USAF Selects KC-767

[DuckDodgers]

Read the breking news article here:

http://www.boeing.com/news/breakingnews/2003/030523a.html

Interesting to note that it is for 100 airframes, i guess they intend to keep some of the KC-135s and KC-10s around for a long time still then......this would make sense given the number of AAR assets that were used in the recent episode in the middle east. I believe one quote was along the lines of "...every god damn tanker we have......"

[MrBernoulli]

Which means, surely, that Her Majesty's Near East Airforce (do we go antwhere else?) will choose Airbus.......because we're good little Europeans, aren't we? Or do we wish to contribute AGAIN to some hidden BAe fatcat fund........as bloody usual!

[G Fourbee]

Wouldn't it be a bit risky for MOD to select a "European" solution - I mean EADS have never actually built a tanker have they?

[BEagle]

Well, actually they have. Almost. It'll fly later this year.

It has 71.8 tonne of fuel, can carry 247 passengers or up to 17 NATO pallets; alternatively 107 passengers and 5 pallets. Also has an upper deck cargo door and is to be operated by a 3-person crew (2 pilots and an Air Refuelling Operator) in the AAR role - but only 2 wing hoses, no centreline hose or refuelling probe.

Called the A310MRTT - and the RAF could have had them years ago. But the Germans and Canadians soon will....

[Jackonicko]

The 767's 'not quite wide' body cabin can't take 3+3+3 seats and its hold can't take two standard LD3 containers side by side, unlike the A310 or 330. The 330 is a three point tanker, and the 310 can be.

Just for info for those who blindly think that buying American is always best. (Now C-17s are a different matter....)

[BEagle]

Quite so. Except that the A330 isn't yet being built as any sort of tanker and the A310MRTT is being built as a 2-point tanker, but could be a 3-point tanker.

In the current MRTT version, 4 additional centre tanks are fitted. As these limit underfloor cargo area considerably, an upper deck cargo door is essential. Whereas the ex-BA B767-300ERs being proposed by TTSC for the FSTA programme already hold the same fuel as A310MRTT (in fact about a tonne more). But they don't have a cargo door and can't take 2 LD3s side-by-side - and would be 21 years old when they started RAF service.....

Which is why although the ex-BA 767s would make adequate tankers, without the cargo door and unable to take 2 LD3s side-by-side, they won't be as flexible as multi-role tanker transports as the A310MRTT would, in my personal opinion. The A310MRTT should be able to carry 77.6 tonnes of fuel with 5 ACTs rather than 4; personally I think that the A330 is far too large to cope with the infrastructural limitations at many locations, even though the ac itself would be quite capable. A tanker version of the A321 could only ever carry about 43 tonne of fuel, an A400M with 2 cargo bay tanks around 62 tonne in single role fit with no passengers. The A310 isn't a 'current generation' Airbus product, there's nothing in their product range which readily springs to mind as the obvious solution, so the ex-BA 767-300ERs or new-build KC-767As seem to me personally to be the better choice. However, if EADS had actually developed the 3-point M310 as they'd proposed about 8 years ago, I don't think that there'd have been any other choice......



PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE UNOFFICIAL PERSONAL VIEWS

[moggie]

BEagle - I think you can still buy new build A300/310 - it's just that no-one has ordered any for a while. If so, maybe the EADS bid would have been better placed if A310 based?

As for the 3 point issue - well, until done for the first time, no-one had built a 3 pointer! I mean, there had to be a first time, didn't there? Now BAE has plenty of experience with them (Valiant, Victor, VC10) and so might be a useful sub-contractor1

[Farfrompuken]

"It has 71.8 tonne of fuel"

Wouldn't have been much cop in Iraq or Afghanistan, then.

Might be good for brit fighters over the North sea, but the VC10s optimised for that isn't it? Good for a couple of hours on station, that's all.
Sounds like a complete waste of time.

Twin hoses/low fuel loads only work for the Brit chicks in 4-ships, in the North Sea; exactly not what has happened recently. The TriMotor has has an excellent relationship with the USN, since it can pump more gas quicker through it's single hose, and offer considerably more than the current offerings available.

I'm also aware that the RAF receivers were grateful that Timmy had the extra gas to stay on station to cover yet another VC10 serial at the end of our frag, when they went u/s, or were cancelled for airspace considerations.


I do admit, however, that we could gratefully receive a WARP package, then we'd be even handier at home, and even more flexible on the trails.

[MarkD]

moggie

there are A300-600 orders in progress. Dunno about A310.

I think the A300 are UPS freighters. Production line due to go to 2009 I believe.

[BEagle]

farfrompuken - the transfer rate of the Mk17T HDU is indeed greater than that of the Mk 32 wing pods. Fortunately the USN receivers were able to take advantage of that; if their receivers had an on-load rate similar to that of any BWoS designed fighter, they probably wouldn't be quite so happy with the single hose which is all a Timmy can offer....

The big picture - where can you base the ac, what do you need them to do and how many hoses in the sky do you need probably has far more relevance than mere capacity alone.

[moggie]

Shoot me down if this is stupid but................

How about extra fuel tanks, palletized and ready to roll into the aeroplane when needed. then, connect them up and hey presto - and extra 25-30 tonnes of fuel.

A setup like this would be more professional than the AAR receiver fit on the Nimrod MR2!

[brit bus driver]

Moggie,

Not as stupid as it sounds. The ACTs on the A310 are designed to be removed/replaced as required. The process takes about a day, although the official time is longer. Each ACT on the 310 holds just over 12000lbs of fuel.

Puken, your defence of the TriStar is admirable. Personally, I'd had enough of being on the tow-line at 8 hrs, let alone 10 or 11! You also have to remember that a newer tanker, even the relatively aged A310, has a much lower fuel burn than the VC10 or TriStar, and far superior reliability (and I mean real reliability, not "It'll do a trip, we'll snag it when we get back" reliability)!

Plus, if we were to opt for the A300-600 (same avionics/flt deck) that would give a few extra tonnes of capacity, would it not.

BEagle, it almost sounds as though you think that the A310T would be the best option! Surely not....a proven airframe, already in use in the PCF role, the design soon to be air tested, European (to please the politicians)....it'll never work! The only mods required would be the centre-line hose, and a re-think of the location of the FRS station. Hey presto, ready to roll in about 18 months. Moreover, it has far less handling restrictions than the TriStar (PCN, rwy length reqd) and the VC10 - noise!

Now if only we could find someone who knew how to fly the thing......;)

[BEagle]

farfrompuken - the last time that money was poured down th drain on trying to achieve a 'WARP (Wing Air Refuelling Pod) package' for the Timmy, I believe that questions were asked in the House as there was nothing to show for all the money and time spent on the programme....

britbusbloke - although I've always considered that, in absolute terms, the 767 with a 94 tonne capability would make a better tanker than the A310MRTT, I've also always thought that the latter would make a better all round tanker-transport due to the cargo door and 2 ft wider fuselage cross-section. But it would have been even better with 5 ACTs rather than 4.

Can you really see the ACTs being removed/replaced on a regular basis? Once they've been fitted, surely it'll be better to leave them in situ and use the upper deck in a passenger-cum-freight fit?

The FOS is currently being fitted to the first A310MRTT (10+27) at Dresden; a centreline hose or boom has not been specified by either the GAF or CF as a requirement.

You've hit the nail on the head regarding the problems of operating the Timmy from some aerodromes - but the A330 wih its 60m wing would, in my opinion, pose even greater difficulties.

[Farfrompuken]

BEagle:
The old 'Hoses in the Sky' chestnut was valid in the cold war, maybe, but Afghanistan and GWII have proved that Fuel and Flexibility count. There wasn't the need for rapid AR slots as before, what the receivers needed was the guarantee that they could have their gas, and possibly extend beyond their Frag, with gas to spare.
You really need to recognise that 'Hoses in the Sky' is so out of date.
You're looking at long range missions, with the requirement for huge flexibility with regards to on station times and fuel gives.

As mentioned before, we would often find the VC10's frag incorporated into ours, at the end of the trip, and still go home with 15T spare, having offloaded 40 odd tonnes. Neither the VC10 or any jet carrying a mere 75 tonnes coud do that.

I will not state station times and gives, since it'll probably get me in the dwang, and it wouldn't be pleasant reading for the Historic Tanker Flight mates who worked hard out there.

As far as WARPs, the cost of 1 VC10 major would fund the WARP programme for the 3*, no doubt.

I hope I'm in error in critisising the fuel figures for the new tanker. Tell me that is the offload, NOT the total fuel carried. Please:bored:

[Captain Gadget]

BEags will no doubt be able to answer this, but 'open house' to anyone else!

Many years ago, I attended a sales presentation for the A310MRTT. In my view, one of the pitfalls of the design was shared with its predecessor, the TriStar KC1 - that is, that the enormous cargo capacity on the top deck could only be accessed by means of a hi-loader that could only be placed in theatre by a C130 - assuming you could find one (hi-loader and/or C130) in the first place. Of course, that would have blown the 'global rapid response' justification out of the water - no point having your FJ groundcrew and GSE in theatre within 24 hrs, for example, if the means of getting said GSE off the truck isn't due for another 48, after all!

The MRTT sales team claimed at the time that they were considering some sort of cargo door-mounted pallet hoist (although I don't think the RAF was interested in it then). Did their proposal to the Germans and Canadians ever embrace this concept?

Gadget :ok:

[Biggus]

Farfrompuken

I am the first to admit that I am not a tanker operator. I am sure all your comments are correct, and that the Tristar is the best thing since sliced bread as regards AAR, but wake up - its going!! Let go! If you are not careful you will start to sound as bad as WEBF (with his continual moans about the demise of the Sea Harrier).

The Tristar and VC-10 are being replaced, you may not like it, but it will happen and you have to live with it. There appear to be only two options for the replacement, the choice of which people are trying to discuss on this thread. It might well be the case that both options are less capable than the Tristar, but that is life and we will all have to learn to live with the consequences!

[mutt]

Beagle,

We operate passenger A300-600’s with an empty weight of approx 90k and a MTOW of 168k, allowing for the smaller size of the A310 combined with the lack of the passenger interior, I would hazard a guess that your fuel figure of 71.8k is a total amount.

Mutt

[Roland Pulfrew]

FFP

Your defence of the old Tristar is admirable, sadly if you really believe that tanking is not about "hoses in the sky" then your lack of knowledge on AR is naive (and that's being kind).

Yes the Tristar has a huge offload - but then it should. It carries 50%+ more fuel than a VC10.

Yes the Tristar has an admirable on station time - but then it should. It carries 50%+ more fuel than a VC10.

Sadly it also takes at least twice as long to refuel a 4-ship - but then it should it has half the hoses of a VC10!!

Tanking is as much to do with hoses in the sky as it ever was and to say it is anything else does you a disservice. Ask any European 4-ship lead, and I suspect USN/MC lead, what they would prefer and I think you will find the answer is 2 hoses, indeed many have said so in these very forums. If you actually look at the stats I suggest that their "Skoda" (is that actually an insult anymore?) is far more efficient at giving the fuel away than your Lada.

Maybe that is why VC10 sorties are shorter than yours. They are simply more efficient at getting rid of their fuel. That's probably why there's talk of doing your Carter Pump Mod - to try and increase your efficiency at giving it away. Apart from the extra rations AR isn't about sortie length but about getting the fuel into the receivers and I think if you look at number of receivers/fuel given against a unit of time the Tristar is down at around 60% compared to the 10. I was lucky enough to be present on an exercise where a VC10 gave away 50 tonnes of fuel in 90 minutes and landed on minimums. Yes I am aware that a Tristar can regularly do this - but NOT in 90 minutes take off to landing it can't!! (Admittedly they were helped by refuelling US built jets and some thirsty GR1s). But that doesn't help your argument, does it? Lies, damned lies and statistics.

I like your idea about the VC10 major v WARP programme, but then again you could just have easily said a C2 major v WARP!! After all the C2s contribute zero to AR capability. Perhaps you could let the centre know which company can deliver on that deal as it sounds a great value upgrade to capability. But then again why do you need wing hoses if AR isn't about hoses in the sky?

If it isn't perhaps you could explain why the Italian KC767 is coming as a 3-point tanker, FSTA is coming as a 2 or 3-point tanker, and the last 50 of the USAF KC767s are coming as 3-point tankers? Surely they are all wasting money and overdoing the capability? Or could it be that hoses in the sky is as important today as it ever was.

Finally your point about covering for the VC10 frag is disingenuous. All tankers in an operational theater carry spare fuel - its called contingency fuel isn't it? USAF tankers would have been carrying it to cover Tristar frags, as would VC10s, as would all the other tankers involved!!

The RAF AR force have an admirable and well deserved reputation for professionalism and flexibility but its not enhanced by a "mine's bigger than yours" mentality. The Tristar proved excellent during Afghanistan due in the main to the limited host nation support available and therefore distance became an important factor. However these were unique circumstances. As Biggus says face facts the VC10 is on its way out but then so is the Tristar! You have a competition with 2 able competitors, sadly the aircraft that I suspect you need and deserve isn't in the competition!! And no BEagle I don't mean some old A300s with a pathetic 71.8 t fuel load!!

[BEagle]

Captain Gadget - not as far as I know!

It's the same Achilles heel with the VC10C1, TriStar KC1, A310MRTT, Boeing KC767A.....

