found mod website for emailing the defence minister. in the box marked "Please enter the full details of your request (please be as specific as possible)" entered the following:
Dear Sir,
I am very concerned about the future of the RAF’s tanker fleet. After much investigation, it appears that the current fleet of VC10 aircraft (a/c) are due to retire within the next few years. Their proposed replacements will be civil airliners with air-to-air refuelling (AAR) capability.
The VC10 is an outstanding a/c for its AAR purpose and has given 40 years venerable service. My internet research has revealed some startling information, particularly from the ‘horse’s mouth’ – a forum dedicated to the views and thoughts of all those directly associated with operating the VC10 fleet (u lot!). Whilst it takes many an hour to trawl through every word, the overview can be condensed as follows:- VC10 can maintain a higher airspeed than any other current a/c – it always has an excess of power enabling much more efficient AAR (bear in mind a tanker needs to keep pace with its receiver a/c – Tornado/Typhoon/JSF etc.)
- VC10 can refuel 3 a/c simultaneously – (RAF Tristar fleet: 2 at a time and USAF tankers: only 1!)
- The basic VC10 design, with high-mounted rear engines produces zero turbulence for the receiving a/c – AAR is difficult at the best of times, let alone being thrown around by the wash of the wing-mounted engines of other AAR a/c. Accidents refuelling from VC10s are very very rare, not so with other a/c types.
- RAF Tristar a/c are limited to which airfields can accept them due to runway length. This is true of all other a/c types (due to engines mounted on the wings, flap and slat areas are reduced). VC10 was designed from the outset to operate into and out of very short airstrips – it can land on and take-off from the proverbial postage stamp. This will not be a problem in the future as long as the next war is fought somewhere near to runways that are long enough; should the ‘warmonger’ be less considerate, VC10 could be deployed with little difficulty.
- Further, VC10 was designed to be very rugged – intended to operate to and from airstrips with a very poor surface. No existing a/c matches it in this respect. In short it, can operate from almost anywhere in the world. This would certainly not be true of ANY proposed successor a/c.
Overall, the VC10 fleet represents the RAF’s highest value asset – tankers are everything. Losing them will seriously harm the effectiveness of Britain’s air defence.
The fleet is now 40 years old and still going strong, but they are gradually being taken to RAF St. (Welsh Airfield) to be “reduced to spares”; once they are gone, they are gone.
Solution: refurbish, upgrade and rebuild. Nimrod has received this treatment: fortunately someone realised that there was no suitable replacement for it and stored MR2s were completely redesigned and rebuilt – imminently about to enter RAF service as MR4s. The airframes used are even older and of a more antiquated design than the VC10. Whilst the Nimrod MR4 programme has encountered the usual delays and overspend, much was due to the nature of the project:- Replacing Nimrod’s engines with up-to-date designs meant a completely new wing (the engines are buried inside the wing). VC10 engines “stick out the back” by themselves, nowhere near the wing – bolt new, quieter and more efficient ones on, job done!
- Nimrod is a flying computer designed to search and find things – MR4 is THE most advanced a/c in the sky; that’s its job. VC10 doesn’t need to find missiles, tanks or submarines; all it does is fly in a straight line with a “hose hanging out the back”! It is not a ‘complex’ a/c.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised that, if you turned up at RAF Oxonian base with a large crate full of engines and other goodies, a quietly-spoken engineer would say, “Thank you, your brand new VC10 will be ready at the end of the week!”
Looking at all the information I have seen, I am convinced that rebuilding the VC10 fleet is the most sensible and economic solution. The RAF already have the a/c, the infrastructure and the personnel; why scrap it all to only to replace it with something that will never be even half as effective in fulfilling Britain’s vital AAR requirement. It would be like scrapping all ministerial Jaguars and replacing them with Minis – not up to the job! VC10s were built to last and they have – a fleet upgrade would solve the problem for the next 40 years. It must be done soon though, as one-by-one, they are ending up in the back of the scrap-man’s lorry. Not one airforceman/woman involved with AAR wants to see the VC10 go as they know, more than anyone, just how good they are.
I would be grateful for your reply.
Yours,
(saracenman)
tonge in cheek in places but basically the truth! any comments?
probably
but did similar when last comet canopus (@ secret wilts base) looked as if it would be auctioned off to a yank home -
sent letters to pm, culture sec, my mp, min def, etc. etc.
comet withdrawn from auction the day before - now at brunt!
similar letters suggesting retiring concordes for s.sonic AAR actually got reply from lab-coat-wearing boffin somewhere, answering all my points in detail!
uk still hanging on to democracy - just!
comments???????????
