This is how world wars start....................
Russian Su-27 Released Missile During Intercept Of British RC-135 Spy Plane
Printable View
This is how world wars start....................
Russian Su-27 Released Missile During Intercept Of British RC-135 Spy Plane
Malfunction my arse.
I'd wager that's the official public political face of the situation so as not to escalate a situation, after the Kremlin were given a stern taking to......coupled with the fact that we haven't lost an aircraft.
If we were positive of it being a tech malfunction, I doubt we would now be sending an armed fighter escort out with each RC135 flight, so I'd lay odds on it being a deliberate BVR launch and the missile either then malfunctioned after release, or was defeated by the RC135's ECM measures after the ECM systems lit up like a xmas tree...
I think if I had been a crew member onboard the Rivet at the time, "Half Crown Sixpence" would have been very much active :lol:
We don't normally hear of missiles just "falling of aircraft" by accident and so it sounds like deliberate. What we don't know is the type of missile involved, radar guided or heat-seeking, and we also don't know if the Russian aircraft were targeting their radar at the Rivet aircraft.
I don't think that we can do anything if the Russians fire a missile in close proximity to one of our aircraft if they are not targeting it, i.e. the missile is fired so that it does not hit our aircraft.
I never really understood the logic of buying the Joint Rivet Aircraft for the RAF based on old airframes, older than the Nimrod R1's they replaced.
It probably stems from the facts that a) the U.S. has a fleet of thirty-two of the RC-135 reconnaissance variant and many of the C-135 and KC-135 tanker variants in service where they are tried and true and continue reliably to this day, b) other governments are also operating the airframe, c) the airframes and instrument packages were provided to the U.K. with maintenance agreements backed by the parts availability and service capabilities of a large worldwide fleet, and d) it is a proven platform proven by 70 years of service. In other words, it is probably cheaper and more reliable to operate than a new design could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Bob
Politics....as ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
With the MRA4 cancellation at the eleventh hour, the name Nimrod has become toxic, and the MR2's couldn't go on forever without major money being spent on them with BAe (not going to happen after MRA4) so it was going to be impractical to keep just 3 x R1's going for much beyond the OSD of the MR2, as support costs for such a small fleet would have been astronomical given it wasn't bought/used by any other airforce.......hence the joint project of RC135 to make use of the support facilities for the US Rivet Joints. Plus we had at the time, the E-3 Sentry which was the same basic airframe.
The thing is, as I understand it, the airframes are nearly 60 years old on the 3 Joint Rivet aircraft that the RAF have. The Nimrod R1's were constructed in the early to mid 1970's and, therefore, were significantly younger (in years).
Not forgetting of course the MRA4 was ultimately cancelled in 2010 as a result of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), at which point it was £789 million over-budget and over nine years late. All they kept doing was adding more technology to an airframe not built for purpose.
It took over from the Shackleton in 1969 and consecutive governments abused the airframe to a point where cost outweighed efficiency or logic. The crash in Canada didn't help matters as the fleet decreased in numbers with 51 Squadron at Lossiemouth seeing the close of play.
The saddest day was to see lined up Nimrods being cut and squashed by greedy contractors
I understand. You know, airframe designs have varying degrees of success and a large fleet contributes to problem-solving that refines a design as well. Overall, there were more than 1200 of the 707s and 720 shorter variants built. The C-135 frame was based upon the 707 prototype, the 367-80, which turned out to be an incredibly robust basic design. By the way, the three airframes that went into the Joint Rivet aircraft were the three youngest C-135 aiframes in the USAF inventory, having all been built in 1964.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Bob
While the Nimrods may have been built later, the 3 x 135's had been massively upgraded and refurbed already during their lives, including the engine upgrade to the CFM's, so in lifed terms, they were in fact younger than the Nimrods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
The Nimrods hadn't had any mid-life upgrade to the airframes etc., only the operational electronic systems suite, when upgraded from MR1 to MR2 in the 70's. The idea was they didn't need it as there was going to be the MRA4.
Thus the 3 x remaining R1 aircraft which were as originally built were pretty close to the end of their lives without a major refurb.....and after the MRA4 mess (not all BAe's fault by any means) this wasn't going to happen for just 3 x airframes, it would have been stupidly expensive, so after a 12 month or so extension they had to go.
Actually, the airframe was still very much fit for purpose as designed, so much so, that the US was actually interested in buying a fleet of MRA4's to replace the P-3 fleet.........The Nimrod airframe was built like a tank, and was very suited to ops at low level over the oggin, unlike the new B737 based P-8 we now have in the role, which can't be operated for extended periods at the low levels in rough weather that the Nimrod soaked up. The 4 engine layout was also a bonus compared to the twin engine 737 P-8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
However, the problem was MOD's trying to reduce the cost of the MRA4 project, and you don't do that buy reducing the numbers so much that, the only option BAe could come up with to reduce the cost for MOD was the suggestion to take existing built fuselages, and fit new build wings/spars, and the new enlarged engine nascelles etc thereby getting the project approved by MOD.
