Mike M Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Seems like someone has realised that Nimrods can be useful! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12707222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Jones Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Seems like someone has realised that Nimrods can be useful!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12707222 Pity they hadn't realised this before scrapping the new MR4's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexwh773 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Great News for a change Bexy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Lime Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Hmmm. Anyone else get the impression that the UKMOD's Rivet Joint programme might be slipping a little bit behind schedule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHIL B Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Perhaps there are backlogs at the scrapyard given recent retirements? Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Hmmm. Anyone else get the impression that the UKMOD's Rivet Joint programme might be slipping a little bit behind schedule? Unlikely, it's not due to enter service until 2013 - much more likely the situation in Libya and the mid-east has shown a requirement for SIGINT that the current USAF RC fleet can't meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 OH! we have a use for our aircraft, our gov DOES no what its doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Moon Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Unlikely, it's not due to enter service until 2013 - much more likely the situation in Libya and the mid-east has shown a requirement for SIGINT that the current USAF RC fleet can't meet. I think it is more to do with the training schedule for 51 Squadron. The first crews have started training on the Rivet Joint fleet in the US and will then help crew the American fleet on joint ops including Afghanistan from the summer. This is in preparation for the first UK Rivet Joint to enter service in 2014 with the last one due in 2018. The Nimrods are knackered and have been for sometime. I realise it is a very emotive subject but I believe the decision to scrap the MRA4 was the right one and it was a pity somebody didn't have the balls to do it a long time ago. The loss of our maritime patrol capability however is a different matter. Our Rivet Joints will be supported as part of a US/UK fleet including a 4 year refurbishment cycle. We should have been going in this direction years ago as we no longer have the critical mass to develop and support our own bespoke solutions. Anyway, I am off to cut the wings off my 1/72 Airfix Nimrod. Bye for now Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smeds Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I think it is more to do with the training schedule for 51 Squadron. The first crews have started training on the Rivet Joint fleet in the US and will then help crew the American fleet on joint ops including Afghanistan from the summer. This is in preparation for the first UK Rivet Joint to enter service in 2014 with the last one due in 2018.The Nimrods are knackered and have been for sometime. I realise it is a very emotive subject but I believe the decision to scrap the MRA4 was the right one and it was a pity somebody didn't have the balls to do it a long time ago. The loss of our maritime patrol capability however is a different matter. Our Rivet Joints will be supported as part of a US/UK fleet including a 4 year refurbishment cycle. We should have been going in this direction years ago as we no longer have the critical mass to develop and support our own bespoke solutions. Anyway, I am off to cut the wings off my 1/72 Airfix Nimrod. Bye for now Howard Hmmm, The According to Flypast, the RC-135W's are 7 years older than the Nimrods they are to replace and have been modified/converted several times during their service. That makes them more knackered than the Nimrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy wood Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 mmmm...not sure how the mk 4s could be considered knackered. They would have been practically brand new. I think Libya has something to do with this change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbuna Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Good news....but still only the crumbs off the table (3 month reprieve). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Unlikely, it's not due to enter service until 2013 - much more likely the situation in Libya and the mid-east has shown a requirement for SIGINT that the current USAF RC fleet can't meet. Might be for the fact that the US seem to be dragging on the Lybian thing and Europe ie UK & France seem very much more proactive so we can use our assests without asking for US help. Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armadillos Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 mmmm...not sure how the mk 4s could be considered knackered. They would have been practically brand new. I think Libya has something to do with this change The MRA4`s were "composite" airframes as the fuselage was an old MR2 fuselage and i always thought that to be honest the MRA4 fleet would of only had about 15 years life in her till fatigue issues would have arisen in the fuselages which would have been potentially pushing 60 years old by that point. As for the Nimrod R.1 reprieve its a funny one indeed, whilst its great that she`ll fly abit longer it does highlight that the loss would leave a capability gap and even when the RC`s are recieve the gap will still be there as i don`t think they`ll have the same fit as the Nimrod R.1, more like a standard RC fit which will mean we still won`t have a SIGINT capability! I also think that replacing a 40 year old airframe with a 50 year old airframe which has literally been to the moon and back hours wise is insane and surely only a stop gap solution? These aircraft potentially won`t forfil the SIGINT role for which they`re meant to be a replacement and secondly won`t have much life left in them? Personally for the billions that RC`s are costing us i think we should have gone down the Boeing Wedgetail line with a handful of such beasties purchased and fitted out for our requirements, it would make more sense as spares would be easily obtainable and cheap as well as starting with a brand new airframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The Nimrods are knackered and have been for sometime. I realise it is a very emotive subject but I believe the decision to scrap the MRA4 was the right one and it was a pity somebody didn't have the balls to do it a long time ago. The loss of our maritime patrol capability however is a different matter. Purely out of interest, then, what should we have done to retain maritime capability without the Nimrod MRA.Mk.4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armadillos Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I`d of suggested new build Nimrods rather than the troublesome drawn out and potentially short lifed upgrade that MRA4 was to MR2 fuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Purely out of interest, then, what should we have done to retain maritime capability without the Nimrod MRA.Mk.4? Wait a few years and we'll order the P-8? As the USN are going to buy lots, we could piggy-back onto their order like the C-17 deal. By that time new type glitches could have been ironed out. .......or does this smack of forward thinking? MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Young Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Purely out of interest, then, what should we have done to retain maritime capability without the Nimrod MRA.Mk.4? There must be a few Shackletons we can drag out of some museums that'll do!! Cheers, Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Moon Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 mmmm...not sure how the mk 4s could be considered knackered. They would have been practically brand new. I think Libya has something to do with this change They have been trying to put those things together for 15 years and still had major faults which prevented the RAF from taking delivery of the first one last year. This is an airframe which still has the fundamental design flaw that brought one down in Afghanistan. The MRA4`s were "composite" airframes as the fuselage was an old MR2 fuselage and i always thought that to be honest the MRA4 fleet would of only had about 15 years life in her till fatigue issues would have arisen in the fuselages which would have been potentially pushing 60 years old by that point.As for the Nimrod R.1 reprieve its a funny one indeed, whilst its great that she`ll fly abit longer it does highlight that the loss would leave a capability gap and even when the RC`s are recieve the gap will still be there as i don`t think they`ll have the same fit as the Nimrod R.1, more like a standard RC fit which will mean we still won`t have a SIGINT capability! I also think that replacing a 40 year old airframe with a 50 year old airframe which has literally been to the moon and back hours wise is insane and surely only a stop gap solution? These aircraft potentially won`t forfil the SIGINT role for which they`re meant to be a replacement and secondly won`t have much life left in them? Personally for the billions that RC`s are costing us i think we should have gone down the Boeing Wedgetail line with a handful of such beasties purchased and fitted out for our requirements, it would make more sense as spares would be easily obtainable and cheap as well as starting with a brand new airframe. I believe the airframes were KC135s with the first going through the conversion programme now. They will be zero houred when delivered and UK involvement in the programme will run till 2025 with options to extend. Under the current agreement the aircraft will return to the lead contractor every 4 years for complete refurbishment and upgrade. Being part of a larger programme has got to be more effective than trying to introduce a new type and sustain it ourselves. I am not quite sure what a standard RC fit is. The Rivet Joint is designed to operate in the SIGINT role although I will concede there are concerns it is not as capable as R1 Purely out of interest, then, what should we have done to retain maritime capability without the Nimrod MRA.Mk.4? I honestly don't know, but basing a design on a refurbished fuselage was a mistake in my opinion. The legacy of the 2007 Kandahar crash probably did more for its demise than anything else. Who would want to sign off the MRA4 as fit for service with that shadow hanging over their heads. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up acquiring some P8s in the future, probably in a similar way to Rivet Joint with pooled training and support functions. It is a bitter pill to swallow but the days of us developing our own solutions to many of our defence requirements are long gone in my opinion. When you are looking at only operating handfuls of a particular type, there aren't many aircraft to spread the development cost which makes them horrifically expensive. All of this is just my opinion of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armadillos Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 These KC/RC`s won`t be zero houred and thats the problem with them. Yes they will be upgraded and have new engines etc but it is still a 50 year old airframe which carries with it the associated potential fatigue issues and of course limited life due to the amount of life they`ve already used. The easiest way to explain this is you can bend a piece of metal many times and repaint it at various points through time and call it up graded but it can still only be bent say 100 times before it becomes too brittel and snaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 These KC/RC`s won`t be zero houred and thats the problem with them.Yes they will be upgraded and have new engines etc but it is still a 50 year old airframe which carries with it the associated potential fatigue issues and of course limited life due to the amount of life they`ve already used. The easiest way to explain this is you can bend a piece of metal many times and repaint it at various points through time and call it up graded but it can still only be bent say 100 times before it becomes too brittel and snaps. Agreed. I wish the characters who thought reusing old MR2 fuselages on new MR4 airframes had done some basic thinking like that! Why keep the relatively cheap fusleage tube when it's old and well used anyway? Utterly crazy lack of basic engineering thinking right from the start, IMO. John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Moon Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 These KC/RC`s won`t be zero houred and thats the problem with them.Yes they will be upgraded and have new engines etc but it is still a 50 year old airframe which carries with it the associated potential fatigue issues and of course limited life due to the amount of life they`ve already used. The easiest way to explain this is you can bend a piece of metal many times and repaint it at various points through time and call it up graded but it can still only be bent say 100 times before it becomes too brittel and snaps. The ability to upgrade relates to the mission fit I believe and is not a reference to the airframe which will be refurbished every 4 years. I am not aware of the E3D sentry fleet having any problems neither do I hear any wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of Nimrod AEW3 which was supposed to offer superior capabilities. New fuselages would have been the sensible option rather than trying to align CAD/CAM manufactured wings with coachbuilt tubes. H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armadillos Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The E-3D fleet won`t have any problems because they`re relatively new having been built in 1989-90 so they`re only 20 years old as compared to these KC`s that are being converted for us. Not sure if you`ve looked into the jets histories but the three KC`s we`re getting were built as KC-135A`s in about 1964 from memory and yes have had the upgrades such as new/re-engined and the new tail planes and fins but the fuselages and wings are still going to be the limiting factor as to their useful life. As a result they`re hardly a suitable replacement to Nimrod R1s which were largely built in 1970, as much as they return to manufacturer we would have been far more sensible in the long investing in a brand new aircraft as i said such as the Boeing Wedgetail or a SIGINT fitted equivalent of this airframe. The Australians, Turks and i think Korea all have this and it seems to me to be a sensible, realistic, practical and long lifed solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Moon Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Yes you are right, they were built in 1964, I was forgetting the Sentry is based on a 707. We could go on all day like this and probably cure quite a few insomnia cases in the process . The point I was trying to make is that Rivet Joint aquisition costs include a 4 yearly refurbishment programme keeping the airframes airworthy. There probably are better options for an alternative but these began to disappear quite quickly as the debate for a replacement rolled along and the 3,(or 2 since last year) R1s continued to clock up the hours. 51 Squadron's 'alliance' with 343rd Reconnaissance Squadron, USAF, allows us to use their aircraft for RAF or USAF/RAF crewed missions from later this summer on the understanding that we will reciprocate when ours come into service. This helps to preserve our capability in the SIGINT/ELINT role by continuing to work with our strongest ally. My final point would be that the Rivet Joint decision was taken about 3 years ago and has nothing to do with the cancellation of the MRA4. It is also worth remembering we employ various SIGINT/ELINT platforms and aren't totally reliant on one aircraft type. That's me off my soapbox now as I MUST finish my bloody packing H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worm Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) I have heard that one of the Nimrods is going to the States after its Middle East deployment as the Americans can't understand how we got so much stuff in it because it won't fit in the RC-135. Edited March 11, 2011 by worm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) I have heard that one of the Nimrods is going to the States after its Middle East deployment as the Americans can't understand how we got so much stuff in it because it won't fit in the RC-135. R1 fit was by Tardis (defense) Ltd I do agree we should have got P-8's would have been cheaper in the long run and we would have something! Julien Edited March 11, 2011 by Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now