Nimrod R1s replaced by even older aircraft!!!

Why dont they just get the 737-7ES Wedgetail
 

lofty_lofty

Old-Salt
Just googled that and I think I've found something even uglier than the Lynx Wildcat! How on earth does that thing get into the air let alone stay airborne?
 
jim30 said:
"As I clearly stated, MOD saved a few quid by using some old airframes they had spare and it's come back to bite them in the arse down the road… an all too familiar tale. "

To be fair, when R1 was created back in the early 70s, the Nimrod airframe was still relatively new, and in service in much larger numbers. This is an old asset - IIRC it came into service in the mid 70s, so is nearly 35 years old anyway. At the time it made sense to use Nimrod rather than any other airframe - a common thing with ELINT assets - a quick check of any spotter site shows that the majority of these frames are made of converted airliners of one form or another - there are very few 'bespoke' ELINT collection frames out there.


After the NimWACS fiasco, we should have been looking at the -135 as the default platform for this sort of stuff, and now we are. There's a lot of waffle about using these Boeings, but many KC-135's spent a lot of their lives sitting around sunning themselves waiting for WWIII to start. We've been stuffing the R1's with E-Systems kit since the mid 90's so I can't see the issues with binning the R1's and buying American..
 
The last 707,E3d airframe was built in 1991, but there are a number of other aircraft in service that could do the job and are still in production 767,737,777, ect
 
tropper66 said:
Why dont they just get the 737-7ES Wedgetail


It's an AWACS, not an ELINT bird.
 
tropper66 said:
The last 707,E3d airframe was built in 1991, but there are a number of other aircraft in service that could do the job and are still in production 767,737,777, ect


Smart move for us would be the A330, but we don't do smart procurement.


ANyways, the next E-3 will use whatever airframe the USAF opts for as it's tanker, so a 767 looks like the option.


The Japanese run 4 767 AWACS, E-3 in a newer airframe


E-767_501_01.jpg
 

POGscribbler

War Hero
Why were the Shackletons actually grounded? something to do with the bag brakes I heard?

PoGs

www.pocketcomms.co.uk
 
POGscribbler said:
Why were the Shackletons actually grounded? something to do with the bag brakes I heard?

PoGs

www.pocketcomms.co.uk


The Shackleton… 10,000 rivets flying in close formation.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
tropper66 said:
The last 707,E3d airframe was built in 1991, but there are a number of other aircraft in service that could do the job and are still in production 767,737,777, ect

None of which are available now.
 
Semper_Flexibilis said:
rockhoppercrab said:
Semper_Flexibilis said:
meridian said:
Its a retrograde step to a genuine world beating capability forced on the RAF by short term budget issues. Its an area we should be investing in, not cutting back.


And therein lies a big part of the problem. The Nimrod is an antique, so past it's sell by date it's sprouted mould and is self recycling itself. But back in the day, instead of building the R1's using a relatively modern airframe, (ex airline planes are easy enough to come by and cheap), it was another example of rummaging around the gash locker and using what we had lying around to save a few bob in the short term.
And why are they relatively cheap? Because they have had their arrses flown off them and would require major rework to be of any use.


Plenty of airlines have gone tits up in the last few decades and suitable low hours airliners could have been found. Buying some Airbus A300's were a no brainer instead of using up some ancient Nimrods.
Most airlines lease their aircraft, so any low mileage one little old lady owner aircraft are few in number, so any decent ones are in the hands of the surviving airlines. Add to that the fact that each will have varying degrees of maintenance history and modifications ,i.e. makes and models of engine, would make for an interesting and profitable time for who ever got the contract for stitching them together.
 
Semper_Flexibilis said:
The Shackleton: 10,000 rivets flying in close formation.

I heard that as "The Shackleton: 10,000 rivets flying in LOOSE formation"
 
Shacklebomber? Whichever, I think that Lancaster derivative is best regarded as "not an option these days". A few other bits of 1950's kit might have utility as well, but we ain't there any more. Hornet? Fury? Canberra? Fairly cheap and cheerful airframes for low-tech wars when we had loadsa aircrew to drive them.

BW - Shack is also 4 turning, 2 burning ;-)
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top