Aerial refuelling tanker aircrafts/MRTT

New thread as for large transport aicrafts for get all types here, pictures/videos obviously but also comparisons, fleet by operator for talking about aircrafts which do less the buzz more big or fat :=) as fighters especially but they are very usefull.

Airbus A330 MRTT one of the best after the KC-10 the more big but more polyvalent carries much more passengers.



Operators :
: 5 and 2 in order
: right now 2 KC2 and 6 KC3 refuelers plus four further currently unconverted planes.
Two more to be delivered by the end of 2016 for a total of 14 : 7 KC2, 5 KC3 and 2 KC3. The aircraft are jointly operated by the RAF and the the owner.
9 in service normaly, eventualy reinforced by 5 in crisis/war time.
: 6
: 3
Qatar : 2 in order
Singapore : 6 in order
France : 12 planned which 2 in order.

I wonder if I might be a little cheeky and take this opportunity to ask a question that I have always had about tankers - what are the pros of the extending boom method that the USAF seem to favour?

It seems pretty much everyone else prefers the alternative probe method, and its easy to see the advantages.

For example, a probe tanker can refuel two fighters at the same time, compared to the single one for the boom tanker.

The probe methods is more versatile, and you can refuel a lot of different types of assets such as helicopters that you just cannot with a boom.

You need fewer highly skilled crew with a probe, just the pilots, whereas with a boom, you also need a skilled boom operator in addition to the pilots.

The probe basket is made of a soft material, so you can bump into it a bit and not do any damage to the fighter or probe, with a boom, you can cause damage to both easier with accidental contact in the wrong place.

I would expect the probe method to be more forgiving while connected, since the tanker and fighter are connected via a flexible hose that can allow a fair amount of movement without any issue.

I someone doubt a solid boom connection would allow anywhere near as much movement, making it more taxing on the pilots, and probably weather conditions as well, as I don't imagine a bit of light turbulence would go down well when you can refuelling via a boom.

plawolf said:

I wonder if I might be a little cheeky and take this opportunity to ask a question that I have always had about tankers - what are the pros of the extending boom method that the USAF seem to favour?

It seems pretty much everyone else prefers the alternative probe method, and its easy to see the advantages.

For example, a probe tanker can refuel two fighters at the same time, compared to the single one for the boom tanker.

The probe methods is more versatile, and you can refuel a lot of different types of assets such as helicopters that you just cannot with a boom.

You need fewer highly skilled crew with a probe, just the pilots, whereas with a boom, you also need a skilled boom operator in addition to the pilots.

The probe basket is made of a soft material, so you can bump into it a bit and not do any damage to the fighter or probe, with a boom, you can cause damage to both easier with accidental contact in the wrong place.

I would expect the probe method to be more forgiving while connected, since the tanker and fighter are connected via a flexible hose that can allow a fair amount of movement without any issue.

I someone doubt a solid boom connection would allow anywhere near as much movement, making it more taxing on the pilots, and probably weather conditions as well, as I don't imagine a bit of light turbulence would go down well when you can refuelling via a boom.

Click to expand...

A boom allows substantially faster fuel transfer rate compared to current probe/drogue configurations.

USAF Tankers, KC-46, KC-10 and KC-135 near Edwards

Video,
Sky high with the USAF KC-135

sea harriers aerial refuelling

Bltizo said:

A boom allows substantially faster fuel transfer rate compared to current probe/drogue configurations.

Click to expand...

exactly, that means Fighters and Bombers and tankers refueling this way can spend less time mated more time in operation.

Now as to the term MRTT, Some seem to think this is a new idea. actually it's just rebranding tankers are generally a multi role platform, the KC135 is still the mainline US Tanker. It can carry 37 passengers in addition to fuel. the KC10 can pack in 75 troops or 85 tons of cargo. KC130 series is fully mission capable for 64 paratroops or cargo or even in the case of the USMC convertible into a gunship.
So the Multirole aspect has always really been there it's just that it's getting highlighted more with the newer models.

Some have suggested adding data servers to upcoming American KC46's to enable them to serve as networking platforms with fighters. giving a poor man's Awacs capability.

Transporting patients has been a long time role of tankers.

