Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RAF Airseeker - Why Not An A330 Variant  
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7251 times:

Recent reports have given an update on the RAF's Airseeker programme in which they are replacing 3 Nimrod R1s retired in 2011 with 3 RC-135W configured KC-135s from USAF.

RAF's first Airseeker conversion on track, MoD says

The aircraft is due to enter service in October 2014 with all aircraft delivered by 2017 at an acquisition cost of $1 billion and through life support costs of a further $1 billion up until 2025.

Why are the MOD replacing aged and inefficient airframes with even older, second hand airframes? The 3 KC-135 being modified were first built in 1964 - 10 years before the Nimrods entered service. It would make more sense to acquire new platforms that have lower support costs and that represent a modernisation of the fleet.

I propose that an A330 derivative would have been suitable: newer, yet still proven aircraft; commonality with MRTT fleet; equal or lower acquisition cost; indigenous technology.

An off-the-shelf A330 goes for around $200 million. Lets say a further $100 million development & conversion costs per aircraft and your're looking at $900 million for the fleet. Assuming overspending and you get roughly equal acquisition costs to the Airseeker - but with brand new, twin-engined, aircraft that will have significantly less support costs. If they'd made the decision back in 2010 and got on with it, you'd even be looking at a similar timeline.

[Edited 2013-02-10 02:14:31]

[Edited 2013-02-10 02:55:17]

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7168 times:

Quoting bthebest (Thread starter):
Recent reports have given an update on the RAF's Airseeker programme in which they are replacing 3 Nimrod R1s retired in 2011 with 3 RC-135W configured KC-135s from USAF.

RAF's first Airseeker conversion on track, MoD says

The aircraft is due to enter service in October 2014 with all aircraft delivered by 2017 at an acquisition cost of $1 billion and through life support costs of a further $1 billion up until 2025.

Why are the MOD replacing aged and inefficient airframes with even older, second hand airframes? The 3 KC-135 being modified were first built in 1964 - 10 years before the Nimrods entered service. It would make more sense to acquire new platforms that have lower support costs and that represent a modernisation of the fleet.

I propose that an A330 derivative would have been suitable: newer, yet still proven aircraft; commonality with MRTT fleet; equal or lower acquisition cost; indigenous technology.

An off-the-shelf A330 goes for around $200 million. Lets say a further $100 million development & conversion costs per aircraft and your're looking at $900 million for the fleet. Assuming overspending and you get roughly equal acquisition costs to the Airseeker - but with brand new, twin-engined, aircraft that will have significantly less support costs. If they'd made the decision back in 2010 and got on with it, you'd even be looking at a similar timeline.

Because the RC-135W already exists, and all you have to do is procure the aircraft and systems and put them together? A newer clean sheet replacement using existing gear and a new airframe will require extensive testing and development to make sure the various bits work together as planned in a new airframe, plus certification for airworthiness (very costly). If you are looking to get quick, easy and cheap capabilities, going off-the-shelf makes sense. Remember that the Brits got bit in the past trying to make a unique variant of a existing Chinook, and the end result was that the avionics were completely uncertifiable for airworthiness. They eventually converted the aircraft to the existing standard Chinooks that they already operated.

FYI, the Nimrod R1's airframes are of the same vintage as the KC-135's being converted; 1960's. They were conversions of existing Nimrod MR1's.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7167 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How would the, not insignificant, risks associated with a new airframe and contractor be mitigated?

Is the RAF prepared to go it alone on future upgrade costs & risks vs sharing with USAF?



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7096 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 1):
If you are looking to get quick, easy and cheap capabilities, going off-the-shelf makes sense.

That's part of the problem from my perspective - they're not really planning for the future just doing what they can now which will ultimately cost more and just leave them in the same position in 30 years time.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 2):
How would the, not insignificant, risks associated with a new airframe and contractor be mitigated?

Is the RAF prepared to go it alone on future upgrade costs & risks vs sharing with USAF?

Again, it's just the easy way out. British industry has the capability to design & manage these systems and procurements - if the government is willing to support them as necessary.

Sharing is another problem - USAF and American defence contractors are extremely reluctant to let others know all the details about their equipment (and fairly so), which leaves a massive dependence on them which a country of the UKs stature shouldn't let happen.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bthebest (Reply 3):
Again, it's just the easy way out. British industry has the capability to design & manage these systems and procurements - if the government is willing to support them as necessary.

Doing things that way hasn't worked out terribly well for the RAF. If the idea is to provide corporate welfare to British aerospace entities it's a great idea, If the objective is to provide working capability to RAF at a reasonable cost then not so much.

[Edited 2013-02-10 07:27:59]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7065 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 3):
That's part of the problem from my perspective - they're not really planning for the future just doing what they can now which will ultimately cost more and just leave them in the same position in 30 years time.

