Adious Nimrod R1, all welcome the older Rivet Joint?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not the first time that KC-135s have been converted to RC-135 standard. There seems to be a presumption that converting an airframe to SIGINT platform standard is a simple process - it ain't! At least the Yanks have done this before, and recently; conversion of MRA4 airframes would be a complete and utter unknown and who the hell will provide the mission system, or are you suggesting that we spend vast amounts of money moving the existing kit into an MRA4 airframe.
The KC-135 airframes will effectively be zero lifed, in a similar manner to the MRA4 airframes, so the relative age argument is largely specious.
This may not be the perfect solution, but should provide a capability in reasonably quick time with very low risk!
By the time the RJ airframes are due retirement, I suspect that UAS technology will have developed enough to provide a platform for a SIGINT payload.
The KC-135 airframes will effectively be zero lifed, in a similar manner to the MRA4 airframes, so the relative age argument is largely specious.
This may not be the perfect solution, but should provide a capability in reasonably quick time with very low risk!
By the time the RJ airframes are due retirement, I suspect that UAS technology will have developed enough to provide a platform for a SIGINT payload.
PIK3141 wrote
As already point out the conversion of 135 airframes into RC frames is nothing new for the US.
The US has been converting their tanker 135s into intel collection airframes since the early 1960s.
The USAF during the late 1990s increased their Rivet Joint fleet by several airframes (C-135B conversions).
In 2006 the latest Rivet Joint conversion from a 135 airframe was delivered to the USAF.
TJ
but beyond my comprehension taking KC135s and converting them.
The US has been converting their tanker 135s into intel collection airframes since the early 1960s.
The USAF during the late 1990s increased their Rivet Joint fleet by several airframes (C-135B conversions).
In 2006 the latest Rivet Joint conversion from a 135 airframe was delivered to the USAF.
TJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,081
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
No truth in the rumour that some of them coming off the line at Woodford will simply be scrapped??
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJ Contract
A little birdy tells me we have now signed up for RJ in PR10.
So are we going to buy booms to fit to our FSTAs, or are we going to try and ignore the fact we will have 3 RAF aircraft types that take recepticle refueling (C17, E3 and RJ)?
F
So are we going to buy booms to fit to our FSTAs, or are we going to try and ignore the fact we will have 3 RAF aircraft types that take recepticle refueling (C17, E3 and RJ)?
F
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the goosejacker should make the cheque 'post dated' 
Also wonder how U.K. Opposition Cries Foul On Pre-election Awards - Defense News would affect it, given that 'exportability' might be an issue and it's specifically mentioned as one of the projects.
Also wonder how U.K. Opposition Cries Foul On Pre-election Awards - Defense News would affect it, given that 'exportability' might be an issue and it's specifically mentioned as one of the projects.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pugwash, why not?
A good decision for once (though consistently delayed from what I hear). Looking forward to them arriving asap...
And as for the boom on FSTA, no chance. It was dropped years ago and it's a PFI don't you know - in other words, we're shafted if we want to change the contract. Pity - some KC-45Bs with RR Trent would fit the job very nicely - and rather better than the plain-vanilla-at-Savoy Grill-prices deal we've got coming to us.
(edited to add: but nice picture - good effort!)
S41
A good decision for once (though consistently delayed from what I hear). Looking forward to them arriving asap...
And as for the boom on FSTA, no chance. It was dropped years ago and it's a PFI don't you know - in other words, we're shafted if we want to change the contract. Pity - some KC-45Bs with RR Trent would fit the job very nicely - and rather better than the plain-vanilla-at-Savoy Grill-prices deal we've got coming to us.
(edited to add: but nice picture - good effort!)
S41
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
The arguments for and against have been aired in this and similar threads for some time. I know that the US Increments have been converging with the Helix capability, but it seems a step backward, given the terms under which the RJs are being acquired and will be operated. Clearly, the "operational sovereignty" issue has been overcome, or more likely, ignored.
Oh, and I can't take any credit for the image either, nice though it is.
The arguments for and against have been aired in this and similar threads for some time. I know that the US Increments have been converging with the Helix capability, but it seems a step backward, given the terms under which the RJs are being acquired and will be operated. Clearly, the "operational sovereignty" issue has been overcome, or more likely, ignored.
Oh, and I can't take any credit for the image either, nice though it is.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel people should disassociate the airframe from the systems. The former is largely unimportant as long as it lasts longer and costs less to buy and operate than any given alternative. One can only assume that the '135 was cheaper and hardy enough to last until pilots and crew are no longer required.
Defense News is reporting that the first RAF RC-135 will be delivered in 2014. The capability gap from Spring 2011 will be filled by RC-135s partly crewed by the RAF.
USAF Planes To Help U.K. Fill SIGINT Gap - Defense News
'The first plane is to be delivered in 2014, three years after the RAF plans to withdraw the last two of its Nimrod R1 signals aircraft. A third R1 retired last year.
The gap in Britain's electronic intelligence capabilities is likely to be filled by U.S. Rivet Joints tasked and partly crewed by the RAF, sources said.
That could be a controversial move; for at least three years, the British will forgo control of what the defense secretary said in a statement March 22 to Parliament was a "vital capability."
An MoD spokesman said that between "2011 and 2014, the U.K. will enter into a partnering arrangement with the U.S. that will safeguard U.K. personnel core competencies."
The spokesman declined to provide more details.
The U.K. will have "full sovereignty of the aircraft when received in 2014," the spokesman said.
The spokesman said there were no details available on program costs; initial contracts will be placed in June.'
TJ
USAF Planes To Help U.K. Fill SIGINT Gap - Defense News
'The first plane is to be delivered in 2014, three years after the RAF plans to withdraw the last two of its Nimrod R1 signals aircraft. A third R1 retired last year.
The gap in Britain's electronic intelligence capabilities is likely to be filled by U.S. Rivet Joints tasked and partly crewed by the RAF, sources said.
That could be a controversial move; for at least three years, the British will forgo control of what the defense secretary said in a statement March 22 to Parliament was a "vital capability."
An MoD spokesman said that between "2011 and 2014, the U.K. will enter into a partnering arrangement with the U.S. that will safeguard U.K. personnel core competencies."
The spokesman declined to provide more details.
The U.K. will have "full sovereignty of the aircraft when received in 2014," the spokesman said.
The spokesman said there were no details available on program costs; initial contracts will be placed in June.'
TJ
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England - Now
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me if I've got this wrong but the bit where it says
- The spokesman said there were no details available on program costs; initial contracts will be placed in June -
So does that mean we have decided to buy something but we don't know how much it will cost? How do we know there is not a cheaper alternative? As contracts have not been signed then presumably delivery times and schedules are just a best guess at what the customer would like so he can be got on a hook before putting in the small print and get outs in the actual contract.
I am so glad we have MoD experts looking after our country's money and interests
- The spokesman said there were no details available on program costs; initial contracts will be placed in June -
So does that mean we have decided to buy something but we don't know how much it will cost? How do we know there is not a cheaper alternative? As contracts have not been signed then presumably delivery times and schedules are just a best guess at what the customer would like so he can be got on a hook before putting in the small print and get outs in the actual contract.
I am so glad we have MoD experts looking after our country's money and interests
"- The spokesman said there were no details available on program costs; initial contracts will be placed in June -"
No it means that the costs are commerically sensitive and are not being publicly released at present.
No it means that the costs are commerically sensitive and are not being publicly released at present.