RAF Start Talks on E-3D Replacement
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 49
From: UK
I'd be more than happy to evaluate a British or European design that could step in as a true Sentry replacement. The naked truth is precisely zero manufacturers would be be prepared to fund, develop, mature and prove such a capability. What they are happy to do is to spend MoDs money to fund/develop/mature their platform over an extended period whilst we continue to spend more MoD money sustaining the current platform.
The UK MoD just does not have the funds to support domestic industry and HM Treasury will not pay extra to do so.
The UK MoD just does not have the funds to support domestic industry and HM Treasury will not pay extra to do so.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 130
From: Here
"Only really three options"
You forgot the fourth option which is to cancel the Sentry and join the NATO Component of the AEW&C Force by sending crews to Geilenkirchen (Which is where we were going to be in the late 70s, although the aircraft would not have been at GK).
You forgot the fourth option which is to cancel the Sentry and join the NATO Component of the AEW&C Force by sending crews to Geilenkirchen (Which is where we were going to be in the late 70s, although the aircraft would not have been at GK).
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 130
From: Here
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Germany
Wedgetail or GlobalEye. it will be yet another type that can't be aerial refuelled with the Voyager.
With the prospect of an RAF F-35A buy in the offing also, we must be close to the point where the UK has as many types that it can't refuel as it can - F-35A (maybe); Wedgetail / GlobalEye (maybe); C-17; Voyager; P-8; RC-135; and Sentinel just off the top of my head. Sure there are others to add.
With the prospect of an RAF F-35A buy in the offing also, we must be close to the point where the UK has as many types that it can't refuel as it can - F-35A (maybe); Wedgetail / GlobalEye (maybe); C-17; Voyager; P-8; RC-135; and Sentinel just off the top of my head. Sure there are others to add.
About time we re-considered whether the RAF needs to only consider pointy fast things from an enduring/reach capability perspective. And whether we need 2 boomers to cover off the requirement (Maybe 2 point with boom, one covering the depth requirement).
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 540
Likes: 33
From: UK
Wedgetail or GlobalEye. it will be yet another type that can't be aerial refuelled with the Voyager.
With the prospect of an RAF F-35A buy in the offing also, we must be close to the point where the UK has as many types that it can't refuel as it can - F-35A (maybe); Wedgetail / GlobalEye (maybe); C-17; Voyager; P-8; RC-135; and Sentinel just off the top of my head. Sure there are others to add.
With the prospect of an RAF F-35A buy in the offing also, we must be close to the point where the UK has as many types that it can't refuel as it can - F-35A (maybe); Wedgetail / GlobalEye (maybe); C-17; Voyager; P-8; RC-135; and Sentinel just off the top of my head. Sure there are others to add.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,401
Likes: 141
From: NSW
Interesting spec for the RAF Voyagers. I guess they didn't consider coalition ops. Our RAAF KC-30A's [MRTT] can feed both ways and receive through boom from anyone with a boom. The RAAF E-7A, C-17A and P-8A all take the boom as do our F-35A's while the Super Hornet, Hornet and Growler fleets take the hose. I note Singapore, Korea, Saudi MRTT's all do both....
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 48
voyagerrrr spec
........
That’s all down-under dandy TBM, but I bet your Caseys can’t be hired out on long term civvie contract, redecorated inside and out, with the mil seats and all the mission equipment removed and gathering dust at the back of the hangar, on a six-month recall in case of gnashional emergency ? ...... Gotcha there sport !
Oh, and if we run short of tanker capacity or need something the voyagerrrrs can’t provide, we pay monopoly money corkage to the voyagerrrr contractor as well as paying the provider for the extra service. .......... Betcha didn’t think of that either ?
None of your colonial cheapskate stuff, where only the military benefit from military contracts - back here in the old country everybody wins, except the losers. ...........Yeee - haaaah !
....
LFH
...................
That’s all down-under dandy TBM, but I bet your Caseys can’t be hired out on long term civvie contract, redecorated inside and out, with the mil seats and all the mission equipment removed and gathering dust at the back of the hangar, on a six-month recall in case of gnashional emergency ? ...... Gotcha there sport !
Oh, and if we run short of tanker capacity or need something the voyagerrrrs can’t provide, we pay monopoly money corkage to the voyagerrrr contractor as well as paying the provider for the extra service. .......... Betcha didn’t think of that either ?
None of your colonial cheapskate stuff, where only the military benefit from military contracts - back here in the old country everybody wins, except the losers. ...........Yeee - haaaah !
....
LFH
...................
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 540
Likes: 33
From: UK
Interesting spec for the RAF Voyagers. I guess they didn't consider coalition ops. Our RAAF KC-30A's [MRTT] can feed both ways and receive through boom from anyone with a boom. The RAAF E-7A, C-17A and P-8A all take the boom as do our F-35A's while the Super Hornet, Hornet and Growler fleets take the hose. I note Singapore, Korea, Saudi MRTT's all do both....
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 192
Likes: 2
From: Australia
Anyhow, back to AWACS - hopefully there is an announcement at RIAT!
