Talk:Boeing RC-135

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Cobra Eye information[edit]

I've added a little additional information regarding the Cobra Eye. Taking into account inflation, the Cobra Eye was the most expensive plane ever built. The lens on the camera alone was over half of a billion dollars in 1987. The entire camera assembly was over a billion. I realize that Wikipedia is a scholarly work and I do not have a linkable citation for this other than my father. To lend credence to this, my father worked with many projects in the Air Force (please do not press me one this, I am being intentionally vague) and he actually flew on this plane. I personally saw it land for the first time at Eielson AFB (If anyone remembers a 10 year old kid on the flightline when it landed, that was me). In short, the Cobra Eye deserves to be mentioned as the most expensive individual plane ever built (at least publicly acknowledged). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

More expensive than Boeing YAL-1? What about the Rivet Amber from this article, it says $35 million in 1960, that's $2.3 billion 2006 dollars or $1.3 billion in 1987 dollars. You should probably provide a source for any "most ever" statement. Are you including the entire world in this statement? --Dual Freq 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
In response, yes, but I think any "expense" based statement should also take into account how the number is calculated. Are we taking into account R&D costs? R&D costs for components/materials? value of all materials? etc. In this case, it is the R&D costs with the equipment. In addition, I am somewhat new to wikipedia and do not know how to sign things. Any tips would be appreciated. On top of all of that, please do not revert changes without at least discussing them. The only thing I can say regarding this is that I have spoken to several of the original crewmembers. There is no way to post that interview here. I am not sure how to post that. Request revert. More information to follow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
One of my sources is The Optical Aircraft Measurements Program and Cobra Eye by Bartley L. Cardon, Donald E. Lencioni, and William W. Camp. How do I put in this information since the actual text is in a book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Any more info; have these planes done anything exciting that is public knowledge, or anything about incidents; have these planes ever crashed, been forced to land, shot down, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Noticed that there was a jargon blip on the page. What jargon is there that needs to be cleaned up? Almost all program names are duly linked and defined elsewhere. Would love to help clean up if the person who placed the blip can tell me what jargon they don't understand.Tiktok4321 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Boeing RC-135 Air Seeker[edit]

Intro para disjointed[edit]

From the article:

The aircraft is an extensively modified C-135 with onboard sensors which enable the crew to detect, identify and geolocate signals throughout the electromagnetic spectrum. The RC-135 is known within the Boeing company as the Model 739 as opposed to the C-135 and KC-135 which are given the model number 717.[2] The crew can then forward information in a variety of formats to a wide range of consumers via the onboard secure communications suite.

We go from overview of the aircraft, talking about it's origins and nomenclature ( good ), to talking about the crew forwarding information. I suspect that information is fine, but in the wrong section of the article. DJD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have had a go at re-writing the first section, see if it is an improvement. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Name for UK deployment[edit]

This article describes the aircraft being deployed in the UK as being named as the "Airseeker", however I understand this is the name of the project rather than the aircraft. The current ref (No 22) seems to be a broken link. According to this RAF page the aircraft will be called Rivet Joint rather than Airseeker. Does anyone else have any info?— Rod talk 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Originally there was Project Helix, which started off planning to rewing the R1 in the same way as the MR2. When a)the MRA4 hit the rocks and b)people started thinking hard about the economics of unique SIGINT internals for three airframes, they started looking at a Rivet Joint option in the dying days of Tony Blair. This became known as the Airseeker option, but when they realised that noone was going to call them such a daft name, they pretended that Airseeker had replaced Helix as the project name rather than the aircraft name. So yes, you're correct, and I've amended the UK section accordingly. I'm also a bit suspicious that Dominic Perry had lifted an unsourced quote of £180m/plane from this article for his recent Flight piece, so I've given the MPR2012 price and generally given that section some love. (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)