Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

FT - New Tankers on the never never

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

FT - New Tankers on the never never

Old 28th Mar 2008, 14:00
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Answers on a postcard to, er....
Posts: 95
Assuming 101 keeps the 10s going until 2015ish, then one would assume another identity would be taken up. 44 or 57 perhaps?
Hot Charlie is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 14:07
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,218
10, it's a magic number...................................................
pr00ne is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 15:02
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Surely it will go on seniority (cue debate on how the RAF calculates seniority). Assuming that 216 (16 RNAS) Sqn will be around beyond 2015, then it falls to 10 and 101. IIRC 101 has the edge on seniority.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 15:15
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,940
Cough! 206. Cough!
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 15:16
  #85 (permalink)  
Hellbound
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Surely the aircraft will arrive in a stagger allowing a serving sqn to convert to type, or must we really go through the faff of 'standing up' another sqn only to watch one be stood down a few months later???
South Bound is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 21:46
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 157
Question. Will all these jets operate under a civvy AOC?
rolandpull is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2008, 00:51
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 40
May I suggest a brand new trade name for this contract...

"I can't believe its not charter!"
RS30 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2008, 09:01
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: wiltshire
Age: 53
Posts: 27
Danger

I would be surprised if it were 101 Sqn as I assume there will be some overlap when the FSTA comes on line. However seeing that running the mighty Vickers fun bus is bankrupting Northern Rock -eh sorry....the government, they may choose to retire the old girl at the first oppurtunity.
ScufferEng is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 11:17
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: kabul
Posts: 26
KC767

... any latest news about this never ending italian tanker story?
BlackWater01 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 11:56
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,542
The last I heard, they were still having problems with the AAR pods - something rather essential on a tanker. And I've yet to see any photos of it conducting any wet offloads to receivers through the pods.

The Italian aircraft (converted airliners, not full-up KC-767As) seem to be blessed with the same 'no windows, crap seats' Rendition-class passenger seating as most other Yank tankers. Nice... Narrower cabin than the A310MRTT too. Which, of course, has proper airline seating.

I understand that the Italians might get one 767 later this year?

They trusted Boeing. Wadda mistake-a to make-a!
BEagle is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 15:08
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
Italian tanker refuels

Beagle, I think I saw somwhere last week a shot of the Italian KC-767 refuelling from a KC-135 (but not giving any out from the pods ) but I can't remember where ... Another very late programme making justa leetla bitta progressa ???
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 15:23
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 473
I understand that the IAF wanted a windowless, austere seating arrangement to prevent the aircraft being being nabbed for VIP transport duties. It may seem like a strange decision but their internal politics are notoriously complex.

At least they were wise enough to specify a freight door and a receiver capability.
Brain Potter is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 15:51
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,940
Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares....

The 206 numberplate won't be available, as the mighty octopus is soon to make a return in sunny Wiltshire......
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 16:07
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,542
I think I saw somwhere last week a shot of the Italian KC-767 refuelling from a KC-135
Are you sure it wasn't Boeing's picture of one KC-767 refuelling from another?

The KC-30A has also been successfully practising contacts against the A310MRTT; the A310MRTT has been refuelling fighters for several years now and the KC-30A has also conducted wet offloads.

Whereas, unless I'm very much mistaken, the KC-767 has yet to refuel anything except from the boom.
BEagle is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 00:52
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
or should we tag onto the US Tanker order when they go for the Beoing 777?


Personally I think PFI should be scrapped and we buy the airbus product.
NURSE is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 20:17
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 356
PFI bailout:"PFI 'may need government funds"

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | PFI 'may need government funds'

Looks interesting.

As predicted, really.
Farfrompuken is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 21:13
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 55
Posts: 196
Will be interesting to see McCyclops and his band of near do wells squirm and spin now. Try to justify less a/c when there aren't enough to start with.
Guzlin Adnams is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 21:28
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,542
Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.......

No wonder the OzAF realised that PFI was an utter crock and that they needed to buy their own tankers.

And next, perhaps that utter nonsense of MFTS?
BEagle is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 23:46
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,218
"Oh dear, what a pity, never mind......." indeed............

With the Tories very probably soon to take office they REALLY must be rueing the day they invented PFI..............
pr00ne is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2009, 08:48
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,542
With the Tories very probably soon to take office they REALLY must be rueing the day they invented PFI..............
Perhaps. But years of nuLabor have continued to perpetuate the folly.

The MFTS business model must look somewhat......'interesting' right now.

How lucky you and I were to go through training when the RAF could afford all those Chipmunks, Jet Provosts, Gnats, Varsities etc, as well as QFIs to fly them and military aerodromes from which to operate them.
BEagle is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.