RAF Voyager KC2
Discussion
el stovey said:
As you can see, the UK airspace is quite congested with pre assigned blocks in the sky for all kinds of purposes, although not all are constantly in use.
I've highlighted the area this aircraft was using, there quite a few other air to air refuelling areas around the country though.
Superb - thanks for that.I've highlighted the area this aircraft was using, there quite a few other air to air refuelling areas around the country though.
1) For currency
2) If you're particularly well laden then to fly a long sortie means you wouldn't be able to get off the ground with full fuel and full loadout. Simple solution is to take off with less fuel and more weapons and then take fuel when airborne.
2) If you're particularly well laden then to fly a long sortie means you wouldn't be able to get off the ground with full fuel and full loadout. Simple solution is to take off with less fuel and more weapons and then take fuel when airborne.
Edited by rkem on Thursday 3rd September 21:15
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Crikey things have changed since my time on the Herc, 38 GASOs in those days definitely laid down the rules on tanking currency.
The short hose on the 135 looks fun, NOT!
Should clarify, I'm 1 Gp - don't know what the truckies do. I'll take a picture next time we're on a BDA; grim... The short hose on the 135 looks fun, NOT!
-crookedtail- said:
Not exactly related to the OP's question but why aren't the Voyagers used as VIP aircraft for the PM (royals) to travel where they need to be around the world?
Is it that there are not enough of them to cover when needed (not too often I would imagine) or is it cheaper to charter a BA 777? Seems a bit naff to turn up in foreign climes in a BA/Virgin jet when every other country seems to have their own, not that a grey Airbus would be AF1 but I've always wondered.
Well, it seems like they will do this afterall, the government really should listen to me more often Is it that there are not enough of them to cover when needed (not too often I would imagine) or is it cheaper to charter a BA 777? Seems a bit naff to turn up in foreign climes in a BA/Virgin jet when every other country seems to have their own, not that a grey Airbus would be AF1 but I've always wondered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cam...
-crookedtail- said:
-crookedtail- said:
Not exactly related to the OP's question but why aren't the Voyagers used as VIP aircraft for the PM (royals) to travel where they need to be around the world?
Is it that there are not enough of them to cover when needed (not too often I would imagine) or is it cheaper to charter a BA 777? Seems a bit naff to turn up in foreign climes in a BA/Virgin jet when every other country seems to have their own, not that a grey Airbus would be AF1 but I've always wondered.
Well, it seems like they will do this afterall, the government really should listen to me more often Is it that there are not enough of them to cover when needed (not too often I would imagine) or is it cheaper to charter a BA 777? Seems a bit naff to turn up in foreign climes in a BA/Virgin jet when every other country seems to have their own, not that a grey Airbus would be AF1 but I've always wondered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cam...
This has to be the big benefit rather than cost saving.
Seems like a brilliant idea, I note that on the various comment sections (the BBC one is a belter) the public are generally very, very against this, presumably as they just see "PM orders £10m private jet" and turn red with anger.
An oddly sensible idea that should be applauded, in my opinion.
Out of interest though, £10m seems like a fair bit to add catering and a nice room with plush seats and telecoms. Are the Voyagers generally very sparse inside?
An oddly sensible idea that should be applauded, in my opinion.
Out of interest though, £10m seems like a fair bit to add catering and a nice room with plush seats and telecoms. Are the Voyagers generally very sparse inside?
ukaskew said:
Seems like a brilliant idea, I note that on the various comment sections (the BBC one is a belter) the public are generally very, very against this, presumably as they just see "PM orders £10m private jet" and turn red with anger.
An oddly sensible idea that should be applauded, in my opinion.
Out of interest though, £10m seems like a fair bit to add catering and a nice room with plush seats and telecoms. Are the Voyagers generally very sparse inside?
It's an MOD Contract " You don't think the Military really pay $99 for a screwdriver do you?"An oddly sensible idea that should be applauded, in my opinion.
Out of interest though, £10m seems like a fair bit to add catering and a nice room with plush seats and telecoms. Are the Voyagers generally very sparse inside?
Mojocvh said:
Why should the RAF lose a percentage of their hard pressed AAR capacity?
We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
despite the fact the UK Voyagers are an AT asset as well and a number of them are managed by Air tanker and used for civilian taskings ... We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
Mojocvh said:
Why should the RAF lose a percentage of their hard pressed AAR capacity?
We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
We're not short or air tankers, hence why one is out on lease as an airliner and the others are running utility. We may be at war, but it's not one that requires long range, high endurance flights as Cyprus is quite well positioned and we're not running many jets. We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
Maybe when we're running F35 as first strike jets, but until then we can spare one for Cameron that the foreign office will pay for and will reduce the divvy flights being targeted.
Mojocvh said:
Why should the RAF lose a percentage of their hard pressed AAR capacity?
We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
We're not short or air tankers, hence why one is out on lease as an airliner and the others are running utility. We may be at war, but it's not one that requires long range, high endurance flights as Cyprus is quite well positioned and we're not running many jets. We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
Maybe when we're running F35 as first strike jets, but until then we can spare one for Cameron that the foreign office will pay for and will reduce the divvy flights being targeted.
mph1977 said:
Mojocvh said:
Why should the RAF lose a percentage of their hard pressed AAR capacity?
We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
despite the fact the UK Voyagers are an AT asset as well and a number of them are managed by Air tanker and used for civilian taskings ... We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
Evanivitch said:
Mojocvh said:
Why should the RAF lose a percentage of their hard pressed AAR capacity?
We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
We're not short or air tankers, hence why one is out on lease as an airliner and the others are running utility. We may be at war, but it's not one that requires long range, high endurance flights as Cyprus is quite well positioned and we're not running many jets. We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
Maybe when we're running F35 as first strike jets, but until then we can spare one for Cameron that the foreign office will pay for and will reduce the divvy flights being targeted.
"Maybe when we're running F35 as first strike jets"
How will they AAR? and yes they'll need plenty of it!
Condi said:
Mojocvh said:
Why should the RAF lose a percentage of their hard pressed AAR capacity?
We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
So hard pressed that one had time to fly me to Jamaica not that long ago? We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
Was it an operational tasking??
Mojocvh said:
Condi said:
Mojocvh said:
Why should the RAF lose a percentage of their hard pressed AAR capacity?
We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
So hard pressed that one had time to fly me to Jamaica not that long ago? We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
Was it an operational tasking??
Simple answer is we are not short of capacity, and so letting DC, the Queen etc use it appears to be a very logical step. They can still be converted back as a tanker in times of need.
Condi said:
Mojocvh said:
Condi said:
Mojocvh said:
Why should the RAF lose a percentage of their hard pressed AAR capacity?
We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
So hard pressed that one had time to fly me to Jamaica not that long ago? We are at WAR. This^^capacity^^^ is a force multiplier for the assets waging that war.
Answers on a postcard to 10 D St.
Was it an operational tasking??
Simple answer is we are not short of capacity, and so letting DC, the Queen etc use it appears to be a very logical step. They can still be converted back as a tanker in times of need.
As Camermong "needs" a fully fitted aircraft then it WILL remove an operational tanker as he requires the FULL DAS/Comms fit.
Mojocvh said:
Right so it WASN'T a tanker, but one that has been leased as a passenger aircraft by airtanker.
As Camermong "needs" a fully fitted aircraft then it WILL remove an operational tanker as he requires the FULL DAS/Comms fit.
No, it IS a tanker. Albeit one with the tanks and some of the control equipment stripped out and replaced with seats, in probably exactly the same way as Cameron's will. He will just have more comms and less seats, but it will be the same base build, and same principle on each. The MOD have already said that it will be used as a tanker if required, meaning in the same way as the AirTanker planes can be converted back, so will Cam's. As Camermong "needs" a fully fitted aircraft then it WILL remove an operational tanker as he requires the FULL DAS/Comms fit.
I dont see what you have a bee in your bonnet about.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff