Enviado por: JLRC em Setembro 30, 2004, 11:53:02 pm
(Source: EADS; issued Sept. 29, 2004)
TOULOUSE --- The first two Airbus aircraft with air-to-air refueling capabilities, A310 Multi-Role Transport Tanker (MRTT) aircraft, were handed over to the German Air Force and the Canadian Air Force, during a ceremony in Dresden, Germany. A total of six A310 MRTTs, to be used both for passenger and cargo transport as well as for in-flight refueling, are scheduled to be delivered to the German Air Force, which will receive four aircraft, and the Canadian Air Force, which will receive two.
The A310 MRTT, currently the most modern tanker aircraft, is based on the A310 passenger aircraft, which was first converted to combine passenger and cargo carrying capabilities in the Multi-Role Transport (MRT) version. A310 MRT aircraft have been flying with the German and Canadian Air Forces for a number of years and have proven to be very reliable and flexible passenger and cargo transport aircraft. Following a second modification, the MRT has become an MRTT version of the A310, now including in-flight refueling capabilities for all military aircraft that can connect to hose/drogue refueling systems, such as the Tornado, the Eurofighter or and F-18s.
The A310 MRTT is a conversion package offered by a consortium of Airbus and Lufthansa Technik (LHT). The work on three aircraft will be done at Elbe Flugzeugwerke (EFW) in Dresden, while another three will be converted at LHT facilities in Hamburg.
“Airbus is proud to hand over the first A310 MRTT aircraft to their customers today. With this milestone event, Airbus has become a provider of aircraft with in-flight refueling capabilities, further expanding the scope of its products. Together with the A330 MRTT and the A400M, which is a tactical tanker, several tanker solutions with distinctive qualities will be available,” said Dr. Gustav Humbert, Airbus Chief Operating Officer.
The A330 MRTT, based on the Airbus A330 long-range passenger aircraft, is a product offered by the Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD) of EADS, which also played a significant role in the design of the A310 MRTT modifications. The A330 MRTT complements the A310 MRTT as a solution for customers requiring greater payload, range and endurance. Contract negotiations with the Australian Air force as well as discussions with the Royal Air Force in the UK and with France are advancing well.
The A400M will be the most advanced military Turboprop airlifter and will be fully equipped as an air-to-air refueled. Currently seven European Nations have ordered a total of 180 A400Ms.
-ends-
Enviado por: JLRC em Dezembro 21, 2004, 01:21:46 am
(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Dec. 20, 2004)
The Department of Defence has signed a $1.4 billion contract with Spanish company, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Construcciones Aeronauticas S.A. (EADS CASA) to provide the Royal Australian Air Force with five new air-to-air refuelling aircraft, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.
"The new aircraft, to be known as Multi Role Tanker Transports, will be capable of refuelling F/A-18, F-111, Airborne Early Warning and Control, and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft as well as having a significant strategic airlift capability," Senator Hill said.
"This contract signing is a significant step in replacing the Royal Australian Air Force's ageing Boeing 707 aircraft.
"The aircraft will be fitted with electronic warfare self protection equipment and training simulators will also be provided."
The new refuelling aircraft will be based on the Airbus commercial A330 aircraft that is currently operated by Qantas as part of its commercial fleet.
The basic A330 aircraft will be produced in Europe with four of the five being modified and converted into MRTT aircraft by Qantas in Brisbane. Qantas will also provide the through life support for the MRTT aircraft.
"Australian industry will also be closely involved in the design work, project management, and production of aircraft components and engine parts for export," Senator Hill said. "Work to be undertaken by Australian industry and the associated technology to be transferred to Australia is expected to exceed $500 million over the life of the MRTT aircraft."
The aircraft are scheduled to enter service in 2009. The contract schedule provides sufficient time for the aircraft to be extensively tested, facilities to be established and RAAF crews to be trained in order to ensure the MRTT capability is effectively introduced.
-ends-
Enviado por: Leonidas em Junho 18, 2006, 02:37:09 am
Não sei se a malta reparou numa informação que circulou há mais ou menos um mês acerca dos A310. Por causa do surgimento do A350, a Airbus vai deixar de fabricar a versão A310 dentro de 2 anos, mais coisa menos coisa. Sei que nunca esteve em LPM a compra deste meio de apoio, mas se alguma vez quisermos ter algum A310MRTT, teremos que reconverter os A310 da TAP que deixarão de funcionar assim que o A350 chagar cá. Isto tudo lá para 2013/2015.
Existem outras opções ao A310MRTT, mas tratam-se de aparelhos muito maiores e consequentemente mais dispendiosos. Mas como referi, não temos que nos preocupar, não tarda nada, nem sequer aviões para matar formigas temos, só para caçar borboletas.
Parental adviser: Blue bags are not dead bodies
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg137.imageshack.us%2Fimg137%2F6820%2Fa310mrttvi5vj.jpg&hash=8197964817596ed745c9666f9bb7447a)
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg147.imageshack.us%2Fimg147%2F2312%2Fa310mrttiii8mq.jpg&hash=862a02a4d872b53ba4a94c90466ee333)
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg80.imageshack.us%2Fimg80%2F603%2Fa310mrttv5ot.jpg&hash=0ff84ef14803d83701402dab0f1748cd)
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg228.imageshack.us%2Fimg228%2F8633%2Fa310mrttiv3ay.jpg&hash=22a7112b93796d6c2a40f6a4b6dd0112)
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg147.imageshack.us%2Fimg147%2F7045%2Fa310mrtt0vw.jpg&hash=a74a2deab90193e91238a37795c134e8)
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg147.imageshack.us%2Fimg147%2F7617%2Fa310mrttii7fr.jpg&hash=05b6b9bf67a0f481b3b3aae96a51fcd0)
Cumprimentos
Enviado por: Rui Elias em Junho 19, 2006, 10:24:14 am
Um país que já teve muito e que agora, de ano para ano, vai perdendo as suas capacidades próprias para sustentar uma capacidade militar própria.
Parece que quer reconfigurar a sua capacidade militar para transformar as suas FA's numa espécie de companhia de circo itinerante, que à boleia de meios alugados, assenta arraiais em diversas partes do mundo.
Não que isso não seja importante para a projecção da sua imagem e prestígio, e porque a defesa dos interesses de um país já não se defendem na fronteira geográfica do mesmo.
Mas descurar a capacidade de defesa do território, abdicar da capacidade de dissuasão e abdicar de meios para que essa missões se cumpram, é uma atitude de rendição.
Nós até nos demos ao luxo de vender os 2 B-707 que chegámos a ter, mas que a Itália ainda hoje possui para apoiar ao seu esforço no dispositivo miltar que tem.
Enviado por: Lightning em Junho 19, 2006, 04:32:50 pm
Enviado por: luis filipe silva em Junho 19, 2006, 07:26:34 pm
Citar
Penso que os 2 B707 passaram da FAP para a TAP.
Nº 8801--CS-TBU da TAP. 1971
Nº 8802--CS-TBT da TAP. 1971
Enviado por: Lightning em Junho 19, 2006, 08:29:07 pm
Citação de: "luis filipe silva"
citação:CitarPenso que os 2 B707 passaram da FAP para a TAP.
Nº 8801--CS-TBU da TAP. 1971
Nº 8802--CS-TBT da TAP. 1971
Agora tou confuso, sempre pensei que os B707 estavam inicialmente atribuidos à FAP mas depois da Guerra Colonial tinham sido "transferidos" para a TAP, mas se eles em 1971 eram da TAP.
No site da FAP tem lá fotos do B707 é por isso que tinha a ideia que os B707 tinham sido da FAP no inicio.
http://www.emfa.pt/www/galeria/fasdetal ... t&key=b707 (http://www.emfa.pt/www/galeria/fasdetalhe.php?lang=pt&key=b707)
Enviado por: Spectral em Junho 20, 2006, 12:31:54 am
E não fazem sentido nos dias de hoje porque apenas servem para transportar pessoal, para isso fica muito mais económico fretar aparelhos comerciais para o uso que nós lhes daríamos ( que é o que se faz).
A comparação com o seu uso na Itália não se aplica, pois os B707 foram convertidos para reabastecimento ar-ar.
Enviado por: Rui Elias em Junho 20, 2006, 09:20:21 am
Não sei é porque se parte sempre do princípio de que Portugal não precisa de coisas de que outros necessitam.
Se é por uma questão de recionalização de custos, que fechem as FA's.
Sempre fica mais barato, é como a maternidade de Elvas, que depois de fechada dizem qe sai mais barata.
Então que se entegue a defesa de Portugal a Espanha.
E não lhes parece sinceramente que se outros países necessitam de meios KC, nós não?
Pelos vistos não, já que agora já nem precisamos de caças.
Depois, não precisaremos de navios oceânicos e finalmente de nada.
Com essa filosofia economicista da treta, a armada do Gama e do Pedro Álvares Cabral deveria ter sido alugada a Espanha ou a França, em vez de ter sido contruida na Ribeira da Naus, em lisboa.
O ressultado dseta filosofia?
Um MBT avaria em plena parada militar.
Enviado por: luis filipe silva em Junho 20, 2006, 01:50:16 pm
Citar
Agora tou confuso, sempre pensei que os B707 estavam inicialmente atribuidos à FAP mas depois da Guerra Colonial tinham sido "transferidos" para a TAP, mas se eles em 1971 eram da TAP.
No site da FAP tem lá fotos do B707 é por isso que tinha a ideia que os B707 tinham sido da FAP no inicio.
Eu é que meti água peço desculpa.
Os B 707 foram encomendados em 1970 e vieram para a FAP em 1971, foram transferidos para a TAP em 1976.
Enviado por: Jorge Pereira em Março 01, 2008, 04:19:10 am
É um concurso que numa primeira fase implica 179 aparelhos por 40 Biliões de dólares.
A totalidade poderá chegar aos 500 aparelhos e aos 100 Biliões de dólares.
A Northrop Grumman vai proceder a montagem dos aparelhos no Alabama, sendo o grosso da construção dos mesmos feita na Europa.
A Boeing deve ter ficado… :evil: e pondera apresentar recurso.
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.segurancaedefesa.com%2FARBS_1.jpg&hash=3e848e41220397cd4f182cbfebe99dfe)
Enviado por: p_shadow em Março 01, 2008, 06:30:00 am
Bonito bonito..... são os dois Falcões em formação com o Airbus na foto!
Cumptos
Enviado por: Daniel em Março 01, 2008, 08:36:29 am
Enviado por: radar2 em Março 01, 2008, 08:50:40 am
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.northropgrumman.com%2Fkc30%2Foperations%2Fimages%2FA310_MRTT_F16.jpg&hash=244ccb478f79a8c706fe05a808b77bc2)
Enviado por: old em Março 03, 2008, 11:41:54 am
(https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.northropgrumman.com%2Fkc45%2Fimages%2Fmap.gif&hash=bdf2ccec85054fda90a72045a6488083)
Enviado por: Jorge Pereira em Março 04, 2008, 03:53:20 pm
Citação de: "Daniel"
Sim, mas esse Airbus na foto, é um 310 e não um 330. :wink: :wink: , essa questão aliás, foi amplamente discutida aqui. (http://http)
Só coloquei essa foto para mostrar um Airbus com o sistema (mais visívil) Boom and receptacle, mesmo que os futuros KC-45 venham a ser dotados também com o sistema Probe and drogue.
KC-45 (http://http)
Enviado por: lurker em Março 04, 2008, 10:54:28 pm
Enviado por: Bravo Two Zero em Março 04, 2008, 11:02:52 pm
Citação de: "lurker"
Tanto quanto sei, a TAP já assumiu compromissos relativos ao futuro dos A310 que vai deixar de operar.
E quais serão esses "compromissos" ? Alguma especulação ?
Um camarada espanhol afirmou noutro tópico que Espanha estava no mercado por A310 em 2º mão para aumentar a sua frota.
Será que a TAP foi sondada ?
Enviado por: nelson38899 em Março 04, 2008, 11:08:33 pm
Enviado por: Scarto em Março 04, 2008, 11:11:58 pm
Apesar da idade,são aviões muito procurados no mercado!Pena,pk dariam uma excelente aquisição para a FAP.
Enviado por: lexivia em Março 04, 2008, 11:48:23 pm
Enviado por: Scarto em Março 05, 2008, 12:14:11 am
P.S-Peço desculpa pelo off-topic
Enviado por: Menacho em Março 05, 2008, 09:07:49 pm
Citação de: "Bravo Two Zero"
E quais serão esses "compromissos" ? Alguma especulação ?
Um camarada espanhol afirmou noutro tópico que Espanha estava no mercado por A310 em 2º mão para aumentar a sua frota.
Será que a TAP foi sondada ?
Hay rumores de que Espanha va a intentar adquirir dos novos A-330 MRTT, como los que va a adquirir los EEUU..........
De momento son rumores.............pero de llevarse a cabo, cancelaria la adquisicion de los A-310..............
Enviado por: NVF em Março 11, 2008, 12:21:44 am
Citar
NYT
March 10, 2008
In Tanker Bid, It Was Boeing vs. Bold Ideas
By DAVID HERSZENHORN and JEFF BAILEY
WASHINGTON - Just hours before the Air Force announced the winner of a $35
billion contract to build aerial refueling aircraft on Feb. 29, an Airbus
plane lumbered off the runway in Getafe, Spain, and climbed to 27,000 feet
to rendezvous with a Portuguese F-16 fighter.
Then, in the skies south of Madrid, the two aircraft edged closer and
closer, until they were joined by a 50-foot boom hanging off the back of the
big Airbus plane. For the first time, the boom pumped fuel into another
plane, 2,000 gallons in all during several connections.
The technology to pass fuel from one plane to another may not be rocket
science - in fact, aerial fuel booms have been in use for more than 50 years
- but it helped Airbus's parent and its partner, Northrop Grumman, establish
their technical bona fides.
Eager to enter the American defense market, the European Aeronautic Defense
and Space Company, the owner of Airbus, made several bold plays, perhaps
none more dramatic than building the $100 million state-of-the-art refueling
boom on spec.
As a result, Boeing, the pride of American aerospace, was outmaneuvered on
its home turf for a contract that could grow to $100 billion, becoming one
of the largest military purchases in history.
Boeing received a detailed briefing from the Pentagon on Friday about why
its bid fell short. Now it must decide by Wednesday whether to file a formal
appeal.
The company and its allies in Washington have already made a number of
arguments. Among them are that too many American jobs are being lost
overseas, and that sensitive military contracts should not be in the hands
of a foreign company.
The debate about the impact on American jobs is a murky one, because large
manufacturing projects typically involve operations in many parts of the
world, regardless of which company has a contract.
If Boeing tries to reverse the decision, it could find itself in a difficult
position, accused of further delaying critically needed equipment in a time
of war.
Boeing could also be forced to revisit the corruption scandal in 2004 that
derailed a $20 billion deal for the company to lease refueling tankers to
the Air Force. Two Boeing executives went to jail as a result, and the chief
executive stepped down.
The parent of Airbus, known as EADS, and Northrop Grumman proposed a tanker
made from a refitted A330 jetliner that could carry more fuel than the rival
proposal, a modified Boeing 767. It also offered more flexibility for
carrying cargo, transporting troops, airlifting refugees and delivering
humanitarian aid.
Boeing, the heavy favorite to win the contract, having built earlier
tankers, promised a new boom but did not build a prototype. One analyst who
followed the contest said that Boeing, based in Chicago, seemed arrogant and
offered a plan that Air Force officials thought would deliver only 19
tankers by 2013 compared with 49 by the Airbus team.
"The Boeing team was not responsive and often was not even polite," said
Loren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in
Arlington, Va., based on conversations he said he had with defense
officials. "Somehow that all eluded senior management," Mr. Thompson said.
"They were not even aware there was a problem."
William Barksdale, a Boeing spokesman who attended the Air Force debriefing
on Friday, said Boeing asked "whether we were hard to get along with." He
said Air Force officials had no complaints in that area.
On Capitol Hill, the blow to Boeing has set off a protectionist furor among
many lawmakers. And on the campaign trail, the Democratic candidates for
president, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, suggest that
the Boeing loss reflects other Bush administration policies that have
resulted in jobs moving offshore.
But the hot rhetoric could sound overly nationalistic, and even
hypocritical, once the real implications for jobs and national security
become clear. Boeing, for example, would have made many of its own tanker
parts overseas, and some experts say that claims of job losses to a foreign
company seem exaggerated.
For now, though, the pro-Boeing, pro-America talk is showing no signs of
letting up.
"We really have to wake up the country," said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat
of Washington State, where Boeing is a significant employer. "We are at risk
of losing a major part of our aerospace industry to the Europeans forever."
Representative Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas, said: "It's outsourcing
our national security. An American tanker should be built by an American
company with American workers." Boeing would have done some of its tanker
assembly in Kansas.
Some officials have even suggested that it would have been better to revise
the tainted lease deal than to let Airbus compete.
Defense industry analysts, however, say that the Airbus deal in many ways
does make sense and that fears of lost military secrets are misplaced.
"We're not talking about missile defense issues," said Jon B. Kutler, chief
executive of Admiralty Partners, a firm that invests in defense companies.
"This is as plain vanilla as a major contract gets."
The Airbus and Boeing aircraft are both global products - Boeing has said
roughly 85 percent of its tanker components would be American-made, the
Airbus group about 60 percent - making the impact on jobs unclear.
Boeing said its bid would create or support 44,000 American jobs. The Airbus
team's figure was 25,000 jobs in 49 states. Both numbers are impossible to
verify. Industry analysts point out that, employment claims aside, the
manufacturers have a profit motive in building the planes with as few
workers as possible.
In fact, no layoffs are expected at the Boeing plant in Everett, Wash.,
where the 767 is assembled, as a result of losing the contract. On the
contrary, the company is hiring workers because of a $255 billion backlog
for jetliners. Airbus, too, has a huge backlog.
But while politicians continue to make election-year speeches about
protecting jobs, industry analysts say a more useful debate might be over
whether there was too much consolidation of American defense manufacturers
in the 1990s when military spending slowed, leaving the government with
limited domestic options.
With the award to the Airbus group, Mr. Kutler, the defense company
investor, said: "The Defense Department is sending a message: on major
contracts, don't be assuming we have no other options. It's a global
marketplace."
Another crucial question is how such big contracts will be awarded in the
future given the indications that many American officials seem to favor
competition, but only if American companies win.
"If Cessna wants to start building bigger airplanes, I am happy to see that
happen," said Senator Murray, of Washington. "I don't disagree with the
concept of more competition, but there is a second bigger question and that
is military capability and losing military capability."
Experts warned that excluding foreign competitors could prompt other
countries to take similar steps against American defense manufacturers and
that choosing inferior domestic products would only put military service
members at risk. That tendency, acted on in other countries, has already
created what one analyst, Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, called "a
hideous mix of higher costs and reduced combat effectiveness."
Boeing and its allies in Congress have raised a number of objections that
they say could justify reversing the Air Force decision, including whether
the bid evaluators properly considered subsidies that Airbus may receive
from European governments, or even the fact that Boeing pays higher health
care costs because much of Europe has national health insurance.
In a statement after Friday's briefing, Mark McGraw, a Boeing vice president
in charge of the tanker program, said that the company would "give serious
consideration to filing a protest." He added: "What is clear now is that
reports claiming that the Airbus offering won by a wide margin could not be
more inaccurate."
If the company appeals, it would be to the Government Accountability Office,
which would then have 100 days to issue a ruling.
The Air Force, meanwhile, insists that it chose the better plane.
Sue C. Payton, the assistant secretary of the Air Force, at a contentious
hearing before the Defense Appropriations subcommittee last week, said:
"Northrop Grumman brought their A game." Northrop is based in Los Angeles.
Ms. Payton also disagreed with assertions that the Air Force had tipped the
scales for Airbus. She said officials had carefully followed procurement
rules and an array of laws, including the Buy American Act, which she noted
calls for certain countries, including Western European allies, to be
treated as if they were the United States.
"Let me say I view Northrop Grumman as an American company," she said. "I
view General Electric, who has jobs from this in Ohio and North Carolina, as
an American company. I view the folks in Mobile, Alabama, and Melbourne,
Florida, as Americans. But that did not enter into my decision here."
"You said we want a fair and open competition under the laws," she told the
panel. "I complied with those laws."
General Electric is to make the engines and Northrop Grumman expects to hire
hundreds of engineers in Melbourne for the Airbus group's tanker, which will
be assembled in Mobile, Ala.
The victory on the Air Force contract could mark the arrival of Airbus as a
major builder of tankers after decades of dominance by Boeing, which
manufactured the only widely used boom.
The Boeing spokesman, Mr. Barksdale, said his company could easily pull
together the new boom it promised the Air Force. "It's not a huge leap of
technology," he said. "It would not be a huge deal."
But to Northrop Grumman and EADS, building the boom on spec presented a
chance to demonstrate their competitive hunger.
"They had to start from scratch," said Tim Gann, a retired Air Force tanker
pilot and group commander who now works for the Airbus group, EADS North
America. "Up until we developed our boom, only Boeing had a boom. Boeing
wasn't going to sell us the boom."
Fonte (http://http)
Enviado por: João Oliveira Silva em Março 18, 2008, 08:44:41 pm
Citar
lurker escreveu:
Tanto quanto sei, a TAP já assumiu compromissos relativos ao futuro dos A310 que vai deixar de operar.
E quais serão esses "compromissos" ? Alguma especulação ?
Um camarada espanhol afirmou noutro tópico que Espanha estava no mercado por A310 em 2º mão para aumentar a sua frota.
Será que a TAP foi sondada ?
No seguimento do que está neste tópico, jantei há dias com um bom e velho amigo, ex-piloto da FAP, e com muita responsabilidade nesta questão na TAP, que, mesmo quando insisti se podia divulgar esta informação, me esclareceu o seguinte:
- A TAP, ao negociar os 12/15 A-350, que são por ora apenas um desenho, e que os primeiros sairão de Toulouse em 2012 ( se Deus quiser... ), impôs como condição contratual a compra intermédia de 5 A-330, que serão retomados pela Airbus em condições vantajosas contra a entrega dos A-350, se a TAP julgar que são dispensáveis.
- Isto é: a TAP está a receber este ano aviões A-330 novos de fábrica e em 2014 quando começar a receber os A-350 decide se entrega à Airbus estes A-330 nas condições e valores que estão no contrato.
- Como parte do pagamento destes 5 aviões A-330 novos que está a receber ( já recebeu 3 ) e os restantes virão até ao verão, a TAP entrega à Airbus os A-310 que possuia, sendo a responsabilidade da sua venda da própria Airbus.
- A Airbus procedeu já à venda de todos - há procura para este modelo e os da TAP estão bem conservados -, conforme este quadro:
CS-TDI " Padre António Vieira " : Vendido à Portuguesa White Airways, alugado à Air Niugini;
CS-TEH " Bartolomeu Dias " : Previsto o Phase Out. Destino não revelado. Possivelmente será cargueiro;
CS-TEI " Fernão de Magalhães " : Vendido à Portuguesa Hy Fly;
CS-TEJ " Pedro Nunes " : Previsto o Phase Out. Destino não revelado. Possivelmente será cargueiro;
CS-TEW " Vasco da Gama " : Vendido à Canadiana Air Transat,
CS-TEX " João XXI " : Vendido à Portuguesa Hy Fly, alugado à Omar Air;
CS-TEY " Alvares Cabral " : Vendido à JEZ Air;
CS-TEZ " Viana da Mota " : Vendido à Canadiana Air Transat;
Logo, tal como o negócio foi feito e segundo se sabe em condições muito vantajosas para a TAP, a Força Aérea, nem sequer a Força Aérea Espanhola, apesar de já ter Airbus, não teria direito a nada já que a Airbus colocou estes aviões usados nos seus bons clientes. " E se mais houvera, mais iriam... "
Segundo a opinião deste meu amigo, o avião Airbus novo que mais convirá à Força Aérea é o A-319 CEJ. Simples, fácil de operar, razoávelmente barato e de custos operacionais aceitáveis, tecnológicamente avançado, nem grande nem pequeno, e uma excelente e duradoura máquina e melhor que o Embraer ERJ, igual aos da Portugália ( Grupo TAP ).
Cumprimentos,
Enviado por: Daniel em Março 19, 2008, 10:39:01 am
Citar
Isto é: a TAP está a receber este ano aviões A-330 novos de fábrica e em 2014 quando começar a receber os A-350 decide se entrega à Airbus estes A-330 nas condições e valores que estão no contrato.
Sim, mas a TAP já opera os A330 desde o ano passado, pois foram adquiridos creio, que, 3 a 4 em segunda mão.
Enviado por: nelson38899 em Outubro 10, 2010, 11:42:47 am
http://www.kc45now.com/images/videos/A3 ... light.html (http://www.kc45now.com/images/videos/A330_MRTT_in_flight.html)
Enviado por: nelson38899 em Outubro 14, 2012, 09:54:06 pm
Citar
India’s MMRCA trials help Russian aerial refueling tanker bid
Our BureauViewed: 12846 times
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 11:39 CET
Flight trials of the six contenders for India’s Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender have had an unusual side effect on the race to sell India aerial refueling aircraft. Asked to prove aerial refueling capability, the contenders, F-16, Gripen, Rafale, F/A 18, MiG-35 and Eurofighter have had no option but use the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s existing tanker, the Il-86 mid-air refueler to prove that their aircraft is capable of meeting IAF’s requirements as regarding aerial refuelling.
The Il-86 is a contender in India’s re-floated bid to buy fresh aerial refueling tankers. Fresh bids are due later this month and the besides the Il-86, the other likely contenders are the Airbus A-330 MRTT and the Boeing KC-X. The success of the MMRCA aerial refueling tests means that the IL-76 tanker will have a stronger case due to the fact that its capability has been proven on all the MMRCA bidders, one of which will be eventually selected.
In fact, the MMRCA contenders had to make major modifications to their aerial refueling systems to match the IL-76’s fuel pipe mating and locking systems to prove that the their aircraft can be refueled in mid-air.
Informed sources told Defenseworld.net that the Russian bid had “emerged stronger” after the MMRCA aerial refueling tests. The IL-86 had earlier been disqualified in favor of the Airbus A-330 MRTT but the Airbus bid was turned down following objections from the Indian finance ministry which found the aircraft “too expensive”. It is not known was the quoted price was.
Indian media quoting unnamed Airbus officials has reported that Airbus would be resubmitting its bid for the tanker contest. Boeing however has reportedly expressed that its bid would depend upon whether it wins the U.S. aerial tanker bid in which it is engaged in a bitter battle with the U.S. subsidiary of EADS which is fielding the A-330 MRTT.
Airbus’ tanker has been ordered by the U.A.E, Saudi Arabia, Portugal and Australian air forces while the Boeing KC-X was unveiled only in mid-2010 and the U.S. tanker contest is its first major bid.
The Il-86 has been an old workhorse for Russia, India and China.
At Aero India 2009, the Il-78 had made a demonstration refueling two aircraft simultaneously. It is quite likely that it may repeat this feat with the LCA Tejus at Aero India 2011.
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?n=India%92s%20MMRCA%20trials%20help%20Russian%20aerial%20refueling%20tanker%20bid&id=5355
noticia muito interessante, infelizmente não aconteceu o que lá dizia
Enviado por: Get_It em Abril 28, 2015, 09:40:16 pm
Netherlands, Norway, Poland to jointly issue A330 MRTT RfP
Citação de: "Brooks Tigner, IHS Jane's"
The Netherlands, Norway, and Poland will send a request for proposal (RfP) to Airbus to buy A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft within a matter of weeks, according to officials close to the issue.Fonte: http://www.janes.com/article/51017/netherlands-norway-poland-to-jointly-issue-a330-mrtt-rfp
Since the platforms will be identical to one another, the forthcoming negotiations "will be all about price", they said.
"We know the numbers and expect to see a reasonable offer. This has to be affordable: the flight costs have to be low," said Johan Van Soest, commander of Eindhoven's military airfield in the Netherlands, which will be the MRTTs' main operating base. "If they [Airbus] come back with too great a price differential versus what Boeing could offer with the KC-10, then we can always go for a KC family of 4-5 tankers and some cargo aircraft. That's a second-best choice but if it's lower in cost, then we'll consider that option. But it's really to Airbus' advantage to make a deal because this involves all the through-life work as well."
(...)
The Netherlands, Norway, and Poland will form the launch nations for jointly purchasing three to four MRTTs for delivery starting in May 2019, with an option for up to eight. Forward-operating bases will be set up in Norway and Poland.
The trio and the EDA, which has sponsored the procurement project, are hoping other nations will join the effort since Eindhoven has plenty of room. It currently has space for eight MRTTs, "and if we get more than that, then we'll just need to pour some more concrete," Van Soest said.
The EDA's MRTT project dates back to a March 2012 when originally 10 EDA nations aimed to jointly buy the capability. But Europe's deepening financial crisis and the difficulty of aligning the nations' programmes and budget cycles saw the other seven drift away.
However, Belgium is now back and considering rejoining the programme, though it would not invest in aircraft. Instead, it is looking at buying around 600 hours' worth of flying time - roughly half the cost of a single MRTT. Its hours "would come in at a somewhat higher cost than for the rest of us since they wouldn't be investing directly in the programme, but Belgium's cost would be spread over a long period," observed Van Soest.
EDA officials at the briefing said the RfP will go to Airbus "within two weeks", or early May, with a contract to be signed in early 2016. Initial operating capability is scheduled for mid-2020, followed by full operating capability a year later.
[continua] (http://http)
Cumprimentos,