Search

Archives

Latest From Stephen Trimble

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

Flightglobal Blogroll

Recent Assets

  • X15poster.jpg
  • Boeing Concept FAXX June 2008.jpg
  • faxxslide manned alternatives June 2008.JPG
  • FAXX slide Boeing July 2009.JPG
  • Boeing Concept FAXX July 2009.JPG
  • OBL.jpg
  • SU_PAKFA_pic_8.jpg
  • SU_PAKFA_pic_9.jpg
  • SU_PAKFA_pic_7.jpg
  • 3942_Hitlers_Stealth_Fighter-13_10240768.jpg

L-3 boss confirms Nimrod R1 is dead

By
Stephen Trimble
 on July 24, 2008 4:45 PM | | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0) |
Overheard this morning on the L-3 Corp earnings call with analysts. CEO Michael Strianese was asked about a report (by Inside the Air Force's Marcus Weisgerber) that the UK would cancel Nimrod to buy US Air Force Rivet Joints. Strianese replied:

"As you know, last year L-3 won the role of prime contractor on Helix ... upgrading the electronic surveillance suite on Nimrod ... the UK has been reconsidering that decision and we understand it is considering purchasing Rivet Joints instead. Couple of reasons ... One, there was a crash of a Nimrod in Afghanistan last year. Condition of that airframe was not quite as good as they thought ... [So, the MOD could not justify cost of electronics upgrade] ... Two, participating in US Rivet Joint program would really help in terms of interoperability with US forces ... Provides some leveraging in UK investments for future threats ... [MOD also could] co-man US Rivet Joint platform with US troops and in effect get hands-on training in advance of delivery... I believe that the decision will get finalized in what is called Main Gate approval right now within the MOD ... we will probably get a green light in the spring."


nimrod.jpg

Tags:

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: L-3 boss confirms Nimrod R1 is dead.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.flightglobal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/31992

6 Comments

Jon Lake
By Jon Lake
on July 24, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply

I wonder what sort of condition the three KC-135Rs that are earmarked to become RJ18-20 are in?

I wonder why three refuellable KC-135Rs are available for conversion, and not in the USAFs core tanker fleet?

Could it be that these will be bigger 'clunkers' than the Nimrod R1s, albeit without the baggage (post XV230) of being called Nimrods?

Above all, I wonder why no-one is discussing the very real loss of autonomous national capabilities (especially in terms of tactical Elint collection) that will result in the replacement of R1 by RJ?

MT Stephen Trimble
Stephen Trimble replied to Jon Lake
on July 24, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply

And I am surprised why no one is discussing the very serious decision by the USAF to export such extremely sensitive technology, even to a very close ally! I'm not suggesting the UK can't be trusted, but I don't recall an ELINT system of this magnitude being exported in the past. Maybe it's a little unhealthy for both sides?

Jon Lake
By Jon Lake
on July 24, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply

Elint-wise we're only talking AEELS - (which is my issue, to be honest).

The really sensitive stuff is the Comint side of RJ - and I'm not convinced that the RAF needs a Comint capability above that offered by R1.

I suspect that this is seen as a means of supporting (and above all manning) more RJs than the USAF alone can manage. Great for the USAF, great for the coalition of the willing, but less so for the UK....?

willS
By willS
on July 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply

"I wonder what sort of condition the three KC-135Rs that are earmarked to become RJ18-20 are in?"

I suspect we'll end up with airframes from the boneyard (AMARG). I understand there are some low-mileage examples there, certainly according to the database there are a lot to choose from!

I'm sure the issue of the electronics fit has been addressed (and we'll never know the answer) however is it possible that some of the existing R1 kit will be moved over? After all it's the airframes that are falling apart, not the electronics.

MT Stephen Trimble
Stephen Trimble replied to willS
on July 25, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply

Great questions. I'll be sure to ask USAF and L-3 at my next opportunity and report back.

Anonymous
By Anonymous
on July 27, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply

With the shortfall of tankers, I'd be surprised if there were any 'spare' AAR-receptacle-equipped KC-135Rs sitting at AMARC. KC-135Es, sure, but not Rs.

I'd be less anxious if I thought that we were going to get adapted RC-135Vs which incorporated UK-specific kit (and above all that were adaptable to UK-specific CONOPS and manning practises) - or even if we would be getting a Rivet Joint/Combat Sent hybrid.

But RJs 18-20 will be bog-standard Baseline 10 RC-135V/Ws - and as far as I can see, we'll be going back to a two active/one upgrade structure, whereas at the moment we have three R1s, three sets of kit, and at some stages we have three available for ops (one's often still in upgrade/maintenance, of course).

This is all about the cheapest possible option - Gordon's cupboard is bare.

Even the old R5 plan would have been better than this.

Leave a comment

Want a user picture? Get a Gravatar!

Sign up to

© Reed Business Information 2008