2014 Urgent Military Requirement?
Trails
OAP
I'll try-the Tristar as you point out has only one hose usable so it must have a plan for sequential refuelling of all rx. For a 2 hose tanker it is possible that a plan using refuelling of rx in pairs would make for a more feasible option (eg the single hose version would require an inordinate no of small bkts ). That does not mean that as a back up plan such a situation is unacceptable, simply that as a main plan it would not do. Equally the crews have procedures to go from 2 hose to single plans without a formal plan being issued.
As far as the other issue of length of deployment is concerned , the Voyager range/offload advantage comes to light on sorties exceeding about 5 hours, the main problem to be honest is that of FJ limits esp crew fatigue etc. With the possible exception of the South Atlantic route , shorter but more palatable legs are usually available.
Of course the more FJ back up you put on either ac, the less fuel you have anyway.
In sum I doubt the Voyager will do legs on trails that are much longer than the Tristar but may have more ex per tanker.
I'll try-the Tristar as you point out has only one hose usable so it must have a plan for sequential refuelling of all rx. For a 2 hose tanker it is possible that a plan using refuelling of rx in pairs would make for a more feasible option (eg the single hose version would require an inordinate no of small bkts ). That does not mean that as a back up plan such a situation is unacceptable, simply that as a main plan it would not do. Equally the crews have procedures to go from 2 hose to single plans without a formal plan being issued.
As far as the other issue of length of deployment is concerned , the Voyager range/offload advantage comes to light on sorties exceeding about 5 hours, the main problem to be honest is that of FJ limits esp crew fatigue etc. With the possible exception of the South Atlantic route , shorter but more palatable legs are usually available.
Of course the more FJ back up you put on either ac, the less fuel you have anyway.
In sum I doubt the Voyager will do legs on trails that are much longer than the Tristar but may have more ex per tanker.
Where possible, a trail deployment should be planned to be viable with a single hose, I agree.
However, there were certainly a few occasions during trails when no single hose plan was possible, so the AARC would weigh up the likelihood of a hose failure against the cost of a second tanker. 3 x Jaguar from Lajes to Halifax comes to mind - a single VC10K could support 3 on a two hose plan, but only 2 on a single hose plan. So - did we launch 2 x VC10K with 2 Jags on one and 1 Jag on the other? Or trust to luck that both hoses would be OK and that the Jags wouldn't spoke one of them, launching 1 x VC10K with 3 Jags?
The latter option was chosen; in the event all was fine.
Whereas the trail wouldn't have been possible with a TriStar unless it launched with 2 Jags, dropped them after the final bracket and then turned back to RV with the 3rd. Rather problematic in pre-GPS days and very inefficient.
The A310 software will offer the option of single hose, 2 hose or 'fail-safe' - meaning a 2 hose plan which will still be possible if one hose goes U/S in flight... Replanning an 8 receiver two hose or 'fail-safe' plan to a single hose plan (so that the revised bracket times/positions are shown) takes a couple of clicks and a couple of seconds, incidentally.....
However, there were certainly a few occasions during trails when no single hose plan was possible, so the AARC would weigh up the likelihood of a hose failure against the cost of a second tanker. 3 x Jaguar from Lajes to Halifax comes to mind - a single VC10K could support 3 on a two hose plan, but only 2 on a single hose plan. So - did we launch 2 x VC10K with 2 Jags on one and 1 Jag on the other? Or trust to luck that both hoses would be OK and that the Jags wouldn't spoke one of them, launching 1 x VC10K with 3 Jags?
The latter option was chosen; in the event all was fine.
Whereas the trail wouldn't have been possible with a TriStar unless it launched with 2 Jags, dropped them after the final bracket and then turned back to RV with the 3rd. Rather problematic in pre-GPS days and very inefficient.
The A310 software will offer the option of single hose, 2 hose or 'fail-safe' - meaning a 2 hose plan which will still be possible if one hose goes U/S in flight... Replanning an 8 receiver two hose or 'fail-safe' plan to a single hose plan (so that the revised bracket times/positions are shown) takes a couple of clicks and a couple of seconds, incidentally.....
Thread Starter
Yes, the problems with recievers trailing at the limits of unrefuelled range are well understood. However, the sinecure of "trusting to luck" as opposed to running a robust plan with fallback options that achieve the aim is somewhat weak, especially on the great North Atlantic.
BTW, never had any problems with RV's before the days of GPS myself, or was that a VC10 Nav thing?
OAP
BTW, never had any problems with RV's before the days of GPS myself, or was that a VC10 Nav thing?
OAP
Onceapilot, you appear unwilling to understand the point.
If the VC10K had launched with 3 Jags and a hose had failed, one receiver would have needed to return to Lajes - and the VC10K would have returned to collect it the following day. At no stage was 'trusting to luck' ever envisaged; after the first bracket, the trail could have continued with a single hose plan even if a hose had failed later in the mission.
It might have been possible to refuel 2 Jags and adopt a critical area solution for the 3rd, but that wasn't part of the post-NAPS era SOPs....
