AirTanker pitches Voyager for NATO refuelling shortfall

[beerdrinker]

From Flight Global:

European NATO nations could access spare capacity on the UK’s Airbus A330 Voyager tanker/transport fleet, under an initiative being promoted by the industrial consortium responsible for providing the aircraft.

Detailed by AirTanker chief executive Phill Blundell, the proposal would allow the UK’s allies to use part of a “surge” fleet of five Voyagers, which will be supplied between early next year and mid-2016

Great idea but would it not be even better for our Nato Allies and our RJ if the 5 aircraft concerned were to be fitted with a boom?

[BEagle]

beerdrinker wrote: Great idea but would it not be even better for our Nato Allies and our RJ if the 5 aircraft concerned were to be fitted with a boom?

Well, certainly some should be boom-equipped. But perhaps 3 rather than 5?

Incidentally, as the RAF has no need to refuel any fast-jets other than Tornado, Typhoon and (eventually) F-35B, who will pay for any clearance trials with other NATO aircraft? MoD? AirTanker? Client nations....??

Another wonderful PFI corollary......

[Could be the last?]

So I assume the consortium will provide their own pilots for this? Or are we in a situation where business is tasking MOD resources (manpower)?

[Onceapilot]

We had a great widebody tanker, with all the clearances, with all the capability, paid for and scrapped! It only needed a relatively small investment in spares and a mature aircraft support programme but no. Instead, we have possibly the worlds most expensive tanker/transport lease scheme that has cost several capability/credibility gaps for UKMil.:uhoh:

OAP

[BEagle]

OAP, the TriShaw is no more. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-tanker.... Bereft of life it rests in peace at Bruntingthorpe..... Or perhaps as an Argos saucepan or two?

We know you don't agree; personally I think it could have remained in service for a little longer, but was already on the right hand side of the bucket curve. Would it have been that cost-effective to have kept on supporting such an old single-hose tanker for more than a year or two?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Oh dear. Does this mean the much vaunted 3PR that underpinned so much of this hasn't been forthcoming??

[HaveQuick2]

BEagle, will there be that much needed in the way of additional clearance trials?


Hasn't A.330 MRTT already been cleared with F-16 and F-18?


Or is Voyager seen as a totally different type? Just curious.

[BEagle]

HaveQuick2, whether the F-16 and F-18 'clearance' to which you refer was basic compatibility at the heart of the envelope, or full clearance throughout the user-required envelope I do not know.

Also there are a variety of different drogues fitted to A330 tankers, each with its own characteristic and IAS / IMN / Alt limits. So whether any read-across is going to be accepted (except for urgent TTW tasks) remains to be seen.

[Onceapilot]

Thanks Beags :ok:. The trouble is that, I feel the whole FSTA episode ranks as a criminal waste of other capabilities. I hope that the future does not bring situations where the weaknesses that this unnesessary huge expenditure has caused, in other roles, risks life, limb or our future:ooh:.

OAP

[vascodegama]

They had better get a move on with the clearances-see IRAQ3 above.

[cobalt42]

The Voyagers are PFI... No chance of any getting a Boom.

[PhilipG]

I seem to recall that Airbus was having problems with its booms, they kept semi parting company with the planes, has this been sorted?

Obviously putting booms on the UK fleet is impossible due to the contract etc.

[vascodegama]

I guess it depends as to whether Air Tanker think there is revenue to be had from providing boom AAR to those that need it.

[Onceapilot]

Guess they are off to/in Q8? Trouble is, they will cost far more than the going rate! What used to be a positive income from friendly AAR will now be a UKMil loss leader, due to FSTA! :eek:

OAP

[Willard Whyte]

It'd be funny if I didn't have to pay tax for this sh*t.

[reds & greens]

^^^^^^
It'd be embarrassing if it were the military...
Now on the outside looking in, it's shameful.

[cobalt42]

Spoke to someone today... the fuselage mods required to turn the 2 point FSTAs into Boom equipped three pointers would be expensive such that it would not be viable. Cheaper to buy 3 new... oh, hang on. Thanks to ACL Bliar and J el Gordo McBroon, we can't. Nice one.................:mad:

[D-IFF_ident]

The 'AAR Clearance' conundrum lays open to interpretation, even if a NATO STANAG were to ever come forth and replace the outdated AGARD then both NATO and non-NATO AAR operators would still be entitled to apply their own regulations and agreements. While there is published guidance suggesting how tanker and receiver operators might approach each other to begin clearance proceedings, the right level of authority within each military organisation can decide what testing, if any, is required to grant a full clearance (or one of the other 2...)

Noting that there are A330 MRTT operators who have agreed clearances with:

A330 MRTT
Eurofighter / Typhoon
Tornado
F-16
F-15
F-18
Rafale
Mirage 2000
C-130 (P&D)

KC-135, E-3 and A400M demonstrated capability - operators yet to grant full clearance.

There is no international standard that would preclude any operator reading-over clearances from any other operator. They may or may not even require a technical or operational compatibility assessment, it depends on the users' policies.

Best ask the Canadians how simple AAR Clearances can (should) be, they seem to have it about right.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Cobalt

Spoke to someone today... the fuselage mods required to turn the 2 point FSTAs into Boom equipped three pointers would be expensive such that it would not be viable.

Genuine question: have FSTAs 12, 13 & 14 been delivered yet? If not, then.......

