FSTA-When?

[Art Field]

Exactly 6 years ago today, MOD issued an 'Invitation to Negotiate' to Industry. The deal was to provide Tanker/Transport aircraft to replace the VC10 and the Tristar in those roles with a Private Finance Initiative service. The timescale was for the first aircraft to be in service in 2007 and the full fleet completed by 2009. The proposal was titled "Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft" (FSTA).
A fair drop of water has passed under the bridge since then but with 2007 just about to start and with the VC10 and Tristar fleets working considerably harder than anticipated by that timescale, the need for replacement is critical. Although it is nearly 2 years since the Air Tanker Consortium was awarded preferred bidder status and in spite of vague hints that the contract is about to be given the go-ahead, the hard pressed ground and aircrew of the current fleet have no solid prospect of relief even by 2010. Surely the FSTA decision can not be delayed any longer. Maybe tomorrow, better today.

[BEagle]

Who knows, Arters. Eevn AirTanker's own website shows 'contract signature' in 2007 now - and first tanker deliveries after 2010!

Meanwhile, work on the Aussie jet (which is to be owned and operated by the RAAF - no 'crock of $hit PFI' as they described it to me) continues well at Getafe. I saw it earlier in the year being busily worked on - and very nice it looks too! To have a boom and 2 pods.

I look back with interest at the statements made at the 1996 AT/AAR conference at Brize - and remember the civil serpent in charge of FSTA saying a few years later "This programme will NOT slip......"

Of course not. Never. No way. Couldn't happen, could it??

The fast jet-centric Air Staff will probably find this biting their bums before long - as you say, the dear old Vickers FunBus and the TriShaw are being worked very hard - and aren't getting any younger either!

[FFP]

I saw it earlier in the year being busily worked on - and very nice it looks too! To have a boom and 2 pods.

When will the Aussie's get this ? Next year ?

[Roland Pulfrew]

I heard a rumour that FSTA had gone to the IAB well over a week ago. Still no announcement?!?! Doesn't look good does it!!!:ugh:

[Ken Scott]

Heard a rumour (can't remember where, but this IS a rumour network) that FSTA was going to be cancelled, as the cost per aircraft was in excess of £1 billion.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Heard a rumour (can't remember where, but this IS a rumour network) that FSTA was going to be cancelled

I'd heard the same rumour, albeit the reason was put down to irreconcilable legal wranglings between the contract team and the bidders.....

[Dr Schlong]

Well that's two rumours - so it's official, FSTA is now cancelled.
You heard it here first! :cool:

[Top West 50]

:) :) Does anyone know whether it is possible to buy shares in Omega Air?

[LFFC]

Maybe the MOD needs the money for this instead:

The Times - 22 Dec 06 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2515476,00.html)

MOD Oracle - Fri 22 Dec 06 (http://www.modoracle.com/news/detail.h2f?id=12291&refresh=C56D2018-03FD-4FE1-9D1BA26485ABF34C)

An increase in the size of the Army may be necessary to cope with Britain's long-running overseas military commitments, Defence Secretary Des Browne has acknowledged.

But then again, how will the Army plan to get their extra troops overseas?

[FFP]

The same way they do the MPA change over, the EID changeover, and the rescue of guys in Bangor to get them to Belieze (sp?)

Charter it out.

[LFFC]

As the MOD have found out to their cost over the last few months and years - there are some tasks on which you just can't use charter aircraft!!!

[Lazer-Hound]

If FSTA is cancelled, what then? Would it be a good idea to jump aboard KC-X and benefit from the economies of scale of 100+ aircraft order would bring?

[D-IFF_ident]

Rumor has it that the USAF are considering cancelling a number of F-22s and using the money instead to buy around 450 KC-Xs. Sounds reasonable given the average age of the KC-135 of 35 yrs. But, I don't think there are any manufacturers that can bang out 450 frames in short order - the best you'll get is around 15 frames per year. That being the case, watch this space as the DoD invest in Boeing 777s, 767s AND Airbus MRTTs (A-320)...

Japan has committed to it's future in AAR, Italy, Australia; the US will make its decision in 1/10th of the time the UK has deliberated. There is a real risk here that the UK will fall behind in yet another area of modern warfare. :ugh:

And NKAWTG, preferably from a tanker with pods, boom, uaarsi, centre-line hose and a probe etc. :8

[LFFC]

There is a very interesting post on the Trying To Get Home (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3036635&postcount=43)thread that suggests that the advent of FSTA might not make any diffence to air transport reliability.

You can change the charter as much as you want but if you don't address the real cause of the delays (and 58% shouldn't be acceptable) then we'll never sort the problem out. There's a lot we can do to improve these "stats" . . . if only we admit we have a part to play.

[D-IFF_ident]

Watch this space for the announcement of the A400M(K). :hmm:

[Cannonfodder]

"Watch this space for the announcement of the A400M(K)."

All very well and good for North Sea Towlines but falls some way short when it comes to intercontinental trails.........:=

[BEagle]

"AND Airbus MRTTs (A-320)..."
I think not, old horseman. Airbus manufacture the world's only 21st Century AT/AAR platform, the A310MRTT - and the A330 MRTT for the RAAF is currently being built. The KC-30 for the USAF is also under study.

A320 would be a bit too small for any worthwhile AT/AAR application as the extra tankage to make it any use would severely limit its AT capabilities. But A321 as a single point centreline probe-and-drogue tanker could offer about 25 tonnes to fighter-type receivers over 90 mins on an AARA 90 min from the tanker base, landing with normal IFR reserves. With an additional 25000 litre fuselage tank over the wing, there would still be space for 116 passengers (48 in a front cabin, 68 in a rear cabin).

But even the CSA A400M would offer about 20% more fuel in the same scenario - and with 2 wing pods, of course - as well as space for 120 troops.
A400M is primarily a tactical airlifter with an additional intra-theatre AAR capability. A strategic tanker it is not!





D-IFF - if you want to work closely with the A330MRTT, PM me!

[HaveQuick2]

Is there any more progress with this, as according to this website a load of Airbuses have got RAF serial numbers allocated.

www.ukserials.com (http://www.ukserials.com)

ZZ330 to ZZ343 Airbus A.330, totals 14 aircraft.

Or is this just wishful thinking?


And another thing, why the sudden jump to ZZ prefixed numbers?

And another another, what will happen after ZZ999 is used (or will we never get that far)?

[Dan Winterland]

The fuel load of an A320 is 19.0T, the A321 18.9T. Additional Centre Tanks can be fitted to either, this increases the load to 20.9 or 20.8T respectively. A second ACT can be fitted to the 321 increasing the total load to 22.7T. At a fuel burn of 2.4/hr (320) and 3.0T/hr (321), this doesn't add up to a very capable tanker even with the major modification of additional cabin tanks.

Think big. From my expereince, and in my humble opinion a strategic tanker should not have any less than a total fuel load of 80T.

[TheInquisitor]

With a cruise capability of M.72 at FL370, a ferry range of 4750nm and a fuel capacity of 58t with the extra internal tanks fitted, the A400M has to be a contender. Question is, will we buy enough of them to fulfil both roles, or will we once again 'rob Peter to pay Paul'?

[D-IFF_ident]

Dan - how about 155T, range of 10 000NM, M 0.84, 3 hoses, boom and UARSSI and about £43M each? Now THAT's a tanker.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-10-specs.htm

[BEagle]

True, D-IFF, but the KC-10 isn't really a MRTT in the pax/tanker role as your Gitmo Bay class seating is only available for around 75 people. Granted it has an impressive cargo carrying capability in addition to more AAR than anyone except the US really needs.

The 'modified A321' concept was only a paper concept to show up the gap between the A321 and A330 which Airbus once filled with the A300/310. The estimate was a fuel capacity of 43.8 tonne - not terribly useful as a purpose-built tanker, but perhaps as a secondary role for any air force thinking of replacing their existing smaller single role tankers?

A400M can only carry a useful tanker fuel load (I thought it was 62 tonne?) with the cargo bay tanks (CBTs) fitted. In that fit it has zero AT capability! Even with just 1 CBT, it could only manage around 57 troops in para seats or about 5.7 tonnes of cargo...... Without any CBTs, for 90 minutes on a towline 1 hr from base, my unofficial wet finger estimate is that it could offer a maximum of around 29 tonnes of fuel before landing with about an hour to tanks dry.

Which is somewhat less than even the Victor K2 could manage!

In the same scenario a VC10C1K offers around 36 tonnes. An A310MRTT could offer 48 tonnes and an A330MRTT could offer 84 tonnes (if you could find enough receivers!).

A400M will be an excellent AT aircraft, but it is not designed to carry its passengers in normal airline-type seats. It will also have a useful additional role of intra theatre AAR for the odd fast jet or helicopters even without CBTs. But for a next generation strategic multi-role AT/AAR platform the only modern solution is the A330MRTT.

The MoD really should have bought a couple of dozen A310MRTTs when they were offered to them years ago!

If the PFI FSTA really is as dead as the emerging rumours suggest, how many people will say "We told you so......"?

FSTA timeline:

Dec 2000 - Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) issued to industry.
Jul 2001 – Bids received from industry.
Feb 2003 – Final 2 bids received for assessment (AirTanker and TTSC).
Jan 2004 – Contract negotiations begin with AirTanker
Feb 2005 – AirTanker selected as FSTA preferred bidder.

??? 2007 - Contract award anticipated?
??? 2009 - First A330K training courses?
??? 2010 - First A330K certificated?
??? 2010+ - A330K deliveries........??

As far as I know, the 'site works' which were supposed to have started in 2006 haven't yet started - so the last 4 dates are probably rather optimistic.

"This programme will not slip".......:hmm:

[speeddial]

Right now I don't think the RAF would say no to a dozen KC-10s. Global boom and probe AAR capability (the E-3s would love that and we could even sell gas to the US!) and a strategic AT capability to take the pressure off of the C-17s. What's even better is they are a tried and tested platform that people all over the world know how to fix. None of this risky and expensive "launch customer" stuff.

How can I buy shares in Omega Air?

[BEagle]

They turned down the DC-10 series around 24 years ago when they acquired the first TriStars from ba.......

A few decidedly used KC-10s would probably be OK as a short term stop gap, but new models are required to invest for the future - as the USAF also understand!

[speeddial]

England cannot afford or see the need for new tankers otherwise we would have found the money and had them a long time ago like we did with the C-17s, Danish Merlins(if they're still being bought) and Storm Shadow.

[Art Field]

speeddial. I was not aware that England had an Air Force, in spite of certain efforts towards independence I believe Scotland, NI and Wales are still in there with us. I also think you will find it difficult to find too much evidence to support your view that the RAF, let alone the British military, will be provided with equipment by a generous government as soon as it proves a need, indeed just the opposite.

As far as the case for new Tanker/Transport aircraft is concerned, a quick perusal of many of the posts on these forums would seem to provide enough evidence from the operators and users for a long term reliable replacement, particularly in relation to the rapid deployment and out of theatre defence policy of the government. The policy requirement needs to be matched by the wherewithal to carry it out.

[D-IFF_ident]

BEags, the KC-10 seating arrangement is poor, but the KDC-10 makes a good compromise - put the seats at the back, much better idea.

The KC10s on the West coast are rapidly becoming expensive C-17 hood ornaments, since the USAF C-17s don't have the extra fuel tanks and can't make it very far over the Pacific without being 'refueled'.

[Tonkenna]

FSTA delays may force UK to prolong VC10 operations...
No suprises in todays (9 Jan) Flight Intenational. Extensions being looked at for 2014/15.
When will this get sorted... and will the 10 see 50 years of service. Looks like a good bet to me:rolleyes:
Tonks:ugh:

[Roland Pulfrew]

FSTA delays may force UK to prolong VC10 operations...
No suprises in todays (9 Jan) Flight Intenational. Extensions being looked at for 2014/15.
When will this get sorted... and will the 10 see 50 years of service. Looks like a good bet to me:rolleyes:
Tonks:ugh:

Tonks HNY

Funny you should mention "good bets" but as I was driving to work this morning one of the local radio stations was discussing "speculating to accumulate" and they had decided that £5 or £10 invested in a long shot bet might reap lots of rewards. Perhaps you should try Ladbrookes and see what odds they would give you on the Queen of the Skies still being operational at the 50 year point!!! You never know, in 9 and a bit years time you might be in for quite a windfall!!! :ok: On the other hand they might only give you "Evens" :rolleyes:

[moggiee]

Would it not be a good idea to drop the word "Future" to concentrate minds on the here and now?

[moggiee]

Perhaps you should try Ladbrookes and see what odds they would give you on the Queen of the Skies still being operational at the 50 year point!!! :
I would not bet against it, that's for sure.
The first RAF VC10 and I share a birthday - maybe I can hold my 50th on board one over the North Sea!

[sprucemoose]

Here's a link to the VC10 story Tonkenna refers to, if anyone wants to read more:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2007/01/08/Navigation/190/211431/FSTA+delays+may+force+UK+to+prolong+VC10+operations.html

[exvicar]

England cannot afford or see the need for new tankers otherwise we would have found the money and had them a long time ago like we did with the C-17s, Danish Merlins(if they're still being bought) and Storm Shadow.
speeddial
There is no need for new tankers provided we are able to get a written guarantee that all future conflict will be confined to Kent. Recent experience in Bosnia, Afghanistan & Iraq suggest otherwise. Just because Gordon & his cronies(sp) will not stump up the cash does not suggest there is no need.

[Art Field]

If there is anyone out there from TTSC (Other FSTA contender) then maybe we got the best of the deal, at least we got a mug and a mouse mat.

It is amazing the Fun Bus looks like lasting 50 years, still original engines and unmodified airframe. No requirement to re-engine they said in the 80's, will not last much longer.

[The Gorilla]

And in my view they were right. You can't keep moving the out of service date to the right, because eventually one of them is going to fall out of the sky due to fatigue. Watch the cr*p hit the fan then!
:ugh:

[speeddial]

Presumably with a good bit of money spent on them the VC-10s could be given another 10-15 years? What is currently the weakest link on the airframes - the engines?

[Razor61]

This is from "Flight International"
FSTA delays may force UK to prolong VC10 operations
Continuing delays in signing a contract for the UK's Future Strategic Tanker
Aircraft (FSTA) fleet appear set to drive the Royal Air Force to extend
operations of its Vickers VC10s by a further four years until 2015.
An expression of interest is sought from BAE Systems by 17 January to extend
its current Project Javelin support deal for the RAF's 16-strong VC10 fleet,
which in mid-2006 marked 40 years of operational service. An invitation to
tender for a full availability-based deal will be released by the UK Defence
Logistics Organisation (DLO) late this month, with BAE to respond by 28
February.
A solicitation document for the so-called "Javelin Green" arrangement notes:
"The objective is to develop the most cost-effective way to meet the needs
of the fleet to extend the out-of-service date from 31 March 2011 to 31
March 2013, and provide further options to extend beyond this date to 2014
and 2015."
The RAF's replacement FSTA capability was to have entered service this month
under the project's original schedule, but the MoD and preferred bidder EADS
UK-led consortium AirTanker have been embroiled in slow-moving contract
negotiations since February 2005.
Expected to be delivered under a 27-year private finance initiative deal
worth up to £13.9 billion ($27.2 billion), the new system will comprise a
core fleet of nine Airbus A330-200 tanker-transports, plus a further five
held at short readiness. These will replace the RAF's 101 Sqn-operated VC10s
and 216 Sqn's nine Lockheed TriStars, six of which have air-to-air
refuelling equipment.
Worth between £100 million and £400 million, the new VC10 contract also
follows the planned evolution of the Javelin partnership, which involves
BAE, the DLO and the UK Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA). Two previous
deals, worth a combined £245 million, cover the provision of engineering
support at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and major maintenance services at
DARA's St Athan site in south Wales.
The new project phase will transition this work to a full aircraft
availability-based deal, and will also incorporate so-called depth
maintenance activities and support for in-flight refuelling equipment at
Brize Norton.
The DLO says the agreement will also address the impact of recent and future
reductions in the RAF's VC10 fleet size, and develop a disposal plan for the
aircraft.
--end----

"So, guys, you will have to share fuel from a French KC-135F operating today in the North Sea and in the South West"
"Why?"
"Because all nine of our A330s are in Cyprus, Middle East, the States and the Falklands."
"Well what about the other five?"
"Well they haven't been 'readied' yet"
Meanwhile enroute to AARA12 they fly over all the VC-10s and Tristars parked up beside the scrap man at St Athan.

Nine tankers to replace 25....with '5' 'maybe' ready aircraft. :(

[lancs]

Expected to be delivered under a 27-year private finance initiative deal
worth up to £13.9 billion ($27.2 billion)

Worth between £100 million and £400 million

Somebody posted a couple of days ago with formulas to compute the PFI deal on some office buildings. That seemed ridiculous. How does 13.9 billion to ~100 million compare?

This just seems nuts. I didn't believe a post a while ago talking of 1 BILLION per plane... I don't get it...

[Art Field]

Lancs. The billion per plane is the cost to MOD to have that aircraft available over the full 27 years. The contract is complex as it includes servicing, some crewing, training, ops staff and other base services. It is not so complex, however, that it should take this long to sort out.

[Lost Again..]

When will the Aussie's get this ? Next year ?
Should be ready by Mid-2009. Aircraft will be in country earlier than this though for flight trials and such.

[sprucemoose]

There was some interesting banter in the Lords on Monday about the air bridge to Afghanistan and Iraq. The top line award [sorry 216 mates] definitely goes to Earl Attlee: "My Lords, can the Minister say at what date the flying scrapheaps known as the Tristar aircraft will be replaced?"

Now I think Drayson is a pretty good chap and is genuinely trying to make things better on procurement, but his answer just doesn't ring right, given the VC10/2015 angle: "Our intention is to bring the future strategic tanker aircraft into service at the end of the decade." Duh, which one?

The bottom line on the air bridge from April-December 2006 is: 86% of strategic air transport flights left for Iraq on time or with a delay of less than 3h, and 75% to Afghanistan, with the number of Tristars fit for purpose "very close to the 4.75 to 4.8 target."

Drayson also says: "We are investing in Brize Norton to improve the experience for passengers while they wait." So when's the Gateway coming down then?

Keep up the good work, AT mates - no complaints at all from my Afghanistan trip last April! Well, apart from the bogs packing up on the Timmy, that is!

[Cannonfodder]

"Keep up the good work, AT mates - no complaints at all from my Afghanistan trip last April! Well, apart from the bogs packing up on the Timmy, that is!"

So you had one complaint then.........?

[sprucemoose]

Hey, I'm a journalist - what do you want, accuracy? ;)

[BEagle]

86% of strategic air transport flights left for Iraq on time or with a delay of less than 3h, and 75% to Afghanistan, with the number of Tristars fit for purpose "very close to the 4.75 to 4.8 target."

So, roughly 1 in 4 of the RAF's museum pieces is more than 3 hours late leaving its main operating base...

That's frankly appalling when LoCos can manage dispatch reliability of 99%.

Once upon a time, any delay of more than 20 minutes was considered reportable - but 3 hours???!!!

[Razor61]

Even the USAF are finding it difficult to provide military transport for the troops.
3rd Inf Div are leaving today on chartered An-124's apparently. cheaper option? or just not enough C-5s or C-17s to go round?

[Jock Airways]

The FSTA business case went to the Ministry late last year. There was a number of technical issues still to resolve, so the MoD are now working to resolve these. A further decision from the Ministry is expected late Jan, early Feb. If the news is good, the Contract will be signed by the Autumn. Better late than never!

The Australian MRTT is progressing, although there are some technical delays. The delivery date currently remains as late 2008, early 2009.

[brit bus driver]

Better late than never!

You think? Let me just try and work this out once more (I'm a little slow). £13 billion = 14 aircraft. Rough cost of a modded A330? Say £150 million - though I suspect much lower - gives a delta of £10.9 billion. Over 25 years = £436 million per year or £31 million per aircraft per year. And you give it back at the end. Is it me, or does this seem a little excessive? Do we need 14 A330s? Or do we need, say, half a dozen A310s NOW to replace (some of) the ageing AT fleet. Common platform across NATO (FR, DE, CA, BE) plus widely used commercially and only went out of production in 2005. Carries 200 pax, further than a VC10 and burns half the fuel. Must be about £15 million a pop? But then, I never was very good at maths...

[MrBernoulli]

Ha ha ha ha ha ..... FSTA ......... effing joke and a half! Horses arse more like. I am NOT sorry to have left. The MOD are a shower of ****e ...... steaming, head-high massive heap of stinking ****e ......couldn't fly an aircraft on an airfield. Don't laugh ..... we are so close to that being the reality.

[BEagle]

Well, yes, MrB.......

A310 was the jet to have bought - you try finding any ex-airline A310-300s these days! Snapped up as soon as they become available.

Around 4.5 tonne per hour rather than 7.5 tonne per hour and with a 71.5 tonne fuel load - or possibly 77 with a 5th ACT and MTOW increase? But a bit limited if you want to carry full fuel in terms of pax/cargo potential as the available ZFW is somewhat limited.

Fictional Strategic Tanker Aircraft does seem to be getting close to the buffet of procurement, from what people are saying on this thread.

[sprucemoose]

A310s "snapped up as soon as they become available"? Not as tankers mate! Canada and Germany have funded hose and drogue work to a very small number of theirs, but other than that there aren't any out there. And have you heard much about the EADS boom on the A310 demonstrator recently? I haven't.

Given that FSTA is using an Airbus platform, I'd have thought you'd be singing its praises BEags...

But then I suppose it's just the business model that's a total farce, isn't it?

[BEagle]

sprucemoose, the only reason they can't been snapped up as tankers is that other people have been quicker off the mark!

A310MRTT is the only 21st century tanker actually in service; A330MRTT will be a top jet for the Aussies and CSA A400M will also have a good AAR role.

I'm not a believer in PFIs - but I most certainly am a believer in both A310MRTT and A330MRTT as excellent strategic AT/AAR aircraft! Whether the full capability of the A330MRTT would routinely be used is something the customer would have to consider - does he want 110 tonne in one place or 55 tonne in one place and another 55 in another. Or 2 x 55 tonne tankers in cell offering 4 hoses in the formation in preference to 1 x 110 tonne tanker offering only 2....

One presumes that the customer will have "done his maths" when it comes to procurement preference, should there be such alternatives available to him.

[sprucemoose]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have only been contracts to put AAR kit six A310s, and all of these were already owned by the air forces in question: Canada (two) and Germany (four). This could just be because secondhand A310s are as rare as rocking-horse whatsit, but it doesn't look to me like the mod has inspired anyone else to follow suit.

As for the UK buying A310s for use in this role, you are joking, right? Ditch the PFI approach at this stage and 101 and 216 won't be seeing a new aircraft for a hell of a lot longer than the delay they're already facing!

[Jackonicko]

Mousse,

I'm puzzled by your dismissive attitude to the 310 tanker.

Second hand 310s are snapped up very quickly, whereas second hand 767s seem to have rather easier availability.....

The A310 tanker is in service and has flown live refuelling missions with real receivers. The KC-767 has not.

The A310 boom is at about the same point in development/test as the 767 boom.

The A310 underwing pods were fitted without incurring major flutter problems, and thus without incurring the drag penalty of the 767's pylon mod.

The A310 can operate at full weight from a balanced 10,000 ft runway..... Shouldn't your esteemed rag be asking the question as to why the Italians are suddenly reported to be extending the runway at Pratica?

The A310 fuselage cross section is wide enough to accomodate standard pallets side-by-side - the 767's is not.

I'd have thought that the best option for the RAF would be to continue with the PFI (too late to cancel) for the nine A330s and to procure nine A310s to augment them - aiming for a rapid conventional procurement. 18 new tankers ought to be able to come close to replacing the VC10/TriStar AAR/AT capacity we had before they had to start cannibalising VC10s.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ditch the PFI approach at this stage and 101 and 216 won't be seeing a new aircraft for a hell of a lot longer than the delay they're already facing!
Sprucey
If we conventionally procured our new tankers what would be the problem with cancelling this PFI farce? Let's face it, despite BEags assertions about there being only one 21 C tanker, the choice for us falls to one of 2 - The B767 or the A330. You can rule out the A310, (actually last century) none available and too old, and the A400M, too slow for what we require it for. The RAAF, JASDF and the ItAF will all receive their tankers within 4 years of contract award (all about 1 year behind what Airbus and Boeing originally promised). So if we signed this year that would be first delivery in 2010 assuming that the problems will have been ironed out by then and Airoeing deliver on the originally quoted 3 years.