A deep ocean RV with nothing more than A/A TACAN against a receiver formation would have been less likely to succeed when the tanker had been airborne for some time using uncorrected FMS/INS (outside DME/DME correction range). With GPS augmentation, both tanker and receiver would have been more likely to have been in the right place at the right time. The other option would have been for the 'returning TriStar' to have flown back even further towards Lajes for the final receiver RV.
If the VC10K had launched with 3 Jags and a hose had failed, one receiver would have needed to return to Lajes - and the VC10K would have returned to collect it the following day. At no stage was 'trusting to luck' ever envisaged; after the first bracket, the trail could have continued with a single hose plan even if a hose had failed later in the mission.
It might have been possible to refuel 2 Jags and adopt a critical area solution for the 3rd, but that wasn't part of the post-NAPS era SOPs....
A deep ocean RV with nothing more than A/A TACAN against a receiver formation would have been less likely to succeed when the tanker had been airborne for some time using uncorrected FMS/INS (outside DME/DME correction range). With GPS augmentation, both tanker and receiver would have been more likely to have been in the right place at the right time. The other option would have been for the 'returning TriStar' to have flown back even further towards Lajes for the final receiver RV.
Booms on Voyager
VascodaG doubts whether the metal for the last few Voyagers has been cut yet and, therefore, that there should be no problem providing them with refuelling booms or UAARSIs. If the RAF changed its requirement and decided on these refinements that would not alter the issue. Voyagers would still all start life as standard civil birds then be flown to Madrid for conversion.
You must remember that Airbus is a civil aircraft manufacturer and for civil aircraft there are no export control issues. However, several components of the A330 are either designed or manufactured or both in the States and should these be modified for military use (no matter how small the modification) a little issue called ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) comes into play. ITAR are the US regulations governing exports not just from the US but also whatever and wherever it all goes next. For those not aware of what this means suffice it to say ITAR can be complicated, restrictive and, because of nationality limits on access to the US military technology, even illegal under UK and EU law.
When we thought we had won the USAF contract (before old Bubba threw his toys out of his cot) we investigated incorporating the refuelling components during the initial build - an order for 170+ aircraft did make it seem worthwhile despite the complications for the civil manufacturing lines. However, for the numbers involved in the non-USAF orders it is more efficient overall to keep the normal manufacturing process ITAR free and isolate the military work from the civil.
By the way, I also note BEagle's continuing/continuous disparagement of all AAR MPSs other than that on the A310. What he fails to mention is that he has a vested interest in that system. I need say no more and yes I did work for Airbus.
You must remember that Airbus is a civil aircraft manufacturer and for civil aircraft there are no export control issues. However, several components of the A330 are either designed or manufactured or both in the States and should these be modified for military use (no matter how small the modification) a little issue called ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) comes into play. ITAR are the US regulations governing exports not just from the US but also whatever and wherever it all goes next. For those not aware of what this means suffice it to say ITAR can be complicated, restrictive and, because of nationality limits on access to the US military technology, even illegal under UK and EU law.
When we thought we had won the USAF contract (before old Bubba threw his toys out of his cot) we investigated incorporating the refuelling components during the initial build - an order for 170+ aircraft did make it seem worthwhile despite the complications for the civil manufacturing lines. However, for the numbers involved in the non-USAF orders it is more efficient overall to keep the normal manufacturing process ITAR free and isolate the military work from the civil.
By the way, I also note BEagle's continuing/continuous disparagement of all AAR MPSs other than that on the A310. What he fails to mention is that he has a vested interest in that system. I need say no more and yes I did work for Airbus.
Thread Starter
Vasco, the RAF was never going to afford the KC10 in the early 1980's. The country was broke. The BA/RAF TriStar deal was manna from heaven, Lady Thatcher was able to boost her favourite business barons and, it was a major element in setting BA on the path to success.
Unfortunately, the RAF senior management was unable to fully capitalise on the capabilities of the TriStar. The wing mounted refuelling pods were perfectly capable of being fitted. However, financial limitations and lobbying by interested parties robbed them (and the money) for the various VC10 rebuilds.
OAP
Unfortunately, the RAF senior management was unable to fully capitalise on the capabilities of the TriStar. The wing mounted refuelling pods were perfectly capable of being fitted. However, financial limitations and lobbying by interested parties robbed them (and the money) for the various VC10 rebuilds.
OAP
The wing mounted refuelling pods were perfectly capable of being fitted. However, financial limitations and lobbying by interested parties robbed them (and the money) for the various VC10 rebuilds.
Incidentally, as you're no doubt aware, the old wives' tale about the TriStar wing being unable to carry a pod due to structural and aerodynamic reasons is completely untrue - it could have carried wing pods quite easily.
I imagine that the MoD saw the VC10K4 and VC10C1K as less-risky alternatives? But whether or not that was actually true....
Xercules, I make no secret of the fact that I am involved in the upgrade programme for the A310 MCS. The only 'vested interest' I might have is frustration at those who have wasted considerable time and effort in attempting to reinvent the wheel to create an MPS of their own when an acceptable solution was already at hand - in the same company.
Thread Starter
"The wing mounted refuelling pods were perfectly capable of being fitted. However, financial limitations and lobbying by interested parties robbed them (and the money) for the various VC10 rebuilds."
