No it does not. Not in real world US tanker operations the VAST majority of the time.
No it is not. The cost evaluation of the last solicitation was SERIOUSLY flawed (in the KC-30’s favor).
Dream on. More booms on the ground is more booms in the air. The KC-30 doesn’t have enough greater endurance to make up for the lower numbers on the ground.
The KC-767, with its ability to operate from MORE airfields & in LARGER NUMBERS from each airfield allows more basing flexibility & short transit – putting MORE booms closer to the refueling points/orbits, burning significantly LESS fuel themselves (that means more fuel for everything else), negating & possibly even reversing the 1-vs-1 fuel capacity/endurance advantage of the KC-30.
Can you please explain where you keep getting that the KC767 can operate from MORE airfields and in LARGER numbers than the KC-30 please?
As far as most people are concerned it’s the other way round. The KC-30 can carry more fuel from more bases than the KC767. The KC-30 better brakes and takeoff and landing ability lets it operate from more airfields when carrying the same amount of fuel as the KC767. Yes there will be some ratio’s where the KC767 can looks good but we need real world figures. Since the new tankers will operate in a DIFFERENT way from current KC135’s we can’t plan weights and loads of aircraft. it will be more likely flights will carry cargo and fuel and do duel missions. This gives the KC30 the advantage when operating at higher weights. The easiest thing to do at an airport is slap a bit of concrete down for more aircraft to park on. The harder thing to do is to extend the runway. This goes in the KC-30 favour for the space issue. I grant that if Boeing put new brakes and engines on the plane it could match the KC767 in take off and landing ability. The problem with the KC767 is the safety margin for an aborted take off. It just can’t stop in the same distance as the KC-30. With the fuel burn issue i think this is a bit of a non issue. The difference between the 2 is small and will depend on missions and i don’t think will play that big a part in the decision. Yes the KC767 uses a bit less fuel but if you need to send 2 instead of 1 KC-30 it doesn’t favour it anymore. What i mean is say the KC767 has ran out of fuel for the last 2 fighters you have to send a second aircraft where KC-30 has one. Unlikely i know this is why i don’t think it will play a big part in decision making
The KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z are all meant to use the same aircraft and this is to be a compromise between the KC-10 and KC-135. Since the US airforce uses the KC-10 more often than the KC-135 and uses it capabilities as fully as possible this made it appear that a larger aircraft would be better to replace both. We are going to see a change over time off the US air force using the tanker’s for far more transport missions than the KC135 and for this the KC-30 wins. The USA currently is hiring civil aircraft to fly equipment around as it’s cheaper than firing up the C-5 to take some pallets half way round the world. The USA is also looking at how to transport cargo cheaper but still do it by air. This is where the KC-30 gets ahead of KC-767.
We will wait and see what gets offered for the competition from both companies and what the spec is. It will be hard to write the competition so that it doesn’t favour 1 aircraft over another. I can’t put my money on either and it’s 50/50 as far as i am concerned. What ever happens the US has to stick to this decision and if it feels it needs a change pick a different aircraft for KC-Y.
I will be interesting to see what Boeing bid for the contract. hopefully we will find out soon. I think NG will stick with what they did last time. Maybe more fuel efficent engines but i doubt it. The A330 is a popular aircraft but so is the 767 and either will be a big leap from the KC135.
Just had a check and the G.222 and C27A are powered by the General Electric T64 apart from the Libyan models that are powered by the Rolls Royce Tyne. The tyne has 4 bladed propeller and is more powerful than the T64 3 bladed propeller. Does the Libyan G.222 use the 4 bladed propeller? I got this information from Wiki so it could be wrong.
We may see Afghanistan purchasing the C-27J in the future and this is similar to the C-130 so maybe this is the root the air force will take.
I’ve been trying to find the cost of a new C27J but haven’t managed it so far. i wanted to see how this relates to a C-130. I don’t know how much they have paid for the G.222 or also how much life these will have left in them.
When thinking about the Afghanistan airforce does it not have a lot of old equipment and jets lying around? They fell into disrepair when the taliban where in power but now the Mig21 etc could be brought back to life i would think. Any thoughts or knowledge on this topic?
