Latest news about Boeing tanker deal

[Bre901]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/137159_tankers29.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/137405_tanker30ww.html

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/politics/6657900.htm

a bit puzzled to see that nobody posted that ...

[MarkD]

what were Airbus offering? A310s or A330s?

[Big Tudor]

If I recall correctly, Airbus have a plan for A330's with A340 wings, the outer engine on each wing would be replaced with a refuelling pylon.

[Bubbette]

Wasn't this just a disguised subsidy that the Euros would protest if given outright?

[lomapaseo]

Wasn't this just a disguised subsidy that the Euros would protest if given outright?

Yes, all commericial buys between the goverment and US commericial interests are disguised in some form.

It helps therfore to guess how and to fill in the blanks according to best guess.

[no sponsor]

There was a A330 tanker at Fairford in July. It just looked like a regular 330, with no pylons. In anycase, I thought the 330 had the same wings as the 340?

[BEagle]

There are 2 tankers being proposed for the RAF's Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme. These are the elderly ex-BA 767-336s being offered by TTSC and new A330-200 derivatives being offered by AirTanker. The 767s are not the same as the Boeing KC767A, having much less fuel and nothing like the KC767's new -400 derived flight deck. The A330-200s will have the A340 wing with Trents on the inboard pylons and AR pods on the outboard. If you examine the payload range graphs for both types, it will be readily apparent that the A330 offers a considerable payload range advantage over the B767, particularly at ranges in excess of 5700 nm. For example, it would be possible for an A330 to fly non-stop direct from Brize Norton to the Falkland Islands, a great circle distance of 6800 nm, carrying at least 100 passengers whereas a B767 would be unable to fly the route non-stop with any payload. The A330 has a baseline seat fit of 293 seats, 30 B-class at 40” pitch and 263 Y-class at 32” pitch. British Airways operates the B767 in a variety of seating configurations; typically in ‘Longhaul Regional’ configuration it is fitted with 32 B-class ‘Club World’ seats at 43” pitch and 183 Y-class ‘World Traveller’ seats at 32” pitch. However, other B767-300ER configurations include 24 B-class seats at 38” pitch and 245 Y-class at 32” pitch, a total of 269 seats. The A330 cabin interior is considerably more spacious than that of the B767, allowing standard 42” width Y-class seat pairs to be fitted in an 8 seat abreast configuration with 2 x 19” aisles, apart from the rearmost 5 rows which are fitted 7 seats abreast. The narrower cabin of the B767 means that seats and aisles of the same dimensions may only be fitted in 7 abreast configuration. Both aircraft offer substantial underfloor cargo areas without any compromise from additional Air Refuelling fuel tanks; the maximum cargo volume available in the A330 is 4803 ft³, using 26 LD3 cargo containers, the most common container in use world-wide, plus 695 ft³ bulk cargo in the rear of the hold whereas the B767 offers a maximum volume of 4030 ft³, some 16% less. However, to achieve this the B767 needs to use 30 smaller LD2 containers plus 430 ft³ bulk cargo. Unlike the A330, the B767 cannot carry LD3 containers in side-by-side pairs.

Although British Airways Fact Book 2002 lists the maximum take-off weight of its B767-336 aircraft as 181.4 tonne, Boeing quotes the MTOW of the B767 aircraft as 186.9 tonne in 269 seat configuration. At ISA+15°C in still air at sea level, the B767 at 186.9 tonne requires a take-off field length of 10100 ft, whereas at its MTOW of 230 tonne under the same conditions, the A330 requires a take-off field length of only 8300 ft. On such a 8300 ft runway under the same conditions, the B767 would be limited to a MTOW of 175 tonne.

For the Air Refuelling role, on a North Sea Air Refuelling Area sortie upon which a full VC10K3 could offer 2:10 hours on task or a VC10C1K/K4 1:44 hours, an ex-BA B767 with 73.1 tonne of fuel on take-off could offer 2:16 hours or a new A330-200 with 111 tonnes 3:41 hours at the same assumed constant offload rate.

It has been alleged that the A330 faces infrastructural problems at certain bases from PCN/ACN and dimensional constraints; hence one should examine the A330’s capability if forced to operate from a base some 500 nm further from the ARA. In such a case it could still offer 3:16 hours on the same task, an hour more than the rival B767 and thus the purported deployability limitation of the A330 is clearly more than offset by its much greater AR capability.

It will be readily apparent that AirTanker’s Airbus A330-200 platform offers a markedly superior capability in both Air Transport and Air Refuelling roles when compared against the ex-BA Boeing 767-300ER proposed by TTSC even when deployed to a base 500 nm further from the ARA than that used by its competitor. It is also a far more modern aeroplane in all respects; however, the viability of operation of either aircraft by the RAF is inextricably linked to the business case presented by the bidding consortium as the aircraft are planned to be 'hired' under a public-private partnership deal rather than being acquired conventionally.....

[Basil]

<<the aircraft are planned to be 'hired' under a public-private partnership deal >>

Let's hope they do not have the restrictions upon freedom of use allegedly imposed on the C17. :*

[POL.777]

No Sponsor -> The A330 at Fairford was just a normal A330 fresh outta Toullouse... Merely a demonstration of a tanker to be.

[Thunderball]

I became involved on the periphery of FSTA a couple of years ago. "Never in the field of commercial conflict has so much bs been talked by so many, knowing so little, at such enormous cost, and to such little effect, to so many" is a phrase that comes to my mind, with apologies to Sir Winston.

But PFI is of course a wonderful idea, and no doubt it'll be alright on the night..... :hmm:

[Pax Vobiscum]

Yesterday's Times: Boeing faces 'dirty tricks' claims in Airbus battle (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2740-800747,00.html)

[Bubbette]

Here's another view:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/frankjgaffneyjr/printfg20030903.shtml

. . . ." As the legislative branch works to help President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld “transform” the U.S. military in order to fight and win the Nation’s 21st Century wars, there are few actions Congress can take that will have a greater, near-term transformative effect than would its approval this week of the lease of 100 new tankers. The American people surely understand the transaction that will make such an acquisition possible. They are unlikely, however, to comprehend – or forgive – further, unwarranted interference with its prompt execution. "

[Final 3 Greens]

BEagle

allowing standard 42” width Y-class seats

Crikey, you could get some large girth individuals in those 3.5 foot wide seats ;)

[akerosid]

With reference to the Times article particularly, I find it amazing that anyone in Airbus would possibly believe that they had a dog's chance of winning a USAF contract against a US manufactured aircraft. At best, Airbus was used to lower the Boeing price, but there could never have been a realistic chance of getting the deal.

