RAF Voyager KC2

[ecsrobin]

Condi said:

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.

I dont see what you have a bee in your bonnet about.

I'm not sure why he does either, I have flown voyager a couple of times, each time there was no AAR capability as it was in a passenger fit like mentioned that Cameroon and holiday makers will use. In times of saving money then I think it's a sensible option to utilise these jets as best as possible.

[Blaster72]

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.

I think you're flogging a dead horse mate, as explained already we aren't short of tankers.

[Mojocvh]

So your both saying that we should operate "tankers" without the full defensive suite?

Because if you’d actually thought about what I've written ^^^^^ that is what you are advocating.

But hey, it's not your ass, is it.

[mph1977]

Mojocvh said:

What are you on about?

Was it an operational tasking??

one of the 'spares' that Air tanker run on the civil charter market

[Mojocvh]

mph1977 said:

Mojocvh said:

What are you on about?

Was it an operational tasking??

one of the 'spares' that Air tanker run on the civil charter market

But it's neither a tanker or a "spare" if it's fitted and contracted out as a civil airliner, is it.

Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 22 November 12:17

[Condi]

Mojocvh said:

But it's not a "spare" if it's fitted and contracted out as a civil airliner, is it.

Well.. yes, its only on a charter so its not stood at Brize waiting for something to do. And it brings in some cash for AT thus reducing the cost of the MOD being able to call on a lot of aircraft, without having the full cost of having a lot of aircraft stood. At short notice it can be recalled from its holiday flights and fitted out for refueling duties.

I dont see what is so complicated? We have more than we need during peacetime, so they are sent out on other duties and yet retain the capability to call on them in times of war.

[Mojocvh]

Condi said:

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.

I dont see what you have a bee in your bonnet about.

Reducing operational capacity for starters.

You do realise that the original VIP aircraft were disposed of as a cost cutting measure as it was deemed that saving could be made by charter.

FF a few years and all of a sudden it's the other side of the coin, it's supposedly cheaper to continuously convert a operational airframe to VIP duties and vice versa all of a sidden as it will save the foriegn and commonwealth office the costs of chartering.

So the forces get stiffed again by the politico's.

A dedicated VIP aircraft actually IS a good idea but robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't the way to do business.

Too many tankers eh? Black Buck refuelling plan [no plan survives contact etc..]

[mph1977]

Mojocvh said:

But it's neither a tanker or a "spare" if it's fitted and contracted out as a civil airliner, is it.

Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 22 November 12:17

the (upper) main deck of the Voyagers even in military service is fitted with seats etc - as the RAFs Voyagers don;t have a large cargo door onto that level ... becasue part of the role of the Voyager , as it was for the tristars and VC10s is personnel flights as well ...

[davepoth]

I don't see what the problem is either. The only difference is that one of the couple of Voyagers that we are using full time will have a fuller suite of ECM and secure comms aboard to make it suitable for use as an airborne No.10. It won't reduce our AAR capacity at all - if we needed all of the planes for AAR at the same time (which is unlikely) he would just go on Easyjet instead.

[Blaster72]

Mojocvh said:

So your both saying that we should operate "tankers" without the full defensive suite?

Because if you’d actually thought about what I've written ^^^^^ that is what you are advocating.

But hey, it's not your ass, is it.

I'm really struggling to understand what you mean, they aren't needed as tankers but can be quickly fitted out to serve the purpose if reqd. In the meantime they're chartered out as airliners or in future proposed to be used for government flights instead of chartering more expensive aircraft.

I really suspect a bit of serious man maths has been used to work out the "cheaper" bit but to me I don't see the problem here.

[Condi]

Mojocvh said:

Too many tankers eh? Black Buck refuelling plan [no plan survives contact etc..]

What relevance is a refuelling plan from 20 years ago when non of the aircraft involved are even flying any more?

[Chrisgr31]

If I read http://www.airtanker.co.uk/about/aircraft correctly then there are 8 military Voyagers, 1 that is in the civil fleet but chartered to the military and 5 others that can be called in.

It also seems that the aircraft can do refuelling at the same time as carrying passengers, so it could be fitted out as a VIP aircraft, and used for VIP transport one day and refuelling the next?

