Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

France to buy 12 Airbus aerial tankers
Reuters ^ | Nov 20, 2014 | Tim Hepher

Posted on 11/20/2014 8:06:16 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki

France has confirmed the selection of 12 Airbus A330 refueling tankers for the French Air Force, Airbus Group said on Thursday.

First delivery is expected in 2018, followed by a second in 2019 and then at a rate of one or two per year, Airbus Defense & Space said in a statement.

India and Qatar are in the "final stages of contractual negotiations" for six and two aircraft respectively, Airbus said.

Airbus said France is the sixth country to order the tanker after Australia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Britain.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; airbus; france; tanker

1 posted on 11/20/2014 8:06:16 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Well, they need to get back from wherever they are quickly.

Can they refuel when in reverse?


2 posted on 11/20/2014 8:15:57 PM PST by Vermont Lt (Ebola: Death is a lagging indicator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

France buying Airbus? So?


3 posted on 11/20/2014 8:23:19 PM PST by SkyDancer (I Was Told Nobody Is Perfect But Yet, Here I Am)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Their goal is force projection, only to where?


4 posted on 11/20/2014 8:42:14 PM PST by elcid1970 ("I am a radicalized infidel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Meanwhile, our USAF is still flying tankers almost as old as our B-52 bombers because Boeing got Congress to overrule buying the Airbus tanker. Boeing lost the head to head comparison bid to the Airbus tanker a number of years back. Airbus was willing to buy a lot of US parts & engines for the tankers to make US companies happy.


5 posted on 11/20/2014 8:59:26 PM PST by RicocheT (Only a few prefer liberty--the majority seek nothing more than fair masters. Sallust, Histories)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

We should have bought them for our airforce. Nationalism trumped reason.


6 posted on 11/20/2014 9:12:49 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll Onward! Ride to the sound of the guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

why does France buying 12 aerial tankers?

seems excessive for them


7 posted on 11/20/2014 9:17:20 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

what are all the windows for?


8 posted on 11/20/2014 9:17:56 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

it’s a tanker-transport (Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT


9 posted on 11/20/2014 9:24:17 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Basically if you fill up the lower half of the plane with gas you are already are pushing the max it can carry. It could not carry both top and bottom fully full of gas.... so you might as well get some double use out of the top by carrying cargo that is less dense, or passengers.


10 posted on 11/21/2014 7:22:34 AM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
Meanwhile, our USAF is still flying tankers almost as old as our B-52 bombers because Boeing got Congress to overrule buying the Airbus tanker.

And surprise! Boeing is falling behind in the design and fabrication of the first test article KC-46As.

11 posted on 11/21/2014 8:16:26 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

“And surprise! Boeing is falling behind in the design and fabrication of the first test article KC-46As.”

Here are the latest KC-46 news:
http://www.examiner.com/article/boeing-not-meeting-production-dates-for-kc-46a-refueling-tankers
http://www.janes.com/article/45947/further-tanker-schedule-slips-could-derail-key-milestones-says-usaf

South Korea is also looking for 4 new tankers:
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20141123000329
Delivery is scheduled for 2017.

Several points pro MRTT:
- maintenance: Korean Airlines operates already 24 A330 and has 8 more on order.
- spare parts: the A330 is still in production while no airline has the 767 on order. Delta ordered 25 A330-900.
- operational: Australia is already refueling over Iraq.
- better small airfield performance: The MRTT can take off with more fuel from short runways than the 767-200. The 767-2C fuselage is even longer than the standard 767-200.
- pride: the MRTT is far bigger than Japanese KC-767


12 posted on 11/24/2014 8:55:55 AM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

Not to mention the possibility of adding the A330neo advantages to the MRTT. Even lower fuel burn = more offloadable fuel available.


13 posted on 11/24/2014 9:11:02 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Even the current A330CEO offers a raised MTOW by 9 t over the old former MRTT offer to US Air Force. The MTOW is now 242 t instead of 233 t. Even an A330CEO with NEO wings could reduce the fuel burn by a few percents.

An A330MRTT-NEO could be a sufficient KC-10 replacement. The fuel load is just 45 t more for KC-10 but the fuel burn rate is much higher. About 4 to 5 t per hour more than an A330NEO.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/afpam10-1403.htm (For A330 us B767)


14 posted on 11/25/2014 8:39:39 AM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson