Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chrisgixer]

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?

[tigers_gonads]

I believe its just the code name the yanks gave to there airborne elint aircraft and it a sort of stuck

[05omegav6]

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

[Rods2]

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.

[Vamps]

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.......

[05omegav6]

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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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.

[05omegav6]

Not ignoring the fact that the MR4A never entered service, and only one ever flew either...

[tigers_gonads]

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 

[05omegav6]

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

[tigers_gonads]

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

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) 

Lets just say they were some very interesting aeroplanes that flew out of Raf Wyton during the 70's until it was closed

[LC0112G]

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.

[05omegav6]

And nothing to do with buying A330s as tanker platforms then...

[LC0112G]

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. 

[05omegav6]

That would be the MoDs fault then