OI BEagle, NOOOO! A330-200MRTT tanker details.

[Jackonicko]

In the light of BEagles frequent stated preference for the 767K, at {aris I thought I'd go and chat to as many FSTA liars (oops, marketeers) as I could find. Boeing and BAE were always keen to talk about other things, and ran away when the subject of FSTA came up. EADS/Airbus were marginally more forthcoming.

The Air Tanker consortium (EADS, RR, Cobham/FR, Thales and Brown & Root) is based on the A330-200MRTT, and not the A330M19 praised by some on this forum some months ago.

The small, short A330M19 became the A330-100, and then, in deference to Airbus' distaste for using the -100 designation, with all its connotations of immaturity and 'lead sled' version, became the -500. This aircraft appears now to have been abandoned in favour of the A300-600 in the civil market (following an order by UPS), leaving it unavailable as the basis of a tanker.

Even if it were available, however, Airbus folk suggest that they wouldn't have used it as the basis of their FSTA bid, since the 330-200 will give the best 3rd party revenue over the 25 year period, and will also perform all FSTA tasks without requiring additional tanks.

Even with the revised spec, they claim that the 767 needs four extra tanks (it needed six originally), or an entirely new centre tank. There are also whispers that there are weight and structural problems associated with these tanks.

Objections to the 'bus on this forum have centred on the nearness of the pods to the engine cores, the aircraft's overall size and its inability to fit in the Falklands hangar or to use certain airfields.

Airbus claim to have trialled the aircraft with a variety of French AF receivers, and found no interference/airflow problems or difficulties. The aircraft is compatible with all UK airfields listed in the FSTA requirement - and every other RAF operating base they've looked at. They express surprise that anyone's talking about the Falklands 'it could be done, but only at huge cost, and with no third party use for the aircraft down there' - they expect a separate RAF-owned platform to fulfill that requirement - perhaps a Herc or A400 tanker - or even a KC-17!

Including the Falklands would make the entire FSTA bid very different - it's felt to be 'unrealistic'.

Details:
Two crew cockpit, with Mission Systems Operator console for third crew member during AAR ops.
106-in cargo door as standard.
343 pax single class, 298 pax two-class.
Accepts full range of underfloor pallets and standard containers.
Max range 8,500 nm in AAR configuration, more than 9,000 in AT.
Confused by the table, but at 400-nm from base, with MFOB, 150-nm divert or 30-min hold, the aircraft would seem to have nearly 60 tonnes to off-load, and could spend up to eight hours on station!
MTOW: 507,063 lb
MLW: 182,000 lb
ZFW: 170,000 lb
Capacity: 36,744 US gal
Length: 193 ft 7-in
Span: 197 ft 10-in

PS: Please don't shoot me, I'm just repeating what I heard.

[Tobbes]

Jacko,

Firstly, thanks for an interesting post. It's good to see that all of you who are slumming in Paris have something to do other than drink champange! :)

However, Airbus's reticence about MPA is exactly my problem with the whole PPP: if the economics for the operator are dependent on having the aircraft in western europe or the US to fly freight about, how does this fit with the doctrine of expeditionary airpower? Moreover, if the aircraft actually gets used in an expeditionary role for an extended period (like MPA for 18 months), who bears the financial risk of there being no thrid party business? Umm, could be HM Treasury.

Doesn't sound a very convincing way of gaining a front-line mission critical asset, does it!?!?!

So Beagle, what are your thoughts?

Tobbes

[Man-on-the-fence]

I noticed in todays Flight that there was a quote from the Airbus consortium (sorry can't remember their name) saying that they didn't expect to deploy to MPA as it would take the aircraft away from 3rd party operations for too long.

They assumed that the RAF would have their own assets to do that with, so if that is the case then what is the point in FSTA then?

Good value this deal......NOT

[Jackonicko]

Tanking under a PPP or PFI, maintenance and support of Tornado/Harrier/Jag by BAE are all (IMHO) ridiculous ideas driven by Industry's need to maintain shareholder value between major production/procurement programmes and likely to have a detrimental affect on every output standard which could be applied to the frontline.

Like the A330-200MRRT though, so let's buy two dozen outright! (And if there is any slack, then why not let the RAF haul cargo or pax for hire and reward - like the Sri Lankan or Peruvian air forces do!)

[BEagle]

Thanks for the info, Jackonicko!! Just goes to show how desperately out of touch the Airboooooooos consortia are when it comes to the core need of their primary customer. There is no chance of the C-17 being modified for AAR, the A400M will enter service after FSTA, after the VC10 has been replaced and even then, it will replace the C-17 in the AT role; perhaps it might eventually have some tactical WAH64 refuelling capability. Hence the suits at AirTanker should remember that the RAF wants an Air Tanker from them, not merely to borrow some capacity from their money-grubbing commercial 3rd party revenue activites as and when their A330Ks can be spared for their original purpose. The fuel figures are not a surprise; the reference to the 767K fuel capacity and structural integrity is utter horse$hit of the typical commercial mud-slinging kind. If Boeing ignores that comment, Airbooooos will claim they've got something to hide, if Boeing reply, Airbooooooooooos will claim that they have accepted that there could be a problem - which there isn't.

So perhaps it's bye-bye, A330K, hello 767K!

Don't forget, when considering the claims of manufacturers, the famous statement made by Mandy Rice-Davies (no, not "Cor, that's a little wi££y, Profumo") but "He would say that, wouldn't he".

Incidentally, AirTanker claimed that the cost of re-building the tin Timmy-tent at Base Aerea Gringo, Islas Malvinas to take the A330K would be 'insignificant'........

Boeing/BWoS/SSM have a much more robust solution, it would seem, which is far less dependent on 3rd party revenue. I would expect that ex-BA 767-300ERs would start the programme and would later be replaced with new-build as and when needed. Far more affordable and flexible........

Of course what we all REALLY want is a total rejection of any PPP in favour of the RAF lease-purchasing 767Ks from Boeing over their life-cycle. Mercenaries and profiteers running our core military 'force-enabling' fleet? What an utterly barking mad idea!


[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]

[Archimedes]

Intriguing idea, JN... Although I've expressed the view that Mr & Ms J Public have little idea of what the armed services are about, I think that there'd be a large number of people who'd love to fly 'Her Majesty's Airlines' - some for novelty value, some because of the fact that they'd be able to expect decent service. I suspect, though, that there'd be oppostion from:

The World's Favourite Airline
Virgin
The French

Of course, if it made money, this would never been seen by the RAF - either clawed back by the Treasury or lost in a black hole somewhere (probably in Gloucestershire).

[Jackonicko]

Tobbes,
"something to do other than drink champange"? AS WELL AS, old chum, As well as!

BEags,
Believe that both consortia see 3rd party use of these airframes in the same depressing light. Certainly with the fact that BWoS Customer Solutions and Support are an integral part of the 767 bid you make me smile if you're suggesting that they'll somehow care more about the customer's requirements. In fact, if Baron Boris is involved in one bid, I'd be inclined to say that the other MUST be preferable....

And if it is going to have to be a PPP/PFI type of deal, then the more money that can be generated from third party use, the lower the cost to the RAF, and the greater the availability to the RAF.

BAE CS&S are similarly dismissive of the Falklands argument - making me believe that neither consortia see it as a core part of the FSTA bid.

Would have thought that all other things being equal, the rather newer and more modern A330 would be a better bet, if only 'cos a '330 rating would be worth more when you jump ship!

It's also a much more capable strat transport aircraft than a 767, surely?

PS: How sure are you of the integrity of these high-houred ex-BA 767s, BTW? My spies suggest that there may be some stress-corrosion problems lurking in the centre-section which already require some landing weight limitations on the aircraft. Or is this pure b0ll0cks and scare-mongering by Nigels who want to look brave??

At the end of the day, you'll get what's cheapest!

PS: Just curious as to the extent of your loyalty to the 767, BEags: If they found unlimited oil in the Serpentine, so that money was no option, then which would you favour as an outright purchase - A330K or 767K?

