The effectiveness and future configuration of the UK’s air-to-air refuelling capability are currently being reviewed as part of the wider Strategic Defence Review, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
In response to a series of parliamentary questions from James Cartlidge MP (Conservative – South Suffolk), Defence Minister Maria Eagle stated: “All capability requirements, including those for Air-to-Air refuelling, are being considered as part of the Strategic Defence Review process.”
This includes evaluating the current RAF system as well as the potential merits of integrating a boom refuelling system on the RAF’s Voyager fleet – the UK’s primary aerial tanker aircraft. At present, the UK’s Voyagers are equipped with the probe-and-drogue system, which is incompatible with certain allied aircraft that rely on boom-type refuelling.
While no decision has yet been announced, the matter has long been under consideration, particularly as interoperability with U.S. and NATO allies remains a key operational priority.
In a related question on the A400M Atlas, Cartlidge asked whether the UK might consider upgrading its fleet to include an air-to-air refuelling system. Eagle clarified that such a capability already exists.
“The A400M fleet is equipped with an Air-to-Air refuelling probe,” she said. “The aircraft is fully cleared to receive fuel while airborne from Voyager aircraft.”
The A400M, a tactical airlifter used extensively for both logistics and strategic lift, enhances operational endurance when refuelled in flight. However, it does not currently serve as a tanker platform within the RAF.
Is the boom one of those initial cost cutting measures that will be more expensive to integrate later on.
If the RAF doesn’t require it then the EU can pay for it as part of their €150bn shared money pot.
‘At present, the UK’s Voyagers are equipped with the probe-and-drogue system, which is incompatible with certain allied aircraft that rely on boom-type refuelling.’
This is a bit disingenuous, allied should be replaced with British to highlight the fact we cannot refuel some of our own aircraft.
Totally agree. It’s yet another example of disjointed procurement. Given the decision not to procure Voyager with a Boom, it’s logical that Wedgetail, Rivet Joint and Poisidon should have been procured with a Probe. The argument about not putting a Boom on Voyager revolved around the fact that AirTanker needed to be able to use the ac for civil flights, plus of course the Voyager is probably used more as an airliner by the RAF than a Tanker (based on TriStar usage). Even if we do put a Boom on the Voyager’s equipped with a centerline Hose, we will still need to retain the Hose to refuel the Atlas’s. Difficult to understand how the procurement system got so disjointed, tho it’s happened before; the MK32 Pod offered a vast improvement in offload rate, but new Receiver ac were still designed (and still are) to the spec of the much slower MK20 – which can be quite tactically limiting especially on BARCAP.
Which of our own aircraft can we not refuel?
Could I encourage a slightly better dissection of Eagle’s evasions?
The question about A400M meant one thing the answer another…..
I suspect that is more that the staffer reading the question failed to understand that the questioner was actually asking if we considered giving the A400M the ability to act as a tanker. As far as Voyager is concerned it really does make sense to add a boom so that we can refuel Poseidon and Wedgetail along with Rivet Joint and this would allow for a possible small purchase of F-35As later and actually have them be of use.
I am also reasonably certain that Airbus have successfully tested a boom on Voyager.
Maybe a constructive misunderstanding?
Wouldn’t be the first time and almost certainly wouldn’t be the last.
Almost all A330 MRTTs have a boom. In fact EVERY SINGLE ONE apart from the RAF’s, unless I’m much mistaken: even AdlA’s.
You are correct. Australia, Singapore, South Korea and France, all have booms as well as drogues
Yup, it is a MOTS option.
I suspect it could be done on a fixed price contract as the Air Tankers are not bespoked?
May I also say that if the boom is fitted to the voyager fleet it will open the ability for the C17 fleet to air to air refuel as that is the system that airframe is fitted with
We’re never buying F35As.
But a boom would definitely be an idea to increase the range of the Poseidon, Wedgetail and Rivet Joint. That said, they’ll already have huge range given they are based on commercial airliners but are probably only carrying a fraction of an airliner’s load (passengers, baggage, freight). So a nice to have, but higher priorities for funding.
F35A comes with a choice of refuelling receptacles, it can use hose and drogue (developed for Canada) or the boom system used by USAF.
Nope. A probe and drogue system might be developed for the possible Canadian F-35A’s but then again, maybe not.
Lockheed has already stated than a F-35D, with probe and drogue is an easy evolution.
Yes, shows just how low caliber both the person answering the question is as well as the one asking it.
Seems obvious that James Cartilage didn’t write the question and had zero understanding of the answer.
Clearly it was talking about fitting the A400M to give fuel not receive it. It’s pretty obvious with the giant pipe poking out the front that it can receive fuel.
I’m not even sure if it’s evasion..just a minister that has a team that could not give a strait answer to the question..white or black coffee ?
If the review is ever published…….
Yes. The Government need to get on with this review and publish it. I suspect they might be avoiding that as it will be quickly picked apart and exposed as inadequate. We are celebrating VE day for a war which might not have needed to take place if the British Military had been up to scratch in 1939. To deter war you need kit and people in sufficient numbers. Do we intend to have that.
Presume SDR will not be released until after the completion of NATO 2025 Summit (24-26 Jun). Rumors abound in the press re an upwardly revised NATO defence spending goal, which in turn directly affect future plans. 🤔🤞
Several upcoming events whose outcome the govt might want to factor into final release of the SDR: trade deal with the US, confirmation of Merz as German chancellor, EU ‘reset’ May 19, access to EU defence fund and new trade deal. Could be they want to use the SDR as an input to the NATO summit ….set expectations perhaps.
Another thought is the optics….that if there is no more money in the SDR they are timing it with the float out of HMS Venturer…putting your best foot forward as my grandmother used to say.
No on the Gov.uk website it states clearly SDSR will be published before the NATO summer summit on 24-26 June. Probably literally just before with much fanfare only to be picked apart and shown to be utterly inadequate for the threats to our national interest, alliance and maintenance of some form of world order.
Eagle’s reply re Atlas demonstrates her competence, or lack thereof.
They’re all clueless.
Lions led by Donkeys. As always.
If only we were lead by donkey’s DM. It would be an improvement over what we have now!
Really, what had happened in the last 10 months of this government relating to the military to deserve such derision?
Hi M8. I don’t think we actually think we have a new Defence Strategy. We avoid buying anything at all by just always having reviews so we can get the latest kit to fit the present scenario.
It’s Chicken and Egg.
“We must buy the right kit, so we need to review it before spending anything, that takes 2 Years. Ah but the situation has changed we may need different kit” Repeat !
U.K. and Ireland are the only countries in EU or NATO that haven’t bought any major new kit since 2022 🤔
We just have reviews and cuts instead !
Healey used to lament cuts, and talked of the hollowing out.
That’s all stopped now.
Despise the lot of them.
Top quality senior statesmen seem to be a thing of the past in British politics.. I’m looking but I cannot really see much quality in any party at all at present..infact the only politician I like is Ed Davy and that’s because he comes across as a nice human being.
Ed Davey is not a nice human being. I know, because I met him, many decades ago.
Tell me more….
Ask the sub postmasters. That was long after my gut thought that he was dodgy.
Everything I know about the current defence strategy is it’s very different to what went before, it has little in it about what kit should be bought (focusing on actually strategy) and the Treasury, MoD and PM are not happy with it which is why it’s being delayed in publication.
They are not happy with it because it calls for a lot more money a lot quicker than anyone wants to provide.
And you know that how exactly l?
Archer 155mm purchased 2023/24: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dshSn5g3u9g
I find it odd that Britain does not just buy a few refuelling pods für the A400m. This is regularly used by the GAF, and while it is not useful for F16s and F35, they regularly refuel French Rafales and Eurofighters in Jordan and for Nato missions. It has been used for some years now and is working fine.
Obviously there is a cost associated with it (Training), but still.
The commonly used explanation, though I know little of the subject myself, is that the contract through which the UK operates Voyager has a penalty clause preventing us purchasing an alternative refuelling platform.
I’m sure the RAF would love some A400 refuelling pallets, but there are some pretty stupid reasons why we can’t get them.
Being a cynic I’d bet they actually don’t want refuelling for A400m. Simple reason is every time we have any extra capability it gets reviewed and some bright Bean counting idiot says “hang on we can save money here, A400m is the bigger fleet and can do this job as well, so let’s get rid of the Voyagers”.
I’m surprised nobody’s brought a C17 based refueller into service to be honest, you’d think the moment a palletised system was developed it becomes a no brainer for every transport to double up for AAR.
It’s a no brainer unless you have locked yourself into contract which limits you to a single aircraft type?
Perhaps saving the C17 flight hours?
Tankers based on commercial airlines like Voyagers are still being manufactured. Plus military tankers fly a fraction of the hours per year that a commercial airliner does, meaning they can have very long lives.
Whereas its 10 years since the last C17 was built and there doesn’t appear to a successor in development.
Also worth remembering that as much as we might bemoan certain specifics of the air tanker contract, it is probably one of the best WFM contracts the MOD has with contractors.
And you’d need a few A400’s to carry the 100 Ton (plus!) fuel load the Voyager can carry for AAR work.
Only if the Voyager can do it.
So Voyager as I understand cannot refuel thing like our Chinooks, if they were given a probe, due to stall speed, so there would be no penalty if we equipped some Atlas to do so.
It cannot refuel several of our bigger aircraft either, which I find pretty poor as well.
Which ‘bigger’ aircraft are you saying Voyager can’t refuel? Several Voyagers are FRU equipped. It’s this centreline hose/ drogue that is used to refuel larger aircraft. Apologies if I’ve misunderstood.
P8. C17. RC135.
Use Boom system, RAF like the USN use Probe Drogue.
You’re correct about Helicopters,
Voyager can be retrofitted with the boom, at the time of the the AirTanker PFI the UK was planning to buy MRA4 and our E3 used the boom and we had no plans for RC135 purchase so we had no need of the boom (C17 only). Post 2010 everything changed but no one until now has had the b**ls to look at the contract and seek modifications.
I’m sure air tanker will be more than willing.
Big question will be price.
Most large aircraft operations in UK service do not require such a capability though having either extended range fuel capacity included or mission profiles that are already easily covered by existing range.
Probably contractual problems with Air Tanker. Fit them on A400 under guise of adding a SF helo air-to-air refuelling and sneak it under the contract.
We can start to see the end of this awful PFI deal. Next time buy outright, 14x Airbus A330-800. 12 of them MRTT. 6 with booms, the other 6 with a thick centreline hose. The other 2 would be 1x troop transport, 1x VIP.
For A400M please buy 6x of the Spanish surplus, which already have wing refueling capability.
Recalling that we got rid of the Hercs half a dozen pre-loved A400Ms would be a really sensible use of scarce funds. A true no- brainer.
The Air Tanker PFI deal was the worst possible procurement decision of the last 25 years, worse than Nimrod MRA4, Ajax, etc.
We are literally borrowing money to pay Air Tanker Ltd to borrow money to pay the companies that own Air Tanker to buy the constituent parts that make an A330 MRTT.
The French Air Force got the same capability and support package the RAF did for a fraction of the price.
And still with war raging and the USA now also an enemy our stupid parliament is still mucking around. Spend some money, decent money, 25percent of GDP, no I didn’t miss a decimal, we have a lot to catch up. Spend it all here in the UK getting UK manufacturing to deliver what we need from raw materials here in the UK, that will solve unemployment as well. No more overseas aid, no more compensation for not listening to the news, no more illegal immigrants in hotels and getting driving lessons, no more diversity consultants, no more of all the waste of money we have, spend it on defence because if we don’t defend ourselves all this other cruft is going to be destroyed anyway
Total government spending is currently 44% of GDP (roughly) – this already puts U.K. into a deficit every year.
How would you propose you get an additional 22.5% without bankrupting every person and business in the U.K.?
The first duty of government is the security of the state. Its job is essentially national success. If you blow the country’s finances in one year on the military you have failed.
Disagree with spending 25% of GDP on defence.
Putin’s doing this with Russia; spending around 40% on defence and they’re all but bankrupt. We can’t put every last penny into defence or else we’ll also go bankrupt.
3% of GDP would be fine. That’d give us a military budget of £75-80 billion per year, which would be enough to expand all 3 forces by a decent amount.
Still haven’t explained where the other 24.5% of funding is coming from? Scrap stare pensions or the NHS?
Under review, seriously considering, undertaking an assessment. All talk don’t fall for it.
Can be sold off and outsourced to a lawyer friend of Keir Starmer for 99 years.
The big problem here has been the obsession of government to hive off things it absolutely should be running to private companies via contracts that are not fit for purpose..because geopolitical needs change.. contracts don’t.
The rapid tanker conversion capability of the A400M would be a good idea.
The current Voyager programme represents piss poor value for money and should never have been signed. The fact we can’t refuel currently all the RAFs required aircraft is a nonsense. Something I commented on with the consultation of SDSR. Hopefully the MOD are going to correct this mistake.
Would be a better plan for the RAF to actually operate some tankers….
The cost equipping the Voyager with a boom through a third party such as air tanker would be prohibitive.
Don’t expect it to happen.
Would the cost of sticking some booms and plumbing onto E7 and P8 outweigh the cost of the boom conversion?
Would a basic external piping system reduce endurance and performance by more than the advantages gained from AAR?
Er no. Structure of the airframe would be beyond parameters. Boeing are the design authority the cost would be way beyond purchasing new boom equipped MRTT. A complete non starter.
Stupid questions about the exclusive Airtanker contract:
– Budget/politics permitting, could the RAF simply offer Airtanker more money to put a boom on their MRTTs? i.e. “We’ll pay you an extra XYZ amount for you to incorporate a boom ASAP, so you can refuel our P-8s & E-7s”
– Does the financial penalty apply in equal amounts, to both purchasing other private refuelling companies’ contracts, AND the RAF getting its own bespoke refuelling capability? i.e. would the RAF buying boom equipped MRTTs just for its P-8s/E-7s, whilst leaving the Airtanker to do its usual probe/drogue mission, have a lesser financial penalty than them going with another private company with KC-135s that has a boom capability?
The contract states that if air tanker cannot provide the requirement outside of the contract, that does not stop the customer the RAF from from seeking that capability and not pay a penalty. No matter how you look at it the cost probably out ways the need.
The A400M already has hose and drogue capability, the 908 pods fitted to the A400M developed by Cobham (Now Eaton) are entirely compatible with all refuelling capable aircraft, and are very similar in design to the 905 pods designed for the A330 MRTT. The boom requires one airframe to essentially crash in to another airframe, and limits the life of the receiver aircraft.