BAe146 Offered as tactical air to air
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but how long do you think deicing takes, Beagle? The whole procedure takes about ten mins, half that with an extra rig, concurrent with crew boarding checks and start up. There's simply no need for the continuous deice pantomime you describe.
Remember the other BAe idea touted for the 146, that of the side loading combat transporter that required you to build a ramp up to unload it.
Nice in a combat situation...... It didn't sell,
Nice in a combat situation...... It didn't sell,
The BAe 146M? It did sell - the RAF have two at Kandahar.
The whole procedure takes about ten mins, half that with an extra rig, concurrent with crew boarding checks and start up. There's simply no need for the continuous deice pantomime you describe.
Quote:
The BAe 146M? It did sell - the RAF have two at Kandahar.
It didn't - and they're not
The BAe 146M? It did sell - the RAF have two at Kandahar.
It didn't - and they're not
PICTURES: Converted BAe 146s cleared for RAF operations
Also, the accompanying text is rather vague.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,847 Likes
on
1,217 Posts
What you have now is a Civilian freight version adapted for use, what the original Military version called the STA had for unloading and loading was this contraption that it carried onboard and had to be assembled to offload your vehicles, not exactly roll on roll off.
As shown at Farnborough.
and Paris below
it had no takers.
from Wiki, though to be fair for the role it is in today, it wouldn't have needed the ramp.
I still think the UK government messed up when we bought the Andover over the Heralds, they were modified to have a Herc type back end and thats what the 146 should have had.
Could you imagine a Bae 146 Carrier ONBOARD delivery system.... i'm still laughing now over 30 years later.
As shown at Farnborough.
and Paris below
it had no takers.
BAe 146STA[edit source | editbeta]
Throughout the production life of the BAe 146, British Aerospace proposed a number of specialised military versions, including side- and rear-loading transports, an airborne tanker version,[47] and a carrier onboard delivery version.[48] Out of these proposals the BAe 146STA (Sideloading Tactical Airlifter), based on the BAe 146QT cargo aircraft and sharing the same cargo door on the left side of the rear fuselage, was produced. This military transport version has a refuelling probe protruding from the nose; a demonstrator, fitted with a dummy refuelling probe and an air-openable paratroop door was displayed at the 1989 Paris Air Show and carried out extensive demonstration tours, but no orders resulted.[49]
Throughout the production life of the BAe 146, British Aerospace proposed a number of specialised military versions, including side- and rear-loading transports, an airborne tanker version,[47] and a carrier onboard delivery version.[48] Out of these proposals the BAe 146STA (Sideloading Tactical Airlifter), based on the BAe 146QT cargo aircraft and sharing the same cargo door on the left side of the rear fuselage, was produced. This military transport version has a refuelling probe protruding from the nose; a demonstrator, fitted with a dummy refuelling probe and an air-openable paratroop door was displayed at the 1989 Paris Air Show and carried out extensive demonstration tours, but no orders resulted.[49]
I still think the UK government messed up when we bought the Andover over the Heralds, they were modified to have a Herc type back end and thats what the 146 should have had.
Could you imagine a Bae 146 Carrier ONBOARD delivery system.... i'm still laughing now over 30 years later.
Last edited by NutLoose; 16th Sep 2013 at 15:16.
I'm no expert, but I don't think the grass at Kandahar is that green. 
Also, the accompanying text is rather vague.
Also, the accompanying text is rather vague.
Could you expand on that? The link below shows that they do, and speaking to BAE they assure me that they are.
pair of BAe 146-200QC passenger/freighter aircraft
The modified transports - which were acquired from TNT Airways
They're just a pair of converted ex-TNT freighters, rather than BAe146Ms.
The hangar at MPA is too narrow for the A330. Even if it wasn't surrounded by other buildings, attempting to widen it whilst maintaining structural integrity and casting new foundations would be an 'interesting challenge'. A pair of stop-gap C-130J tankers would probably be cheaper until the A400M enters service - assuming that the ATrS contractual clause can be 'reviewed'.
