'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage'
Thread Starter
'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage'
An interesting article in Aviation Leak:
AirTanker Aims To Solve European Tanker Shortage
However, to read:
must be rather worrying. But what really caught my eye was:
Have things really got so bad that 'Commanders' no longer trust their own equipment?
AirTanker Aims To Solve European Tanker Shortage
However, to read:
Challenges remain, however. AirTanker's Voyagers have not yet refueled any RAF front-line combat aircraft. Clearances for the tanker to dispense fuel remain unsigned by the U.K. Military Aviation Authority (MAA). AirTanker said the clearances were imminent in January and continues to say they are imminent now.
In a deployment of RAF Eurofighter Typhoons to Malaysia for a military exercise and participation in the Langkawi International Maritime & Aerospace Exhibition 2013 in March, the fighters were supported by a pair of Italian air force Boeing KC-767s. The NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency gave the clearances to refuel from those aircraft because Italian Eurofighters have already worked up the capability. Commanders did not want to rely on the VC-10s or TriStars in case they became unserviceable during the trip and delayed the inbound or outbound legs of the deployment.
Last edited by BEagle; 10th May 2013 at 12:47.
I will not comment on the reasons for using the Italian tankers, without any MOD information it is all pure speculation. However, other than the delayed AAR clearance, the worrying thing is the part of the report which seems to state that there is no positively defined work for the other half of the Voyager fleet! How much will this whole stupid program cost us, and that is not just in £'s
OAP
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 10th May 2013 at 13:16.
Thread Starter
The article states:
But surely the 'other five' will normally be in 'de-militarised' configuration, so the notion that they will be swapping back between civil and military configuration on a regular basis is pure journalistic speculation?
I'm sure that ATrS must have a more robust business plan in place for third party revenue generation than this article imples - and presumably there are also contractual restrictions on military use by (rather then for) non-RAF military services?
It can take about a week to remove all the military equipment from the Voyagers, such as radio systems and refueling pods, and “blank” off the parts of the aircraft where that equipment had been connected. Therefore, AirTanker would prefer to keep the aircraft in the military configuration to reduce costs.
I'm sure that ATrS must have a more robust business plan in place for third party revenue generation than this article imples - and presumably there are also contractual restrictions on military use by (rather then for) non-RAF military services?
Why is everyone presuming that the Italian tankers came with a full clearance to pass fuel to Typhoons?
How late is the Voyager AAR clearance?
So, let's see, that should mean a pretty big penalty repayment for the MOD? What is that I hear... no terms have been broken?
OAP
So, let's see, that should mean a pretty big penalty repayment for the MOD? What is that I hear... no terms have been broken?
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 11th May 2013 at 08:01.
Have things really got so bad that 'Commanders' no longer trust their own equipment?
The VC10 should have gone out of service at the end of March (Tristar as well?) but due to the Voyager being unable to do it's job, the VC10 fleet (now 4 aircraft?) had a belated extension to September. Think of the manpower and spares 'rundown' that has occurred for that, leaving expertise and capability in very short supply. So yes, the Commanders have finally been forced to acknowledge the situation. I'm not sure the RAF can actually meet it's declared capability e.g. To NATO.
However, other than the delayed AAR clearance, ......
Thread Starter
....and Air Tanker has to accept its major part in that.
BEags, I guess you are in the loop.
Although the boom on the Oz KC-30As is not yet cleared - and might still be a way off - it is cleared to hose tank F/A-18A Classics and F/A-18F Supers. Hawks, not sure yet.
(The boom of course will be helpful for C-17, E-7 Wedgetail, P-8 Poseidon. I doubt C-27J is AAR.)
But as we are now ahead of UK in this area, is there any exchange of T&E data occurring?
Although the boom on the Oz KC-30As is not yet cleared - and might still be a way off - it is cleared to hose tank F/A-18A Classics and F/A-18F Supers. Hawks, not sure yet.
(The boom of course will be helpful for C-17, E-7 Wedgetail, P-8 Poseidon. I doubt C-27J is AAR.)
But as we are now ahead of UK in this area, is there any exchange of T&E data occurring?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I am following this very well. I have been out foralmost two years. Some questions:- Does anyone at the MAA actually sign any RTS(or whatever they might call it these days)?
How do we “clear” non RAF aircraft that are not even RAFtypes to refuel RAF Aircraft? Have QinetiQ Boscombe Down passed their handsover it? I noted the reference to NETMA having “cleared” RAF Typhoons to refuelfrom Boeing tankers. Is it perhaps that the Duty Holder has accepted the NETMAadvice and procedures for inclusion in the RTS perhaps under some NATO STANAG.
I had some experience of Recommending “Clearances”for other nation’s kit to be used with RAF aircraft. Or our kit to be used withother nations aircraft. I found out that there were so many variations of C130saround NATO that you had to be careful.
For some odd reason Q2 did not like the notion of sharing T&E data.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: off-world
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It can take about a week to remove all the military equipment from the Voyagers, such as radio systems and refueling pods, and “blank” off the parts of the aircraft where that equipment had been connected.
And where is the AAR RTS? 'We' were briefed two months ago that it was due before Easter but it has gone very quiet since.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love the Table at page D-1. Receiver clearances for VC10 - Lots; For Tristar - Lots; for Voyager - Errr........
I wonder if we will ever see a UK tanker with the number of clearances that the VC10 has.
I wonder if we will ever see a UK tanker with the number of clearances that the VC10 has.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lj101 - thanks for posting that interesting stuff. Appears a lot of effort goes into same. well done chaps.
Is this the authoritive document? Does every platform RTS refer out to it?
My question was really aimed at who gives the final signature. I left at a time when the MAA was standing up and the position of the RTSA, the Project Engineer and the Operating Authority was confused (well I was confused anyway!) One of my roles was to prepare stuff for signature - I saw many changes over the 12 years since I adopted what was the MAR from the DPA.
Interesting read no the less Lj - puts into context some of the stuff I have just been reading in Vulcan 607 Black Buck. You tanker guys went up in my estimation.
Is this the authoritive document? Does every platform RTS refer out to it?
My question was really aimed at who gives the final signature. I left at a time when the MAA was standing up and the position of the RTSA, the Project Engineer and the Operating Authority was confused (well I was confused anyway!) One of my roles was to prepare stuff for signature - I saw many changes over the 12 years since I adopted what was the MAR from the DPA.
Interesting read no the less Lj - puts into context some of the stuff I have just been reading in Vulcan 607 Black Buck. You tanker guys went up in my estimation.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I missed this earlier...
Probably because the article BEagle quoted to start the thread said
Eurofighter = Typhoon, remember?
Originally Posted by on 10th May 2013 at 12:51 Just This Once...
Why is everyone presuming that the Italian tankers came with a full clearance to pass fuel to Typhoons?
Not sure that is the case...
Not sure that is the case...
The NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency gave the clearances to refuel from those aircraft because Italian Eurofighters have already worked up the capability.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much difference is there in an F-18 tanking and a Typhoon? I just thinking if the RAAF can use a Spanish F-18 to clear using the drogues what's the *&^%$#@ problem? The pods can't be that different and the Typhoon can use the Italian B767s.
Why do I get the feeling the most likely cause is the approval process instead of technical problems.
Why do I get the feeling the most likely cause is the approval process instead of technical problems.