FighterControl

Sure there are plenty more educated members here that can help with the following question!

As the RAF take on board more and more US derived aircraft how will the UK AAR fleet cope with the need for more Boom and Receiver style requirements over our traditional probe and Drogue? Currently P-8 RC135 and soon to be wedgetail all need boom AAR

Any one know of any plans to upgrade/ change our AAR fleet to accommodate this requirement?

Thoughts?

Check out this topic:

viewtopic.php?f=432&t=200273

Freeman

I thought the idea was to use the Mildenhall KC135's for refuelling.

Vulcan74 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm

I thought the idea was to use the Mildenhall KC135's for refuelling.

I think not, they have a full and busy mission itinerary as it is without committing full time to other missions? that would surely require additional aircraft in their fleet, not to mention that they wouldn't provide 24x7 global coverage anyway.

Until you get a President more stroppy than the 'Ginger Antagonist' (if humanly possible?) then you've got a good many 'restricted-range jets'. (for that read 'pathetic'!) Don't think it's a viable option to keep extending runways by construction or re-designating overruns to provide the required numbers for a maximum fuelled TOW. The USAF cannot be expected to be available at anytime the RAF need a top-up Worldwide! The UK contracted AAR was & is a joke with the contracted covenants associated with Air Tankers' provisions & aircraft specification as supplied.

Vulcan74 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm

I thought the idea was to use the Mildenhall KC135's for refuelling.

Non Airtanker resources can only be used to refuel RAF (MoD?) aircraft for operational missions, and only then when Airtanker are unable to supply that support. Part of that wonderful Airtanker contract.

There is a thread over on Pprune somewhere explaining that RAF RC-135's can use USAF KC-135 support for operational missions, but not for training, or for when they return to the USA for maintainance/upgrade.

This makes the RAF operating F-35A anytime soon a non starter. I think the Airtanker contract expires in 2035.

Agent K wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:17 pm

Vulcan74 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm

I thought the idea was to use the Mildenhall KC135's for refuelling.

I think not, they have a full and busy mission itinerary as it is without committing full time to other missions? that would surely require additional aircraft in their fleet, not to mention that they wouldn't provide 24x7 global coverage anyway.

Depends on who is tasking them, and who is tasking the tankers.

Worth remembering that fair (if not high) proportion of several ISTAR fleets is NATO tasking. Hence we don’t see major issues with RJs and Sentries not flying due to a lack of tanker support.

Anything not currently provided by Air Tanker is a contract variation and all costs for design, build maintain is at the MOD's expense.
So about as much chance of this happening as me winning the lottery.

Malcolm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 7:15 pm

Vulcan74 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm

I thought the idea was to use the Mildenhall KC135's for refuelling.

Non Airtanker resources can only be used to refuel RAF (MoD?) aircraft for operational missions, and only then when Airtanker are unable to supply that support. Part of that wonderful Airtanker contract.

There is a thread over on Pprune somewhere explaining that RAF RC-135's can use USAF KC-135 support for operational missions, but not for training, or for when they return to the USA for maintainance/upgrade.

This makes the RAF operating F-35A anytime soon a non starter. I think the Airtanker contract expires in 2035.

Ultimately any contract is able to be changed through a contract change notice/change order process with negotiated changes/additions included in the contract schedules. The sticking point is, of course, the negotiated price changes...……..

The UK has an MoU with the USAF for RC-135 refueling provision specifically, but we may also need to refuel C-17, P-8, E-7 in the future.

The C-17 seems to get by perfectly well without AAR. Assume the P-8 and E-7 will have adequate range without tankers, I don't not think the US Navy refuel their P-8's. The big sticking point will be future F-35A order, so why not order the F-35C ?

One problem with the P8 is if you want them to go to the South Atlantic you may have little or no diversion options if MPA not available you can’t return to Ascension without refuelling.

True. But how long is it since the Falklands had any MPA coverage ? It is a lost capability that UK Government seem happy to live without.

The U.S. Navy are increasingly refuelling their P-8s, its still a relatively new capability for them. It's not just the Falklands anymore, you have to start considering future conflicts with China etc, where aerial refuelling will be crucial.

TonyO wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:46 am

The U.S. Navy are increasingly refuelling their P-8s, its still a relatively new capability for them. It's not just the Falklands anymore, you have to start considering future conflicts with China etc, where aerial refuelling will be crucial.

No problem. If it came to a future conflict, they could just bolt on some second hand probes, and bodge up a bit of plumbing. After all, it worked fine on Nimr ....

OK, maybe not....

Some Voyager's defiantly need converting to boom operations as well in the near distant future! but the government could request more US Tankers to based in England for RAF training & operation purposes.

Vulcan74 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:12 pm

Some Voyager's defiantly need converting to boom operations as well in the near distant future! but the government could request more US Tankers to based in England for RAF training & operation purposes.

They could request, but the U.S. could deny it, after all its up to the U.S. what it does with its assets, and given the endless problems with KC-46, I am not sure they are swimming in tanker capacity at the moment.

Vulcan74 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:12 pm

Some Voyager's defiantly need converting to boom operations as well in the near distant future! but the government could request more US Tankers to based in England for RAF training & operation purposes.

I look forward to seeing them defiantly converted….. against their will?....

Things is, and people here don't seem to get their heads round it?, the USA is not the UK, the UK can't just say to the USA to base more tankers in the UK, to service the UK operational requirements. The USA will place their fleet, that they finance and fund, where needed to meet the USA mission and given the age of some of the tankers and the issues with the KC46, it's naive to think that the USA will base more aircraft in the UK because the UK asks. Non of this will be free either! so whatever you do you will end up paying, so go for the best solution SHOULD an MoD/Operational requirement be formalised (which to my knowledge hasn't happened yet).

Sorry Vulcan 74 baut as I remember there is a clause in the contract and they cant be changed to boom and also they cant buy boomer tankers. I hope I'm wrong.
mike

Agent K wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:49 pm

Vulcan74 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:12 pm

Some Voyager's defiantly need converting to boom operations as well in the near distant future! but the government could request more US Tankers to based in England for RAF training & operation purposes.

I look forward to seeing them defiantly converted….. against their will?....

No doubt you'll get the standard 'I blame predictive text' reply, as if the phone is in charge of what the human writes and not the other way around.