2014 Urgent Military Requirement?

[Onceapilot]

Offers are invited to fulfill a UMR in 2014. Due to many mistakes, a major NATO nation requires a fleet of tanker/transport widebody aircraft for a period of upto 5 years to avoid a credibility gap. At an all inclusive cost of around £10,000 per flying hour, the package must include: 5 Tanker/Combi and 2 Pax/ Aeromed aircraft, Tankers must be able to lift more fuel than A330 type, full servicing support req'd, aircraft, equipment and personel must be fully NATO compliant, aircraft must be equipped for Ops in hostile enviroments.
Due to the volatile world situation, overstretched military commitments and totally messed-up planning, this once-in-a-bad-dream opportunity follows on from a series of xxxx-ups.
Tenders in brown envelopes to: PO Box Number 10.

OAP

[Party Animal]

OAP,

Feeling a little sensitive about something today are we? Is there something you want to tell us or get off your chest?

[Sideshow Bob]

Party Animal,

From the numbers he is quoting, it is obvious what he is getting at. Yet again the RAF are allowing a capability to lapse without it's replacement being fully in service and cleared to conduct all aspects of the job.

[1.3VStall]

SB,

Apart from a lack of defensive aids, what clearances does Voyager lack?

[StopStart]

Ah good. Another Pprune One-Legged Man Arse Kicking competition.

[Blue Bottle]

Can the passenger seat's be removed from Voyager to make it work in the aeromed role like the current strat AC ?

[Sideshow Bob]

1.3VStall,

Lets just say it can't refuel everything the outgoing aircraft can. It will do eventually, however, not yet.

[ShotOne]

What sort of tanker can deliver more fuel than an A330?

[vascodegama]

Shot one

RTFQ-he said lift more fuel.

Ans-TRI if runway long enough

KC10 ditto

[SASless]

Credibility Gap.......since when do you think the MOD shall ever again (if it ever really had it) regain "credibility"?:ugh:

[Sideshow Bob]

Shot one
A Tristar's (KC1/K1) fuel load is actually dependent on it's ZFW. The tanks will hold over 140 tonnes of fuel, however, you'd seriously breach the Max Ramp Weight by filling it to the gunnels.

[ICM]

Can the passenger seats be removed from Voyager to make it work in the aeromed role like the current strat AC ?

In a word -Yes.

[ShotOne]

Sideshow/vasco, I understand your point but can't honestly see the relevance. How does the tristars 140 tonnes affect the argument if it can't operate with it?What matters surely is how much can be delivered. Yes, certain types can lift lots....but they will then burn much of it themselves, unless you only ever want refuelling overhead their base.

[vascodegama]

ICM-in a word no (at the moment)

Sideshow-that is true of most ac! Voyager can be limited to a lesser extent.

Shot one-with a max T/O weight departure and a 5 hour sortie the TRI off load would be about the same as a Voyager-that would seem relevant to me.

Both ac are IMHO vastly inferior to the KC10 which can carry more fuel than either has both probe and drogue systems and boom and can receive in flight. Pity we missed the chance (twice!) to buy said ac.

[BEagle]

Shot one-with a max T/O weight departure and a 5 hour sortie the TRI off load would be about the same as a Voyager-that would seem relevant to me.


Except that the TriShaw is a single-hose platform. Not much use having lots of fuel if no-one can get at it.....

Although there are still quite a few Vag. issues:

The drogues don't meet the spec.
The FRU isn't cleared for use.
The Mission System doesn't work.
DASS update is ongoing.


But as a big, grey airliner or as a limited 2-hose tanker it works OK within certain limitations....:\

Next year should be interesting, come contract compliance reckoning time....:ooh:

[JFZ90]

Interesting. When is the FRU going to work, or is that sensitive?

Do you know if it would be possible to retrofit the boom to a UK voyager? I read somewhere that the MRTT can be fitted with both a boom and a fuse hose. Or are the assumed structural mods done before the 'green' A330 is produced?

[Out Of Trim]

It would appear that Voyager is not yet ready to fulfil it's role!

In that case; why have we just withdrawn from service the VC-10s that still worked and have a Tristar with an all new glass cockpit sat doing nothing, just because it's different to the others! Etc etc... :ugh::ugh:

[BEagle]

...a Tristar with an all new glass cockpit sat doing nothing...

October 2006 - Marshall Aerospace is awarded a £22M contract to upgrade the RAF TriStars' avionics and FMS including a 'glass cockpit' as the 'MMR upgrade'. This should have been a relatively low-risk programme as it used elements of the C-130 cockpit upgrade already underway for the RNAF.

