Announced in the pre-election supermarket sweep was a plan to replace the Nimrod R1 Electronic Intelligence aircraft operated by 51 squadron with US RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft.
As the MRA4 programme progressed a replacement for the MR2 era R1 was being though about (via Project HELIX) and various suggestion surfaced including the RC-135 Rivet Joint, an upgrade of the existing aircraft, a version of the MRA4 or some other completely new aircraft. As early as 2008 an early day motion was raised in Parliament
The Nimrod R1 and 51 Squadron combination is a UK Gold Standard capability.
They will be replaced by 3 RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft, one R1 was withdrawn last year and 2 remain in service. The RAF Rivet Joints will be equipped with the same engine as the E3-D Sentry and an SIGINT package from L-3.
The first aircraft is due to be delivered in 2014, which leaves a 2-3 year capability gap, the R1′s being withdrawn next year. To guard against skills fade the RAF crew will enter into a partnering agreement with the USAF. This also assumes that the delivery will be on time and that the aircraft and crews will actually achieve operational readiness in 2014. In all fairness it is not a bad deal, the alternative in these budget constrained times is nothing.
So, we are replacing a world leading capability with something that is slightly less capable by all accounts and in the gap will have to rely on the USAF for SIGINT i.e. no sovereign capability.
Just to add icing to the cake, the RC-135 Rivet Joint uses a boom refueling system and the FSTA airborne refueling aircraft don’t have one so the RAF will have three strategic level assets that cannot be refueled by RAF aircraft, the C17, Rivet Joint and E3D Sentry.
Whilst we are talking about cakes, the cherry on this particular one is that the FSTA aircraft won’t be coming with an air refueling probe either, so no ultra long airborne refueling missions (i.e. the Falklands) either.
Great!
How much then?
The final contracts have yet to be finalised but in 2008 (yes, that long ago) the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency published a notification of a possible sale to the UK of three RC135 Rivet Joints and associated support and logistics systems for up to $1.068 billion.
I thought the RAF had some high tech Gulf Streams or something of that size that performed these missions. What gives????
The RAF use a number of modified Bombardier Global Express to carry the ASTOR (Airborne Stand Off Radar) system, similar to the USAF JSTARS. We have some lower spec SIGINT platforms based on King Air 350′s but the big boys use the Nimrod R1.
In-flight refuelling – what’s wrong with a boom at the back and hose and drogue on the wings? I’m sure they did it on the KC-10: Come on MOD, finger out!
A boom would make the aircraft pretty much useless to the civilian market, a market that the FSTA PFI is supposed to rely on in ‘off periods’
So we have a PFI directly impacting military capability
Hopefully the Tanker PFI will get binned in the post election cull and we’ll just buy the bloody planes ourselves
I have to admit it had not sunk in how many platforms are in procurement / in service that lack the capability to act as IFR ‘receivers’.
As other customers are buying Airbus tankers with booms, then we could go down this route too.
Here’s radical for you -> how about we bin the MR4A if its costing too much, and transfer its mission equipment to the A400M, and add on a couple of project HELIX equipped A400M R1 ? Just thinking it might be easier / cheaper to add a bomb bay to the A400M then keeping fitting custom wings to ancient airframes… ???
Jed, the A400 R1 sounds fine, I’d go for that, but as a dedicated bomber I’m somewhat sceptical, although the theory is sound. It would need an all new fuselage that would be more streamlined to increase its speed and make it more attuned to the role, although the wings, engines and cockpit could be utilised.
Essentially what you’d be left with is an updated Tu-95 Bear bomber, albeit smaller but more advanced. Some time ago I considered the idea of a BAe 146 bomber conversion, due to the UK’s lack of a dedicated, long-range bomber force, but given its small size and limited payload it probably wouldn’t have been feasible.
Given the costs and limitations of a dedicated conversion, I would consider arming standard A400M’s and C-130′s with Hellfires, Mavericks or Paveway (The Hellfire has already been test fired from the C-130) on the underwing pylons. This would be cheaper and you could still use it in the cargo role, probably something you couldn’t do with a dedicated bomb bay. C-130′s have already been used in combat as makeshift bombers by, I believe, Argentina and Pakistan.
