AWACS for Project Helix?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWACS for Project Helix?
The Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint has been selected by the MoD to replace Nimrod R1 (JDW 6.1.10) as the solution for Project Helix. The airframes will be surplus KC 135 Stratotankers obtained from the USAF. The aircraft will be fitted with CFM-56 engines and be based at Waddington in order to secure logistic support and maintenance synergies with the E-3D Sentry.
Given the timescale and budgetary pressures would it not make more sense to go the whole hog and utilize 3 of the existing E-3D airframes for conversion as Nimrod R1 replacements? The 4 remaining E-3Ds should be sufficient to meet any ongoing AWACS requirement.
Given the timescale and budgetary pressures would it not make more sense to go the whole hog and utilize 3 of the existing E-3D airframes for conversion as Nimrod R1 replacements? The 4 remaining E-3Ds should be sufficient to meet any ongoing AWACS requirement.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The E3D is based on a Boeing 707 airframe whereas the KC or RC-135 airframes are base on C-135s, very similar, but not the same (bit like the Tonka Fag Chariot versus Mud mover!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daf Hucker
Exactly. So use of a converted E-3D for Helix rather than a converted KC-135 will greatly increase logistic support and mintenance synergies as well as saving on the purchase of 3 airframes.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"but not the same"
those are the important 4 words
the UK would have to pay for a 707 specific fit to developed taking a. time and b. money
cheaper just to buy 3 2nd hand c135's
those are the important 4 words
the UK would have to pay for a 707 specific fit to developed taking a. time and b. money
cheaper just to buy 3 2nd hand c135's
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT....I'm heard that the KC-135 Stratotankers are the only B707 variant that DOESN'T carry a Flight Engineer, an absolute must in these types of airplanes/extended time sorties!
If so...a really BIG problem...!!
FD...
If so...a really BIG problem...!!
FD...
The Septics have seemed to managed for the odd trip!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory, the 135 is not a 707 variant, but a different model. It would actually have been the original 717 in civilian terms, hence the jump from 707 to 727 in the airline world.
Pedantic I know (as many Boeing's share many parts), but just thought I'd say.
Pedantic I know (as many Boeing's share many parts), but just thought I'd say.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong but the KC135 and its variations came from the model 700 and is narrower in width that the 707.
I do not believe that it is a large amount (getting a bit rusty) It however is not true that none of the 135 series carried a FE. There was one model which did and I am trying to find the answer.
I really hope the RAF or MOD know what they are doing, because the 135 that are available are very high airframe and cycle times. This is the reason that the RAAF took its 707's out of service.
It the situation is that you can spare the E3 frames, surely on a long term basis that would be a better way to go.
Where also by the way would the RAF find FE's to man them.
Regards
Col
I do not believe that it is a large amount (getting a bit rusty) It however is not true that none of the 135 series carried a FE. There was one model which did and I am trying to find the answer.
I really hope the RAF or MOD know what they are doing, because the 135 that are available are very high airframe and cycle times. This is the reason that the RAAF took its 707's out of service.
It the situation is that you can spare the E3 frames, surely on a long term basis that would be a better way to go.
Where also by the way would the RAF find FE's to man them.
Regards
Col
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herkman,
Totally agree that it would be crazy to spend large amounts of money converting knackered tankers into RC-135s, but it would be even more stupid (in my opinion) to convert relatively new, and low hours, E3D aircraft into RC-135. To cut half of the UK E3 fleet, .... you may as well get rid of them all then, because 4 is not enough to do much with.
The question of where would the RAF get engineers to man the new 135s is simple though, they could come from the E3 fleet!
Watch this space 12 months from now, let us see just how far the RAF and MOD will go to save (waste) money.
Y_G
Totally agree that it would be crazy to spend large amounts of money converting knackered tankers into RC-135s, but it would be even more stupid (in my opinion) to convert relatively new, and low hours, E3D aircraft into RC-135. To cut half of the UK E3 fleet, .... you may as well get rid of them all then, because 4 is not enough to do much with.
The question of where would the RAF get engineers to man the new 135s is simple though, they could come from the E3 fleet!
Watch this space 12 months from now, let us see just how far the RAF and MOD will go to save (waste) money.
Y_G
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been trying to come up with a sensible answer to the above two posts, so I thought and thought, and still no good answer came. In desperation, I thought, 'what would new labour do'?, and then the answer was obvious (and with a precedent too).
We can scrap the buy of the 135's.
Sell the R1's, as they are too aged, and not wanted.......And then rent them off the folks we sold them too. Easy really...We get rid of some aircraft (saves money), get rid of some staff (saves more money), and can probably close an air station (even more money saved).
Then, we can sell the station to the owners of the R1's, pay lots of money to hire the R1's, and their crews, rent the station from them. We could even save more money by allowing the aircraft to be less serviceable!.
Oh, and brush the cost of the RAF redundancies under the nearest carpet.
Last but not least, we could have a big announcement in parliament that we have more assets for theatre, with three more 'new' spy planes for the RAF
We can scrap the buy of the 135's.