Or if it had to be a PPP and if both consortia bid the same number of airframes, at the same aggregate hourly rate, then which?

Is the 767K your choice because you believe that it will be more cost-effective, or what?


[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 26 June 2001).]

[BEagle]

767K, first, second and third. Because, for one of many reasons, of the unknown dangers associated with full FBW aircraft operating in close formation with fighters. Have you read the AAIB report about the A340 which encountered a little turbulence, the FBW decidedto go to alpha prot, firewalled the throttles and zoom climbed out of its assigned level, very nearly colliding with an A330? I cannot see how we could EVER trust Airboooooooooooooos' control laws NOT to do something equally alarming with a receiver in contact...... In a Boeing, you click out the autopilot and take control - in an Airboooooooooooooooooos you are at the mercy of software designers.....who has control??

PLUS I trust Boeing's military understanding far more - and in any case, the A330K would be used to capacity on very rare occasions indeed - hence usually inefficiently. Whereas the 76K will be operated efficiently far more often.

PLUS, and don't let Airboooooooooos fool you, the A330 is T O O F * C K I N G B I G for virtually ALL military aerodromes except Brize. Try taxying one at Lossiemouth! Whereas the 767K will fit where a VC10 will, the A330K won't even fit where a TriStar or C-17 might......

Sorry, but Airbooooooooooooooooooos simply have no real idea about what we need!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]

[Penn Doff]

bEagle you could always deselect the prim flight computers and leave just the sec flight computers, puts you in direct law!!!

------------------
"please report further"

[BEagle]

Would that be before or after it had departed? One does NOT fly head-in pecking away at keypads during AAR in an attempt to control a FBW malfunction. Which other levels of FBW Airbooooooooos architecture would one need to inhibit in order for it to behave as predictably as a Boeing?? We're not as concerned with the last kg of payload/range efficiency as the airlines - we want a safe, reliable aircraft which does not need to be fettled by computers to keep it flying safely.

A330K - NON, MERCI!!

[Nil nos tremefacit]

If FSTA doesn't include MPA then perhaps, if the RAF retains it's own separate capacity, the TriStar could still do the Cannonball and Southern Q!!!! :)

Presumably FSTA contractors are happy to do Adriatic, Gulf, Southern Turkey and anywhere else there happens to be a conflict. Could keep a couple of VC10s to be on the safe side! ;)

[Jackonicko]

Interesting argument. (Not sarcastic).

Is your distrust of FBW widely held across the VC10 Tri* fleet (there used to be loads of you Brize types Pruning away, so one wouldn't have had to ask in the good old days)?

Is FBW more dangerous than the chance of a poor stick human pilot?

How about these full FBW fighters which will soon provide your trade?

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree, I just feel painfully under-informed.

And we do all agree on what a no-brainer the whole PPP/PFI idea is, at least!

[BEagle]

Nil nos - shouldn't that be 'or anywhere they think that there's a fast buck to be made'? Haul some shell-suited lager-louts from Cotswold Intercartertonental to the Med, re-role it do do some AAR for a week or two, then de-role it and bring the odious lot home again? Ahhhhhh - not a brilliant plan. I don't know where the FSTA PSPs ever got the idea that their precious jets wouldn't be needed for the Malvinas - the RAF will use them wherever it needs them; it would be the PSPs responsibility to provide the aircraft at the appropriate aerodrome in time for whatever they're needed for!

Good work on the local choo-choo, by the way. Put me down for a 1st class seat (facing the engine) on the inaugural run!!

Jacko - we don't train poor stick-and-rudder skill pilots, they get chopped during military training and end up flying people-tubes if they're lucky. Plus how could you tell when a FBW tanker was about to decide that it had found yet another unknown software problem...........

All receiver types have to be cleared by Handling Squadron against every tanker type. Bit of a bugger if the ONLY tanker had serious FBW problems............

As for the astronomic cost of keeping 'a few' VC10s flying because the mercenaries' FSTA couldn't do the job? Well - they'd end up picking up the tab for that as well!!


