Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?  
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 847 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

Is RAAF KC-30 still in Spain for the installment of the fuelboom etc.?

Cheers

Micke  wave 


Airbus SAS - Love them both
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Because it doesn't work yet. If they had a success story to show then it'd be there.

They are having mountains of problems with the fuel delivery systems and software integration.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 4474 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
Because it doesn't work yet. If they had a success story to show then it'd be there.

They are having mountains of problems with the fuel delivery systems and software integration.

you betcha...


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4436 times:

Wouldn't the KC-30 be a A332F + Refueling Equipment? I guess they prefer to officially introduce the A332F first, otherwiese there could be a misconception that the KC-30 would be the same airplane as the Britisch and Australian air tanker.

Presenting the Australian prototype of the A330 MRTT as the KC-30 would make it a bluff package marketing-wise and Randy would have enough material for his next blog entry ...


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4372 times:

What is the difference between the A330MRTT that the RAAF and RAF are getting, and the KC-30 that they are proposing for the USAF?

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4347 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 3):
Presenting the Australian prototype of the A330 MRTT as the KC-30 would make it a bluff package marketing-wise and Randy would have enough material for his next blog entry ...

Does Randy talk about military stuff? He doesn't seem like the right type of personality for Boeing to put forth to hawk military wares.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4334 times:

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 4):
What is the difference between the A330MRTT that the RAAF and RAF are getting, and the KC-30 that they are proposing for the USAF?

IIRC the US KC-30 would be based on the A332F (large cargo door) and not on the A332.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5):
Does Randy talk about military stuff? He doesn't seem like the right type of personality for Boeing to put forth to hawk military wares.

No, he does not talk about military stuff usually. But he would talk about the A332F which is a civil product, but the basis for the proposed KC-30.


User currently offlineFtrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

Airbus Military and Northrop Grumman had models up for the thing everywhere.

User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4280 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
They are having mountains of problems with the fuel delivery systems and software integration

...inflight entertainment issues with this one too??  stirthepot 



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4261 times:

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 4):
What is the difference between the A330MRTT that the RAAF and RAF are getting, and the KC-30 that they are proposing for the USAF?

The AF Tanker request is for a tanker that is designed to specific USAF requirements. It is not the direct equivalent to the British and Australian aircraft and a KC-30 hasn't been built yet.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12064 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 4):
What is the difference between the A330MRTT that the RAAF and RAF are getting, and the KC-30 that they are proposing for the USAF?

They are really 3 different airplanes. The RAF A-330TT is your basic A-330-200 with WARPs. The RAF A-330TT will actually be a cilivan commerical airplane. The RAAF A-330MRTT is an A-330-200 with the A-340-300 wing with larger, heavier WARPs, and an air refueling boom, but no additional fuel tanks. The RAAF A-330MRTT will be a full military airplane, including military avionics. Both the RAF and RAAF tankers will still have the full A-330-200 below deck cargo holds. The proposed KC-30A for the USAF will not have below deck cargo holds, as additional full tanks will be in those places. The KC-30 will also be a full A-330-200F, with fewer main deck windows, and a full cargo handeling system. It may or may not have the A-340-300 wing to support heavier, larger WARPs (similar to the RAAF A-330MRTT), and either the new Airbus Refueling Boom, or a Boeing Air Refueling Boom, depending on how the contract is written. The KC-30A will be a full military airplane with military avionics.

All three tankers will have different capabilities with respect to range, offload capability, troop capacity, and cargo capacity. All three will have a main deck cargo door, but, IIRC the KC-30 may be offered with two cargo door, both on the left (port) side, but on either side of the wing.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 3):
Wouldn't the KC-30 be a A332F + Refueling Equipment? I guess they prefer to officially introduce the A332F first, otherwiese there could be a misconception that the KC-30 would be the same airplane as the Britisch and Australian air tanker.

Presenting the Australian prototype of the A330 MRTT as the KC-30 would make it a bluff package marketing-wise and Randy would have enough material for his next blog entry ...

Both are correct. But with respect to the USAF, RAAF, and RAF versions, see above.

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 9):
The AF Tanker request is for a tanker that is designed to specific USAF requirements. It is not the direct equivalent to the British and Australian aircraft and a KC-30 hasn't been built yet.