[BEagle]

Oops - make that 42" seat pairs!! Thanks for the heads-up!

[MarkD]

Bubbette

McCain is popular because he is seen to question, not to merely block as so many Senators do. He is not attempting to redirect the contract to another manufacturer in his district, probably because Boeing have bought or subjugated all competitors in the US.

The 135 lasted 40 years because it took a product in early lifecycle (Dash80/707 first flight 1954, KC-135A first flight 1956) and ran with it. The 767 was launched 25 years ago in 1978, by contrast. Thus it is a one generation further on (warmed over with 764ER) rather than the second generation which if the US had got off its ass before now might have been possible if 7E7 had launched already rather than wasting people's time with Sonic Cruiser FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt - as practiced by Microsoft, based in WA too...)

This is not a plea for Airbus, the 330/ 340wing concept is by no means proven and suffers from the logistical issues of airport access pointed out in the FSTA discussions on the Mil forum.

Which brings me to Akerosid, who asks us why Airbus ever expected to win. They probably didn't, but considering they were the only way a tender process could have been run (since MD-11/KC-11 is dead and owned by Boeing anyway) the least the US could have done is respected commercial confidentiality, which it is alleged they haven't done.

[sangiovese.]

Very interesting to note that BA are seriously considering the 7E7 (Flight International). The ISD of which is 2008, which is ideal because thats when BA wants to get rid of its 767's to the RAF. On the contrary however, this weeks articles from the FT refering to the McCain vs Boeing/USAF saga, state that the A330 over its lifecycle is considerably cheaper than the KC767 program.

Therefore what do we get.....bail out the BA balance sheet by buying the used 767 at a good price, aiding UK industry (must check those Cobham and Marshalls shares). Or boost BAe by buying the A330?

Old 767 or new/recently used A330. Probably going to have the about same through life costs to the RAF....now will FSTA be politically decided? Or will we get what we really need? probably not.

Anyone know the date for a decision (Oct or Jan?):hmm:

[Thunderball]

sangiovese,

"bail out the BA balance sheet by buying the used 767 at a good price".

The B767-300s are, I believe, owned by Spectrum Capital, not BA. Spectrum have been part of the TTSC consortium since way back.

[BEagle]

MarkD is quite correct to point out that KC135 longevity stems from early lifecycle acquisition. The KC767A has nearly 20 years more product development behind it than the elderly ex-BA767-336 aircraft; it also carries 14.5 tonne more fuel and has a real glass flight deck based on the 767-400, unlike the BA aircraft. Whereas the A330-200 has over 50% more fuel available than the B767-336, Airbus industry-proven FBW and capabilities which comprehensively outclass any 767.

The A330 wing already has hardpoints and it is a straightforward task to modify them to carry an AR pod rather than an outboard engine.

Whilst the A330 is bigger and heavier than the 767, even operating from a larger aerodrome hundreds of miles further away from the Air Refuelling Area than one used by a B767, it still offers far greater fuel offload volumes.

The alleged 'dirty tricks' concerning the USAF's acquisition won't do any favours for Boeing, following on as it does from the recent missile scandal. Whereas Airbus have a product which sells itself without needing any 'help'....

[G Fourbee]

BEagle, I'm confused. Have MOD changed the FSTA requirement? As I understand it, at the Invitation to Negotiate Stage, all 4 competing consortia were offering the Boeing 767 - specifically the BA fleet of 767s. What's changed that MOD suddenly need a much bigger tanker?

[Archimedes]

G Fourbee,

I always thought that the Airbus was in the mix somewhere.

This (http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/fsta.htm) is the DPA's tale of events to date, and this (http://www.ets-news.com/UK_tankers.htm) is a slightly more detailed account.

[sangiovese.]

Thunderball..... I'd always been given the impresssion they were part of the BA owned fleet, not leased, but I'd happily stand corrected.

What I do find surprising that since the A330 is so big, for the AT role, that consideration wasn't given in a bid to leasing a few A320's as well. Cross type qualification etc would allow the service to offer Army company sized moves more efficiently. It would also give better access to some of the smaller airfields...save everyone the delightful bus journey to Brize. Might also silence some of the critics of the A330 being too big (although the FI hangar argument is a poor reason for aircraft selection)

[BEagle]

David Oliver's article is somewhat inaccurate in several areas. But close enough to convey a generally correct portrayal of the current stae of affairs.

FSTA is a Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft, hence the idea of augmenting the A330-200 tanker with A320s for the transport role is nihil ad rem. For that application, DTMA would probably put the task out to charter.

Civil Serpents appreciate little of the 'currency' requirements needed to maintain operational skills in the AR role (despite having their chests poked by many RAF aircrew). Whilst it is true that civil drivers-airframe could trash-haul in a FSTA, to expect them to be able to offer flexible and efficient AR at the drop of a hat is somewhat porcovolant. How much more of their beloved PFI concept is utter hot air....??

[G Fourbee]

Sorry to be persistent but why is biger than necessary suddenly a virtue?

Bigger - sorry!

[BEagle]

Because, to my mind, the balance has shifted from the Cold War concept of supporting lots of AD CAPs as a priority (for which you need a large number of 'hoses in the sky') to the GW2 model of expeditionary warfare, where the need is for maximum fuel volume and maximum time on station - for which you need the bigger tanker of the 2 FSTA platforms in question. The relatively small additional fuel burnt by the A330 transiting from a more distant base would be more than offset by its greater time on task and greater fuel volume available compared to the ex-BA B767-336 operating from a more forward base.

With only 73.1 tonne and no probe, the ex-BA 767s don't really offer much more than the VC10K3 - and would have flown far more hours and landings than the ex-EAAC VC10K3s had when they entered service in the mid-80s...

[Art Field]

Just a thought or two on the big v less big arguments. Whilst the tanker task priorities have undoubtedly changed surely reaction time is still relevant and therefore a long transit to task can never be an advantage. There may well be plenty of fuel on board a single tanker but if multiple formations are on task then four hoses are considerably better than two.

