The Ministry of Defence have confirmed that there are no plans to fit booms to the Voyager tanker aircraft.

The fitting of a boom would enable the aircraft to refuel aircraft such as the RC-135 Rivet Joint intelligence gathering aircraft, the C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the future E-7 Wedgetail early warning aircraft.

The information came to light in response to a Parliamentary question.

Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, stated:

“RAF Voyager aircraft use a hose and drogue refuelling system. We have no current plans to fit an aerial refuelling boom system to the Voyager aircraft.”

In 2016, I spoke to former deputy Commander of Operations Air Marshal Greg Bagwell, and was told:

“If money and feasibility was no object the RAF would very much like the flexibility of a boom on at least some of their Voyagers.”

Gareth Jennings at Janes previously covered this topic here.

A Voyager tanker refuelling Tornado jets over Iraq in 2016, the aircraft is using the hose and drogue system.

The flying boom is a rigid, telescoping tube with movable flight control surfaces that an operator on the tanker aircraft extends and inserts into a receptacle on the receiving aircraft. All boom-equipped tankers (e.g. KC-135 Stratotanker, KC-10 Extender) have a single boom, and can refuel one aircraft at a time with this mechanism.

Voyager in Australian service, designated KC-30A in the Royal Australian Air Force, is equipped with both an Aerial Refuelling Boom System and two Cobham 905E under-wing refuelling pods.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

80 COMMENTS

  1. Would it be cheaper to swap one of the aircraft with France if they already have one. I’m guess the mod just plan to borrow one if we ever need it for long patrols.

  2. Serious lack of fore thought and strategic planning 🙁 but we have our ‘Special relationship’ and the US (maybe the Aussies,French,Singapores,UAE,Saudi, Koreans) we are the ONLY Users who can’t refuel our larger A/C

    • Add to that, during multi-national exercises or operations, the RAF Voyagers also cannot support other airforce’s jets that only accept boom refuelling.
      Limited capacity indeed.

      • First MRTT delivered was Aussie in 2011 with BOOM (2 years late yes) first Voyager 2011, then next 8 til 2014 so it was available especially for the later airframes.

        • Airbus did have some major issues with the MRTT boom oscillating when deployed (to the point that one was torn off during testing: https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-military-explains-cause-of-a330-boom-detachment/107483.article). Boom fueling is not as simple as some people make out, its far more complex than probe and drogue.I believe you also get additional aero drag from the boom when its stowed plus tailstrike protection requirements and COG changes on the jet which can impact on the plane being used as a transport. as the boom needs to be “flown” by the tanker crew, the new tankers dont have a rear bubble for the boom pilot so everything is now done remotely from the main cabin. IIRC The new USAF KC46 tankers still have some issues with the system as they use VR-based boom piloting…Boom systems, whilst robust, involve more complexity, more cost, more skillsets etc.and is only really worthwhils investing in if your fast jet fleet needs it (RAF Typhoons and F35B dont) or you do long range deployments of strategic assets such as B52’s , B1Bs or B2s…

          • There is another benefit of using a boom arrangement for refuelling over the drogue system. A boom refueler operates at a higher line pressure than a drogue. Therefore it can transfer more fuel in a shorter amount of time, which is more pertinent for widebody aircraft than fighters. Though it does mean a fighter is also topped up much quicker and therefore can get back on task sooner.

    • Based on analysis of past performance. Forethought and strategic planning are not terms one associates with MoD procurements. Why were they not fitted from day one and who is going to be demoted / loose their job and pension for the cockup?
      The jobs for life civil service is in need of an overhaul.

  3. The RAF aircraft listed above that do not have a refuelling probe could be refuelled aloft by coalition/allied/NATO air-tankers with a refuelling boom, but will they be permitted to, under the AirTanker agreement?

  5. Christ the mod and government are useless. It would probably be cheaper to purchase a couple of boom voyagers then to retrofit and way.

    • Yes. Airbus offered MOD this precise solution. Take back a number of Voyagers in exchange for reconditioned A330s taken from the leasing market and convert them to the same standard as RAF Voyagers plus a boom. It would have only cost MOD the cost of the conversion. The reply was interesting, but there is no requirement.

      • The Cost of the Conversion,
        1/ Voyergers are not a standard A330s
        2/ Cost of conversion was not cheap.
        3/ RAF and Air Tanker would need to retrain.
        4/ Extra cost of the boom operator.

        the Voyagers are a Modified A330 fitted with an A340 wing for increased fuel load, the wing pods are fitted to the outer engine mounting.

        When has the RAF ever needed to fly a boom, and Chobham had been tasked with feasibility to attach booms to the P8s E7s. but with these modern jets they are always in touch with a home base

        • Having been part of the programme from 2007 to 2017, I think I know a bit what I’m talking about. Second hand aircraft in excellent condition would have effectively come for free. PFI was prepared to fund cost of conversion thus requiring no up front funds to be identified in the equipment budget. Converting aircraft from scratch easier than modifying existing Voyagers. AirTanker could have made available sponsored reserve boomers so no additional drain on non existent RAF personnel. Allies would have welcomed additional capability. Not to mention RAF ISTAR community. Many RAF seniors were sold on the idea. But RAF decided against making it an endorsed requirement.

          • Amazing your say you worked on it, yet claim to select the wrong aircraft.

            did you work for BAEs on MRA4 and get the sack. sounds like if you did a better job on the project Air Tanker would have Booms.

            2nd hand airframes over a 27 year lease will be more expensive.

            WHY IT WAS REJECTED.

            delivery projects ON PAPER is easy, Delivery a working platform after you have left is different.

        • Johan, that may have been a bit of a silly comment SR has openly mentioned on many threads, that he was involved in Voyager and A400M(if memory serves).
          Personally Boom is becoming necessary if we continue to purchase American designed ‘larger’ assets as they will only be fitting boom to them.

          *Edit* SR has beat me to it.

          • Thank you LT. you are right. Several years both on A400M and Voyager. Retired. Wasn’t sacked! Hahaha. 35 years working on complex defence programmes after short service commission. Voyager looks like it does and was delivered how it was because that’s how the customer specified it. People like Johan are not worth talking with. Cheers

          • Voyager and A400M are both utter disasters..the A400M is so bad airbus have now officially abandoned it.
            Maybe its a good thing he retired if this is the output he produced.

  7. I guess they’re in the mindset that they’ve got away with it for long enough and that the current situation is somehow working, but that doesn’t change the fact that we can only independently refuel four aircraft types in the RAF fleet (five if you include a400 but not sure if we have that operational capability) which will soon be one less when the C-130s are retired. Not to mention that the Voyagers themselves can’t be refuelled and are therefore range limited to the fuel they have in their tanks minus the fuel offloaded to refuelling aircraft.
    Lets just hope sh*t doesn’t hit the fan…

  9. Just to confirm so all the pant wetters hysteria

    WHEN ORDERED IN 2004 To replace the Tri-Star Vc-10 tanker fleets, THERE WAS NO SUITABLE FLYING BOOM OPTION OPERATIONAL.

    RAAF had ordered the Voyager With Boom in 2005, entered service in 2013,
    RAF Voyagers Entered Service 2011.

    as per other Airbus defense programs and much like Boeings Flying boom, an over-complicated operating system means it was another 3 years before boom operations were fully resolved.

    • UK were offered the boom option at time of order, but turned it down – to save money! A real own goal yet again by all at MoD.

      • Boom wasn’t operational it was a new concept and design UK ordered 14 MRRTs, Australia Ordered 5 with Booms. did we need booms?
        cost implications over numbers

        • Sounds like booms would be another U.K. MOD everything gold plated and twice the cost situation, everyone on here says buy off the shelf, well guys that’s what they did.

    • Airbus was well on the way trialling their boom on an Airbus 310 test aircraft in 2004 – the technology was maturing at the time of the Voyager offer. C-17s were already in service though Nimrod MR4 was till the intended ASW solution, and no RAF RC-135s had been ordered then.

    • First End USER MRTT delivered was RAAF in June 2011 (2 years late which for Airbus is better than the norm) so as you state first Voyager was in 2011 so it was an option which back then we only had c-17 i think taht needed boom. but we now have increase the number of types that will need it. So as we still have 20 years(ish) on the 30 year contract wouldn’t it be prudent to consider it?

      • Agree it would, but the last feasibility study would have converted the Voyager KC3, and remove the central line hose. and install a boom. and all the extra required equipment and structural requirements.
        Air Tanker who don’t forget is partly owned by Airbus, priced this work and increase on the £25k per hour.

        RAF Top Brass when shown this feasibility study rejected the cost as to expensive to modify the fleet.

        11 years into the contract @ fixed cost. and we want to move the goal posts.

        changing ones predecessors ideas is when the MOD screws up

    • To be fully factual the UK received their first aircraft in 2011 yes, However they also suffered from an issue with the drogue which delayed certification to begin operational use. It wasn’t until 16 May 2013 that the Voyages got this certification to begin AAR.

      The RAAF at the same time had issues with the boom and drogue, They achieved IOC (Drogue worked but not boom at time) in Febuary 2013.

      Both the RAAF and RAF aircraft starter operational deployed used in the same month when deployed again ISIL.

      For all the talk that there wasnt a boom around the RAF and AirTanker did go with an all new ‘revolutionary’ drogue design which didnt work and caused their program to slip as much as it did.

      All said and done the RAF foregoing the boom didnt make their program any faster, It roughly matches up to the RAAF program time frame wise with the only difference the RAF started to certify aircraft a few months before the RAAF and has a larger fleet while the RAAF has certified a far larger number of aircraft types, able to refuel all types but has a smaller fleet.

  10. Of course there are no plans. Why do something that would act as a multiplier for our scarce resources?

    The MOD are our worst enemies.

    • All RAF fast jets are hose capable, not boom. C17 A400 P8 E7 R1 all have very long endurance. Voyager uses it’s own fuel for A2A refueling, it’s internal fuel capacity is that large, it isn’t fitted with a large tank inplace of seats or freight capacity making it very flexible. I’d rather see a few A400’s fitted with A2A refueling capability then worry about booms on Voyager.

