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!!!
|
Originally Posted by iRaven
(Post 6575756)
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 |
The Nimrod is essentially a Comet 4C with an unpressurised weapons bay added on underneath, creating a ‘double bubble’ effect that gives the aircraft its distinctive appearance. However, the original Comet was designed back in the late 1940’s and first flew on 27 Jul 49, so the basic Nimrod design that evolved from the Comet 4C owes more to the 1950’s than to any other period and, although this has had many advantages, it has also had some significant disadvantages. The Nimrod MR1 first flew on 23 May 67 and the aircraft eventually entered service with 236 OCU at RAF St Mawgan on 2 Oct 69 – the first of 46 aircraft eventually delivered to the RAF. From the late 1970’s to the mid 1980’s, 35 Nimrod’s were fitted with upgraded detection systems, including the EMI Searchwater radar, and were re-designated Nimrod MR2s. 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 |
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! 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. |
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 |
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 |
By the way, it is RIVET JOINT |
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 |
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?
|
Will it have a refuelling probe? The Sentry AEW.1 design would be pretty close, would it not? |
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: This military version of the Model 367-80 is identified as the Boeing Model 717: it differs primarily from the later Model 707 by having a smaller-diameter fuselage, deletion of cabin windows, reduced size and weight, and accommodation for 80 passengers or an equivalent weight of cargo on the main deck. 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 |
Trust me, we have got an absolute steal and also this strengthens a very strong relationship. |
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.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.