November 2007 - ZD949 arrives at Cambridge for the trial installation with a planned completion date of Q3 2008 at which time the second TriStar would begin conversion.

2008 came and went.

2009 came and went.

January 2010 - ZD949 finally makes its first flight with the MMR upgrade.

October 2010 - SDSR indicates that the TriStar will start to leave RAF service in 2013; TriStar MMR programme is to be discontinued.

December 2010 - After 100 hours of flight test, ZD949 finally passes MoD review and is due to be back in service in Spring 2011.

2011 - Due to the change in out-of-service date now planned for the TriStar and with the A330MRTT due in service by the end of the year, ZD949 remains at Cambridge in a pristine state under 'storage' and is to be 'reduced to spares' - a euphemism for being scrapped - as it would be too expensive to convert it back to its original state.

October 2011 - A330MRTT now 'Voyager' fails to meet release to service date; now expected to be 'sometime in January 2012'.

January 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

February 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

March 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

2013 - VC10s stagger on until Sep 2013; Voyager is at least partially delivering an AAR service.

2014 - Will be interesting......:hmm:

[CoffmanStarter]

If you chaps are interested ... "The RAF Official Annual Review 2014" - "Voyager into the Future" Pages 42 to 47 makes interesting reading given what is being said here.

Key Publishing : RAF Annual Review 2014 (http://shop.keypublishing.com/product/View/productCode/RAF14)

Also available from WH Smith in UK.

[ShotOne]

What is it about air refuelling that brings out the 70's fanatics? Why aren't there loads of posts criticising MOD for "wasting" money on Typhoons and demanding we buy lovely Phantoms or Thunderchiefs? Do you all wear flares and drive Vauxhall Viva's?

[Heathrow Harry]

they do... they do...... ;)

[Sideshow Bob]

You can hardly call the Tristar -500 a 70s jet. It's first flight was 1978 and it didn't entry service (with BA) until 1979.

I suppose, if Voyager worked as advertised when it was advertised to work, no one would have a problem (however, you are reading the words of someone who PVR'd rather than accept a posting to Voyager).

[BEagle]

Although I did quite fancy the Viva GT in 1968, the point under debate is that concern has been expressed about an air platform being retired somewhat prematurely. Not as bad as the total abandonment of VTOL, MPA, strategic bombing or strategic reconnaissance (apart from a few drones), but worrying nontheless.

In 1996 we were assured at the Brize Norton AT/AAR conference:

VC10 and TriStar would be replaced by 2006.
The replacement would be 25-30 'MRTT' aircraft, such as the A310MRTT.
The In-Service Date for the 'FLA' (now known as A400M 'Atlas') would be 2004.


Whereas the actual situation 17 years later is:

VC10 had to stagger on until 2013, which it did magnificently.
TriStar will be retired in 2014, even though it is still a capable air platform.
The RAF doesn't even own the VC10 / TriStar replacement - instead it pays £1M+ per day to hire ⅓ the number of replacement Voyager aircraft from a civilian service provider.
Voyager doesn't yet have a working Mission System, the centreline FRU hasn't yet been approved for use and the high-speed variable-drag drogues don't yet work within the specification requirement.
A400M isn't yet in service to replace C130K capability, but might be...soon...ish. Probably.


:uhoh:

[sangiovese.]

I remember well those dates being proposed ....I even still have my TTSC mug when the old BA 767s were a bidder...probably worth 20p now on ebay

[BEagle]

And do you also remember the MoD civil serpent who confidently stated "The FSTA programme will not slip!".....:\

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the MoD civil serpent who confidently stated "The FSTA programme will not slip!".....


What a pillock! Did his father work for the White Star Line, circa 1912?

[NutLoose]

Ŵell if you had been quick you could have picked up some refuelling pods, they were a snip at

However, a very interesting day and one where you wish you had not only some more money but more space to put things. The air-to-air refuelling pods (ex-VC10, I think) went for £175-200 each. They were in superb nick and the price was a snip. Problem is they weighed something like a quarter ton each and measured in around 9-10ft long. I still wanted one.


Harrier, Tornado,Phantom, helicopter sales at Hixon (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?127613-Harrier-Tornado-Phantom-helicopter-sales-at-Hixon)

[ShotOne]

As a taxpayer I share your frustration at those delays. But none of the issues are because of the platform. Let's say we indulge vasco and somehow acquire KC10's before they are converted to coke cans. Is there any certainty the project would be run any better? And on top of existing issues you then have to keep 30plus year old machinery going. Some contributors seem to have no idea how difficult and expensive it is to keep old birds in service.

