A-400 tanker, first plug
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.
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.
Hi Arty,
I like your post!
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!
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.
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?
) that could have led to a different situation than the one we see today....and tommorrow...etc £££££££
OAP
I like your post!
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!
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.
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?
) that could have led to a different situation than the one we see today....and tommorrow...etc £££££££OAP
dagenham wrote:
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.
Can we move on........
BEagle, any more thoughts on Frankentanker?
BEagle, any more thoughts on Frankentanker?
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The RAF's first A400M Atlas flies 
Photos: Airbus A400M Atlas Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Airbus A400M Atlas Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
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
No.
Although anOCDpilot will no doubt accuse me of 'Airbus propaganda' for having written that....
Actually, on second thoughts NickPilot, you may well be correct - sorry!
Although anOCDpilot will no doubt accuse me of 'Airbus propaganda' for having written that....
Actually, on second thoughts NickPilot, you may well be correct - sorry!
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Sep 2014 at 16:28.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe, but difficult!
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
Arty
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.
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.
Last edited by cessnapete; 2nd Sep 2014 at 07:33.
Thread Starter
I am sure other customers A400 will do helo AAR, ours will never have the chance to
Thoughts?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In a house(with wheels)
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For those interested ...
Footage of the maiden flight released on Forces TV ...
First Flight of the Hercules Replacement | Forces TV
Footage of the maiden flight released on Forces TV ...
First Flight of the Hercules Replacement | Forces TV
