U.K. Receives First RC-135 Rivet Joint

miamiair (netAirspace FAA) 12 Nov 13, 11:19

U.K. Takes Delivery Of First RC-135 Rivet Joint

The first RC-135W Rivet Joint intelligence-gathering aircraft for the U.K. Royal Air Force (RAF) has been delivered to its main operating base at RAF Waddington.

The aircraft – ZZ664 – arrived at Waddington on Nov. 12 after a flight from Majors Field, Greenville, Texas via Bangor, Maine. The aircraft, which was converted from a 1964-vintage KC-135R tanker is the first of three RC-135s destined for the RAF under the Airseeker program, filling the capability gap in electronic and signals intelligence gathering left open by the retirement of the Nimrod R1 in 2011.

The RAF is the first export customer for the Rivet Joint, and the $1 billion program is considered to be one of the most complex Foreign Military Sales purchases ever completed between the U.K. and the U.S.

ZZ664 was rolled out of L-3’s facilities in Greenville, Texas in early May and made its first post conversion flight at the end of July. According to RAF officials, the aircraft achieved its flight trials ahead of schedule, allowing it to be delivered early.

The RAF is due to declare an initial operating capability with a single RC-135 in October 2014, new aircraft will then be delivered every two years, with full operating capability expected in mid-2017, six months earlier than initially planned.

Link

And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen

captoveur 12 Nov 13, 12:08

Photoshop!

Check the reflection of the engine covers.

I like my coffee how I like my women: Black, bitter, and preferably fair trade.

JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 12 Nov 13, 12:11

So we ditched the Nimrod to buy a product that's no better and based on a similarly aged frame? No backhanded deals were done there then {sarcastic}

A million great ideas...

mhodgson (ATC & Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 12 Nov 13, 12:17

Was just thinking that. We retired an aircraft which was 40 years old, for one which is even older? I appreciate capabilities may be different but would it really have cost $1bn to keep the Nimrod's going in the interim?

There's the right way, the wrong way and the railway.

gkirk 12 Nov 13, 12:35

JLAmber wrote:So we ditched the Nimrod to buy a product that's no better and based on a similarly aged frame? No backhanded deals were done there then

That's what I was thinking...replacing a British a/c with a 10th hand U.S aircraft? WTF

AndesSMF (Founding Member) 12 Nov 13, 21:27

The only reason for replacement I can conceive is interior floor space. Is it larger than the Nimrod in the interior volume?

Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.

paul mcallister 12 Nov 13, 23:43

The Nimrod MR4A programme cost £5 billion+ and it was chopped only a matter of months before it was due to begin entering service. {frown}

I was fortunate enough to see two of these aircraft practising missed approaches at Aldergrove on a few occasions.
Scrapping the MR4A was an obscene waste of money,and now the UK have been lumbered with a much less capable and older design and yet more expense.

Reminds me of the TSR2 fiasco. {vsad}

miamiair (netAirspace FAA) 12 Nov 13, 23:50

Just my .02, but I believe the RC-135 is more capable performance wise. The Nimrod was a glorified Comet. And yes, the waste of money from the MoD was disgusting. They had 23 Honeywell APUs, that cost more than 2.5M a piece, and they were sold back to Honeywell for a mere pittance.

And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen

captoveur 13 Nov 13, 01:36

AndesSMF wrote:The only reason for replacement I can conceive is interior floor space. Is it larger than the Nimrod in the interior volume?

Yes.. the -135 is a fair bit bigger.

Also, this is a proven platform. Even if it is based on an airframe older than the people flying it. I am thinking -135 parts are probably easier to come by than Nimrod parts. The RAF has like what.. 5 of those things still flying or something?

Still, seems shady.

I like my coffee how I like my women: Black, bitter, and preferably fair trade.

Queso (netAirspace ATC Tower Chief & Founding Member) 16 Nov 13, 14:43

Parts commonality will reduce ongoing maintenance costs significantly. There's also something to be said about using the same platform as your closest ally. When the US develops upgrades, they'll almost automatically find their way to the UK equipment as well, and vice-versa. No sense having to reinvent the wheel.

Slider... <sniff, sniff>... you stink.

You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Military Aviation

LEFT