It is true, not dreamed or made up.
OAP
It is true, not dreamed or made up.
OAP
Xercules-interesting stuff about ITAR but since the equipment is already exported elsewhere I struggle to see how the RAF would be unable to go down that line.
OAP- my thoughts were that we should have acquired the ac in circa 78 and avoided the following programmes
Conversion of VC10 K2/3 and later the K4 and C1K programme
Purchase of ex BA and Panam Tri
Cake and @rse party associated with Tri glass cockpit
V exp option that we now have in Voyager (admittedly we would be looking at some options now such as update/replacement)
Keeping the Victor in service and as a consequence reaping the benefits of the reduced manpower needed both in air and ground
I am no accountant but I would guess that the figures are not as bad as you think
Just a thought
vasco
PS unless I misread your point on trails the FJ limits I was referring to had little to do with extreme of range etc but the more obvious of expecting someone to sit in a green bag for 8 hours when 5 is plenty
OAP- my thoughts were that we should have acquired the ac in circa 78 and avoided the following programmes
Conversion of VC10 K2/3 and later the K4 and C1K programme
Purchase of ex BA and Panam Tri
Cake and @rse party associated with Tri glass cockpit
V exp option that we now have in Voyager (admittedly we would be looking at some options now such as update/replacement)
Keeping the Victor in service and as a consequence reaping the benefits of the reduced manpower needed both in air and ground
I am no accountant but I would guess that the figures are not as bad as you think
Just a thought
vasco
PS unless I misread your point on trails the FJ limits I was referring to had little to do with extreme of range etc but the more obvious of expecting someone to sit in a green bag for 8 hours when 5 is plenty
ITAR
Vasco,
I was not referring to the RAF having problems with ITAR as it already has those with C130, C17, Tornado, Typhoon, F35, Sentry, A400M and even already with Voyager (if not others). However, ITAR is a distinct problem for Airbus if it is allowed to infiltrate into the civil lines. ITAR only permits access to US military technology to designated nationalities although there are no hard and fast rules as to what these are. In the case of A400M, it took a lot of hard bargaining to increase the list beyond the normal starting point of NATO plus some trusted allies. The rules work a little like the "Need to Know" of Security but apply even when the technology is unclassified. Airbus employs (in Europe) over 80 different nationalities to my certain knowledge.
ITAR technology has to be segregated to allow only those nationalities approved to have access. The segregation distances are similar to those for normal industrial safety and reasonably easily similarly imposed. But the issue then becomes flexibility and management of working. For A400M Airbus can relatively easily separate and select for the workforce by then using dedicated facilities but this is not possible on a civil line.
It is achieved for Voyager by building a standard civil A330, completed to flyable condition in Toulouse and then flown to Madrid for militarisation where the dedicated workforce can be ITAR compliant. Once in Madrid the A330s are partially dismantled to install military additions. There, there would be no problem installing the boom or UARRSI except the customer (the RAF) has not asked for it and does not wish to pay for it. Note as well the customer has not even asked that Voyager be fitted with a refuelling probe.
I was not referring to the RAF having problems with ITAR as it already has those with C130, C17, Tornado, Typhoon, F35, Sentry, A400M and even already with Voyager (if not others). However, ITAR is a distinct problem for Airbus if it is allowed to infiltrate into the civil lines. ITAR only permits access to US military technology to designated nationalities although there are no hard and fast rules as to what these are. In the case of A400M, it took a lot of hard bargaining to increase the list beyond the normal starting point of NATO plus some trusted allies. The rules work a little like the "Need to Know" of Security but apply even when the technology is unclassified. Airbus employs (in Europe) over 80 different nationalities to my certain knowledge.
ITAR technology has to be segregated to allow only those nationalities approved to have access. The segregation distances are similar to those for normal industrial safety and reasonably easily similarly imposed. But the issue then becomes flexibility and management of working. For A400M Airbus can relatively easily separate and select for the workforce by then using dedicated facilities but this is not possible on a civil line.
It is achieved for Voyager by building a standard civil A330, completed to flyable condition in Toulouse and then flown to Madrid for militarisation where the dedicated workforce can be ITAR compliant. Once in Madrid the A330s are partially dismantled to install military additions. There, there would be no problem installing the boom or UARRSI except the customer (the RAF) has not asked for it and does not wish to pay for it. Note as well the customer has not even asked that Voyager be fitted with a refuelling probe.
Xercules
The point I was making was that if, say for arguments sake, the RAF wanted some of the Voyagers with boom/and or UAARSI since the ac are not yet started then a reconfig would not (at least in theory) be impossible, notwithstanding ITAR and from your detailed explanation it seems that is the case. As for a probe, that would be an even bigger mistake IMHO .
vasco
The point I was making was that if, say for arguments sake, the RAF wanted some of the Voyagers with boom/and or UAARSI since the ac are not yet started then a reconfig would not (at least in theory) be impossible, notwithstanding ITAR and from your detailed explanation it seems that is the case. As for a probe, that would be an even bigger mistake IMHO .
vasco
