New Tanker Deal??

[Phil Terfull]

The Daily Mail reports today that the PFI deal is too expensive ... no surprises there that HMG can't afford new tankers.

[Sideshow Bob]

Here's a link to the article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=307498&in_page_id=1770

Perhaps we could just have some more tristars then, with a nice comforty seat for the eng.

[BEagle]

If it's in the Daily Mail, it must of course be true.......??

What contract? AirTanker was selected as the 'preferred bidder' - no contract was awarded although the clear political will is for a PFI solution. But that'll require some dosh from Greedy Gordon's sporran.

Surely no-one is still talking about getting hold of a few ancient TriShaws from some desert junkyard to meet Trust-me-Tone and BuffHoon's expeditionary aspirations?

Of course if we were to bin those little grey targets which the RN wants for its JSFs...perhaps then the UK could afford some new tankers? Australia can....and Italy....and Japan.....

[Jackonicko]

Bin the carriers, bin JSF and buy tankers, Gripen and some decent SEAD/Recce with the money saved!

[maxburner]

Jackonico,

Do you have an axe to grind?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See this link....

The Requirement for UK Expeditionary Forces in the post Cold war era (http://www.ukdf.org.uk/grey/gr18.htm)

[newswatcher]

The Government has been putting pressure on the consortium to reduce their prices, almost before the ink was dry on the January agreement. I expect there will be many more changes before the contract is signed!

[althenick]

I'm not going to take the bait on this one...

The last comments were obvoiusly made by folk who are either too young to remember the lessons of the falklands campaign, Having a slow news day, or don't fancy the idea of going to sea "cos it's not my job"

How difficult/costly can it be to convert an airline to a tanker anyway???:confused:

[TACAN]

A tad more detail here in the FT.:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373159203&p=1012571727085

It will be interesting to follow developments post - 24th June.

TACCY

[smartman]

Ermm - WEB

And your point is ?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

My post was that the future is expeditionary.

[Jackonicko]

and without tankers expeditionary is meaningless....

and 95% of the time, Gripens forward based in an adjoining country will be there quicker than the carrier, will achieve and sustain a higher sortie rate, and will do so much more cheaply.

So for 5% of the time the op may be more difficult.....

Perhaps they\'ll have better luck with wealthier customers ....

"Airbus Can Enter Bidding for Tanker, Official Says

Europe\'s Airbus has qualified to compete with U.S. rival Boeing Co. to provide the Pentagon with aerial refueling tankers if the bidding is reopened, Air Force Secretary James Roche said in an interview published Thursday.
"I don\'t care if the planes are made by Martians," Roche told the Financial Times. "Airbus was not prepared before; now they are."
The comments suggest that the Air Force is preparing for possible long delays in upgrading its tanker fleet. They also show that Boeing could face stiff competition.
Before a contracting scandal derailed its acquisition plans last year, the Air Force chose Chicago-based Boeing\'s 767 over the Airbus 330 for a $23.5-billion deal to lease 20 and buy 80 new tankers.
The 767 is "the only solution that fulfills all 26 of the Air Force\'s stated requirements," said Boeing spokeswoman Deborah Bosick. The North American division of Airbus unit EADS had no comment.
Roche said he favored more European access to U.S. aerospace contracts to spur transatlantic competition: "It\'s the only way we\'re going to discipline the big airframe makers in the United States."
The Pentagon put the tanker deal on hold Dec. 1 after Boeing fired its chief financial officer for recruiting an Air Force official who was still overseeing negotiations on the tanker deal."

[The Gorilla]

Beagle

It wasn't just in the Daily Mail! It appeared in several news feeds.

Jacko

Because of the current expeditionary mess we are in, Tony and Gordy don't want expeditionary any more!!

PFI's in general have come under special scrutiny recently. The rules regarding the way Gordy treats them have to be changed so that they show up on the books in future. Many analysts and MP's doubt that any real savings will be made.

My humble view is that if there really are to be serious capability cuts across all 3 services, then HMG\MOD\Civil Service cannot justify the PFI for an AAR capability that we will NEVER use.

And of course, it helps get Gordy out of a small hole!!!

Strange isn't it though, that you get the likes of Jock strap in the stirrups threatening to throw himself on his sword over the possible demise of the Reds (really important asset they are!!) and yet no one in the Ivory tower murmurs about real capability losses!

