Airbus A330 MRTT

And they have done it.
(I am however sceptical about it being the tanker with most fuel when compared to the KC-10...)

View: https://youtu.be/FQMscNisUVM


Seems to be entirely via image processing. I am curious that they haven't used radar for measuring slant distance with absolute precision.
 
TomcatViP said:
(I am however sceptical about it being the tanker with most fuel when compared to the KC-10...
Click to expand...

"In its segment" is a handy loophole. But it could be true. The MRTT can carry 111 tons of fuel (total), while the KC-10 can carry just over 160 tons. But the KC-10 also has three engines versus two for MRTT, so it needs more fuel for itself. You'd need to do some serious number crunching to see how much fuel each plane can actually give at any given range from base.
 
Last edited:
What was the fuel capacity of the Victor, VC10, Super VC10 and Tristar?
 
Not RAF but still related (France would have to order more Tanker) :

France allegedly offered 6 used MRTT to India:
France in its deal has offered to sell six Airbus 330 jets which are around five to seven years old. These jets will come with a 30 year platform life guarantee. The quotation by the French is reportedly much cheaper than other offers present before the government.
Click to expand...
swarajyamag.com

Expanding IAF's Strike Capabilities: India Weighs Offer To Buy Six Airbus 330 Mid-Air Refuellers From France

swarajyamag.com

As a side note, the great aircraft bazaar is furloughing two ex FrAF A340 at a jaw dropping starting price of 80k€ (~60-80k flight hours).
 
Not RAF but RAAF:

1704743206258



1704743189700


 
From a review of photos it appears that Australia, Saudi, Singapore and UAE are the only customers so far to specify the MRTT with the UARRSI receptacle.
 

Attachments

  • A330MRTT_tablo.jpeg
    A330MRTT_tablo.jpeg
    130.2 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1930628659334812142
View: https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1930628659334812142


From Google Translate
"On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the defense ministers of Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark signed a letter of intent regarding participation in NATO's multinational multi-role aircraft fleet in connection with the NATO Defense Ministerial Meeting."

So in the Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet the countries are:

Belgium
Czech Republic
Germany
Luxembourg
Norway
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Finland

The fleet was to be 10 A330-MRTT but Denmark was reportedly needing the hours from 2 additional aircraft, hard to see Sweden and Finland not needed at least another 3. Reportedly Germany is wanting more as well...so looks like the fleet will hit at least 15 a/c, possibly more. Sensible stuff...Europe's total fleet could hit 50 even if the Turkish Air Force goes for KC-46. Poland might be on the cards later as well...Italy is a dark horse after they paused their KC-46 acquisition, however you would have to think KC-46 remains in the lead. After that I suspect that will be it in Europe with the influx of KC-390, KC-130J and A400M with tanker potential, although with the increasing fleets of F-35A and P-8 with boom refueling only (and the fact that GCAP, and perhaps SCAF, will have UARSSI) it might not be the end.
 
Last edited:
starviking said:
Can’t wait for these social media warriors to discover that sabotaging UK Armed Forces equipment is… Treason
Click to expand...
It's not treason, it's not even close to treason under UK law. We save treason for crimes against the sovereign, and actually working for the other side in time of war. And while it's been considered for UK-born foreign fighters and clerics inciting terrorism during the War on Terror, it's never been used.

The last prosecution under treason laws was the guy who broke into Windsor Castle a couple of years ago with a crossbow.

This is not the first case (Hawks have been damaged in the past) and it'll be prosecuted as criminal damage, with a maximum term of 10 years.
 
No serious damages or traces of an intend to incur lasting damages. And on the bright side, local authorities will up their security apparatus to more effectively seal the base (honestly, how can you bike at night on the aprons unnoticed?!).
 
If they had tried this at somewhere like Porton Down or Aldermarston their families would have probably got them back in body bags, or be visiting them in hospital at the very least.
 
