I am told that the VC10 fleet is having big servicability problems and some aircraft are flying with a lot of defered defects some of them major items.

Is this because of the age of the aircraft or because of the comparative (with airline service ) lack of use that these aircraft get in day to day airforce service.

This leads me to ask the quetion of how was the servisability of the aircraft suporting the efforts over afganistan as these aircraft must over the short term have been working very hard.

And finaly what would be the prefered replacment for the VC10 in the opinion of the pepole who fly it ?.

To answer your first 2 questions here might possibly be construed as disclosing information potentially useful to an enemy. So I won't.

To answer your last question, my personal and totally unofficial preference which is not to be viewed as representing the official MoD view in any way would be.....something less than 40 years old!

Must be a journo.....speellyng's apawlinge!!

bbd

I will overlook the the highly offensive and totaly unfounded journo accusation but will put my hands up to the spelling (the result of the worst that a 70,s state education had to offer).

My interest in the VC10 is totaly nostalgic as I worked the aircraft with BA some years back.

At that time the structure was holding up to the test of time much better than the B707 this in my opinion due to the higher build quality.

From the reply that beagle has given I think that I can take it that the conversation that I overheard in an Oxfordshire pub was on the mark as you airforce types tend to be very protective of your kit when it is wrongly under attack in these forums.

However the most interesting thing about asking questions on the Military forum is that you all seem far more interested in the quality (or lack of ) of my spelling and not the content of the post ,to me this is a very interesting insight into the military mindset.

A and C wrote

“I think that I can take it that the conversation that I overheard in an Oxfordshire pub”

Looks like those baggy Burton’s suits will be having a few days out in the near future.

A and C

"you all seem far more interested in the quality (or lack of ) of my spelling and not the content of the post". I believe Beagle's post was spot on and in my opinion answers your question.

Even back in '74 when 10 Sqn were called "Shiny Ten", their VC10s were still young, and all the captains were Sqn Ldrs (Are you a REAL Sqn Ldr, or just a VC10 pilot?) they flew around with lots of deferred defects. What do you expect? they're bl**dy airliners after all, and the redundancy designed into them isn't just for safety margins, its also meant to keep them earning. Just like the grubby old 39,000 hour/19,000Cyc B757 parked outside my window right now, VC10s like to fly and give less trouble that way. Leave them on the ground and the reumatics soon set in. There's nothing special about that, and its hardly a national security issue.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

I believe over at the 3* Sqn some quite large sums were spent a couple of years back on some very large "de-humidifying" rigs to the keep the aeroplanes "warm" whilst not flying, as it has a significant positive effect on serviceability.

As an ex line engineer i understand the nature of the deferred defect and the use of the MEL to keep aircraft flying but the conversation that I overheard in the pub seemed to go a little further than a backlog of "niff -naff and triva" defects.

The whole thrust of the conversation was that the VC10 was simply "worn out" and without large amounts of money time and effort spent the situation would only get worse.

Don,t worry about the spelling triv too many mates are being forced into OCC or equiv and ISS by thier Flt Cdrs and actually start to believe in it. Thus more paperwork and e-work posted around the workplace not actually achieving any more but just letting thier various supervisors and ROs know that they are doing something. But don't forget to put on a big signature bloc........not getting the credit you so rightly deserve would be a traviste of justice..................(SP see me!)
ANY WAY BACK TO THE TOPIC.
As with most military purchases it would appear that after the initial buy money is only spent on update/upgrade to fulfil a civil requirement or flight safety deficit for example TCAS, GPS, GPWS,FM immunity for ILS(though that was f***** up). A look at the successful designs and builds (though not both or entirely ref following examples) by our aviation industry they suffer at the hands of short term government money management. A government plan to get themselves re-elected will concentrate on vote winners for the next 3 year period to ensure a general election further period in power. Health, education, social services, benefits and other freebies will always win more votes while the Defence budget is easiest to cut (except the Reds that is) .
In looking at the VC10 it is just another example of a well built platform that has hardly been upgraded over 40 years, while fulfilling more roles and it would appear doing so quite successfully (i have certainly heard from other drogue and probe receivers (not just UK) who breath a sigh of relief when they hit the tow line and find a 10 with its free air wing hoses dispensing.)The new Boeing super cruiser has been reported as being capable of decimal 98 the 10 was capable of decimal 966 in 1962 (for the purists not the whole story i acknowledge). To look at a VC10 inside its systems (engines very noisy and fuel inneficient, electrics air con hyds etc) have hardly changed since it was built apart from the add ons. We did the same with the Victor and ended up with all sorts of rogue wiggly string problems and i would imagine the 10 will be the same.
When the Wessex exited the service only recently it was hardly updated and the Buccaneer was very highly thought of by its opperators and the story goes that when it was being used as a test bed for the MRCA programe the test pilots preferred the new kit in the old frame (maybe the TP is out there somewhere and would comment).
Overall i think modification programmes are done on a pathetically small scale so we soldier on with what we have till it becomes unworkable, but even that decision is made for us by gov't. I understand fully that we can not expect a gold plated solution to each role etc but by saving pennies we frequently waste millions of £s. The 707 has been upgraded and re-lifed but i understand there to be no spares back up package to do the same with the 10. The investment for a solid future was never made. Long term futures for aircraft are rarely if ever thought about. A simple test is to look at the age of most of our frontline types and the mod state thier components are at. Is any of this likely to change, i think the answer is found if you look at how far we have got or not towards any replacement aircraft and thier current/predicted capabilities and as to if there is any chance of them making an in service date.

Ahhhh VC10s. Lovely machines. Built like brick !!!!!houses. With a bit of TLC from us engineers, they could go on for another forty years. The problem, as usual, is the accountants. They won't let smelly old gingerbeers, like me and George Brownfag, have any money to spend. Maybe they're worried we'd spend it all on Scotch and Golden Virginia?

Shall we organize a whip-round then?

A good site, with a new VC-10 forum. Where I see Tonkenna is already a member!

A Little VC10derness

Don't get me wrong A and C, I was actually having a go at BEagle and his national security nonsense.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Tough.

I will not divulge present operational capabilities in an open forum. So stick it up your Borneorifice, chum!

The sad thing is that a re-engine programme was talked about but never was more than talk. The engineers should remember that about twelve tears ago they admitted in open forum that they had under serviced the VC 10 fleet, after all the aircraft would be going out of service soon! (the K4's had not even arrived from BWOS at that time and even they turned them into great Tankers). If the USAF can make their KC's last then we should have made more of the Ten but its all far too late now. Sadly the sins of the decision makers fall all too often on the front line of years to come.

Hey Axel
Did you say that the Wessex has gone out of service?
Looks Like Akronelly has a ghost squadron.

Head down, look out for the flack.

Fair point, ballanced argument and one to which I have no excuse, in mittigation I was thinking of SH from SHFNI (NFI) especially after all the fuss in RAF News about the demise of the HC 2 and forgot about the SAR Boys/Girl. Also see the new OC 72 has a bit of previous!
Anyway i don't think my error in forgetting the 84th VPS takes away from the post as I'm sure any mods they are still using have been bolt ons and no major mid/late life update that could perhaps have eased the use of the airframes.:

Hi Orac,

Yeah, its a great site. The chap who has made it has done a bril job.

I am away from the 10 now (though I hope to be back soon). Yeah its old and yeah it suffers from serviceability problems, but so do all ac, particularly as they get older (though even my brand new ac has its problems). It is great for the tanking role and will be hard to beat when (and if) we get a replacement. Long may she be kept flying.

Tonks

the vc10 wing boxes were designed with a 20yr life, and how long has it been in service? unfortunately vickers/bac only built 52 so spares must be a problem, unlike with the kc135. still it'll be a sad day when it leaves service.