Jacko,

I appreciate your passion for an "R5" Nimrod, but the three prototype MRA4 airframes can still be upgraded to operational MRA4 configuration. I know that this hasn't happened yet, but sanity will at some prevail - possibly post SDR 2010.

"R5" precludes this - making RC-135 a good choice irrespective of the the "commonality with the USAF" arguments. And I for one have no whatsoever faith that BAES could deliver an "R5" programme to time or on budget.

S41

Jacko,

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

What existing MRA4 support arrangements? When defence contracts are announced these days they are normal trumpeted, in terms of jobs created/saved, and cost savings achieved, on MOD websites, general defence publications, company magazines, etc.

I have recently seen contracts announced for Harrier engine support, 5 years of Typhoon support, etc, but don't remember an MRA4 support contract being announced?


Squirrel

Sanity may prevail, but I doubt very much whether a budget will. With budget tightening all around post the next election whoever wins (the Tories call them "cuts", which at least is honest, Labour call them "adjustments", which is an insult to most people's inteeligence), 9 MRA4 will almost certainly be all the RAF ever get.

Biggus,

The budget is all about choices - hard choices, but choices nonetheless. I heard a figure of £100m to upgrade the three MRA4 test airframes to operational configuration, whilst Boarding Score Alliance (or Continuity in Education Allowance, if you prefer) is (source: bar int) costing us £200m p.a..

Now, I've seen neither of the figures, so cannot vouch for veracity of either (this is a rumour network, after all....) but if either are close to accurate, I'd take the MRA4 upgrade over boarding schools every day and twice on Sunday.

(Cue much outraged ranting.)

These are difficult decisions, no doubt. But tough times require it.

Now, back to the important things - ie, the 5th Test!

S41

Me too!

JN, the R5 would be a disaster - to do everything we need to do we need an airframe with space inside, and outside for the antenna arrays, rather than being another Nimord "squeezed in like sardines!".

Finally, the SIGINT role is ideal for UAV/UASs and that may be the future after the RJ contract finishes?

The B Word

Although drones clearly make good surveillance platforms, I'm not convinced that propagation delay when associated with fine adjustment of SIGINT equipment, particularly where accurate direction-of-arrival is needed, makes them 'ideal' for such a role.

Neither Comet- nor Boeing 707-derived platforms are in their first flush of youth. Both have 4 engines because they needed them back in the 1950s, with all the associated maintenance requirements.

An aircraft of roughly the same physical size as the VC10, yet which has 2/3 the burn rate is becoming available. The Luftwaffe are replacing their VVIP A310s with A340s; the A310 would have all the electrical power and space needed for the mission requirements of the role. Same fuselage cross section as an A330 and plenty of room for mission specialists and their equipment.

Price would probably be right too - and no worries about 't bungling Baron Waste o' Space trying to modify a 60 year old aeroplane design.

I would argue that Global Hawk would beg to differ!

Even manned platforms have to offload the collection as there simply isn't the people or processing power available - try flying with several Cray supercomputers the size of a car showroom with the same size coolers and you'll see why. The man in the loop on the aircraft is useful but not dispensible and 2 seconds of delay is nothing in this world. Some of the cryptonanalysis probably take months if not years...

All the adjustments are automated these days. These days are gone!

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...r_1251093c.jpg

Face it BEags the days of men/women driving/operating things are coming to an end - I even heard on Radio 4 that they reckon that unmanned haulage might be on the road in 10-15yrs time! :sad:

The B Word

I'm not convinced that propagation delay when associated with fine adjustment of SIGINT equipment, particularly where accurate direction-of-arrival is needed, makes them 'ideal' for such a role.

Beagie, are you seriously suggesting that a 21st C. SIGINT platform must have people aboard twiddling frequency tuning knobs?

... This direction-of-arrival business: do you have in mind a loop antenna that physically rotates atop the fuselage?

Loop antennae - hardly. Specialist on board, probably. But is a 2 sec delay to a 1 sec burst a problem.....ICATQ as I don't know.

Those who do know what's needed are not going to post on here. I have no direct knowledge of what goes on in such air platforms, but if the drone alternative is so good then I'm surprised the bean counters haven't already suggested it.

Of course they are some areas over which drones will not be allowed to fly - at least, not for many years. So there very probably will be a need for an airliner-based manned platform to replace the current Nimrod R.

Unmanned road haulage? At the moment the Germans can't even get their tracking and road tariff system working properly, let alone an automatic guidance system.... Mercedes press demonstration of their automatic braking system was hardly a resounding success as they suddenly realised it didn't like being inside a steel warehouse building due to RF reflections confusing the radar. So they tried to cheat by putting a block of wood on the ground, then stamping on the brakes as they crossed it, stopping before hitting the car ahead. Worked fine in practice; unfortunately on the day either someone had tidied away the piece of wood or the S-Class suspension was so good the driver didn't notice the wood, so the result was 3 rather crumpled S-Class and a lot of red faces when the 'fog' finally cleared...

The problem with unmanned sensors is that they are computer driven and computer software is designed to operate to closely defined parameter. A human operator can operate outside pre selected limits.

For instance a computer might have display thresholds set and ignore anything outside the limits by way of noise reduction. One famous example was NASA and the ozone layer. The computer's rejected the evidence as the programmers had set the limits. British meteorologists, operating from observations, detected the ozone layer and then had to persuade NASA that their computer model was wrong.

In elint the human operator might spot 'random' events and short transients that a computer might be programmed to miss.

May I also add that the bandwidth needed to pass every intercept back to an operator on the ground - probably through Satcom, would be very great. By having the man in the loop, he can filter out the "trash" and only send on the good gen thus relieving bandwidth.

Bandwidth is a big issue within ISTAR, and with the Government wanting more and more of it to sell off to commercial enterprise then the less we have to use - the better. (I have also heard rumours that the Gov't want to charge the MOD for the use of the EM spectrum and therefore we will have to minimise on the number of frequencies that we use).

Quite so.

Humans do art and science, computers can only do science. Admittedly rather well!

They only charge for transmitting not for recieving - ie. SIGINT. Plus if we don't transmit within the UK FIR they can't charge anyway!

The interesting thing about SIGINT birds (like R1 and RJ) is that they rely on getting the info back to other govt agencies for analysis, granted there are real time jobs to do as well but I would estimate that 50% of the work is done off-board of the manned asset. So the bandwidth issue may not be as bad as you think. I understand that the biggest issue is antenna size, however, they have done clever things with small antennas before by summing up their collect - such as the very large array radio telescope system...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...geArray.02.jpg

So if we need to send the other 50% off board then we will need to double the bandwidth of transmission. If the receiver is in the UK, then we will take up the bandwidth and will be charged by HMG. They will charge for use of the spectrum - including reception - if we use extra frequencies then the comercial side cannot is their twisted argument. (unless we wish to share our SIGINT frequencies with comercial interests - I think not).

An Airbus would be an ideal platform - stilted u/c allowing a 'boat' full of antennae slung underneath [good, unobstructed reception] + cargo space for fly-away packs. And plenty of room to carry the groundcrew for deployment.

Young, modern, fuel efficient, long endurance, room to expand internally - the list is endless.

Drones have their place on the battlefield, alongside the human. SIGINT benefits from the experienced operator who can instantly, for example, take the intonation in the voice and add it to all the other observed factors to reach a quick conclusion. That's how it works, so why throw away a top class methodology?...

There's no doubt that an A310 would be a superb R1 replacement.
Bif, wide body fuselage, cargo door, plenty of space underfloor, big enough dimensions for good aerial placement. But funding means that it needs to be more off the shelf than that.

The B Word said:
The RC-135 is hardly any more spacious than the Nimrod R, and if you added in the same number of Elint consoles and operators it would be far less spacious.

The B Word said:
Modern Elmo said:
The 51 Squadron capability is one of the few that the UK can offer that really is in advance of what others can. Its capability is based upon manual tuning by highly experienced operators. The man in the loop is absolutely essential to how 51 does the job, and to the reputation for excellence that the squadron enjoys.

The B Word said:
Nonsense. As the Marineflieger are about to find out.

How about uplink/downlink from other places than the UK - FIs, SBAs or Assie? Where there's a will there's a way!

Another solution, you could fly your UAV SIGINT collect from LOS missions in theatre and then use the land forces EW detachment personnel? How's that for value for money?

JN, there are several air-breathing unmanned assets, on top of GHs, in the ME that are already collecting very nicely - no details or the beads will rattle my window (if you catch my drift?). So, I discount your cry of "nonsense" with "it's already doing very nicely, thank you".

Finally, having been inside an R1 and an RJ (@ Offut) there is a lot more space in the RJ.

A good debate, this one. Keep it coming.

The B Word

There are 3 Elint ops on an RJ. Three!

Cram on enough to do the full R1 role and the RJ would be more than merely crowded.

And even now, the RJ isn't that much more spacious (and has even fewer windows.......)

As to unmanned - a UAV can do Elint and Comint in the same way that a U-2 can. What it can't do is RJ or R1 style Sigint missions.

There are 3 minimum on the RJ. You can take 34+ people on an RJ - 3 Flight Deck and 31 mission crew (compared to 25 mission crew on R1 - that really is a squeeze as well!).

http://www.afisr.af.mil/shared/media...-1726K-009.jpg

You definately can't stand about inside an R1 like this unless the USAF employ midgets!

The B Word

PS. Just found this - the inside of the R1. Spot the difference in space, you can't even stand up straight!!!

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jp...R1%20cabin.jpg

You've picked the roomiest part of an RJ, there!

And it's three. Ravens 1-3. Not a 'minimum of three'

Then there's AMSATS, IMT and OPR 1-12 plus 15 SSO and 16 SSO.

That's a mission crew of 19.

Versus 10 Elint, 13 Comint and two ad hoc on the R1.........

"You do the math" as the cousins would say.

Don't know if anyone's posted this, I didn't check the whole thread but

Death Spiral for HELIX? Britain Wants RC-135 Rivet Joint Planes

Who mentioned RC135's?

The RC-135V/W is known as Rivet Joint (RJ).

Chris Pocock's piece in AIN is predictably pro American. Chris argues JSF over Typhoon, RC-135 over R1, and (doubtless) P-8 over MRA4 too.

Normally, a 'pro US equipment' stance would be entirely reasonable, but not in this case.

RC-135 may be inevitable, but that don't make it right.

JN

From open source Factsheets : RC-135V/W Rivet Joint USAF official factsheet.

Done the reading and I read "27" mission crew, which is greater than your R1 figure - and I know they can mix and match as we do on R1 for a particular mission. EWOs or Ravens can augment above the number of 3. We will also get a say in what type of aircrew (WSO, WSOp or AT) we employ on RAF RJ.

Here are some more pictures of the other "roomier parts" of the RJ!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2006-11-16.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_interior.jpg

Next you'll claim I've photo-shopped the images! :ugh:

He does have a point. I for one am fed up with under-performing, over-budget and late offerings from t'Bungling Baron (to quote BEagle) - Mantis is already late by 6 months and they've only been building it for a year or so. I have flown one of their products for over a decade and recently converted to a US aircraft - chalk and cheese comes to mind!

So go ahead, believe that we should buy British (which is nearly always more expensive) and then have to replace/modify it with UOR (which is also more expensive) when it doesn't perform for ops. Urgent radar mods, software upgrades, defensive aids, weapon changes have mostly been my experience of THEIR products when going to war - the US aircraft now on ops needed none of this.

I believe it is time to say "enough is enough" and it is time for the MoD's Defence Budget to stop bailing out t'Bungling Baron of Blackburn - or how about a profit share if we do (they did make £1.75bn last year!)??? :}

The B Word

Deliverance

I concur. In these frugal days of public spending then it is time for industry to stand on its own 2 feet.

LJ

Hmmm...

As written in the RAF Brize Norton station magazine The Gateway Magazine in April 1985:

(Whatever the European aircraft manufacturers might say, one can't help feeling that the EFA, ACX, ACA, EAP or whatever they call it next will have to be pretty revolutionary if it's to be better than just an F-16 20 years too late! - Ed.)

My boss agreed with me - I was the Editor!

I can hear the protestations now from t'Bungling Baron - but it's got 2 engines!!!

