Tanker Comparisons
I am not a tanker man, except for a time as one of those reviled Albert tankers both in the UK and FI, so I will not comment on the need or otherwise for AAR consolidation. However, many comparative statements are revealed here with, as far as I can see, few real facts to back the statements.
I have a copy of HQ 38 Gp "AT and AAR Planning Parameters" dated November 1992 (even at that time marked as UNCLAS before anyone squeals).
This shows Max Normal Fuel Loads as follows: Victor 49.5, VC10K2 75.5, K3 82, C1K 68.5, K4 67 and Tri* 132.5.
Fuel transfers are then shown for:
3 hr sorties at a range of 1230 nms of 22.5, 41, 47, 34, 32.5 and 97.5.
4 hr sorties at a range of 1660 nms of 17, 34, 40, 27, 25.5 and 90.5.
5 hr sorties at a range of 2090 nms of 11, 27, 33, 20, 17.5 and 83.5.
all figures are in Tonnes.
Now moving to Voyager, and admittedly using the OEM's figures, the Max Fuel Load is 111 Tonnes. This fuel fills the wings and centre fuselage tank (but still part of the wing) and brings the ac to MTOW. There is no need for ACTs as with Boeing's offering so you permanently have full availability of space both above and below decks. However with a payload of 45 tonnes it has a range of 3800 nms and empty a ferry range of 8000nm. On a towline at 1000nms range and 4 1/2 hrs on station its fuel offload is 50 tonnes and at 500 nms and 5hrs on station 60 tonnes. On a trail it could take 4 Eurofighters 3600 nms (otherwise empty) or 2800 nms (20 tonnes of payload).
I leave the true tanker aficionados to draw their own conclusions.
Last edited by Xercules; 11th Oct 2013 at 16:18.