War weary, maybe, but stored in a desert gathering dust for 30 years as previously suggested?, no... :)

-RP

War weary? The 64 prefix in their registration means they were delivered in 1964. Older than the VC10 which are being scrapped right now. Just weary!

RAF RC-135 conversions
 

Please look up some accurate facts, guys.

The three KCs being converted are in the last ten KC-135 built and NONE have been "stored" in the desert. The last KC is 64-14840.
The very last -135s are all RCs:
RC-135V: 64-14841 to14846 and 14848
RC-135U: 64-14847 and 14849.
14849 is the last -135 of any model.
All the RCs were originally RC-135Cs when initially built and began service flying around 1967, replacing the RB-47Hs in the SIGINT reconnaissance role.

The KC-135s have considerably less airframe hours than many RC-135s. The three RAF aircraft will be the low-time members of the Rivet Joint fleet as some of the RC-135Ws now have over 50,000 total airframe hours. (The -Ws were originally RC-135Ms and built up tremendous hours during the Vietnam war flying 18-hr COMBAT APPLE missions off the N Vietnam coast.)

None of this has anything to do with the viability of the airframe as modifications by Boeing (wing re-skins in the '70s and '80s) and L-3 (previously E-Systems and Raytheon) at Greenville have kept these jets in very good condition. Age of a modern airframe means very little, unless there is an original flaw which finally manifests itself. Given the size of the -135 fleet any such issue has surfaced already, unlike the Nimrod problems (given the small fleet and added systems problems - A/R).

If anything, the Nimrods displayed considerably more issues due to age of design and airframe than has the -135.

Dragartist,

I think you can now get Astral Box as an iPhone app now!

Cargo Door Operates As Usual
 

Any search for RC-135 photos will probably show the fuselage cargo door opens as usual. The cheek fairing is attached to the door itself. There is a solid panel insert "weather door" with an approx. 36in sliding door, through which you enter.

If equipment needs to be removed/installed then the weather door panel can be removed.

The crew entry door is used for last minute entry, especially if the engines are running. Kept open, with ladder installed, until just prior to taxi.

The 64 prefix means the aircraft was ordered that year; delivery year could be very different.

Given the rate at which '135s rolled off the production line the delivery year was probably not that different at all!

Astral box app
 

Thanks JIV,
I found the StarWindow app for my Galaxy III. It's almost as good as the real thing! Don't let Mr Snowden know though will you.

NoVaNav,
Thanks for the gen on the doors - had I gone to Greenville I would have known.

Drag

Does it matter when the airframes were built? What we've got is what we've got; the best that is available within the budget constraints of the MOD. The RC-135V/W has been flying for a number of years and is the de facto "Gold Standard" for manned airborne SIGINT, what else should the RAF have aspired to in the current financial environment?
The platform is far more capable than the R1 ever was, don't believe all the hype about the RJ v R1. We're lucky to have been included in the RJ club and the UK will continue to gain from the joint UK/US investment until manned SIGINT is overtaken by events.

Daf

Does it matter when the airframes were built? What we've got is what we've got; the best that is available within the budget constraints of the MOD. The Nimrod MR2 has been flying for a number of years and is the de facto "Gold Standard" for manned airborne reconnaissance, what else should the RAF have aspired to in the current financial environment?

The platform is far more capable than the P-3 ever was, don't believe all the hype about Nimrod v P-3. We're lucky to have been included in the Nimrod club...

And should you ever get a replacement, you'll be most welcome back into the P3 Club.

The crew entry door is also a parachute exit, but of course the RAF crews will not be able to use it as such because they will not be issued parachutes (is this a WW1 commemorative thing?).

If there were to be an accident where the crew are lost, but if parachutes had been available could have survived, how many senior officers will be prosecuted?

NB provision of parachutes does not guarantee survival but its better than riding the wreckage down and dying in the normal manner.

Parachutes - Not Carried
 

I have some experience with -135s and parachutes.
As a new 2Lt in KC-135s we were required to wear parachutes during air refueling operations (at least when the Standardization check folks were onboard http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif). Four months into my ops flying career we were refueling F-4Cs flown by new fighter pilot students. One young 1Lt managed to get himself into a PIO under our boom and hit us in the aft left fuselage, removing almost all the boom, putting a crease in the left stabilizer and tearing up the leading edge of the left elevator. We pitched over to -1.5G but the autopilot stayed connected (not supposed to with that pitchover) and pulled us back to straight and level. Although the experienced boom operator tried to bail out the aft hatch, we were still pressurized and he could not open the hatch. Resulted in a landing at Edwards with no hydraulics and manually cranking down the gear and flaps. And some awards and decorations for a safe recovery. The F-4 student had previous problems with fighter upgrade and ended up as a co-pilot of a B-52.

As a result of the accident investigation it was determined that ALL previous C-135 accidents where bailout was possible were successfully recovered. ALL previous C-135 accidents that involved a catastrophic collision or failure resulted in NO successful bailouts. After that, SAC removed the requirement for wearing parachutes during operations and they were carried only on the aircraft sitting on nuclear alert duty.

We carried parachutes on the RC-135 long past the SAC KC requirement but a review of all operations determined that the weight of 34 chutes, required periodic inspections, and availability of only two hatches (fore and aft) for bailout would not result in successful bailouts except under conditions that would allow the aircraft to be recovered. The chutes were recovered. The EP-3E collision in April 2001 also showed that even a fairly severe collision could be successfully recovered.

Hence, no parachutes are carried on RC-135s and haven't been carried for many years.

Seems odd that this would be raised on a site with lots of former RAF types as the V-bombers were woefully deficient in having ejection seats only for the pilots, especially as a retired navigator. I had one flight in the Vulcan as a college student/journalist and was not comfortable with the lack of a seat during the low-level portion. I was not bothered by the lack of a parachute during my one flight in a Nimrod R.1.

The Airseeker is due soon - I read according to this article

UK Rivet Joints - will the RAF get a new 'Damien'? - The DEW Line

Any idea if it's actually going to arrive soon or not?

Our first airframe is ready at Greenville.

Hopefully MoD will accept it soon and it will be flown to its new home.

In some current mil aviation news...
 

It seems the MAA is getting cold feet wrt RJ....

Rivet Joint Airworthiness Questioned by UK MAA | Aviation International News

So will the first aircraft that is 'ready' be sat on the ground until next spring waiting on MAA clearance?

I was at an unclassified presentation the other day that said Airseeker was due to go out of service in 2025. Is this correct, or is it just a planning figure with an inevitable life extension programme to follow? 11 years worth of capability seems a poor return from 6 years of planning and preparation.

That is of course if it has received the clearance to fly by then!

Anyone in the know care to comment?

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk...84/0684_ii.pdf

Seems to suggest that it is resources for through-life support that has been approved until March '25.

One hopes that capability beyond '25 will be subject to ongoing assessment.

Willard -

That AIN piece states that the USAF are intending to operate RJs to 2042, so I would expect (hope?) that the RAF will do the same.

S41

Indeed, my point was that support has only, thus far, been approved until '25. Logic would suggest that keeping our RJs in parallel with the USAF's beyond that date would be sensible from economic and capability points of view.