Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates
- Thread starter neil
- Start date
Nimrod MRA4
Any news on when the MRA4 will be entering service?. I have read in wiki that it will be the early 2009 but thats not really a reliable source!
I have also read on the British Army Rumour Service that the aircraft could be scrapped to save money.
I can see why its a target with its overruns and massive overspend but it would be a massive loss.
Does anyone know how far away they are from entering service?
Any news on when the MRA4 will be entering service?. I have read in wiki that it will be the early 2009 but thats not really a reliable source!
I have also read on the British Army Rumour Service that the aircraft could be scrapped to save money.
I can see why its a target with its overruns and massive overspend but it would be a massive loss.
Does anyone know how far away they are from entering service?
Nimrod ELINT Replacement...
Saw this in the media the other day....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-fears-Nimrods-replaced-older-US-planes.html
Does anyone think that we should replace the x3 ELINT A/C with KC 135 / Boeing 707's ??
...Or should we go down the revamp route that the MR2 to MR4A has gone ??
SA
Saw this in the media the other day....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-fears-Nimrods-replaced-older-US-planes.html
Does anyone think that we should replace the x3 ELINT A/C with KC 135 / Boeing 707's ??
...Or should we go down the revamp route that the MR2 to MR4A has gone ??
SA
Last edited:
There is a balancing act.
MRA4 problems is probably going to preclude any more conversions (although their might be more than 12 (isn't their supposed to be 16 built, after the last 'official' reduction in 2004?)).
Going straight for River Joint goes nicely maintanence wise with the E-3 fleet (which share Waddington with the R.1s), but obviously they have age issues.
I prefer sticking American and/or British equipment in an alternative new Airframe (not MRA4/C-135) however current cost issues may preclude this.
MRA4 problems is probably going to preclude any more conversions (although their might be more than 12 (isn't their supposed to be 16 built, after the last 'official' reduction in 2004?)).
Going straight for River Joint goes nicely maintanence wise with the E-3 fleet (which share Waddington with the R.1s), but obviously they have age issues.
I prefer sticking American and/or British equipment in an alternative new Airframe (not MRA4/C-135) however current cost issues may preclude this.
the RIVET JOINT's SIGNIT kit is supposedly not as good as the kit which was meant to go in the Nimrods before the age issues made it very expensive. but the RIVET JOINT would be upgraded to the HELIX standard according to DID. the unified logistic dose defiantly have an appeal.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The problem is that the Rivet Airframes are probably almost as old as the old Comets anyway.
Older.
The proposal is not to transfer existing Rivet Joints (perhaps the USAF is unwilling to part with any), but to rebuild KC-135 tankers as Rivet Joints. The last KC-135 was completed before the first Nimrod was built.
The particular airframes are KC-135Rs, which have had new engines & some other upgrades, but they're still over 40 years old.
I find it hard to believe that the existing Nimrod R.1s can't be rebuilt, or 3 more Nimrod MRA4 rebuilds done & the equipment transferred, for £200 million per airframe, which is what this proposal is on offer at.
Super Nimrod
New Member
Agreed Swerve. There are some very funny numbers flying around.
because eathier way they still have a part in integrating HELIX its small matter. especially as its only 3 planes its not worth making a fussFrankly I am surprised BAE aren't jumping up and down screaming foul play at a contract possibly being offered to the Americans when they can do it.:
I'm wondering whether this has quietly changed from "The Treasury won't let us have Helix & do the work to make Nimrod R.1 safe because it's too expensive, so we must borrow some RC-135s as a cheap replacement", to "Let's spend even more money to put the Helix gear in some KC-135 airframes & pretend it's the cheap deal we first talked about, to get it past the Treasury".Frankly I am surprised BAE aren't jumping up and down screaming foul play at a contract possibly being offered to the Americans when they can do it.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/UK_08-89.pdf
Same contractor as Helix.
