A-400 tanker, first plug

[sandiego89]

First plug from the A-400.

A400M acts as tanker aircraft for first time - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/42451/a400m-acts-as-tanker-aircraft-for-first-time)

I think the UK really got hosed (pun intended) by the air tanker contract prohibiting the UK A-400's to be equipped with the gear to pass gas. Could have been a huge force multiplyer for contigencies like Falklands II, Iraq III, etc etc.

[Onceapilot]

I have said this alot, we did not need the FSTA! :ugh:
I have also said that the PFI contract will be substantially changed before long. How much will that cost us?:oh:

OAP

[D-IFF_ident]

Does the PFI contract prohibit the use of the RAF A400M for AAR, or does it give AirTanker first dibs on providing any increase in UK AAR requirements?

[TOWTEAMBASE]

Why is FSTA not needed, surely it's just a replacement for the VC10/Tristar fleet ?

[ian16th]

I found this bit interesting:

The A400M is designed to act both as a tactical/strategic airlifter and as an air-to-air refuelling platform. To act as a tanker, two probe and drogue refuelling kits can be installed on the aircraft's wings.I can see the drogue's under the wings, but not the probe's. :cool:

[Roland Pulfrew]

I have said this alot, we did not need the FSTA!

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.:rolleyes: 6 shagged out, old, single hose tankers do not an AAR capability make! Of course we needed a new tanker aircraft, something was needed to provide us with a more modern capability; something was needed to replace the 26 VC10 tankers we had!!

Ian: "probe and drogue" refers to the totality of the system; strangely though you never here of the alternative referred to as the "boom and UARRSI" system!

[just another jocky]

I found this bit interesting:

Quote:
The A400M is designed to act both as a tactical/strategic airlifter and as an air-to-air refuelling platform. To act as a tanker, two probe and drogue refuelling kits can be installed on the aircraft's wings.
I can see the drogue's under the wings, but not the probe's. :cool:

The system is called "probe & drogue". It implies the probe is on the receiver, the drogue on the tanker.

The A400 in the picture does have a probe on the front.



edit: Damn....beaten to it.

[Onceapilot]

Quote Roland P. "Of course we needed a new tanker aircraft, something was needed to provide us with a more modern capability; something was needed to replace the 26 VC10 tankers we had!!"

As I have said, a VFM TriStar fleet enhancement (similar to the Marshalls proposal) would have been quite sufficient to match what the FSTA capability is , for the next 10 years. Coupled with the flexibility of some A400M tankers;). Don't forget, an FSTA Tanker sits on the ground at MPA at huge expense.

What is this? "Modern Capability"? A tanker is really just a crate to lug fuel where it is needed, with some military kit scabbed on to give some survivability and mission enhancement. IMO, the TriStar was far better equipped than FSTA.....you can tell me why it is! Maybe you don't know? Maybe the USAF are wrong to still have fleets of KC135 and KC10?
Cheers


OAP

[BEagle]

Onceapilot wrote: As I have said, a VFM TriStar fleet enhancement (similar to the Marshalls proposal) would have been quite sufficient to match what the FSTA capability is , for the next 10 years.

Nope, totally wrong. 'VFM' and 'TriStar' in the same sentence as '10 years' is shockingly naïve. The general ageing and paucity of spares holdings would have been a bottomless money pit in fleet sustainability terms - and the single hose restriction with Eurofighter would have limited the old things' viability in trail operations.

It had its day. It's gone. Voyager isn't perfect (particularly due to the PFI.....), but I do agree that at least some of the UK's Atlas fleet should be tanker-capable for theatres such as the South Atlantic.

IMO, the TriStar was far better equipped than FSTA.....you can tell me why it is! Maybe you don't know?

Utter bolleaux! I can assure that RolyP most certainly does know the subject under discussion.

Maybe the USAF are wrong to still have fleets of KC135 and KC10?

Yes - that's why they're so desperate to get KC-46A into service - the cost of maintaining a fleet of geriatric jets is becoming very painful!

[Onceapilot]

All bluster Beagle!;)
You are wrong in every paragraph.
The life and spares holdings for TriStar were purely driven by the RAF. Cost would rise with age. Perhaps you could comment upon the relative cost/VFM of the VC10?
Better equipped? Lets face it, we are not going to talk specifics here but, I stand by my claim, and we are not talking about seat fabric!:=
Geriatric jets? Pull the other one! The TriStar left service with no limitations on its full RTS (G limits etc).
I do not blame you for being biased towards bigging-up the type of newer aircraft you might be earning a living from but, it does weaken your position.;)

PS, I have no idea who RP is, I take his comments at face value.

OAP

[BEagle]

Swivel on that finger!

Your stuck-in-the-groove comments about the old TriStar have reached PLE - and you need to accept that it has gone.

And no, I am not 'making a living' from 'bigging up' modern aircraft.

[Onceapilot]

Cheers Beags, no offence taken!:ok:

OAP

[wokawoka]

Maybe to fixed wing, but hopefully not to helos……………….

[Duralumin]

I am interested to know what type of cars some of you drive
Do you think a Hillman Avenger is a good thing to bash up and down the motorway (Hillman Avenger first introduced 1970 same year as the Tristars first flight)
Or perhaps you feel something more modern like an Austin Montego is the thing to have (introduced 1984 same years as Tristar into RAF service)

In either case you could always drop a DVD player and a digital clock in tothe dashboard then it would be as good as a Ford Mondeo wouldn't it ???

(and to be pedantic you could always have a Volvo 850, same intro year as A330s first flight 1992)

[barnstormer1968]

That's not helpful as that isn't how the RAF buy or operate aircraft, as I'm sure you realise :)

The RAF would buy the avenger second hand when it was worn out. Fit the Volvo 850 engine and instrument cluster from the mondeo but then realise the new additions wouldn't fit. The engine would need an electronic control unit and the speedo etc would be electronic and not controlled by a cable. They would then leave it for a while to avoid embarrassing the senior officers to decided on the new equipment fit. Then the RAF would decide to retrofit the old equipment so this would allow the avenger to become operational. It may have only paid to buy the car, paid to modify it and then pay again to retrofit the original equipment but the government of the day may be able to announce the now old but working cars a second time as a new buy :)

It's always worth bearing in mind this old but true statement regarding the RAF:
If the the RAF wanted a dog they would buy a cat and then operate on it.

[vascodegama]

Not forgetting of course that the extra cost would be dismissed as irrelevant since it would come out of a different budget.

PS What is wrong with an Avenger-mine only let me down weekly!

[Duralumin]

Barnstormer - absolutely spot on.

[pitotheat]

How many times do we have to learn the lessons of prevous procurement cock ups. There is a reason why commercial operators buu new kit. It is more serviceable, cheaper and more efficient to operate. It's one thing to be dewy eyed at the end of an era as another aircraft is withdrawn from service, however, why can not the military accept that updating and upgrading old kit does not work? Buying new kit is the answer but not on stupid PFI contracts.

[D-IFF_ident]

Anyone know what Mission Planning System the A-400M uses for AAR?

[BEagle]

TLAR?

Or perhaps «Ça marche!»

[tucumseh]

why can not the military accept that updating and upgrading old kit does not work? Buying new kit is the answer but not on stupid PFI contracts.

I don't see anything wrong with modifying kit, but there are mandated pre-requisites before you can proceed; which MoD as a matter of policy have made no attempt to meet for over 20 years. So, when scrutiny is conducted, who lies to PUS that his regs have been implemented? That one question gets to the very root of astronomical and quite deliberate waste in MoD.

Also, there is an old adage "never modify a mod". Not set in stone by any means. But intended as a bloody great red flag to force you to think of the pitfalls. Think Nimrod MRA4.

PFI? How many even look at the simple form you can fill in to seek an exemption? No overseas sales potential of the proposed build standard? Walk away and force the politicians to overrule themselves; and record that decision on the front page of every paper or report the programme produces. MoD(PE)/DPA/DE&S, if only they knew it, are not responsible for most of the cock-ups. They are too readily blamed.

[Onceapilot]

OK pitot, there is nothing "dewy eyed" about wasting £Billions when we did not need to, IMO.:uhoh:
Maybe you think a hyper expensive new tanker is better than MPA or ship-borne VSTOL capabilities?:= Do not confuse airline seat-mile costs and sixteen hour a day utilisation, with military tanking/transport with a dozen airframes and hardly a fraction of the best civi utilisation rate. Additionally, the military tanker/transport task did not really need the slim advantage of better fuel burn where the aircraft we had was FREE (paid for in 1984) against the £1.5 million pounds PER DAY for 25 years of the FSTA!:eek: Yes, TriStar would have needed some investment, virtually nothing was spent on it for 30 years, but it would have been a fraction of the PFI cost.:ugh:

OAP

[pitotheat]

And it is your muddled logic OAP that has caused the spiralling out of control of MoD budgets that had to be stopped. Commercial operations modelling can only be used for some of the military activity but sticking an AAR asset in a block of airspace at a given time is one of those activities that can be. I am not talking about PFI here I am talking about modern reliable efficient kit that can be turned around in a couple of hours rather than days because it is waiting for more spares and engineering resources.

