OI BEagle, NOOOO! A330-200MRTT tanker details.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OI BEagle, NOOOO! A330-200MRTT tanker details.
In the light of BEagles frequent stated preference for the 767K, at {aris I thought I'd go and chat to as many FSTA liars (oops, marketeers) as I could find. Boeing and BAE were always keen to talk about other things, and ran away when the subject of FSTA came up. EADS/Airbus were marginally more forthcoming.
The Air Tanker consortium (EADS, RR, Cobham/FR, Thales and Brown & Root) is based on the A330-200MRTT, and not the A330M19 praised by some on this forum some months ago.
The small, short A330M19 became the A330-100, and then, in deference to Airbus' distaste for using the -100 designation, with all its connotations of immaturity and 'lead sled' version, became the -500. This aircraft appears now to have been abandoned in favour of the A300-600 in the civil market (following an order by UPS), leaving it unavailable as the basis of a tanker.
Even if it were available, however, Airbus folk suggest that they wouldn't have used it as the basis of their FSTA bid, since the 330-200 will give the best 3rd party revenue over the 25 year period, and will also perform all FSTA tasks without requiring additional tanks.
Even with the revised spec, they claim that the 767 needs four extra tanks (it needed six originally), or an entirely new centre tank. There are also whispers that there are weight and structural problems associated with these tanks.
Objections to the 'bus on this forum have centred on the nearness of the pods to the engine cores, the aircraft's overall size and its inability to fit in the Falklands hangar or to use certain airfields.
Airbus claim to have trialled the aircraft with a variety of French AF receivers, and found no interference/airflow problems or difficulties. The aircraft is compatible with all UK airfields listed in the FSTA requirement - and every other RAF operating base they've looked at. They express surprise that anyone's talking about the Falklands 'it could be done, but only at huge cost, and with no third party use for the aircraft down there' - they expect a separate RAF-owned platform to fulfill that requirement - perhaps a Herc or A400 tanker - or even a KC-17!
Including the Falklands would make the entire FSTA bid very different - it's felt to be 'unrealistic'.
Details:
Two crew cockpit, with Mission Systems Operator console for third crew member during AAR ops.
106-in cargo door as standard.
343 pax single class, 298 pax two-class.
Accepts full range of underfloor pallets and standard containers.
Max range 8,500 nm in AAR configuration, more than 9,000 in AT.
Confused by the table, but at 400-nm from base, with MFOB, 150-nm divert or 30-min hold, the aircraft would seem to have nearly 60 tonnes to off-load, and could spend up to eight hours on station!
MTOW: 507,063 lb
MLW: 182,000 lb
ZFW: 170,000 lb
Capacity: 36,744 US gal
Length: 193 ft 7-in
Span: 197 ft 10-in
PS: Please don't shoot me, I'm just repeating what I heard.
The Air Tanker consortium (EADS, RR, Cobham/FR, Thales and Brown & Root) is based on the A330-200MRTT, and not the A330M19 praised by some on this forum some months ago.
The small, short A330M19 became the A330-100, and then, in deference to Airbus' distaste for using the -100 designation, with all its connotations of immaturity and 'lead sled' version, became the -500. This aircraft appears now to have been abandoned in favour of the A300-600 in the civil market (following an order by UPS), leaving it unavailable as the basis of a tanker.
Even if it were available, however, Airbus folk suggest that they wouldn't have used it as the basis of their FSTA bid, since the 330-200 will give the best 3rd party revenue over the 25 year period, and will also perform all FSTA tasks without requiring additional tanks.
Even with the revised spec, they claim that the 767 needs four extra tanks (it needed six originally), or an entirely new centre tank. There are also whispers that there are weight and structural problems associated with these tanks.
Objections to the 'bus on this forum have centred on the nearness of the pods to the engine cores, the aircraft's overall size and its inability to fit in the Falklands hangar or to use certain airfields.
Airbus claim to have trialled the aircraft with a variety of French AF receivers, and found no interference/airflow problems or difficulties. The aircraft is compatible with all UK airfields listed in the FSTA requirement - and every other RAF operating base they've looked at. They express surprise that anyone's talking about the Falklands 'it could be done, but only at huge cost, and with no third party use for the aircraft down there' - they expect a separate RAF-owned platform to fulfill that requirement - perhaps a Herc or A400 tanker - or even a KC-17!
Including the Falklands would make the entire FSTA bid very different - it's felt to be 'unrealistic'.