RAF? Army Helicopter in Iraq and Helmand
Can anyone tell me the number of each helicopters in the two conflict zones?
I think I have read that the Lynx cannot fly in the high altitude of Afghanistan but maybe the Merlins can be send to Helmand once we have pulled out of iraq?
Are any Merlins currently in Helmand?
Can anyone tell me the number of each helicopters in the two conflict zones?
I think I have read that the Lynx cannot fly in the high altitude of Afghanistan but maybe the Merlins can be send to Helmand once we have pulled out of iraq?
Are any Merlins currently in Helmand?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Hate to nitpick, but there is no such organisation called the "Royal Army". Its the "British Army" due to a number of historical issues.
Highwayman
New Member
Nimrod R1 replacement
Instead of buying old converted KC135 a/c why not 2nd hand 757?
In the present economic climate there must plenty of ex airline 757s sitting around.
Similiar size to KC135, plenty still in airline service so parts would be easy to source, RR engines so would be supporting UK industry and having only 2 engines so would be cheaper to operate.
Instead of buying old converted KC135 a/c why not 2nd hand 757?
In the present economic climate there must plenty of ex airline 757s sitting around.
Similiar size to KC135, plenty still in airline service so parts would be easy to source, RR engines so would be supporting UK industry and having only 2 engines so would be cheaper to operate.
- although cross section is the same, I'm not sure it could meet the range and power requirements.
Defence
Afghanistan Air Support
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell): The statement by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Bob Ainsworth) on 25 February 2009, Official Report, columns 24-25WS, referred to a delay from spring until summer 2009 of the deployment of Tornado GR4 aircraft to replace a broadly similar force of Harrier GR9 aircraft at Kandahar airfield, Afghanistan.
24 Jun 2009 : Column 59WS
I can confirm that necessary supporting infrastructure at Kandahar is now in place and all Tornado GR4 urgent operational requirement enhancements have been delivered. Consequently Tornado GR4 aircraft deployed to Kandahar in mid-June and, after a period of joint operations with the Harrier force, today the Tornado GR4 force has taken over sole responsibility for RAF fast jet support in Afghanistan.
The transition from Harrier to Tornado in theatre has been seamless. During the handover the Tornado force has proved that it is fully capable of fulfilling all the roles required of it in support of coalition ground forces. Those forces will continue to benefit from the flexibility and broad range of capabilities offered by UK fast jet aircraft.
The remaining elements of the Harrier force are preparing to leave Kandahar shortly, with the final Harrier personnel planning to return to their home base at RAF Cottesmore in early July. Joint Force Harrier has made a significant and acclaimed contribution to coalition air operations during its four and a half years service in Afghanistan and the personnel within this force can be proud of all their many achievements in this operational theatre.
House of Commons Hansard Ministerial Statements for 24 Jun 2009 (pt 0001)
This ahas been kept quiet. Does anyone know how they are getting on?
Afghanistan Air Support
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell): The statement by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Bob Ainsworth) on 25 February 2009, Official Report, columns 24-25WS, referred to a delay from spring until summer 2009 of the deployment of Tornado GR4 aircraft to replace a broadly similar force of Harrier GR9 aircraft at Kandahar airfield, Afghanistan.
24 Jun 2009 : Column 59WS
I can confirm that necessary supporting infrastructure at Kandahar is now in place and all Tornado GR4 urgent operational requirement enhancements have been delivered. Consequently Tornado GR4 aircraft deployed to Kandahar in mid-June and, after a period of joint operations with the Harrier force, today the Tornado GR4 force has taken over sole responsibility for RAF fast jet support in Afghanistan.
The transition from Harrier to Tornado in theatre has been seamless. During the handover the Tornado force has proved that it is fully capable of fulfilling all the roles required of it in support of coalition ground forces. Those forces will continue to benefit from the flexibility and broad range of capabilities offered by UK fast jet aircraft.
