Originally Posted by
BEagle
Regarding the A340-200/300, just study the wing planform, dihedral angle and 2 outboard engine locations....
Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates.
This is a proposed
fee for services contract. There is nothing in the contract that defines the tanker configuration, and no requirement for Wing Aerial Refueling Pods (WARP). The following 6 points jump immediately to mind regarding the need for WARP to service probe equipped USN/USMC aircraft:
1. Omega has been supporting USN/USMC for 18 years using a centerline drogue equipped KC-707.
2. USAF has been supporting USN/USMC for multiple decades with KC-10s using just the centerline drogue system. While KC-10 can be equipped with WARP, only a few have been so equipped.
3. USAF has been supporting USN/USMC for multiple decades with KC-135 using a hose/drogue adapter on the KC-135's boom.
4. Dutch KDC-10 have been supporting NATO probe-equipped aircraft for decades using just the centerline drogue system.
5. USN's MQ-25 refueling drone has no WARP.
6. RAF's TriStar tankers have no WARP.
Secondarily, you are selling your European engineers short. If turning an A340 into an aerial tanker with WARP turns out to make financial sense, I'm reasonably confident the engineers at Airbus and BAE could figure out the engineering to make it happen. May I remind you that your engineers managed to put WARP on your Victor bombers. And those bombers' wings had no built in provision to deliver fuel near the wingtips where the WARP were located. And by the way, the Victors had
anhedral and a downright odd wing planform, so your dihedral and planform comments appear to be red herrings.
The process of clearing receivers against a 'new' tanker design is also a very time consuming and expensive activity, except for UOR 'heart of the envelope' clearance during TTW.
It is indeed, but that is equally true for
any aircraft, not just A340. Nevertheless, the fact that there are multiple commercial operators providing Fee for Service aerial refueling to probe equipped aircraft using multiple different platforms indicates this is not only feasible, but financially viable.
Now, about those "blindingly obvious" reasons you referred to? Not so much.