RAF tanker aircraft - Boeing ups bid
Since you ask,
A330 can make the Islas Malvinas direct from Brize with a useful payload, B767 cannot.
..and RAF tankers have been 'interoperable' with US Naval aviators' jets for years. A lightweight boom is under development by EADS for the A330 tanker of the future, but there's no plan to fit it to the RAF's FSTA.
A330 can make the Islas Malvinas direct from Brize with a useful payload, B767 cannot.
..and RAF tankers have been 'interoperable' with US Naval aviators' jets for years. A lightweight boom is under development by EADS for the A330 tanker of the future, but there's no plan to fit it to the RAF's FSTA.
In what role and at what height/weight?
I assume about 5.5 tonne/hr with pods/pylons fitted as an average TLAR figure.
.....and the '330 is a really great jet. Damn pretty as well!
I assume about 5.5 tonne/hr with pods/pylons fitted as an average TLAR figure.
.....and the '330 is a really great jet. Damn pretty as well!
That's utter bolleaux!
My fuel burn assessment (which came out within <100 kg per hour compared with the figure Boeing gave me much later), when allowance is made (as I have for A330) for pods fitted and hoses trailed in the mid-20s, was about 6% less for B767 than for A330.
Which carries over 50% more fuel. In any case, tanker fuel burn is but a small element of the overall AR fuel requirement.
To put this into context, on a typical North Sea towline task, if a max wt VC10K3 can provide 2:10 on task, an ex-ba B767 transferring fuel at the same rate could provide about an extra 6 minutes on task. But if you flew an A330 all the way from the Airbus factory at Toulouse to the same towline, gave fuel away at the same rate and then flew all the way back to Toulouse (500 nm south of Brize)again, how much extra time do you think you could have on the towline?
The answer? An extra hour! That's how good the extra capability of the future A330 will be.
My fuel burn assessment (which came out within <100 kg per hour compared with the figure Boeing gave me much later), when allowance is made (as I have for A330) for pods fitted and hoses trailed in the mid-20s, was about 6% less for B767 than for A330.
Which carries over 50% more fuel. In any case, tanker fuel burn is but a small element of the overall AR fuel requirement.
To put this into context, on a typical North Sea towline task, if a max wt VC10K3 can provide 2:10 on task, an ex-ba B767 transferring fuel at the same rate could provide about an extra 6 minutes on task. But if you flew an A330 all the way from the Airbus factory at Toulouse to the same towline, gave fuel away at the same rate and then flew all the way back to Toulouse (500 nm south of Brize)again, how much extra time do you think you could have on the towline?
The answer? An extra hour! That's how good the extra capability of the future A330 will be.
Last edited by BEagle; 24th Jan 2004 at 21:17.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Wild Blue Yonder
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your entry would not be my choice of words but you are wrong - do the sums again. A330 will cost the RAF 20% extra in fuel and navigtion costs over the contract term. The requirement is the requirement!
Even if the A330 did burn the extra fuel you assert (which it most certainly does not), because the 767 has so much less capability, to match the A330 the RAF would need to use many more old Boeings than they would new 330s. Remember, as even Buff Hoon just announced, it's not the number of platforms which matters, it's what you can do with them. And the RAF will be able to do far more with the A330 than ever it would with ba's cast-off 767s.
Pilot Officer PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't there supposed to be some sort of announcement this month about our new tanker, or is that all on hold after Bufhoon's little chat.
I am glad we ae going to be reliant on so much technology in the future cause that has worked so well in the past. I can count the number of technology based puchases that have come in on time and cost on the fingures on my feet!! What a complete load of
Tonks
I am glad we ae going to be reliant on so much technology in the future cause that has worked so well in the past. I can count the number of technology based puchases that have come in on time and cost on the fingures on my feet!! What a complete load of
Tonks
Beagle
Time to fill in the standard form 1369, the Brit lament sheet of aviation projects relegated to the bone yard .
We could of had a world beater if it wasn't for the___ and the ___. Our (French) aircraft was clearly superior to the septic____.
It shouldn't have had its run cut short or cancelled. Now sadly the only place we can view it is next to the lone prototype of the cancelled A400 which is across from the Vulcan/Comet, et al in that spam museums in _____. If it wasn't for the spam government interference ___ and ___ would be ruling the airlines. The ____ and ____ would take care of all mil airlift requirements.
Is this still the latest form?
Time to fill in the standard form 1369, the Brit lament sheet of aviation projects relegated to the bone yard .
