RAF to 'Borrow' USAF aircraft
 

Not seen this mentioned yet

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=5121

Interesting. An addition to the SIGINT fleet or perhaps intended replacement for the R1?

What a completely cr@p article, I can't remember seeing so many factual errors and mistakes in such a short piece of prose.

Y_G

1) Subject aired days ago - see

UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=309239

Uk Jstars?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=311635

2) As YellerG suggests, the article to which you link is utter, utter toss.

Britain’s needs for surveillance aircraft have become so dire that it has borrowed two surveillance craft from the US.

No it hasn’t. CAS has made it clear that the Rivet Joint plan is just an option.

Last week the US officially lent the Royal Air Force two C-135 electronic monitoring aircraft.

Again, not true. This is a lazy and inaccurate interpretation of the Sunday Times article.

The planes will be painted in RAF colours but will be operated jointly by US and British aircrews.

That might happen, but there’s no confirmation.

Problems with the Nimrod MR2 have gotten so bad in recent weeks that the RAF was literally running out of surveillance aircraft. Fuel leaks have persisted in the fleet and forced the air force to ground several of the planes used for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Budget problems have led to delays on the new Nimrod MRA4 entering service in the next year.

More confusion. The R1 and MR2 are quite different beasts, with quite different problems. Nimrod MRA4 is not delayed due to ‘budget problems’ alone.

The leasing of the C-135 Rivet Joint aircraft will bring some relief to personnel on surveillance operations. The planes are similar to the Nimrod in terms of size and speed but can hold a much larger crew (27 compared to 10). Their range is however is far less than the Nimrod, 3,900 miles compared to 6,910 miles.

The Nimrod R1 has a crew of 29, and seating for 32 – about the same as the RC-135 in terms of capacity, but with a bigger mission crew.

However it represents an embarassing climdown for the RAF who had claimed to have fixed most of the problems that have belittled the aircraft over the last few years.

Etc.

If you want to be even more impressed with the DMJ's abilities, read the little piece about the amalgamation of 43(F) and 56(R) [those particular about punctuation, grammar and factual accuracy may wish to ignore the story]....



'Typoon [sic :eek: ]takes first Tornado casualties

Oh Jacko, you were doing so well, and then you blew it !

Crew:
Pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, one navigator

"and an electronic reconnaissance crew of 24 reconnaissance- equipment operators commanded by a mission supervisor." according to the RAF website. I thought it was 24 including the sup, personally, but who am I to argue.......

28 or 29

Seating:
Pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, Nav, ad hoc position (former radar nav position)
plus eight consoles with two seats each, five with one seat, and the three auxiliary stations, according to the cutaway drawing in Air International.

29

bravolima
 

What is so wrong in "borrowing" American aircraft, In 1953 we "borrowed" fifty Neptunes when the Shacks were slow in arriving. They proved very useful for three years but then they had to go back to the States. Some went to the Argentine!!

Didn't we "borrow" several thousand US kites during the last not-so friendly away match with the Hun?

There's nothing wrong with borrowing aircraft from anywhere if it fills a capability gap that would otherwise remain. If CAS was overseeing the loan of U-2S aircraft to plug the gap left by the withdrawal of the PR9 I'd be outside Main Building with a magnum of champagne waiting to kiss him.

What's wrong is when the loan of an aircraft might result in some degradation of capability, or might erode our autonomous national capability in a certain (and vital) area, or where it will prevent the development and deployment of a better optimised, more suitable replacement.

It's complicated, of course, because Rivet Joint is superior to Nimrod R in some areas (including areas that are of particular relevance in this phase of the ongoing ops in Afghanistan and Iraq), while inferior in others, which might be more useful over the longer term.

The allegation is that proper priorities are being distorted by funding constraints and by a too narrow and too short term focus on Afghanistan and Iraq.