Like the Boeing Poseidon P-8 and KC-46 Pegasus, the Airbus A330 MRTT is a military aircraft based on a commercial aircraft platform. But, unlike the Boeing models listed, the A330 MRTT’s name clearly shows which aircraft family it is based on. This widebody multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) has been in service since 2011 and now officially operates with the militaries of eight countries, as well as NATO’s “multinational MRTT fleet."
For today’s video, let’s take a deep dive into this militarized Airbus widebody, and examine its history, technical specifications, capabilities, and its customers around the world.
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com
It’s fun how older commercial models still serve as military aircraft long after
Like some a310s
It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. A cost effective, proven airframe with a long record of great safety, quite the abundance of spare parts available, and not having to worry about any "teething issues" that a newer aircraft may have.
Part of it is the fact they're the last generation of Aluminium airframes. These are easy to cut holes in and modify for anything needed. The newer composite ones arent very easy to modify after the carbon fibre comes out of the kiln. Or at least the practice is extremely proven with Aluminium.
The flying hours in military use are far fewer than when they were in civilian use. The RAF Tristars spent more time on the ground than they did flying, mostly because the RAF doesn't have daily schedules. When I was on ground handling the RAF aircraft were mostly used for annual exercises, moving soldiers, or RAF technicians and their equipment for fighter Squadron Armament Practice Camp. The great advantage of the multirole aircraft is it can transport techs, equipment, spares *and* fuel the fighters enroute to the exercise location.
It should be pointed out that the Airbus A330 MRTT had originally won the competition for the USAF next generation tanker against the Boeing KC-46. That was part of the reason why Airbus set up production lines in the USA. However, politics being what it is, there was a huge outcry by some politicians about "Buying American." This initiated a new review of the competition,and the contract was then given to Boeing. The US government, and USAF have since found out why the A330 MRTT would have been the better choice. KC-46 aircraft have had their delivery rejected by the USAF a few times for flaws found in the aircraft (including tools left behind by the manufacturing technicians) upon inspection by the Air Force before accepting the aircraft.
I'm glad you said it I was going to say the same thing.
And if the production lines are in America, how is that not built in America? So those are American jobs and American products and a boost to the American economy. Sound pretty American to me.
Incorrect. The KC-X contract was re-bid and won by Boeing for two reasons: the first being because the A330 MRTT does not have an FBW refueling boom or RVS, and the second being the A330's larger footprint and takeoff roll compared to the KC-46 (which combines the 767-400ER wing, engines, and landing gear with the 767-200 fuselage). The RVS and FBW boom are essential requirements for an autonomous aerial refueling capability, which the USAF added to KC-X at a late stage in the competition but did not make mandatory until after the review process started. It was not part of the original KC-X contract because the Air Force intended to run another program called KC-Y that would've laid the groundwork, but Congress deferred funding for it, and they did not want to wait until KC-Z because that was not expected to follow for at least 15 years. Airbus has since upgraded the A330 MRTT with an RVS (with the goal being to win KC-Y if that ever happens) but does not yet have a working FBW boom, while on the Boeing side they still haven't worked the RVS issues out, so neither would've really been a better choice than the other here. As far as footprint and operating requirements go, the USAF is trying to operate from as small runways as possible due to the very high likelihood of all established air bases being either damaged or destroyed in a war with China. That means the ability to operate with less space is also an important consideration, not in the least because this is the USAF and they buy hundreds of every airframe they procure. The KC-45's 197.8ft wingspan, 193ft length, and 250-ton MTOW make it even larger than the KC-10 (165.4ft wingspan, 181.6ft long, 295-ton MTOW), an aircraft the USAF is already accelerating the retirement of because they think it's too big and heavy, and it dwarfs the KC-46's 157.7ft wingspan,165.5ft length, and 212-ton MTOW. Moreover, despite being a lot smaller, the KC-46 has a better fuel fraction: 212299lbs total capacity versus the A330 MRTT's 245000lbs is 86.6% of the fuel for 84.8% of the MTOW. Yes, Boeing has a problem with QC on the KC-46. Yes, the USAF has been unhappy with their performance. In the end though, it doesn't matter, because Boeing pays for the cost overruns out of their own pocket (as you might've heard in Simple Flying's VC-25B videos), and the KC-46 is the aircraft that more closely matches the USAF's requirements.
