How big is an EU Hose?

[Data-Lynx]

Ten EU Governments launch New EDA Initiative to fill Air-To-Air Refuelling Gap (http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/declarations/86579.pdf)
From the Albert Formation thread, has anyone seen the European Defence Agency Press Statement yesterday?
European Defence Ministers, meeting informally today at RAF Lyneham (U.K.), were given a demonstration of air-tanking capability and launched a new effort to fill the gap in tanking capability which constrains Europe’s Rapid Reaction aspirations.
There are currently European based initiatives in the UK, Germany and Italy. Germany is taking delivery of 4 converted A-310 aircraft and Italy is acquiring 4 new KC 767 to replace their ageing B707TTs. In both initiatives the aircraft will be configured to be Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) capable. The UK is currently in contractual negotiations to provide a replacement to their VC-10 and Tristar aircraft through a Public Finance Initiative (PFI) solution.
PPRuNers have been eloquent on the requirement so any unclassified comments on a what and when?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Mike

And it was a very funny sketch!!

This has been going on for several years now. NATO had the Prague Capability Conference which expressed a desire for NATO to have a large tanker force, and the EU went down the road of Helsinki Capability Conference which also suggested that the NATO RRC should have a large tanker force. Whilst all (particularly the smaller) nations needed tankers and wanted a nice sized fleet NONE of them had any money to buy said tanker fleet.

Many expressed a view that the big 3 should fund the tanker fleet and lease time on "Os" to the smaller nations, however the French wanted Airbooos, Italy wanted Boeing, the Germans were well down the road of A310 conversions and the UK was (allegedly) close to PFI-ing FSTA - so where was the money coming from? It is (as with most EU initiatives) a lovely idea, right up until it comes to national interests and paying for it. As an example if the UK wanted to use the EU tanker force to support Gulf War II (and lets face it the RAF would be one of the bigger users) would the French have been able to veto its use?

[BEagle]

Suit you, Sir!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/MRTT.jpg

Airbus A310 MRTT - for world-wide mission support!

Vorsprung durch Technik!


Any further progress with FSTA? How we all larffed when we heard the civil serpent say "This programme will NOT be delayed!"... Then it was delayed a year, then another....and yet another...

[Onan the Clumsy]

So the rumor I heard is true. The Luftwaffe is taking over minesweeping duties from the Kriegsmarine.


Of course the Russians did it first, but theirs were all set up as trawlers.

[BEagle]

Err, actually it's known as the Bundesmarine these days!

[Data-Lynx]

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/fsta.htm) MOD FSTA Objectives: Provide primary air-to-air refuelling with some secondary air transport (freight and passenger) capability to meet the operational need; involve sufficient risk transfer to ensure value for money compared to the best publicly funded option and be attractive to potential suppliers, financiers and insurers.
EDA Intent: This considers the provision of a ‘capability service’ - airborne refuelling stations supplied by a commercial consortium - rather than a classical procurement of aircraft. But it will also review other acquisition options, such as joint procurement, and look at such approaches as pooling of assets.Interesting pictures but its the last bits of the two extracts above that intrigue me: MOD stipulate that this solution has to be attractive to suppliers/financiers and EDA may want to pool assets. I just wonder what AirTanker Ltd's proposal of an Airbus A330-200 will actually look like? Indeed, will the sponsor include its logo on the paintwork? ESSO??

[Roland Pulfrew]

Data Lynx

If you want to see what a proper KC330 would look like try this....

http://www.kc330.com/index.jsp

And on the sponsorship issue surely it would bee.......

BP ;)

[Trumpet_trousers]

I hear the Spaniards are showing interest in a 2-point tanker;

They want to call one of the hoses 'Jose,'










..and the other 'Hose B'


...(I'll get my own coat, thanks..)

[Data-Lynx]

Many thanks Roland. A link to a big aircraft low-level over water with a hook down - lovely; where did I put my glasses? Meanwhile, web links seem to come down to a 27-year MoD contract to provide AAR/AT where AirTanker Ltd (Rolls Royce, EADS, Cobham and Thales) is the preferred bidder who will own and support the A330-200 Multi-Role Tanker Transport. The RAF retains OpCon and the package should be ready to start in 2008. With 460 A330s ordered by 60 airlines, the basic bird has a positive track record with solid economy figures. Our variant will have RR Trents, all will have two wing fuelling stations while some will also have the centreline station; all tanks are independant of the main body. Its wide body allows for 295 seats and some cracking options for pallets/containers etc. Meanwhile, a new Airbus Engineering Centre starts operations in Mobile, Alabama, from early next year to field the KC330 for the US. So we are preparing to procure a proven aircraft that works world-wide and one that is to be a main runner for the US and even the RAAF.

There has to be a snag. I presume it is cost - speculation around £13Bn, the contract or both. There must be doubt as certain companies are circling this potential carcase with bids to convert some of the large number of surplus retired civil airliners: Marshall's with Tristars and Omega Air with DC-10s. There is comment about a DPA ultimatum to EADS for a price reduction but you might expect that something like that would have a deadline. So where on earth do we go from here? I did not find a link to the associated DAS suite but, of course, that's classified.

US Operational Assessment Update (http://www.kc330.com/echo/filedownload.jsp?action=dFile&key=20)
As a footnote: The link is to the latest US Operational Assessment of their Advanced Tanker Program (Exec Summary starts at page 11). I'm not sure that the DEC or IPT here would be able to expose a UK version to such scrutiny.

[Hueymeister]

Beags..it's 'Die Bundeswehr' of which 'Die Marine' ist ein Teil der deutschen Teilstreitkraeften (armed forces)

When will we get some form of home grown AAR?

[moggiee]

Maybe the MoD could help in the short term by buying some spares for the Tristar?

[MarkD]

Data-Lynx

the way that report is linked implies it is a USAF report when in fact it is a study commissioned from a consultancy by EADS.

I note especially how it dismisses the KC-10 option when it had been recommended by the Defense Science Council: (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/aerial.pdf)

The task force recommends serious consideration be given to:
* Purchasing and converting used aircraft for aerial refueling. The task force focused on one option: converting some number of available DC-10-30s to KC-10s. A recent conversion of two DC-10s to KDC-10s for the Netherlands was completed at a cost of $45 million per aircraft. Future recapitalization could also involve the conversion of other types of used aircraft as they become available on the market.

Since Boeing now own the 10 no doubt they weren't keen.

Take Northwest's 20 -10s alone and you replace the 135Es in capability (2.3 Es = 1 -10) according to the EADS funded study, and the existing -10s are predicted in service until 2043.

[Data-Lynx]

MarkD
An interesting link that seemed to offer chunks of common sense and pragmatism; must need stronger glasses. Bar chat and cockpit conversations suggest that the Tri* is a complex beast with a stack of contingency options, but no one voted for a DC-10 alternative so I wonder at the Omega Air proposal. I'm just asking the same question as many others in mutual threads: where is UK AAR/AT going?

[Art Field]

And you are all going to get the same answer, nowhere, very slowly. Having been part of the other, rejected bid, I find myself feeling almost sympathetic towards Air Tanker who must be spending a fortune retaining staff for a contract that is still in doubt but was first called for in 2001.

[Data-Lynx]

Art Field
This is depressing. UK plc has married an urgent strategic requirement with agreed longer term procurement into a preferred bidder; so that's good isn't it? MoD is committed and is funding NITEworks to run a Theme on Medium Weight Capability (MWCap) (http://www.niteworks.net/niteworks/themes.asp) that will examine the optimum C4I/ISTAR support/reach-back strategy to allow a Medium Weight Battlegroup to operate effectively in 2007/2010 scenarios demanding rapid effect. The link helps to decode this a bit, but note the 'rapid deployment'. Meanwhile, there is a commercial bid team, a new Chief Executive, a website (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/) and even one tangible solution (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/files/tanker_cutout.pdf) that can be used now; it does have supporting documentation but it also needs Govt Furnished Equipment (GFE) to include some infrastructure (OK - thin (240g/m2) card).

Hey IPT, there must be enough money being spent at the moment to warrant some kind of statement? Otherwise we continue to speculate.

[Art Field]

Data-Lynx.

Thanks for the references, it is comforting to know that, like the East Anglian Constabulary, cardboard cut-outs are at the ready to deter those that wish us ill.

How those in power can possible expect reliable UK Tanker/Transport to be available to support the Rapid Reaction Force in the quoted time scale I just can not imagine. The current fleet is obviously struggling to meet their tasking and there would appear to be little chance of that task reducing for some time to come.

[MarkD]

There is another option:

Lease an Aussie KC330
Realise leasing's a bad idea when you have a boatload of need
Buy some KC330s outright
Move on to the next procurement crisis

Delete Aussie and KC330 and insert C-17 and RAF have been there before...

[Data-Lynx]

MarkD. Is there a further option? If the Volga Dnepr Airlines Commercial Manager, in a Belgian Hotel last July, can 'present the capabilities of AN-124-100 Ruslan aircraft and Antonov Airlines when performing strategic air transportations according to the European programmes SALIS (Strategic Airlift Interim Solution) and ECAP (European Capability Airlift Programme), to the interested structures of NATO and EU', maybe there is a similar option for AAR as well.

The C-in-C outlined future challenges for the RAF (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/news_0510_05.html) this week: 'Changing organisations, structures, cultures and equipment takes a long time for air forces, it's an ongoing process.' He added: 'Technology has allowed us to adopt an effects-based approach. We need an agile and adaptable air force; agile because you never know what you're going to be doing and adaptable because we could find ourselves doing things we so far haven't even thought of.' Another and probably churlish view might be: How about doing better the things we have thought of?

Separately, can anyone disentangle the following: 'The FSTA contract (http://www.armedforces.co.uk/projects/raq3f57577b331c4) will include a specially developed payment mechanism based on availability and usage charges and a service credit regime to incentivise performance. The contract will include fixed prices for the services to be provided with an appropriate variation of price condition. Prices will be linked to output based indices and will include a substantial firm element. Opportunities for gainsharing will also be sought.'
Ye Gods, I almost felt sympathy for the Shabby Wood mob.

[MarkD]

Data-Lynx

Funny you should mention AN124. The number of times it has been visiting Canada lately for DART/relief work the CF should probably put one or two on the shopping list. At Liberal procurement speed we should have some in ten years.

[Data-Lynx]

In an article on Tanker Aircraft and European Defence (http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/2001/010202.html), ex AM and current Lords Defence politico Tim Garden wrote about FSTA in 2001: 'The contract will be lucrative with perhaps more than £2bn up front and £9bn through the life of the force. The RAF seem content that this will provide them an essential capability enhancement at an affordable price.'

At an estimated £13bn now, is this something of a price hike in four years or a more practical assessment of real costs? It is certainly true that silence from procurement feeds rumour elsewhere such as MRA4 Shelved? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=195022).