When will we see first delivery of FSTA? Who knows? Afterall this year was when it was supposed to enter RAF service!! With FSTA we still don't have contract signature with AirRipOff almost 3 years after they were announced as preferred bidder. RuMour has it that both the ECC and elements of DPA want to kill this programme now. Even the government are getting cold feet over PFIs.

Sadly we all know the state of the EP and there is no money. Where do you find circa £2.5B to buy a new fleet of tankers? It is time that the 'Centre' actually took a stand and cancelled a big ticket programme. The options are few, but the front runners have to be the new carriers (and I am actually a supporter of the RN getting them), Astute (but would it save that much), JSF or Typhoon (but again we wouldn't actually save much on procuring them). Sadly it should be the CVFs. If the government still want to be a global player then they should be forced into paying for the kit we need to do their bidding.

[sprucemoose]

What-ho Jacko. I'm dismissive of the A310 as a tanker because I don't think it's any good; too old, too small etc. I made no mention of the KC-767 in my post, and am not comparing the A310 with it as it is of no relevance to the UK argument. But is the EADS boom any further down the line than the Boeing one at this stage? They haven't talked about it for a good long while now, which makes me suspicious. Nine A330s and nine A310s for the RAF though - I bet you a fiver that isn't going to happen!

Roland, I agree that the big PFI seems a bad plan, beyond easing the EP budget, but we're probably going to be stuck with it. Yes Australia will get its A330s very quickly, but that's because it is prepared to spend money on kit and doesn't faff about for a decade in the planning and procurement phase like us. That's not going to change. BTW, Drayson said last week in the Lords: "our intention is to bring the future strategic tanker aircraft into service at the end of the decade"; how's that for optimism? He also seems very commited to signing the CVF deal, so I don't think you are going to see a big ticket procurement go - probably just important bits cut off everything we do buy!

[LFFC]

...... BTW, Drayson said last week in the Lords: "our intention is to bring the future strategic tanker aircraft into service at the end of the decade"; how's that for optimism?

It's actually not very optimistic at all; I bet it could be brought into service for Air Transport duties very quickly! Now, had he said, "...into AAR service at the end of the decade", then I would be more happy.

[Jackonicko]

Not very good?

I'd suggest that it's the best small tanker out there. Way better than a -135/707, and enjoying significant advantages over the -767.

Too small?

Perhaps, but when you need hoses in the sky, an all 330 fleet simply won't ever give us the numbers required.

[mary_hinge]

http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.html?issueDate=1/22/2007

Finnish Ministry of Defense published a report last week proposing that Finnair acquire A330 MRTT widebodies that the state could lease for troop transports and possible evacuations in crisis situations. Finnair said it sets business fundamentals as the primary justification for all of its projects. "We are currently working on a modernization of our long-haul fleet and we must consider very carefully how we will implement the huge investment that lies ahead. Irrespective of the company's ownership structure, Finnair will act in future for the good of both its Finnish and other customers as each crisis situation demands, just as we have done so previously on our own initiative," President and CEO Jukka Hienonen said in a statement. Finnair representatives were consulted as experts in the working group that outlined the project.

[ORAC]

Perhaps, but when you need hoses in the sky, an all 330 fleet simply won't ever give us the numbers required. I see the Israelis are investigating a tanker version of the G550 with Gulfstream. A boom and 4 underwing pylons will, apparently, give it a 50K giveaway capability at 600nm from base.

Now that's a nice tactical tanker, I wonder if it could be fitted with bang seats....

[Navaleye]

Its OK, apparently the VC10 fleet is having a £400m life extension programme to see it through to 2013. Good value for money these 40 year old jets.

[Jackonicko]

What about the Conways?

How many more serviceable VC10s will have to be scrapped for spares, and especially engines?

[Lyneham Lad]

Interesting blog on Flight International, particularly about dutch roll and an errant galley trolley :)

But the VC10, almost incredibly, is looking highly likely to hit 50 years of service. (http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/flight_international/archive/2007/01/08/6246.aspx)

[LFFC]

The Telegraph - Fri 26 Jan 07 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/01/27/ccom27.xml)


Drayson's stand is vital in defence of high-tech industry

The customer is always right. A maxim that never seems to apply to the defence industry. Despite the Ministry of Defence spending billions a year on arms, it has always been the contractors that dictated the terms.

But things are certainly different under Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister. His dispute with EADS, which has threatened to pull a £100m investment in its Airbus UK operation, is sending signals far beyond the offices of this Franco-German aerospace giant.

The bottom line is: withdraw investment in new wing technology at Airbus UK and EADS can kiss goodbye to some MoD defence contracts.
.
.
But if Drayson follows through with his threat, the first casualty for EADS could be the award of a £13bn contract to supply mid-air refuelling aircraft for the Royal Air Force.


Looks like DPA is playing politics with the RAF's capability. :uhoh:

[D-IFF_ident]

£400M?

KC-10s are only £45.3M each at the current FFR!

That figure must be too much - You could buy at least 4 decent new jets for that - not life extend an old fleet by 5 years. Nah - can't be right - can it?

[BEagle]

Half a billion ponds to keep the ageing VC10 fleet staggering on until 2015???

YGBSM, as they say.

Whispers reaching me of air and ground engineers taking early retirement in increasing numbers, aircraft being launched with BOTH autopilots u/s (which makes smoke drill in an aircraft with ageing wiring impossible....)

Just hope that someone with sufficient testiculation thumps the table about 'new' tankers pretty urgently before one of these museum pieces falls to pieces.

And the FSTA civil serpent once said "This program will NOT slip"......

[sprucemoose]

D-IFF; the VC10 extension cost is in the DPA's Category B rating, so vaguely listed as somewhere between £100 million and £400 million. However, the two earlier Javelin project phases total £245 million, so it's probably going to be at the lower end of that scale.
Still not cheap, I grant you!

[steamchicken]

But don't you see - that £400 million is special, non-costy money, quite unlike the £40 million a throw for a new jet, which is ordinary money that costs. Only money that's paid up front is real money if you work for the Treasury.

Quite astonishing, I know, but 400 years on, HM Treas still hasn't quite grokked the distinction between assets and cashflow..

[Squirrel 41]

Chicken –

Treasury avowedly DOES know the difference between asset capitalisation and cashflow, which is why they brought in Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) a few years ago. RAB introduced commercial-style accounting, including a pile of “non-cash” to pay for depreciation. This was a one-off that applied to all departments and had bi-partisan support.

A mate tells me that the MoD is (largely) responsible for their own downfall, because they couldn’t get the numbers right in 2001, and when Treasury said “are you sure?” MoD told them to wind their necks in… sad thing was that Treasury was right, and the MoD has been playing catch up with their budget ever since. :hmm:

Add the cost of 2 wars, procurement cost fiascos and general MoD management incompetence, and all of the birds are returning to the roost at once. :ugh:

Always quite liked travelling by Swish though… :cool:

S41

[Ken Scott]

KC-10s are only £45.3M each at the current FFR!


I know I'm only a pilot & accountancy is a bit of a mystery to me, but if a KC 10 costs £45.3 million, how come FSTA is £13 billion for 14 aircraft? I know that's a PFI for the running of the aircraft too, but procurement of 14 aircraft is approx £634 million, which leaves just over £12 billion for the contract - that's alot of fuel & spares!

Have they factored in an exponential rise in the price of fuel over the life of the contract? Does FSTA really present value for money for the RAF or the taxpayer?

Or does my misunderstanding of accounting practice go even deeper?

Enlightenment in simple non-jargon terms please!

[Tonkenna]

Enlightenment in simple non-jargon terms please!

Blimey Ken, you don't want much. Even the guys who are working on this scheme can't do that....

Tonks:ugh:

[Squirrel 41]

If you Google "FSTA".... the third item is "Fantasy Sports Trade Association". Couldn't have summed it up better myself! :hmm:

S41

[mbga9pgf]

Ken, Its called Lining the pockets of the PFI sponsors of the New Labour Government. Allegedly.

[Ken Scott]

Ok, open invitation to any MP, MOD civil servant, senior RAF officer, CAS himself perhaps:

How can 14 aircraft cost £13 billion?

Why can we not but some Boeings/ Airbuses etc ourselves, & run them ourselves, just for our own use without some useage off set with an airline?

Answers please, or I'll have to just believe that it's some accounting nonsense where you avoid capital expenditure in the short term but pay through the nose in the long term....prove me wrong!

[LFFC]

Ken,

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The MOD will not be buying any FSTA at all! You can find a pretty good explanation here:

Airtanker Website (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/business-funding.htm)

The deal is a PFI. As such, the aircraft will belong to Airtanker who will provide a service to the RAF over 27 years. Here's the bottom line:

The MoD estimates its through life programme expenditure at £13 billion.

That means that the service will cost about £500m a year for 27 years. This will include all aircraft support and servicing, aircrew training and even the provision of some crews.

I don't know whether that's a good deal or not, but once you look at it from that point of view, it doesn't look too bad. Welcome to the brave new world of defence contracts!

Mind you, at least the treasury won't be able to continually keep reducing funding for AAR once this contract is signed. Once it's on paper, the MOD will have to ringfence that money for 27 years!

.... but I wonder what will happen if we stop needing AAR in 15 years time.

Hope that helps.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Gents

I see we are still quoting a 27 year contract. IIRC the 27 years was supposed to comprise:

3 years assessment and negotiation
4 years transition from in service date (ISD) to full service date (FSD) and then

20 years of full service delivery.

Now given that we are almost exactly 3 years after the announcement of preferred bidder and 2007 was the original ISD and we still don't have a contract, isn't it time to pull the plug and kill off this rediculous PFI?

[BEagle]

IIRC, Roly, we were told in 1996 that there was a need to replace VC10 and TriStar "within the next 10 years"......

With, as was stated at the time, around 25 aircraft of the A310/B767 category in multi-role tanker transport configuration.

And yet now the living museums the RAF operates are expected to stagger on until 2015? 19 years after we were told that they needed to be replaced before 2006??

:confused:

[Saintsman]

Kill off the PFI?

And replace it with what? The whole reason for the PFI was because the MOD don't have the money to buy new aircraft up front.

As the new aircraft are needed right now, is there a valid alternative?

[Jackonicko]

With the VC10 now looking likely to stagger on for another six or eight years, perhaps the best idea would be to buy three second hand A310s per year for the next three years, and then three second hand A330s per year for three more years, converting them as they are received, and retiring the VC10s one by one as the Airbus tankers emerge after conversion.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Saintsman

We cannot extend the VC10 for ever and the Tristar is not very far behind. FSTA still shows no sign of delivery so we have to do something radical now!

JN

As already discussed the A310 is in short/non-existant supply and can therefore be discounted.

Therefore, and given that FSTA is likely to cost some £500M per annum, you kill off the PFI, take the funding line and then buy new A330 (or B767/B777, lets call them KC-X) tankers at the rate of 3 to 4 per year, starting next FY and do an incremental acquisition. As JN suggested, as new tankers are delivered you retire a VC10 or 2. We have funding lines for FSTA, we have funding lines for VC10 (just extended) and Tristar so the money is out there, just not enough to buy the 20 A330 sized ac that the RAF really needs in one go. So after 5 years (2012 and 2-3 years prior to VC10 OSD) you have a 15 strong fleet of new KC-X aircraft and the VC10 should be out of service (unfortunately just before its 50th:( ). A few years later we can start to withdraw the Tristars, unless we still need them to augment the still expanding fleet of KC-X, and let's face it the way we are going on war fighting we are still likely to need them!!

It's time to do the unthinkable and sacrifice the Sacred Cow of PFI on the altar of common sense.:ok:

[BEagle]

Yup - currently only 4 used A310s available worldwide. 3 x A310-324 with P&Ws for sale, 1 x A310-300 with CFs for immediate wet lease........

And yet in 1996 we were considering 24 or so brand new A310MRTTs......:{

Used aircraft are not really the answer - it's new build which are needed. But since the MoD has never bought a new tanker, always relying on someone else's cast-offs, the fast jet centric airships will still want their whizzy little pointy jets at the expense of all other capability.

[Jackonicko]

With the cockpit commonality between the late A300s, A310s and A330s, perhaps the strategy should be to accept a mixed fleet (would it really be any more problematic than the present VC10 C1K/K3/K4 and TriStar C1, C1K, C2 fleet?) and to buy what's available as it becomes available. You could even buy a second hand A340 as Blair Force one. You'd probably want to avoid one-offs engine-wise, but otherwise.....

A phased, incremental acquisition of this sort would probably remain within the £500 m p.a figure, too.

Three A310s sounds like a darned good start to me, and if the 'non-standard' jet is available for lease, perhaps that would be a useful short term transport/trainer? You could always mix new-build and second hand jets.

See

http://airplanes.glo-con.com/images/AIR1_48_s.jpg

[BEagle]

Very little cockpit commonality between any A300/A310 and the A330, unfortunately.

A pity there's no 'A325' a 310-sized A320/A330!

A321 is too small to offer much - and A330 is rather big if your Dear Leader insists on having little war-ettes in different parts of the world all the time. A bit difficult to have half an A330 in the UK and the other half in Iraqistan....or providing Bennyfit to the Fuerza Aerea Malvinas!

[Ken Scott]

Any reason why the MOD can't do what all the airlines do, & what we did with the C17, & lease the tankers if we can't afford to buy them? Besides, what we really need are large ac full of seats for the transport role, with AAR as a secondary - although the fast jet air board probably see it the other way round.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Any reason why the MOD can't do what all the airlines do, & what we did with the C17, & lease the tankers if we can't afford to buy them? Besides, what we really need are large ac full of seats for the transport role, with AAR as a secondary - although the fast jet air board probably see it the other way round.

That is what a PFI is all about! Leasing capability!! Unfortunately in this case it doesn't appear to be working. Sadly no-one leases tankers. FTSA's primary role is AAR, it's buried in the politics, and suggesting we do not need them suggests a sad lack of understanding about how much AAR we are doing, and more importantly how much AAR we aren't doing but should be!

One of the reasons FSTA's primary role is AAR with AT as secondary is because the FJ world, DCRS and DTMA assumed that we would always be able to lease additional AT and it would never have to operate into anywhere other than a benign area - DOH!

[D-IFF_ident]

How about we take some of the money from the sale of the Typhoon to Saudi and use it to buy some new tankers? Better than spending it on wining and dining foreign Nationals so they might buy some more of them. We'll have a year or so to do the acquisition - bearing in mind that our first batch of fighters won't arrive - because they've been sold abroad. Then...

We'll have to act fairly fast - if the US are going to replace their KC135s over 10 years then there might not be any feasible frames available - all the 777s and 767s will be bought and there may even be a shortage of 310s/330s.

A330s, in the same fit as the RAAF's frames are our best bet - especially since Northrop Grumman might not bid to the US. "But we don't want booms" I hear you cry - "Yes we do" I answer - if we want to be serious players in the Global War on Reality then we need to be able to refuel all-comers. And we could force extend each other - now is the time to get into the game - esp with ATP 56(B) about to be released.

Okay - back in my box.

[Wrathmonk]

Slight thread creep - just to put some of the context about the so-called "fast jet air board" into context its current composition is 4 x Members of Parliament (SofS, Min AF, Min DP, USofS), 2 x Civil Servants (2nd PUS, Dir Air Wpns and Spt), 2 x Engineers (CinC PTC, DGES(Air)), 2 x FJ Pilots (CAS, ACAS), 1 x Rotary Pilot (CinC STC). All available via Wikipedia so no beadwindow required....

Hardly fast jet centric.

Prior to that (I think) delete one of the engineers and replace with a ME pilot.

Granted, it will change at the next "reshuffle" but current decisions are hardly being made by a FJ mafia. Lets blame the engineers instead - they have the same number of votes!

Back to the thread - can't we get KC135 with BDA. Hours of entertainment to be had!

[BEagle]

D-IFFers, the further the RAAF A330MRTT progresses through development, the more expensive it will be to delete all the 'boom' items for a small handful of if, perhaps, maybe RAF FSTAs.

The biggest bolleaux of the FSTA PFI is that the scope wasn't capped at any defined level such as airframe leasing and second level maintenance. The bidders were encouraged to consider anything from in flight sandwiches to complete training solutions and 'full time reserve' aircrew. More properly termed 'mercenaries'......

Yes, ATP-56B is coming soon. But will the USN actually bother to read it this time? Or still insist on screwing up by doing things 'the Navy way'??

[greenwizard]

Saintsman
We cannot extend the VC10 for ever and the Tristar is not very far behind. FSTA still shows no sign of delivery so we have to do something radical now!
JN
As already discussed the A310 is in short/non-existant supply and can therefore be discounted.
Therefore, and given that FSTA is likely to cost some £500M per annum, you kill off the PFI, take the funding line and then buy new A330 (or B767/B777, lets call them KC-X) tankers at the rate of 3 to 4 per year, starting next FY and do an incremental acquisition. As JN suggested, as new tankers are delivered you retire a VC10 or 2. We have funding lines for FSTA, we have funding lines for VC10 (just extended) and Tristar so the money is out there, just not enough to buy the 20 A330 sized ac that the RAF really needs in one go. So after 5 years (2012 and 2-3 years prior to VC10 OSD) you have a 15 strong fleet of new KC-X aircraft and the VC10 should be out of service (unfortunately just before its 50th:( ). A few years later we can start to withdraw the Tristars, unless we still need them to augment the still expanding fleet of KC-X, and let's face it the way we are going on war fighting we are still likely to need them!!
It's time to do the unthinkable and sacrifice the Sacred Cow of PFI on the altar of common sense.:ok:
At last a sensible idea, I only wish those in power would take note. Ditch the PFI and purchase something sensible that the Service can use when and how it really wants to. :D

[D-IFF_ident]

BEags - I received a copy of the ATP 56(B) training package yesterday - it's being formally released today and all US military tanker crews 'are to' read it before 1 Apr 07 - when it replaces all '-33s and -32s' as the source document for the DoD.

Mind you, ask around the USAF mates and they'll all say "it'll never happen; I'm not going to read it". :ugh:

[brit bus driver]

D-Iff....that's OK, I'm sure UK (FJ) will treat it in the same way!!

Agree wholeheartedly with the boom too; not just for coalition ops with your current employers (sort of) but why fanny around putting probes on A400M when every other nation will have a UARRSI? Could also have one on A330.....no need comes the cry! What, you can guarantee there will always be friendly HN support? 24 hr crew days are a reality now...think of the possibilities with AAR and a proper crew rest area!

The whole deal is pants....I'm off!:yuk:

[greenwizard]

Follow the Link.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,125274,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl
http://images.military.com/pics/Buzz_KC767.jpg
:)

[LFFC]

Announced yesterday.

DEFENCE COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO UK’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT MILITARY OPERATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/defence_committee/def070215___no__25.cfm)


The Defence Committee’s inquiry will examine the progress made since the Strategic Defence Review in improving its Strategic Lift. The MoD has sought to improve this capability through a Public Finance Initiative (PFI) deal for six Roll-on Roll-off ferries, the purchase of five C-17 large transport aircraft from the US and the future procurement of 25 new A400M aircraft. But experience in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that problems remain, particularly with airlift.

The Committee will examine the adequacy of the MoD’s current Strategic Lift and whether the proposals in the Strategic Defence Review need to be revisited. The inquiry will also examine the MoD’s use of commercial organisations to provide Strategic Lift.
.
.
.
The Committee would welcome written evidence on these matters. This should be sent to the Clerk of the Defence Committee by Thursday 29 March 2007.


Isn't it finally time to include FSTA in the inquiry?

[GLGNDB]

Saudi's looking at getting 2 A330 MRTT aircraft for between 350 and 400 million Euros.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20070212:M TFH20398_2007-02-12_14-54-01_PAC007654&type=comktNews&rpc=44

[ORAC]

DefenseNews.com: UAEAF Signs Tanker Aircraft MOU with EADS

In a surprise announcement, United Arab Emirates officials declared that the country’s Air Force and Air Defense Command has picked the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport Aircraft (MRTT) as its preferred choice for a contract to provide three aerial tankers.

“The UAE Armed Forces has signed today [Feb. 19] a Memo of Understanding [MOU] with EADS for the tanker aircraft,” said Maj.Gen. Obaid Al-Ketbi, the UAE Armed Forces Chief of Logistics, at a press conference at the International Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX-07) in Abu Dhabi.

The selection was the second Middle East victory in a week for the Airbus aircraft, and the second loss for Boeing’s KC-767.

Ketbi said the value of the deal would be negotiated in the coming months. “This is just an MOU and not the final deal with EADS,” said Ketbi. “If negotiations with [Airbus parent] EADS proceed successfully we will sign with them, but if for any reason these talks fail then we will move to our second choice, Boeing.”

Ketbi’s announcement surprised officials at both companies. EADS officials appeared to be unaware of the announcement by the UAE or the signing of the agreement. “We would rather wait and see this on paper,” said an EADS official.

This is the second setback for the Boeing KC-767 in the past couple of weeks. On Feb. 12, officials at French Ministry of Defense announced a contract with Saudi Arabia for two A330 MRTTs. Although French officials later retracted the announcement, saying that deal was still under negotiations, officials at Boeing and EADS acknowledged that the MRTT had won the bid.

“I can’t imagine why any customer right now, with the U.S. Air Force in its final stages with that [tanker] program, would not wait six months to see where that goes,” said Jeff Johnson, Vice President of Boeing IDS Middle East. “It’s a potential 180-plus airplanes, and you know the logistics chain alone to support those airplanes will lower the cost significantly.”

Johnson said an hour before Ketbi’s press conference that if customers in the region had an immediate need for a tanker “there are KC-135 aircraft available that we can bring in and use for training and for refueling capability until the USAF program is declared, and we are confident we will win it.”
He said that the USAF is actively marketing excess KC-135 aircraft, which could be used by customers who have an immediate need for air refueling capabilities. But Johnson did not specify whether the USAF would want to lease or sell its KC-135s.

Many Boeing officials and experts had said the USAF indecision on its future tanker platform had affected customers worldwide, who have become impatient with the lengthy selection process.

Boeing KC-767 is competing for the USAF deal against the A330 (KC-30), offered jointly by EADS and Northrop Grumman.

[BEagle]

"He said that the USAF is actively marketing excess KC-135 aircraft, which could be used by customers who have an immediate need for air refueling capabilities."

Why on earth, if the USAF has 'excess KC-135 aircraft' do they have such a perceived urgent need for a -135 replacement?

KC-767 really is looking a bit of a turkey these days, it seems......

[GLGNDB]

Doing some maths based on the top end figure of 400m Euros for the 2 Saudi MRTT, I came up with the following:

1xA330 MRTT costs approx £139m to purchase.

£500m per year is the approx budget per year for FSTA under PFI.
RAF will get what 9 to 14 aircraft under this scheme.

For the same £500m per year, the following could be purchased outright:

3xA330 MRTT
Spares & Training.

I would make the following proposals regarding FSTA.
Year 1 budget - use this as deposits for aircraft. Based on a 10% deposit the RAF could secure slots for 30 aircraft and have money left. Remember final payment for each aircraft occurs on delivery. Let's say we order 24 aircraft in the following fits:

8 X MRTT with Boom.
8 X A330F
8 X A330-200 include 1 in a dedicated VIP fit and 1 in a re-rollable VIP fit.

Deliveries at the rate of 3 a year for 8 years.

So over the course of 8 years we would have increased our capablities and bought and paid for the aircraft.

The A330 & A330F both have the range to easily do UK to Middle East non stop.

[Saintsman]

The MOD cannot afford to buy new aircraft outright which is why they are going to lease them.

It is no different to an individual leasing a car. It is going to cost them more in the long run. The leasing company has to buy the car, recover their costs and make a profit (otherwise why bother?). If you include routine servicing with the deal it will cost extra.

Aeroplanes cost more to buy and run, thats why the figures are so high.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Saintsman

You are missing the point. We cannot afford to purchase the 20-ish KA330s that we need NOW. We might be able to afford an incremental procurement of X number per year for Y years and introduce them slowly and affordably. Even the USAF are looking at in the order of 17 KC-Xs per year for a number of years!!

GLGNDB

Fine idea but too many pax only A330s and not enough tanker A330s in your suggestion. And could we have the freighters as tankers as well? I would suggest 10 x KC30s (boom, centreline hose and wing podded), 8 KA330s (with wing pods) and 2 KA330s with a VIP fit (and the ability to fit wing pods). Then perhaps we could rightfully have the honour of transporting the Boss of Her Majesty's Flying Club again!!

[BEagle]

Australian A330MRTT will have pax, freight and tanker capability, including a flyable boom. No extra tanks needed.

Useful for not only our pointy-jets, but also those of our NATO allies who are often, nay, always the first to squeal for more AAR when Mad George has another war.

Might I suggest (after $hitcanning PFI):

10 x A330MRTT (identical to the RAAF aircraft with 2 hoses and a boom)
6 x KA330F (full freight with 3 hoses)
2 x A330-200 (VIP or pax)

That's 10 x A330C1K, 6 x A330KC2 and 2 x A330CC3

......and an old Varsity off the Catterick fire dump for Bliar, Brown and Browne....:mad:

[D-IFF_ident]

Any word on the fit for the UAE or Saudi? Booms and UARRSIs?

Agree with RAF being dragged into the 20th Century with Booms - but a centreline hose could be useful for the legacy jets. Mind, the E3 has a UARRSI, who else would need the centreline, MR4? VC-10s will be gone, C-130s I guess. Maybe would could start force extending the short legged C-17s if we had booms...

I'm suspicious that we won't see booms for years though because that would require a change in strategy, and we fear change. Much better to stick with the out-dated systems we have and not rock the boat.

BEags - Saw the A-310 Boom demonstration went well - does the POD system route fuel to the opposite wing a la KC-10, or jettison valve a la VC10?

[BEagle]

D-IFFers, the A400M will also have a 'man's way of refuelling' (probe) rather than the girl-flaps thing the USAF still uses....;)

As will MRA4 and any other RAF jet equipped for AAR, such as Sentinel....?? Only the E-3D has hermaphrodite AAR systems.

But it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a boom for Uncle Spam (and his customers') aircraft, so that the RAF could support NATO mates who fly F-16s, for example.

As for the World's only 21st Century tanker currently in service, the superb Airbus A310MRTT has an AAR gallery fed by 3 hydraulically driven DC Carter fuel pumps located in the centre tank; internal transfer systems ensure that the centre tank is kept supplied with fuel. Normally the left pod is fed by the left half of this AAR gallery, fed by a Blue System pump and the right pod is fed by the right half, fed by a Yellow System pump. If either Blue or Yellow pumps fail, a Green System pump can take over the supply to the failed side. How this is done is currently being slightly modified, to ensure that both halves of the gallery will always maintain independence of supply. This is to ensure that full supply pressure to the pods should be maintained in the event of a single failure.

The A310MRTT does not have a fuel dump system. Although it wouldn't be too difficult to modify the pods to incorporate a 'dump to atmosphere' mode with a suitable T-piece and actuator system based on the 901 pod's 'ground refuel' system, should there prove to be a need.

[LFFC]

GLGNDB

Doing some maths based on the top end figure of 400m Euros for the 2 Saudi MRTT, I came up with the following:

1xA330 MRTT costs approx £139m to purchase.

£500m per year is the approx budget per year for FSTA under PFI.
RAF will get what 9 to 14 aircraft under this scheme.

For the same £500m per year, the following could be purchased outright:

3xA330 MRTT
Spares & Training.


Sadly, that £500m figure was a very simple average of the £13b over 27 years. But life isn't really that simple.

If you assume that the deal is indexed at a 5% cost increase every year, then the first yearly payment would be about £222m and the last payment about £828m. The total cost over 27 years would then be about £13b.

So you can see the attraction of PFI - very little initial outlay. The downside is that it does mortgage our future funds.

[BEagle]

"So you can see the attraction of PFI - very little initial outlay. The downside is that it does mortgage our future funds."

I wonder who gave the MoD that idea....

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

"So let me ask you. You gotta funding problem? Tell you what I'm gonna do - I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse...... Capisce?"

[MarkD]

Beags - 2 x ex airline A345s would be a better VIP bet I would think - in VIP config it would have an incredible range. Common cockpit and Trent family engines assuming Trents on the MRTTs.

AC are divesting their A345s in the near future and while they probably already have homes perhaps SQ might be willing sellers. 330s are hard to come by these days.

[LFFC]

In the House of Lords (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/11.htm)this afternoon:

Earl Attlee: "Finally, the Minister has commented upon air trooping. If we are to keep large numbers of troops deployed on overseas operations, we must have modern wide-bodied jets to get them to and from theatre and to take them on leave when they expect to be on leave. I have written to the Minister on that point and I look forward to his reply in due course"

Lord Drayson: "I absolutely agree that we need modern jets, and as quickly as possible. The jets that we have are too old, which puts a lot of pressure on the air bridge."

So what's holding up FSTA? If a PFI deal is too difficult, lets just buy them!

[hoodie]

From Today's Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1444192.ece):


The Treasury is threatening to cut defence projects worth up to £35 billion in the Government’s next spending round, The Times has learnt.



The Treasury view of a budget increase is, typically, more sceptical and it is understood to be questioning the need for a number of high-profile projects.

Those questioned include the next batch of Eurofighter Typhoons...

The Treasury’s view is that the MoD does not need Tranche 3... as well as Joint Strike Fighter...

Another possible RAF casualty is FSTA, the tanker refuelling project. The Treasury is not thought to be keen on this project, but as a Private Finance Initiative there is less pressure to kill it.

[Cannonfodder]

Was under the impression that there was going to be a big meeting about FSTA this month, with possible contract signature soon thereafter.
Any truth in this or am I just dreaming.........again!!!!

[ORAC]

Things still moving along, albeit slowly....


REUTERS: Britain Preparing to Sign Refueling Plane Contract

The British government is to sign in the next few days a contract for refueling aircraft worth $24.6 billion, the French newspaper La Tribune reported March 16. The British defense ministry is to finalize the deal, which includes aircraft and servicing for 27 years, before asking for final approval from the finance ministry.

The order will be placed in the next month with the AirTanker consortium, which includes European aerospace group EADS, French group Thales and British companies Rolls Royce, Cobham, and VT Group.

The contract is to include an order for about 15 Airbus A330-200 planes for the refueling of the Royal Air Force (RAF).

----------------------------------------------------

DefenseNews: Financial Bids for U.K. Tanker Competition Pending

PARIS: A financial competition for Britain’s acquisition of Airbus A330 military tankers under the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) program is expected to open in the coming weeks, a spokesman for the AirTanker consortium said March 16.

“We are optimistic the next stage of the process can begin in the next few weeks,” said a consortium spokesman, confirming a report in French daily La Tribune.

The next stage is the financial competition, in which banks submit proposals under public-private partnership rules to fund acquisition of the A330s. Under the deal, the Royal Air Force’s in-flight refueling needs for the next 27 years will be met under a lease arrangement held by the consortium.

A signing of the FSTA contract was contingent on the outcome of the financial competition....

[Art Field]

Thanks for that ORAC. I had understood that the long delay had been due to uncertainty about the financial aspects of the contract for FSTA. It would appear that that side of things is only just being addressed. One would like to think that as the banks have our money coming out of their ears they will come up with the cash pronto.

[Jackonicko]

Hmmm.

It was the failure to obtain exactly this kind of funding that reportedly put paid to the plan to obtain the ex-Danish Merlins (though that programme may now be back 'on') - and that was very, very small beer by comparison.

[Sloanar]

ORAC quotes:

"The next stage is the financial competition, in which banks submit proposals under public-private partnership rules to fund acquisition of the A330s."

Hmm..."financial competition" eh? One wonders how long that will take, said Grandfather.

I thought having a sound financial solution was part of the compliancy checks that were pre-requisite to passing the Down-select Stage. What is the DPA (or whatever it's called now) playing at in allowing three years to pass with no further guarantee that the financial solution will actually fit the bill? Where's the sound financial footing that was necessary for a just Downselect?

Hmmm:=

[philrigger]

Beagle
"the A400M will also have a 'man's way of refuelling' (probe)....
As will MRA4 and any other RAF jet equipped for AAR, such as Sentinel....?? "
As I understand it funding has not been obtained for the RAF version of the A400M to be AAR equipped.
The Sentinel is not AAR equipped.





'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[South Bound]

I think your understanding is wrong - I believe the probe is a part of the common standard aircraft, but no doubt Beags will confirm presently...

[mary_hinge]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2602173&C=europe 12th March
The 12 billion pound, 27-year Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program has stalled just short of a go-ahead for preferred service provider AirTanker, while the British government resolves an unrelated argument with consortium leader EADS over Airbus investment in the United Kingdom.

Airbus to invest heavily in UK composite capabilities
(30Mar07,
Airbus is planning a €570 million ($760 million) investment to upgrade composite capability at its Broughton site in the UK,
The company will start the two- to three-year investment plan next year as part of its overall Power8 restructuring plan.

[yimkin]

Rumour has it that A400M will have pods fitted but no HDU!:bored::bored:

[LFFC]

There was some really good stuff discussed by the Defence Select Committee on Tuesday (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/uc462-ii/uc46202.htm). Here is a clip about FSTA.

You should see the discussion about A400M, C130 etc too!!