[NutLoose]

Which is why the likes of Ryan Air bin their fleets at about every 5 years, the warranty expires and the maintenance costs climb, they also hold a decent trade in price when negotiating, though the likes of Easy jet recently broke some 737's up that were about 7 years old I believe, as they are worth more as a sum of their parts than complete.

Hanging on to airliners for thirty odd years is barking, but unlike the Ten that was built like a brick sh*thouse, an A330 is built to be light and I think they will struggle to keep those going for twenty. I believe Lufty were suffering corrosion problems on theirs that were only a few years old.

[vascodegama]

Shot one as said before-RTFQ

What I said was that we had the chance to buy the KC10 on 2 occasions namely at the time we chose the VC10 conversion in the late 70s and again when we had the Tristar foisted on us. Had we gone for say 10 KC10s c78-9 we could have scrapped the Victor fleet much earlier, not spent the money on the VC10 conversion programmes (x2) and not gone down the v expensive PFI route. Incidentally , the OSD for the USAF KC10 fleet is 2047 which is later than Voyager if my maths are correct. If you think about the Falklands episode, 3 KC10s could have supported 2 Vulcans on a Black buck raid for example. F**k me we might even have had a tanker that could refuel Air Seeker.

[BEagle]

But none of the issues are because of the platform.

Well, that depends upon your definition of 'the platform'! As a big, grey people carrier, surprise surprise, the Voyager works very well.

However, whether the same can be said of the AiM MRTT modifications is open to some doubt....

vasco is entirely correct about the KC-10. If the RAF had acquired such aircraft in the early 1980s, the taxpayer wouldn't now be paying £1M per day for a service which has yet to meet the user requirement.

And I'm pretty sure that the KC-10A upgrade programme will be more successful than the ZD949 scandal was. However, mutterings about the USAF wishing to scrap the KC-10A due to sequestration have yet to be refuted. No doubt it would suit ol' bubba Boeing's yet-to-fly KC-46A Frankentanker programme were they to do so - but it would be crazy indeed to scrap such a valuable tanker / freighter aircraft.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Actually, the initial trials report of the KC10 hose/drogue system highlighted the inherent design flaw that was also seen on the TriStar; inasmuch that the outlet rollers significantly attenuated the feedback to the hose/drum unit. The VC10 and the Victor, although also having a roller system (but of a differing design), didn't attenuate the feedback quite so vociferously. I'm somewhat surprised that Airbus Military hadn't picked up on this particular design flaw because Voyager is now displaying the very same characteristics that besieged the TriStar and the KC10.

Valuable lesson's haven't been learned!

TCF

[ShotOne]

You hit the nail on the head, beagle in as much as this goes back to decisions taken (or not taken!) in the 1980's. The TriStar refit was always bonkers. But even had we gone for KC 10's back then we would still be facing tough decisions now and how could you possibly know whether their hypothetical upgrade would run smoothly? And how's your viva running?

Vasco, aside from your rude manner (why don't you read fxx question yourself?) does resolving a 2013 problem by stating what you would have done 35 years ago really contribute anything?. Was I married to you once?

[Davef68]

Shot one as said before-RTFQ

What I said was that we had the chance to buy the KC10 on 2 occasions namely at the time we chose the VC10 conversion in the late 70s and again when we had the Tristar foisted on us. Had we gone for say 10 KC10s c78-9 we could have scrapped the Victor fleet much earlier, not spent the money on the VC10 conversion programmes (x2) and not gone down the v expensive PFI route. Incidentally , the OSD for the USAF KC10 fleet is 2047 which is later than Voyager if my maths are correct. If you think about the Falklands episode, 3 KC10s could have supported 2 Vulcans on a Black buck raid for example. F**No-one anticipated an out-of area operation like the Falklands eating into Victor hours, nork me we might even have had a tanker that could refuel Air Seeker.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing though. Take yourself back to the late 70s, when the VC10 plan was brought in. The need wasn't for a replacement for the Victor, but a supplement - we needed the ability to get MORE hoses in the air, to enable more of our strike aircraft to make the trip to the USSR and our AD aircraft to defend for longer and further. Buying 10 KC10s and scrapping the 20-odd Victors wouldn't have given us that.

No-one was anticipating the sort of out of area operation that ate into the Victor hours, nor that we would need long range strategic transport (The KC10 is an avowed dual role aircraft) - it was only a couple of years since the RAF had scrapped the majority of it's long range transport fleet.

Fast forward to the time after the Falklands when the Tristar was obtained, the real alternative wasn't KC10s but ex-airline DC10s (Laker IIRC?). In hindsight, those might have been a better bet (Omega have shown the DC10 can carry wing mounted HDU pods) but politics kicked in and we got the Tristar. Either way I doubt we would have fitted a boom to those anyway.

