Voyager: AT Aircraft Only??
A400 dry refuelling by a Voyager
Last edited by cyrilranch; 24th Jul 2012 at 20:24.
With the recent focus of attention on Astute ( 'Slow, leaky, rusty'), how long before someone asks "How's the Voyager programme going?"......
Still, at least it doesn't have a boom, eh Oz mates?
No doubt the MoD is busy buying up all the speed tape and black bodge tape it can get its hands on, to keep the ageing Vickers FunBus and TriShaw fleets staggering on....and on....and on.
But for how much longer?
Still, at least it doesn't have a boom, eh Oz mates?
No doubt the MoD is busy buying up all the speed tape and black bodge tape it can get its hands on, to keep the ageing Vickers FunBus and TriShaw fleets staggering on....and on....and on.
But for how much longer?
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Nov 2012 at 08:40.
The big point is that the TriStar has great capabilities that the RAF did not always use properly.
The Airbus replacement is late and way over the top in price and hype, much like the RAF it is joining.
OAP
The Airbus replacement is late and way over the top in price and hype, much like the RAF it is joining.
OAP
Voyager
No AAR
No ETOPS
No VIP fit
No ops into hostile areas (ie most of current ops ex BZZ.)
Good for crew training, employing expensive redundant ex arline pilots, (at the expense of fully trained more cost effective multi-role RAF officers) Airshows, and airline type trips. (The long way around over the Atlantic)
May get 4 airframes in service total, by end 2013
TriStar struggles on with flight/ground crews continually effected by multiple delays and planning changes, trying to cope with unserviceability problems with the ageing airframe.
No ETOPS
No VIP fit
No ops into hostile areas (ie most of current ops ex BZZ.)
Good for crew training, employing expensive redundant ex arline pilots, (at the expense of fully trained more cost effective multi-role RAF officers) Airshows, and airline type trips. (The long way around over the Atlantic)
May get 4 airframes in service total, by end 2013
TriStar struggles on with flight/ground crews continually effected by multiple delays and planning changes, trying to cope with unserviceability problems with the ageing airframe.
Last edited by cessnapete; 18th Nov 2012 at 09:52.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is a rumour network, but could someone post a link to bona-fide references confirming the non-AAR, non-ETOPS etc?
I can't find any trustworthy sources of such information.
I can't find any trustworthy sources of such information.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
One of the BMI A330's that was built in 2001 I believe is now going for breaking as spares... Do not seem to have longevity in the Civil world
Quite stunned that this 330 is not ETOPS?
The legacy culture of bodge tape, in-line crimps and FBA adjusts must be also be canned!
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Nov 2012 at 18:38.
Take your point BEagle, especially as the certification requirements are enduring and monitored, but for pure military ops no ETOPS is required - we can drive our aircraft anywhere we like.
Not entirely sure we are wise in doing so, but it is what we do.
Not entirely sure we are wise in doing so, but it is what we do.
.....for pure military ops no ETOPS is required - we can drive our aircraft anywhere we like.
Anyway, the Voyager is not 'your' aircraft - it belongs to ATr.
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Nov 2012 at 18:58.
Beags:"For an organisation which has never operated an ETOPS aircraft before, obtaining this certification will not be a quick process...."
In my experience it would have been introduced at very the start to meet fully trained staff. However, I'm pleased that its not the aircraft (and probably not the LAE and flight crew contractors) that're holding up the procedure - assuming that someone has actually applied for ETOPS approval?
...or is that another project milestone for the distant future?
In my experience it would have been introduced at very the start to meet fully trained staff. However, I'm pleased that its not the aircraft (and probably not the LAE and flight crew contractors) that're holding up the procedure - assuming that someone has actually applied for ETOPS approval?
...or is that another project milestone for the distant future?
Haltonapp
Probably not. An A330 is CatIII out of the box when purchased.
The TriStar was Cat IIIc when bought by the Mod, but BZZ and the aircraft still only CatI.
Try explaining that to the Ex Afganistan troops this week who had to endure their Leave trip home, Via Cyprus- Hannover-Brize divert Newcastle, and then bused back to Brize after long delay again at Newcastle!!
Many UK civil airports are now routinely CATIII/II and the equipment and maintenance expertise could easily be contracted out by the MoD to upgrade BZZ. Probably not cost effective in the past with no low viz capable Military capability. But with a looming large A330 fleet plus most civil airliners using BZZ so equipped, the requirement makes more sense.
Military mindset and lack of money?
The TriStar was Cat IIIc when bought by the Mod, but BZZ and the aircraft still only CatI.
Try explaining that to the Ex Afganistan troops this week who had to endure their Leave trip home, Via Cyprus- Hannover-Brize divert Newcastle, and then bused back to Brize after long delay again at Newcastle!!
Many UK civil airports are now routinely CATIII/II and the equipment and maintenance expertise could easily be contracted out by the MoD to upgrade BZZ. Probably not cost effective in the past with no low viz capable Military capability. But with a looming large A330 fleet plus most civil airliners using BZZ so equipped, the requirement makes more sense.
Military mindset and lack of money?
Last edited by cessnapete; 19th Nov 2012 at 08:16.
Cat111
Just what in hell is happening in the RAF today. If I am correct ALL the RAF's tanker and transport assets now are located on a SINGLE runway at BZZ and it doesn't even have cat 111 ! And an A330 without ETOPS, perhaps the CAT 111 equipment (which isn't very extensive, or at least it wasn't on 767s) has been removed, too, ! Beggars belief.
High time CAS, Air Commander and MOD mandarins got a grip on reality and came into the 21st century and learned in detail about all weather and long range operation of large modern aircraft. Perhaps someone could or should point out to them that Cat 111 has been routine in civil aviation for many, many years and is done not as a technical exercise but as a means of improving efficiency, enhancing safety and reducing costs , surely things which are as relevant to the RAF as they are to the airlines.
At least the RAF is, at long last, getting a decent tanker with considerable capability. Makes my old Victor BK1 look positively puny !
High time CAS, Air Commander and MOD mandarins got a grip on reality and came into the 21st century and learned in detail about all weather and long range operation of large modern aircraft. Perhaps someone could or should point out to them that Cat 111 has been routine in civil aviation for many, many years and is done not as a technical exercise but as a means of improving efficiency, enhancing safety and reducing costs , surely things which are as relevant to the RAF as they are to the airlines.
At least the RAF is, at long last, getting a decent tanker with considerable capability. Makes my old Victor BK1 look positively puny !
Last edited by RetiredBA/BY; 19th Nov 2012 at 07:01.
Retired.
The RAF has got two very decent tanker types, one with considerable capability.
It is a pity how the bandwagon has been allowed to snowball with the new project. Reminds me of the situation with married quarters and Annington homes!
OAP
The RAF has got two very decent tanker types, one with considerable capability.
It is a pity how the bandwagon has been allowed to snowball with the new project. Reminds me of the situation with married quarters and Annington homes!
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 19th Nov 2012 at 07:17.
Tankers
Yes, I have no doubt that the VC10 (always thought it would make a good tanker when I flew it in the 70s) and TriStar (and the crews who fly them) have given excellent service but neither were state of the art when introduced. What I meant is that it's great to see the RAF getting new build, state of the art aircraft with tremendous capability, though still without the fuel capacity of the 1011 or kc10.
Last edited by RetiredBA/BY; 19th Nov 2012 at 14:15.