      • They cannot do that due to the contract with AirTanker. They have complete sole UK service. Any other option is forbidden under their contract. More lunacy from MoD and HM Government. Idiots!!

        • That’s my understanding of the issue too. I believe it’s the main reason we won’t be modifying any A400’s either. Don’t the MOD have to pay a hefty premium to go down this route, or indeed is it the real reason why we are not fitting any booms to Voyagers?

      • Would I be wrong in assuming from these convoluted conversations that this is not a problem and is never likely to be a problem or am I missing something?

      • There is the issue of what does the A400s offer on Re-fueling over a Voyager.
        Merlin only helo plumbed for AAR.

        So A400s will lose out to Drones.

    • The UK MOD is its own worst enemy. Complete lack of foresight and planning, limiting capability….in order to save a few pounds.
      We are operating a number of key air assets that require refuelling via boom, simple answer fit booms!! As for training, plenty of opportunity with our US allies based out of Mildenhall, or wherever……

      • But why spend all that cash, all fast jets don’t need it, voyager has huge range, p8 and c17 as well. More gold plated expense for no reason. Rather spend cash else where

        • The P8 and E7 do not have long endurance. 7-8 hours at most. The p-8 is especially critical as it has to descend to engage some targets, where fuel burn is much higher.

          It is not be possible to operate the P-8 more than 1500 miles off shore without air to air refueling.

          You can make every excuse in the world, but nearly every single other country sees the value and necessity in boom-receptecle refueling.

          • Operating dedicated boom tanker Aircraft:
            Australia
            France
            Spain
            Netherlands
            Saudi Arabia
            Singapore
            South Korea
            UAE
            Turkey
            USA
            Japan
            Italy

            Dedicated boom aircraft on order:
            Brasil
            Belgium
            Norway
            Germany

            Countries W/Non-Boom capable dedicated tankers, and no plans to acquire them:
            Canada
            UK
            Colombia

  11. I presume with the two refuelling hoses trailing from the wings big aircraft would be too close. Why don’t they trail one hose from the tail back end?

    • They do, or at least some of the fleet does. I think 7 or 9 aircraft have 4 point refuelling ( 2 under the belly and 1 on each wing ). The others have wing only capability and are the jets that can be leased to civilian airlines.
      I’m pretty sure the RAF C17’s have an extra over wing centre fuel tank so have longer range than most. As someone said crew time will probably be a bigger factor in most circumstances rather than range. Not that i’m a fan Of the Air Tanker contract as it seems to limit/ prohibit A2A refuelling options by other aircraft types such as A400.

  13. This does appear crackers to me. The MOD can find funds for VIP conversion or paint jobs but not support all the US purchased large resources. I think there are currently two voyagers fitted for but not with centre tanks that are an obvious option but ideally one or two of the surge fleet. What price long endurance E7 or P8 in a crisis?

  14. The old solution to this problem was that a probe was fitted to the aircraft so no boom was required. It was done with the nimrod, E3, Vulcan, victor etc. I can’t actually remember if the vc10 and Tristar had it. Surely that is the most simple and easiest solution.
    No need to modify tankers, train boom operators etc.
    The VC had a larger transfer centre hose unit that pumped more gas than the wing pods. I thought some of the air tankers had this also?

    • The simplest and easiest solution isn’t always the best or safest.
      XV 230, the Nimrod that went down in Afghan and sparked off Haddon Cave, had mods done for Air to Air refuelling that where the main reason it crashed.

      The days of simply connecting up a few pipes and bolting on a refuel probe are well gone . For all 3 services the platform managers have to manage the risk of any mods or alterations in excruciating , granular detail.

      The “What if” meetings I have attended in previous years where days I will never , ever get back.

  17. Consider ourselves lucky that we did not get involved with the latest Boeing boom system that gets rid of the boom operator aft and replaces them with 3d glasses and TV screens with the boom operator sat in the cabin.

    The system doesn’t work well and is only cleared for a select few aircraft. Glare and glint issues, lack of depth of field, boom strikes on aircraft… Its a massive issue, is costing millions to fix and the project is years late.

  18. So Global Britain will still be dependent on its allies to provide useful force multipliers for its maritime surveillance, AEW, electronic surveillance and strategic freighter aircraft. Not only that, one of those allies has recently proved to be less reliable than hoped. Someone in government needs to wake up.

    • The RAF who set Requirements’. have been clear for many years that they do not have an endorsed requirement for a boom. Perhaps it would be ‘nice to have’, but ‘nice to have’ counts for nothing when you cannot afford a operationally viable AWACS fleet or sufficient MPA aircraft and have to ‘slow role’ the purchase of F35s.

        • This isn’t an either/or situation.

          Airbus has developed the boom on their own dollar for every other MRTT operator. It works. It’s available now.

          Buying it is a proven off the shelf solution.

          The RAF won’t buy it because the terms of the Air Tanker contract are absurd.

          • It’s “a nice to have” how many fast jets you want to bin to pay for it?
            Can’t afford to have everything

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here