RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astral box app
Thanks JIV,
I found the StarWindow app for my Galaxy III. It's almost as good as the real thing! Don't let Mr Snowden know though will you.
NoVaNav,
Thanks for the gen on the doors - had I gone to Greenville I would have known.
Drag
I found the StarWindow app for my Galaxy III. It's almost as good as the real thing! Don't let Mr Snowden know though will you.
NoVaNav,
Thanks for the gen on the doors - had I gone to Greenville I would have known.
Drag
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it matter when the airframes were built? What we've got is what we've got; the best that is available within the budget constraints of the MOD. The RC-135V/W has been flying for a number of years and is the de facto "Gold Standard" for manned airborne SIGINT, what else should the RAF have aspired to in the current financial environment?
The platform is far more capable than the R1 ever was, don't believe all the hype about the RJ v R1. We're lucky to have been included in the RJ club and the UK will continue to gain from the joint UK/US investment until manned SIGINT is overtaken by events.
Daf
The platform is far more capable than the R1 ever was, don't believe all the hype about the RJ v R1. We're lucky to have been included in the RJ club and the UK will continue to gain from the joint UK/US investment until manned SIGINT is overtaken by events.
Daf
Does it matter when the airframes were built? What we've got is what we've got; the best that is available within the budget constraints of the MOD. The Nimrod MR2 has been flying for a number of years and is the de facto "Gold Standard" for manned airborne reconnaissance, what else should the RAF have aspired to in the current financial environment?
The platform is far more capable than the P-3 ever was, don't believe all the hype about Nimrod v P-3. We're lucky to have been included in the Nimrod club...
The platform is far more capable than the P-3 ever was, don't believe all the hype about Nimrod v P-3. We're lucky to have been included in the Nimrod club...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The platform is far more capable than the P-3 ever was, don't believe all the hype about Nimrod v P-3. We're lucky to have been included in the Nimrod club...
The crew entry door is used for last minute entry, especially if the engines are running. Kept open, with ladder installed, until just prior to taxi.
If there were to be an accident where the crew are lost, but if parachutes had been available could have survived, how many senior officers will be prosecuted?
NB provision of parachutes does not guarantee survival but its better than riding the wreckage down and dying in the normal manner.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parachutes - Not Carried
I have some experience with -135s and parachutes.
As a new 2Lt in KC-135s we were required to wear parachutes during air refueling operations (at least when the Standardization check folks were onboard
). Four months into my ops flying career we were refueling F-4Cs flown by new fighter pilot students. One young 1Lt managed to get himself into a PIO under our boom and hit us in the aft left fuselage, removing almost all the boom, putting a crease in the left stabilizer and tearing up the leading edge of the left elevator. We pitched over to -1.5G but the autopilot stayed connected (not supposed to with that pitchover) and pulled us back to straight and level. Although the experienced boom operator tried to bail out the aft hatch, we were still pressurized and he could not open the hatch. Resulted in a landing at Edwards with no hydraulics and manually cranking down the gear and flaps. And some awards and decorations for a safe recovery. The F-4 student had previous problems with fighter upgrade and ended up as a co-pilot of a B-52.
As a result of the accident investigation it was determined that ALL previous C-135 accidents where bailout was possible were successfully recovered. ALL previous C-135 accidents that involved a catastrophic collision or failure resulted in NO successful bailouts. After that, SAC removed the requirement for wearing parachutes during operations and they were carried only on the aircraft sitting on nuclear alert duty.
We carried parachutes on the RC-135 long past the SAC KC requirement but a review of all operations determined that the weight of 34 chutes, required periodic inspections, and availability of only two hatches (fore and aft) for bailout would not result in successful bailouts except under conditions that would allow the aircraft to be recovered. The chutes were recovered. The EP-3E collision in April 2001 also showed that even a fairly severe collision could be successfully recovered.
Hence, no parachutes are carried on RC-135s and haven't been carried for many years.
Seems odd that this would be raised on a site with lots of former RAF types as the V-bombers were woefully deficient in having ejection seats only for the pilots, especially as a retired navigator. I had one flight in the Vulcan as a college student/journalist and was not comfortable with the lack of a seat during the low-level portion. I was not bothered by the lack of a parachute during my one flight in a Nimrod R.1.
As a new 2Lt in KC-135s we were required to wear parachutes during air refueling operations (at least when the Standardization check folks were onboard
). Four months into my ops flying career we were refueling F-4Cs flown by new fighter pilot students. One young 1Lt managed to get himself into a PIO under our boom and hit us in the aft left fuselage, removing almost all the boom, putting a crease in the left stabilizer and tearing up the leading edge of the left elevator. We pitched over to -1.5G but the autopilot stayed connected (not supposed to with that pitchover) and pulled us back to straight and level. Although the experienced boom operator tried to bail out the aft hatch, we were still pressurized and he could not open the hatch. Resulted in a landing at Edwards with no hydraulics and manually cranking down the gear and flaps. And some awards and decorations for a safe recovery. The F-4 student had previous problems with fighter upgrade and ended up as a co-pilot of a B-52.As a result of the accident investigation it was determined that ALL previous C-135 accidents where bailout was possible were successfully recovered. ALL previous C-135 accidents that involved a catastrophic collision or failure resulted in NO successful bailouts. After that, SAC removed the requirement for wearing parachutes during operations and they were carried only on the aircraft sitting on nuclear alert duty.
We carried parachutes on the RC-135 long past the SAC KC requirement but a review of all operations determined that the weight of 34 chutes, required periodic inspections, and availability of only two hatches (fore and aft) for bailout would not result in successful bailouts except under conditions that would allow the aircraft to be recovered. The chutes were recovered. The EP-3E collision in April 2001 also showed that even a fairly severe collision could be successfully recovered.