[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]

[Max R8]

I have been wondering how the PFI FSTA solution would cope with AAR QRA. Not so many years back we had to maintain a couple of jets and crews at ** readiness 24/365. With all the sh*t hitting the fan in the Balkans/Gulf/Afganistan/Rhodesia(oops! Freudian slip.) can we guarantee never to require Op T***** again. Bit of a bind when the scramble call comes to find your T1 and 2 aircraft are doing the lanzarote run!

[ORAC]

Beagle,
A\prayer for the VC10 force for dining-in nights:

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard;
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
For fragrant boast and foolish word-
Thy mercy on Thy People. Lord!!

[Suit]

BEagle,

What's the difference in risk between your FBW AAR platform and the FBW Eurofighters, FJCA and FOAS that will be (eventually) it's main stock in trade.

JN/BEags,

Forget MPA for the deployed AAR, I suspect that a tanker capable C-13OJ C5K will be the solution down there. AS to Airbus dismissing MPA as a reforce option then they would appear to be whistling out of their jacksey and totally missing the point on deployed airpower in the post Cold war world.

Some figures I have seen very recently seem to indicate that there will only be 9 (Nine!) FSTA in use by the RAF on a full time basis with the rest of the fleet available as a contingency option in case of war or crisis. I am not sure on the correct figures, can you help me here BEagle? but wouldn't that see the full time RAF AAR/Strat AT fleet fall from it's current 30 available airframes(L1011 KC1, K1, C2. VC10 C1K, K3, K4)to a measly 9?
Before you start BEagle, I am NOT stirring here as regards aircrew, but 30 to 9?



------------------
If the suit fits.........

[bonajet]

BEagle – firstly thank you for some entertaining posts in the past.
I have just landed from a dangerous mission in an A330 – much like the other few hours I have spent in it or its sister A340. On reading your tanker post, I just have to chip in a few points.

1 I haven’t read this horrific AAIB report you refer to but the power comes on at alpha floor which is not very far from the stall. If this “little bit” of turbulence had occurred on a 767 then there is a strong possibility that the tanker may have stalled – bit of a problem for the receivers.

2 Most of the FBW horror stories come from people who have no first hand experience of operating this kind of aircraft.

3 The last time I was at the secret base in Wiltshire, Handling Sqn wrote the FRCs. The release to service work is done by what used to be called the Fixed Wing Test Sqn. I’m sure that if jet efflux problems exist, this could be proved very easily – my memory’s a bit woolly but I think the Tristar was checked before the refueling option went ahead.

Best wishes!

[lightningmate]

Recommendations for 'Release to Service' for UK military aircraft are provided by Fast Jet Test Sqn for sharp pointy things, Heavy Aircraft Test Sqn for aircraft with galleys etc and Rotary Wing Test Sqn for the RW types. What the unit titles will be from Monday next is something of an open question!

lm

[bonajet]

Thanks LM – funny how things get re-invented – it was A and B Sqn which were amalgamated into FWTS. This was to save money. Why were they split up again?

[BEagle]

bonajet - my apologies, I should have said a 'test squadron will assess the handling'. I'm not sure which part of Qwintyquoo will be doing it in the brave new Trust-me-Tony world of over-contractorisation!

The point I made about the 'alpha prot' incident was that the startling behaviour of the A340 took the crew by surprise to such an extent that a very large excursion and near mid-air resulted. A 'conventional' aircraft, noting the expected shear value on the CFP might have deselected height hold, flown at Mra and ridden it out. Will there need to be associated FBW software changes made for a tanker? - I don't know, just pondering the question.

Suit - I can't comment on any of the 'numbers and needs' as the FSTA PSPs are at a very commercially-sensitive stage in their submissions and to do so might give someone some inside knowledge - or they might take it as such. Sorry, mate. But the assessments of short notice fleet augmentation seem very optimistic; I can't see El Presidente Portillo being too impressed at the idea that he can't deploy his EFs for another week to go and help out in Southern Rhodesia because the Tankers 'R Us contract won't allow him to!

