A330 Future Tanker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Air Tanker" with the French registration lacks a certain je ne sais quois.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Serious Question
Yes I know I should know the answer, but I dont!
I spent some 5 years in HQSTC and HQ 1 Gp procuring the RAF Wide Body Tanker - which became the TriStar despite the RAF rejecting it out of hand. MOD PE ignored all advice and went for the cheap option - sound familiar???
It was essential that the wide body tanker be 3 point - in other words - two wing refuelling points, and a center-line HDU (Hose Drum Unit). I will not go into the justification for this, but it was, and is cast iron. The RAF was very suspicious of the TriStar's active wing flying technology, but the MOD PE ignored all questions about it, testing various aircraft from Boscombe Down flying in AAR positions around a BA Tristar. The Wing Pod modification was to be a "bolt on" job similar to that on the Victor and VC 10. In the event, when it came to it, the pods could not be fitted to the "active" wing without huge modification costs including a totally new outer wing with "split" ailerons. As a result, the pods were never fitted, and the RAF got a huge tanker with only one hose for fuel transfer. So in major deployments in later years, we had TriStars transferring fuel to VC 10s who then passed the fuel to the fast jet receivers.
My understanding is that the Airbus Tanker employs active wing technology. However, I can find no evidence of trials, or practical employment of AAR pods on active wings. In still air - probably no problem, but in my experience - true still air is not often the case. So does anyone out there know if AAR has been routinely conducted using pods on active wings?
The aircraft look great - (I wish I were still flying!!) - but I also wonder how the winglets affect the wing tip vortex - a critical factor in AAR on wing pods. Do they intensify the vortex into a smaller cross section, or weaken it over a bigger cross section? I am not a fluid aerodynamics person!
Looking back in this thread, I have to smile. In the early 90s, when the FSTA programme got going, I was heavily involved in the crewing issues from a training perspective. Now, many years later, I see all the same questions arising!!!! Mind you, none of my AAR experience was in the "shirt sleeves and coffee" environment being kept away from dangerous areas. I hope the AirTanker management have got their crewing, civil/RAF act together by now!! Surely there must be a "Prune" observer somewhere close to the programme?
I spent some 5 years in HQSTC and HQ 1 Gp procuring the RAF Wide Body Tanker - which became the TriStar despite the RAF rejecting it out of hand. MOD PE ignored all advice and went for the cheap option - sound familiar???
It was essential that the wide body tanker be 3 point - in other words - two wing refuelling points, and a center-line HDU (Hose Drum Unit). I will not go into the justification for this, but it was, and is cast iron. The RAF was very suspicious of the TriStar's active wing flying technology, but the MOD PE ignored all questions about it, testing various aircraft from Boscombe Down flying in AAR positions around a BA Tristar. The Wing Pod modification was to be a "bolt on" job similar to that on the Victor and VC 10. In the event, when it came to it, the pods could not be fitted to the "active" wing without huge modification costs including a totally new outer wing with "split" ailerons. As a result, the pods were never fitted, and the RAF got a huge tanker with only one hose for fuel transfer. So in major deployments in later years, we had TriStars transferring fuel to VC 10s who then passed the fuel to the fast jet receivers.
My understanding is that the Airbus Tanker employs active wing technology. However, I can find no evidence of trials, or practical employment of AAR pods on active wings. In still air - probably no problem, but in my experience - true still air is not often the case. So does anyone out there know if AAR has been routinely conducted using pods on active wings?
The aircraft look great - (I wish I were still flying!!) - but I also wonder how the winglets affect the wing tip vortex - a critical factor in AAR on wing pods. Do they intensify the vortex into a smaller cross section, or weaken it over a bigger cross section? I am not a fluid aerodynamics person!
Looking back in this thread, I have to smile. In the early 90s, when the FSTA programme got going, I was heavily involved in the crewing issues from a training perspective. Now, many years later, I see all the same questions arising!!!! Mind you, none of my AAR experience was in the "shirt sleeves and coffee" environment being kept away from dangerous areas. I hope the AirTanker management have got their crewing, civil/RAF act together by now!! Surely there must be a "Prune" observer somewhere close to the programme?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I also wonder how the winglets affect the wing tip vortex - a critical factor in AAR on wing pods. Do they intensify the vortex into a smaller cross section, or weaken it over a bigger cross section? I am not a fluid aerodynamics person!
