Airbus does not offer an A330neo tanker. They do offer an A330ceo tanker. How hard would it be for Airbus to offer the A330neo tanker? Are there any un-obvious technical problems?

One major difficulty.

The A30N has been on a diet. As such, one area weight was removed was the A340 structure that remained as the wing was dual-purpose. This area was used to mount the refuelling pods as the A330 doesn't have outboard engines or the 'plastrons' that the A340 needed. The points were readymade reinforcement.

To do an A38N Tanker the wing would need modification to put a strongpoint back in. It isn't the same as just using an original A330 wing as the NEO wing is balanced for Trent 7000 engines and the new winglet. So it's going to be new work rather than just grandfathering in the parts from the A330CEO.

Not impossible but potentially expensive. I can see it becoming a project to use up that A338NEO prototype if there is sufficient interest.

Channex757 wrote:

The A30N has been on a diet. As such, one area weight was removed was the A340 structure that remained as the wing was dual-purpose. This area was used to mount the refuelling pods as the A330 doesn't have outboard engines or the 'plastrons' that the A340 needed. The points were readymade reinforcement.

This is a misconception, the tanker has internal wing modifications, not dependent on the A340 at all.

The 340 allowed for modelling of the extra weight on the wing.

The biggest difficulty would be finding a market in the useful life of the production line. A casual glance would show that most major buyers already have replaced their KC-135 era tankers with A330’s or in a few cases 767’s. These new planes will likely be good for half a century. There is no major imperative to buy a new design anytime soon.

Point me to a potential major buyer and it makes some sense. But most deals are already done.

You’d only need the wing structure if you are putting hose reels on the wings, correct? Just go with the boom.

GF

Channex757 wrote:

One major difficulty.

The A30N has been on a diet. As such, one area weight was removed was the A340 structure that remained as the wing was dual-purpose. This area was used to mount the refuelling pods as the A330 doesn't have outboard engines or the 'plastrons' that the A340 needed. The points were readymade reinforcement.

To do an A38N Tanker the wing would need modification to put a strongpoint back in. It isn't the same as just using an original A330 wing as the NEO wing is balanced for Trent 7000 engines and the new winglet. So it's going to be new work rather than just grandfathering in the parts from the A330CEO.

Not impossible but potentially expensive. I can see it becoming a project to use up that A338NEO prototype if there is sufficient interest.

If anything, I foresee the A338neo prototype becoming an Airbus test bed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’d only need the wing structure if you are putting hose reels on the wings, correct? Just go with the boom.

GF

Most tanker operations are from reels. I think only the US Air Force uses the boom system.

Dalmd88 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’d only need the wing structure if you are putting hose reels on the wings, correct? Just go with the boom.

GF

Most tanker operations are from reels. I think only the US Air Force uses the boom system.

This isn’t really correct anymore. Plenty of nations utilize the boom system. Most A330 tankers have been delivered with booms.

Having done both, and on “dark and stormy conditions”, why any operator would choose hoses is beyond me.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’d only need the wing structure if you are putting hose reels on the wings, correct? Just go with the boom.

GF

Not a lot of military outside the USA us the Boom. Most require the hose and basket. Not all US military fighters can use the boom. Mainly only the USAF.

The F105 could use both

With not quite 30 years of “tanking”; I have a pretty good handle on the state of AAR. The Thud maybe the only plane using both. The boom is so much easier to refuel off; I can’t imagine drogue refueling a C-5.

GF

strfyr51 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’d only need the wing structure if you are putting hose reels on the wings, correct? Just go with the boom.

GF

Not a lot of military outside the USA us the Boom. Most require the hose and basket. Not all US military fighters can use the boom. Mainly only the USAF.

Nonsence. All the airforces that uses American Aircraft ( and there is alot uf airforces around the world that do ) primarely uses the boom system: F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc. It's primarely European made Aircraft like the Eurofighter, Gripen and Dassault Rafale that uses the basket system

Mortyman wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’d only need the wing structure if you are putting hose reels on the wings, correct? Just go with the boom.

GF

Not a lot of military outside the USA us the Boom. Most require the hose and basket. Not all US military fighters can use the boom. Mainly only the USAF.