Last edited by flighthappens; 31st May 2018 at 08:09. Reason: Last sentence
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,402
Likes: 858
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Back when Voyager was still FSTA, the RAF was trying to see whether the aircraft (whether B767, A310 or A330) could be operated with a 2-person crew. After several expensive and pointless investigative sessions, the decision was made to use a 2 person crew for AT, 'augmented' by a food-powered pump attendant for AAR. Whereas more sensible nations listened to those with experience and settled on a 3-person crew for their new tanker fleets, so that the pilots' workload wouldn't be increased trying to manage AAR dynamics as there would be an ex-Tornado / F-4E / C-130 navigator in the 3rd seat with a fit-for-purpose AAR mission planning and management system at his/her disposal.
It was even recommended that FSTA should have a boom "If only to guarantee a 3-person crew"! 20 years ago, BAE's A310MRTT was also offered with a boom.
But back then, no-one ever thought that the RAF would have quite so many receivers which require boom AAR - and if a decision to change the F-35 order were to mean half F-35A and half F-35B, unless the UK is stupid enough to sign a blank cheque for UK-bespoke F-35A + probe mods, that number will only increase.
It was even recommended that FSTA should have a boom "If only to guarantee a 3-person crew"! 20 years ago, BAE's A310MRTT was also offered with a boom.
But back then, no-one ever thought that the RAF would have quite so many receivers which require boom AAR - and if a decision to change the F-35 order were to mean half F-35A and half F-35B, unless the UK is stupid enough to sign a blank cheque for UK-bespoke F-35A + probe mods, that number will only increase.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 192
Likes: 2
From: Australia
Back when Voyager was still FSTA, the RAF was trying to see whether the aircraft (whether B767, A310 or A330) could be operated with a 2-person crew. After several expensive and pointless investigative sessions, the decision was made to use a 2 person crew for AT, 'augmented' by a food-powered pump attendant for AAR. Whereas more sensible nations listened to those with experience and settled on a 3-person crew for their new tanker fleets, so that the pilots' workload wouldn't be increased trying to manage AAR dynamics as there would be an ex-Tornado / F-4E / C-130 navigator in the 3rd seat with a fit-for-purpose AAR mission planning and management system at his/her disposal.
It was even recommended that FSTA should have a boom "If only to guarantee a 3-person crew"! 20 years ago, BAE's A310MRTT was also offered with a boom.
But back then, no-one ever thought that the RAF would have quite so many receivers which require boom AAR - and if a decision to change the F-35 order were to mean half F-35A and half F-35B, unless the UK is stupid enough to sign a blank cheque for UK-bespoke F-35A + probe mods, that number will only increase.
It was even recommended that FSTA should have a boom "If only to guarantee a 3-person crew"! 20 years ago, BAE's A310MRTT was also offered with a boom.
But back then, no-one ever thought that the RAF would have quite so many receivers which require boom AAR - and if a decision to change the F-35 order were to mean half F-35A and half F-35B, unless the UK is stupid enough to sign a blank cheque for UK-bespoke F-35A + probe mods, that number will only increase.
Last edited by flighthappens; 31st May 2018 at 14:07.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 540
Likes: 33
From: UK
the point as far as I am concerned is not so much that the RAF was never thinking they would have so many boom receivers, it’s more that they exist. The RAF doesn’t really think they are going to end up in a serious fight by themselves, yet they bought a tanker which is of no use to most of their NATO allies and coalition partners. It was an inwards looking decision that currently limits the flexibility and effectiveness of Voyager in coalition operations and will increasingly affect the usefulness for the RAF.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 49
From: UK
The USAF learned the lesson way back with the KC-10, which has a UARRSI on top and a proper centerline hose and drogue to complement the boom. The last batch gained wing pods too.
The KC-135 can still act as a receiver though, typically taking fuel from KC-10s as and when required.
The KC-135 can still act as a receiver though, typically taking fuel from KC-10s as and when required.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 540
Likes: 33
From: UK
The USAF learned the lesson way back with the KC-10, which has a UARRSI on top and a proper centerline hose and drogue to complement the boom. The last batch gained wing pods too.
The KC-135 can still act as a receiver though, typically taking fuel from KC-10s as and when required.
The KC-135 can still act as a receiver though, typically taking fuel from KC-10s as and when required.
’
’
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 49
From: UK
The KC-135 can receive fuel via the boom - it's a big pipe that works both ways. It can collect spare fuel from a returning package and distribute it to those in need. For bigger uplifts a KC-10 plugged in the back can provide a lot of fuel. Our own Rivet Joint could (as an example) pump fuel back to the tanker to trade unused contingency fuel for a reduced landing weight.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 540
Likes: 33
From: UK
The KC-135 can receive fuel via the boom - it's a big pipe that works both ways. It can collect spare fuel from a returning package and distribute it to those in need. For bigger uplifts a KC-10 plugged in the back can provide a lot of fuel. Our own Rivet Joint could (as an example) pump fuel back to the tanker to trade unused contingency fuel for a reduced landing weight.
