This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The Australian Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), the first developmental Airbus A330-based tanker, has been grounded since March while receiving new parts for its refueling boom system.
The MRTT also is receiving some production configuration equipment, such as the remote air refueling station and other mission systems, during this time on the ground. This follows what Northrop Grumman officials say was the first phase of MRTT flight-test last year and this year.
The MRTT is expected to return to flight by September, according to Tim Paynter, a Northrop Grumman spokesman. He declined to provide dates for when the A330-based boom is expected to transfer fuel in flight to a receiver.
What is actually being done to the boom during this period is a bit murky. The boom will receive some additional parts and modifications while the aircraft is on the ground. The actual structure of the boom on the MRTT will remain on the aircraft. But, EADS is switching out some parts and bringing it up to a full production configuration, Paynter said.
This is the same boom that was showcased by EADS during last years Paris Air Show. EADS has developed this boom specifically to compete with Boeing in the international tanker market. The boom on the A330 has not yet been extended during flight.
The boom system has been flying on an A310 test bed conducting various risk reduction activities. It first passed fuel to a receiver, an F-16, on Feb. 29 (Aerospace DAILY, April 4).
William Welser, Northrop Grumman Air Mobility Systems vice president, discussed the plans for MRTT during a luncheon April 29 in Arlington, Va., hosted by the National Aeronautical Association. Until this briefing, Northrop Grumman and EADS North America, its U.S. tanker partner, had been tight-lipped about the systems status.
The Australian tanker program was previously restructured to allow more time for development, though a slide in Welsers briefing says the program is now on schedule, on performance [and] on cost. It is slated for delivery to Australia in March 2009.
The Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team won the U.S. Air Forces contract for development of a future tanker in February, but work has been stopped on the program since last month when Boeing, its rival, filed a protest of the award with the Government Accountability Office. GAO is expected to rule on the matter June 19.
Read more on this story, Lockheed’s Vulture UAV, threats to LCS2 and the big fighter comp in India from our friends at Aviation Week over on Military.com.
– Christian
Airbus A330-based tanker, has been grounded since March finally more dirt on the junk tanker from over seas , Can’t do it one the Airbus. Yea its on time yea right. junk pure and simple the aussies are thinking they made a mistake.
“first developmental Airbus A330-based tanker”…
“switching out some parts and bringing it up to a full production configuration”…
“slated for delivery to Australia in March 2009″
[sarc] Oh yeah, panic time [/sarc]
Yawn…You wish Jimmy Boy, you wish.
Have not heard anything much in the Australian media about the tankers. Much more about the fighter replacement program.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/defence/
So the A330 MRTT really IS a piece a junk. Not that it’s surprising really. Boeing does make a better product, after all. Here’s to hoping this helps to play a part in junking this ridiculous contract with Airbus. No Eurotrash tankers for our Air Force!
Well at least the RAAF’s A330-based tanker has flown, the flyby wire boom is flying and has passed fuel from the A310 testbed. Boeings tanker hasn’t even been put together from parts from Japan and Italy yet, is their flyby wire boom been installed — NO, tested NO, a 30 odd year old design way out of its league.
Why is it that all the comments on the KC-X competition are either ‘Boeing sucks’ or ‘Airbus sucks?’ Both planes are converted airliners. I think if either company had serious problems ala deHavilland Comet, the commercial market would have discovered it by now.
How complicated is a fuel boom? I’m sure that both companies are capable of working out the bugs in a pipe with fins on it. Is it more sophisticated than I just made it sound? Sure, but so are the engineering capabilities of both Boeing and Airbus.
To me, the real issue is in the rules of the competition. It sounds like the Airbus team used political leverage (fallout from the lease deal and Congressional demands for a competition) to force changes in the Air Force product requirements.
This is probably what the GAO inquiry is about– to determine whether or not the competition was fairly run. Didn’t Boeing say that the requirements changed mid competition and they were not made aware of all the changes until they were told they had lost?
Seriously. Both companies know how to make a plane. Wait until we find out the whole GAO story to pass judgement.
Airbus win 5 competitions against Boeing.
_Royal Air Force
_Royal Australian Air Force
_United Arab Emirates Air Force
_Royal Saudi Air Force
_US Air Force
And Boeing has got a better plane??
Please, you can accept (for this time) that boeing has not made a great plane
I’m french (don’t hurt me^^) and when I read your coments, I think about the french comments for the Morocco figther contract, the South Korean fighter contrat…
We writing exactly the same coments: “The Rafale is better than F16 Block 52 or F15K, it’s intolerable that they can buy US products. USA uses politics and coruption to win…“
Finally we are not so different.^^
See you this summer aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt with our Rafale F2.