[DuraAce]

Yes, as none of them have tanks in the cabin (like some vc10s did). They all have normal seats upstairs. Changing the role isn't a big job.

[Mojocvh]

Condi said:

Mojocvh said:

Too many tankers eh? Black Buck refuelling plan [no plan survives contact etc..]

What relevance is a refuelling plan from 20 years ago when non of the aircraft involved are even flying any more?

lol your determined to fight your corner aren't you; it's AN EXAMPLE of the planning and equipment required showing the number of tankers required to sustain one mission.ie you can't have enough.

Voyager is not a receiver and probably won't be following the Nimrod tragedy.

[Evanivitch]

Mojocvh said:

Been stated that Camerons aircraft will be in highest fit available, thus less "sets" for the operational tankers...

"Maybe when we're running F35 as first strike jets"

How will they AAR? and yes they'll need plenty of it!

The same way the one currently doing civvy duty with, a quick, modular as designed refit. They might even pull fuel from planes existing tanks, hardly needed if you're just topping up an F35 on a circuit after take off.

You clearly have zero understanding of aircraft or airborne logistics, so trying learning instead of sprouting an I'll informed opinion.

[mcdjl]

Having been to a talk given by the Airtanker guys, about half the planes are grey at, and half in civilian charter. Converting them from civil to military spec takes a while- weeks from memory, but is essentially modular, ie pallets with full pumps fit into the cargo hold. From memory the drogues is the longest fit item under the wing. Some of the structural alterations are permanent. It might even be the case that they use the aircraft fuel tanks, not tanks in the cargo hold for most of the re-fueling capacity...my memory is hazy on that detail. Not all of the grey ones will have the full anti air defences, ones spent circling The Wash for training don't need it, so why waste money flying dead weight around?
Since they all have a full passenger cabin anyway, what seats are in it is irrelevant to its job as a tanker. There is a refit between civilian and military seat spec...apparently kits bags are bigger than the carry on luggage allowance. A good chuck of the £10m will be comfy chairs for VIPs at a guess, nothing for a plane is cheap!

[Condi]

Due to the permanent kit on the AT planes there are parts of the world they cant fly to, even in civvy fit. I forget which destinations are off limits but the cabin crew did say.

[ralphrj]

Condi said:

Due to the permanent kit on the AT planes there are parts of the world they cant fly to, even in civvy fit. I forget which destinations are off limits but the cabin crew did say.

I read somewhere that Cuba was off limits.

[Mojocvh]

Evanivitch said:

The same way the one currently doing civvy duty with, a quick, modular as designed refit. They might even pull fuel from planes existing tanks, hardly needed if you're just topping up an F35 on a circuit after take off.

You clearly have zero understanding of aircraft or airborne logistics, so trying learning instead of sprouting an I'll informed opinion.

I take it you will have read mcdjl's post.

No need to apologise.

Mo.

[Blaster72]

I think this covers things nicely

RAF said:

Aircraft deliveries

progress-voyager-sm
Eight Voyager Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft (five three-point capable and two two-point capable tankers) are now operating from Voyager's Oxfordshire homebase. Capable of performing air transport, aeromedical and air-to-air refuelling roles simultaneously, they deliver a step change in capability to the UK Armed Forces.

The AirTanker/Voyager RAF Brize Norton fleet also includes a ninth aircraft, retained by AirTanker on the Civil Aircraft Register. Flown by civilian pilots and exclusively available to the MOD, it forms the basis of the AirTanker’s ‘charter’ service, including a role maintaining the Falklands air-bridge.

In all, 14 aircraft will be delivered to the RAF as part of the Voyager programme with the next aircraft scheduled for delivery in early 2015. This includes the nine-aircraft core fleet as delivered and a five aircraft surge fleet capability. The service will be at full strength by Q4 2016

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/raf-voyager/progress

Again, we aren't short of refuel aircraft and if needed the others can be brought in and converted fairly quickly.

I still fail to see the problem with using one for the PM. It's not like they're reducing the air to air refuelling capacity just to accommodate him.