First pics of the RAF's first RC-135W Rivet Joint

[Max Headroom]

Aren't the "ZZ's" the leased aircraft? (PFI) I know the C-17's are in that range, even though we subsequently bought them, as are the King Airs and the A330 Voyagers.

That's what I thought, but as far as I know we are buying the 135's outright. Otherwise they should be in the ZR*** block.

Trevor

[Scarlet]

Precisely. You don't completely repaint and airplane just to turn around and repaint it again months later for giggles.

You are talking about the MOD here, they will probably have half a dozen re-paints before they enter service not to mention realising they have forgotten to spec refuel probes so we will probably see redundant VC10 probes being bought back from the scrap man and bolted onto the fuselage.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Scarlet

[Hawkkeeper]

Aren't the "ZZ's" the leased aircraft? (PFI) I know the C-17's are in that range, even though we subsequently bought them, as are the King Airs and the A330 Voyagers.

Nope genuine UK serials, all the C17 are now MOD owned now

[Col.]

Does anyone know what the "Airborne Capability Extension System" is? Maybe some sort of aerial refueling system?

If it is someone in an office somewhere needs a good slap and another job, preferably in Burgerking or the suchlike, there was me thinking In-flight Refueling Probe was a perfectly good description but nooo it needs a better and more modern title.

[Slater]

I guess they liked the acronym: ACES

[Rob P]

I know the C-17's are in that range, even though we subsequently bought them

Nope genuine UK serials, all the C17 are now MOD owned now

Yep, what I said. But they started off leased.

[Col.]

I guess they liked the acronym: ACES

I thought that's what the fighter jocks sat on?

[pte1643]

Only if the proven system meets your military needs. Of course, we don't know what the UK intel community needs are and I think it would be naive to believe that our needs were the same as those of the Americans.

I didn't mean that our needs were the same as the Americans, or that we should be using the same equipment, although I expect some parts of it will most likely be "cross compatible".

Skippybing made an observation that it becomes more and more difficult to add extra systems if the airframe is, to a certain extent, unique.

I merely commented that we (the Brit's) found this when trying to fully develop the AEW Nimrod, and hence eventually went with the E3...

Because (even with British influence in some of the equipment) it is a proven system that importantly fits the airframe you're trying to install it into.

Similar to the Rivet Joint / Airseeker, or whatever it's eventually going to be called.

[Jennings Heilig]

Only if the proven system meets your military needs. Of course, we don't know what the UK intel community needs are and I think it would be naive to believe that our needs were the same as those of the Americans.

Having worked in the signals intelligence community, and supported USAF, USN, and RAF assets, I can assure you that in about 99% of cases, the needs are identical. An electromagnetic signal is an electromagnetic signal is an electromagnetic signal. Whose antenna it crosses is of no consequence to it.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Jennings Heilig

[Slater]

From what little I know about EW aircraft, the expensive parts are the onboard electronics and associated fancy bits. The airframe itself (especially these older ones) is probably not prohibitively expensive.

[dambuster]

Having worked in the signals intelligence community, and supported USAF, USN, and RAF assets, I can assure you that in about 99% of cases, the needs are identical. An electromagnetic signal is an electromagnetic signal is an electromagnetic signal. Whose antenna it crosses is of no consequence to it.

Yes, but the way you process the signal to turn it into something useful is the important part, as you will know. So there will be times when the UK develops different techniques and therefore wishes to use it's own equipment. And this might also require different antenna configurations and locations. That 1% difference could be crucial in times of conflict.

Peter

[cardiff guy]

has the european aircraft industry given up on special mission aircraft why could'nt they bundle the electronic gubbins into an airbus airframe to that point why not make an anti submarine/patrol aircraft out of one of the airbus airframes aew for that matter.

imagine an airbus with a weapons pannier like the nimrod that would be pretty cool and of course give the rest of the free world an option other than american.

regards Glenn.....

[Max Headroom]

Glenn

Last time that happened was with the Breguet Atlantique in a NATO contest and Britain, the USA and Norway went off and did their own thing.

Time, money, national egos and more money would be spent to get something the same or slightly better and with a limited market is it worth it?

Trevor

Edited December 28, 2012 by Max Headroom

[Dave Fleming]

There appears to be little logic in the UK serials system these days - ZZ is used for leased aircraft (Avengers, Voyagers), aircraft purchased under UORs (Shadows, Reapers) and aircraft purchased under normal contracts (RC135s, Wildcats).

At the same time, you have aircraft under UOR added to spaces in existing serials 'near' similar types (BAe 146s), F-35s and A400s in 'ZM' (The former to map Lightning serials) helicopters given 'ZR' serials - except for the new Chinook batch, which has been placed in the 'normal' ZK series!

