Two comments:

I am sure if 51 Sqn needed new aircraft because of a severe risk to their operations money would be found from "someone" or "somewhere" pretty sharpish, even today.

Would buying Airbus allow for the possibility that non-UK/US personnel may have to board the aircraft for maintenance?

Ivan,

You suggest that the 3 Nimrod R1 were sufficient back when the RAF was larger and now it is down-sized we can get away with fewer... A nice idea in principle but flawed IMHO. Consider the requirement for deep maintainance - thats two aircraft available for ops from three - now consider any one of a number of problems on the a/c about to launch - well we'll launch the spare... ...the who? We scrapped it!

How would you cover the problem of persistance too for long ops? Three of anything is pushing things - its called critical mass and below it you will fail to fulfil the role required, same true here.

However, I agree with your assesment of other matters for we can not forecast future conflicts. Falklands, GW1, GW2, Kosovo, Bosnia... the list is incomplete but all have comonality in the surprise with which they hit us (in varying degrees). We may be short on cash but we must not remove capablities to deal with it as this is the slippery slope. We may not have *needed* carriers since the falklands (although they have proved very handy - Al Faw assult possible without Ocean et al?), but then the Tornado F3 has hardly ever fired a shot in anger (I am sure there are a few occasions that I forget but in bean counter terms enough for the expense!?) so on this basis why the Typhoon?

We chip away at our brother service's capabilities at our peril. Money is tight and we must prioritise to an extent, however wholesale removal of capability or its reduction to sub-critical mass is not in UK Plc's interest and it is our duty to act accordingly.

Bearing in mind that much of the mission equipment on the R1 is in the space occupied by the bomb bay on MRs, would a 737-derived airframe (P-8) have enough ground clearance for what 51 are likely to want to hang underneath it? (Thinking back to their Comets).

Would A320/21 be a better bet?

Most likely to get second hand airliners these days though!

Ground clearance would favour the A320 over the 737.

Servicing requirements would favour any aircraft with a great big cargo door (they always used to empty the Comet Rs before majors or mods with industry).

Power generation requirements, range, endurance and survivability would favour a four-jet.

A340, please.

TD, the decision to consider an earlier replacement of the R1 than was first envisaged has NOTHING to do with what is currently happening with the MR2!!

Think more along the lines of future support for only 3 aircraft once the MR2 is out of service... Do you honestly think that factories will stay open to provide parts for an aircraft type that is so old and of such few numbers? Do you think Rolls-Royce will keep a build-line operating to provide engines in such few quantities as would be required, when that engine type is otherwise extinct? (and yes, it's different to the MR2's engines).

Think "Rivet Joint".

So what are they going to do with the old VC-10 C1s when FSTA comes in......

Conways to support, high-houred, and thoroughly knackered now, let alone when FSTA finally comes in? I hope to goodness that they put the old girls out to grass, with as many of them as possible preserved to show future generations what a beautiful airliner can look like.

Hi Witty, you have a point re 3 a/c to provide enough frames for Ops (and even exercises which are essential for training and developing tactics).
Even with my very limited knowledge of the R1 I won't comment on numbers in use etc. or when and where they are used.
I am not advocating 2 frames for the role but 2 or 3 large aircraft that are all singing, all dancing and then more of a smaller type with the capability required for less complex missions, ideally they would be reconfigurable, and not carry all the equipment all of the time. In reality this would provide more assets for Ops/Exercises, it might be that you have to accept short periods when no large platform is available.

I think the A330 way too large and the point about true widebody is virtually irrelivant for a non cargo role a/c. Personally, although a new build airliner type would be the gold plated solution what are the chances of it happening?

I don't think 4 engines is as much of a issue as it used to be, the USN seem happy enough to go for the P-8 for extended patrol. A B737 size a/c is probably good enough, the P-8 airframe would fit the bill as it is "miltaryised" including protection, armour and DAS, increased AUW, EPM hardened?, bombbay, wing hard points for extra pods, sensors, etc. and I think it can provide more electrical power, the P-8A equipment is not required, it is a shame the Airbus equivilant is still a drawing. Unfortunatly I think it will be considered over engineered for the role and mission profile and they will end up essentially flying a civilian airframe in hostile conditions :(

I've looked round a couple of RC-135 variants and one definitly had a cargo door, although it is desirable it is not essential, although it might be useful for self deployment as well as re- roleing or mods.