The hangar at MPA is too narrow for the A330. Even if it wasn't surrounded by other buildings, attempting to widen it whilst maintaining structural integrity and casting new foundations would be an 'interesting challenge'. A pair of stop-gap C-130J tankers would probably be cheaper until the A400M enters service - assuming that the ATrS contractual clause can be 'reviewed'.
Quote:
Could you expand on that? The link below shows that they do, and speaking to BAE they assure me that they are.
I think the key bits in that article are:
Quote:
pair of BAe 146-200QC passenger/freighter aircraft
and
Quote:
The modified transports - which were acquired from TNT Airways
So not 146Ms but 146QCs
Could you expand on that? The link below shows that they do, and speaking to BAE they assure me that they are.
I think the key bits in that article are:
Quote:
pair of BAe 146-200QC passenger/freighter aircraft
and
Quote:
The modified transports - which were acquired from TNT Airways
So not 146Ms but 146QCs
As it happens, as briefed by BAE, the BAe 146M is the designation given to a civilian aircraft that has been converted into a military airlifter. Of course, once in service the RAF gives them its own designation.
Besides, this isn't a discussion about designations, but about the BAe 146 in general (check the title of the thread).
Last edited by melmothtw; 16th Sep 2013 at 15:19.
Besides, this isn't a discusison about designations, but about the BAe 146 in general (check the title of the thread).
As your ightly point out the 146M is the CC3 in RAF parlance - and I'm not sure how much of the 146M appeared in the CC3But to bring the topic back on track, as a tactical AAR asset - pointless. The cost of conversion of the aircraft into a refuelling role would make it very expensive. Why wouldnt you just use the A400Ms you already have on order, that come ready plumbed for AAR and just buy the AAR kits to meet your requirement for a tactical tanker.
Edited for wrong link
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 16th Sep 2013 at 15:30.
The cost of conversion of the aircraft into a refuelling role would make it very expensive. Why wouldnt you just use the A400Ms you already have on order, that come ready plumbed for AAR and just buy the AAR kits to meet your requirement for a tactical tanker.
Not sure what exactly you're meaning with QED in this instance, but if you're saying that the AirTanker contract also precludes the BAE 146 being used then that's incorrect. The contract says the MoD cannot tank with anyone other than AirTanker, but does not say it cannot tank with any platform other than Voyager.
BAE thinks (rightly or wrongly) that there is scope in AirTanker operating a small number of 146s to augment the Voyagers for training and tactical tanking.
BAE thinks (rightly or wrongly) that there is scope in AirTanker operating a small number of 146s to augment the Voyagers for training and tactical tanking.
As it happens, as briefed by BAE, the BAe 146M is the designation given to a civilian aircraft that has been converted into a military airlifter.
Anyway, to answer the original question (again), a BAe 146K would be an utter waste of effort. High maintenance costs (5 x APUs), very little offload, single hose only - a totally useless POS in my view.
Years ago I had a quick back of an envelope look at a tanker derivative of the A321. Not terribly impressive - if a VC10C1K or VC10K4 could offer 36.3 tonne offload capability on the specimen mission, an A321 could offer 24.8T. Whereas an A310 or VC10K3 could offer 47T - and an A330 84T.
BAE thinks (rightly or wrongly) that there is scope in AirTanker operating a small number of 146s to augment the Voyagers for training and tactical tanking.
If ATrS are to provide the 24/7 AAR service exclusively, then they should build a new hangar at MPA.... Surely they looked into this before the contract was sealed? If they want to provide the service exclusively, their research should have checked that there's adequate infrastructure in place to do so.
Last edited by BEagle; 16th Sep 2013 at 15:59.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,847 Likes
on
1,217 Posts
Yep, or it is their responsibility to provide the means to deice the aircraft, part and parcel of providing a service, and if they fail then they should be fined until they provide it"
What stupid idiot signed a contract which in effect gave them exclusivity for AAR.
What stupid idiot signed a contract which in effect gave them exclusivity for AAR.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts