RC-135 Rivet Joint

[si-h]

A bit in the mail about RC-135 Rivet Joint for the RAF.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428912/Ha...

Not cheap either......
Was Nimrod a dead duck ? Were any costs given for the task to be completed ?
Was the closure of the Nimrod project political or based on sound finances ?
Any thoughts ?

[frodo_monkey]

No answers for you really, but remember that RC135 is to replace Nimrod R1 i.e. the 3 unmodified Nimrod aircraft that were still in service until 2011 - not the MRA4 version that was chopped as part of SDSR.

[anonymous-user]

The RAF can't mid air refuel it using other RAF aircraft? Is that correct.

[Eric Mc]

The RAF uses the probe and drogue system. The USAF uses the "flying boom" system. The C-135 family in service with the USAF do not have refueling probes as a probe is not needed to refuel from a flying boom.

I like the idea of the aircraft flying in basic USAF colours. It will make an for interesting scheme.

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

The RAF uses the probe and drogue system. The USAF uses the "flying boom" system. The C-135 family in service with the USAF do not have refueling probes as a probe is not needed to refuel from a flying boom.

Thanks, I understand the two systems just not the logic in ordering an aircraft for the RAF that can't be refuelled by other RAF aircraft.

The E-3D is capable of air-to-air refuelling using both the flying-boom and the RAF’s probe-and-drogue. I wonder why this option wasn't chosen or possible or decided as unnecessary for the RC-135W. Perhaps the aircraft has adequate endurance without it.

Edited by el stovey on Monday 23 September 08:28

[Simpo Two]

el stovey said:

Thanks, I understand the two systems just not the logic in ordering an aircraft for the RAF that can't be refuelled by other RAF aircraft.

Must be the same bloke that ordered aircraft carriers but nothing to fly from them. I expect he will get a nice pension and possibly a knighthood.

[anonymous-user]

Simpo Two said:

el stovey said:

Thanks, I understand the two systems just not the logic in ordering an aircraft for the RAF that can't be refuelled by other RAF aircraft.

Must be the same bloke that ordered aircraft carriers but nothing to fly from them. I expect he will get a nice pension and possibly a knighthood.

Seems odd. I wonder why the new 330 tankers weren't fitted with both systems? We have E-3Ds, that can use both and we have C-17s and now RC 135s that can't be refuelled by our own tankers AND worse, we are building new tankers that can't refuel all of our own aircraft or aircraft from any other airforce.

[Eric Mc]

el stovey said:

Eric Mc said:

The RAF uses the probe and drogue system. The USAF uses the "flying boom" system. The C-135 family in service with the USAF do not have refueling probes as a probe is not needed to refuel from a flying boom.

Thanks, I understand the two systems just not the logic in ordering an aircraft for the RAF that can't be refuelled by other RAF aircraft.

The E-3D is capable of air-to-air refuelling using both the flying-boom and the RAF’s probe-and-drogue. I wonder why this option wasn't chosen or possible or decided as unnecessary for the RC-135W. Perhaps the aircraft has adequate endurance without it.

Edited by el stovey on Monday 23 September 08:28

The C-135 airframes are very old - originally manufactured between around 1955 and 1963. At that time, the USAF was completely wedded to the flying boom system and did not see any need to also build in probe and drogue capability. However, as the years progressed, it became clear that the probe and drogue system was the more popular and later USAF designs often have dual capability so that their aircraft can refuel from other forces' tankers.

The E-3 family are later designs being based on the civil Boeing 707 airframe (the C-135 airframe is very different) and they were built for air arms other than the USAF, so the capacity to operate with flying booms and probe and drogue tankers was built in from the start.

[anonymous-user]

The boom system is good because:

- The pilot does a little less work since the boom can be flown by the boom controller.
- The fuel transfer rates are higher than a drogue unit.
- No problem with whip.
- There is an adapter to refuel probe equipped aircraft from the boom. But not interchangeable in flight.
- Can still have and use 1 HDU (Hose and Drogue Unit) per wing.
- Can still have a central HDU (but can't be used at same time as the boom).

However:

- Only one boom per aircraft.
- More booms almost certainly requires a unique design of aircraft.
- Limited compatibility with receivers (unless your air force is bought in to the USAF way of doing things).

Airseeker...

The paint scheme is the best it could be for what it does. The thinking behind the white top is that it keeps the cabin cooler by reflecting heat. The cabins in these aircraft are crammed with electronics (obviously...) so heat management is a genuine issue. And, of course, it allows the use of a natty cheatline (we should never have got rid of the old transport command scheme!). Apparently, quite a lot of the internals of the R1 lives on in Airseeker.

Age of the aircraft isn't as important as the fatigue life of critical parts. As long as the fatigued parts are replaced, it effectively becomes a zero hours aircraft. So using the manufacturers year as a negative is misleading.

Who we tank from isn't an issue today as, wherever we'll be operating, so will tankers capable of refueling Airseeker. Our own capability to tank has been greatly reduced ,but there are sufficient resources around from allies and private companies that this isn't an issue. We'll not operate this aircraft outside of a composite force. We haven't done this, ever (we didn't have this asset available during the Falklands - if we needed it now it could be interesting, but actually I'm not sure if we'd need to use this asset for a Falklands conflict anyway).

[Eric Mc]

Speaking of old Transport Command colours -





Not that different to the current colours used on USAF RC-135s -

[tuffer]

Simpo Two said:

el stovey said:

Thanks, I understand the two systems just not the logic in ordering an aircraft for the RAF that can't be refuelled by other RAF aircraft.

Must be the same bloke that ordered aircraft carriers but nothing to fly from them. I expect he will get a nice pension and possibly a knighthood.

We did not "Order them" as such, we just purchased 3 second hand airframes that the USAF no longer required, hence no chance to specify requirements.

[Eric Mc]

People complain when the MoD orders a British bespoke design, saying that they would have been much better ordering an already existing design off the shelf.

People also complain when the MoD DOES order an already existing design.

[anonymous-user]

tuffer said:

Simpo Two said:

el stovey said:

Thanks, I understand the two systems just not the logic in ordering an aircraft for the RAF that can't be refuelled by other RAF aircraft.

Must be the same bloke that ordered aircraft carriers but nothing to fly from them. I expect he will get a nice pension and possibly a knighthood.

We did not "Order them" as such, we just purchased 3 second hand airframes that the USAF no longer required, hence no chance to specify requirements.

Aren't they KC-135Rs that have been converted to RC-135s for the RAF. I.E. the UK bought them before they had been converted and will be the first users of them as RC-135s

We didn't buy old RC-135s.

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

People complain when the MoD orders a British bespoke design, saying that they would have been much better ordering an already existing design off the shelf.

People also complain when the MoD DOES order an already existing design.

I think buying an existing design is a good idea but not one that the UK can't refuel without the help of other airforces. Why not make the RC 135 capable of both systems like the E3 or make the new A330 RAF tankers able to do both? It seems very odd and short sighted to have aircraft that can only be refuelled with the help of another countries air force.

[anonymous-user]

el stovey said:

Aren't they KC-135Rs that have been converted to RC-135s for the RAF. I.E. the UK bought them before they had been converted and will be the first users of them as RC-135s

We didn't buy old RC-135s.

Yup

[tuffer]

coanda said:

el stovey said:

Aren't they KC-135Rs that have been converted to RC-135s for the RAF. I.E. the UK bought them before they had been converted and will be the first users of them as RC-135s

We didn't buy old RC-135s.

Yup

They were still not specified by us but by the USAF, the markings are kind of a giveaway.

[anonymous-user]

That's because they went through the Rivet Joint upgrade route - we have allowed that to happen.

We've essentially bought in to the Rivet Joint program with some country specific stuff. We've bought the three lowest hours KC-135Rs available and had them fed in to the Rivet Joint program. The aircraft will wear RAF markings and a USAF colour Scheme (for the practical reasons listed in my previous post and in the daily mail article, that make complete sense).

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 23 September 12:31

[Eric Mc]

el stovey said:

Eric Mc said:

People complain when the MoD orders a British bespoke design, saying that they would have been much better ordering an already existing design off the shelf.

People also complain when the MoD DOES order an already existing design.

I think buying an existing design is a good idea but not one that the UK can't refuel without the help of other airforces. Why not make the RC 135 capable of both systems like the E3 or make the new A330 RAF tankers able to do both? It seems very odd and short sighted to have aircraft that can only be refuelled with the help of another countries air force.

Costs.

One of the problems of buying "off the shelf" is that the available system may not be 100% compatible with your specific needs. The choices are -

buying as is and putting up with the incompatibility

buying as is and then spending money on modifying and certificating modifications to make the system compatible

designing and building a bespoke system yourself

All these options have been exercised in the past and no matter which route one goes down, there will be costs - and critics.

[StephenP]

It appears it was rolled out in these colours back in April ...

Link to Aviation Week article from May 2013



Looks pretty smart to me and certainly reminiscent (albeit coincidentally!) of the old RAF scheme

Edited by StephenP on Monday 23 September 13:16

[Lurking Lawyer]

I'm always wary of using Wikipedia as a source of information but interestingly I note the following about the RC135W Airseeker:

"The three airframes are former United States Air Force KC-135Rs, all of which first flew in 1964 but will be modified to the latest RC-135W standard before delivery. The three airframes on offer to the UK are the youngest KC-135s in the USAF fleet.[25] The aircraft have approximately 23,200; 22,200 hours; and 23,200 flying hours respectively, as of September 2010.[26] The first one will be rolled out for painting in January 2013 ahead of delivery in December 2013,[22] and they are expected to remain in service until 2045."

I remember visiting RAF Mildenhall in the late 1980s as a cadet with the school's CCF contingent and being shown around the KC135s that were based there, but being admonished in the direst terms by the USAF captain who was guiding the tour that under no circumstances should we even point our cameras in the direction of the RC135s that were also based there, and that if we did it was likely that a burly USAF air policeman would confiscate it on the spot....