Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eads Rolls Out Tanker Demonstrator  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3801 times:

Eads has rolled out its first Advanced Refueling Boom System [ARBS) aboard an A310-300 which was previously leased to Air Plus Comet of Spain.
The A310 will undertake a qualification campaign that should last between 300-400 flight hours.

Eads has already secured its first order from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) for five A330-200ARBS which should be delivered towards the end of the decade. Airbus is scheduled to deliver the first RAAF green aircraft to Eads (CASA) for modifications in May 2006.

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...rolls+out+tanker+demonstrator.html



Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

A few questions:

- Is RAAF the launch customer?
- When is the first tanker supposed to be delivered?
- To my knowledge, USAF is the only organization that uses booms (everybody else is on probe and drouge), is RAAF tanker going to have the boom?



Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

This belongs to the military forum, IMO.


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 1):
A few questions:

- Is RAAF the launch customer?
- When is the first tanker supposed to be delivered?
- To my knowledge, USAF is the only organization that uses booms (everybody else is on probe and drouge), is RAAF tanker going to have the boom?

1) Yes
2) 2008
3) Yes (for F-18 or F111 if they've still got them. Perhaps for theWedgetails too?)


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 1):

- Is RAAF the launch customer?

Yes. The RAAF is the launch customer of the A330-200ARBS.

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 1):
- When is the first tanker supposed to be delivered?

Between 2008-2009

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 1):
- To my knowledge, USAF is the only organization that uses booms (everybody else is on probe and drouge), is RAAF tanker going to have the boom?

The report suggest that this will indeed be the case.

The Italian and Japanese Air Force both selected the Boeing KC767. Does any one know if they are installed with Boom?

Quoting A342 (Reply 2):
This belongs to the military forum, IMO.

Actually its a mix of both. As its based on a commercial aircraft I decided to post it here.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 41
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

The aircraft in the photo is an A310! I thought they were making the tanker on the 330 platform! What happened? Or is the technology transferrable to the 330, and they had an old 310 laying around with nothing to do?

Just curious!

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 3):
3) Yes (for F-18 or F111 if they've still got them. Perhaps for theWedgetails too?)

F-18s use probe and drogue. F-111C (RAAF version) is based on the F-111B which is the US Navy version, this means that the refueling would be accomplished with the probe and drogue.

I dont see why RAAF would need the boom, unless they plan to support USAF aircraft during joint missions.



Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 5):
The aircraft in the photo is an A310! I thought they were making the tanker on the 330 platform! What happened? Or is the technology transferrable to the 330, and they had an old 310 laying around with nothing to do?

They are using an A310 to test the boom before it goes onto the A330. There are no A330 test aircraft around and you don't really want to test it for the first time straight on the customers aircraft I suppose!
And it's easier to get a 2nd had A310 for the testing than an A330, as the principle is the same too.

EDIT: Substitution of A300 with A310!

[Edited 2006-01-11 18:32:19]

User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1914 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3439 times:

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 5):
The aircraft in the photo is an A310! I thought they were making the tanker on the 330 platform! What happened? Or is the technology transferrable to the 330, and they had an old 310 laying around with nothing to do?

The A310 is used test platform for the refuelling boom.
This A310-324 was bought in June 2004 by EADS-MTAD (Military Transport Aircraft Division) based in Spain for the test.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3377 times:

Significant milestone for the A330 tanker.

The other air force to order it, the RAF, of course won't require a boom, rather a centreline hose, with two wing mounted units.

While AF's like Germany and Canada are converting transport A310's to transport/tanker ones, this involves just wing mounted hose units.


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
While AF's like Germany and Canada are converting transport A310's to transport/tanker ones, this involves just wing mounted hose units.

You might say "just" but from what I hear from first hand, is that it's been quite a hassle!


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 6):
F-18s use probe and drogue. F-111C (RAAF version) is based on the F-111B which is the US Navy version, this means that the refueling would be accomplished with the probe and drogue.

RAAF also operates the F-111G, which are ex-FB-111s, and thus from USAF.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
RAAF also operates the F-111G, which are ex-FB-111s, and thus from USAF.

Didn't know that! Thanks. I guess that would explain the need for the boom, however I still wonder if it's worth it.



Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

Just curious about some things:

-Has the flight management system been hardened against HPM threats in this aircraft?

