Tanker Issues
Thread Starter
Tanker Issues
Probably been discussed before however, it still makes grim reading.https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https...3LLpYbdckBdwN0
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean, it makes 'grim reading' if you believe everything you read on a US website which publishes an article based entirely on quoting another author. Some of this stuff is passable as near-truth but 99% of it is what I would call 'airshow chat' and not worthy of worrying about. Consider the serviceability rates of the Voyager compared to the VC10 and Tristar fleets for example, in the mid 90 percents, we may not have many tankers but by god we fly them hard. Then consider the type of aircraft the article rightly says the Voyager can't refuel; C17, P8, E7, RC35... maybe consider whether in the modern context these aircraft need to be refuelled? Just because they can, doesn't mean it's actually a requirement. Anyway, just food for thought but I wouldn't take what's written in this article too seriously...WW.
Then consider the type of aircraft the article rightly says the Voyager can't refuel; C17, P8, E7, RC35... maybe consider whether in the modern context these aircraft need to be refuelled? Just because they can, doesn't mean it's actually a requirement
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RC-135 certainly needs to be refuelled and we're yet to know what impact not being able to refuel P-8 and E-7 will be as they're not in service with the RAF yet.....precisely.
C17, P8, E7, RC35... maybe consider whether in the modern context these aircraft need to be refuelled?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Melmothw, With a statement like
you must have been involved in the procurement of Voyager or a member of the AFB.
All of the aircraft that were named may require AAR to provide the flexibility for us, the United Kingdom, to have a military influence throughout the world. Indeed, even closer to home the P8 would be enhanced by the availability of AAR when required to extend their on station time.
It is certainly a happy coincidence that precisely those aircraft the Voyager can't refuel are the same aircraft that the RAF doesn't need to refuel. Serendipity indeed.
All of the aircraft that were named may require AAR to provide the flexibility for us, the United Kingdom, to have a military influence throughout the world. Indeed, even closer to home the P8 would be enhanced by the availability of AAR when required to extend their on station time.
Thanks Dominator, I was being sarcastic. It is clear that the capability (or lack of it in the RAF's case) is driving the AAR requirements, rather than the other way around.
Dominator,
Up until the Falklands affair in 1982 NONE of the RAF Hercules or Nimrods were AAR equipped. The VC10, Argosy and Belfast all had AAR provision removed not long after introduction as it simply was never needed. The Nimrod R1 fleet was also never AAR equipped until the Falklands. AAR was removed from the Vulcan force as it was never needed up until 1982.
All of these mods were made purely for the South Atlantic prior to Mount Pleasant opening.
I can see a case for the E-7 to be AAR capable, and maybe the P-8A, but the C-17? Rivet Joint? Even the Voyager AAR fleet can't refuel.
Up until the Falklands affair in 1982 NONE of the RAF Hercules or Nimrods were AAR equipped. The VC10, Argosy and Belfast all had AAR provision removed not long after introduction as it simply was never needed. The Nimrod R1 fleet was also never AAR equipped until the Falklands. AAR was removed from the Vulcan force as it was never needed up until 1982.
All of these mods were made purely for the South Atlantic prior to Mount Pleasant opening.
I can see a case for the E-7 to be AAR capable, and maybe the P-8A, but the C-17? Rivet Joint? Even the Voyager AAR fleet can't refuel.
And how many of them were envisioned for RAF service when the Voyager PFI was drawn up....
two main reasons:
firstly it it has been shown to be short sighted in RAF service alone.
Secondly a very large percentage of the operations the RAF undertake are coalition ops. As such the ability to refuel coalition aircraft adds to the flexibility and usefulness of the platform. Recently for example was routine for RAF fast air on SHADER to receive gas from coalition tankers, equipped with both boom and hose/drogue capabilities. At present the RAF voyager is excluded from a large percentage of operational assets due to lack of a boom. I imagine this has caused a level of consternation at times when other refueling assets have gone U/S, where an equivalent MRTT could have filled the gap.
A third operational Voyager must remain in the United Kingdom to support fighters flying domestic air-defence missions.
Whether 3 x A310 with around 72t each (3 x 72 = 216) rather than 2 x A330 with 110 each (2 x 110 = 220) would have been a better choice is a matter of history. But originally the Future Tanker Aircraft was intended to replace the entire VC10/VC10K/TriStar K fleet with around 24 airframes of A310 size.... Rather more hoses in the sky than you see today.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If that means a fully-fuelled Voyager sitting around waiting for a Q launch
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: An airfield cunningly close the Thames
Age: 46
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your thinking appears that be entrenched in the times before 9-11. An RS of 3 hours could not cater for the UK’s response to the perceived aviation terrorist threat, which QRA is regularly called out for. And fuel on board varies, as does the aircraft in use to allow for flexibility in programming limited assets.
At Marham In the 70s we always had a "combat ready" aircraft on 3 hours readiness for Op Dragonfly (later called Tansor). I am pretty sure this aircraft always had a full fuel load (86K in the case of the Victor K1, more for the K2). Would this have meant fatigue issues for these aircraft? It's a serious question as I don't recall it ever being mentioned at the time, although that may just be my faulty memory.
Presumably but probably not recognised at the time. Later, at Sculthorpe, we used to taxy with empty pods and as little wing fuel as possible because of the state of the taxyway. We shunted the fuel in the opposite direction, for wing relief, before take off, as I recall.
