RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and talking of boom tankers, how does the UK plan to do "National" sneaky-beaky missions that require AAR?
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 Apr 2014 at 10:33.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
By doing a deal with AiM to include booms on the last 4 Voyagers at discounted cost, given that the current aircraft haven't met the contracted requirments yet??
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 Apr 2014 at 10:16.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.”
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
"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.
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?
IIRC the original plan to buy RJ was announced (to 51 Squadron at least*) during ACM Torpy's tenure as CAS, so predates the formation of the MAA by a year or so.
* It's on here somewhere
* It's on here somewhere
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 Apr 2014 at 17:32.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!