I do have a memory of 1980-ish proposal that the on-order BA 757s (and 767s?) should have IFR piping fitted for use in national emergencies, so other proposals were considered.

The current situation is entirely down to Gordon Brown's desire to keep the capital cost of new tanker transports off the balance sheet by going down the PFI route, and the ridiculous length of time that took to negotiate. If we had ordered the A310MRTT in 1997/8/9, we'd have 10 years of service from them now.

[NutLoose]

Of course all of this is conjecture, as back in the 80's no one would or could have foreseen the Country being embroiled in several wars, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc that will have systematically eaten up the fleet hours across the board faster than was originally foreseen, add to that the defence cuts that withdrew individual platforms early and that has to have a serious knock on effect to the hours of those fleets still operating....
It must be a bit of a juggling act at the moment as they see hours and fatigue lives dwindling on not just the transport / tanker fleets, but also the fighter squadrons, with nothing planned to come into service to take up the slack in the short time.
Didn't a similar occurrence not happen during the Falklands War which brought forward the demise of the Vulcan and Victor fleets earlier than planned?

[CoffmanStarter]

It would also appear that AirTanker missed a very lucrative seasonal contract this year :E

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/image_zpsacb9d894.jpg

Seasons greetings all ...

[SOSL]

Thanks, Coff!

Rgds SOS

[Onceapilot]

Nah, every Christmas families flight Captain knows that Santa lands on the roof;).

OAP

[BEagle]

Vasco, aside from your rude manner...

Mate, if you actually knew vasco, you'd realise that the comments he aimed at you were pretty restrained....

[Sideshow Bob]

Mate, if you actually knew vasco, you'd realise that the comments he aimed at you were pretty restrained....
Well that makes it alright then. :D

[vascodegama]

Nutloose am not convinced that the Victor or Vulcan left service earlier than anticipated.

Davef I obviously have a different recollection of things post FI conflict. I obviously did not meet a staff officer who obviously did not tell me that the pecking order was 1 KC10 2 DC10 (Laker's ac from storage) and then TRI and the rest is history.

The hoses in the sky argument has always been around but for the long range strike effort you describe the advantage is lost since a vast effort is needed on tanker/tanker work which wouldn't be needed with a larger ac.

Not sure about the latent mods on BA ac but the word was that the Laker ac were indeed plumbed for AAR already but that could be just rumour.

Shot one check PMs

[NutLoose]

Plumbing apart, hasn't the KC 10 got an extra centre bogie to alleviate some of the aircraft footprint when fully tanked?

[vascodegama]

I am pretty sure that it has the same or v similar arrangement to other DC10 variants. Certainly it doesn't seem to have the same PCN problems as Tristar

[ShotOne]

Nutloose, yes it does. The DC10 had two variants, 10-10 and 10-30, the latter with centre bogie and higher gross wt from which the mighty KC was derived.

[BEagle]

The DC-10-40 was also proposed as an FSTA contender by the 'Ten Forty Corp'.

One aircraft came to Brize and some of us were invited to the VIP lounge to wait for it. It arrived rather late, the first thing we noticed was that it had no passenger windows....on further inspection it had no passenger seating or cabin ceiling. The flight deck was prehistoric, but at least there was a good total fuel gauge.

The cargo bay was full of slabs of concrete to bring the CG into limits.

A few questions about the oxygen systems, passenger facility units and interior lighting which would clearly be required to turn these old freighters into safe passenger aircraft for the tanker/transport role were answered rather dismissively by the bidders.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, they didn't appear on the list for final selection....:hmm:

[D-IFF_ident]

There is little logic in investing in ageing fleets when you've already invested in a modern fleet...

Today (7 Dec 2013) marks the final flight of the DC-10-30 in commercial, passenger carrying aviation. The USAF is considering scrapping the KC-10 fleet, but will keep feeding funds to the KC-46A program. NB that the KC-46A is required to have wing mounted pods, whereas very few KC10s have WARPs fitted (and <75 pax seats). There are good reasons why the USAF don't carry the pods and it's not only because the USAF has no probe-equipped receivers.

The VC10 became unacceptable, in terms of modern airworthiness, for carrying passengers a few years ago and the Tri* is a single-point tanker.

In a relatively small Air Force like the RAF, flexibility of multi-role platforms and the number of hoses in the sky available to fill the slow onload-rate receivers are key factors in providing cost-efficient capability. There are really only 2 modern tanker-types available, and both are built in Toulouse.

