P8 inflight refuelling

[big john]

I didn't realise this had not happened before!
http://www.amc.af.mil/News/Article-Disp ... g-mission/

[Sparts99]

Will the RAF P-8s have probes or use the boom system?

[page_verify]

Only boom, the suggestion from the P-8 team at RIAT last year was that the UK will have its own boom capability by the time they (and the F-35 and RC-135) need it.

[Sparts99]

They need to get a move on then, especially if Mildenhall does go and the US facilities all move to Germany as currently planned. I assume it'll have to be under the private initiative too.

[jetnoise]

I understand that to keep the cost down Cameron and his Defence Minister decided to keep the RAF P-8s as 'stock' as possible - hence the lack of a probe-and-drogure AAR capability. Not sure where the RAF flying boom tankers are coming from - a mod to the Voyagers will be fairly extensive (and therefore not cheap).
Some one told me a few years ago that the RAF RC-135Ws have limited unrefuelled range / endurance as the mission kit leaves little room for a fuel load while remaining within the undercarriage load limit.
As for the F-35B AAR fit, don't the USMC use the probe-and-drogue system as per other USN types? If LM can fit /clear a P+D system for the Marines, there's no reason why the RAF / RN jets can't be fitted in the same way.

[page_verify]

There was a comment in the media last summer from a VSO about how much they'd love a boom on the Voyager and that enquiries were being made. It was around the same time that mutterings were made that post-Haddon-Cave, it'll be a long time before the UK makes its own changes to its aircraft again.

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

[Agent K]

Only boom, the suggestion from the P-8 team at RIAT last year was that the UK will have its own boom capability by the time they (and the F-35 and RC-135) need it.

F35 doesn't need it, it's (retractable) probe equipped.

[Malcolm]

I'm not sure it's possible to fit both a boom (ARBS) and a Cobham 805E fuselage mounted drogue. The RAF/Airtanker have 5? three hosers (KC3's) with the two wing pods and the fuselage unit. The fuselage unit has higher flow rate (600 gallons/min) versus the wing pods (420 gal/min) so are better for refuelling large aircraft - such as the RAF's C-130's, E3's & A400M's. Last time I asked, small jets (Tonkas/Tiffies) weren't cleared to use the centreline drogue, and large aircraft weren't cleared to use the wing drogues.

The other 9 aircraft (KC2's) only have provision for the wing mounted pods, so you could possibly retrofit a boom to these ala KC30. However, that would preclude Airtanker from leasing these aircraft out to civvy street. So you'd probably end up with something like 4xKC2's (several leased out plus May/Corbyn Force One), 5xKC3 three hose and 5 x KC4? two hose and boom. KC4's couldn't be leased out, or refuel A400M''s.

Bit of a mess really.

[Sparts99]

Staggering. Imagine trying to sort that lot out in times of tension and high sortie rates.

[page_verify]

Only boom, the suggestion from the P-8 team at RIAT last year was that the UK will have its own boom capability by the time they (and the F-35 and RC-135) need it.

F35 doesn't need it, it's (retractable) probe equipped.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... le-427136/

Changing the A model, which the UK might still buy?, to use probe and drogue will probably end up being a bespoke change.

[Andy_99]

Joined up thinking by the MOD at it's best not......

I could sort of understand how when we procured the A330 fleet we only had aircraft with probes ( exclude the C17 which may have been on lease) so maybe we thought we don't need booms.

But

When we ordered the RC135 why didn't somebody think err how we going to refuel this as it only uses the boom system, let's put it into the build spec so we can.

& then

Somebody then took the decision to buy the P8 & did exactly the same again.

Then somebody mutters, er the F35B (another argument) doesn't quite cut the mustard (would it ever) so maybe we could buy some F35A's as well for the Land based people, Urm burger how do we refuel them without expensive modifications.

[Stroudy]

This whole scenario is just a shower of sheti. Im no MOD planner but I have a mediocre knowledge of how our aircraft work and operate and even I could see that coming from day one... whilst regularly shaking my head when ever I read the next goof up.

The F35B is inherently not up to standard, the P-8 cant currently be refuled AA by the RAF, same with the RC and the carriers, with no cats and a non angled deck....!

[Agent K]

Of course unless one is aware of all the facts at the time of making the decision then it's pure speculation (for example the A330 was ordered and spec agreed before the Nimrod was scrapped let alone well before the P8 so you can't use that as an example of failure). The C17 was a lease aircraft at the time and the RAF were using it as a strategic airlifter and not tactical hence hub to hub operations for which range was acceptable and IFR wasn't a requirement.

Decisions are made at the time, by MoD and military specialists in their fields, shaped by policy, available budget etc. etc., so they will never get everything they want with all the appropriate specifications).

It's rarely as clear cut as some armchair experts would believe, and requires far greater abilities than they think they have. Not to say that it goes wrong from time to time but for most situations there's usually mitigating circumstances for that time.

[Stroudy]

Valid point Agent K. Just frustration builds up occasionally in my armchair I just keep seeing the 'what does the RAF use for AAR? Probe and drogue of course' statement flash up in my head once in a while when I see RC-135 and P-8's get selected and delivered with no probe system installed.. or not on the horizon to be retrofitted, or A330's to be fitted with booms. Hopefully the latter will be the option that gets chosen to overcome the issue.

We'll all be waiting with baited breath...

Thanks.

[Agent K]

Thanks Stroudy, yes, I too can be guilty of such armchair frustrations too! and I do see your point wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately with 5 year governments and reactionary politics (defence isn't as sexy as health, education etc, etc.) defence policy and procurement seems rarely to be long term and strategic, and as we saw, capabilities like Harrier and Nimrod can be cut purely as cost saving rather than an operational decision, whereupon MoD contract negotiators and procurement have to get the best deal from a limited budget.

[Andy_99]

Of course unless one is aware of all the facts at the time of making the decision then it's pure speculation (for example the A330 was ordered and spec agreed before the Nimrod was scrapped let alone well before the P8 so you can't use that as an example of failure). The C17 was a lease aircraft at the time and the RAF were using it as a strategic airlifter and not tactical hence hub to hub operations for which range was acceptable and IFR wasn't a requirement.

Decisions are made at the time, by MoD and military specialists in their fields, shaped by policy, available budget etc. etc., so they will never get everything they want with all the appropriate specifications).

It's rarely as clear cut as some armchair experts would believe, and requires far greater abilities than they think they have. Not to say that it goes wrong from time to time but for most situations there's usually mitigating circumstances for that time.

Exactly my point Agent K. At the time of procuring the A330 we didn't have a need for a boom hence why we didn't get one but......

The RC135 was Ordered post Nimrod being scrapped, so after the A330 procurement, why didn't they add to the requirements a probe - Strike 1
The P8 was only ordered recently when we already had the A330 in service, what Numpty signed on the line thinking we don't need AAR for this - Strike 2
The muttering about the F35A is pure speculation but again I could see somebody at the MOD signing off the order without joining up the dots.

To Modify the A330 will cost squillions of pounds as they don't belong to the RAF so change of contract terms as well as the actual retrofitting of the modifcations.

If we'd have done it on the other side (ie on the receiver) it could have been built into the procurement cost.

[Philwinward]

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

[page_verify]

Very interesting question about the allowable terms for getting fuel from the USAF, and I'm guessing from other nations while on operations as well. Unlike even the RC-135, I know that the P-8 has a mission where complete national sovereignty is required, which is why the UK needs its own boom refueling capability. I suspect though, that requirement will drift away when the reality of providing fuel from the UK boom becomes cost prohibitive.

[toom317]

From an article in a recent magazine about the RAF's P8's and the C17, commonality throughout the whole of the world using the US system brings benefits for upgrades etc. As soon as you start tinkering with your aircraft outwith the system, any future changes will have to then be dealt with by your own agencies, as they will no longer be covered by the fleet wide upgrades introduced by the manufacturer.

[Agent K]

Of course unless one is aware of all the facts at the time of making the decision then it's pure speculation (for example the A330 was ordered and spec agreed before the Nimrod was scrapped let alone well before the P8 so you can't use that as an example of failure). The C17 was a lease aircraft at the time and the RAF were using it as a strategic airlifter and not tactical hence hub to hub operations for which range was acceptable and IFR wasn't a requirement.

Decisions are made at the time, by MoD and military specialists in their fields, shaped by policy, available budget etc. etc., so they will never get everything they want with all the appropriate specifications).

It's rarely as clear cut as some armchair experts would believe, and requires far greater abilities than they think they have. Not to say that it goes wrong from time to time but for most situations there's usually mitigating circumstances for that time.

Exactly my point Agent K. At the time of procuring the A330 we didn't have a need for a boom hence why we didn't get one but......

The RC135 was Ordered post Nimrod being scrapped, so after the A330 procurement, why didn't they add to the requirements a probe - Strike 1
The P8 was only ordered recently when we already had the A330 in service, what Numpty signed on the line thinking we don't need AAR for this - Strike 2
The muttering about the F35A is pure speculation but again I could see somebody at the MOD signing off the order without joining up the dots.

To Modify the A330 will cost squillions of pounds as they don't belong to the RAF so change of contract terms as well as the actual retrofitting of the modifcations.

If we'd have done it on the other side (ie on the receiver) it could have been built into the procurement cost.

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!