Yippee! The RAF gets NEW planes...

[HawkerTempest5]

[quote]the USAF doesn't use the VC-10 either...

[C]

...of course the tanking stuff is still new for EADS. Boeing has much more experience with it (eg the KC-135 series)...

EADS are very lucky in that part of their consortium is Cobham Plc, and therein Flight Refuelling Ltd, the "Daddies", so to speak, of air-to-air refuelling, back in the early days, and Sargent-Fletcher, who provide many of the US militarys refuelling needs already...

Charlie

[Mr. Bones]

The US Navy and Marine Corps often use VC-10 and TriStar tankers

yes, but the USN isn't the USAF!  ;)

[SilverFox441]

The RAF isn't the USAF either.  :o

Most inflight refueling is done the probe-drogue way, everybody else got it right, only USAF uses that silly boom.

[Hagar]

I copied this from Hansard dated 23 Oct 2003 . Hansard is an edited verbatim report of proceedings in the Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in Standing Committees (in the House of Commons).

Why choose the Airbus option over the Boeing competition? The A330 can carry 50 per cent. more fuel than alternative aircraft, without the need for auxiliary fuel tanks. That means that it can deploy more aircraft further, to frequent destinations such as Bahrain and Canada. Twice as many fighters can be carried by one A330 aircraft. Equally important, it can remain on station longer and refuel more aircraft in operation. The 330 can carry passengers and cargo without the aircraft having to be reconfigured, as the Boeing would have to be. Those are all major advantages in taking the AirTanker option.

Airbus is the only aircraft manufacturer with current experience of refuelling pod integration, and Cobham's Flight Refuelling Ltd., which works exclusively with AirTanker and Airbus, is the only company in the world with experience of providing refuelling pods and fuselage refuelling units. Airbus is currently converting A310s into tanker aircraft for the German and Canadian Governments, using the Cobham pods. As a modern aircraft, the A330 will cost less to operate over the 27-year life of the contract than the Boeing alternative.

[Tequila Sunrise]

only USAF uses that silly boom

Actually, the Royal Netherlans AF uses a boom system due to requirments imposed by its F-16 force. The boom system is also easier for the crews of both aircraft to use.

[SilverFox441]

My bad...I forgot about the KDC-10's.

They'll probably go when the Dutch select their new fighter...most of the competitors use a probe.

Just thinking about it...don't the Suadis use KE-3's?

[C]

The boom system is also easier for the crews of both aircraft to use.

But also requires at least one extra crew member in the tanker, which in these days of letting as few people in an aeroplane as possible, is a downer.

It also has the problem of only refuelling one aeroplane at a time, unlike most hose and drogue tankers (the Tristar is an exception) which can do two...

Charlie

[Hagar]

It also has the problem of only refuelling one aeroplane at a time, unlike most hose and drogue tankers (the Tristar is an exception) which can do two...

Charlie

It used to be three. Your reference to Cobham PLC (& its subsidiary Flight Refuelling Ltd) made me wonder if anyone appreciates Sir Alan Cobham's considerable contribution to in-flight refuelling. I found this photo of 3 RAF Meteors being refuelled by a B-29 tanker using the probe & drogue system pioneered by Alan Cobham & his Flight Refuelling company based at Tarrant Rushton airfield in Dorset. The company had moved there from Ford, Sussex, in 1947. http://www.tarrant-rushton.ndirect.co.uk/index.html

This is exactly the same as the system in use today. It doesn't give any explanation as to why the B-29 is in USAF markings.

This photo

[C]

It used to be three.

So it did:). I think its a NATO AAR regulation which would now restrict it (Strangely enough, my final year University group project was to design an aeroplane to meet the requirements of the FSTA). I think its a problem with the middle a/c having nowhere to go if it goes pear shaped...

Your reference to Cobham PLC (& its subsidiary Flight Refuelling Ltd) made me wonder if anyone appreciates Sir Alan Cobham's considerable contribution to in-flight refuelling...

I doubt very few people know about Cobham PLC or FRL/FRA... I doubt many people know about Sir Alan Cobham...

This is exactly the same as the system in use today. It doesn't give any explanation as to why the B-29 is in USAF markings.

Shows how good the system is  :). As for the B-29, what were the RAF using as tankers originally, as the earliest I know of is the Valiant...?

Charlie

[Hagar]

[quote]Shows how good the system is

[Mr. Bones]

silly boom? did you see the first refuelling flight with the X models of the JSF. Lockheed did it with a boom...went perfect! Boeing used the hose drogue system...the damn thing didn't want to connect (ok, fault of boeing) and the fuel went everywhere. but that same damn basket almost got sucked into the engine intake!  :-/ and that's not Boeing's fault. i think the boom is much safer. that's my opinion. i'm sure this reply will enter in a quote window bellow very soon, but you can't change my mind about this.  ;)