Jennings Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Caveat: This apparently first appeared on Facebook. However, it has since been picked up by Aviation Week, who are not known for running Photoshopped photos. I've looked at it, and I think it's real. I'm very surprised by the USAF-like color scheme, but since interoperability is going to be the keyword for RAF Rivet Joint ops, it might make sense. I also believe it's for real because the antenna configuration, while very similar, is not identical to current USAF RJ's. The hump just ahead of the vertical fin is new, as is the wart on top of the cheek radome. Either way, pretty cool! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bdt13 Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 ARC Forums - you saw it here first! Thanks, Jennings! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 26, 2012 Author Share Posted December 26, 2012 She don't look bad for an almost 50 year old broad, does she? :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Litvyak Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Doesn't look bad at all, though the USAF-style lettering seems a little out of place to my eye. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
I.Martin Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Woow, looks cool but as said above, the lettering looks odd, it´s like ROYAL US AIR FORCE. I like it more than the low-viz grey scheme. Thanks for the pic. I.Martin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Are these ex-USAF RJ's or is this "new-build" from a KC-135? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 26, 2012 Author Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) They're being converted from FY64 KC-135Rs, and thus will be (no matter what anybody tells you) bas#ard children among the RJ fleet. All other RJs were built as either RC-135Bs or C-135B transports, and have a lot of differences in systems, etc. All C-135s to be sure, but not all C-135s are the same. The back end stuff is supposed to be essentially identical to the USAF RJ fleet though. As for the lettering this isn't just somebody Photoshopping "Royal" in place of "U.S.". The "AIR FORCE" lettering sits further aft because the word "ROYAL" is longer than the letters "U.S.". If it *is* Photoshopped, it's a very good job, but as I say, I don't think it is because of the slightly oddball antenna configuration. But it's academic at this point, as they're supposed to roll the first a/c out early in 2013 anyway, so we'll know for sure then. J PS: The RAF's airplanes are: USAF Serial/RAF Serial 64-14830/ZZ666 (who's betting this one gets named "The Beast" or something similar?) 64-14833/ZZ664 64-14838/ZZ665 Edited December 26, 2012 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 The new lumps/bumps are part of the Baseline 11 mod that has been around since early this year. I photographed a USAF RC with it in Feb. The grey bumps on the forward cheeks are symetrical and appeared to be exhaust vents, as they were open on the backend. Nice to the RAF finally getting something for 51 Sqn. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Litvyak Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Hm... even if the roundel is obstructed by the wing... fin flash? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 It doesn't appear to have any visible identification on it. If it were a USAF bird that was Photoshopped, I wonder if whoever did it would know enough to remove the last four of the tail number from the nose. It's not there, so it was either removed, or it wasn't there on the aircraft photographed. That lends more credence to this actually being one of the RAF birds. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pminer Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Caveat: This apparently first appeared on Facebook. However, it has since been picked up by Aviation Week, who are not known for running Photoshopped photos. I've looked at it, and I think it's real. I'm very surprised by the USAF-like color scheme, but since interoperability is going to be the keyword for RAF Rivet Joint ops, it might make sense. I also believe it's for real because the antenna configuration, while very similar, is not identical to current USAF RJ's. The hump just ahead of the vertical fin is new, as is the wart on top of the cheek radome. Either way, pretty cool! Freakin beautiful and awesome! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pminer Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Caveat: This apparently first appeared on Facebook. However, it has since been picked up by Aviation Week, who are not known for running Photoshopped photos. I've looked at it, and I think it's real. I'm very surprised by the USAF-like color scheme, but since interoperability is going to be the keyword for RAF Rivet Joint ops, it might make sense. I also believe it's for real because the antenna configuration, while very similar, is not identical to current USAF RJ's. The hump just ahead of the vertical fin is new, as is the wart on top of the cheek radome. Either way, pretty cool! Jennings...where on Facebook did this first appear? Are there any more pics? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 It doesn't appear to have any visible identification on it. If it were a USAF bird that was Photoshopped, I wonder if whoever did it would know enough to remove the last four of the tail number from the nose. It's not there, so it was either removed, or it wasn't there on the aircraft photographed. That lends more credence to this actually being one of the RAF birds. I am guessing all the brown stuff laying around the aircraft is from paint masks. The markings are likely in the process of being painted. There is at least one ARC member who works for Boeing in Seattle, perhaps he has more answers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 There is at least one ARC member who works for Boeing in Seattle, perhaps he has more answers. Boeing has nothing whatever to do with this conversion. They're being done by L3 in Greenville, Texas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stealthman Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 She certainly looks impressive! I wondered what colour scheme would be used on the RAF aircraft, it was suggested that they would be overall medium grey, but it makes sense to have the same scheme as the US Aircraft. The RAF RC135W's will be kitted out with exactly the same sensor/equipment suite as their US cousins and be upgraded every 3 years, so i assume they'll be delivered with the very latest fit out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I wondered what colour scheme would be used on the RAF aircraft How good would she loook in Hemp / Light Aircraft Grey..!~ Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 :D, Hi Jennings, I can't see anything but red Xs in boxes with the words posted image in your posts, including your avatar. Can you tell me why that would be? I'd like to see these pics but can't. Yours seem to be the only posts that do this on my computer. , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a4s4eva Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I can't see it either Quote Link to post Share on other sites
strikeeagle801 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I am guessing all the brown stuff laying around the aircraft is from paint masks. The markings are likely in the process of being painted. There is at least one ARC member who works for Boeing in Seattle, perhaps he has more answers. The only military projects at Seattle (Boeing Field that is) is the P-8A/I and the Wedgetail 737 AEW. Aaron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhino53 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 PS: The RAF's airplanes are: USAF Serial/RAF Serial 64-14830/ZZ666 (who's betting this one gets named "The Beast" or something similar?) 64-14833/ZZ664 64-14838/ZZ665 The serial numbers are based on the original Nimrod R.1 fleet, which were XW664, XW665 and XW666, withy another one joining later after XW666 crashed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 28, 2012 Author Share Posted December 28, 2012 :D/>, Hi Jennings, I can't see anything but red Xs in boxes with the words posted image in your posts, including your avatar. Can you tell me why that would be? I'd like to see these pics but can't. Yours seem to be the only posts that do this on my computer. :cheers:/>, Ross. No idea. Try emptying your browser cache. I can see them, as can lots of other folks. Something to do with Windows I suspect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
barkin mad Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I am sure I read somewhere they are to be known as Sentry R2 in UK service. ---------------- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wild Weasel V Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The serials are chosen because the numbers all add up to 51 which is the numberplate of the Squadron. (6+6+4= 16, 6+6+5= 17, 6+6+6= 18; 16+17+18 = 51 :)/> ) For those that can't see the picture and if Jennings (or the originator who put it into public view) doesn't mind, I transferred the image to Photobucket. If anyone has an issue with this, I'll delete it: The name was announced to be 'Airseeker' :huh:/> but I doubt anyone will call it that - except in official publications. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 28, 2012 Author Share Posted December 28, 2012 The image is already in the public domain... Here's what she might look like in full 51 Sqdn regalia :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Litvyak Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 "Airseeker"? That's a pretty silly name. Sentry at least would make sense - it *is* a -135 after all. But that lettering still looks wrong to me. :P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.