Yes.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4161 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The RAAF A-330MRTT is an A-330-200 with the A-340-300 wing

Aside from very minor differences the A330 and the A340-2/300 use identical wings. A330 wings have the same structural reinforcements for the outer engines as the A340-2/300 wings have. They are just lacking the mounting provisions for the outer engine nacelles, fuel pipes and control wires. That is why it is rather easy to attach the refueling pods to an A330 ... you don't need to strengthen the wings as it is necessary with A310s for instance

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
All three will have a main deck cargo door,

I am pretty sure that the RAF and RAAF aircrafts will not have a main deck cargo door, because in order to load pallets onto the main deck the main floor has to be strengthened and that didn't happened. The prototype has been built already without a large cargo door. It even got painted already which would be non-sense when structural changes were still due ... Concerning the RAF airplanes it was clearly said that all airplanes remain in a standard airline configuration, aside from the refueling pods.

As regards the avionics you might be right, I don't have any information about that.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12064 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4154 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 11):
Aside from very minor differences the A330 and the A340-2/300 use identical wings. A330 wings have the same structural reinforcements for the outer engines as the A340-2/300 wings have. They are just lacking the mounting provisions for the outer engine nacelles, fuel pipes and control wires.

I thought the A-330 wing also had 1 less main wing spar, to save weight, compared to the A-340 wing. But, you are correct, other thatn the spar and the additional plumbing and other needed components for the outboard engines, the A-330-200/-300 and A-340-200/-300 wings are identical.

In the specs for the RAAF A-330MRTT, the contract calls for the A-340-300 wing. This is not part of the specs for the RAF A-330TT, and one reason why both airplanes actually have a different designation from Airbus.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
In the specs for the RAAF A-330MRTT, the contract calls for the A-340-300 wing. This is not part of the specs for the RAF A-330TT, and one reason why both airplanes actually have a different designation from Airbus.

It might be that RAAF airplanes just use the outer nacelle mounting provisions for accamodating the outer refuelling pods while the RAF airplanes use custom-built provisions for the lighter refueling pods ... it might also be related to the fact the RAF needs a civil certification and type rating for their planes, while the RAAF does not necessarilly need that.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12064 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4136 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 13):
It might be that RAAF airplanes just use the outer nacelle mounting provisions for accamodating the outer refuelling pods while the RAF airplanes use custom-built provisions for the lighter refueling pods

You could be right about the RAAF A-330MRTTs. But, to me that seems like a lot of additional equipment.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4125 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
You could be right about the RAAF A-330MRTTs. But, to me that seems like a lot of additional equipment.

As I said the RAF cannot to afford to loose the standard A330 type certificate, because their private-public partnership type-of operations won't function then ... Additional military avionics (TACAN, UHF/VHF-Radio) won't affect that, but i guess the "A340"-wing is nevertheless different enough to make re-certification necessary for civil use.

RAAF does not have to care about that ... military airplanes, military pilots, military certification ...


User currently offlineAislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4123 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
WARP

Sorry, but what are WARPs?



"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 4094 times:

There is a myth that the A330 and A340 wings are identical apart from the outer engine mounting points. The only thing that is identical is the shape. The A330 wing will need significant strengthening to accept the pods although it is a relatively straight forward modification.

Back to the original question. The reason that the KC-30 is not at Farnborough is that they haven't built one yet. The nearest they have to one is the Australian MRTT and that only started conversion last month. It won't fly until early next year.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12064 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 16):
Sorry, but what are WARPs?

Wingtip Air Refueling Pods. Sorry for the confusion. Now, for WARP Factors, I guess you will have to ask Capt. Kirk or Capt. Pacard, LOL

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 17):
There is a myth that the A330 and A340 wings are identical apart from the outer engine mounting points. The only thing that is identical is the shape. The A330 wing will need significant strengthening to accept the pods although it is a relatively straight forward modification.

That is what I thought originally.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?
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 No Dedicated Thunderbirds Transport Aircraft? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 04:43:57 by TheRonald
Why No Military Name For The JT8-D? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 01:37:35 by 747400sp
Why No Blue Angels Super Hornet? posted Sat Jul 22 2006 00:41:26 by FlyUSCG
Why No USN Heritage Flights? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:41:06 by 747400sp
CNN V-22 At Farnborough Video... posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:25:52 by AirRyan
A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary posted Wed Jun 21 2006 16:20:48 by UAL747-600
Why No New AC-130 Gunships? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 01:51:31 by CX747
Why No Trijet Fighter posted Sat Dec 17 2005 23:56:56 by 747400sp
KC-767 Vs KC-30? Try KC-787 Vs. KC-50 posted Wed Dec 14 2005 02:38:41 by AirRyan
Dutch F-16s And KC-10 At Lajes posted Sun Jul 3 2005 19:06:31 by LPLAspotter

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format