The servicability argument is not a service problem, it is up to the contractor, if he falls down then it costs him dearly and remember he is in it to make money. As far a reliability of the two consortiums are concerned take your pick, AirTanker lost one of their partners quoting lack of a business plan, BAE lead the other.

[BEagle]

Art, whilst a longer transit is unlikely to be an advantage, even after transiting an (unlikely) 500 nm further, an A330-200 would still have more fuel than the B767 being put forward by TTSC. 'Reaction time' is of less emphasis now than it was during the Cold War; these days expeditionary warfare is more likely than tankers having to scramble to support CAPs! WE hold the upper hand and decide how WE will deploy our assets!

Yes, KBR Halliburton did leave the AirTanker consortium earlier in the year in what was reported as an amicable seperation. This has allowed the other consortium members, Cobham, EADS, Rolls-Royce and Thales to increase their individual equity stakes confidently. Their work share also guarantees far more British employment than does the opposition's.

But look at TTSC. 'Lead' by a 1/3 shareholder BWoS with its far from marvellous 'on time and on budget' MRA4 and TypHoon track records? Another 1/3 shareholder, Boeing, currently being lambasted in the US for its involvement in the USAF tanker acquisition process just after another scandal involving a missile programme? Hmmm.........and the old BA Boeings aren't getting any younger; Marshalls' 'substantial refit including engine upgrades' would indeed need to be 'substantial'.

[ORAC]

I would caution against the practice of designing equipment based purely on the basis of fighting the last war.

Beagle, your posts on this matter have become suspiciously partisan of late.

[Brain Potter]

Orac - I agree.

BEagle,

Your posts seem very pro-Airbus both in terms of FSTA and an unswerving faith in the A400M sales pitch. Are you now employed by, or consulting for an Airbus related venture?

You make the point that FSTA is supposed to provide the RAF with a new tanker. However, your case for the A330 heavily emphasises LD3 containers, seat pitch, pax loads and the ability to fly direct to the Falklands. We don't want to make the mistake of procuring a tanker whose capabilites have been driven by the need to service the garrison in that poxy place (again). Civil contract should surely be the answer for that.

I agree that large fuel capacity is the most important factor, but I think you dismiss the possibilty of having to base the A330 futher away too lightly. Yes, reaction times are not as important as in cold war days, but what about the effect on the ability to get back on task after a turn round. Those extra 500 miles would add 2.5 hours at least, a not insignificant amount when operating a very small fleet.

The lesson of the last few conflicts has been flexibility. We need

1. Large fuel load
2. Multiple hoses including centreline.
3. Deployability - Good airfield performance, low ACN, small (ish) size and less dependence on airfield facilites eg built-in airstairs. This should maximisie the number of possible deployed locations.
4. A boom.
5. Receiver capability - both probe and receptacle.

Neither FSTA candidate delivers much of the above. I don't know what the best solution is, but new build KC767s have got to be closer to the ideal and will also give interoperability with the USAF. We are probably going to get a political compromise, that has all the possibilty of being bungled - again.

Incidentally, what happens to the civilian part of the FSTA partnership if the AR fleet cannot maintain ETOPS, due to higher engine failure rates?

[Jackonicko]

Perhaps BEagle is just finally seeing the compelling case in favour of the A330, and is not a dyed in the Wool 'European is always inferior/Boeing is always best' merchant.

The RAF is not in the business of buying a dedicated tanker - the requirement is for a strategic tanker/transport.

The RAF requires an aircraft which will offer the best possible performance in BOTH roles, and which will give the best possible return to third party users (thereby reducing the overall lease cost).

There is no requirement for a boom.

The KC-767 is far from being an ideal solution for us or for the USAF. It is too small. Its fuselage cross section is too narrow for passengers. Its underfloor hold is too narrow for side by side containers. Its underfloor hold will have to be used for fuel tanks. The 767 is yesterday's technology.

The A330 is too big for easy ground handling at some airfields, though this has been over-stated by opponents. But it is a much more modern and reliable and cost effective aircraft, and can offer a greater fuel offload without the major modifications required by a 767 tanker, and offers superior freight and passenger capabilities. It's a three point tanker, and the difference in numbers obtained will be minimal, because the A330 offers its provider a better chance of obtaining third party revenue. It will provide more UK jobs.

The A330 was preferred by the USAF tanker programme officers I spoke to, but was felt to be 'politically untenable'. HMG does not have the same need to prop up Boeing, surely?

[Art Field]

Firstly, the RAF is not buying a tanker, it is asking for a contractor to provide aircraft and a whole lot more to meet a requirement for AAR and AT in the future. The title might well be FSTA but the bidders were invited to negotiate to provide a service which left them plenty of scope to decide the configuration of the aircraft, presumably to make the bucket and spade/freight side of the deal more attractive. Therefore you get what you ask for and whats more you don't get what you don't ask for. items like a probe, three man crew, extra tanks rather than freight capacity, even perhaps formation training become points to be argued. The likelyhood is that whoever wins will provide an airliner that tanks, it's a sad state of affairs if that is all that this country can afford.

One further thought, how many times in the past has it been said "we will never have to do that again", but we have?.

[BEagle]

But who needs a single role aircraft? The airliner which both tanks and trash hauls well is the best the RAF will get.

Brain P - I certainly admit to being very pro-A400M and no, I'm nothing to do with either that programme or FSTA. But I do think that it'll be an excellent aeroplane - as will the A330-200 if selected for FSTA.

No doubt the ex-BA Boeing 767-336 aircraft comply with whatever the FSTA requirement was; however I personally think that the real world requirement has moved on since then - and that maximum capability is the key issue.

[massingbird]

BEagle biased? Shurely not.

25 May 2003

"the ex-BA 767-300ERs or new-build KC-767As seem to me personally to be the better choice. "

28 July 2003

"As for me? I'm working on another Airbus military project (not A400M),"

And the rest as they say...............

:ok:

[BEagle]

Another useful cut-and-paste contribution from mockingbird:yuk:

Have you ever posted anything original?

In May I had no knowledge of the GW2 experience; in mid-June I had and shortly afterwards after much number-crunching changed my opinion regarding the better FSTA platform. And for no other reason.

The work I referred to in the post that you quote goes back to the previous year; indeed, whilst involved in that programme I was still pro-767. Until my re-assessment of platform capability showed that the A330 will be by far the better platform.

But hey, carry on with your silly little name-calling campaign if it turns you on:zzz: It would, however, be of rather more interest if you came up with a positive contribution now and then:rolleyes:

[newswatcher]

Weekend report said the Ministry of Defence's Investment Assessment Board planned to meet yesterday(10/11) to decide between the two bids. Indicated that official response would be given when approved by Cabinet in December.

So I guess we might get some "informed" speculation, if yesterday's meeting took place!

[FEBA]

A cut and shut conversion of the B76 would be the worst decision. A brand new purpose built for the job, airframe would be much better, and the better of the brand new options would be the Bus. It runs on a tea cup of fuel and will offer a superior operational envelope. So you can guarantee which way the MOD will go then.
FEBA

[Bre901]

The Beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3708584.stm)

US army official jailed for fraud

The former number two buyer for the US Air Force has been sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption.

Darleen Druyun, 56, admitted to boosting the price of a tanker plane deal to win favour with Boeing, the company she was about to work for.

She also pleaded guilty to giving Boeing a competitor's secret data.

The judge said the stain of her offence was very severe, and the case "must stand as an example", given the high office she held.

Daughter spared

Judge TS Ellis at the US district court in Alexandria, Virginia, said her sentence was stiffer than it might have been, given that she had failed a lie detector examination.

Druyun also received a fine of $5,000, three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service.

She agreed to a deal to spare her daughter, Heather McKee, from prosecution for passing messages between herself and a top Boeing official.


Ms McKee is reportedly also an employee at Boeing.

Druyun played a major role in the early stages of a controversial tanker deal which Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put on hold late last year, pending an assessment of the army's need for the aircraft.

After failing a lie detector test, Druyun admitted earlier this year she "did favour the Boeing company in certain negotiations as a result of her employment negotiations and other favours provided by Boeing".

She said she had agreed to a higher price for the tankers than she thought was appropriate.

"The defendant did so, in her view, as a 'parting gift to Boeing' and because of her desire to ingratiate herself with Boeing, her future employer," a statement of facts said.

She also admitted giving what she regarded as proprietary data from Airbus to Boeing during the tanker discussions.

At the sentencing, she apologised, saying she was "truly sorry for my actions".

Heads rolled at Boeing over the Pentagon scandal.

The firm had become more dependent on military contracts amid a sharp downturn in demand for passenger jets from recession-weary airlines.

[Lu Zuckerman]

US Air Force official jailed for fraud

The former number two buyer for the US Air Force has been sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption.

Darleen Druyun, 56, admitted to boosting the price of a tanker plane deal to win favour with Boeing, the company she was about to work for.

She also pleaded guilty to giving Boeing a competitor's secret data.

The judge said the stain of her offence was very severe, and the case "must stand as an example", given the high office she held.

Daughter spared

Judge TS Ellis at the US district court in Alexandria, Virginia, said her sentence was stiffer than it might have been, given that she had failed a lie detector examination.

Druyun also received a fine of $5,000, three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service.

She agreed to a deal to spare her daughter, Heather McKee, from prosecution for passing messages between herself and a top Boeing official.


Ms McKee is reportedly also an employee at Boeing.

Druyun played a major role in the early stages of a controversial tanker deal which Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put on hold late last year, pending an assessment of the Air Force's need for the aircraft.

After failing a lie detector test, Druyun admitted earlier this year she "did favour the Boeing company in certain negotiations as a result of her employment negotiations and other favours provided by Boeing".

She said she had agreed to a higher price for the tankers than she thought was appropriate.

"The defendant did so, in her view, as a 'parting gift to Boeing' and because of her desire to ingratiate herself with Boeing, her future employer," a statement of facts said.

She also admitted giving what she regarded as proprietary data from Airbus to Boeing during the tanker discussions.

At the sentencing, she apologised, saying she was "truly sorry for my actions".

Heads rolled at Boeing over the Pentagon scandal.

The firm had become more dependent on military contracts amid a sharp downturn in demand for passenger jets from recession-weary airlines.


:E :E

[BEagle]

Whilst it is right that justice must be done, sentencing a 56-year old first offender to 9 months inside for white-collar crime seems somewhat de trop to me.

Although I consult for Airbus in the military tanker field, I will not revel in schadenfreude over Druyun's sentence.

Let the products sell themselves on capability, affordability and value. Not politics.

[ORAC]

I take the opposite view. she got off lightly. Do a blue collar crime and get locked away for years, do a white collar crime that is going to cost your company/country hundreds of millions of dollars, and get a slap on the back of the wrist......

[Jackonicko]

Yeah me too, she effectively stole millions from the USAF as a sweetener for her new employers. I'd question whether Boeing hasn't got away rather lightly, too.

Oh, of course, I can hear the reason they "didn't know she'd done it". They "didn't ask her to do it."

[jindabyne]

Only nine months? I would imagine that the severity of such a judgement, were it to happen in UK, would be much greater. Any opinion prOOne?

[flyboy007]

Back to the Airbus PCN/LCN issues and fears that it will not be able to operate out of some airfields...Surely it will be no worse off in this field than the L-1011 currently operated??? It is slightly lighter at MAUW, with same landing gear config is it not?
As for a 500nm transit taking "at least two and a half hours": maybe with the gear down!!

[BEagle]

An additional 500 nm transit to the towline also requires a 500 nm transit back. 1000nm in 2.5 hours is an average of 400KTAS (including take-off, climb to altitude, transit, descent to AARA, return climb to altitude, transit, descent to landing). So it seems about right.

As for KC-767A, it could only take off with its max fuel load from runways considerably longer than a 10 000 ft balanced field even in still air, at ISA and sea level. No problem for the A330 though.

[Paul Wilson]

With regard to the PCN/LCN issue, is it not the case that many airports with a published PCN/LCN will accept aircraft with higher requiremnts on a one off/rare basis? As such should the published PCN/LCN not be seen more as a durability issue for the runway than an immediate safety issue (for figures say 50% diffferent).

With that in mind during non wartime operations, traveling a bit furthur for greater time on task is no great hardship.

During wartime operatons, use the runway and worry about damage/repaving afterwards.