[Onceapilot]

Pitot old chap, I am telling you (and everyone who cares to read) that for a small fraction of the cost of the FSTA, we could have had an updated and enhanced fleet of TriStar tankers that, for a sensible timescale, would have prevented the PFI requirement and also avoided some of the "credibility lack" we see today!
As it happens, without the PFI, I believe that this would represent better VFM. :ok:
BTW, have you applied your idea of commercial modelling to the South Atlantic tanker, or to the exclusivity clause?:uhoh:

OAP

[Roland Pulfrew]

we could have had an updated and enhanced fleet of TriStar tankersNo you couldn't, because 6 Tristars did not, could not and cannot meet the UK requirement for AAR!!:ugh: It really is that simple.

As for the USAF and their KC135s and KC10s, well the USAF tried to ditch the latter just last year and the former will all be going under KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z programmes. You have heard of these, haven't you? Of course the USAF need new tankers and they are planning to get some!!

As for Tristar v FSTA, well I suppose the Tristar did have an air eng!!:ok:

[Tankertrashnav]

roland pulfrew and just another jocky I rather think you missed the point of ian16th's little tongue in cheek joke about not seeing the drogue under the A400's wing. However I am sure he was grateful for your explanation on the probe and drogue method of AAR. He'd be far too polite to point out that he was working on Valiant tankers when most of us on here were still in short pants - if indeed actually born!

[Onceapilot]

Yes Roland, it would have required an enhanced fleet, as I have always said. The Mk32 pods would also have gone on. As designed!:D
Yes, the two Pilots with Air Eng and the Loady was a great min crew!
It is a great opportunity lost...at huge expense, in more ways than the obvious.:uhoh:

OAP

[andrewn]

Regards Tristar (or any other clapped out tanker/transport) then it doesn't matter how cheap the capability if that capability is never available! And, yes, I hear the argument about investment but not sure that any bespoke fleet of such a small size is really viable long term (and completely different to the 707/135 family for which support is still widely available).

That said I do fully take the point that the economics of FSTA really don't add up. Perhaps, when the deal was specc'd years ago, and we had a reasonable size air force, it had some potential but with a future FJ force of just 6 sqns it just seems crazy to be locked into this type of long term deal.

[Onceapilot]

Hi andrewn. Maybe you could be more specific about the "never available" TriStar and I could help you. Also, what was "clapped out" ?

OAP

[andrewn]

Sure, TriStar had well documented reliability and maintainability issues that significantly affected dispatch and mission effectiveness.

In addition, with the RAF being the last fleet operator in the World it placed the full burden of risk upon MoD/MCE to ensure that bespoke fleet remained airworthy and compliant with current and future regs - don't underestimate the effort (and cost) incurred in the post XV230 world of risk averse mil airworthiness. As an aside I well remember looking at Victor K2s, seeing them leaking like a sieve with "putty" all over the place and thinking "how the hell do those things stay in the air?". Obviously they did but I think you get my point that the appetite for risk associated with maintaining "clapped out" old warhorses no longer exists!

[Onceapilot]

Quote andrewn..."Sure, TriStar had well documented reliability and maintainability issues that significantly affected dispatch and mission effectiveness."
Thanks for that. I can assure you that these issues were primarily caused by the RAF's choice of low spares holdings, and lean-to-the-bone engineering manpower!:(
Would you like to explain how the Afghan trooping task impacted on AAR availability?

OAP

[andrewn]

OAP - my understanding is that there was a period towards the end (post VC-10 pax license expiry and prior to FSTA ramp up) where the maintenance of the Afghan airbridge was prioritised above all else, due to lack of suitable alternate transport into theater.

IMO, if a fleet of 8/9 frames was struggling to maintain a twice weekly rotation then it was probably time to go.

Just my opinion of course.

[pitotheat]

An aircraft isn't "free" even if the capital cost was paid decades ago. On a good day how many serviceable airframes can you generate from this orphan fleet and at what cost in support? One on a good day with 6 on the tarmac. At what expense and effort is required when it goes tech out of base? I've been on the receiving (non receiving end) of unreliable AAR and AT support too many times and that was 15 years ago. Let it go and either make a case for the proper kit or let the politicians decide what capability they are going to gap but don't try and paper over the cracks and patch up airframes long past their sell by date.

[Typhoon93]

Gents,

Would somebody please like to explain the UK requirement for AAR and why the TriStars could not meet that requirement, but the new Voyagers can?

[Tankertrashnav]

Would somebody please like to explain the UK requirement for AAR


When I was on tankers quite a lot of the UK requirement for AAR was to extend the endurance of of the UK's air defence fighters who were constantly vigilant in the face of the threat from over what was then called the Iron Curtain.

Of course such an eventuality could never arise nowadays :hmm:

[dangermouse]

Although the Voyger is no doubt a fine tanker, what it can't do, but the A400 can do is AAR helicopters....

Now, we appear to have made a national decision not to have that capability but we DO have 2 helo types in service that are AAR compatible, Merlin and CH47, seems a shame not to have that possibility or even interoperability.

DM

[dagenham]

Perhaps when the mighty atlas is in service this is the uor that will be the answer to breaking the monopoly. A Pfi exclusive only applies to requirements that the fleet can meet. ;)

[Onceapilot]

So, here we are with the usual load of misinformation and legacy peeves, all topped off with AirTanker propaganda and MoD pro FSTA spin.:yuk:

For a start, you probably dont know the specific requirements of the airbridge airframes, and I am not going to say here. Suffice it to say that the FSTA required a huge effort to try and meet them, failed, had loads more work done and still only achieved a lower standard than TriStar. The historic lack of investment by the RAF in TriStar and engineering manpower and spares meant that when one of the few airframes was U/S, the movements were delayed. The official view was that this was acceptable because it was the most cost-effective!:ooh: The two men and a dog worked their arses off but, could not do miracles and so, the tanker tasking fell to rock bottom. I say again, this was not the airframes fault, it was due to verneer-thin support expenditure.

It is revealing to read how peeved people can feel 15 years after their trip was delayed. Similar to the feeling at the terminal when your airline flight is delayed, probably for the same reasons that RAF AT and AAR get delayed!
Yes, it is a pain, and dispatch performance was always a high priority but, without better engineering resources, you can only achieve so much.
TriStar would have been so much better with some more support in the RAF.
Is the hyper-expensive FSTA scheme really just an opt-out by the RAF because it cannot run AT/AAR properly?:eek:

OAP

[pitotheat]

Comparing the inconvenience of a delayed departure to Malaga with your family to delayed or cancelled operations and/or multiple national exercises are not quite the same in my book. However, you are still missing the point OAP. What is the difference in the manning and engineering support to operate x number of tristar hours compared to x number of hours on a modern airframe? What is the difference in fuel burn? I don't have the figures you might but they are huge. Why does the military never learn its lessons about fiddling around with old airframes?

[dagenham]

I bought this parrot....it appears to be dead....

Can we move on........

Beagle

Any more thoughts on Frankentanker?

[Arty Fufkin]

Hi OAP,

I'll bite because I do like a good argument on a Sunday afternoon and I don't fancy engaging the wife in one!

1) it doesn't matter how many spares were kept on the shelves at BZN, the jet would have kept breaking down. Unless this happened on the waterfront at Brize, that would have led to delays, cancellations etc. True, with an unlimited and immediate supply of spares and a return of engineering numbers and experience to previous levels, the dispatch rate and availability at Brize would have been much better. But the jet would have still been untenably unreliable away from home base.

2) The enhancement and update project you refer to (MMR I presume) would not have helped mitigate against the above. How long were majors and minor *s taking to address corrosion issues towards the end?

3) The daily cost of the "hugely expensive" PFI is the roughly the same as the daily cost of running the VC10 and Trimotor fleets combined. True, the day to day numbers of aircraft are less ( assuming the surge fleet is not used) but as has been stated plenty of times before on this forum, the actual aircraft availability is more, the capability is guaranteed and so reliable that it can actually be used effectively. I guess you can either lose money as profit to AirTanker's shareholders or piddle it away as waste due due to arcane military management, either way if you want a reliable fleet of AT/AAR assets, it's going to cost. Profit or waste, it mostly ends up back in the treasury's coffers eventually anyway.

4) Apparently, the only reason that all 8 voyagers aren't permanently flying tasks and eliminating what is a genuinely expensive charter bill is a lack of RAF crews. Whose fault is that? Is it likey to improve over time? Read some of the other threads here and see what you think.

Arty.

