Tanker PFI announced...after many years.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Who needs a strategic tanker these days - we don't. Just well equipped ground troops."
WR, not a dig at you, you are entitled to your opinion and I do see the question as fairly muddied. It just so happens that this question is why we are where we are today. Someone decided we did not need it and took the money from the EP as it used to be. No money, ongoing requirement, must be funded somehow - PFI is all that is left. Bugger.
WR, not a dig at you, you are entitled to your opinion and I do see the question as fairly muddied. It just so happens that this question is why we are where we are today. Someone decided we did not need it and took the money from the EP as it used to be. No money, ongoing requirement, must be funded somehow - PFI is all that is left. Bugger.
So anyway, under this PFI how will the aircraft be registered for them to be able to fly on "civilian flights" when not needed by our airships, and who will maintain them if they are on the civvie register? I am sure there are more than a couple of legal issues to be overcome. Can't see the RAF becoming a JAR approved maintenance organisation, and how many RAF ground engineers would stay if they were given a JAR licence and a type rating on an Airbus 330!
I do remember when the RAF acquired its Tristars it soon found out that it had to change the rules to ensure that as BA trained the crews they didn't just go straight out the door into the arms of BA or other airlines.
I do remember when the RAF acquired its Tristars it soon found out that it had to change the rules to ensure that as BA trained the crews they didn't just go straight out the door into the arms of BA or other airlines.
Last edited by haltonapp; 11th Jun 2007 at 19:51.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So anyway, under this PFI how will the aircraft be registered for them to be able to fly on "civilian flights" when not needed by our airships, and who will maintain them if they are on the civvie register?
...so in accordance with tradition I expect RAF ops to end up second fiddle to the fare-paying public demanding transit to Ibiza, while our engineers will undoubtedly enjoy favouritism over their expensive civvy counterparts when it comes to pesky maintainance issues.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 'Much better 767 tanker'? ROFLMAO at that! " ...Mr Beagle, I can think of several reasons why a 767 is better suited than the A330. Better suited to the requirement - won't come back half full; softer footprint - operates from softer runways; smaller aircraft = larger fleet so you get more assets; Nah, the 330 is too big.
I reckon the Aussies only chose it because the MoD did - they must be crackers. Have you seen how weak most of their runways are??
I reckon the Aussies only chose it because the MoD did - they must be crackers. Have you seen how weak most of their runways are??
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 'Much better 767 tanker'? ROFLMAO at that! " ...Mr Beagle, I can think of several reasons why a 767 is better suited than the A330. Better suited to the requirement - won't come back half full; softer footprint - operates from softer runways; smaller aircraft = larger fleet so you get more assets; Nah, the 330 is too big.
I reckon the Aussies only chose it because the MoD did - they must be crackers. Have you seen how weak most of their runways are??
I reckon the Aussies only chose it because the MoD did - they must be crackers. Have you seen how weak most of their runways are??
Heard you the first time.
If you examine the OzAF requirements spec you'll see that, whereas the 767 cannot meet it, the A330 exceeds it. Easily.
If you examine the OzAF requirements spec you'll see that, whereas the 767 cannot meet it, the A330 exceeds it. Easily.
Nice to see the first OzAF A330MRTT being rolled out!
See http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...er-rolled.html
Here are the rough assessments I made a while ago of the comparative capabilities of various tankers based on the OzAF spec:
See http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...er-rolled.html
Here are the rough assessments I made a while ago of the comparative capabilities of various tankers based on the OzAF spec:
The A330MRTT is clearly far more capable than the KC-767A according to my estimates.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just back from an interesting couple of weeks down route and catching-up on my PPRune-ing, so apologies for bubbling this one back up to the surface. Anyway, I can't find, anywhere in the original post or in any of the links, or anywhere else I've searched, any actual commitment to dates or specifics. What is the significance of this new announcement that is anything other than what has been announced before?
Sounds like about the 4th or 5th "If we ever get FSTA it will be a PFI with frames provided by AirTanker Ltd, or something" announcement to me. Any specifics anyone? Any reference to actual contracts being signed and actual aircraft being provided?
