Pentagon delays RAF PFI Tanker deal

[Lazer-Hound]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2769-2157741,00.html

I imagine they're concerned about JTIDS/Link 16 on 'commercial' aircraft.

[LFFC]

Or maybe they just don't want competition for their treasured Boeing tanker?

[BEagle]

Another fall-out from the absurd idea of PFI for core military assets!

Meanwhile, the first 'green' A330-200 which will be converted to MRTT standard for the OzAF arrives at the EADS site in about a month's time...

It seems that, as I thought, just about the first thing the Australian observer involved with the Civil Serpents at the Brizzle Waterworld said upon arriving back in the land of 'prawns on the barbi' ' was "PFI - don't even think of it. It's a crock".

:rolleyes:

[SirToppamHat]

BEagle

Agreed. Furthermore:

Air Tanker will lease the aircraft to commercial airlines when they are not required by the RAF.


I know we've been here before, but this will be when exactly?

PFI = :mad:

STH

[Logistics Loader]

Is this not a similar vane to the 707/E3D Sentry saga circa 1990 ??????????

You can have the frame if you buy all your spares from us etc etc....!!!

IIRC on an E3D that diverted, the local Brit Embassy safe was bustinf at the seams with 36 boxes of mission tapes !!!

Had we "bought" the right kit in the first place, the 36 boxes woulde have been about 4 or 5....!!! our kit was of the 8mm cine reel type whereas the update was on cd-rom or the like ...!!!!!

Also, the spares line was tightly closed too....
Get a PCB failure, easy check is grab a spare from the shelf, to check the circuitry....Wrong...!!!

Once the spare was removed from packaging then it was deemed to have been "used" ............

My personal view is yet again someone somewhere is feathering a nest for retirement...!!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

We bought the spares pack for the Sentry 'sight unseen' rather than spend precious time doing the full Swanton Morley investigation. The arguement was two fold. We had lost so much time with the Nimawac and Boeing, with its years of experience, would know just what we need.

"Here is my cheque book, just send us everything and fill in the numbers."

There was one good thing though, we got colour monitors when the USAF had to persevere with green for some time. Mind you that was probably because Boeing had flogged them a shed load of green monitors.

[Logistics Loader]

Pontius,

Seems an age old trait of the MOD, buy a good bit of kit and bodgerise (expletive should be here) it to look like it is the dogs danglyers....!!!!

just my view/opinion based on my knowledge...!!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Boeing also played a flanker with the software. They rewrote the code for the British keyboard and then offered to explore the possibility of writing a conversion program. The examination would cost then of course the program would cost too.

RAF Techs sussed that the problem was # £ and wrote a simple conversion to change US/NATO code with # to Brit code £. P*ss*d Boing off.

[Logistics Loader]

Well never let it be said...

We gave em a perfectly good language and they screwed it up...!!!!


Per Ardua reigns again...!!!!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Meanwhile:

USAF Request For Information - KC-X (http://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/ASC/KC%2D135%2DRTA%2DKC%2DX%2DRFI/SynopsisP.html)

[LFFC]

A bit old, but this gives a pretty good summary:

Dueling for the Pentagon Deal (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,362946,00.html)

This is quite an interesting quote:

To increase its chances of regaining the tanker contract in the wake of the scandal, Boeing is increasingly betting on the support of the "buy American" contingent, which sees awarding defense contracts to foreigners as almost a threat to national security.
So I guess they might do almost anything to delay the competition.

[Roland Pulfrew]

A bit old, but this gives a pretty good summary:
Dueling for the Pentagon Deal (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,362946,00.html)
This is quite an interesting quote:
So I guess they might do almost anything to delay the competition.

LFFC

Unless I have misunderstood your post (in which case my apologies but it is Bank Holiday Monday and I have had a few beers), Boeing can only delay the UK competition with this export licences issue, the RAAF will be getting their new generation tankers in less than 2 years time. So the Airbus product will fly as a tanker soon - but then of course the RAAF have been sensible and are buying their tankers, so no problems with export licences.