Details:
Two crew cockpit, with Mission Systems Operator console for third crew member during AAR ops.
106-in cargo door as standard.
343 pax single class, 298 pax two-class.
Accepts full range of underfloor pallets and standard containers.
Max range 8,500 nm in AAR configuration, more than 9,000 in AT.
Confused by the table, but at 400-nm from base, with MFOB, 150-nm divert or 30-min hold, the aircraft would seem to have nearly 60 tonnes to off-load, and could spend up to eight hours on station!
MTOW: 507,063 lb
MLW: 182,000 lb
ZFW: 170,000 lb
Capacity: 36,744 US gal
Length: 193 ft 7-in
Span: 197 ft 10-in
PS: Please don't shoot me, I'm just repeating what I heard.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko,
Firstly, thanks for an interesting post. It's good to see that all of you who are slumming in Paris have something to do other than drink champange!
However, Airbus's reticence about MPA is exactly my problem with the whole PPP: if the economics for the operator are dependent on having the aircraft in western europe or the US to fly freight about, how does this fit with the doctrine of expeditionary airpower? Moreover, if the aircraft actually gets used in an expeditionary role for an extended period (like MPA for 18 months), who bears the financial risk of there being no thrid party business? Umm, could be HM Treasury.
Doesn't sound a very convincing way of gaining a front-line mission critical asset, does it!?!?!
So Beagle, what are your thoughts?
Tobbes
Firstly, thanks for an interesting post. It's good to see that all of you who are slumming in Paris have something to do other than drink champange!
However, Airbus's reticence about MPA is exactly my problem with the whole PPP: if the economics for the operator are dependent on having the aircraft in western europe or the US to fly freight about, how does this fit with the doctrine of expeditionary airpower? Moreover, if the aircraft actually gets used in an expeditionary role for an extended period (like MPA for 18 months), who bears the financial risk of there being no thrid party business? Umm, could be HM Treasury.
Doesn't sound a very convincing way of gaining a front-line mission critical asset, does it!?!?!
So Beagle, what are your thoughts?
Tobbes
Guest
Posts: n/a
I noticed in todays Flight that there was a quote from the Airbus consortium (sorry can't remember their name) saying that they didn't expect to deploy to MPA as it would take the aircraft away from 3rd party operations for too long.
They assumed that the RAF would have their own assets to do that with, so if that is the case then what is the point in FSTA then?
Good value this deal......NOT
They assumed that the RAF would have their own assets to do that with, so if that is the case then what is the point in FSTA then?
Good value this deal......NOT
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tanking under a PPP or PFI, maintenance and support of Tornado/Harrier/Jag by BAE are all (IMHO) ridiculous ideas driven by Industry's need to maintain shareholder value between major production/procurement programmes and likely to have a detrimental affect on every output standard which could be applied to the frontline.
Like the A330-200MRRT though, so let's buy two dozen outright! (And if there is any slack, then why not let the RAF haul cargo or pax for hire and reward - like the Sri Lankan or Peruvian air forces do!)
Like the A330-200MRRT though, so let's buy two dozen outright! (And if there is any slack, then why not let the RAF haul cargo or pax for hire and reward - like the Sri Lankan or Peruvian air forces do!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the info, Jackonicko!! Just goes to show how desperately out of touch the Airboooooooos consortia are when it comes to the core need of their primary customer. There is no chance of the C-17 being modified for AAR, the A400M will enter service after FSTA, after the VC10 has been replaced and even then, it will replace the C-17 in the AT role; perhaps it might eventually have some tactical WAH64 refuelling capability. Hence the suits at AirTanker should remember that the RAF wants an Air Tanker from them, not merely to borrow some capacity from their money-grubbing commercial 3rd party revenue activites as and when their A330Ks can be spared for their original purpose. The fuel figures are not a surprise; the reference to the 767K fuel capacity and structural integrity is utter horse$hit of the typical commercial mud-slinging kind. If Boeing ignores that comment, Airbooooos will claim they've got something to hide, if Boeing reply, Airbooooooooooos will claim that they have accepted that there could be a problem - which there isn't.
So perhaps it's bye-bye, A330K, hello 767K!
Don't forget, when considering the claims of manufacturers, the famous statement made by Mandy Rice-Davies (no, not "Cor, that's a little wi££y, Profumo") but "He would say that, wouldn't he".
Incidentally, AirTanker claimed that the cost of re-building the tin Timmy-tent at Base Aerea Gringo, Islas Malvinas to take the A330K would be 'insignificant'........
