Jump to content

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


Jennings Heilig

Recommended Posts

At the time it was cancelled, the Nimrod AEW radar system was proven to be better than the equivalent AWAC

Said who (who had a vested interest in the Nimrod AEW program)? What I was told by someone who worked on the program was that one of the main reasons it was cancelled was because the airframe twisted too much, causing the fore and aft radars to be impossible to electronically synch together. Putting two radars in one airplane and trying to mesh their displays together sounds like a recipe for disaster, with the result being history...

Edited by Jennings Heilig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Do you mean "proven to be better"? Or was it "proven to be potentially better at some undefined date in the future once zillions more had been spent on it"? And anyway failure to operate effectively within the confines of the originally specified airframe was surely no less a failure to meet the design specification.

I was a fan of persevering with the Nimrod AEW3 at the time but in retrospect feel I, like many others, was taken for a ride by the UK defence industry.

Edited by Seahawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Said who (who had a vested interest in the Nimrod AEW program)? What I was told by someone who worked on the program was that one of the main reasons it was cancelled was because the airframe twisted too much, causing the fore and aft radars to be impossible to electronically synch together. Putting two radars in one airplane and trying to mesh their displays together sounds like a recipe for disaster, with the result being history...

I spent 2 years of my RAF career on the Nimrod AEW, working on the Radar/Avionics equipment, so did I have a vested interest ?? Maybe. But the Marconi System was better, but too much squeezed into too small an airframe, hence my wishful thinking about an Airbus..... While I was training at Marconi, there were artists impressions floating round of the system fitted on a few different airframes, including the Airbus, so someone was thinking that way early on in the project. There was even one with a single scanner fitted on a Herc, with the avionics fitted on pallets in the hold.....

There was only one Radar fitted, not two, with the signal swapping between the front and rear scanners giving 360 degree coverage, after some initial problems, this worked well. Some of the issues with the Nimrod airframe stemmed from cooling the avionics, this was done by feeding the system coolant through a heat exchanger with the fuel system, but as the fuel was used up, the system got hotter... This was one of the reasons why the air-to-air refueling system was fitted and the flight crews trained early on in the project. This highlighted the next problem, a lack of space for a swap out crew. I remember how nice it was finding spare comfy seats and bunks on my first AWAC flight. The main problem I think, however, was a lack of space for any equipment upgrades.

So in conclusion, Radar good, airframe bad.........

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Considering the RAF has had people aboard USAF RC-135s for some time now, I'm betting it probably comes closer to .1% of the time these days. I's a different world than it was during the Cold War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the RAF has had people aboard USAF RC-135s for some time now, I'm betting it probably comes closer to .1% of the time these days. I's a different world than it was during the Cold War.

Exactly, and this is one of the reasons its been done this way.

How long will it be before the RAF has to buy American P8's.....

We all know we will buy them in the end.

Julien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know we will buy them in the end.

That's the trouble: I wish I did know that we'll buy some P-8s in the end. The dazzling revelation to our lords and masters why an island surrounded by water had no need of maritime patrol aircraft has not so far been vouchsafed to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean "proven to be better"? Or was it "proven to be potentially better at some undefined date in the future once zillions more had been spent on it"? And anyway failure to operate effectively within the confines of the originally specified airframe was surely no less a failure to meet the design specification.

I was a fan of persevering with the Nimrod AEW3 at the time but in retrospect feel I, like many others, was taken for a ride by the UK defence industry.

Was it not the RAF changing the coal post all the time ,the system worked to & beyond the original speck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DESPITE all the chit-chat, I will be happy to see these. Unsure if that is the final titles but I have heard that, that is the scheme they are going in which is similar to the OF machines, weather they tart it up with more roundels etc is anyones guess.

...also heard they are being based at Mildenhall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveH, on 29 December 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

How long will it be before the RAF has to buy American P8's.....

We all know we will buy them in the end.

Julien

Why the RAF? They gave up the role to keep more of their fast pointy jets. It stands to reason that the FAA should 'buy' P8's. A large part of the MPA's role is forward sweeping of routes to/from submarine bases in the South West of England and in Scotland.

Just because the things fly in the air doesn't mean that they HAVE to be RAF assets (F35??).

Can anyone mock up a P8 in FAA colours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they being specced with RR engines, or will they come off-the-shelf with the GE ones?

Neither. Those are CFM International F108s (CFM56). The RAF isn't going to pay to put a RR engine on a '135 that has never had a RR engine on it in its 55+ year lifetime. There would be no point in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveH, on 29 December 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

How long will it be before the RAF has to buy American P8's.....

We all know we will buy them in the end.

Julien

Why the RAF? They gave up the role to keep more of their fast pointy jets. It stands to reason that the FAA should 'buy' P8's. A large part of the MPA's role is forward sweeping of routes to/from submarine bases in the South West of England and in Scotland.

Just because the things fly in the air doesn't mean that they HAVE to be RAF assets (F35??).

Can anyone mock up a P8 in FAA colours?

I don't think the RAF gave up the MPA role willingly...... more down to cost cutting than common sense.....

As for the P8's (when they do arrive) being operated by the FAA, if only from an experience and resource point of view, the RAF should get them. When was the last time the FAA operated big aircraft from fixed bases ?? At least the Air Force has the experience of operating big 'planes, and still will have when the P8's do arrive. Mind you, the way things are done here, we will no doubt spend a fortune trying to build our own contender......Hee Hee.........

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RAF isn't going to pay to put a RR engine on a '135 that has never had a RR engine on it in its 55+ year lifetime. There would be no point in it.

Just wondering is all.

We've have been known to have some crazy brainwaves before... Remember we had the most expensive, but also the slowest Phantoms...

For no real reason other than to keep the Andrew from having to buy two different sets of spanners. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the RAF gave up the MPA role willingly...... more down to cost cutting than common sense.....

As for the P8's (when they do arrive) being operated by the FAA, if only from an experience and resource point of view, the RAF should get them. When was the last time the FAA operated big aircraft from fixed bases ?? At least the Air Force has the experience of operating big 'planes, and still will have when the P8's do arrive. Mind you, the way things are done here, we will no doubt spend a fortune trying to build our own contender......Hee Hee.........

Dave

I think it was something along the lines of Tornado or MPA. They chose the good airshow performer. In the dim past, the FAA had many many fixed bases: Lossiemouth, Brawdy, etc. It doesn't really matter what they used to do, they could do it all in the future. The RN USED to be in charge of all aircraft carrier based aircraft - that changed.

I'm sure a couple of 737 sized aircraft could nestle in at Prestwick easily. Close to the sub approaches and they could transit East/ North just as easily for SAR duties.

It's all pie in the sky as we're not going to make the decisions - unless Hammond and Cameron are secret BMers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was something along the lines of Tornado or MPA. They chose the good airshow performer. In the dim past, the FAA had many many fixed bases: Lossiemouth, Brawdy, etc. It doesn't really matter what they used to do, they could do it all in the future. The RN USED to be in charge of all aircraft carrier based aircraft - that changed.

I'm sure a couple of 737 sized aircraft could nestle in at Prestwick easily. Close to the sub approaches and they could transit East/ North just as easily for SAR duties.

It's all pie in the sky as we're not going to make the decisions - unless Hammond and Cameron are secret BMers...

The RN lack current experience in operating big aircraft, they couldn't do it without RAF help. Fact, plain and simple.

Knowing the Navy want to name them after ships - HMS Black Pig anybody?

Wez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was something along the lines of Tornado or MPA. They chose the good airshow performer.

Anything to back up that comment ? Or did that get sent out by some PR guy down in Pompy or Gus ?

When I spoke to guys on the MR4 Team, after the initial shock that we, as an Island race, would be dumb enough to scrap our MRA capability, having spent billions, just as it was good to go, it was suggested there was more than a hint of the fact the Goverment would not risk another aircraft with the name of Nimrod going down losing a lot of guys. Imagine the front page of the Daily Sieg Heil, Ooops, Daily Mail, screaming that another Nimrod with a forty-fifty year old Airframe had gone down again. Journo's would be too lazy to investigate the full story.

