Steering clear of the vital paint job discussion, might I be so bold as to offer that this particular purchase is perhaps the most important RAF procurement since C17?

Milo has a real talent for creating that impression on others for some reason.

How do you zero life ac components?

P T,

Using the "zero life" magic wand, or "zero life" pixie dust obviously.....







I don't know, what do they teach youngsters today! :ugh:

In a similar fashion to this type of thing that has been going on since the Wright Brothers...

Zero-Time Rebuilt Engines - Lycoming

I think it's on the preferences palette in photoshop. As used at the start of this thread.... :8

Leon Jabachjabicz,

If it walks like a duck and qwacks like a duck it must be a turtle.

How many times can you zero-life ac components? Surely there is a limit.

PT

I note for the CFM engine this is an upgrade available at rebuild.

Better fuel economy

Longer time on the wing

More thrust

Twenty years on the wing.

If these statements are true will the RAF go for it on delivery.

Regards

Col

All three are ex-KC-135Rs, the CFM-56 is the current engine for the KC-135R, and the RC-135W for that matter, so why would it be an upgrade option? Can't see them being delivered with old TF-33s somehow...

-RP

I don't believe there is. Most of the aircraft flying over your head right now have:

1. Zero-timed components
2. Re-manufactured compnents
3. Re-conditioned components
4. Second-hand components (inspected and issued a Form 1)

I think, with all the modern non-destructive inspection techniques applied to newly manufactured or re-worked components, it would hard to fault the process. In fact, this kind of inspection has revealed issues way before failure that would have been missed before - thus you could argue that the practise makes flying safer.

Finally, if you took the old KC-135Rs and dismantled them into their metallic components, then melted/smelted them, rolled/milled/cast them and then re-assembled them back into a KC-135R then you could run the risk of introducing manufacturing defects not present before!

I think it is time to trust the re-use of properly re-manufactured and/or inspected components and to stop be-littling it. If we have some significant losses because the system starts to fail, then stop it, but at the moment I can't think of any major losses attributed to this practise.

LJ

safe life vs fail safe
 

Good post jab. Cleary some on here have not studied the subject. I think it was Boeing that introduced safe life designs to reduce weight. These jets are not going to see the cycles of public transport aircraft of the same design. If it ain't broke don't fix it. goodness knows how much deteriation and catastrophic failures have been brought about to components by needless disasembly and reassembly. Clearly there are certain critical components designed down to the bone where it is sensible to dispose of them after a number of cycles in a particular environment with a good margin.

I do hope the lessons from the ageing aicraft programmes have been learned and the risks (hazards) properly identified and catagorised. not so with Nimrod as CH-C discovered.

MSG3 LOGIC

Most modern aircraft are maintained in accordance with the above mentioned maintenance programme. In simple terms most items are maintained on condition. However items that are identified as Structurally or Functionaly Significant maintained to a hard time based on hours, cycles or time.

Most of the structure is maintained using the zonal maintenance concept.

The maintenance programme is written by the operator based on information from the manufacture. This takes in account of how the operator uses the airframe. Inspection and maintenance times can be varied depending on defects etc.

Although the B707 airframe was built before the MSG LOGIC came into being it can be applied to older airframes. The original MSG LOGIC 1 came in with the B747. By using MSG LOGIC heavy maintenance checks on a B747 required a fraction of the man hours compared with the B707 using maintenance based on hard time principles.

I am sure the AIR FORCE have applied MSG LOGIC to the Senrty Fleet and will apply it to the Rivet Joint aircraft. Although both are derived from the B707 the advantage of the MSG system is it's flexibility.

Selecting airframes with enough hours / cycles to cover the planned flying and life of the project would rate higher than trying to "zero life" the airframe.

Applying MSG LOGIC and an ageing aircraft maintance programme will mean the age of the airframe is not a major issue.

In plural will they be Rivet Joints or Rivets Joint?

SGC

SGC wrote:

Airseekers!

(Hat, coat, etc)

S41

turboprop
 

Any logic applied to RAF aircraft will be carried out by a third party. The RAF no longer has the capability to apply MSG3 (RCM in RAF speak) to any aircraft. RCM at RAF Wyton was wound up in October 2011. I believe that this was a big mistake by the MoD bean counters, sanctioned by the RAF, to save a few pounds.

Shortly after the Sentry entered service the RAF handed over responsibility for the Sentry RCM to the Sentry PT who, I believe, passed it on to Grummon.



Aaron.

Turboprop,

Quote:

'The maintenance programme is written by the operator based on information from the manufacture. This takes in account of how the operator uses the airframe. Inspection and maintenance times can be varied depending on defects etc,

I think the problem will be that we will not be able to get the info from the manufacturer. In addition the DA for the ac is BS which must complicate the assurance trail.

AARON and P TONY

Sounds like it is going to be fun or a ball ache which every way you look at it for whoever has to sort out the maintance requirements, but it's a Boeing so no probs.