Finally, I'm glad no one has mentioned using a few MRA4 airframes as that would only solve a few issues, most the space issues etc. would remain. It would provide some airframe commonality but I can't see it being anywhere near a cheap to operate as a modern airliner type and again it is possibly over engineered.

I'm going to bow out of the hypothetical debate now before I either breach the OSA or bore you fine chaps (or chapesses) as I am starting to repeat myself :oh: Those who really know what is needed can't comment and I can't explain my rational on here, apart from that I am mostly guessing:E

To St Athan to be chopped up like the few that have already been done so like that.

Cynically, give them the three L1011-500s and let civil charter take up the AT load. The remaining life will suffice till a replacement is needed at the rate the hours are used, and we already have the support in place. More than enough room to ensure only minor engineering work is required.

I can comment on the Need for 3 ELINT Aircraft

In my Experiance Roughtly
25% of any Fleet are in Mainternance
25% Training for aircrew
and the rest on Ops

From that it is easy to work out 3 aircraft is a minimum for any fleet

1 in Mainternance (Equlized or Major with regards to the Nimrod, not including Non scheduled Mainternance)
1 for Aircrew Training, Ops is required
1 on Ops

I do realize I have basically repeated Witty

Which is why, with an enduring task (home-based/Russia etc) and the real likelihood of two overseas ops at any one time, we should perhaps be looking at the ability to have three aircraft on ops - eg a six aircraft fleet!

With the skill sets required down the back of a SIGINT platform, I suggest that getting 3, 6, 50 or however many jets you want is the easy bit.

Where do the guys and gals come from?!

They are all WSOps Recruited as everyone else is in the RAF

They may be WSOps, in that they wear that brevet (though I'll bet most of them still wear AE and S brevets, in practice).

But they are very specialised roles on 51, requiring long and specialised training (and requiring particular qualifications in the case of one crew 'specialisation') and 51's excellence is very much founded on having a core of lengthy experience in the role - such that when I was writing about 51 a couple of years ago there were still blokes on the unit who'd served on the Canberra and Comet, which were phased out of service in 1973-76!

It would be difficult to 'grow' new crews of sufficient experience, and with such highly-developed skills and instincts, quickly, though one gets the impression that the squadron could operate at least one more jet than it has now....

The unit's previous practice of operating a big, multi-engined type and a smaller one (Comet and Canberra) makes me wonder whether something similar would not be appropriate today. The Canberras (carrying a pilot, nav and single operator (either Sigint or Comint depending on the mission) were used for particular tasks that did not require a Comet, or to augment the Comets, or, it seems, for ops in particular areas, or where higher altitude performance was required, or for 'feints' designed to elicit a response from enemy defences.

A flight of converted Typhoon two-seaters (OK, redundant F.Mk 3s if you must), UAVs or Global Expresses might be 'nice to have' - though I don't see it happening!

Really!!!:rolleyes:

JN,
Surely the RAF will have been training up sufficient WSOps to continue. And as the procurement cycle is likely to be a lengthy process this should give the planners an idea of how many personnel with the correct training will be required. However, if the critical experienced personnel all PVR then 51 are screwed and they will have to make do with a lesser experience level to do the same job (sound familiar?:rolleyes:).

Worst case is that the government decides that ELINT is too expensive for a nation our size and takes a 'capability gap' whilst hanging onto the skirts of USAF RJ's.

Boldface wrote

One of the trades in the rear

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/w...oplinguist.cfm

From

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/aircrew.cfm

Some of the linguists transfer to aircrew from this trade.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/i...alystvoice.cfm

Either people ( politicians ) take this issue seriously, with appropriate kit -

or why not use a Cessna Caravan with a 'spotter & his scanner in the back, and a bloke with a good set of bino's ?

I have a horrible feeling which they'd choose !

As others have mentioned, there are some large airframes going secondhand - I can't help thinking this should be instead / would have to be - a buy of new large airframes - C-17 anyone ?