[salad-dodger]

Spoke to someone today... the fuselage mods required to turn the 2 point FSTAs into Boom equipped three pointers would be expensive such that it would not be viable.
Sounds like fairly typical MoD research. Are you on the Project Team?

S-D

[cobalt42]

RP...

Genuine answer... No. #10 is/was due next month but my 'Porkie Pie in the Sky' cheat sheet may well be telling me a 'Porkie Pie'. #11 is/was due 2/15 and #2 6/15 so #12-14... who knows? 2015-16?

Is #2 the current AirTanker 'hack'? Which one is going to BMI?

[3engnever]

Here are some factors to consider for the more well informed:

1. How do you use the 'surge fleet' for AAR? The surge fleet are not on the Mil Register and currently EASA and CAA regs do not allow for AAR. SO how will they conduct this flying without the buy in from the MoD? If it were that easy Omega would be there already.

2. AAR Clearances. Currently Voyager is only cleared against the RAF fleet, however, during the trials other types were used and obviously the current MRTT operators also have their own clearances that may be read across. As far as I am aware, there are only 2 types of basket out there, and only one operator is persisting with the Variable drag drogue.

3. Whilst 3PR is a key part of the deal for AirTanker, I don't believe it is the case for the MoD as they don't see that part of the cash flow.

4. The boom debate goes on, although the decision should have been made 10 years ago, UK requirement or not. How have we coped for the last 3 decades without a boom? Simple, we haven't needed one. If the NATO and european AAR shortfall is the goal for AirTanker then they need to realise that the major requirement in this space is for ARBS tankers and therefore they should pay for the conversions as they have the most to gain!

[Onceapilot]

Here are some more facts:
1, We had 6 TriStar tankers, all paid for. Even a comprehensive life extension and servicability upgrade would have cost little compared to FSTA lease.
2, RAF TriStar had a virtual full house of drogue clearances. RAF TriStar did not need Hi/Low speed drogue.
3, Cash/Credit flow was easy with RAF TriStar due to the fact it was paid for and, had a low utilisation cost.
4, RAF TriStar fulfilled the role of NATO and European widebody AAR shortfall tanker for 25 years.

"Of course Air Chief Marshal, the FSTA will be shiny and new!"

OAP

[cessnapete]

I had a friend on the TriStar in last year or two of service. Almost every trip cancelled or heavily delayed, or broke down -route.
MOD loath to plan trips other than Herrick for the above reasons.
It was passed sell by date when bought from BA.
Long overdue for replacement.

[Onceapilot]

Hi cessnapete, yes I had friends on TriStar as well!:D

OAP

[D-IFF_ident]

http://www.japcc.org/publications/report/report/AAR-Consolidation_An_Update.pdf

[Roland Pulfrew]

1, We had 6 TriStar tankers, all paid for. Even a comprehensive life extension and servicability upgrade would have cost little compared to FSTA lease. Except of course we require(d) a capability that would be operational for another 25 years, something that you could not achieve with the Trishaw. We would have been lucky to have got another 5 years from it and it would still have needed replacing.
2, RAF TriStar had a virtual full house of drogue clearances. RAF TriStar did not need Hi/Low speed drogue.
We did at the end of the Trishaw's service life (actually the VC10K had a bigger set of clearances) but it didn't magically arrive with those clearances, they grew over many years - so irrelevant. Are you really saying that Tristar could tank a C-130 with a normal drogue?
3, Cash/Credit flow was easy with RAF TriStar due to the fact it was paid for and, had a low utilisation cost. That's debatable - aging aircraft, spares supply dwindling, costs going up, higher fuel burn and let's not forget the costs of your proposed MLU - and we would still need to repalce the aircraft in about 5 years time.
4, RAF TriStar fulfilled the role of NATO and European widebody AAR shortfall tanker for 25 years. Really?!!? I'm not sure what the relevance of "widebody" is to a tanker, but let's not forget that the 6 Tristars were part of a much larger fleet that included 25 other tankers - so it may have provided a small element of that shortfall.

Now when it comes to VFM of the PFI deal, I can't disagree with you :ok: but you cannot blame the air marshals for that - that was Govt direction, so you can blame the pollies that thought PFI-ing a major operational capability was a good idea.:ugh:

[Onceapilot]

Roland Pulfrew, virtually all of this has been covered before.;)
1, My contention is, that the TriStar could have been economically extended in service much cheaper than lease FSTA pro rata. Just look at KC135, or RJ! There was no need to bring forward TriStar retirement BUT....Air Tanker were going to go to the wall, and we could not have that, could we?:suspect:
2, Yes. TriStar had selectable scoop settings.:ok:
3, I could tell you the cost, but I will not.:= Anyway, blinded by the bright light reflected from the shiny new FSTA vision (mirage?), the RAF hierarchy positively ignored the possibility of getting better VFM (and servicability) from TriStar, and effectively left it to rot 15 years or so years ago. The failure to invest anything at all in TriStar caught the Air Staff out when, even superhuman effort by all the worker Bees could not keep the under-invested fleet up to scratch.:ouch:
4, Widebody tankers (KC10, TriStar K) are generally characterised by the ability to lift over 250,000lb of fuel.:ok:


OAP

[D-IFF_ident]

Who/what just dragged the Tonkers to Cyprus?

[Willard Whyte]

They didn't even get a night stop in Akrotiri out of it, according to plane finder.net.

But then one needs (or certainly did a few years back) a minimum of 5 for a full mezze.