Voyager tankers are providing fuel to jets from the UK and other NATO members currently on patrol over Eastern Europe as part of Britain’s effort to help secure the ‘Eastern Flank’ of NATO.
Two Royal Air Force Voyagers are in the air in the region at the time of writing.
British Voyager tankers are providing fuel to jets (from the UK and other NATO members) currently on patrol over Eastern Europe as part of Britain's effort to help secure the 'Eastern Flank' of NATO. pic.twitter.com/UgtKqaI83u
— George Allison (@geoallison) May 31, 2022
This has been ongoing for a number of weeks now but it’s important to highlight why.
Since the beginning of Russia’s attack on Ukraine NATO has taken measures to shield its member States along the eastern flank from potential aggression. In the air, NATO’s Allied Air Command commands and employs military aircraft from the nations and NATO to execute enhanced Vigilance Activities.
NATO has substantially increased the number of fighter jets on alert across Eastern Europe in response to Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine.
The RAF say that Voyagers have been flying over Poland and East Europe refuelling Typhoons out RAF Coningsby and Lossiemouth as the RAF, Ministry of Defence, NATO and NATO Air Com continue with their uplift of aircraft in the Baltic States.
“The uplift is a means to strengthen the Alliance’s borders as a direct result of the aggression exhibited by Russia as they invade Ukraine.”
Allied Air Command Chief of Staff, Major General Jörg Lebert, was earlier quoted as saying:
“NATO air forces have bolstered their presence in the eastern part of the Alliance helping to shield NATO against any aggression. Several dozen fighter jets are on alert at any time to respond to possible airspace violations and to deter aggression.
Allied Air Command integrates the Allied air forces’ fighters, air-to-air refuelling and transport aircraft as well as Allied and NATO airborne warning and control (AWACS) platforms into the standing arrangements to safeguard the skies above the Allies. These assets enable NATO to patrol the Allied airspace and have 24/7 situational awareness above NATO and adjacent territory.”
Here’s a map from NATO showing what’s going on where.
Allied fighters take off from their home bases, forward deployment bases or carriers flying Air Patrol missions along the Alliance’s eastern flank, according to NATO.
Short answer no. Hose and drogue has been standard for UK AAR for 60 years. If boom and probe and drogue on same aircraft were viable and/or cost effective it would have been done a long time ago. Just imagine doubling the training for the crews of the tanker aircraft of two very different systems.
Australia has both on their A330.
KC-30A
Australian designation for an A330 MRTT with two under-wing refuelling pods and an Aerial Refuelling Boom System.
Sorry but see answer to Jay R below.
It turned out well on the Nimrods not. It was an emergency MOD re Falklands war but was never upgraded when the aircraft went in for majors.
Wasn’t designed, tested and therefore understood or maintained properly.
It is not a great idea. Probes can not take as much fuel flow and so the jet has to stay attached for much longer. It is far better to have boom refuelling for large jets.
We made a bad decision outsourcing a strategic asset. Now we can’t fix the issues without immense contract penalties etc. So we now have to rely on foreign nations to refuel some of our most important aircraft.
I do t think that is really true on the contract penalties as others have shown.
As the existing tankers cannot refuel boom aircraft there is no conflict or penalty.
So it is open to UK procure or lease another type to deal with the boom issue.
We could by AUS spec A330’s and then use them boom only. Provided we didn’t use the hoses then they would be no penalties.
Best would be to agree with AT to release some of the existing and to add three to the fleet with both options fitted.
Air Tanker contract states it will refuel all RAF aircraft, unless they are not on station or not suitable.
this is causing the Lightning strike force when based on carriers a few issues.
The Only Issue was at the time of the contract, there was very few options. A330s with drogues was a simple effective design, the Booms kept departing the Australian A330s and were not on full strength for quite some time. Tri-star fleet was well done and need a quick easy option. Air Tanker is one of the better contracts as the UK is currently well under its quota and the contract wont go above Max forcast budget
The problem is that every other customer of the A330MRTT has the boom… We are the only ones without it. So it seems everyone else made the right decision and we did not.
Also with regard to the contract, It may well be one of the better ones, that is not really the point though. We should never contract out essential strategic assets, it is utter madness.
It’s not just the RAAF fleet that has underwing pods and the boom.
Of the 12 Nations that have selected A330 MRTT/KC-30A, it’s only the UK aircraft that don’t have a boom fitted.
Chobham had a design for this work in place, but trading Air Tanker loads for Nato Loads suits MOD better.
It was omitted by Airtanker because the MOD would not pay for a boom system. RIVET JOINT, P8S AND C17 are only equipped to receive using the boom. It has become apparent that 51 Sqn Rivet Joints have been increasingly using USAF tankers, unfortunately retrofitting the tanker fleet would be twice as expensive as it would have been if the Voyager had been delivered with a boom system. The contract with airtanker stipulates that they are the sole provider of tanking for the RAF. So using USAF tankers incurs a penalty clause. Such stupidly of the whole contract since the… Read more »
Ahh Airtanker the gift that keeps giving. Thank you so much Messrs Blair and Brown.
Don’t understand this fetishised discussion NATO has an air refuelling standard the USAF have a different standard, for historical reasons, get over it.
What? Where on earth did you get that information from. So the US Navy use the hose and drogue system and USAF use the boom. What kind of NATO standard are you talking about. AAR was developed by the RAF just after WW2 who opted for the hose and drogue the USAF opted for the boom. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
13 billion pound PFI contract that has cost so much more and the Airforce doesn’t even own the assets. I was originally 10 and 101sqn when this was announced and all I can say, there were red flags aplenty.
No arguments from me or I doubt anybody. PFI was and is an F…ing disgrace that no one responsible has ever apologised for.
Amen to that…….
Simple question did you compare the cost over there life span of the RAF running its Vc10/Victor/Tri-star aircraft,
i wait as you only see a contract for £13B Over its life cycle.
only red flag is it cuts RAF waste. and maintenance and storage and training and and and and and.
The VC 10 was an old aircraft and would have gone on and on, spares were the issue though. Conways were thirsty. At 2009 prices £8000 an hour when so yes expensive to operate. All I can say is no other country that operate AAR have followed the UK in contract leasing of tanker/ transport assets.
IF you take time and read it, and what it delivers its actually one of the better contracts and does not leave the MOD to a unforeseen cost at the end or during.
PFI is like renting a house versus home ownership. Of course there are an almost infinite number of variables involved affecting the calculation but I am unaware of any PFI contractor who has lost money on their deals with HMG. If PFI was a good road for Armed Forces or any Public Sector organisations why has it not been widely adopted overseas.
Do we know how long the AirTanker contract is for?
It was initially a 27 year contract. I can almost certainly see it being extended as the current Contract is in its 8th year.
Yeah definitely either extended contract or try negotiate a purchase of the airframes. Personally I’d purchase the current airframes, store/retire by to spares 5-6 of them and order A330 with boom and drogue config like Aus.
The only downside seems to be an almost negligible increase in drag and if memory serves 5kts lower max crosswind, due to the winglets on the boom.
Do you have any idea of the cost of a current A330, or even a A380.
2nd hand values on all airliners are rock bottom, and that risk is all on air tanker.
Actually air tankers contract states it had sole provision on suitable aircraft, So boom can use a US/Aus/NATO Boom AAR and not incur costs. I’ve done a lengthy explanation before a year or so ago but simple points. 1) air tanker only have exclusivity when refuelling inside their ability. Ie no boom can’t charge us for using someone else’s boom. 2) The ‘why can’t we use c130s to refuel slow types’ question that is constantly brought up, we can a Voyager can’t get slow enough for a Heli for example so it can’t! Therefore we can kit other types to… Read more »
I would add it’s not how it should of been done. But the contract isn’t actually as preventative as claimed.
Was just about to ask how we could pay a penalty for something the contract was unable to deliver.
You have answered it beautifully, even though I never had the chance to ask it.
.longtime thanks for the update, I’ve been out of the loop for a while but it was well known as one of Gordon Brown’s tricks for keep the cost off the books. You must be involved with the consortium in some way?
I would say it was an MOD trick of getting new tankers without a large upfront cost which would of had to come at the cost of something else from the defence budget. While Gordon brown was aware of the contract he was not in charge at the MOD so it wasn’t his call. It would have been billions up front at the time for 14 tankers. Personally I thought it should of been done by using cheaper 2nd hand A330 bought outright and fitted with wing pods over a few years as the VC10/Tristar were fazed out. Centre line… Read more »
Strong chancellors are very much in charge of the types of contracts spending departments can issue, and it’s hard to think of a more independent chancellor than Brown. It’s my recollection you are both right. It was a way of borrowing money that didn’t affect the public sector borrowing requirement target. While almost all of them screwed the next generation by kicking the can down the road, PFIs aren’t the only trick. These days the MoD use black holes and “realism”. Even the slow build of the Type 26s is another stupid trick to buy now pay later without transparency,… Read more »
dont forget the A330 MRRTs are not standard A330s but a A330 with a A340 wing. refuelling pods are on the number 1 and 4 engine positions, and larger wing holds more fuel.
Cost of a 2nd Hand A380 Means they should convert these to tankers
Not involved in the consortium know a man who was on the “heavies” test squadron for acceptance they all got to read the contract before testing. Also have the joy of suffering with insomnia, reading FOIs and associated documents helps bore me to sleep or not. Over about 8 years and 30FOIs HMG has released quite a lot of the contract and in 2018 the BBC asked very direct questions regarding the penalty clauses which filled some blanks. It’s all online if you’re bored enough to read a few 1000 pages. Downside FOIs seem to be published in order they… Read more »
😂 I must be doing something wrong, as I used to write lots of FOIA to MoD but gave up as they stopped replying!!!
Ask how agile and lethal something is. You will receive a reply then!
😆 Probably. I got the impression they were thinking, “oh no it’s him again…”
On one occasion their reply managed to forestall a question I’d not asked yet but wanted to. Mind readers.
Hah! I know that feeling all too well. I can imagine several people have had a Basil Fawlty moment over you!
Don’t mention the war!!!!
Now its a standard EC3 contract of there is no risk of overspend or hidden costs. if the RAF Stays on this line it will cost this much for the life of the contract. AT is currently below that line, due to not refuelling other types, and trading Nato Loads. National Audit Office has a full report on Air Tanker including the cost of conversion of the existing fleet, if you look at the new Contract for the A320s and the Falcons they are very similar contracts. Zero risk and worst case you will pay this amount if we use… Read more »
Fascinating, thanks for this. So we CAN put AAR on our Hercs…Ooops!
Yes, I believe KCs from Mildenhall top up our Rivets over the North Sea once airborne from Waddington.
yep every time a uk RC-135 goes to Black Sea it meets up with KC-135 off Norfolk does 1 or 2 ovals and off she goes an KC lands back at Mildenhall. the Voyagers have been flying tanker missions EVERYDAY 1 from Akt either rrr9xxx or Kayak31 and an RRR9xxx departs Brize flys upto Northern AAR leg picks up Physco25/26 then trails them to Poland or Lithuania for few hours then returns drop them off over North Sea and recovers to Brize. must be long 6/7hours in single seater and racking up the airframe hours, surely for this routine type… Read more »
Most T1 Typhoons are operated by 29sqn OCU, or 9sqn, which is used in the aggressor role and for QRA North. Only 24 T1s are in service today.
Yes but given our current fleet plan, probably a waste of money.
could only use it for an Aircraft that can’t catch a voyager but still good for helicopters if any of ours still have probes.
Now where did we park them up Daniele, oh yeah, bigger!
Dont forget that a Boom tanker refuels you, you fly upto it and they fly the boom to you.
where with a basket you fly into it.
so we wont mention pilot skill on a basket lol
It has been the case in the past on the off occasion that the USAF has come up and done a couple of such refuelling’s for the RAF. It would mainly be the P8’s and E7’s (only 3 anyway) in real need anyway. Not worth the expense when you can ask a friend to do it for you.
they dont listen, all they see is a contract for £13b over the lifetime of the contract, and not look at any of the costs or finer detail,
2 aircraft mentioned above in the P8s and E7s were not even a twinkle in the RAFs eye when this contract was signed.
the only flag issue raised is all suitable RAF aircraft includes Lightning, so limits what can re-fuel them when at sea.
yet AT contract does not include Naval Aircraft.
Air tanker clause is only they are to refuel all RAF AIRCRAFT, of a suitable nature and Nato partners when stipulated.
So they trade loads across the Nato fleets,
P8s/E7s/C17s and rivet. are not on the Air tanker suitable aircraft list as 2 were not even a twinkle.
the only penalty clause is we over use Air Tanker, and currently its well under the predicted usage.
The RAF took the decision to buy them knowing they didn’t possess the ability to refuel them. The only reasons why they didn’t either adapt the refuelling aircraft or the tankers can only be either cost or additional training or additional aircraft needed. If none of the above are the case then the RAF ‘s decision would simply be inexplicable. Sorry for answering some questions you didn’t ask but tried to answer uninformed civvy lurkers questions too.
I didn’t have a question.
I was just saying the RAAF has both a boom and 2 hoses on their A330.
It’s not a technical issue as the RAAF has both.
It’s not a training issue as the RAAF has both.
So, chatting to a Voyager Pilot mate, it seems it was a decision made on the basis that the aircraft in question eg C17, P8 etc simply don’t need to refuel for their role because their endurance is sufficient as is. It was as simple as that. For example, he said that the C17 would probably run out of lubricant if you refuelled it with a full tank from nearly empty and carried on going, and everything we might want to fly it to is well within its range on internal fuel anyway. It doesn’t explain why everyone else thinks… Read more »
Thanks for that. Inside info is the best info.
It really could be as simple as that. C17s have huge endurance. The Voyager also carries an enormous amount of fuel in just its own internal tanks. It doesn’t carry an additional tank inside the aircraft like the VC10/Tristar did. And fast jet’s particularly do have endurance limitations beyond fuel. Engine oil begin the big one. 8hrs endurance is usually the max for many fast jets. Plus the pilot will be knackered. Martin Bakers aren’t exactly built for comfort.
i agree as we never had it, how are we missing it, P8 is limited to Pilot hours rather than endurance. E7s the same.
when Air tanker was being discussed the A330s with Booms in the RAAF were losing booms at a rate.
Boeing and Pegasus
when you ask this question should we have this THINK ABOUT AJAX. job done
RAAF Lost one boom and that was not even while it was in service with them. It was an Airbus test aircraft that was eventually going to be delivered to the RAAF. Only one other boom broke off and that was a UAE aircraft that had again not actually been delivered to them.
Mate, what you’ve written is completely false. As for the RAAF loosing ‘booms’ that is complete BS, back in January 2011 (more than 11 years ago), one boom broke whilst Airbus was performing testing and development of the boom, and that was prior to delivery to the RAAF too. As for pilot endurance, in P-8A or E-7A for example, those aircraft often carry additional aircrew. During operations against Isis, RAAF E-7A regularly flew 15 hour missions, one mission was more than 17 hours too. If you want to find excuses why the RAF doesn’t have booms, maybe try a bit… Read more »
NATO operate a fleet of MRTT with booms, it would make sense to give a few Voyagers booms for the 20+ RC-135, C-17, P-8 and planned E7s, but unlike most operators of MRTT the RAF does not have receptacles on it’s main fixed wing combat types, so they would not get that much trade (Typhoon and F-35B use hose and drogue). RAAF uses F-35A and F/A-18 (one with and one without receptacle), most of other MRTT users have F-16, F-15, F-35A or Raphael which have receptacles.
We can’t. We do not own them!
I can’t wait for the light blue bits north of Estonia and Poland to be coloured a darker blue in that NATO map! C’mon Erdogan!
Off topic but I see the army has confirmed it is not buying the jltv, stating cost reasons. I also read the decision to delay the purchase of the new Chinooks was delayed to save money but has ended up closing several hundred million more. What’s the bets the same ‘cost saving’ will happen here.
A big unknown is the £/$ exchange rate at the time of payment, which can turn into a big plus or minus on the announced contract price.
Based on history of delaying contracts, they can’t really argue they didn’t know that delaying it would end up costing them more. Constant false ecomony when it comes to public sector purchases, plus let’s face it anyone with a vague understanding of economics would have predicted the UK economy would suffer for the next few years (longer term is anyones guess, but short term it was always going to be bad) thanks to brexit and lack of any new improved trade deals, meaning no chance it wasn’t going to cost more.
Last year the RAF Rapid Capabilities Office upgraded a Voyager with a satellite link and the Raven/Nexus intelligence coordination package, effectively turning the Voyager into a communications node and a command centre for the Typhoons and F-35s, which can work concurrently with refuelling. The capability was declared operational shortly afterward.
Do we know if all the Voyagers will be similarly equipped?
when Typhoon Radar upgrades are done and the F35s radar suit is so powerful it doesn’t need a AWACS type. you can get the same pod for the P8s but is seen as a stop gap in requirement, due to the land based radars now doing this work, and only in a war footing would you see there aircraft in use.
Chinook order delayed due to budget.
https://verticalmag.com/news/mod-delays-delivery-of-new-raf-chinooks-by-three-years/
About right meaning the current fleet have to rack up more airframe hours thus the new one will end just replacing airframes that are at EOL so no new/increase capability 😡 sorry but rather than spend £13b refurbing Parliament just follow General Cheeseburger’s instruction/order
Issue being they have to refurb Parliament as its a historical building and the Govt can be fined if it doesn’t. its why the MOD sells of historical buildings for small amounts. Home office sold of 2 grade 1 listed estates for less than the tax payer was spending a year to maintain them.
RAF has no history on Boom flying, and the Modern Booms are proving to be a little difficult to fly.
RAF made a request to source a cost to convert, existing aircraft Air Tanker advised would require a new contract.
also UK can use Nato tankers to refuel P8s,E7s Rivet and C17s like it currently does as this is outside Air Tanker contract and not restricted,
as currently Air Tanker is well under its quota.