A Little VC10derness

I was flicking through the latest copy of Aeroplane Monthly last night and noticed a report that the RAF has just taken delivery of the first of 3 Rivet Joint aircraft, it's a conversion of a 1964 KC 135, it made me think how expensive for a 50 year old airframe

I am not sure I would use the word "irony"... =D>

Tonks

I understand that the three airframes concerned are all 7 years older than the R1 Nimrod airframes that they replace ....... is that true does anybody know?

They did mention something about the age of the Nimrod R1, I'd have to look again at the article to confirm the detail.

There's been huge debates over this aircraft on other forums!

Playing devils advocate... yes, around 7 years older than the R1's, but totally rebuilt to zero-hours. Of course, its all about whats inside $$$!

Irony... what will be retired to the boneyard first, B-1 or B-52? What about Voyager or RC-135? No doubt this might change, but as i understand it, current plans are for the RAF Voyager's to be retired around 2040, 5 years BEFORE the RC-135's!

And you know we can't refuel them either (not in the air anyway)!..................

Jazz707 wrote:There's been huge debates over this aircraft on other forums!

Playing devils advocate... yes, around 7 years older than the R1's, but totally rebuilt to zero-hours. Of course, its all about whats inside $$$!

Irony... what will be retired to the boneyard first, B-1 or B-52? What about Voyager or RC-135? No doubt this might change, but as i understand it, current plans are for the RAF Voyager's to be retired around 2040, 5 years BEFORE the RC-135's!

And you know we can't refuel them either (not in the air anyway)!..................

Goes to prove how useful these old airframes are especially with modern engines as the rc-135s and kc130 have now. Also read that the entire KC10 fleet may be getting cut, we could have had a few of these in hindsight instead on the grossly expensive Voyagers. The reason the B52 and kc130 will go on when newer types are taken out of service is they are cheap to run, simple and there is a huge reserve of spare parts as so many were made originally.

Gsxr600 wrote:

Jazz707 wrote:There's been huge debates over this aircraft on other forums!

Playing devils advocate... yes, around 7 years older than the R1's, but totally rebuilt to zero-hours. Of course, its all about whats inside $$$!

Irony... what will be retired to the boneyard first, B-1 or B-52? What about Voyager or RC-135? No doubt this might change, but as i understand it, current plans are for the RAF Voyager's to be retired around 2040, 5 years BEFORE the RC-135's!

And you know we can't refuel them either (not in the air anyway)!..................

Goes to prove how useful these old airframes are especially with modern engines as the rc-135s and kc130 have now. Also read that the entire KC10 fleet may be getting cut, we could have had a few of these in hindsight instead on the grossly expensive Voyagers. The reason the B52 and kc130 will go on when newer types are taken out of service is they are cheap to run, simple and there is a huge reserve of spare parts as so many were made originally.

You sure? I really can't see how a DC-10 would be cheaper to operate or easier to source spares for than an A330 (Voyager)?

I meant the initial cost of buying brand new A330s and the high cost of development must be many times more than second hand DC10s, but then again they don't have hose and drouge.

Back on topic though I was thinking about the irony of the RC135s entering service, and there really is a big cruel irony. If you think about it the Comet and VC10 lost out to the 707 back in the 60s. They continued up until recently in fairly small numbers, until the mid 80s when the Nimrod AEW 3 looses out the to E3 Sentry (basically a 707), and now as Nimord MR2 is finally replaced by a RC135 (again a 707 basically), ironically only a few weeks after the last VC10 left service. I suppose at least the Voyagers are party British, and represent a British design that is beating Boeing in worldwide sales.

Gsxr600 wrote:I meant the initial cost of buying brand new A330s and the high cost of development must be many times more than second hand DC10s, but then again they don't have hose and drouge.

Back on topic though I was thinking about the irony of the RC135s entering service, and there really is a big cruel irony. If you think about it the Comet and VC10 lost out to the 707 back in the 60s. They continued up until recently in fairly small numbers, until the mid 80s when the Nimrod AEW 3 looses out the to E3 Sentry (basically a 707), and now as Nimord MR2 is finally replaced by a RC135 (again a 707 basically), ironically only a few weeks after the last VC10 left service. I suppose at least the Voyagers are party British, and represent a British design that is beating Boeing in worldwide sales.

Yeh, this is such a huge, debatable subject. People have very strong opinions, based on what they know of the facts of course. I find it ironic that people have jumped on the RC135 (mainly because of the original airframes age) and its inability to AR from our Voyagers, even though the same applies to our C-17's. 25-30 years is a long time without this capability. Will it really never matter? So, will be interesting to see if something gives in time? Probes fitted or a couple of Voyagers with booms? No doubt both options are costly/difficult. We'll see!

I think I'm just jealous that the 707 gets to fly on into the future but all the classic British types are now gone. But I'm very happy that any 'old' airframe gets to have such a long lifespan. The length of service on the kc135 and b52 once they eventually retire will be astonishing.