AirTanker pitches Voyager for NATO refuelling shortfall
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: off-world
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP...
Genuine answer... No. #10 is/was due next month but my 'Porkie Pie in the Sky' cheat sheet may well be telling me a 'Porkie Pie'. #11 is/was due 2/15 and #2 6/15 so #12-14... who knows? 2015-16?
Is #2 the current AirTanker 'hack'? Which one is going to BMI?
Genuine answer... No. #10 is/was due next month but my 'Porkie Pie in the Sky' cheat sheet may well be telling me a 'Porkie Pie'. #11 is/was due 2/15 and #2 6/15 so #12-14... who knows? 2015-16?
Is #2 the current AirTanker 'hack'? Which one is going to BMI?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are some factors to consider for the more well informed:
1. How do you use the 'surge fleet' for AAR? The surge fleet are not on the Mil Register and currently EASA and CAA regs do not allow for AAR. SO how will they conduct this flying without the buy in from the MoD? If it were that easy Omega would be there already.
2. AAR Clearances. Currently Voyager is only cleared against the RAF fleet, however, during the trials other types were used and obviously the current MRTT operators also have their own clearances that may be read across. As far as I am aware, there are only 2 types of basket out there, and only one operator is persisting with the Variable drag drogue.
3. Whilst 3PR is a key part of the deal for AirTanker, I don't believe it is the case for the MoD as they don't see that part of the cash flow.
4. The boom debate goes on, although the decision should have been made 10 years ago, UK requirement or not. How have we coped for the last 3 decades without a boom? Simple, we haven't needed one. If the NATO and european AAR shortfall is the goal for AirTanker then they need to realise that the major requirement in this space is for ARBS tankers and therefore they should pay for the conversions as they have the most to gain!
1. How do you use the 'surge fleet' for AAR? The surge fleet are not on the Mil Register and currently EASA and CAA regs do not allow for AAR. SO how will they conduct this flying without the buy in from the MoD? If it were that easy Omega would be there already.
2. AAR Clearances. Currently Voyager is only cleared against the RAF fleet, however, during the trials other types were used and obviously the current MRTT operators also have their own clearances that may be read across. As far as I am aware, there are only 2 types of basket out there, and only one operator is persisting with the Variable drag drogue.
3. Whilst 3PR is a key part of the deal for AirTanker, I don't believe it is the case for the MoD as they don't see that part of the cash flow.
4. The boom debate goes on, although the decision should have been made 10 years ago, UK requirement or not. How have we coped for the last 3 decades without a boom? Simple, we haven't needed one. If the NATO and european AAR shortfall is the goal for AirTanker then they need to realise that the major requirement in this space is for ARBS tankers and therefore they should pay for the conversions as they have the most to gain!
Here are some more facts:
1, We had 6 TriStar tankers, all paid for. Even a comprehensive life extension and servicability upgrade would have cost little compared to FSTA lease.
2, RAF TriStar had a virtual full house of drogue clearances. RAF TriStar did not need Hi/Low speed drogue.
3, Cash/Credit flow was easy with RAF TriStar due to the fact it was paid for and, had a low utilisation cost.
4, RAF TriStar fulfilled the role of NATO and European widebody AAR shortfall tanker for 25 years.
"Of course Air Chief Marshal, the FSTA will be shiny and new!"
OAP
1, We had 6 TriStar tankers, all paid for. Even a comprehensive life extension and servicability upgrade would have cost little compared to FSTA lease.
2, RAF TriStar had a virtual full house of drogue clearances. RAF TriStar did not need Hi/Low speed drogue.
3, Cash/Credit flow was easy with RAF TriStar due to the fact it was paid for and, had a low utilisation cost.
4, RAF TriStar fulfilled the role of NATO and European widebody AAR shortfall tanker for 25 years.
"Of course Air Chief Marshal, the FSTA will be shiny and new!"
OAP
Onceapilot
I had a friend on the TriStar in last year or two of service. Almost every trip cancelled or heavily delayed, or broke down -route.
MOD loath to plan trips other than Herrick for the above reasons.
It was passed sell by date when bought from BA.
Long overdue for replacement.
MOD loath to plan trips other than Herrick for the above reasons.
It was passed sell by date when bought from BA.
Long overdue for replacement.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1, We had 6 TriStar tankers, all paid for. Even a comprehensive life extension and servicability upgrade would have cost little compared to FSTA lease.
2, RAF TriStar had a virtual full house of drogue clearances. RAF TriStar did not need Hi/Low speed drogue.
3, Cash/Credit flow was easy with RAF TriStar due to the fact it was paid for and, had a low utilisation cost.
4, RAF TriStar fulfilled the role of NATO and European widebody AAR shortfall tanker for 25 years.
Now when it comes to VFM of the PFI deal, I can't disagree with you
but you cannot blame the air marshals for that - that was Govt direction, so you can blame the pollies that thought PFI-ing a major operational capability was a good idea.
Roland Pulfrew, virtually all of this has been covered before.
1, My contention is, that the TriStar could have been economically extended in service much cheaper than lease FSTA pro rata. Just look at KC135, or RJ! There was no need to bring forward TriStar retirement BUT....Air Tanker were going to go to the wall, and we could not have that, could we?
2, Yes. TriStar had selectable scoop settings.
3, I could tell you the cost, but I will not.
Anyway, blinded by the bright light reflected from the shiny new FSTA vision (mirage?), the RAF hierarchy positively ignored the possibility of getting better VFM (and servicability) from TriStar, and effectively left it to rot 15 years or so years ago. The failure to invest anything at all in TriStar caught the Air Staff out when, even superhuman effort by all the worker Bees could not keep the under-invested fleet up to scratch.
4, Widebody tankers (KC10, TriStar K) are generally characterised by the ability to lift over 250,000lb of fuel.
OAP
1, My contention is, that the TriStar could have been economically extended in service much cheaper than lease FSTA pro rata. Just look at KC135, or RJ! There was no need to bring forward TriStar retirement BUT....Air Tanker were going to go to the wall, and we could not have that, could we?
2, Yes. TriStar had selectable scoop settings.
3, I could tell you the cost, but I will not.
Anyway, blinded by the bright light reflected from the shiny new FSTA vision (mirage?), the RAF hierarchy positively ignored the possibility of getting better VFM (and servicability) from TriStar, and effectively left it to rot 15 years or so years ago. The failure to invest anything at all in TriStar caught the Air Staff out when, even superhuman effort by all the worker Bees could not keep the under-invested fleet up to scratch.4, Widebody tankers (KC10, TriStar K) are generally characterised by the ability to lift over 250,000lb of fuel.
OAP
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They didn't even get a night stop in Akrotiri out of it, according to plane finder.net.
But then one needs (or certainly did a few years back) a minimum of 5 for a full mezze.
But then one needs (or certainly did a few years back) a minimum of 5 for a full mezze.
