ahead of the teen series when it should be a full generation ahead, should have full LO, etc. but it is leagues ahead of the F-16 - in terms of performance, SA, and kit.
It will never be as useful a strike fighter as the F-35.
But by today's standards Typhoon should be something we take a degree of pride in. A supportable, deployable, capable strike fighter, though with only five squadrons planned, how there will ever be enough to do more than UK AD, QRA and the Falklands beats me.
Like you, I am sceptical when I hear the old "Well, we may be a small force, but our kit/training is better than the US", because normally it's simply not the case. But there are odd exceptions to the "American is better" rule.
And when specific UK capabilities are specifically requested by US commanders, and when USAF people in particular communities laud their UK counterparts, you know you're hitting on one of those exceptions. As the RADEOS PR9 was. As the Nimrod R1 is.
I've just watched this from 1953 - where did we go wrong? 
British Pathe - BRITAIN'S AIRCRAFT OF TOMORROW
Maybe JN is a 1950's throwback?
LJ
PS here's one just for you... British Pathe - NIMROD AIRCRAFT
British Pathe - BRITAIN'S AIRCRAFT OF TOMORROW
Maybe JN is a 1950's throwback?
LJ
PS here's one just for you... British Pathe - NIMROD AIRCRAFT
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The line that made me laugh in the AIN article was the one about "The MoD told AIN that a decision would be made late this year, and the R1s would be extended in service if necessary."
As they are shutting down the primary establishment that looks after the mission sytems in March 2011, with a reduction to 40% of the original staff from March 2010 that seems a little incorrect. The technical staff there have pretty much been told they no longer fit into the MoD view of 'decider not provider', but they could relocate to Abbey Wood and become project managers......
Also Interesting to see that the DES Nimrod group have 3 posts set up for handling TUPE if you check the email list on the great DII system.
As they are shutting down the primary establishment that looks after the mission sytems in March 2011, with a reduction to 40% of the original staff from March 2010 that seems a little incorrect. The technical staff there have pretty much been told they no longer fit into the MoD view of 'decider not provider', but they could relocate to Abbey Wood and become project managers......
Also Interesting to see that the DES Nimrod group have 3 posts set up for handling TUPE if you check the email list on the great DII system.
BGG,
Quite right. Meant UK Plc, rather than BAE per se. The BAE bit of R1 is of passing interest only.
Leon,
Interesting. It was about then that it did all go wrong. Two V-bombers into service and two insurance policies flown, one of them also into service. Swift AND Hunter, DH110 AND Javelin, all from a small industry that needed to be consolidated.
Quite right. Meant UK Plc, rather than BAE per se. The BAE bit of R1 is of passing interest only.
Leon,
Interesting. It was about then that it did all go wrong. Two V-bombers into service and two insurance policies flown, one of them also into service. Swift AND Hunter, DH110 AND Javelin, all from a small industry that needed to be consolidated.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Deliverance
Typhoon or JSF? I'd wager that when JSF enters service it will be a better AD platform, have a radar that works properly,
Are you sure you aren't regurgitating old Foxhunter stories as a stick to beat British industry?
That's not what the users say about it.
Nor is it what evaluation pilots from foreign air forces have said.
The biggest single problem with Captor often seems to be that it's so good that it makes the case for a replacement AESA weaker.
This really isn't Foxhunter.
Nor is it what evaluation pilots from foreign air forces have said.
The biggest single problem with Captor often seems to be that it's so good that it makes the case for a replacement AESA weaker.
This really isn't Foxhunter.
AI 24 Foxhunter is a good radar after the mods at the start of the millenium - especially with some of the automatics that were introduced. Stage 1+ was the start of the long process of better performance, Stage 2 was a huge leap again and Stage 3 saw it becoming a good bit of kit (shame we didn't sort it like the US did with APG-63 in the early 80s - it too was a piece of cr@p until they spent $$$$M on it to get the performance!!!).
CAPTOR does have "issues" but name me a radar that doesn't when it is first fielded? Both, Blue Fox and Blue Vixen had "teething troubles" - and don't forget that Blue Vixen is the mother of CAPTOR, so you could say that CAPTOR's issues have been worked over many years from its first use as Blue Vixen?
Finally, I would put CAPTOR in the category of "High to Above Average", but there is definately room for improvement.
The B Word
CAPTOR does have "issues" but name me a radar that doesn't when it is first fielded? Both, Blue Fox and Blue Vixen had "teething troubles" - and don't forget that Blue Vixen is the mother of CAPTOR, so you could say that CAPTOR's issues have been worked over many years from its first use as Blue Vixen?
Finally, I would put CAPTOR in the category of "High to Above Average", but there is definately room for improvement.
The B Word
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and four years later ...
Who would have thought that four years after that memory-strings-tugging film, the dreaded Mr. Sandys would storm all over RAF procurement, to be followed by a monumental series of ministerial/industrial interference (in the engineering sense) ?
B U T ...
What if the Swift had been selected "from the drawing board"? Or the Sperrin? Was the Javelin a "better" choice than the DH110? How to choose between the Victor and Vulcan at that stage?
Agreed, the industry needed to be "sorted out" (it wouldn't sort itself out because too many high-personality knights were involved, of course), but I do remember being told how offended people at Radlett were when a visiting USAF officer remarked about Victor final assembly "Sure it's a fine airplane, but why d'ja have to build it in a hobbies shop?".
But in 1953, we all thought we could do it all, and the P A I N was still to come. Eheu fugaces !
B U T ...
What if the Swift had been selected "from the drawing board"? Or the Sperrin? Was the Javelin a "better" choice than the DH110? How to choose between the Victor and Vulcan at that stage?
Agreed, the industry needed to be "sorted out" (it wouldn't sort itself out because too many high-personality knights were involved, of course), but I do remember being told how offended people at Radlett were when a visiting USAF officer remarked about Victor final assembly "Sure it's a fine airplane, but why d'ja have to build it in a hobbies shop?".
But in 1953, we all thought we could do it all, and the P A I N was still to come. Eheu fugaces !
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
British Pathe - NIMROD AIRCRAFT
Nice to see some things don't change, £2,500,000 for a Nimrod MR1 in 1968, which in today’s terms is £33,400,000 for each MR1!! Why ho why do we keep paying over the odds for equipment that barely matches up to off the shelf alternatives.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Leon,
Loved the Nimrod footage!
However, it did mention in there somewhere that it would 'fly at 500kts to it's operational area......'
We obviously piled too much inside it when it came into service; I only managed 500kts once in the Mk1 and that was with the assistance of a rather good jetstream going in our direction!
Loved the Nimrod footage!
However, it did mention in there somewhere that it would 'fly at 500kts to it's operational area......'
We obviously piled too much inside it when it came into service; I only managed 500kts once in the Mk1 and that was with the assistance of a rather good jetstream going in our direction!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice little rumour or two doing the rounds at the moment.
Seems to be they are trying to force the treasury's hand wrt RJ at maingate by destroying any chance of extending the life on the R1s.
When the first plane shortly goes out of service it will be cut up and the fuselage only, sans wings, sold off to a local air museum inside 3 months of arrival.
Second airframe sold off to a different museum a few months later, but that would at least have a set of wings attached.
So any defence review or change of government that says, for example, "why are we bothering buying this? We could just extend the R1". Would get the reply "What R1s?".
Seems to be they are trying to force the treasury's hand wrt RJ at maingate by destroying any chance of extending the life on the R1s.
When the first plane shortly goes out of service it will be cut up and the fuselage only, sans wings, sold off to a local air museum inside 3 months of arrival.
Second airframe sold off to a different museum a few months later, but that would at least have a set of wings attached.
So any defence review or change of government that says, for example, "why are we bothering buying this? We could just extend the R1". Would get the reply "What R1s?".