Skip to comments.£10billion spent on refuelling planes which don't work on RAF jets
Posted on 04/05/2012 6:13:41 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
£10billion spent on refuelling planes which don't work on RAF jets
A £10billion fleet of refuelling planes for the RAF have been found to suffer leaks when they fill up British jets.
Tests have shown connecting pipes leak on the Voyagers when they try to resupply Tornado jets - although they work fine when used by American fighters.
It is feared the latest glitch to affect the aircraft, also used to evacuate battlefield casualties and transport troops, could delay their entry into service.
The MoD agreed the PFI programme - the biggest ever - with Oxfordshire-based AirTanker for 14 planes.
A militarised version of the Airbus A330-200 passenger plane, the Voyager can transport 400 soldiers.
Twice the size of a Lancaster bomber, with a 60m wingspan and length, the planes can hold 100,000 litres of fuel and are the biggest the RAF has ever had.
In theory, they can refuel jets in mid-air at 125 times the speed of forecourt garage pumps - at 5,000 litres a minute. However, the leak glitch has led to concerns the delivery of the aircraft could be held up.
Nine are due in service as soon as 2014.
Technicians are desperately trying to fix the defect, according to The Sun.
A source told The Sun: 'They tested it with RAF Tornados but the refuelling system doesnt work in mid-air.
'They also tried it with American planes and it did work its a big problem.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125439/Fleet-13billion-refuelling-planes-built-RAF-dont-work-British-aircraft--compatible-American-jets.html#ixzz1rAfifzqu
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Setback: Leaks when the Voyager refuels jets have led to concerns it will be delayed entering service
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125439/Fleet-13billion-refuelling-planes-built-RAF-dont-work-British-aircraft--compatible-American-jets.html#ixzz1rAg0SBwf
Is this the same as the Tanker that lost to Boeing then got tied up legally here for years (thanks John McCain) then was selected, Boeing appealed, and eventually went back to Boeing.
(kewl pic though :-)
I would have thought NATO had standards, but what do I know?
If the entire system works ok w/our jets, then the problem has to be with the receiving plumbing on the Tornados, yes ?
</masterful grasp of the obvious 8^>
Joe Lucas at work again.
We think the same way ... let’s see, we use the Imperial standard (ft, inch, gallong ...) and England uses the metric standard ... I’d guess this would be a good place to start.
(Yet, another masterful exercise in the obvious).
England uses metric, SAE and Imperial. All can be found on UK machinery.
I’ve also seen what was called “soft metric” on DOD designs, which meant that SAE standards were used to the nearest metric value called out. Works fine for things you weld together, but not so good for systems that connecct mechanically.
Boeing knows refueling, sounds like the probe is a bit smaller on the RAF fighters.
(if it works, i'll send 'em a bill ;-)
I suspect that 75% of the papers readers have no idea what a Lancaster is. Sort of shows how Britain's military capability deteriorated since WW II.
Imagine an article in an American paper attempting to describe an F-22 or an F-35 by comparing it in size to a P-47 or a P-51;;
Couple wads of chewing gum otta do the trick.
That's the max rate of the Chobham 805E Fuselage hose drum unit - it may just be a problem dialing it back to the approx. 1500l/min fighters can accept fuel at.
The HDU wing 905E pods deliver fuel at the same rate the older pods Chobham have been building for 40 years and it's hard to see Tornados taking fuel from Victors and VC-10s for all that time and suddenly developing a problem with the new tanker.
Once the Mad Mullahs endure a few months of living in the 8th Century like their false profit, the system will be modified to supply fuel to European fighter bombers. I can't believe nobody here on FR couldn't discern the obvious.
Which is why McDonnell Douglas beat Boeing when the KC-10 was selected.
Point set and match. If the fool Mc Swain stayed home at his nursing home the nation as a whole would be better off.
Remember he voted for the 4 liberal judges on the SCOTUS. An every other lame brained Judge supposedly to get along him and Nobama are a matched pair prima facial evidence that seniority does not rain supreme but rather stupidity does......:)
That was a term used on a ship construction program I used to be part of.
KC-10 POS, it was the only way they could salvage the DC-10.
Not saying it.
Yup, such a POS that Boeing's new boom design for the KC-46A is based upon the KC-10 boom, whose technology Boeing bought when they acquired M-D.
Did I say anything about the boom? I didn’t think so.
Every Brit over the age of about 12 knows what a Lancaster is. And the DM is a conservative paper, so those who read it know their history.
I would hope that you’re correct in that assumption..
Is that the same Chobham that developed the explosive armor plating for tanks?
I think they are referring to Cobham, a British firm specialising in refuelling systems and other defense equipment.
Chobham is a class of armour.
Given the kind of nonsense that often fills the pages of the Daily Mail, I pray that British conservatives have other papers to read.