'New' RAF BAe-146

[Fencher24]

Acc these shots the RAF will take delivery of a 'new' BAe-146.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7331189
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7331190

Heard that she will operate in the middle east?

Seems a cheap option but is this aircraft really suited for this kind of work?

Rgds,
Fencher

[kiwi_dave]

Interesting to note the patches on the aft fuselage and under the forward fuselage for the DIRCM a la the Queens Flight examples.

[Amiga500]

Acc these shots the RAF will take delivery of a 'new' BAe-146.

Do you know if it is just a single airframe?

BAe proposed the 146 for this kind of role some time back:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...t-role-332083/

However, you can notice the 146M would be modified with a large rear door, while the aircraft in the photos at jetphotos.net has not.

Seems a cheap option but is this aircraft really suited for this kind of work?

Apart from the small door, yep - perfectly. Its a very strong airframe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5prz1Ae5QM

[Zebedee]

Two airframes are being sourced... OO-TAY c/n E2211 and OO-TAZ c/n 2188... Info from the UK Serials Facebook group...

Zeb

[Geoff_B]

Yeap you would have thought they would have the cargo door fitted to at least allow palletised loads to be carried.

I thought they were for Afghanistan duty, for base to base transport to ease the reliance on Herks and Chinooks ?

[Giblets]

Yeap you would have thought they would have the cargo door fitted to at least allow palletised loads to be carried.

I thought they were for Afghanistan duty, for base to base transport to ease the reliance on Herks and Chinooks ?

Being ex-TNT aircraft, they DO have the large rear cargo door, which you can in fact see on one of the pictures.

The Afghanistan service is their intended destination as far as I am aware.

The cargo door as fitted on their sister ship OO-TAK


Interior Shot (of a 300) here:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/1326983/M/

[giganick1]

Will get boring for the pilots only flying between Kandahar and bastion :P

Will they be equipped for palitised seating???

[kev 99]

Probably one of the more sensible procurement decisions the MOD has made for a while.

[SimonDav]

now that the US Army isn't getting its C27's, maybe BAe can sell some to the Yanks for the same role

[Fencher24]

I knew that BAe once marketed the 146 as such. Still I am not really convinced that those low hanging engines are really suited for the Afghan theathre.

But I don't know if they will use remote landing strips?

[swerve]

Seems a cheap option but is this aircraft really suited for this kind of work?

Rgds,
Fencher

As already said, strong airframe, & also good at operating from short & not very well paved strips. That was its original target market: short haul between proper airports & the sort of short, often poor airfields previously only serviced by turboprops. So it was built strong, with a robust undercarriage, able to do short take-offs & landings & steep descents & climb-outs. For example, Druk air - "the BAe 146-100 was selected due to its ability to operate into the tight confines of Bhutan's Paro Airport, which is located in a deep valley at 7,333 feet above sea level and is surrounded by hills as high as 16,000 feet."

I think that perfectly describes the required characteristics for a transport operating into bases in Afghanistan. One can see why BAe offered it.

It's also operated into London City, another short strip with a steep approach.

I knew that BAe once marketed the 146 as such. Still I am not really convinced that those low hanging engines are really suited for the Afghan theathre.

But I don't know if they will use remote landing strips?

They're not low-hanging compared to airliners. Look at a Boeing 737. I don't expect it's going to be landing on dirt strips.

[ppp]

I must still be dreaming, because surely the MoD could not have made a procurement which resulted in such useful capability without wasting vast amounts of public money?

"BAE, which cites an indicative price of around $2.5 million for a passenger version and around $5 million for a freighter."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...t-role-332083/

[benroethig]

now that the US Army isn't getting its C27's, maybe BAe can sell some to the Yanks for the same role

Not going to happen. The relationship between the Army and Air Force is pretty much akin to the RAF and the FAA. They Air Force will operate some missions vital to the Army just so the Army doesn't have fixed wing aircraft, then try to retire or cancel the program every chance they get.

[Amiga500]

I must still be dreaming, because surely the MoD could not have made a procurement which resulted in such useful capability without wasting vast amounts of public money?

Startling isn't it?