@@snapperboat25 The KC-45 was to be outfitted by Northrop Grumman, and the Mobile plant was originally planned by Airbus as the facility to build all the KC-45 airframes. "Buy American" was never part of the reason why the tender was re-bid and then awarded to Boeing: the Airbus fanboys just can't comprehend that other considerations besides paper specs are important.
So you are arguing that the US Air Force is incompetent and ordered the wrong aircraft. You willfully ignore the huge political outcry following the announcement that the Air Force had chosen the A330 MRTT. I am sure Airbus could have added an RVS and FBW boom if that had been requested. We see various US military aircraft being refueled by the A330 MRTT., in this video, so this argument appears pretty flimsy. As for the size of the aircraft, I guess the procurement team at the US Air Force are death, dum and blind and illiterate. The truth is I was stunned that Airbus had been chosen by the US military. Must have been a far better deal. Then the military industrial complex flexed its muscle. Every country is protectionist, no need to be so defensive. @@GintaPPE1000
I can’t wait for the A350mrtt or A330MRTTneo
The Canadian order for 9 MRTTs probably wasn't in the official Airbus count because it wasn't finalized until July 2023. I bet if you were to check the numbers now the Canadian order shows up.
As of August 1st 2023, Canada has ordered 4 brand new A330 MRTT and 5 conversions.
2 of the UK's MRTT's (Air Tanker) are leased to JET 2 during the summer as a supplement for their holiday flights. Looking forward to flying on one next year
we came back from Tenerife 2018 in one superb arcraft
The predecessor of the A330-200 MRTT is the A310-300 MRTT
Wow! That aircraft appears to have remarkable functionality.
The uk ordered 14, that was a pleasant surprise
Very interesting, I didn't know about the conversion program. I always thought that MRTTs were built from scratch.
I see them almost everyday! As i live close to my local airport. Eindhoven Airport/Airbase. They have i believe 3-4 A330 MRTT's homed there! Operated everyday, 24/7. Even flying over my own house sometimes. And personally, ITS AWESOME!
Oh wow, me too! I also live in the Eindhoven area and frequently see the A330s doing exercises near the airport. I usually see T-057 and T-058. I'm still a little sad that the KDC-10s left, however, the A330s are an excellent replacement and I'm grateful that they chose Eindhoven to base them. It's nice to see widebody activity in an airport dominated by Airbus/Boeing narrowbodies.
“The butter tanker”
The Brazilian AirForce is still negocianting the Conversion with Airbus. It was not ordered by the Brazilian air force as of now.
What do you mean? They are flying for months now
I've been waiting years for Simple Flying to do a video on the A330MRTT! I hope to be an RAF A330MRTT pilot in the future. I have flown on this aircraft many times, in its ferrying role. The seats are very comfortable and the flights are always smooth. Aside from the aircraft itself, the food is okay and the crew are always very friendly.
So this is the only a330ceo still in production but since older ones are convertible, the numbers may increase in the military variants but not in the total of the a330 sales
For some, new A330s will be manufactured, I believe. But not for long if I'm correct
@@Alex20741 Depends maybe if you compare how long you can fly each option
Airbus can still build new A330ceo airframes for A330 MRTT conversion if the ask is there. Their original plan had they won KC-X, for instance, was to use the Mobile plant to build A330ceo airframes that they would then hand over to Northrop Grumman for conversion to KC-45s. Most customers just don't see the need to since it's cheaper to get a used aircraft.
The brazilian planes are called KC-30 in the Brazilian Air Force, maybe thats the reason it doesnt appear on the airbus list
This is also the RAAF designation, but Airbus Defence also counts the KC-30s delivered to the Australian Defence Force as Airbus deliveries.
Well done LH!
I got to go on a RAAF KC-30 as an airman (adult staff) in the Australian Air Force Cadets around 2018, just before I left that particular organisation to sign as an officer in Army Cadets (it's all voluntary and does not confer military rank or status outside the Cadet Forces). The KC-30s were basically Qantas A330s in terms of interior layout, all the way down to the in flight safety cards being Qantas branded. I got to sit in Business Class, making it the second time I've flown in an A330, and the only time I've ever flown Business class.