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

[flyboy007]

Fair enough Beagle, didn't read that transit one properly!

Paul; there is no stick!!!!

[NURSE]

Is the Airbus deal still on or has HMG changed it s mind?

I saw the news piece in AFM about them looking at more tristar tankers.and other options.

[BEagle]

Another set back for the KC-767A program:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/08/news/fortune500/boeing.reut/

[ORAC]

And yet more problems for Boeing:

Boeing Competitors Protest

Lockheed Martin Corp. and BAE Systems North America Inc. filed protests with the Air Force yesterday over a $4 billion contract to upgrade electronics on C-130 military transport planes awarded to Boeing Co. in 2001. The companies had 10 days to dispute the contract after former Air Force procurement officer Darleen A. Druyun acknowledged in court documents that an "objective selection authority may not have selected Boeing." Druyun admitted she favored Boeing after the company gave jobs to her daughter and son-in-law..........

The C-130 work is among hundreds of contracts Druyun helped award that are now being reviewed by the Pentagon inspector general. "We will take appropriate action based upon the IG investigation and an evaluation of the protest," Air Force spokesman Doug Karas said.

Contract protests are typically considered long shots, but the unusual circumstances surrounding Druyun's admissions have made it more likely the Air Force will take some action, industry analysts said. Both companies will likely try to recoup the millions they spent bidding for the work, and the Air Force also could consider reallocating some of the contract or holding a new competition, they said. "Ms. Druyun's admitted bias and quid-pro-quo actions as the source selection authority clearly corrupted the acquisition process, which we had assumed at the time was being managed with fairness and integrity," BAE said in a statement. Lockheed's loss of the 10-year C-130 contract was considered stunning within the defense industry, particularly since Lockheed had built the planes for decades.

"It is important for us to restore our corporate reputation after the contract loss . . . and it's important to find a remedy for an injustice that Darleen Druyun caused through her unlawful actions," Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky said......

Druyun was also involved in a 1990s competition for rocket launchers in which Boeing was awarded a majority of the work over Lockheed. That contract is now the subject of a federal investigation since Boeing acknowledged that several of its employees had proprietary Lockheed documents during the competition. Lockheed is also suing Boeing over that work.

[Jackonicko]

And MORE bad news.....

20 November
The Washington Post

Air Force Pitch for Boeing Detailed
E-Mails Show Pressure by Roche

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 20, 2004; Page A01

Air Force Secretary James G. Roche asked a lobbyist for Boeing Co. to use the company's Washington contacts to "quash" a deputy undersecretary of defense and make him "pay an appropriate price" for objecting to the Air Force's decision to lease Boeing 767 tanker aircraft, according to e-mails released yesterday by a Republican senator critical of the tanker deal.

Roche also pressured independent military cost analysts who questioned the high price of the lease, described other internal Pentagon critics as "animals," and ridiculed executives at European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS) and its Airbus division, the consortium that offered a competing plan, the e-mails show. He told his top public relations aide to "blow away" the EADS chairman for raising questions about the Air Force decision to work with Boeing.

Sen. John McCain said he will keep pursuing internal communications on the Boeing tanker lease deal.
At one point in the three-year Air Force campaign for the lease, Roche e-mailed a friend at Raytheon Co., "Privately between us: Go Boeing!"

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has conducted an equally vigorous campaign against the lease, said in releasing the internal Pentagon communications in a speech on the Senate floor that the missives reflect a "systemic Air Force failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness or rank corruption."

McCain said top Air Force officials have recently been trying to "delude the American people" into believing that a single person is responsible for misconduct in the $30 billion leasing plan -- namely, Darleen A. Druyun, the Air Force contracting official who pleaded guilty two months ago to overpricing the tankers as a "parting gift" to Boeing before she became one of the firm's executives.

"I simply cannot believe that one person, acting alone, can rip off taxpayers out of billions of dollars," said McCain, who said he will keep pursuing internal Defense Department and Bush administration communications until "all the stewards of taxpayers' funds who committed wrongdoing are held accountable."

Roche and Marvin R. Sambur, the Air Force's top acquisitions manager, announced their resignations several days before McCain's speech. But both men said through Pentagon spokesmen that they had not been pushed out, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a statement hailing Roche for serving "our country capably and with honor."

The e-mails McCain released add detail to previous disclosures about the scope and intensity of the Air Force's lobbying effort, mostly working with Boeing, to defend against early complaints from the Office of Management and Budget and various Pentagon analysts that the lease was a costly Boeing bailout. The critics have contended that buying the refueling planes outright would save billions of dollars and that no urgent need exists to replace Air Force tankers.

For Boeing, securing the lease was a way to keep its 767s in production during a period of declining orders from passenger airlines. It mounted an aggressive lobbying effort that drew support from influential members of the House and Senate, many of whom had received substantial Boeing campaign contributions, and eventually gained the backing of White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.

The deal was blocked by Congress this year, after Druyun pleaded guilty to ethics violations and two senior Boeing officials resigned. One, Michael Sears, has since pleaded guilty to violating an ethics law governing employment negotiations with defense officials such as Druyun.

Yesterday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) and senior committee Democrat Carl M. Levin (Mich.) joined McCain in a letter to Rumsfeld that called the tanker lease "the most significant" abuse since the "Ill Wind" bribery and fraud cases of the 1990s. They jointly demanded a review of the roles played by all Pentagon officials, both military and civilian, who "participated in structuring and negotiating the proposed tanker lease contract."

Warner said in a personal statement after hearing McCain's speech that he thinks the information shows that the departures of Roche and Sambur were in the "best interests" of the Defense Department. Air Force spokesman Douglas Karas declined to provide detailed comment on the e-mails but said they reflect "negotiations on an acquisition program that is now behind us" and will be reviewed by the defense secretary before talks are restarted.

"Ms. Druyun is solely responsible for her misconduct," Karas said, "and the fact that she was caught, convicted and sentenced reflects that the checks and balances in the system work. . . . All airmen deplore her misconduct as an assault on our core value of integrity."

According to the e-mails, Roche and Sambur organized a three-track effort to promote the deal: They sought to beat back a competing tanker offer from Airbus, to silence internal administration dissent, and to promote glowing assessments of the tanker program in public forums and military circles, frequently with Boeing's help.

