The RAF have a shiny new plane!

[onyx39]

http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2013/11/new-intelligenc...

I am guessing that will fill a hole left by Nimrod?

[anonymous-user]

Shiney? New? Looks like a used USAF one to me.
And whatever happened to Sentinel? Seems to have been quietly forgotten/scrapped.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 13th November 18:18

[onyx39]

Crossflow Kid said:

Shiney? New? Looks like a used USAF one to me.

I would guess it got a lick of paint!

[gazapc]

onyx39 said:

I would guess it got a lick of paint!

We can't even afford that! (Mentioned not just in the Mail)

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

[MitchT]

What's the rationale behind putting four jet engines on such a small aircraft? Companies building much larger passenger jets wouldn't dream of it these days.

[onyx39]

I always assumed that this was a bastardised 707 / 720, but apparently it was a 739.

[davepoth]

MitchT said:

What's the rationale behind putting four jet engines on such a small aircraft? Companies building much larger passenger jets wouldn't dream of it these days.

It's a relative of the 1940s designed Boeing 707, and the "new" ones we've bought are IIRC refurbished tankers from the 1960s.

[Doc Toad]

Seem to recall reading that MoD are struggling to get the new/old aircraft into service, lots of concern over single wall fuel lines rather than coaxial.

Very difficult situation when memories of the Nimrod tragedy still fresh. Definitely not a call I'd like to make.

[mph1977]

Crossflow Kid said:

Shiney? New? Looks like a used USAF one to me.
And whatever happened to Sentinel? Seems to have been quietly forgotten/scrapped.

Edited by Crossflow Kid on Wednesday 13th November 18:18

Sentinel flys a very different mission to the Nimrod R1 / Rivet joint

RJ replaces the R1 nimrod , we still have a capacity 'holiday' for the maritime recon functions of the Nimrod MR2 / MRA4 ...

[motomk]

I read you don't have anything that can refuel it either. So you will have to borrow something.
Can't they steal a refuelling thing from an E3?

[onyx39]

motomk said:

I read you don't have anything that can refuel it either. So you will have to borrow something.
Can't they steal a refuelling thing from an E3?

It's ok we just got a really good deal on some A330's

[hidetheelephants]

onyx39 said:

motomk said:

I read you don't have anything that can refuel it either. So you will have to borrow something.
Can't they steal a refuelling thing from an E3?

It's ok we just got a really good deal on some A330's

There's a small problemette with that; our A330 tankers will be 'fitted for but not with' boom refueling gear.

[aeropilot]

Crossflow Kid said:

Shiney? New?

Hardly new......

These 3 x RAF RJ's are older than the Nimrod R1's they are 'replacing'

[MarkwG]

"New" & "old" don't have quite the same meaning when it comes to aircraft though - the core design & airframe may be older than me, but the refits & rebuilds over the years on the individual aircraft make the terms fairly pointless, IMO.

[onyx39]

aeropilot said:

Crossflow Kid said:

Shiney? New?

Hardly new......

These 3 x RAF RJ's are older than the Nimrod R1's they are 'replacing'

but presumably work a lot better?

[JVaughan]

surely someone has the paint code off the Nimrod they can just get a few hundred gallons made up ?
<hint> its inside the door on a small VIN panel

[DMN]

aeropilot said:

Crossflow Kid said:

Shiney? New?

Hardly new......

These 3 x RAF RJ's are older than the Nimrod R1's they are 'replacing'

True, but these are essentially triggers brooms. Many parts replaced for new, many times over.

[anonymous-user]

motomk said:

I read you don't have anything that can refuel it either. So you will have to borrow something.
Can't they steal a refuelling thing from an E3?

It’s ok. The Mail explained. Apparently RJ refuels by the US-compatible donor aircraft deploying a hollow pipe, which pumps fuel in to the (singular) fuel tank, a bit like filling a car with petrol.
Thank god for that. Sure beats the UK system which relies on the crew thinking happy thoughts, a Jedi mind trick or two and the fuel being teleported from one aircraft to another.

[aeropilot]

onyx39 said:

aeropilot said:

Crossflow Kid said:

Shiney? New?

Hardly new......

These 3 x RAF RJ's are older than the Nimrod R1's they are 'replacing'

but presumably work a lot better?

Again, your thinking of the wrong version of Nimrod.

The R1 worked very well indeed.

[Martin4356111]

Just to clear some things up as quite a lot of the stuff being posted and in the papers is nonsense. I don't mean that in a bad way but the truth is getting in the way of a good rumour and newspaper sensationalism!

Crossflow Kid said:

Shiney? New? Looks like a used USAF one to me.
And whatever happened to Sentinel? Seems to have been quietly forgotten/scrapped.

The Sentinel and RC-135 aircraft do two totally different jobs and it hasn't been forgotten. In fact, its been so heavily praised by the Army that they are now looking to safeguard its future after the withdrawal of UK troops from Afghanistan in 2014/2015.

gazapc said:

We can't even afford that! (Mentioned not just in the Mail)

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

Another non-story from the Daily Mail. The aircraft we bought were all old KC-135 tankers and were zero houred, so totally stripped down and refurbished. This means that they would have had to be painted in to the current colours so how have we saved money?

motomk said:

I read you don't have anything that can refuel it either. So you will have to borrow something.
Can't they steal a refuelling thing from an E3?

The RC-135 will have an endurance of around 12 hours which will in normal circumstances, be more than enough. We normally deploy alongside the US anyway so we will have the option of using them. Its worth remembering that the C-17 doesn't have a probe to refuel.

MarkwG said:

"New" & "old" don't have quite the same meaning when it comes to aircraft though - the core design & airframe may be older than me, but the refits & rebuilds over the years on the individual aircraft make the terms fairly pointless, IMO.

Great point.