BLIMEY THAT WAS CLOSE RUSSIAN SU27 v RAF 135 RIVET

[Gil Boyd]

This is how world wars start....................

Russian Su-27 Released Missile During Intercept Of British RC-135 Spy Plane

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[GeeRam]

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...

[Gil Boyd]

I think if I had been a crew member onboard the Rivet at the time, "Half Crown Sixpence" would have been very much active

[Flying10uk]

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.

[Bob Womack]

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.

Bob

[GeeRam]

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.

Politics....as ever.

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.

[Flying10uk]

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).

[Gil Boyd]

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

[Bob Womack]

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).

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.

Bob

[GeeRam]

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).

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.
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.