Thank you for your comments.
I did a short ground tour at Wyton in 1973 in ATC.

Will it have a refuelling probe? The Sentry AEW.1 design would be pretty close, would it not?

The Sentry has both the probe and the US Boom-Receptacle system for AAR. The US system was only retained because it cost money to remove it from the design - however, this system is faster and more reliable for big aircraft tanking - in addition, there are usually more USAF tankers airborne during coalition ops. The probe gives some flexibility, but the flt deck crews prefer taking fuel from the boom. Also note that pilots need to qualify and stay current on both systems.

At present there are no plans for a refuelling probe. Yes, the E-3D has both a probe and a boom refuelling receptacle, but to put this on RJ would introduce further cost and delay - the aircraft are different in both structure and fuel system. That would mean Boeing designing the modification, someone fitting it, flight trials, reciever checks and then a training program roll out - all expensive.

So I doubt we'll see it anytime soon until George and HMT give us more cash - hang on is that a flying pig? But who knows the nickname of the RJ is the "Hog" after all!

For now we have to rely on NATO allies to provide Boom AAR (US, France, Netherlands, etc...). That said the E-3D crews have seen far more boom tanking in recent years than probe and drogue.

iRaven

The big question about Rivet Joint and Air to Air refuelling is; does the current installation meet post Hadden Cave airworthiness requirements?
(Big hint - It doesn't even meet PRE Hadden Cave requirements)

Hadden Cave requirements?

If you are referring to Charles Haddon-Cave QC, what "requirements" would these be then? He made recommendations, but no "requirements" as far as I'm aware. Does it meet the acceptable level of airworthiness? Well that depends on whether the USAF are a "competent organisation" or not; they're hardly killing their people left, right and centre (or should that be center?) are they?

I've been listening to the idiots at DOSG for the past 3 years about how dangerous the Americans are with their weapons handling - I see no evidence of this, considering the US magnitude of effort is massive compared to ours. I also do not see the sky raining RJs from AAR issues. Maybe that is why Haddon-Cave recommended wrestling the management of risk away from the engineering fraternity, who, in my opinion, had become blinkered and had backed themselves into a safety corner - the only natural path for their culture was to ultimately cease all flying all together!!

LJ

does rather beg the question though, wouldn't it have been more cost-effective to simply strip the AWACS gear out of those (three?) mothballed UK Sentrys and place the SIGINT gear into those?

James

No it wouldn't. You would need to de-modify the E-3Ds and then modify them to become RJs. Much cutting of metal and replacing wiring = MEGABUCKS $$$$$$$$

Its a bit like taking a AVRO Shacketon and converting it to be an AVRO Lancaster!

LJ

LJ

Correct! The RJ is based upon the Boeing Model 717 (not to be confused with the Boeing 717) and the E-3D is based upon the Boeing 707-320. Here's the difference:

So to use the ONE E-3D in mothballs would indeed take megabucks and a complete redesign of the RJ's design drawings.

iRaven

OK, I hear what you're saying, but surely fitting the new gear into the E-3 airframe is no more than an electronic refit? You've got an electronically hardened airframe which is bigger than the C-135 so making it physically fit should not be an issue. As for the wiring / databus - well that would have to be retrofitted whatever aircraft you choose
You don't need to do that much metal-bashing surely?

However if theres only one in mothballs then the question is academic anyway - I was under the impression three had been mothballed by the recent cuts

From this...
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcollegecran...62AC64E4DB.jpg
To this...
http://www.thunderinthevalleyairshow...ivet-Joint.jpg

Please tell me you're having a laugh if you think you can do it cheaper!:eek:

Let alone removing a 7T RADAR, look at all the antenna mods you would have to make (and they're all very accurately placed - get them out of place and things won't work).

iRaven

BGG

Fair dos! That'll teach me not to look closer!

Here is a bone fide RIVET JOINT...

http://www.unmanned.co.uk/wp-content...d-systems..jpg

Shows what is needed a lot better than the COMBAT SENT picture as well :ok:

iRaven

Why should I? I don't know who you are or what you do, except you speak like a knowledgeable spotter.:8

Rog

The "trust me" was directed at Basil; unless, of course, you are confused as to which PPRuNe logon you're using? :=

iRaven :ok:

I understand that iRaven, but my comments remain valid. You are rather sparing with your personal details. If it seems too good to be true then it is!:)

ROG

That sounds like Mrs LJ's logic - "if it's cheap it must be crap". Then I remind her of the piece of sh!t Land-Rover that she drives that is far from cheap or reliable!

LJ

Rog

There is a reason my profile is rather barren and yours is not - I still serve and you do not (if your profile is correct).

Anyway, happy with "knowledgable", but not so keen on "spotter" :ok:

iRaven

Fair enough, have a (virtual) drink on me. If you send me a PM showing me yours I'll respond and show you mine, 'cos there's much more to reveal:E. and I still think that if it's too good to be true etc.