Rivet Joint
Joined: Sep 2006
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,024
Likes: 102
From: Somewhere flat
Will it have a refuelling probe? The Sentry AEW.1 design would be pretty close, would it not?
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 505
Likes: 41
From: UK
At present there are no plans for a refuelling probe. Yes, the E-3D has both a probe and a boom refuelling receptacle, but to put this on RJ would introduce further cost and delay - the aircraft are different in both structure and fuel system. That would mean Boeing designing the modification, someone fitting it, flight trials, reciever checks and then a training program roll out - all expensive.
So I doubt we'll see it anytime soon until George and HMT give us more cash - hang on is that a flying pig? But who knows the nickname of the RJ is the "Hog" after all!
For now we have to rely on NATO allies to provide Boom AAR (US, France, Netherlands, etc...). That said the E-3D crews have seen far more boom tanking in recent years than probe and drogue.
iRaven
So I doubt we'll see it anytime soon until George and HMT give us more cash - hang on is that a flying pig? But who knows the nickname of the RJ is the "Hog" after all!
For now we have to rely on NATO allies to provide Boom AAR (US, France, Netherlands, etc...). That said the E-3D crews have seen far more boom tanking in recent years than probe and drogue.
iRaven
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 644
Likes: 6
From: Old Hampshire
The big question about Rivet Joint and Air to Air refuelling is; does the current installation meet post Hadden Cave airworthiness requirements?
(Big hint - It doesn't even meet PRE Hadden Cave requirements)
(Big hint - It doesn't even meet PRE Hadden Cave requirements)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,343
Likes: 116
From: UK
Hadden Cave requirements?
If you are referring to Charles Haddon-Cave QC, what "requirements" would these be then? He made recommendations, but no "requirements" as far as I'm aware. Does it meet the acceptable level of airworthiness? Well that depends on whether the USAF are a "competent organisation" or not; they're hardly killing their people left, right and centre (or should that be center?) are they?
I've been listening to the idiots at DOSG for the past 3 years about how dangerous the Americans are with their weapons handling - I see no evidence of this, considering the US magnitude of effort is massive compared to ours. I also do not see the sky raining RJs from AAR issues. Maybe that is why Haddon-Cave recommended wrestling the management of risk away from the engineering fraternity, who, in my opinion, had become blinkered and had backed themselves into a safety corner - the only natural path for their culture was to ultimately cease all flying all together!!
LJ
If you are referring to Charles Haddon-Cave QC, what "requirements" would these be then? He made recommendations, but no "requirements" as far as I'm aware. Does it meet the acceptable level of airworthiness? Well that depends on whether the USAF are a "competent organisation" or not; they're hardly killing their people left, right and centre (or should that be center?) are they?
I've been listening to the idiots at DOSG for the past 3 years about how dangerous the Americans are with their weapons handling - I see no evidence of this, considering the US magnitude of effort is massive compared to ours. I also do not see the sky raining RJs from AAR issues. Maybe that is why Haddon-Cave recommended wrestling the management of risk away from the engineering fraternity, who, in my opinion, had become blinkered and had backed themselves into a safety corner - the only natural path for their culture was to ultimately cease all flying all together!!
LJ
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,343
Likes: 116
From: UK
James
No it wouldn't. You would need to de-modify the E-3Ds and then modify them to become RJs. Much cutting of metal and replacing wiring = MEGABUCKS $$$$$$$$
Its a bit like taking a AVRO Shacketon and converting it to be an AVRO Lancaster!
LJ
No it wouldn't. You would need to de-modify the E-3Ds and then modify them to become RJs. Much cutting of metal and replacing wiring = MEGABUCKS $$$$$$$$
Its a bit like taking a AVRO Shacketon and converting it to be an AVRO Lancaster!