[Onceapilot]

Hi Arty,
I like your post!:ok: I agree, the provision of spares and manpower at a level similar to FSTA would have vastly improved daily TriStar airframe availability. I do not have the stats to compare but, I do not really agree that the TriStar could not achieve satisfactory down route reliability. If you might recall, it was deemed satisfactory for aircraft to go U/S rather than hold spares! The flyaway pack was a "serious" concession!
MMR, is in the equation. However, the real enhancement would be something along the lines of the Marshalls fleet proposal circa2004? A fleet expansion and mature aircraft programme. Wasn't going to happen by then because too many careers and retirements were linked into the FSTA!:oh:
Interesting that you lump the VC10 and TriStar fleet cost together. I believe the later VC10 costs were an order of magnitude greater than the TriStar and so your comparison is disingenuous to the TriStar which, in fact, was the cheapest widebody aircraft that the RAF will ever operate.:ooh:
As for crews (people) leaving...tells its own story!
Now, I know this is mostly water under the bridge, but the TriStar and 216Sqn got an undeserved kicking that was really due to appalling RAF policies that came home to roost after around 2000.
Beyond that, I see no reason not to highlight missed opportunities (even dodgy dealing?:eek:) that could have led to a different situation than the one we see today....and tommorrow...etc £££££££

OAP

[BEagle]

dagenham wrote:
Can we move on........

BEagle, any more thoughts on Frankentanker?

Only that it's had a major re-wiring issue, substantial cost overruns and isn't due to fly now until Q1 2015 at the earliest.

And apart from the KC-767I and KC-767J, overseas customers aren't exactly beating a path to ol' Bubba Boeing's doorway to place orders for the KC-46A Pig'sarse.

:uhoh:

[CoffmanStarter]

The RAF's first A400M Atlas flies :D

Photos: Airbus A400M Atlas Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Airbus-A400M-Atlas/2495502/M/)

ZM400 (cn 015) Maiden flight of the first A400M for the RAF, painted in full RAF livery, returning to Seville after 5 hours flying. 30th Aug 2014

[NickPilot]

Does #4 appear to be shutdown?

[BEagle]

No.

Although anOCDpilot will no doubt accuse me of 'Airbus propaganda' for having written that....:rolleyes:

Actually, on second thoughts NickPilot, you may well be correct - sorry!

[Typhoon93]

DM, thank you.

Wouldn't it also be a good idea to have the AH1 as AAR capable? After all it plays a vital role in supporting the MERT in theatre.

[dangermouse]

As the AH64 has no current capability and I am not sure if, given the MRH design you could even do it without an extendable probe, and I don't know where that would fit....

CH47 and Merlin have carried out AAR with existing kit, and have been designed with such, it's an already existing capbility which other (not the UK ) have selected for use.

I am sure other customers A400 will do helo AAR, ours will never have the chance to

DM

[BEagle]

I guess that it's a cost / training issue regarding AAR for UK RW aircraft?

Personally I would have thought that, for example, long range SF missions using Chinook supported by Atlas in the AAR role would be a very useful national asset.

Equally, disaster relief evacuation operations conducted by Chinook to a carrier could be assisted by the use of AAR - as could long range SAR.

[TBM-Legend]

Looks like she'll be a winner.

Q: Why is the radome black? The earlier radome coatings were black on many types but they've now been finished in the aircraft colours eg. C-130/C-17/C-27J//P-3/F-series etc

[cessnapete]

Ref lack of Voyager crews. Bloke I met recently said AirTanker ground school and sim conversion very quick and efficient, no wasted time. The delays occurred when route training. Not enough Training Capts. or perhaps senior people who are trainers but not available. So required training sectors take months. Lack of sectors available often meant flying empty Voyagers around Europe on multi sector route training.
When checked out, very little flying available, and multiple late roster changes. Some recency still done with empty aircraft around Europe. It doesn't appear to be lack of crews but lack of tasked work for them to do?
Doesn't sound the most efficient way to run what is after all a military airline operation.

[sandiego89]

I am sure other customers A400 will do helo AAR, ours will never have the chance to

Serious question, any idea what the airflow behind a A-400 would be like for a helo receiving fuel? Based on the size of the flaps and those massive props, I would think the airflow behind a A-400 in helo refueling mode (flaps down, gear down?) would be more disturbed than a C-130?

Thoughts?

[bythebackdoor]

The voyager may be new and sparkly and the availability better than the VC10 &Tri*
But as I type this I'm sat on a bed in the Gateway when I should be elsewhere all thanks to a U/S Voyager :{

[Onceapilot]

Never mind BTBD, I am sure you will be on your way soon, and don't take it out on the aircraft or the crew!:=

OAP

[CoffmanStarter]

For those interested ...

Footage of the maiden flight released on Forces TV ...

First Flight of the Hercules Replacement | Forces TV (http://forces.tv/73012535)