Q178 Chairman: Moving on to the Future Tanker Aircraft, when is it expected to enter service? What does "by the turn of this decade" mean?
Mr Rowntree: Assuming that the approval comes through very shortly, and we believe that is now in the approval process, if that happens and the programme runs as expected, it will start to deliver its first aircraft in 2011.
Q179 Chairman: When did the MoD first expect it to enter service?
Mr Rowntree: Because it has only just gone through main gate, we did not have an approved level. I would have to send you a note on that, I am afraid, rather than go through my notes.
Q180 Chairman: Would it be right to say that at the initial gate the forecast in-service date was January 2007.
Mr Rowntree: Let me check.
Q181 Chairman: Which is a few months ago now. That was the earliest possible in-service date, and the latest was January 2009.
Lieutenant General Figgures: I think, Chairman, if we may, we must drop you a note to confirm that.
Mr Rowntree: The dates that you suggest sound about right to me.
Q182 Chairman: Yet we have not signed a contract yet. When do you expect to sign a contract? AirTanker expect it by the end of 2007. Does that sound consistent?
Mr Rowntree: Yes, pending the approval coming through, the next phase is to enter a funding competition, and we would expect to close the contract in November of this year.
Q183 Chairman: You do expect approval to come through, do you, because CDS said when he came in front of us we have a fifth C-17 coming along the next year, we have the A400M somewhat down the track - we have heard about that - and, hopefully, the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. That does not sound very promising, does it?
Mr Rowntree: I cannot really comment on where this is in the approvals process and on the likelihood of that happening.
Q184 Chairman: General Figgures?
Lieutenant General Figgures: Again I have to be careful about pre-empting my elders and betters. My planning assumption is the FSTA coming into service, the first one, and being able to use it, in 2011. That does not mean to say everyone has signed up, agreed or anything, but that is my plan for the moment. It is back to: there are risks and how would I manage them, and so on and so forth. That is my plan, Chairman.
Q185 Mr Holloway: Is anyone thinking about other solutions like going shopping in Utah and converting things?
Lieutenant General Figgures: No, we are committed to the FSTA in-service 2011 with the current procurement strategy.
Q186 Mr Holloway: If people started talking about this as a potential PFI deal in 1997 and it has taken until just now, 2005, to get AirTanker as a preferred bidder, why has it all taken so long?
Mr Rowntree: I think the point about the Private Finance Initiative is that it passes a huge amount of risk on to industry. This is about the biggest PFI we have ever done, but the consequence of that risk transfer is that industry needs to be very confident that they understand the requirement and how they are going to deliver it, and that does take a long time. This will move quickly once we get the contract closed, because a lot of the risks that we would normally bottom out after the main contract placement we have done a massive amount of work in these early phases to make sure that the solution is very robust, both financially and technically.
Q187 Mr Holloway: Have you done any analysis of what premium you will be paying over the long-run for the person who takes this risk as compared to if we had just done it ourselves?
Mr Rowntree: Yes, very much so.
Q188 Mr Holloway: How much more is it going to cost over the long-run, how many millions or billions of pounds?
Mr Rowntree: It is a value for money solution.
Q189 Chairman: I am not sure that is a fully comprehensive answer.
Mr Rowntree: We have compared it considering, if you look at conventional procurements, what the historic trends tell us in terms of what cost growth there is in those. So we have taken an informed judgment as to what the through-life cost of this deal will be, considering also the availability of this service, because we are buying a service, not an aircraft, and it is value for money compared to a conventional procurement.
Q190 Mr Holloway: You say you are buying a service, but there is also the question of third-party revenue for whoever has these aircraft?
Mr Rowntree: Yes.
Q191 Mr Holloway: Are there any issues with restrictions from the US in terms of the electronic equipment on this aircraft which might restrict third-party revenue and deployment?
Mr Rowntree: That issue has been assessed and addressed through the assessment phase and we are confident that we have a way forward on any of those sorts of issues. That is a mature position.
Q192 Mr Holloway: What about this question of them switching between being on military registers and then on civil registers? I do not understand this, but this is an issue that someone suggested I raise. What is behind that and what is your answer to it?
Mr Rowntree: We have a means of achieving that quickly and effectively when necessary.
Q193 Mr Holloway: What does the caveat "when necessary" mean?
Mr Rowntree: Well, when we need it for military use, that is when necessary. So, when it is going to be earning civil revenue, we have a means of making sure that it can do that and that any security conditions of the type that you have mentioned are properly addressed.
Q194 Mr Holloway: Finally, are you confident that in 20 years' time people will not look back at this gigantic PFI contract as a long-run thing where the British taxpayer has paid a gigantic premium that we could have avoided?
Lieutenant General Figgures: I think the answer is in your question "which we could have avoided". The proposition would be that the supplier is better able to manage some of these risks than perhaps the Ministry of Defence, because we want the service, we do not necessarily want to run all that goes with the provision of that service. So, in terms of availability of aircraft, support costs, capability, all that is dealt with by the supplier.
Q195 Mr Holloway: So it has got nothing to do with the inability of the Treasury at the moment to put money up front; it is all about getting a better service and something that the MoD does not have to trouble itself with over the long-run?
Lieutenant General Figgures: We trouble ourselves with getting value for money because of course we have to ensure that the money that we are allocated is spent to best effect. In terms of our assessment of how we were going to meet this requirement over time, this looked the best option.
Q196 Mr Holloway: I am trying to get at whether this, probably gigantic, premium that these people are going to earn over the long run is because the Treasury is not in a position to put its hand in its pocket now and fund it that way rather than doing a PFI?
Lieutenant General Figgures: If you turned it over, we would have to find a premium within our own budgetary system because there are risks attached there. We would have to make some provision either to manage these risks out and retire them or to buy out the impact should these risks mature. The idea that we pay a premium over and above the contingency we would have to put aside in the equipment plan is not valid. The question is: Where best are these risks managed?
Q197 Willie Rennie: Are the problems being experienced on other Airbus aircraft programmes having an impact upon the FSTA programme?
Mr Rowntree: The FSTA programme is based on a mature aircraft, the A330, so we would not foresee that the problems with the A380, which are primarily problems of development and production, would impact on that, no.
Q198 Willie Rennie: You have not experienced any knock-on effects of those problems?
Mr Rowntree: No.
Q199 Willie Rennie: Would the MoD be able to maintain and support the current fleet of VC10 and Tristar aircraft if there are delays in the FSTA programme?
Mr Rowntree: My answer to that is along the same lines as I answered slightly more comprehensively on C-130. Tristar and VC10 fit within my cluster of projects, as does Future Tanker, and the team leaders concerned are working closely together with Andrew's people to make sure that we pull the right levers to make the right sort of investments to keep the Tristar and VC10 running longer. Both Tristar and VC10 have the capability to run longer and it is just a matter of making those investments and making those decisions at the right decision points.
Q200 Willie Rennie: Could you elaborate on some of the difficulties in extending the life and what the cost would be?
Mr Rowntree: A lot of it is to do with ageing aircraft issues and making sure that the systems have the right sorts of lives and the structural type for modifications. If you would like more detail on that, I could send you a note.
Chairman: I think we would.

[BEagle]

Back in 1996 when we had an AT/AAR symposium in the Gateway, if I recall correctly the ISD for FSTA was supposed to be 2004? That's 50% delivered and in service....

Now it's 2011 for just the first?

Meanwhile the Aussies, who shrewdly spotted what an utter crock of $hit the whole PFI farce really is, have had their first 'green' (actually a very fetching shade of gray, complete with RAAF markings) A330-200 at Getafe for almost a year now being converted into the first A330MRTT.....

And for just how long is the dear old VC10 expected to stagger on? Shares in companies which make black bodge tape and speed tape must be looking pretty healthy.

Is there anyone still alive at Rolls Royce who still remembers what a Conway actually looks like?

[Art Field]

To be fair Beags [but I do not see why we should be] the first in service date was planned to be Jan 07 with all delivered by Jan 11. That was, however, when the Numbers were expected to be around 23. The current guess seems to be around 14. Since the lead-in time looks to be at least 4 years even 2011 is rather optimistic, the last VC10 was due to expire in 2010.

[LFFC]

What fascinates me is Mr Rowntree's insistence that this deal represents best value for money:


Q188 Mr Holloway: How much more is it going to cost over the long-run, how many millions or billions of pounds?
Mr Rowntree: It is a value for money solution.
Q189 Chairman: I am not sure that is a fully comprehensive answer.


Yet he goes on to say:

Mr Rowntree: We have compared it considering, if you look at conventional procurements, what the historic trends tell us in terms of what cost growth there is in those. So we have taken an informed judgment as to what the through-life cost of this deal will be, considering also the availability of this service, because we are buying a service, not an aircraft, and it is value for money compared to a conventional procurement.

So, he expects cost growth over the whole life of the project, but wants Airtanker to take that at risk, not the MOD. But if I was the boss of Airtanker, I'd just factor that extra cost growth into the whole contract price, and charge that to the MOD from the onset, regardless of whether the growth was likely to happen or not. Chances are that, if the cost growth happens years in the future, I could claim that I couldn't afford it and raise the price anyway. In every way, I'd be onto a winner!

That doesn't sound like good value for money to me. However, spreading the cost over the whole life may make it more affordable. To me, the real question is, although it may be affordable now, will it still be affordable in 20 years time?

[BEagle]

Arters, that was true once the PFI nonsense hijacked the FLA programme a couple of years later, but at the time (1996) the first 'MRTT' was supposed to be entering service well before 2007! Still intended then to be the excellent A310MRTT, albeit of the Filton flavour......

I remember a certain civil serpent announcing "This programme WILL NOT SLIP!!" when the PFI idiocy first came along.

Will not slip, eh?

[LFFC]

From todays Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e4521ba4-0e4a-11dc-8219-000b5df10621.html).


The use of the private finance initiative to acquire a fleet of air refuelling tankers for the Royal Air Force has delayed the acquisition of the aircraft and increased the cost, according to a senior executive of the company building the aircraft.

The widely criticised initiative seeks to transfer the risks associated with public sector projects to the private sector in part or in full. The contract for the air tanker - estimated to be worth £12bn - has been described as the largest PFI.

[The Helpful Stacker]

What a farce. With a projected fleet of just 14 a/c when is a civil airline going to be able make use of these a/c for ferrying people to Tenerife and back if current operational commitments of the AT/AAR fleet are considered? Without the civil usage the costs of operating them will be thrust back on the RAF alone surely?

'Person for person the best air force in the world' my arrse. Its embarrassing.:mad:

Plastic training aircraft on PFI are one thing, operationally vital aircraft are quite another.

[Art Field]

On what is today the seventh anniversary of the invitation to tender for a service to provide Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft for the Royal Air Force one has to once again raise the question,when, and maybe add if?. What little information that has appeared recently seems more negative than positive with further VC10 life extension and TriStar re-instrumentation being mentioned.
It is now far too late surely to consider re-engining the Fun Bus but how much longer will the world accept four Conways in full song, a magnificent but ear shattering experience? More importantly, the need for reliability in both the Transport and Tanker roles will only become more challenging as the current fleet gets even older

[NURSE]

Or Bin the PFI and do a straight buy.

I do wonder how long it will be before we don't have an armed forces but contract a PMC to fight our wars for us?

[BEagle]

All sorts of rumours abound:

The VC10 might have to stagger on until 2020
Financing the A330 PFI is proving a lot more difficult/expensive in the wake of the Northern Rock and 'Sub prime' loans problems.
'Civilian owned' aircraft used in operational theatres will not necessarily be considered to be military aircraft.However, the glass-cockpit Timmy is certainly going ahead. Not sure about the simulator though.....

[BEagle]

See:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/03/220605/saudi-arabia-picks-eads-to-supply-three-airbus-a330-based-tankers.html


Meanwhile, what news of the UK's FSTA programme?

One wonders quite how the RAF officers at Abbey Wood on the FSTA programme manage to fill their days....

[6Z3]

Spect they play pick-up-sticks with the UKMFTS crowd

[BEagle]

Or Zoom, Schwartz, Profigliano in the pub at lunchtime?

34 years now since we last played that, mate!

[6Z3]

Yes, it's on my CV - after well over 30 years of practice I am a recognised expert in occupying my day with totally unproductive pursuits. I really cannot understand why Abbey Wood hasn't snapped me up long ago!

[LFFC]

Looking back at the first post in this thread, Art Field pointed out that the FSTA Invitation To Negotiate (ITN) was issued in December 2000. That started me thinking; work on the FSTA project must have started some time before that. Sure enough, I found that consortia were invited to submit outline proposals (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001122/text/01122w05.htm) for FSTA in November 1999.

So we're now about 8 years, one month and a few days into the FSTA project.

Here are a couple of other interesting facts:

President Kennedy made his famous "Let's Go To The Moon (http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html)" speech to Congress on 25 May 1961.

Apollo 11 landed on the moon on 20 July 1969.

I calculate that it took NASA 8 years, one month and 25 days to achieve their goal.

I wonder how much longer we'll have to wait for FSTA?

[BEagle]

It went further back than that!

I was first tasked to provide information about potential tanker aircraft to 'MoD Future Systems' as it then was - in 1994. And they'd been looking at potential aircraft for a while earlier than that.

Of the options presented, we identified the best options as the Boeing 767-200ER and the Airbus A310-300 (with additional fuel tanks and a cargo door). At that time, the A330 wasn't under consideration.

Worst overall option as a tanker was the 'FLA' - which eventually became the A400M.

Then came PFI........:ugh:

[6Z3]

It must be time to give the beast a name. Something like "MERLIN" might be appropriate.

[D-IFF_ident]

Just had a surf around to look for any news... Neither the MOD nor the Airtanker websites have been updated for about 6 months. Although the Airtanker site suggests that the contract should have been signed by the end of 2007 (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/business-timeline.htm) and that 'Aircraft development', 'Conversion and Cert', 'New hangar', and 'New trg school' will be complete by 2010 - which I make now less that 2 years away.

Quite clever how they have put the a/c delivery on the graphic - if you hover over the 'Tanker deliveries' tab a little window opens with the date - 2034.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Wasn't it 4 years ago this month that Air Tanker were selected as "preferred" bidder? And wasn't the original plan 3 years of assessment, 4 years of transition from initial to full service followed by 20 years of full service delivery? And we still don't have a contract yet...........

[BEagle]

Feb 2005, wasn't it, Roland?

I rather liked this from the 'FSTA Questions and Answer' - last updated 15 Sep 2006:

Q. What is happening now?
A. We are in final negotiations with AirTanker aimed at securing detailed agreement on the PFI service contract.

Hmmm..... 'Final', eh?

Do I hear that the ancient old FunBus may now have to stagger on until 2020...:confused:

[Brain Potter]

Whilst preferred bidder status was conferred in Feb 2005, it was actually Jan 04 when Air Tanker was announced as "the bidder most likely to provide a value for money solution".

This decision effectively ended the chances of TTSC, the BAE Sytems/Boeing offer to provide ex-BA 767s. So it really is over 4 years since the decision to adopt the A330 was taken.

[Roland Pulfrew]

No BEags 2004 was the announcement that AirTanker were the chosen partner, and TTSC were dropped, but that significant work was required to bring the bid to contract. 2005 was confirmation that the next step was going ahead.

[BEagle]

Ah yes, you are of course correct, Roland.

There have been so many dates and changes throughout the sorry FSTA saga that I forgot that one!

For example, in 1996 we were told by MoD AO AD3 that the VC10 and TriStar would be completely replaced "within the next 10 years"...... And yet, nearly 12 years later and with tens of mi££ions having been spent on the assessment phase, there is still no contract.

Mind you, at the same meeting we were also told that the ISD for 'FLA' was to be 2004.........

Thank heavens for the C-17!

HNY to you too, mate!