Dryden experimented with winglets on the KC-135 in the eighties. I don't think there was any adverse effect on AAR. I don't know, however, why they did not retrofit winglets to the KC-135 fleet.
When you refer to "active wings", do you mean "active ailerons"? Whatever, the A330 wing is the same as the A340, so already has underwing hardpoints where the outer engines would be mounted. There are very few modifications required to the wing.
Both the A310MRTT and the KC-30A have winglets and both have very stable wing hose dynamics.
When Marshalls went to watch a VC10K hose sequence, they were aghast to note the hose whip during normal wind/trail sequences.
"We're going to have to redesign the pylon" said one.
Not long after, despite the mi££ions wasted on the programme, the TriStar wing AAR pod project was binned.
I did one of those trails which required a TriStar T/T bracket in the middle - the AARC had re-planned a 3 wave plan from Las Vegas to Ottawa with 1 TriStar to whirl successive VC10s.
You can already sense the goats getting restless.....
I was wave 2; due to weather, the previous wave had taken longer than planned to prod and take their fuel, so our RV with the TriStar was later than anticipated - and we needed a bit more gas. That went fine, move astern, clear contact centre, clunk, green on, fuel flows, "Tell me when we've got enough"........except the nav had forgotten that we were going to Ottawa, not Halifax as per the original plan. So all the sweat and effort then had us a tadge over MLW.....
We had a larf, dumped a tonne in a convenient cloud and the nav, good chap that he was, bought the beers at the hotel.
Good fun though, AAR! Shame that the RAF A330MRTT won't be able to take fuel though, unlike the RAAF's KC-30A.
When Marshalls went to watch a VC10K hose sequence, they were aghast to note the hose whip during normal wind/trail sequences.
"We're going to have to redesign the pylon" said one.
Not long after, despite the mi££ions wasted on the programme, the TriStar wing AAR pod project was binned.
I did one of those trails which required a TriStar T/T bracket in the middle - the AARC had re-planned a 3 wave plan from Las Vegas to Ottawa with 1 TriStar to whirl successive VC10s.
You can already sense the goats getting restless.....
I was wave 2; due to weather, the previous wave had taken longer than planned to prod and take their fuel, so our RV with the TriStar was later than anticipated - and we needed a bit more gas. That went fine, move astern, clear contact centre, clunk, green on, fuel flows, "Tell me when we've got enough"........except the nav had forgotten that we were going to Ottawa, not Halifax as per the original plan. So all the sweat and effort then had us a tadge over MLW.....
We had a larf, dumped a tonne in a convenient cloud and the nav, good chap that he was, bought the beers at the hotel.Good fun though, AAR! Shame that the RAF A330MRTT won't be able to take fuel though, unlike the RAAF's KC-30A.
Last edited by BEagle; 7th Aug 2009 at 05:02.
You don't owe me money, do you Pia Pium? Just kidding - thanks for the kind words.
I once knew a BA trolley tart named Pia. When I say 'knew'.....
Lovely girl though. And she was responsible for the nickname 'trolley tart' being applied to all 101 Sqn cabin supervisors (from captain to corporal) thereafter - it was the nickname she'd been given by her BA captain dad.
I digress.
Anyway, to answer some of your points:
The KC-30A will refuel by the 'lie back and take it' girlie method. But there is an AFS mod which changes the control laws in receiver mode. There's also an augmented 'bank angle' turn mode, with slow onset and rollout logic, so when flying in non-NAV lateral navigation modes, the pilot can select either bank angle or conventional heading select.
I will be most interested to see how the RAF adapts to Airbus methods! For the A310, Airbus produced the FCOM Supplement which is the effective AAR SOP. When I say 'Airbus', actually it was written by me.
As mentioned earlier, that's why the KC-30A will use the girls' method...