BEagle - I take it all back, you are indeed a visionary :ok:

Not sure about visionary - I'm still in shock that BEags once did a secondary duty such as Station Magazine editor (even if it was in the days of papyrus paper and ink quills ;)). I always had him down as a "station secondary duties are for career chasing, gas using, shiny ar$ed losers"! Is this where it all went wrong (or right!) - did the Scottish Gp Capt / Air Officer have you sacked for your editorial leaders ...?:p

Secondary duties could be a source of much innocent fun, if you played the system!

For example, for the Gateway I used to demand 3 days off per month to do the editing, layouts and check the final galleys from the printer. Boss was happy with that - but whether or not I actually did the work then was something he didn't need to know.

We ran a spoof so sucessful about the BAe146P as a 'low observable' special duties jet with 'A Radio Frequency Illumination Limiting Loop' (A RFIL loop) in the April edition that Air Clues ran with the story and pinched the photo of a couple of lads fiddling with a broomstick painted white stuck on top of the BAe 146 development flight's jet. I had to ring them up and point out that 'A RFIL loop' was an anagram....:hmm:

Much mirth at the UAS when I was the Fire Officer. I requested a survey of our building from the Command Fire people and they went nuts! It was a death trap. So I produced a long list of issues for the boss to deal with.... Soon afterwards someone else took over as Sqn Fire Officer.

Silliest was 'Squadron Sports Officer'. Someone was clearly taking the pi$$. But the UAS people at Cranwell kept hosing us down with dosh, because our scale of entitlement was based on the number of students we had. Real rugby shirts for the team, 'spectator facilities' (bench and table sets for the barbecue really), ceramic hockey sticks, competition rugby balls, full sets of cricket gear - you name it, we had it! Horrid Kevball shirts had been ordered by my predecessor, but as Stop Start will recall, we decided that Kevball was not an appropriate game for potential young officers, so they remained firmly under lock and key!

At Brize, my Sqn boss used to vet the squadron's Gateway submission written by a chum. Which I took rather a dim view of - and often ran the original instead. The boss never noticed......

I only had one of those stupid Officers Mess secondary duties once - Silver Member at Wattisham. Trying to reconcile the hoard of dented plunder and 'borrowed items' in the silver store with the property book was a total nightmare - we had loads more than the book said we had! 56(F) used to volunteer for quite a few mess secondary duties, much to the surprise of OC Eng, the PMC. Being non-aircrew, he hadn't noticed that we consequently had a huge majority whenever the Mess Committee needed to make a decision.....:E

B Word.

I was looking at an official interior diagram of a for real Baseline 8 RC-135. The crew positions are exactly as I listed. Two of them (your LH pic) are inflight maintenance techs. The RH pic looks like a Baseline 6 mission commander or DLO - who have nearly as much space as the Ravens.

There aren't consoles to support a mission crew of 27 on the current RJ - there are just 17, plus techs, navs and pilots. There is 'rest accomodation' for relief crew, which there really isn't (1-2 ad hocs excepted) on the R1. There are, however, 24 consoles on the R1, plus nav, plus pilots.

They have three Ravens and the largely automated AEELS Elint kit on an RC-135V/W. Further aft is all Comint/Special Signals, and they are packed just as close as those in an R1.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...Picture3-3.png

There are some appalling BAE products, but the R1 has a justifiably excellent reputation - since it effectively rolls three quarters of an RC-135V/W and three quarters of an RC-135U into a single airframe, giving a capability that is in advance of that of the RJ in many ways.

There are also some dire US products. It's not all F-15 vs Tornado F3. Merlin is better than the H-92. American is not always best, as the P-8 quite clearly shows.


Deliverance,

JSF will, one day, be a great tactical fighter. At a price. One hopes, however, that they are more successful with integrating a helmet than they were with the F-22. Typhoon is far more than an F-16, 25 years late.

As to UK industry's world-beaters, I'd suggest to you that the R1 is just such an aircraft.

Deliverance,

The Typhoon is no F-22 (despite that aircraft's flaws), and it could be argued that it is only half a generation ahead of the teen series when it should be a full generation ahead, should have full LO, etc. but it is leagues ahead of the F-16 - in terms of performance, SA, and kit.

It will never be as useful a strike fighter as the F-35.

But by today's standards Typhoon should be something we take a degree of pride in. A supportable, deployable, capable strike fighter, though with only five squadrons planned, how there will ever be enough to do more than UK AD, QRA and the Falklands beats me.

Like you, I am sceptical when I hear the old "Well, we may be a small force, but our kit/training is better than the US", because normally it's simply not the case. But there are odd exceptions to the "American is better" rule.

And when specific UK capabilities are specifically requested by US commanders, and when USAF people in particular communities laud their UK counterparts, you know you're hitting on one of those exceptions. As the RADEOS PR9 was. As the Nimrod R1 is.

I've just watched this from 1953 - where did we go wrong? :{

British Pathe - BRITAIN'S AIRCRAFT OF TOMORROW

Maybe JN is a 1950's throwback? :E

LJ

PS here's one just for you... British Pathe - NIMROD AIRCRAFT

The line that made me laugh in the AIN article was the one about "The MoD told AIN that a decision would be made late this year, and the R1s would be extended in service if necessary."

As they are shutting down the primary establishment that looks after the mission sytems in March 2011, with a reduction to 40% of the original staff from March 2010 that seems a little incorrect. The technical staff there have pretty much been told they no longer fit into the MoD view of 'decider not provider', but they could relocate to Abbey Wood and become project managers......

Also Interesting to see that the DES Nimrod group have 3 posts set up for handling TUPE if you check the email list on the great DII system.

BGG,

Quite right. Meant UK Plc, rather than BAE per se. The BAE bit of R1 is of passing interest only.


Leon,

Interesting. It was about then that it did all go wrong. Two V-bombers into service and two insurance policies flown, one of them also into service. Swift AND Hunter, DH110 AND Javelin, all from a small industry that needed to be consolidated.

Do tell. Exactly what is wrong with CAPTOR? Have you ever seen one work, or talked to people who have? (I'm biased, I helped design it, and I'm proud of it).

Are you sure you aren't regurgitating old Foxhunter stories as a stick to beat British industry?

What's wrong with CAPTOR?

Plenty of things, none of which are suitable for open forum.

That's not what the users say about it.

Nor is it what evaluation pilots from foreign air forces have said.

The biggest single problem with Captor often seems to be that it's so good that it makes the case for a replacement AESA weaker.

This really isn't Foxhunter.

AI 24 Foxhunter is a good radar after the mods at the start of the millenium - especially with some of the automatics that were introduced. Stage 1+ was the start of the long process of better performance, Stage 2 was a huge leap again and Stage 3 saw it becoming a good bit of kit (shame we didn't sort it like the US did with APG-63 in the early 80s - it too was a piece of cr@p until they spent $$$$M on it to get the performance!!!).

CAPTOR does have "issues" but name me a radar that doesn't when it is first fielded? Both, Blue Fox and Blue Vixen had "teething troubles" - and don't forget that Blue Vixen is the mother of CAPTOR, so you could say that CAPTOR's issues have been worked over many years from its first use as Blue Vixen?

Finally, I would put CAPTOR in the category of "High to Above Average", but there is definately room for improvement.

The B Word

... and four years later ...
 

Who would have thought that four years after that memory-strings-tugging film, the dreaded Mr. Sandys would storm all over RAF procurement, to be followed by a monumental series of ministerial/industrial interference (in the engineering sense) ?
B U T ...
What if the Swift had been selected "from the drawing board"? Or the Sperrin? Was the Javelin a "better" choice than the DH110? How to choose between the Victor and Vulcan at that stage?
Agreed, the industry needed to be "sorted out" (it wouldn't sort itself out because too many high-personality knights were involved, of course), but I do remember being told how offended people at Radlett were when a visiting USAF officer remarked about Victor final assembly "Sure it's a fine airplane, but why d'ja have to build it in a hobbies shop?".
But in 1953, we all thought we could do it all, and the P A I N was still to come. Eheu fugaces !

British Pathe - NIMROD AIRCRAFT
 

Nice to see some things don't change, £2,500,000 for a Nimrod MR1 in 1968, which in today’s terms is £33,400,000 for each MR1!! Why ho why do we keep paying over the odds for equipment that barely matches up to off the shelf alternatives.

Leon,

Loved the Nimrod footage!
However, it did mention in there somewhere that it would 'fly at 500kts to it's operational area......'

We obviously piled too much inside it when it came into service; I only managed 500kts once in the Mk1 and that was with the assistance of a rather good jetstream going in our direction!