Multi-mission flexibility is the key to these planes. You can be a fuel tanker, freight liner or passenger ship. But not all at the same time to each capacity. We think the MRTT does a good job.
It's also cheaper for an aircraft to be multi - mission capable.
The RAF Tristars were particularly good for transporting technicians of fighter squadrons, their tools, spares *and* refuelling the fighter aircraft enroute to a training exercise or on an operational deployment. They were well within weight and trim, I know because it was my job to know!
@@Sarge084 I can expect that, must make sure that the fleet is capable of supporting itself, and the other aircraft and squadrons it serves. I have flown on the RAF Tristar, and VC10 as a baby, and Voyager recently.
This is what is called padding the specs. Airbus clearly won the first round. Instead of going forwards with the bid, lets add requirements that only one party can fill within the allotted time frame. Happens in industry all the time when you hold a ‘tender’ which is tailor made for one supplier.
Are any of the operational A330 MRTT airframes configured with a main deck cargo door, and is the nose-down stance and issue for cargo ops? The nose-down stance was addressed in the factory built A330F with a fairing to lower the nose gear attachment point on the fuselage.
There are A330P2F out there operating, and with power loading system installed the nose down issue is not too big
I find the A330 MRTT the most beautiful plane. I would love to see an MRTT based off the A330neo
ive seen our whole RAAF Fleet and been inside one of them at our Airshow
I see 7 mrtt until now last one yesterday
I believe Airbus are looking at future A330-8 based MRTTs.
Way better at everything then the kc 46
The KC-46 can be considered once Boeing manages to actually get the damn thing working.
61 of the USAF's intended 179 airframes are accepted and in service. If you watch highlight reels of any major exercises since 2020, they've been there. The KC-46s are still not trusted with nighttime or heavy-weather refueling yet because of RVS issues, and there is no denying the aircraft is years behind schedule, but they are also not sitting around doing nothing like you imply.
I fly on UK MRTT’s All the time
Plz run a poll to check if your audience wants the background music, im not a fan otherwise vids are great
Will the 777 and 787 Dreamliner get a military version?
Why isn’t there an extended range version that converts cargo place into extra fuel tanks?
How about Italian and Colombian KC-46?
I guarantee that 330s Will definitely catch on,& catch up, Excellent aircraft, with it's excellent reliability and Efficiency!!!!!!!!!!!!! Theirs too much or so much you can do with that type of aircraft!!!!! Love that 330!😊
We need an AC Gunship version of the A330. :D
Definitely 😂
It's really possible to have the Newer A330neos as tankers or not? If yes then we might see them ordered
Possibly not, the A330s wing is based off the A340s wings, so has the structural points for another engine on each side, so the underwing refuelling pod can be placed, but this isn't the case with the A330NEO wing. But Airbus may be able to use the A330NEO, but I predict not.
@@Alex20741 There's also the A310 MRTT, which uses the same pods. Sure, the structural attachment point has come in handy in the case of the A330 MRTT, but it isn't a necessity. The pods aren't that heavy to begin with, also the A400M also uses them.
@aviation_rowley9237 I would say that there is actually no requirement for the under wing pods. They are mostly for European and Navy aircraft. If a country's air force only used aircraft that used the flying boom, they could forgo the pods, meaning an MRTT based on the A330 neo isn't out of the question.
@@John-qv5ux An underwing refuelling pod means that 2 aircraft and refuel simultaneously, doubling the speed of 1 FRU.
@@Alex20741 True, but it's only essential if you want that capability, and provided your air force uses hose and drogue refuelling systems.
I didnt know SG has 6 !
Maybe the 2 Brazilian A330 are not counted by Airbus because they were brought from Azul, that actually brought them from Avianca to sell it to the Brazilian government. The interior still until the beginning of the year the classic Avianca red
The MRTT in the NATO fleet are flying the Royal Netherlands Airforce emblem and are flying the Dutch Flag, so the are treated as Dutch military aircrafts. The aircraft are pooled together by seven NATO member states as national assets not NATO asserts, I.e. they are not put under NATO command.
I hope Polish Air Force will get these planes ordered soon
Will the A330-800neo be the upcoming MRTT.....