Here is the famous spider chart, this should add to the arguement.lol
Viva spain this has the A310 in it to
This website is sometimes worth a look to see different information from both sides.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/kcx/
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2009/09/24/fighters/
MiG-29Ks for the Admiral Kuznetsov, thanks very much.
That will be great news if it happens. The Su-33 is only a air to air fighter it will be good for the navy to operate something more multirole. It says in the article that the Su-33 will expire in 2015. Is this when the 1st one will go out of service or all of them? The purchase of Mig-29K will allow cross deck exercises with the indian’s and allow russia’s carrier to play a bigger role in operations. Does the mig-29K take up less space than the Su-33? Can they fit an extra couple of fighters on the ship compared with current levels? This will also allow russian navy to have more than 19 fighters and will let it have a training squadron and if they stretch out production allow them something to fly off their new carriers. (if they order new carriers) what is the out of service date for the current carrier?
With Russia looking at a Heli-carrier they could look to buy a design and enlarge it so it can be made into a carrier. This would all depend of whether russia is building a pure aircraft carrier or a missile aircraft carrier.
Good news for Mig if it goes through.
Does anyone know when India’s last Mig29K’s will be built? I presume russia will start building there mig 29K’s straight after. This should allow them to get the cheapest price possible. It had a price of $1 billion for at least 28 planes. This should be a good price and for a good aircraft.
This is the picture from the website. I don’t know if it is the Mig-29K? is there any simple way of telling it apart from other mig-29’s?
Pre-HMAS Sirius they looked at a dedicated military type. One of the reasons was reduced acoustic signature.
Using converted civil types is cheaper, but opposing force submarines detect the noiser auxiliaries and hang around till someone shows up for a drink – this is what happened with General Belgrano.
Does a tanker make so much more noise than the General Belgrano and her 2 escorts. The odd thing i thought was that the Belgrano had only left port a few days earlier why did she need the tanker so soon?
It’s very hard to get the correct information as i have read that both Type 42’s were escorting the carrier and that 1 had tried to shoot a seadart at a sea harrier from 801 squadron. If the sea harrier knew where the carrier was how come the Nuclear submarine couldn’t find it? But also i have read that the belgrano was with a Type 42. I have read in one place that the Belgrano was being escorted by 2 Exocet carrying ships.
This is the picture of the Belgrano through HMS conqueror periscope.
On April 26th, 1982, the General Belgrano, accompanied by two destroyers, left the port of Ushuaia in southern Argentina. On April 29th, the Argentine task group began patrolling South of the Falkland Islands. On the following day, the ship was detected by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror which gradually closed over the next day.
http://www.operationcorporate.com/p1_battles_belgrano.php
Earlier in the week before the British arrival, ships of the Argentine Navy sailed from the north and south of the Falklands as Task Force 79. By early Sunday morning (the 2nd), carrier “25 de Mayo” to the north was preparing to launch a Skyhawk attack which was aborted because of light winds, and that same day both escorting type 42’s were involved in separate incidents. “Hercules” readied but fails to fire a Sea Dart against an approaching No.801 Sea Harrier, and “Santisima Trinidad” lost her Lynx in a flying accident [a9]. By then, submarine “San Luis” may have carried out the first of a number of unsuccessful attacks before she returned to port around the end of the month. To the south, Sunday also saw one of the most controversial incidents of the war – the loss of cruiser “General Belgrano” and over 300 men.
http://www.naval-history.net/F34opsweek5.htm
If you have better information could you share it with us? Thanks
I just found the RAF site has some good info on falklands
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/an1.html
What is the large golf ball in the centre of the Australian AOR used for? I would imagine satellite communications but i seems very large just for that and i’ve never seen one on any other replenishment ships. What is the time scale we are looking at for the replacement tanker? Also all these replacement ships coming up at once is there some kind of order/timescale we will see the ships getting made in?
Not sure about most of design advantages but i know that positioning the flight deck in the centre of the ship means the helicopter can operate in rougher sea’s than a frigate with the helicopter on the back. When the helideck is right at the back of a ship this where you will get the most amount of movement from high sea states.
The design was probably done when the ships theatre of operation would be the North Atlantic. I can’t remember the exact figures but if the flight deck is in the centre of the ship the helicopter can operate in a couple higher sea states than if it’s if located at the rear.
