RAF Rivet Joint
Ares: Leaked Image Shows First RAF Rivet Joint
An image leaked on the internet shows what appears to be the first RC-135 Rivet Joint destined for the U.K. Royal Air Force. http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/...O/RJ_600px.jpg The RAF has three RC-135s on order, making the U.K. the first export customer for the RC-135V/W Sigint jets. The aircraft have been converted from a trio of 1964-vintage Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers which had been sitting in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB. The three aircraft were ordered by the Ministry of Defence in March 2010 and the first aircraft is expected to roll out early next year. Once in service, the aircraft will be operated by No. 51 Sqn which famously operated the Nimrod R1, an aircraft which for many years the RAF refused to disclose as being in operation because of the type’s intelligence gathering capabilities. In preparation for the Rivet Joint’s arrival, 51 Sqn crews have been flying missions with the 55th Wing to gain experience on the type. It is understood that the aircraft will be christened Airseeker in RAF service. Sharp-eyed readers of this blog will notice the aircraft distinctly lacks an air-to-air refuelling probe and given the RAF has not ordered a boom for its Voyager tankers, the new Airseekers will end up being dependent on USAF or tankers from other nations for refuelling. |
IIRC the use of CFM-56 engines has significantly increased the fuel efficiency and so lessens the need for AAR. Also there is not too much space on board for extra crew to rotate for crew duty and also to fit a probe would require a complete redsign and cost £££££££s.
That said, NATO always have ANG KC-135s on standby for the AEW aircraft. There is usually a shortage of drogue AAR on Coalition ops, not boom. So it is a desicion that probably wasn't taken lightly but was the best one to keep HELIX/AIRSEEKER alive. Furthermore, it cements the UK/USA 'special relationship', which should not be underestimated. iRaven |
Loads of factual errors in ORAC's report, but good to see a contractor delivering on time, indeed months a head of schedule. Lets hope the other pieces required to ensure the UK has full military capability are deliverd by DES and the other stakeholders:ok:.
I wonder if the ac will look as shinny ofter a few months of UK ownership? |
If that's the scheme they have wasted the opportunity to add the lightning flash the RAF used on most aircraft including the VC10..
|
There's something about this picture that raises a question: is the "Royal Air Force" painted on, or Photoshopped on?
|
photoshop...
-RP |
The paint job in the photo makes me a touch nostalgic for VC10s in Transport Command livery, a bit like...
http://www.singas.co.uk/Changi_Aircraft/VC10_2.jpg picture by Simon Moore. |
Yep it's a photoshop onto a US Air Force model, the font is the American style one. "Royal Air" has simply been pasted on the top.
Can't see RAF Rivet Joints having a US style colour scheme like either, I'd bet it'll just be grey all over. |
Not hemp?
.. |
I'd be surprised if we didn't use the US colour scheme. The aircraft is stuffed with equipment that produces heat and a completely new paint scheme would change the thermal properties. Why pay more and introduce extra risk? |
The R1s were airdefence blue at the end of their time.
The MR2s were hemp to provide CCD protection whilst on the ground!! |
Thank you Finnpog
AAHHHH Changi and the 38Gp Pan- the last time I went through that gap they had to put the gates down as well (only we were doing about 250kts and ATC were a bit worried about a double decker bus coming along the road). The AOC wasn't very pleased either, but that's another story! |
This was the expected colour scheme when I was working around the project...
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...0B6FDB3818.jpg I seem to remember the glossy white top was required to reflect heat when on the ground in sandy/hot places or the thing turns into an oven! So it should have a red goose on the fin, roundels and City of Lincoln crest under the flight deck window. Merry Christmas all :ok: LJ |
Rivet Joint or Pop Rivet?
One question I've yet to see answered is whether the operational requirement takes a post Afghan theatre into account. And if so, what and where might that be? SGC |
Damn, that must be some kind of Dorian Grey aircraft?
Look at the reflection in the water - you can see it hasn't aged from new |
Image in the water is not a reflection. It is a USAF aircraft with US insignia :)
|
The R1s were airdefence blue at the end of their time. |
MMmmmmm, hemp....
