cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RAF Tanker Replacement?

Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:08 am

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."
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:18 am

UK Govt Agrees £13bn Tanker Deal (by Scbriml Jun 6 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:26 pm



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!
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:59 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:22 am



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.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:56 pm



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.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3090
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:57 pm



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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9925
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:39 am



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:21 am



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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9925
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:18 pm



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
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:30 pm



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.
 
studedave
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:21 am

RE: RAF Tanker Replacement?

Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:16 pm



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???

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zaphod42 and 13 guests