RAF Rivet Joint
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: Vienna, Virginia
RJ Ops
Key to RJ operations is maximum time on orbit. Cold War ops was 450kts TAS cruise to the operations area, orbit at around 360kts TAS, based on weight, and return. This was with the old TF33s. The F108s provide a bigger capability to take-off with higher weights and burn less fuel in both cruise and orbit.
Our un-refueled missions were built around eight to nine hours with the TF33, flying with start takeoff weights around 285-288,000 lbs on longer runways (Kadena, not Mildenhall). In-flight gross weight was 299,000, which did not fill all the tanks. I believe the F108s will give you about three-four hours above that.
The longer you need to drive to the ops area the more you need an a/r top-off prior to arrival there. Remember, the reason for the mission is max time on the collection orbit.
With both the Sentry and Airseeker with receptacles maybe it is time for the UK to look at leasing dual-capable tankers. Of course, the RAF can always book production slots now for wholly-owned KC-46s.
Our un-refueled missions were built around eight to nine hours with the TF33, flying with start takeoff weights around 285-288,000 lbs on longer runways (Kadena, not Mildenhall). In-flight gross weight was 299,000, which did not fill all the tanks. I believe the F108s will give you about three-four hours above that.
The longer you need to drive to the ops area the more you need an a/r top-off prior to arrival there. Remember, the reason for the mission is max time on the collection orbit.
With both the Sentry and Airseeker with receptacles maybe it is time for the UK to look at leasing dual-capable tankers. Of course, the RAF can always book production slots now for wholly-owned KC-46s.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Ammanford
Airseeker embarrassment
Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Mail Online
Item from today daily mail
Item from today daily mail
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 305
Likes: 1
From: Worcestershire
LJ,
I think the Daily Mail is using the same fag packet as you!
Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Mail Online
I think the Daily Mail is using the same fag packet as you!
Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Mail Online
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,661
Likes: 7,347
From: Peripatetic
ancientaviator62,
ATP-56B, Annex YD4 - UK Tanker/ Receiver Compatibility:
Tristar - C130 Hercules C1/3/4/5 (RAF).
ATP-56B, Annex YD4 - UK Tanker/ Receiver Compatibility:
Tristar - C130 Hercules C1/3/4/5 (RAF).
Joined: Mar 2006
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,063
Likes: 204
From: sussex
SideShow Bob and ORAQ,
thanks for the correction. It must be my memory playing tricks. I have been through my log books and although the Victor, VC10 and Herc appear the Tristar does not. Perhaps this has coloured my memories. I wonder if anyone out there can remember refuelling from a Tristar in the Herc.
thanks for the correction. It must be my memory playing tricks. I have been through my log books and although the Victor, VC10 and Herc appear the Tristar does not. Perhaps this has coloured my memories. I wonder if anyone out there can remember refuelling from a Tristar in the Herc.
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 492
From: The Roman Empire
Never refueled from a Tristar in Herc, so can't help there.
However, to add to your list, I did refuel from a Vulcan in a Herc. I don't remember "tobogganing" for that. Indeed I don't remember always having to toboggan for another Herc, certainly not at lighter weights.
However, to add to your list, I did refuel from a Vulcan in a Herc. I don't remember "tobogganing" for that. Indeed I don't remember always having to toboggan for another Herc, certainly not at lighter weights.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 289
Likes: 2
From: E MIDLANDS
Back in post 102, NoVANav said, "Essentially, except for some minor comm and equipment changes, they (the RAF RJs) will be the same as the USAF Rivet Joints. Back end mission equipment will be to the same standards".
Now that's fine but I have a recollection that one of the successes of the R1 was that it had different capabilities to the RJ and so could be used to complement each other and fill in for each other's gaps in sensor performance. If the RAFs RJ are now the same as the USAFs then presumably the previous gaps in capability will remainand cannot be filled by complimentary systems??
Now that's fine but I have a recollection that one of the successes of the R1 was that it had different capabilities to the RJ and so could be used to complement each other and fill in for each other's gaps in sensor performance. If the RAFs RJ are now the same as the USAFs then presumably the previous gaps in capability will remainand cannot be filled by complimentary systems??
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: Vienna, Virginia
R.1 vs RJ Backend
In talking with current ops folks the big difference was that the R.1 is configured more for ELINT collection and has a better analysis section. THe COMINT section is smaller.
The RJ has three ravens for ELINT, up to 15-17 COMINT collection and resporting personnel and a couple of folks for "other" tron collection.
The collection emphasis is tailored to the capabilities, but I believe both aircraft can cover the same spectrum. RJs have a better suite against the "other" targets and a more robust communication suite for getting the info off the jet.