Sorry for my english, I’m not good for other language. :s
LighTning,
The Royal Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, United Arab Emirates Air Force & Royal Saudi Air Force are TOTALLY different from the USAF & Boeing DID win the 1st competition for the USAF (which was not much of a competition given how obvious it was to anyone who knew jack about USAF tanker needs/requirements that the 767 was the correct choice). Also don’t fool yourself into thinking politics & such did/do not have any bearing on ANY defense contract.
It is not which is the “better plane” (both have their strengths & weaknesses & which someone considers “better” is based on which strengths & weaknesses they consider/ignor the most &/or if they are fooled by oversimplifided 1-vs-1 specification comparisons) but which is the “better plane” for the job.
I know that, thx.
Sorry, I have forgotten that KC45 is different that the MRTT.
The KC 767 has got problems with boom (it’s fact)
What do you want for your USAF?? The best plane for the job, no??
In Europe, in France, we were surprised when USAF said that KC45 won the contract, in France, we thought to have 5 percent to win.^^
The KC45 and all A330 will make in USA, in France, airbus usine are not at the party.
You think you loose, we think we loose (crasy world isn’t it??^^)
And in France, we are not good to win fighter contract, our politics thinks this is the same as sell a car… (but for nuclear reactor, they understand…)
In fact, we loose the Morocco contract because we were dude. :s
For the Korean contract, it’s politics (usa are a better allie that France, it’s clear…)
But, for the first time, USAF prefer buy a plane for technically reason and not for politics reason.
Don’t worry, we are like you, we don’t like when we don’t buy french material.^^
Have a nice day.
I’m not surprised that some work is needed to bring the A330 MRTT into spec. That is what engineering is. But for those who insult an entire continent based on such things is to insult everyone who listens to them.
I can guarantee you that the KC-45, whether made by Airbus or Boeing, will be late and/or over budget. If you take that as a given, then much of this needless ranting is irrelevant.
LighTning,
Yes I want the best plane for the job & in the real world (as apposed to the unrealistic alternate one created for the KC-X CMARPS model JUST SO THAT THE KC-30 COULD BE COMPETATIVE SO THERE WOULD BE A COMPETITION) for the USAF that plane is the KC-767. Remember that we are replacing KC-135s & not because they are not capable enough but because they are OLD & EXPENSIVE to maintain.
The KC-30 was chosen for POLITICAL reasons rather than technical reasons. If it had not been for politics, the USAF would (assuming delivery on schedule) ALREADY have the 20 KC-767 lease tankers & have the last batch of the 80 purchased KC-767 tankers about the same time we may (again, assuming delivery on schedule) receive the FIRST batch of KC-45. If it had not been for politics the USAF would not have been forced to change its requirements to better suite the KC-30 JUST SO THAT THE KC-30 COULD BE COMPETATIVE SO THERE WOULD BE A COMPETITION.
Well, if you say that… but I’m not totally convinced.^^
I understand, it’s incredible that the USAF can be choose a foreigner tanker (this is a strategic plane, a multiplier force).
In europe, we can listen/read that the MRTT or KC45 is not only a tanker, but a cargo too.
And it’s good for USAF to have an plane with this capacity to support C17 who are highly sought. (I suppose it was for that, the USAF choose the plane but your coments make me doubt.)
If the USAF want only a tanker to replace KC135 with not other capacity, yes it’s ridiculous to buy KC45, and I understand your coments.
For Airbus delay, I’m not agree with you Smith, the prototype fly, he hasn’t got problem unlike KC767. (for the price, it’s another problem^^)
And for delay, it’s a little problem, regarding the Pentagone programs, and A400M program in europe
In a francophone forum, we had discussed about the program, and I found this comparative of Airbus:
http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=143067&page=8
It’s interesting to see the different opinion. Please, read the other page.
Have a nice day.
Only a nutter would insist an aircraft which hasn’t even flown yet is superior to one which has.
Since after reevaluation by the USAF and GAO, Boeing actually won the competition, why don’t they just award the contract to Boeing? After all, they won the competition fair and square.
It’s kind of like using an instant replay for sports. It’s the most fair, the quickest AND the cheapest way to go.
Hey Tickers, you’re talking about the KC-767 being the aircraft that has flown and the KC-30 is that one that hasn’t, right? Or are you a complete moron?