-Has the flight management software been modified to handle degraded flight control and flight surface characteristics that could be expected from a MANPADS hit or a near miss from a S-400 (or an RPG on the ramp for that matter) in this aircraft?

-Has additional dry bay fire suppression-such as that being incorportated into the P-8- been engineered for this aircraft?

-Have extensive engineering studies-such as those being currently conducted in the P-8 program-geared to mitigate the inherent vulnerability to hydrodynamic ram induced attrition kills been initiated for this aircraft?

-How many millions will have to be spent to meet the requirements of Section 2366 Title 10 US Code in this aircraft?



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7435 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Sidishus

This is just a test bed. No one has suggested it's use in operations.

If they do sell this aircraft in due course it will not be to the USAF.


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3243 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 14):
This is just a test bed. No one has suggested it's use in operations.

Then those features -which will be quite expensive to incorporate into an operational design-should be getting "tested" as well. Thats especially true if EADS ever hopes to sell a tanker to the USAF. Boeing has a significant lead in this area.



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3225 times:

From that picture, they should have called it the Advanced Refueling System Extension instead.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7435 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3199 times:

Are these points covered by the KC767.

Are they included in the spec.


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 17):
Are these points covered by the KC767.

Are they included in the spec.

No matter which manufacturer is picked they will have to spend a bunch of money on vulnerability reduction. Boeing is already having to do this on the P-8 so they are well ahead of the game.



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 6):
F-111C (RAAF version) is based on the F-111B which is the US Navy version, this means that the refueling would be accomplished with the probe and drogue.

IIRC as originally delivered the C was basically an A with the longer wings of the FB-111 and refueling was by boom only.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

One thought since Canada and Germany both have A310MRTT already in their fleet will one of these two take delivery of this aircraft when it is not needed anymore by EADS.
Of course the Canadian F-18s and the German Tornados and Eurofighters uses probe and drogue but the Phantoms which will continue to fly for some time uses boom. Besides the boom could be needed to refill F-16s from our NATO partners.
I read once that the German Air Force could need an extra A310MRTT.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 20):
One thought since Canada and Germany both have A310MRTT already in their fleet will one of these two take delivery of this aircraft when it is not needed anymore by EADS.

Currently only 4 Luftwaffe A310's have/are being converted to tankers and 2 CAF aircraft.
I don't know what will happen to the EADS-CASA A310 once the test campaign is over.


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2742 times:

http://www.bahdayton.com/SURVIAC/PDF/AS%20Newsletter%20Fall%202005.pdf

Addressing Maritime Patrol Aircraft Survivability
To the casual observer[and God knows there are more than a few of those perusing this venue],Boeing’s solutionto the US Navy’s need for a next generation Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) looks like a 737 airliner painted a lackluster gray. But the Boeing concept being developed under a $3.89B System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract entails many design modifications to the popular commercial jet...



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 6):
F-111C (RAAF version) is based on the F-111B which is the US Navy version, this means that the refueling would be accomplished with the probe and drogue.

AFAIK there are not F-111's that have ever used the droge refueling system....all of them have been boom systems.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Eads Rolls Out Tanker Demonstrator
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...
Boeing Rolls Out ABL posted Sat Oct 28 2006 18:23:46 by MCIGuy
Will Russian Eads Ownership Hurt Tanker Prospects? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 17:03:39 by Lumberton
First USN EA-18G Growler Rolls Out posted Sat Aug 5 2006 10:44:27 by GOCAPS16
Eads Unveils UAV Tech Demonstrator 'Barracuda' posted Sat May 13 2006 23:08:50 by A319XFW
Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF Rolls Out Fully Assembled posted Wed Feb 22 2006 03:55:30 by Atmx2000
Eads Confident On Share Of US Air Tanker Deal posted Mon Sep 18 2006 12:12:54 by Columba
Eads Selects Mobile, AL To Build Usaf Tanker posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:19 by AirRyan
Northrop / Eads Tanker Plan Causing A Stir posted Sun Apr 24 2005 00:38:24 by Keesje
First KC-767 Tanker Rolls Out posted Fri Feb 25 2005 11:39:57 by 777ER
Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg posted Tue Jan 11 2005 22:51:09 by JMV

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format