Additionally, the RJ guys in theater always mentioned the R.1 folks and the constant PR campaign they conducted. When the RAF RJ was first announced there was a lot of whinging from the 51 Sqn types about the different equipment emphasis. I would too if I was an ELINT guy going to an aircraft that had fewer positions for my speciality.
Besides, if there is a shortfall in any capability then the next Block upgrade will be developed to address it.
Just read the Daily Mail article - too many errors to mention in this post. Let's just say it is the normal hyperbolic, inaccurate, quote-the-old-retired guy 'bravo sierra' you normally get when the press takes on a complex aviation issue.
The RJ has three ravens for ELINT, up to 15-17 COMINT collection and resporting personnel and a couple of folks for "other" tron collection.
The collection emphasis is tailored to the capabilities, but I believe both aircraft can cover the same spectrum. RJs have a better suite against the "other" targets and a more robust communication suite for getting the info off the jet.
Additionally, the RJ guys in theater always mentioned the R.1 folks and the constant PR campaign they conducted. When the RAF RJ was first announced there was a lot of whinging from the 51 Sqn types about the different equipment emphasis. I would too if I was an ELINT guy going to an aircraft that had fewer positions for my speciality.
Besides, if there is a shortfall in any capability then the next Block upgrade will be developed to address it.
Just read the Daily Mail article - too many errors to mention in this post. Let's just say it is the normal hyperbolic, inaccurate, quote-the-old-retired guy 'bravo sierra' you normally get when the press takes on a complex aviation issue.
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
From: Sussex
Re Fuelling
I am obviously prepared to be shot down but subject to EMC etc could a probe not be attached to the front of the Rivet Joint that was plumbed into the existing refuelling piping, that seems to have been performing safely for a number of years. It could look a little like the probe on a Nimrod. Not quite sure how many million Boeing or BAE would charge for doing this though...
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: Vienna, Virginia
Minor Comm and Equipment Changes
I added this to cover the usual possible changes in communications radios, usually in the cockpit for air traffic and military use.
I am not sure if there are any changes at all in the Airseeker, vice the USAF Rivet Joints, but the UK usually requires some UK-sourced radios when they purchase equipment from abroad. This was one of the big changes in the original RAF Hercules.
Just think of all the changes needed when the UK required Spey-powered Phantoms instead of using J79 engines. Lots of cost and a loss of performance.
We do the same with aircraft the US purchases, including the original Harriers.
I am not sure if there are any changes at all in the Airseeker, vice the USAF Rivet Joints, but the UK usually requires some UK-sourced radios when they purchase equipment from abroad. This was one of the big changes in the original RAF Hercules.
Just think of all the changes needed when the UK required Spey-powered Phantoms instead of using J79 engines. Lots of cost and a loss of performance.
We do the same with aircraft the US purchases, including the original Harriers.
Joined: Apr 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 1,960
Likes: 1
From: The Whyte House
Of course it's possible.
The only questions are: is it necessary, would it delay RJ's introduction',and is it affordable*.
*by which, before the circling pedants jerk 'emselves off, could be taken to mean how many mission hours would be lost if omitted yadda, yadda, yadda, etc. ad infinitum.
The only questions are: is it necessary, would it delay RJ's introduction',and is it affordable*.
*by which, before the circling pedants jerk 'emselves off, could be taken to mean how many mission hours would be lost if omitted yadda, yadda, yadda, etc. ad infinitum.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 23rd January 2013 at 15:15.
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
From: Sussex
WW my point was that it was being said that it was a real problem etc that the RJ's could not be refuelled by a UK Tanker, in a way seriously reducing the operational range for a pure UK only mission. If yes a big if the RJ was to deployed to Ascension due to a Falklands situation, could it get there and back safely, using only UK assets? If not it would seem a moderately small project to put a probe on the RJ would seem sensible and in my view if project managed appropriately should not cost the earth or take 10 years...
Just a thought after looking at the video of one refuelling.
Philip
Just a thought after looking at the video of one refuelling.
Philip
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,343
Likes: 116
From: UK
it would seem a moderately small project to put a probe on the RJ
It would probably be cheaper to buy another couple of RJs and 3 more crews to fly them!
LJ
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
From: UK
The correct question is BEagle's - why the hell didn't we specify booms on the A330 tankers? It would've supported the E-3Ds, C-17s and now the Rivet Joints. More importantly, it would have provided a significant UK addition to coalition ops (especially those minus the US), and if we'd have thought just a bit more, we could even have specified a UARRSI port on the tankers themselves. Who'd've thunk it?!?
S41
S41