Alternatively, how about an A400 version of the AC-130 Spectre gunship, but with added Hellfires, Paveway etc?
Having probably contradicted myself, the concept doesn’t sound bad.
As for the Fu*king Short of Tankers Again mess then first of all some of them should be fitted with booms at least but ideally all of them would be fitted however cost is the biggest driver and so is time. The stupid PFI contract should be scrapped with a greater number of aircraft purchased outright and converted to tanker aircraft possibly with AAR Booms fitted for flexibility if cost allows. I don’t know who else would agree but I’ve always thought we should have the option of installing additional fuselage tanks. Maybe not useful most of the time but handy when unloading tons of fuel at a time to large receivers when supporting an air bridge to somewhere daft where the politicians decide to take us next. However as I’ve hinted we really could do with more airframes unlike the current plan where we get less albeit more capable but last time I checked they can only be in one place at a time.
Euan, the PFI tanker project is a complete clusterf**k. As the US uses the KC-10 Extender, a militarised DC-10, to great effect, why not convert the DC-10′s successor, the MD-11? The KC-10 has a boom at the back and hose and drogue on the wings. It can also carry cargo and personnel.
Any buyers for a fleet of KC-11′s?
I agree the Tanker PFI (like most of not all PFI’s) are a complete fcuk-up. When will they learn that you cannot run the armed forces like its TESCO’s. Do we want a MRTT that we can use OR do we want to lease aircraft to the like of UPS and FEDEX!!
It just does not make sense on any level, you compromise the aircraft so they are not really suitable for military use, its costs a fortune as you are asking a commercial company to borrow they money to fund the purchase (crazy when the government can borrow cheaper than any commercial). You then chuck in the profit margins and the RAF get 14 airframes, 6+ they will never see and the rest are only half as good as the should be.
We need 28 not 14 and all fitted out to the Australian standard:
Boom
2 x Hose N Drogue
In flight refuelling probe
cargo doors
DAS
etc etc.
Yes I hope this PFI is binned.
The Author has made a mistake, small but noteworthy;
“RAF will have three strategic level assets that cannot be refueled by RAF aircraft, the C17, Rivet Joint and E3D Sentry.”
The latter aircraft, the E3D Sentry, Does indeed HAVE a Refueling probe;
http://www.militaryaircraft.de/pictures/Airshow-RIAT2008/RAF-Flypast/RAF-Flypast_RIAT2008_299_800.jpg
The probe is properly fitted – unlike the Nimrod rush job of ’82 that ultimately cost lives. The Sentry can also accept the USAF Boom method and is arguably by far the most capable of the E3 family.
On a side note, the C17′s we initially leased then bought (and subsequrnt british airframes) were fitted with enlargened wing fuel tanks, a mod added on the factory floor, giving them a much larger fuel load and range…before it was applied to USAF airframes. I recently asked a 99 Sqn C17 pilot about refueling and the lack of a drogue one and he stated “The current locations we fly to often means we have no need for it” whilst it also retaining the ‘boom receptiple’.
I do however agree that the RC-135 option is a step back, the Nimrod was far superior…however in this time where funds are drying up…its literally “have it, or loose it” senario (or a much less capable/more expensive platform such as a A400 spinoff)… at least we’ll have a platform for this vital task, with a unlikelable gap.
Regarding Soloman’s question, the Sentinel R1 preforms a different role of Battlefield intelligence – aka flying over or near the battlezone and gaining info ASTOR or being similar to JSTARS …the Nimrod R1 was a far more sneakier role of electronic/signal intelligence gathering.
Hi Mike, welcome to Think Defence and thanks for picking up on that error. it’s only through our commenters that we can improve accuracy. In my defence though, in subsequent articles on FSTA I do state just C17 and RC135
think defence how about cancel rivet joint program then n convert 3 mra4 aiframes to acept helix keep the rest and fly them for what they were built for. then cancel the a400m and buy c130j-30 super hercules instead, cancel f35 and either convert typhoon for deck landings (would’nt need much)or buy rafels keep a couple sqn of f3 for long rande interceptors and wild weasel work buty in saab gripens for close air support work and cancel the tanker program and buy them ourself and olso charter in a cheaper company like omega air that charge fraction of the price and we already use