Is the Raf transport fleet over stretched ?

[lukeylad]

Is the Raf transport fleet over stretched ?

i was reading in the mail on sunday that the RAFs transport fleet is approaching breaking point with ops in iraq and afganistan.

can any one shine some light on this?

cheers luke.

[rock_dove]

No offence but this thread has an odour of journo about it!:hmm:

[lukeylad]

No offence but this thread has an odour of journo about it!:hmm:

sorry mate what you mean by that? i just saw something about this in the paper and im purely just asking some information.

[TacEval Inject]

Those in the Ivory towers say 'no'.

No-one asks the guys and gals on the ground.

I wonder why........?

TI

[rock_dove]

like i said, no offence meant if it is a genuine question, it just sounds a bit like a potential Daily Star headline is all. No hard feelings.;)

[SASless]

Could you describe "overstretched"?

Hit the search button and see how many posts have been made over the past six months by the chattering class who would suggest the RAF has had a trainwreck in that regard.

Journo or not....the forum is filled with whinges about it. Beauty of the internet and all that. What you post today can be found years later by anyone that cares to look hard enough. The problem lies in determining the validity of the whinges. This forum certainly is not the place to do that.

If he is a real journo...he will have the answer to his question long before he gets here. If not....he is not much of a journo (thus would fit right in with the vast majority of them!).

[Roland Pulfrew]

But then if it was a serious journo, writing for say Flight or JDW, and who was about to put the boot into New Liarbour about the atrocious state of our AT (and AAR fleets). Would that be so bad?:}

[lukeylad]

Could you describe "overstretched"?

Hit the search button and see how many posts have been made over the past six months by the chattering class who would suggest the RAF has had a trainwreck in that regard.

Journo or not....the forum is filled with whinges about it. Beauty of the internet and all that. What you post today can be found years later by anyone that cares to look hard enough. The problem lies in determining the validity of the whinges. This forum certainly is not the place to do that.

If he is a real journo...he will have the answer to his question long before he gets here. If not....he is not much of a journo (thus would fit right in with the vast majority of them!).

i can tell u now that im not a journolist im just a 19 year old lad who has an interest in our airforce. by over stretched i mean been over used to breaking point.

[rock_dove]

Good point! But do you not see the potential damage that could arise from such news regarding recruiting, morale etc etc :uhoh:

[BEagle]

"Is the RAF Air Transport fleet overstretched?"

Are bears catholic? Does the Pope cr@p in the woods?

[Confucius]

Having been part of RAF AT (at Lyneham), for 10+ years until moving on quite recently, I would state, hand on heart, that YES, I truly believe that it is at overstretch. Currency for various disciplines (known as BTRs/BCRs depending on what day of the week it is) has only been maintained by moving the goalposts, not by any increase in airframe availability. The next thing to suffer after currency has been basic OCU training, with courses overrunning by weeks, if not months. Whilst legally qualified, I doubt whether any students to go through the course of late could honestly say that continuity and the standard of training - through no fault of the instructors - hadn't suffered to a great extent. Morale has been low amongst many - not just in AT - for years, due to lack of variety and constant budget cuts, and of small benefits of being in the services gradually removed. I fear the recent loss of a Herc in Afghanistan will not be the last, I hope the next crew are as fortunate. It must be nigh on impossible to fulfill future commitments with the remaining frames. Training, and thus a base level of skill and experience can do nothing but suffer.

[ZH875]

Is the Raf transport fleet over stretched ?
Well I would guess that about half the Herc fleet is stretched by the addition of a 10 foot plug and a 5 foot plug, so compared to the normal length Herc, a 15 foot stretch isn't that much of an overstretch.

[edited due to getting my figures muxed ip, shud have dun betterer at skool]
K still stinks of p1$$ though!

[Confucius]

You should try cabaret.

[Now a 'J' Bloke!!]

Well I would guess that about half the Herc fleet is stretched by the addition of a 10 foot plug and a 15 foot plug, so compared to the normal length Herc, a 25 foot stretch isn't that much of an overstretch.