Nonsence. All the airforces that uses American Aircraft ( and there is alot uf airforces around the world that do ) primarely uses the boom system: F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc. It's primarely European made Aircraft like the Eurofighter, Gripen and Dassault Rafale that uses the basket system

Quite right. Although the F/A-18 doesn't use the boom system. So many a/f do use boom equipped refuelers: Singapore, Japan, Italy, Turkey, The Netherlands, America, South Korea, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Chili,

Mortyman wrote:

F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc.

True but:
F-16s can be fitted with a removable probe, for example CARTS
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=56
F-35s are available with probe or receptacle as required
F-18 is probe

And of course the USAF uses drogue-and-probe for helicopter refuelling, for which a boom is useless. The other advantage of drogue is that you can convert any aircraft to a buddy-tanker with a refuelling pod.

ELBOB wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc.

F-35s are available with probe or receptacle as required


.

I thought that it was only the B and possibly the C Version that use the basket , not the A version ?

ELBOB wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc.

F-16s can be fitted with a removable probe, for example CARTS
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=56
.

But how many are ?

Mortyman wrote:

ELBOB wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc.

F-35s are available with probe or receptacle as required


.

I thought that it was only the B and possibly the C Version that use the basket , not the A version ?

The Navy C-version definitely uses the probe system.



The Marine Corps B-version uses the probe as well.



The Air Force version uses the boom.



Don't think they are using both systems in the same craft though.

Mortyman wrote:

ELBOB wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc.

F-35s are available with probe or receptacle as required


.

I thought that it was only the B and possibly the C Version that use the basket , not the A version ?

The F-35A has the space reserved for a probe installation in the forward fuselage. Some investigation was done by Canada to investigate whenever a special Canadian version of the F-35A with both the probe and receptacle were done, but I imagine it wasn't worth it in the end due to the need to re-qualify the aircraft's handling characteristics, and that the Canadian tanker fleet is due for replacement at around the same time.

ThePointblank wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

ELBOB wrote:

F-35s are available with probe or receptacle as required


.

I thought that it was only the B and possibly the C Version that use the basket , not the A version ?

The F-35A has the space reserved for a probe installation in the forward fuselage. Some investigation was done by Canada to investigate whenever a special Canadian version of the F-35A with both the probe and receptacle were done, but I imagine it wasn't worth it in the end due to the need to re-qualify the aircraft's handling characteristics, and that the Canadian tanker fleet is due for replacement at around the same time.

Sounds reasonable. The space occupied by the receptacle is just left empty for the sake of community between the versions. Does the F-35C have the same for the boom receptacle?

Dutchy wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

I thought that it was only the B and possibly the C Version that use the basket , not the A version ?

The F-35A has the space reserved for a probe installation in the forward fuselage. Some investigation was done by Canada to investigate whenever a special Canadian version of the F-35A with both the probe and receptacle were done, but I imagine it wasn't worth it in the end due to the need to re-qualify the aircraft's handling characteristics, and that the Canadian tanker fleet is due for replacement at around the same time.

Sounds reasonable. The space occupied by the receptacle is just left empty for the sake of community between the versions. Does the F-35C have the same for the boom receptacle?

Theoretically possible, but the F-35C's upper fuselage skin are considered unique compared to the F-35A, and the underlying structure is considered to be a cousin part:

TWA772LR wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

One major difficulty.

The A30N has been on a diet. As such, one area weight was removed was the A340 structure that remained as the wing was dual-purpose. This area was used to mount the refuelling pods as the A330 doesn't have outboard engines or the 'plastrons' that the A340 needed. The points were readymade reinforcement.

To do an A38N Tanker the wing would need modification to put a strongpoint back in. It isn't the same as just using an original A330 wing as the NEO wing is balanced for Trent 7000 engines and the new winglet. So it's going to be new work rather than just grandfathering in the parts from the A330CEO.

Not impossible but potentially expensive. I can see it becoming a project to use up that A338NEO prototype if there is sufficient interest.

If anything, I foresee the A338neo prototype becoming an Airbus test bed.

Agreed.

ThePointblank wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

The F-35A has the space reserved for a probe installation in the forward fuselage. Some investigation was done by Canada to investigate whenever a special Canadian version of the F-35A with both the probe and receptacle were done, but I imagine it wasn't worth it in the end due to the need to re-qualify the aircraft's handling characteristics, and that the Canadian tanker fleet is due for replacement at around the same time.

Sadly, the US President has recently killed any possibility of the Canadians purchasing the F35. He attacked the Canadian exports of steel and aluminium with big import tariffs. Then he behaved badly at the recent G7 Summit in Canada. He then topped this off with an extraordinary personal attack on Canada's Prime Minister

Egerton wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Sadly, the US President has recently killed any possibility of the Canadians purchasing the F35. He attacked the Canadian exports of steel and aluminium with big import tariffs. Then he behaved badly at the recent G7 Summit in Canada. He then topped this off with an extraordinary personal attack on Canada's Prime Minister

Yet they are still industrial partners in the F-35 program, which is something I would change if I was running things. To me if your not buying, then you shouldn't reap industrial participation benefits.

Mortyman wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’d only need the wing structure if you are putting hose reels on the wings, correct? Just go with the boom.

GF

Not a lot of military outside the USA us the Boom. Most require the hose and basket. Not all US military fighters can use the boom. Mainly only the USAF.

Nonsence. All the airforces that uses American Aircraft ( and there is alot uf airforces around the world that do ) primarely uses the boom system: F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc. It's primarely European made Aircraft like the Eurofighter, Gripen and Dassault Rafale that uses the basket system

It is not primarily European aircraft, it always was primarily US Navy aircraft. USAF = boom / USN+USMC = basket

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

With not quite 30 years of “tanking”; I have a pretty good handle on the state of AAR. The Thud maybe the only plane using both. The boom is so much easier to refuel off; I can’t imagine drogue refueling a C-5.

GF

The F105 was unusual, I’m sure there’s a story behind it having the ability to use probe and drogue or boom refueling



I watched a video on the SR71 recently
and the tankers that were used to refuel it.
Interesting in that the tankers fuel was kept
separate from the special JP 8 used on the
Blackbird



I don’t know if that was done In any other AAR scenario


The other part of the video I found fascinating was their refuelling speed of
.9 Mach


I realize the SR71 couldn’t fly slow easily but I was surprised that a connection could be made at that high a speed


What were you normal low/ high speed altitude limits and can you recall many at those limits ?


Always enjoy your posts Gxfyr

I’m not sure if the Q tankers could burn JP-7, it wasn’t JP-8 which now mil-standard. I doubt the Mach number was .90; they refueled in the high-20s to low-30s at around 310 KIAS. About M.80-.82.

The Thud is the only “two-way” receiver I know of, probably a nuclear warfare requirement—take fuel from any tanker in NATO.

GF

Max Q wrote:

I watched a video on the SR71 recently
and the tankers that were used to refuel it.
Interesting in that the tankers fuel was kept
separate from the special JP 8 used on the
Blackbird

I don’t know if that was done In any other AAR scenario

The other part of the video I found fascinating was their refuelling speed of
.9 Mach

I realize the SR71 couldn’t fly slow easily but I was surprised that a connection could be made at that high a speed

What were you normal low/ high speed altitude limits and can you recall many at those limits ?

I have my old A-model Air Refueling Manual handy...it includes procedures for most any aircraft we would have had to refuel. Most of those were one or two pages long, the SR-71 section is 18 pages...

Normal refueling speed was listed as 320-355KIAS, M 0.86. 355KIAS was the high end of the airspeed envelope for the A-model. We couldn't use JP-7, which is why the Q-models were modified to prevent the tanker from trying to burn fuel out of the forward or aft body tanks.

Moose135 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I watched a video on the SR71 recently
and the tankers that were used to refuel it.
Interesting in that the tankers fuel was kept
separate from the special JP 8 used on the
Blackbird

I don’t know if that was done In any other AAR scenario

The other part of the video I found fascinating was their refuelling speed of
.9 Mach

I realize the SR71 couldn’t fly slow easily but I was surprised that a connection could be made at that high a speed

What were you normal low/ high speed altitude limits and can you recall many at those limits ?

I have my old A-model Air Refueling Manual handy...it includes procedures for most any aircraft we would have had to refuel. Most of those were one or two pages long, the SR-71 section is 18 pages...

Normal refueling speed was listed as 320-355KIAS, M 0.86. 355KIAS was the high end of the airspeed envelope for the A-model. We couldn't use JP-7, which is why the Q-models were modified to prevent the tanker from trying to burn fuel out of the forward or aft body tanks.

