AirTanker pitches Voyager for NATO refuelling shortfall

[beerdrinker]

From Flight Global:

European NATO nations could access spare capacity on the UK’s Airbus A330 Voyager tanker/transport fleet, under an initiative being promoted by the industrial consortium responsible for providing the aircraft.

Detailed by AirTanker chief executive Phill Blundell, the proposal would allow the UK’s allies to use part of a “surge” fleet of five Voyagers, which will be supplied between early next year and mid-2016

Great idea but would it not be even better for our Nato Allies and our RJ if the 5 aircraft concerned were to be fitted with a boom?

[BEagle]

beerdrinker wrote:

Great idea but would it not be even better for our Nato Allies and our RJ if the 5 aircraft concerned were to be fitted with a boom?

Well, certainly some should be boom-equipped. But perhaps 3 rather than 5?

Incidentally, as the RAF has no need to refuel any fast-jets other than Tornado, Typhoon and (eventually) F-35B, who will pay for any clearance trials with other NATO aircraft? MoD? AirTanker? Client nations....??

Another wonderful PFI corollary......

[Could be the last?]

So I assume the consortium will provide their own pilots for this? Or are we in a situation where business is tasking MOD resources (manpower)?

[Onceapilot]

We had a great widebody tanker, with all the clearances, with all the capability, paid for and scrapped! It only needed a relatively small investment in spares and a mature aircraft support programme but no. Instead, we have possibly the worlds most expensive tanker/transport lease scheme that has cost several capability/credibility gaps for UKMil.

OAP

[BEagle]

OAP, the TriShaw is no more. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-tanker.... Bereft of life it rests in peace at Bruntingthorpe..... Or perhaps as an Argos saucepan or two?

We know you don't agree; personally I think it could have remained in service for a little longer, but was already on the right hand side of the bucket curve. Would it have been that cost-effective to have kept on supporting such an old single-hose tanker for more than a year or two?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Oh dear. Does this mean the much vaunted 3PR that underpinned so much of this hasn't been forthcoming??

[HaveQuick2]

BEagle, will there be that much needed in the way of additional clearance trials?


Hasn't A.330 MRTT already been cleared with F-16 and F-18?


Or is Voyager seen as a totally different type? Just curious.

[BEagle]

HaveQuick2, whether the F-16 and F-18 'clearance' to which you refer was basic compatibility at the heart of the envelope, or full clearance throughout the user-required envelope I do not know.

Also there are a variety of different drogues fitted to A330 tankers, each with its own characteristic and IAS / IMN / Alt limits. So whether any read-across is going to be accepted (except for urgent TTW tasks) remains to be seen.

[Onceapilot]

Thanks Beags . The trouble is that, I feel the whole FSTA episode ranks as a criminal waste of other capabilities. I hope that the future does not bring situations where the weaknesses that this unnesessary huge expenditure has caused, in other roles, risks life, limb or our future.

OAP

[vascodegama]

They had better get a move on with the clearances-see IRAQ3 above.

[cobalt42]

The Voyagers are PFI... No chance of any getting a Boom.

[PhilipG]

I seem to recall that Airbus was having problems with its booms, they kept semi parting company with the planes, has this been sorted?

Obviously putting booms on the UK fleet is impossible due to the contract etc.

[vascodegama]

I guess it depends as to whether Air Tanker think there is revenue to be had from providing boom AAR to those that need it.

[Onceapilot]

Guess they are off to/in Q8? Trouble is, they will cost far more than the going rate! What used to be a positive income from friendly AAR will now be a UKMil loss leader, due to FSTA!

OAP

[Willard Whyte]

It'd be funny if I didn't have to pay tax for this sh*t.

[reds & greens]

^^^^^^
It'd be embarrassing if it were the military...
Now on the outside looking in, it's shameful.

[cobalt42]

Spoke to someone today... the fuselage mods required to turn the 2 point FSTAs into Boom equipped three pointers would be expensive such that it would not be viable. Cheaper to buy 3 new... oh, hang on. Thanks to ACL Bliar and J el Gordo McBroon, we can't. Nice one.................

[D-IFF_ident]

The 'AAR Clearance' conundrum lays open to interpretation, even if a NATO STANAG were to ever come forth and replace the outdated AGARD then both NATO and non-NATO AAR operators would still be entitled to apply their own regulations and agreements. While there is published guidance suggesting how tanker and receiver operators might approach each other to begin clearance proceedings, the right level of authority within each military organisation can decide what testing, if any, is required to grant a full clearance (or one of the other 2...)

Noting that there are A330 MRTT operators who have agreed clearances with:

A330 MRTT
Eurofighter / Typhoon
Tornado
F-16
F-15
F-18
Rafale
Mirage 2000
C-130 (P&D)

KC-135, E-3 and A400M demonstrated capability - operators yet to grant full clearance.

There is no international standard that would preclude any operator reading-over clearances from any other operator. They may or may not even require a technical or operational compatibility assessment, it depends on the users' policies.

Best ask the Canadians how simple AAR Clearances can (should) be, they seem to have it about right.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Cobalt

Spoke to someone today... the fuselage mods required to turn the 2 point FSTAs into Boom equipped three pointers would be expensive such that it would not be viable.

Genuine question: have FSTAs 12, 13 & 14 been delivered yet? If not, then.......

[salad-dodger]

Spoke to someone today... the fuselage mods required to turn the 2 point FSTAs into Boom equipped three pointers would be expensive such that it would not be viable.

Sounds like fairly typical MoD research. Are you on the Project Team?

S-D