The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Procurement Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: RAF Tanker Purchase set to be given to Airbus
giblets    1/23/2004 6:05:51 AM
According to the Financial Times, the UK MOD is set to announce that they will give the new tanker contract to a consortium led by EADS/ Airbus, with their new A330 tanker. This is compared to the Boeing BAE consortium with the 767 (the same as the USAF).
The award of this contract is beleived to have been for a number of reason (other than operational) such as the severe delay on many other BAE projects (Astute SSN, Eurofighter, Nimrod (maritime patrol) , and Brimstone ( battlefield attack weapon). ALso of concern is the controversy with the USAF order of the 767 tanker,which led to the redignation of hte boeing CEO Phil Condit.
ANd no doubt,t he Airbus consortia giving excellent rates inorder to come into the market (similar to the low rates Lockheed gave to the RAF as C-130j launch customer).
BAE will not be too upset, as they produce 20% of the A330,a nd Rolls-Royce prouce the engines (as they do for the 767).
The A330 will be up to 16 new build airframes,and 4-5 used airframes, compared to the all used (Ex British Airways) 767 offer.
Interestingly the RAF has a history of using tankers no other nation uses (Victor, Tristar, VC-10), and using ex Briish Airways Aircraft (Tristar and VC-10).
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
giblets    Confirmed today   1/26/2004 8:55:25 AM
As it says confirmed as above
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    Australia To purchase A330 Tanker Also   4/20/2004 5:56:14 AM
Australia has announced that it is to purchase 5 A330-200'a to replace it's 707's in the tanker role. Statinga number of reasons for the choice, such as the abiltiy to carry 293 troops and cargo without modification (the 767 woudl require tanks to be removed), and the fact that Qantas could do the modifications and handle all engineering for the aircraft. The aircraft will differ from their UK cousins by having a US style flying boom, as well as the hose and drogue system
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Australia To purchase A330 Tanker Also   4/20/2004 6:28:01 AM
One of the kickers would have been the advice by qantas to the RAAF that they were phasing out their 767's, so it would have resulted in a strategic logistical orphan. Qantas are going to Airbuses as their principle fleet platforms as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:RAF Tanker Purchase set to be given to Airbus   4/20/2004 6:46:48 AM
In the last 10 years Airbus has really gained market shares on civilian and civilianish aircraft.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:RAF Tanker Purchase set to be given to Airbus   4/21/2004 3:27:41 AM
There are some stories that Airbus woudl consider opening an American production line for the A330 if the USAF choseto have some A330 tankers,a nd with the whole debacle with the 767 tanker (which is also one of the things which drove the australian choice) this could come out. The USAF decalred that the A330 was too big for their needs, but it is now being said that Boeing and the USAF made the demands specifically so that the A330 would not meet requirements.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:RAF Tanker Purchase set to be given to Airbus   4/21/2004 6:06:23 AM
Whatever, but the USA has to start taking a serious look at itself on the civilian aviation side. The 747 is basically a 1960'ies technology, with Airbus much later. The problem is: Development of the 747 was at the time the largest chunk the US aviation industry could bite of on its own. A new project is liable to be outside private financing - though these years would be the best time to invest, as interest rates are so low. The problem is two-fold: 1. Aviation is not a growth industry anymore, which means airliner investment is going to be replacement. To pay for a replacement you will need serious seat-mile cost reduction, as air ticket sales volume and prices are unlikely to raise at anything but a slow rate. 2. a serious reduction in seat-mile cost will be difficult and thus expensive to achieve, making the investment proportionally huge.
 
Quote    Reply

Marcus    RE:RAF Tanker Purchase set to be given to Airbus   5/9/2004 9:22:28 AM
1. Aviation is not a growth industry anymore, which means airliner investment is going to be replacement. To pay for a replacement you will need serious seat-mile cost reduction, as air ticket sales volume and prices are unlikely to raise at anything but a slow rate. AFAIK the aviation industry expect a grotw of 5% for every the next 20 years. Just think about china and india for exemple.
 