Wasn't the SR71 constantly at the lower limits of its flight envelope while refueling. And as more fuel was transferred the refueling was done at a higher speed which the KC-135Q could reach because of it becoming lighter and lighter, but of course, the SR-71 became heavier thus required more speed to stay aloft. Precarious choreography. Is this close to reality? Moose?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The Thud is the only “two-way” receiver I know of, probably a nuclear warfare requirement—take fuel from any tanker in NATO.

GF

Could it not be because the F-105 was commisioned in the transition period, also the USAF used the drogue system before the boom system was developed.



So the F-101 VooDoo was able to use the drogue system as was the F-100 and at least the B-66. Wasn't the F-101 also capable of boom refueling?

Mortyman wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’d only need the wing structure if you are putting hose reels on the wings, correct? Just go with the boom.

GF

Not a lot of military outside the USA us the Boom. Most require the hose and basket. Not all US military fighters can use the boom. Mainly only the USAF.

Nonsence. All the airforces that uses American Aircraft ( and there is alot uf airforces around the world that do ) primarely uses the boom system: F-16. F-35A, F-15, F-18 etc. It's primarely European made Aircraft like the Eurofighter, Gripen and Dassault Rafale that uses the basket system

Even the USA is divided. The Air force does use the boom and the navy the probe and drogue. So the F18 would be probe and drogue.

The obvious advantage of the probe and drogue is, being able to refuel two frames at the same time. Accident rate on the probe and drogue system is actually lower than on the boom.

China also uses the drogue system:



As does Russia:



It is only American air force aircraft that use the boom system.

Dutchy wrote:

It is only American air force aircraft that use the boom system.

Clearly...

Moose135 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It is only American air force aircraft that use the boom system.

Clearly...

American designed fighter getting fuel from an American build airliner.

BTW beautiful image, a good find.

Wasn’t there an experimental program where a tanker was equipped with two booms

One on each wing operated remotely using cameras?

With a box wing?

No I think it was a KC135, can’t find a pic anywhere

Whether it is boom or drogue depends on what you bought. If it was F-16s or F-15s, you're stuck with boom. Most anything else can probably mount a probe.

A boom is nice if you can get it. The fuel flow is higher (more noticeable with bomber-size receivers, which appealed to USAF), it is generally reliable and is easier to link to in bad weather.

A probe-and-drogue will suffice otherwise, but note that they are not perfect (no system is, really). They are harder to link to in bad weather or turbulence (or even airflow off the receiver's nose), the fuel flow is slower (although for fighter receivers the difference isn't so bad) and there are some things that can break. It's a bit of a fragile system when you start looking at it. For example, the hose tensioner can break. When the receiver aircraft pushes into the drogue the tension is supposed to be taken up so the hose doesn't whip or form a wave - that will either snap off the drogue or smash up the front of the receiver aircraft. Not saying it is a bad system, but one must respect its peculiarities.

smithbs wrote:

Whether it is boom or drogue depends on what you bought. If it was F-16s or F-15s, you're stuck with boom. Most anything else can probably mount a probe.

A boom is nice if you can get it. The fuel flow is higher (more noticeable with bomber-size receivers, which appealed to USAF), it is generally reliable and is easier to link to in bad weather.

A probe-and-drogue will suffice otherwise, but note that they are not perfect (no system is, really). They are harder to link to in bad weather or turbulence (or even airflow off the receiver's nose), the fuel flow is slower (although for fighter receivers the difference isn't so bad) and there are some things that can break. It's a bit of a fragile system when you start looking at it. For example, the hose tensioner can break. When the receiver aircraft pushes into the drogue the tension is supposed to be taken up so the hose doesn't whip or form a wave - that will either snap off the drogue or smash up the front of the receiver aircraft. Not saying it is a bad system, but one must respect its peculiarities.

A few misconceptions:

No fighter can manage the max flow rate of the newest booms.

The 450 US gpm flow rate for under wing pods on the A330MRTT, the 905E from Cobham, is matched to the receiving rate of the usual fighters. The KC46 has similar pods with a similar flow rate. With two under wing pods you refuel two fighters at the same time.
The Cobham 805E fuselage refueling unit does 700 US gpm and that is usable for bigger frames like a A400M.

