A330 tankers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 tankers
Any comment from the professionals on todays article in the Sunday Times suggesting that the refuelling system doesn't function correctly with our aircraft?
Last edited by HEATHROW DIRECTOR; 6th Jan 2013 at 12:12.
Like these comments?: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...raft-only.html
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article
THE RAF has taken delivery of three new refuelling aircraft, each worth tens of millions of pounds, that it bars from operating with its warplanes.
A fuel nozzle that is supposed to join the new Voyager aircraft to the RAF’s Tornado and Typhoon jets in mid-air refuelling does not connect properly to the combat aircraft. Tests revealed that fuel was leaking.
The disclosure is a further embarrassment for a £10.5bn project that has already been beset with delays, with the aircraft due to enter service more than two years late.
The RAF is taking delivery of 14 refuelling aircraft, which are converted Airbus A330s, to replace its ageing fleet of VC10s and TriStars.
MPs have previously criticised the MoD after it was revealed that it had ordered the planes without the protective gear needed to operate in warzones. MPs also accused the ministry of not understanding the costs involved in the deal, which was signed in 2008 and involves the RAF leasing the aircraft for 27 years.
Despite the RAF identifying the refuelling problem in late 2011, it has continued to take delivery of more aircraft. The second and third Voyagers were delivered to RAF Brize Norton last month. Three more aircraft will be delivered in the first half of this year.
The RAF has so far refused to allow the aircraft to be used for refuelling until a newly designed connector passes tests. Instead the aircraft can carry out only their other role of transporting troops and equipment.
The cost of the extra work is being shared between the AirTanker consortium, which is making the aircraft, and the MoD. This weekend the ministry refused to reveal how much the debacle will cost taxpayers.
Jim Murphy, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said: “Ministers must work with industry to resolve this issue. The country will want to know who will bear the cost of any repair work and the impact of this and any delay on the core equipment programme.”
The Voyager is the largest aircraft in the RAF’s history, being almost 200ft long and with a 198ft wingspan. It can carry 22,000 gallons of fuel as well about 300 troops and 44 tons of military hardware.
In late 2011 the RAF identified that the so-called “drogue”, a basket or nozzle that connects the tanker’s fuel line to the aircraft being refuelled, was not linking properly, even though it worked successfully on aircraft such as the American-made F-16 and F-18.
The nozzle, which can pump 1,100 gallons of fuel a minute while in flight, was found to be rotating and its hose line swinging as pilots attempted to make their connection.
AirTanker, a consortium whose members include EADS, the owner of Airbus, Babcock, the UK defence services group, and Thales, the French defence and aerospace group, said it resolved those issues last year.
However, further tests by the RAF revealed that the nozzle was still occasionally “tipping” during refuelling, leading the MoD to demand that a different drogue design be used. This second drogue has been tested and is awaiting approval from defence chiefs.
The MoD insists the fleet of aircraft is still on target for entering service next year. However, defence sources admit that the option of extending the life of the VC10s and TriStars still remains a possibility.
The RAF’s squadron of eight remaining VC10s, which are based on a design now more than 50 years old, were due to retire in March. Extending their life would cost millions in maintenance costs.
An MoD spokesman said: “Since April 2012 Voyager has been delivering core air transport and aeromedical capabilities. Voyager remains on schedule to meet its air-to-air refuelling in-service-date of May 2014 and once trials are successfully completed RAF air-to-air refuelling training will begin.”
AirTanker has emphasised that both of the drogue designs are in operational service in other countries.
Phill Blundell, AirTanker’s chief executive, said: “We expect the MoD to begin air-to-air refuelling operations imminently.
“Deliveries of aircraft continue, with three more due in the first half of the year and we very much look forward to working closely with the MoD and our partners throughout the coming year to deliver new operational flexibility to the RAF.”
A fuel nozzle that is supposed to join the new Voyager aircraft to the RAF’s Tornado and Typhoon jets in mid-air refuelling does not connect properly to the combat aircraft. Tests revealed that fuel was leaking.
The disclosure is a further embarrassment for a £10.5bn project that has already been beset with delays, with the aircraft due to enter service more than two years late.
The RAF is taking delivery of 14 refuelling aircraft, which are converted Airbus A330s, to replace its ageing fleet of VC10s and TriStars.
MPs have previously criticised the MoD after it was revealed that it had ordered the planes without the protective gear needed to operate in warzones. MPs also accused the ministry of not understanding the costs involved in the deal, which was signed in 2008 and involves the RAF leasing the aircraft for 27 years.
Despite the RAF identifying the refuelling problem in late 2011, it has continued to take delivery of more aircraft. The second and third Voyagers were delivered to RAF Brize Norton last month. Three more aircraft will be delivered in the first half of this year.
The RAF has so far refused to allow the aircraft to be used for refuelling until a newly designed connector passes tests. Instead the aircraft can carry out only their other role of transporting troops and equipment.
The cost of the extra work is being shared between the AirTanker consortium, which is making the aircraft, and the MoD. This weekend the ministry refused to reveal how much the debacle will cost taxpayers.
Jim Murphy, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said: “Ministers must work with industry to resolve this issue. The country will want to know who will bear the cost of any repair work and the impact of this and any delay on the core equipment programme.”
The Voyager is the largest aircraft in the RAF’s history, being almost 200ft long and with a 198ft wingspan. It can carry 22,000 gallons of fuel as well about 300 troops and 44 tons of military hardware.
In late 2011 the RAF identified that the so-called “drogue”, a basket or nozzle that connects the tanker’s fuel line to the aircraft being refuelled, was not linking properly, even though it worked successfully on aircraft such as the American-made F-16 and F-18.
The nozzle, which can pump 1,100 gallons of fuel a minute while in flight, was found to be rotating and its hose line swinging as pilots attempted to make their connection.
AirTanker, a consortium whose members include EADS, the owner of Airbus, Babcock, the UK defence services group, and Thales, the French defence and aerospace group, said it resolved those issues last year.
However, further tests by the RAF revealed that the nozzle was still occasionally “tipping” during refuelling, leading the MoD to demand that a different drogue design be used. This second drogue has been tested and is awaiting approval from defence chiefs.
The MoD insists the fleet of aircraft is still on target for entering service next year. However, defence sources admit that the option of extending the life of the VC10s and TriStars still remains a possibility.
The RAF’s squadron of eight remaining VC10s, which are based on a design now more than 50 years old, were due to retire in March. Extending their life would cost millions in maintenance costs.
An MoD spokesman said: “Since April 2012 Voyager has been delivering core air transport and aeromedical capabilities. Voyager remains on schedule to meet its air-to-air refuelling in-service-date of May 2014 and once trials are successfully completed RAF air-to-air refuelling training will begin.”
AirTanker has emphasised that both of the drogue designs are in operational service in other countries.
Phill Blundell, AirTanker’s chief executive, said: “We expect the MoD to begin air-to-air refuelling operations imminently.
“Deliveries of aircraft continue, with three more due in the first half of the year and we very much look forward to working closely with the MoD and our partners throughout the coming year to deliver new operational flexibility to the RAF.”
Any comment from the professionals on todays article in the Sunday Times suggesting that the refuelling system doesn't function correctly with our aircraft?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,843 Likes
on
1,214 Posts
I just wonder the longevity of the airframe, given civilian Airlines are breaking some of their fleets with under a decade of life, one wonders how they will fair in service, I know the services throw money at their fleets, but at least the Ten was built like the proverbial and two last, modern airliners it's all about weight saving.
Airine economics and serviceability are two different things. And the only reason that 10's made it to their ripe old vintage is because airline economics let them go soooo long ago.
So much of that report is incorrect, I cannot believe someone makes a living writing it!
"Each a/c costing tens of millions" is wrong by a factor of ? depending upon how you work it out.
"Core aeromedical tasks" ...I guess the DAS is fitted then?
Oh yes, someone tell them that the F16 will always have problems with a drogue.
Hope it all comes together eventually!
OAP
"Each a/c costing tens of millions" is wrong by a factor of ? depending upon how you work it out.
"Core aeromedical tasks" ...I guess the DAS is fitted then?
Oh yes, someone tell them that the F16 will always have problems with a drogue.
Hope it all comes together eventually!
OAP
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onceapilot, you should know by now that "Each a/c costing tens of millions" is journalese for "We don't know how much they cost but it's a 'king lot of dosh". 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another unreported problem
I heard one the other week suggesting that when issuing fuel the FMS set the fuel leak alarms going. So much for AMPA. Probably just another bug brought about by militarising a civilian airplane. I am sure they will have it fixed before any risk of VC10s starting to break up in mid air. Sounds like "Send three and fourpence"
I wonder if there are any baskets left from the Victors in museums just like the Vulcan spares that were put to good use on C130 and Nimrod etc in 1982. I guess that the previous design may not cope with the flow rate to meet the required spec these days
Yes we even robbed the museums of Vulcan ARI 18228/1 to fit to Chinook in those days.
Have we lost our resourcefulness? we should be proud that we can fix these problems. However I don't think it right that the tax payer foot the bill for putting these things right. do the shareholders of Air Tanker not take any financial risk?
I wonder if there are any baskets left from the Victors in museums just like the Vulcan spares that were put to good use on C130 and Nimrod etc in 1982. I guess that the previous design may not cope with the flow rate to meet the required spec these days
Yes we even robbed the museums of Vulcan ARI 18228/1 to fit to Chinook in those days.
Have we lost our resourcefulness? we should be proud that we can fix these problems. However I don't think it right that the tax payer foot the bill for putting these things right. do the shareholders of Air Tanker not take any financial risk?
So much for AMPA.
Back to the topic of drogues, it's not just the physical probe-to-drogue coupling which can provide problems to a designer. There are also airflow patterns, tension response and system harmonics to consider.
A system may work adequately within the heart of the envelope, but for full acceptance it must also meet the complete envelope as specified by the indicative statement of user need. If it cannot, then contract renegotiation must be considered.
Last edited by BEagle; 6th Jan 2013 at 18:53.
Once again we have a very expensive aircraft that cannot complete it's primary role on entry into service!!
Nothing changes then
Bring me the whisky bottle! Oh no it's still January and I promised not to drink all month!!
Nothing changes then
Bring me the whisky bottle! Oh no it's still January and I promised not to drink all month!!
If the problem is with the new "basket" can the original design (the one we have now that works) not be used then?
Why was a new basket necessary? It would be a standard NATO connector for the probe, same as the Aussie A330s use.
The A330 has gone well during RAAF OT&E with Classic Hornet (F/A-18A+) and the Super Hornet (F/A-18F). Boom still not cleared yet.
The A330 has gone well during RAAF OT&E with Classic Hornet (F/A-18A+) and the Super Hornet (F/A-18F). Boom still not cleared yet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heath Robinson
I'm an ex-flying tecchy and admit to having no qualifications that suggest I should speak on the subject of AAR so please be gentle.
Why can the basket not be given more intelligence in the form of microprocessor controlled, retractable flight surfaces which provide directional stability and counter excessive airframe turbulence. From what I've seen, the baskets are ringed with lights so power of some sort is available to drive such surfaces and even if the power failed they could revert to a non-powered configuration.
(I'm still thinking basket and flexible hose but with boom type fast retraction and no operator). In short, I would have thought that the same technology that drives the vanes of a missile could be programmed to drive the vanes of a basket.
Perhaps it's all been tried before for all I know.
I'm done - standing by for incoming.
Imagegear
Why can the basket not be given more intelligence in the form of microprocessor controlled, retractable flight surfaces which provide directional stability and counter excessive airframe turbulence. From what I've seen, the baskets are ringed with lights so power of some sort is available to drive such surfaces and even if the power failed they could revert to a non-powered configuration.
(I'm still thinking basket and flexible hose but with boom type fast retraction and no operator). In short, I would have thought that the same technology that drives the vanes of a missile could be programmed to drive the vanes of a basket.
Perhaps it's all been tried before for all I know.
I'm done - standing by for incoming.
Imagegear
Last edited by ImageGear; 7th Jan 2013 at 05:11.
The A330 has gone well during RAAF OT&E
"Uh... Mr. President. That's not entirely accurate."
The A330 has gone well during RAAF OT&E
In the words of Albert Nimzicki in Independence Day:
"Uh... Mr. President. That's not entirely accurate."
In the words of Albert Nimzicki in Independence Day:
"Uh... Mr. President. That's not entirely accurate."
Not DT&E, where the PAF F-16 took off the boom during manufacturer testing.