Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
A good point, that is more pressing, it would also make the RAF's F35-A argument stronger.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
more useful to refuel the boom only C17. ordered P8. Rivet joint aircraft. Rather than splitting the F 35 fleet.shark bait wrote:good point, that is more pressing, it would also make the RAF's F35-A argument stronger.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
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.
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.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
I think those who are/were wounded or very ill plus their next of kin would strongly disagree.Opinion3 wrote:I especially think the use of valuable cargo planes for MEDEVAC is wasteful.
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.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
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.Smokey wrote:I think those who are/were wounded or very ill plus their next of kin would strongly disagree.Opinion3 wrote:I especially think the use of valuable cargo planes for MEDEVAC is wasteful.
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.
If MEDEVACs are considered a waste of an asset, I dread to think where you place repatriation flights.....
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Yep, me too.indeid wrote:Having been delayed to allow wounded to get home...
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Did you deliberately misinterpret my comment? What are you smoking? I'm pretty speechlessSmokey 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.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
your posts reads that cargo aircraft are wasted in medevac.
My opinion differs.
I don’t smoke.
My opinion differs.
I don’t smoke.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
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
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
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?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.
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…
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…
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
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.
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.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
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.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.
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?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
I never suggested that.
My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
But Voyager is already capable of Aeromed and MEDEVAC up to Critical Care.shark bait wrote:I never suggested that.
My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
This is my point, the Germans have it set up for Critical Care, something missing from the RAF's.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
I meant inclusive, it can take I think 3 Critical Care beds (might be 4).
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Have you ever deployed operationally?shark bait wrote:I never suggested that.
My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
You win the internet!Tinman wrote:Have you ever deployed operationally?shark bait wrote:I never suggested that.
My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
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
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
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.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
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
He sounds more and more like meerkat from arrse.downsizer wrote:You win the internet!Tinman wrote:Have you ever deployed operationally?shark bait wrote:I never suggested that.
My suggestion is a move to Voyager could be beneficial.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
CCAST trumps cargoOpinion3 wrote: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.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
Re: Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)
Cargo can be sent via civilian airline freight.
Combat supplies have a 3 month Theatre reserve minimum.
Combat supplies have a 3 month Theatre reserve minimum.