BAe146 Offered as tactical air to air
 

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.

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!

What about the other quote on that link ...

Are we that desperate for AAR that 32 (The Royal) Sqn have ended up doing it? Whats next? Why don't we fit a AAR boom to the Grob Tutor?

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.

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:oh:!
Safe in the North Atlantic though;).

OAP

Well, I suppose a boom has more chance of staying attached than a propeller. Ironic really.

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!

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....:rolleyes: But that didn't fit in with their Airships' plans. So, once again, inconvenient true facts were simply ignored.....:\

"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...

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?

Do you actually understand the implications of keeping an aircraft as large as the A330 de-iced to the extent necessary to maintain the required RS? Given hold-over times and the number of available de-icing rigs, it would be like painting the Forth bridge...(as it used to be). The volume of de-icing fluid and austerity of the location make such an option very, very difficult and expensive - which is why the '10 would go into the hangar in poor weather. Not an option with the Voyager.

Hardly. But if we're serious about defending Bennyland, the contractual decision to restrict AAR provision to an aircraft manifestly unsuitable in such an 'operational' :rolleyes: 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....:hmm:

Evalu8ter, I didn't realise that the Chinook had been redeployed - or that AAR hasn't been considered necessary for the future RW fleet.....

Stirling bomber was, and let's not forget the Viscount, that had a pax capacity based on what the BOAC pax bus could carry.


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.

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.

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.

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!

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 hanger 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 hanger?

MPA isn't exactly Heathrow, building a single large tin shed will not entail demolishing the whole place and strting again...

Have you any idea of the cost of building an A330-capable hangar even in the UK, let alone at MPA? Unlike at Heathrow, any hangar at MPA has very high winds with which to cope, so must be a massive structure. It's not like throwing up a new branch of B&Q!

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.

Sorry but how long do you think deicing takes, Beagle? The whole procedure takes about ten mins, half that with an extra rig, concurrent with crew boarding checks and start up. There's simply no need for the continuous deice pantomime you describe.

The BAe 146M? It did sell - the RAF have two at Kandahar.

It didn't - and they're not.

10 min is too long for many scramble situations. Have you ever been on QRA?

Genuine question.....can the hangar not be modified? Is it the height, width, depth that's the issue?

Could you expand on that? The link below shows that they do, and speaking to BAE they assure me that they are.

PICTURES: Converted BAe 146s cleared for RAF operations

I'm no expert, but I don't think the grass at Kandahar is that green. :} Also, the accompanying text is rather vague.

What you have now is a Civilian freight version adapted for use, what the original Military version called the STA had for unloading and loading was this contraption that it carried onboard and had to be assembled to offload your vehicles, not exactly roll on roll off.

http://ukmamsoba.org/mp017.jpg

As shown at Farnborough.

and Paris below

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e-146-STA.JPEG

it had no takers.

from Wiki, though to be fair for the role it is in today, it wouldn't have needed the ramp.
I still think the UK government messed up when we bought the Andover over the Heralds, they were modified to have a Herc type back end and thats what the 146 should have had.

Could you imagine a Bae 146 Carrier ONBOARD delivery system.... i'm still laughing now over 30 years later.

The story was written (and the image taken) before they were deployed to Kandahar. Regardless of how vague you feel the text is, I was speaking to the industry team that is supporting them in theatre only last week.

I think the key bits in that article are:

and

So not 146Ms but 146QCs

They're just a pair of converted ex-TNT freighters, rather than BAe146Ms.

The hangar at MPA is too narrow for the A330. Even if it wasn't surrounded by other buildings, attempting to widen it whilst maintaining structural integrity and casting new foundations would be an 'interesting challenge'. A pair of stop-gap C-130J tankers would probably be cheaper until the A400M enters service - assuming that the ATrS contractual clause can be 'reviewed'.

As it happens, as briefed by BAE, the BAe 146M is the designation given to a civilian aircraft that has been converted into a military airlifter. Of course, once in service the RAF gives them its own designation.

Besides, this isn't a discussion about designations, but about the BAe 146 in general (check the title of the thread).

Why, thank you. It does seem to be you getting wrapped round the axle of designations but hey-ho. :ugh: As your ightly point out the 146M is the CC3 in RAF parlance - and I'm not sure how much of the 146M appeared in the CC3

But to bring the topic back on track, as a tactical AAR asset - pointless. The cost of conversion of the aircraft into a refuelling role would make it very expensive. Why wouldnt you just use the A400Ms you already have on order, that come ready plumbed for AAR and just buy the AAR kits to meet your requirement for a tactical tanker.

Edited for wrong link

Not allowed to, as per the MoD's contract with AirTanker.

I know - QED.

Not sure what exactly you're meaning with QED in this instance, but if you're saying that the AirTanker contract also precludes the BAE 146 being used then that's incorrect. The contract says the MoD cannot tank with anyone other than AirTanker, but does not say it cannot tank with any platform other than Voyager.

BAE thinks (rightly or wrongly) that there is scope in AirTanker operating a small number of 146s to augment the Voyagers for training and tactical tanking.

More spin from 't Bungling Baron to pretend that they actually sold the BAe 146M.....:rolleyes:

Anyway, to answer the original question (again), a BAe 146K would be an utter waste of effort. High maintenance costs (5 x APUs), very little offload, single hose only - a totally useless POS in my view.

Years ago I had a quick back of an envelope look at a tanker derivative of the A321. Not terribly impressive - if a VC10C1K or VC10K4 could offer 36.3 tonne offload capability on the specimen mission, an A321 could offer 24.8T. Whereas an A310 or VC10K3 could offer 47T - and an A330 84T.

What lunatic is peddling such utter nonsense?

If ATrS are to provide the 24/7 AAR service exclusively, then they should build a new hangar at MPA.... Surely they looked into this before the contract was sealed? If they want to provide the service exclusively, their research should have checked that there's adequate infrastructure in place to do so.

Yep, or it is their responsibility to provide the means to deice the aircraft, part and parcel of providing a service, and if they fail then they should be fined until they provide it"

What stupid idiot signed a contract which in effect gave them exclusivity for AAR.

I think quite a few involved with that contract ended up working for AirTanker.

Get a drive through like at Charles de Gaulle airport.