Rivet Joint
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: East Midlands
Age: 58
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read the various threads lamenting the loss of the R1 and how great the new AIRSEEKER will be (who thought that name up?)
Nobody seems to have mentioned the fact the the old R1 back end stuff was tailored to the UK crews having much more more skill and knowledge than their US counterparts and that RIVET JOINT had much more automation because their crews weren't as good (much shorter tours) and needed to rely on the hardware more.
It was one of the big 'us verses them' arguments. It seems all that experience is going to be wasted sitting and watching flashing lights. They'll end up making the tea (or should I say coffee) and put the taxi drivers at the front out of a job.
Nobody seems to have mentioned the fact the the old R1 back end stuff was tailored to the UK crews having much more more skill and knowledge than their US counterparts and that RIVET JOINT had much more automation because their crews weren't as good (much shorter tours) and needed to rely on the hardware more.
It was one of the big 'us verses them' arguments. It seems all that experience is going to be wasted sitting and watching flashing lights. They'll end up making the tea (or should I say coffee) and put the taxi drivers at the front out of a job.
Why don't we...
The former Voldemort (the jet that mustn't be named) RAF crews are currently assigned to the 55th RW, to maintain proficiency and train on the new kit. If that's already happening, and the aircraft are fulfilling a UK need, why are we buying the three airframes under discussion?
Couldn't we just continue with the present arrangement, and save the defence budget a few millions? That money could be better spent on giving our service personnel decent housing and a proper living wage for their efforts, couldn't it?
Excuse what may appear to be a stupid question. I'm a civvie, and a taxpayer and get a bit grumpy when I see how much tax various Chancellors have taken off me each month.
Couldn't we just continue with the present arrangement, and save the defence budget a few millions? That money could be better spent on giving our service personnel decent housing and a proper living wage for their efforts, couldn't it?
Excuse what may appear to be a stupid question. I'm a civvie, and a taxpayer and get a bit grumpy when I see how much tax various Chancellors have taken off me each month.
Bob
It is a temporary manning agreement where we both get benefit - US get their younger crews exposed to the knowledge of the UK's more experienced crews, the UK get training and more proficient on their new equipment.
I very much doubt the USAF would be content for us to borrow their kit indefinately - much as it would be cheaper for us!!!
As a user of R1 and RJ over combat zones for many years, I have always found the product/capability from both mainly similar - the only difference was that the grammar and diction from the R1 was always better!
LJ
It is a temporary manning agreement where we both get benefit - US get their younger crews exposed to the knowledge of the UK's more experienced crews, the UK get training and more proficient on their new equipment.
I very much doubt the USAF would be content for us to borrow their kit indefinately - much as it would be cheaper for us!!!
As a user of R1 and RJ over combat zones for many years, I have always found the product/capability from both mainly similar - the only difference was that the grammar and diction from the R1 was always better!
LJ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the oven on RJ up to the job of 24/7 curries and pies though?
Based on my experience of 'merkin inflight 'cuisine' uplifted when stateside, US crews seem to exist purely on bran and fruit. Which would lead one to think the toilets are up to the task, if nothing else.
Based on my experience of 'merkin inflight 'cuisine' uplifted when stateside, US crews seem to exist purely on bran and fruit. Which would lead one to think the toilets are up to the task, if nothing else.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the Airseeker be identical the US Rivet Joint, or will there be any scope to add in any of the 'Unique' capabilities that we are told the R1 had? (and I don't mean all those curries)
I am aware that the UK will be involved in agreeing further upgrades of the fleet down the line.
I am aware that the UK will be involved in agreeing further upgrades of the fleet down the line.
During a recent visit to Davis Monthan I think I saw Auntie Betty's latest aquisitions.
Visible amongst the plethora of airframes being re-worked by AMARG were three RC135 types sporting slightly different markings. Are these the three RIVET JOINTS bound for the UK?
Visible amongst the plethora of airframes being re-worked by AMARG were three RC135 types sporting slightly different markings. Are these the three RIVET JOINTS bound for the UK?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giblets,
To answer your earlier post, the RJs will be identical to the US fleet (which are all at various Increments anyway) . However, there will be a limited scope for the addition of UK unique equipments ....
To answer your earlier post, the RJs will be identical to the US fleet (which are all at various Increments anyway) . However, there will be a limited scope for the addition of UK unique equipments ....
Bad Boy from Akrotiri
I'm pretty sure that at least the first RAF RJ is in the shed at Greenville, TX. I also believe that the mods take about 18-24 months, so they should have started already or the first aircraft will be late
iRaven
I'm pretty sure that at least the first RAF RJ is in the shed at Greenville, TX. I also believe that the mods take about 18-24 months, so they should have started already or the first aircraft will be late
iRaven
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first Kc-135 for conversion arrived back in March.
From what I have read, the RAF had the pick of the KC-135 fleet, and picked the three lowest cycle/ hours aircraft available (it's all relative as 14833 was manufactured in '64, so will be delivered on its' 50th birthday!).
Interesting the Reg's chosen, as the R1's were XW664 on (IIRC).
RJ18/18773 ZZ664 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14833
RJ19/18778 ZZ665 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14838
RJ20/18770 ZZ666 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14830
From what I have read, the RAF had the pick of the KC-135 fleet, and picked the three lowest cycle/ hours aircraft available (it's all relative as 14833 was manufactured in '64, so will be delivered on its' 50th birthday!).
Interesting the Reg's chosen, as the R1's were XW664 on (IIRC).
RJ18/18773 ZZ664 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14833
RJ19/18778 ZZ665 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14838
RJ20/18770 ZZ666 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14830
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't know, you probably don't need to know.
Sir George a few moments on Google will show the need, just because we have taken 'Capability Holidays' on other requirements doesn't mean we should make it a habit
The USA operates 15 of these in-demand aircraft, which have been used in both Iraq wars, and can also be found over missions like Bosnia, Haiti, et al. Their extended “thimble” noses and cheek fairings are very recognizable, and have given them the nickname “hogs”. The USAF’s fleet went from 14 to 15 in 1999 with the addition of a converted C-135B, and currently stands at 17.
If this contract goes through, Britain will become the only Rivet Joint operator in the world outside of the United States. The sensitivity of its technologies are such that only a very few countries would even be considered for a sale. Australia, Britain, Canada, and possibly Japan would likely exhaust the potential list.
Rivet Joint aircraft are so important that they are assigned tasks at the national level, above even theater commanders like CENTCOM. Their crews’ job is to collect and relay signals and communications, snooping on enemy transmissions and radar emissions. The planes are advanced enough to precisely locate, record and analyze much of what is being done in the electromagnetic spectrum within their coverage area, which is large enough to cover most countries over the course of a mission flight. They can convey this information, or relay other high bandwidth communications, using a communications array that includes satellite channels, the Tactical Digital Information Link (TADIL/A), the Tactical Information Broadcast Service (TIBS), and other options.
If this contract goes through, Britain will become the only Rivet Joint operator in the world outside of the United States. The sensitivity of its technologies are such that only a very few countries would even be considered for a sale. Australia, Britain, Canada, and possibly Japan would likely exhaust the potential list.
Rivet Joint aircraft are so important that they are assigned tasks at the national level, above even theater commanders like CENTCOM. Their crews’ job is to collect and relay signals and communications, snooping on enemy transmissions and radar emissions. The planes are advanced enough to precisely locate, record and analyze much of what is being done in the electromagnetic spectrum within their coverage area, which is large enough to cover most countries over the course of a mission flight. They can convey this information, or relay other high bandwidth communications, using a communications array that includes satellite channels, the Tactical Digital Information Link (TADIL/A), the Tactical Information Broadcast Service (TIBS), and other options.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: St Ives, Cambs
Age: 80
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just remind me what the operational requirement is for these a/c?
Yo, Kitbag. Keep your hair on!
Your mini-briefing is all very nice, but Sir George didn't ask what sort of thing the RJ could do. His question was "What is the (UK's?)Operational Requirement for these aircraft. A different question entirely. No doubt the answer will be contained in the AIR SEEKER Operational Requirements Document - if such a thing exists - and if it does, will almost certainly be somewhat classified. Hence my "need-to-know" reply which applies to you and me too.
Oh, and I am willing to bet that you will not find it set out on the internet..mmmmm ....on the other hand...what, with ministers taking friends to classified meetings and tossing confidential documents in bins in a public park, I could be seriously mistaken!
No offence meant, Sir George and Kitbag. Keep the posts coming.
Your mini-briefing is all very nice, but Sir George didn't ask what sort of thing the RJ could do. His question was "What is the (UK's?)Operational Requirement for these aircraft. A different question entirely. No doubt the answer will be contained in the AIR SEEKER Operational Requirements Document - if such a thing exists - and if it does, will almost certainly be somewhat classified. Hence my "need-to-know" reply which applies to you and me too.
Oh, and I am willing to bet that you will not find it set out on the internet..mmmmm ....on the other hand...what, with ministers taking friends to classified meetings and tossing confidential documents in bins in a public park, I could be seriously mistaken!
No offence meant, Sir George and Kitbag. Keep the posts coming.