The problem with that, was of course all the fuselages as originally built had been built in the days before CAD/CAM etc., and were all individually hand fettled on the production line as was the methods back in those days. Thus when they came to try and fit all the new build wing boxes and stuff to all the old fuselages.........they didn't fit. So, costs and time delays just grew and grew....
The USA was only interested in buying if they were all new build, and they could be built in the USA. This didn't go down too well, given BAe were trying to bodge our own small fleet, thus we'd end up with a worse fleet.......plus BAe were struggling to find somewhere to get a joint venture in the USA that could be setup for production......and there was believe it or not, not a great deal of enthusiasm for such a deal in Whitehall.....
Yes................ all in all.......they made a right hash of things between them our successive governments here in the UK. It was the way they were destroyed that got to me.
You know, I just discovered that the Nimrod was simply a derrivative of the de Havilland Comet 4 which had reached the end of its service life. The Comet 4 was a 1958 update of the Comet 1 that dated from 1949. That's a long history, and perhaps a wee bit long in tooth as well.
Bob
Some Govt's just don't give a hoot or lack understanding bit like the F-111's that were buried here years ago a very fine airframe and interdiction aircraft but well the govt decided to scrap them now we wait for the orders on joint strike aircraft from the U.S. maybe 10 year plus wait time to fill the order
As for the submarines another folly that the govt dallied in which cost us $800 million to appease the French now we will wait 25 years to get nuclear sub's whilst our diesel subs get older and more a liability honestly successive govts have gutted our defense forces to the point of apathy.
We are ripe for the picking they disarmed the populace no semi auto weapons and are still trying to get all of our weapons from us soon we will be reduced to bags of rocks to defend our country with......
Latest rumour has it Herr Putin may use a dirty bomb if he starts throwing nukes even dirty ones I'm not sure NATO will sit on its hands as the fall out will affect the whole world at large now that is scary stuff
But that was exactly why it was still the best airframe for the job, as the early design was so overengineered for a civilian airliner, that it was so good for the job, especially at low level in dirty air over the oggin.........which is not something any of the newer anti-sub airframe design like the P-8 can cope with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
The biggest issue that caused the delay and subsequent cancellation of the MRA4 version, was the MOD reducing the numbers that forced BAe to come up with the daft fudge of suggesting re-using existing 60's built MR1/2 fuselages instead making the whole thing new build. It was a unsound engineering decision to appease MOD bean counters which ended up causing massive delays and costs which were more than if they had just built them all new build.
It was a classic case of accountants overriding engineering for a short term financial gain that was only ever one on paper and ultimately cost the MOD billions.
Yep they tie knots in progress, which in the end costs more for less they then go away satisfied in themselves they have done a good job!Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
We talk about MOD waste, how's about this one this week.
A Yamaha Grizzly bought in 2010 and sat somewhere in a dark corner in Donnington and forgotten for 12 years.
Scandalous 17 miles on the clock.................Military Specification Yamaha Grizzly 450 4 x 4 ATV Quad Bike ONLY 17 MILES 11.1 HOURS!!!
and we're worried about NIMROD's
It's certainly a vexing one, I spoke to someone a few years back who was closely involved with the MR4A project.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
Without really getting into it, had due diligence been observed early on, it would have been bleeding obvious the programme should have been cancelled very early on, when the degree of refubishment required on what was, in effect, a fleet of different aircraft!
Each airframe required a different sized wing center box to fit a fuselage of fractionally different measurements.
One further point, had the vexing release to service issues actually been addressed and the MR4 entered service, we would now be staring down the barrel of having to fund a forthcoming avionics update to counter obsolescence by 2030.
This alone would have cost Billions, on a tiny
bespoke fleet of just 9 aircraft.
It's a typical example of how the UK manages to waste huge amounts of defense money on UK prestigious programmes.
Next up, chucking billions more away on RAF Puma replacement, no doubt spending three times more than needed on an all singing and dancing Medium Transport Helicopter, rather than just ordering reliable tried and trusted Blackhawks off the shelf.
And the Nimrod had a large bomb/weapons bay running nearly the full length of the aircraft, as well as being capable of carrying external stores, it had a payload of around 10 tons, unsurpassed by any other Western maritime patrol aircraft before or since.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
A curious little fact of history that the DH Comet beat the Avro Jetliner into the air by only days, reportedly due to delays caused by "repairs" being carried out on the runway at Malton, Ontario.
I've often wondered if there was something of a gentleman's agreement to let DH go first.
Sadly we all know the result and it's possible the window frame failures and resulting crashes actually harmed the acceptance of jet passenger aircraft in general, though in the case of Canada, C.D. Howe our "naturalized" Minister of Supply did his best to ensure the Jetliner was shelved.
Boeing caught up eight years later with the 707 and the rest is what they call history.:rolleyes:
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
The weapons bay on the new P-8 is laughably tiny in comparison.
But does anyone know what the weapons payload is, in approximate terms, on the new P-8? It's clearly going to be less than the Nimrod.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam