Why can't we just buy this?

[Skipness One Echo]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1309217/L/


Honestly, is there a particularly good reason why we can't simply order a fleet today given the money being pissed up a wall at the MOD at the mo pfaffing around on this? Would the world really end buying off the shelf?
It's becoming a national embarrasment IMHO.

[Jackonicko]

Money.

Though a half-ar$ed PFI will cost far more over the life of the programme, there are no huge up-front capital costs to scare the Treasury.

If you want to spend real money, buying real tankers that you'll then own outright, then what do you sacrifice to pay for them?

[Tiger_mate]

So Australia is getting new tankers and new helicopters, both of which we need soonest. Shame we spent all that money on Typhoon, for it will be years before we are adequately so equipped.

It is quite natural for everybody, myself included. to consider their own particular element of the trainset to be important, but I am sure that the troops living under fire 24/7 will not consider a new tanker in their top 10 of essential needs.

Things would not be so bad if a political solution to the world affairs was even slightly visible on the horizon. If the newspapers are to be believed, the UK Govt Plc will be on damage limitation in the coming months which will put MOD spending back at rock-bottom.

Body bags no longer make the news and the Police want a pay rise....nuff said.

[Pontius Navigator]

Money.

If you want to spend real money, buying real tankers that you'll then own outright, then what do you sacrifice to pay for them?

Swiss Des perhaps?

[Ronald Reagan]

A large increase to the defence budget. Increase it from £32 billion to £50 billion next year and every year from then on. Then also give each service a single £30 billion payment to buy new equipment. When you think we are supposed to be the fith largest economy on Earth and yet we cannot afford 232 Typhoons, 150 JSF, 2 carriers and some new tankers its unreal.

Take the money from the welfare state and all the single scrounging mums and dolights out there!

Oh almost forgot, give all you guys a large pay increase to.

By the way I am a civilian and a Conservative. I just hope if they get in they will help you guys more. They make the right noises but 'Options for Change' comes to mind! I do think that they have chagned and may be better for defence than the filth we have now.

[Suzeman]

Just found this courtesy of Private Eye.

Would be funny if it wasn't true !! :{

Suzeman


UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
To be published as HC 151-i
House of COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Monday 3 November 2007

THE PRIVATISATION OF QINETIQ
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.


Q193 Mr Bacon: Yes, I would have thought so too. Mr Woolley, are you a chartered accountant?

Mr Woolley: I am not.

Q194 Mr Bacon: Are you a qualified financial person of any kind? Do you have any financial qualifications?

Mr Woolley: I do not have financial qualifications.

Q195 Mr Bacon: What is your job?
Mr Woolley: I am the Finance Director of the Ministry of Defence.

[Chugalug2]

By the way I am a civilian and a Conservative. I just hope if they get in they will help you guys more. They make the right noises......

Where have you been for the last ten years RR? Just in case, as your ID suggests, you come from another space time continuum, 'they' no longer make any such noises and are all part of our nice new inclusive cuddly non scary left of centre Peoples Party. Are you the Ghost of Christmas Past? Bah, Humbug Sir! Oh, and Happy Christmas! :)
Chug

[Skipness One Echo]

The VC10 is 40 years old. It's rather like the new VC10 in 1966 replacing something that flew over Flanders.....that's where these morons have left us.

[Ronald Reagan]

Guys do any of you think that things will chnage if there is a chnage of government? I do want these fools out. Just imagine the look on Gordons face and also Geoff Hoons face, the ass hole who killed Colt and the Jag when they lose office! What would be even better is if they lost their own seats!

But I am a Conservative as I hoped they were and to a degree I think they are better. But if you guys can suggest any party which is better then I would join them.

Maybe some ex forces people should form a new party. With someone like General Mike Jackson as leader. If they ever won the yanks would probably think Michael Jackson was our new PM!