When operating equipment in tandem with the USAF, you can get them to do the development for you. Operating only 3 aircraft does not really provide you with any economies of scale.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 3):
Again, it's just the easy way out. British industry has the capability to design & manage these systems and procurements - if the government is willing to support them as necessary.

Indeed. We saw that success story in the Nimrod MR4A.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bthebest (Reply 3):
That's part of the problem from my perspective - they're not really planning for the future just doing what they can now which will ultimately cost more and just leave them in the same position in 30 years time.

The USAF will almost assuredly develop an RC-135 replacement using the 767-2C platform for commonality with the KC-46. The RAF could acquire some of those, themselves, I imagine.


(The E-10 MC2A (based on the 767-400ER platform) would have replaced the E-3 Sentry, the E-8 JointStars and the RC-135 RiverJoint.)


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3555 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 5):
Operating only 3 aircraft does not really provide you with any economies of scale.

Economies of scale don't apply easily to military aircraft or programs..it's primarily a commercial operators concern.

However they may be saving up for some P-8s.


User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6807 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The USAF will almost assuredly develop an RC-135 replacement using the 767-2C platform for commonality with the KC-46. The RAF could acquire some of those, themselves, I imagine.

This.


User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6791 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The USAF will almost assuredly develop an RC-135 replacement using the 767-2C platform for commonality with the KC-46. The RAF could acquire some of those, themselves, I imagine.

So why couldn't the RAF and Airbus work to develop a replacement based on the A330 MRTT platform for commonality with other RAF aircraft - and other MRTT operators? Suppose this could still happen.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6790 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bthebest (Reply 9):
So why couldn't the RAF and Airbus work to develop a replacement based on the A330 MRTT platform for commonality with other RAF aircraft - and other MRTT operators? Suppose this could still happen.

I expect the RAF wants something that works sooner than 10 or 15 years from now...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6727 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 9):
So why couldn't the RAF and Airbus work to develop a replacement based on the A330 MRTT platform for commonality with other RAF aircraft - and other MRTT operators? Suppose this could still happen.

Technically, there already is some commonality with the Sentry fleet.

Perhaps more can be built in with Sentinel, since evidently they now aren't being scrapped in 2015.

One question: why don't you think trying to get other MRTT operators to add capability to their tanker-only airframes will save any money?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6625 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 10):
I expect the RAF wants something that works sooner than 10 or 15 years from now...

I suppose the problem lies with those who didn't plan far enough ahead in advance. They started thinking about the MRTT capability in 1997 with project award in 2005-2007 - the plan of which was to replace the VC-10s (and Tristars) of similar heritage to the Nimrods. Maybe if they'd thought about the long term prospects of the Nimrod then, we might be looking at such an A330 now.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 11):
One question: why don't you think trying to get other MRTT operators to add capability to their tanker-only airframes will save any money?

I would think these aircraft are typically busy enough in their MRTT roles, plus adding all the equipment for these systems would reduce their capabilities in the MRTT role.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6618 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 12):
Maybe if they'd thought about the long term prospects of the Nimrod then, we might be looking at such an A330 now.

They did; Nimrod MRA4. That didn't turn out so well. In fact, the program was an utter and complete disaster. Many technical problems from practically every angle, and a significantly blown budget for less airframes than originally planned. It is expected that the Brits will review their MPA needs in time for the 2015 Defence Review. Probable options will either be the P-8 MMA or the SC-130J.


User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6586 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
They did; Nimrod MRA4. That didn't turn out so well. In fact, the program was an utter and complete disaster. Many technical problems from practically every angle, and a significantly blown budget for less airframes than originally planned.

Exactly my point, that was a bad decision from the start because they're building on an outdated airframe, which ultimately ended up causing most of the problems and extra costs. Hindsight's not that helpful though.

On a tangent, why do militaries tend to keep airframes much longer than commercial operators? I understand they do less hours and cycles typically, and historically they're not as concerned with efficiency. Higher development costs?


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6550 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 12):
I would think these aircraft are typically busy enough in their MRTT roles, plus adding all the equipment for these systems would reduce their capabilities in the MRTT role.

Exactly, and an excellent reason not to do it. Even better than the costs of getting a bunch of people on the continent to try to agree on anything.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6503 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 9):
So why couldn't the RAF and Airbus work to develop a replacement based on the A330 MRTT platform for commonality with other RAF aircraft - and other MRTT operators? Suppose this could still happen.
Quoting Spacepope (Reply 15):
Exactly, and an excellent reason not to do it. Even better than the costs of getting a bunch of people on the continent to try to agree on anything.

Sorry, confusion in my post. I didn't mean combine tanker and reconnaissance roles, but a reconnaissance variant of the A330 military airframe. My referral to the MRTT was that they managed it successfully for that function so a recon variant shouldn't be a huge leap - although it will be more complicated.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6446 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bthebest (Reply 9):
So why couldn't the RAF and Airbus work to develop a replacement based on the A330 MRTT platform for commonality with other RAF aircraft - and other MRTT operators?

