RAF Goes Retro . . .

They should have just done the obvious… chosen one of the other options for making an AEW Nimrod:

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/nim%20aew.htm

Eventually, UK scientists deciding to ditch the FMICW radar in favour of the pulse-Doppler radar and funding for the system was finally approved in 1972. Various options for the Nimrod airframe were considered; the first option involved mounting the E-2C AN/APS-125 radar and associated avionics above and inside the airframe. The second option was to use the AN/APS-125 radar with British avionics. The third option was to mount the AN/APA-171 radome and antenna on the Nimrod, with Britain supplying the radar transmitter, receiver and avionics. The fourth option was an all British radar and avionics system, with some American components, and a FASS with pulse-Dopper processing operating in the S-band. Although this option provided the greatest input from British industry, it also carried the greatest technical risk and the alarm bells should already have been ringing. But, as in so many UK defence fiasco’s over the years, political decisions, namely keeping BAe & GEC workers employed and retaining AEW radar technical expertise in the UK, overcame the many doubters and outweighed common sense.

By the end of 1974, instead of purchasing an off-the-shelf system with a proven track record, the Labour government predictably decided on the fourth option, the Nimrod AEW 3, accepting whatever extra cost and technical risk that involved. At the time the Labour government also considered that joining a possible NATO purchase of the Boeing E-3A was just too politically complicated, expensive and subject to unknown delay – which is rather ironic considering how things eventually turned out. At this point it was widely reported that the RAF was in favour of a dedicated UK purchase of the E-3A, rather than the Nimrod, but the cost, together with the potential loss of jobs in some marginal Labour seats, was always going to mitigate against this option.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1272.0
Aircraft with APS-125:

Nimrod AEW.3 variants:

Nimrod-E-2C fit:

Pagen: I think you agree she looks lovely even with the patchwork paint job!

Absolutely, I can never tire of looking at them and it is a pleasure to be working along side them in the twilight of their careers.
It was a sad day watching the last major depart, as it was also the last RAF (or other) major servicing to be conducted at Saints.

Have to agree with the RJ thing aswel, for more spacious and flexible airframe for the job, as much as I love the Nimrod, we probably should have had it earlier. We waited far too long to get the Sentry while we wasted money trying to adapt the Nimrod before,

Bristol Mumbai – no, doesn’t sound right, does it. Lovely aeroplane, though!

Another case of British industry being out sourced to Asia :rolleyes: 🙂

I’d guess if the purchase happens, they’ll be freshly overhauled and structually sounder than the Nimrods.
The USAF has lots of experience at making 135s like new..and unlike the Comet, it’s easy to reengine without doing the whole Nimrod 4 thing.

I think that’s a fair point. From what I can gather the 3 RAF RJs, built in ’64, had major work in ’79, converted to 135Rs in the early 90s, and in recent times have only been in service since around 2000. Engineering wise, pretty new.

Pagen: I think you agree she looks lovely even with the patchwork paint job!

A bit like acquiring RC135 Rivet Joint to replace Nimrod R1 then.

I’d guess if the purchase happens, they’ll be freshly overhauled and structually sounder than the Nimrods.
The USAF has lots of experience at making 135s like new..and unlike the Comet, it’s easy to reengine without doing the whole Nimrod 4 thing.

Thanks for your clarifications HC.
Here’s ZA147 departing from her last (and the fleets last) major and before paint at Manchester.

Rigga, those points wouldn’t really affect how the fleet is used by the RAF, and they still pop into civil airports on a fairly regular basis.
I think the height avoidance kit issue cited in the article is media spin, TC states the capabilities well!

Not just the the lack of “EMGY Cabin Lighting” but a host of other avionic upgrades, to make them fit into modern PAX airways, that were “not adopted” by those that pay. TCAS/TAWS, RVSM, FM Immunity (I think), and finally – Noise! VC10s are not compatible with new civil airport noise levels (introduced in the early 2000’s?)

Not entirely correct. The VC10 has TCAS, is mainly RVSM compliant (a few temporarily aren’t, but aren’t pax carriers anyway). As for TAWS, it has a radio altimeter, and, unlike almost all airliners, a Navigator. It uses the same airways as everyone else.:) As for noise, it varies from airport to airport, and it can still use all but the strictest civil airports.

The passenger task was dropped (briefly it seems!) because of the rediculous non aisle lighting issue, despite the fact that the RAF seat there passengers facing backwards which is a darned sight safer than the normal civil airline seating arrangement.

Not just the the lack of “EMGY Cabin Lighting” but a host of other avionic upgrades, to make them fit into modern PAX airways, that were “not adopted” by those that pay. TCAS/TAWS, RVSM, FM Immunity (I think), and finally – Noise! VC10s are not compatible with new civil airport noise levels (introduced in the early 2000’s?)

The passenger task was dropped (briefly it seems!) because of the rediculous non aisle lighting issue, despite the fact that the RAF seat there passengers facing backwards which is a darned sight safer than the normal civil airline seating arrangement.

The VC10 still carries passengers (for now at least), but these are limited to operational and some exercise personnel only, whereas they used to carry civilian dependents to and from Cyprus twice a week up to January, as well as what would now be classed as non-essential passengers. This all came about after Haddon-Cave. Aisle lighting wasn’t only one issue. There are several others, as alluded to in the article, which are mitigated by the way the aircraft is operated, and by specifically directed crew training. Still perfectly good at its job.:)

As for it being 50 years old, [geek hat] I think they’ll find the oldest pair, XR808, and ZA147 (which did go to Air Livery at Manchester today), are only 44!:D

The newly built aircraft will have to called ‘Mumbai’ ! 😀

Bristol Mumbai – no, doesn’t sound right, does it. Lovely aeroplane, though!

Bristol back in business.

Bring back the Bristol Bombay :p

The newly built aircraft will have to called ‘Mumbai’ ! 😀

Bring back the Bristol Bombay :p

>>Heavens knows what they were like mechanically and structurally come the end!<<

I was at Waddo from 73-80 on the Line and 101 before going to Saints for Vulcan Majors. Structurally they were in pretty good nick- remember Avro built them like brick outhouses. The only new structural mods we were incorporating on a regular basis concerned the rudder PFCU mounts and the rear spar at the transport joints. Mechanically it was RTS till the end even though many were stripped for spares before scrapping.

HTH
Cheers
Mad Jock

Maybe but generally they only pick up and drop off at Brize, even for big troop lifts. They used to fly to the relevant station to uplift large pax numbers, but then they changed that to busing the personnel to Brize to catch the aircraft.
Maybe they are being kind due to the weather and roads?

Or dropping a few people off.

This from twevsmiff on FighterControl –

`XV105(Ascot 2505) just landed at LBIA(1805). Already got outbound clearance at Brize Norton as Ascot 3240.

(posted at 18.22)

Short stop, fuel maybe ?

I’m wondering if the Leeds and East Midlands VC-10 sightings were w/x diversions from Brize?
I know ZA147 is having a repaint somewhere but this is usually done at Manchester.

There was a VC-10 at Leeds Bradford yesterday, missed it 🙁

Vulcan v TSR2

Reminds me that our Vulcan’s went on…and on…and on in service following that wonderful government decision to abandon TSR2 in the late 1960’s. We were sitting at Waddington awaiting the new machines to take over from the V’s but that was never to happen. We were still patching and matching, robbing spares and somehow keeping the ‘beasties’ flying when I left the mob in 1977 …and they went on further till the Falklands war of ’82 and beyond. Heavens knows what they were like mechanically and structurally come the end!

Not at all. I always appreciate a correction to poorly reported story, which, sadly, we read all too frequently these days.:)