Druyun expressed fury in a Sept. 5, 2002, e-mail to Roche about published remarks by an Airbus official about the lease plan, for example. Calling his remarks "BS" and "slime," she added: "His day of reckoning will come hopefully." Roche's response was "Oy. I agree." He also said he wished Druyun could have "tortured him slowly" over a period of years.

Roche has denied in congressional testimony that he ever asked Boeing to put pressure on Michael W. Wynne, principal deputy undersecretary for acquisition, who complained in 2003 that the tanker aircraft were too costly. McCain reported yesterday that on May 7 of that year, a Boeing lobbyist reported in an e-mail to Roche that Sambur was feeling pressured by Wynne to cut the cost; the lobbyist, Paul Weaver, asked if Boeing "needs to do anything like calling in the big guns to help out."

Roche responded that "it's time for the big guns to quash Wynne! Boeing won't accept such a dumb contract form and price, and Wynne needs to 'pay' an appropriate price."

Six weeks later, Roche complained directly to Wynne, who by then was an acting undersecretary of defense and more supportive of the program, that officials in the Pentagon's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) who said the lease did not meet key regulatory criteria were "about to cause us to embarrass SecDef [Rumsfeld], who having approved the lease, will now have to explain why his staff is destroying the case for it."

Roche rendered his own view on the critics: "This is their way of asserting dominance over you. I know this sounds wild, but animals are animals."

Wynne's answer was that "I see this as an OSD discipline problem myself," and shortly afterward, he wrote an e-mail to a PA&E official complaining: "I have plenty of problems, but being 'fragged' didn't seem to be one of them. Now I worry."

And MORE.....

(From Defense Daily).

McCain Calls For Widened Investigation Into Air Force Conduct
By Sharon Weinberger

As part of the growing controversy over the Air Force\'s now defunct plans to
lease aerial refueling tankers, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for the
investigation into the deal to widen and released a slew of new internal
e-mails detailing the extent to which senior service officials sought to
eliminate competition in granting the multibillion dollar contract to
Boeing.

Quoting from a number of e-mails entered Friday into the Congressional
Record, McCain argued that Air Force leaders, and specifically Air Force
Secretary James Roche, improperly influenced other acquisition officials and
considered using allegations of impropriety as a way to stave off
competition. In 2002, Boeing was selected over the European Aeronautic
Defence and Space Co. (EADS) to provide 100 commercially derived aerial
refueling tankers to the Air Force, a deal potentially worth over $20
billion. In selecting Boeing, the Air Force cited, among other issues, EADS\'
lack of experience with integrating a boom on its Airbus aircraft.

Severe Criticism of Crosby, EADS
Roche at that time made repeated statements to Congress and the media that he supported having a fair and open competition for the tankers. But according to e-mails between Roche, and his then assistant, Bill Bodie, the Air Force secretary expressed personal animosity toward EADS and its CEO of North American operations. Bodie wrote Roche in September to complain about EADS tanker proposal, "We don\'t have to turn the other cheek, you know. I\'m ready to tell the truth about Airbus\'s boom, footprint, and financial shortcomings. But maybe we should sleep on it," Bodie wrote. Roche then replied, "No, Sir, save it and blow him away. He admits that they were not technically qualified! And, we keep their record of bribes as our trump card!"

The e-mail does not say what bribes Roche was referring to, but Airbus,
which is owned by EADS, has been accused in the past of using bribes to sell
its commercial aircraft.

McCain also quoted from e-mails detailing personal attacks against Ralph
Crosby, the head of EADS, North America. "Right. Privately between us: Go
Boeing! The fools in Paris and Berlin never did their homework," Roche wrote
to a defense industry official following news of Crosby\'s new position.
"And, Ralphie is the CEO and Chairman of a marketing firm, for that\'s all
there is to EADS, North America. The [Air Force] has problems with EADS on a
number of levels. The widespread feelings about Crosby in the Air Staff,
Jumper especially, will only make their life more difficult. Smiles."

Roche and Crosby were at one time competitors for a senior position at
Northrop Grumman [NOC].

The Air Force, in a statement, did not address specific e-mails, but
responded with a general statement. "Dr Roche\'s efforts were focused solely
on recapitalizing our Eisenhower-era tankers to deliver a much needed
capability to our warfighters," an Air Force spokesman said. "This
capability is crucial to our nation\'s ability to remain a global power. The
e-mails referenced by Senator McCain reflect negotiations on an acquisition
program that is now behind us." Roche submitted his resignation last week,
although he is expected to serve until Jan. 20.

EADS also declined to speak about the specific remarks made by Roche. "We
rely upon the integrity of the DoD procurement process to make fair
acquisition decisions," an EADS spokesperson said in a statement. "We
strongly support fair and open competition and believe there is no
appropriate place for personal bias."

The Air Force\'s original plans to lease and buy 100 KC-767 tankers was
eventually rejected after spiraling allegations that originated from an
investigation into Boeing\'s hiring of Darleen Druyun, a former Air Force
official. Druyun last month was sentenced to nine months in jail after
pleading guilty to discussing employment with Boeing while still negotiating
contracts with the company on behalf of the Air Force.

She also admitted to steering a number of contracts to Boeing as a reward
for her and her family\'s employment at the company. McCain said Congress
would hold a number of hearings on the Pentagon\'s acquisition policy when
lawmakers return in January.

McCain Takes Aim At Third Party Support Another issue McCain highlighted in
his Senate speech was the extent to which the Air Force sought to line up
outside support for its deal. Quoting from an e-mail between senior Air
Force officials, McCain took aim at Vago Muradian, the editor of Defense
News, a Gannett owned publication, and Loren Thompson, the chief operating
officer for the Lexington Institute.

McCain said the e-mails highlight the extent to which "Air Force leadership
focused on using the press," and quoting from Bodie\'s e-mail, called it "3rd
Party support at its best." Bodie wrote to Roche in 2002: "And, I talked to
[defense analyst] Loren [Thompson], who is standing by to comment to this
reporter about the national security imperatives of tanker modernization.
[Editor of Defense News ] Vago [Muradian] is also standing by."

Thompson, who had supported the tanker lease, said he saw nothing wrong with
his position. "I don\'t understand what\'s wrong with third party support?" he
said. "I\'m supporting their position as a third party."