Hence, no parachutes are carried on RC-135s and haven't been carried for many years.
Seems odd that this would be raised on a site with lots of former RAF types as the V-bombers were woefully deficient in having ejection seats only for the pilots, especially as a retired navigator. I had one flight in the Vulcan as a college student/journalist and was not comfortable with the lack of a seat during the low-level portion. I was not bothered by the lack of a parachute during my one flight in a Nimrod R.1.
Last edited by NoVANav; 26th Oct 2013 at 12:06.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airseeker is due soon - I read according to this article
UK Rivet Joints - will the RAF get a new 'Damien'? - The DEW Line
Any idea if it's actually going to arrive soon or not?
UK Rivet Joints - will the RAF get a new 'Damien'? - The DEW Line
Any idea if it's actually going to arrive soon or not?
In some current mil aviation news...
So will the first aircraft that is 'ready' be sat on the ground until next spring waiting on MAA clearance?
I was at an unclassified presentation the other day that said Airseeker was due to go out of service in 2025. Is this correct, or is it just a planning figure with an inevitable life extension programme to follow? 11 years worth of capability seems a poor return from 6 years of planning and preparation.
That is of course if it has received the clearance to fly by then!
Anyone in the know care to comment?
I was at an unclassified presentation the other day that said Airseeker was due to go out of service in 2025. Is this correct, or is it just a planning figure with an inevitable life extension programme to follow? 11 years worth of capability seems a poor return from 6 years of planning and preparation.
That is of course if it has received the clearance to fly by then!
Anyone in the know care to comment?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk...84/0684_ii.pdf
Seems to suggest that it is resources for through-life support that has been approved until March '25.
One hopes that capability beyond '25 will be subject to ongoing assessment.
Seems to suggest that it is resources for through-life support that has been approved until March '25.
On 23 June 2011 the Chief of Defence Materiel signed on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence a Memorandum of Understanding for Sustainment and Follow-on Development that had been signed by the USA Under-Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) earlier that month, covering a Cooperative Agreement to provide support and capability updates for the USA and UK fleets of Rivet Joint aircraft and ground systems. This agreement runs to 31 March 2025.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, my point was that support has only, thus far, been approved until '25. Logic would suggest that keeping our RJs in parallel with the USAF's beyond that date would be sensible from economic and capability points of view.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 31st Oct 2013 at 14:07.
downsizer:-
The MAA should have cold feet wrt to the MAA! So far it's claim to fame seems to be to scrap fleets because of concern over their airworthiness or as here before they even get an RTS.
They are incapable of ensuring the airworthiness of such fleets, or indeed of any fleets because the system was effectively sabotaged in the late 80's by the malevolent actions of Air Officers, mainly by replacing highly skilled, properly trained, and experienced engineers with unskilled, untrained, and inexperienced equippers who were ordered to suborn the Regulations, and did so.
The MAA is thus compromised still and unable therefore to do its job. It needs to be wrested from the MOD, and made completely independent of it. Ditto the MAAIB, which in turn must be independent of the MAA. Then and only then can the slow reform of Military Air Regulation and Investigation begin. The competency problem will remain and will require the "sistering" of these two functions with the CAA and AAIB respectively, with Civilian DG's to head them. Or we can just carry on and wait for the Airworthiness Related Accidents to continue...
It seems the MAA is getting cold feet wrt RJ....
They are incapable of ensuring the airworthiness of such fleets, or indeed of any fleets because the system was effectively sabotaged in the late 80's by the malevolent actions of Air Officers, mainly by replacing highly skilled, properly trained, and experienced engineers with unskilled, untrained, and inexperienced equippers who were ordered to suborn the Regulations, and did so.
The MAA is thus compromised still and unable therefore to do its job. It needs to be wrested from the MOD, and made completely independent of it. Ditto the MAAIB, which in turn must be independent of the MAA. Then and only then can the slow reform of Military Air Regulation and Investigation begin. The competency problem will remain and will require the "sistering" of these two functions with the CAA and AAIB respectively, with Civilian DG's to head them. Or we can just carry on and wait for the Airworthiness Related Accidents to continue...
The U.S. official praised the contribution of the newly-trained British crews. He also noted that the UK had been given “unprecedented and total” access to the highly classified SIGINT systems on the Rivet Joint.
The only way you could satisfy today's post Hadden Cave airworthiness requirements is to start with a modern design not one that started out life on a 1940's drawing board.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me for being stupid, but is anyone empowered to read across the USAF RTS to the RAF? I seem to recall being told that this was what happened with the C-17, and was the reason/excuse for 99 Sqn crews to wear US flying suits.
S41
S41
Stuff the SIGINT systems, I reckon it'll be the total lack of access to design and qualification data for the airframe that's got the MAA's back up.
S41
I can't answer your question , but
The reason for the US flight (should that be flight?) suits was because we were renting the aircraft. Under the contract they had to be operated in the same way as any USAF ac and that included flying suits and head sets. Not sure what the excuse is now though - maybe we really don't want to lift that stone!!
I can't answer your question , but
I seem to recall being told that this was what happened with the C-17, and was the reason/excuse for 99 Sqn crews to wear US flying suits.
The only way you could satisfy today's post Hadden Cave airworthiness requirements is to start with a modern design not one that started out life on a 1940's drawing board.
I might have the wrong end of the stick here but surely the point is that the pre and post Haddon Cave requirements need not have changed. It was the implementation that was wrong, not the regulations. But the MAA has started rewriting the regulations for no apparent reason. People now infer the poor regulations were to blame, not those who ignored them. In other words, the MAA exists to help some senior people cover their arses. I still think this summary has got it pretty much right.
https://sites.google.com/site/milita...-authority-maa