Quote    Reply

bombard    RE:RAF Tanker Purchase set to be given to Airbus   5/23/2004 6:24:43 PM
"The problem is two-fold: 1. Aviation is not a growth industry anymore, which means airliner investment is going to be replacement. To pay for a replacement you will need serious seat-mile cost reduction, as air ticket sales volume and prices are unlikely to raise at anything but a slow rate. 2. a serious reduction in seat-mile cost will be difficult and thus expensive to achieve, making the investment proportionally huge" Ten years ago people were saying the same thing in Europe. then along comes Ryanair, and we're off again. over thirty years, you're probably right. But because growth Air travel is tightly bound to rising income, a recession puts serious pressure on airlines, but a growth phase forces investment. So there will always be growth in airframes during the good years. And the other thing is cost of maintence and operation. One of Airbus's major advantage's is the standard pit. A pilot trained in an older Airbus can transfer much faster to a new one, than pilots transferring between boeings. In air tanking, thats a huge asset as you;ve a much larger and flexible pool of pilots when needed. 2: Supercruise, SCRAMJET, lots of wierd and wonderful technologies coming into play here. I wonder if a supercruiseing engine could be put into a concorde....
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:RAF Tanker Purchase set to be given to Airbus   5/24/2004 5:31:42 AM
"I wonder if a supercruiseing engine could be put into a concorde... " It already has / had one, the olympus! Reheats on for take3 of, and braking the transonic hump (like the Typhoon and F-22).
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:RAF Tanker Purchase set to be given to Airbus   5/24/2004 10:31:39 AM
Lets just agree what a growth industry is: An industry, where Growth in real terms outruns the general economic growth - more often than not, by a considerable amount. The problem is, that there is not enough profits to plow back into development - and the technological progress is not fast enough to make cheap leaps in performance.
 
Quote    Reply

DKay    RE:Australia To purchase A330 Tanker Also   5/31/2004 3:46:03 AM
Apart from the higher fuel volume of the A330 compared with the B767, could not another consideration in decisions by the UK and Australia to select the Airbus A330 have been that the A330 wing - which is identical to the A340 wing - is structurally and aerodynamically designed to have things hung onto the outer wing, i.e. the outboard engines in the case of the A340, which is where the refuelling pods will presumably be hung on the A330 tanker. Hence, there can be no questions or doubts about whether or not the wing will satisfactorily carry wing pods for refuelling. Additional hard points, etc do not have to be designed and built into a wing that was never intended to have such things hung on them in the first place. I know B767s are being 'tankerised' for the Italians, but will these carry wing pods? And if so, have they yet been proven to be satisfactory in flight? Does anyone know? I believe B767 tankers for Japan will (initially at leeast) carry the centre line refueling boom, only, as, I think was to be the case for the prospective USAF B767 tankers. This would rule out their use to support most USN and Marine Corps aircraft, wouldn't it?
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:Australia To purchase A330 Tanker Also   6/2/2004 7:24:28 AM
The Australian and canadian (A310) tankers will have the refueling booms on, but yes, one of the advantages of the A330 is the outerwing hardpoints/ wings are designed to carry weights, and are already designed to have a fuel flow to them. There is an interesting article in this months flight international, showing all the changes to the 767 ( it is a major operation). This includes the addition of fuel tanks to the cargo bay, strengthening the wings etc, whereas the A330 will essentially be the same aircraft, with the addition of wingtip pods, and the boom (where required). One of the major advantages of the A330 is that, appart from the extra fuel contained, no changes will be required in order for it to change roles, it will still retain its cargo/ passenger carrying capability at the same time as being a tanker, whereas the 767 will have to have fuel tanks removed etc to provide this second role. With full tanks the 767 can provide just 50tons of fuel at 1000nm, compared to 68 tons for the A330. In terms of the transport capability, the 767 can take just 19 standard containers OR 200 passengers, or a mix of 100 passengers plus 10 containers. The A330 can take 26 standerd containers PLUS 300 odd passengers.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy