Tanker Trouble - Analysing the RAF's Tanker capability

[The Apprentice]

Hello all,

I am thought I would come here to share my first published paper for the Freeman Air and Space Institute at Kings College London, as it is likely to be of interest to some.

Having long observed the growing limitations to the Royal Air Force presented by a lack of a tanker capability equipped with the flying-boom able to refuel a fast growing number of multi-engine aircraft that require it to conduct air-to-air refuelling. Over the past year or so, I have been collecting evidence and putting my thoughts to paper. I am extremely pleased to finally share the end result and am exceedingly grateful to FASI for giving it a home which, in my opinion, could not be more fitting.

Grab a cup of tea and have a read.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/warstudies/assets ... rouble.pdf

Best,

L

[iainpeden]

Although i didn’t succumb to the required cup of tea I think this is concise, well written and properly researched piece which comes to a logical and sensible conclusion.
Unfortunately no politician will take a blind bit of notice.

Thanks for sharing.

[Malcolm]

IMV, you've completely overlooked the role that the Airtanker contract plays in all this.

[The Apprentice]

IMV, you've completely overlooked the role that the Airtanker contract plays in all this.

Thank you for your feedback. You make a good point and this is something that I considered when deciding what to include within the report. The reason this was omitted is because my objective was to analyse and provide an overview of the strategic implications of the current capability. I will also add that the piece was in fact reviewed extensively prior to its publication.

If I had to self-reflect, I would suggest that some discussion of the contract might have been relevant to the possible solutions I suggest. Ultimately, however, the strategic implications upon UK air power as a result of a lack of booms stand whether this was included or not.

L

[Reach454]

IMV, you've completely overlooked the role that the Airtanker contract plays in all this.

What does AirTanker have to do with the lack of flying boom capability?

[Malcolm]

The basic problem is that the RAF/MoD/HMG do not 'own' any of the Voyagers. Airtanker do. Therefore the RAF cannot just decide to fit booms to some of the Voyagers, because they aren't the RAF's property.

Airtanker have a (PFI) contract with HMG to sole supply the RAF's air-to-air refueling capability, with exceptions for operational tasking and overseas exercises. So HMG can't just go and buy a 'few' MRTT's equipped with booms.

HMG could attempt to re-negotiate the contract with Airtanker, but AIUI the contract is due to expire in 2035. So what incentive is there for Airtanker to do anything unless there is either a contract extension or an increase in fees? The RAF are currently paying about £410 million per year for the 14 Voyagers, so Airtanker are likely to make north of £4bn in the next 10 years. The Airtanker group appears to have a stock market valuation of greater than 11bn.

[jetranger2015]

The basic problem is that the RAF/MoD/HMG do not 'own' any of the Voyagers. Airtanker do. Therefore the RAF cannot just decide to fit booms to some of the Voyagers, because they aren't the RAF's property.

Airtanker have a (PFI) contract with HMG to sole supply the RAF's air-to-air refueling capability, with exceptions for operational tasking and overseas exercises. So HMG can't just go and buy a 'few' MRTT's equipped with booms.

HMG could attempt to re-negotiate the contract with Airtanker, but AIUI the contract is due to expire in 2035. So what incentive is there for Airtanker to do anything unless there is either a contract extension or an increase in fees? The RAF are currently paying about £410 million per year for the 14 Voyagers, so Airtanker are likely to make north of £4bn in the next 10 years. The Airtanker group appears to have a stock market valuation of greater than 11bn.

Morning,
Interesting, but surely the 'contract with HMG to sole supply the RAF's air-to-air refueling capability' should mean boom aircraft if required, although having said that i doubt the MOD thought about future proofing the contract when it was written to include any change in the hardware required.
IMHO the contract is void as they are clearly not fulfilling it, they are unable to provide aircraft for practice for the aircraft crews that require it, and no one else can as its not 'operational or overseas'
Amazing really, but not surprising!

[Malcolm]

The basic problem is that the RAF/MoD/HMG do not 'own' any of the Voyagers. Airtanker do. Therefore the RAF cannot just decide to fit booms to some of the Voyagers, because they aren't the RAF's property.

