Originally Posted by
BEagle
Back when Voyager was still FSTA, the RAF was trying to see whether the aircraft (whether B767, A310 or A330) could be operated with a 2-person crew. After several expensive and pointless investigative sessions, the decision was made to use a 2 person crew for AT, 'augmented' by a food-powered pump attendant for AAR. Whereas more sensible nations listened to those with experience and settled on a 3-person crew for their new tanker fleets, so that the pilots' workload wouldn't be increased trying to manage AAR dynamics as there would be an ex-Tornado / F-4E / C-130 navigator in the 3rd seat with a fit-for-purpose AAR mission planning and management system at his/her disposal.
It was even recommended that FSTA should have a boom "If only to guarantee a 3-person crew"! 20 years ago, BAE's A310MRTT was also offered with a boom.
But back then, no-one ever thought that the RAF would have quite so many receivers which require boom AAR - and if a decision to change the F-35 order were to mean half F-35A and half F-35B, unless the UK is stupid enough to sign a blank cheque for UK-bespoke F-35A + probe mods, that number will only increase.
the point as far as I am concerned is not so much that the RAF was never thinking they would have so many boom receivers, it’s more that they exist. The RAF doesn’t really think they are going to end up in a serious fight by themselves, yet they bought a tanker which is of no use to most of their NATO allies and coalition partners. It was an inwards looking decision that currently limits the flexibility and effectiveness of Voyager in coalition operations and will increasingly affect the usefulness for the RAF.