Defence signs $1.4b aircraft contract

[Wirraway]

AAP

Defence signs $1.4b aircraft contract
December 20, 2004 - 3:34PM

The Defence Department officially signed a $1.4 billion contract for supply of five new airborne refuelling aircraft for the RAAF.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said the deal was with a Spanish company, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Construcciones Aeronauticas SA (EADS-CASA), for five EADS Airbus A330 aircraft to replace the RAAF's three elderly Boeing 707 aircraft.

The government announced EADS had won the deal back in April. EADS-CASA is the military aircraft division of EADS, the largest aerospace company in Europe and the second largest in the world.

Senator Hill said the new aircraft would be known as Multi Role Tanker Transports (MRTT) and would be capable of refuelling F/A-18s, F-111s, Airborne Early Warning and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft as well as having a significant strategic airlift capability.

"This contract signing is a significant step in replacing the Royal Australian Air Force's ageing Boeing 707 aircraft," he said in a statement.

"The aircraft will be fitted with electronic warfare self protection equipment and training simulators will also be provided."

Senator Hill said the new refuelling aircraft will be based on the Airbus commercial A330 aircraft currently operated by Qantas.

The basic A330 aircraft will be produced in Europe with four of the five being modified and converted into MRTT aircraft by Qantas in Brisbane.

Qantas will also provide through-life support for the MRTT aircraft.

"Australian industry will also be closely involved in the design work, project management and production of aircraft components and engine parts for export," Senator Hill said.

"Work to be undertaken by Australian industry and the associated technology to be transferred to Australia is expected to exceed $500 million over the life of the MRTT aircraft."

Senator Hill said the new aircraft were scheduled to enter service in 2009.

The contract schedule provides sufficient time for the aircraft to be extensively tested, facilities to be established and RAAF crews to be trained.

© 2004 AAP
Brought to you by

============================================

[Buster Hyman]

So, I guess that if Qantas flew fighters, we'd know what the ADF would purchase next in that area too huh?:rolleyes:

Years ago, when I was a wee ankle biter, Qantas was owned by the Government.....:hmm:

[DutchRoll]

No conspiracy unfortunately Buster. There were slim pickings as far as aircraft which both fitted the requirements and were cost effective to buy & operate (the ADF gets far less money flung at it than the yanks do). Qantas flies both of the final two contenders! My 'inside sources' tell me that the airbus option had both capacity and technical advantages over the 767 (added to the fact that Airbus seem to be flogging their current generation aircraft off dirt cheap at the moment).

[turnleftnow]

Only 5 a/c?? Surely they need at least 8

[Orville]

God help us if the nations security is relying on the A330.

[Keg]

Plus the fact that QF is probably thinking long term maintenance wise here. The 767 will be gone in ten years I reckon. The A330 may well still be here in 20 years which means that QF won't have to keep hold of specially trained maintenance crew to service the Defence contract.

Of course, the plan could change next week and we may get rid of the A330 for 777s! (If I say it often enough will it come true?!?! :} )

[Kanga767]

.....capable of refuelling F/A-18s, F-111s, Airborne Early Warning and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.....


....if they happen to be serviceable at the time.


K

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

$1.4 bn for five aircraft?!!?

Someone tell me this isn't a government operation...!!

Yes, I know they need a simulator (30 mill tops) spares, and refuelling equipment and training... but... where is me trusty calculator.. 280 million bucks for an A330?!!!?

Your tax dollars at work.

:eek: (We need a jaw dropped through the floor icon)

[Going Boeing]

No one has mentioned the fact that the A330 does not fit on the taxiways at all RAAF bases. Perhaps, some of the 1.4B is for widening of taxiways?

[Taildragger67]

"Spanish company"??

[Weapons_Hot]

Just a word of warning for you RAAFy chappies - the A330 has been certified by the DGCE (the French CAA) as a transport category aircraft. Don't confuse that with a C130H which is a transport/cargo aircraft. In other words, fly the A330 as the French intended it to be flown.
I recall years ago, the VIP sqn decided to change to tyre pressures on the Falcons - oops! How many overruns did they suffer? Enough!:hmm:
As for runway lengths - I don't think there are any bases which will not take a A330, either MTOW or MLW. Will have to check AFM for min rwy width though.

[DutchRoll]

I'm pretty certain that philosophy has already been acknowledged at the project management level, Weapons_Hot. However you & I both know that whether it is heeded operationally, or after the next posting cycle is another question!

True Borg, but the aeroplane has to be modified with a lot of necessary and expensive 'goodies' that the standard airline variant does not have. That figure may also include a fair degree of support. Even so, defence contracts being what they are, they still probably paid too much!

[Cougar]

I believe the issue at hand for the A330 is not the runway or taxiway width, but the apron pavement rating. Rumour has it that the jets will be based out of YBBN and not Amberley until they can strengthen the tarmac area.

[Weapons_Hot]

Thanks Cougar
I will check the ACN/PCN for the A330/YBAM the next time I am in the "office".

[Feather #3]

There is a pad at Amberley which will sustain the A330 main gear without a hassle, but [as of several years ago] only one. However, the taxiways are narrow and require careful consieration getting to/from the ramp. Filletting work on the corners would fix some problems.

G'day ;)

[Weapons_Hot]

Info at hand (aka rumour) reckons that the A330s will be based in WLM for some time, but eventually end up in AMB.

The interior will be fitted for dual role with multi functional interiors. Also with all the military comms shyte and tactical stuff, including a rear boom and drogue refuelling systems.

Basic engine/airframe will also be subject to 'tailoring' until the RAAF basically **** up a good aircraft.

The word from QANTAS is that they will be 'dogs' with poor serviceability, due to the extended periods idle on the ground and the very low hours to be flown per yr. Time wll tell. :O

[Ron Burgundy]

Has anyone tanked off one of these things yet?

Does anyone know its max offload?

Anybody with any operator level gouge??

[BuzzBox]

Weapons_Hot:

This might be off topic, but I can't help replying to your dig at the RAAF.

My recollection of the VIP squadron's problems with the Falcon 900 is somewhat different to your own (& I was there at the time!!). The use of reduced tyre pressures was only done with approval from Falcon Jet/Dassault, with a reduced max take-off weight. The idea was to reduce the aircraft's ACN, making it easier to obtain pavement concessions for some of the smaller airfields around Oz. Perhaps my memory is fading, but in practice I can't recall reduced tyre pressures being used very often - it was too hard to get them pumped up again!

I also can't recall any 'overruns' - the problem I think you're referring to was caused by a design fault in the main landing gear, which, given the right circumstances, caused severe vibrations that led to the failure of the torque link. That problem led to a fairly spectacular aborted take-off during a touch and go on a training flight at Albury. The aircraft nearly left the runway, but there was no overrun. A number of operators suffered the same problem, which was not caused by reduced tyre pressures. The problem was cured when Dassault redesigned the main landing gear - a fairly expensive exercise I'm sure.

If we're going to sling mud around, let's be fair and get the facts straight first!