We could of had a world beater if it wasn't for the___ and the ___. Our (French) aircraft was clearly superior to the septic____.
It shouldn't have had its run cut short or cancelled. Now sadly the only place we can view it is next to the lone prototype of the cancelled A400 which is across from the Vulcan/Comet, et al in that spam museums in _____. If it wasn't for the spam government interference ___ and ___ would be ruling the airlines. The ____ and ____ would take care of all mil airlift requirements.
Is this still the latest form?
No - the latest form is:
"Dear Uhhhhhhhrmerican patriot. Hoo-ah, ya'all know we have to defend Uncle Spam against damn pesky foreign airplane (sp) contracts, so please indicate below the level of bribery ya'all need to keep our Brave Workers in business...
I/we* do hereby declare that I/we* support the Lockheed/Boeing* bid as clearly superior Uhhhhmerican technology and accept $ (insert bribe needed here) to prove it. My/our* congressman agrees for another 50%.
(*Delete as despicable)"
"Dear Uhhhhhhhrmerican patriot. Hoo-ah, ya'all know we have to defend Uncle Spam against damn pesky foreign airplane (sp) contracts, so please indicate below the level of bribery ya'all need to keep our Brave Workers in business...
I/we* do hereby declare that I/we* support the Lockheed/Boeing* bid as clearly superior Uhhhhmerican technology and accept $ (insert bribe needed here) to prove it. My/our* congressman agrees for another 50%.
(*Delete as despicable)"
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing lose out again!
The British government is about to award a £13bn contract to replace the RAF's refuelling aircraft to a team led by EADS, the Franco-German defence group, in a blow to a rival consortium led by BAE of the UK and Boeing of the US.
Although the timing of the announcement could slip, industry executives say the team led by the parent of Airbus is scheduled to meet Ministry of Defence procurement officials on Monday to be told it has won.
The decision to favour the AirTanker consortium came as the MoD warned BAE that it could lose future contracts if it failed to improve its project management of big weapons programmes.
An annual review of the armed services' 30 largest weapons programmes, published on Friday, shows the projects have slipped an additional £3.1bn over budget and were delayed an average of nine months, one of the worst performances in recent history.
The National Audit Office study showed that more than 87 per cent of cost overruns and 79 per cent of delays last year were down to four projects, three run by BAE and the other by a missile house partly owned by BAE.
"You don't keep employing a plumber who continually floods your house," a senior MoD official said.
The award of the 27-year contract is a breakthrough for Airbus, which is 80 per cent owned by EADS and 20 per cent owned by BAE. Airbus will supply the aircraft to the AirTanker consortium, with engines and avionics provided by Rolls-Royce of the UK and Thales of France respectively. Cobham of the UK, the other consortium member, will refit the A330 passenger jets.
EADS thinks a win in the UK will give it a leg up when the Pentagon looks for its next tranche of tanker aircraft - large jets used to refuel other military aircraft in mid-air. That contract will mean hundreds of orders for the winner. Boeing has a near-monopoly on tanker aircraft. Losing the RAF contract would have effectively shut Airbus and EADS out of the market.
The loss of the contract - the MoD's largest private finance initiative - follows a disastrous few months for BAE's TTSC consortium, which it leads with Boeing and Serco. Boeing is engulfed in a scandal over a much larger tanker deal for the US Air Force, which led to the resignations of two senior managers, including Phil Condit, its chief executive.
BAE on Thursday acknowledged strained relations with the MoD in the past - particularly its difficulties on the Astute submarine and Nimrod patrol aircraft - but insisted those problems had been dealt with early last year.
"The bottom line is that the [NAO] report is retrospective," BAE said. "Inevitably there are still things BAE needs to do to repair the relationship, but the issues are being sorted out."
Lord Bach, minister for defence procurement, said his call for improved project management covered all companies doing business with the MoD.
Nimrod and Astute are two of the four most costly and delayed programmes, according to the NAO. The other two are the four-nation Eurofighter, run in the UK by BAE, and the Brimstone missile made by MBDA, a consortium part owned by BAE.
Although the timing of the announcement could slip, industry executives say the team led by the parent of Airbus is scheduled to meet Ministry of Defence procurement officials on Monday to be told it has won.
The decision to favour the AirTanker consortium came as the MoD warned BAE that it could lose future contracts if it failed to improve its project management of big weapons programmes.
An annual review of the armed services' 30 largest weapons programmes, published on Friday, shows the projects have slipped an additional £3.1bn over budget and were delayed an average of nine months, one of the worst performances in recent history.
