Britain's Air to Air Refuelling Capability

[tomdotcom]

Was having a look around the web to see if I could find any info on delivery dates for the P8 for the RAF and found this.



Airhead defence chiefs have admitted ordering nine spy planes that are incompatible with the RAF’s in-flight refuelling tankers.



The version of the Airbus 330 MRTT tanker ordered by the Royal Air Force does not have any provision for the “boom and receptacle”

refueling system used by the US Air Force and US Navy.
This is not the case for Australia, whose RAAF has just completed (http://news.defence.gov.au/2015/12/21/media-release-air-force-kc-30a-multi-role-tanker-transport-returns-from-successful-refuelling-trials-with-f-16-fighter-21-december-2015/) refueling trials of its own Airbus
KC-30A tankers, which are fitted with an 18‑metre-long advanced refueling boom system, and which can thus refuel any
Western aircraft. The RAF’s selection of a degraded tanker means it can only refuel other aircraft using the drogue-and-boom system,
and so cannot refuel most US combat and support aircraft.)

MY understanding is that they CANNOT refuel the current new RC-135s "Airseeker" either -

The RAF cannot refuel its new £650million spy planes in mid-air, it has been revealed.In a fresh humiliation for the Ministry of Defence, it emerged that Britain must rely on other
nations to fill up the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft once it is in the skies.Military analysts warned that crucial reconnaissance missions could be jeopardised by the UK's failure to act independently.

So what is going on inside the MoD and the RAF. Perhaps the Daily Mail has got it right in the use of the word "Airhead"

We have new tankers that cant refuel our latest assets
We have new assets that we have to rely on others to keep in the air.
We have aircraft carriers and no planes....
When the planes are likely to be delivered, I have no doubt the aircraft carriers will be in dock for a re-fit.......

We must be the laughing stock of the world's air forces.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[barnstormer1968]

This is a daily mail story!
Have they got a major scoop here and have secretly realised that the UK has two operational carriers with no aircraft, while the rest of the world sees the two carriers still being built, not operational in any way yet.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bang up to date with the news I see
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/503657-raf-rivet-joint.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/564873-voyager-boom.html

[Saintsman]

I'm sure that if the MOD really wanted a boom, AirTanker would happily oblige.

[TEEEJ]

04 April 2016 - The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is interested in provisioning its Airbus Defence and Space (DS) A330-200 Voyager tanker-transport aircraft with a boom, if the funding can be sourced, a senior service official told reporters.

Speaking at the FIDAE Airshow in Santiago on 30 March, Deputy Commander of Operations Air Marshal Greg Bagwell said the operational case for equipping at least some of the UK's Voyagers with a boom has already been accepted by the service, but that there is currently no money available for the conversion work that would need to be done to the hose-and-drogue-equipped aircraft.

"If money were no object and I could wave a magic wand, I would put a boom on a Voyager tomorrow," AM Bagwell said, adding; "The flexibility that it provides is obvious, especially in an interoperable environment, but it all comes down to practical delivery and cost."

UK RAF shows interest in Voyager boom | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/59242/uk-raf-shows-interest-in-voyager-boom)

[Avtur]

Limitation was known was at the outset prior to procurement. Balanced field calcs conducted, and guess what for endurance/range synopsis and National Sortie effect...?

[D-IFF_ident]

If the MOD wanted a boom, now would be a good time to get one. It works and aircraft deliveries start to new customers soon.

[Martin the Martian]

We must be the laughing stock of the world's air forces.

Please elaborate.

[Pontius Navigator]

No, no, please don't.

[Compass Call]

There is no need to elaborate.

[airpolice]

This new MRA thingy, based on a 737, what kind of AAR kit is on that?

[sandiego89]

Airpolice, the P-8 is equiped to recieve fuel from a flying boom equipped tanker. Not fitted currently to recived via probe and drogue.

I would think bolting a refueling probe to the cockpit roof of the UK P-8's and Rivet Joints would be the way to go (yes I know a bit more is involved). Roof/nose probes have been done for Nimrod, E-3, Tri-Star, Vulcan (and re-done!), C-130, A-400, VC-10, etc.

Not that far of a plumbing run from a new probe to the fuel lines used for the boom recepticle...

[glad rag]

As the saying goes ignorance is bliss....

[stilton]

So the RAF now has what, five large aircraft that are far more suitable for or can only be refuelled by a boom equipped tanker.


What exactly was the point of specifying a different A330 tanker than any other air force ?


I mean it's pretty simple isn't it, if you have a boom and a drogue system you've covered all your bets and can refuel anything with the capacity to do so.



Was it really to save a few pounds ?



Sure you could bolt a probe on the P8 but doesn't a boom provide a far more stable contact and a far higher delivery rate ?



Let me guess they may have even paid extra to delete the boom.

[Door Slider]

Stilton,

You have to look at the timeline, when we 'bought' the A330 and defined its requirements the Nimrod was being replaced by the ..... Nimrod, which was to be fitted with a probe.

The P8 argument is completely irrelevant as it was not In the procurement equation and therefore irrelevant to the boom v drogue argument.

What are the 5 large aircraft you refer to? I can only think of P8, Rivet-joint and C-17, I don't include Voyager in this as its not really a requirement! The Hercules, A400 and Sentry all use drogue.

[BEagle]

The RAF doesn't own any AAR assets these days. There are 14 aircraft available under the PFI solution, of which 9 are 'core' and the other 5 are available for AirTanker to lease to other users, or to operate in its own right as commercial air transport.

But there are 2 Voyager variants. The KC2 has 2 wing pods, whereas the KC3 also has a centreline hose. One Voyager is to be converted for the VIP role, the cost of which will be recovered from reduced VIP leasing requirements.

The Globemaster, Poseidon, Rivet Joint and Sentry all have UARRSI receptacles, but the RAF cannot currently refuel with this system. The Sentry is also probe equipped, as are Atlas and Hercules.

With such a mixed fleet of tanker variants and receiver AAR systems, there is no easy solution. Fitting a boom to some of the Voyagers seems obvious enough, as it would also mean improved interoperability with non-RAF UARRSI aircraft. But there would be a significant training requirement as few RAF aircrew have experience of the boom system (apart from the dreadful KC-135 BDA which I remember jousting against in a Q-fit 8 missile / 3 tank F-4, having been given neither a brief nor dual trip...:\ ). Keeping boom operators current might also be a problem.

But it seems that the RAF simply doesn't have the budget to meet any Voyager boom acquisition need. A boom isn't something which can be quickly supplied under a UOR programme, so the provision of organic AAR for all national assets isn't to be taken lightly.

Maybe a small number (3?) 'pre-owned' aircraft could be acquired and operated in the boom AAR role only? Perhaps - but the RAF is so small these days that manning such a fleet wouldn't be easy. Then there's the matter of AirTanker's 'exclusivity' clause.....:uhoh:

It's indeed a mess.

[hunterboy]

Let's hope the Ruskkie charter company doesn't lease the remaining AirTanker assets in the run up to a crisis and manage to reduce the UK's tanker assets to 9/14 of capacity.
No need to try and shoot them down, just lease 'em and park 'em up in some Black Sea holiday destination. :)

[Roland Pulfrew]

So the RAF now has what, five large aircraft that are far more suitable for or can only be refuelled by a boom equipped tanker.

What exactly was the point of specifying a different A330 tanker than any other air force ?

I mean it's pretty simple isn't it, if you have a boom and a drogue system you've covered all your bets and can refuel anything with the capacity to do so.

Was it really to save a few pounds ?

Sure you could bolt a probe on the P8 but doesn't a boom provide a far more stable contact and a far higher delivery rate ?

Let me guess they may have even paid extra to delete the boom.
Oh God, here we go again. First there were the dinosaurs.......

In procurement in the late 90s/early 00s Defence was not allowed to buy stuff that provided "interoperability" (fortunately common sense has now prevailed and interoperability needs to be considered). The AAR experts stated a requirement for a boom which would allow interoperability; but we, the UK, at the time did not have a national requirement for a boom; the only aircraft we had that could use a boom were 4 leased C-17s - they were barred from AAR by the terms of the lease - and E-3D - and that was bisexual. No requirement meant no funding and so the boom requirement was deleted from the FSTA requirement. Remember, back then (15-20 years ago) all of the planned "new" aircraft were probe and drogue equipped - A400M, Nimrod MRA4 - and all of those in service were already P&D equipped - E-3, C-130 J & K and Nimrod R1.

This was all of course further complicated by the stupid PFI thing. Even without a boom fitted the fuselage needs strengthening so, for the non-core fleet, an operator would be burning additional fuel to carry around unnecessary extra metal. The simple answer is to blame the then government, who thought that mortgaging the nation's infrastructure, hospitals, military capability etc on PFI was a brilliant plan.

So to answer your questions:

The UK was the first customer for the A330 tanker so we did not order something different from all other air forces.

Yes, absolutely true, but the UK didn't (at the time) have a requirement, even though the operators wanted it.

Yes, but it was millions of pounds - remember Airbus had not developed a viable flying boom at the time.

Highly unlikely that you could just bolt anything on to anything nowadays, let alone a P-8. The costs for doing so would also be tens of £ millions.

No we didn't.

[ICM]

Until the Falklands campaign in 1982, the RAF had operated Nimrod quite successfully without an AAR capability - or perhaps I should say that I have no recollection of any Maritime folk urgently demanding such a capability prior to then. Can I ask those who know, to what extent AAR became an integral part of day-to-day Nimrod operations after things south of Ascension had calmed down? And if it was essentially an extra, where in the scale of things to be achieved in re-establishing a maritime capability might this P8/Voyager compatibility issue sit in the years ahead?

[BEagle]

.

Some will understand....

......................

[tucumseh]

In procurement in the late 90s/early 00s Defence was not allowed to buy stuff that provided "interoperability" (fortunately common sense has now prevailed and interoperability needs to be considered).

Spot on Roland. (I'd say most of 90s to at least mid-00s. A major Cat A Army programme was still rejecting interoperability in 2007). If you study successful programmes in those years the common denominator is we completely ignored such edicts, as far as possible. It was such a gob-smackingly deranged policy that few today would believe it, so I'm glad you mentioned it.

[melmothtw]

The P8 argument is completely irrelevant as it was not In the procurement equation and therefore irrelevant to the boom v drogue argument.

Up to a point. I wouldn't say that it is completely irrelevant, as it would have been known that receptacle-equipped aircraft existed and that there was a chance that the RAF would at some point over the 27-year FSTA private finance agreement perhaps acquire and need to refuel such equipped platforms (if not the P-8 and RC-135, then certainly the C-17 and the Voyager itself)

What are the 5 large aircraft you refer to? I can only think of P8, Rivet-joint and C-17, I don't include Voyager in this as its not really a requirement! The Hercules, A400 and Sentry all use drogue.

I would include the Voyager, as with AAR it could at least get to the Falklands in one-hop. Not a 'requirement' perhaps, but potentially useful, and why not have the capability to do that if it exists?

The Sentry uses both methods, though it is my understanding that it uses the boom from USAF tankers more often than it uses the hose. I stand ready to be corrected on that though...

[Roland Pulfrew]

as it would have been known that receptacle-equipped aircraft existed and that there was a chance that the RAF would at some point over the 27-year FSTA private finance agreement perhaps acquire and need to refuel such equipped platforms

Mel, not strictly true. It was always assumed that UK programmes needing AAR would have specified a UK compatible P&D refuelling method. This was the case with FSTA and both AirTanker and TTSC were looking at how a probe could be fitted to their candidate aircraft to allow buddy-buddy refuelling of 'FSTA'. Again the requirement for FSTA to be able to 'swap spit' was originally in the programme but traded out because of the PFI implications. Stupidest decision ever if you ask me.

C-17 wasn't in the equation as they were only leased and supposed to be an interim capability.

