RAF Rivet Joint
Joined: Apr 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 1,960
Likes: 1
From: The Whyte House
Why l-e? There's nothing particularly wrong with the E-3, for example, that can be attributed to its heritage. Other than a cramped and claustrophobic flight deck.
Commonality with the USAF's frame & systems is a good thing, in my opinion.
Commonality with the USAF's frame & systems is a good thing, in my opinion.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 19th January 2013 at 18:56.
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 493
From: The Roman Empire
Roland,
How about you actually read post 79!!
Who in the world has an "off the shelf" A330 Sigint aircraft we can purchase? As LJ rightly pointed out, it's a bit more complicated than buying a modern aircraft and filling it full of gucci wiggly stuff. The whole point is to avoid expensive development costs, delays, etc.
You buy a known product, with a known performance, for a known delivery date, at a known price...... get it?
Like it or lump it, this known product comes with a 40+yr old airframe.
How about you actually read post 79!!
Who in the world has an "off the shelf" A330 Sigint aircraft we can purchase? As LJ rightly pointed out, it's a bit more complicated than buying a modern aircraft and filling it full of gucci wiggly stuff. The whole point is to avoid expensive development costs, delays, etc.
You buy a known product, with a known performance, for a known delivery date, at a known price...... get it?
Like it or lump it, this known product comes with a 40+yr old airframe.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 924
Likes: 1
From: Australia
With regards to better solutions ( A330, different paint, etc), I am reminded of the American expression "better is the enemy of good enough".
I hope military procurement officials in UK and here have learned that this expression should be at the forefront of any procurement - a lot of money and lost capability would have been saved if it had in the past.
Edit - seems the phrase may not be American , but it is a very useful expression.
I hope military procurement officials in UK and here have learned that this expression should be at the forefront of any procurement - a lot of money and lost capability would have been saved if it had in the past.
Edit - seems the phrase may not be American , but it is a very useful expression.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 19th January 2013 at 22:14. Reason: Revised thought!
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,399
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
To develop an A330 Aircreaker would take years and cost zillions - don't forget that 'mañana' is far too urgent a concept for some and that, sadly, 'Fabricado en España' all too often seems to translate into English as 'Does not work'....
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: Vienna, Virginia
Not As Easy As Adding Kit to a New Airframe
I continue to be amused by the idea that the C-135 airframe is outdated because it is 40+years old and that it is easy to transfer a comprehensive SIGINT package to any new jet.
All C-135s had new wing skins in the 80s. The RCs have a new, specific glass cockpit different from the KC-135 PACER CRAG, new engines, entirely new mission equipment and systems (cooling, lighting, power, distribution in the backend. These are not 40+ year old airframes in most all respects. Every three years, or so, L3 does an upgrade on each airframe, stripping out most of the wiring, backend equipment. The entire airframe is gone over for corrosion (especially under the toilet area in the aft end) and stress. Voila! A totally upgraded airframe with the latest Block equipment. The RAF Rivet Joints will be Block 11 aircraft, the latest coming off the L3 line. (BTW, all RJs are never all the same Block as they are continually changing the backend capability).
Now to just converting some Airbus version to a SIGINT aircraft. Working on emission control and interference, while building equipment to detect, locate and copy low-power signals is not something you do overnight. Working with the same airframes since the early 70s has a tremendous advantage over shifting to a new aircraft. You really must understand some basics about airborne signals collection in today's RF environment to see how absurdly difficult and costly it is to switch to a new airframe, especially for a contract for three aircraft. (Same applies to moving the Nimrod R.1 mission to a new aircraft).
The RJ is the best at what it does because of the history of long development by a single office and contractor (albeit with different owners over the years). Besides, a switch to Airbus, with the fly-by-wire controls, would be a whole new set of problems inside the backend.
RAF has made the best, most cost-effective and mission effective choice.
All C-135s had new wing skins in the 80s. The RCs have a new, specific glass cockpit different from the KC-135 PACER CRAG, new engines, entirely new mission equipment and systems (cooling, lighting, power, distribution in the backend. These are not 40+ year old airframes in most all respects. Every three years, or so, L3 does an upgrade on each airframe, stripping out most of the wiring, backend equipment. The entire airframe is gone over for corrosion (especially under the toilet area in the aft end) and stress. Voila! A totally upgraded airframe with the latest Block equipment. The RAF Rivet Joints will be Block 11 aircraft, the latest coming off the L3 line. (BTW, all RJs are never all the same Block as they are continually changing the backend capability).
Now to just converting some Airbus version to a SIGINT aircraft. Working on emission control and interference, while building equipment to detect, locate and copy low-power signals is not something you do overnight. Working with the same airframes since the early 70s has a tremendous advantage over shifting to a new aircraft. You really must understand some basics about airborne signals collection in today's RF environment to see how absurdly difficult and costly it is to switch to a new airframe, especially for a contract for three aircraft. (Same applies to moving the Nimrod R.1 mission to a new aircraft).
The RJ is the best at what it does because of the history of long development by a single office and contractor (albeit with different owners over the years). Besides, a switch to Airbus, with the fly-by-wire controls, would be a whole new set of problems inside the backend.
RAF has made the best, most cost-effective and mission effective choice.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 556
Likes: 1
From: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Nice bit of fishing Roland...
You'll need a bigger boat soon.
Also I was talking to some 51 Sqn guys this week, they are not getting probe and drogue refuelling as per the photoshop above, but boom receptacle only as per USAF fit.
Also I was talking to some 51 Sqn guys this week, they are not getting probe and drogue refuelling as per the photoshop above, but boom receptacle only as per USAF fit.
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: Vienna, Virginia
Beats the Nimrod lash-up
I flew on an R.1 not too soon after Operation Corporate and was really surprised at the air refueling lash-up. A flexible pipe ran from the overhead, at the end of the probe, down the wall at the back of the cockpit and into the floor. About 8 or 9 inches in diameter (not sure as this guess if from memory from 1982. In my response to how they managed to add them so quickly, the station commander said H.S. had engineered and offered the probe when the Nimrods were first developed but the Air Ministry did not take them up on the accessory. Even then, the R.1s had to add the strake under the aft fuselage to correct a nasty dutch roll tendency with the probe fitted.
Heck, even the a/r receptacle in the Rivet Joint would occasionally leak hydralic fluid. First indication would be a warm fluid dripping down the back of my flight suit. Never had an fuel leaks there.
Heck, even the a/r receptacle in the Rivet Joint would occasionally leak hydralic fluid. First indication would be a warm fluid dripping down the back of my flight suit. Never had an fuel leaks there.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,399
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
...they are not getting probe and drogue refuelling...
I recommended to the ShabbyWood FSTA mob years ago that at least the boom option should be considered. But no, MoD assured them that the RAF would 'never' have a boom-only receiver.
Memo to MoD: "Never say never!".
Joined: Sep 2006
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,024
Likes: 102
From: Somewhere flat
Beags,
The E-3D has both refuelling systems by default - it was considered too expensive and impractical to remove the Boom receptical from the air-frame. Since then, the USAF boom receptical has been the most used by far. I understand from the flight-deck types tha,t not only is the US system much faster to transfer fuel but, is also simpler in operation. We also found that there were many more Boom tankers in theatre than drogue draggers.
So, although the probe was occassionally used for a spot of heavyweight jousting, I am sure that if it was the case of one vs the other, then the receptical wins hand down - it is also cheaper! After all, we do not want another Nimrod type lash-up on the aircraft do we?
The E-3D has both refuelling systems by default - it was considered too expensive and impractical to remove the Boom receptical from the air-frame. Since then, the USAF boom receptical has been the most used by far. I understand from the flight-deck types tha,t not only is the US system much faster to transfer fuel but, is also simpler in operation. We also found that there were many more Boom tankers in theatre than drogue draggers.
So, although the probe was occassionally used for a spot of heavyweight jousting, I am sure that if it was the case of one vs the other, then the receptical wins hand down - it is also cheaper! After all, we do not want another Nimrod type lash-up on the aircraft do we?
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,343
Likes: 116
From: UK
Biggus
I don't know what the exact figures are for RJ, but comparing it to "Dragmaster 9000" E-3D (with a 7T RADAR in the breeze) the RJ should fly for at least 12-14 hours unrefuelled if the internal fuel loads are the same. So for "UK only", where there are no friendly (NATO E-3 component, US, Dutch, Turkish or Israeli) boom tankers about, then that is still a worthwhile capability - worst case estimate on flight time would give, I would imagine, ~1,800nm radius with a 2 hour collect before ~1,800nm return. In my opinion that's pretty damn good.
You're right, in a perfect world we should have a probe - but the world isn't perfect...Hence we have no AAR on Sentinel, Shadow, Puma and Reaper plus no UK means to A-A refuel Chinook, Merlin and now RJ. As an aside, does the UK have anything that can refuel our C-130s either?
LJ
I don't know what the exact figures are for RJ, but comparing it to "Dragmaster 9000" E-3D (with a 7T RADAR in the breeze) the RJ should fly for at least 12-14 hours unrefuelled if the internal fuel loads are the same. So for "UK only", where there are no friendly (NATO E-3 component, US, Dutch, Turkish or Israeli) boom tankers about, then that is still a worthwhile capability - worst case estimate on flight time would give, I would imagine, ~1,800nm radius with a 2 hour collect before ~1,800nm return. In my opinion that's pretty damn good.
You're right, in a perfect world we should have a probe - but the world isn't perfect...Hence we have no AAR on Sentinel, Shadow, Puma and Reaper plus no UK means to A-A refuel Chinook, Merlin and now RJ. As an aside, does the UK have anything that can refuel our C-130s either?
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 21st January 2013 at 18:33.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,399
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Biggus, that was my point!
As for refuelling helicopters, A400M could do that, although I understand that the UK's won't have a tanker option....
When Sentinel was being developed, it was originally to have had a probe. But a chap from Boscombe, who was in the know, told me that it barely met its target spec without a probe and adding one would have been the straw on the camel's back.....
Many of us have had many, many VC10K AAR sessions with the C-130. Usually boring as hell and the hose would often run in at the slightest nudge of foreplay. But I did once refuel a C-130 in the hold at KKIA during Gulf War 1 as we waited for the cloudbase to lift. He would have lost his mission slot if he'd had to land to refuel, so he took some off us, landed when the cloud liftes, offloaded his cargo and was off again in time to meet his slot. It caused much mirth amongst the air traffickers!
As for refuelling helicopters, A400M could do that, although I understand that the UK's won't have a tanker option....
When Sentinel was being developed, it was originally to have had a probe. But a chap from Boscombe, who was in the know, told me that it barely met its target spec without a probe and adding one would have been the straw on the camel's back.....
Many of us have had many, many VC10K AAR sessions with the C-130. Usually boring as hell and the hose would often run in at the slightest nudge of foreplay. But I did once refuel a C-130 in the hold at KKIA during Gulf War 1 as we waited for the cloudbase to lift. He would have lost his mission slot if he'd had to land to refuel, so he took some off us, landed when the cloud liftes, offloaded his cargo and was off again in time to meet his slot. It caused much mirth amongst the air traffickers!
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: Secret Lincolnshire Airbase
When Sentinel was being developed, it was originally to have had a probe. But a chap from Boscombe, who was in the know, told me that it barely met its target spec without a probe and adding one would have been the straw on the camel's back.....
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 305
Likes: 1
From: Worcestershire
LJ,
Sadly, I think the length of Rwy and RJ performance will mean the duration of flight is very much shorter than your optimistic estimation from most airfields.
Sadly, I think the length of Rwy and RJ performance will mean the duration of flight is very much shorter than your optimistic estimation from most airfields.
Last edited by Phoney Tony; 21st January 2013 at 20:31.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,343
Likes: 116
From: UK
Phoney
Granted, Waddo might be a bit short on certain days. But gas and go from Heathrow, Gatwick, Brize or Boscombe and you should be able to haul out maximum gas in most UK weather for a "UK only" op. Don't forget Offutt is only 11,700ft and is nearly 1,100ft up and the RJs, I believe, lift out maximum gas.
I agree, my figures are probably slightly off, but I'd be really surprised if you could not get 12 hours out of an unrefuelled RJ. Cruising at around 370kts GS that would give you ~1800nm out and ~1800nm back with 2hrs on station at endurance and a divert fuel for something close.
These are all fag-packet numbers having flown a similar type with the same engines. I have never flown an RJ and do not know of its LIMFACS, but I doubt I am wildly out with my estimation that even without UK AAR support it is likely to be very useful unrefuelled.
LJ
Granted, Waddo might be a bit short on certain days. But gas and go from Heathrow, Gatwick, Brize or Boscombe and you should be able to haul out maximum gas in most UK weather for a "UK only" op. Don't forget Offutt is only 11,700ft and is nearly 1,100ft up and the RJs, I believe, lift out maximum gas.
I agree, my figures are probably slightly off, but I'd be really surprised if you could not get 12 hours out of an unrefuelled RJ. Cruising at around 370kts GS that would give you ~1800nm out and ~1800nm back with 2hrs on station at endurance and a divert fuel for something close.
These are all fag-packet numbers having flown a similar type with the same engines. I have never flown an RJ and do not know of its LIMFACS, but I doubt I am wildly out with my estimation that even without UK AAR support it is likely to be very useful unrefuelled.
LJ
Joined: Mar 2006
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,063
Likes: 204
From: sussex
Sideshow Bob,
we always 'toboganned ' whenever we took on fuel for real even from another C130. I am interested to hear you say that the Tristar is cleared to refuel the Herc. I seem to recall (C 130K) that when it was trialled the props did not appreciate the secondhand air they encountered from the Tristar. Perhaps the props on the 'J' are not so fussy. But it seems so long ago I may not have recollected this exactly.
we always 'toboganned ' whenever we took on fuel for real even from another C130. I am interested to hear you say that the Tristar is cleared to refuel the Herc. I seem to recall (C 130K) that when it was trialled the props did not appreciate the secondhand air they encountered from the Tristar. Perhaps the props on the 'J' are not so fussy. But it seems so long ago I may not have recollected this exactly.