RAF A330

[delticbob]

Hate to say it but that looks nice...

Strap a 'T' tail & 4 engines on the rear, I might nearly agree

Bob

[Tonks]

Indeed, the RAAF version is the KC-30 (actually the KC-30A) ours are destined to be KC-30Bs and Cs (2 hose and 3 hose, but can't remember which way though )...

Have to say I think it looks good as well...

Tonks

[Chris558]

I'm not sure if the 'KC' designation originated in the US (KC-135, etc) but as 'K' denotes Tanker and 'C' denotes Transport, then it makes sense for Airbus to have adopted it.

A bit like the RAF Tristar marque: KC.1 (I think) Whereas the VC10 is the other way about: C1.K...

Anyway, the VC10 will always have been the safest possible tanker because of its engines being relatively highly mounted, all grouped together well away from the receiving AC. There'll have to be extra steady when hanging behind the A330...KC-30 whatever it is!

[DaveB]

The Tristar might not be such a good example Chris..
K1 x1 Pax/Tanker
KC1 x4 Tanker or pax/cargo
C2 x3 Pax
C2A x1.. the oddball with different avionics.

The VC10's (RAF) started life as C.Mk1 and got the 'K' designation after refuelling capability was added making them C1K (which of course you know). These differ quite a bit from the K3 and K4 which themselves differ but not enough to make type cert a challenge

ATB

DaveB

[Garry Russell]

Hi Chris

The VC 10 C1K are so desognated as they are the original C1 converted to K....the other VC 10s are K2, K3 and K4
Sam with the Herk C1K rather than a K4 which would be the next number after W2 and C3

Did the ex airline VC 10 (the none C1's) ever carry pax??

[Garry Russell]

Ah.....Dave slipped one in there

[DaveB]

Slipped one in?? That's not like me at all

My memory is cr@p these days but as far as I can establish from what's left of it.. the K3's, having the cargo door had internal tanks fitted which was not possible on the K4 (ex BOAC/BA) without compromising the fuselage integrity. So.. I don't think (a tentative think) the K3's have any pax capacity at all. However, the K4 does as it's basically a stripped (for the most part) ex-BA Super which uses it's own capacity to refuel other aircraft as does the C1K. While having seen inside both types, I can't remember for the life of me which one had a handful of pax seats up front but I think it was the K4 50/50

ATB

DaveB

[jab]

Indeed, the RAAF version is the KC-30 (actually the KC-30A) ours are destined to be KC-30Bs and Cs (2 hose and 3 hose, but can't remember which way though )...

Have to say I think it looks good as well...

Tonks

Cant it be the KC-330B and KC-330C

Ah.....Dave slipped one in there

Dont wanna know

ATB
James

[Chris Trott]

The RAAF took "KC-30" at EADS's suggestion because EADS wanted to win the KC-X competition by having an "in service" aircraft with a US "standard" desgination as a PR ploy. One problem though - KC-30 was not the next "C" in line for the US transports, KC-45 was and had been reserved by the USAF for the KC-X winner prior to the issuance of the RFP. I (in my somewhat biased way) like to say it's another poke in the eye to EADS since they didn't care to actually read the RFP (in any form) before submitting the MRTT for the competition and then didn't care to do any research before calling their plane the "KC-30"... kinda fits for a company that doesn't seem to really do much PR research at all with the number of defense-related gaffes they've had lately.

For those who are interested (and it's an interesting read when you go through the "Missing" page and see some of the odd stuff that's gone on over the years), there's actually a website (imaging that) which lists US Military Aviation Designations, what they mean, and the story behind why a lot of planes are designated the way they are, including the whole "KC-30" issue -

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/index.html

For those not so interested, here's the text from that website on the "KC-30/KC-45" issue -

C-43, C-44
The designations C-43 and C-44 were skipped to avoid potential confusion with the existing T/CT-43 and T-44 designators. According to unofficial information from DOD, there is an informal policy in effect to avoid duplication of "well-known" numbers. However, C-45 was not skipped (KC-45A is the official MDS for the KC-X tanker program), and it remains unclear why T-45 should be any less "well-known" than T-43 and -44. One possible explanation is that both the T-43 (Boeing 707) and T-44 (Raytheon/Beech King Air) are transport-type airframes (the T-45 is a two-seat jet), and that it was therefore avoided to assign numbers 43 and 44 to other transport aircraft as well.

C-30
The designation C-30 was never officially assigned. It was reserved (most probably after a verbal request at some time in the 1988/89 time frame) for the USAF office with symbol "SAF/AQQX" (SAF/AQQ is the office symbol for the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Directorate of Global Reach; AQQX designates the Programs, Budget & Congressional Division of AQQ). Nomenclature records do not contain any written request, let alone official allocation of the C-30 designation. Neither are there any releasable records on "C-30" at SAF/AQQX. The reservation was most likely dropped, but usage for a classified purpose can't be ruled out completely.

The "KC-30" label, which is used by Northrop Grumman for their proposed tanker version of the EADS/Airbus A330, is not an official DOD designation. If the "KC-30" is indeed procured by the U.S. Air Force, it will almost certainly by designated as KC-45A, because that MDS has been officially reserved for the USAF's tanker replacement program ("KC-X").

[Hot_Charlie]

Slipped one in?? That's not like me at all

My memory is cr@p these days but as far as I can establish from what's left of it.. the K3's, having the cargo door had internal tanks fitted which was not possible on the K4 (ex BOAC/BA) without compromising the fuselage integrity. So.. I don't think (a tentative think) the K3's have any pax capacity at all. However, the K4 does as it's basically a stripped (for the most part) ex-BA Super which uses it's own capacity to refuel other aircraft as does the C1K. While having seen inside both types, I can't remember for the life of me which one had a handful of pax seats up front but I think it was the K4 50/50

Both the K3 and K4 have a limited number of pax seats up the front (IIRC 18 on the K3, a few more on the K4, which can also have an aeromed fit).


As for the Airbus formerly/occasionally known as A330/A330 MRTT/KC-45/KC-30, in true RAF traditions (and IMHO), it surely needs a proper Mk, so therefore it's only logical the KC-30B & C become the KC-30 KC Mk.1 and KC Mk.2 respectively, or maybe the C Mk.1K (two hoses) and KC2 (three hoses!)!

Either way, as long as someone's willing to let me have a go (or a career) in one someday, I'll be happy!