With the A310MRTT, it has been proved that the Air Refuelling Operator needs some navigation skills and some engineering knowledge. The Luftwaffe use ex-Tornado WSOs and the CF uses ex-C130 and ab-initio WSOs. It works well. The best part is the Mission Computer Subsystem - it plans and manages all AAR missions. Plan on a laptop, transfer the plan to a USB stick and feed it to the onboard system. Snagless. Only problem is that it isn't allowed to update the FMS automatically, due to certification reasons. But it could... It's like an automatic AARC, except that it doesn't have blonde moments, trash hire cars or get itself banned from Atlanta. Something else whose functionality I designed - and it's vastly better than anything I've seen intended for FSTA, KC-30A, KC-767J or KC-X! If you go single hose, a revised mission plan is calculated in about 1-2 seconds!! None of the primitive RAPs or NAPs methodology, it computes the plan exactly.
Forgive me, but I don't recognise the name. But hi, anyway. Scoff is now the A400M marketing mate for Airbus Military, Lush is indeed OC101 (I sent him an e-mail congratulating him for the 25th anniversary of the VC10K, but didn't get a reply. One assumes that the RAF e-mail system was up to its usual reliability....). Snake is now an air attache in the US, incidentally.
The chap who took over from Scoff? Not terribly popular, but things actually did need a bit of 'adjustment'. In retrospect, I can understand why he wasn't terribly keen on 'TTF', but to my mind, everything went downhill after 1994 - I finally pulled the black and yellow 9 years later when I couldn't stand it any longer.
I once knew a BA trolley tart named Pia. When I say 'knew'.....
Lovely girl though. And she was responsible for the nickname 'trolley tart' being applied to all 101 Sqn cabin supervisors (from captain to corporal) thereafter - it was the nickname she'd been given by her BA captain dad.I digress.
Anyway, to answer some of your points:
The new aircraft will be a blessing in may ways and a curse in others. Having flown the 10 and the 330, I am glad I dont have to prod the 330.
The logic of the ECAM and the incredible nonsense of paperwork in the cockpit compared to boeing procedures will have the RAF baffled for a while working the new beast out.
The sidestick logic is great for manual flying in general, but to sustain contacts with the sidestick logic, would be a very hard demand. Trying to land the 330 in a strong crosswind is next to the challenge of a night prod in a climbing turn in turbulence (not nice basically). Good luck to the RAF with the 330, I have flow the 10 and 330 for very many hours and still say the 10 to prod far exceeds the likelyhood of a sucessful contact than a 330 sidestick.
Whats happening to the engineers now, still onboard to operate the refuelling equipment, and WHAT!! no sextant hole in the overhead for the Nav now, are they confined to the galley or in ops now?
Beags, we were around 101 at the same time, hi to you and any tanker lads (now lasses) now reading this. (ps, Scoff the boss ring a bell, he came in about the same time I did) I hear Lush is in charge now, LMAO haha, good luck steve, many a party at chateau Lush? Remember Snake? If you live up to his reputation, good on you man> (Oh by the way, what was the donkeys name again who replaced Scoff? he meant well, but man, he should have played alonside Frank Spencer.)
The chap who took over from Scoff? Not terribly popular, but things actually did need a bit of 'adjustment'. In retrospect, I can understand why he wasn't terribly keen on 'TTF', but to my mind, everything went downhill after 1994 - I finally pulled the black and yellow 9 years later when I couldn't stand it any longer.
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Jun 2009 at 07:16.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only problem is that it isn't allowed to update the FMS automatically, due to certification reasons. But it could...
The A310MRTT is certified under civil conditions for most stages of flight in the AAR role and for military conditions at others.
For the MCS to 'talk to' the FMS would have required a lot of extra time, effort, downtime and cost to the end users. So the current methodology was derived, where the MCS reads some ARINC data, but does not transmit any. If re-routing or re-tasking is required, the new mission plan can be printed off on the flight deck for the pilots - they may then need to enter new waypoints manually. It all requires disciplined CRM, but works fine.
For the MCS to 'talk to' the FMS would have required a lot of extra time, effort, downtime and cost to the end users. So the current methodology was derived, where the MCS reads some ARINC data, but does not transmit any. If re-routing or re-tasking is required, the new mission plan can be printed off on the flight deck for the pilots - they may then need to enter new waypoints manually. It all requires disciplined CRM, but works fine.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
After Bold Rhetoric, House Leaves Tanker Decision to Pentagon Brass
S. Rep. John Murtha spent months huffing and puffing about forcing the Pentagon to buy both planes expected to again vie for a multibillion-dollar aerial tanker contract. Ultimately, however, the House Appropriations defense subcommittee chair did not blow down the house, according to aerospace analysts.
Murtha repeatedly told reporters in early 2009 that he saw splitting the KC-X contract between Boeing and its rival, a partnership between Northrop Grumman and EADS, as the lone way out of a years-long saga that has included faulty deals and lengthy protests. He even talked publicly about including in 2010 defense spending legislation additional tanker funds to put the Pentagon on a financial footing to begin developing both industry offerings. But when the House Appropriations Committee unveiled its version of the defense appropriations bill, it quickly became apparent to experts that Murtha's bold rhetoric was not reflected in the legislation, nor in the accompanying bill report language.
Analyzing the panel's wording is crucial, according to several analysts, and that is just what Pentagon officials will do when a final spending bill is hammered out later this year. The report language is laden with words and phrases such as "option" and "the committee believes" and "one or more contracts." That is hardly a mandate to split the contract between.
Language like that means something, analysts said. In this case, it means the panel is leaving it up to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his subordinates how to proceed on the estimated 179-plane, $35 billion tanker replacement effort, they said. The committee could have used straightforward but clear language directing the Pentagon to buy both planes, and significantly increased the 2010 KC-X allocation to do so. What the lawmakers did was state their preference for a dual buy with a faster buy rate, giving themselves political cover should the program again go awry, analysts said.
The lone usages of the word "direct" come in provisions mandating the Pentagon to provide a report to the congressional defense committees about its plans before releasing a final request for proposals, and another stipulating the department must award one contract or two. The latter leaves the final decision up to the defense secretary. The analysts acknowledged that some stakeholders will interpret the language how they want.
David Berteau, a former Pentagon official and now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "You can interpret the language both ways." But because the lawmakers' language only "opens the door to a split buy" rather than "outright being directive," the House is proposing to leave the ultimate decision to Gates, he said.
Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group called the language "a rubber mallet, ... not a hammer". The House bill does direct the Pentagon information about how the Pentagon will evaluate all industry, and the process it will use to select a winner - or winners.
But analysts said it is unclear whether a possible requirement to disclose information about those aspects of the program will force the Pentagon's hand one way or another.
The House report endorses buying the new tankers faster than the 12 to 15 a year the Pentagon is planning. But the language does not direct the department to do so. "The committee believes that it is in the best interest of the taxpayer to pursue recapitalization at a rate of 36 aircraft per year vice 12 or 15 aircraft," according to the report. "This quantity will allow for recapitalization in one-third the time and thus allow for a rapid retirement of the current KC-135 aircraft."
The appropriators could have set a faster buy rate into motion by substantially increasing 2010 funding for the KC-X program and stipulating how those funds could be spent. But the House bill only adds about $10 million to the Pentagon's $429.6 million request. The Senate Appropriations Committee will not being work on its version of the 2010 Pentagon spending bill until after Congress's August recess. Once the Senate passes its version of the bill, a conference committee will hammer out differences between the two.
Aboulafia suggested one aspect of the House report could tip the scale toward splitting the contract. The final section of the KC-X section directs the Pentagon to notify Congress by Oct. 1 which possible procurement approach "represents the most cost-effective and expeditious tanker replacement strategy that best responds to U.S. national security requirements."
"Given the speed described in this language," Aboulafia said, "a split buy would be the only way to go."
S. Rep. John Murtha spent months huffing and puffing about forcing the Pentagon to buy both planes expected to again vie for a multibillion-dollar aerial tanker contract. Ultimately, however, the House Appropriations defense subcommittee chair did not blow down the house, according to aerospace analysts.
Murtha repeatedly told reporters in early 2009 that he saw splitting the KC-X contract between Boeing and its rival, a partnership between Northrop Grumman and EADS, as the lone way out of a years-long saga that has included faulty deals and lengthy protests. He even talked publicly about including in 2010 defense spending legislation additional tanker funds to put the Pentagon on a financial footing to begin developing both industry offerings. But when the House Appropriations Committee unveiled its version of the defense appropriations bill, it quickly became apparent to experts that Murtha's bold rhetoric was not reflected in the legislation, nor in the accompanying bill report language.
Analyzing the panel's wording is crucial, according to several analysts, and that is just what Pentagon officials will do when a final spending bill is hammered out later this year. The report language is laden with words and phrases such as "option" and "the committee believes" and "one or more contracts." That is hardly a mandate to split the contract between.
Language like that means something, analysts said. In this case, it means the panel is leaving it up to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his subordinates how to proceed on the estimated 179-plane, $35 billion tanker replacement effort, they said. The committee could have used straightforward but clear language directing the Pentagon to buy both planes, and significantly increased the 2010 KC-X allocation to do so. What the lawmakers did was state their preference for a dual buy with a faster buy rate, giving themselves political cover should the program again go awry, analysts said.
The lone usages of the word "direct" come in provisions mandating the Pentagon to provide a report to the congressional defense committees about its plans before releasing a final request for proposals, and another stipulating the department must award one contract or two. The latter leaves the final decision up to the defense secretary. The analysts acknowledged that some stakeholders will interpret the language how they want.
David Berteau, a former Pentagon official and now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "You can interpret the language both ways." But because the lawmakers' language only "opens the door to a split buy" rather than "outright being directive," the House is proposing to leave the ultimate decision to Gates, he said.
Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group called the language "a rubber mallet, ... not a hammer". The House bill does direct the Pentagon information about how the Pentagon will evaluate all industry, and the process it will use to select a winner - or winners.
But analysts said it is unclear whether a possible requirement to disclose information about those aspects of the program will force the Pentagon's hand one way or another.
The House report endorses buying the new tankers faster than the 12 to 15 a year the Pentagon is planning. But the language does not direct the department to do so. "The committee believes that it is in the best interest of the taxpayer to pursue recapitalization at a rate of 36 aircraft per year vice 12 or 15 aircraft," according to the report. "This quantity will allow for recapitalization in one-third the time and thus allow for a rapid retirement of the current KC-135 aircraft."
The appropriators could have set a faster buy rate into motion by substantially increasing 2010 funding for the KC-X program and stipulating how those funds could be spent. But the House bill only adds about $10 million to the Pentagon's $429.6 million request. The Senate Appropriations Committee will not being work on its version of the 2010 Pentagon spending bill until after Congress's August recess. Once the Senate passes its version of the bill, a conference committee will hammer out differences between the two.
Aboulafia suggested one aspect of the House report could tip the scale toward splitting the contract. The final section of the KC-X section directs the Pentagon to notify Congress by Oct. 1 which possible procurement approach "represents the most cost-effective and expeditious tanker replacement strategy that best responds to U.S. national security requirements."
"Given the speed described in this language," Aboulafia said, "a split buy would be the only way to go."
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,930
Received 2,849 Likes
on
1,218 Posts
Could they not get a bigger font for the Royal Air Force down the side, talk about OTT, suprised they haven't put Raf.mod.uk down the side or a bloody big phone number sans Queasyjet with bookings now taken.
Suppose it's to show whom ever that we have actually bought.... erm leased something of use over the last decade.
Suppose it's to show whom ever that we have actually bought.... erm leased something of use over the last decade.
Ref active wings. The MLA (manoevre Load Alleviation) is an option and my company has disabled it on our Airbus Fleet. As for the ailerons constantly moving because of the FBW, well they don't. It isn't a Tornado - the Airbus is quite stable and the whole Airbus FBW philosophy is to minimise control movements to prevent drag from moving aerodynamic surfaces. This is the theory behing the 'soft' limits and parameters which should actually make for a better tanking platform.
I've got about 3000 hours on the Airbus and as an ex-tanker 'person' I reckon it would make an excellent tanking platform.
I've got about 3000 hours on the Airbus and as an ex-tanker 'person' I reckon it would make an excellent tanking platform.