As for the FAA running P-8's, I seem to remember reading that within weeks of the chopping of the Nimrods the Navy had sent up a team to look at this. And why not, Navy crewed, contractor serviced/supported jets seems sensible to me. Much as the RAF was superb in Maritime Role, practically every other nation leave it to their Navies.

On the bright side, the day after the MRA4 was chopped, I was able to take control of a shed load of their Radios for use on other MoD projects which had been too dumb to buy their own, happy days....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read with great enthusiasm what every one has said on this topic maybe the real question is why do we now have an raf rn marines and navy, the size of all these elements are now so smaIl .If it was'nt for the esprit de corps maybe we should just have the uk self defence force and centralize all the command and control, after all are we now just the 6th branch of the us military after the national gaurd "only joking on that one" but for an island nation with an economy the size of our's we should have long rang maritime patrol aircraft and don't, even countrys like portugal can maintian this capability I for one lament the loss of the nimrod and the only replacment in sight is american it would have been nice to have somthing with a bit more uk jobs participation.

regards Glenn.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RN lack current experience in operating big aircraft, they couldn't do it without RAF help. Fact, plain and simple.

Knowing the Navy want to name them after ships - HMS Black Pig anybody?

Wez

"Fact, plain and simple". The RAF didn't operate anything especially big until Tristar and then the C-17 and they received help from whoever they received help from at the time. Fair enough. The RN could ask easyjet. They are very experienced at operating aircraft the size of the P8. (As are the USN... Special relationship and all that.) All I'm saying is that to imply that they couldn't do it because they haven't done it before, is flawed.

Names? How about the trend of naming their jets after wind - Tornado, Tempest, Typhoon, Hurricane. The Boeing MR1 Burp? For cruder versions please see Britmodeller Latenight...

PLC - no not backed up by anything other than implication, heresay and whereforall. If you read between the lines, the role (doing great work - no argument with that) for the Navy wasn't what the RAF wanted to do anymore. The heirachy would rather be at the front end of things - like sending Tornados at great cost thousands of miles from Norfolk to bomb Libya.

Was it a great conspiracy or pact between the RN & RAF to tempoarily bomb the role and pick it up again later in a different 'colour', rather than transfer it overnight to the RN (as per the Merlins). I heard that the RN were pretty keen to retain the skills too.

Anywho, back to my retro Speedjack A319.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLC - no not backed up by anything other than implication, heresay and whereforall. If you read between the lines, the role (doing great work - no argument with that) for the Navy wasn't what the RAF wanted to do anymore. The heirachy would rather be at the front end of things - like sending Tornados at great cost thousands of miles from Norfolk to bomb Libya.

Maybe at this point we need to remember that Kinloss Nimrods had been working in hot sandy places for a number of years which does count as the front end of things, allegedly the new Nimrods were less capable in that type of role than the old versions (as when they were designed fighting nasties in the sand pit was not envisaged).

I honestly believe that there is no tinfoil hat conspiracy in the case of the Nimrod. All in Defence know this was possibly the worst decision in the Defence Review, an absolute crazy decision :banghead: . I personally feel that it may have been the Goverment slapping BAe for the ridiculous cost overruns in nearly all of their defence products. Yes, we had paid big money to get the project to were it was, but the real money in a Platform is in the ongoing support costs to be paid over the next thirty to fifty years of Service.

And don't get me started on the we need a Carrier/Harrier to defend the Falklands and cost of Tornado's to bomb Libya story. We would be in real thread drift territory :winkgrin:

Back on thread, not sure why we would move away from various versions of grey to this USAF based scheme. Makes no sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally feel that it may have been the Goverment slapping BAe for the ridiculous cost overruns in nearly all of their defence products.

Yes, that and spite for BAe's having a contract which wouldn't let the new administration weasel out of the future carrier project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I doubt it, I worked COMSEC in the airforce and all the technology is shared between allies. In order to work together you need to use the same technology and equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...