[melmothtw]

Interesting background there Roland. I imagine that Nimrod XV230 probably had an unforeseen effect on previously laid plans to adapt future aircraft with probes and the associated plumbing, no?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Mel. Not sure it changed anything at the time of FSTA (everything that needed AAR had a plan for P&D (MRA4, Nim R1, C-130 J & K, E-3 (as well as Tornado, Typhoon and JSF)) but nowadays...........

That said, I see no reason why any aircraft couldn't be fitted with a probe (particularly if they already have an AAR system (RC-135 and P-8)), it just depends on how much you want to spend on D&D and OT&E etc.

[vascodegama]

Interesting then Roly that the USN (the launch customer for P8 and mainly P and D refuelling users) chose boom for the P8.

[PhilipG]

As the USN now has the P8 in its fleet, is it having to rely on the USAF for AAR, or is the unrefueled range large enough for them to do their job in the Pacific?

[BEagle]

vascodegama, surely the USN preferred to have the full range of USAF tankers available for the P-8 rather than just the KC-10A?

How goes the Voyager Mystery Planning Sh*te? :\

[vascodegama]

Plus of course (eventually!) the 176 KC46 and the follow on KCY and KCZ programmes. It would be interesting to see what the motive behind boom AAR was for the P8 or is it a case of that is what the P3 had.

[Pontius Navigator]

Vasco, no, one only
https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/p-3-orion-refueling/

Remember though that boom refuelling helicopters would be a gift tricky so that is something we could do. - if we had suitable helicopters.

[2805662]

It would be interesting to see what the motive behind boom AAR was for the P8 or is it a case of that is what the P3 had.

The P-3 had no IFR/AAR capability.

[KenV]

It would be interesting to see what the motive behind boom AAR was for the P8 or is it a case of that is what the P3 had. USN P-8s, like USN P-3s fly lots of places where there is no USN presence. There's no way USN is going to deploy a carrier or carrier aircraft to support a P-8. So USAF has the responsibility to provide tanker support, and USAF has mostly boom tankers. As for the P-3, it has zero inflight refueling capability.

[falcon900]

A word which I have yet to spot in this thread is 'convergence'. Does it not make sense to be heading on a convergent path with our allies when it comes to procurement? I can accept that the P 8 wasn't on the horizon when the procurement decision for the tankers was made, but is it really sensible to persist in ploughing a divergent furrow? Are we not in danger of being in a minority of 1 with drogue?

[airpolice]

Falcon900, not while the US Navy have aircraft.

[TBM-Legend]

Simple answer is that we now operate in a coalition scenario mostly. RAAF KC-30's are fitted with both as we have them deployed to the sandpit and refuel all and sundry as tasked. Makes you wonder why the RAF didn't follow suit initially. You also have C-17's with ARB...we have cleared the KC-30/C-17 ARB

[BEagle]

TBM-legend wrote: Makes you wonder why the RAF didn't follow suit initially.

Because the UK went for a PFI solution...:rolleyes:

Which, according to certain Oz mates, stood for 'Poms are F****** Idiots!'.

[Pontius Navigator]

Falcon, are you suggesting drogue and boom fit?

Twin capability is definitely nice to have but as someone said above, pre-82 no one on Nimrods was clamouring for AAR. Boom may have advantages but it cannot replace drogue for all AAR.

[Martin the Martian]

Re boom receptacle on the P-8, how easy would it be for a probe equipped Poseidon to take on fuel from a KC-130, which after all is USN's primary tanker, anyway?

[2805662]

Re boom receptacle on the P-8, how easy would it be for a probe equipped Poseidon to take on fuel from a KC-130, which after all is USN's primary tanker, anyway?
It'd be interesting to compare the max speed of the KC-130J with the stall speed of the P-8A....

[sycamore]

2805662,shouldn`t be a problem;more to do with `geometry` of aircraft/length of hose/hi-speed basket.

[ExAscoteer]

It'd be interesting to compare the max speed of the KC-130J with the stall speed of the P-8A

I would warrant it's a lot less than that of an F4 and we tanked them behind Albert.

[Yellow Sun]

We had no trouble with the Nimrod behind the C130. It may not have been ideal, but it was OK.

YS

[Tengah Type]

IIRC only the 60 or so KC10s have a centreline hose. The boom on the KC135, and I assume any other boom tanker, can be fitted with a Boom Drogue Adapter. But if you are using a USAF tanker why not use the boom directly. The KC130 tankers have probe and drogue wing pods, so it would be a tad interesting refuelling a P8 from them.

[Melchett01]

The RAF’s selection of a degraded tanker means it can only refuel other aircraft using the drogue-and-boom system,
and so cannot refuel most US combat and support aircraft.

Without searching for and reading the full article, I'm assuming there's more after that sentence. Otherwise I'd have to ask the author whether they think the role of the RAF AAR fleet is to only support other nations' aircraft.

That said, and I might well be imagining this, but I'm sure I once saw a video somewhere of a boom equipped aircraft that had been modified with a drogue element at the end of the boom for probe/drogue ops. Would that be a potential solution? We've spent so much on these damned Voyagers that we may as well spend a little more if it means we actually get the full capability from all our fleets.

[sandiego89]

Melchett01: ....I'm sure I once saw a video of a boom equipped aircraft that had been modified with a drouge element...

You may likely be remembering a KC-135 with the boom drouge adaptor mentioned in the post before yours. This was basically bolting a drouge to the end of the boom allowing the tanker to pass fuel to probe equipped aircraft. Used quite a bit in the first gulf war when many US Navy and coalition probe equipped aircraft needed tankers. The boom could not be used as boom as we know it on the same mission, so not really a "solution". If you wanted to return to boom operations, you would have to land and remove the drouge.

Nicknamed the iron maiden, as the steel basket at the end of the hose was less forgiving than typical drougues.

[MSOCS]

It would be very beneficial to see the alternative receiver-type modification on Voyager. It "future proofs" the fleet and gives it utility with quite a lot of other countries that we might expect to assist. The problem is, in this climate, we can't afford to future proof anything really - it has to be needed now or very soon, with a robust BC to support it, or it gets no funding.

If we were to decide to buy a boom-type aircraft, I'm sure the mod would happen as a consequence. Who knows.

[D-IFF_ident]

The A330 MRTT can be equipped with Boom, Wing Pods, Centreline hose and UARRSI all at the same time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS/Northrop_Grumman_KC-45

[BEagle]

Indeed, D-IFF_ident, that should have been the standard fit for all A330 tankers....

[uffington sb]

Just had a Grizzly and a Fat Albert overfly Peterborough in a AAR type of formation.
The Albert was tucked in tight just behind the Grizzly.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just had a Grizzly and a Fat Albert overfly Peterborough in a AAR type of formation.
The Albert was tucked in tight just behind the Grizzly.

What's a "Grizzly"? Surely you had an Albert tucked in behind an Atlas?? ;)

[uffington sb]

Ok an Atlas.
Looked like they were AAR, but they weren't.

[Wokkafans]

Uffington - lots of pics of the Herc and Atlas here:

https://twitter.com/Seb_Lanc99

[Haraka]

What's a "Grizzly"?

That was a close one since, inevitably, in service it would have been dubbed the "Grisly".
Better the " At las(t)".

[Sook]

The A400 was using a Grizzly callsign yesterday.


Edit - So was the C-130J! Doh!

[uffington sb]

Grizzly. Unofficial name for the A400. Same as Fat Albert/Albert for the Hercules.
Last time I saw a Grizzly over my house, Tom Cruise was strapped onto the outside!

[RetiredBA/BY]

[QUOTE=uffington sb;9371864]Grizzly. Unofficial name for the A400. Same as Fat Albert/Albert for the Hercules.
Last time I saw a Grizzly over my house, Tom Cruise was strapped onto the outside![/QUOTE

...........so we have a tanker that can't receive fuel, at least I see neither probe or a slipway on the RAF Voyagers. Seem to remember we had them, probes , on the Valiant, Victors, TriStars and VC10 tankers !

