RAF v RAAF A330
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF v RAAF A330
From Flight Global:
"The Royal Australian Air Force is preparing to add the Boeing P-8A Poseidon to the growing list of aircraft that can be refuelled by its Airbus KC-30A multirole tanker type.
Canberra recently certified its A330-based KC-30 to refuel the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and is now pressing forward with P-8A trials."
Yet another example of the gross mistake by the RAF in not ordering the Boom equipped version of the A330 tanker. All we need now is for the RAAF or RSAF or Saudi A330 to demonstrate AAR of the RAF's Rivet Joint.
"The Royal Australian Air Force is preparing to add the Boeing P-8A Poseidon to the growing list of aircraft that can be refuelled by its Airbus KC-30A multirole tanker type.
Canberra recently certified its A330-based KC-30 to refuel the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and is now pressing forward with P-8A trials."
Yet another example of the gross mistake by the RAF in not ordering the Boom equipped version of the A330 tanker. All we need now is for the RAAF or RSAF or Saudi A330 to demonstrate AAR of the RAF's Rivet Joint.
Yet another example of the gross mistake by the RAF in not ordering the Boom equipped version of the A330 tanker.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARSAG next month - if someone from the RAF carries a request for AAR Clearance for the MRTT / Airseeker I'm sure there would be somebody available to take them up on it. 
However; "It would be a big modification - an MSO station [Mission System Officer/Operator] and other control systems would need to be fitted as well as the boom itself, and there would be issues of certification, training, and crewing."
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the RAF's fault I'm afraid; the RAF wanted 3 hoses and a boom as part of the original requirement. This one can be firmly laid at the door of those that decided PFI for a frontline operational capability was a sensible way forward and the decision of the scrutiny departments in the MoD who said there was no UK requirement for a boom (arguably true at the time).
At ITN you are quite right, by then the boom, as well as a full fleet fit of 3 hoses and the ability to receive fuel in flight had been traded out as savings measures.
As someone involved at squadron level in the early days of FTA / FSTA, I recall a visit from a retired tanker Stn Cdr who was heavily involved with one of the consortia.
When we discussed the possibility of a boom, we told him that we would welcome it - as it would mean a 3-person crew requirement rather than the ridiculous 2-person crew which was being proposed at the time....
Nearly 20 years ago now....
When we discussed the possibility of a boom, we told him that we would welcome it - as it would mean a 3-person crew requirement rather than the ridiculous 2-person crew which was being proposed at the time....
Nearly 20 years ago now....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It would be a big modification - an MSO station [Mission System Officer/Operator] and other control systems would need to be fitted
It would however need modifications I'm sure.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be argued that investing in the boom early might have caused similar issues for the RAF as experienced by the RAAF and delays to achieving IOC would have been unacceptable to AirTanker. That, and the MOD hadn't stated a requirement.
The boom in service now is at upgrade version 3, and there have been considerable design improvements over the past few years.
The boom in service now is at upgrade version 3, and there have been considerable design improvements over the past few years.