[cardiff guy]

you are of course very right but in the uk we spent countless millions trying to put computer designed parts into good old fashioned slide rule designed nimrods they never fitted and when all the countless glitches were ironed out we cancelled it .

in hind sight may have been cheaper putting it all into an airbus airframe and who knows we may of sold some else where.

regards Glenn.....

[Hawkkeeper]

There appears to be little logic in the UK serials system these days - ZZ is used for leased aircraft (Avengers, Voyagers), aircraft purchased under UORs (Shadows, Reapers) and aircraft purchased under normal contracts (RC135s, Wildcats).

At the same time, you have aircraft under UOR added to spaces in existing serials 'near' similar types (BAe 146s), F-35s and A400s in 'ZM' (The former to map Lightning serials) helicopters given 'ZR' serials - except for the new Chinook batch, which has been placed in the 'normal' ZK series!

if you note the A400 transport reserved serials numbers start with ZM400, so someone in the issue office has given it a bit of thought,

[bentwaters81tfw]

From the Hague Rules on Aerial Warfare.

ARTICLE III

A military aircraft shall bear an external mark indicating its nation; and military character.

ARTICLE IV

A public non-military aircraft employed for customs or police purposes shall carry papers evidencing the fact that it is exclusively employed in the public service. Such an aircraft shall bear an external mark indicating its nationality and its public non-military character.

ARTICLE V

Public non-military aircraft other than those employed for customs or police purposes shall in time of war bear the same external marks, and for the purposes of these rules shall be treated on the same footing, as private aircraft.

ARTICLE VI

Aircraft not comprised in Articles III and IV and deemed to be private aircraft shall carry such papers and bear such external marks as are required by the rules in force in their own country. These marks must indicate their nationality and character.

ARTICLE VII

The external marks required by the above articles shall be so affixed that they cannot be altered in flight. They shall be as large as is practicable and shall be visible from above, from below and from each side

[SkippyBing]

Yes, but the way you process the signal to turn it into something useful is the important part, as you will know. So there will be times when the UK develops different techniques and therefore wishes to use it's own equipment. And this might also require different antenna configurations and locations. That 1% difference could be crucial in times of conflict.

Peter

The question is can you afford the different antenna configuration for that 1% difference, it's not just a case of sticking them on, post Haddon-Cave there'll need to be a full engineering risk assessment before the duty holder will even think of signing it off. The cost of that may well be enough to stop most changes happening to such a small fleet of aircraft.

[dambuster]

The question is can you afford the different antenna configuration for that 1% difference, it's not just a case of sticking them on, post Haddon-Cave there'll need to be a full engineering risk assessment before the duty holder will even think of signing it off. The cost of that may well be enough to stop most changes happening to such a small fleet of aircraft.

There would always have been a need for a full-engineering assessment - Haddon-Cave didn't change that. And I would expect that the total cost of ownership budgeted for by the MoD would include funds for upgrades etc through the life of the program. And it matters not whether the change originates from a US requirement or UK requirement, the MoD is still duty bound to do a full independent engineering assessment.

[Duncan B]

Precisely. You don't completely repaint and airplane just to turn around and repaint it again months later for giggles.

Or build aircraft carriers to immediately mothball, airbase upgrades in preparation for the next generation aircraft only to announce that the base will close, upgrades to the Harrier fleet to sell them off for the equivalent cost of one F35. No, our Government would never waste our tax money!

Duncan B

[SkippyBing]

There would always have been a need for a full-engineering assessment - Haddon-Cave didn't change that.

There would have been a need yes, as to whether it happened is another question*, now named individuals, i.e. CAS, are responsible for taking on risk that shouldn't happen.

And it matters not whether the change originates from a US requirement or UK requirement, the MoD is still duty bound to do a full independent engineering assessment.

Yes, but MoD aren't required to make a change the US make once the aircraft is in service, if they can't afford to carry out a full assessment then it's unlikely the senior duty holder will sign off on it happening.

*As an example the Tornado GR.4 Mode 4 IFF fit did not have a full engineering assessment made and it could give false indications of it's serviceability. This did get someone killed.

[Nigel Bunker]

Well the paint scheme may be correct or spurious. All I know is that I will be waiting until they are flying out of their UK base before i start applying Milliput to an AMT KC-135R kit and then painting it..

[Dave Fleming]

if you note the A400 transport reserved serials numbers start with ZM400, so someone in the issue office has given it a bit of thought,

I think the problem is someone gives some of it too much thought, which results in the current mish mash!

[kspriss]

why is our very own Mish thinking hard about smashing up potatoes?

....getting my

[DaveH]

At the time it was cancelled, the Nimrod AEW radar system was proven to be better than the equivalent AWAC, but the airframe was the limiting factor. Shame they never used an Airbus........, if they had, I'm sure they would be in use now, with 51 Sqdn using a modified 'special' version, along with an Airbus based MPA, to go along with the soon to be delivered Tankers.... How long will it be before the RAF has to buy American P8's.....

Dave