Britain's flying tankers hailed as 'Godsend'

[newshound]

From today's Torygraph:

Britain's flying tankers hailed as 'Godsend'
By David Graves, aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, and Neil Tweedie

AMERICAN pilots yesterday described the RAF's aerial refuelling crews as the silent "heroes" of the bombing campaign in Afghanistan.

While the American tankers were restricted to pre-arranged areas of operations over Afghanistan, the six RAF aircraft were prepared to "go anywhere they were needed" over the country, which enabled more targets to be attacked, the pilots disclosed. As a result, the British aircraft are preferred even over their American counterparts by the combat crews.

The pilots aboard the American aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, who have launched nearly 1,100 sorties against Taliban targets and terrorist positions belonging to Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network, said they were "extremely grateful" for the service provided by the RAF tankers.

"They're my heroes. They don't have as many assets as the US, but every time I've flown they had a plane out there," said Capt Stephen Voetsch, the US Navy air wing commander aboard the Theodore Roosevelt.

Six RAF tanker aircraft, two TriStars from 216 Squadron and four VC10s from 10 and 101 Squadrons, were deployed to the Middle East at the start of the bombing campaign on Oct 7. While no British combat aircraft have participated in the air strikes so far, the unheralded role of the tankers has largely gone unnoticed.

Usually based in Oman, the tankers fly every day to ensure the American aircraft bombing targets in Afghanistan are able to fly above the country long enough to complete their missions. The Navy F-14 Tomcats and Marine Corps F/A-18C Hornets launched from the Theodore Roosevelt and its sister carrier, the Carl Vinson, are refuelled at least twice over the country, sometimes more.

With some of the targets up to 900 miles from the carriers, the pilots said the service offered by the RAF was vital to enable them to complete their missions successfully. They also said that the refuelling process used by the RAF was more compatible to their aircraft than that offered by the US Air Force.

One pilot said the RAF tankers were the first choice for the carrier aircraft. "The US Navy and Air Force use different refuelling systems, and we are much happier using the RAF tankers than the air force because their system is much more like ours," he said.

Rear Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, commander of the Theodore Roosevelt battle group, described the RAF tankers as "a Godsend" and said his pilots referred to them as "a basket of choice", a reference to the refuelling method involving a basket at the end of a fuel hose in which an aircraft sticks a probe to refuel.

A Marine Corps Hornet pilot said the RAF crews were prepared to go anywhere over Afghanistan, unlike the US Air Force tankers. "They will go with you wherever you want to go. With so many targets now being designated at a late stage it is vital we have that flexibility. "When we want to refuel, they are always there. Their contribution is absolutely immense," he said.

The 30-year-old captain, who has flown 13 sorties over Afghanistan, said the crew of one of the Tristars had "highly amused" him and his colleagues in VMFA-251 Squadron by putting a "cash only" sign in the windows of the tanker one night when they were refuelling.

The RAF tanker crews are pushing themselves to the limits of safety in operations over Afghanistan, flying at four times the rate they would normally achieve in peacetime, the Ministry of Defence said. They were currently flying 120 hours every 28 days, compared to the normal maximum monthly total of about 30 hours, a source said.

One fifth of US aircraft in ground attacks were being refuelled by the RAF.

[ol_benkenobi]

Good show guys.

[Snapshot]

Awesome, well done the boys and girls from BZN. Bout time got some decent and worthy PR.
Also the Victor Charlie one zero, what an aircraft, lady of the skies.

[Gainesy]

More like Norah Batty of the skies.
Good work & good luck.

[ORAC]

I am sure that a contractor would provide the same service (not).

Must be an interesting calculation on remaining airframe hours/fatigue life and how long till replacements will be available.

Mind you - there should be a lot of cheap airframes around at the moment.........

Is this a good time to get Jacko and the rest of the press to give Tony a hard time about privatisation....especially after Railtrack?