I’m sure there is a class that has this set up a bit like this. The Ticonderoga Class cruisers that the US navy operates has a flight deck nearer the centre and has a gun and VLS cells or Launchers behind it. These ships were built from the 1980’s onwards.
The Ticonderoga class cruiser USS Shiloh (CG 67) firing a cruise missile
Here is a picture of what the purposed updated version of the Ticonderoga Class. The flight deck and hangar are staying in the same place so i must have some advantages. I would imagine the larger the ship is the easier it is to position the flight deck in the centre. when you think how much a ships goes up and down in high sea’s you can imagine how much the deck will move about. I could be coming up and down over 10 feet every 10 seconds. This can make it really tricky for the pilot.
As for the rest of the ship design i will look at it in more detail when i get a chance. Do you have any idea’s of the dimensions or the size in tonnes. I presume it’s near enough a type 23 size. I don’t get what the Number 24 multi bunch rocket system is?
This will be an interesting development. I’m not sure what kind of ship the RAN will pick. I presume they won’t go for a commercial tanker built in a foreign yard and will want to build it them selves? Seen as it’s only 1 ship i would of thought going to South Korea or other yards and seeing what design’s for tankers they have would be the cheapest option. Will the RAN have any special requirements compared with a standard commercial tanker? Their will need to be the replenishment at sea equipment but apart from that? Are they looking for a heli deck and will it be with/without a hanger.
When looking through the RAF current fleet the Fort 2 class seem to be very good ships and good offer a good starting point if Australia is to design it’s own ships. They have large aviation facilities (up to 5 merlins and a hanger for 3) and are a good size 32,300 long tons (32,818 t) full load. Whether the RAN need the helicopter facilities is a different matter as i presume the ships will mostly be operating with the Canberra class ships. They can also space to mount a VLS load as the class was meant to have the sea wolf system installed and space was included in the design for the tubes. they also mount an Armament of 2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS 2 × 20 mm Oerlikon / BMARC KAA guns in GAM-B01 mounts. This would let them be in harms way if needed. They also have the NATO Seagnat decoy system fitted. 1 bad point is they seem to have a large crew.
Are the RAN looking at more the just a tanker for fuel and more a general purpose replenishment ship? If it needs to carry aviation fuel, ship fuel, dry stores, refrigerated items and ammunition then an all purpose ship will be needed.
FORT VICTORIA
RFA FORT GEORGE
RFA Fort Rosalie with Discovery secured on her flight deck. just shows how big these ships are. mind you this is just a mainly a stores ship
I had thought the RAN operated another tanker that was an old civilian tanker as well? I may be wrong on this though and can’t remember the name of it. Will this not be replaced at the same time as HMAS Success? 2 ships is not a lot to provide fuel as supplies to the whole navy. Is there a requirement for say a class of 4 vessels? the RAN used to operate the HMAS Westralia but i think this has been replaced another ship.
The RFA wave class could be a possibility for a starting point for the RAN. The Wave class are good ships a would be good for the RAN as they are. If they can be improved a upon then the RAN should do it.
RFA WAVE KNIGHT
If the MARS ships ever get designed or built they would be a good ships. I think they are going to be made versatile and could probably fit the RAN quite well. If the RAN joined the program they could get a say in development. Whether the MARS should just be built as cheap as possibly from current designs that ship yards have or should they be developed from scratch to be the best kind of RAS ships the Royal navy can come up with is a different matter. As far as i am concerned build them as cheap as possible but not to impact on effectiveness or service days. for the RN this would let them use the money saved to buy more warships! Oh that won’t happen instead the money saved will be used to create some crazy government department or to give the useless more benefits.
I don’t see Australia joining this though as the UK has got a real bad reputation for messing up projects and making them years late and way over budget.
Does the New Zealand navy need a new RAS ship? Do they just have 1 ship just now and will it need replaced anytime soon? Maybe a partnership could be made. This would hopefully make 2 ships needed instead of 1. With the RAN only having 2 ships that do RAS i would think they would find a need for more. Is it when they are on long deployments where replenishment at sea would be needed they are in a task force that has tankers there and the RAN just uses other navies ships?
Does anyone know what kind of time scale we are looking at for the replacement? My final suggestion is that the RAN
Sign In
