RAF Boeing H-47ER 2 billion deal agreed
I think that 'capable of aerial refuelling' means they are plumbed for it, rather than they will have the probe and it will be a capability that will be supported (at least for now).
On the AAR I am pretty sure I read somewhere they are to be fitted for but not with. Given the restrictions of the Voyager PFI one assumes if they were fitted they would have to refuel from another nation's tanker e.g. a KC-130 or an A400M. How this fits in with OPSEC for a covert SF insertion I do wonder.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 15th Mar 2024 at 17:06. Reason: correcting 25 to 23
Given the restrictions of the Voyager PFI one assumes if they were fitted they would have to refuel from another nation's tanker e.g. a KC-130 or an A400M. How this fits in with OPSEC for a covert SF insertion I do wonder.
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
On the AAR I am pretty sure I read somewhere they are to be fitted for but not with. Given the restrictions of the Voyager PFI one assumes if they were fitted they would have to refuel from another nation's tanker e.g. a KC-130 or an A400M. How this fits in with OPSEC for a covert SF insertion I do wonder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
https://www.france24.com/en/africa/2...s-in-the-sahel
The force has been supporting France on operations in Africa. If requested again it raises the possibility of the FAF providing any required AAR. The area is so large that AAR would be far preferable to FARPs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
https://www.france24.com/en/africa/2...s-in-the-sahel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
https://www.france24.com/en/africa/2...s-in-the-sahel
With regard to AAR, I believe the reason we reduced from 25 to 22 Atlas C.1s was that the missing three would be configured for AAR, until the issue of SkyTanker's exclusivity came into play. I guess the intention was to have two of them on rotation in the Falklands rather than one of one and one of another.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Chinook ER purchase is only Tranche 1 of Chinook Capability Sustainment, by the way of what used to be 60 CHINOOK until recently.
38 are very old (albeit extensively upgraded) and past 11K flown hours. Of those 38, 9 are going without replacement, and 14 will be replaced by ER.
That means there are another 15 that are bound to require a solution in a non distant future.
The rest of the fleet is made up by the much younger HC5 (8x) and HC6 (14x).
38 are very old (albeit extensively upgraded) and past 11K flown hours. Of those 38, 9 are going without replacement, and 14 will be replaced by ER.
That means there are another 15 that are bound to require a solution in a non distant future.
The rest of the fleet is made up by the much younger HC5 (8x) and HC6 (14x).
ORAC, there's also the old HC2a aircraft (six-off) which are the same build standard and Lot number as the HC5s, just with standard tanks. I'd imagine these are likely to also be retained and upgraded to the new standard. We may not have a dedicated RW tanker, but given what these aircraft are and their intended use, the MC-130Js at Mildenhall would be an option, as would the Franco/German KC-130Js.
ORAC, there's also the old HC2a aircraft (six-off) which are the same build standard and Lot number as the HC5s, just with standard tanks. I'd imagine these are likely to also be retained and upgraded to the new standard. We may not have a dedicated RW tanker, but given what these aircraft are and their intended use, the MC-130Js at Mildenhall would be an option, as would the Franco/German KC-130Js.
ORAC, there's also the old HC2a aircraft (six-off) which are the same build standard and Lot number as the HC5s, just with standard tanks. I'd imagine these are likely to also be retained and upgraded to the new standard. We may not have a dedicated RW tanker, but given what these aircraft are and their intended use, the MC-130Js at Mildenhall would be an option, as would the Franco/German KC-130Js.
I think it's been known for a while that the US costs per airframe and UK programme costs are formulated totally differently, so you're definitely not comparing fruit with fruit with that comparison - UK often includes support, training and spares costs in the same overall bill, sometimes along with simulators, whereas I'm not even sure the US considers the rubber on the tyres in what they say the airframe cost is!
Also, you're not comparing the same type of aircraft there, if you look at the options list that was in the FMS approval the H-47(ER) referred to above is definitely not a standard off the shelf F-model as used by the US Army.
Also, you're not comparing the same type of aircraft there, if you look at the options list that was in the FMS approval the H-47(ER) referred to above is definitely not a standard off the shelf F-model as used by the US Army.