Boeing has provided support to Lexington, according to Thompson, but the
money makes up less than 5 percent of the total support for the Arlington,
Va.-based think tank.

Thompson said his primary focus was on tanker modernization---not the lease
per se--and that neither the Air Force nor Boeing had control, wrote, or
fact checked what he wrote about the lease. The editor-in-chief of Defense
News, Tobias Naegele, insisted his publication has maintained independent
coverage, but said in some cases, articles have been run by government
officials. Asked if Defense News has shown pre-publication or draft versions
of articles to Air Force officials, he said, yes, and "in some cases" it
would be "reasonable" to run draft articles "past officials who provide
sensitive or technical information." Asked specifically if this had happened
with coverage of tankers, Naegele said it was "certainly possible."

Defense News has previously been embroiled in controversy after it published
an opinion piece submitted by a former Navy official that was, as was later
discovered from Boeing e-mails, ghostwritten by the company. Defense News
later said it was not aware Boeing wrote the piece.

Naegele said he stands by Muradian\'s editorial conduct at Defense News,
describing him as a "conscientious, talented, and skilled" editor. Muradian,
a former deputy editor of Defense Daily and editor of Defense Daily
International, left Defense Daily for Defense News in May 2002.

"We stand by whatever we published and printed," Naegele said.

[MarkD]

good grief...

Hope McCain brings him back to explain the discrepancies in his Congressional testimony - and why he should not face the penalty associated with perjury.

[M609]

Mj. Gen Silas R. Johnson to head EADS bid (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050111/115733_1.html)

[LunchMonitor]

Am I right in thinking that if this tanker deal all falls apart, then Brize doesent get its forecast increase in capacity that heralded the decision to close Lyneham?
Thus leaving nowhere for the Lyneham aircraft to go to and Lyneham's future secure?

[BEagle]

LunchMonitor - I doubt it, now that A400M is due to be stationed at Brize as well as the C-17s plus whatever is left of the antique AT/AAR fleet in a few years' time...

Meanwhile, the Aussies have already signed the contract for their A330 MRTTs...... But the UK's civil serpents are still struggling to sort out the PFI for FSTA.

[betty_boo_x]

Lunch Monitor dont doubt it too much!
As BEagle says the "antique" Tankers,C-17's,A400's .....AND 25 C130J's should make things quite cosy.
I hear there is some fast talking going on in hallowed corridors with all sorts of crazy plans being considered.

Anyway back to this FSTA. Whats happening?? Its all gone quiet,when is the next big decision for the "suits".

[BEagle]

FSTA was nominated as a potential PFI project in 1997. Early work included a period of market building and Request for Information (RFI) and Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals (ISOP) phases. These activities provided confidence in the potential to secure a PFI solution.

Following Initial Gate approval in December 2000, the project launched a formal assessment phase designed to confirm whether PFI will offer best value for money.

An Invitation to Negotiate was issued in December 2000; two consortia submitted formal bids in July 2001.

Final bids were received from both consortia on 30 April 2003.

The Secretary of State for Defence announced in Jan 2004 that a bid from AirTanker Ltd had been judged to offer the best prospective value for money PFI solution to the FSTA requirement.


Single bidder negotiations were then taken forward with AirTanker Ltd; these were aimed at concluding a PFI contract 'as soon as possible'......

The PFI Service is expected to commence around the end of the decade.

MOD is seeking a service rather than a specified number of aircraft. The number of aircraft needed to meet service-based requirement may differ between aircraft solutions. The AirTanker consortium comprises EADS, Rolls Royce, Cobham and Thales. AirTanker is proposing the Airbus A330-200.


Culled from http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/fsta.htm

[betty_boo_x]

"As soon as possible"
Beags,thank you for your reply.
I meant to include in my previous post that we are absolutely potless,have no money,are skint.
The Bank Manager has asked us in for an interview to discuss the way forward.
I gather there will be some breaking news in the next couple of months. I hope the FSTA gets swept up in that.
At the mo it seems everyone is in limbo waiting for some decision or other.
I do hope someone can cheer up the Lyneham engineers.:p

[BEagle]

Some rather porcovolant statements in your post, I fear, betty_boo_boo-bi-doo_x

[betty_boo_x]

BEagle,
I think I know what you mean!
Porkyvalant,ambivilent,incandescent....oh you know what I mean.
I'm only a woodcutters daughter that had only the basic of education. Please dont send me to fight the baddies anymore.
Anyway about this Tanker...............:confused:

[BEagle]

betty_boo_boo-bi-doo_x - 'porcovolant' means that there is a greater chance of pigs flying than whatever it is that's being described as porcovolant actually happening!

[betty_boo_x]

So,just for the record,there is more chance of RAFP flying than :-a.The FSTA deal being announced in detail. b. The Lyneham Engineers smiling. c. Us all being in limbo. d. Some significant announcement in the next couple of months. e. All of the above.

[sangiovese.]

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain has not yet reached a decision on awarding a 13 billion pound military refuelling plane deal to a consortium including Airbus parent EADS, the Ministry of Defence says.

An MOD spokesman rebuffed a report in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper which said senior MOD officials had recommended the AirTanker consortium, which includes France's Thales and Rolls-Royce, Cobham and VT Group, as the "preferred bidder" at a meeting last week.

"We are continuing to talk to AirTanker about their proposals. Those negotiations are ongoing with good progress being made.

"No final decision has been taken. We will make an announcement as and when it is appropriate to do so."

The Sunday Telegraph had said that a formal recommendation was expected to be passed to government ministers in the next two weeks with a public announcement expected towards the end of February.

The government chose the AirTanker consortium over a Boeing Co-led bid in a tentative agreement last January, but negotiations over the past year have proved difficult.

Britain's boldest "private finance initiative" (PFI) yet, the deal calls for the winning consortium to own and operate a fleet of tankers and make them available to the Royal Air Force for 27 years.

AirTanker plans to use Airbus A330s, a plane that it would also like the U.S. government to consider buying as it looks to replace an ageing tanker fleet of more than 500 planes



I am led to believe May is still a good estimate.

[BEagle]

But May of which year........?

[sangiovese.]

Beagle........Well I wouldn't nail my colours to the cross too hard to go for an exact year! :\

Interesting to note that some of the bidding contractors are getting rather annoyed by the continuing delays

[The Gorilla]

I also see from today's papers that the two beloved carriers are also on a hold. It seems that at a meeting in Dec the designs were rejected and went back to the drawing board. It also appears that HMG are trying to hold a gun to the head of the shipyard builders over amalgamation.

