Specialist teams from two RAF units have been developing the capability of the Atlas transport aircraft to refuel fast jets by conducting a first time trial of a new fuelling system, say the RAF here.

“Personnel from the Fuels Support Team, part of No Expeditionary Logistics Squadron based at RAF Wittering, deployed to RAF Brize Norton to develop the Air Landed Aircraft Refuelling System capability used by the A400M ‘Atlas’.

The team take fuel from a large multi-engine aircraft like the Atlas and transfer it into a tactical refuelling facility to provide support to aircraft forward deployed from their Main Operating Bases to more austere locations.”

Wing Commander Patton, Officer Commanding 30 Squadron, was quoted as saying:

“This a very exciting opportunity for the Atlas force.  We, in concert with our partners, are working constantly to develop and prove increasing A400M tactical capability – at pace.  The work with No 1 Expeditionary Logistics Squadron showcases the ability of A400M to rapidly establish a forward refuelling point, which is critical to projecting our Forces wherever they may be needed in the world.”

You can read more here.

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

37 COMMENTS

  1. This has nothing to do with AAR and something to do with dispersal.

    Is that some kind of fuel bladder that is shown flat weighted down?

    It is curious how badly the RAF piece is written. Standing on its own, it makes no sense, unless you already know quite a bit: which isn’t the purpose of outwards comms!

  2. So in summary: An RAF Expeditionary Unit lands at an airfield in an A400. Unloads a big rubber bag, spreads it out on the ground, siphons some fuel from the A400 into the bag, and then uses it to top up other aircraft if and when they come into land and need some fuel. In the Army that is known as a rolling replen. Glad to see the RAF are relearning the skills they forgot when they lost Harrier.

    • I remember when negotiating the A400M contract building this capability into the tech spec. Then when holding a Capability Milestone review meeting with the Programme SRO and delivery team much later, we learned that the RAF apparently no longer had this requirement. It was described at the time for forward refuelling of helicopters. So it’s good to see the requirement is apparently being resuscitated.

      • With the F35B and future VTOL drones capable of dispersal operations from makeshift locations. The capability could prove of great use. Although I imagine the landing requirements of the A400M is a limiting factor.

        • Yes, the Chinook can do it as well but obviously with much more limited capacities. The A400M landing/takeoff performance is better than the C130, by the way. More on a par with the C160 Transall.

          • Cheers. The info regarding A400M having a shorter take off and landing spec than C130 is astounding. Did you know that the US C130 managed to land and take off from their aircraft carriers. Not just once or twice but multiple times to more than prove capability. They didn’t use cats or arrestor wires either.
            Needless to say the pilots allegedly pushed their testicles around in wheelbarrows. See youtube – The US Navy’s plan to fly C-130s off aircraft carriers.

          • Yeah. Takeoff and landing performance is a factor of all up weight and installed power. Those Hercs would have been very light and used rocket assisted takeoff. But still impressive.

          • Sure is. Just goes to show what can be done. I wonder what is possible with a CASA C-295 and the ski jump on Big Lizzy. It probably would not need the ski jump.

  3. This truly is the worst of MoD PR Spin. Within the RAF supply world, there is a unit called the Tactical Supply Wing (TSW – Tizwoz). Their sole purpose is to refuel aircraft in the field, particularly helicopters. They can do this a number of ways. One is to use off road capable fuel tankers and set up a refuelling point straight from the tanker. Another is to airlift a number of fuel bladders and pumps underslung via helicopters. The third method is as shown above where you use a donor aircraft, normally a Herc or Chinook, to use its fuel to supply other aircraft. This process has been in use since the 1980’s. The only new thing here is that the A400M is now also qualified to do the role.

    Fuel from a donor aircraft can either be used direct, or normally fed though a topped up bladder then pumped to the waiting aircraft. The reason for this is in case the donor aircraft is needed urgently for another task, the topped up fuel bladder can then still be used to supply waiting aircraft. But also so that the supply pressure can be maintained if used to resupply multiple aircraft. It is also used to mitigate risk of damage to the donor aircraft, if there’s a pressure spike, it’s felt at the fuel bladder and not the donor aircraft.

    During Gulf War 2, TSW set up a huge refuelling point over the border in Iraq behind their lines. It was used by all the coalition helicopters and was constantly resupplied by Chinooks.

    • As Davey says!

      TSW are still at Stafford for some reason? Though it’s long since been transferred to the Army from RAF Stafford days.

      Only other notes I’d add is also mention the Joint Helicopter Support Squadron which also supports SHF ops in the field.

      The varied units of the RAFs 85 ELW, including the one mentioned in the article are in addition to the TSW, JHSS, TCW ( 90SU ), all of which enable these operations.

    • Any reading material from the GW2 experience? I’ve always been interested in how they go behind the lines and set a FARP up, I know the Americans did similar to refuel something like 30 Apaches deep behind the lines.

  4. Whatever the RAF may say, this is surely of more use for our helicopter forces rather than the fast movers? I struggle to imagine which “austere” locations can be accessed by fast jets, I simply don’t believe that the F-35B can be used in this way regardless of V/TOL capability.

      • The Italians have also tried this out with their B’s so its possible with ours too. Although in the end all B’s will most likely come under the Senior Service and go to the flat tops which have everything onboard they would ever need.

        • More than possible Angus hints at 2025 past the initial 48 seems to be the timeline at present and all 48 might be delayed until then?

          I think Drones will play a major factor as to how many we will actually end up with and to what standard.

          “I’ve seen the debate going on in the States. We think [the] F-35 is great,” Quin said. “We want more of them, but we’re also aware of getting that right balance between fighters and drones, etc. so of course we’ll be keeping under review exactly what the right numbers are, but it will definitely be more F-35s on order for use by the Royal Navy and RAF.”

          https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2021/03/uk-absolutely-will-buy-more-f-35s-procurement-minister-says/173055/

      • Yes, pretty much. The problem being that the F-35B has significantly hotter and more powerful downblast than the old harrier, and obviously the Gripen that you mention. If a carrier deck has to be reinforced with special ceramic coatings, yet still gets discoloured black by the heat (see any aerial views of HMS Queen Elizabeth to see what I mean), then I find it hard to imagine that any more than a single takeoff/landing on any given stretch of road would be possible without destroying the surface. On an unfinished runway, the amount of debris could prove to be a real hazard too.
        That’s not even considering the networked mission compouter and autonomous AI maintenance/logistics system that they use, which sounds like an incredibly complex and data hungry set of software that you’d need to operate in the field for an extended period.
        For an “austere” but prepared airbase, sure. But operating distributed in Northern Europe from roadways or on an atoll in the Pacific on mats? Sorry to say, I just don’t see it for any length of time…

        • Obviously it would be more expensive than the matting they used to use for Harrier, but surely it would be a relatively simple engineering exercise to develop modular matting which comes with the heat resistant coating used on the QEC pre-applied?

    • What if you had wanted to put a couple of fast jets into kabul to support the evacuation without a large transit each time they were needed on station? There was limited fuel available (aiui the transports tried to fly in with enough to get out again without needing a top up) and hostiles may have tried to damage the airport tanks and kit.

      if there was ever a second falklands war for eg, what if someone managed to damage the fuel infrastrucure and you needed to keep the aircraft flying long enough for repairs or alternate options?

      • During the Kabul evacuation the USN had a carrier strike group off Pakistan with it’s airwing providing top cover along with AC-130s, Tanker aircraft were also orbiting nearby A2A re-fuelling the transports as you said cause the airport ran out of fuel.

    • You’re being too literal in your interpretation of “austere”. It doesn’t have to be a forest clearing requiring VTOL. Its more likely to be a short stretch of motorway, dual carriageway, A-road or basically anywhere long enough and with a surface that can support F35B STOL ops; where STOL doesn’t require a surface to absorb the same sustained down blast from the engine that VTOL does. STOL is likely to be more desirable than VTOL for maximizing weapon and fuel load too.

  5. They used to do it on the C-130’s with tanks internally an 2 hose units that you reeled out through the para doors especially used with the SHF.

  6. Just for a minute there i thought someone was using common sense and taking advantage of the A400Ms AAR potential…….but of course they’re not……

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here