The air-to-air tanking operation was conducted by a Voyager tanker aircraft flying from the Falklands Islands.
According to a news release:
“The Atlas was flown from RAF Brize Norton to the Ascension Island, before then flying on to the Falklands. During the flight the transport aircraft was met by a RAF Voyager over the South Atlantic, that had earlier taken off from Mount Pleasant Complex, the principal military base on the Falkland Islands.
The Atlas aircraft was refuelled using what is known as the probe-and-drogue system. The refuelling probe extends from the front of the transport aircraft above the cockpit. The pilot then has to dock this probe into the basket of the drogue that has been extended from the Voyager to allow refuelling.”
The RAF say here that Air-to-Air refuelling is one of the most difficult manoeuvres that pilots carry out and requires intense concentration from both crews. The operation requires the pilot of the receiving aircraft to maintain close formation with the tanker aircraft for the duration of the activity while fuel is transferred by the Mission Systems Operator, flying in the Voyager.
Flight Lieutenant James, Captain of the Voyager aircraft, was quoted as saying:
“It was a great privilege to Captain the Voyager on the first operational re-fuel of an Atlas, after successfully meeting them some 900 nautical miles south west of Ascension Island and 2600 nautical miles north east of Mount Pleasant Airfield. The Voyager’s capability to extend the global reach of our aircraft is remarkable.”
The RAF say that “the successful completion of this sortie increases the capability of the RAF Brize Norton based Air Mobility Force to deliver essential cargo right to where it needs to be. The flight demonstrated that increased capability to deliver freight and personnel to the South Atlantic when required”.
Nos 101 and LXX Sqns? Way to go lads ( and lasses) 👍
Congratulations are in order for a successful proof of concept operation.
Nice.
If C-130 go RAF need a small transport aircraft.
Fingers crossed sense will prevail.
I do think a small transport will be used much flying from the uk to falklands. A400 and voyager are showing the skills here. It’s a lot of ocean out there
I wouldn’t mind seeing the C-27
I’m somewhat surprised that this is the first time to be honest.
The A400 holds a lot of fuel so its maybe not been needed before. Also the C17 and voyager are able to do long range transport.
Very nice to see. I wonder what was needed to be taken to the Falklands in the A400.
C-17 flew down last week but they have to stop in Brazil cause of weight/range limits (and fact we can’t AAR the C-17s) so any priority cargo (which could be contentious) that won’t fit in Voyager and can’t wait for a Point visit would need to go in A400. Suprised that the voyager had to fly 5200 mile round trip 🤔 A400 shoud have been able to get more than 900miles before needing fuel?
supposedly 20T range is 3450miles its just under 4000 ASi to MPN so either it was something V heavy or?
Theyve been using the A400M for maritime search and rescue on the Falklands with one replacing Hercules in the garrison 4 years ago, looking at news stories they have also done a couple of cargo flights in the past, a replacement A400M engine and a delivery of 50 oxygen cylinders. Previously though these flights had come down through America.
I think using the Atlas for maritime search and rescue is probably a waste of resources unless youre going to fit it with some sensors for maritime search and rescue missions. mk1 eyeball is probably not going to see alot in bad weather or night time.
Planes are used from the Falklands because the distance they are required to cover are well beyond helicopters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1agnuxXAFWo
Regarding Atlas use in the Falklands it offers just enough capability for the situations it will likely encounter,it would be hard to justify basing a P8 there permanently with a fleet of only 9.
What the RAF could do with is three additional Voyagers but in the same configuration as the RAAF ‘s KC-30 with boom and drogue. That way they can also refuel key RAF asset like C-17, P-8 and E-7 as well as Airseeker
& have to pay a penalty to AirTanker every time that they did it … 🙄
That’s what happens when the bean counters call the tune.
It’s also given us 14 incredibly capable A330 aircraft with very high availability rates, and can offload 132,000lb of fuel when operating 500nm from home. Regardless of certain aspects of the contract. RAF air to air refueling capability is vastly more capable compared to the VC10/Tristar day’s.
I have no doubt. I would however prefer to see them owned and operated by the RAF.
Nope.
As air tanker can’t refuel them there is no penalty. The only penalty is if air tanker are cut out when they can demonstrate they could have done it.
Surely the government could nationalise AirTanker and give the capability back to the RAF?
Absolutely. However PFI means Airtanker need to be given the task. Could be why UK A400s don’t have refuelling pods.
the A400m would also be a very useful backup tanker. i think one of the other A400 users possibly the french have already used them to refuel their helicopters.
As I understand it secondary AAR was part of the role originally envisaged for the A400, but the strict T&C’s of the AirTanker Contract ruled that out, which explains why the RAF buy was reduced from 25 to 22.
No. The PFI says Airtanker have to be given the task if they have the capability to do it. Otherwise a penalty is paid. As the Airtanker. A330s don’t have boom and drogue, they can’t claim that they couldve done the task and so a penalty doesn’t have to be paid.
So the Airtanker contract isn’t that much of a straitjacket after all. Good, didn’t know that. Presumably the RAF could use refuelling pods on A400Ms for helicopters but not fixed wing. Retrofitting the Voyager fleet with booms shouldn’t be out of the question, would keep the work with Airtanker.
the 3 additional tankers could be used from the air tanker fleet. I’m sure they would be delighted to get booms.
You also then have to train boom operators, ground crew etc and then train the pilots to use it.
Until we see some figures of how often the raf aircraft that can only use booms had to use allies tankers or scrub/cut short missions because of lack of AAR it’s really guess work to know the actual need.
Maybe an option if the need was there would be crewing a couple of the American tankers based in the uk. I would hope there is already a deal in place that if required someone can request an aircraft to be in a location from the Americans.
Rc-135’s get refuelled nearly everyday from kc-135 fm Mildenhall, We aren’t using P8’s for long range/endurance mission up to artic circle yet, obviously E-7’s couple of years away so if we put booms on 3 of the Kc3 tankers we have time to get crews trained. i think Airtanker can’t fuss if we bought additional to meet new requirement as they do not have the capability so cannot deliver?
yes i think we should have inducted all the voyagers in that configuration which would have been more useful. We are reliant on allies with boom equipped aircraft to refuel those aircraft as well as being unable to refuel a lot of american origin fighters
We have refuelled a lot of US Navy and USMC aircraft over the decades.
Is that really a problem though? That’s the good part about having lots of allies. We provide capabilities they don’t have too; like refuelling their aircraft and even ships with the RFA, helping out France in Mali with C17s and Chinooks, etc.
That is true but its also a useful capability that other users requested when they placed their orders. i know we can call on allies to help but it would have been nice to have that configuration at the start to cover all our air assets. one of the other posters mentioned that we have refuelled US Navy and Marine aircraft for years which is true but that is also because those aircraft like the Hornet also use drogue receptacles for refueling and not boom like most USAF fighters like the F15 and F16.
Just curious on our C-17 fleet. How’s the flying hours on them currently? We only have 8 and I understand they are worked pretty hard.
As I said just curious as the production line is closed…
The Royal Air Force frames have the highest flying hours throughout the entire fleet. It doesn’t mean as some commentators have insisted that the RAF examples are knackered.
As far as I’m aware other than early production issues the C-17 total fleet availability is good. I would imagine as long as maintenance is kept up the RAF frames have got a good few years left in them.
The concerning thing as David said the line is closed and no future replacement on the cards, so what does the future hold for heavy transport.
The line might be closed but the jigs are stored at ARMAAC. Look at the Galaxy B model, the line was reopened in the 80s under the Reagan administration. The airframes can go on and engines can be replaced as soon as spares become an issue that’s when it all becomes expensive. The Buffs are slated for new engines they say the fleet could stay in service for another 30 years.
Interesting article in DefenseNews states USAF is planning to expedite contract award of E-7 initial acquisition, and additionally, USAF plans to increase coordination and cooperation w/ RAF and RAAF on the program. USAF sources also indicated RAF contemplating additional purchases; what the hell, is Boeing running an inventory reduction sale?!? Whenever the three countries are mentioned together now my antenna start to twitch w/ thought this may become an AUKUS related program. Will be quite interested to observe potential developments ocer next 6-12 mos.🤔
..over…🙄
The US purchase will significantly strengthen support to the UK programme and keep the pressure on NG and Boeing to solve any issues which are likely to arise during conversion and check out of the UK E7s. Also I have seen US Defence journals talking about USAF personnel ‘observing’ the tests and trials when the first UK E7 enters testing. I suspect there have been a number of component changes driven by obsolescence/out of production of some key elements as its been 10 years since NG built a MESA radar. and NG has been forced to source replacements. Given the UK baseline is reported to be the starting baseline for the USAF I would expect the E7 SPO to be be very keen to confirm that performance is as expected.
A400 is such a fantastic asset, I hope we land up acquiring a few more down the line.
It’s such an important function to be able to refuel mid-air, why does it seem to take ages for the atlus to get it’s accreditations? Am I right in saying it’s only just passed the cargo air drop and still cannot disembark paratroopers.
I thought the 3 options were now on order. BTW saw a A400M drop a big load at low level onto Abingdon airfield a couple of days ago.
Yes, Abingdon is used as a DZ.
Interesting, what sort of load? They’ve not been dropping heavy loads like guns/vehicles since losing the Medium Stressed Platforms.
Hi Daniele, often see activity at the Abingdon DZ usually C130’s and helos, didn’t get a clear look at the load, big box (test weight?) and a v large chute.
Hi Geo. Cheers.
👍
I had a very interesting week at RAF Abingdon many moons ago as an Air Cadet, at the time it was the Jaguar servicing centre.
Cor that’s going back a bit! One of my many books has it listed as that.
I remember a half dozen or so ex BA VC10’s parked up there before conversion to tankers. That’s got to have been a good 40 years ago!
Yes I remember that too! I did not see them live, just read of it at the time.
Showing our youth😀
Can the the P-8 Poseidon be refuelled the same way on the same journey?