Both types are purchased by a sister-company of the manufacturer, modified and then resold to the end-user (or service provider in the UK). During initial development, as is usual with new technologies, there are teething problems. In the case of the Voyager, there might be teething problems with a number of subsystems. But the airframe is airworthy, it has seats, cargo bays and multiple fuel offload points. It's only really the new stuff, that neither the VC10 nor the Tri* had before, that isn't fully up to speed.

In fact, A330 MRTTs are offloading fuel to F-18s, Mirage 2000s, Tornadoes and Typhoons every day around the world, and they are doing a good job of it. As for the playstation generation that expect to see a computer work out all the possible permutations of an accompanied deployment scenario, the old-school methods still work just fine. After all, whether it's NAPS, RAPS, an MCS or an MPS, the calculation is still Distance = Speed x Time!

Whatever decisions have been made during the procurement phase of the Voyager project, to invest in any other option now could not possibly
save money.

Sadly, retrofitting a Boom and UARRSI onto the current batch would be quite challenging. But I'm sure Airtanker would gladly provide further airframes with the enhanced capability should they be required. And I understand that the receiver flight control laws are outstanding. :}

[NutLoose]

The VC10 became unacceptable, in terms of modern airworthiness, for carrying passengers a few years ago and the Tri* is a single-point tanker.


ironic isn't it, remind me how many RAF VC 10 we lost and how many 737 with greater airworthiness standards have gone In.

[BEagle]

Yup - the VC10 was good enough for HM The Queen, but nanny-state rules introduced for 2-person flight decks meant that latterly it was considered unacceptable for any passengers. Which was, of course, complete bolleaux!

As for the playstation generation that expect to see a computer work out all the possible permutations of an accompanied deployment scenario, the old-school methods still work just fine. After all, whether it's NAPS, RAPS, an MCS or an MPS, the calculation is still Distance = Speed x Time!

Ah, nice try old chap! Good attempt at AiM propaganda; however, the fact is that the German-made mission computer system can indeed plan and manage world-wide AAR operations (whether anchor point or trail deployments) for the A310MRTT and CC-150T - whereas the Spanish 'MPS' system for the A330MRTT / KC-30A / Voyager simply does not work. As you yourself very well know! It surprised the designers when they were told (2 months ago) that it might be necessary for the operator to relocate refuelling brackets in flight (e.g. for forecast poor Wx or high shear values) - they haven't provided such a basic requirement.....:rolleyes:

"Hecho en España = No funciona!"

A recent (I won't say by whom - but he's well placed!) RAF comment - "We should have $hit-canned the Spanish MPS 5 years ago!". Another comment from someone close to the procurement coal face "The Voyager MPS is a disaster.....".

As for RAPS - oh purrleeze. A non-rigorous system which has never been subjected to formal validation. I'm quite surprised that the MAA hasn't picked up on this and demanded a full mathematical analysis of this primitive legacy system.

[lj101]

As for RAPS - oh purrleeze. A non-rigorous system which has never been subjected to formal validation. I'm quite surprised that the MAA hasn't picked up on this and demanded a full mathematical analysis of this primitive legacy system.

When compared with the USA, French, German and Italian system(s) of working their AAR trail figures out- spot on every time.

Don't be grumpy. ;)

[BEagle]

When compared with the USA, French, German and Italian system(s)....

Not the German system, I can assure you!

How does RAPS cope with in-flight re-routes?

[lj101]

The old German system - comparing like for like at that time. With ref to reroute, never had an issue working it out using basic maths.

[BEagle]

With ref to reroute, never had an issue working it out using basic maths.

Ah, but that's because you were a highly competent AAR navigator and had the time for such calculations! Whereas in what ATrS term a '2 person plus occasional operator' flight deck (utterly daft description, but that's what we were told during a visit earlier in the year), there isn't the scope for such an exercise - no matter what ex-VC10 STANEVAL navigators might think!

If only Airbus had tasked Hamburg/Dresden with modifying the A330 as they did the A310, rather than Madrid, the Voyager would have had a vastly better crew operating concept, a flight deck to support the concept - plus a Mission System which actually works!

There'd have been a TACAN display for the Mission System Operator too!

[Onceapilot]

I wonder how the RAF Trail plot looks after TriStar scrapping? Maybe lots more debts to NATO?:oh: Oh.....forgot, can't be any aircraft left to Trail:ok:.

OAP

[ShotOne]

"...how many 737's have gone in.." Considering there have been nearly 8,000 of them, and counting. I'd jolly we'll hope the figure would be more than for 50 something vc10's.

Not that this indicates disrespect to the VC10 of course -that would be like slagging off the Queen Mother!

[JFZ90]

Excluding hijackings...

50 or so VC10s have killed just over 100 in 2 major accidents

7500 737s have 'only' killed 4000+ in 300 accidents.

Technically the 737 is safer, but given the small statistical sample for VC10s its probably better to call it a draw.

[ShotOne]

Attention, thread leap! I've no issue with the VC10 record but just can't let that statistical mangling go past. Why have you disregarded VC 10 hijackings but included those for the poor 737? Ditto for ground accidents, including the RAF one written off. Not the poor aeroplanes fault of course, but then neither were most of the 737 accidents. You chose to benchmark in terms of passengers killed. Had you done this as a proportion of passengers CARRIED, the 737 would win by a factor of about twenty...but since the VC10 looks so good I'd be happy to agree on a draw.

[vascodegama]

DIff

Noone is suggesting investment in a 30 year old -simple lament that correct decisions were not taken at the right time. I suspect that we would be looking at similar options now but with a bit more time to think about it, not as one of the launch customers and perhaps not ending up with the most expensive option. Would be interested as to why the USAF is reluctant to carry WARPs on the KC10 fleet since interoperability (or lack of it) was a major lesson from GW1. I was slighjtly amused on one mission to see a KC10 crew(of a WARP ac) refuelling FA18s from the centre hose and not using the option of refuelling 2 at a time.

Also am struggling as to the second modern tanker-are you counting the sub variants of the A330 or do you mean the A400?

As far as the modification of the existing order is concerned I doubt the metal has even been cut for the last few Voyagers so from a manufacturing point of view such changes should be easily feasible.

I see that you are now forced down the RAPs route-it is a pity that the electronic system is not available but to my limited experience of AAR, RAPs is as good as we have available in the circumstances (although NAPs was complete sh**e and the system beforehand even worse).

[JFZ90]

shotone, yes not very scientific, just some careleesly thrown together numbers, and your points are valid. there have been lots of vc10 mishaps but only 2 with fatalities. i thought i had excluded hijackings for 737, my mistake if not.

but...while we're here,

i can't find specific info, but it appears crew error were at fault in both vc10 fatal losses, so it maybe the case that from technical/design failures, the vc10 never killed anyone.

the same can't be said for 737 and e.g. its rudder, though your comment about taking passenger miles inti account is a good one.

[BEagle]

I see that you are now forced down the RAPs route-it is a pity that the electronic system is not available but to my limited experience of AAR, RAPs is as good as we have available in the circumstances (although NAPs was complete sh**e and the system beforehand even worse).

Limited experience my ar$e!! ;)

I certainly agree that NAPS and 'worst diversion fuel state' were utter $hite; however, the simplistic and mathematically non-rigorous RAPS does not provide the flexibility necessary in a 3-person AAR cockpit with a larger number of receivers being deployed further than was the case with VC10 (or TriStar, limited as it was to a single hose). Sure, it's probably adequate for deploying a couple of Typhoons to Akrotiri, but Voyager is supposed to be capable of supporting far more complex AAR missions than that - for which RAPS isn't sufficient.

Whereas the A310 system, with an eye to future needs, is now being further developed to support missions such as a tanker departing ZZZ1 to RV with max no. of receivers from an a/c carrier which are trailed to a Split Point, then AAR with on-call bootleg receivers in an AARA pending the return of the fighters to a 2nd RV in the AARA (or elsewhere), followed by a return trail to the a/c carrier, with the tanker landing at ZZZ2. Or hypothetical 8 receiver deployments such as from Calgary to San Antonio supporting 4 x receivers routing from Cold Lake to Barksdale plus a further 4 x receivers routing from Fairchild-Tyndall.

It will also be capable of calculating 'critical area' trails for operationally essential deployments across areas, segments of which may be outside unrefuelled range from a receiver diversion. Rather better than the "Ah - she'll be right, mate" approach taken by other nations.

[Onceapilot]

Quote BEagle:
"larger number of receivers being deployed further than was the case with VC10 (or TriStar, limited as it was to a single hose)."

This was certainly true in the case of the VC10 fuel load. However, against the TriStar, there is little, if any, improvement.
In my experience, the TriStar tanker usually has two hoses mounted at a single point. Could you explain how this effects deployment planning, where a single hose plan is normally required anyway to give less chance of failure.:)

OAP

[vascodegama]

OAP

I'll try-the Tristar as you point out has only one hose usable so it must have a plan for sequential refuelling of all rx. For a 2 hose tanker it is possible that a plan using refuelling of rx in pairs would make for a more feasible option (eg the single hose version would require an inordinate no of small bkts ). That does not mean that as a back up plan such a situation is unacceptable, simply that as a main plan it would not do. Equally the crews have procedures to go from 2 hose to single plans without a formal plan being issued.

As far as the other issue of length of deployment is concerned , the Voyager range/offload advantage comes to light on sorties exceeding about 5 hours, the main problem to be honest is that of FJ limits esp crew fatigue etc. With the possible exception of the South Atlantic route , shorter but more palatable legs are usually available.

Of course the more FJ back up you put on either ac, the less fuel you have anyway.

In sum I doubt the Voyager will do legs on trails that are much longer than the Tristar but may have more ex per tanker.

[BEagle]

Where possible, a trail deployment should be planned to be viable with a single hose, I agree.

However, there were certainly a few occasions during trails when no single hose plan was possible, so the AARC would weigh up the likelihood of a hose failure against the cost of a second tanker. 3 x Jaguar from Lajes to Halifax comes to mind - a single VC10K could support 3 on a two hose plan, but only 2 on a single hose plan. So - did we launch 2 x VC10K with 2 Jags on one and 1 Jag on the other? Or trust to luck that both hoses would be OK and that the Jags wouldn't spoke one of them, launching 1 x VC10K with 3 Jags?

The latter option was chosen; in the event all was fine.

Whereas the trail wouldn't have been possible with a TriStar unless it launched with 2 Jags, dropped them after the final bracket and then turned back to RV with the 3rd. Rather problematic in pre-GPS days and very inefficient.

The A310 software will offer the option of single hose, 2 hose or 'fail-safe' - meaning a 2 hose plan which will still be possible if one hose goes U/S in flight... Replanning an 8 receiver two hose or 'fail-safe' plan to a single hose plan (so that the revised bracket times/positions are shown) takes a couple of clicks and a couple of seconds, incidentally.....:ok:

[Onceapilot]

Yes, the problems with recievers trailing at the limits of unrefuelled range are well understood. However, the sinecure of "trusting to luck" as opposed to running a robust plan with fallback options that achieve the aim is somewhat weak, especially on the great North Atlantic.:\
BTW, never had any problems with RV's before the days of GPS myself, or was that a VC10 Nav thing?;)

OAP

[BEagle]

Onceapilot, you appear unwilling to understand the point.

If the VC10K had launched with 3 Jags and a hose had failed, one receiver would have needed to return to Lajes - and the VC10K would have returned to collect it the following day. At no stage was 'trusting to luck' ever envisaged; after the first bracket, the trail could have continued with a single hose plan even if a hose had failed later in the mission.

It might have been possible to refuel 2 Jags and adopt a critical area solution for the 3rd, but that wasn't part of the post-NAPS era SOPs....:hmm:

A deep ocean RV with nothing more than A/A TACAN against a receiver formation would have been less likely to succeed when the tanker had been airborne for some time using uncorrected FMS/INS (outside DME/DME correction range). With GPS augmentation, both tanker and receiver would have been more likely to have been in the right place at the right time. The other option would have been for the 'returning TriStar' to have flown back even further towards Lajes for the final receiver RV.

[Xercules]

VascodaG doubts whether the metal for the last few Voyagers has been cut yet and, therefore, that there should be no problem providing them with refuelling booms or UAARSIs. If the RAF changed its requirement and decided on these refinements that would not alter the issue. Voyagers would still all start life as standard civil birds then be flown to Madrid for conversion.

You must remember that Airbus is a civil aircraft manufacturer and for civil aircraft there are no export control issues. However, several components of the A330 are either designed or manufactured or both in the States and should these be modified for military use (no matter how small the modification) a little issue called ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) comes into play. ITAR are the US regulations governing exports not just from the US but also whatever and wherever it all goes next. For those not aware of what this means suffice it to say ITAR can be complicated, restrictive and, because of nationality limits on access to the US military technology, even illegal under UK and EU law.

When we thought we had won the USAF contract (before old Bubba threw his toys out of his cot) we investigated incorporating the refuelling components during the initial build - an order for 170+ aircraft did make it seem worthwhile despite the complications for the civil manufacturing lines. However, for the numbers involved in the non-USAF orders it is more efficient overall to keep the normal manufacturing process ITAR free and isolate the military work from the civil.

By the way, I also note BEagle's continuing/continuous disparagement of all AAR MPSs other than that on the A310. What he fails to mention is that he has a vested interest in that system. I need say no more and yes I did work for Airbus.