[Flatus Veteranus]

Congratulations to 216 and 10 Sqns; and even (through gritted teeth) to the "squadron with a hole in the middle". Nice to see some appreciation of light blue support from the dark blue for a change - even if in American accents (save "Mumbles" that is!). Keep it up, lads and lasses ...doh. :)

[Tonkenna]

Good job chaps, whish I was there with you. Still, if its still going on in a couple of years, maybe I will.

Tonks

[Art Field]

As another Tanker Trash old boy I add my congratulations and pleasure in seeing that the "can do" spirit lives on in spite of all that is thrown in the spokes. It must also emphasise the need to preserve a training system that breeds a freedom to think for yourself and allows you to exercise that freedom in a tactical situation. This surely is why we stand out from the crowd.

[Jackonicko]

Could this level of commitment be sustained under the terms of the proposed PFI, in addition to other ongoing commitments?

How about a bigger (Desert Storm) level of RAF tanker commitment?

Isn't it now time to quietly bury this mad-brained privatisation bollock$?

[Arkroyal]

Hope President Bliar didn't read it.

America reckons the tankers were 'Godsent'

Actually, Tony sent them.

Ergo Tony = God

The pillock rates himself highly enough already. We'll never control him now! :eek:

[BEagle]

Despite increasing difficulties, we're still able to train our tanker crews to work as an effective 'can-do' team, supported by an equally dedicated 'can-do' ground crew team.
Regrettably our 'squadron engineers' are being swept away by the bean counters who don't understand intangible assets and we're being forced to go back to the universally-despised archaic centralised servicing concept; add that to the ludicrous PFI so beloved of the DPA suits and the future looks pretty bleak....

So wouldn't it be a really excellent idea to buy up a couple of dozen ex-BA 767s, get them modded to carry 94 tonne of fuel, fit a full-up military flight deck with a 3rd crew station for the Systems Panel Operator and return to 2 dedicated tanker transport squadrons having nothing to do with daft PPP procurement .....bet no-one has said that before!

"Bah, wibble....purple jointery...I hear what you say...blue water of defence thinking...inter alia...smart procurement...consultancies...non-executive directorships...baaaah" quoth A Military Spokesperson....

[ORAC]

And what a good idea for BA to push - the cashflow would come in handy.

Gosh! Reminds of the good old day's! Where did we get those Tristars from?

[Ivor Bigwan]

The crews are doing an exceptional job especially as they're all sleeping in the same tent! Yes that's right the RAF beancounters have managed to save a lot of dosh by shoehorning 30 male and female aircrew into one canvas bedroom with the beds so close together that you can touch each other.

Absolutely ideal conditions for 24 hour ops......NOT!

[BEagle]

Orac - the same people who gave us our thirdhand VC10K2s and our secondhand VC10K4s!! The MoD has never paid the market price for the RAF's 'Force enablers' (my original phrase!) - and now that their worth has been proved yet again as it was in the Falklands War, Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo......, it's about b£oody time that serious funding was allocated to a next-generation AAR/AT aircraft instead of the RAF's share of the defence vote merely fuelling just the BWoS Bureaufighter, Nimrod Y3K and Bristol Bureaucrat monetary black holes!

Ivor - but aren't they grudgingly providing some MFI flat-pack portacabins for the winter? Presumably the readily available nearby accommodation is reserved purely for visiting Melchetts...

From the Daily Scoop: "Britain's contribution to the US assault on the Taleban is threatened by penny-pinching MoD bean counters. The RAF's air-to-air refuelling aircraft crews, described as the 'silent heroes' by their grateful US Navy and Marine Corps 'customers' are being forced to live in squalid tents on their airfield because the MoD refuses to permit them to live in the readily available local accommodation. Not that such inconvenience was afforded to recent big-wig visitors, of course! But the mixed-sex RAF crews are getting on with the job despite the conditions, lack of US-style 'tax-breaks' or Combat Pay and are providing their vital 'Force-Enabling' service to US warplanes around the clock. But, when the airline industry recovers from the doldrums, how many of these pilots will remember how they were treated during the Afghanistan War - and will vote with their feet? Is it really too much to expect the penny-pinchers in Whitehall to put their hands in their pockets to show some tangible support to the New Few?"

