Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

The full 'flying hospital' like the German MRTT?
@LandSharkUK

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by andrew98 »

I'd argue the refuelling boom personally.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

A good point, that is more pressing, it would also make the RAF's F35-A argument stronger.
@LandSharkUK

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by S M H »

shark bait wrote:good point, that is more pressing, it would also make the RAF's F35-A argument stronger.
more useful to refuel the boom only C17. ordered P8. Rivet joint aircraft. Rather than splitting the F 35 fleet.

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Opinion3 »

I am surprised the secondary commercial role was not a cargo role. Customers want a comfortable modern experience and the A330 is best for long haul flights which means in-flight entertainment. These specifications clearly are quite a way from the RAF passenger experience which looks short-haul basic in commercial terms. The Look and feel aspect probably doesn't exist for the cargo role. It would of course then have benefited from the cargo door and had extra piping for the boom etc.

Whilst the swap-re role task would surely be quicker and cheaper with a large cargo door. I especially think the use of valuable cargo planes for MEDEVAC is wasteful. Although granted it might be using an otherwise empty return flight.

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Smokey »

Opinion3 wrote:I especially think the use of valuable cargo planes for MEDEVAC is wasteful.
I think those who are/were wounded or very ill plus their next of kin would strongly disagree.

Cargo is prioritised. Some cargo can be fast balled or delayed as necessary.

Treating wounded lesser than cargo would seriously affect morale across the services.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Smokey wrote:
Opinion3 wrote:I especially think the use of valuable cargo planes for MEDEVAC is wasteful.
I think those who are/were wounded or very ill plus their next of kin would strongly disagree.

Cargo is prioritised. Some cargo can be fast balled or delayed as necessary.

Treating wounded lesser than cargo would seriously affect morale across the services.
Having been delayed to allow wounded to get home I agree. Get the wounded back however you can, and don’t just have one option available. Also the lengths that are gone to for serious compassionate cases are a credit to all concerned.

If MEDEVACs are considered a waste of an asset, I dread to think where you place repatriation flights.....

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Smokey »

indeid wrote:Having been delayed to allow wounded to get home...
Yep, me too.

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Opinion3 »

Smokey wrote:I think those who are/were wounded or very ill plus their next of kin would strongly disagree.

Cargo is prioritised. Some cargo can be fast balled or delayed as necessary.

Treating wounded lesser than cargo would seriously affect morale across the services.
Did you deliberately misinterpret my comment? What are you smoking? I'm pretty speechless

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Smokey »

your posts reads that cargo aircraft are wasted in medevac.

My opinion differs.

I don’t smoke.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

The capability the C-17 brings is rare in Europe, so it isn't the best use of an expensive bespoke platform when a civilian aircraft can do the job just as well for less.
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by abc123 »

shark bait wrote:The capability the C-17 brings is rare in Europe, so it isn't the best use of an expensive bespoke platform when a civilian aircraft can do the job just as well for less.
I would agree with that. Maybe it's better to use smaller aircrafts, like say Bombardier Global 5000 or similar jets, if it's possible?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Dahedd »

I'd replace the Royal flight 145s with the basic biz jet version of the Sentinel. Keep commonality with that fleet with the option to use for medical missions.

Or if they are to be scrapped in favour of mods to the P8 see if they can be converted back to a near base spec. Long range biz jet for Royal, Diplomatic & VIP use.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

shark bait wrote:The capability the C-17 brings is rare in Europe, so it isn't the best use of an expensive bespoke platform when a civilian aircraft can do the job just as well for less.
Why remove capability? At the moment TMW can call on two different fleets to get moving as quickly as possible. They can fly direct to theatre as aircraft will likely have the TES DAS fit, pick up multiple casualties and conduct critical care on the way back. The US have a surgical fit for their C-17s.

It’s a world leading capability, and you would give it up and rely on flying non DAS fitted civ aircraft into theatre to pick up the wounded? Should I get travel insurance they next time I deploy to make sure I can get home?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

I never suggested that.

My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
@LandSharkUK

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

shark bait wrote:I never suggested that.

My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
But Voyager is already capable of Aeromed and MEDEVAC up to Critical Care.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

This is my point, the Germans have it set up for Critical Care, something missing from the RAF's.
@LandSharkUK

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

I meant inclusive, it can take I think 3 Critical Care beds (might be 4).

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Tinman »

shark bait wrote:I never suggested that.

My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
Have you ever deployed operationally?

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by downsizer »

Tinman wrote:
shark bait wrote:I never suggested that.

My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
Have you ever deployed operationally?
You win the internet!

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by marktigger »

C17 in CCAST role is a brilliant capability. when VC10 retired the C17 became the fastest way home. The space and facilities the cargo deck provide are superior for the role than the A330 it is also easier to load and configure

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Opinion3 »

marktigger wrote:C17 in CCAST role is a brilliant capability. when VC10 retired the C17 became the fastest way home. The space and facilities the cargo deck provide are superior for the role than the A330 it is also easier to load and configure
I suspect you are correct, although there maybe a cases where the availability of C17 medevac is compromised by the limited availability of this strategic transport and whilst the A330 is capable were it to have had a cargo door for example it's capabilities could have been right up there with the C17. I imagine there are pros and cons of both planes, the C17 is self deploying and roomier but probably a less comfortable environment. The A330 is pretty roomy and is used for MEDEVAC already but by making the plane to a specification that considered PFI rather than the needs of Forces we have reduced flexibility and done ourselves a disservice. (I believe the PFI tendering was before the C17 came along). Having the extra flexibility to utilise the both assets to their full capabilities is the best outcome and in the case of the A330s had they been cargo rather than passenger focused for PFI-ing I believe they could have got a better leasing deal whilst suiting the RAF better.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Tinman »

downsizer wrote:
Tinman wrote:
shark bait wrote:I never suggested that.

My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
Have you ever deployed operationally?
You win the internet!
He sounds more and more like meerkat from arrse.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by marktigger »

Opinion3 wrote:
marktigger wrote:C17 in CCAST role is a brilliant capability. when VC10 retired the C17 became the fastest way home. The space and facilities the cargo deck provide are superior for the role than the A330 it is also easier to load and configure
I suspect you are correct, although there maybe a cases where the availability of C17 medevac is compromised by the limited availability of this strategic transport and whilst the A330 is capable were it to have had a cargo door for example it's capabilities could have been right up there with the C17. I imagine there are pros and cons of both planes, the C17 is self deploying and roomier but probably a less comfortable environment. The A330 is pretty roomy and is used for MEDEVAC already but by making the plane to a specification that considered PFI rather than the needs of Forces we have reduced flexibility and done ourselves a disservice. (I believe the PFI tendering was before the C17 came along). Having the extra flexibility to utilise the both assets to their full capabilities is the best outcome and in the case of the A330s had they been cargo rather than passenger focused for PFI-ing I believe they could have got a better leasing deal whilst suiting the RAF better.
CCAST trumps cargo

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

Post by Smokey »

Cargo can be sent via civilian airline freight.

Combat supplies have a 3 month Theatre reserve minimum.

Post Reply