Nimrod R1's replaced by even older aircraft!

[spike7451]

http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=1404&...ection=military

January 14: Flightglobal reports that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is set to announce a long-expected deal to buy three Boeing RC-135 ‘Rivet Joint’ aircraft as replacement for its fleet of Nimrod R1s operated by 51 Squadron at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.

One Nimrod R1 was withdrawn last year, leaving just two in service with the squadron. With the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence of the early withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 fleet by April, maintaining the pair of R1s will become more difficult and costly as Nimrod maintenance contracts are withdrawn.

The report says that the three RC-135s will be modified for UK use by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems in the USA and are expected to be fitted with CFM-56 engines to provide commonality with the RAF’s fleet of E-3D Sentrys. Ironically the RC-135 airframes are expected to be even older than the Nimrods they will replace, the latter being constructed in the early 1970s.

[pigsty]

What's wrong with an RE.8 and an ear trumpet, anyway?

[avro683]

Or Balloons perhaps?

Tony

[daz greenwood]

But is it better than Nimrod?

[AnonymousFY21]

Damn good question Daz. Anyone really know, before the a/c gets slagged off for its age?

richc

[The Velociweiler]

What's wrong with an RE.8 and an ear trumpet, anyway?

For christ's sake, don't give them ideas like that.....

[Graham T]

Damn good question Daz. Anyone really know, before the a/c gets slagged off for its age?

richc

IIRC this idea was mooted last year & their is "method in their madness"; apparently the R1's systems were not entirely & easily compatible with US systems. With the UK & US involved in joint ops in actual hot-war situations, this was becoming an issue. Rivet Joint procurement is seen as a realistic solution. Others will no doubt no more!

[phat trev]

Really disapinting news for The UK Aviation Industry AGAIN!

Yet another British Aircraft that should not go out of service, like the Canberra (which should have been flying well into 2020) it should have been upgraded to fit the US parts, or even better a brand new re-engineered Nimrod Aircraft to meet modern specifications and use new materials.

[cmatthewbacon]

I'd assume that you don't use up a lot of airframe fatigue life in a plane that takes off, flies around in circles for 8 hours at high altitude, and lands again, so I don't see why the AGE of the aircraft is an issue. CFM56s are a lot more modern than Nimrod engines, and hang in big pods under the wings, so I guess re-engining is a relatively simple engineering job compared to plumbing a new, efficient turbofan into a Nimrod's tubes. L-3 was already the chosen contractor for upgrading the Nimrod R1 anyway, so I guess the project team eventually decided that the Nimrod airframe wasn't up to snuff, and decided to put the electronics and software into a better longer-term airframe bet. If anything, it's bad news for the British Defense Electronics industry, but these days aren't they all American or French anyway?

I suspect the "age" of aircraft will become increasingly irrelevant, as engine, computer hardware and software upgrades become more and more the way of the future. There likely to be 787s still flying in 2100, and Eurofighter Typhoons on the front line in 2050...

bestest,

M.

[AnonymousDFB1]

Sad that we don't have anything 'home grown' to offer, but perhaps it is the cheapest option?

Thought I'd add, bang goes a whiff I was thinking up

Edited January 14, 2010 by Mish

[Jabba]

But is it better than Nimrod?

As an ex 51 Sqn engineer. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Julien]

But is it better than Nimrod?

Airframe wise, probably not. For these aircraft though a lot depends on the lectronics inside, I suppose the 707 airframe does have more room inside.

Julien

[AnonymousFO98]

As i understood the issue, it lacks certain surveillance capabilities of the Nimrods

seem to recall some discontent in the RAF about it

[keefr22]

I'd assume that you don't use up a lot of airframe fatigue life in a plane that takes off, flies around in circles for 8 hours at high altitude, and lands again, so I don't see why the AGE of the aircraft is an issue.

And even for aircraft that don't lead quite such sedate lives, it doesn't seem much of an issue either. How old is the youngest B-52 now? (47- it was built in 1962!)