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Ivor Bigwan]

Beagle,

Yes there are supposedly some 'Portakabins' on order, latest ETA is March!!! Methinks visitng Melchetts will be staying in Hotac with the Movers. Aparently Movers need a good nights sleep in case they screw up the bags off/bags on, people off/people on routine or forget to wear those ridiculous 'Dayglo' jackets!!!

[MrProach]

In the meantime, while we're stretched for crews and running at around 60% establishment in at least one branch, and equally tight on airframes; maintaining schedules to Kuwait and Sierra Leone and the ongoing commitment to the No fly zones. How on Earth can we justify a crew and a frame sitting around on their elbows all day in the Falklands. Are 'they' standing by to counter an invasion from a bankrupt nation with no credible airforce or using up valuable assets simple to enable more 'training' time for the fast jets?

[BEagle]

But the pointy-heads might then have to fly with tanks on! Shock horror!!

"Big picture...defence commitments...I hear what you say...demonstration of faith...oil...bug ger, didn't mean to say that. OK - diamonds. Double bug ger - and they're in Sierra Leone in any casr...errr, 'cos mad old Maggie said so...wibble, wibble...shut up and get on with your prep boy!"

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle, because if you type 'b****r' instead of bug ger, the nanny naughty word editor replaces it!! ]

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Max R8]

"A Marine Corps Hornet pilot said the RAF crews were prepared to go anywhere over Afghanistan, unlike the US Air Force tankers. "They will go with you wherever you want to go. With so many targets now being designated at a late stage it is vital we have that flexibility. "When we want to refuel, they are always there. Their contribution is absolutely immense," he said."

I wonder how flexible those PFI tanker contracts will be. If it is anything like the EFT Tutor shambles it looks like the USA may have to rethink 20% of their missions that depend on the current Brize boyz.

Opps..does that class me as an official whinger like Beags!

[The Mistress]

Great job boys and girls.

Unfortunately the political apathy is much closer to home than you think. At a recent Full Council meeting of West Oxfordshire District Council held in Witney the war was briefly mentioned. The Leader of the Council, one Mr Barry Norton of North Leigh, wanted to gloss overy the subject and carry on with the next point because "it doesn't affect us". RAF Brize Norton falls within his domain.

This is a man who doesn't own a passport, has never been abroad in his life and appears frightened of anyone more intelligent than himself. Clearly has a grip on the big picture (not). He's also paid £18,000 a year from money contributed by the boys and girls working at Brize/living in Carterton.

Fortunately the Chairman of the Council, Tony Walker is far more sensible and offered a prayer of thanksgiving for the work being done by Service personnel at RAF Brize Norton and for their safe return. I'm happy to say that the rest of the Council, particularly ex-mil types were more than happy to pray with him.

[Tonkenna]

MaxR8

Nothing wrong with the Tutor :D

BEags, couldn't agree more about the tankers. Considering they are so important and they are helping build Tony's empire you would think the fleet would get more support.

Tonks

[ORAC]

BEags,
I was being sarcastic old sport - if you had,nt noticed. And I have worked with the AAR force for over 25 years and know their problems and exactly how good they are!

[BEagle]

ORAC - rather thought you were, chum! But it gave me another opportunity to have a go at the stupid PFI nonsense....

[Denzil]

Beag's as mentioned on another thread, have you heard of the recent offer from Cambridge International Airport?? L1011-500's fresh from "D" check, freight door (proper civvy one!) + wing pods? I believe 10 for the price of one A330, got to be a bargain :eek:

[BEagle]

This so-called offer from the Arfur Daley of aviation has got to be taking the pi$$! They couldn't sort out pods for the RAF TriShaws 15 years ago, so what has suddenly changed?

The worst case scenario is that we should have any more of these ageing old clunkers. Fine in their day - much as the '10 was - but way past their sell-by date now! Let The Guvnor have 'em!!

