BAe146 Offered as tactical air to air
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yellowbelly country
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely BAE is aware of the nonsense that dictates Airtanker's primacy when it comes to the delivery of AAR? If we were at liberty to pick our own tactical tanker does BAE not suspect that we would use the A400M?
As we stand we could be looking at having a large flatbed A400M stuck in the FI doing MRR/SAR with the complete overkill of a Voyager keeping it company on the other side of the pan. Meanwhile other A400M users will be happily pumping gas into their FJs, including Typhoon.
Madness.
As we stand we could be looking at having a large flatbed A400M stuck in the FI doing MRR/SAR with the complete overkill of a Voyager keeping it company on the other side of the pan. Meanwhile other A400M users will be happily pumping gas into their FJs, including Typhoon.
Madness.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely only a moron would procure a tanker without a boom these days because without one you can't refuel a F35A.
If you only have drogues you have to buy the B or maybe (somewhere in the grey area between irony and catastrophe) the C!
If you only have drogues you have to buy the B or maybe (somewhere in the grey area between irony and catastrophe) the C!
Last edited by orca; 15th Sep 2013 at 14:15.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point about the boom, orca. Morons indeed! While you're at it why not bang on for five pages about it not having freight door, reinforced upper deck, refuelling probe, armour plated everything, missile defence forcefield, cos then it will "only" have twice the VC10's capacity...not that these have been done to death on another thread!
ps don't forget we're buying two expensive ships to take the F35 most of the way to its target.
ps don't forget we're buying two expensive ships to take the F35 most of the way to its target.
Quote ShotOne:
ps don't forget we're buying two expensive ships to take the F35 most of the way to its target.
Well... think that is actually one working boat and, without all the support it needs, it will not be getting within range of any threats or.... that of its own aircraft
!
Safe in the North Atlantic though
.
OAP
ps don't forget we're buying two expensive ships to take the F35 most of the way to its target.
Well... think that is actually one working boat and, without all the support it needs, it will not be getting within range of any threats or.... that of its own aircraft
!Safe in the North Atlantic though
.OAP
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't we fit a AAR boom to the Grob Tutor?
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 15th Sep 2013 at 17:18.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shot one,
The PR stuff said this 146 had a boom, albeit a light weight one.
Correct me if (in the most likely case) I am wrong but the new tanker we are actually getting doesn't.
These force fields sound good though.
Or are you saying that two boats have negated the need for AAR? Ace, one less thing to worry about!
The PR stuff said this 146 had a boom, albeit a light weight one.
Correct me if (in the most likely case) I am wrong but the new tanker we are actually getting doesn't.
These force fields sound good though.
Or are you saying that two boats have negated the need for AAR? Ace, one less thing to worry about!
As I wrote a couple of days ago or so:
To force the hand of ATrS, just specify an operational requirement for in-theatre AAR support to be provided for the MPA Chinook - because there's no way the A330 Wanderer can meet that requirement! Whereas an A400M Fatlass with a centreline hose certainly could.
Which, to maintain the required in-theatre RS, will need constant de-icing at certain times of the year. Because, unlike the TriMotor or VC10K, it won't actually fit in the Timmy hangar at MPA. As the RAF and MoD were told well over 10 years ago after the measurements were physically checked by those in the know....
But that didn't fit in with their Airships' plans. So, once again, inconvenient true facts were simply ignored.....
Yet again 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space is trying to peddle a pretty useless 5-APU tanker derivative....
You want a modern, tactical tanker-transport with an 18+ tonne offload? Try the Embraer KC-390, which will have 2 wing AAR pods, something which 't Bungling Baron's team seem to have overlooked:
You want a modern, tactical tanker-transport with an 18+ tonne offload? Try the Embraer KC-390, which will have 2 wing AAR pods, something which 't Bungling Baron's team seem to have overlooked:
....with the complete overkill of a Voyager keeping it company on the other side of the pan.
But that didn't fit in with their Airships' plans. So, once again, inconvenient true facts were simply ignored.....
Last edited by BEagle; 15th Sep 2013 at 18:59.
"just specify an operational requirement for in-theatre AAR support to be provided for the MPA Chinook"
Easy...None! No RAF helicopter is cleared for AAR; the Mk3 Chinooks had most of the probe fittings removed when 'reverted' and the Merlin has (some) probes but IIRC they haven't been cleared....Oh, BTW, we've not had a Chinook at MPA for some time...
Easy...None! No RAF helicopter is cleared for AAR; the Mk3 Chinooks had most of the probe fittings removed when 'reverted' and the Merlin has (some) probes but IIRC they haven't been cleared....Oh, BTW, we've not had a Chinook at MPA for some time...
Last edited by Evalu8ter; 15th Sep 2013 at 19:05.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca: "...said it had a boom". Unfortunately it exists only on "company produced artwork" - a special lightweight one too, wow! (presumably all current AAR operators demanded a heavy one)
"...negates need for AAR" absolutely not something I would say. If anything should be tother way round.
Beagle, are you really telling us specifications should be drawn up on the basis of the dimensions of one hangar? "requires de icing..." so what?
"...negates need for AAR" absolutely not something I would say. If anything should be tother way round.
Beagle, are you really telling us specifications should be drawn up on the basis of the dimensions of one hangar? "requires de icing..." so what?
Last edited by ShotOne; 15th Sep 2013 at 20:28.
"requires de icing..." so what?
Beagle, are you really telling us specifications should be drawn up on the basis of the dimensions of one hangar?
theatre was ridiculous. Consideration should have been given to converting a C-130J or two into a single-point tanker, pending A400M.With your logic, I can only assume that you work in MB....
Evalu8ter, I didn't realise that the Chinook had been redeployed - or that AAR hasn't been considered necessary for the future RW fleet.....
Last edited by BEagle; 15th Sep 2013 at 21:50.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,856 Likes
on
1,223 Posts
Quote:
Beagle, are you really telling us specifications should be drawn up on the basis of the dimensions of one hangar?
Beagle, are you really telling us specifications should be drawn up on the basis of the dimensions of one hangar?
Remember the other BAe idea touted for the 146, that of the side loading combat transporter that required you to build a ramp up to unload it.
Nice in a combat situation...... It didn't sell, and also remember all these far flung tanker ideas etc are all built around cobbling it together out of someone else's 30 year old cast off.. As they do not built them anymore.
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Sep 2013 at 22:10.
Beags,
I'm not saying that it's not needed...just not at the moment. FWIW for contingent Ops the ability to AAR would be very welcome for niche roles. I suppose it's 'too difficult' in cash terms until just after we need the capability....
The loss of the CH47 from the FI robbed the force of a valuable (and fun!) training theatre.
I'm not saying that it's not needed...just not at the moment. FWIW for contingent Ops the ability to AAR would be very welcome for niche roles. I suppose it's 'too difficult' in cash terms until just after we need the capability....
The loss of the CH47 from the FI robbed the force of a valuable (and fun!) training theatre.
Indeed, Evalu8ter.
Even if kept in a 'fitted for, but not with' state, the ability to fit AAR equipment into a Chinook, freeing up some of the rear space for more....'them' if doing long range covert insertions, rather than carrying additional internal tanks would clearly be of benefit at times. But if the RAF doesn't have a tanker which could refuel the Chinook, there's little point.
I'm astonished that the Chinook was withdrawn from MPA - it always seemed to be in great demand when I was down there. Presumably they were all needed to support adventurism in the Great Sandpit.
Even if kept in a 'fitted for, but not with' state, the ability to fit AAR equipment into a Chinook, freeing up some of the rear space for more....'them' if doing long range covert insertions, rather than carrying additional internal tanks would clearly be of benefit at times. But if the RAF doesn't have a tanker which could refuel the Chinook, there's little point.
I'm astonished that the Chinook was withdrawn from MPA - it always seemed to be in great demand when I was down there. Presumably they were all needed to support adventurism in the Great Sandpit.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle.."..do you understand the implications..." yes I do and have first hand experience. It takes about the same time as it does to manoeuvre a big aircraft out of a hangar! If that's too slow spend a few grand on an extra deice rig! Your criticism would rule out any of the contenders for this contract. On the other hand I agree ther are justified criticisms of the terms of this contract and these have been discussed at length elsewhere but in terms of defending the FI, the 330 gives options none of your suggestions do; want to double or quadruple our FJ presence in a few days? Easy. The only limit becomes the resilience of the pilots buttocks!
Nutloose "the Stirling was.." Yes -and its operational performance, ceiling and bomb load, was severely restricted as a result!
Nutloose "the Stirling was.." Yes -and its operational performance, ceiling and bomb load, was severely restricted as a result!
Last edited by ShotOne; 16th Sep 2013 at 09:55.
I think the point BEags is making is that if the ac is outside then it would need cont deicing in certain conditions, whereas , if in the hangar just open up and go. Moreover the type of tanker at MPA has little if any influence on the reinforcement options.
is it really beyond the wit and resources of a country with a GDP of around £1trillion, its own maahooosive cargo carrying ships, a steel industry and its own construction force to build a bigger hangar?
MPA isn't exactly Heathrow, building a single large tin shed will not entail demolishing the whole place and strting again...
MPA isn't exactly Heathrow, building a single large tin shed will not entail demolishing the whole place and strting again...
MPA isn't exactly Heathrow, building a single large tin shed will not entail demolishing the whole place and starting again...
Unlike scheduled departures, the QRA tanker has to be kept at high RS. That can be achieved if the aircraft is tugged out from the hangar, but to keep it ready 24/7 out in the open would cost a fortune in de-icing. No doubt the environmentalists would also be concerned at all that de-icing fluid entering the local ecosystem...
C-130, VC10K, TriStar, KDC-10, B707 and KC-767 will all fit the Timmy hangar, as will A400M. Voyager will not.