RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just asking, during last few weeks have seen a great deal of media attention on the arrival of the first Rivet Joint SIGINT aircraft, acquired from the Americans.
Air Commodore Portlock describes it with enthusiasm as “a fantastic capability. With it comes a complete integration and interoperability with the US which we’ve not had in this area before, and we look forward to fielding it on operations next year.”
As a tax payer I was wonder are we getting what we paid for yet?
Air Commodore Portlock describes it with enthusiasm as “a fantastic capability. With it comes a complete integration and interoperability with the US which we’ve not had in this area before, and we look forward to fielding it on operations next year.”
As a tax payer I was wonder are we getting what we paid for yet?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a tax payer I was wonder are we getting what we paid for yet?
One wonders if that's a 'permanent' parking solution given the lack of parking paces for 3 RJs and however many E-3s we have (that aren't a pile of spares).
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloke down the pub told me they were building an extension to one of the hangars for RJ.
JIV,
Try asking MoD or NAO under FOI for the info you are so desperate to find out.
JIV,
Try asking MoD or NAO under FOI for the info you are so desperate to find out.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quote was from IQ Defence. I suspect they meant the flurry of media interest when the first aircraft arrived.
A quick google of 'UK RJ' reveals many articles over the last few years with many in the last 2 months which I think is recent in programme which started in the early 90s.
There have not been many updates in the very short term. Hence my questions.
Clearly I have touched a nerve.
Sorry.
Off down the pub, may buy some unhappy geese a pint.
A quick google of 'UK RJ' reveals many articles over the last few years with many in the last 2 months which I think is recent in programme which started in the early 90s.
There have not been many updates in the very short term. Hence my questions.
Clearly I have touched a nerve.
Sorry.
Off down the pub, may buy some unhappy geese a pint.
Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 18th Jan 2014 at 20:26.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is anyone allowed to say why they flew the jet over to the damp climate of UK if they did not intend to fly it on ops or training. Would it have been better to have kept it at Greenville till we were ready to use it?
As I understand things the formation eating team have been training in the UK with the USAF and I believe the aircraft are to the same standard. (or is this just a rumour!).
Must be very frustrating for the guys at Waddo. The bill will have been paid but we do not appear to be getting any benefit. Imagine if it was a revenue earning airline. The shareholders would be up in arms.
As I understand things the formation eating team have been training in the UK with the USAF and I believe the aircraft are to the same standard. (or is this just a rumour!).
Must be very frustrating for the guys at Waddo. The bill will have been paid but we do not appear to be getting any benefit. Imagine if it was a revenue earning airline. The shareholders would be up in arms.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJ to Waddo vice Greenville
If the jet is ready any company will want to move it off their ramp and deliver to the customer. No liability if a hail storm or tornado does damage. Greenville does not have extra hangar space to store completed aircraft. And, you get credit for an "ahead of schedule" delivery, with possible bonus dollars involved.
Besides, there is a lot more to an operational jet than the flying. Aircraft and backend equipment maintenance folks can work and learn on the real thing at Waddo. You can also run the backend on the ground and do almost complete operational training on the systems.
And, I am sure, all the various offices mentioned in previous posts who must "sign off" on how safe it is want to 'see' the real thing. A trip to Waddington is much cheaper than to Greenville. Even if the steaks are MUCH better in Texas.
Bill
Besides, there is a lot more to an operational jet than the flying. Aircraft and backend equipment maintenance folks can work and learn on the real thing at Waddo. You can also run the backend on the ground and do almost complete operational training on the systems.
And, I am sure, all the various offices mentioned in previous posts who must "sign off" on how safe it is want to 'see' the real thing. A trip to Waddington is much cheaper than to Greenville. Even if the steaks are MUCH better in Texas.
Bill
Boscombe D'ahn..
Buc Scamp why the 
, if it does come down (looks nice parked at Waddo) then it would be flown/evaluated by the RAF (which you'd hope would have been done state side), so the process should flow nicely? 
, if it does come down (looks nice parked at Waddo) then it would be flown/evaluated by the RAF (which you'd hope would have been done state side), so the process should flow nicely?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
has to wait until 6th April and the new Financial Year before they can fill 'er up for the trip...................
or, more likely, awaiting a suitable collection of politicians and SO's to be assembled and photographed on its "arrival"
or, more likely, awaiting a suitable collection of politicians and SO's to be assembled and photographed on its "arrival"
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be a very good reason to take it to Boscombe- We used to take the Nimrod there to weigh it. Very accurate it was too. Always an overnight to allow the fluids to drain for a weigh fist thing in the morning
Trying to draw a parallel: did Sentry spend long there?
Boscombe used to bring the mobile unit to us to do EMC and Tempest. Always a laugh seeing our Tefal men* with theirs.
