Hot_CharlieAs the crash happened 4 weeks ago I guess you could just about call it historic news????? :p
:):D Just about.
Hot_CharlieI know it’s now an ex-Hawk, but one thing struck me…
…why is this being discussed in historic aviation?;)
Hot_Charlie3) I have to refrain from rolling on the ground with laughter when I hear our anglo-saxon friends stress that their policy on exports of military goods is ethical whereas ours is not. I supose you took the “ethical foreign policy” of smarmy Blair for reality. Reality check people, yours is as driven by real politics and economic interests as ours.
Give over…:D We all know how “ethical” British companies have been in the past.;) It’s just the fact that we didn’t actively help the aggresors against our next door neighbours – much as I suspect France would hope we would start shipping to Germany if that age old conflict was ever resurrected.;)
As for Blair, do you really believe anybody in the UK liked the smarmy so and so. Worst thing to happen to the UK for years.:(
Hot_CharlieAnd a probably minor point…the assurance that any vital “show stopper” parts would be available under any circumstances since France has a long history of opposing U.S. military actions thge resupply of Isreal in 72, the Libya strike in 86, etc.) …and the EU may very well in the future…(I heard an unconfirmed story that a Swiss firm had to quit supplying JDAM parts because of the Iraq war. It took Boeing months to find and for a U.S. company to get parts into production. True?)
France – as long as you’re paying them, I don’t think they’d stop selling to anyone, whatever the moral cases for and against. Just ask the Royal Navy about 1982.
As for sourcing in Switzerland. Mmm. Then again, some Swiss companies make very fine products (such as Pilatus). I suspect a prospective customers just needs to do the research into the background of the companies you’re dealing with.
Hot_CharlieIf they’d have chosen the original plans for Cosford they’d have had room for Nimrod, Hercules and VC10.
Regards,
kev35
Interesting. Hopefully in a few years time (2012/2013ish) there’ll be a push for a transport hangar – lets get the Britannia inside too. I’m sure that could then perhaps find room for the Comet somewhere more relevant. Ideally the Comet would of course fit in the Cold War Exhibitions, with maybe a large new building for a VC10 (C1K), Britannia, C-130K and Belfast perhaps making room for the Comet?
Just a thought RAFM, if you’re reading…
Hot_CharlieNote that the USAF requires its new tankers to have underwing hoses, & both the Boeing & NG/EADS offers are for tankers with a boom, plus a centreline hose & two underwing hoses.
It’s worth reminding at this point that the USN and USMC use probe and drogue, hence, I suspect, said requirement; also explaining the retrofitting of wing pods to the 135 in the early 00’s (and the frequent appearance of BDA tankers), and the USN’s apparent liking for using the RAF VC10s over Afghanistan in the early post 9/11 times.
Hot_Charliepfcem,
1. If they can acquire tankers with a larger fuel capacity they should be able to purchase even less than first envisioned. That would be a great saving (even if it is just a paper exercise) the military have always gone for such choices.
That would require common sense, which, IIRC, is never used highly in the world of military procurement!:D
2. Never heard of Black Buck? There was even a Condor report on an occasion in the late ’70’s early ’80’s.
Quite. I also would be interested to see official figures (although I doubt they exist) of aircraft returning to the “big secret tanker base in the middle east”* having declared fuel priority through the local civvy ATC.
3. I was merely pointing out that a greater reserve would be an attractive thing for the military. As I said before I don’t need to rewrite the requirements, the air force can do that perfectly well themselves.
4. Actually, I’m not really a fan of Airbus, mind you I’ve looked inside enough Boeing products to know that they are crap as well.
Agreed on both points. As I said, for pt3, if you are buying “x” aeroplanes, other things being equal, “x” of the larger capacity tanker would be more attractive, particularly if in future the theatre of operation may not be an hour or two from the MOB, but 2-3hours perhaps, or more.:)
*In a recent interview, BBC referred to the well known MOB as a “base in the middle east we were asked not to name”
Hot_CharlieOn Swerves comments, its a mystery as to why the RAF don’t opt for a few of their tankers to be given booms, to help with their own larger aircraft such as the E-3D (which I beleive had dual capability for boom or drogue), C-17’s and A-400M (I know it is an option)
I think you’ve just answered your own point. The E3D has a probe, so certainly in the short term I suspect that having a boom will cost too much, and make refuelling for other large types less a little less flexible, as you’d need a BDA to be fitted to allow probe fitted A/C to use the centreline (Nimrod etc – and of course FSTA was developed before all their particular AAR troubles). As for the point of having a few booms fitted, remember only a small core fleet of the FSTA aircraft will have a centreline refuelling capability of any type. Mind you, I’m sure the ins and outs of the FSTA contract will make themselves hideously apparent at some point in the future!