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[greenwizard]

L1011-500's fresh from "D" check, freight door (proper civvy one!) + wing pods? I believe 10 for the price of one A330, got to be a bargain

That would make far to much sense!
That would save far to much money!
That would not bring a new toy to play with!
That would be such a good idea!

Now stop it at once.

ps. A little money cures most problems
but ask an American Navy Pilot if he's interested in 126t of fuel or two hose's???

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: greenwizard ]

[Denzil]

Beags I have seen the drawing for fitment of wing pods and it can be done, probs are that nobody has any pennies to pay for it :confused:

With cost being the major hurdle they could be the answer (I'm not saying the best one, only the most affordable one) :eek:

[BEagle]

One of the principal objections to buying more obsolete aircraft is that, unlike the B767 and A330 which are still in full production, old jets soon end up costing a mint to support so the life-cycle costs aren't that much cheaper. With any more old TriStars we'd only be back in the same 'old aircraft' syndrome in 5-10 years time which we're currently in with our secondhand VC10 and TriShaw fleet.

[Busta]

Having trudged around the world 'plugged in' during good times and bad, I have nothing but respect for tanker crews of all varieties; Alberts were the only guys who would tank at 500 ft and the VC10 wing hose was a bu gger in cloud after an hour or so - dihedral leans OK! Vulcans transferred at an amazing rate and KC10's with the little wiggly add on were a hoot, but they were all a great relief to find, especially in the dead of night with nowhere else to go. I would put these guys in the same bucket as firemen and SAR crews; I will ALWAYS buy them beer.

Few things matter very much, most things don't matter at all.

[Jackonicko]

"These TriStars would need replacing in five-ten years...?"

Great! They'd probably be RAF owned and operated and maybe when they are replaced they'll have forgotten all about this stupid PFI nonsense by then and they'll be replaced by new build A330s.

[15/15 flex]

Now there's a thought...

Good work chaps....

[MarkD]

Where are all these L10s gonna come from? PIK will be chocca with them any day now :D :D :D

[sprucemoose]

Just to stoke up the PFI-chestnut again, I spoke to two v senior RAF brass somewhere hot and sandy a couple of weeks ago, and they said that the current crisis only strengthens the need for a PFI solution through its spare capacity.

The current campaign is proving that you can't do anything without tankers, so why farm out the capability? What's next: PFI AWACS, PFI ASTOR? Bite the bullet, HM Treasury, and accept that some things are worth coughing up for.

Impressed to hear last Friday about the long hours the VC10 and Tristar chaps are putting in to support the USN; keep up the good work!

[Jackonicko]

Come on Loose Mousse, name these turkeys!

Let the boys know which brass have their fingers so firmly on the pulse, and their brains so firmly in their boots.

[ijp471]

:cool: Good on ya, guys & gals. Nice to see a bit of recognition for your efforts for a change.
Saw a bit of action myself in a former life on an even older tanker. VC10 was new and shiny then! Think we are sending you some help (same vintage) - better late than never. Keep the beer cool.
P.S - who invented this PFI thing - its even migrated down under :mad:

[BEagle]

Yes - when the rest of the world realises the worth of the AAR force, a blinkered failure to face the truth is all we hear!

There can be NO 'benefit' from PFI that would have helped in the Afghanistan War - the 'call-back' time would have been unacceptably long and any reduction would have had financial penalties. But even more basically, there is no 'market' for the PFI consortia to sell their spare capacity to. When airlines are busily shedding capacity, what makes these Melchetts think that the PFI has any realistic means of finance?

In fact the use of UK AAR by Uncle Spam would have been the much vaunted '3rd party revenue' which these PFI people think they can get paid for. But who would then have flown the aircraft? Civil owned aircraft flown by military crews for the PFI contractor's commercial gain? Sounds like being a mercenary to me.....

PFI - it's an utter crock of $hit for military AAR force enablement. Time that Melchett realised that. BAAAAH!!