My concern centred over the lack of a method to control the angle of bank without disconnecting the AP. Lateral modes were limited to 'Heading' and 'Nav', there was no equivalent of 'manual turn' (as in VC10 and Victor).

The A330MRTT will now have a 'bank' mode added which should allow the Pilot Flying to have continuous control of AoB and AoB rate. Allegedly it's been assessed by some RAF pilots; however, not by either TPs or AR FIs, I gather.......

But next time I'm in Toolooze, I'll try to ask some questions.

Saw the first 2 A310s in the hangar here at DRS yesterday - GAF jet now has pods fitted. Looks very nice indeed!

BEagle,

You're in both camps as it were so I wonder if I could ask your opinion on something that has been bedevilling me for a little time now.

Whilst not sharing Force_ale's concerns about the PFI aspect of this deal, this is a major front line assett and 84 are not, therefore there will be major differences in how this fleet is manned by the military, I have a concern about numbers.

The SDR and the added on chapters all stressed the need for enhanced mobility and strategic air lift, so where is the logic in replacing 19 VC10's and 9 Tristars with a fleet i now read that is going to consist of 10 new and 6 second hand A330's?

Surely this is a major reduction in capability, not only AAR but the loss of main deck freight carrying capacity?

I think the A330 is going to be the bees knees, and the way the fleet will be managed and supported could really benefit the RAF, but 16????????

Nice piccy of the A330K, by the way M609.

Were you to ask your question of a senior bod in the MoD-box, you'd probably get a "Mumble, mumble.....big picture....chartering-in....Yes, please - and easy on the tonic....strategic assets...complementary fleets....another one will be very nice if you're paying" sort of answer!

BEagle's bolleaux feeling is that FS...let's stop calling it that, 'A330 MRTT' is primarily a tanker to replace the VC10 and TriStar tankers. The Primary Service Provider will be able to offer good terms on the movement of punters to various destinations in support of Tony's wars - but we've also got a fair number of A400Ms due. And do I hear whispers about perhaps a few more C-17s? Some C130Ks are undergoing life-extension, so there'll actually be a pretty capable AR and AT force in 2010-ish.

Don't know what'll happen to the C130J - but it also does some pretty useful work. (Damn - did I say that..??).

yes but the 330's can't be in 2 places at the same time. I know the probabilities of us needing them all at once are slim but still the possibility exists.

the drop in numbers is worrying.

As to the transport requirement if I understand correctly the Mod will have to lease in extra capicity. Will this also apply to Aeromed? A capability that sometimes needs rapid response. Yep a Herc can do it but would you want to be comming out of Iraq on a stretcher in a herc?

Can't wait to see these things for real. :)

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/mesag87/images/rafk330.jpg

Sorry about the image quality.

Grant

ya got the paint job wrong, methinks
contract will probably require the aircraft to be in "Sunshine cheap low cost holidays dot com" colours then we will never be able to afford or have the time to repaint them for tanking.:p

M609

Excellent!! How?

Pity about the 10 Sqn tail fin though - only in their dreams!! Now if only we can get rid of that stupid stripe!!

Grant T

Like it.

I understand that it is in the contract that the KA330s are grey - whether that is mucky grey like the 10s or shiney grey like the Can Force A310s remains to be seen. Rumour has it the Tristars are going grey soon.

Now what about a name for the jet? The appropriate "Extender" sadly has gone so over to all you PPRuNers.

I went by the pictures that are on the Air Tanker site, both the white and grey options are shown but i chose to do the grey livery as IMO it looks better. ;)

Thanks Roland.

so what happens when the UK military don't want the airtanker aircraft? will they be used for cargo or holiday charters or will other aircorces benefit?

Nurse

I understand that that will be the business of AirTanker. Those not in use with the RAF will be civil registered and therefore I guess will be perfect for any airline in its designed for role ie SLF on holiday.:cool: :cool:

Max R8,

The photos on the website don't show it, but the prox trials were performed to the relevant positions, on simulated wing and centreline stations. No snags observed. Beware sharing your wisdom with the rest of the world when you don't have the relevant facts. :ok:

Credit to Peter ten Thije for the pic!

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...hp?id=00000798

Guess Photoshop "might" have been used...........

Looks like the Boeing 767 Tanker is in further trouble:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...al/8021525.htm

Cynical me thought that all Boeing's efforts were actually geared towards persuading the USAF that there was some urgent need for replacement tankers. Why would that be? They've just spent a lot of bucks on the Pacer Craig upgrade to the KC135 which will go on flying for years - and they've got loads of KC10s as well... Why would that be? To keep Uncle Boeing happy by keeping the 767 production line going after civil orders dried up post-11 Sep.

With the 7E7 going ahead, why isn't the USAF thinking instead about a KC-7E7 when they, not Boeing, need it?

"we've also got a fair number of A400Ms due. And do I hear whispers about perhaps a few more C-17s? Some C130Ks are undergoing life-extension, so there'll actually be a pretty capable AR and AT force in 2010-ish."

Great, can't wait, more noisy, vibrating, uncomfortable cattle trucks. Those flights to Goose and the Gulf are going to be sooooo looked forward to. Mind you, we seem to go everywhere by C130 these days so replacing 28 aircraft with 16 probably won't make that much difference anyway!!

With much respect to Albert crews.

Why are you flying to Goose and the Gulf in such squalor? Don't forget that there's a DCI stating that 'passengers shall only be carried on C130 if there is no feasible alternative.....'.

When FSTA comes on stream, if DTMA try to send a 'vibrating cattle truck' rather than using the Primary Service Provider's aircraft (because that would cost them more dosh), that would not be a 'no feasible alternative' action - it would be a 'we can't afford our own rules' action.

Obviously there will be difficulties transporting grunts-wiv-guns in non-military ac, hence that would make Albert the only feasible option. But otherwise......

Incidentally, the 'max grunt' fit planned for A400M looks, shall we say, somewhat cosy!

Oh how I miss travelling in the bowels of one of HM's $hit-shifters....NOT! Another nice comfy trip to Europe this week - little packet of nuts with the G & T, then a 3 course hot meal with some wine, then coffee and cognac. On a similar 90 min trip in a '10 or an Albert you'd be lucky to enjoy the gourmet delight of an S1 box!

When the Airbuses are out doing their non-RAF work will they still be afforded the same level of security which the RAF would provide to a night-stopping VC-10 abroad? I can't understand how in today's climate its considered safe for an aircraft to fly from Heathrow to El-Somewhere-Nasty, getting a bunch of local handlers carefully unload the luggage, then fly to Brize a bit later to pick up 250 grunts when 12 hours ago someone you wouldn't trust an inch was inside your aircraft? Or have I missed the point?

No. the trouble is our lords and masters always try to do things on the cheap and invariably they turn out more expensive in the long run than the proper solution. Lets hope it does not turn out expensive in lives.

Certainly agree with you 100% on this (for once?), Arters!!