Voyager with a boom?

[sandiego89]

Seems equipping RAF Voyagers with the ARBS boom to give fuel is coming up again. Makes sence, especially for C-17, and perhaps P-8.

AirTanker touts boom for Voyager to expand aerial refuelling provision - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/53075/airtanker-touts-boom-for-voyager-to-expand-aerial-refuelling-provision)

I can't imagine the number of lawyers that would have to be involved in the lease contract modification :}

[BEagle]

CEO Phil Blundell said:

"We would love to have a boom on some of the aircraft, and have had discussions with Airbus DS and touted the idea to the [UK] MoD. It would be a big modification - an MSO station [Mission System Officer/Operator] and other control systems would need to be fitted as well as the boom itself, and there would be issues of certification, training, and crewing - but it could certainly be done," he said.

Issues of crewing and training indeed, but also of ongoing boom operator practice.

Or was Mr Blundell actually saying "We've got rather more aircraft than we know what to do with..."

Nevertheless, not having an organic capability to refuel RC-135 and Sentry seems rather limiting - as would certainly be the case if the UK operated the P-8 unless the aircraft was retrofitted with an AAR probe.

[salad-dodger]

Nevertheless, not having an organic capability to refuel RC-135 and Sentinel seems rather limiting - as would certainly be the case if the UK operated the P-8 unless the aircraft was retrofitted with an AAR probe.
Good luck with refuelling the Sentinel Beagle :confused: Assume you mean Sentry?

S-D

[Avtur]

He said "Sentry", which actually has boom and drogue capabilities.

[BEagle]

Oops - thanks for pointing out my error.

(Actually, ASTOR was originally supposed to be AAR-capable, but when the aircraft's true performance was assessed, the requirement was dropped - it would have been the straw on the camel's back, I was told by a Boscombe TP).

[Avtur]

Apologies SD; just spotted his edit.

[DCThumb]

BEagle, not sure what you mean by the straw that broke the camels back - it was actually deleted to save £63m. The design work had all been done, it just wasn't needed!

[melmothtw]

Is the Voyager provisioned to receive fuel itself by UARRSI, as are the RAAF's MRTTs? I understand it's not fitted, but is it just a question of fitting the unit and wiring in the plumbing, and how easy/difficult is this compared to retrofitting a probe?

Currently, the Voyager can't make it down to the Falklands in one hop, so some form of received fueling would make sense.

[camelspyyder]

Sentinels AAR deletion was, at the time, rumoured to be a weight saving measure because the jet was thought to be too heavy. Along with the rumour of a crew weight limit of 11 stone. How many ex-maritime bloaters would have been posted there then, certainly I wouldn't have made it.

[MSOCS]

Hmm,

Voyager + Boom option = a whole bunch of future aircraft purchases come into zone too.

Good move!

[BEagle]

melmothtw wrote: Currently, the Voyager can't make it down to the Falklands in one hop, so some form of received fueling would make sense.

It probably could, but without any worthwhile payload. But then neither could the VC10 nor TriStar. It's hardly a big deal.

[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....

[Uncle Ginsters]

Let's hope this comes to fruition...for some UARSSI fleets, there may not be a requirement at present, but the availability of a boom tanker can only help with the future...

[D-IFF_ident]

It makes strategic sense for a Nation wanting to play a part on the world stage and remain at the forefront of NATO operations to have a Tanker capable of refuelling all receiver-capable aircraft. I'm not so convinced about the benefits of also adding a UARRSI to their A330 MRTTs, but it would make for a complete package.

With other nations having proved the operational capability of the aircraft and AAR systems, and with individual crew members having gained significant experience in training and operations, it should be fairly straightforward for the RAF to introduce a boom and UARRSI.

Should.

:ok:

[Whenurhappy]

Nevertheless, not having an organic capability to refuel RC-135 and Sentry seems rather limiting - as would certainly be the case if the UK operated the P-8 unless the aircraft was retrofitted with an AAR probe.