Sell the R1's, as they are too aged, and not wanted.......And then rent them off the folks we sold them too. Easy really...We get rid of some aircraft (saves money), get rid of some staff (saves more money), and can probably close an air station (even more money saved).
Then, we can sell the station to the owners of the R1's, pay lots of money to hire the R1's, and their crews, rent the station from them. We could even save more money by allowing the aircraft to be less serviceable!.
Oh, and brush the cost of the RAF redundancies under the nearest carpet.
Last but not least, we could have a big announcement in parliament that we have more assets for theatre, with three more 'new' spy planes for the RAF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
knowitall,
Unless the sensor fit/electronics/operator stations required for Rivet Joint are specifically taylored to fit the 135 airframe and would require major modifications to fit on the E-3 airframe, I doubt that it would a) cost more or b) take longer to convert the E-3s than to buy 3 mouldering KC-135s, fit them with new engines and reconfigure them as RC-135s.
Yeller Gait
Apparently 3 Nimrod R1s or 3 RC-135s are sufficient for their intended mission but 4 E-3Ds are not enough to do much with - please explain.
Unless the sensor fit/electronics/operator stations required for Rivet Joint are specifically taylored to fit the 135 airframe and would require major modifications to fit on the E-3 airframe, I doubt that it would a) cost more or b) take longer to convert the E-3s than to buy 3 mouldering KC-135s, fit them with new engines and reconfigure them as RC-135s.
Yeller Gait
Apparently 3 Nimrod R1s or 3 RC-135s are sufficient for their intended mission but 4 E-3Ds are not enough to do much with - please explain.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The picture in regard to my previous post is now a little clearer.
The fusalage of the C135 is smaller in cross section than the 707. Not much but enough to make it incompatable with the 707.
There were 3 RC135's built with a FE station but when the airplanes were up graded to R series these three aircraft were de modded. These aircraft had been known as D models.
The problem the USAF is having with the frames is not so much unrealiability but the hourly operating costs have greatly increased in later years.
The thought to put these into service with the RAF is a great one but does not sound very practable.
The USAF say 2040 phase out by which time the airplane will be 80 years old.
regards
Col
The fusalage of the C135 is smaller in cross section than the 707. Not much but enough to make it incompatable with the 707.
There were 3 RC135's built with a FE station but when the airplanes were up graded to R series these three aircraft were de modded. These aircraft had been known as D models.
The problem the USAF is having with the frames is not so much unrealiability but the hourly operating costs have greatly increased in later years.
The thought to put these into service with the RAF is a great one but does not sound very practable.
The USAF say 2040 phase out by which time the airplane will be 80 years old.
regards
Col
Just a point ref the aussie tankers they were ex airline a/c so probably had a few hours/cycles before conversion. Sad decision as the 135 is another type with all the costs that entails . Knowing the way the finances work they are probably pretty cheap to buy initially. The CFM engine is the same but a totally different 'powerplant' as no reversers. Shame the MRA4 option wasnt taken as it would make the support for that small fleet slightly more cost effective, especially in view of the likely service life .
....surplus KC 135 Stratotankers....
If they really do have 'surplus KC-135s', why are they 'surplus' if the fleet is in such dire need of replacement?
As for FEs, nice chaps and excellent moose-trappers that they are, who would conceivably bring an aircraft into service in the 21st Century which still needs a FE? You'll be telling me next that they also need a food-powered talking-TACAN in the crew.....
This sounds like another penny-wise, pound-foolish decision by the mad MoD. I'm sure that there will be tears....
An extremely expensive mini-fleet which will undoubtedly be at the total mercy of Bubba Boeing's whims in a few years' time. Surely there must be some younger ETOPS-twins available, rather than 4-engined dinosaurs?
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Jan 2010 at 18:55.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like this decision was made before Christmas:
BAE talks end in failure - News - Macclesfield Express
Still the wrong one though!
BAE talks end in failure - News - Macclesfield Express
Still the wrong one though!
Or they could ground the Nimrod MR2's, hope nothing happens in the couple of years that the capability is gapped, then give the 4 MRA4 airframes up as the R1 replacement before binning the rest, surely not!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US has already invented a wheel, called RJ, which works perfectly well, with a proven operational experience and would be available with minimum risk (assuming that they would sell us one and that we have the money!)
What sense is there in the UK inventing a completely different wheel, or adapting a pot to be a wheel? The risks for either endeavour are immense, the integration, never mind the development, of a mission system for the new wheel/ex-pot are not simple problems. Just routing cables and positioning antennae provide huge areas of risk and with risk comes cost and in the case of MOD and BWoS delay!
The debate about the relative capabilities of RJ and R1 are largely irrelevant, if we don't have an R1, we need a replacement and quickly!
What sense is there in the UK inventing a completely different wheel, or adapting a pot to be a wheel? The risks for either endeavour are immense, the integration, never mind the development, of a mission system for the new wheel/ex-pot are not simple problems. Just routing cables and positioning antennae provide huge areas of risk and with risk comes cost and in the case of MOD and BWoS delay!
The debate about the relative capabilities of RJ and R1 are largely irrelevant, if we don't have an R1, we need a replacement and quickly!