Why can't we just buy this?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, an lets get Bruce an the boys to fly it........
We airdrop Eddie over the 'stan and let him sort out Bin Liner.....
I say we have a coup. Ooooh nice black omega has pulled up outside.
We airdrop Eddie over the 'stan and let him sort out Bin Liner.....
I say we have a coup. Ooooh nice black omega has pulled up outside.
it i know, but the idea of a qra '' loosing" a bear and the big f
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks rather natty doesn't it - the bus, not the heavy metal one! We should have been operating the 310MRTT for the last 10 years rather than shelling out needless millions on keeping the once-venerable VC10 flying. But we didn't.
What now? We need son of FSTA as both a tanker and a strategic airlifter, but do we need 14? Or do we need a mixed fleet of 'benign' mid-range transport (320/321) plus a number of longer range AT/AAR assets - the 330MRTT. Oh, and with floors and doors, a boom and an AAR (rx) capability.
Hey presto, all crew can operate all types (CCQ); cripes, we could even have a VIP mini-bus.
Still, good luck.
What now? We need son of FSTA as both a tanker and a strategic airlifter, but do we need 14? Or do we need a mixed fleet of 'benign' mid-range transport (320/321) plus a number of longer range AT/AAR assets - the 330MRTT. Oh, and with floors and doors, a boom and an AAR (rx) capability.
Hey presto, all crew can operate all types (CCQ); cripes, we could even have a VIP mini-bus.
Still, good luck.
I'd say you need the 24-ish A310MRTTs which were offered around 12 years ago.....
But modified to include L16, a proper 'FedEx' glass cockpit - and a 3rd RTU for the ARO/FRS. Perhaps a 5th ACT and a 164T MTOW as well as modifications to allow all passenger seats to be used with ACTs fitted? Maybe also some with a centreline hose?
It amused me to see the UTTER bolleaux in ATP56B about how to work out the turn ranges for various RVs - in the A310MRTT the MCS displays the exact turn range for the RV B. C and D on the DDRMI page by reading air data and FMS navigation data. As well as providing a nice DDRMI (with heading AND track) for the ARO/FRS to work with....it also displays TACAN and DF (not just UHF/DF) on the DDRMI plus the channel no. and modes and DF frequency on the RV pane. No 'dead needles' - no signal received and the needles are not displayed. So much better than 'fail' flags!
The A310 is also a MUCH better multi-role jet than the 767 - cargo bay door as standard and 2 x LD3s side-by-side. And windows for the passengers, who sit in proper airline seats. Rather better than the 'Gitmo Bay Class' passenger accommodation in the KC-767A!
I really cannot see the VC10 soldiering on until 2020 - is there that much coal still available for mining?
But modified to include L16, a proper 'FedEx' glass cockpit - and a 3rd RTU for the ARO/FRS. Perhaps a 5th ACT and a 164T MTOW as well as modifications to allow all passenger seats to be used with ACTs fitted? Maybe also some with a centreline hose?
It amused me to see the UTTER bolleaux in ATP56B about how to work out the turn ranges for various RVs - in the A310MRTT the MCS displays the exact turn range for the RV B. C and D on the DDRMI page by reading air data and FMS navigation data. As well as providing a nice DDRMI (with heading AND track) for the ARO/FRS to work with....it also displays TACAN and DF (not just UHF/DF) on the DDRMI plus the channel no. and modes and DF frequency on the RV pane. No 'dead needles' - no signal received and the needles are not displayed. So much better than 'fail' flags!
The A310 is also a MUCH better multi-role jet than the 767 - cargo bay door as standard and 2 x LD3s side-by-side. And windows for the passengers, who sit in proper airline seats. Rather better than the 'Gitmo Bay Class' passenger accommodation in the KC-767A!
I really cannot see the VC10 soldiering on until 2020 - is there that much coal still available for mining?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
First, I'm sure that your acronyms are all correct, but forgive my ignorance of them - an explanation would be great.
Second, the question is what do we want now? A310MRTT with all the toys could've been wonderful a dozen years ago, but given your expertise, what would you select now? If I've understood you correctly, in these pages before you seemed to suggest that KC-30B as proposed for KC(X) would be overkill as we'd never use the boom and never need to refuel tankers (again).
