2014 Urgent Military Requirement?
 

Offers are invited to fulfill a UMR in 2014. Due to many mistakes, a major NATO nation requires a fleet of tanker/transport widebody aircraft for a period of upto 5 years to avoid a credibility gap. At an all inclusive cost of around £10,000 per flying hour, the package must include: 5 Tanker/Combi and 2 Pax/ Aeromed aircraft, Tankers must be able to lift more fuel than A330 type, full servicing support req'd, aircraft, equipment and personel must be fully NATO compliant, aircraft must be equipped for Ops in hostile enviroments.
Due to the volatile world situation, overstretched military commitments and totally messed-up planning, this once-in-a-bad-dream opportunity follows on from a series of xxxx-ups.
Tenders in brown envelopes to: PO Box Number 10.

OAP

OAP,

Feeling a little sensitive about something today are we? Is there something you want to tell us or get off your chest?

Party Animal,

From the numbers he is quoting, it is obvious what he is getting at. Yet again the RAF are allowing a capability to lapse without it's replacement being fully in service and cleared to conduct all aspects of the job.

SB,

Apart from a lack of defensive aids, what clearances does Voyager lack?

Ah good. Another Pprune One-Legged Man Arse Kicking competition.

Can the passenger seat's be removed from Voyager to make it work in the aeromed role like the current strat AC ?

1.3VStall,

Lets just say it can't refuel everything the outgoing aircraft can. It will do eventually, however, not yet.

What sort of tanker can deliver more fuel than an A330?

Shot one

RTFQ-he said lift more fuel.

Ans-TRI if runway long enough

KC10 ditto

Credibility Gap.......since when do you think the MOD shall ever again (if it ever really had it) regain "credibility"?:ugh:

Shot one
A Tristar's (KC1/K1) fuel load is actually dependent on it's ZFW. The tanks will hold over 140 tonnes of fuel, however, you'd seriously breach the Max Ramp Weight by filling it to the gunnels.

In a word -Yes.

Sideshow/vasco, I understand your point but can't honestly see the relevance. How does the tristars 140 tonnes affect the argument if it can't operate with it?What matters surely is how much can be delivered. Yes, certain types can lift lots....but they will then burn much of it themselves, unless you only ever want refuelling overhead their base.

ICM-in a word no (at the moment)

Sideshow-that is true of most ac! Voyager can be limited to a lesser extent.

Shot one-with a max T/O weight departure and a 5 hour sortie the TRI off load would be about the same as a Voyager-that would seem relevant to me.

Both ac are IMHO vastly inferior to the KC10 which can carry more fuel than either has both probe and drogue systems and boom and can receive in flight. Pity we missed the chance (twice!) to buy said ac.

Except that the TriShaw is a single-hose platform. Not much use having lots of fuel if no-one can get at it.....

Although there are still quite a few Vag. issues:

• The drogues don't meet the spec.
• The FRU isn't cleared for use.
• The Mission System doesn't work.
• DASS update is ongoing.

But as a big, grey airliner or as a limited 2-hose tanker it works OK within certain limitations....:\

Next year should be interesting, come contract compliance reckoning time....:ooh:

Interesting. When is the FRU going to work, or is that sensitive?

Do you know if it would be possible to retrofit the boom to a UK voyager? I read somewhere that the MRTT can be fitted with both a boom and a fuse hose. Or are the assumed structural mods done before the 'green' A330 is produced?

It would appear that Voyager is not yet ready to fulfil it's role!

In that case; why have we just withdrawn from service the VC-10s that still worked and have a Tristar with an all new glass cockpit sat doing nothing, just because it's different to the others! Etc etc... :ugh::ugh:

October 2006 - Marshall Aerospace is awarded a £22M contract to upgrade the RAF TriStars' avionics and FMS including a 'glass cockpit' as the 'MMR upgrade'. This should have been a relatively low-risk programme as it used elements of the C-130 cockpit upgrade already underway for the RNAF.

November 2007 - ZD949 arrives at Cambridge for the trial installation with a planned completion date of Q3 2008 at which time the second TriStar would begin conversion.

2008 came and went.

2009 came and went.

January 2010 - ZD949 finally makes its first flight with the MMR upgrade.

October 2010 - SDSR indicates that the TriStar will start to leave RAF service in 2013; TriStar MMR programme is to be discontinued.

December 2010 - After 100 hours of flight test, ZD949 finally passes MoD review and is due to be back in service in Spring 2011.

2011 - Due to the change in out-of-service date now planned for the TriStar and with the A330MRTT due in service by the end of the year, ZD949 remains at Cambridge in a pristine state under 'storage' and is to be 'reduced to spares' - a euphemism for being scrapped - as it would be too expensive to convert it back to its original state.

October 2011 - A330MRTT now 'Voyager' fails to meet release to service date; now expected to be 'sometime in January 2012'.

January 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

February 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

March 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

2013 - VC10s stagger on until Sep 2013; Voyager is at least partially delivering an AAR service.

2014 - Will be interesting......:hmm:

If you chaps are interested ... "The RAF Official Annual Review 2014" - "Voyager into the Future" Pages 42 to 47 makes interesting reading given what is being said here.

Key Publishing : RAF Annual Review 2014

Also available from WH Smith in UK.

What is it about air refuelling that brings out the 70's fanatics? Why aren't there loads of posts criticising MOD for "wasting" money on Typhoons and demanding we buy lovely Phantoms or Thunderchiefs? Do you all wear flares and drive Vauxhall Viva's?