Dear ZH875;

Wow...Really long Hercs at Lye then????:D

Bet yours is at least 6"....:ok:

Best check your measuring tape!!!

Regards;
'J' Bloke!!:cool:

[ratty1]

Good job ZH875 doesn't get flying pay!!!!!!!!!

[ZH875]

Thanks to JPA, I dont get much of any pay, just a couple of hundred down this month.:\

[RileyDove]

Lukeylad- The RAF has been at stretch point for a number of years. In reality the RAF should have been buying off the shelf Airbus freighters from the former Filton line years ago to help supplement the Hercules fleet flying to benign destinations. Interestingly the U.S are now seriously looking at smaller tactical transporters for use in the various hot spots. Essentially the pinciple is of faster and smaller reinforcement ala the use of the Caribou and C-123 in Vietnam.
Sadly the RAF hasn't got anything which could fit this slot - the Andover which was long before your time would have been a useful asset if they could have prolonged it's life with various airframe ,engine and cockpit upgrades.

[ratty1]

Lukylad look here for a report on overstretch............

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/28/nirq28.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/28/ixuknews.html

[buoy15]

Could be a journo and could be 19 yrs old
His grammar is atroshush!
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe:hmm:

[jayteeto]

Sometimes being a journo is bad, sometimes being on the front page of the Daily Star works wonders...........:ok:

[adrian mole]

ZH - To get it right the Stretched MK3 consists of a 100" plug aft of the flight deck and a 80" plug aft of the Para Doors.
Lukey - I too saw the original press report which actually said some units in Iraq may have to wait an extra month for roulement due to lack of correctly equipped RAF AT to extract them.... IRCM etc
Riley - When I was a young man in the mob we had an AT Fleet in excess of 280+ frames in strength - Beverley, Hastings, Hercules, Comets. Argosy's. Andovers, Britannias, VC10s, Twin Pioneers and even 3 Dakotas still flying in Aden! Amazingly it was the predecessors of this Labour (Let's start a war mob) who chopped a lot of types in cost cutting exercises - Brittania, Belfast, Argosy etc. I'm sure if we had the will (the cash is there) we could buy some surplus SD330, Skyvan etc from someone?

[lukeylad]

hey guys i think im just gonna let this one die now could a mod please lock this thread as i think its done more harm that good.

[fightingchickenplumb]

hey guys i think im just gonna let this one die now could a mod please lock this thread as i think its done more harm that good.

just curious why you want to let this thread die mate? not talking about the overstretch in the raf wont make it go away buddy.

[lukeylad]

just curious why you want to let this thread die mate? not talking about the overstretch in the raf wont make it go away buddy.

Because mate i dont want to be accused of been a journolist and i feel that its going to annoy some of the military members. I only posted this as a innocent inquriy but i now feel that i shouldn't have posted it.

[glum]

Don't worry about it Lukey, Some people on here are always wary of Journalists who do have a tendancy to twist things. Others just like to bait and 'banter' for nothing more than self amusement.

All part of the military mindset!;)

[The Gorilla]

And like any other organisation, this forum has more than a few grumpy old men knocking about:) !

[MarkD]

I asked this one before but nobody replied - could the AT fleet not stage out of LCA or somewhere else to do the extraction from BSR and contract civvy aircraft to lift from LCA-UK? That would solve the problem of operating civair into BSR but reduce sector lengths for the RAF a/c.

[ZH875]

- could the AT fleet not stage out of LCA What, and have service people staying in hotels, when there are nice tents in Basra. What will President Bliar think of that, what a waste of taxpayers money that could be spent on his next war!

[Tonkenna]

but reduce sector lengths for the RAF a/c

And also stop the sending of personell through Basrah who do not need to go there... the old "duty of care" thing!!!:hmm:

[ORAC]

So let me get this right. We spend a fortune on various types of ship to give us an expeditionary capability. Half the arguments on here are about how the RN is much better for such things because, while it moves a little slower, it can carry a lot more. But when theres a problem moving the army - its all the RAFs fault...

Tell them to hire a bl**dy boat, its how we moved the army around the empire until the 60s - and stick it on the army's bill. :hmm:

[dallas]

could the AT fleet not stage out of LCA or somewhere else to do the extraction from BSR and contract civvy aircraft to lift from LCA-UK? That would solve the problem of operating civair into BSR but reduce sector lengths for the RAF a/c.

That's actually a very reasonable idea. Currently we run to both sandpits on an alleged schedule that very rarely runs on time. Doing more regular runs from somewhere a bit closer would reduce the knock-on of the multiple occasions we fail to get anywhere!

The Army are, quite rightly, disgusted with the 'service' we provide.

[dionysius]

Or use chartered civil freighters (DC8-62F) to do the scheduled freight runs to BSR (which was done very sucessfully in the not too distant past), thereby freeing up AT aircraft for pax flights.
:ok:

[glum]

Or just buy some more bloody AT aircraft so the RAF can do the job we're here for!

We shouldn't have to come up with all kinds of solutions to the problem to get round the fact we can't do our tasks properly.

"Hire civvy jets"
"Fly shorter sectors"
"Use a boat"

WRONG!! Expand our transport fleet and we'll do the job!

[ORAC]

WRONG!! Expand our transport fleet and we'll do the job!

No, for requirements you state the problem in a solution free form - and see who comes up with the best answer....

[glum]

Best meaning cheapest?

Best to me means providing the Force with the kit to do their job. Including considerations as to fit for purpose and able to defend themselves / avoid trouble. Which may not be the cheapest...

Much like providing the civil servants with fully adjustable chairs at £1000 each - bound to have upped their output eh?;)

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Putting to one side the issue of whether this question should be answered in open forum, we first need a definition of what's meant by "overstretch" of the RAF transport fleet.
My definition of normal day to day ops would be that they are pitched at a level where the op tempo can be sustained indefinitely - say at n sorties*/day per airframe.
The next level up might be a "Surge" flying rate where 1.5n sorties/day could be flown for a given period of time (say 30 days)
Finally, there could be a wartime flying rate of 2n sorties/day sustainable for 7 days.
(all figures made up)
I would have expected that the relevant Flying Order Books/GASOs would contain definitions of flying rates. Flying at a surge rate may be a 'stretch' - but it shouldn't be overstretch (unless you're doing it wrong). The 'sustain' element of the op tempo should take into account all the airframe, human & engineering factors. For example, the aircrew should be rested prior to the next sortie. Crews on separate floors in hotels. The flypro should take account of sleep patterns. On one memorable det, I had 3 weeks of 2 days, 2 nights and a day off. Either all days or all nights but not that.
If 'stretch' is to be truly sustainable and not overstretch then Detcos, Shift bosses & crew captains need to be honest and flag up when the dotted line is in danger of getting crossed. If they don't, then perhaps they should consider alternative employment.

sv

*Sorties or hours.

[LFFC]

No, for requirements you state the problem in a solution free form - and see who comes up with the best answer....

Apparently "Best" in these days means "value for money". And therein lies the problem! How do you put a monetary value on safety and operational capability?

[ORAC]

Ask the same question about effects based warfare.....

[flipster]

As some Tommy said

'When in a shell-scrape and under fire, remember that the only thing between you and Valhalla is the weapon you hold in your hands .....but also remember that it was produced by the lowest bidder!'

Or something like that - apologies to Tommy:{

[dallas]

We are stretched, but clearly not overstretched - otherwise we wouldn't have AT assets doing flypasts for AOCs, Queen's Birthdays, RIAT etc, not to mention the occasional brass band to ambassador's parties.

We can still do most things with occasional flex to do less-important tasks but sometimes its a case of choose between op tasks when several ageing aircraft break at once. New kit would vastly improve reliability and efficiency, but I personally hope that wouldn't also bring with it more 'brass band-level' tasks. Unfortunately, I can't help but think it might.

