Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eads Offers Raaf 6th KC-30  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

It appears that EADS has, or is going to offer the RAAF a 6th KC-30A tanker. This A-330 airplane has not been modified into the A-330MRTT configuration. The airplane is one of two KC-45As assembled by Airbus under their contract with NG after winning the 2008 KC-X contract. EADS would like that work done in Austraila.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...canberra-a-sixth-a330-mrtt-369309/

Depending on the price of the offered unmodified tanker, this could be a good deal for the RAAF, if they can find the money to buy it and modify it into the KC-30A configuration.

This story has been out since 9 Mar. 2012, but I have searched and have not found the thread here on a.net.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5027 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
could be a good deal for the RAAF

I wonder how many flight hours this airframe has accrued, and what configuration differences there might be. The RAAF might be loathe to introduce an orphan to the fleet.

EADS and its contractors here in Australia have been made a fair amount of noise about the jobs aspect of this, insinuating that if the line is kept open, follow on work is near guaranteed. Whether or not that is the case will probably remain to be seen, but the thrust of EADS' argument is certainly about jobs and maintaining capability, as opposed to the benefits of having a sixth airframe.

Another thing I just thought of, with 12 large jets based here (6 MRTT and 6 C-17), tarmac space here on the ground at Amberley will be at a premium.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4987 times:

Quoting legs (Reply 1):
I wonder how many flight hours this airframe has accrued, and what configuration differences there might be. The RAAF might be loathe to introduce an orphan to the fleet.

IIRC, this airframe only has a few hours on it, less than 10 total flying hours, and at most 2-3 cycles. It has been stored, without engines since it was flight tested.

Quoting legs (Reply 1):
Another thing I just thought of, with 12 large jets based here (6 MRTT and 6 C-17), tarmac space here on the ground at Amberley will be at a premium.

How often will all 12 jets be home at the same time? There should be one in heavy maintenance, one or two "on the road", and other missions at just about any given time.

Quoting legs (Reply 1):
EADS and its contractors here in Australia have been made a fair amount of noise about the jobs aspect of this, insinuating that if the line is kept open, follow on work is near guaranteed. Whether or not that is the case will probably remain to be seen, but the thrust of EADS' argument is certainly about jobs and maintaining capability, as opposed to the benefits of having a sixth airframe.

Correct.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
could be a good deal for the RAAF

A better deal for EADS as they would get money from the sale and could scratch an idle asset off their books, while still earning on it down the line.

[Edited 2012-04-02 15:45:30]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4976 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):could be a good deal for the RAAF
A better deal for EADS as they would get money from the sale and could scratch an idle asset off their books, while still earning money from it down the line.

The USAF is not oblagated to buy this airplane, just to put in the desert at DM, and scrap it later. NG was the customer since NG was the prime contractor and EADS was a sub-contractor.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4969 times:

My bad. I thought EADS owned the frames and are now selling one to the RAAF.


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4859 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
will all 12 jets be home at the same time?

Very good point. It really depends on how much the Australian Government commits the MRTT's to operations overseas, if at all. Otherwise they may well spend a lot of their lives staging out of their homebase.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 4780 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 5):
I thought EADS owned the frames and are now selling one to the RAAF.

Actually EADS does own the airframe, as no one has paid for it.

Quoting legs (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):will all 12 jets be home at the same time?
Very good point. It really depends on how much the Australian Government commits the MRTT's to operations overseas, if at all.

Yes, but it is also likely the C-17s will be overseas a lot, too. Isn't the 6th RAAF C-17 actually co-owned with the RNZAF?


User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 4679 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
C-17 actually co-owned

As far as I can tell, no it isn't. The Defence Minister's media release makes no mention of joint ownership.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7635 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 4661 times:

Does anyone know the MSN of the KC45A's and which one is going to the RAAF?.

Many thanks.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 9):
Does anyone know the MSN of the KC45A's and which one is going to the RAAF?.

The airplane that is offered to the RAAF is MSN-871, stored for 4 years now, current tail # F-WWKU. The other one is MSN-925, also stored for 4 years, currewnt tail # F-WWKB.

MSN-871 first flight was 9/25/2007, well before the contract was awarded, and it is listed as an A-330-203.

MSN-925 first flight was 4/18/2008, and is listed as an A-330-202.

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-a330-925.htm

http://www.planespotters.net/Product...--USAF-United-States-Air-Force.php


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2641 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4038 times:

I was wondering what EADS would do with the two frames they built for KC-X, this would answer the question for one of them.

IIRC, MSN871 had been sent to EFW facilities at DRS for freighter conversion work, which I assume(?) is done. But tanker conversion work for MRTT (typically done at Airbus Military in Getafe, but the Australians have been doing it themselves on their frames) was never done. So the RAAF would have the option to take a freighter-converted frame and finish it, while EADS can get rid of an idle frame that is just accumulating dust.

I don't know how far they went with MSN925 conversion work, I assume not much if at all, so that it is likely it is just a green a/c sitting around.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9113 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3989 times:

I was actually of the understanding that this was part of the EADS submission for the RAAF AIR 8000 Phase 2 – Battlefield Airlift – Caribou Replacement, a combination of C-295s and an A330 transport aircraft.


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

I think you got something mixed up, Zeke. The A-330/KC-30 transport program is AIR 8000 Phase 3, the C-17 program is Phase 4 (the 6th C-17 funding might have been taken from Phase 1 which was to buy 2 more C-130J-30s). The Caribou replacement is Phase 2 and there are no A-330 transports in it. AIUI, the two remaining contenders ar the C-295 and the C-27J. But Phase 2 has been a troubled program for over 10 years now, and may now never happen, but we cannot know for sure. The RAAF is using some of their King Air-350s as interum replacements the Caribous.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9113 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):

Not mixed up at all, the additional A330 from what I understand was attached to the C-295 submission for phase 2 as per my previous post.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

Is there an update to the AIR 8000 Phase 2? The last version I saw didn't mention any A-330s.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Eads Offers Raaf 6th KC-30
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Eads Receives KC-30 Civil Type Certification posted Thu Mar 18 2010 05:47:23 by zeke
John Murtha's Death Could Hurt NG KC-30 Bid posted Wed Feb 10 2010 11:58:44 by AirRyan
AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30 posted Sun Jun 15 2008 15:46:49 by PolymerPlane
Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3. posted Tue Mar 4 2008 06:37:46 by WINGS
Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2. posted Sat Mar 1 2008 02:54:32 by Srbmod
Usaf Decided On KC-30 posted Fri Feb 29 2008 13:47:11 by Andrej
Usaf Ifara Formula Favors KC-30... posted Tue Feb 19 2008 18:19:23 by AirRyan
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
A332F Helping Grumman W/ KC-30 posted Fri Sep 21 2007 08:21:27 by Cancidas
Why No KC-30 At Farnborough? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:14:36 by Solnabo

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format