We don't have the capability, but the USAF does...

[BEagle]

The other advantage of including a UARSSI is that it would greatly ease the problem of maintaining boom operator proficiency with a predominantly probe-and-drogue air force.

Back to the fun of snake climbs and mutual exchange of fluids, perhaps...:ok:

[sandiego89]

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.

[KenV]

It makes strategic sense for a Nation wanting to play a part on the world stage and remain at the forefront of NATO operations to have a Tanker capable of refuelling all receiver-capable aircraft. I'm not so convinced about the benefits of also adding a UARRSI to their A330 MRTTs, but it would make for a complete package.

With other nations having proved the operational capability of the aircraft and AAR systems, and with individual crew members having gained significant experience in training and operations, it should be fairly straightforward for the RAF to introduce a boom and UARRSI.

If I understand the Voyager program correctly (which may be doubtful) the airframe needs to maintain its civil certification and be able to be operated as a civil aircraft, flown by civil pilots, on a civil (i.e. passenger carrying) mission. If this is correct, then a UARRSI and other purely military systems becomes problematic. MDC and Boeing both did a lot of work to build and sell civil versions of the C-17, and UARRSI and other purely military pieces of the basic C-17 were a real problem. In the end, no civil C-17s were ever sold or built. And this would have been a freighter, not a passenger carrying airliner.

[cokecan]

the USAF might well be happy to provide tanking support to the UK C-17/RC-135/E-3/P-8 fleets when they are providing take to the US, or doing something the approves of, but what about when they are doing UK sovereign stuff that the US either doesn't like, or doesn't want to be seen to like?

anyone want to take bets on whether the US would provide tanking to RAF RC-135's snooping around the Argentine coast from Ascension, or to C-17's flying Apaches or GMLRS down to Mount Pleasant?

or is the UK sovereign stuff just less important than all the US-lead ops in wherethe****istan?

[vascodegama]

I didn't see anything in the article suggesting a rx capability for the ac-thats not to say it would n't have its uses (eg consolidation of spare fuel on ops).I would also agree that the use in the AT role as a rx would be limited, in the example given above you would have to preposition your tanker or at least land it somewhere after the task. In this case why not just land the Voyager for crew swap and refuel? If we do get the P8 lets not f*** around with it-leave it as a boom rx and dont open another potential can of worms.

[Onceapilot]

quote Sandiego89: "I say Voyager is an "improvement" in many ways".

of course, it is also NOT an "improvement" in many ways!;)

OAP

[Just This Once...]

The other advantage of including a UARSSI is that it would greatly ease the problem of maintaining boom operator proficiency with a predominantly probe-and-drogue air force.

Back to the fun of snake climbs and mutual exchange of fluids, perhaps...:ok:

Presumably a boom equipped Voyager could take fuel on from a suitable US tanker, even without a UARSSI.

[cessnapete]

I am not a technician, but the RSAF and RAAF have boom equipped Voyagers in service now.
Surely is it not just a fully tested mod to fit, that has all the drawings and test results already? i.e. as the RAAF are doing with the ex QF airframes.
.

[Roland Pulfrew]

as the RAAF are doing with the ex QF airframes.

I thought that the RAAF jets were brand new build KC30As. I'm pretty certain none of the KC30 variants are pre-owned but are all new build.

[melmothtw]

That's correct for the airframes they have Roland, but they recently awarded a contract for the conversion of two further aircraft to Qantas ?Qantas to return two CIT A330s by end-2015 for MRTT conversion - 7/8/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/qantas-to-return-two-cit-a330s-by-end-2015-for-mrtt-414396/)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Thanks Mel, hadn't seen that article.

[D-IFF_ident]

The RAAF, RSAF and UAE AF & AD all have boom, UARRSI and P&D equipped A330 MRTTs in operational service. The RAF also have an A330 MRTT variant - same aircraft design, same OEM, operator's chosen name, different configuration options.