Nimrod R1 replacement
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod R1 replacement
Pardon me, but I can't find the thread that was discussing the impending purchase of ex USAF KC-135s for the above role.
After the debacle of Chinook HC3, MRA4 etc, I can't help being cynical. I expect some plonker in Whitehall reckons it will be a cheap option, but suspect that the s/hand airframes will become sink holes for money whilst being anglicised?
As it has been decided to only operate nine MRA.4 Nimrods and not make the three development airframes operational, why not use them? After all, the UK taxpayer effectively owns the damn things many times over. Or perhaps they are destined to be stripped for spares to keep the nine going?
Whilst our colonial cousins have an extremely large and capable airforce,
I don't think anyone will disagree that they get their moneys worth out of their airframes before they are cast aside. when was the last C-135 variant completed?
For those of you operating tired, old kit, you have my deepest respect. Stay safe
After the debacle of Chinook HC3, MRA4 etc, I can't help being cynical. I expect some plonker in Whitehall reckons it will be a cheap option, but suspect that the s/hand airframes will become sink holes for money whilst being anglicised?
As it has been decided to only operate nine MRA.4 Nimrods and not make the three development airframes operational, why not use them? After all, the UK taxpayer effectively owns the damn things many times over. Or perhaps they are destined to be stripped for spares to keep the nine going?
Whilst our colonial cousins have an extremely large and capable airforce,
I don't think anyone will disagree that they get their moneys worth out of their airframes before they are cast aside. when was the last C-135 variant completed?
For those of you operating tired, old kit, you have my deepest respect. Stay safe
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,856
Received 2,814 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
New version in testing, lighter and smarter than the old Nimrod and they have gone back to having the main smart sensor in the nose as in the AEW.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only 9 ?
Yes, that's right. this great maritime nation will have nine dedicated aircraft to patrol the sea lanes upon which we depend so much.
Take a look on the other thread.. Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date ?
I find the banter very entertaining on here, but in a moment of seriousness I felt this question should be addressed.
There are to be nine MRA4 airframes put into operational service. The three existing development airframes will not be made operational,
hence my question. Why on earth don't they put them to good use as an R1 replacement? Goodness knows that they've cost the taxpayer a few bob ! So far as C135 airframes are concerned, why replace one very old aircraft with another equally old one, when we can have a (nearly) new one instead.
Bring on the BWoS Nimrod R5
Take a look on the other thread.. Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date ?
I find the banter very entertaining on here, but in a moment of seriousness I felt this question should be addressed.
There are to be nine MRA4 airframes put into operational service. The three existing development airframes will not be made operational,
hence my question. Why on earth don't they put them to good use as an R1 replacement? Goodness knows that they've cost the taxpayer a few bob ! So far as C135 airframes are concerned, why replace one very old aircraft with another equally old one, when we can have a (nearly) new one instead.
Bring on the BWoS Nimrod R5
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 80
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real and very compelling reason that the three development airframes will not become operational is that the MRA4 will be so capable that they won't be needed. Look out for a reduction to six operational airframes for the same reason.
They did it with the T45 and the carriers (what do you mean they haven't said so?) so why not the MRA4?
They did it with the T45 and the carriers (what do you mean they haven't said so?) so why not the MRA4?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Six !!?
Well maybe so, but that still leaves PA01 - PA03 development airframes looking for a good home. It seems a stupid waste.
Six aircraft for maritime patrol ? no matter how effcient/capable, they can only be in one place at a time
Six aircraft for maritime patrol ? no matter how effcient/capable, they can only be in one place at a time
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I suggest that the roles of R1 and MR have absolutely nothing in common, except for the requirment to have a big aeroplane with lots of back seats ? So lets not have a discussion about apples and lumps of coal.Can I go on to suggest that the absolutely convincing arguement for the UK buying into RJ is that we then have a tactical collector (in one particular niche segment of the ISTAR spectrum) that is pretty much the same as that used by our principal current and future ally? If you cannot work out why this is a good idea then I can't help you.
Can I finally sugget this this is a Good Thing? If you do not not believe this then I sugget you talk to the RN, who made the commonsensical decision some decades ago to buy a US sensor, and have benefited hugely since.