I suppose we should be grateful that the R.A.F. will at least get a replacement aircraft with a broadly similar capability, as they didn't get any real replacement for Canberra.

Keef

[hovis]

this sort of raises a point i make all the time (to myself )

if an aircraft is found after years of useage to be good at something, eg nimrod, canberra or buccaneer, why not build new ones? all the designs are already there and testing has been already done over 40 years, so surely just building a fleet of new ones, with modern materials and technology, wouldn't be all that expensive?? and it creates british jobs.

or is this really a silly idea?

Edited January 14, 2010 by hovis

[keefr22]

this sort of raises a point i make all the time (to myself )

if an aircraft is found after years of useage to be good at something, eg nimrod, canberra or buccaneer, why not build new ones? all the designs are already there and testing has been already done over 40 years, so surely just building a fleet of new ones, with modern materials and technology, wouldn't be all that expensive?? and it creates british jobs.

or is this really a silly idea?

I would guess that they probably destroyed all the tooling, jigs etc after the production line closed.

Keef

[hovis]

I would guess that they probably destroyed all the tooling, jigs etc after the production line closed.

Keef

that's true

BUT..... and stay with me here..... under certain circumstances you'll have to make new tooling and jigs for the new aircraft that comes along, so better and quicker to make the tooling and jigs you already have the plans for, right.......?

[pigsty]

CFM56s are a lot more modern than Nimrod engines, and hang in big pods under the wings, so I guess re-engining is a relatively simple engineering job compared to plumbing a new, efficient turbofan into a Nimrod's tubes.

Lord yes. That's why the KC-135 has got as far as the R version with the CFM engine, and the last few 707s (including the RAF's Sentries) were built from new with it. Compare and contrast with the Nimrod MRA.Mk.4, for which the replacement of the engines led to an enormous job redesigning most of the airframe.

[daz greenwood]

Couldn't they replace the Nimrod R.1 with MR.4's? As I believe the MR.4 the MR.4 has an ELINT role, as well as ASW, but I guess ASW is old hat as there is no Submarine threat now?

[Monty Python]

It's obvious that we are going to buy U.S built aircraft whilst anything built over here gets scrapped. Listened to the news last night and in an interview with Gordon (waste of time)Brown he was talking in dollars not pounds. Another sell out?

[keefr22]

It's obvious that we are going to buy U.S built aircraft whilst anything built over here gets scrapped. Listened to the news last night and in an interview with Gordon (waste of time)Brown he was talking in dollars not pounds. Another sell out?

To be honest, if they did it properly & we became the 51st state then I think personally I'd find that preferable to being swallowed up wholesale by Brussels & the eurocrats as we are now....!

Keef

[Vlamgat9]

In reality the choice is between Rivet Joints or Sweet FA.

Keeping the R.1s in service on a long term basis once the MR.2s are gone is clearly impractical and converting the R.1s to MRA.4 standard would be hideously expensive.

Better to get Rivet Joints and keep the capability as far as possible and then try to get the best out of those airframes.

As a country we have always been prone to gold plating our defence requirements, which results in them becoming unaffordable and/or technically very challening. TRS2 was a victim of this. At the same time we have tried to address the affordability issue by trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes - Nimrod AEW being a classic example (we were pennywise and pound foolish in trying to use the Nimrod airframe for AEW - we wouldnt have had half as many problems had we used a bigger airframe, e.g. VC10 or an Airbus - of course it would have been easier just to buy AWACS in the first place...)

Edited January 15, 2010 by Vlamgat9

[Dave Fleming]

And making an 'R5' from the MRA4 design would mean a redesign of a lot of the aircraf (under floor pannier for example)

And as modellers, we get to add a new type to our RAF collections - now who does a /144th RC-135............

[daz greenwood]

So we can't use MR.4's to do the job the R.1 does?

[keefr22]

And as modellers, we get to add a new type to our RAF collections - now who does a /144th RC-135............

No one unfortunately! A -135 family in 144th is a major gap in the market! Welsh do a KC-135, but the whole lot of them in state of the art injection plastic would be more than welcome!

Keef