I would not be surprised if the RAF looks into this. The French Armée de l'Air will eventually order the A330MRTT to replace their C135FR fleet so perhaps the UK and France can also work on an A330 variant that can replace the E-3D and E-3F Sentry fleets.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6368 times:

There has been some talk already in MoD circles about adding some intel capability to the A330's, albeit the existing/planned fleet.
Yet a couple of RR powered, ex BMI, relatively low cycle A330's face being parted out for spares.
You'd think the MoD would snap them up.
Either to supplement the tankers with minimally modded 330's for transport/VIP/training, or as potentially more advanced intel platforms.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6226 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I would not be surprised if the RAF looks into this. The French Armée de l'Air will eventually order the A330MRTT to replace their C135FR fleet so perhaps the UK and France can also work on an A330 variant that can replace the E-3D and E-3F Sentry fleets.

EADS has already flown a C295 AWACS variant, so the basic platform exists to work from if they want to move it up to an A330 base - but would an A330 be too large for the platform? Wouldn't an A320OEO/NEO be a better base?


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
Wouldn't an A320OEO/NEO be a better base?

You would think so, especially as the P-8 is based on a similarly sized frame.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6190 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 20):
You would think so, especially as the P-8 is based on a similarly sized frame.

I wonder if it would be possible to combine the bulk of the AirSeeker and AWACS platforms into one A330 sized base for a capability bump for those that want to operate one or the other.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6179 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
EADS has already flown a C295 AWACS variant, so the basic platform exists to work from if they want to move it up to an A330 base - but would an A330 be too large for the platform? Wouldn't an A320OEO/NEO be a better base?

With the MR2/MR4A gone, RAF are looking at maritime recon replacements with both the P-8 and C295 mentioned. P-8 costs rougly 4x C295 but is more capable. With the C295 being and Airbus Military product, I'm not sure they'll look at an A320neo variant as well - especially as delivery slots for the airframe are so valuable.

Like its been said though - A330 might just be too big for both Recon and AWACS roles, although a combined one might work.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6151 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
EADS has already flown a C295 AWACS variant, so the basic platform exists to work from if they want to move it up to an A330 base - but would an A330 be too large for the platform? Wouldn't an A320OEO/NEO be a better base?

I would guess it depends on the capability desired.

Japan went with the 767-200 platform for their AWACS, but they used the same system found on the E-3. A decade later, advances in computers and the move from passive to active electronically scanned arrays allowed Australia to use a 737-700ER platform.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 22):
being and Airbus Military product, I'm not sure they'll look at an A320neo variant as well - especially as delivery slots for the airframe are so valuable.

Like its been said though - A330 might just be too big for both Recon and AWACS roles, although a combined one might work.

They had been looking at it for the longest time.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_NATO_AGS_lg.jpg
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_NATO_AGS_lg.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...world/europe/images/a321-tips1.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...world/europe/images/a321-tips2.jpg


They might bite the bullet...however, going it alone may not be the best way forward.                 

[Edited 2013-02-12 15:24:56]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6146 times:

For one thing, EADS does not buyild extremely complex aircraft like the RC-135. The A-330 does not have the electrical power needed, without heavy modification just to the electrical system. The A-330 empty weight is some 2.5 times heavier than the empty weight of the KC-135R. At MTOW the diffierence is smaller, but you are still talking about a 512K lb airplane vs. a 330K airplane. The A-330 also burns a lot more fuel per hour.

Then there is the question of the Airseeker being able to get itself out of trouble if fighters or AA missiles are launched against it. Remember, these are real world near combat missions being flown. Some countries don't lkike them flying just outside their airspace listening to all they are doing and tracking their radar signals.

The C-135 is a well proven platform and more than capable of doing what needs to be done to get the mission completed.

Could an A-330 varient do this mission? Probibly, but why reinvent the wheel?

BTW, bthebest, an A-330 Airseeker could not be built for $300M per airplane. The RAF is spending $1B on 3 RC-135Ws, beginning with a $55M airframe (about $150M less than what an A-330 costs). The equipment on-board is highly speicalized and very expensive.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6034 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
For one thing, EADS does not buyild extremely complex aircraft like the RC-135. The A-330 does not have the electrical power needed, without heavy modification just to the electrical system. The A-330 empty weight is some 2.5 times heavier than the empty weight of the KC-135R. At MTOW the diffierence is smaller, but you are still talking about a 512K lb airplane vs. a 330K airplane. The A-330 also burns a lot more fuel per hour.

Some good technical points. Does the C-135 electrical power come in part from having 4 engines? Was surprised about the fuel burn but then the weight is a big factor and the A330 engines are much bigger.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Then there is the question of the Airseeker being able to get itself out of trouble if fighters or AA missiles are launched against it.

They've got the defence systems on the KC2/3 so shouldn't be a problem.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
BTW, bthebest, an A-330 Airseeker could not be built for $300M per airplane. The RAF is spending $1B on 3 RC-135Ws, beginning with a $55M airframe (about $150M less than what an A-330 costs). The equipment on-board is highly speicalized and very expensive.

I suppose its more likely to come about in a few years when some used A330s come on the market. Airbus are relatively new to the Military market and may have been put off by the KC-X competition, but I think they've definitely got potential to expand their business given their developing customer base in the Middle-East and South Asia.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Could an A-330 varient do this mission? Probibly, but why reinvent the wheel?

There is an exceptionally good reason to "reinvent the wheel" - lower dependence on the US. Buying an RC-135 based platform comes linked with a heavy dependency on the US for a lot of things.

Some countries value that lower dependency as a positive.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moo (Reply 27):
Buying an RC-135 based platform comes linked with a heavy dependency on the US for a lot of things.

Considering the US-sourced content in an A330 airframe, choosing Airbus would still result in a rather heavy dependency.  

It also looks like the RAF will be using the same L-3 Communications ELINT equipment as the USAF, so whether it is installed in a Boeing product or an Airbus one, that is another heavy dependency on the US.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 26):
Does the C-135 electrical power come in part from having 4 engines?

The KC-135 has generators on 3 of the 4 engines, other versions of the C-135 might have generators on all 4 engines. The capacity of the generators can vary from 40 KVW to 120 KVW for each generator.


User currently offlineBilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5371 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The capacity of the generators can vary from 40 KVW to 120 KVW for each generator.

What's a KVW?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12561 posts, RR: 25
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5343 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 14):
Exactly my point, that was a bad decision from the start because they're building on an outdated airframe, which ultimately ended up causing most of the problems and extra costs.

There were plenty of unfortunate decisions to chose from. Wiki says "BAE discovered that the Nimrod airframes supplied by the RAF were not built to a common standard and this considerably complicated the refurbishment process". Add to that the idea of building an all-new wing with new engines and a full digital cockpit and you're really doing a boatload of work that really has not much with the primary goal of the program.

Compare that to taking a few frames of an aircraft that was built by the hundreds if not thousands and installing systems on them that are already known to work.

As above, the airframe really isn't the issue, the very complicated systems are the issue.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5294 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 30):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The capacity of the generators can vary from 40 KVW to 120 KVW for each generator.

What's a KVW?

He most likely meant KVA (Kila-Volt Amp), just a simple typo.

Regards,
135Mech


User currently offlineBilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5278 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 32):
He most likely meant KVA (Kila-Volt Amp), just a simple typo.

That's what I was thinking too.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 32):
As above, the airframe really isn't the issue, the very complicated systems are the issue.

I remember when the decision was announced to retire the Nimrod R1 and replace it with the RC-135 a lot of noise was made from certain quarters about the mission equipment in the Nimrod R1 being more flexible and more capable than the RC-135. It's hard to substantiate though because of the nature of the kit being talked about.

I suppose the most logical way to justify the decision was the expense and increasing difficulty in supporting a small Nimrod fleet versus that of a fleet of jets that were built and operated in much greater numbers. I'd imagine it's far easier to get spares for an RC-135 that it is for a Nimrod. It's still a little strange though that the aircraft being procured are of the same vintage as the ones they are replacing!

[Edited 2013-02-22 10:49:33]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4995 times:

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 33):
I'd imagine it's far easier to get spares for an RC-135 that it is for a Nimrod. It's still a little strange though that the aircraft being procured are of the same vintage as the ones they are replacing!

Then given the fact that the Nimrod was a direct-spin off from the Comet-I/II/III/IV and the KC-135 was the first spin-off of the B-367-80, even before the B-707! Both the Comet and "-80" were true first generation jets and ushered in the era of jet travel to the masses.

You are right, KVW should have been KVA.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic RAF Airseeker - Why Not An A330 Variant
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...
Why Not Sell Some Of The "stuff" On Davis Monthan? posted Wed May 26 2010 01:36:11 by 4tet
Why Not More KC-10s? posted Mon Oct 26 2009 21:34:50 by Woodsboy
Air Force One - Why Not A Newer A/c posted Mon Jun 16 2008 07:19:28 by BALHRWWCC
Shuttle External Fuel Tank, Why Not Painted? posted Tue Aug 21 2007 01:28:53 by Rikkus67
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
C-5 Had A Second Production Run; Why Not C-17? posted Wed May 31 2006 22:12:50 by N328KF
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 06:15:08 by ERAUMcDlover
UK's RAF About To Order 20 A330 Tankers posted Tue Mar 1 2005 18:03:38 by Horus
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format