Boeing/BWoS/SSM have a much more robust solution, it would seem, which is far less dependent on 3rd party revenue. I would expect that ex-BA 767-300ERs would start the programme and would later be replaced with new-build as and when needed. Far more affordable and flexible........
Of course what we all REALLY want is a total rejection of any PPP in favour of the RAF lease-purchasing 767Ks from Boeing over their life-cycle. Mercenaries and profiteers running our core military 'force-enabling' fleet? What an utterly barking mad idea!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]
So perhaps it's bye-bye, A330K, hello 767K!
Don't forget, when considering the claims of manufacturers, the famous statement made by Mandy Rice-Davies (no, not "Cor, that's a little wi££y, Profumo") but "He would say that, wouldn't he".
Incidentally, AirTanker claimed that the cost of re-building the tin Timmy-tent at Base Aerea Gringo, Islas Malvinas to take the A330K would be 'insignificant'........
Boeing/BWoS/SSM have a much more robust solution, it would seem, which is far less dependent on 3rd party revenue. I would expect that ex-BA 767-300ERs would start the programme and would later be replaced with new-build as and when needed. Far more affordable and flexible........
Of course what we all REALLY want is a total rejection of any PPP in favour of the RAF lease-purchasing 767Ks from Boeing over their life-cycle. Mercenaries and profiteers running our core military 'force-enabling' fleet? What an utterly barking mad idea!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Intriguing idea, JN... Although I've expressed the view that Mr & Ms J Public have little idea of what the armed services are about, I think that there'd be a large number of people who'd love to fly 'Her Majesty's Airlines' - some for novelty value, some because of the fact that they'd be able to expect decent service. I suspect, though, that there'd be oppostion from:
The World's Favourite Airline
Virgin
The French
Of course, if it made money, this would never been seen by the RAF - either clawed back by the Treasury or lost in a black hole somewhere (probably in Gloucestershire).
The World's Favourite Airline
Virgin
The French
Of course, if it made money, this would never been seen by the RAF - either clawed back by the Treasury or lost in a black hole somewhere (probably in Gloucestershire).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tobbes,
"something to do other than drink champange"? AS WELL AS, old chum, As well as!
BEags,
Believe that both consortia see 3rd party use of these airframes in the same depressing light. Certainly with the fact that BWoS Customer Solutions and Support are an integral part of the 767 bid you make me smile if you're suggesting that they'll somehow care more about the customer's requirements. In fact, if Baron Boris is involved in one bid, I'd be inclined to say that the other MUST be preferable....
And if it is going to have to be a PPP/PFI type of deal, then the more money that can be generated from third party use, the lower the cost to the RAF, and the greater the availability to the RAF.
BAE CS&S are similarly dismissive of the Falklands argument - making me believe that neither consortia see it as a core part of the FSTA bid.
Would have thought that all other things being equal, the rather newer and more modern A330 would be a better bet, if only 'cos a '330 rating would be worth more when you jump ship!
It's also a much more capable strat transport aircraft than a 767, surely?
PS: How sure are you of the integrity of these high-houred ex-BA 767s, BTW? My spies suggest that there may be some stress-corrosion problems lurking in the centre-section which already require some landing weight limitations on the aircraft. Or is this pure b0ll0cks and scare-mongering by Nigels who want to look brave??
At the end of the day, you'll get what's cheapest!
PS: Just curious as to the extent of your loyalty to the 767, BEags: If they found unlimited oil in the Serpentine, so that money was no option, then which would you favour as an outright purchase - A330K or 767K?
Or if it had to be a PPP and if both consortia bid the same number of airframes, at the same aggregate hourly rate, then which?
Is the 767K your choice because you believe that it will be more cost-effective, or what?
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 26 June 2001).]
"something to do other than drink champange"? AS WELL AS, old chum, As well as!
BEags,
Believe that both consortia see 3rd party use of these airframes in the same depressing light. Certainly with the fact that BWoS Customer Solutions and Support are an integral part of the 767 bid you make me smile if you're suggesting that they'll somehow care more about the customer's requirements. In fact, if Baron Boris is involved in one bid, I'd be inclined to say that the other MUST be preferable....
And if it is going to have to be a PPP/PFI type of deal, then the more money that can be generated from third party use, the lower the cost to the RAF, and the greater the availability to the RAF.
