Airbus A330 Voyager (MRTT) (RAF)

[raven111]

Nope.

Because if it was we wouldn't be dependent on the Americans for operational support.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[downsizer]

Outrageous!!!!

[Ianmb17]

No paint job for Cam1
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/01/2 ... -answered/

[Engaging Strategy]

The UK should've bought an Airbus A380 for the job, parked it next to Air Force One and shown the colonials how it's done!



It's a shame there aren't plans for a snazzy paint job, I rather liked the look of the old royal flight scheme. It was very classy, but then it seems like we've forgotten what class is in a world where this thing stands in for the Royal Yacht:

[Ron5]

Buying a French aircraft would show us how it's done? Sure.

[ArmChairCivvy]

es seem these days your political power is determined my the size of the aircraft you arrive in The arrival of foreign leaders and the staged wave at the aircrafts door before walking down the steps to be greeted does seem to be a favourite news report for the worlds press

This of course makes the EU a superpower as the President (when they/ we finally got one) and the Head of Commission (the "PM") arrived to some summit in Moscow a couple of years back in their own planes - at the same time!

[ArmChairCivvy]

On the other hand I cannot understand why we keep a Voyager in the Falklands full-time, especially as it won't fit in the blessed hangar.

A more obvious solution (especially with the imminent drawdown of the C130 fleet)

Sorry, I am only catching up with this thread (quoting from November), but the obvious solution surely is to use the Herc J (long model) fleet that will now stay and have one fitted with off-the-shelf tanker kit (and some SAR stuff that the USCG has had on them for yonks)?

[SKB]

Buying a French aircraft would show us how it's done? Sure.

Airbus isn't French. It's a pan-European company. The engines and wings of the A380 are British though.

[Engaging Strategy]

Airbus isn't French. It's a pan-European company. The engines and wings of the A380 are British though.

Just imagined Dave & Co jetting around on a pair of wings with RR Trent engines strapped to the back

[RetroSicotte]

A set of wings with RR engines on it and nothing else?

So basically, a TSR-2 then.

[ArmChairCivvy]

That (RR and all!) would be much more impressive than the current on a wing and a prayer.

› If you do something on a wing and a ​prayer, you do it ​hoping that you will ​succeed, ​although you are not ​prepared enough... some dictionary says... so it wasn't me!

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[The Armchair Soldier]

The penultimate Voyager lands at Brize Norton:

[bobp]

I see the latest arrival has a civilian registration, is one possibly the one the Prime Minister will be using as a Taxi ?

[Gabriele]

That is due to it being one of the "surge fleet". She'll be fitted with 303 seats and offered up for short term charter on the civilian market.

The surge fleet can be recalled at 90 days notice to move.

[GibMariner]

UK RAF shows interest in Voyager boom

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is interested in provisioning its Airbus Defence and Space (DS) A330-200 Voyager tanker-transport aircraft with a boom, if the funding can be sourced, a senior service official told reporters.

Speaking at the FIDAE Airshow in Santiago on 30 March, Deputy Commander of Operations Air Marshal Greg Bagwell said the operational case for equipping at least some of the UK's Voyagers with a boom has already been accepted by the service, but that there is currently no money available for the conversion work that would need to be done to the hose-and-drogue-equipped aircraft.

"If money were no object and I could wave a magic wand, I would put a boom on a Voyager tomorrow," AM Bagwell said, adding; "The flexibility that it provides is obvious, especially in an interoperable environment, but it all comes down to practical delivery and cost."

http://www.janes.com/article/59242/uk-r ... yager-boom

[whitelancer]

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to fit probes to the relatively small number of RAF aircraft equipped to receive fuel via a boom. As all the plumbing is in place a probe could simply be attached to the available receptor. Assuming of course their are no aerodynamic or structural issues.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Here's hoping it comes to something. At least it has been recognised, step in the right direction on that front.

[Opinion3]

Was Gordon Brown was the only person alive who didn't foresee this need? It is crazy that we have a relatively modern RAF fleet but actual capabilities are so poor. Read things that don't work (A400M), weren't specified correctly (A330MRT) or lack weapons integration/DASS (where do I start?)

[marktigger]

wasn't allot of the military specifications stuff compromised to allow air tanker to lease the airframes not on contract to the RAF to companies like Thomas cook

[downsizer]

wasn't allot of the military specifications stuff compromised to allow air tanker to lease the airframes not on contract to the RAF to companies like Thomas cook

Nope. Yet more ill informed posting.

[Opinion3]

@Mark

If they were doing it again the questions we have been asking would be being asked again right now....... lack of money and learning to cope with limited capabilities might have meant they reached different conclusions to the bulk of us but lacking are

DASS (had to be added later)
ARBS
UARRSI
Cargo door
VIP version (a modification costing £10M)

Not sure if they have SATCOM and given our fleet of Galaxys and Atlas I can see why a cargo door could be skipped, but heavy use of the strategic lift for MEDEVAC etc. might have provided a case for a re-role to the Voyagers.

[downsizer]

These things weren't fitted not because they weren't wanted. They weren't fitted due to cost savings.

It was 'cheap' or no tanker.

[marktigger]

These things weren't fitted not because they weren't wanted. They weren't fitted due to cost savings.

It was 'cheap' or no tanker.

By Who?

The Airforce?
or
Air Tanker?