The KC-135 REALLY needs to be replaced. END this and get the KC767 in service! Its the most politicaly acceptable choice and (regardless of how good/better the 330F is) will be a HUGE improvement over the 135.

Even as someone who (personally) thinks the A330 could be a better choice in the long term, I think you’ve made a very good point.:)

No.

Grim is right. New Chinooks that are flying now are actually chinooks purchased by the Major Government back when 911 was still just the US emergency number. THE new chinooks anounced with the base closure are 22 new beasts yet to be built, a glint in the eye of the defence minister one might say.

I should have edited my quote to make it clearer – I was answering that the newly unveiled Chinooks (assuming this is what triggered the thread) at Odiham were the one that had sat in the hangers at Boscombe.

previous UK schedule -> ‘new’ Nov 2009 schedule…
2012: 06 -> 00
2013: 01 -> 07
2014: 08 -> 00
2015: 11 -> 09
2016: 12 -> 11
2017: 13 -> 03
2018: 12 -> 06
2019: 12 -> 14
2020: 07 -> 10
2021: 02 -> 02
2022: 01 -> 04
2023: 01 -> 14
2024: 12 -> 14
2025: 13 -> 14
2026: 13 -> 14
2027: 11 -> 13

To be honest, using the figures you’ve just posted, there is now much more of a bias post 2023.

Only one of the R.1s has been retired. At least one of the remaining two has been recently noted flight testing/training in the UK.

TJ

Indeed. I’d got the wrong end of the stick from what a Nimrod mate had told me!:)

I presume to step from an MR2 in to a MRA4 would be a relatively straight forward transition.

But from not having flown an MR2 for 2 years into an MRA4 ??

As for conversion from MR2 or R1 to MRA4, I suspect it certainly wouldn’t have been a quick hop from one to the other anyway, with the new cockpit etc. I suspect the biggest issues will be loss of “corporate knowledge” from the fleets (as I suspect most of them will want to keep flying in the meantime on other fleets), unless the personnel involved are well managed.

Are you suggesting the US wouldn’t have exported it out of fear/protectionism (similar to F22)?

No, because;

It is infinitely more likely that no one else saw the need for the C17 pre-9/11.

Replace the word “saw” with “had”, and there is the answer. No one else had a requirement pre-1998 (when the RAF identified the need for a short term airlift solution) The UK I believe were the only pre-9/11 order (certainly the only pre-9/11 deliveries), and that was potentially only a short term lease until 2007 to act as a stop gap to, amongst other things…

…the A400M!:D Of course in 2004, the leased aircraft were bought outright, as those in power were shown the light.

The events post 9/11 led to the need, and hence the C-17 is now operated on a national basis by four of the largest coalition members, and is exceptionally good at what it does.

how often do you need the extra size?
Each air force will have a different answer…
For some buying a couple of C-17s and or leasing An-24s while buying a smaller aircraft might make more sense.

As a senior RAF figure has said though, he maybe could get another 2 C-17s, but then he wouldn’t be able to have a couple of those on tasking in the States, a couple in the ‘Stan, a few more down route on AT tasks around the world etc; it’s the availability and numbers of A400M that we’ll have that are the key, carrying a bit more, and faster too than the overworked Hercs.

Considering the number of freight charters seen at RAF airfields, and in theatre, I’d say quite a lot.

I just read yesterday about the first leading edge flap used: it was on the 707, to avoid a stall when a jet was rotated at a too slow speed.

Leading edge lift devices predate the 707 by a couple of decades at least (unless of course we’re only referring to leading edge flaps as opposed to slats).:)

Seems like jaguar has been tested with FBW system , can they be retrofitted to older jags like the type IAF operates ?

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/sepecat-jaguar-act-demonstrator.cfm

I suspect that the experimental systems fitted to aircraft such as the ACT, and other experimental types (for example the VAAC Harrier), are quite far from being at a stage where they could be used in a production aircraft.