Correct Info on RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint (Airseeker)
 

There is quite a lot of mis/uninformed information and comments in the previous posts. Thought I would clear the air.
KC-135s converted for the RAF all come from the last batch of KC-135s built for the USAF. All FY 1964 procurements. This is the same year that the RC-135V and U models came from and are the last of the -135s built. Some of the FY 1962 RC-135Ws now have over 50,000 flying hours and are not subject to the same limitations as the KC-135 fleet.

RC-135s are modified and upgraded by L3 corp at their facility at Majors Field, Greenville, TX and are incorporated into the normal USAF RC-135 upgrade and maintenance schedule (not really a "Boeing" aircraft as L3 has responsibiity for both airframe and equipment). Any idea that these are "old" aircraft without any documentation, or that they will be treated any differently than USAF RCs is pure bunk. The RAF will be incorporating them into the routine L3 upgrade cycle in the future. Essentially, except for some minor comm and equipment changes, they will be the same as the USAF Rivet Joints. Back end mission equipment will be to the same standards.

Sharing of, and joint operations of, airborne SIGINT assests between the RAF and USAF has been a longstanding operation, dating back many years. I've even flown on a Nimrod R.1 mission as a USAF Captain during the Cold War.

Paint is called a "White-top" and is vital to cool the aircraft on the ground. I understand L3 looked at an "RAF colour scheme" and ran into trouble with the cooling issue, hence the standard USAF scheme. I would have liked to see something different, but L3 has a great paint facility and system to provide a very hard, long-lasting finish to the aircraft (electric sputter application, I believe). Even the nose radome is a hard glossy finish, which lets the bugs slide off much easier when you are doing pattern work.

Given all the problems with the Nimrod, and the need for more interior room for expanded mission equipment, the Rivet Joint was the only cost effective approach for RAF needs. It will be great to see the 51 Sqn Red Goose on the tail!

One wonders why, given that we are getting some Gucci new tankers, we didn't just buy some A330 airframes and add the relevant systems? A330 has high altitude, long endurance/range, plenty of available conditioning and electrical generation, space, ability to carry plenty of GSE/people when deploying, space, commonality with Voyager etc. Too late now of course, but just a thought.

Roland,

Post 79!

Really? FSTA a PFI? Why did no-one tell me?? :} It's probably easier than doing a Post 80 though. And regardless, it would still have commonality with FSTA, which would have allowed a common support chain and the benefit of a modern aircraft from which to operate.

Biggus, the only aircraft available???? A340 would have been over the top, but an A330 v an RC135?

One wonders how much an Airbus would've cost to spec up to 'RJ standard'. A sight more than incorporating ours with the USAF's, on the known entity that is the Boeing, I should think.

Mate, that is incredibly naive, if I may be so bold? Have a look at the picture below. Just how difficult do you think it would be to cut metal to accept all those antennae and the 2x collosal arrays just in front of the wings? Furthermore, increase the output from the generators to power all the new kit and also increase the cabin conditioning? Then adapt the wiring looms, the conditioning trunking, cut holes in bulkheads and aircraft skin, conduct an EMI survey and then ensure that it is secure from emitting its secrets to snooping recievers? You are looking at years and lots of £££s.

http://www.unmanned.co.uk/wp-content...d-systems..jpg

Unless, of course, you were hoping to deliver a capability in 2020+? Probably late? And definately over budget...

LJ

And interoperability with the USAF is a key issue here, so no point going and barking up the wrong tree again just because it might be made nearer to the UK.

So we are going from the Worlds first jet airliner to the Worlds second jet airliner.

Two words
.
.
.

False Economy.
:D

Why l-e? There's nothing particularly wrong with the E-3, for example, that can be attributed to its heritage. Other than a cramped and claustrophobic flight deck.

Commonality with the USAF's frame & systems is a good thing, in my opinion.

Willard

Loads of room on the RJ flight deck - as there is no Flt Eng! :ok:

LJ

Roland,

How about you actually read post 79!! :ugh::ugh:

Who in the world has an "off the shelf" A330 Sigint aircraft we can purchase? As LJ rightly pointed out, it's a bit more complicated than buying a modern aircraft and filling it full of gucci wiggly stuff. The whole point is to avoid expensive development costs, delays, etc.

You buy a known product, with a known performance, for a known delivery date, at a known price...... get it?

Like it or lump it, this known product comes with a 40+yr old airframe.

With regards to better solutions ( A330, different paint, etc), I am reminded of the American expression "better is the enemy of good enough".

I hope military procurement officials in UK and here have learned that this expression should be at the forefront of any procurement - a lot of money and lost capability would have been saved if it had in the past.

Edit - seems the phrase may not be American , but it is a very useful expression.

To develop an A330 Aircreaker would take years and cost zillions - don't forget that 'mañana' is far too urgent a concept for some and that, sadly, 'Fabricado en España' all too often seems to translate into English as 'Does not work'....:hmm:

Not As Easy As Adding Kit to a New Airframe
 

I continue to be amused by the idea that the C-135 airframe is outdated because it is 40+years old and that it is easy to transfer a comprehensive SIGINT package to any new jet.

All C-135s had new wing skins in the 80s. The RCs have a new, specific glass cockpit different from the KC-135 PACER CRAG, new engines, entirely new mission equipment and systems (cooling, lighting, power, distribution in the backend. These are not 40+ year old airframes in most all respects. Every three years, or so, L3 does an upgrade on each airframe, stripping out most of the wiring, backend equipment. The entire airframe is gone over for corrosion (especially under the toilet area in the aft end) and stress. Voila! A totally upgraded airframe with the latest Block equipment. The RAF Rivet Joints will be Block 11 aircraft, the latest coming off the L3 line. (BTW, all RJs are never all the same Block as they are continually changing the backend capability).

Now to just converting some Airbus version to a SIGINT aircraft. Working on emission control and interference, while building equipment to detect, locate and copy low-power signals is not something you do overnight. Working with the same airframes since the early 70s has a tremendous advantage over shifting to a new aircraft. You really must understand some basics about airborne signals collection in today's RF environment to see how absurdly difficult and costly it is to switch to a new airframe, especially for a contract for three aircraft. (Same applies to moving the Nimrod R.1 mission to a new aircraft).

The RJ is the best at what it does because of the history of long development by a single office and contractor (albeit with different owners over the years). Besides, a switch to Airbus, with the fly-by-wire controls, would be a whole new set of problems inside the backend.

RAF has made the best, most cost-effective and mission effective choice.

Nice bit of fishing Roland...
 

You'll need a bigger boat soon.

Also I was talking to some 51 Sqn guys this week, they are not getting probe and drogue refuelling as per the photoshop above, but boom receptacle only as per USAF fit.

Beats the Nimrod lash-up
 

I flew on an R.1 not too soon after Operation Corporate and was really surprised at the air refueling lash-up. A flexible pipe ran from the overhead, at the end of the probe, down the wall at the back of the cockpit and into the floor. About 8 or 9 inches in diameter (not sure as this guess if from memory from 1982. In my response to how they managed to add them so quickly, the station commander said H.S. had engineered and offered the probe when the Nimrods were first developed but the Air Ministry did not take them up on the accessory. Even then, the R.1s had to add the strake under the aft fuselage to correct a nasty dutch roll tendency with the probe fitted.

Heck, even the a/r receptacle in the Rivet Joint would occasionally leak hydralic fluid. First indication would be a warm fluid dripping down the back of my flight suit. Never had an fuel leaks there.

So how will the RAF attempt to refuel its own aircraft in flight?

I recommended to the ShabbyWood FSTA mob years ago that at least the boom option should be considered. But no, MoD assured them that the RAF would 'never' have a boom-only receiver.

Memo to MoD: "Never say never!".

Beags,

The E-3D has both refuelling systems by default - it was considered too expensive and impractical to remove the Boom receptical from the air-frame. Since then, the USAF boom receptical has been the most used by far. I understand from the flight-deck types tha,t not only is the US system much faster to transfer fuel but, is also simpler in operation. We also found that there were many more Boom tankers in theatre than drogue draggers.

So, although the probe was occassionally used for a spot of heavyweight jousting, I am sure that if it was the case of one vs the other, then the receptical wins hand down - it is also cheaper! After all, we do not want another Nimrod type lash-up on the aircraft do we?

....and in the UK only ops scenario? Or is that now "officially" never going to happen again?

Biggus

I don't know what the exact figures are for RJ, but comparing it to "Dragmaster 9000" E-3D (with a 7T RADAR in the breeze) the RJ should fly for at least 12-14 hours unrefuelled if the internal fuel loads are the same. So for "UK only", where there are no friendly (NATO E-3 component, US, Dutch, Turkish or Israeli) boom tankers about, then that is still a worthwhile capability - worst case estimate on flight time would give, I would imagine, ~1,800nm radius with a 2 hour collect before ~1,800nm return. In my opinion that's pretty damn good.

You're right, in a perfect world we should have a probe - but the world isn't perfect...Hence we have no AAR on Sentinel, Shadow, Puma and Reaper plus no UK means to A-A refuel Chinook, Merlin and now RJ. As an aside, does the UK have anything that can refuel our C-130s either?

LJ :ok:

Tristar is cleared to but you need to toboggan.

Biggus, that was my point!

As for refuelling helicopters, A400M could do that, although I understand that the UK's won't have a tanker option....:hmm:

When Sentinel was being developed, it was originally to have had a probe. But a chap from Boscombe, who was in the know, told me that it barely met its target spec without a probe and adding one would have been the straw on the camel's back.....:\

Many of us have had many, many VC10K AAR sessions with the C-130. Usually boring as hell and the hose would often run in at the slightest nudge of foreplay. But I did once refuel a C-130 in the hold at KKIA during Gulf War 1 as we waited for the cloudbase to lift. He would have lost his mission slot if he'd had to land to refuel, so he took some off us, landed when the cloud liftes, offloaded his cargo and was off again in time to meet his slot. It caused much mirth amongst the air traffickers!