Perhaps this is right - but equally, what would the difference in procurement and through life cost be for vanilla 3 point hose only A330 tanker without a door, and all-singing all-dancing KC-30B?
<<Anorak on>>
Isn't the KC(X) winner to be deisgnated KC-45A?
<<Anorak off>>
Many thanks -
S41
First, I'm sure that your acronyms are all correct, but forgive my ignorance of them - an explanation would be great.
Second, the question is what do we want now? A310MRTT with all the toys could've been wonderful a dozen years ago, but given your expertise, what would you select now? If I've understood you correctly, in these pages before you seemed to suggest that KC-30B as proposed for KC(X) would be overkill as we'd never use the boom and never need to refuel tankers (again).
Perhaps this is right - but equally, what would the difference in procurement and through life cost be for vanilla 3 point hose only A330 tanker without a door, and all-singing all-dancing KC-30B?
<<Anorak on>>
Isn't the KC(X) winner to be deisgnated KC-45A?
<<Anorak off>>
Many thanks -
S41
MRTT - Multi Role Transport Tanker
L16 - Link 16
RTU - Radio Tuning Unit
ARO/FRS - Air Refuelling Operator/Flight Refuelling Specialist
ACT - Additional Center Tank
MTOW - Maximum Take-Off Weight
RV - Rendezvous
MCS - Mission Computer Subsystem
DDRMI - Digital Distance and Radio Magnetic Indicator
FMS - Flight Managment System
TACAN - Tactical Air Navigation system
DF - Direction Finder
UHF - Ultra High Frequency (225-400 MHz military band)
LD3 - most common size of baggage bin used by airlines
Cost analysis for the KC-30B vs A330MRTT? Absolutely no idea, sorry.
What would I select now? Since the A310 is no longer in production - and used aircraft are hard to find - it'd be the A330. But NOT through a PFI!
Boom or centreline hose? I'd go for both. But no probe.
L16 - Link 16
RTU - Radio Tuning Unit
ARO/FRS - Air Refuelling Operator/Flight Refuelling Specialist
ACT - Additional Center Tank
MTOW - Maximum Take-Off Weight
RV - Rendezvous
MCS - Mission Computer Subsystem
DDRMI - Digital Distance and Radio Magnetic Indicator
FMS - Flight Managment System
TACAN - Tactical Air Navigation system
DF - Direction Finder
UHF - Ultra High Frequency (225-400 MHz military band)
LD3 - most common size of baggage bin used by airlines
Cost analysis for the KC-30B vs A330MRTT? Absolutely no idea, sorry.
What would I select now? Since the A310 is no longer in production - and used aircraft are hard to find - it'd be the A330. But NOT through a PFI!
Boom or centreline hose? I'd go for both. But no probe.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Many thanks, very informative. I'm interested in your comment on the point of not having a probe - is this because the tankers should have UAARSI receive option?
Cheers
S41
Many thanks, very informative. I'm interested in your comment on the point of not having a probe - is this because the tankers should have UAARSI receive option?
Cheers
S41
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys deserve something that's up to date and equipped with reliable modern systems.
- it'd be the A330. But NOT through a PFI!
...and you've even got a qualified pilot who knows his stuff to do the negotiations for you.
Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be a civil serpent so he'll never get the chance and you'll never get a proper aircraft for the job.
Correct.
The drag and structural reinforcement which would be needed to include a probe would be out of all proportion to any requirement to self-refuel an A330. Whereas a UAARSI is easier to fit - and also allows a higher flowrate.
But jousting is a lot more fun than simply 'lying back and taking it'!
The drag and structural reinforcement which would be needed to include a probe would be out of all proportion to any requirement to self-refuel an A330. Whereas a UAARSI is easier to fit - and also allows a higher flowrate.
But jousting is a lot more fun than simply 'lying back and taking it'!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can imagine that's a lot of fun Beagle, but how would the unusual throttle/engine usage involved in keeping station and "jousting" affect the ETOPS clearence? Or would you just not bother with that part of the safety case?
Last edited by LFFC; 29th Dec 2007 at 11:04.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unfortunate thing is that the PFI companies employ many lobbyists who are both ex-mil senior officers and ex-senior politicians, who with their experience and contacts significantly influence the process and if gov bites, all involved receive huge bonus cheques. 
