Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RAF Tanker Replacement?  
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

while i absolutely love these:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Kwiatkowski



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Timon Duffield



those aircraft will eventually get to a point where they are too old to economically operate. if that point is in the near future, does the RAF stand a chance of siding with the winner of the US KC-45 program or will they continue to operate little american hardware and side with the KC-30? which actually fits thier mission profiles better? i have no clue as to how the RAF operates, though lately have found myself very fond of thier a/c.


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

UK Govt Agrees £13bn Tanker Deal (by Scbriml Jun 6 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3076 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 1):
UK Govt Agrees £13bn Tanker Deal (by Scbriml Jun 6 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Wasn't the original plan for the RAF to get 25 new tankers? When did the number decrease?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

There was never a fixed number, vague quotes of up to 20, stuff like that.
Not enough for the current tempo of operations, even allowing for how so more more serviceable the A330's should be over the lovely, but very old tyes they'll replace.
That is, whenever fingers leave the collective butts of all the lawyers and consultants involved in this arse-about-face way of procuring.

However, for the future, post 2013-14, a case for some or all of the 20 options (very) quietly still in place over the UK's 25 airframe A400M order to be exercised, some of these being assigned to AAR?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2953 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 3):
However, for the future, post 2013-14, a case for some or all of the 20 options (very) quietly still in place over the UK's 25 airframe A400M order to be exercised, some of these being assigned to AAR?

Yes, the A-400 does have an AAR capability. But, it would be like refueling from the KC-130s.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2886 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Yes, the A-400 does have an AAR capability. But, it would be like refueling from the KC-130s.

It would indeed, but presumably more like from the KC-130J's rather than 'legacy' models.
A rapid mod programme was done for 6 RAF C-130's just after the Falklands war, using surplus AAR gear, the single hose from a sealed rear ramp.
They were used in theatre for years afterwards, refuelling F-4M's, later Tornado F.3's mainly.
Until they ran out of hours and a detached VC-10 replaced them.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2850 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 1):

As of today the deal has still not been finalised, due to the UK government insisting on private finance. The collapse in inter bank lending following the US sub prime fiasco has made it very difficult to borrow the money


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8876 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2781 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Yes, the A-400 does have an AAR capability. But, it would be like refueling from the KC-130s.

Yet another misrepresentation of the truth.

The A400M can refuel anything from helicopters to fast jets, it has a faster and higher cruise capability than a C130J (A400M M0.7 vs C130J M0.5).




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, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2734 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Yes, the A-400 does have an AAR capability. But, it would be like refueling from the KC-130s.

Yet another misrepresentation of the truth.

The A400M can refuel anything from helicopters to fast jets, it has a faster and higher cruise capability than a C130J (A400M M0.7 vs C130J M0.5).

Zeke, you really should not comment on things you don't know about. The USMC KC-130Fs have been refueling fast jets since the Vietnam War, airplanes like F-4s, A-4s, A/EA-6s, and F/A-18s. The USMC KC-130F and USAF HC-130E/H have also refueled helicopters. The RAF also refueled up to Vulcan sized bombers with C-130s, when the Victors were not available.

Refueling from the KC-130J and A-400M would be the same due to PROP WASH.

Try flying (or refueling) in prop wash someday. Real pilots do it all the time.

Now where did I misrepresent the truth?


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8876 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2708 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The USMC KC-130Fs have been refueling fast jets since the Vietnam War, airplanes like F-4s, A-4s, A/EA-6s, and F/A-18s. The USMC KC-130F and USAF HC-130E/H have also refueled helicopters. The RAF also refueled up to Vulcan sized bombers with C-130s, when the Victors were not available.

All very inefficiently for fast jets because they have to fly so low/slow, and the C130 has very poor offload.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Refueling from the KC-130J and A-400M would be the same due to PROP WASH.

No one can refuel a fast jet at high level from a C130 at M0.7.

The A400M is a fully digital aircraft, which can link into other data linked aircraft, which will also make the tanking job easier, as well as having all the tanker equipment installed as standard.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Now where did I misrepresent the truth?

When you tried to portray the C130 as being equivalent to an A400M.

The A400M was always designed to be a tanker, it is much faster than a C130, carries a lot more fuel, offloads fuel faster, and fits in the same refuel envelops that current fast and slow tankers currently use.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2705 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
Yet another misrepresentation of the truth.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Now where did I misrepresent the truth?

Just like another day at the fights!  fight   box 



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2663 times:



Quoting Michlis (Reply 10):
Just like another day at the fights!

One day those guys will agree on something...

the World will be ending right after that~ so be watching for it!!!



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic RAF Tanker Replacement?
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...
Tiny Tanker Replacement? posted Sun May 9 2004 22:46:53 by KC10Boom
Usaf Tanker Replacement Low Cost Option? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 11:38:27 by Keesje
Norway Requests Gripen Offer For F-16 Replacement posted Fri Jan 18 2008 03:06:39 by Art
Can The 767 Or 330 Be A Possible B52 Replacement? posted Wed Jan 16 2008 17:22:47 by Norlander
Airbus To Build A330-200F In USA If Wins Tanker posted Fri Jan 11 2008 07:37:35 by Observer
New Tanker Decision By End Of January posted Sun Jan 6 2008 08:34:40 by EBJ1248650
Usaf Tanker Expected Date? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 15:52:16 by Tigerotor77W
RAF Typhoon F.2A posted Sat Dec 8 2007 18:27:06 by EBJ1248650
Fatigue Indicators In Victor Tanker/Bomber posted Sat Dec 1 2007 12:05:55 by CaptOveur
Usaf Invites KC-X Tanker Bidders To The Table posted Wed Nov 21 2007 06:19:13 by Zeke

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format