As far as FSTA goes, seems to me they're re-inventing the wheel - slowly, but with 'Euro' stamped on it.

Thanks TEEEJ, I know where the WSOp(L)s come from!!

It was a rhetorical question based on how long it takes to get them up to useful proficiencies!!!!!!

This was looked at in the 90s wrt tying in to the tanker replacement program. Believe an A330 was considered but shelved due to cost I think. Oh, and cos its a crappy scarebus with a horrible blue cockpit :)

Any reason why an MRA4 airframe can't be used? Now that the airframe bugs have been worked out, surely that would do the job.

It may not be the biggest, but it has commonality advantages and the MRA4 airframe will be in service for a very long time now.

There must be more extravant ways of throwing bundles of money into a gaping maw than asking BWoS to quote for that job. :rolleyes:

I mean, I can't think of any at the moment, but there must be, surely?

:mad:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any reason why an MRA4 airframe can't be used?

BAE Systems kicking aside, there are some good reasons why the Nimrod isn't the best choice.

The R.Mk 1 is great, but it's cramped and already lacks space. If we're acquiring a new airframe, then why not let's have one that could accomodate better lavatory provision, a proper galley (at least like the MR2), some crew rest accomodation, and, who knows, space for relief crewmembers and even travelling groundcrew.

It might even be advantageous to have a widebody to allow a better, more efficient layout of consoles, which are, at the moment, effectively strung out along one side of the aircraft (they're actually on both sides, but can never be back to back, with choke points at the forward facing consoles).

If we could also have space to accomodate new sensors and new specialists to operate those, that would be great, while a cargo door would be a huge advantage for all of the reasons alluded to on this thread.

A340.

747SP ;)

Fair enough - just asking:)

I remember lack of space being a "bit of a problem" on the AEW3, so I suppose this is a case where size matters.

Sort of off topic, but do the MR2 chaps feel that the MRA4 is still big enough to do the job? Not so much a question about whether or not they'd like a bigger airframe (most of us would) but whether or not the MRA4 is actually big enough for the role.

Old Fat One,

Agreed - if there's not enough stowage space to store all the ingredients for the 'Honkers', then it's a definite scrub in my book.:ok:

A vast improvement would be made, regardless of any other consideration, if the RAF would pay for competent computer consultancy (alliteration yet!) rather than turning to BAe etc and saying 'here's 50 squillion quid, please hire a computer geek'.

Unfortunately, from my very limited experienece of 'design committee' style work, what you get is a civil servant chair who knows very little, some company men who know about the same, a few tech rep types who know which side the butter is on, and a bunch of RAF guys who eventually die of frustration or start spin-off businesses to supply the glaring need. Due to poor business acumen their company folds inside 5 years.

(There is also a fair amount of 'free lunch' in this - I, personally, was always more than a little annoyed at how cheaply the company thought I could be bought, and how readily my colleagues went for it).

The home PC boom in the 80's saw huge numbers of aircrew getting into programming and stuff, the odd square peg made it to the square hole (others pretended to be square so they could avoid flying), the net result being that whilst the RAF quite rightly (in my view) distrusts complete automation/computation in favour of man hour intensive skill development (which is why we're the best, naturally) it lost out on the ability of computing to streamline decision making - and perhaps more importantly, to provide even the weaker practitioners with a safety net that ensured a basic level of competence.

I would be amazed if some of the R job were not open to computerisation, requiring little more than an O level standard of ability - the problem being that the RAF subcontracts that side of things to people who don't understand it themselves, it is 'staffed' by people who have no idea beyond an inherent distrust of geeks.

As I (used to) lean out of radar, on all those sorties where we concentrated on wet stuff, I couldn't help but wonder why so many people in 'the loop' were gut-feeling location, course, depth, speed when it's trigonometry.... computers are good at trig - I used to wonder why the various players weren't maybe looking at a computer generated set of solutions, picking the most likely, instead of doing it all from scratch?

Don't get me started on 8" floppy disks...what idiot settled for that as a programming method (and as my ex-colleagues will agree, continual RE-programming method) - when solid state memory devices were on the commercial market?

My vote is for two platforms - one does everything, including taking old mates for nice jollies... being a really old git this is probably now only 2 or 3. The second platform is highly computerised, required a small crew, and goes for say 75% of the possible take. You do not need full capability on every trip, you do need one of the right type of platform (and crew) for every trip.

Out.

In today's cost cutting climate the answer is obvious: An A380, the ELINT equipment on the upper deck and passengers on the lower one. :E

Green Granite,

it's been done before ! :E

DZ

The perils of secrecy.......

Few people have even the faintest clue as to how Nimrod R compares with its rivals, in terms of what it can do, and what it can't. What it does better than brand X, and what it does less well, and why you'd actually need to launch brand X and brand Y to do some Nimrod R tasks.

Few people have a clue about the implications of having this as a real, National capability, and many are dazzled by the advantages of common and pooled fleets with our major partners and allies.

It's perhaps understandable that many might think that replacement by another, better-known, better-advertised platform would be an improvement. A better option. However wrong they are.

So expect rounds of applause when the Nimrod R replacement is unveiled, but don't be surprised by the long faces of those who will have to use it and who knew what Nimrod R could do.

It looks as though its a done deal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3296568.ece

THE RAF is being forced to borrow American spy planes and paint roundels on them to replace its fleet of Nimrod R1 signals intelligence aircraft.
The crews of the US Rivet Joint spy planes masquerading as RAF aircraft will not even be totally British with US personnel expected to take control on some missions......

The MoD said last week a final decision had not yet been taken. But Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of the air staff, briefed air crew during a visit to the Middle-East just before Christmas.
“He told the R1 crew that he had brought them an early Christmas present,” one source said. But when he described the plan to use the RC135 Rivet Joint spy planes the response was blunt.

Guess they did.....

Wanna see a 737 AEW&C 'Wedgetail' get built?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxcrav5V5Hk

No. But I suspect that a few of your 2 Sqn guys would prefer to see a video of a Wedgetail working properly though!:}

A CCC? Almost as great an oxymoron and intelligence officer. Even if the CCC is found and makes the right choice you still need the money and politicial balls to make it work.

As for not turning to BAe, as soon as you set up a bid all the likely contenders go "Oooh, TFD, lets set up a consortia led by . . . "

Indeed.

(There is also a fair amount of 'free lunch' in this - I, personally, was always more than a little annoyed at how cheaply the company thought I could be bought, and how readily my colleagues went for it).

On the Magic Mushroom a complete software lab was set up and highly skilled technicians set to with a will to learn Jovial and make Mr Boeing's software really zing. But how much do you pay an SAC or a Cpl?

Gut feeling because the target was driven not by computers but by humans. yes, it might be following a line x=y+2 but could the computer anticipate a manouevre?

I remember (dry) 55 plus contacts on the screen, chinagraph of course, on the ASV21. Got the target on the 3rd contact. Why, it was a gut feeling and operator intuition and skill - Mr Murgatroyd - who just know it was the target. Why not straight there? Partly covert and partly because the first 2 were en route.

What about Global Express or a GV?
 

At the risk of being too controversial why does the R1 replacement have to be a large aircraft at all? Given that the RAF happily operates Predators, soon even for combat missions, from half way round the world relying on data links, why not put the sensors and processors and a limited number of mission "managers" to monitor and "optimise" the mission and provide an element of airborne "redundancy" on an aircraft such as Global Express (commonality with ASTOR and faster, higher and further than the R1) or GV and send the data back to be analysed on the ground in real time? Also less aircrew at risk. I know, because I was part of the Team, that a US systems company made such a proposal to MOD at least 10 years ago, and had carried out a wide ranging study of the concepts. Sensors and particularly computers and data links have got a lot smaller since then. Needless to say such a radical proposal was not well received by MOD!

JB

I wouldn't take that at face value.

Ed Sett

PN
- That's 'what he's gonna do next.' The discussion about 'where he is now, which way he's going, how fast and how deep' could have been simplified to a degree I feel. 'Where he's going next' isn't worth a hoot if you got 'here he is now' wrong in the first place.

Mick Murgatroyd - I knew a Derek, and a Mick Muttit (who, with something like 19,000 flying hours didn't find contacts, he willed them into place)....