Airtanker have a (PFI) contract with HMG to sole supply the RAF's air-to-air refueling capability, with exceptions for operational tasking and overseas exercises. So HMG can't just go and buy a 'few' MRTT's equipped with booms.

HMG could attempt to re-negotiate the contract with Airtanker, but AIUI the contract is due to expire in 2035. So what incentive is there for Airtanker to do anything unless there is either a contract extension or an increase in fees? The RAF are currently paying about £410 million per year for the 14 Voyagers, so Airtanker are likely to make north of £4bn in the next 10 years. The Airtanker group appears to have a stock market valuation of greater than 11bn.

Morning,
Interesting, but surely the 'contract with HMG to sole supply the RAF's air-to-air refueling capability' should mean boom aircraft if required, although having said that i doubt the MOD thought about future proofing the contract when it was written to include any change in the hardware required.
IMHO the contract is void as they are clearly not fulfilling it, they are unable to provide aircraft for practice for the aircraft crews that require it, and no one else can as its not 'operational or overseas'
Amazing really, but not surprising!

This (in bold). Very unlikely that the Airtanker contract doesn't specify exactly what services are to be provided - and as far as anyone can tell Airtanker are providing the contracted services.

At the time the contract was first negotiated (2003 ish) the only asset the RAF had that could use boom refueling was the C-17, which at that time had only been leased as a stop gap till A400 was ready (Ok E-3D as well, but that could use hose and drogue too). However, by the time the contract was actually signed (2008) the C-17's had proven their worth and been purchaced outright, together with 4 more new builds. RC-135, E7 and P8 were nothing but a gleam in the RAF's wish-lists.

[C24]

In the past I have organised two visits to Mildenhall asking questions of KC-135 crews. If I asked the following questions,I have forgotten the replies.

Has there ever been a program/me for a common probe on all NATO aircraft? That is, the receiver on both systems to be the same design.
If not, why not? And don’t answer “Too expensive “

[Malcolm]

In the past I have organised two visits to Mildenhall asking questions of KC-135 crews. If I asked the following questions,I have forgotten the replies.

Has there ever been a program/me for a common probe on all NATO aircraft? That is, the receiver on both systems to be the same design.
If not, why not? And don’t answer “Too expensive “

In general, booms and recepticals are better for large aircraft (Bombers and transports) that need to onload a lot of fuel. The maximum flow rate on a boom is over 6500lbs/min. Flow rates for hose and drogue is about 3000lbs/min for the centerline hose on a Voyager, and 1500lbs/min for the wing pods. So it takes 2-3 times longer to refuel a large aircraft which might want to take 50K-100K lbs of fuel.

Hose and probe is arguably better for smaller aircraft like fighters. They can't take fuel at any great rate, and they are small enough that you can refuel 2 or 3 at the same time by using the wing pods. A fighter rarely needs more than 6-10K lbs at any one time, so can top up in 3-4 mins and then get back into the fight.

There is also the argument that boom is an easier workload for the receiver crews. The receiver just has to get into position below the tanker, and the boomer then flies the boom into the receptical. With hose and drogue the receiver has to 'stab' the basket which in bad weather moves about quite a lot.

Early USAF fighters (F-100, F-105) did have probes, but since about F-4 the USAF have only operated boom aircraft. The USN/USMC on the other hand only operate probe fighter aircraft because of the need to do buddy-buddy off a carrier.

The best solution is obviously to have tankers that can do both boom and hose refuelling - such as the MRTT. But we are where we are with the current Airtanker contract. Interestingly though, I have now read that when the contract ends in 2035 the ownership of the 14 Voyager aircraft does revert to the MoD/RAF. So at that point (which is only 11 years away) perhaps some of the KC3's will be converted to full MRTT spec with a boom. And that would open the door to F-35A too.

[TonyO]

Malcolm raises some crucial points. Airtanker has on several occasions suggested to the RAF to fit a boom, however I have no idea what the company would have charged for such an optional extra, plus there is also the cost of training to use it, and maintaining it, but the RAF said no. It could be argued that a boom would probably be a revenue generator for them if they were allowed to go and flog their refuelling services to other air forces, but I don't what level of freedom they have to do that. While Airtanker has been a success as a PFI as we have got tankers that are reliable, I am not entirely sure we have got the best revenue generation from it, no doubt contract hinderances are built in.

[STN RAMP RAT]

Having spent some time close to MOD contracts in a previous life.

1) The MOD and the supplier have different aims. the MOD want to service a current and perceived future requirement. This requirement will often change over the duration of the contract. The aim of the supplier is to make a profit. The MOD will have used the offer of "sole supplier" to drive down the contract price with the companies tendering to supply the service.

2) The specification in the contract will be tightly drawn on the requirement and not include any "known or unknown unknowns"

3) When an additional unanticipated requirement comes up, in this case an increase in the RAF inventory of aircraft that require boom refueling, the supplier is usually asked to quote for a variation to the contract. At this point the supplier can quote whatever they want as they have a sole supplier contract.

4) The MOD is left with a "Hobson's choice" of pay the requested requirement or don't buy the service.

the sole supplier contract with Air Tanker is the reason the MOD were unable to take the AAR option for the A400's and IIRC an exception or variation has been made to allow the RC135's to be refueled by the USAF KC135's.

The variation does not always work in Favour of the supplier as they have to fulfill the requirement and if costs go up unexpectedly they can find themselves in a loss making position.

[Agent K]

Morning,
Interesting, but surely the 'contract with HMG to sole supply the RAF's air-to-air refueling capability' should mean boom aircraft if required, although having said that i doubt the MOD thought about future proofing the contract when it was written to include any change in the hardware required.
IMHO the contract is void as they are clearly not fulfilling it, they are unable to provide aircraft for practice for the aircraft crews that require it, and no one else can as its not 'operational or overseas'
Amazing really, but not surprising!

Contracts are contracts and very specific. Clauses and associated cost schedules along with all other aspects are negotiated and agreed and written between the 2 parties, If it doesn't state boom capability and that they are fulfilling the requirement for airframes/flying hours and whatever other measures that are contract obligations then that's it. You can't claim it is void because ARL are adhering to the signed contract (unless you know the contract and failed obligations that is?), and if they weren't then the MoD would be invoking penalty clauses. Any addition or change to the contract for additional hours or booms or whatever will be negotiated through the Contract Change process.

[Supra]

Credit to Luca for the OP. Super analysis from Malcolm & Tony too. I think it's fair to say that (without sight of Contract) any private finance initiative (PFI) procurement of this nature will clearly be financially benefit-loaded to the Provider & cost detrimental to the End-user in all cases. That is the factual nature of this 'Tanker Hire' business case & all similar PFI. It would appear to a layperson that retro-fitting a boom installation to a proportion of the KC-3 fleet would seem the only sensible approach & swallow the inflated costs of this contract-variation? The RAF gets 11 years of enhanced AAR capability within contract & then inherit a fleet of 'fit for purpose' aircraft at the end of contract, upon which they can then fritter mega-enhancing funds upon prior to selling-on to a lucky purchaser for peanuts! There's only one certainty here. Take a previously clean stick & MOD Procurement will ensure ensure the RAF get the s**t-end!
[PS:- This was written as STN RAMP RAT & AgentK posted previously, broadly the same take?]

[Agent K]

........ [PS:- This was written as STN RAMP RAT & AgentK posted previously, broadly the same take?]........

Agreed Supra, we both allude to the same thing. Yes, companies aren't in PFI to be a charity, they are there to make money as a business, What PFI gives you is a known cost for the duration of the contract rather than having to fund everything up front. Not sure if that was needed here or not.

[turmo]

As an historical aside, the F-105D had both probe and receptacle receiving equipment, the only tactical aircraft I can think of that had both. Very handy over Vietnam as it could receive from USAF or USN tankers. Both were mounted in the port nose so that they shared much of the same plumbing, saving weight and volume.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vFAh5ZlRLDM/V ... ar%2Ba.tif

Its closest equivalent today, the F-35A, is about 20% heavier all-up but only has the receptacle. The B and C have the probe but no receptacle...