'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.

That's what clearance trials should identify - it could be a little, it could be significant.

Also, was the full AAR envelope tested, or merely 'heart of the envelope'? In all representative configurations?

The approval process has every right to be cautious for approving release to service and any temporary restrictions which might be applied.

If Voyager arrives without a fully-functioning mission mangement system, I'd be curious as to whether non-rigorous legacy trail management techniques will be re-assessed by the UK MAA. For example, one such 'technique' requires the user to calculate a factor which can be thought of as K = 1/(a-b). Which becomes utterly meaningless when a = b as, in such a case, K = ∞....:\

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.

Dat, that is nowhere near what has happened. Spanish F-18 was use purely for DT&E for the HDUs and Portuguese F-16 for initial boom trials. These are not clearances.

Once KC-30A arrived in Oz, the Classic OT&E took place. Very intensive through the envelope as Beags described, over 2011-12, I guess. Then the Supers were done and finally cleared about 2 months ago.

This is a long drawn out process to ensure fit for service and safety, not as you suggest.

Quote BEagle
"If Voyager arrives without a fully-functioning mission mangement system, I'd be curious as to whether non-rigorous legacy trail management techniques will be re-assessed by the UK MAA. For example, one such 'technique' requires the user to calculate a factor which can be thought of as K = 1/(a-b). Which becomes utterly meaningless when a = b as, in such a case, K = ∞....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/wibble.gif"

Yes, the "unbelievable" bracket correction!:ooh:
I do hope they can rise to the challenge. The highly paid FSTA lackeys were certainly given all the info they needed to come up with a great solution. Personally, I would always prefer the mental picture and calculations way:)

OAP

Well, not particularly well paid non-FSTA 'lackeys' have developed a reliable trail planning and management system which has been in operational use in other Airbus tankers for several years now. Which does not use the archaic, mathematically non-rigorous methodology of the primitive 'RAPS'.....:ok:

Quite why AiM haven't been more interested in this reliable, combat-proven 'great solution' system already flying in their other tanker-transports? ICATQ! Perhaps 'No inventado aquí'??

RTS
 

RTS today... 1st sorties due Monday with Tornado... allegedly :hmm:

That is good news, now we can say 'AirTanker aims to solve UK tanker shortage'… as we all hoped it would when we handed over all the money.

Really? I'm surprised there's nothing about that on the major aviation websites - or even ATr's own website....:\

Sounds like you dissing PPRune as not being major..............

Whatever. Like some $hit like that, blud.....

Random.

is that chap on the right John Cleese??

No.





.

Good luck to the ATrS Madras tomorrow. No pressure!

Well, how did it go......??

:\

Blimey, it has been a while since 10 Sqn was around. I had forgotten that there were other UK AAR callsigns besides Fagin and Tartan!

AirTanker Cleared To Begin Air-To-Air Refueling Operations

:ok:

I'm surprised that there's no information on the ATr website though.....

Ho-bloody-ray! So now we will see how effective this all singing and dancing money making contract is. Lets see...with those three aircraft, 20 crews and 18hrs a day utilisation they should be able to do everything. Well, thats what it says in this brochure :rolleyes:.

OAP

Very well. More today.

At last ,10 Squadron, an honest job for you as you join a tanker fleet with a tradition of service that goes right back to 214 and it's Valiants and which I am sure you will make every effort to maintain though I am glad to be well clear of all that new organisation. Good Luck

Art: As a taxpayer, I'm delighted to hear news of the long-delayed AAR release but I'd also slip in a reminder that 10 Sqn's history in its AT role goes back a little further to May 1945 when the assets of 4 Group were transferred to Transport Command, and continued with service in India and Burma and on to the Berlin Airlift.

10 Sqn flew in the AT/AAR role from 1993-2005, including operational service, so are hardly new to the AAR role!