An Airbus A400M has successfully refuelled six Spanish Air Force F-18 fighters in a single mission as part of an air-to-air refuelling certification flight.

The 13th of December mission featured a complex series of AAR scenarios such as changes of area, receivers with unknown priorities, and unexpected increases in numbers of receivers. Through multiple contacts the six aircraft simulated a fleet of eight.

The F-18s included the first Spanish operational fighters to be refuelled by the A400M and belonged to the Spanish Air Force Test Centre (CLAEX) and the 12th Operational Wing based at Torrejón.

A total of 11.4 tonnes of fuel was dispensed using both the underwing pods and the centre hose refuelling unit. Certification authorities on board confirmed good results and the flight validated the A400M two-crew cockpit concept for tanker missions.

The UK however is not able to replicate this with its own A400M Atlas aircraft as a response to a Freedom of Information request outlined the reasoning behind the decision not to use the A400M in the refuelling role. From May 2014, the In Service Date for Voyager, the AirTanker contract stipulates that the MoD must purchase refuelling for UK fixed wing aircraft from AirTanker or be liable to pay compensation, as outlined in the contract.

This is thought to be the primary driver behind the decision not to utilise the capabilities of the A400M Atlas in this regard. It should be noted that there are exclusions which allow the MoD flexibility to receive AAR from other parties when the aircraft are supporting operations or joint exercises.

A question posed as  Freedom of Information request asked:

Does the AirTanker contract play a role in the decision not to adopt the in-flight refuelling capability on the A400M Atlas in RAF service?”

The answer read:

“The A400M Atlas aircraft was procured to provide the RAF with a Tactical Air Transport capability as part of its fleet and the MoD is currently working with Airbus to ensure the A400M Atlas will be equipped and able to fulfil this role.

After assessing all factors, including the AirTanker Contract and the AAR capability provided by the Voyager aircraft, it was determined that there is no current RAF requirement for the A400M Atlas to be used in the AAR role.”

AirTanker is a consortium made up of leading aerospace, defence and facilities management specialists, Babcock, Cobham, Airbus Group, Rolls-Royce and Thales.

AirTanker was awarded the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) contract for RAF Voyager by the Ministry of Defence in 2008. This is for the supply of an air-to-air refuelling, air transport and aeromedical evacuation capability, plus associated service and infrastructure for the duration of the contract period up until 2035.

It includes the delivery of a core fleet of nine Voyager A330 aircraft with optional surge capability rights on a further five. The service includes operational and planning control; aircraft maintenance and dispatch; a full flight crew and training service; plus two-bay purpose built hangar, operational centre and support personnel to deliver it.

Airbus Defence & Space recently carried out two test flights at its facility in Seville, Spain, to evaluate the air-to-air refuelling capabilities of its A400M transport.

During the flights, 50 contacts between the two A400Ms were made in both level flight and during turns, using a hose-and-drum add-on kit that enables the Atlas to refuel large aircraft.

The A400M is the only aircraft in its class with a third refuelling point in addition to its standard underwing pods, Airbus Defence & Space says. The MoD have chosen not to utilise this capability.

34
Leave a Reply

avatar
12 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
Daniele MandelliDerek GreenJulianChrisJohnStevens Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
trackback

[…] A400M refuels six F-18 fighters in one flight https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a400m-refuels-six-f-18-fighters-one-flight/ […]

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Who are the numpties at MoD who sign contracts like this?

Ian
Guest
Ian

Not defending it but at the time there was no money so my understanding was it’s this outsourcing contract or lose the capability all together

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

My understanding was Gordon wanted the capability but not to pay so put it on a PFA long term deal and bingo the cost is spread out, costing more than outright purchase but without stumping up the cash up front.

I read it is all inclusive though including fuel parts training as well as the airframes.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Sorry that should be PFI.

Rob
Guest
Rob

Does the contract also cover the RN FAA ?

spyinthesky
Guest

I am confused, so we are not allowed to use our Atlas’s for refuelling but instead will use other Atlas’s obtained as part of a refuelling contract to do the job instead but these will, or likely won’t be able to do so in the same way as these ones tested in Spain? However if the RAF is on its way to a strike mission and may crash if it doesn’t get refuelled it just might be able to use the first mentioned Atlas’s if a convenient hosepipe can be attached, or alternatively someone else’s Atlas’s if they get permission… Read more »

Julian
Guest
Julian

As I understand it our A400M are strictly not for tanker use and I doubt they have the necessary hose & drum kits at all. U.K. tankers providing fuel to UK aircraft must be the A330s owned by the Air Tanker Consortium otherwise a penalty will be paid (which, apart from having no money, is probably the other big barrier to ever using U.K. Osprey for carrier-based AAR). If however U.K. aircraft (not the A330 tankers of course) are assigned to a joint operation where some country other than the U.K. is providing the AAR tankers then the U.K. planes… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

spyinthesky – I am sure I could fabricate an equally sarcastic and pointless set of words about any contract. But please explain how the RAF has been in any way reduced in operational effectiveness by us not having A400M tanking? Name ONE occasion for us. We refuel a range of NATO aircraft with our Voyagers. We also refuel Tornados and Typhoons from a range of NATO Air Forces’ aircraft. So what if Spain adds tanking to their A400Ms? And we refuel a Typhoon? It happens now with other aircraft so whats the big deal here? The Voyager deal has not… Read more »

Jack
Guest
Jack

We have Voyagers for air to air refuelling. We don’t need Atlas to duplicate this job.

Harry Bulpit
Guest
Harry Bulpit

Why is it a company is dictating what are military is capable of doing, and is therefore limiting the resources available to are fighting men and women. If they had an sense of honour they wouldn’t limit are military for simply profit.

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

The company are not dictating what the UK military are doing, they are providing a service.

The military have the choice to use other assets and pay a penalty as Perth contract they signed that enabled said company to invest in a fleet the UK military wanted.

I actually think the Voyager contract is alright and it is getting loads of usage both as a tanker and transport. its a compromise, but hardly one that deserves so much negativity.

Harry bulpit
Guest
Harry bulpit

Well clearly they are. Because the military is unable to use the full potential of the A400m because of their contract. Why else would they pot that clause in the contract, for reasons other then gread.

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Harry that is simply not correct. A deal has been signed and if the military choose to do something else they can, but that will not release them from their obligations under the contract to pay for services they have agreed. It is a choice – in a similar way I can pay upfront for a mobile phone and then leave early paying termination fees to get a newer phone – the principles involved are exactly the same. They put the clause in the contract to ensure they make money, protect their significant up front investment and to be perfectly… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

Harry – Please get off your anti-capitalist horse and read what is written. Did we ever need C-130 tankers? Have we needed an A400M tanker recently? Has the Voyager ever failed an operational need for AAR? Why add cost and complexity (and in flight risk) to an aircraft that is better deployed at being an excellent tactical freighter and para drop aircraft. We have in place the best and possibly the most cost effective AAR tanker in the world bar none. As the failing KC-46 contract is proving so why add an A400M? Air Tanker are in NO way restricting… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Guest
Harry Bulpit

Firstly I’m actually extremely pro capitalism, but I believe patriotism should come up above all else. And I’m not arguing that the voyager and its use is bad. I’m simply annoyed that the RAF is unable to make fall use of its capacity if need without extra expense, because of a contract. It doesn’t even apply with just the A400M, what if the RN looked at getting a carrier capable areal refuelling capacity?

Chris
Guest
Chris

I was thinking the same thing I have no issue with the voyager AAR contract but obviously a voyager can’t refuel the F35 from a carrier so if we wanted to have a carrier bourne AAR capability using let’s say Osprey’s would we be allowed to as obviously air tanker can’t provide the service required with the kit they have so would this negate that clause in the contract. Or would they have to acquire the kit ie ospreys and we pay them more for the service of carrier AAR

Chris
Guest
Chris

This is another ‘Chris’ I hasten to add ….