If one FBW receiver type has a software problem, others could be used. If the sole FBW tanker type had a software problem, none could be used.

Don't get me wrong - A330/A340 are effective people-haulers. Even if they are rather slow. But as military aircraft....see http://www.aaib.gov.uk/bulletin/jun01/cggwd.htm and decide whether you'd want to be in the same formation as the FBW airbus....

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 27 June 2001).]

[lightningmate]

bonajet

Your question has stretched my memory slightly, there was so much changing at the same time. FWTS grew as part of the lead in to the amalgamation of the resources and tasks of the 3 R&D airfields namely, Bedford, Farnborough and Boscombe. When all the aircraft re-located to Boscombe the set up was FWTS, essentially the amalgamation of A & B Sqns, and Experimental Fg Sqn which was the amalgamation of Farnborough and Bedford. Both units operated FJs and Heavies. Things settled down and the obvious decision was taken to have a FJ unit and a Heavy unit, probably the only change supported by logic and common sense that happened around that time.

To expand on BEagle's comment, the situation post QinetiQ has the flying sqns operating as STC units within an R&D flying regulatory environment with the aircraft engineering and scientific support provided by QinetiQ civilian staff. Rather a tricky set up to get right and detail appears to be a late consideration, so next week will likely be a testing time for many at BD.

lm

[bonajet]

Thanks for the link BEagle - I'll come back to you after a little digging.

[HalesAndPace]

Beagle, you have been very selective in your comments about the A330/A340 incident. Firstly, nothing happened to the A330!! For the A340, quote from AAIB, it was a "random event driven by the severity of the turbulence." It didn't help that both aircraft were flying at near max Mach (M0.86) and the A340 was near max altitude, circumstances highly unlikely when tanking. Also bear in mind the location, North Atlantic RVSM airspace, a very unlikely position for a tanker and chicks to be - Blue Spruce route instead?? Now, the arguments against the B767 versus A330, that's another story!

[Reheat On]

An interesting AAIB report. UIAVMM there is a Notam out about the recued vertical separation trial - with the problems of turbulence being very much at the forefront, esp. wrt jetstreams.

It seems to me that if this had happened tanking, the unpleasant encounter with [unexpected] turbulence would simply result in an emergeny break off.

The big issue is that when crews do encounter a nasty, it takes 15 seconds to try and second guess the FBW - all very well trying to kepp the aeroplane in the air, but as Beags has implied, what happens if as captain you do not want to keep it going in THAT direction!

This incident is played down, but is very much a case of one the SLF will have remembered. Almost a very nasty, mainly because of the lack of horizontal separation, asociated with minimal vertical sep'n.

My understanding from material issued via The Salisbury Journal is that part of FTSA [DERA] Op Planning is that hours will be released for Civilian activity up to a year in advance uncer the terms of the contract.

QED All potential enemies please give due notice.

I also understand that there is an assumption in all the planning that while they may operate near a combat zone, they will never be allowed to go INTO the combat zone - so quick darts over the border to grab a mate and top him up are OOTQ.

It will all end in tears, but of course it will not be The Governments fault....

[This message has been edited by Reheat On (edited 01 July 2001).]

[212man]

I'm curious as to what a "cavalry charge" aural warning is? Does it become a "Charge of the Light Brigade" warning when the situation deterioates?

------------------
Another day in paradise

[bonajet]

BEagle – sorry to be so long in replying but there was another dicey FBW mission to be flown over enemy territory.

Just looking at the incident from a comparison of traditional versus FBW flight controls, the following spring to mind.

1 The excursions above 0.86 were of short duration and the protection in the A340 hardly pitched the aircraft up at all. The autopilot disconnect was probably missed by the crew. The disconnect audio would have been masked by the overspeed warning. The FBW system is probably better here because it does give some auto recovery from the overspeed.

2 The throttles were closed – this disconnected the autothrust. This was the start of their troubles. In a traditional a/c, in manual flight, slowing down is fairly obvious – in an Airbus the 1g flight law deletes the trim cues – if you’re not watching either the speed, trend arrows or the trim wheel. With the throttles closed you are going to slow down quite quickly at FL360.

3 Then at slow speed instead of stalling like the planes of old, the 340 engaged alpha feed back and put on full power. All that was needed was a little forward stick input to stop the climb. My guess is that it wasn’t until about then that they realized that the autopilot wasn’t connected. Impressive rate of climb for the old A340 at FL360! Must have been quite light.

So on balance I don’t think that there is a great deal to stab Airbus over – it climbed at the “stall” whereas I would have expected a traditional aircraft to have lost height. The only difference is that the climb could have been stopped (probably still provoking a TCAS RA though) but a loss of height after a traditional stall probably couldn’t.

Now as far as tankers go – let’s bring back the Valiant.

[BEagle]

No - you miss the point.

When it turns nasty near a 767 - autopilot out, I have control.

When it turns nasty near a FBW airbus - lots of audio alarms, WIHIH, no-one has total immediate control!!

Great jets the A330/340. Great civvie jets, that is. On 3 Jul the competing mercenaries will have had to submit their proposals to the suits at the Brizzle Futurama - so their plans and estimates will soon be known. Will our rapid deployment capability have been sold down the river by some shiny suit's 'policy statement' about reaction times - who knows. A330K, NON MERCI!! PPP - EVEN MORE NON, MERCI!!!!! C'EST TOUT MERDE!!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 July 2001).]

[Art Field]

Bonajet. Whilst I view my time on the Valiant Tanker with nostalgia or is it neuralgia I'm not sure the tin drogue, the manual torque setting, the square ended nozzle and a lumbering 250 kts would be that welcome today let alone the single hose that would occasionally trail to infinity after falling off. The current Vickers product is much preferable I can assure you. As for the future, who knows?

[bonajet]

Unfortunately Beagle you seem to have the usual problem of FBW baiters the world over…….you haven’t tried it.

As for audio warnings, the noises would have been very similar in the 767; overspeed, autopilot disconnect, TCAS, autothrust disconnect.

And for the old chestnut - “ I can take control and pilot the plane” – yes, you can do that in an Airbus. In the quoted low speed case at altitude, the aircraft was perfectly controllable – it was just that no-one was flying the plane. This is a problem with all aircraft in difficult, tense situations with the autopilot out. I would far rather do my low speed rolling show in an Airbus than any of the conventional big aircraft types I have flown!

By all means campaign for a 767 tanker, even one that the RAF can own full time, but please don’t use urban myth to attack the 330

[BEagle]

I am not criticising the A330/340 - merely querying whether it is wise to operate such aircraft in formation if any inherent flight control law can invoke such a vigorous climb and full thrust. In our current tankers, it is not considered safe to slave the autopilot to the HSI heading bug nor to automatic lateral navigation from the FMS; the attitude of the aircraft must always be under the pilot's total and immediate control. The only autopilot function permitted is automatic altitude hold; speed control is effected manually in the VC10 and, I understand, using ATS in the TriStar whilst heading alterations are effected by autopilot turn rate selection in the VC10 and, I understand, CWS in the TriStar. An A340 pilot with whom I have been speaking considers that there would need to be a substantial software modification disabling certain FBW modes for operating the A330 in formation - particularly when, as we WILL need to, 2 tankers are flying in formation. I am not convinced that this would be an easy - or cheap - modification.

Incidentally - has the occasional small amplitude yawing motion now been modified out of the A330/340? A colleague reported quite noticeable yaw whilst seated in the rear part of the passenger cabin during high level cruise; whether snaking or slight Dutch rolling he didn't say. Of course, it may have been an abnormality of that particular airframe...??



[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 July 2001).]

[Penn Doff]

Further to comments on size etc it would appear that the B767K is the front runner as the Italian Air Forces B707 replacement. BEagle's comments on size of the A330 are also mentioned in the article in this weeks Flight International.