[Onceapilot]

Vasco, the RAF was never going to afford the KC10 in the early 1980's. The country was broke. The BA/RAF TriStar deal was manna from heaven, Lady Thatcher was able to boost her favourite business barons and, it was a major element in setting BA on the path to success.
Unfortunately, the RAF senior management was unable to fully capitalise on the capabilities of the TriStar. The wing mounted refuelling pods were perfectly capable of being fitted. However, financial limitations and lobbying by interested parties robbed them (and the money) for the various VC10 rebuilds.:ouch:

OAP

[BEagle]

The wing mounted refuelling pods were perfectly capable of being fitted. However, financial limitations and lobbying by interested parties robbed them (and the money) for the various VC10 rebuilds.

OAP - are you sure about that? The long faces and sucking of teeth from the Marshalls team who came to Brize to view a VC10K flight indicated that the design was far from mature. Not only would the TriStar have needed a different pod (Mk32A) with a longer hose (79ft) than the VC10K, but also the internal fuel pumping pressure was inadequate to meet the flow rate and 50 psi end pressure stated in the specification. Even after replacing the refuel/defuel line with one of larger bore and greater strength, it would have taken further development investment to establish whether the specified offload rates could have been met under all required conditions. So the proposed plan was canned - a great pity as it would have provided the RAF with a very capable tanker.

Incidentally, as you're no doubt aware, the old wives' tale about the TriStar wing being unable to carry a pod due to structural and aerodynamic reasons is completely untrue - it could have carried wing pods quite easily.

I imagine that the MoD saw the VC10K4 and VC10C1K as less-risky alternatives? But whether or not that was actually true....

Xercules, I make no secret of the fact that I am involved in the upgrade programme for the A310 MCS. The only 'vested interest' I might have is frustration at those who have wasted considerable time and effort in attempting to reinvent the wheel to create an MPS of their own when an acceptable solution was already at hand - in the same company.

[Onceapilot]

"The wing mounted refuelling pods were perfectly capable of being fitted. However, financial limitations and lobbying by interested parties robbed them (and the money) for the various VC10 rebuilds."

It is true, not dreamed or made up.

OAP

[vascodegama]

Xercules-interesting stuff about ITAR but since the equipment is already exported elsewhere I struggle to see how the RAF would be unable to go down that line.

OAP- my thoughts were that we should have acquired the ac in circa 78 and avoided the following programmes

Conversion of VC10 K2/3 and later the K4 and C1K programme

Purchase of ex BA and Panam Tri

Cake and @rse party associated with Tri glass cockpit

V exp option that we now have in Voyager (admittedly we would be looking at some options now such as update/replacement)

Keeping the Victor in service and as a consequence reaping the benefits of the reduced manpower needed both in air and ground

I am no accountant but I would guess that the figures are not as bad as you think

Just a thought


vasco

PS unless I misread your point on trails the FJ limits I was referring to had little to do with extreme of range etc but the more obvious of expecting someone to sit in a green bag for 8 hours when 5 is plenty

[Xercules]

Vasco,

I was not referring to the RAF having problems with ITAR as it already has those with C130, C17, Tornado, Typhoon, F35, Sentry, A400M and even already with Voyager (if not others). However, ITAR is a distinct problem for Airbus if it is allowed to infiltrate into the civil lines. ITAR only permits access to US military technology to designated nationalities although there are no hard and fast rules as to what these are. In the case of A400M, it took a lot of hard bargaining to increase the list beyond the normal starting point of NATO plus some trusted allies. The rules work a little like the "Need to Know" of Security but apply even when the technology is unclassified. Airbus employs (in Europe) over 80 different nationalities to my certain knowledge.

ITAR technology has to be segregated to allow only those nationalities approved to have access. The segregation distances are similar to those for normal industrial safety and reasonably easily similarly imposed. But the issue then becomes flexibility and management of working. For A400M Airbus can relatively easily separate and select for the workforce by then using dedicated facilities but this is not possible on a civil line.

It is achieved for Voyager by building a standard civil A330, completed to flyable condition in Toulouse and then flown to Madrid for militarisation where the dedicated workforce can be ITAR compliant. Once in Madrid the A330s are partially dismantled to install military additions. There, there would be no problem installing the boom or UARRSI except the customer (the RAF) has not asked for it and does not wish to pay for it. Note as well the customer has not even asked that Voyager be fitted with a refuelling probe.

[vascodegama]

Xercules

The point I was making was that if, say for arguments sake, the RAF wanted some of the Voyagers with boom/and or UAARSI since the ac are not yet started then a reconfig would not (at least in theory) be impossible, notwithstanding ITAR and from your detailed explanation it seems that is the case. As for a probe, that would be an even bigger mistake IMHO .

vasco