The boom on both the KC46 and A330MRTT will do about 1200 US gpm max and it needs to be adjusted down for refueling of a fighter..

I would like to throw some doubt on the easier to use boom in difficult refueling situation. The US Navy and Army hardly refuel in easier conditions than the US Air Force. The accident rate is higher with the boom according to statistics.

My take is that the US Air Force concentrated on the boom for one reason only and that is maximal flow rate for the bigger birds.

mjoelnir wrote:

My take is that the US Air Force concentrated on the boom for one reason only and that is maximal flow rate for the bigger birds.

To be expected, how else where they going to maintain a nuclear capable bomber fleet with intercontinental range, they could not base all their a/c in Europe within quick striking range of the USSR or potential spec ops units.

When air to air refueling came up it was all drogue, the bombers needed a much higher fuel flow to get off the tanker quicker allowing more receivers to obtain fuel in a short space of time.
The US Navy has an additional quirk, the competition with the Air Force. Yes the probe equipment is much lighter, yes it is easier to buddy refuel from multi-role a/c, and yes they could have had an a/c designed to carry a boom it could even have been a type they were retiring (A3 / A5). However, once they went boom, the Air Force would have shown the politicians that they would have enough tanker support to support the Navy so no buy, in which case the carriers would be limited in their operations to when and where the Air Force says they have tanker support.
The call would then have been where are the tankers versus where are the carriers.

I still think that the Navy needs another type in the inventory something like the Viking.

If you doubt the boom, imagine taking 160,000 pounds off two tankers with a drogue? The accident rates maybe influenced by the fact most hooks with a probe are by fighters whose pilots are very proficient in formation, less so with heavies. I’ve done both, probe on the Hun wasn’t difficult, boom on the A-10 was easy IF you didn’t peek at the boom in front of you. The C-5 took so long it was tiring and the flow between the planes had huge effects on refueling.

I don’t think the Army refuels except for the 160th SOAR who must use probes, the Navy had typically refueled around the ship and had better conditions. Now, the missions are so long they pretty much refuel just like AF fighters.

GF

Dutchy wrote:

China also uses the drogue system:



As does Russia:



It is only American air force aircraft that use the boom system.

Only america...

And we already covered the Dutch...

And Italy:

And Japan:

And Australia:

And France (especially with the Mirage IV

And Turkey:

And Singapore:

And Chile:

And Brazil (for a very short time):

And Israel:

And Saudi Arabia:

And Iran:

Spacepope wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

China also uses the drogue system:



As does Russia:



It is only American air force aircraft that use the boom system.

Only america...

And France (especially with the Mirage IV

As we have covered this issue: only American operatorated fighters, bombers and transport a/c in use with the USAF can use the boom system. Are you satisfied with this narrow definition?

Mirage IV also use the basket, not boom, although the basket was hanging from the boom:

Dutchy wrote:

Mirage IV also use the basket, not boom, although the basket was hanging from the boom:

That's the standard configuration for refueling probe-equipped receivers from the KC-135, the boom drogue adapter (BDA) is mounted to the boom. When it is installed, you can only refuel probe-equipped receivers.

Some West German Tornados hitting the BDA back in the day...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If you doubt the boom, imagine taking 160,000 pounds off two tankers with a drogue? The accident rates maybe influenced by the fact most hooks with a probe are by fighters whose pilots are very proficient in formation, less so with heavies. I’ve done both, probe on the Hun wasn’t difficult, boom on the A-10 was easy IF you didn’t peek at the boom in front of you. The C-5 took so long it was tiring and the flow between the planes had huge effects on refueling.

I don’t think the Army refuels except for the 160th SOAR who must use probes, the Navy had typically refueled around the ship and had better conditions. Now, the missions are so long they pretty much refuel just like AF fighters.

GF

The max flow rate of the boom on a KC135 is around 1000 usgpm, on a A330MRTT about 1200 usgpm. The max flow rate on a current center line drogue of an A330MRTT is around 700 usgpm. So the drogue should increase the refueling time by about 43 % against a KC135 boom and 70% against a A330 boom.

But the main point is, nobody has required a higher rate drogue system, the systems in use have been matched to the need of the aircraft receiving the fuel. It does not mean, that a higher rate drogue and probe system is not possible.

Have you used both methods?

GF