[Axel-Flo]

Those in the real know, why are we not having a boom receptical and boom fitted to the centre rear of our version? It would seem more relevant since we are (in truth and reality) pretty much always going to be working with coalition aircraft so multiple interoprability would be ace...... Consolodation an asset as well keeping fuel in the sky ready as and when. Is it anything to do with the required space to fit these systems not being compatable with the partners (PF side) requirement for the frames?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Axel

Sadly 2 simple answers:

There was no UK requirement for boom refuelling. The C17s were leased and we couldn't AAR them. The E3 has a probe for tanking from RAF tankers. The JSF variant that the UK were looking at would be probe and drogue equipped. Therefore the scrutineers in the MOD would not allow "gold plating" of the FSTA by allowing a boom and receptacle.

Which airline would be willing to lease, under the PFI irreducible spare capacity malarky, an airliner that would have additional weight (structural strengthening etc) for it to be capable of carrying a boom thereby eating into their profits.

Not defending the decision, which we all know flies in the face of coalition warfare and flexibility, just answering the question.

[D-IFF_ident]

The E3 does have a probe for AAR from RAF tankers but... It is not allowed to use the probe to refuel from other coalition tankers. For example, it uses only the boom behind USAF tankers. Does that mean that RAF and NATO E-3s retain the probe ONLY to maintain compatibility with the RAF's centre-line hoses and, if so, at what cost? The USAF E-3s don't have a probe of course.

IMHO the best compromise on the tanker is a recepticle for rcvr AAR, a boom and 2 wing pods. And if you have money to spare - add a centreline hose for redundancy (and legacy heavy rcvrs).

The absolute worst case scenario for a tanker platform would be wing pods only, no rcvr capability and leasing it through a PFI with a non-negotiable contract covering 27 years. I'd rather hang AAR pods under the bellies of our fast jets and let them buddy refuel each other.

[Art Field]

D-IFF. The buddy-buddy idea which was great as a safety idea for the navy is of little use in a deployment and is very wasteful in a tactical situation. I assume, if a decision is ever made, that some of the FSTA aircraft will still be fitted with centreline hoses since there will be probe fitted multi-engine aircraft, including the A400m, on the inventory for many years to come.

[D-IFF_ident]

Art, I understand that the party line is indeed that "some of the FSTA aircraft will still be fitted with centreline hoses" but cannot find anywhere how many "some" is.

Buddy refuelling was the next most ridiculous solution I could think of, after the PFI. I can't think of a more ridiculous solution.

If Paddy hasn't bought them all there are still some DC-10-30s available, at around $4.5million each (http://www.aviatorsale.com/Large_Transport_Jet/). anyone want in?

[Art Field]

D-IFF, I can, The present one, do nothing.

[BEagle]

Arters, very sage comment! As one would only expect from one of your years and experience in the AAR game.

One thing which might be considered, perhaps, is a podded centreline hose? We're seeing up to 1250 kg/min from the 907 pod, so rather than the more massive centreline hoses of the past, such as the Mk17 HDU, perhaps a pod mounted slightly off-centre (to avoid the need for additional Vmu testing etc) might suffice for the UK requirement.

Incidentally, many years ago we did suggest to the (retired) BJP that a boom would be a good idea - if only to guarantee a 3rd flight deck occupant! Because, at the time, the RAF was looking at only having 2 pilots to fly the 'Future Tanker'....

If the FSTA ever becomes reality, some form of centreline hose on 'a number' of aircraft is clearly essential. But TriStar experience would indicate that the ability to operate in the receiver role is not essential.

[Jackonicko]

I understand that the party line is indeed that "some of the FSTA aircraft will still be fitted with centreline hoses" but cannot find anywhere how many "some" is.

Isn't it the nine 'core' aircraft?

[Brain Potter]

I don't think that all 9 core ac will be 3-point.

General McNab, the AMC 4-star, has stated that KC-X is the number one procurement prority in the USAF (JSF was number 3). Furthermore, his list of KC-X "must have" features listed an air-refuelling capability as the 3rd most important attribute. He expanded by stating that they have operated a fleet of 60 tankers that are capable of refuelling alongside a fleet of around 600 that can't - and they are not going to make that mistake again.

It is quite depressing to see how low-spec the FSTA solution is alongside everyone else's new tankers. However, when considered in the context of the (lack-of) funding that the goverment is prepared to allocate to the military, the FSTA really is the best that can be hoped for. Boom, UAARSI or even an entire fleet of 3-pointers is a pipe-dream (geddit!).

Incidentally, the USN have found that buddy-equipped Hornets are useful hose-multipliers when operated with big-wing tankers - which once again proves the old adage of "hoses in the sky".

[D-IFF_ident]

Brain, not just Gen McNabb - I heard Gen Mosley make the same statement at a different conference. I Googled "Number one priority for the RAF" but failed to find anything comprehensive. Perhaps it would help if we even knew where our priorities lie?

Art - I stand corrected - doing nothing is the absolute worst case scenario and it appears to be just what is occurring.

[Green Flash]

One thing which might be considered, perhaps, is a podded centreline hose? We're seeing up to 1250 kg/min from the 907 pod, so rather than the more massive centreline hoses of the past, such as the Mk17 HDU, perhaps a pod mounted slightly off-centre (to avoid the need for additional Vmu testing etc) might suffice for the UK requirement.
Beags
a la the Indian Il-78 MKI (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1232994&WxsIERv=Vylhfuva%20Vy-78ZXV&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Vaqvn%20-%20Nve%20Sbepr&QtODMg=Jnqqvatgba%20%28JGA%20%2F%20RTKJ%29&ERDLTkt=HX%20-%20Ratynaq&ktODMp=Whar%2029%2C%202007&BP=1&WNEb25u=Qnivq%20Znefunyy&xsIERvdWdsY=EX-3452&MgTUQtODMgKE=Vaqvna%20Nve%20Sbepr%20VY78%20Zvqnf%20gnaxre%20 ng%20Jnqqvatgba%20va%20fhccbeg%20bs%20n%20qrgnpuzrag%20bs%20 6%20Fhxubv%20Fh-30f%20-%20urer%20orvat%20gbjrq%20gb%20gur%20fgngvp%20rapybfher%20sb e%20gur%202007%20Vagreangvbany%20Nvefubj&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=2096&NEb25uZWxs=2007-07-07%2014%3A21%3A22&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=1024&height=695&sok=JURER%20%20%28nveyvar%20%3D%20%27Vaqvn%20-%20Nve%20Sbepr%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=228&prev_id=1233049&next_id=1232862)? And I believe the noisy old Tumansky's are being replaced by quieter less thursty jobs?

[BEagle]

Yes, that's the sort of thing I was thinking of.

It could also be a potential future upgrade option for the A310MRTT to allow the Luftwaffe to refuel their A400Ms?

I shall be interested to learn how easy it is to prod with an Airbus FBW aircraft - although station keeping of an A330 behind a C-135FR has, I understand, been achieved without any difficulty.

[D-IFF_ident]

Beags - you and me both mate! Also, I think it was Brain who pointed-out the question of monitoring a student ('following-through') during rcvr AAR.

I've found little to no info on the development of rcvr capabilitiy so far and, although the current test pilot does have experience of AAR, I'm not sure he is fully up to speed on current techniques, if he is on procedures.

I'm sure the development will be complete before delivery....

On the other hand - it won't matter to the RAF - they'll just need to know how to wind the hoses in and out!

[FFP]

Inch of power on.....half an inch off ;)

[Dan Winterland]

Quote BEagle: "I shall be interested to learn how easy it is to prod with an Airbus FBW aircraft".

With about 2000 hrs on Airbus FBW types, quite easy I expect. The sidestick works differently to a conventional yolk in that side to side movement selects a bank angle and fore and aft movement selcect a g loading (for those who don't know how it works) but it is still very precise. And the software can be modified to change the handling as required. For example, my company has recently had the flare mode changed in it's A320 aircraft to prevent the aircraft landing long on autolands, and the A319 is now available in a steep approach variety where a button is pressed and glideslopes up to 7 degrees can be flown. There are quite a few flight control software changes involved in that modification. And if that doesn't work, the aircraft could be selected to 'Direct Law' where the stick moves the control surfaces proportionally - as in a conventional aircraft.

[BEagle]

Hi Dan,

I expect you're correct. However, using the sidestick in the pitch sense to select a g loading rather than a specific pitch attitude might take a bit of learning when following the tanker references (of course you never just chase the basket.....ooh no, deary me no!!) during an approach to contact?

I understand that FCS software modifications in the 'receiver' role are under consideration for the KC-30; however, I don't know whether any decision has been made to incorporate them yet. Perhaps a mode closer to 'Alternate' rather than 'Normal' law?

In the 'tanker' role, a non-linear heading mode can be used to allow gentle entry into turns, then a gentle capture of the 25 deg bank angle, followed by a similar roll-out. Basically this emulates the way we taught people to turn the VC10 using 'MAN' turn mode - so, no doubt to the horror of some, it will be entirely possible to use a HDG/TRK selection when in AAR TKR FLT mode....

Nice jet - as a certain PPRuNer will soon find out ;)

[Dan Winterland]

Although the FBW busses have a different control philosophy, one thing that people who have flown them agree on is that the don't feel much different to conventional aircraft. In fact, they have a couple of advantages. First, they are very stable. Second, they don't require trimming. And there is a popular misconception that the side stick takes a bit of getting used to. About 15 minutes seems to be enough - usually!

There is of course the snag there is no connection between the sticks. But that is the case in any phase of flight -just as much in the landing as an approach to a basket. It hasn't caused many problems so far!

A nice jet to fly - as the PPRuNer will discover.

[D-IFF_ident]

Dan, I have 2 questions about how the FBW systems approximate techniques used in legacy systems. First, does the FADEC have the ability to 'turn itself back on'? i.e. is there a speed, relevant to Vs or GStall when the FADEC might engage itself, even if the a/c is in the direct/basic/normal law? i.e. can you fly at 1.2g stall or 1.15Vs perhaps, for low speed AAR? Second, I'm guessing that, like the C-17 and the F-16, there are simple enough software changes that can be made for an 'AAR mode' for the controls when receiving, but, again in relation to the thrust levers, how easy would it be to make an approach from pre-contact at 1 foot per second, and is there any chance that the FADEC could enter the TOGA range while accelerating?

Just out of idle curiosity of course.... :cool:

[Ivan Rogov]

If FSTA will have a centreline hose to allow large aircraft to refuel, will there be enough clearance from the engines, airframe turbulence?

The 767 and A330 will have much larger engines than current RAF platforms, the VC-10 seems ideally configured (not implying it should stay!) and AFAIK the Tristar has to reduce power to avoid issues. Also if they have a higher Max weight will this could create much more turbulence for the receiver? As our other large aircraft are a bit slower, will FSTA have to increase it's AOA? Does anyone use tankers with a similar configuration to FSTA to refuel large aircraft using probe and drogue? The US are the only Force I can think of who routinely refuel large aircraft, I'm guessing the flying boom reduces any power/turbulence issues, I have seen photos of US aircraft hanging a basket off the boom when required, wouldn't this allow much more flexiblity? Will the current FSTA configuration provide the safest and easiest method of refuelling large aircraft, or have we just asked for something like we already use?

I'm sure someone will say of course the companies have done all the calculations, however we have seen the odd howler get through in the past.

[ORAC]

I have seen photos of US aircraft hanging a basket off the boom when required, wouldn't this allow much more flexiblity? depends what you mean by flexibility, the BDA is certainly an excellent means of collecting frangible probe tips.....

[Razor61]

I have seen photos of US aircraft hanging a basket off the boom when required, wouldn't this allow much more flexiblity?

I'm not sure on flexibility for this fit. The FAF KC-135F and the USAF KC-135's use the hose and drogue fitted to the boom to refuel European and USN aircraft. However am i correct in saying that when this is fitted to the boom, the boom can no longer be used in flight to refuel the aircraft that utilise the boom to refuel, such as every USAF aircraft.

So in regards to flexibility, i don't think so. When fitted it can only refuel one type of option, the probe. It has to be removed to use the boom for the recepticle option.

When flying to support a coalition of aircraft using both types of refuelling options then the KC-135 can only be flexible if they use the boom and hose units on the wings... and not the type discussed above.

[Dan Winterland]

DIFF idfent.

FADEC is the computer which controls the engines. Thrust manaement is controlled by the Flight Management Guidance Computer (FMGC). The slow speed protection in Normal Law is the Alpha Prot speed (a function of IAS, loading and Alpha). If you get to this point, Alpha Floor kicks in, TOGA thrust is applied (and can't be deselected without turning off the autothrust which will have automatically switched on) and the aircraft will climb like a fart in a bath assuming the autpilot is in. But this happens at a very slow speed - a speed at which a conventional aircraft will be close to stalling - and a speed at which I have never had to fly a tanker. Even refuelling Alberts!

But if it's a problem, I guess it could be changed. It is software and sortware can be re-written.

How easy would it be able to make a slow approach to the basket. Very, I would say. The Airbus thrust levers work like any other if the AT is not engaged. There is a misconception (probably because they don't move by themselves like Boeings) that there is no manual thust control. Of course there is. If you click off the AT or move the TLs out of the detents, manual thrust is what you have. And if the engine response isn't adequate, refer to my previous comment regarding software.

[Ivan Rogov]

Razor you are quite correct. I was referring to the wider flexibility FSTA not just a single sortie, I didn't want to end up writing an essay in my last post though.
In my experience large aircraft rarely require fuel on an ad-hoc basis and it has been decided well before the sortie, the basket would only need fitting for those trips. The basket would only need to be fitted to one or two aircraft at a time, this would give flexibility to the rest of the fleet on Coalition Ops/Exercises (Afghanistan 2001, Flag etc.) and give us options for C17, E-3D.

[Razor61]

Dan,
Going off back to the KC-135, i overheard a comment made by KC-135 crew chatting to KC-10 crew and the comment was about the KC-10 having autonomous throttle control when conducting AR whereas the KC-135 has not?
Something along those lines if anyone can confirm what i'm talking about is correct or complete bollocks.

Going back to FSTA. Saudi Arabia have ordered the A330 now, as did Australia. I Remember a few years ago the BMI A330 with Tonka in tow (and Falcon 20 for taking pics) above my head in AARA10 on a wake turbulance trial (i think). Since then, several air forces have taken up the Airbus apart from the UK where we continue to dither as always about a decision.

[Art Field]

For reasons already stated (weight, drag, civil clearance), a boom fit for FSTA would be most unwelcome to Air Tanker. If the number of HDU fitted aircraft meets the RAF daily requirement then they could perhaps have a boom and a pod centreline as Beags suggests. The hose on the end of a boom is a very poor third option. As far as one can gather from the limited information available Air Tanker would expect to have a number of frames available each day for their own use unless they have been given a fairly long period of warning. That is the PFI deal.

[Ivan Rogov]

For reasons already stated (weight, drag, civil clearance), a boom fit for FSTA would be most unwelcome to Air Tanker
Yes, but what about for the UK forces? I know we need the aircraft soon but PFI just doesn't make sense to me.

[Razor61]

As far as one can gather from the limited information available Air Tanker would expect to have a number of frames available each day for their own use unless they have been given a fairly long period of warning. That is the PFI deal.

If that is the case then why not just lease Global Air Tanker's DC-10's?
The idea that the RAF only has access to limited amount of airframes for Ops is absurd while the other airframes are flying around doing civilian operations.

The VC-10/Tristar fleet are up to their neck in flying AR and Cargo/Pax and so leasing a limited number of airframes to start with which do not tally up to the number of AT we currently have surely is a waste of time. Those limited number of airframes would be in use by the RAF non-stop i should imagine with no 'other use' available by Air Tanker due to the silly numbers being acquired under the leasing agreement.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Razor

Unfortunately therein lies the problem of the whole PFI deal. Remember that FSTA was supposed (under PFI) to replace the UK's AAR requirement. It was always assumed that AT "could be chartered" when needed. The FSTA fleet sizing is therefore based on the AAR requirement (and a little bit of core AT) ONLY.

Sadly since this decision was made we have found out that there is a HUGE AT requirement and that civil AT isn't necessarily available and almost certainly wont go into hostile areas (unless you are prepared to charter aircraft from some cough, cough, 3rd world airlines). If you fleet sized FSTA on the totality of the UK AAR and AT requirement the number would not be 14 - more like 22-ish.

If we carry on with new Liarbours wars of choice we will need the entire FSTA fleet all of the time(in the process solving AirTankers financial problems). We would also have to crew them at a much higher rate than currently planned if they were to be used effectively!! Don't forget we can have the whole fleet if we want, it's just that then there is no 3rd party revenue and "gainshare" :yuk:

[FFP]

KC-10 having autonomous throttle control

It's got autothrottles if that what you mean. Usually left them on for fighters but off for heavies....apparently.

[D-IFF_ident]

And NEVER used for rcvr AAR I believe.

DAN - Thanks for your answer, clears up my thoughts nicely.

Anyone else remember what the 3 platforms on offer when the RAF bought L1011s were? Wasn't it the ones they have, some others and KC10s? Sounds to me like they got the worst deal possible then and they are going to do the same again.

[sangiovese.]

Ex laker DC10s I believe

[Razor61]

Roland,
Thanks for clarifying that.
I suppose Northern Rock comes first though... rather than the Tankers!

FFP / DIFF
The crew in question were on a training sortie and the KC-10A was refuelling the KC-135R from Mildenhall to Lajes. They did their AR in AARA10 above here before going Oceanic and were talking to each other during the AR period about the auto-throttles.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I suppose Northern Rock comes first though... rather than the Tankers!

I must admit I was a bit surprised that the government could pluck £24B out of the hat just like that. Half of that would go along way to meeting the MOD "bow wave" in procurement!!!

[FFP]

KC-10A was refuelling the KC-135R

Currently all KC-135R/T models (Receiver capable) are with the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell AFB, KS. Most of these are used for force extension and Special Operations missions, and are crewed by highly qualified receiver capable crews. If not used for the receiver mission, these aircraft can be flown just like any other KC-135R.

Didn't think the majority of 135's have a UAARSI to be refuelled. Was it definately 10 refuelling a 135 or might it have been the other way around ? 135 refuelling a 10 is quite common (I'm off to try it in about 6hrs myself...)

DIFF,

Very true. Should have specified that I was talking about Tanker AR for the 10 there. ATS works well in Rx AR up to .5 of a mile though ;) You have a PM too.

[LFFC]

I must admit I was a bit surprised that the government could pluck £24B out of the hat just like that.

Roland,

I think that just indicates the desperate problems that would have transpired had the government let the first British Bank Run in 188 years continue.

It also illustrates the complete mess that the Treasury was left in by you-know-who.

[Guzlin Adnams]

RP.....thought it was £52b and counting for the NR fiasco.
Lets dither with FSTA for the rest of the Son of the Manses term of temporary power.....when he's gone.........maybe later this year......do the sensible thing and order the things properly...and enough of them.
Ok, so I've got through most of a bottle of Hawkstone Cab-Sauv...
makes the brain shink a lickle clearer.:ok:

[Razor61]

Currently all KC-135R/T models (Receiver capable) are with the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell AFB, KS. Most of these are used for force extension and Special Operations missions, and are crewed by highly qualified receiver capable crews. If not used for the receiver mission, these aircraft can be flown just like any other KC-135R.

Didn't think the majority of 135's have a UAARSI to be refuelled. Was it definately 10 refuelling a 135 or might it have been the other way around ? 135 refuelling a 10 is quite common (I'm off to try it in about 6hrs myself...)

FFP,
It was not a Mildenhall based KC-135R but one based in CONUS. As far as i am aware it was the KC-10A (from McGuire) leading the KC-135R but seeing as you have far more experience in them, i'm not doubting you, so you are probably correct in which position they were in. Either way, one was refuelling the other, why i don't know, unless it was literally just for training purposes as the leg between the UK and Lajes isn't that far!

Thanks for clearing it up.

[FFP]

Could well have been. My sources gave answers of between 8 and 11 of the 500 odd 135's have UAARSI's so maybe it was.

135's usually refuel the 10 as a force extension measure although why the need on a leg to Lajes I'm not too sure.

[BEagle]

1. The BDA is a truly dreadful device. I suspect it was invented so that SAC could score points off the USN for specifying probe and drogue as their preferred refuelling method! I've used it once - in a heavy Q-fit F4 with 8 missiles, 3 tanks and without having had any dual, let alone a briefing... It was horrible - although I did eventually teach myself how to use it when the boom-bitch stopped moving the damn thing every time I missed! And NEVER to be used with large receivers!

2. Triple point is essential in some, though probably not all, FSTA.

3. The boom would aid interoperability, but is by no means essential for the RAF.

I agree with you, Roly, regarding the numbers. Funny old thing, that! Yes, thanks to NuLabor's 'Come-as-you-are-and-bring-a-bottle' wars, really the need is for 22-ish aircraft AT/AAR aircraft.

Which is precisely what was on offer back in about 1996....24 x A310MRTT...:ugh:

[XV277]

1. The BDA is a truly dreadful device. I suspect it was invented so that SAC could score points off the USN for specifying probe and drogue as their preferred refuelling method!

More likely because TAC was using P+D as well. :) Wasn't the rationale that you could transfer fuel at a greater rate? Cynics would suggest it was so Boeing could get the tanker contract....


Re the Tristar, the alternates were (If my grey cells still work) ex-Laker DC-10s and ex-BA (?) 747s (Certainly someone's 747s)

[D-IFF_ident]

Not sure about the 747's, but there were the L1011s now in-service and the Laker DC-10s which, I think, were already plumbed for AAR stores. IIRC another option was from the DoD who would have let us jump the production line for some KC10s before they got their 60. Not sure what the costs for all the options were but I'd bet we paid more and got less. Why? So that the money went to places where it could be used for political benefit rather than operational benefit. Some things don't change then. :ugh:

[LFFC]

I understand that the RAF got a really good deal for the first 6 TriStars from BA. BA were in a tight spot (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&targetRule=10&xml=/news/2005/07/13/db1301.xml) at the time and needed cash fast.


John King's achievement at British Airways is part of the folklore of the Thatcher era. When he took on the chairmanship of the state-owned airline in February 1981 - against the advice of some of his friends - it was badly run, demoralised and over-manned. Its aircraft fleet and route network revealed chronic failures of business planning. It had been making heavy losses.

King set about his task in the rumbustious, sometimes bruising style which was his hallmark. The old guard of senior managers was abruptly replaced by newcomers such as Colin (now Sir Colin) Marshall, a brilliant marketing specialist who joined King as chief executive. Staff numbers were cut from 52,000 to 37,500 within two years. Surplus aircraft and other assets were sold off.

[BEagle]

...as well as trying to kill off Virgin Atlantic.

But their dirty tricks were eventually exposed.

[D-IFF_ident]

The reports on the NAO's statement about PFIs and the public sector being overcharged by the private sector under PFI contracts makes me shiver.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3200990.ece

:{

[BEagle]

Indeed.....

PFIs should, by definition, cost the tax payer more than 'traditional' procurement. Because - and this may come as a shock to some - the PFI provider does expect to make a profit. They're not charities!

PFIs are supposed to make things fiscally easier by spreading the cost over the whole period of the contract. Whereas (in simple terms) conventional procurement would involve a lump sum which may be out of reach.....

It's a bit like replacing a car. If you only have £10000 available, you can't buy a £50000 car immediately. You could try hire purchase over 4 years, but that'll increase the cost because of interest - although at least the car will be yours after 4 years. Or, instead of acquiring your own 'asset' you contract your 'transport service' from a car rental firm; cheap for a few years, perhaps, but eventually a lot more expensive - and the car will never be yours.

Or take the VC10 approach and keep trying to keep your old Ford Zephyr patched up for another 12 years......:ugh:. Because you haven't even got £10000 to spare as some thief has used it to pay for a war he can't afford himself.

But rip-off prices paid for simple tasks? Hasn't MoD often paid silly prices in the past for basic items? Remember the Mini alternator saga - cost to MoD was 5 times the price at Unipart, if I recall correctly.

[Razor61]

There have been some CBY boys wanting to cross the Atlantic all week this week (Yes i have been listening to my scanner).
After several days they really thought they were going yesterday but then i had a TriStar orbiting the area with problems eventually RTB.

Up just now, had the Tonkas come back overhead to RV with another Tristar and again the crew have just had to shut down an engine and RTB.
The pilots words said it all when he had to tell the Tonkas...

Any European country care to lend the MoD a serviceable tanker?