melmothtw Could the VC10 and TriStar not do it with aerial refuelling? And I had assumed that the Voyager might be an improvement on the VC10 and TriStar....
I don't think the abilty to go non-stop UK to the Falklands should be the measurement of what makes a good tanker/transport, or somehow make Voyager inferior to the aircraft it replaces. Flying 7,800+ miles, and still have a usefull load and reserves is a huge, very narrow requirement. This would have resulted in a far larger aircraft, which would be more expensive and overkill for 99% of assigned missions, or the investement in air to air refueling from the start- all for a non-essential requirement.
I agree with Beags and say it is not a big deal. Ascension Island cuts the flight rougly in half- perfectly acceptable. Of course it comes down to how you view "improvement". My 25 year old Honda has 4 doors and can carry 5 passengers and go about 300 miles on a tank of gas- and so does my newer Acura. A cynic may then say then my newer Acura has no improvement- but I can asure you it is a vast improvement in all regards including reliability, safety, performance, comfort, etc. (and yes I had to pay for that). I say Voyager is an "improvement" in many ways.