FedaykinWell considering HMS Queen Elizabeth won’t even enter sea trials until 2017 and see an F35 on deck until late 2017 maybe even 2018 with a planned full in service date of 2020 it is not quite the disaster one would think. It will take a number of years for the FAA and RAF to work the jet into the carrier operational system.
FedaykinIs it true that Voyager’s range (total possible distance travelled, not radius) in one direction, while carrying 30 tons of cargo, is 4800 nm? And since mtow is 238 tons and empty weight is 119 tons, for the said feat it requries some 90 tons of fuel?
Is is true that there are no plans to integrate refuelling probe on voyagers for the tankers themselves to be refuelled?
Is it true that so far no RAF C-17 have been integrated with a boom probe and are thus unable to be refuelled by voyagers? Are there concrete plans with concrete timetables for integration of such probes?
The quick answer is RAF C17 will probably never get a refuelling probe as it stands and they haven’t particularly needed it.
Longer answer if you want to read on :D:
The UK C17 are the later production variant that has a centre wing-box fuel tank extending the range. They can get to most places we want them to without a stop and if they do need a stop it isn’t a disaster in the grand scheme of things. The C17 are some of the busiest aircraft in the RAF with rumours coming up in the last few weeks that the MOD was going to look at purchasing nine and ten to help equalise flight hours and prolong service life. As nobody outside the RAF has expressed interest in fitting a probe to start an integration process would be problematic. An RAF C17 would have to be taken out of the active flight program for development work, installation and trials. The RAF C17 fleet is just too busy for that! Another issue is it would make our C17 different to everybody else. The UK operates a maintenance pooling arrangement with all other C17 operators so making ours different adds cost and logistic problems.
If the UK decided it really needed to refuel the C17 in the air the easiest solution is to reactivate boom receptacle and use allied tankers on a needs based basis. So far there hasn’t been a need so there is no point spending the money.
As for Voyager, even giving away fuel to aircraft it has a huge range so I am not surprised it isn’t getting a probe. Adding a probe increases cost and delays full operational capability for something that would be rarely if ever used.
FedaykinAgain! That was a 2010 report and it clearly explains that £70,000 figure:
The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position.
Why are you being so disingenuous by ignoring that? It is nothing to do with me in denial, it is everything to do with you tooling up here and clearly trolling the forum.
As I said you clearly have an axe to grind!
FedaykinOK so rather then actually deal with what I have written reply with a vague answer about it being an expensive jet to operate.
You asserted that it nearly bankrupted the RAF, I pointed out that the report clearly stated they are work up costs that will go down to approximately the same as the other jets in the fleet and two of those other types are out of service anyway…lets look at the paragraph again:
The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position.
You have been caught out selectively reading a report and ignoring the very reasons that you are wrong in that same report…now again are you going to wind your neck in or is it just an axe you have to grind?
FedaykinYeah they went up on the Carrier alliance website in the last few days.
FedaykinTyphoon as good as a Strike Eagle? You’re having a laugh mate, even a Tonka crewman will tell you it just isn’t in the same league.
No he said as good as a Tornado…go on go back and read his paragraph…
I can almost hear the axe you are grinding from here.
FedaykinI see a bit of selective reading there Belethor, the table in the report does list the per hour operating cost of Typhoon as £70,000 per hour which is significantly more then the other types listed but the paragraph directly above explains WHY! Lets read that paragraph shall we:
The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position.
These are 2010 figures and they reflect the operating costs of a new type only just being inducted into full service in small numbers. The figures also reflect predicted future maintenance costs. The UK is also a launch customer for the type meaning there is an inherent defect rectification cost associated.
If Canada were to buy the type the initial start up costs would be higher (as it would be for any type) and then settle down. Canada would also not have to burden costs that the partner nations in the project do bringing the type into full operational capability.
Another thing two of the types on that list are now out of service and sold on in the case of Harrier and parted out in the case of F-3 Tornado. The per hour cost of F3 and Harrier combined is more then the Typhoon and they are both out of service now. Combine that with the cost reductions as more Typhoon stand up and your assertion that the Type has nearly bankrupted the RAF is rather disingenuous.
So do you care to modify for your assertions?
FedaykinTyphoon can drop PGM’s, this report is talking about the integration of further PGM not yet in service with Typhoon.
FedaykinNew view of construction I haven’t seen before in this report:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/carrier-project-contributes-to-mod-overspend-1-4664422
FedaykinYou think so? Imo, you could be assured that the good ole war loving USA would have find other places/countries to “liberate” (as in taking control of their oil and resources and transforming them into vassals) , or ostensibly protect “allies” from “threats”-real or imaginary ( i.e, have them buy their s**t). The american militaro-industrial complex does not like peace folks, it is not profitable for them. They hate peace. As long as they make their TRILLIONS, who cares how many “arab terrorists” must die…
An interesting statement that isn’t really backed up by history, nevertheless people do like to bang the “America wants invade everybody…” drum these days.
Traditionally America has maintained an isolationist stance, by in large Americans do not want to be involved in wars on foreign soil. Prior to the first and second world wars there was a strong reluctance to become involved that was only broken by extreme provocation. George W. Bush actually stood on an isolationist policy platform for the 2000 presidential election arguing that Bill Clinton had involved America in far too many foreign escapades that risked American lives from Somalia to Kosovo. Events on September 11th 2001 rather overtook him.
Anyhow why let boring things like facts get in the way of a good grudge…
Fedaykinhttp://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/23596/
PS-90A-76 (the relevant model here) compared to D-30KP-2 burns 17-19% less fuel; it increases Il-76 range by 25%. 64 engines of the type have been produced serially – but recently RuMOD ordered 200 engines to fulfill the recent Il-476 order. And of course more orders are likely if the Il-476 is indeed used for AWACS, VMF, etc purposes.
Given this order it would be a little while at best before any PS-90A-76 could be exported- not to mention the Chinese order for 184 D-30KP will clearly fuel quite a few of their new birds at the very least.
D-30 is a great engine but no doubt outdated; the fact that the Chinese can’t produce anything better in 2013 is surprising.
It is not as surprising as one would think when you think about it, China has effectively been building 1950’s vintage soviet engines in vast numbers for decades. Whilst they have refined them there has been little in the way of innovation. It usually takes decades to build up the R&D needed to develop modern generation turbofans. The materials technology involved is quite advanced and the wastage is high. Countries like America, Russia or Britain have the advantage of those decades of research and development. There is also a significant amount of trial and error that only significant service time under the wing will iron out. Whilst China has access to modern Turbofans like the CFM56 they don’t have access to the R&D and materials research. It is interesting to note the PW100 had a high failure rate early in its life only fixed by getting it into service and building up the flight hours. A manufacturer like PW, RR or GE is only where it is now through decades of generational incremental development. When China took the WS-10 off the workbench and installed in the J-11 its reliability and performance significantly improved due to the increase of data they were getting, wing time helps. Even Russia was arguably behind Western manufacturers when it came to Turbofan development until fairly recently.
What is amazing with China is how quickly they are catching up when it comes to domestic R&D.
FedaykinThe idea has been looked at Thaddeus by the MOD and as it stands rejected there are just too many problems.
Whilst yes a small (and actually a fairly large fixed wing type like a C-2) STOL type could operate off the QE class without catapult or arrestor gear assistance it presents many operational problems. Without the arrestor gear it will have to operate in fairly benign sea states, payload will be limited and if the deck is fowled the aircraft has no way of recovering or diverting as we won’t be operating a buddy tanker for the class. Add to that the RN would have to add a completely new logistics chain to support another type and a new training stream to support those kind of operations. Finally the RN already operates the Merlin meaning the support, logistics, training and maintenance stream is already established for an already purchased aircraft.
Certainly a Merlin based AEW&C type is not as optimal as an E-2D Hawkeye but it is adequate for the roll intended for these carriers. Remember the QE class are strike carriers operating close to shore, a helicopter based AEW&C types is operating close to it unlike a US CVN which is a fleet carrier. A CVN fleet carrier needs a fixed wing AEW&C type to cover the huge area of sea the ship is operating in.
Britain is not America and we have different defence needs.
FedaykinIt would be a very different world now if he was still in power. Consider this:
No Iran Iraq war.
No invasion of Kuwait and Gulf war more then likely.
Saddam still in power and still friendly with Western nations.
Which means no huge presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia.
So no reason for the Saudi funded Al Quaeda to attack America.
So no September 11th
So no 2001 Afghan invasion
So no 2003 Iraq invasion…
A very different world.
FedaykinWell as we know little to nothing about the aerodynamics or weights of the Y-20 yet it is difficult to be entirely clear.
I would say that as it stands a PS90 powered IL76 will have better general performance then the D30 powered Y20. Then again the D30 is apparently an interim engine to allow flight testing until a medium to high bypass variant of the WS10 is available. Considering the WS10 is based on the core of the CFM56 we can expect the performance of the medium to high bypass variant to have a similar profile.
So after that we need to consider how a CFM56 compares to a PS90 performance wise. Not an exact science as both engines have a surprisingly wide thrust and fuel burn range depending on intended role.
Certainly the Y20 will benefit from modern computer aided design and fluid dynamic modelling plus the full set of C17 design prints they got hold of. So in theory the Y20 might well have better aerodynamics but beyond that it is all speculation. I suppose an interesting point to make is the PS90 is in the same performance class as the RB211 which was also fitted the TU-204 and the RB211 is a direct competitor for the PW2000 which is in turn installed on the C17.
Looking at some figures which for laziness is taken from the wiki:
PW2000: 37,000 to 43,000 lbf (165 to 190 kN) thrust range.
RB211 as fitted to Tu-204: 40,100 to 43,100 lbf (178 to 192 kN) thrust range.
PS90 a bit vague but: 35,300 to 39,600 lbf (157 to 176 kN)thrust range.
CFM56 depending on model can be anything from: 20,000 to 34,000 lbf (89 to 151 kN) thrust range.
Considering the WS10 medium to high bypass variant will more then likely be similar to the CFM56 its performance will probably be in the same ball park.
Plenty to think about certainly. In my opinion if it is a smaller C17 aerodynamically powered by the WS10 it could have pretty hot performance…but that is my speculation.
FedaykinReading between the lines I would say this is more about cutting the cost of the CC-150 Polaris by putting in the excuse of non compatibility. The space for the probe and the under skin plumbing is the same as in the B and C model. I can’t believe it would cost that much to have it installed on the A model. The other option is to pay airbus to equip the Polaris with the Boom. I smell a rat here!
Sign In
