Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates

[harryriedl]

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

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 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.

The problem is that the Rivet Airframes are probably almost as old as the old Comets anyway.

 

[swerve]

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]

Agreed Swerve. There are some very funny numbers flying around.

 

[ASFC]

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.:

 

[harryriedl]

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.:

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 fuss

 

[swerve]

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.:

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".

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/UK_08-89.pdf

Same contractor as Helix.

 

[Lopex]

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?

 

[kato]

RAF No 904 EAW, Afghanistan:
- 8 Chinook HC2
- 5 C-130K/J Hercules
- 8 Harrier GR9

Royal Army / Royal Navy Aviation, Afghanistan:
- 8 WAH-64D Apache
- 5 (?) Lynx Mk 7
- 4 (?) Sea King Mk4 Plus

 

[StevoJH]

RAF No 904 EAW, Afghanistan:
- 8 Chinook HC2
- 5 C-130K/J Hercules
- 8 Harrier GR9

Royal Army / Royal Navy Aviation, Afghanistan:
- 8 WAH-64D Apache
- 5 (?) Lynx Mk 7
- 4 (?) Sea King Mk4 Plus

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]

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.

 

[oldsoak]

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.

 

[Lopex]

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?

 

[Pingu]

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.

 

[swerve]

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.

 

[Pingu]

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.

 

[swerve]

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.

The three development airframes have been fully converted to MRA4 configuration, & used for developing & testing the MRA4 equipment & its integration, not just the airframes, so they must have some of the equipment, though probably not a complete fit each. As I understand it, the problem is that they aren't production standard, & would need some money (I've seen £100 mn quoted on PPrune - total, not each) spent to bring them up to standard.

But I expect that the plan is to recycle whatever mission equipment is on them into the 9 production standard airframes which are now being built (at least the first two are complete, & in testing ), leaving pretty near bare airframes.

 

[Pingu]

I thought i'd stir up a bit of a debate about the retirement of Tornado F3 as well as the GR4s new commitment in Afganistan.

It seems strange to me that the F3 fleet has been cut early, given that this will create a serious strain on the Typhoon fleet, and if my understanding is correct, actually leave the UK with a capability gap in terms of maintaining QRA (I say capability in terms of quantity rather than quality). I find it odd that the F3 fleet has been cut when the GR4 fleet is at nearly 140 aircraft.

I also find if odd that the GR4 requires twice the maintainence hours that the Harrier GR9 requires. Does anyone have an ideas why this is the case? This is one of the reasons for some opposing the decision to replace the Harriers with Tornados in Afganistan.

I personally agree with the decision to have GR4s in Afganistan as it allows GR9s to focus on carrier ops training: the very thing that JFH was set out to achieve. Discussions have been made about axing the Harrier and of course the F3 has already been axed. I however, feel that it would have been wiser to have cut the GR4 numbers. This will allow for a more balanced force of Harriers and Tornadoes. The main benefit I can see from this though, would have been that the money saved could be spent on future GR4 upgrades and with fewer airframes to upgrade, this would be more affordable.

I wonder how the RAF intends to keep the GR4s flying until 2020-25. They must surely require some stuctural modifications to keep them flying to their OSD. I guess that keeping the GR4 numbers high achieves a similar effect to stucturally upgrading fewer airframes, in that a greater fleet equates to a lower usage per airframe. I think the GR4 has plenty of upgrade potential and I hope that its potential is met.

I would like to see a Synthetic Aperture Radar installed to replace the very obsolete TFR. I have also wondered about the possibility of installing the EJ200s onto the GR4, if RB199s fitted into development Typhoons then surely the reverse is not impossible to imagine, although I am probably wrong. I now struggle to see the relevance of the FLIR sensors installed as part of the MLU when podded systems such as Litening III and RAPTOR (in the case of the GR4A) must have rendered these obsolete. Does anyone know if the integrated sensors are still used? If they're not, then it is perhaps worth considering replacing them with something new. Maybe a SAR would require some of this space although I am unsure of the space requirements of the intended SAR. One thought I considered was to have the guts of the Litening III installed in a fairing under the nose in place of existing sensors, in a similar configuration to the F-35s EOTS with Sniper's guts. This would free up space on the Torandos relatively narrow fusalage for a more flexible weapons load. Finally, we have seen the BOZ pods replaced by a new pod as a UOR in Afganistan. I wonder if there are intentions to upgrade or replace the Tornado's Sky Shadow pods for radar countermeasures.

 

[outsider]

I'm curious what happened to the RAF Tornados that were purchased.

According to wikipedia, originally 152 F3's and 228 GR1's were ordered.

142 GR1's were upgraded to GR4 standard.

What happened to the remainder of the GR1's. Are they in storage or were they sold or scrapped?

Same question for the F3, as the RAF has been operating far less than 152 F3's for a considerable time.

Obviously some aircraft were lost through attrition or donated to museums but that doesn't account for all of them or does it?

 

[swerve]

... would like to see a Synthetic Aperture Radar installed to replace the very obsolete TFR.....

There's been a project to do this for several years, under the heading ARTS (Advanced Radar Targeting System). I've not been able to find any details of the proposed new radar except that it is AESA & Selex is involved. That suggests a variant of the Vixen family, presumably (given the large amount of space in a Tornado nose) a large one. There is frustratingly little news. Mentions of flight trials in 2007 have popped up.

MOD awards contract to QinetiQ primed team to demonstrate Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) on a Tornado GR4A

It may have been quietly shelved.