Sloanar - which Oz runways are too soft? A, ahem, friend, flies large USAF tankers down that way and he doesn't seem to have any problems....
Edited for bad grammar and inaccuracy.
Sounds like about the 4th or 5th "If we ever get FSTA it will be a PFI with frames provided by AirTanker Ltd, or something" announcement to me. Any specifics anyone? Any reference to actual contracts being signed and actual aircraft being provided?
Sloanar - which Oz runways are too soft? A, ahem, friend, flies large USAF tankers down that way and he doesn't seem to have any problems....
Edited for bad grammar and inaccuracy.
Last edited by D-IFF_ident; 15th Jun 2007 at 19:22.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags, the 762LRF based offering for the KC-X programme is likely to be a bit more capable than the 762ER based KC-767A? Any figures yet based on that?
Just a digitally-remastered 767 with nowhere near the capability of the A330MRTT.
What fun it would be to be cooped up in the back of one of those Boeing things without even any passenger windows. Still, at least that'll be useful for disorientating 'guest of Guantanamo' on direct flights to Cuba....
And I just love the Boeing bull**** of a 'lowest-risk solution' - they only managed to trail and wind the wing hoses for the first time a couple of months ago.....
What fun it would be to be cooped up in the back of one of those Boeing things without even any passenger windows. Still, at least that'll be useful for disorientating 'guest of Guantanamo' on direct flights to Cuba....
And I just love the Boeing bull**** of a 'lowest-risk solution' - they only managed to trail and wind the wing hoses for the first time a couple of months ago.....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Spain
Age: 76
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 vs 767
There's no contest! Are we willing to have our brave tanker drivers eating their meals off their laps for the next 40 years?
Far better to have the A330 with a suitable desk, much more civilised.
Let's get our priorities right!
Far better to have the A330 with a suitable desk, much more civilised.
Let's get our priorities right!
KC30 in production for the US
First Northrop Grumman KC-30 Tanker Begins Final Assembly
(Source: Northrop Grumman; issued June 18, 2007)
LE BOURGET, France --- Northrop Grumman Corporation's first KC-30 Tanker will begin final assembly this week, reflecting the industrial team's commitment to the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 replacement program.
"The first KC-30 Tanker platform's early entry into final assembly is evidence of our team's commitment to the KC-X program that we intend to win," said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman's vice president and general manager of the KC-30 program. "The world's most modern and capable tanker will be ready to meet the U.S. Air Force's test and delivery requirements right away. Early assembly of the first development aircraft, D-1, is a tangible reflection of the KC-30 Tanker team's ability to reduce risk and ensure a time-certain development process.
"We're prepared to deliver D-1 to the Air Force this November, one month after projected contract award," Meyer concluded.
Drawing on suppliers in the United States and other allied nations, final assembly of the first KC-30 Tanker platform -- an A330-200 commercial airliner derivative -- will be performed at the state-of-the-art final assembly line in Toulouse, France. If selected by the U.S. Air Force, the KC-30 Tanker will ultimately be built at a new final assembly and modification center in Mobile, Alabama. This center would directly employ more than 1,000 aerospace engineers and technicians at rate production.
The KC-30 Tanker benefits from the A330's active production line and its fully operational industrial supply chain, as these jetliners continue their sales success with airlines and government customers worldwide. To date, more than 1,110 A330/A340s have been sold, with approximately 800 delivered to international operators and over 240 A330s in current backlog.
Northrop Grumman has assembled a powerful U.S. and allied industrial team to produce and supply KC-30 Tankers for the U.S. Air Force, basing this aircraft on the A330 Multi-role Tanker Transport -- which won the last three tanker competitions to support the air forces of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.
The Royal Australian Air Force's initial KC-30B has now been outfitted with its aerial refueling systems and has entered the validation flight testing phase. Following its maiden flight on June 15, this aircraft was flown to France to participate in this week's Paris Air Show at Le Bourget Airport.
"Robust production and a strong, proven supply chain are critical to meeting the Air Force's aggressive schedule for modernizing its tanker fleet," said John H. Young, Jr., CEO of EADS North America Tankers, a business unit of EADS North America. "The KC-30 Tanker benefits from both of these key elements. Sales of the A330 are continuing at a brisk pace for an aircraft recognized worldwide as the most modern and capable in its category, as reflected in the fact that A330/A340 production output is increasing to the impressive rate of more than two aircraft per week."
About the KC-30:
Northrop Grumman's KC-30 Tanker carries 45,000 more pounds of fuel than a KC-135 or any competitor, providing a significant boost to the U.S. Air Force's global reach. The KC-30 is also designed to refuel Navy and coalition aircraft, and to serve as a multi-role transport aircraft to move passengers, cargo and medical evacuation patients. The KC-30 incorporates defense systems, precision fly-by-wire technology, and the ability to integrate a communications suite and a global support network.
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and create or support more than 25,000 U.S. jobs. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS, General Electric Aviation, Honeywell and Sargent Fletcher.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $30 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.
-ends-
(Source: Northrop Grumman; issued June 18, 2007)
LE BOURGET, France --- Northrop Grumman Corporation's first KC-30 Tanker will begin final assembly this week, reflecting the industrial team's commitment to the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 replacement program. "The first KC-30 Tanker platform's early entry into final assembly is evidence of our team's commitment to the KC-X program that we intend to win," said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman's vice president and general manager of the KC-30 program. "The world's most modern and capable tanker will be ready to meet the U.S. Air Force's test and delivery requirements right away. Early assembly of the first development aircraft, D-1, is a tangible reflection of the KC-30 Tanker team's ability to reduce risk and ensure a time-certain development process.
"We're prepared to deliver D-1 to the Air Force this November, one month after projected contract award," Meyer concluded.
Drawing on suppliers in the United States and other allied nations, final assembly of the first KC-30 Tanker platform -- an A330-200 commercial airliner derivative -- will be performed at the state-of-the-art final assembly line in Toulouse, France. If selected by the U.S. Air Force, the KC-30 Tanker will ultimately be built at a new final assembly and modification center in Mobile, Alabama. This center would directly employ more than 1,000 aerospace engineers and technicians at rate production.
The KC-30 Tanker benefits from the A330's active production line and its fully operational industrial supply chain, as these jetliners continue their sales success with airlines and government customers worldwide. To date, more than 1,110 A330/A340s have been sold, with approximately 800 delivered to international operators and over 240 A330s in current backlog.
Northrop Grumman has assembled a powerful U.S. and allied industrial team to produce and supply KC-30 Tankers for the U.S. Air Force, basing this aircraft on the A330 Multi-role Tanker Transport -- which won the last three tanker competitions to support the air forces of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.
The Royal Australian Air Force's initial KC-30B has now been outfitted with its aerial refueling systems and has entered the validation flight testing phase. Following its maiden flight on June 15, this aircraft was flown to France to participate in this week's Paris Air Show at Le Bourget Airport.
"Robust production and a strong, proven supply chain are critical to meeting the Air Force's aggressive schedule for modernizing its tanker fleet," said John H. Young, Jr., CEO of EADS North America Tankers, a business unit of EADS North America. "The KC-30 Tanker benefits from both of these key elements. Sales of the A330 are continuing at a brisk pace for an aircraft recognized worldwide as the most modern and capable in its category, as reflected in the fact that A330/A340 production output is increasing to the impressive rate of more than two aircraft per week."
About the KC-30:
Northrop Grumman's KC-30 Tanker carries 45,000 more pounds of fuel than a KC-135 or any competitor, providing a significant boost to the U.S. Air Force's global reach. The KC-30 is also designed to refuel Navy and coalition aircraft, and to serve as a multi-role transport aircraft to move passengers, cargo and medical evacuation patients. The KC-30 incorporates defense systems, precision fly-by-wire technology, and the ability to integrate a communications suite and a global support network.
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and create or support more than 25,000 U.S. jobs. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS, General Electric Aviation, Honeywell and Sargent Fletcher.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $30 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.
-ends-
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just a digitally-remastered 767 with nowhere near the capability of the A330MRTT" - but it doesn't have to have A330s capability Beags - it has to meet the specified tender requirement.
Even if A330 surpassed the USAF's requirements it's hard to see Boeing losing this one on political grounds, having spent who knows how much keeping the 767 line open, unless 767K(LR) fails the requirement in the way that 767K(ER) appears to have failed the RAAF's according to your charts.
Even if A330 surpassed the USAF's requirements it's hard to see Boeing losing this one on political grounds, having spent who knows how much keeping the 767 line open, unless 767K(LR) fails the requirement in the way that 767K(ER) appears to have failed the RAAF's according to your charts.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And I just love the Boeing bull**** of a 'lowest-risk solution' - they only managed to trail and wind the wing hoses for the first time a couple of months ago.....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
".....the well-established Boeing KC-767 Global Tanker"
The what?
Meanwhile the world's only 21st Century tanker-transport, the well-established A310 MRTT, put on a nice display at Le Bourget, I understand.
The what?
Meanwhile the world's only 21st Century tanker-transport, the well-established A310 MRTT, put on a nice display at Le Bourget, I understand.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bris Vegas Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-30B Pros and Cons
Whilst it is great to hear that our first KC-30B has finally flown, and also that they are becoming quite popular with other air forces, can an informned type (such as M'Sieu B Eagle) please let me know about Doors and Floors?
I must admit that I have not been following the project closely, but I am of the understanding that the jet has some limitations wrt deploying a FJ SQN somewhere (ie what we'll really do with it for 75% of it's useful life, vice just filling thirsty jets).
Has any country (or EADS itself) ponied up the Euros to fit a decent-sized cargo door on the side or to re-inforce the floor so 1 or 2 KC-30Bs can deploy 8 Jets, a spare donk and a bunch of maintainers and their FAK somewhere......to help lighten the load on the RAAF AT fleet?
I must admit that I have not been following the project closely, but I am of the understanding that the jet has some limitations wrt deploying a FJ SQN somewhere (ie what we'll really do with it for 75% of it's useful life, vice just filling thirsty jets).
Has any country (or EADS itself) ponied up the Euros to fit a decent-sized cargo door on the side or to re-inforce the floor so 1 or 2 KC-30Bs can deploy 8 Jets, a spare donk and a bunch of maintainers and their FAK somewhere......to help lighten the load on the RAAF AT fleet?
Standard fit is with a lower 106" cargo door.
The A330 MRTT can carry pallets up to 96" x 125" in the underfloor area. So if your spare fighter engine and maintenance FAK can fit onto such pallets, then no problem.
If your pointy jet spare engine + FAK weighs 10 tonnes and you take another 40 pax, you'd probably get about 95 tonnes of fuel onboard at MTOW.
Even at the max ZFW of 168 tonne, you could still carry 62 tonne of fuel!
The A330 MRTT can carry pallets up to 96" x 125" in the underfloor area. So if your spare fighter engine and maintenance FAK can fit onto such pallets, then no problem.
If your pointy jet spare engine + FAK weighs 10 tonnes and you take another 40 pax, you'd probably get about 95 tonnes of fuel onboard at MTOW.
Even at the max ZFW of 168 tonne, you could still carry 62 tonne of fuel!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Main Deck Cargo Door?
M BEagle,
Many thanks for the clairifcation - but does A330MRTT / KC-30B whatever come with a main deck door?
And in the trail conditions at Max ZFW what is the a/c range, and with say 8 x Typhoon recievers, how far could it deploy? And how would this compare with the current 767 tanker variant (whatever form that takes). Not a flame, just curious.
Many thanks
S41
Many thanks for the clairifcation - but does A330MRTT / KC-30B whatever come with a main deck door?
And in the trail conditions at Max ZFW what is the a/c range, and with say 8 x Typhoon recievers, how far could it deploy? And how would this compare with the current 767 tanker variant (whatever form that takes). Not a flame, just curious.
Many thanks
S41