IMHO (as a useless civvie who is not worthy even to be used as a standby sex toy by the two or even one-winged gods of the RAF) over the three decades I've known what they do, 51 Sqn have done a great job with sometimes marginal kit, RJ should put them into a whole new game.
SO stop w@nking about airframe numbers, think what the sensor is for, and be happy.
Room40
The Nimrod R doesn't NEED replacing. Before XV230, the plan was an OSD of 2025, and the IPT were sanguine that the R1s, at least, could make that.
There are all sorts of compelling reasons why you might want to put the new Helix kit on a new airframe - not least because the R1s are, at best, 'cosy'. But while hosting the kit on an A300/310 (preferably with cargo door to ease conversion/installation) would mark an obvious step forward, a development MRA4 is still a Nimrod, with a Nimrod fuselage cross section, and the same cabin length. It therefore doesn't offer the one thing you'd really want in an R1 replacement, which is a bit more space - crew rest areas, a proper galley and toilet, etc.
The RC-135Vs that are supposedly to be procured are to be new conversions of KC-135Rs delivered to Block 10 standard. They will not be equipped with the existing Nimrod Sigint suite (Star Window) nor with the planned Helix. They will be USAF standard aircraft.
I know 'nothing', so all of this is open source, and much of it may be wrong, but I'm told that the RC-135V is more biased towards Comint than the Nimrod, with a little tactical Elint (the latter using the largely automated AEELS) and as such is better suited to the kind of ops we're seeing 'right now', but that the R1 is significantly better for the more traditional Sigint role (what the Yanks called PARPRO) against a 'formed state' enemy with formed forces and a structured air defence system, for example - as was required in the run up to Granby and Op Iraqi Freedom.
There are some concerns that replacement of R1 by RC-135 would necessarily result in some loss of capability (albeit with relevant gains in other areas) and especially a loss of the particular type of Elint expertise that 51 has built up over the past few decades - which emphasises highly experienced operators using their experience and manual tuning, etc.
There are a couple of niggling worries in my mind, apart from the possibility of a loss of national expertise and capability in this key area.
When we all thought that the Yanks were going to simply give us three -135s (they have a job crewing all theirs), it was hard to look a gift horse in the mouth. It now looks as though the RC-135V procurement will actually cost more than pressing ahead with R1/Helix would have done. Are we getting rid of the R1 for the right reasons, or because retaining a gen 1 Nimrod is politically untenable, or because after XV230, airworthiness is hanging by a thread.
The USAF is really hurting for tankers - and especially KC-135Rs. If there are three spare R models, sitting in the desert, god alone knows what sort of state they might be in.
The previous threads on this were at:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-aircraft.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-aircraft.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...1-upgrade.html
There are all sorts of compelling reasons why you might want to put the new Helix kit on a new airframe - not least because the R1s are, at best, 'cosy'. But while hosting the kit on an A300/310 (preferably with cargo door to ease conversion/installation) would mark an obvious step forward, a development MRA4 is still a Nimrod, with a Nimrod fuselage cross section, and the same cabin length. It therefore doesn't offer the one thing you'd really want in an R1 replacement, which is a bit more space - crew rest areas, a proper galley and toilet, etc.
The RC-135Vs that are supposedly to be procured are to be new conversions of KC-135Rs delivered to Block 10 standard. They will not be equipped with the existing Nimrod Sigint suite (Star Window) nor with the planned Helix. They will be USAF standard aircraft.
I know 'nothing', so all of this is open source, and much of it may be wrong, but I'm told that the RC-135V is more biased towards Comint than the Nimrod, with a little tactical Elint (the latter using the largely automated AEELS) and as such is better suited to the kind of ops we're seeing 'right now', but that the R1 is significantly better for the more traditional Sigint role (what the Yanks called PARPRO) against a 'formed state' enemy with formed forces and a structured air defence system, for example - as was required in the run up to Granby and Op Iraqi Freedom.
There are some concerns that replacement of R1 by RC-135 would necessarily result in some loss of capability (albeit with relevant gains in other areas) and especially a loss of the particular type of Elint expertise that 51 has built up over the past few decades - which emphasises highly experienced operators using their experience and manual tuning, etc.
There are a couple of niggling worries in my mind, apart from the possibility of a loss of national expertise and capability in this key area.
When we all thought that the Yanks were going to simply give us three -135s (they have a job crewing all theirs), it was hard to look a gift horse in the mouth. It now looks as though the RC-135V procurement will actually cost more than pressing ahead with R1/Helix would have done. Are we getting rid of the R1 for the right reasons, or because retaining a gen 1 Nimrod is politically untenable, or because after XV230, airworthiness is hanging by a thread.
The USAF is really hurting for tankers - and especially KC-135Rs. If there are three spare R models, sitting in the desert, god alone knows what sort of state they might be in.
The previous threads on this were at:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-aircraft.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-aircraft.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...1-upgrade.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Room 40
Who said R1 and MR were in the same role?
Don't known anything about the kit to be used in a future platform. However, neither was I aware that it might only be able to be used in a C135?
No problem with the idea of using same kit as an ally if we are actually wanting to do exactly the same thing.
IMHO as an equally useles civvy, I've read in the past that our colonial brethren have specifically asked for the support of 51 sqn in situations where their systems have provided additional capabilities. So, maybe having exactly the same system is not the answer for working with the US.
Advice taken, saves the keyboard. Airframe numbers... In a perfect (non noo-labour) world those 3 'new' Nimrod airframes would be made operational in the MR role as oiginally intended.
Don't known anything about the kit to be used in a future platform. However, neither was I aware that it might only be able to be used in a C135?
No problem with the idea of using same kit as an ally if we are actually wanting to do exactly the same thing.
IMHO as an equally useles civvy, I've read in the past that our colonial brethren have specifically asked for the support of 51 sqn in situations where their systems have provided additional capabilities. So, maybe having exactly the same system is not the answer for working with the US.
Advice taken, saves the keyboard. Airframe numbers... In a perfect (non noo-labour) world those 3 'new' Nimrod airframes would be made operational in the MR role as oiginally intended.
The USAF also has RC-135U and a bewildering array of other platforms to provide a spectrum of Sigint capability.
Going down the RC-135V route might give us a better tailored solution for Afghanistan in its current phase (might), but at the expense of losing a wider, more broadly useful capability.
Going down the RC-135V route might give us a better tailored solution for Afghanistan in its current phase (might), but at the expense of losing a wider, more broadly useful capability.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aberystwyth
Age: 38
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering - how similar is the RC-135 to the RAFs E-3 fleet, in supportability terms? Is this potential buy going to help things at Waddo as both the Sentry and Rivet Joint fleets can share maintainance resources and manpower? 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just recieved information about the fire in the pannier bay onboard Nimrod R1 XV249 in Jan this year.The fire was caused when AVTUR from fuel leaks came into direct contact with the cross feed duct.
All sounds very familiar to me.!!!
All sounds very familiar to me.!!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Though both the 135 and the 707 (E-3) were developed from the same aircraft (the Dash 80) they are quite different airframes, also the E-3's are mostly funded by NATO, so there would be the problem of who is paying for what.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a complete sidetrack, based on TD's post, when did 249 change to R1?
From my logbook it was an MR2 Jun 12th '91 ('cos I flew on it).... not doubting TD here, I guess I just wasn't very observant back then.
(An observation the GSU shared).
Dave
While I'm at it (edit) is Stumpy Clay on here?
From my logbook it was an MR2 Jun 12th '91 ('cos I flew on it).... not doubting TD here, I guess I just wasn't very observant back then.
(An observation the GSU shared).
Dave
While I'm at it (edit) is Stumpy Clay on here?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave
You never really were with it back then were you?
Have a look here - even if not totally accurate it gives a good idea.
Target Lock: Nimrod : Production
You never really were with it back then were you?
Have a look here - even if not totally accurate it gives a good idea.
Target Lock: Nimrod : Production
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the E-3's are mostly funded by NATO...
Regarding XV249, it was converted to R1 configuration via 'Project Anneka' (remember the TV programme 'Challenge Anneka'?!) following the loss of 'Damian' (aka XW666) in the Moray Firth on 16 May 96. According to open sources, the conversion of 249 began on 27 Dec 96 and it first flew as an R1 on 11 Apr 97.
Regards,
MM
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 16th Dec 2008 at 21:36.