They were reportedly caught with a crowbar. No details I've seen show what damage they might have done with that.
 
EwenS said:
They were reportedly caught with a crowbar. No details I've seen show what damage they might have done with that.
Click to expand...
I think the Guardian report mentioned they used it to cause damage, but no details how.
 
TomcatViP said:
No serious damages or traces of an intend to incur lasting damages.
Click to expand...
Paint sprayed into an engine? I think that's going to need totally stripping down at the very least, and it may even be beyond saving depending on the type of paint used and what solvent might be needed to remove it.

I think there was intent to cause damage, but I strongly suspect they're too stupid to have realised just what the extent of the damage might be.
 
DWG said:
Paint sprayed into an engine? I think that's going to need totally stripping down at the very least, and it may even be beyond saving depending on the type of paint used and what solvent might be needed to remove it.

I think there was intent to cause damage, but I strongly suspect they're too stupid to have realised just what the extent of the damage might be.
Click to expand...
Oh c´mon aren´t you exaggerating a bit? The paint will burn without inducing much degradation if the engine is used rapidly. Then a visual inspection should do the trick for residues removal.

Notice that I have no special sympathy so please don't make any silly association.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this is the basis under which they will be proscribed?

So, damaging and disabling such key assets of the national defence architecture is not a ‘protest’; it is an act of sabotage likely to assist our enemies. And it should be treated as such.
Click to expand...
www.spectator.co.uk

Let's call Palestine Action's RAF attack what it is: sabotage

Their act of sabotage needs to be recognised for what it is and treated accordingly as the action of a de facto fifth column.
www.spectator.co.uk www.spectator.co.uk
 
Given certain recent 'reforms' of the law by Labour, I would suspect not, unfortunately.
 
DWG said:
Paint sprayed into an engine? I think that's going to need totally stripping down at the very least, and it may even be beyond saving depending on the type of paint used and what solvent might be needed to remove it.

I think there was intent to cause damage, but I strongly suspect they're too stupid to have realised just what the extent of the damage might be.
Click to expand...
There are reports that one engine will have to be totally replaced.
 
TomcatViP said:
Oh c´mon aren´t you exaggerating a bit? The paint will burn without inducing much degradation if the engine is used rapidly. Then a visual inspection should do the trick for residues removal.

Notice that I have no special sympathy so please don't make any silly association.
Click to expand...

The fan areas they painted are NOT subject to fuel combustion - they are upstream of the burners, so the paint will not be burned off, but will remain unless removed somehow.
 
Grey Havoc said:
There are reports that one engine will have to be totally replaced.
Click to expand...

"In a statement to the House of Commons, (Armed Forces Minister) Pollard confirmed that “two RAF Voyager aircraft were damaged by paint,” but emphasised that “there was no further damage to infrastructure or assets, nor has there been any impact on planned operations from Brize Norton.”
 
You try that on a US base and you're going to be meeting some "Fur Missiles", aka Military Working Dogs. Yall should see videos of those dogs taking down a training mook. A full 360 turn and a knockdown is the usual result.
 
So will the RAF ever purchase the A-330NEO based MRTT in the future when the Voyagers have used up all there air miles? Especially to get the flying boom for the nuclear capable F-35As that we are purchasing, not to mention the Poseidon and the RC-135 aircraft.
 
FighterJock said:
So will the RAF ever purchase the A-330NEO based MRTT in the future when the Voyagers have used up all there air miles? Especially to get the flying boom for the nuclear capable F-35As that we are purchasing, not to mention the Poseidon and the RC-135 aircraft.
Click to expand...
Don't be daft. Of course they won't.

Chris
 
timmymagic said:
Another A330 MRTT operator...Thailand with 1 aircraft.

This time its the A330 MRTT+, the first A330Neo variant that will take over all future production.
Click to expand...

A singular tanker? Two is one and one is none.

It'll be grounded and up for sale in a decade.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom