RAF to ever replace Tristars with 767s?

[Speedbird744]

Will the RAF ever buy B767s in replacement for their tristars? I am interested to know how long they will keep Tristars in operation?. .Thanks

[Muff Coupling]

Why..are you after a job?. .. .Rumour has it that the Tristar will soldier on until £3.2bn of Taxpayers money has been frittered away by Waste of Space, proving they can't tankerise any British built airframes..(bloody hell..there arent any!!) Which means, another £500M proving the KC 10 Extender is incompatable with eurofarce 2000, ripping the guts out some Boeing's and re-engining the VC 10.. .. .Richard Branson will then come along in 2010 with some under used A340's and provide contract AAR. The MOD will of course qualify for a whole range of financial and mobile phone packages to boot. . .. .So join Virgin now, get checked out on A340's..the job is yours!. .. .21st Century defence procurement..love it!

[Denzil]

A recent rumour in Cambridge is that Marshalls have been asked to bid for fitment of wing pods to the 6 TriStar tankers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[BEagle]

Well they didn't manage to fit pylon-mounted pods when the DeathStar first came into service - in fact, I understand that £millions were wasted in the attempt. I recall a gang from Arfur Daley of Cambridge coming to look at tanking in the '10 and being surprised to see how much the hoses whipped when wound and trailed. They thought that a total re-design of their proposed pylon would be needed to stop the hoses getting too close to the control surfaces.

Wasn't there was also some considerable concern about the cost of the wing modifications needed, including the re-stressing and OEM approval?

It'd be interesting to maintain contact on a TriMotor wing hose when the aircraft does that weird 'adverse yaw and slice' thing entering a turn in CWS. Watching the attitude from the flight deck, it seems to yaw out of the turn during the roll-in, then yaw slice to the correct attitude which will maintain the turn once the steady-state bank angle has been attained?

Let's hope that these TriShaw rumours turn out to be......just rumours!

[Denzil]

No problem with the OEM as Marshalls hold full design approval on the L1011 (hence the STC for the cargo door is done under their approval not that of Lockheed).

As I have mentioned previously the drawings have existed for a good few years for the wing pods, money has been the reason that the design has not been implemented. The same can be said of the C2's and the fact they never had any of the tanker work carried out (+ the K1's not having a freight door).

I agree that a new airframe is the only (long term) answer to the RAF Tanker requirements, however full use of the TriStar should made in the mean time to cover any lack of aircraft due VC10 retirement/serviceability.

[Reheat On]

There was also the concern AFAIR that the Trimotor wing was designed to take wing mounted engines in board, not additional HDUs outboard and some back seat aerodynamicists suggested that the wing would need re sparring in order not to actually shorten the fatigue life of the airframe as a result of the wing units. Sort of Catch 22.

This Government is a master of the increase committment / decrease resources equation; methinks the tanker argument will be dragged out a while yet, not doubt pending an 'unexpected' delay in the Buffhoon.

Anyonelese heard that the two seater is now getting priority development with a view to production 2 seat models?