LJ
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 505
Likes: 41
From: UK
LJ
Correct! The RJ is based upon the Boeing Model 717 (not to be confused with the Boeing 717) and the E-3D is based upon the Boeing 707-320. Here's the difference:
So to use the ONE E-3D in mothballs would indeed take megabucks and a complete redesign of the RJ's design drawings.
iRaven
Correct! The RJ is based upon the Boeing Model 717 (not to be confused with the Boeing 717) and the E-3D is based upon the Boeing 707-320. Here's the difference:
This military version of the Model 367-80 is identified as the Boeing Model 717: it differs primarily from the later Model 707 by having a smaller-diameter fuselage, deletion of cabin windows, reduced size and weight, and accommodation for 80 passengers or an equivalent weight of cargo on the main deck.
iRaven
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
From: Malkin Tower
OK, I hear what you're saying, but surely fitting the new gear into the E-3 airframe is no more than an electronic refit? You've got an electronically hardened airframe which is bigger than the C-135 so making it physically fit should not be an issue. As for the wiring / databus - well that would have to be retrofitted whatever aircraft you choose
You don't need to do that much metal-bashing surely?
However if theres only one in mothballs then the question is academic anyway - I was under the impression three had been mothballed by the recent cuts
You don't need to do that much metal-bashing surely?
However if theres only one in mothballs then the question is academic anyway - I was under the impression three had been mothballed by the recent cuts
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 505
Likes: 41
From: UK
From this...
To this...
Please tell me you're having a laugh if you think you can do it cheaper!
Let alone removing a 7T RADAR, look at all the antenna mods you would have to make (and they're all very accurately placed - get them out of place and things won't work).
iRaven
To this...
Please tell me you're having a laugh if you think you can do it cheaper!
Let alone removing a 7T RADAR, look at all the antenna mods you would have to make (and they're all very accurately placed - get them out of place and things won't work).
iRaven
. 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
Maybe a bit late on this thread but I worked on the Nimrod MR4 in 1999 when Cobham was refurbishing 3 fuselages.
The airframes had been coccooned in a wood and were rotten, We replaced at least 60% of the structure on one and another was 1 complete frame bay short - lack of parts during the last builds at Chester I suspect.
A good part of the blame for the cost overuns and hence the cancellation of the programme must be laid at the feet of Bae Systems who were in control - and I use that term very loosely. Most of their advisory team were never on site so there were delays after delays. They should also have done a decent survey of the airframes and refused to accept such rotting carcases from the RAF.
The RAF will not be without their share of the blame with constant changes and mods being added on - I worked on the Tucano builds at Shorts and that was a nightmare.
Overall I think the Nimrod (Comet) was a much better plane than the Joint Rivet (707) - my son has worked on both in the RAF - and was better suited to the maritine missions.
Reminds me of Harold Wilson all over again cancelling the TSR2 and buying F111's that were then cancelled with a large penalty paid.
One day goverments will wake up and ask someone who uses the tools what they really need to do a proper job.
The airframes had been coccooned in a wood and were rotten, We replaced at least 60% of the structure on one and another was 1 complete frame bay short - lack of parts during the last builds at Chester I suspect.
A good part of the blame for the cost overuns and hence the cancellation of the programme must be laid at the feet of Bae Systems who were in control - and I use that term very loosely. Most of their advisory team were never on site so there were delays after delays. They should also have done a decent survey of the airframes and refused to accept such rotting carcases from the RAF.
The RAF will not be without their share of the blame with constant changes and mods being added on - I worked on the Tucano builds at Shorts and that was a nightmare.
Overall I think the Nimrod (Comet) was a much better plane than the Joint Rivet (707) - my son has worked on both in the RAF - and was better suited to the maritine missions.
Reminds me of Harold Wilson all over again cancelling the TSR2 and buying F111's that were then cancelled with a large penalty paid.
One day goverments will wake up and ask someone who uses the tools what they really need to do a proper job.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
From: On the outside looking in
LJ,
is a bit contradictory, since if it were the case, H-C would never have been needed.
sw
Maybe that is why Haddon-Cave recommended wrestling the management of risk away from the engineering fraternity, who, in my opinion, had become blinkered and had backed themselves into a safety corner - the only natural path for their culture was to ultimately cease all flying all together!!
sw