FighterControl

Guess we are revisiting this once again

http://www.janes.com/article/57309/uk-c ... elicopters

If anyone remembers the successful plug in between AW101 (same airframe used for BERP IV technology research) and AMI KC-130J, several years ago,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkayWPUCniY

cheers

Have I missed something here? What do Air Tanker have to do with the RAF Hercules?

RJ51 wrote:Have I missed something here? What do Air Tanker have to do with the RAF Hercules?

Some idiot at the MOD allowed a clause in the Airtanker/Voyager contract that granted them sole exclusive rights to supply ALL UK Air-to-Air refuelling capability. Since Voyagers can't go low/slow enough to AAR helo's a new type is required. The obvious choice is KC130J, but these are owned and operated by MOD/RAF and so under the terms of the contract with Airtanker, they can't be used.

However, it appears that the RAF a keeping only 14 C130J's (once the A400M's arrive) and I've read somewhere that these are all the stretched C4's. I wonder if the plan is to sell some of the (10) C5's, convert them to KC130J's, and get Airtanker to operate them.

As always, there's more to it than meets the eye. In a nutshell from what I've heard, when the MoD setup the contract they said these are more or less our AAR needs for the next few years, give us a price. Back then, that didn't include any boom or helo capabilities. Then, AirTanker gave them a price but to make sure it didn't invest in a capability the RAF didn't need to be use it got an exclusivity deal.

ChrisP wrote:As well as the possible use of the C130 I think all A400's leave the factory plumbed as tankers, so other than crew training, all the RAF would have to do is purchase the AAR pods? The bigger issue might be getting round AirTanker!

Except Airbus have disclosed problems with turbulence behind the A400 which currently is preventing it's use as a tanker. It may get resolved eventually, but appears to be why the French Air Force are buying some KC130J's so the solution is unlikely to be any time soon - Last I read the solution was to fit extended length drogues to get the baskets out of the turbulence. There are also issues with helicopters and upward visability - basically you can't see the top of the T tailplane on an A400 from the driving seat of a chopper.

Many thanks for the clarification. The Voyager PFI took too many years to finalise and has now caused a problem of the MoD's own making. All the PFI's seem to be problematical in some way and usually seem to take ages to come into operation.

RJ51 wrote:Many thanks for the clarification. The Voyager PFI took too many years to finalise and has now caused a problem of the MoD's own making. All the PFI's seem to be problematical in some way and usually seem to take ages to come into operation.

It's not a new problem - do you think it's economically and the good use of an A330 to have it permanently in the Falklands when a far smaller airframe would be just as good?

With only 14 airframes - er less one with Thomas Cook (G-VYGK) which would take how long (?) to get back and then convert it back into tanker configuration and less most probably one always on overhaul and, again, one for the Prime Minister as recently announced then another in the Falklands - we seem to have lost flexibility.

We should have gone for a larger number of smaller airframes as tankers and bought more C17's. But the 'machine' carried on talking and took too long to come up with a replacement of the VC10 and Tristar and missed the deadline for C17 availability!

The Airtanker clause is why we never got all 25 A400Ms. The last 3 would have had an AAR capability (even if it now appears they have found a spot of bother with that plan)

Tim

Vulcanone wrote:The Airtanker clause is why we never got all 25 A400Ms. The last 3 would have had an AAR capability (even if it now appears they have found a spot of bother with that plan)

The last three were cancelled because of the price hike. All 22 A400Ms are plumbed to be tankers, they just need the pods to be fitted.

RJ51 wrote:With only 14 airframes - er less one with Thomas Cook (G-VYGK) which would take how long (?) to get back and then convert it back into tanker configuration and less most probably one always on overhaul and, again, one for the Prime Minister as recently announced then another in the Falklands - we seem to have lost flexibility.

In extremis probably about the time to fly back to the UK and a day or so to fit the pods. We've always had a tanker in the Falklands, and the one for the PM (and other VIPs) isn't, as some would like to think, a permanent airframe.

We should have gone for a larger number of smaller airframes as tankers and bought more C17's. But the 'machine' carried on talking and took too long to come up with a replacement of the VC10 and Tristar and missed the deadline for C17 availability!

How would you get the required fuel load into said smaller airframes? Do you think it'd be cheaper run a pure tanker fleet of smaller airframes which would probably have to have their fuselages filled with permanent fuel tanks? Which off the shelf AR tanker would it be?

And what some seem to forget is the fact that the A330 and A340 shared the same wing, so when it came to the question of errrm where do we put the HDU....

Simples You put it where the engine would be if if was an A340

T

Vulcanone wrote:And what some seem to forget is the fact that the A330 and A340 shared the same wing, so when it came to the question of errrm where do we put the HDU....

Simples You put it where the engine would be if if was an A340

T

You put the pods where the engines were. The HDU goes in the fuselage - it'd be rather draggy on the wings.

Ooops

In my defence I am full of cold and been taking medicine all day


Tim

Vulcanone wrote:Ooops

In my defence I am full of cold and been taking medicine all day

Hopefully better soon. To be fair, the pod has a wee HDU in it anyway.