Why pay more and introduce extra risk? |
Originally Posted by Finnpog
(Post 7595258)
The paint job in the photo makes me a touch nostalgic for VC10s in Transport Command livery, a bit like...
http://www.singas.co.uk/Changi_Aircraft/VC10_2.jpg picture by Simon Moore. |
They will be the oldest new aircraft that we've ever bought! :sad:
|
At least Boeing knew where to mount ze engines... ;)
|
As for the 'special relationship', want a lot of s, h, one t. It is and always will be one way, which has been repeated several time in history. We have just scraped one old bird to buy another this is maddiness and as for the on time, on budget, trust me the Yanks will recover any charges via the "change control" process just as much as BAe systems would have done. :ugh:
One more lost capability.... And another reason to add to this sorry list is the loss of the tanker contract to Boeing despite a better solution being offered by EADS. Rant mode off.... Have a nice Christmas or as the Yanks say have a nice holiday. |
£5 says with the advent of the MAA that thing will never be granted Airworthiness. TSR2, MR4A, Rivetjoint - and it won't be the last!
|
Tony, sorry to disappoint, but, no they weren't!
|
£5 says with the advent of the MAA that thing will never be granted Airworthiness. TSR2, MR4A, Rivetjoint - and it won't be the last! |
LDF,
In what way am I wrong? I have seen pictures of 49 on a lo-loader going to Cosford, definately looks Air Defence blue or as near as dulux could get it. PT |
Photos: Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1 (801) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Picture of 49 at Cosford recently. SGC |
Zero1
As for the 'special relationship', want a lot of s, h, one t. It is and always will be one way There are also lots of books on how the UK has benefitted the USA for intelligence in the past and not so distant past. Of course, you will not get an 'official line' for at least 50 years! iRaven |
brickhistory
That would be because USAF RC-135s are US registered, whereas Airseeker will have to be UK registered, unless there is a lot of jiggery pokery, and they somehow register it as a US a/c, service it as a US a/c but fly it with UK crews. Can't see it myself, and being able to trace all the airworthiness aspects of a 40+ year old a/c that has sat in a desert for years is nigh on impossible. This is something the MAA or MOD has never done before, and will surely be interesting to watch unfold.:hmm: |
I have seen pictures of 49 on a lo-loader going to Cosford, definately looks Air Defence blue or as near as dulux could get it. Photos: Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1 (801) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net -RP |
small spanner, thanks for that.
|
"they somehow register it as a US a/c, service it as a US a/c but fly it with UK crews"
When the purchase decision was first announced, that is exactly how some of the newspapers described the deal. The implication was that the UK was simply funding three extra airframes for a joint pool. Now I can't remember where I read that, but at the time the impression was clear. These would be UK financed USA aircraft with UK crews - according to those press reports |
Not sure from a governance viewpoint how that would work MM. The MAA have to be responsible for the safety of a UK crew, and therefore under their rule set, it would have to be UK registered. As I said this has not been done before, and I am not sure they really know the implications of any one particular route.
What happens if there was a UK only operation, that the US disagreed with, could we use the capability? etc. etc. |
Can't see it myself, and being able to trace all the airworthiness aspects of a 40+ year old a/c that has sat in a desert for years is nigh on impossible. This is something the MAA or MOD has never done before, and will surely be interesting to watch unfold. This is the nub of the problem. It doesn’t matter that the aircraft are of foreign origin etc. The rules are well known, albeit MoD cancelled the relevant Def Stan a few years ago without bothering to replace it, and no longer have a complete copy (!) Essentially, the aircraft and their equipment are designated Category 5 or 6 (in my opinion 5, but no doubt MoD will try to save money at the expense of safety), and you follow the regs. (A different “Cat 5” to the one most here recognise). The issue here is the audit trail, or more specifically, how to manage without one. The MAA has a real problem here, not of their making. They referred to it at the recent MAA Conference, but the speaker couldn’t elaborate, not least because to do so in any detail would have exposed the lies (or incompetence) of other speakers. That is, the MAA owe their every existence to past senior staffs ruling that the mandated audit trail is not necessary, and making no compensatory provision to manage the inevitable outcome. This was exposed in the 1992 CHART report (Chinook, Puma & Wessex), but the MAA can’t mention this because it would mean acknowledging the Haddon-Cave lie that the problems only commenced in 1998. In this case, they must be seen to do something or it calls their existence into question; it may be this is the case which forces them to acknowledge the truth. Zero 1, you mentioned “change control”, which is one component of the overarching process which delivers a maintained Safety Case. You are correct that it is an area of MoD’s business that is poorly controlled, and hence ripe for overcharging and unnecessary work. The underlying reason is the same as above. The RAF Chief Engineer’s organisation issued an edict 20 odd years ago to rundown this entire area and, since then, MoD has not had a trained cadre of specialists to manage it effectively. (The last team was disbanded in June 1993). And, as I said, the Def Stan has been cancelled without replacement. The MAA has tried to reinvent this wheel, but the part of their new suite of documents that tries to deal it has been written by someone who has not a single clue and has obviously never bothered to speak to anyone who has. As Small Spinner says, it will be interesting...... |
Make it £20.
|
Hmm. Multi million $/£ aircraft surrounded by piles of shyte and not a single piece of racking or component storage in sight.
QA Heaven :E |
Hmm, big filters on doors perhaps....
|
Only senior officers and tossers, be they not the same, will call it airseeker.
|
Err, welcome to the MoD |
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:10. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.