'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage'
 

An interesting article in Aviation Leak:

AirTanker Aims To Solve European Tanker Shortage

However, to read:

must be rather worrying. But what really caught my eye was:

Have things really got so bad that 'Commanders' no longer trust their own equipment?

:\

Yes, things really are that bad.

I will not comment on the reasons for using the Italian tankers, without any MOD information it is all pure speculation. However, other than the delayed AAR clearance, the worrying thing is the part of the report which seems to state that there is no positively defined work for the other half of the Voyager fleet! How much will this whole stupid program cost us, and that is not just in £'s:uhoh:

OAP

The article states:

But surely the 'other five' will normally be in 'de-militarised' configuration, so the notion that they will be swapping back between civil and military configuration on a regular basis is pure journalistic speculation?

I'm sure that ATrS must have a more robust business plan in place for third party revenue generation than this article imples - and presumably there are also contractual restrictions on military use by (rather then for) non-RAF military services?

:bored:

Why is everyone presuming that the Italian tankers came with a full clearance to pass fuel to Typhoons?

Not sure that is the case...

If you need it and the Italian mobile gas tank is the only one dispensing, would you really care whether it has full clearance or not ?

Personally no, but it (clearance to tank off), doesn't work on a 'do I care' basis sadly.

If it's good enough for the MAA....:E

How late is the Voyager AAR clearance?:ooh:
So, let's see, that should mean a pretty big penalty repayment for the MOD? What is that I hear... no terms have been broken?;)

OAP

Come on BEagle, surely you should understand that! ;) The VC10 should have gone out of service at the end of March (Tristar as well?) but due to the Voyager being unable to do it's job, the VC10 fleet (now 4 aircraft?) had a belated extension to September. Think of the manpower and spares 'rundown' that has occurred for that, leaving expertise and capability in very short supply. So yes, the Commanders have finally been forced to acknowledge the situation. I'm not sure the RAF can actually meet it's declared capability e.g. To NATO.


"Delayed"? Is that the term that is used? More like bloody incompetence and indifference, and Air Tanker has to accept it's major part in that. :rolleyes:

How so? if they haven't been given the tools, how can they be expected do the job?

BEags, I guess you are in the loop.

Although the boom on the Oz KC-30As is not yet cleared - and might still be a way off - it is cleared to hose tank F/A-18A Classics and F/A-18F Supers. Hawks, not sure yet.

(The boom of course will be helpful for C-17, E-7 Wedgetail, P-8 Poseidon. I doubt C-27J is AAR.)

But as we are now ahead of UK in this area, is there any exchange of T&E data occurring?

Not sure I am following this very well. I have been out foralmost two years. Some questions:- Does anyone at the MAA actually sign any RTS(or whatever they might call it these days)?

How do we “clear” non RAF aircraft that are not even RAFtypes to refuel RAF Aircraft? Have QinetiQ Boscombe Down passed their handsover it? I noted the reference to NETMA having “cleared” RAF Typhoons to refuelfrom Boeing tankers. Is it perhaps that the Duty Holder has accepted the NETMAadvice and procedures for inclusion in the RTS perhaps under some NATO STANAG.
I had some experience of Recommending “Clearances”for other nation’s kit to be used with RAF aircraft. Or our kit to be used withother nations aircraft. I found out that there were so many variations of C130saround NATO that you had to be careful.

For some odd reason Q2 did not like the notion of sharing T&E data.

A week to de-role from AAR to 'Chav-fit'? They are taking the urine!! IF that is the case, how long is a re-role back to a 2-point fit going to take? As for a re-role to 3-point...? Someone needs to start asking serious questions on this.

And where is the AAR RTS? 'We' were briefed two months ago that it was due before Easter but it has gone very quiet since. :oh::oh:

Not so, mate.

Some information here;

RAF - ATP-56(B) Part 5


Open source.

Love the Table at page D-1. Receiver clearances for VC10 - Lots; For Tristar - Lots; for Voyager - Errr........

I wonder if we will ever see a UK tanker with the number of clearances that the VC10 has. :(

Lj101 - thanks for posting that interesting stuff. Appears a lot of effort goes into same. well done chaps.

Is this the authoritive document? Does every platform RTS refer out to it?

My question was really aimed at who gives the final signature. I left at a time when the MAA was standing up and the position of the RTSA, the Project Engineer and the Operating Authority was confused (well I was confused anyway!) One of my roles was to prepare stuff for signature - I saw many changes over the 12 years since I adopted what was the MAR from the DPA.

Interesting read no the less Lj - puts into context some of the stuff I have just been reading in Vulcan 607 Black Buck. You tanker guys went up in my estimation.

I missed this earlier...

Probably because the article BEagle quoted to start the thread said Eurofighter = Typhoon, remember?

How much difference is there in an F-18 tanking and a Typhoon? I just thinking if the RAAF can use a Spanish F-18 to clear using the drogues what's the *&^%$#@ problem? The pods can't be that different and the Typhoon can use the Italian B767s.

Why do I get the feeling the most likely cause is the approval process instead of technical problems.