Voyager with a boom?
Thread Starter
Voyager with a boom?
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
I can't imagine the number of lawyers that would have to be involved in the lease contract modification
AirTanker touts boom for Voyager to expand aerial refuelling provision - IHS Jane's 360
I can't imagine the number of lawyers that would have to be involved in the lease contract modification
CEO Phil Blundell 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.
"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.
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.
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Jul 2015 at 14:06. Reason: Wrong aircraft!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Assume you mean Sentry?S-D
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).
(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).
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!
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.
Currently, the Voyager can't make it down to the Falklands in one hop, so some form of received fueling would make sense.
Last edited by melmothtw; 20th Jul 2015 at 15:48.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
melmothtw wrote:
It probably could, but without any worthwhile payload. But then neither could the VC10 nor TriStar. It's hardly a big deal.
Currently, the Voyager can't make it down to the Falklands in one hop, so some form of received fueling would make sense.
Last edited by BEagle; 21st Jul 2015 at 15:21.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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...
Back to the fun of snake climbs and mutual exchange of fluids, perhaps...
Thread Starter
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 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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
we don't, but the USAF does...
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?
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?
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.