Maybe a bit late on this thread but I worked on the Nimrod MR4 in 1999 when Cobham was refurbishing 3 fuselages.
The airframes had been coccooned in a wood and were rotten, We replaced at least 60% of the structure on one and another was 1 complete frame bay short - lack of parts during the last builds at Chester I suspect.
A good part of the blame for the cost overuns and hence the cancellation of the programme must be laid at the feet of Bae Systems who were in control - and I use that term very loosely. Most of their advisory team were never on site so there were delays after delays. They should also have done a decent survey of the airframes and refused to accept such rotting carcases from the RAF.
The RAF will not be without their share of the blame with constant changes and mods being added on - I worked on the Tucano builds at Shorts and that was a nightmare.
Overall I think the Nimrod (Comet) was a much better plane than the Joint Rivet (707) - my son has worked on both in the RAF - and was better suited to the maritine missions.
Reminds me of Harold Wilson all over again cancelling the TSR2 and buying F111's that were then cancelled with a large penalty paid.
One day goverments will wake up and ask someone who uses the tools what they really need to do a proper job.

LJ,
is a bit contradictory, since if it were the case, H-C would never have been needed.

sw

iRaven, how are things going on the JIVET JOINT sales team?

I've read the various threads lamenting the loss of the R1 and how great the new AIRSEEKER will be (who thought that name up?)

Nobody seems to have mentioned the fact the the old R1 back end stuff was tailored to the UK crews having much more more skill and knowledge than their US counterparts and that RIVET JOINT had much more automation because their crews weren't as good (much shorter tours) and needed to rely on the hardware more.

It was one of the big 'us verses them' arguments. It seems all that experience is going to be wasted sitting and watching flashing lights. They'll end up making the tea (or should I say coffee) and put the taxi drivers at the front out of a job.

Why don't we...
 

The former Voldemort (the jet that mustn't be named) RAF crews are currently assigned to the 55th RW, to maintain proficiency and train on the new kit. If that's already happening, and the aircraft are fulfilling a UK need, why are we buying the three airframes under discussion?

Couldn't we just continue with the present arrangement, and save the defence budget a few millions? That money could be better spent on giving our service personnel decent housing and a proper living wage for their efforts, couldn't it?

Excuse what may appear to be a stupid question. I'm a civvie, and a taxpayer and get a bit grumpy when I see how much tax various Chancellors have taken off me each month.

Bob

It is a temporary manning agreement where we both get benefit - US get their younger crews exposed to the knowledge of the UK's more experienced crews, the UK get training and more proficient on their new equipment.

I very much doubt the USAF would be content for us to borrow their kit indefinately - much as it would be cheaper for us!!!

As a user of R1 and RJ over combat zones for many years, I have always found the product/capability from both mainly similar - the only difference was that the grammar and diction from the R1 was always better! :ok:

LJ

Is the oven on RJ up to the job of 24/7 curries and pies though?

Based on my experience of 'merkin inflight 'cuisine' uplifted when stateside, US crews seem to exist purely on bran and fruit. Which would lead one to think the toilets are up to the task, if nothing else.

USAF crews pay for and supply their own "in flight" - don't tell the MoD beancounters though; oops, I think I may just have...:eek:

Will the Airseeker be identical the US Rivet Joint, or will there be any scope to add in any of the 'Unique' capabilities that we are told the R1 had? (and I don't mean all those curries)

I am aware that the UK will be involved in agreeing further upgrades of the fleet down the line.

During a recent visit to Davis Monthan I think I saw Auntie Betty's latest aquisitions.

Visible amongst the plethora of airframes being re-worked by AMARG were three RC135 types sporting slightly different markings. Are these the three RIVET JOINTS bound for the UK?

Giblets,

To answer your earlier post, the RJs will be identical to the US fleet (which are all at various Increments anyway) . However, there will be a limited scope for the addition of UK unique equipments ....

Bad Boy from Akrotiri

I'm pretty sure that at least the first RAF RJ is in the shed at Greenville, TX. I also believe that the mods take about 18-24 months, so they should have started already or the first aircraft will be late :eek:

iRaven

The first Kc-135 for conversion arrived back in March.

From what I have read, the RAF had the pick of the KC-135 fleet, and picked the three lowest cycle/ hours aircraft available (it's all relative as 14833 was manufactured in '64, so will be delivered on its' 50th birthday!).

Interesting the Reg's chosen, as the R1's were XW664 on (IIRC).

RJ18/18773 ZZ664 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14833
RJ19/18778 ZZ665 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14838
RJ20/18770 ZZ666 Rivet Joint Ex USAF KC-135R 64-14830

Number of The Beast
 

Doesn't bode well for ZZ666 then?

The R1s were numbered similarly if I recall.

And XW666 was that aircraft.

And anyway, '666' is not a demonic or bad number, the original translation was wrong. 616 is the number of the beast.


/pointless trivia

WM, I think we had worked that out.

The christening of

Doesn't bode well for 665 The Neighbour of the Beast :ok:

Just remind me what the operational requirement is for these a/c?

Sir George Cayley

Just remind me what the operational requirement is for these a/c?
 

If you don't know, you probably don't need to know.