Derek Murgatroyd, our lead dry. Mick Muttit, on the OCU when I went through. Sitting in Port Beam RTB from Malta and west of Portugual:

"Port beam, Foxtrot, 10 o'clock."

Followed moments later by 4 Foxtrot, one Don.

We were at 35k.

One of the last times the Sovs did a surface rotation.

Gents both.

Boeing Press Release
 

Boeing Awarded EPX Concept Refinement Contract


ST. LOUIS, Feb. 07, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] yesterday was awarded a $1.25 million concept refinement contract for the U.S. Navy's EPX program. EPX is a manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting aircraft that will replace the Navy's EP-3 signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform.

As part of the five-month contract, Boeing will work with partner Argon ST to help define program requirements and develop initial system concepts for the EPX multi-intelligence system. Argon ST, based in Fairfax, Va., is a leading designer and developer of SIGINT sensors and information operations systems.

"We're happy for the opportunity to work on the EPX program and believe Boeing is well qualified to help the Navy define a capable and cost-effective solution that capitalizes on existing investments," said Paul Summers, Boeing director of airborne SIGINT campaigns. "The EPX will operate in concert with the P-8A Poseidon, and as the prime contractor for that program we can leverage logistics, maintenance, support, training and other relevant data."

During the concept refinement phase Boeing and Argon also will review requirements and determine potential cost, schedule and technical risks; analyze operational scenarios and assess achievability; develop risk mitigation plans; identify opportunities to leverage investments in Navy, DoD or other non-developmental item programs; and identify opportunities to reduce system life-cycle costs.

Following completion of concept refinement, the Navy will solicit proposals and select contractors for the technology development phase of the program. The Navy is expected to downselect to one contractor for the EPX system development and demonstration phase in late 2011 or early 2012.

From Flight 2-years ago:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...e-concept.html

This appeared on Strategypage today.

Here

Would the R-135 be an 'as well as' or an 'instead of' the R1?

More debate at:

http://www.eureferendum.com/forum/vi...r=asc&start=30

and

http://warships1discussionboards.yuk...es.html?page=1

Rumour Control
 

Has anyone else head the rumour that HELIX is now canned with Joint Rivet the likely benefactor?

EODFelix

Surely that is what the previous 87 entries have been saying...?

And, no, I don't know anything, and neither have I read all 87 previous entries - but it might be worth you doing so, you will probably find an answer to your question??

Afterthought
 

While all this is highly interesting, remember that the A300 and A310 are both well out of production, so if either of those were chosen, they'd have to be well-used second-hand ones - and both designs date from the '70s.
But there seems to be nothing available "off the shelf" for the duties you're talking about, and any conversions are going to take many a moon to go through all the to-ing and fro-ing that seems to be "re-equipment procedure".
Gloomy picture, innit ?
:confused:

I believe that the replacement has already been ordered. Three of the suckers.

R1 Replacement
 

Jacko,

Thats what I'd heard. At least thats left the 12 MRA4s alone (as it would have been 9 allowing for the option of 3 HELIX conversions). That said any idea how 12 MRA4s will do the work of 15 MR2s given that the curent commitment is for 18?

They'll be some 340's coming out from Quatar before long....bags of power there.:8

Dragging the thread back up from the past, looks like the local papers are starting to carry the RJ story (even though it contains a few errors)

this is lincolnshire- news, entertainment, jobs, homes and cars

And the MoD confirmation at the end.

I hear there are still a few wrinkles in the plans though due to what the UK want to do with them and what the US want to let the UK do with them.

And the words 'capability gap' appearing due to delivery timescales.

bit-t, hush your mouth. Capability gap indeed. When the CinC, now CAS, dismissed CG, he said we now take capability holidays.

A gap can exist and remain whereas a holiday . . .






Yes, I thought it b0ll0cks at the time and still do. :)

Well the confirmation of replacement airframe for R1 was pretty much bolstered today by one of the JOB advertisments appearing for the civil service.

They were advertising for someone to supervise the out of service of the MR2 and R1.

Still no official announcement though :mad:

Apparently the run down of the R1 and replacement with RJ are being actioned as separate projects to avoid concerns with civil service issues e.g. Tupe etc. Also worth noting that a lot of people in one of the support units were offered early release by next April today...totally unconnected of course.

Edit: The early release scheme is the current MoD civil service attempt at reducing numbers by offering early retirement and voluntary redundancy to people.

Well I know nothing but at a guess replacements need to be very sooner rather than later.

This appears to point to Jacko being right.

DSCA Press Release

and



Given the announcement that UK staff can apply for early retirement, effective next year, does this mean the existing aircraft are already largely supported by US staff and/or support is to be carried out at a US base?


Is this spin for “The UK is downgrading its capability to that of the US?” :}

How the hell hell is this cheaper than converting another 3 nimrods to MRA4 airframe standard and bunging the helix systems in instead of the MRAish stuff. Got to be doable for less than a billion dollars.

