Possible Voyager Boom upgrade

[thevulcan]

As many will know the RAF currently operate a large number of Boom capable aircraft that currently lack a tanker that can AAR with them. Types such as the Airseeker, P8, C17, Wedgetail, and possibly F35A (in the future if the MOD decide to purchase). Therefore the defence review will probably look at ways in which AAR can be utilised for these aircraft.

As some Brize Locals will know airtanker operates 4 civil voyagers with the registrations G-VYGL, G-VYGK, G-VYGM and G-VYGJ. Due to the ongoing pandemic some of these aircraft are sat at Brize in deep storage notably GL and GJ as no airline will lease the aircraft. This is leading to some pretty hefty parking fees at Brize. So Rumours are begining from sources close to the aircraft that if the RAF ops for voyagers to be boom equipped then some of the civil fleet will be converted to be boom capable, painted, pods refitted re-registered etc. As one of these boom equipped tankers becomes avaliable. One of the current RAF KC2's will be converted back to a civil A330 for leasing. Therefore meaning the RAF will always have a fleet of 9. With the new boom equipped tankers designated KC4.

This is a possibility not a fact as of yet but it is being discussed.

[TonyO]

Nice rumour, would make a lot of sense.

[tommc]

but it is being discussed.

By you. Here.

"possible" "possibly" "probably" "rumours" "if" "possibility" .......

[Cyberfox]

Hope so, would be nice to see some more proper RAF ones. Too much to hope they’ll be camouflaged like green/grey Victors, but the odd roundel and squadron badge would look good.

[Supra]

Far too sensible an idea for the Defence Misers!..The again, Yeah! Must be true coz' I heard they're painting some Pigs in that scheme to fly with the 'Boomers' !

[StuBie]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-int ... ker-fleet/

Was discussed back in this 2016 article.

[John flightpath]

Boom upgrades will make sense, how long it will be before anything materialises is anyones guess.

Cheers
John

[toom317]

Boom upgrades will make sense, how long it will be before anything materialises is anyones guess.

Cheers
John

About 5 years after it was needed.

[watchman]

To correct Vulcan - GJ is not in deep storage as it is the one used on the S.A. run. GM is frequently used either on the S.A. run as backup or on a Titan Airways charter. GK is also used on ad hoc Titan charters. GL is the irregular flier and until a short test flight yesterday had not flown since the 7th November. Further information can be found on all based aircraft on the Brize Blog page.

Watchman

[mudcity]

There might be a deal with the Indian AF looking to acquire 3 x 330 tankers pending delivery of their own . The Air Tanker ‘civil’ aircraft are all plumbed for tanking and need 6-8 weeks in the hangar to be fully converted -so Airbus keep the Indian AF happy and the Air Tanker consortium orders some boom Voyagers ......

[Vulcan74]

But with the Mildenhall KC135's tankers on our door step do we need the Voyagers to be upgraded?

[Vulture 01]

Why bother when you have a squadron of KC135's at Mildenhall.
Why not buy in to the NATO group based in Holland instead?

No real reason to convert our Voyagers unless you want to add another bucket of money to that contract.

[thevulcan]

I believe the issue with that point is that all air forces have different commitments globally. The UK more then some with tankers in Cyprus and The Falklands. The Mildenhall tankers are already over stretched in Europe with maybe 3 Mildenhall tanker sorties per a day supporting well over 8 air forces missions or training already. The issue with the NATO tanker fleet is the aircraft fleet is relatively small for the size of the commitments that it needs to cover. Another issue to highlight is that an aircraft within the NATO or Mildenhall fleet may not be available for a specific RAF mission therefore hindering an RAF operational sortie.

[Kurnass]

The only way the RAF could buy themselves into the MMF at Eindhoven, is by buying enough hours to finance extra MMF tankers. So far the MMF ordered nine.
But it might be more efficient to buy new tankers for the RAF instead. Or change the contract with Airtanker, to convert the civilian 330’s, and not have them available for civilian use. The aviation world has changed dramatically because of a certain virus, so maybe they are not needed/wanted by civilian airliners anyway.

[blackhandgang17]

Problem is that the Airtanker finances is based on a core fleet of 9 with a surge fleet of 4 with the surge fleet available for lease to airlines to help reduce costs to the MOD.
The Mod have got the most expensive and least capable voyagers/A330 MRTT fleet it is possible to have but to change the contract will cost them millions as Airtanker have exclusive rights to UK MOD AAR Services that’s why none of the A400M’s will get the tanker kit as at times it’s desperately needed.

[Agent K]

Why bother when you have a squadron of KC135's at Mildenhall.
Why not buy in to the NATO group based in Holland instead?

No real reason to convert our Voyagers unless you want to add another bucket of money to that contract.

But with the Mildenhall KC135's tankers on our door step do we need the Voyagers to be upgraded?

Things is.... we don't have a squadron of KC135's at Mildenhall? (the USAF do though)…..

If you understand procurement and operations and fleet management, the USAF will have their fleet sized appropriately at Mildenhall to meet their forecast operational requirements. Any permanent addition to that requirement would require additional aircraft and thus cost too, so you're suggesting we fund (dedicated?) USAF tankers which would then provide services to the RAF?...……..

……….which is inflexible and wouldn't work, for example, we need a permanent P8 operation at RAF Mount Pleasant with a refuelling need? or Wedgetail requirements outside of any NATO/USAF operations? and in which the US may not wish to take part

Similarly whilst the NATO fleet might provide some of the requirement, again it's committed to NATO and wouldn't be available for out of area operations.


