U.K. military tanker deal reportedly under threat

[mary_hinge]

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=614182&section=finance


Wed 3 November, 2004 02:09

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain may scrap a planned 13 billion pound military air tanker deal with a consortium led by Airbus parent company EADS, the Financial Times reports.

Citing leaked letters sent by British defence ministry procurement officials, Wednesday's paper said Britain had begun "fall-back studies" to find a possible alternative to the AirTanker consortium.

"A number of the detailed issues that we originally set out last January ... have yet to be satisfactorily resolved," the FT quoted Peter Spencer, Britain's chief military acquisition officer, as saying in a letter to AirTanker chairman Gordon Page.

"I may recommend cancellation of the programme, continuation of negotiations or announcement of AirTanker as PB (preferred bidder), depending on the extent to which we have reached agreement on the outstanding issues."

The leaked letters were dated September 2004. But the FT said the dispute was ongoing, citing unnamed people familiar with the situation.

Britain chose European aerospace company EADS as part of a consortium over a Boeing-led bid in a tentative agreement in January, but working out the details has since proved a challenge.

The deal would outsource Royal Air Force tanking services to the group, which would own and run a fleet of Airbus A330 planes fitted to double as tankers for lease to the RAF.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said the department did not comment on leaked documents, but issued a statement that said talks with AirTanker continued.

"A number of issues need to be resolved before a final decision about the PFI procurement strategy can be taken," the statement said. "We are still in negotiations with AirTanker and this is progressing well."

EADS Chief Executive Philippe Camus told a news conference last month he expected to sign the key military refuelling contract early in 2005.

AirTanker includes EADS, France's Thales, aircraft engine maker Rolls-Royce and British engineering firm Cobham.

[moggiee]

How about a proper remanufacturing job on the VC10? Not just a refurb, but a proper remanufacturing job.

New wiring, new engines etc. etc.

it's still the best tanker in the world, after all, and a set of V2500s or CFM 56s would save 30% on fuel burn.

[BEagle]

If I recall correctly, 2 possible VC10 major modification concepts were looked at when the cost of potential future tankers was being looked at by MoD DFS.

Even then both proposals (do minimum and full-up) would have been vastly far more expensive than either brand-new or refurbished A300, A310, B767 or FLA. In terms of capability, 767-200 with extra tanks looked the best; however, the best all-round compromise for true multi-role tanker transport purposes was - and still is - the A310 MRTT with 3-person flight crew, cargo door, 4 or 5 additional centre tanks, seats for 57 pax in the back plus a combi floor capable of taking pallets or palletised seating for more pax - and perhaps a probe.

Then someone dreamed up the PFI nonsense.... How could it possibly be cheaper to lease aircraft for 25 years than to buy them in the first place? The preferred bidder isn't a charity, after all - it's a business venture and will expect to make money on any deal. It would be very naiive to think otherwise. But of course you can only buy something if you have the dosh in the first place or the banks will lend it to you at a reasonable interest rate.

As far as pure capability is concerned, a KC-767A with 91 tonnes would need more than a 10000ft balanced field. If you launched from a 10000ft balanced field at sea level, ISA and still wind, on a 4 hour sortie landing with the equivalent of 1 hr burn to tanks dry, a VC10K3 could offer about 43 tonnes, a C1K/K4 about 31. With a 30% leaner burn, the figures would improve to 55 tonnes for the K3, 43 for the C1K/K4. Whereas for a 767 it would be 50 tonnes (field limited); for an A310 with 4 ACTs it would be about 46 tonne and for an A310 with 5 ACTs it would be 51 tonne.

And the A330 under similar conditions? 83 tonne. Should you ever need it.

[moggiee]

I know it was just wishfull thinking - just hate the thought of the VC10 retiring!

[moggiee]

mary - I must be having a blunt day today as it has taken me about 6 hours to work out your spoonerific pseudonym!

[D-IFF_ident]

http://www.airtrading.com/jta.htm

Take your pick:

707s, A330s, A310s, L1011s. Buy a dozen - have them mod'ed by BWoS, delivered late and over budget.