The RAF, on the other hand, are still persevering with a PFI that many have stated "WILL NOT WORK", but the IPTL and the DEC have not gone back to the IAB and said so. It is time that the PFI was ditched and we went down the traditional procurement route!! Anyone have any knowledge on the rumour that we can only afford 12 now? And this despite the fact that our tanker/transport assets are some of the most heavily tasked aircraft in the RAF at the moment? But then of course we can always charter AT can't we???:*

[FormerFlake]

Air Tanker will lease the aircraft to commercial airlines when they are not required by the RAF

I can not see many times that aircraft will be spare based on the current tasking, and forecast (especially if Tony is still in no 10). We are only getting 11, or something like that?

[Squirrel 41]

Ok, a stupid question from "confused in the corner".

Other than the (perfectly reasonable) concerns of the US governement in letting L16/JTIDS boxes go off on a holiday jet - further delaying this already very late project.

Who is taking the (financial and operational) risk of the jets being servicable - but not ETOPS ready - becuase the (separate?) ETOPS paperwork may not be in order due to operational requirements, e.g during a taceval / maxeval / operations? :rolleyes:

I presume that the IPT has already factored in these requirements in the additional manpower required for two sets of engineering paperwork and retification, and that they will be prepared to provide guarantees that the jets will be be fully ETOPS ticked-up everytime the contractor wants to fly the bucket and spade brigade off somewhere? :*

I'm not per se against some form of private involvement - but it has to be value for money. for example, there may be a case for power-by-the-hour support for engines.

But all of this seems to overlook that the tankers aremission critical assets (asuming that we want to hit anything much beyond mortar range of the airfield.... :yuk: ) and this criticality should be recognised and afforded the appropriate investment.

Rant over!

S41

[LFFC]

RP

I must admit that I don't know much about the RAAF tankers, but will they come with the same military kit installed that the RAF is asking for?

I have to agree with you about conventional procurement rather than PFI, but where would all the extra money for a conventional procurement come from? :ouch: I can't see nice Mr Brown diverting it from Health, Education or any other budget!

[BEagle]

PFI = 'The Poms are Flamin' Idiots'

I'm sure the Australian observer who worked with the civil serpents at the Brizzle Waterworld went away with the feeling that "The Poms know as much about aircraft procurement as they do about cricket team procurement!".

Yes, the RAAF aircraft will have certain items, such as Link16, as are proposed for the Fictitious Strategic Tanker Aircraft.

[MarkD]

We've had the Chinook hitting back thread, the Herc foam thread, do we have to have a tanker thread before Bliar wakes the f**k up? I think the Pentagon may actually have a point here - although it's surprising it too this long to come up.
On the upside, this is taking so long A350K will be available by the time the Treasury finally gives in - see your 332 and raise you a 358 for even more go-further/fuller performance! You'd think MoD could find a way of justifying purchase now since they have "saved" money by flogging the VC10/Tristar fleet even longer (and let's not forget the DC10s (http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news/view_article.asp?article_id=10369) :D ).
If Bliar had just ordered the 330Ks (or relieved bmi of their Trent powered 332s) he could be flying around in one of those rather than handing substantial sums to BA for their 777s every now and then. They might also be doing staging runs into Larnaca or Incirlik to reduce loaded flying time for the transport fleet if they didn't want to take the buses into Basra or Bagram and risk what happened to that A300 in Baghdad.
Maybe one of the Windsors could be arranged to have a trip in one of the current stalwart tankers, so his gran would advise and warn the PM to sort out some new kit sharpish?

[Lost Again..]

Yes, the RAAF aircraft will have certain items, such as Link16, as are proposed for the Fictitious Strategic Tanker Aircraft.
Will also come fitted with DAS (EWSP), press release from last year:
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=74335

[Art Field]

Just This Once did not mention a date in his comment but to give some idea of the timescale involved, the Invitation to Tender for FSTA, dated 20 Dec 2000, quoted an "in service" date for the first aircraft of Jan 2007. Reckon that might be a problem.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I note from the MOD and AirTanker websites http://www.airtanker.co.uk/ that the FSTA PFI is designed to provide a 27 year contract. It may be a silly question but wasn't that designed around 3 years negotiations and contract award, 4 years of transition from VC10/Tristar to FSTA and 20 years of full service delivery? If transition is/was due to start next year does anyone know what the plan is now?