Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Adious Nimrod R1, all welcome the older Rivet Joint?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Adious Nimrod R1, all welcome the older Rivet Joint?

Reply

Old 14th Jan 2010, 15:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 14,338
Nimrod R1's to be replaced by the even older Rivet Joint?

yup looks like it, taking bets that some baffoon in the MOD does not realise there are several versions of the CFM56 and that they get a none compatible variant.,

UK to finally get Rivet Joint?

The UK MoD is set to announce a long-expected deal to buy three Boeing RC-135 ‘Rivet Joint’ aircraft.
Gary Parsons - 14-Jan-2010

UK RC-135s will look similar to this USAF RC-135U fitted with CFM-56 engines as seen at RAF Mildenhall earlier this year. Key - Gary Parsons
January 14: Flightglobal reports that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is set to announce a long-expected deal to buy three Boeing RC-135 ‘Rivet Joint’ aircraft as replacement for its fleet of Nimrod R1s operated by 51 Squadron at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.

One Nimrod R1 was withdrawn last year, leaving just two in service with the squadron. With the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence of the early withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 fleet by April, maintaining the pair of R1s will become more difficult and costly as Nimrod maintenance contracts are withdrawn.

The report says that the three RC-135s will be modified for UK use by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems in the USA and are expected to be fitted with CFM-56 engines to provide commonality with the RAF’s fleet of E-3D Sentrys. Ironically the RC-135 airframes are expected to be even older than the Nimrods they will replace, the latter being constructed in the early 1970s.

UK to finally get Rivet Joint?: Key.Aero, Military Aviation

suppose if this falls through, we could re-engine the Shackletons that are lying about

Last edited by NutLoose; 14th Jan 2010 at 16:42.
NutLoose is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2010, 16:34
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: An anger-management clinic.
Posts: 94
hahahahaha

Another case of "It must be invented/built in UK".

Remember when we rejected the C-130?
Remember NimWACS, because we had spare airframes after we were kicked out of Malta?

I know, and understand, the the UK Govt has to try to support UK Industry, but we've been bogging this sort of thing for DECADES. We always end up producing kit that costs a fortune, is late and over-budget, has ZERO overseas sales potential [OK, exempt Tornado to date] and doesn't quite do the job.

How many £BILLIONS have been wasted over the last 25 years ensuring a "Made in UK" stamp on the kit? And then buying foreign anyway?
TheTiresome1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2010, 16:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,912
TheTiresome1,

What on earth are you prattling on about?

Do you know ANYTHING about that of which you speak?

The C-135 is manufactured by Boeing, a US company.

The special fit is designed, manufactured and installed by L-3, a US company.

The CFM-56 engines are a JV between the French and the US..............

Little bit more research and/or knowledge required before opening mouth?
pr00ne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2010, 17:17
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: An anger-management clinic.
Posts: 94
I am duly chastened - I actually thought there was a chance we were "Buying British", but I missed the bit about GE powerplants

No chance of a quick-fix Airbus 330 "Rivet France"? Oh well, c'est la vie.
TheTiresome1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2010, 19:21
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 66
Posts: 120
Let's hope they don't try & fit ex. Nimrod re-fuelling probes to save a few quid !


grandfer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2010, 19:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: An anger-management clinic.
Posts: 94
Grandfer, there will be no problem ... once the UK has converted the AAR fleet from Probe and Drogue to The Boom.

It's called compatilibert ... comprabilyiby ... ask the Americans to help.
TheTiresome1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2010, 19:37
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,622
Hooray! More kit and a good capability. I can't wait

That is what we should be saying!

But like "Grumpy Old Men" we start to enter the malaise and moaning that is PPRuNe's want...

Lima Juliet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2010, 19:38
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 66
Posts: 120
Silly me , then perhaps we can buy some KC-135s -50s vintage , about 20 should do for our 3 Jointed Rivets .

grandfer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 09:00
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 14,338
Hooray! More kit and a good capability. I can't wait
Well that is all well and good, buying everyone else's cast offs is not exactly building in longevity to the fleet, no doubt it is a capable airframe, but one wonders how much shelf life it has left in it before one is looking for another replacement.

Somewhere down the line the US Military must have deemed them to be getting long in the tooth to be releasing them from service..


I often wonder especially with the predicament in the transport fleet with the aging VC10s etc why the MOD simply do not just purchase or lease as is the norm a load of the 737-900 series aircraft from Airlines that have gone to the wall and are currently stored at Lasham........ A cheap (in this time of excessive Civilian fleets) alternative of low houred transports, the saving in the fuel budget alone would be staggering over the VC10 and they could then be moved on at a later date back into the Civilian market.