Is it me, or is this becoming a bit of a mess? Despite our 'real terms' increase in defence spending, the lean, mean, fighting machine concept, upgrading to new technlogy in many areas, new aircraft - Eurofighter 2000, JSF, A400M, ASTOR, etc, as an expeditionary Air Force, AR should be one of our highest priorites. Studies have been done to prove that we can limp along with the current fleets for about another 15 years, by why save pennies today to spend pounds tomorrow?

We're in danger of being left behind again - relying on outsourced, expensive compromises and a knee-jerk investment in something that will do at the time when we urgently need to deploy and struggle to find AR support in, say, 5 years time.

Edited because the JSF F-35B will have a probe.

[BEagle]

EADS will reportedly be doing a proof of concept boom installation on an A310 next year. Would that suit sir's JSF requirement?

Buy 24 A310-300s and have EFW convert them! Just as they are doing right now with the CF's CC150T Polaris tankers.

But perhaps add a boom, centreline hose, a 5th ACT and the FedEx glass flight deck?

[D-IFF_ident]

Beags.

I'm onboard with the A330 MRTT. If we can get the centreline hose and a boom then we'd have a tanker to take us forward as a credible force extender/multiplier. Any idea how many we'd need to replace current fleets? I guess 1 would cover the North Sea for a day, 3 for trails, 2 for current Ops, 1 in servicing/spare. So, 7 for me - a quote for 7 frames, on the road, taxed and tested?

While we're on the subject, how many have the Royal Ostraylian Air Force bought, when are they delivered, and can I please go and fly them?

[BEagle]

No doubt the OzAF, having sent the delectable 'Hitha' to the Brizzle Waterworks to observe the obfuscation of our civil serpents, decided "Buggah that for a lugh. We'll buy our own". I believe the figure is 4 or 5?

The UK's FSTA isn't/wasn't planned to have a boom. Not unless the preferred bidder wanted it for 3rd party revenue purposes, I understand?

I guess A330 MRTT would be nice - but with such a tiny little Rental Air Force trying to support the adventurism of Trust-me-Tone, the danger is you'd have too few frames and they'd be in the wrong location just when you needed them somewhere else!

[KM-H]

OK, from a position of (relative) ignorance - why do USAF operate with a boom, yet USN/USMC (and UK) use probe and drogue?

Is there some obscure decision in history why this difference grew, and WHY is it still maintained? Surely standardisation to one system or the other would make the tanker fleets common, interoperable and cheaper?

That way F35 would use a common refuel layout and system - although 2 variants out of three can't be bad. :E

[rivetjoint]

OK, from a position of (relative) ignorance - why do USAF operate with a boom, yet USN/USMC (and UK) use probe and drogue?

As a quick answer - the boom method was developed to refuel the heavies of the 1950s SAC era and ever since then the USAF have standardized on that. The Navy have never needed the high flow rates so stuck with the probe. It's easy to make a boom into a drogue but not the other way round.

[Pureteenlard]

Moggiee can you explain what makes the VC 10 the best tanker in the world? I'm not doubting you, I just wonder why its better than, say, a KC-135 or even the old Victor?

[ZH875]

VC10, just look at it. What can be nicer than that?

[moggiee]

From a receivers point of view, the VC10 gives the smoothest ride. Fuel wise - I don't know where it stands relataive to KC135 but it can't be too dissimilar.

[rivetjoint]

The KC-135 family is around 120,000lbs, the KC-10 about double that, according to the first page google bought back in case any lazy terrorists are reading :) NKAWTG!

[D-IFF_ident]

Benefits of probe and drogue:

1. Redundancy - 1 pod fails - there's another one.

2. Refuel points - 2 fast jets full at the same time.

Downside of probe and drogue:

1. Sloooowww refuel rates.

2. Hoses can have a life of their own.

Benefits of Boom:

1. Refuel rate.

2. Manually controlled boom - just fly close formation.

Downside of Boom:

1. Weight - adds weight, drag and extra crew member = money.

2. Only 1 per tanker - currently.