BAE CS&S are similarly dismissive of the Falklands argument - making me believe that neither consortia see it as a core part of the FSTA bid.
Would have thought that all other things being equal, the rather newer and more modern A330 would be a better bet, if only 'cos a '330 rating would be worth more when you jump ship!
It's also a much more capable strat transport aircraft than a 767, surely?
PS: How sure are you of the integrity of these high-houred ex-BA 767s, BTW? My spies suggest that there may be some stress-corrosion problems lurking in the centre-section which already require some landing weight limitations on the aircraft. Or is this pure b0ll0cks and scare-mongering by Nigels who want to look brave??
At the end of the day, you'll get what's cheapest!
PS: Just curious as to the extent of your loyalty to the 767, BEags: If they found unlimited oil in the Serpentine, so that money was no option, then which would you favour as an outright purchase - A330K or 767K?
Or if it had to be a PPP and if both consortia bid the same number of airframes, at the same aggregate hourly rate, then which?
Is the 767K your choice because you believe that it will be more cost-effective, or what?
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 26 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
767K, first, second and third. Because, for one of many reasons, of the unknown dangers associated with full FBW aircraft operating in close formation with fighters. Have you read the AAIB report about the A340 which encountered a little turbulence, the FBW decidedto go to alpha prot, firewalled the throttles and zoom climbed out of its assigned level, very nearly colliding with an A330? I cannot see how we could EVER trust Airboooooooooooooos' control laws NOT to do something equally alarming with a receiver in contact...... In a Boeing, you click out the autopilot and take control - in an Airboooooooooooooooooos you are at the mercy of software designers.....who has control??
PLUS I trust Boeing's military understanding far more - and in any case, the A330K would be used to capacity on very rare occasions indeed - hence usually inefficiently. Whereas the 76K will be operated efficiently far more often.
PLUS, and don't let Airboooooooooos fool you, the A330 is T O O F * C K I N G B I G for virtually ALL military aerodromes except Brize. Try taxying one at Lossiemouth! Whereas the 767K will fit where a VC10 will, the A330K won't even fit where a TriStar or C-17 might......
Sorry, but Airbooooooooooooooooooos simply have no real idea about what we need!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]
PLUS I trust Boeing's military understanding far more - and in any case, the A330K would be used to capacity on very rare occasions indeed - hence usually inefficiently. Whereas the 76K will be operated efficiently far more often.
PLUS, and don't let Airboooooooooos fool you, the A330 is T O O F * C K I N G B I G for virtually ALL military aerodromes except Brize. Try taxying one at Lossiemouth! Whereas the 767K will fit where a VC10 will, the A330K won't even fit where a TriStar or C-17 might......
Sorry, but Airbooooooooooooooooooos simply have no real idea about what we need!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Would that be before or after it had departed? One does NOT fly head-in pecking away at keypads during AAR in an attempt to control a FBW malfunction. Which other levels of FBW Airbooooooooos architecture would one need to inhibit in order for it to behave as predictably as a Boeing?? We're not as concerned with the last kg of payload/range efficiency as the airlines - we want a safe, reliable aircraft which does not need to be fettled by computers to keep it flying safely.
A330K - NON, MERCI!!
A330K - NON, MERCI!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
If FSTA doesn't include MPA then perhaps, if the RAF retains it's own separate capacity, the TriStar could still do the Cannonball and Southern Q!!!!
Presumably FSTA contractors are happy to do Adriatic, Gulf, Southern Turkey and anywhere else there happens to be a conflict. Could keep a couple of VC10s to be on the safe side!
Presumably FSTA contractors are happy to do Adriatic, Gulf, Southern Turkey and anywhere else there happens to be a conflict. Could keep a couple of VC10s to be on the safe side!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting argument. (Not sarcastic).
Is your distrust of FBW widely held across the VC10 Tri* fleet (there used to be loads of you Brize types Pruning away, so one wouldn't have had to ask in the good old days)?
Is FBW more dangerous than the chance of a poor stick human pilot?
How about these full FBW fighters which will soon provide your trade?
Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree, I just feel painfully under-informed.
And we do all agree on what a no-brainer the whole PPP/PFI idea is, at least!
Is your distrust of FBW widely held across the VC10 Tri* fleet (there used to be loads of you Brize types Pruning away, so one wouldn't have had to ask in the good old days)?
Is FBW more dangerous than the chance of a poor stick human pilot?
How about these full FBW fighters which will soon provide your trade?
Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree, I just feel painfully under-informed.