One wonders when uniforms will be sourced from the Army Navy surplus stores
NutLoose is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 09:19
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: An anger-management clinic.
Posts: 94
I think the issue is not the age of the airframes, but the kit that goes inside and the opportunity to share support with the US instead of operating just 2 ac with unique UK systems. I have heard on another forum that Rivet Joint is not quite as capable as the R1, but at least we'll have 3 systems in service.
TheTiresome1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 10:06
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
I would suggest rather simply that;
(a) UK is broke,
(b) you need the capability,
(c) UK is broke, and
(d) its offered by 'them'.

No disrespect intended.
Flyingblind is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 10:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 51
So progress is replacing a capable but old system with a less capable (certainly by the accounts I've seen on here and elsewhere) and even older system? Whats wrong with a unique UK system in comparison to a unique US system that we don't have control over? Are we getting the full capability, particularly given the fuss over F35 code?

When exactly are we looking at introducing these into service, and will there be any sort of capability "holiday"?

Beyond engines, how much commonality is there really between this and the E3? Are we just buying ourselves a bigger problems in buying 3 aircraft that we can support less well than the 3 we are replacing?
Metman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 10:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 413
We are skint but this project doesn't fill me with confidence, this sticking plaster approach only creates a bigger problem and costs later on. I'd rather see it gapped and the correct solution found and funded if that’s what it takes.
Wonder how the idea came about?
BRIT - Hi Chuck, we have a problem with the old R1s, need to replace them a tad early.
USAF - Hey Limey, no problem you can have some of our RJs real cheap for refit!
RAF - Oh spiffing, thanks old man I'll call the contractors and ask if they can do it.
USAF - Have a nice day now!
More dialling:
RAF - Hello is that the honest, fine, upstanding contractor?
CONTRACTOR - Yes
RAF - Can you convert 3 old 135s to the latest RJ spec, new engines, etc?
CONTRACTOR - Yes (giggling in back ground)
RAF - Can we do it quickly on the cheap we are skint?
CONTRACTOR - Yes (laughing in background)
RAF - Are you sure you know what happened last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, etc?
CONTRACTOR - Mmmmmmm.......... YES! (hysterics, party music, corks popping and the sound of cash tills in the background)
RAF – Excellent I'll just get the cheque book, toodle pip.
CONTRACTOR – Yes.........yes........yes……………..oh he’s gone, right bonuses all round, who wants a new car, house, holiday, etc!

Yes it's Friday and my glass is half empty
Ivan Rogov is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 10:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: An anger-management clinic.
Posts: 94
@ pr00ne and others - I apologise for the substantial lack of clarity in my post No 2 which led to misinterpretation. My point, so badly expressed, was that at least on this occasion we weren't going to try and build a UK replacement for the R1s, and were going to buy from the US instead.

Subsequent reading here and in other places now suggests this may not be such a good deal after all, but as flyingblind said, what are the options? Soldier on with 2 R1s? Accept RJ as a "better than nothing" solution? Spend £Bns on a completely new system?

Or perhaps accept that these days poor old UK Mil plc simply can't afford to sustain all these capabilities any more, and forget the entire thing?
TheTiresome1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 11:04
  #15 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Are these a/c any younger than the Nimrods they are intended to replace?
 
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 11:37
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 226
In a word....No

The youngest KC/RC-135s are fiscal year 1963/64 so were built around that timespan. Although they were purchased with funds from that FY that does not mean they were built that year, but they wouldn't be that far behind it.

V1
Valiantone is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 11:57
  #17 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Why not just rebuild the R.1s then?

Does anybody know how old the 3 Nimrods are? (2 orig R.1 + the converted MR one)

Or, Which three actual airframes are intended to be converted?

There's plenty right old ones, wfu, in the Boneyard!
 
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 12:10
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 51
Why was an MRA4 derivitive never considered?
Metman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 12:31
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,035
Metman wrote

Why was an MRA4 derivitive never considered?
It was proposed. See following threads. All the pros and cons debated on the following.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...placement.html

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

TJ
TEEEJ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2010, 14:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Prestwick, Scotland
Posts: 174
So, rather than use the 3 largely new (wings, engines, etc) Nimrod MRA4 prototype airframes PA1, PA2 and PA3, which become redundant shortly, and which would have not a little compatability with the 8 in-service MRA4 airframes, we are to take older than Nimrod R1, KC135, not RC135, airframes from the desert, send them somewhere for conversion taking several years, then deliver them to to UK for 2 or 3 more years messing around, before release them to service, maybe, as oddball aircraft ? And meantime the conversion jobs are exported to the USA. That all seem very clever. Might be understandable if we were taking off the shelf RC135s, but beyond my comprehension taking KC135s and converting them.
PIK3141 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service