So, from my view, at least, if a boom tanker requirement is needed it would have to be self provided.

[Vulture 01]

I spent a very long time at work managing logistics, so have a feeling for how things are done.
I know that, in any fleet type operation, there is always a built-in allowance for unscheduled maintenance, one-off operational requirements etc. (I always did add a % in to any need)
On top of this, in most markets there is the ability to contract in extra support from other operators, or similar ad-hoc providers.
In this instance as well as the USAF, there are also the NATO European tankers and the French, who, for some odd reason have booms on their new tankers without any aircraft that need boom refuelling.

By looking at your planned work, and making sensible estimates of use, it should be possible to talk to others and get access to extra refuelling support if needed. To cover that it might only be necessary for the provider to add one or two extra aircraft to their fleets giving extra 'margin' to everyone using them.

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but working out a solution can't be that difficult, surely?

[Malcolm]

I spent a very long time at work managing logistics, so have a feeling for how things are done.
I know that, in any fleet type operation, there is always a built-in allowance for unscheduled maintenance, one-off operational requirements etc. (I always did add a % in to any need)
On top of this, in most markets there is the ability to contract in extra support from other operators, or similar ad-hoc providers.
In this instance as well as the USAF, there are also the NATO European tankers and the French, who, for some odd reason have booms on their new tankers without any aircraft that need boom refuelling.

By looking at your planned work, and making sensible estimates of use, it should be possible to talk to others and get access to extra refuelling support if needed. To cover that it might only be necessary for the provider to add one or two extra aircraft to their fleets giving extra 'margin' to everyone using them.

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but working out a solution can't be that difficult, surely?

That works well in peacetime, and also benefits the refuller and refuelee crews with cross training for coalition type operations. But, when push comes to shove and the UK NEEDS to conduct a sovereign operational mission there can be no guarantee that any foreign power will agree to help out. That includes NATO, USAF, etc. As much as their crews may want to help out, politically the controlling authorities may be unwilling or unable to help.

There are plenty of times in the past 100 years when our friends have refused/been unable to help/been on the wrong side - Falklands, Suez, WW2 to name a few. You either learn these lessons, or accept that you cannot conduct global operations without coalition support. At the moment the UK is caught between those two camps and seems unable to come up with a coherent approach.

[Supra]

Problem is that the Airtanker finances is based on a core fleet of 9 with a surge fleet of 4 with the surge fleet available for lease to airlines to help reduce costs to the MOD.
The Mod have got the most expensive and least capable voyagers/A330 MRTT fleet it is possible to have but to change the contract will cost them millions as Airtanker have exclusive rights to UK MOD AAR Services that’s why none of the A400M’s will get the tanker kit as at times it’s desperately needed.

Couldn't agree more! Worst thing the UK ever did was entering this Airtanker Contract that would appear to have monopolised the initial, current & future AAR facilities at least up until 2035. You don't have to be a professor to know that the price for any Contract Variation after the initial signing is going to cost heavily & be whatever ridiculous figure the Contractor wishes to propose, because you can either take-it or leave-it! (Balls in the Vice syndrome? )
It has always been my opinion that the actual core aircraft supplied for the Contract are the least capable/ multi-role /adaptable items available you could ever get. It may have seemed a great idea not to have the capital outlay on hardware & support, but the UK is going to exceed those costs over & over again.
At least 3 of the Civil jets 'need gone' asap as there will be no requirement for them until beyond 2025 (according to Airline predictions) & probably not ever in reality? Even 'Boris Force One' is questionable as the cost to provide VIP transport of a similar standard must be available off the shelf in these 'new-normal' times.
I don't know the cheapest solution (probably because it doesn't exist) but procuring a number of under-wing HDU, boom-equipped, freight-floor & Cargo-door equipped Tankers on a lease/purchase scheme must be a primary requirement. Even if there is a argument for the heavies not requiring AAR should the RAF F-35A procurement ever happen, we're gonna need them!
As Malcolm states above, nobody can predict what the military / political situation going forward will be & when La merde hits the fan it's best not to have to rely on the trust of 'friendly' nations.

[Malcolm]

At least 3 of the Civil jets 'need gone' asap as there will be no requirement for them until beyond 2025 (according to Airline predictions) & probably not ever in reality? Even 'Boris Force One' is questionable as the cost to provide VIP transport of a similar standard must be available off the shelf in these 'new-normal' times.

I'm not sure that really matters to anyone except Airtanker. The fact the aircraft aren't leased out to Civvy operators shouldn't be costing MoD money - or at least any more money than they are already contracted to pay. Sure it'll be costing Airtanker, but if anything that should give Mod some leverage in negotiations.

I don't know the cheapest solution (probably because it doesn't exist) but procuring a number of under-wing HDU, boom-equipped, freight-floor & Cargo-door equipped Tankers on a lease/purchase scheme must be a primary requirement. Even if there is a argument for the heavies not requiring AAR should the RAF F-35A procurement ever happen, we're gonna need them!

IMHO, the Voyager/A330/MRTT is the right platform, but it's looking increasingly likely we are going to need some which are boom capable. I'm not a fan of the idea of converting the current civil lease or KC2 jets though - putting a boom on them makes them unusable as civil contract jets. IMV it should be the KC3's which get the boom, even if that means losing the centreline drogue. The KC3's have already got additional holes cut in them that make them unsuitable for civil work.

Of course what we should have done was put cat and traps on the carriers and then both the RN and RAF operate the F-35C, and the F-35B if the crabs really want to forward deploy. Ho Hum.