No, you misunderstand.

Control of the AAR Mission Planning System in the OzAF's A330MRTT is the responsibility of either the Mission Coordinator or Air Refuelling Operator at the ARO/MCO's console using a Multi Function Control and Display Unit, keyboard and trackball or by either pilot using their Onboard Information Terminals (in place of the tray tables) and keyboards.

However, it was always the assumption that the RAF's A330K would only have the minimum chnages from the generic A330-200, to allow it to be re-roled between military and civil roles relatively simply. Thus, if it doesn't have OITs for the pilots, then the ARO will need to be very au fait with AAR navigation calculations, in particular those needed for AAR trails.

In-flight AAR trail re-planning in the A310MRTT will be similar to the work of an AARC, but the user HMI will be much simpler than working with a laptop program. Basically, the new constraints are entered (e.g hose state, receiver fuel limits, change of available enroute diversion aerodromes etc etc) and the whole trail plan recrunched in half a heartbeat. If the new plan puts brackets in unacceptable locations, then the ARO can amend them and recrunch the plan again and again until an acceptable plan is achieved. So, nothing as primitive as the RAP system, the earlier NAP system or the 'worst diversion fuel state' system of the days of black-and-white tanking.

So if, unlike the OzAF A330MRTT, the pilots' stations are to be relatively unmodified in the A330K then the ARO will need to be the mission re-planner. As far as systems management is concerned, that will be the responsibility of the pilots; the only system of direct concern to the ARO will be the fuel system associated with the pods and centreline hose. Which is simpler than in the A310MRTT where the ARO needs to monitor those internal transfer systems which maintain the centre tank at the level needed for supplying fuel to the pods - and to operate the inner to centre transfer system in manual if the auto system is not available.

The pre-employment course for an A330K ARO will need to ensure a baseline level of navigational competence. Personally I feel that this should be similar to the old style Jet Provost BFTS generic pilot navigation ground school, not the current BFJT fast-jet optimised teaching. Basic understanding of IAS/TAS/IMN relationships, triangles of velocity and basic navigation planning using a nav computer - that sort of thing. Plus all the theory of trail planning etc.

No inherent reason why those without a navigation background shouldn't be able to cope with this, but the work of the A330K ARO will certainly be different to that of either a navigator or an air engineer in the RAF's current AAR fleets.

And yes, I do know about in-car SatNav systems. My Garmin nüvi 660 is an ace piece of kit. 20 ft position accuracy at 500 kts TAS and FL300 is not unknown (when I'm allowed to try it!).

Remove the tray table! How do you eat lunch?
It's the best feature of the Airbus. Most disconcerting :(

BEags,
why not just put the AAR programme on a laptop, with the rest of the mission planning tools and reporting system and leave that with the PNF?
Costs a shed load less than incorporating it into the aircraft systems and clearances for such, n'est pas!
Oh and the Pilots can 'plug in' when they get to the hotel and receive the following days Flight Plan, wx, Notams etc etc!
Cheap boys alternative!

In order to replan trails dynamically, the mission planning system needs continuous ARINC feeds from the aircraft air data systems, fuel quantity systems and navigation systems.

Your 'laptop' solution would not achieve this, due to the limitations of the food-powered data input device, so would be little better than a RAPS calculator. That primitive system needs to become a museum piece!

Last year I did a simulated AAR trail from Germany to Lajes in real time with 4 Tornados using prototype software still under development. The route I chose crossed the North Sea, then went through the RCs and UK overland AARAs to Lands End and on to the ocean. The initial software planned some brackets in 'illegal' places, so those were edited manually and a satisfactory plan was then generated. We flew it on the rig, including single hose reversion and trapped receiver fuel. Within the development state of the software, the concept of trail management looked very promising. The software later proved unacceptable for other reasons; however the second generation system currently under development will be much, much better as it amends route waypoint fuel and ETA estimates dynamically.

In its towline mode, last week I flew the new software on the test rig from Germany to Norway and back and offloaded 24000kg in 4 hours of CAP support on a forward area tactical towline. The ability to add or delete receivers, manage the available offload in response to changes in MOTF and ATC requirements etc - and to see the 'actual' vs. 'planned' fuel lines on the display, together with the spare fuel available, takes away all that 'do it in your head' stuff needed in earlier years. The system receives over a dozen live ARINC data streams and is very fast and accurate. It also has a global moving map (north or track up, Lambert or Mercator), fuel system synoptic display, fuel graph, CG display, flight data display and a DDRMI which shows TACAN, DF aircraft heading AND track on an electronic representation of a normal RMI.

Why on earth would you suggest a cheap and nasty 'balance it on your knee' laptop in-flight solution? Yes, your laptop should upload the latest forecast met data and apply it to the stored plan; this should then be transferred to the aircraft. Due to the lack of a suitable 'universal' met system (all to do with propriety data formats or something equally nerdy :8), currently the end users will either have to apply an average component to selected parts of the plan or enter the met for every waypoint manually....:hmm:. But then the plan is regenerated, popped onto a USB stick and fed to the aircraft Mission Computer System the following day. It will also print out the waypoint list for the pilots to feed to the FMS.

The mission planning software is also able to be hooked up to a classroom ground training rig (son of son of Pennants/TFAST) for basic AAR role training. We trained a customer AAR crew earlier this year using the old software on such a system and will soon be training others using the vastly improved new system.

Perhaps something which future A330K AAR role instructors might be interested in? Orders of magnitude cheaper than a full-up dynamic flight simulator.

Its a long time coming the RAF replacement tanker.

Strangely enough the arguments haven't changed since I last looked on these Forums eight years ago.

What's worse its the same players contributing - I ask has anybody listened to you over the years? NO!

My guess is the money will be diverted by Gordon Brown to other worthy needs. Who needs a strategic tanker these days - we don't. Just well equipped ground troops.

How are those grunts going to refuel a plane in mid-air?? :ugh:

I take it you don't think strategically, just short-term tactical. Which is nice. For now.............

That's the whole point the Uk doesn't need AAR anymore. Once we withdraw from the Blair egotistic skirmishes and defend Blighty we won't need expensive AAR machinery.

Spend the money on turning Brize Norton into a home for immigrants, which would be far more effective than the current home for retired RAF types which we seem to have these days!

And your area of expertise is? We have always needed AAR to help defend the UK. Note the topic recently about the Russians pentrating UK airspace again. How do you suppose the fighters had enough fuel to shadow our visitors? A bunch of "well equipped ground troops"???

And who do you suppose provides the fuel to those assets supporting our well equipped ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Oh yes of course that would be AAR assets.

And of course by your own theory any well equipped ground troops......!

With understanding of air power like yours you must be an army officer and I claim my £5!:mad:

Don't feed the trolls, Roly old bean.

See you on 6th July?

The A330
 

As an ex-A330 driver and ex-Military (albeit a long time ago), I cannot understand the problem. Notwithstanding the false Take-off weight limits imposed by the CAA, the A330-200 is capable of taking off with a full 110 tonnes of fuel as well as a compliment of some 350 plus passengers. All it would need is the in-flight-refuelling pipework. It has the capacity to refuel a great number of little aeroplanes (fighters) as well as transporting a goodly number of troops to anywhere in the world.

However, I cannot see it refuelling fighters from wing points; the vortex would be too much.

CB

Proximity trials have already demonstrated that there are no vortex problems associated with the A330 wing pod locations.

They're actually quite a way inboard of the wing tips as they are fitted where the outer engine hard points for the A340 are located.

Cheesebobcat,

You will see it refuelling fighters from wing points. If this cannot be done then Airbus are in serious trouble with the whole A330 MRTT programme and the bid for KC-X would also be a non-starter. Proximity trials with Tornados holding station in the refuelling position have already been done.

I think most people believe the basic airframe is a sound choice for a tanker. The scepticism concerns the decision to use a PFI to supply the service to the RAF. Also, the "optional extras" that Australia are wisely specifying, giving their aircraft added flexibility, are noticeably absent in the UK version.

Wondered when someone was going to mention that.

Strange that no-one's mentioned using A340 or 380 in a militarised role yet! :)

"Strange that no-one's mentioned using A340 or 380 in a militarised role yet!"

Such as....??

The post earlier on in the thread for instance that questions 2 donk reliablity, or the post about the Iranian 747s.

On the other hand I hear there's some fairly low hours KC135's sat in the Mojave desert that could be re-engined with CFM56's!

So we could replace some 40 year old aircraft with some 40+ year old aircraft. I marvel at your logic!! One of the reasons they USAF want start replacing their KC135s is because they are 40 years old and are getting more and more expensive to maintain!!!!!!!:ugh:

Maybe I should have wrapped that bit up in sarcasm quotes... :rolleyes:


Can someone lend a hand reeling this one in! :P

VC10 Eng capable of operating an FMS ?

You mean lean over and press "direct to" when the Nav's out having a Jimmy Riddle ?

Suppose that classes as operating an FMS......:E

(From an ex VC10 driver than now handles his own FMS......just.)
(P.S. VC10 FE's. Salt of the earth in all honesty. :ok:)

BEagle as a retired Officer what would you know about Trolls, you need to get out more. I think we all tire of your pompous holier than though attitude. It was a point of view - juts like anyones on this Forum.

A for operating FMS's - anyone with half a brain can programme an FMS. The /H function could be very useful if adapted to fly a towline.

WR (Probationary Pruner)
Yes, this forum represents points of view. However, Beags posts (with the exception of his regretable prejudice against cavalwy orficers) are usually to the point, highly expert and well expressed. Yours, on the other hand, are facile, puerile, bigotted and combative.
I suspect we know whose attitude we really all tire of. Are you still on probation?

"Who needs a strategic tanker these days - we don't. Just well equipped ground troops."

WR, not a dig at you, you are entitled to your opinion and I do see the question as fairly muddied. It just so happens that this question is why we are where we are today. Someone decided we did not need it and took the money from the EP as it used to be. No money, ongoing requirement, must be funded somehow - PFI is all that is left. Bugger.

So anyway, under this PFI how will the aircraft be registered for them to be able to fly on "civilian flights" when not needed by our airships, and who will maintain them if they are on the civvie register? I am sure there are more than a couple of legal issues to be overcome. Can't see the RAF becoming a JAR approved maintenance organisation, and how many RAF ground engineers would stay if they were given a JAR licence and a type rating on an Airbus 330!

I do remember when the RAF acquired its Tristars it soon found out that it had to change the rules to ensure that as BA trained the crews they didn't just go straight out the door into the arms of BA or other airlines.

I'm sure we've got our best 2-years-in-post contract writers on the job as we speak.

...so in accordance with tradition I expect RAF ops to end up second fiddle to the fare-paying public demanding transit to Ibiza, while our engineers will undoubtedly enjoy favouritism over their expensive civvy counterparts when it comes to pesky maintainance issues.

" 'Much better 767 tanker'? ROFLMAO at that! " ...Mr Beagle, I can think of several reasons why a 767 is better suited than the A330. Better suited to the requirement - won't come back half full; softer footprint - operates from softer runways; smaller aircraft = larger fleet so you get more assets; Nah, the 330 is too big.

I reckon the Aussies only chose it because the MoD did - they must be crackers. Have you seen how weak most of their runways are??

" 'Much better 767 tanker'? ROFLMAO at that! " ...Mr Beagle, I can think of several reasons why a 767 is better suited than the A330. Better suited to the requirement - won't come back half full; softer footprint - operates from softer runways; smaller aircraft = larger fleet so you get more assets; Nah, the 330 is too big.

I reckon the Aussies only chose it because the MoD did - they must be crackers. Have you seen how weak most of their runways are??

Heard you the first time.

If you examine the OzAF requirements spec you'll see that, whereas the 767 cannot meet it, the A330 exceeds it. Easily.

Sorry B - didn't mean to send it twice. Must admit, I haven't sighted the OzAF spec for some time. Has it changed much?

Nice to see the first OzAF A330MRTT being rolled out!

See http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...er-rolled.html

Here are the rough assessments I made a while ago of the comparative capabilities of various tankers based on the OzAF spec:

Just back from an interesting couple of weeks down route and catching-up on my PPRune-ing, so apologies for bubbling this one back up to the surface. Anyway, I can't find, anywhere in the original post or in any of the links, or anywhere else I've searched, any actual commitment to dates or specifics. What is the significance of this new announcement that is anything other than what has been announced before?
Sounds like about the 4th or 5th "If we ever get FSTA it will be a PFI with frames provided by AirTanker Ltd, or something" announcement to me. Any specifics anyone? Any reference to actual contracts being signed and actual aircraft being provided?
:ugh:

Sloanar - which Oz runways are too soft? A, ahem, friend, flies large USAF tankers down that way and he doesn't seem to have any problems....

Edited for bad grammar and inaccuracy.

Beags, the 762LRF based offering for the KC-X programme is likely to be a bit more capable than the 762ER based KC-767A? Any figures yet based on that?

Just a digitally-remastered 767 with nowhere near the capability of the A330MRTT.

What fun it would be to be cooped up in the back of one of those Boeing things without even any passenger windows. Still, at least that'll be useful for disorientating 'guest of Guantanamo' on direct flights to Cuba....:eek:

And I just love the Boeing bull**** of a 'lowest-risk solution' - they only managed to trail and wind the wing hoses for the first time a couple of months ago.....:hmm:

A330 vs 767
 

There's no contest! Are we willing to have our brave tanker drivers eating their meals off their laps for the next 40 years?

Far better to have the A330 with a suitable desk, much more civilised.

Let's get our priorities right!

KC30 in production for the US
 

First Northrop Grumman KC-30 Tanker Begins Final Assemblyhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gif
(Source: Northrop Grumman; issued June 18, 2007)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifLE BOURGET, France --- Northrop Grumman Corporation's first KC-30 Tanker will begin final assembly this week, reflecting the industrial team's commitment to the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 replacement program.

"The first KC-30 Tanker platform's early entry into final assembly is evidence of our team's commitment to the KC-X program that we intend to win," said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman's vice president and general manager of the KC-30 program. "The world's most modern and capable tanker will be ready to meet the U.S. Air Force's test and delivery requirements right away. Early assembly of the first development aircraft, D-1, is a tangible reflection of the KC-30 Tanker team's ability to reduce risk and ensure a time-certain development process.

"We're prepared to deliver D-1 to the Air Force this November, one month after projected contract award," Meyer concluded.

Drawing on suppliers in the United States and other allied nations, final assembly of the first KC-30 Tanker platform -- an A330-200 commercial airliner derivative -- will be performed at the state-of-the-art final assembly line in Toulouse, France. If selected by the U.S. Air Force, the KC-30 Tanker will ultimately be built at a new final assembly and modification center in Mobile, Alabama. This center would directly employ more than 1,000 aerospace engineers and technicians at rate production.

The KC-30 Tanker benefits from the A330's active production line and its fully operational industrial supply chain, as these jetliners continue their sales success with airlines and government customers worldwide. To date, more than 1,110 A330/A340s have been sold, with approximately 800 delivered to international operators and over 240 A330s in current backlog.

Northrop Grumman has assembled a powerful U.S. and allied industrial team to produce and supply KC-30 Tankers for the U.S. Air Force, basing this aircraft on the A330 Multi-role Tanker Transport -- which won the last three tanker competitions to support the air forces of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.

The Royal Australian Air Force's initial KC-30B has now been outfitted with its aerial refueling systems and has entered the validation flight testing phase. Following its maiden flight on June 15, this aircraft was flown to France to participate in this week's Paris Air Show at Le Bourget Airport.

"Robust production and a strong, proven supply chain are critical to meeting the Air Force's aggressive schedule for modernizing its tanker fleet," said John H. Young, Jr., CEO of EADS North America Tankers, a business unit of EADS North America. "The KC-30 Tanker benefits from both of these key elements. Sales of the A330 are continuing at a brisk pace for an aircraft recognized worldwide as the most modern and capable in its category, as reflected in the fact that A330/A340 production output is increasing to the impressive rate of more than two aircraft per week."

About the KC-30:
Northrop Grumman's KC-30 Tanker carries 45,000 more pounds of fuel than a KC-135 or any competitor, providing a significant boost to the U.S. Air Force's global reach. The KC-30 is also designed to refuel Navy and coalition aircraft, and to serve as a multi-role transport aircraft to move passengers, cargo and medical evacuation patients. The KC-30 incorporates defense systems, precision fly-by-wire technology, and the ability to integrate a communications suite and a global support network.

The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and create or support more than 25,000 U.S. jobs. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS, General Electric Aviation, Honeywell and Sargent Fletcher.


Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $30 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

:D

"Just a digitally-remastered 767 with nowhere near the capability of the A330MRTT" - but it doesn't have to have A330s capability Beags - it has to meet the specified tender requirement.

Even if A330 surpassed the USAF's requirements it's hard to see Boeing losing this one on political grounds, having spent who knows how much keeping the 767 line open, unless 767K(LR) fails the requirement in the way that 767K(ER) appears to have failed the RAAF's according to your charts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6227700.stm

:ok:

".....the well-established Boeing KC-767 Global Tanker"

The what?

Meanwhile the world's only 21st Century tanker-transport, the well-established A310 MRTT, put on a nice display at Le Bourget, I understand. :ok:

KC-30B Pros and Cons
 

Whilst it is great to hear that our first KC-30B has finally flown, and also that they are becoming quite popular with other air forces, can an informned type (such as M'Sieu B Eagle) please let me know about Doors and Floors?

I must admit that I have not been following the project closely, but I am of the understanding that the jet has some limitations wrt deploying a FJ SQN somewhere (ie what we'll really do with it for 75% of it's useful life, vice just filling thirsty jets).

Has any country (or EADS itself) ponied up the Euros to fit a decent-sized cargo door on the side or to re-inforce the floor so 1 or 2 KC-30Bs can deploy 8 Jets, a spare donk and a bunch of maintainers and their FAK somewhere......to help lighten the load on the RAAF AT fleet?

Standard fit is with a lower 106" cargo door.

The A330 MRTT can carry pallets up to 96" x 125" in the underfloor area. So if your spare fighter engine and maintenance FAK can fit onto such pallets, then no problem.

If your pointy jet spare engine + FAK weighs 10 tonnes and you take another 40 pax, you'd probably get about 95 tonnes of fuel onboard at MTOW.

Even at the max ZFW of 168 tonne, you could still carry 62 tonne of fuel!

Main Deck Cargo Door?
 

M BEagle,

Many thanks for the clairifcation - but does A330MRTT / KC-30B whatever come with a main deck door?

And in the trail conditions at Max ZFW what is the a/c range, and with say 8 x Typhoon recievers, how far could it deploy? And how would this compare with the current 767 tanker variant (whatever form that takes). Not a flame, just curious.

Many thanks

S41