I can tell you from personal experience that the trend towards privatisation of military support, including the mainly trigger happy PSC's in Iraq and all the rest has led to a major greed initiative on the part of many retired military personnel. A large part of the problem rests with those who have enough experience to know better but prefer to profit personally by selling out their "brothers in arms".
I can tell you from personal experience that the trend towards privatisation of military support, including the mainly trigger happy PSC's in Iraq and all the rest has led to a major greed initiative on the part of many retired military personnel. A large part of the problem rests with those who have enough experience to know better but prefer to profit personally by selling out their "brothers in arms".
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jousting certainly can put extra strain on the engines, temperature changes if RPM varies by more than 2% can reduce engine life according to boffins at RR. Having said that the UAARSI option in the PFI scenario has to be a no-no , just imagine a boom equipped aircraft on a charter to Russia.
But jousting is a real challenge and that now elusive state, fun.
But jousting is a real challenge and that now elusive state, fun.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should ask the Italian Armed Forces how to get new kit.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...R&modele=jdc_1
They seem to have been quite successful in updating their equipment Merlin (inc. naval "commando type"), Typhoon, B767, C27J, C130J and now NH90. They have ECRs, borrowed F16s to fill a gap and got Predator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Italy
Their Navy and Army seem similarly well equipped!
If the manager of England's football team can be a foreigner, could we get the Italian head of Armed Forces to be CDS?
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...R&modele=jdc_1
They seem to have been quite successful in updating their equipment Merlin (inc. naval "commando type"), Typhoon, B767, C27J, C130J and now NH90. They have ECRs, borrowed F16s to fill a gap and got Predator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Italy
Their Navy and Army seem similarly well equipped!
If the manager of England's football team can be a foreigner, could we get the Italian head of Armed Forces to be CDS?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mid-central South of England
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unused boom.....
Why do we think the boom would go unused? The HDU (on the K3/4) is, in most part (well unless the pods are U/S) unused (Telic anyway) and the lack of a centreline boom precludes us from refueling F16 etc etc. Coalition is almost certainly the way all our Ops will proceed and hose and drogue plus boom would be a major asset. Added to that, consolidation of fuel to a multi point tanker keeps it in the sky for those as required unplanned moments (which anyone in the know, knows occur)
And as for the troops on the ground not thinking tankers are any asset to them.... it's how the wee pointy bomb loaded chaps can stay there for so long at their beck and call for CAS, the tanker IS (only) a support asset to that but without it....?
And as for the troops on the ground not thinking tankers are any asset to them.... it's how the wee pointy bomb loaded chaps can stay there for so long at their beck and call for CAS, the tanker IS (only) a support asset to that but without it....?
Axel
To give you the same answer I gave you on the FSTA topic:
Please note the last sentence...
To give you the same answer I gave you on the FSTA topic:
Sadly 2 simple answers:
There was no UK requirement for boom refuelling. The C17s were leased and we couldn't AAR them. The E3 has a probe for tanking from RAF tankers. The JSF variant that the UK were looking at would be probe and drogue equipped. Therefore the scrutineers in the MOD would not allow "gold plating" of the FSTA by allowing a boom and receptacle.
Which airline would be willing to lease, under the PFI irreducible spare capacity malarky, an airliner that would have additional weight (structural strengthening etc) for it to be capable of carrying a boom thereby eating into their profits.
Not defending the decision, which we all know flies in the face of coalition warfare and flexibility, just answering the question.
There was no UK requirement for boom refuelling. The C17s were leased and we couldn't AAR them. The E3 has a probe for tanking from RAF tankers. The JSF variant that the UK were looking at would be probe and drogue equipped. Therefore the scrutineers in the MOD would not allow "gold plating" of the FSTA by allowing a boom and receptacle.
Which airline would be willing to lease, under the PFI irreducible spare capacity malarky, an airliner that would have additional weight (structural strengthening etc) for it to be capable of carrying a boom thereby eating into their profits.
Not defending the decision, which we all know flies in the face of coalition warfare and flexibility, just answering the question.
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 - presumably the 310s would now be retreads? I thought I read recently that Airbus had finally closed the 300/310 line.