My money is on these deals being frozen in limbo until after the May General Election, then following Labours inevitable 3rd term victory we will have another SDR and hey presto no carriers and no FSTA!!

:ok:

[Roland Pulfrew]

Deja Vue Methinks

The press release that Sangy quotes could have come from this time last year!!! :hmm: In fact I think it did, didn't it?? :uhoh:

I seem to remember Min DP saying that AirTanker were given one final chance to move to the MOD position or he would recommend scrapping the PFI. Here we are 8 months on and they still haven't scrapped the PFI and have AirTanker moved towards a viable position that the NAO will approve - I doubt it. (And in todays papers Buff has the timerity to say that PFIs deliver!!! W:mad: r)!

And in the meantime the Italian AF are due to get their brand new B767 tankers in less than 2-years time

Even the RAAF will get their brand new KA330s in less than 4 years - that despite starting their tanker replacement study some 4 years after us.

And we have Smart Procurement :yuk: .......Doh!!

[BEagle]

How clearly I remember Simon the Civil Serpent stating quite categorically:

"The FSTA programme will NOT slip"

Yeah, right. What else did he get right, I wonder?

I imagine that the delightful 'Hither' went back to Oz and told them what a crock of utter $hit this PPP/PFI was, eh Roly?

[MarkD]

BOEING SAYS IN TALKS WITH UAE ON B767 TANKER SALE

15 February 2005 / Reuters

By Heba Kandil

ABU DHABI -- Boeing Co. said on Monday it was in talks with the
United Arab Emirates about the possible sale of Boeing 767 military
refuelling planes, the same tankers involved in a scuppered 100-plane
deal with the U.S. Air Force.

"We're in the middle stage of talks. They are interested in two to
three tankers," James O'Neill, Boeing's vice president for tanker
programmes told Reuters at the International Defence Exhibition &
Conference in Abu Dhabi.

"If you're doing persistent border control and your aircraft are up
for a long time, they can refuel in the air instead of landing. This
will increase operational effectiveness," he said.

The planemaker has orders for 767 refuelling planes from Italy and
Japan but Britain and Australia have both declined to go with 767-
based tankers.

Sales are important for sustaining production of the aircraft as
demand from airlines has waned with the onset of other, newer models.

By far its biggest potential buyer is the U.S. Air Force, but a deal
involving 100 of the planes collapsed last year in a conflict-of-
interest scandal in which the Air Force's No. 2 weapons buyer was
jailed and Boeing's former chief financial officer fired.

The U.S. Air Force is expected to reopen a tender for tankers this
year with Boeing pitted against European rival Airbus.

[BEagle]

Well, you can't knock 'em for trying, I guess!

Although there are probably runways long enough for the ground-gripping KC-767A to struggle airborne at ISA+30 with full tanks, I can't help wondering quite why such small countries would conceivably need a tanker force.

[MarkD]

BEags

It's not like they'd be operating out of ASI for points south - payload heavy, range not so far!

Did Airbus offer A310K?

[BEagle]

I suspect not. Not whilst they're trying to sell A330MRTTs, I would guess?

A pity - it's a true widebody; many people don't seem to realise that the A310 and A330 have exactly the same cabin width! Better cargo carrying ability in the A310MRTT than the 767 - because all A310MRTTs are based on the combi, whereas for the KC-767A, a cargo door is an extra. As are passenger windows!

I don't know what happened to the old Emirates A310s when they were replaced by the A330 a few years ago - but if they're still around, converting them to MRTT spec would seem a better option than the unknown and controversial KC-767A.

[The Maintainer]

Check today's Sun - page 2 of the paper, or limited details via this URL.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005080063,00.html

:ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The PM has backed plans to share a new fleet of military planes with holiday companies. The jets will provide charter flights to the Costas in peacetime and join bombing raids during wars.

Journalism at it's best....

:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[sangiovese.]

Non gutter version (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7668010)

[MarkD]

An ex-chief financial officer at Boeing has received a four-month jail sentence and a fine of $250,000 (£131,961) for illegally hiring a top Air Force aide.

Michael Sears admitted his guilt in breaking conflict of interest laws by recruiting Darleen Druyun while she still handled military contracts.

Ms Druyun is currently serving a nine month sentence for favouring Boeing when awarding lucrative contracts.

Boeing lost a $23bn government contract after a Pentagon inquiry into the case.

The contract, to provide refuelling tankers for the US Air Force, was cancelled last year.

[full article at link below]
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4277927.stm

[MarkD]

from today's Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601715.html)

"We all know that this is a bailout for Boeing," Ronald G. Garant, an official of the Pentagon comptroller's office, said in a message to two others in his office and then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Wayne A. Schroeder. "Why don't we just bite the bullet," he asked, and handle the acquisition like the procurement of a 1970s-era aircraft -- by squeezing the manufacturer to provide a better tanker at a decent cost?

"We didn't need those aircraft either, but we didn't screw the taxpayer in the process," Garant added, referring to widespread sentiment at the Pentagon that the proposed lease of Boeing 767s would cost too much for a plane with serious shortcomings.

The full paragraph on CNN last night mentions "those aircraft" as being the KC-10s that in the view of Garant bailed out Douglas.

[BEagle]

Well, I've just been flying with the GAF in their new A310MRTT and I have to say that the RAF really missed a trick by not buying a couple of dozen a few years ago when they were on offer!

It's the ideal size, burns $od all fuel (4.9 tonne per hour on both trips) and flies itself on rails. Use either NAV or HDG mode with 'normal' bank limit of 25 deg and the automatic roll rate is gentle enough for receivers to follow. No ar$e-ing about with 'MAN' turn or CWS - just let it do its thing.

Also nice and quiet and very comfy to fly in - same fuselage cross-section as an A330.

Everything in it worked - and not a scrap of black bodge tape in sight.

Hardly surprising that there aren't any A310s available on the used aircraft market. As soons as any come up for sale, they are snapped up by eager customers.

Airbus A310MRTT - World Wide Mission Support

[jindabyne]

Beagle

Robin still well - or am I out of touch?

[BEagle]

Different consortium!