P8 inflight refuelling

[Agent K]

If the RAF are tied to a contract , not allowing a third party or other aircraft to carry out a/a refuelling, how are the USAF currently able to refuel the RAF RC135 ?
Is there a let out clause (or financial penalty) which could also apply to the P8 ?
Will we end up buying into the future European Tanker program? Presumably Norway will have the same problem with their P8 ?
Or do we buy used USAF KC135's ,with our government anything is possible!!

Phil

If you get your contract right then anything is negotiable and possible, that's the art of good procurement organisations and contracts negotiation. And also there is the contract change order process to change it to incorporate anything new or change the delivery framework, some aspects of which may cost.

[Malcolm]

Problem is the cost, as soon as you go your own way on spec and equipment the price increases exponentially, there is design, certification and lifetime support. I assume that was seen as prohibitive? The more vanilla spec your aircraft is the cheaper the TCO and smaller the budget. Right or wrong I suspect we share the same opinion, but that is reality!

I suspect the bigger concern for MOD is with the MAA and certification. After all Haddon-Cave is all about a basically botched install of a refuelling probe on Nimrod MR2, which ultimately lead to one blowing up over Afghanistan with the loss of all 14 crew. It's a mystery how RC135 got certified for RAF use as it is and that airframe has been flying for 50+ years. Last thing anyone wanted to do was cut a hole in the roof for the AAR probe. Ditto for P8. I do wonder what the clearances are for the UK E-3's when using the probe/drogue.

[filmman]

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question? What aircraft can be refuelled by our numerous, expensive Tanker fleet? Typhoon yes, P8 no, Tornado yes, C17 no, Hercules yes, RC 135 no, etc. I am not sure about the F35, are some versions boom and some drogue. Hang on the newer aircraft can't be refuelled. Is it now MOD policy to scrap or reduce the tanker fleet to save money or are we about to buy new Boeing boom and drogue tankers?
Filmman

[turmo]

Problem is the cost, as soon as you go your own way on spec and equipment the price increases exponentially, there is design, certification and lifetime support. I assume that was seen as prohibitive?

Which is ironic because on the tanking side the MoD's decision to omit the boom from the A330 MRTT necessitated Airbus preparing and applying for a separate Supplemental Type Certificate; they couldn't use the one already granted by EASA for the Australian & Saudi spec. The new STC was granted as 'A330 MRTT FSTA' from memory.

So as usual the MoD has played a blinder; increased up-front costs on the FSTA programme by requiring separate recertification, and then being unable to refuel the RAF's heavies anyhow.

One solution for now on the receiver side might be a probe that connects into the UARRSI receptacle to allow them to use drogue tankers; would't affect internal plumbing, so no maintenance changes required, but would have lower transfer rates and would need flight qualifcation.

[page_verify]

Malcolm hits the nail on the head, MAA and Haddon-Cave are why the UK has been left with a probe and drogue system, but dwindling number of aircraft that can use it. The idea that we can retrofit our own probes was obviously acceptable in the early 2000s, but alas no more. We're now a small customer in the large boom world.

[Bushpilot]

Never mind refuelling the plane, there's no tea making facilities http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/798183 ... -submarine

[Satan1274]

I recently attended a lecture given by the Project Procurement Director.When asked directly about refuelling capability he indicated that refuelling initially would not be an available option although the aircraft are capable .

[ColintheCaterpillar]

I do wonder what the clearances are for the UK E-3's when using the probe/drogue.

E-3D and F I think had it designed in from the outset. Being P&D is couples into the boom system pipework just behind the probe. The boom gives a far higher onload rate and of course the refuel system was designed for a boom, so having the lower rate probe feed into that system wouldn't ever really be an issue.

It probably wouldn't be a huge engineering problem to do it on the RJ or P8, however there's the safety/certification (maybe less so if the RJ was 707 based, not -135 based) and trials issues it would bring up, and I doubt there has been the inclination to do so with the time pressures of each project.

[page_verify]

How's our track record of modifying and safeguarding the fuel systems of our MPA aircraft.....?

[ColintheCaterpillar]

How's our track record of modifying and safeguarding the fuel systems of our MPA aircraft.....?

The difference being all the aircraft discussed here already have an AAR capability.

[Seahornet1]

How's our track record of modifying and safeguarding the fuel systems of our MPA aircraft.....?

Do you mean: "it was an activity that caused a tragic accident, so the said activity must never be allowed to happen again"...? That sounds a lot like some people's argument for banning airshows, to me...

Haddon-Cave is a lot more about safety management than it is about engineering; if those lessons are scrupulously taken on board, then such modifications will not degrade the safety of the system in any way.

[Doughnut]

IIRC the Nimrod air refuelling program was an urgent 1982 Falklands War fit, as was the same fitment to some C-130's. It may not have been a perfect solution, but it did the job. Sadly for the Nimrod crew lost the system was not ideal and maybe should have been improved, maintained better or deleted.

If RAF needs the refuel the RC-135's then maybe a small number of ex USAF KC-135R could be leased by the Airbus consortum ? They can not be any other than the RC's

[Mavke]

boom problem wil be solved soon when NATO A330MRTT enter services ...

[Philwinward]

Going back to my original comment : would Air Tanker (or whatever they're called) allow a third party ,in this case NATO, refuel RAF aircraft?
Would NATO allow the aircraft to operate where the RAF needed them ?
We would presumably have to book the flight in advance.
Would the UK gov. want "outsiders " having this info ?
How about this for a solution ? If the USAF decide to move their RC135 ops to Fairford,we transfer our RC135's to the USAF, they in turn have a tanker detachment at Fairford like that used for the NATO E3.
There could be a let out for P8 if we allocate them to Royal Navy ,although the latter only works if Air Tanker contract is for the RAF only.

Phil

[Agent K]

If you've any knowledge of contracts there will be exit clauses, termination for convenience etc. All of which can be used to get what the MoD need, AirTanker will not dictate what happens here.

[filmman]

I have had such experience, and guess what some Government Departments have an inate ability to sign stupid contracts with no get outs; because they get fixated on saving as much money as possible.
Filmman

[Ghost from above]

We could always contract these guys. Funny things have happened before!


http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/

[ColintheCaterpillar]

I think Omega only do tanking the proper way.

[Agent K]

I have had such experience, and guess what some Government Departments have an inate ability to sign stupid contracts with no get outs; because they get fixated on saving as much money as possible.
Filmman

Fair point! I've got experience of writing, negotiating and implementing large (tens of £M) contracts and our legal people wouldn't sign a contract unless such clauses were included!

[filmman]

The difference in Government is that lawyers advise, the Senior Civil Service official elite decide. I suppose that sometimes the logic might be that once launched a project might be too expensive to stop, by buying out the contractor, if Government changes; apart from getting the cheapest price.
Filmman