There is a Rivet Joint doing a few practice approaches at East Mids at the moment

Various options are being explored for the P.8 Poseidon which will see it carry a variety of kit. In the long run airframe build and overhaul is expensive – modification less so.

P8 Poseidon would make an excellent replacement for the role once done by Nimrod MR2 and should have been done by MRA2. And UK should buy it. Is there a SIGINT version of P8? Cost a bit if there isn’t.

David -you seem to have a strange obsession with getting a ‘sensible’ suggestion ! How about a P.8 Poseidon airframe.

Haddon-Cave and the RAF BOI identified the probable fault due to the lack of any physical evidence that was recovered. Its quite likely that the only people who can say for 100% certain live in a village in Afghanistan and have the piece .

Haddon Cave identified the cause as a failure of a fuel line. Underlying causes were using old technology seals, AVIMO’s, as used in Spitfire, Hurricane etc. This was exacerbated by a design change which had not been picked up. As the original material used in the AVIMO’c was carcinogenic the manufacturer changed the material without notification and testing whether it was suitable for use with jet fuels. The production then passed to another manufacturer who again did not pick up the design change.

So what airframe, other than RC135, should the RAF be using for SIGINT? Once again, no one has any sensible suggestions.

Nimrod XV666 was an electrical fault which caused a catastrophic engine failure. Electrical faults are not confined to Nimrods -I can think of numerous types that have had similar problems over the years.

I think XV666 was another victim of Nimroditis

David Burke – The aircraft were ‘maintained’… But the Haddon Cave report was extremely damming into how the fleet had been looked after. The the fact the ‘only’ one was lost in Afghan was more luck the judgement. I understand at least one other came very close. I say that with a heavy heart as I come from a ‘Nimrod’ family.

I do hate to say it, but I think Haddon Cave would disagree with your statement that the loss of one machine should not be viewed as a lack of care in maintenance. I dont mean maintenance as in daily maintenance or annuals etc… I mean necessary upgrades etc to make the aircraft safe. That was defiantly lacking, hence the aircrafts early demise.

Its a long time since I read the report so many of the facts escape me, but it was very damming 🙁

VX927 -the Nimrods were maintained – a flaw in the aircraft caused the Afghan crash . The aircraft type had been flying around safely for a very long time beforehand and the loss of one machine should not be viewed as a lack of care in maintainance.

The RC135W are old reworked airframes – the equipment carried by them could have been carried by a number of airliner derived types .

I’d have had them from day one. Such a looker, the 707 series

In many respects, the age of the airframe isn’t as important as the age of the upgrades that the airframe has had. The nimrod had been very much neglected and had become dangerous. The old 135’s on the other hand had been maintained and upgraded and were very much fit for purpose! It was a no brainer really!

Probably airtesting it as it has been broked from what I have read….

The RAF crews wouldn’t have trained on the RC135W if the Nimrod had been kept going. Not sure what this -‘No one ever suggest what airframe the RAF should have used for SIGINT other that RC135W’
actually means?

So you’re saying it would have been best to keep the Nimrod R.1 going despite the fact that RAF crews have trained on USAF RC135W for some years now and are now interchangeable between the two air forces aircraft…..seeing as the countries share the intelligence this always seem a no brainier to me. No one ever suggest what airframe the RAF should have used for SIGINT other that RC135W.