Julian
Guest
Julian

My understanding from comments on other forums on just this topic from people who seem to have visibility of the contract is that refueling from RAF or RN owned Osprey would incur a per-litre penalty payment to ATC for every litre of fuel delivered by the Osprey. As you mention though, a solution could be to negotiate an addendum to the AirTanker Consortium contract to add Osprey as assets covered under the ATC contract which I assume would entail the ATC purchasing the Ospreys with corresponding changes to the contract negotiated regarding adjustments to the financial compensations made by the… Read more »

Northernbloke
Guest
Northernbloke

It’s called poor procurement process on behalf of the MOD and excellent process on behalf of air tanker.

farouk
Guest
farouk

The A400 is unable to refuel Helicopters, which is why both France and Germany have purchased C130J for the task.

Chris
Guest
Chris

The New Year has hardly started and the naysayers are out to play. We have an excellent (in my view world beating) deal with our tanker suppliers. It has huge operational flexibility plus the unique ability to surge at short notice and we don’t carry the cost of redundant aircraft and aircrew in hangars waiting for tasking. We also have a fixed cost for operations and maintenance which makes planning easier. The A330 Voyager is multiple times more capable than an A400M in its tanker role (and no mean freighter) so we should use the excellent A400M Atlas aircraft for… Read more »

Harry bulpit
Guest
Harry bulpit

A400m and similar aircraft can refuel helicopter, something a voyager can not.

farouk
Guest
farouk

A400m and similar aircraft can refuel helicopter,

Actually the A400 is unable to do so,

Harry Bulpit
Guest
Harry Bulpit

Is that for technical reasons, or is it simply paperwork?

farouk
Guest
farouk

We never needed C-130 tankers

Had them in the falklands

Chris
Guest
Chris

farouk – Sorry but the RAF has never had any KC-130s and air tanking was done by VC-10 to Ascension and then Victors to Falklands (amongst radar reconn. and air cover for Atlantic Conveyor).
6 x C-130s from Lyneham had refuelling kit fitted to extend their range but not to deliver fuel.

farouk
Guest
farouk

I was down south 82/83/84. My first tour entailed working on getting the runway at Stanley in working order. (We used AM2 matting) as we worked on the runway we got to know what flew in and out. Phantoms,Harriers, the odd Buccaneer.(But that wasn’t general knowledge) We would use our Theodolites to count how many mail bags were taken off the Mail run, always a Herc . when they took off for the journey bask to Assi, they would get a top up from one of the tankers (All Hercs) held in the Falklands, and I am sure I heard… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

farouk – I so stand corrected Sir apologies! A bit more research reveals Marshalls did 3 (as best I can see) of the 6 converted to receiving AAR to tankers as well. I feel daft as I now recall the phrases ‘Short Victors’ and ‘Long Hercs’ off FI and ASI? Given this was an exceptional circumstance and mainly enabled local tanking of QRA aircraft in FI off the short Stanley runway I still stand by my earlier statement that basically the UK hasn’t needed a C-130 tanker and certainly not since the later VC-10s and Tristars came into service and… Read more »

John
Guest
John

Why don’t we rent or have some type of arrangement for the C130J/A400M tankers from other airforces to get around the Atlas tanker terms of contract. We help France using the C-17 for their heavy lift for instance. We could use their tankers on a case by case basis.

Chris
Guest
Chris

Why?

Julian
Guest
Julian

Re French, we can and probably do. If it is a joint operation where France is providing AAR tankers and U.K. contributing some combat jets then, judging from this article, the terms of the ATC contract allow us to take on fuel from the French tankers without penalty. I’d be interested in knowing the contract details when joint operation AAR tanker provision is shared between the U.K. and other countries. Would the U.K. jets be required to use the U.K. tankers to avoid contract penalties? I suspect not. Despite some comments here I suspect that the MoD negotiators might just… Read more »

JohnStevens
Guest
JohnStevens

Just reading a while ago that the defence review may be put back until much later in the year!

Derek Green
Guest
Derek Green

The P8’s can’t refuel from Voyager. Are they going to cost us millions in running costs as a result of this purchase after the contract, which couldn’t take account of the fact?