The National Audit Office study showed that more than 87 per cent of cost overruns and 79 per cent of delays last year were down to four projects, three run by BAE and the other by a missile house partly owned by BAE.
"You don't keep employing a plumber who continually floods your house," a senior MoD official said.
The award of the 27-year contract is a breakthrough for Airbus, which is 80 per cent owned by EADS and 20 per cent owned by BAE. Airbus will supply the aircraft to the AirTanker consortium, with engines and avionics provided by Rolls-Royce of the UK and Thales of France respectively. Cobham of the UK, the other consortium member, will refit the A330 passenger jets.
EADS thinks a win in the UK will give it a leg up when the Pentagon looks for its next tranche of tanker aircraft - large jets used to refuel other military aircraft in mid-air. That contract will mean hundreds of orders for the winner. Boeing has a near-monopoly on tanker aircraft. Losing the RAF contract would have effectively shut Airbus and EADS out of the market.
The loss of the contract - the MoD's largest private finance initiative - follows a disastrous few months for BAE's TTSC consortium, which it leads with Boeing and Serco. Boeing is engulfed in a scandal over a much larger tanker deal for the US Air Force, which led to the resignations of two senior managers, including Phil Condit, its chief executive.
BAE on Thursday acknowledged strained relations with the MoD in the past - particularly its difficulties on the Astute submarine and Nimrod patrol aircraft - but insisted those problems had been dealt with early last year.
"The bottom line is that the [NAO] report is retrospective," BAE said. "Inevitably there are still things BAE needs to do to repair the relationship, but the issues are being sorted out."
Lord Bach, minister for defence procurement, said his call for improved project management covered all companies doing business with the MoD.
Nimrod and Astute are two of the four most costly and delayed programmes, according to the NAO. The other two are the four-nation Eurofighter, run in the UK by BAE, and the Brimstone missile made by MBDA, a consortium part owned by BAE.
Should this come to pass, what would happen to BAe Woodford?
I was under the impression that if a 767 deal was struck the conversion would have been done at Woodford.
I was under the impression that if a 767 deal was struck the conversion would have been done at Woodford.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big loser in this is BA whose probably one and only chance of getting a good price for its 767s has now gone. As only BA and one Chinese airline fly the RR powered version of the 767 they have very limited appeal to the second hand market. BA therefore lose a very substantial windfall ( several hundred million pounds) and are stuck with an aircraft they may never be able to get any real money for.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: GLASGOW UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i very much doubt if woodford was in with a chance for this work anyway, firstly the hangars would not take a 737 let alone a 767, and secondly woodfords track record with this type of work is hardly encouraging ,you only have to look at their record on nimrod conversion projects and they were built there! the thought of them let loose on a "strange"boeing wide body is scary, i would have thought if bae had secured this work filton would be a far more suitable location
TTSC plans are that Marshall Aerospace would convert the ex-ba B767s at Cambridge Airport after completing a trial installation on the first ac at Boeing's Wichita facility.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ratchet Ring
Woodfords track record with aircraft conversions and aircraft build is excellent as anybody who can see beyond the last 2 years will know. The MRA.4 programme was inherited late and has been dogged with design issues - not build problems.
How long did it take to convert the Vulcans to tankers?
How long did it take to build a 146?
Sadly BAE Systems have taken it upon themselves to fire most the people who knew what they were doing over the last 20 or 30 years and now has a site where morale is rock-bottom but the company still expects top performance.
Woodford was planned to have a major role in the 767 conversion with large hangars built on the south side of the airfield but that is now not going to happen. Filton is an Airbus site rather a BAE site so that would seem unlikely.
Rant complete.
Back to the plot
JT
Woodfords track record with aircraft conversions and aircraft build is excellent as anybody who can see beyond the last 2 years will know. The MRA.4 programme was inherited late and has been dogged with design issues - not build problems.
How long did it take to convert the Vulcans to tankers?
How long did it take to build a 146?
Sadly BAE Systems have taken it upon themselves to fire most the people who knew what they were doing over the last 20 or 30 years and now has a site where morale is rock-bottom but the company still expects top performance.
Woodford was planned to have a major role in the 767 conversion with large hangars built on the south side of the airfield but that is now not going to happen. Filton is an Airbus site rather a BAE site so that would seem unlikely.
Rant complete.
Back to the plot
JT
Another source here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...975165,00.html seems to have more information. It states that an announcement will be made at 'Monday luchtime' (26 Jan).
