RAF Rivet Joint
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
From: In the Country
Oh, and talking of boom tankers, how does the UK plan to do "National" sneaky-beaky missions that require AAR?
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,400
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Oh, and talking of boom tankers, how does the UK plan to do "National" sneaky-beaky missions that require AAR?
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd April 2014 at 10:33.
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
From: UK East Anglia
I think NoVaNav explained the AAR sketch several posts back. He appears to be Mr RJ on PPRuNe so far as I am concerned.
I think the limitation on sortie length is more likely to be the supply of rations for the Formation Eating Team.
I think the limitation on sortie length is more likely to be the supply of rations for the Formation Eating Team.
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: Vienna, Virginia
Boom AAr for RAF RJs
dragartist,
I'll ask the RAF ass't Air Attaché at the local RAeS chapter meeting at the UK Embassy next week. He is working the RAF RJ here in the U.S.
However, I believe the agreement is for USAF KCs to provide refueling when needed. Similar to the agreement for KCs with drogue systems to stand alert in the UK to replace the Victors when they all were in the South Atlantic for Operation Corporate.
I'll ask the RAF ass't Air Attaché at the local RAeS chapter meeting at the UK Embassy next week. He is working the RAF RJ here in the U.S.
However, I believe the agreement is for USAF KCs to provide refueling when needed. Similar to the agreement for KCs with drogue systems to stand alert in the UK to replace the Victors when they all were in the South Atlantic for Operation Corporate.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 356
Likes: 1
From: the heathen lands
and what, pray, is the solution for getting our Boom only RJ's down south in the event of Op CORPORATE 2.0?
being the suspicious, underhand soul that i am i rather doubt we've a promise that the KC's will support our RJ's on national missions further than 20South...
being the suspicious, underhand soul that i am i rather doubt we've a promise that the KC's will support our RJ's on national missions further than 20South...
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: UK/ USA
Just thought I would ask again. As a tax payer.
Is the aircraft going to fly soon?
I spotted it again outside, near the grass at Waddington. It looks great but being on the ground is not why it was bought.
Is the aircraft going to fly soon?
I spotted it again outside, near the grass at Waddington. It looks great but being on the ground is not why it was bought.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 48
JIV -
Maaybe something to do with the fall-out from this ?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...bishkek-5.html
LFH
Just thought I would ask again. As a tax payer.
Is the aircraft going to fly soon? ........ It looks great but being on the ground is not why it was bought.
Is the aircraft going to fly soon? ........ It looks great but being on the ground is not why it was bought.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...bishkek-5.html
LFH
Last edited by Lordflasheart; 2nd April 2014 at 10:16.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
From: Island of Aphrodite
From Flight Global today:
The UK Military Aviation Authority (MAA) expects to within weeks reach a decision on the airworthiness of the Royal Air Force’s RC-135W Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft, which should be introduced operationally from later this year.
US company L-3 Communications is modifying three 1964-vintage KC-135R tankers to the Rivet Joint signals intelligence-gathering configuration for the RAF, with the first having been delivered to its Waddington air base in Lincolnshire last November. The aircraft has not been flown again since its arrival, as certification activities continue.
“We’ve been given some big boxes of paperwork, and our team will take 20 working days to assess Airseeker and the release to service recommendation,” says Air Marshal Dick Garwood, director general of the MAA. “Then we will tell ACAS [the assistant chief of the air staff] what we think about this aeroplane: is it safe, or is it not.”
The UK Military Aviation Authority (MAA) expects to within weeks reach a decision on the airworthiness of the Royal Air Force’s RC-135W Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft, which should be introduced operationally from later this year.
US company L-3 Communications is modifying three 1964-vintage KC-135R tankers to the Rivet Joint signals intelligence-gathering configuration for the RAF, with the first having been delivered to its Waddington air base in Lincolnshire last November. The aircraft has not been flown again since its arrival, as certification activities continue.
“We’ve been given some big boxes of paperwork, and our team will take 20 working days to assess Airseeker and the release to service recommendation,” says Air Marshal Dick Garwood, director general of the MAA. “Then we will tell ACAS [the assistant chief of the air staff] what we think about this aeroplane: is it safe, or is it not.”
Joined: Sep 2006
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,024
Likes: 102
From: Somewhere flat
"Surely even the MOD haven't spent millions on a 'new' RAF type, to have it grounded after delivery!!"
The RAF/MOD has had big issues with air worthiness over the last few years and has been pilloried from many sources over its lack of ensuring the safety of the people who fly the aircraft. Unless the aircraft is proved to be safe and fit for purpose then it will not fly... You cannot have it both ways.
The RAF/MOD has had big issues with air worthiness over the last few years and has been pilloried from many sources over its lack of ensuring the safety of the people who fly the aircraft. Unless the aircraft is proved to be safe and fit for purpose then it will not fly... You cannot have it both ways.
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,993
Likes: 499
From: The Roman Empire
I think the point cessnapete, and indeed most taxpayers, was trying to make is something along the lines of....
".... wouldn't it have been a good idea for the MAA to have done its homework, and be pretty sure it would be able to recommend release, before the UK actually purchased the aircraft?...."
From the outside, it looks like a ridiculous situation where the MOD has bought an aircraft that it could subsequently deem unfit to fly in service use.
As someone not particularly in the loop on this issue, it may just be an issue of timescales, maybe the RJ was ordered before the MAA came into fruition, or rules for the recommendation for release changed after the order for RJ was placed?
Perhaps someone more enlightened on this issue can, politely, provide some more insight?
".... wouldn't it have been a good idea for the MAA to have done its homework, and be pretty sure it would be able to recommend release, before the UK actually purchased the aircraft?...."
From the outside, it looks like a ridiculous situation where the MOD has bought an aircraft that it could subsequently deem unfit to fly in service use.
As someone not particularly in the loop on this issue, it may just be an issue of timescales, maybe the RJ was ordered before the MAA came into fruition, or rules for the recommendation for release changed after the order for RJ was placed?
Perhaps someone more enlightened on this issue can, politely, provide some more insight?
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,993
Likes: 499
From: The Roman Empire
D68,
Thanks for the input!!
One could also ask....
".... why didn't the MAA look through these 'big boxes of paperwork' prior to the aircraft arriving in the UK?...."
I presume the 'paperwork' was readily available from the manufacturer at any stage, since it is not a 'new' product.
No doubt in this case it's probably all about the number of properly qualified MAA personnel available for the task and their current workload and priorities. But I must say, from the outside it doesn't look slick from a PR point of view. If the NHS built a brand new hospital that then stood empty for several months I'm sure the press would have a field day!
Thanks for the input!!
One could also ask....
".... why didn't the MAA look through these 'big boxes of paperwork' prior to the aircraft arriving in the UK?...."
I presume the 'paperwork' was readily available from the manufacturer at any stage, since it is not a 'new' product.
No doubt in this case it's probably all about the number of properly qualified MAA personnel available for the task and their current workload and priorities. But I must say, from the outside it doesn't look slick from a PR point of view. If the NHS built a brand new hospital that then stood empty for several months I'm sure the press would have a field day!
Last edited by Biggus; 2nd April 2014 at 17:32.