Fsta (Merged)

[Ginger Beer]

I understood that the decision on the FSTA platform was due to be announced Dec 03?

As most Stations are now effectively stood down for the hols, especially the Stations where the suits work, are we having to wait again or have I just missed the decision and it's details?

Anyone help?:confused:

Ginger Beer, only Bermudan and in dark-n-stormy's

[BEagle]

According to 'sources', it won't be announced until 2004. When in 2004, of course, remains to be seen....

Meanwhile, the first Airbus tanker has already been rolled out....the A310 MRTT, that is.

[Lord Trenchards Brat]

BEagle

I wonder just how much the American Tanker program, with its scandals and investigations, have affected the release of the preferd bidder. The other consideration was the "White Paper" and the fall out from that. Less combat aircraft to tank, less costings over the whole FSTA program? Gives the bean counters something to go on.

When! and when its released, I would hope that our own selection process is above board, if not the only winners will without doubt be the lawyers:ouch:

[BEagle]

Hmm, well, yes. I understand your drift. But I too listened to Buff Hoon reading the paper; 3 contrasting FSTA spin-off statements could perhaps be deduced:

1. Interoperability with Uncle Spam. Might imply that 767s for the US should mean 767s for the UK. But, of course, they're totally different aircraft with different fuel capacities, different airframes, different avionics and different engines. Plus the ex-ba 767s are much, much older than the new build KC-767A.

2. The number of platforms is of less importance than their capability. Must imply that the vastly superior AR capability of the A330 has been accepted.

3. A need for rapid deployment. Must imply that the long range AT capability of the A330 has also been accepted.

If there's been any justice, then the palpably corrupt recent practises of Boeing should result in their being barred from the FSTA competiton. But wHoon knows what "Give us FSTA and we'll see you right for some very much discounted C-17s" deal has already been offered by the Boeing suits?

[bay17-20]

Santa may have a late xmas pressie for Beag's.

FSTA details to be announced in 2004.

[MrBernoulli]

Yes, but 2004 is a whole 12 months long! WHEN in 2004, clever clogs?

[BEagle]

'Early' is all I've heard, oud vriend!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Chaps

According to Hansard (www.hansard.internet.thingy.gov.co.uk or something similar) the announcement is now due in January. Nothing to do with the Monastry of Defiance but more to do with the (not to be unexpected) delaying tactics of HMT.

Beags Although now in the pay of (how was it you said) Aiiiiirboooos the Defence White Paper will not alter the decision. Both ac as bid by the 2 competitors meet the MOD requirement. And despite the best PR of some of our Two and Sixpence brethen it is not just about fuel it does come down to the fact that there is an irreducible minimum number of hoses. Remember that old adage "hoses in the sky"? Well it holds true as much today as it did in the cold war - obviously more hoses AND more fuel would be a better option but the scrutineers :mad: in town would never allow that to happen!!! Interestingly both bidders are pretty close to the irreducible minimum!!

Happy Christmas to all in the Tanker world:cool: :cool:

[Tonkenna]

Oh well, theres somint to look forward to in the new year, that and sim 4:)

No doubt whatever "they" decide, it will be late and over budget just like everything else:hmm:

Happy Christmas to the tanker lot past, present and future,

Tonks

[BEagle]

'the Defence White Paper will not alter the decision'.......

And why not? What's the point of having a White paper if it doesn't influence defence decisions. Or are you saying that the decision was made before the paper was released, but won't be made public until January?

Happy Humbug-tide to you too!

What do you think of the new style of course, eh Tonks? Progress, huh?:(

[Jackonicko]

When the USAF have chosen (or been directed to choose) the wrong tanker, one hopes that some specious desire for commonality will not force us to follow their misguided example.......

[Magic Mushroom]

I see that the US have also just deferred development authorisation by 12 months for the 767-400 based E-10A Multi Sensor C2 Aircraft (MC2A) for the JSTARS, AWACS and Rivet Joint. Not good times for Boeing.

Regards,
M2

[Roland Pulfrew]

Beags. Because deployability was high on the DWP and that means we need tankers (and transporters) to do the job. Regardless of whether the DWP made any significant changes it is too late, as you are well aware, to change the requirements at this stage of the programme. To do so would delay things even further than they have been already.

And if you remember some of the earlier FSTA posts indicated that the MOD Investment Appraisal Board was sitting on this in November, if memory serves correct, so before the DWP was issued.

Tonks. Oh ye of little faith!!

[Arclite01]

New to this thread.

Does the deal include the supplier providing crews for the tankers as well or are they just supplying airframes equipped for the job ?

Thanks in advance

Arc

[BEagle]

Arclite01 - most of your queries can be seen at http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/fsta.htm

There might be some attempt at some stage to augment military crews with mercenaries, or 'sponsored rservists' as they're known. But there hardly seems any need for that at present, given the current state of the ME pilot manning situation...

[BEagle]

This post on another forum seems to think that the FSTA decision has now been made: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1139362#post1139362

I stress that I haven't heard anything, nor would I have any reason to. But there'll need to be a follow-up statement pretty soon to confirm or deny this.....

[Tam O'Shanter]

Just read report in todays Guardian that it seems that the European consortium has got the nod for FSTA ahead of BAE/US bid. Anybody with any good gen on the accuracy of the report.

[FEBA]

I wonder about this PFI concept. Is it really a good deal for the RAF ???
Glad to see they've chosen the right aircraft, presumably PFI will enable the RAF to wet lease the aircraft to A2000 during periods of peak demand and outbreaks of peace.

[BEagle]

FEBA - I'm not terribly keen on this PFI thing either. But if it means that the RAF will get some very much more modern tanker/transport ac quicker than under normal procurement...??

It's the Service Provider, not the RAF who would release ac for 3rd party revenue purposes, incidentally. The RAF will lease 'power by the hour'.....well, that's the idea.

And from today's Defence System Daily headlines:

"Air Tanker still hot tip for FSTA win"

[fesc]

Who would insure the FSTA ac when in military use? or civil use?

I'm just wondering if you might get into a situation whereby the civil fsta insurance company refuse to let them fly into say, Iraq, yet the same jet flown by brave RAF types can quite happily buzz in and out on a whim.

[FEBA]

Doubt whether the A330 will carry insurance whilst in military service.
BEagle well done to you I bet you are quite pleased with the outcome of all your efforts. Power by the hour will suit the MOD but probably not the aircrew, recency may become a victim of this deal.
FEBA

[NURSE]

Legally what would the status of thease aircraft be in a war?

ie could aircraft on charter ops to a 3rd country be interned?

[Dan Winterland]

No recency problems with a decent sim.

[BEagle]

Except in Air Refuelling skills! You can use a modern sim for practising general flying and abnormal opertaions, CRM etc, but when it comes to real-time reactions to activity on an ARA, even a decent part-task trainer is barely adequate to prevent significant skill fade.