------------------
"please report further"

[Max R8]

I think the point on FBW AAR is will the system let you have enough manual authority to make the intuitive attitude corrections required for close formation and...prodding?
Its not a case of not having flown an FBW big jet, its a case of FBW big jet pilots not having flown formation in them!
Plus, what will the chip think when the receiver disconects from the wing hose inducing a yawing moment that, at present, is damped by the natural aerodynamics of our analog aircraft!? Will it over or under correct, or just ignor it...please tell? (plese exquse pis por spolling)

[BEagle]

Indeed, MaxR8, 'yawing moment due to asymmetric disconnection rate' is an aerodynamic factor not currently listed in the lateral stability quartic! So if 'Marcel-le-mouse (sorry, souris)' hasn't built it in to his FBW software assumptions, what would happen when a sudden yaw rate was induced? And what would be the effect on the other receiver......

PennDoff - were the comments in Flight International similar to mine or were they lifted directly from PPRuNe? Because I sure as $hit haven't been writing to the Weekly Learmouth!!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 July 2001).]

[BEagle]

Having now read the Flight article, I note that Italian military sources indicate that:

1. The 767 offers the best combination of performance and cost.
2. The A310 is too short-legged
3. The A330 exceeds the requirement, is too expensive, is technically unproven and is too big and heavy to operate from many IAF runways.

Well, what a surprise! Interesting to learn that internal EADS Airbus strategy was also criticised.

At least the Italians aren't saddled with the PPP nonsense; however, having learned all this about what another Air Force has concluded, will the suits at the Brizzle Futurama take note?

IAF, lucky chaps, are going to be taking delivery of their first 767TTs in 2004. No doubt we'll still be embroiled in procurement vacillation and will be soldiering on with our decrepit old jets in 2004+.................

[sprucemoose]

Let's see if this A330-200 works then...

http://news.mod.uk/images/fsta_airbus.jpg

[sprucemoose]

Sorry, tried to post a head-on concept of the proposed ex-BA 767, but it was enormous; it's on the MoD site's news section if anyone's interested, along with a release about the bids going in this morning.

Moose

[BEagle]

Yes - that photo of the A330 has been doing the rounds for a while now. The 767K pictures have been around even longer though!

Interesting that the Italians can afford 4 brand-spanking new 767TTs, but our pathetic procurement budget won't even stretch to secondhand ex-BA aircraft; we're supposed to trust a bunch of mercenaries to provide our core front-line military force-enabling assets!

[only1leftmate!]

Now now! Beagle, Mercenaries!

let us embrace our industry brothers who are striving hard with us to break down the artificial divisions of our business environment. Lets think "out of the box" and strive to deliver more for less.

while we're at it let us produce thousands of processed fish products from but one fish and invent multitudes of perpetual motion machines....baaaaaaaahhh

[Reheat On]

http://defence-data.com/current/page11451.htm

give the latest state of play inc. a nice artist impression of the 767 zapped with roundels

[BEagle]

I've heard some very interesting information concerning the slow progress of the German A310 MRTT program. BAeS (who are not part of EADS) are not releasing wing data to the subcontractor doing the conversions. Well, not unless 't Baron gets a substantial financial interest and share of 't brass!! Well - of course that would never happen with the A330K now, would it..........???? The Italian Air Force were critical of EADS' internal wrangling - perhaps we shouldn't touch them with a barge pole for FSTA. A400M is another matter though!

Noting how our cash-starved defence budget can't afford to buy its own tankers, my sums reckon that instead of the b£oody stupid Mandeldome so beloved of Trust-me-Tone, we could have had 7 767K tankers in service in 3 years......! But no, a few more jobs for the suits in the Brizzle Futurama, a bit more stonewalling and contract assessment - and no doubt we'll be forced to accept the wrong aircraft.

[BEagle]

Boeing has just announced that the Italian Air Force has become the launch customer for the Boeing 767 Tanker Transport, 4 are being acquired with an option for 2 more. Boeing are now looking towards the RAF as the follow-on customer.

And all for the same cost as the stupid 'dome'! Germany and now Italy can afford proper tankers; DPA is still expecting the RAF to have to make do with mercenaries.

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]