*from the TV advert of the 80s era
Trying to draw a parallel: did Sentry spend long there?
Boscombe used to bring the mobile unit to us to do EMC and Tempest. Always a laugh seeing our Tefal men* with theirs.
*from the TV advert of the 80s era
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Green Gilbert Just For You
January 24, 2014, 8:24 AM
The UK Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) is taking a leading role in a forum that aims to harmonize requirements within Europe for military airworthiness. The move would help the aerospace industry design future pan-European products. But although the forum is basing the requirements framework on European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulations, there is no intention to create a pan-European regulatory agency for military aircraft, according to Air Vice-Marshal Martin Clark, the MAA’s technical director. “Regulation will remain a national responsibility,” he told AIN.
In the absence of such a scheme, Airbus and the nations procuring the A400M sought EASA civilian certification of Europe’s new airlifter. This was achieved last March, but now the aircraft must pass examination by the national military airworthiness authorities of each acquiring country. In the UK, the entry into Royal Air Force service of the Voyager tanker/transport was delayed last year, as the MAA sought assurance that the military modifications to the Airbus A330 were fully understood and assured. The two supplemental type certificates (STCs) that Airbus Military obtained “did not cover the full extent of the military modifications nor their operation,” Air Marshal Dick Garwood, the director general of the MAA, told AIN.
Clark said that the MAA is “reasonably confident” that it will be able to issue a military type certificate for the A400M. This will be a first for the MAA, which was set up in 2010 in the wake of the Nimrod MR.2 crash in 2006 and a subsequent review that criticized the safety oversight of British military aircraft. Some new platforms entering service in the UK since then have been delayed “because of the need to have a more in-depth understanding of airworthiness,” Garwood said. He is unapologetic about the increased scrutiny. “The review called for an independent regulator that fosters continual improvement in safety culture, regulation and practice,” he told AIN. “It’s not acceptable for industry to have sole intellectual ownership of airworthiness, for aircraft on the military register,” Clark added.
One of the delayed platforms is the Thales Watchkeeper UAV for the British Army. But Clark noted that the MAA issued a statement of type design assurance (STDA) last October. The UAV still needs a release to service (RTS) authorization, but that is the responsibility of the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organization, he added. Regarding the Rivet Joint SIGINT aircraft for the RAF, Garwood admitted that “complex work” must still be done before the 50-year old airframes can be cleared for service. The first one has not flown since it was delivered to the UK last November. Garwood noted that the initial operating capability date for this aircraft is still 10 months away. Work is being done by the DE&S and user community to provide safety evidence to support RTS,” he added.
The UK Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) is taking a leading role in a forum that aims to harmonize requirements within Europe for military airworthiness. The move would help the aerospace industry design future pan-European products. But although the forum is basing the requirements framework on European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulations, there is no intention to create a pan-European regulatory agency for military aircraft, according to Air Vice-Marshal Martin Clark, the MAA’s technical director. “Regulation will remain a national responsibility,” he told AIN.
In the absence of such a scheme, Airbus and the nations procuring the A400M sought EASA civilian certification of Europe’s new airlifter. This was achieved last March, but now the aircraft must pass examination by the national military airworthiness authorities of each acquiring country. In the UK, the entry into Royal Air Force service of the Voyager tanker/transport was delayed last year, as the MAA sought assurance that the military modifications to the Airbus A330 were fully understood and assured. The two supplemental type certificates (STCs) that Airbus Military obtained “did not cover the full extent of the military modifications nor their operation,” Air Marshal Dick Garwood, the director general of the MAA, told AIN.
Clark said that the MAA is “reasonably confident” that it will be able to issue a military type certificate for the A400M. This will be a first for the MAA, which was set up in 2010 in the wake of the Nimrod MR.2 crash in 2006 and a subsequent review that criticized the safety oversight of British military aircraft. Some new platforms entering service in the UK since then have been delayed “because of the need to have a more in-depth understanding of airworthiness,” Garwood said. He is unapologetic about the increased scrutiny. “The review called for an independent regulator that fosters continual improvement in safety culture, regulation and practice,” he told AIN. “It’s not acceptable for industry to have sole intellectual ownership of airworthiness, for aircraft on the military register,” Clark added.
One of the delayed platforms is the Thales Watchkeeper UAV for the British Army. But Clark noted that the MAA issued a statement of type design assurance (STDA) last October. The UAV still needs a release to service (RTS) authorization, but that is the responsibility of the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organization, he added. Regarding the Rivet Joint SIGINT aircraft for the RAF, Garwood admitted that “complex work” must still be done before the 50-year old airframes can be cleared for service. The first one has not flown since it was delivered to the UK last November. Garwood noted that the initial operating capability date for this aircraft is still 10 months away. Work is being done by the DE&S and user community to provide safety evidence to support RTS,” he added.
Maybe it would have been better to move the aircraft to Offutt where it could have joined the fleet, been beyond the reach of the MAA and been flown by joint UK/US crews, rather than sitting on the ground in the British winter decaying away slowly?!?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Rolland, That would only work if they painted stars and stripes on them!
I do see where you are coming from but the Duty Holder who signs off the RTS or what ever they call it these days accepts responsibility for the engineering (configuration/Design etc) as well as the operation. he (or it could be a she) is looking for the independent advice to cover his @rse as Garwood describes above. Now that said the advice will be highly caveated and probably recommend that the Duty Holder takes a view on the risks of not having evidence to fill every single gap. I am not at all close to this programme nor ever have been but I guess the team will have difficulty getting eyes on every single certificate of design (F100A or equivalent) for every single widget. I think we are being told that the aircraft are re-manufactured to zero flying hour condition. I am sure they have been stripped and inspected down to the last rivet and cleat.
They sure look resplendent and I hope they do as good a job as the jet they replace.
The KURs at IOC will be more than just doing circuits and bumps.
I do see where you are coming from but the Duty Holder who signs off the RTS or what ever they call it these days accepts responsibility for the engineering (configuration/Design etc) as well as the operation. he (or it could be a she) is looking for the independent advice to cover his @rse as Garwood describes above. Now that said the advice will be highly caveated and probably recommend that the Duty Holder takes a view on the risks of not having evidence to fill every single gap. I am not at all close to this programme nor ever have been but I guess the team will have difficulty getting eyes on every single certificate of design (F100A or equivalent) for every single widget. I think we are being told that the aircraft are re-manufactured to zero flying hour condition. I am sure they have been stripped and inspected down to the last rivet and cleat.
They sure look resplendent and I hope they do as good a job as the jet they replace.
The KURs at IOC will be more than just doing circuits and bumps.
:drag.
Hope they do as good a job as the jet that was replaced by the jet that is being replaced 
Regards, Den.
I hope they do as good a job as the jet they replace.
Regards, Den.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ten months for heavens sake....
If the balloon goes up somewhere next month they'll be out of Boscombe in 3 days and working for sure - and then returned for another 10 month wait no doubt when they've proved themselves in action
If the balloon goes up somewhere next month they'll be out of Boscombe in 3 days and working for sure - and then returned for another 10 month wait no doubt when they've proved themselves in action
HH:-
and counting...as you so rightly say this aircraft is desperately needed in service now, so why isn't it? Here is an even more obvious illustration of what has befallen UK Military Air Safety than a Fatal Airworthiness Related Air Accident, tragic though that be.
The genesis of this static display at Waddington can be traced back to 1987 when the attack by VSOs on UK Military Air Safety dates from. That resulted not only in Airworthiness Related Air Accidents involving 62 fatalities but a seriously inhibited Military Air Capability, as illustrated by this thread. Despite the cost in blood, treasure, and capability, none of those VSOs involved has been brought to account, but on the contrary continue to be protected by their successors. As a result the reform of Military Air Regulation and Investigation that is so desperately needed goes on undone.
Instead of making both independent of the MOD, they remain wholly in-house, and thus as exposed to undue interference as ever. An independent Investigator could revisit many past BoIs into Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents and find that the Regulator was seriously at fault, and that the BoIs had been subject to flagrant pressures from above to hide that very fact. That can't happen until the MAA and MAAIB are made independent of the MOD and of each other.
If it takes a static display at Waddington to remain for even more months in order to achieve that urgent reform, then that will be time well spent.
Self Regulation doesn't work and in Aviation it Kills!
ten months for heavens sake....
The genesis of this static display at Waddington can be traced back to 1987 when the attack by VSOs on UK Military Air Safety dates from. That resulted not only in Airworthiness Related Air Accidents involving 62 fatalities but a seriously inhibited Military Air Capability, as illustrated by this thread. Despite the cost in blood, treasure, and capability, none of those VSOs involved has been brought to account, but on the contrary continue to be protected by their successors. As a result the reform of Military Air Regulation and Investigation that is so desperately needed goes on undone.
Instead of making both independent of the MOD, they remain wholly in-house, and thus as exposed to undue interference as ever. An independent Investigator could revisit many past BoIs into Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents and find that the Regulator was seriously at fault, and that the BoIs had been subject to flagrant pressures from above to hide that very fact. That can't happen until the MAA and MAAIB are made independent of the MOD and of each other.
If it takes a static display at Waddington to remain for even more months in order to achieve that urgent reform, then that will be time well spent.
Self Regulation doesn't work and in Aviation it Kills!