:confused::confused:

Anyone know the unit cost of the MRA4 right now? Suspect between that and wiring all the shiny spangly new stuff into a shiny spangly new computer-driven airframe you'd be knocking on the door of a billion $... and it would take about a million years!

The 'Comet' airframe is probably spacing limiting and the MRA4 is probably near weight limiting.

Waddo already has 707s so 135s could use the same maintenance shed.

Then of course the UK could also mod the 135s to share commonality with the E3.

So, any guesses on engines and flight deck?

The 135Rs have CFM56 engines (not sure if the same model as the E3s) but in almost every other respect (except the nose) the airframe is very different from E-3. And for the RJ they will probably amend the nose profile anyway!

At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'

Well the OSD of the R1 seems to have been mentioned in the RAF management plan as March 2011 so they had better get a move on.

Replacement due 2012 so no gap there then..... No chance of slipages either. :rolleyes:

Wonder when it will be most politically prudent to announce the $1b American order.

As a small fallout, one of the organisations at Waddo that support the R1 mission system have been told to start run down. 20% of staff by next March, a further 50% by 2010 and rest by March 2011 from what I gather.

XV277 Said ;

"the airframe is very different from E-3"

erm....Oh no it isnt.

and

"At least with Nimrod, Waddington could cadge spares from old airframes Kinloss had 'lying about'"

What are you on? That sort of attitude got us into this situation.

Probably in tiny little bits in Williamsons yard by now.

erm....Yes it is.

The E-3 is based on a 707, the RC-135 is based on the C-135. The C-135 was developed in tandem with the 707, both being based on the "Dash 80" (Boeing 367-80), but with differing lineage. The main visible differences being the airframe dimensions and flight deck.

What space in Alpha Hangar? There's always one E-3 in the shed having a major, and another in minor. They're having enough trouble fixing the one that was spanked by the towing assembly because they're space limited.

Will it fit in 51 Sqn's hangar without the dome?

I suppose the bean counters have already decided that the flight-deck crews will be dual qualified...

The 51 Sqn hangar was designed for the pre-war bombers, wartime bombers and successive aircraft were all designed to fit. At 130 feet it is 10 feet wider than a Victor 2 was. It would be a very tight fit.

Also what is the height of the fin? Add fin doors?

Height of the fin?
 

The E-3 is 41' 9" or 12.7m

FAS state the RC as 42' 6" or12.9m

Bob, this is like a pantomime! erm....Oh no it isn't "very different" then if they were both based on the dash 8. I'm implying they will have some commonality. It all depends on your definition of "very different". I do not know the proportion though, I will admit.

Laphroaig that night iirc, it's called humour, man!!


However, I stand by:

At first glance, they look the same. (I beleive every Boeing from the 707/717/C-135/727 and 737 (legacy) line used the same tooling for the nose and cockpit shapes) However, the lines diverged at that point.

The fuselage of the 135 is narrower than that on the 707. and the 135 lacks the 'double bubble' of the 707, the wings and wing roots are quite different from the -320B series 707 that the E-3 is based on. The USAF did re-engineer a number of 135s with tailplanes from redundant 707s, so there is some commonality there!

There may be smaller degrees of commonality in terms of things like u/c components (I'm not that familiar with either airframe) But different fuselage and different wings do not make 'essentially the same airframe'

UK Yet To Confirm Nimrod SIGINT Replacement: AIN Online

UK Yet To Confirm Nimrod SIGINT Replacement

Looks like the R1 may have to keep going a little longer :ugh:

Thank goodness we're friends with everyone who might have an integrated air defence system, and that there's no need to eavesdrop on Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. and certainly no need to bother over much about radar and that kind of thing.........

....and, I believe, one of the E-3Ds has different wings to the rest of the fleet.

Though the USAF is desperately short of tankers - and especially KC-135Rs, there are apparently three sitting in the boneyard that we can have. These are the aircraft that will be converted (taking an unknown period at Tinker AFB, followed by 18 months at E-Systems, each) for the RAF.

I'll bet they're in great condition.

And they'll cost more than the Nimrod R5, and cost more to operate.

Apart from that, good plan, crack on!

Jacko

Do you have the information as to the cost of an R5?
If so please share it with the rest of us.
How long would Wasteofspace take to get it to the frontline?
Maybe if we called it Nimrod 2020 that would give them enough time.

The first 2 VC10 C1Ks are up for disposal next year....there's a thought. Proven in service, only 43 years old - one careful owner. :ok:

Lonsdale,

NB that the UK MoD already owns three surplus MRA4 airframes.

NB also that BAE have given a good idea of the extra cost of adding 3 R5s to existing MRA4 support arrangements.

The MRA4 has, of course, not been a great advert for BAE. But no worse an advert than the 737 AEW&C or the P-8 have been for Boeing.

My understanding is that you could get one RC-135 into service more quickly than one R5, but that getting all three aircraft on charge would be quicker with the UK solution.

But the key point is that while the -135 is great for Afghanistan, the Nimrod is a better solution overall.