Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: chrisgixer on 16 August 2014, 16:39:34
-
Google reveals odd looking surveillance aircraft. Ok, but why call it a rivet joint aircraft? :-\
Isn't that a bit like calling it, a jet engined aircraft? Or, an aircraft with wings?
-
I believe its just the code name the yanks gave to there airborne elint aircraft and it a sort of stuck
-
This helps explain it... sort of ::)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-135
Basically its a fleet of 1964 Boeing 707 derivatives, that have been developed to meet the RAFs current surveillance requirements. Expected to be in service until 2045, when they will be 81 years old :o
-
CaMoron and his bean counters scrapped the Nimrods for this role and much more and had them cut up out of spite, just as they were entering service after years of problems and cost overruns, so several billion were written off. Then surprise, surprise, we need their capabilities, so we spend even more money on the inferior (older and not as capable electronic suite) where they are an invaluable asset which any modern military force must have. >:( >:( >:( >:( It is this sort of political interference and stupidity, that makes our defence procurement budget such bad value. The money wasted here would have paid for 2 of the 6 planned but cancelled type 45 destroyers, which is why the RN is down to 23 major warships. >:( >:( >:( >:(
At some point we are going to also have an AWACS crisis as they are using up their airframe flying hours life much faster than was anticipated due to Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas of concern.
-
Google reveals odd looking surveillance aircraft. Ok, but why call it a rivet joint aircraft? :-\
Isn't that a bit like calling it, a jet engined aircraft? Or, an aircraft with wings?
Someone mentioned Debs in another thread, this would be right up her street....... :y :y
-
CaMoron and his bean counters scrapped the Nimrods for this role and much more and had them cut up out of spite, just as they were entering service after years of problems and cost overruns, so several billion were written off. Then surprise, surprise, we need their capabilities, so we spend even more money on the inferior (older and not as capable electronic suite) where they are an invaluable asset which any modern military force must have. >:( >:( >:( >:( It is this sort of political interference and stupidity, that makes our defence procurement budget such bad value. The money wasted here would have paid for 2 of the 6 planned but cancelled type 45 destroyers, which is why the RN is down to 23 major warships. >:( >:( >:( >:(
At some point we are going to also have an AWACS crisis as they are using up their airframe flying hours life much faster than was anticipated due to Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas of concern.
Didn't read the Wikipedia article then Rods ::)
Commercially, the 707 is the reason why the RAF got Comets as the basis of the Nimrod in the first place. BOAC couldn't give them away, same applies to the VC10. Neither had the range, speed or reliability of the 707 airframe, it taking years and millions of pounds of military development to make them very good at what they did.
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/nim%20aew.htm
Several very informative reasons why the latest Nimrod got binned...
http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/nimrod-mr4-was-not-airworthy.157017/
The same applies to the C135 family, the key difference being that it was a far superior airframe to begin with, and is therefore a much better long term prospect than the Nimrod ever could be...
Also worth noting that even during the second world war, the range of aircraft was negligible, ships where therefore a necessity for getting equipment from A to B. Now, if you need to get boots on the ground sharpish, a handful of C17s will get troops and their gear into theatre before HMS Ocean has left the Solent.
-
CaMoron and his bean counters scrapped the Nimrods for this role and much more and had them cut up out of spite, just as they were entering service after years of problems and cost overruns, so several billion were written off. Then surprise, surprise, we need their capabilities, so we spend even more money on the inferior (older and not as capable electronic suite) where they are an invaluable asset which any modern military force must have. >:( >:( >:( >:( It is this sort of political interference and stupidity, that makes our defence procurement budget such bad value. The money wasted here would have paid for 2 of the 6 planned but cancelled type 45 destroyers, which is why the RN is down to 23 major warships. >:( >:( >:( >:(
At some point we are going to also have an AWACS crisis as they are using up their airframe flying hours life much faster than was anticipated due to Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas of concern.
So the fact it was basically a 1950s airframe that with the billions spent was still not ready for service without further millions/billions/time being committed, with a superior American option available, had nothing to do with the decision? It was all down to childish "spite" then? ??? ???
We have discussed this subject so many times on the forum. The fact is the Nimrod has gone and no longer wasting public money when we cannot afford to. :y
-
Not ignoring the fact that the MR4A never entered service, and only one ever flew either... ::)
-
Nimrod's airframes was knackered Rod but the mission systems and the lads who used them where by far the best out there :)
As for our new toy, all i'll say on that is that is the Rivet Joint and the Nimrod R1's do / did a very similar job.
Rivet Joint can do a few things that the R1's couldn't do and the R1 could do some things the yank plane could never dream off ;)
I believe the official secrets act paperwork lasts forever so i'll say no more on the R1 :-X :-X :-X
-
I'm guessing extreme low level capability over water and an inability to drop torpedoes being two minor omissions :-\
I should add that rather than a deficiency of the RC135, the US have carrier based assets which perform those two specific roles to good effect, not least the Grumman Hawkeye, thus the RC135 was never designed to fulfil those specific needs... worth noting that the Hawkeye development mirrors the RC135 development all the way from the early 1960's :y
-
I'm guessing extreme low level capability over water and an inability to drop torpedoes being two minor omissions :-\
I should add that rather than a deficiency of the RC135, the US have carrier based assets which perform those two specific roles to good effect, not least the Grumman Hawkeye, thus the RC135 was never designed to fulfil those specific needs... worth noting that the Hawkeye development mirrors the RC135 development all the way from the early 1960's :y
Yup, the Hawkeye had to do the AWACS and the Elint role.
The MR2's was the best sub killer flying in its day but grew into other roles.
The few R1's we had looked similar on the outside except for no MAD boom at the back and was totally different on the inside.
The MRA4 was supposed to do pretty much both roles but once they pulled them apart, they wouldn't fit back together again :(
A bit hard trying to bolt modern day, high tolerance manufactured bits onto something that was made using a tape measure and hacksaw (comparatively speaking) ;D
Lets just say they were some very interesting aeroplanes that flew out of Raf Wyton during the 70's until it was closed
-
Also worth noting that even during the second world war, the range of aircraft was negligible, ships where therefore a necessity for getting equipment from A to B. Now, if you need to get boots on the ground sharpish, a handful of C17s will get troops and their gear into theatre before HMS Ocean has left the Solent.
You may be surprised how short the range of a fully loaded C-17 is. The USAF ones routinely refuel overhead the south west (ARAA10) and New England (AR10SW) when making trans Atlantic hops with heavy/hi priority loads.
The RAF C-17's aren't in-flight refuelable by RAF aircraft - owing to the unique way the RAF tanker fleet has been purchaced :( Similarly the RAF RC-135's aren't refuelable by the RAF tanker fleet, so rely on USAF tanker support which some suspect breaches the Airtanker contract.
-
And nothing to do with buying A330s as tanker platforms then... ::)
-
And nothing to do with buying A330s as tanker platforms then... ::)
No. A330-MRTT is available with boom refuelling. Indeed just about every other customer who has ordered it have that capability. The MOD didn't spec it in the contract, and Airtanker only provide what is contracted.
-
That would be the MoDs fault then ::)
-
That would be the MoDs fault then ::)
Yup - and the problem is going to get worse. In the next decade we're likely to end up with a fleet including C-17, RC-135, P-8, and F-35A all of which require boom refuelling, and nothing capable of refuelling them. And a fleet of Chinooks and Merlins all of which are AAR probe and drogue capable, but nothing that can fly low/slow enough to refuel them.
Whoever drew up the Airtanker contract wants taking out the back and shooting IMHO.
-
Whoever drew up the Airtanker contract wants taking out the back and shooting IMHO.
Bet there was a nice brown paper envelope in it for them, though. ::)
-
That would be the MoDs fault then ::)
Yup - and the problem is going to get worse. In the next decade we're likely to end up with a fleet including C-17, RC-135, P-8, and F-35A all of which require boom refuelling, and nothing capable of refuelling them. And a fleet of Chinooks and Merlins all of which are AAR probe and drogue capable, but nothing that can fly low/slow enough to refuel them.
Whoever drew up the Airtanker contract wants taking out the back and shooting IMHO.
Were getting the B model of the JSF
Both the B and C use probe and drogue :)
Easy enough to fit a refuelling probe to the others.
Just bolt it to the roof and run the pipe though the cockpit with a few p clips / tie wraps and down through a nice warm avionics bay into the bomb bay carefully install all associated pipework :-X
-
Just like they did with the single Vulcan that bombed Stanley 8)
-
Just like they did with the single Vulcan that bombed Stanley 8)
Yeah, and that didn't even leak much.. in the end. ;)
-
Just like they did with the single Vulcan that bombed Stanley 8)
Yeah, and that didn't even leak much.. in the end. ;)
A while since I read the book, but it took a couple of attempts to get it right ;D
-
Just like they did with the single Vulcan that bombed Stanley 8)
Yeah, and that didn't even leak much.. in the end. ;)
A while since I read the book, but it took a couple of attempts to get it right ;D
.. and a buttock clencher over the South Atlantic when they did a "Taxi Al" over the manufacturer's fuel consumption figures . ;)
-
;D
Got the job done though :y
-
Whoever drew up the Airtanker contract wants taking out the back and shooting IMHO.
Bet there was a nice brown paper envelope in it for them, though. ::)
See, we often think that with our lot at work, as nobody's that stupid, right? But that would take some sort of deliberate for thought and action . When more likely, the cards just fell where they lay, as nobody knows any better. Yes they really are that stupid.
-
That would be the MoDs fault then ::)
Yup - and the problem is going to get worse. In the next decade we're likely to end up with a fleet including C-17, RC-135, P-8, and F-35A all of which require boom refuelling, and nothing capable of refuelling them. And a fleet of Chinooks and Merlins all of which are AAR probe and drogue capable, but nothing that can fly low/slow enough to refuel them.
Whoever drew up the Airtanker contract wants taking out the back and shooting IMHO.
Were getting the B model of the JSF
Both the B and C use probe and drogue :)
Yes, and no. The RAF are already looking at replacing the Typhoon with F-35A once Typhoon export orders are exhausted, and the production line closes (estimated 2018).
Easy enough to fit a refuelling probe to the others.
Just bolt it to the roof and run the pipe though the cockpit with a few p clips / tie wraps and down through a nice warm avionics bay into the bomb bay carefully install all associated pipework :-X
Nope. Virtually impossible unless someone is prepared to pay for the re-design according to the JSF project office. The space used for the probe in the F-35B is used for something else in the F-35A and the F-35A does not have the plumbing installed to support the probe either. You can't bolt anything to the outside of the airframe without compromising the stealth characteristics. It doesnt even have external drop tanks.
The Canadians have already realised this restriction - they're currently an all probe-drogue Air force too. They've had to re-assess their order for F-35A for several reasons, one being the cost of designing probe and drogue into F-35A. Last I saw the figure of $2Bn USD was quoted. Our best hope is that the canadians pick up the tab, and we then get to use their technology. Otherwise, we either have to pay $2Bn, or my preferred option - go for F-35C, which is what should be operating off our carriers anyway. We risk having limited range 'jump jets' operating off the largest carriers we've ever owned, and the RAF operating navy jets from shore bases. Barking.
-
The f 35a or any new model of it will never replace the typhoon.
They can go on about so called stealth till there blue in the face but if it can be beaten now using multiple pfr radar emitters then in 25 years time, a aircraft designed to reflect radar as the f35 is will be oppsed.
At the end of the day, all a AESA radar is either fixed (or in the case of Captor E a movable dish) with a mass of separate tx / rx modules which can be independently directed. There is nothing to stop it transmitting across a massive frequency spectrum to produce a incredibly detailed picture which would enable it to see a low observable object.
If it starts uses active deceptive jamming then the old adage stands that if transmits then it can be tracked and killed.
Also that big burner strapped to its arse would standout like a lighthouse to IRST kit even today never mind 25 years time.
It is far too slow and would loose any turning fight even today so on that front, its knackered too.
Uncle Vlad and his chums had the AESA radar on the MIG 31 working on 2 different frequencies (VL and higher) at the same time 10 years ago so in another 25 years, i'll leave that to your imagination.
Imo, I think we will be looking at a very fast, hyper manoeuvrable drone flown by some geek in a bunker somewhere via satellite for its replacement.
Now tell me what happens when these satellites get taken out or jammed :-\
Back to square one me thinks ;D
-
The f 35a or any new model of it will never replace the typhoon.
I suspect small numbers of Typhoons will be kept for QRA/Air superiority (a bit like the Lightnings during the Phantom era) . The USAF plan to operate F-22 and F-35. The RAF will operate Typhoon and F-35B for sure, and the writing is already on the wall for an F-35A order too. Typhoon will be primary air defence, secondary ground attack/strike. F-35A will be primary ground attack/strike, secondart air defence. F-35B will have to do both for carrier ops.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/f35b-48-b-for-carriers-then-maybe-some-a.html
Lots of other similar rumors too. HMG can't possibly commit to anything before all possibility of export orders is gone, and the Warton line is closed. After that the UK makes large parts of every F-35, so it's not a difficult sell. At the moment we have only actually ordered 4 F-35's - all B's. The production order is due to be placed after the next election - and is expected to be only 48 aircraft.
They can go on about so called stealth till there blue in the face but if it can be beaten now using multiple pfr radar emitters then in 25 years time, a aircraft designed to reflect radar as the f35 is will be oppsed.
At the end of the day, all a AESA radar is either fixed (or in the case of Captor E a movable dish) with a mass of separate tx / rx modules which can be independently directed. There is nothing to stop it transmitting across a massive frequency spectrum to produce a incredibly detailed picture which would enable it to see a low observable object.
If it starts uses active deceptive jamming then the old adage stands that if transmits then it can be tracked and killed.
Also that big burner strapped to its arse would standout like a lighthouse to IRST kit even today never mind 25 years time.
It is far too slow and would loose any turning fight even today so on that front, its knackered too.
Uncle Vlad and his chums had the AESA radar on the MIG 31 working on 2 different frequencies (VL and higher) at the same time 10 years ago so in another 25 years, i'll leave that to your imagination.
Typhoon doesn't currently have an AESA radar, F-35 does. Yes there is a design, and it's due to fly later this year but no-one has announced any plans to fit it to RAF aircraft AFAIK. And you might want to talk to some pilots and ask how effective IRST is ::)
For F-35 the clue is in the original name JSF - Joint Strike Fighter. It isn't and never was intended to primerily be an air superiority fighter or interceptor. In crude terms it's a bomber - a replacement for F-16, Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar etc. As such, on the first day of the war, you'd rather be in an aircraft with stealth than one without when heading to a target. There is no reason for the UK to want 100+ 'jump jets' - they won't all be needed for operations off 2 carriers. The RAF will want the longer range and greater payload that the F-35A allows for its land based operations.
Imo, I think we will be looking at a very fast, hyper manoeuvrable drone flown by some geek in a bunker somewhere via satellite for its replacement.
Now tell me what happens when these satellites get taken out or jammed :-\
Back to square one me thinks ;D
Drones will work for recce, strike and surveillance, but are impractical for a manouvering fight. The time delays are too long, and there ain't much anyone can do about the speed of light.