At least the Australians have got their act together ! Perhaps their interpretation of PFI is in the mark !

[Top West 50]

Ref earlier post. Whilst I cannot speak for AirTanker, TTSC never offered even the prospect of a buddy buddy capability. It certainly wasn't on the MOD wish list. In any case contrary to opposition claims, the 767 had more than enough fuel internally to deal with all the requirements scenarios.

[Top West 50]

And another thing, anyone remember the dick-dance with the Tristar probes?

[TheChitterneFlyer]

How many times can you recall the TriStar probe being used in anger? I'd say "ZERO"!

[Cpt_Pugwash]

The Kiwis refuelled a Tristar with an A4, I think. :)

Also this
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_2ngGMeMjjLI/TWo1Z46jJ6I/AAAAAAAAA8U/g6duibuyWG0/s640/Bucc%20Tanks%20Tristar.jpg

[Tengah Type]

Actually it was a VC10K3 that prodded the Kiwi A4. To be sure!

[Blue Bottle]

Look at page 24 to see how much of the Air Mobility Force budget the KC30 costs. Add a boom to that and great expense
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbrizenorton/rafcms/mediafiles/28911D00_5056_A318_A8AE0B06618978CA.pdf

[pr00ne]

A Station Commander AND a Head of Establishment, both at Group Captain level? How much does THAT cost..

[salad-dodger]

A Station Commander AND a Head of Establishment, both at Group Captain level? How much does THAT cost..
I remember what a Station Commander is, but wtf is a Head of Establishment?

S-D

[Wander00]

Did I not read some where that there are now station commanders and force commanders on the same "station"

[RetiredBA/BY]

A Station Commander AND a Head of Establishment, both at Group Captain level? How much does THAT cost..
How much does it cost, well not very much. Two Group Captains at, say, 100K PA each, if that, is still FAR less than would be paid to just one individual in the private sector (and in very many areas in the public domain) with that amount of responsibility.

MOD have got Brize management on the cheap.

It seems more than reasonable to me, on such a large station as BZN , to have one GC running ops. and the other running Station "admin".

[ICM]

If, as I understand things, several previously Command or Group level functions are now found at Station level, it's not surprising that this would cause changes at the top of what I see is a £1.4bn full-cost operation.

I am, however, intrigued by another bit of p24, where it's stated that work is in hand "to give Defence access to an additional Voyager aircraft," an issue that appears to be linked to a desire to reduce charter expenditure. Other than remarking that this is by no means a new desire, as it came up often enough in the 1970s to my knowledge, are we to take it that this work seeks to increase the Voyager 'Core Fleet' to 10? And that it needs a contract amendment to use one of the 'surge' fleet in a situation short of war?

[Roland Pulfrew]

A Station Commander AND a Head of Establishment, both at Group Captain level? How much does THAT cost..

Not much really. Think span of control. Average Station circa 1200-1500 personnel = 1 gp capt. Brize, which has expanded dramatically, circa 3000 mil/civ personnel (maybe more now). At full capacity will have 7, or is it 8 (?), large squadrons and about 1/10 of the entire RAF. Doesn't seem unreasonable to have 2 gp capts for that. Just think of the OJAR load.

Did I not read some where that there are now station commanders and force commanders on the same "station"

Force HQs, commanded by the 1* Force Commander (think AOs in old terminology AO Tornado, AO ISTAR, AO AT/AAR* etc) are supposed to be "Group Forward". Stn Cdr remains the Stn Cdr at gp capt rank and gets the big house. It followed the massive cock-up of trying to squeeze PTC into Air at HW and the resulting need to free up space at HW. As a casual observer some FHQs are working better than others.

* Interestingly the non-aircrew branches seem to have stuck to RAF tradition more than the aircrew as they have kept AO A6, AO A4, AO BM etc

[D-IFF_ident]

I'd estimate that if you got rid of around 150 Gp Capts in one year, or 1 Gp Capt for 150 years, that would just about pay for one boom on one aircraft. :cool: