Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RAF's largest ever aircraft arrives in the UK

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RAF's largest ever aircraft arrives in the UK

    The first of the RAF's future strategic tanker aircraft (FSTA) arrived in the UK for the first time today. The UK's largest ever military aircraft will be known as 'Voyager'.

    With a 60m wingspan, and measuring nearly 60m from nose to tail, Voyager, a dual role air-to-air tanker and transport aircraft based around the Airbus A330 airframe, will replace the long-serving VC-10 and Tristar fleet; with the first due in service by the end of the year.




    The new aircraft will bring a considerable capability boost, each able to carry 291 troops over 6,000 miles, and to refuel other aircraft, in flight, from a 100,000 litre reservoir - greater than that of two large petrol tankers.



    Read more here: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/RafsLargestEverAircraftArrivesInTheUk.htm

    pretty decent name and a very welcome addition to the fleet i can tell you!
    Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 22 April 2011, 01:00.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  • #2
    They are very reliable and will use much, much less fuel than their predecessors and will benefit from being part of the Airbus system, as well as being more comfortable to fly in.
    regards
    GttC

    Comment


    • #3
      hopefully i get to go somewhere in one of them before i get out.
      RGJ

      ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

      The Rifles

      Comment


      • #4
        Any chance of a picture of the inside of the plane,

        I flew in the Tristar, seats facing backwards and it was the best airline food I ever got.

        When are you due out RGJ?
        Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
        Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
        The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
        The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
        The best lack all conviction, while the worst
        Are full of passionate intensity.

        Comment


        • #5
          Did I read right that it can do both refuelling and passenger at the same time?


          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hedgie if she was an RAF bird and the seats were facing backwards then it would have been an RAF VC10 you were in:



            allegedly one of the fastest passenger jets still out there (so the RAF pilots always tell us).

            i was due out next month but they offered me 2 extra years so i'm due out in May 2013 now.

            if i get inside a Voyager by then i'll get ya a pic!

            Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
            Did I read right that it can do both refuelling and passenger at the same time?
            i think technically it can, but whether that is 'allowed' or not i don't know but i've been a passenger in a Tri-Star a few times fully configured for IFR with refuelling booms and fuel tanks in the main fuselage although we never refuelled anything.
            Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 22 April 2011, 16:38.
            RGJ

            ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

            The Rifles

            Comment


            • #7
              RAF's Voyager fleet now operating in Afghanistan.

              RGJ

              ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

              The Rifles

              Comment


              • #8
                ye got robbed! That's the old central IFE system, not worth a shite!
                regards
                GttC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                  ye got robbed! That's the old central IFE system, not worth a shite!
                  regards
                  GttC
                  i'm pretty sure the IFE wasn't top of their list of priorities for the aircraft due to how it operates.

                  so long as the DAS is up to the job i'd be happier, and obviously now it is deemed suitable for operations in Afghan / hostile territory so that's good news.
                  RGJ

                  ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

                  The Rifles

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                    ye got robbed!...
                    i think everything to do with the AirTanker contract involves being relieved of ones worldly goods in an experience otherwise known as 'a shakedown', or 'being fleeced'. not smart procurement by any stretch of the imagination...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      UK PM to get own plane for official trips

                      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34864328

                      Ham Air??

                      http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...l=1#post333532

                      https://uk.news.yahoo.com/prime-mini...2.html#AqNMKJf
                      Last edited by Orion; 19 November 2015, 19:10. Reason: link added

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Oh, but its for the Queen too, of course....
                        I can't see how having one dedicated airliner instead of charter flights is a cheaper option. Creative accounting I'd say.
                        German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                        German 2: Private? I am a general!
                        German 1: That is the bad news.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          do you think the RAF will allow it also to be used to be standard air transport tasks (eg troop rotations to Falklands) as well??

                          Aren't these some part of a PFI deal where they can be chartered?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                            Oh, but its for the Queen too, of course....
                            I can't see how having one dedicated airliner instead of charter flights is a cheaper option. Creative accounting I'd say.
                            Mate, booking any transport is a nightmare in HM Forces. Because of accountablility, everything goes through hoop and after hoop. From civilian secretaries to 3rd party contractors who book a) standard flight prices without any benefit of 'economy of scale' and b) add on their own fees to everything. The army paid 270 quid for a one way sleeper train journey one time for me through HMG Travel (a private company in charge of our travel) - and to buy it off www.thetrainline.com at the time was 35 sterling. So move scenario over to charter flights, and you can see why it's easier to have the airframe refurbed and operated by the RAF rather than the stupid civvy equivalent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              yeah, one of the 14 is on a long term contract with Thomas Cook or someone like that...

                              i'm not absolutely sure this will mean much in real terms, as firstly this is only for long haul stuff - the US, Australia, China etc.. with the 146's (and their replacement) handling the European stuff - and secondly most of the tankers are usually within a few hours flying time of the UK anyway, so this one will do QRA's etc.. even while its on call to transport our Great Leader to wherever is lucky enough to recieve his wisdom and glory...

                              in effect, its the treasury canning the charter flight credit card. whether anything gets pulled out of the hat Air Tanker wise to cover the loss of tanking capability while its being used to take VIP's places is unknown, but while the loss of one tanker from a force of 14 is a loss, its not catastrophic given that it will be a pretty rare event. maybe two weeks out of 52...

                              its not a secret that the current, and all the former, defence secretaries hate the AT contract and regard it as robbery. there was talk at MOD/No10 in 2010/11 of the govt cancelling it but the costs were prohibitive, as we go towards 2020 those costs will fall significantly, this maybe the first signs of movement in that direction.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X