That is nothing but a wet dream & shows you know nothing of how tankers operate.
Really. You?
Quit trying to change the requirments/missions to fit the KC-30.
Er, I’m not. I’m merely stating the fact that if you’re procuring X tankers, then X tankers of a larger capacity (caveat, as long as the infrastructure can support them) will be more flexible to a force commander.
Again, just because someone is arguing a point of view different to yours, try not to make it personal.
Hot_CharlieGreater capacity IS NOT greater flexibility, it is just greater capacity.
It is when your planning all your tanker sorties in your bunker somewhere and suddenly find you need to put 10klbs or so more gas in that bit of sky at that time than the other tanker can manage; or, another scenario, as the crew, the weather isn’t great, your nominated diversion has changed to a more distant airfield for whatever reason, and you find that you can’t actually get enough fuel in the jet to complete the task as published.:)
Hot_CharlieLooks like what is now the MIRA test track at Nuneaton:
Hot_CharlieLooking at Amazon, the published release date is this Thursday (4th). Probably a good read though. Apparently some of the proceeds are going to charity, and the RNHF, of which Ade Orchard is one of the pilots.:)
Hot_CharlieWRT “but operationally it tends to be burned holding waiting for the next receiver”
Wouldn’t it be very wasteful to have an airplane almost twice as large (A330 EW 73% greater than KC135 EW) just waiting around in the holding pattern?
Nope. It would actually be a fair bit more flexible, and potentially reduce the number of tankers needed on task, hence reducing said periods of inactivity.
I believe it would happen even less with 767’s than 135’s because the 767 is so much bigger…
Just keeps them on task even longer.:)
Hot_CharlieTrue, but hasn’t someone posted that most, by a large majority, tanker missions are training missions, and on the huge majority of those, very little fuel is transferred?
I’d actually beg to differ. In my experience more fuel is transferred on training sorties, as there are more receivers, whereas operationally you tend to have far fewer receivers, but stretched over a longer time period. In all you’ll tend to burn about the same amount of fuel, but operationally it tends to be burned holding waiting for the next receiver.
Hot_CharlieThe KC30 does offer clearly superior performance to the KC-767 in whatever guise, your just spouting Boeing propaganda and have a frankly myopic outlook. For example the a330 MRTT was offered for the RAF against the KC-767, it was found that operating out of Brize Norton on a standard North Atlantic trail the KC767 could stay an extra 10 minutes on station over the VC10. On the other hand the a330 could stay an extra hour on station operating out of Tolouse which is several hundred miles further south.
The KC-30 DOES NOT offer superior performance to the KC-767AT, just greater capacity BUT the tradeoffs in REAL WORLD capability outweigh the greater capacity. YOU ARE just spouting EADS/Airbus propaganda. My outlook is not myopic at all, but yours is clouded by misinformation and overly simplistic 1-vs-1 comparrisons of numbers with no clue what the numbers REALLY mean & how the numbers effect REAL WORLD capability.
Wait a minute. Those are “real” numbers (not “EADS/Airbus” propaganda) based around quite a common RAF capability, the North Atlantic trail, and not some “overly simplistic” comparison. How the RAF’s own study can be “misinformation” I don’t know.
A “KC-135 like” aircraft takes up far less ramp space, is far more maneuverable on the ground and does not have the risk of jet blast reorganizing your entire ramp when engine power is applied.
That one tickled me. How does the aircraft move on the ramp then. Last time I checked “jet blast” was part and parcel of operating any reasonably sized jet powered aeroplane. Even a KC-135.:p
Hot_CharlieThe second RFP weighted auxiliary cargo capability as critical – in a tanker!
You sound surprised. The RAF has the capability on the majority of its current tankers, and it’s bleedin’ useful. Flexibility/smaller fleet requirements etc…:) All costs less in the long term.
Sign In
