Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
It needs a big runway like all other civilian A330's. No real advantage having rough field capabilities, there will always be a big airport within reach.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
High landing gear and big engines lower to the ground don't lend themselves to unprepared strips (poor rough terrain handling and FOD respectively) either.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Seriously? That sounds like the times the RAF claimed(s) that the RN never needed aircraft carriers as it could provide air defence for the fleet worldwide. That wasn't true either.
shark bait wrote:It needs a big runway like all other civilian A330's. No real advantage having rough field capabilities, there will always be a big airport within reach.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Well if you wanna design a rough landing capable plane that size of that capability and bring it under budget, be my guest
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Who has got an aircraft with that amount of offload capable of rough strip work?james k wrote:Seriously? That sounds like the times the RAF claimed(s) that the RN never needed aircraft carriers as it could provide air defence for the fleet worldwide. That wasn't true either.
shark bait wrote:It needs a big runway like all other civilian A330's. No real advantage having rough field capabilities, there will always be a big airport within reach.
There are A400 and C130 AAR fits but they are not near in available fuel.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
None already on the market? Personally I'd recommend avoiding my design for an aircraft it would be made of balsa and paper and sticky back plastic in the best Blue Peter tradition.
RetroSicotte wrote:Well if you wanna design a rough landing capable plane that size of that capability and bring it under budget, be my guest
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
As a tanker it's tiny though, I bet the fully loaded total weight of a 200 series is around the amount of fuel you can offload from a A330.james k wrote:Looks like someone already did the 737-200.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... -airfields
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
737-200 has an engine mod, no reason in principle that an A330 couldn't get a similar mod.
The fact that it can't operate in the same conditions as a Herc has no impact to its operational effectivness, that's not how it's used or how it will be operated - it can efficiently take a sh*te load of fuel a long way and hang around where it's needed.
There are more valid things to gripe about the RAF with in this case than the angle you've decided to go for.
The fact that it can't operate in the same conditions as a Herc has no impact to its operational effectivness, that's not how it's used or how it will be operated - it can efficiently take a sh*te load of fuel a long way and hang around where it's needed.
There are more valid things to gripe about the RAF with in this case than the angle you've decided to go for.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Hey, Blue Peter made solid stuff. I still have my Tracey Island.james k wrote:None already on the market? Personally I'd recommend avoiding my design for an aircraft it would be made of balsa and paper and sticky back plastic in the best Blue Peter tradition.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Not sure why you'd need an A330 to land in a field (A400m, C-17 and C-130 can do that, as mentioned above) but you also have the BAe 146 (to a lesser extent).
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
That isn't remotely similar, the range of a Voyager with full payload is huge, its reach is intercontinental, no combat aircraft in RAF service has comes close.james k wrote:Seriously? That sounds like the times the RAF claimed(s) that the RN never needed aircraft carriers as it could provide air defence for the fleet worldwide. That wasn't true either.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
There both exaggerated claims by, or on behalf of, the RAF. Whilst it may or may not be true that every nation has a long runway in good condition it would not be true to say that they are always in reach of the conflict area. Landing at the airport in Salisbury to support an SPE wouldn't help if the fighting were hundreds of miles away in Wankie, or a hundred other examples.
shark bait wrote:That isn't remotely similar, the range of a Voyager with full payload is huge, its reach is intercontinental, no combat aircraft in RAF service has comes close.james k wrote:Seriously? That sounds like the times the RAF claimed(s) that the RN never needed aircraft carriers as it could provide air defence for the fleet worldwide. That wasn't true either.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
They pretty much are though, that's the thing.
The occasions where you'd need a rough strip capable AAR vehicle in the volumes you'd need to replicate an A330 are few and far between and it'd be incredibly expensive.
When everybody is contesting you with sound financial, operational and engineering arguments, might it not be the time to be a bit introspective?
The occasions where you'd need a rough strip capable AAR vehicle in the volumes you'd need to replicate an A330 are few and far between and it'd be incredibly expensive.
When everybody is contesting you with sound financial, operational and engineering arguments, might it not be the time to be a bit introspective?
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Last planning stats I saw it can fly 1000nm, stay on station for 2 hours, refuel 10 F35B from dry to full and then fly 1000nm home.
The wide body solution is not just used by the RAF, but everyone. The USN wouldn't have even got its aircraft over Afghanistan if it hadn't been for a massive fleet of USAF and others tankers following it.
Buddy buddy tanking is a top up only once you get more than a pair, forward deployed AAR such as the C130 is great, but then you still have to get the fuel out to where it is operating from. Combat operations are thirsty business.
The wide body solution is not just used by the RAF, but everyone. The USN wouldn't have even got its aircraft over Afghanistan if it hadn't been for a massive fleet of USAF and others tankers following it.
Buddy buddy tanking is a top up only once you get more than a pair, forward deployed AAR such as the C130 is great, but then you still have to get the fuel out to where it is operating from. Combat operations are thirsty business.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
They're not just tanker though are they? I thought that they were a transport aircraft and tanker.
indeid wrote:Last planning stats I saw it can fly 1000nm, stay on station for 2 hours, refuel 10 F35B from dry to full and then fly 1000nm home.
The wide body solution is not just used by the RAF, but everyone. The USN wouldn't have even got its aircraft over Afghanistan if it hadn't been for a massive fleet of USAF and others tankers following it.
Buddy buddy tanking is a top up only once you get more than a pair, forward deployed AAR such as the C130 is great, but then you still have to get the fuel out to where it is operating from. Combat operations are thirsty business.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
It was claimed that a VC10 had the advantage of high engines thus there was less chance of debris ingress. Like many others I don't dispute this but find most scenarios when this might be used as improbable. Afterall we have many more A400M planes that are far more capable in this respect.
Not having a boom and universal receptacle only ever made sense to save money and more crucially reduce weight thus making a commercial lease proposition plausible. Someone really needs to write a good shopping list for these capability gaps....
Not having a boom and universal receptacle only ever made sense to save money and more crucially reduce weight thus making a commercial lease proposition plausible. Someone really needs to write a good shopping list for these capability gaps....
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Another thing that would be noteworthy but i'm unable to verify: has the core fleet been expanded from 9 to 10? There was a written answer that suggested the possibility, but i can't find a definitive explanation.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
I thought it was 9+1?
Courtesy of the “AirTanker” flying BZZ to MPA and return?
Courtesy of the “AirTanker” flying BZZ to MPA and return?
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
I think originally it was meant to be, effectively, 8 + 1.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
They really need to fit a cargo door on these to get the most out of them. Surely the contractor would also see the benefit of being able to lease them out as freighter as well.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
It does sound desirable, but how often would it be used? In an intense conflict the pool would be consumed by refueling and moving people, leaving little to nothing available for cargo.
I would suggest the more pressing missing item from Voyager is the Medevac role. That should included to allow the C-17 to fully focus on cargo.
I would suggest the more pressing missing item from Voyager is the Medevac role. That should included to allow the C-17 to fully focus on cargo.
@LandSharkUK