And we do all agree on what a no-brainer the whole PPP/PFI idea is, at least!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nil nos - shouldn't that be 'or anywhere they think that there's a fast buck to be made'? Haul some shell-suited lager-louts from Cotswold Intercartertonental to the Med, re-role it do do some AAR for a week or two, then de-role it and bring the odious lot home again? Ahhhhhh - not a brilliant plan. I don't know where the FSTA PSPs ever got the idea that their precious jets wouldn't be needed for the Malvinas - the RAF will use them wherever it needs them; it would be the PSPs responsibility to provide the aircraft at the appropriate aerodrome in time for whatever they're needed for!
Good work on the local choo-choo, by the way. Put me down for a 1st class seat (facing the engine) on the inaugural run!!
Jacko - we don't train poor stick-and-rudder skill pilots, they get chopped during military training and end up flying people-tubes if they're lucky. Plus how could you tell when a FBW tanker was about to decide that it had found yet another unknown software problem...........
All receiver types have to be cleared by Handling Squadron against every tanker type. Bit of a bugger if the ONLY tanker had serious FBW problems............
As for the astronomic cost of keeping 'a few' VC10s flying because the mercenaries' FSTA couldn't do the job? Well - they'd end up picking up the tab for that as well!!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]
Good work on the local choo-choo, by the way. Put me down for a 1st class seat (facing the engine) on the inaugural run!!
Jacko - we don't train poor stick-and-rudder skill pilots, they get chopped during military training and end up flying people-tubes if they're lucky. Plus how could you tell when a FBW tanker was about to decide that it had found yet another unknown software problem...........
All receiver types have to be cleared by Handling Squadron against every tanker type. Bit of a bugger if the ONLY tanker had serious FBW problems............
As for the astronomic cost of keeping 'a few' VC10s flying because the mercenaries' FSTA couldn't do the job? Well - they'd end up picking up the tab for that as well!!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have been wondering how the PFI FSTA solution would cope with AAR QRA. Not so many years back we had to maintain a couple of jets and crews at ** readiness 24/365. With all the sh*t hitting the fan in the Balkans/Gulf/Afganistan/Rhodesia(oops! Freudian slip.) can we guarantee never to require Op T***** again. Bit of a bind when the scramble call comes to find your T1 and 2 aircraft are doing the lanzarote run!
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle,
What's the difference in risk between your FBW AAR platform and the FBW Eurofighters, FJCA and FOAS that will be (eventually) it's main stock in trade.
JN/BEags,
Forget MPA for the deployed AAR, I suspect that a tanker capable C-13OJ C5K will be the solution down there. AS to Airbus dismissing MPA as a reforce option then they would appear to be whistling out of their jacksey and totally missing the point on deployed airpower in the post Cold war world.
Some figures I have seen very recently seem to indicate that there will only be 9 (Nine!) FSTA in use by the RAF on a full time basis with the rest of the fleet available as a contingency option in case of war or crisis. I am not sure on the correct figures, can you help me here BEagle? but wouldn't that see the full time RAF AAR/Strat AT fleet fall from it's current 30 available airframes(L1011 KC1, K1, C2. VC10 C1K, K3, K4)to a measly 9?
Before you start BEagle, I am NOT stirring here as regards aircrew, but 30 to 9?
------------------
If the suit fits.........
What's the difference in risk between your FBW AAR platform and the FBW Eurofighters, FJCA and FOAS that will be (eventually) it's main stock in trade.
JN/BEags,
Forget MPA for the deployed AAR, I suspect that a tanker capable C-13OJ C5K will be the solution down there. AS to Airbus dismissing MPA as a reforce option then they would appear to be whistling out of their jacksey and totally missing the point on deployed airpower in the post Cold war world.
Some figures I have seen very recently seem to indicate that there will only be 9 (Nine!) FSTA in use by the RAF on a full time basis with the rest of the fleet available as a contingency option in case of war or crisis. I am not sure on the correct figures, can you help me here BEagle? but wouldn't that see the full time RAF AAR/Strat AT fleet fall from it's current 30 available airframes(L1011 KC1, K1, C2. VC10 C1K, K3, K4)to a measly 9?
Before you start BEagle, I am NOT stirring here as regards aircrew, but 30 to 9?
------------------
If the suit fits.........
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle – firstly thank you for some entertaining posts in the past.
I have just landed from a dangerous mission in an A330 – much like the other few hours I have spent in it or its sister A340. On reading your tanker post, I just have to chip in a few points.
1 I haven’t read this horrific AAIB report you refer to but the power comes on at alpha floor which is not very far from the stall. If this “little bit” of turbulence had occurred on a 767 then there is a strong possibility that the tanker may have stalled – bit of a problem for the receivers.
2 Most of the FBW horror stories come from people who have no first hand experience of operating this kind of aircraft.
3 The last time I was at the secret base in Wiltshire, Handling Sqn wrote the FRCs. The release to service work is done by what used to be called the Fixed Wing Test Sqn. I’m sure that if jet efflux problems exist, this could be proved very easily – my memory’s a bit woolly but I think the Tristar was checked before the refueling option went ahead.
Best wishes!
I have just landed from a dangerous mission in an A330 – much like the other few hours I have spent in it or its sister A340. On reading your tanker post, I just have to chip in a few points.
1 I haven’t read this horrific AAIB report you refer to but the power comes on at alpha floor which is not very far from the stall. If this “little bit” of turbulence had occurred on a 767 then there is a strong possibility that the tanker may have stalled – bit of a problem for the receivers.
2 Most of the FBW horror stories come from people who have no first hand experience of operating this kind of aircraft.
3 The last time I was at the secret base in Wiltshire, Handling Sqn wrote the FRCs. The release to service work is done by what used to be called the Fixed Wing Test Sqn. I’m sure that if jet efflux problems exist, this could be proved very easily – my memory’s a bit woolly but I think the Tristar was checked before the refueling option went ahead.
Best wishes!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Recommendations for 'Release to Service' for UK military aircraft are provided by Fast Jet Test Sqn for sharp pointy things, Heavy Aircraft Test Sqn for aircraft with galleys etc and Rotary Wing Test Sqn for the RW types. What the unit titles will be from Monday next is something of an open question!
lm
lm
Guest
Posts: n/a
bonajet - my apologies, I should have said a 'test squadron will assess the handling'. I'm not sure which part of Qwintyquoo will be doing it in the brave new Trust-me-Tony world of over-contractorisation!
The point I made about the 'alpha prot' incident was that the startling behaviour of the A340 took the crew by surprise to such an extent that a very large excursion and near mid-air resulted. A 'conventional' aircraft, noting the expected shear value on the CFP might have deselected height hold, flown at Mra and ridden it out. Will there need to be associated FBW software changes made for a tanker? - I don't know, just pondering the question.
Suit - I can't comment on any of the 'numbers and needs' as the FSTA PSPs are at a very commercially-sensitive stage in their submissions and to do so might give someone some inside knowledge - or they might take it as such. Sorry, mate. But the assessments of short notice fleet augmentation seem very optimistic; I can't see El Presidente Portillo being too impressed at the idea that he can't deploy his EFs for another week to go and help out in Southern Rhodesia because the Tankers 'R Us contract won't allow him to!
If one FBW receiver type has a software problem, others could be used. If the sole FBW tanker type had a software problem, none could be used.
Don't get me wrong - A330/A340 are effective people-haulers. Even if they are rather slow. But as military aircraft....see http://www.aaib.gov.uk/bulletin/jun01/cggwd.htm and decide whether you'd want to be in the same formation as the FBW airbus....
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 27 June 2001).]
The point I made about the 'alpha prot' incident was that the startling behaviour of the A340 took the crew by surprise to such an extent that a very large excursion and near mid-air resulted. A 'conventional' aircraft, noting the expected shear value on the CFP might have deselected height hold, flown at Mra and ridden it out. Will there need to be associated FBW software changes made for a tanker? - I don't know, just pondering the question.
Suit - I can't comment on any of the 'numbers and needs' as the FSTA PSPs are at a very commercially-sensitive stage in their submissions and to do so might give someone some inside knowledge - or they might take it as such. Sorry, mate. But the assessments of short notice fleet augmentation seem very optimistic; I can't see El Presidente Portillo being too impressed at the idea that he can't deploy his EFs for another week to go and help out in Southern Rhodesia because the Tankers 'R Us contract won't allow him to!
If one FBW receiver type has a software problem, others could be used. If the sole FBW tanker type had a software problem, none could be used.
Don't get me wrong - A330/A340 are effective people-haulers. Even if they are rather slow. But as military aircraft....see http://www.aaib.gov.uk/bulletin/jun01/cggwd.htm and decide whether you'd want to be in the same formation as the FBW airbus....
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 27 June 2001).]