UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade
 

Safety concerns have prompted moves to significantly reorganise UK plans to upgrade Royal Air Force (RAF) British Aerospace Nimrod R.1 electronic intelligence (ELINT)-gathering aircraft and to start efforts to find an alternative platform.

The loss of a RAF Nimrod MR.2 maritime patrol aircraft - which has the same airframe as the R.1 variant - in a mid-air fire over Afghanistan in September 2006 was subsequently linked by investigators to safety problems with the aircraft's fuel systems. Jane's understands that this has forced the UK to think again about the GBP400 million (USD786 million) Project Helix to sustain the three-strong Nimrod R.1 fleet in service until 2025.

UK military sources have told Jane's that alternative platforms are now being considered and proposals have been made in the current defence spending round to secure additional funding to allow the Helix mission system to be installed in a different airframe.

At last, I mean, the airframe design is only 60 years old! Such an important capability must be given a more modern platform than the comet. It's a shame that wasn't realised 10 years or so ago in time for the MRA4 procurement.

OK chasps, what would be the front runners for a new cab, then? Would a Sentinal type be too small? Would an Airbus be too big? What about a 146 varient? (I'm trying to keep it to an airframe type in service).

Sentinel is too small for ASTOR (3 rear crew) never mind R1 replacement. Airbus would include some space. EMP proof? Not a chance.................

Global Hawk

Sorry that's cutting edge proven technology, anything lying around in Cosford it is, especially if my mate Wupert has shares in it.:mad:

If it's to be manned, I'd go for a 146 derivative, as we've allready got the type. Get some of the second hand 146's laying about Exeter. Bonus if you can get some freighters as you could palletise (spake the expert!) the mission kit and multitask the frame? Or am I talkin' oot ma @rrrse? Again? Range/endurance??

I'm sure the BAe146 has not got the legs/endurance for a replacement platform and maybe too small.
I wonder if a variant of the new P-8 Poseidon would do the job, basically all you need is a C-40 fitted out including IFR probe.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mma/

Germany has looked at the Global Hawk (EuroHawk) to replace their ELINT Atlantic's. One was flown from Edwards to Nordholz and tested over the North Sea extensively.

I wonder what the ruskies would think about intercepting an unknown aircraft and finding out it had no pilot!!

I would imagine that to deliver the expected outputs from the R1 platform you would need something in the Nimrod/707/RC-135/VC-10 class?

No.51 Squadron remain rightly tight-lipped about what they do, and how they do it, but I learned a lot about R1 a couple of years ago when I had to write about 51, and was lucky enough to talk to a number of former squadron members.

There's no compelling reason why you couldn't use a smaller airframe (basically with just the flight crew) or a UAV, datalinking the take back to ground stations. Apart from bandwidth and situational awareness and technical issues, that is, which have led the leading exponents to continue to practise Elint using airborne operators, on-scene, in the jet (or turboprop, as the case may be).

Even then there are markedly different philosophies - with some emphasising greater automation and differing levels of inboard interpretation/exploitation, and with 51 stressing manual tuning of receivers at the other end of the spectrum. They can carry up to 28 crew on the R1s - which are extremely cramped - and if we want to continue to have excellence in this area (and the EP-3 and RC-135 blokes seem to rate 51 very highly indeed) then we need to let 51 do things the way they do things, and therefore we need a BIG airframe, and one with widely dispersed, very rigid and stable mountings for some of the antennas. If you're going to triangulate, you don't want your antennas bouncing up and down at the end of a very flexible wing, after all.

And if you want to give them a few Global Hawks as airborne antenna platforms, augmenting the manned assets, I'm sure they'd work out interesting ways of using them!

(More) E-3's, then, differently configured? OR, there must be a few 707 frames at AMARC that could be re-engined, ie E-3 without the radar disc?

The 707's are just as old as the Nimrod however obviously perfect for the job in which case just buy mothballed RC-135 airframes.

R61
Thanks for that, I didn't know if any Rivet Joints had been parked in the desert. So, new engines, our kit, and away you go!

Why is the age of the R1 a concern when I would suggest that the RC/EC-135family are arguably older and still going strong? As are the KC's?

Not looking for a fight BTW.

Why not go into the market for something A330 sized tied in with the future tanker requirement giving some sort of fleet airframe comonality.

Why does it have to be manned???

Do you know how much real estate exists in your recently acquired MQ-9??

The RC135 is doable. I think the Saudis aquired some modified 135s not too many years ago. And certainly E8 JSTARS has been a success.

I guess, as usual, it'll come down to budget...

I would suggest the A300 as a replacement for the Nimrod R1. There are plenty around and, if greater range is needed, could also be fitted with additional center tanks. Although it would have an endurance of around 9 hours with the normal 55 tonne fuel load.

Elbeflugzeugwerke have been doing bespoke A300 freighter conversions for some years - I understand that Filton also has expertise in this area.

Additionally, the A300 is smaller than the A330, so perhaps easier to base at most RAF aerodromes. Overall length 177 ft, wingspan 147 ft, so in the VC10 size category, more or less.

The USAF scoured the world buying up 707s to strip them of their engines, pylons, tailplanes, undercarriages etc. There was also an article last week in AW&ST abut the work having to be done to try and stretch out the life of the KC-135 fleet to it's out of service date.

In short, forget about trying to find 3/4 good condition airframes and spares to last long enough to make it cost effective. Also one of the driving factors in Boeing changing to the KC-767.

If you want an equivalent sized militarized airframe I'd suggest talking to Boeing about a 767 (KC-767) or 737 (P-8A) frame or, as Beagle suggest, Airbus.

Though I am sure BWoS will have a great plan to buy some second hand 757s and refurbish them at a special low price, guaranteed not to rise Your Honour....

In these days of financial constraint, the requirements of a replacement aircraft to meet a specified military capability will be ignored by the bean counters and we will be given a completely inadequate sum of cash to meet only part of the requirement. Once we have the compromise in service then we will not have the ability to achieve our operational tasks effeciently which will undoubtedly lead indirectly to loss of lives on the ground.

No matter what is said about suitable aircraft both in this forum or within the appropriate IPT, we will not get what we need when we need it unless the Treasury has a change of heart, and that is not likely to happen for at least 3 years unless we are very fortunate.

Nimrod
 

I suspect it may be because they have not ruled out the Wescam camera fit as a possible cuase of the explosion