I chose my name for this site on the basis of a leader who equiped his military forces well. Under his watch the US military grew and grew. Shame we could not find a leader like that. I had always hoped David Davis would have made Tory leader and one day PM. But sadly not to be :(

[Lyneham Lad]

I had always hoped David Davis would have made Tory leader and one day PM.
....and with so many open goals staring him in the face, just how many has the said David Davis scored? Very few, if any. :ugh::ugh:

Indeed, with so much positive Press and now public opinion polls showing that the 'ordinary man in the street' is beginning to acknowledge the massive and prolonged ill-treatment/underfunding of the Armed Forces, I despair of the official Opposition. How can any political organisation, when offered so many opportunities on a plate, not make more political capital of them? If they are so inept in Opposition, would they be any better in Government? :*

LL

[Ronald Reagan]

Any suggestions on any party or politician which you guys think is any good?

Most Torys seem to care but as to how much they will really do is another question!

Labour are scum.

The Lib Dems are nice but rather inept. I don't think they are fans of the military and defence spending would likely decrease.

UKIP are mainly a one issue party but do probably care.

BNP care a lot about the forces but are anti Typhoon and seem to hate electronic equipment and class the only threat we face as an inward one.

The Green party, well the less said the better!

So I think thats about all of them!

I am open to any opinions you guys may have.

[Guzlin Adnams]

:yuk:
If any of that breed even tries to look at my kids when the next general election campaign is on I shall not be responsible for my actions, especially if it's the "Son of the Manse" or one of his devotees.:=
I've got a feeling that there will be a change in 2008. If there's one thing that stirs people up it's a down-turn to the economy.
I wouldn't expect miracles under Dave but it should get slightly better.
Super-fund the Forces for six years or so to get them equipped with what they need. This could easily be achieved by the Treasury if the will were there, Northern Rock proves that without doubt.:rolleyes:

[Two's in]

Somewhat short-sighted to blame the Government of the day for a Procurement system that has been carefully and lovingly crafted by the few remaining Defence Contractors that milk it, and the many senior civil servants that remain employed solely because of it. Look who reallly benefits from cost overruns, changing requirements, late deliveries and that most Holy of Grails, the PFI, and you will start to understand why UK PLC buys Military equipment the way it does. When future civilizations uncover the ruins of Abbey Wood, will they ever guess that it was a venerable shrine to graft, corruption, incompetence and systematic abuse of the taxpayer and the Military end-user? Probably not.

[Cyclone733]

How can we possibly justify something usefull like a new SH fleet or tanker fleet when we can better spend £6 billion a year on subsidising private rail companies or £57 billion (or to put it another way £1800 per tax payer) to keep Northern Rock afloat?

Come on guys the people earning millions a year gambling with your money in the safety of the Dock Lands with no risk of that money being taken back to pay towards their f£$k ups need your support at this difficult time :ugh:

[RileyDove]

We should have had Airbus freighters years ago to do some of the trooping flights . Keeping the VC-10 going is a farce - the cost is frightening in fuel alone. Unfortunately the management seems to be one which in 1940 would be wondering whether to buy some more Spitfires or just stick with the Gladiators until the Germans go away!

[LFFC]

Jacko

If you want to spend real money, buying real tankers that you'll then own outright, then what do you sacrifice to pay for them?

You've really gotta stop thinking of FSTA as tankers. Sadly, I suspect that the few aircraft that will eventually be made available to the RAF will be mainly be used as Air Transport aircraft to support the Army.

[D-IFF_ident]

Simply put, we CAN buy these; we just aren't. Perhaps it's because of the way we run our budgets, perhaps it's because we can't see past the ends of our noses, perhaps it's just because we are incompetent fools.

The maths are simple enough:

RAAF BUYING 5 of them for $1.5Bn - RAF LEASING 'some' of them for 25 - 27 years for $23Bn. You could argue that we could buy 15.3 of them for that money, with booms and UARSSIs, to the same spec as the RAAF, or the USAF if Northrop Grumman sell them (btw - next gen tankers are the No 1 priority to the USAF) or you could argue some tosh about it being cheaper to rent by the hour than own it outright.

On the other hand - we may well buy some, I'd guess that we will, in about 25-27 years, at a knock-down price of only $1.5Bn for 5 of them - used of course, and with only wing mounted pods, but familiar to us as they will be the ones we've rented for 25-27 years.

IMHO we are not buying them because nobody in a position of authority really gives two hoots about the defence of the nation any more. :ugh:

[Blacksheep]

The VC10 may be forty years old but in case you hadn't noticed, the B767 is a twenty three year old design...

You guys deserve something that's up to date and equipped with reliable modern systems.

[GreenKnight121]

How many years has it been since the last VC-10 was built... compared to the new-off-the-assembly-line B767s the USAF would get if a decision is ever made?

Maybe the design is 23 years old, but the airframes (and engines) would be completely new.

[Blacksheep]

True, but once the aircraft is out of production - which will be sooner rather than later - spares and technical support will become a problem. The 767s single aisle contemporary B757 recently went out of production and getting support for one is already a chore.

Of course, the RAF tanker fleet are past masters of keeping obsolete airframes airborne, so that wouldn't bother them. :rolleyes:

[Aeronut]

Why can't we just buy this?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1308518/L/

[cornish-stormrider]

Yep, an lets get Bruce an the boys to fly it........

We airdrop Eddie over the 'stan and let him sort out Bin Liner.....

I say we have a coup. Ooooh nice black omega has pulled up outside.

[mr fish]

dreamtime bull:mad:it i know, but the idea of a qra '' loosing" a bear and the big f:mad:er flying over downing street might just get the budget increase needed:E

[brit bus driver]

Looks rather natty doesn't it - the bus, not the heavy metal one! We should have been operating the 310MRTT for the last 10 years rather than shelling out needless millions on keeping the once-venerable VC10 flying. But we didn't.

What now? We need son of FSTA as both a tanker and a strategic airlifter, but do we need 14? Or do we need a mixed fleet of 'benign' mid-range transport (320/321) plus a number of longer range AT/AAR assets - the 330MRTT. Oh, and with floors and doors, a boom and an AAR (rx) capability.

Hey presto, all crew can operate all types (CCQ); cripes, we could even have a VIP mini-bus.

Still, good luck.

[BEagle]

I'd say you need the 24-ish A310MRTTs which were offered around 12 years ago.....

But modified to include L16, a proper 'FedEx' glass cockpit - and a 3rd RTU for the ARO/FRS. Perhaps a 5th ACT and a 164T MTOW as well as modifications to allow all passenger seats to be used with ACTs fitted? Maybe also some with a centreline hose?

It amused me to see the UTTER bolleaux in ATP56B about how to work out the turn ranges for various RVs - in the A310MRTT the MCS displays the exact turn range for the RV B. C and D on the DDRMI page by reading air data and FMS navigation data. As well as providing a nice DDRMI (with heading AND track) for the ARO/FRS to work with....it also displays TACAN and DF (not just UHF/DF) on the DDRMI plus the channel no. and modes and DF frequency on the RV pane. No 'dead needles' - no signal received and the needles are not displayed. So much better than 'fail' flags!

The A310 is also a MUCH better multi-role jet than the 767 - cargo bay door as standard and 2 x LD3s side-by-side. And windows for the passengers, who sit in proper airline seats. Rather better than the 'Gitmo Bay Class' passenger accommodation in the KC-767A!

I really cannot see the VC10 soldiering on until 2020 - is there that much coal still available for mining?

[Squirrel 41]

BEagle,

First, I'm sure that your acronyms are all correct, but forgive my ignorance of them - an explanation would be great.

Second, the question is what do we want now? A310MRTT with all the toys could've been wonderful a dozen years ago, but given your expertise, what would you select now? If I've understood you correctly, in these pages before you seemed to suggest that KC-30B as proposed for KC(X) would be overkill as we'd never use the boom and never need to refuel tankers (again).

Perhaps this is right - but equally, what would the difference in procurement and through life cost be for vanilla 3 point hose only A330 tanker without a door, and all-singing all-dancing KC-30B?

<<Anorak on>>

Isn't the KC(X) winner to be deisgnated KC-45A?

<<Anorak off>>

Many thanks -

S41

[BEagle]

MRTT - Multi Role Transport Tanker
L16 - Link 16
RTU - Radio Tuning Unit
ARO/FRS - Air Refuelling Operator/Flight Refuelling Specialist
ACT - Additional Center Tank
MTOW - Maximum Take-Off Weight
RV - Rendezvous
MCS - Mission Computer Subsystem
DDRMI - Digital Distance and Radio Magnetic Indicator
FMS - Flight Managment System
TACAN - Tactical Air Navigation system
DF - Direction Finder
UHF - Ultra High Frequency (225-400 MHz military band)
LD3 - most common size of baggage bin used by airlines

Cost analysis for the KC-30B vs A330MRTT? Absolutely no idea, sorry.

What would I select now? Since the A310 is no longer in production - and used aircraft are hard to find - it'd be the A330. But NOT through a PFI!

Boom or centreline hose? I'd go for both. But no probe.

[Squirrel 41]

BEagle,

Many thanks, very informative. I'm interested in your comment on the point of not having a probe - is this because the tankers should have UAARSI receive option?

Cheers

S41

[Blacksheep]

You guys deserve something that's up to date and equipped with reliable modern systems. - it'd be the A330. But NOT through a PFI! There you go! :ok:

...and you've even got a qualified pilot who knows his stuff to do the negotiations for you.

Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be a civil serpent so he'll never get the chance and you'll never get a proper aircraft for the job. :(

[ArthurR]

The A330 under test, has a boom flight re-fuelling point just aft of the flight deck, this is planned for all the Australian A330's

[BEagle]

Correct.

The drag and structural reinforcement which would be needed to include a probe would be out of all proportion to any requirement to self-refuel an A330. Whereas a UAARSI is easier to fit - and also allows a higher flowrate.

But jousting is a lot more fun than simply 'lying back and taking it'!

[LFFC]

I can imagine that's a lot of fun Beagle, but how would the unusual throttle/engine usage involved in keeping station and "jousting" affect the ETOPS clearence? Or would you just not bother with that part of the safety case?

[rmac]

The unfortunate thing is that the PFI companies employ many lobbyists who are both ex-mil senior officers and ex-senior politicians, who with their experience and contacts significantly influence the process and if gov bites, all involved receive huge bonus cheques. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I can tell you from personal experience that the trend towards privatisation of military support, including the mainly trigger happy PSC's in Iraq and all the rest has led to a major greed initiative on the part of many retired military personnel. A large part of the problem rests with those who have enough experience to know better but prefer to profit personally by selling out their "brothers in arms".

[Art Field]

Jousting certainly can put extra strain on the engines, temperature changes if RPM varies by more than 2% can reduce engine life according to boffins at RR. Having said that the UAARSI option in the PFI scenario has to be a no-no , just imagine a boom equipped aircraft on a charter to Russia.

But jousting is a real challenge and that now elusive state, fun.

[Ivan Rogov]

Maybe we should ask the Italian Armed Forces how to get new kit.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=89732&session=dae.32607684.1199890258.OKTUw38AAAEAAA5aV6YAAAAR&modele=jdc_1

They seem to have been quite successful in updating their equipment Merlin (inc. naval "commando type"), Typhoon, B767, C27J, C130J and now NH90. They have ECRs, borrowed F16s to fill a gap and got Predator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Italy

Their Navy and Army seem similarly well equipped!

If the manager of England's football team can be a foreigner, could we get the Italian head of Armed Forces to be CDS?

[Axel-Flo]

Why do we think the boom would go unused? The HDU (on the K3/4) is, in most part (well unless the pods are U/S) unused (Telic anyway) and the lack of a centreline boom precludes us from refueling F16 etc etc. Coalition is almost certainly the way all our Ops will proceed and hose and drogue plus boom would be a major asset. Added to that, consolidation of fuel to a multi point tanker keeps it in the sky for those as required unplanned moments (which anyone in the know, knows occur)

And as for the troops on the ground not thinking tankers are any asset to them.... it's how the wee pointy bomb loaded chaps can stay there for so long at their beck and call for CAS, the tanker IS (only) a support asset to that but without it....?:rolleyes:

[Roland Pulfrew]

Axel

To give you the same answer I gave you on the FSTA topic:

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.

Please note the last sentence...

[MarkD]

Beags - presumably the 310s would now be retreads? I thought I read recently that Airbus had finally closed the 300/310 line.