Heck even the seemingly Controversial move by the UK to convert a number of A330 MRTT Voyagers for VIP transport duties has a Historical precedent in the RAF who used VC10 Tankers in the 1980's to taxi Prime Minister Margret Thatcher and the Queen to official state functions. When not Transporting the Iron lady they were flying fuel.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

exactly, that means Fighters and Bombers and tankers refueling this way can spend less time mated more time in operation.

Now as to the term MRTT, Some seem to think this is a new idea. actually it's just rebranding tankers are generally a multi role platform, the KC135 is still the mainline US Tanker. It can carry 37 passengers in addition to fuel. the KC10 can pack in 75 troops or 85 tons of cargo. KC130 series is fully mission capable for 64 paratroops or cargo or even in the case of the USMC convertible into a gunship.
So the Multirole aspect has always really been there it's just that it's getting highlighted more with the newer models.

Some have suggested adding data servers to upcoming American KC46's to enable them to serve as networking platforms with fighters. giving a poor man's Awacs capability.

Transporting patients has been a long time role of tankers.

Heck even the seemingly Controversial move by the UK to convert a number of A330 MRTT Voyagers for VIP transport duties has a Historical precedent in the RAF who used VC10 Tankers in the 1980's to taxi Prime Minister Margret Thatcher and the Queen to official state functions. When not Transporting the Iron lady they were flying fuel.

Click to expand...

How much further can an A330 MRTT used as VIP transport fly compared with an "ordinary" longest range version of the A330? I expect a considerable difference but am I right? I didn't find useful information in the A330 wiki.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Heck even the seemingly Controversial move by the UK to convert a number of A330 MRTT Voyagers for VIP transport duties has a Historical precedent in the RAF who used VC10 Tankers in the 1980's to taxi Prime Minister Margret Thatcher and the Queen to official state functions. When not Transporting the Iron lady they were flying fuel.

Click to expand...

One A-330 MRTT but if necessary immediately available for refueling however in peace time one less available then bad idea...
RAF owned about 20 VC-10 and big Tristar not so long ago replaced by 9 in surge 14 A-330 MRTT whose a part used for transport then refueling capacity have decreased especialy in peace time.

We are told for years more modern equipment, efficient, versatile, cheaper, one can replace more older but it is not the true as we can see.

delft said:

How much further can an A330 MRTT used as VIP transport fly compared with an "ordinary" longest range version of the A330? I expect a considerable difference but am I right? I didn't find useful information in the A330 wiki.

Click to expand...

Well That's kinda a Hard question.

lists the lightest weight class of a A330 MRTT with 250 just passengers no cargo at 12,000 KM.
Which is pretty impressive but you're never going to load 200+ people on a VIP flight or intended VIP bird. much of the space will instead be used for offices and air suites.

To give you an Idea. The Current Air Force one used by the USAF for the President of the United states of America is based on the B747-200B That could seat 550 People in max configuration but in the VC25A configuration seats 76. the space is taken by the conference rooms, presidential suite, fully equipped sickbay Communications gear... It's A VIP bird. The upcoming 747-8s for the next Air force one will likely also not seat over a hundred.

So How many will likely fly? Well For the Queen or PM you're likely looking at the VIP and their Nuclear Family So let's say 5 people ( husband, Wife, 3 children) then you have staff and security, Could add guests or press corps. all depends on how conservative you want to be. The ACJ330 is a corporate jet offering by Airbus it seats 25 and gets a Range of 14,800 km

If you just keep it staff and some security then maybe closer to that 14,800 Km figure the more you add though the more the numbers will skew.
so you have a range between 12,000-14,800 KM.

FORBIN said:

One A-330 MRTT but if necessary immediately available for refueling however in peace time one less available then bad idea...
RAF owned about 20 VC-10 and big Tristar not so long ago replaced by 9 in surge 14 A-330 MRTT whose a part used for transport then refueling capacity have decreased especialy in peace time.

We are told for years more modern equipment, efficient, versatile, cheaper, one can replace more older but it is not the true as we can see.

Click to expand...

probably looking at 2 converted to the VIP role And I would lay odds that neither would be allowed to operate out of the UK without the PM or HM. In other words The VIP birds would be kept around the home Isles in time of war or time of peace unless on a state trip. still Rather then have true hanger queens the brits are looking to get some use form there birds.