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!