Rivet Joint
 

U.K. Signs Near-$1B Rivet Joint Support Deal - Defense News

The article says it will cost the UK $1 Billion.

What really winds me up is that these aircraft are only ever going to used for supporting spam exploits around the globe, so why is the UK taxpayer subsidising their dubious activities?

It would be a different story if the UK had the balls to do their own raping and pillaging without the spams approval, but that's never going to happen.

Pious

You are wrong, the UK will operate its own RJs from 2013/14. Also, if you knew a lot about the nature of their work you would realise how the RJ (and the previous R1) forms a BIG part of the "special relationship" and so they are unlikely to ever operate outside of this arrangement. They will be ours to task and fly with our crews from that date. They are also incorporating UK modifications to our aircraft (which the US are likely to want to retrofit).

By the way, it is RIVET JOINT capital letters as a BIG SAFARI program.

Finally, I note that you're from Lancashire - there was never a cat in hells chance of those idiots at Warton in delivering anywhere near the capability for £680M. So in my mind the RC-135 V/W RIVET JOINTs were an absolute bargain.

iRaven

And how old are the RIVET JOINT aircraft we will get?
 

The three RAF airframes are former United States Air Force KC-135Rs, all of which first flew in 1964 but will be modified to the latest RC-135W standard before delivery. The three airframes on offer to the UK are the youngest KC-135s in the USAF fleet. The aircraft have approximately 23,200; 22,200 hours; and 23,200 flying hours respectively, as of September 2010, and are expected to remain in service until 2045.

That is older than the Nimrod R1 and even the MR1.

Younger than the MRA4s that we didn't introduce into service!!!

Oh no it isn't. The MR1 was designed in 1964, first flying in 1967. Even if any of the MR1 aircraft remained in service via the MR2 conversion and were 'lucky' enough to get converted to the MRA4, they are still younger than the RIVET JOINT aircraft we will be getting

These were the last 3 KC-135As off the production line, all 1964 models, 64-14827, 64-14828, and 64-14829. All were converted to the KC-135R standard in the 1980s. Once the RAF conversion begins, the USAF MDS will become RKC-135Rs until the Boom equipment is removed, then RC-135K for the RAF. The RAF tail numbers will be ZR135, ZR136 and ZR137. They will be stripped right back to bare metal and new metal introduced where needed. They will also get new CFM-56 engines and an updated avionics suite (front end and back end!). Other mods will also be carried out to bring them up to required standard.

Now they could go to the effort of smelting down all the metal and rebuilding it again but why bother if the structure is sound? It reduces cost and carbon footprint!

iRaven

35 of the original 48 MR1s became MR2 and then 21 were going to become MRA4 - that in the end would be 3 development and 9 production variants.

If you are meaning "age" as date of manufacture then you are correct (by 3 years out of a total of 44 years since 1967). But if we regard "age" as useage then in airframe life then the RJs are definately younger.

iRaven

So its ok to do this for the complete airframe of the Rivet Joint, an older airframe time wise, but not a Nimrod MRA4 fuselage (which was almost the only bit that was not brand new build and was also structurally sound), oh the irony of that quoted comment above.

So not only are these going to cost more than quoted when Air Publications, GSE, DO support, training, spares and hangar builds/alterations are added to the cost of the airframes, oh and don't forget the MOD goalpost moving which will add to the cost and will probably be late, so where's the money coming from post SDRS if they are cutting back and decimating the armed forces when the country and the MOD is apparently broke.

It's fine to update aircraft, it's the billions of pounds wasted along the way that people objected to.

And yet again, it's all about Nmrod...

UKSerials.com has the RJ being ZZ 664-666 (Neat as the numbers are the same as the original R1). Duff gen?

(Interesting ZM400 etc is marked as allocated to Airbus Atlas. Is this what we're calling the Grizzly? Get's my vote if so.)

why don't they leave the booms on the RIVET JOINTS so they can refuel each other? Nothing else in the UK fleet will be able to refuel them


As for the Nimrod age - weren't many of the fuselage / wing parts long-lead-time left overs / spares from when the Comet 4 production line closed? That would date some of the parts (if not the complete airframes) from the late 1950's

Changing tack slightly but still an RJ question. Do we have traditional navs and flt eng's going through training in Nebraska? Which in turn leads to the question - are the variants we eventually receive 2 pilots only flight decks?

Just interested, that's all. Any offers?

Piggies,

I know what you mean, can we not just let the Nimrod die and get on with it, some one will be along in a minute to tell us how good the Harrier was and why did we keep the GR4!!! :ugh:

PA - Navs certainly going through the course at Offut. Hard to imagine there will be many Navs left in '45, the youngest Navs in the RAf at the moment must be 25(?). Bound to be a MLU in the late 20s, I should think.

No Flt Eng on any RIVET JOINT aircraft. 3 man flight deck only (sometimes 4th Nav carried for longer and more complex missions).

The 2045 OSD is a bit ambitious. The USAF are looking at the MQ-L, a large blended-wing bodied (BWB) UAS, to replace the RJ, AWACS, KC-135 and B-52 from 2025 onwards. So 2035 might be more realistic.

Here's a pic of what it might look like:

http://www.the-one-true-scale.co.uk/HBM%20X48.jpg

The X-48 is about 10% scale of the real thing and is a BWB design originally from Cranfield University. Although unmanned someone decided to paint on flight deck windows to stop too much speculation when rolled out over 6 years ago - even now there are some doubters on the use of unmanned systems for ISTAR, AAR and Strike roles.

Details of MQ-La/b/c can be foundin here: http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/b...-6570C-001.pdf

iRaven

No it's not, UK aircraft will be known as AIRSEEKER.

A bit like Sentry AEW Mk1 instead of Boeing E-3D AWACS :yuk:

But they have stuck with Sea King, Chinook and Globemaster :ok:

iRaven

I speak from a position of relative ignorance but, since that hasn't stopped me before, isn't there a suitable Airbus for conversion?

Basil

I'm sure there is a suitable Airbus for conversion but it would cost many €€€s to design, build and incorporate the many modifications to change it from an airliner to an AAR capable SIGINT aircraft. That is why the RIVET JOINT deal is such a good one when compared to a new build or modification of another existing airframe - the US has already paid for the previous modifications over the RIVET JOINT program's life. All we are paying for are 3 KC-135 from the boneyard and then having all the mods carried out by L3 at Greenville - plus a bit of contracted maintenance provision.

Trust me, we have got an absolute steal and also this strengthens a very strong relationship. The US have got the use of some of the best operators in the game for a couple of years until our aircraft are ready, so they also gain from the deal by bringing on some of their younger folks.

iRaven

iRaven is right - this is a win/win/win for the UK, and does good things for the USAF and the overall relationship. Can't wait to see them in the circuit at Waddo.

S41