What do we think about the choice of name here? I have to say that "Voyager" doesn't sound all that planey to me; my first thoughts were about a Chrysler people carrier and a dreadful Star Trek spin-off series.
I was interested to see that the BBC report today highlighted the crucial fact that the A330 has a wing span twice that of an Avro Lancaster. Oh yeah, well how many Tallboys can it carry, huh?!
I'm hoping to get across to Boscombe Down soon to have a look at the first FSTA aircraft in testing; will keep you posted.
They’re not kidding are they?
What's wrong with just calling it an Airbus A330 or KC-330?
Wasn't that the name given to the BV107's Canada had (Voyageur)?
Names don't stick to tankers anyway, when was the last time you heard Stratotanker used?
Was 'Voyager' not the Virgin Atlantic Frequent Flier program , before it became I-Fly . Maybe some wag at the MOD was thinking about all the FF points he had clocked up on the years its taken to get this aircraft selected and then delivered ! Month on Necar chaps ?
Voyager is a great name.
P.S The Virgin Atlantic FF scheme is "Flying Club"
You are right about the Canadian Voyager:
The Canadian Army acquired 12 of the CH-113A Voyageur for the medium-lift transport role.
There is also more "Voyager's" out there:
Burt Rutan's Voyager was the first aircraft to fly around the world without stopping or refueling. Maybe the tanker was named in honour of this one.
The first prototype Stinson model Voyager 125 was built in late 1944.
Kitfox Ultralight , the marketing name of the Vixen was changed to Voyager.
Gravity always wins!
I have to agree with you there Ebeneezer, Voyager is a terrible name for them!You are correct saying names don't stick to tankers.
Well, the tanker fleet certainly appears to be in pretty high demand at the moment re the Libya operation, Goose, and Afghan hasn't gone away either. Which "grounded Typhoons" are you referring to, by the way?
The UK tanker trials are going to be conducted with Tornado GR4, Typhoon, E-3D Sentry and C-130, but obviously the previous plan to work with Harrier went out of the window.
Funny tale for you all re the "Voyager" name - the RAF's ACAS was very coy about the use of the name last night, making noises that it's not official yet. Maybe he should have a word with whoever included the name in the MoD's press release on Monday then! PR shambles entirely of their own making.
What I don’t understand is the omission of a boom.
Surely the RAF could have 25% of the fleet fitted with a boom to allow interoperability with the USAFand others, and what about it's own C-17's?
The RAF's E-3s could also spend less time on the hose.
We would need boom operators and we dont have enough people left in the RAF these days to do that!
Agreed - we don't have booms now, and we're not into adding capabilities these days! Half of the fleet will be three-point (hose and drogue) tankers to support large aircraft like the A400M, so it's actually going to be quite a flexible fleet.
And why on earth should the UK buy its tankers giving consideration to providing support to the USAF? Uncle Sam's hardly short of refuellers, with a combined 450-odd KC-135s and KC-10s.
How often would there be a need to aerial refuel our C-17s? Also we might need booms to refuel the USAF but the US Navy love being refuelled by our tankers!