I wouldn't be surprised if it was down to it being a "small" decision made by a few competent people instead of the droves of idiots they normally get on the job.

[Mildave]

Apart from the small door, yep - perfectly. Its a very strong airframe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5prz1Ae5QM

I've been watching it for like... 15m, just amaazing !

[jbritchford]

Bae 146 for Carrier on-board delivery for RN? Here's hoping!


If that video is anything to go by it might not even need much modification!

[Mildave]

I was just reading on Wiki that BAE offered such a option, I wonder how. It seems pretty big and with no RN carrier using catapult to date... Maybe USN carrier would be big enough but even then I've doubt. Does anyone has more info on this ?

[benroethig]

Actually, they did float the idea of a COD version.

[Cherry Ripe]

Seems a cheap option but is this aircraft really suited for this kind of work?

32 Sqn have been flogging their 146s around Iraq and Afghanistan for the past few years on general staff support, to the extent that Royals + family have been chartering-in commercial leases to fly them around.

The 146s seem to be handling the conditions well enough. A cynic might say that is partly because the hair dryers under the wings don't have enough suction to lift sand.

[Nils]

i think its a good idea to buy the Bae146 for this mission, its a lot cheaper to operate then a C-130 and ideal for small supply flights.

just one question, they are gonne be fited with Chaff/Flare self defence systems, right?

[pierrepjc]

Anyone know what BAe did with all the tooling for the 146?

Paul

[benroethig]

just one question, they are gonne be fited with Chaff/Flare self defence systems, right?

The way the British politicians treat defense these days it makes you wonder.

[swerve]

Anyone know what BAe did with all the tooling for the 146?

Paul

No, but I'd be surprised if it's all still around. They built 387 of them over 23 years, which is a respectable run, but sales had dried up & they had too few takers for a re-engined version to put it into production. No reason to keep more tooling than was needed for maintenance.

[Mildave]

I must still be dreaming, because surely the MoD could not have made a procurement which resulted in such useful capability without wasting vast amounts of public money?

"BAE, which cites an indicative price of around $2.5 million for a passenger version and around $5 million for a freighter."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...t-role-332083/

Those are the proposed prices, I would not be surprised if they were to "take off" more than a bit...

[LERX]

I've always thought it would make sense for the RAF to buy some medium-sized ex-airline jets e.g. A300-600R, 767-300ER for international base-base ferry flights for men & equipment - to supplement the Tristars (& without the tanker role).

I guess the new RAF A330 MRTTs will make this scenario very unlikely.

Good to see the occasional sensible MoD decision!

[Giblets]

I suspect that is exactly what half the fleet will be doing. Hopefully the downtime of the new airframes will be a lot less than the venerable VC-10 and Tristar

[swerve]

Airbus mentions a 'typical' utilisation of 4400 hours per year for an A330 in commercial service.

That's an average of just over 12 hours a day, 365 days a year. Allow for major overhauls, & you get an idea of what airlines expect - and mostly get - from modern aircraft.

Unscheduled down time for the A330 MRTT fleet should be a very small fraction of what the current tanker fleet suffers.

[Amiga500]

I've always thought it would make sense for the RAF to buy some medium-sized ex-airline jets e.g. A300-600R, 767-300ER for international base-base ferry flights for men & equipment - to supplement the Tristars (& without the tanker role).

I guess the new RAF A330 MRTTs will make this scenario very unlikely.

It'd make more sense to buy early A330s - commonality of parts and maintenance procedures (with the MRTT) for most of the aircraft.


That'd sure as hell cost less in the long run (albeit with a larger upfront purchase).

[A4Scooter]

If I remember Correctly wasn't there talk about buying our very own Air Force One otherwise known as "Blair Force One".
I know that in the current financial crisis this is no longer a option - but was this a realitic proposal?

[Amiga500]

Dunno if it was realistic or not to be honest...

Why not just use the Queen's flight?


I don't think the RAF could afford to have an MRTT lying around for some hot-air balloon to use it every so often... and sure as hell any politician would have little respect for the complexities of military logistics!


(A4S - ye could do with editing the editing to correct spelling! "grammar" :diablo: )