[NURSE]

I think given the current climate the Tanker/Transport PFI should be binned for a straight outright buy. The C17 Fleet should be bought outright and further Airframes added like another 4. Part of the funding for this should be made by sacking(with total loss of pension) the civil servants and service seniors who have let this situation develop.

[MarkD]

glum

the problem is even if Bliar woke up this morning and went shopping for military AT it's not on the shelf and the capability seems to be needed right now. Thus the need to make best use of available capacity in a way that reflects the threat level in Southern Iraq and flying hours for crew and airframes. Maybe someone could ask Airbus to do some A380 "test flights" to Cyprus :) :) :)

(edited to note: Nurse - C-17 line is headed for the end of the line with Aus and possible CanForces orders merely delaying the inevitable. If RAF want more they need to start finding some cash)

[nigegilb]

Completely agree with nurse about doubling C17 Fleet. What an ac one just broke into the circuit at Lyneham, whoever was poling it nice one! The original plan at Lyneham was to "smarten up" several more MK3s, I really think it would help to reconsider that option.

[LFFC]

We should thank our lucky stars they we got the C17 and not the AN124 that some were pushing for!!

[glum]

That's the trouble isn't it Mark D?

We all saw this coming and knew it takes time to modify and shakedown an aircraft, but the powers with the purse didn't spend until it was too late.

With only one contractor on task to repair and modify our Hercs, it's gonna take a long time to get the fleet up to scratch. Any other options?

[old developer]

Bliar could always take his supermarket trolley here
http://www.thepepper.com/tucson_airplane_graveyard.html
....I am sure his best friend would help

[TURNBULL]

Overstretch, clearly not: http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/c130jdisplay/index.html

[ThomasT]

If your mad neocon masters are going to get into illegal, criminal wars, and as you are employed to do their dirty work, expect to get well 'stretched'. And stay on the planes with windows closed when you do the turnaround, or the DU dropped by your own kind will also delete you.

[DK338]

We should thank our lucky stars they we got the C17 and not the AN124 that some were pushing for!!

And the problem with the AN124-210 was? :ugh: Personally I can't see a problem with an aircraft with a 120 tonne payload powered by RR RB211-524, Glass cockpit, cargo bay volume of 1160m3 compared to the C17 580m3 yadda, yadda, yadda.:ok:

[LFFC]

And the problem with the AN124-210 was? :ugh: Personally I can't see a problem with an aircraft with a 120 tonne payload powered by RR RB211-524, Glass cockpit, cargo bay volume of 1160m3 compared to the C17 580m3 yadda, yadda, yadda.:ok:
Sigh! You've really missed the point haven't you.

Yes - the 524 sounds great on paper - for civilian operations!

[DK338]

Yes - the 524 sounds great on paper - for civilian operations!

Really? I was under the misguided idea that the 124 was originally designed to a mil spec:ugh:

[Navaleye]

Really? I was under the misguided idea that the 124 was originally designed to a mil spec

Yes it was, the idea was to get T72s and BMPs into theatre as quickly as possible.

[LFFC]

Really? I was under the misguided idea that the 124 was originally designed to a mil spec:ugh:
....and would that spec have given us the freedom of operations that we enjoy with the C17? l think not somehow!

[DK338]

and would that spec have given us the freedom of operations that we enjoy with the C17? l think not somehow!

I disagree! The 124 has greater capability, how many AH64 or MBTs can a
C17 hoik around in one hit? No where near the 124's 7 AH or 2 MBT I'll wager.

And if it was that unsuitable for military ops, why is it the 124 is under contract to SALIS?:ok:

[Confucius]

I wonder how much service back-up we could rely upon buying an aircraft from our enemy - yes, the majority of espionage in the UK is carried out by those pesky Ruskies. Always was, and always was be.

[DK338]

I wonder how much service back-up we could rely upon buying an aircraft from our enemy - yes, the majority of espionage in the UK is carried out by those pesky Ruskies. Always was, and always was be.