The remaining elements of the Harrier force are preparing to leave Kandahar shortly, with the final Harrier personnel planning to return to their home base at RAF Cottesmore in early July. Joint Force Harrier has made a significant and acclaimed contribution to coalition air operations during its four and a half years service in Afghanistan and the personnel within this force can be proud of all their many achievements in this operational theatre.
House of Commons Hansard Ministerial Statements for 24 Jun 2009 (pt 0001)
This ahas been kept quiet. Does anyone know how they are getting on?
I certainly think it would be wise to integrate Helix into the Nimrod airframe rather than a US airliner. Firstly, the airframes, for all intents and purposes, will be as good as new. Secondly, now that all of the delays of the MRA4 have passed (or almost), the cost of additional airframes can surely not be as great as purchasing entire airframes (old or new) from the US. Surely the huge cost of the MRA4 upgrade is development costs, all of which, would have no bearing on the cost of a Helix Nimrod.
Would it not be wise to use a private jet type airframe as with the Sentinel R1? I am unsure of the range and payload requirements of the sigint role but I am fairly confident that private jets provide greater range in relation to their size as compared to an airliner.
Would it not be wise to use a private jet type airframe as with the Sentinel R1? I am unsure of the range and payload requirements of the sigint role but I am fairly confident that private jets provide greater range in relation to their size as compared to an airliner.
Pingu,
I agree with all you say about the MRA4 & Helix, but not about putting it all in a smaller jet. While the Global Express, as used for the Sentinel R1, has excellent range, it seems that it's far too small for the Helix equipment & number of operators.
The truly ridiculous thing about this is that it's been decided - and publicly announced - that the three MRA4 development airframes will not be turned into production MRA4s. That gives us three spare MRA4 airframes which we could fit the Helix gear into. Since the C-135 purchase would necessitate converting KC-135 airframes, & fitting what is supposedly a non-standard UK-only version of the RC-135 equipment, I can see no advantage to it. The rebuilds will take time & cost money, there are development risks, we have to pay for the airframes, it introduces an additional type into service, with unique engines, the airframes are 40 years old . . . . why not fit the kit (with, admittedly, some development risk still) into mostly new airframes we already own, of a type already (by the time the refit is done) in service, with engines shared with yet another type, & with the few 40 year old parts remaining all zero-lifed . . . . Both acquisition & operating costs should be less.
And, of course, the original Helix plan involved integrating it into the old Nimrod airframe. Development work done so far should need less adaptation to fit into MRA4 than another type.
I agree with all you say about the MRA4 & Helix, but not about putting it all in a smaller jet. While the Global Express, as used for the Sentinel R1, has excellent range, it seems that it's far too small for the Helix equipment & number of operators.
The truly ridiculous thing about this is that it's been decided - and publicly announced - that the three MRA4 development airframes will not be turned into production MRA4s. That gives us three spare MRA4 airframes which we could fit the Helix gear into. Since the C-135 purchase would necessitate converting KC-135 airframes, & fitting what is supposedly a non-standard UK-only version of the RC-135 equipment, I can see no advantage to it. The rebuilds will take time & cost money, there are development risks, we have to pay for the airframes, it introduces an additional type into service, with unique engines, the airframes are 40 years old . . . . why not fit the kit (with, admittedly, some development risk still) into mostly new airframes we already own, of a type already (by the time the refit is done) in service, with engines shared with yet another type, & with the few 40 year old parts remaining all zero-lifed . . . . Both acquisition & operating costs should be less.
And, of course, the original Helix plan involved integrating it into the old Nimrod airframe. Development work done so far should need less adaptation to fit into MRA4 than another type.
Swerve, when you say 3 spare MRA4 airframes, is it the case that the airframes have already been fabricated and were awaiting MRA4 equipment instalation. My understanding is that the procurement of MRA4s has been reduced from 12 to 9. So I am guessing that we have 9 complete MRA4s including equipment and 3 spare improved airframes.