Possibly not, one reason is the A330CEO's wings have the structural points for an extra engine, which is where the underwing refuelling pod is placed. There are other possible reasons too.
the A330 MRTT should have been based on the stretched A330-300 or the A330-900 Neo wide body airframe instead of the A330-200 . . . the A340-500 HGW wide body quad jet is another potential airframe for conversion to multi mission mid-air refuelling tanker aircraft . . .
Production on A340 ended in 2012 and it would have cost more to maintain than the A330. And at a guess they chose the A330-200 because the A330-300 at the time did not have a centre fuel tank. It was only later Airbus added this into the -300’s
A longer fuselage doesn't buy you anything useful for a tanker, and in fact is a detriment because more weight goes into the structure rather than into the fuel capacity.
Can the A340 become an MRTT, considering the A330 and A340 share fuselage commonality?
Theoretically sure, but considering the A330 can fulfill the required role for less cost to operate I doubt the A340 will ever be adopted. More engines = More Maintenance and parts = more cost, and as we know the Military cares most about costs.
There's not many A340 around. A330-200 have the same range as A340-300. So it would be cheaper to just buy second hand A330-200.
I mean, yeah any passenger model could be made into a MRTT
Refuelling pods for the A330MRTT are where the structural points for the A340s 1st and 4th engine are. Meaning the underwing refuelling pods are where its 1st and 4th engine are.
Honestly, loving and hating it at the same time. Beautiful aircraft, but the replacement of many KDC-10's..
We say R double A F
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
If I had the money, could I buy one? Asking, for a friend
Brazil get one of these, it can be a Air Refueller in FAB, but now its was converted to VIP Transport for the New Government, we call it the CT, the A330 Corrupt Transporter
As a proud Aussie, I feel I must point out that R-A-A-F is totally and utterly unacceptable. It's very much "R-double-A-F". LOL. Also whilst I do love your videos could we please just stick to the metric system? No one except Americans use miles and I have no idea how long a "nautical mile" is, and to be perfectly honest I really don't care. When you say Miles and then Km it distracts from the story you're trying to tell, pick one and stick with it. Otherwise LOve ya channel.
The use of NM and feet is the aviation default but yes Raaf was weird to hear
Nautical miles are a measurement commonly used in aviation for decades. "Knots" are the most common unit of measure used when referring to the speed of an aircraft or a ship, called as such because traveling at 1 Knot/hour means you will cover 1 nautical mile in the span of an hour.
@@Cynsham I know what they are, but when I'm sitting back enjoying a video. I don't want to have to stop the video to do a conversion to a system they don't even use to build the aircraft. Since the imperial system is only used by America and they elected Trump, who actually cares what they think?
@@Lex_chats I totally get that and 100% agree. But since it is 2023 and it's only America that uses the imperial system perhaps we can move forward?
@@glennschulz218 Actually the nautical mile isn't imperial. It was once a long time ago, but is now defined via the meter since about a century. Also for navigation Nautical miles are quite handy, because it't exactly 1 angular minute on the equator. So with other words if you would fly straight north or south, every 60NM your position changes by 1°.
A330 is the loudest plane flying today. Seeing it in the tanker role means they will be around making noise for at least the next 50 years. Not looking forward to.
Huh? The A330 is far from the loudest plane flying today. What are you even talking about?
@@Cynsham Let me rephrase - loudest of the passenger airplanes. I live 100km south of FRA and A330 is the only plane that really stands out by its noise profile, be it in climb (around FL200 here from FRA) or at cruise height. For example B788, A350, A380, B748 all create much lower frequency rumble that is easier to blend into background noise of the city. A330 with its older engines and higher pitch stands out too much. There are nigthts when I can hear them at cruise height 60km away. Through closed windows.
@@jurepecar9092Not sure if it's an engine - based thing, but the RAF A330MRTT (with RR Trent 700 engines) are very quiet. I live roughly a mile from the runway, the departure route takes it round my house, and it's very quiet.
🧲🧲🧲🧲🧲🧲🧲🧲🧲🧲🧲
Boeing is in HUGE trouble with the KC46 and this just makes it sooooo much worse!
Are there any programs to build 330 MRTT based on NEO? That could be a better spending on tax payers' money lol!
Cant beat french planes !
Airbus is a European company!
iaf should buy this @DefenceMatrix