Spot on! This had nothing to do with the capabilities, or perceived lack of, in the AN124 but a baulking at the prospect of operating a machine designed and manufactured by a former soviet state. Far better instead to pay over the odds for a less capable machine from a long standing ally. :yuk: FYI Antonov are Ukranian not Russian and their relationship with their former masters ain't all that rosy particularly as they have aspirations of joining the EU.

[Confucius]

The Ruskie comment was what 'we' call a "figure of speech". The decision not to go for '124s pre-dates the Orange revolution by some time, Viktor Yanukovich was very much a pro-Russian bloke. I also doubt, though I cannot say for sure, whether every piece of kit on the '124 is produced in house. Furthermore the current (Ukranian) administration, or rather system of government, isn't exactly 100% stable to say the least. It also relies very heavily on imported (Russian) energy. They lean to the West, but are still, to some extent, held on a leash to Russia.

[LFFC]

I disagree! The 124 has greater capability, how many AH64 or MBTs can a
C17 hoik around in one hit? No where near the 124's 7 AH or 2 MBT I'll wager.
And if it was that unsuitable for military ops, why is it the 124 is under contract to SALIS?:ok:

SALIS is exactly what it's called on the packet - "Interim". If current reports are correct, it looks like the Canadians are about to made a sensible choice (IMHO) that balances freight capacity with a host of other military capabilities that the 124 doesn't offer.

[vecvechookattack]

I enjoyed the spoof website about the C130 display team. The people who thought that one up have a great sense of humour....very funny. BZ



Hang on, Hang on. I've found a better on

http://www.teammerlin.airshows.co.uk/homepage.htm

Check out the pilots....One of the co-pilots must also be in the Special Forces

[giblets]

We should thank our lucky stars they we got the C17 and not the AN124 that some were pushing for!!

well, $160million for a C-17 or $25 million for the An124, with the upgrade to lifespan of the latest version (from 7,500hrs to 24,000hrs! (the c-5 is 30000)) not too bad a deal, even with the increased lifecycle costs.

The updated version also have increased payload to 150t, as well as increased range (with 120t from 4750km to 6500km), crew was also reduced from 6 to 4, and the electrics replaced amongst other things.

[Gainesy]

An-124 production line is at the Aviastar plant at Ulyanovsk, Russia.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Forgive me for venturing above the parapet BUT could not the Air Ministry purchase a small fleet of B737's in the same spec as Jet2 now operate, i.e. 150 seats by day - (90 mins after sundown) an empty freighter. A 737-300 would cost about £7 million, can be flown by serving pilots after a 6 week course, can be serviced by dozens of contracting engineering outfits within spitting distance of Wiltshire, are quite happy operating on Wiltshire runway lengths and quite like operating sectors typical of the RAF AT propeller fleet.

All the fancy stuff must of course remain the preserve of military airframes. Nevertheless a lot of the safe, mundane flying could be done flexibly, safely and more quickly and cheaply by a small fleet of flexi fit 737's. And you'd all get a very useful rating gratis. The slightly uneconomic fuel burn of the 300 would be of no consequence to an airline still operating VC10's.

Just an idle thought,

WWW

[Confucius]

And you'd all get a very useful rating gratis.

Which, WWW, is probably why it will never happen.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

What? The handy commercial rating OR the value of the asset?

WWW

[microlight AV8R]

That sounds far too much like common sense to me. Anyway, we used to have just that sort of fleet.

Circa 1974:
Retirement of Britannia, Comet, Andover, Argosy & Belfast = BIG mistake.

But of course we were only ever going to be deployed in europe :cool:

[MarkD]

WWW - Airbus offered their 319CJ to Ireland as a combi IIRC - ministerial getaround and cargo transport

The AN-124 does have significant differences in runway requirement and has been pointed out SALIS are available and contracted via NATO.

[Occasional Aviator]

The Air Ministry? Didn't they disband that in 1968?

[buoy15]

Most of our C130's are overstretched by by 6ft - if you apply the same formula to a boat in water - the more in, the faster it goes - then they are very economical - unless the crews are staying in 5* hotels