Allegedly when Raytheon showed Bombardier where they would be screwing a big agricultural refuelling probe on their sleek, lightweight Bizjet it took several minutes for the Bombardier chaps to stop laughing.

LJ,

Sadly, I think the length of Rwy and RJ performance will mean the duration of flight is very much shorter than your optimistic estimation from most airfields.

Phoney

Granted, Waddo might be a bit short on certain days. But gas and go from Heathrow, Gatwick, Brize or Boscombe and you should be able to haul out maximum gas in most UK weather for a "UK only" op. Don't forget Offutt is only 11,700ft and is nearly 1,100ft up and the RJs, I believe, lift out maximum gas.

I agree, my figures are probably slightly off, but I'd be really surprised if you could not get 12 hours out of an unrefuelled RJ. Cruising at around 370kts GS that would give you ~1800nm out and ~1800nm back with 2hrs on station at endurance and a divert fuel for something close.

These are all fag-packet numbers having flown a similar type with the same engines. I have never flown an RJ and do not know of its LIMFACS, but I doubt I am wildly out with my estimation that even without UK AAR support it is likely to be very useful unrefuelled.

LJ

Sideshow Bob,
we always 'toboganned ' whenever we took on fuel for real even from another C130. I am interested to hear you say that the Tristar is cleared to refuel the Herc. I seem to recall (C 130K) that when it was trialled the props did not appreciate the secondhand air they encountered from the Tristar. Perhaps the props on the 'J' are not so fussy. But it seems so long ago I may not have recollected this exactly.

RJ Ops
 

Key to RJ operations is maximum time on orbit. Cold War ops was 450kts TAS cruise to the operations area, orbit at around 360kts TAS, based on weight, and return. This was with the old TF33s. The F108s provide a bigger capability to take-off with higher weights and burn less fuel in both cruise and orbit.

Our un-refueled missions were built around eight to nine hours with the TF33, flying with start takeoff weights around 285-288,000 lbs on longer runways (Kadena, not Mildenhall). In-flight gross weight was 299,000, which did not fill all the tanks. I believe the F108s will give you about three-four hours above that.

The longer you need to drive to the ops area the more you need an a/r top-off prior to arrival there. Remember, the reason for the mission is max time on the collection orbit.

With both the Sentry and Airseeker with receptacles maybe it is time for the UK to look at leasing dual-capable tankers. Of course, the RAF can always book production slots now for wholly-owned KC-46s.

Airseeker embarrassment
 

Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Mail Online

Item from today daily mail

LJ,

I think the Daily Mail is using the same fag packet as you!

Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Mail Online

I'll be more surprised when they actually start any building work for it at Waddington.

Nice to see the balanced Daily Mail comments under the story :D

ancientaviator62,

Definitely cleared Herc all marks, can't say I ever refuelled one though. As you know, just because it's cleared doesn't mean it's practical.

ancientaviator62,

ATP-56B, Annex YD4 - UK Tanker/ Receiver Compatibility:

Tristar - C130 Hercules C1/3/4/5 (RAF).

SideShow Bob and ORAQ,
thanks for the correction. It must be my memory playing tricks. I have been through my log books and although the Victor, VC10 and Herc appear the Tristar does not. Perhaps this has coloured my memories. I wonder if anyone out there can remember refuelling from a Tristar in the Herc.

Never refueled from a Tristar in Herc, so can't help there.

However, to add to your list, I did refuel from a Vulcan in a Herc. I don't remember "tobogganing" for that. Indeed I don't remember always having to toboggan for another Herc, certainly not at lighter weights.

Back in post 102, NoVANav said, "Essentially, except for some minor comm and equipment changes, they (the RAF RJs) will be the same as the USAF Rivet Joints. Back end mission equipment will be to the same standards".


Now that's fine but I have a recollection that one of the successes of the R1 was that it had different capabilities to the RJ and so could be used to complement each other and fill in for each other's gaps in sensor performance. If the RAFs RJ are now the same as the USAFs then presumably the previous gaps in capability will remainand cannot be filled by complimentary systems??

andyy,


Maybe the answer to your question lies in your own quote?

"Except for some minor comm and equipment changes"

So, the equipment is NOT all the same.

R.1 vs RJ Backend
 

In talking with current ops folks the big difference was that the R.1 is configured more for ELINT collection and has a better analysis section. THe COMINT section is smaller.
The RJ has three ravens for ELINT, up to 15-17 COMINT collection and resporting personnel and a couple of folks for "other" tron collection.

The collection emphasis is tailored to the capabilities, but I believe both aircraft can cover the same spectrum. RJs have a better suite against the "other" targets and a more robust communication suite for getting the info off the jet.
Additionally, the RJ guys in theater always mentioned the R.1 folks and the constant PR campaign they conducted. When the RAF RJ was first announced there was a lot of whinging from the 51 Sqn types about the different equipment emphasis. I would too if I was an ELINT guy going to an aircraft that had fewer positions for my speciality.

Besides, if there is a shortfall in any capability then the next Block upgrade will be developed to address it.

Just read the Daily Mail article - too many errors to mention in this post. Let's just say it is the normal hyperbolic, inaccurate, quote-the-old-retired guy 'bravo sierra' you normally get when the press takes on a complex aviation issue. :ugh:

Re Fuelling
 

I am obviously prepared to be shot down but subject to EMC etc could a probe not be attached to the front of the Rivet Joint that was plumbed into the existing refuelling piping, that seems to have been performing safely for a number of years. It could look a little like the probe on a Nimrod. Not quite sure how many million Boeing or BAE would charge for doing this though...

Minor Comm and Equipment Changes
 

I added this to cover the usual possible changes in communications radios, usually in the cockpit for air traffic and military use.

I am not sure if there are any changes at all in the Airseeker, vice the USAF Rivet Joints, but the UK usually requires some UK-sourced radios when they purchase equipment from abroad. This was one of the big changes in the original RAF Hercules.

Just think of all the changes needed when the UK required Spey-powered Phantoms instead of using J79 engines. Lots of cost and a loss of performance.

We do the same with aircraft the US purchases, including the original Harriers.

Of course it's possible.

The only questions are: is it necessary, would it delay RJ's introduction',and is it affordable*.

*by which, before the circling pedants jerk 'emselves off, could be taken to mean how many mission hours would be lost if omitted yadda, yadda, yadda, etc. ad infinitum.

WW my point was that it was being said that it was a real problem etc that the RJ's could not be refuelled by a UK Tanker, in a way seriously reducing the operational range for a pure UK only mission. If yes a big if the RJ was to deployed to Ascension due to a Falklands situation, could it get there and back safely, using only UK assets? If not it would seem a moderately small project to put a probe on the RJ would seem sensible and in my view if project managed appropriately should not cost the earth or take 10 years...
Just a thought after looking at the video of one refuelling.

Philip

prOOne, maybe, but the quote said "minor" changes, that doesn't imply different capability to me but hey ho.