So the cargo capability is only going to be used 'as and when' with such ac; the primary 'move it now' aeroplanes will be the A400M, C-17 and C-130J/K.

moggie - far greater minds than mine have debated the capacity v accessibility debate. Sometimes one will be required as a priority (eg the daily Pink Pig on Chinaberry during GW1 doing CAP support), sometimes a cell of 3 or 4 2-hose aircraft is needed - such as 3 VC10s supporting 8 Tornadoes on Olive trail during night one of GW1.

Roland, old chum - good to hear from you again. Actually 71.8 in a multi-role A310 isn't that pathetic given a burn rate of (pessimistically) around 73% of a VC10. Quite why they didn't fit 5 ACTs to give it 77.7, I don't know.

Another point - if you have such a huge tanker that its only feasible operating base is hundeds of miles to the rear of the towline, the advantage of, shall we say 110+ tonne versus 74 tonne may well be reduced due to extended transit time, time which also increases its turnround time by double the transit time.....

[Captain Gadget]

BEags

Thought as much. The idea of the A310MRTT being able to on/offload its own freight was far too good an idea to be taken up - although, to be fair I'm sure the technological challenges would have been significant at best (but then so is the concept of a removable fuel tank that is interchangeable with a freight container, if it is not to leak like a sieve as many of its permanent counterparts seem to do!).

But the VC10C1/C1K doesn't really belong with the other ac you list. With its lower cargo floor height, when I woz at HYC we didn't seem to have much trouble obtaining offloads with locally-available kit - while the KC1, despite its colossal freight capacity, was a $od to get offloaded anywhere.

BTW - handed the F1250 back yet?

Rgds

Gadget :ok:

[BEagle]

Capt G - point noted re. the 10's freight capability. But how long before cuddly-wuddly H&S requirements specify particular types of GSE for our, sorry, your (nearly!) jets? :yuk: E.G. "Don't use that thing on my nice new jet - if you do you'll be invalidating the service provision contrick." Sorry, 'contract'!

A400M has an internal single rail cargo handling crane system as an option though! Less hassle and danger for the UK MAMS folk struggling to load the ac in unpleasant conditions. I always used to get the U/T pilots to see how potentially hazardous to their Movs people it was to manhandle freight into a PCF VC10 to make the point.

Nope - they get the F1250 back on 7 Aug!

[Farfrompuken]

BEags et al,

The point about us being based miles from the AOR applied to the VC10 as much as the 3*, and additionally to ALL coalition tankers in the last 2 conflicts.

Agreed, we do suffer in flexibility with the single hose, but a WARP programme would be very cost effective. However, recent experiences have shown how much offfload has been more important that bracket times.

We had a genuine offer of fully modded tristars for 2 million a piece recently.....Beat That!!!!
Agreed the C2 offers little for tanking but it's an excellent mover for troops, something that we're doing vast amounts of now.

I understand that the current tankers are getting long in the tooth now, but to replace one that can carry 128T of gas with one that can carry cock-all is a bit naive, considering the recent experiences.

And NO, I'm not a WEBF-alike!!


:D:D

[ORAC]

The Times:

According to The Times, TTSC, which includes Boeing and BAE Systems, has signed up Marshall Aerospace to do the conversion and refurbishment of of their aircraft into tankers on the basis that this will add significant weight to their bid.

I would question the validity of this claim. I would have thought that Boeing could have done the work themselves and any added British work share will presumably only add to the cost.

[sprucemoose]

ORAC: I'm sure your assertion that "any added British work share will presumably only add to the cost" would have been much more sharply felt had BAE done the conversions, as previously expected!

[Lucifer]

Having read many of the comments above, I am surprised that nobody has suggested pushing for the 7E7 to be developed into a tanker proposal - not only would it (at its in service times) be highly supported around the world by everyone else flying them having replaced their 75/6s and 310s, but it would be more efficient in the air than old 76s, consequently being able to tank more gas.

Obviously without a final design, nor any proven tanking this would not be a decision to be made in the short term, but then again we know how long decisions take anyway so there could be a large chance that it would be a final design at the stage we require it - 4 years from now if done at the same speed as the 777 was.

Not only would it be a new-build, but also based upon a new design would last for generations to come and we could get our oar in at the design stage - lasting far beyond that of the BA 767s - and with more chance of getting a design we want than the large A330.

Of course this idea involves foresight. :mad:

[MarkD]

Lucifer

The 7E7 cannot be guaranteed service entry before much of the tanker fleet is out of time. The 767 might be less efficient but a single large order has some economic efficiencies. Not to mention that Boeings priority will be pax 7E7s before worring about 7E7-F and other derivatives.