:ok:

[BEagle]

Typical MoD:

As was said years ago, "They want a Cortina with all the bells, whistles and performance of a Granada, but expect it to cost no more than an Escort"

Except now they can't even afford to rent a Focus, let alone buy some.

I wonder when the penny suddenly dropped - in a PFI, the private sector which takes the risk does actually expect to make some money out of it. They're not a charity!

Perhaps if all the bolleaux inflicted by politicians, civil serpents and other time wasters had been bypassed about 10 years ago, the RAF would now be operating the 26 or so A310 MRTTs it was offered by Airbus Filton all those years ago?

I replaced my car this year. I realised that the last one wouldn't last for ever, assessed the value, did my research and snapped up an amazing deal. Funnily enough it didn't strike me as a particularly good idea not to have budgeted for it a while back nor to think that renting one from Hertz every time I needed it would be cheaper. So why should it come as such a surprise to the MoD to realise that PFI tankers were not going to be as cheap as they would have liked? Hardly rocket science, I would have thought!

[Art Field]

It is interesting to note that the Invitation to Negotiate for this contract was issued on 21 Dec 2000 and as far as the service is concerned they are no closer to getting replacements for the 10's and Trimotors than they were then, indeed probably further away.
I think TTSC are well out of it.

[Open Sauce]

Here's my guess at what will happen: July 2004 - cancel FSTA project. March 2005 pass all Pax/freight to charter/Tri*; commit 12 VC10s to be available for Tanker tasking at any time. Scrap 1 VC10 every year until 2015 - use spare parts generated to rectify 12 jets in service. 2015 - different government; somebody else's problem, but look how much money we saved off the defence budget when we were in power etc.

[BEagle]

Surely this bunch of slimy con-men will be out of power before 2015.....??

[brit bus driver]

Sauce,

Nice theory, but it'll get kind of tricky towards the end.

The VC10 - a great machine in her day, but the old girl's a bit past it now. Let's face it, if she were a dog, you'd have got fed up with the vets bills to replace all the major parts with specially fabricated ones - "Sorry sir, not much call for mastadon legs these days, but I can set up a lathe or two and build you one from scratch if you like.....for a (hugely inflated) price?" - and would have taken her for one last walk, armed with one's service issue revolver, and a club for when that too failed to work!

Interestingly enough, (or perhaps not) I was having a clear out the other day and came across some bumph from Airbus about the MRTT they gave out at RIAT in 1995(!!), offering the 310, as BEagle alluded to. What a solution; was pretty state of the art then, still not too shabby (the Canadians now have twin GPS feeds to the FMS and EGPWS); can carry a couple of hundred pax further than a 10 (but not quite as far as the Tri*) but only burns 4 tonnes an hour; can be converted to a freighter/PCF role; are still in service worldwide, so Airbus still make the spares; FANS compliancy (2010?) is an easy fix, I believe - remove one A310 front panel, insert one A330 front panel - but BEagle probably knows a little more on that subject. And Lord only knows how cheaply we could pick up half a dozen or so, and have them converted by Airbus. I mean, the Canadians are getting a couple and their defence budget is about £2.57 a year and a couple of old bottle tops, for f:mad:s sake!

Oh, and they have a credible strategic VIP capability, enabling the Queen et al to fly with their Air Force, rather than the local airline.

Rant over.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

Understandable sentiment, but which bunch of slimy con-men would you replace them with?

The Lib-Dems? They have long proposed a 50% cut in defence expenditure.

The Tories? Their shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised defence cuts along with £40Billion of cuts to Public spending AND tax cuts!

Better the devil you know.......................................?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Pr00ne

The Lib-Dems? They have long proposed a 50% cut in defence expenditure

When? Where? Is it/was it in their manifesto?

:rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

WEBF,

Trotted out at their conference every year for a long while now.

[BEagle]

Re. the A310, yes, MRTT is a good solution as you say. Not too difficult to upgrade to the 'FedEx' cockpit standard, holds about 72 tonnes of gas - but not with many pax. Up the MTOW to 164 t and you could carry 70 or so pax with full tanks, or trade fuel for payload as required. The 4 ACTs limit underfloor hold space - but with 70 pax in the back there is oodles of space for bulk freight as well 'upstairs' - it has a freight door. Obviously there would be ZFW and trim considerations, but the beauty of the a/c is that you can use it efficiently with some intelligent tasking for the required role application. As we could with the VC10C1K before the SFI 13 restrictions.......

We've assumed a (probably pessimistic) burn rate of around 5.4 t per hour at AAR heights and speeds with the hoses trailed - and it'll probably turn out to be even less....

Much, much cheaper than the very nice A330 MRTT - and probably much cheaper than trying to keep the historic air force's dinosaurs' iron lungs functioning for another 10 years!

German VIP fit a/c is very nice indeed - as is the Canadian one.

[Jackonicko]

And now you're better briefed on A310 MRTT how do you think it rates alongside the KC-767?

What are the advantages, and what are the disadvantages?

Are you now more relaxed about the FCS?

And what went wrong when they tried to produce a 3 point TriStar? Wing flex? Active ailerons? Fatigue? Why was it so very hard?

[BEagle]

Jacko - do you mean A310 MRTT or A330 MRTT?

KC-767A or 767-200/300 conversion?

A310: Affordable, flexible, configurable for several roles. Compact enough to be able to use any VC10 aerodrome. Could benefit from a 5th ACT and a boom, needs MRTOW increase to 164t. Could benefit from new flight deck and split-axis AFS. Excellent Airbus-standard airline interior. Would be built to order from new, or converted from large number of used examples available - including adding a freight door as is already being done for civil use.

A330MRTT: More costly than A310, vastly capable. Can't operate from smaller aerodromes as easily as A310. Best 21st century tanker available - but comes at a price! AFS problems all sorted out now. Excellent Airbus-standard interior.

KC-767A: Needs very long balanced field to operate from at 91 tonne max fuel - A330 carries more fuel (111 tonne), burns only slightly more than the KC-767. and needs shorter runway. If you want a cargo door, it'll cost extra - which you'll probably need as it can't take standard LD3 containers in side-by-side pairs as can the A310 and A330 (which both have a 222" fuselage cross-section) - the 767 isn't a true wide-body a/c. Utterly horrible for pax as it has no fuselage windows - you get the well-known and well-hated SAC Gitmo Bay class of travelling luxury! But does have spit-axis autopilot. Expensive all-in cost.

767-200/300ER derivative. Does at least have windows, but only 73 t of fuel without mods whereas A310 would have 77 t with 5 ACTs. Probably no cargo door. Old flight deck. May not have split axis autopilot. Might be cost effective to modify old ones from the airlines, -300 less so than -200 due to higher structural weight. Overall less efficient for true mullti-role operation than the widebodied Airbus MRTTs.

Overall, if cost is no stopper, A330MRTT is the best tanker transport available without any doubt. For more 'price-sensitive' customers needing multi-role efficiency, A310MRTT is an excellent choice. Even more so with inc. MTOW, 5 x ACT and a boom in addition to the pods. Boeing? If the Boeing bull**** spouted about the 7E7 not being suitable for a tanker 'due to its configuration' fooled anyone, they'd be very naiive indeed. The 767 tanker suits Boeing and Boeing alone - it would keep the line going and that's the only reason they're trying to foist it on the USAF so early in such numbers. "Come back when you've got a KC-7E7A proposal to offer - and tell us why we shouldn't just buy the A330MRTT instead" is the message the Pentagon shuld be giving to Boeing!

[Jackonicko]

You agree with Jim Roche, then.....?

"Airbus Can Enter Bidding for Tanker, Official Says

Europe's Airbus has qualified to compete with U.S. rival Boeing Co. to provide the Pentagon with aerial refueling tankers if the bidding is reopened, Air Force Secretary James Roche said in an interview published Thursday.
"I don't care if the planes are made by Martians," Roche told the Financial Times. "Airbus was not prepared before; now they are."
The comments suggest that the Air Force is preparing for possible long delays in upgrading its tanker fleet. They also show that Boeing could face stiff competition.
Before a contracting scandal derailed its acquisition plans last year, the Air Force chose Chicago-based Boeing's 767 over the Airbus 330 for a $23.5-billion deal to lease 20 and buy 80 new tankers.
The 767 is "the only solution that fulfills all 26 of the Air Force's stated requirements," said Boeing spokeswoman Deborah Bosick. The North American division of Airbus unit EADS had no comment.
Roche said he favored more European access to U.S. aerospace contracts to spur transatlantic competition: "It's the only way we're going to discipline the big airframe makers in the United States."
The Pentagon put the tanker deal on hold Dec. 1 after Boeing fired its chief financial officer for recruiting an Air Force official who was still overseeing negotiations on the tanker deal.

What are the 26 stated requirements and which doesn't the 'Bus meet?

How much fuel can the A310 carry with four ACTs?

What's the significance of the 'split axis autopilot'?

What's the field performance of the A310 like?

[Trumpet_trousers]

Quote:

Here's my guess at what will happen: July 2004 - cancel FSTA project. March 2005 pass all Pax/freight to charter/Tri*; commit 12 VC10s to be available for Tanker tasking at any time.



Good idea, except realistically your Vickers availability figure is a factor of at least 10 out...........:(

[BEagle]

26 stated reqts? No idea, sorry. Possibly 'Made in USA' repeated 26 times?

A310 with 4 ACTs carries 72.1 tonne.

Split axis autopilot allows automatic height hold but full control of roll rate and roll acceleration by pilot. Modern airliners normally only have LNAV or HDG controlled lateral steering CMD modes; manual angle of bank through the AFS can be achieved by control wheel steering (CWS) in some, but that may also result in non-automatic height hold. In VC10, a 'manual' autopilot AoB control is used ('manual turn') and autopilot height hold is retained. Split axis - height auto and bank manual. This is an essential feature for ensuring that receivers in contact - or in formation - can be given low roll rates for turns when conducting AAR whilst the tanker maintains altitude. 'Automatic' LNAV from FMS or fudged use of AFS hdg selector to control bank rate is not sufficiently direct to ensure this.

A310 balanced field requirements not a problem. Sea level, ISA+15, 164 t TOW, around 2500m. A Boeing chap once admitted to me that even they realised that Airbus had them beaten when it came to runway requirements. The field reqt for 767 kinks sharply upwards at very hight weight even on the basic 776-300ER operated by ba. With increased MTOW as in the KC-767A, uprated engines won't help much on their own as it's the RTO case which has to be considered - and that requires absorbtion of KE to stop in the remaining distance available. So you need uprated engines AND vastly uprated brakes unless you're content to use very long runways for the 767 with increased MTOW.

[brit bus driver]

Plus of course, the RAF already has 3 serving officers with A310 experience - a wg cdr and two sqn ldrs no less; the backbone of a new sqn surely! Add an exchange officer, a suitably qualified industry expert with previous RAF experience (know anyone BEagle?) and this whole jaunt could be up and running within 18 months max - look how quickly the C-17 was brought into service once the need was identified. A fleet of half a dozen would probably pay for itself with the money saved from VC10 servicing, plus the wages saved by not needing all those navs and/or flt engineers. (Keep a corps of FEs to man the AR eqpt, I say. AR Systems experts, maybe, or ARSEs for short.)

Plus, we (I mean they) know a good sim company in Miami! Add in a bit of interoperability with other European air forces - Germany, belgium, France - that should please El Presidente, and he could probably swing a VIP fit into the mix.

C'mon Tony, Geoff et al, make it so!:ok:

[BEagle]

Pas de prob. Source the jets, get them converted at Elbeflugzeugwerke to MRTT configuration. Send the first pilots to do the A310 type rating course at Toolooze, then get them up to speed operating the jet in the AAR role using existing industry-proven methods and systems..... Select suitable AROs (Air Refueling Operators) from existing rear crew (sorry, they'll need navigational knowledge), then work up the crew in a suitable Part Task Trainer. Which has already been specified for other air forces... Or a simpler 'Son of Pennants/TFAST' CAI system which already exists.

AAR mission computer for AAR trails? - we've already spec'd that.

JTIDS? - The A310 MRTT industry team already includes most of the VC10 UOR JTIDS team, so few snags there.

Virtually all the relevant doc.s have already been completed, the jet has already done a fair chunk of its trial flights and its AT capabilities are well-known and accepted world-wide. No need for civil serpents, Boscum or other quangoid time wasters.

Just give me a ring.......

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just a small problem in this debate. The STP is £1Billion underfunded at the moment. We are likely to see mass closures of bases, disbandment of sqns, ships and regiments and a further reduction in armed forces manning. Just where are we going to find the circa £1 Billion to replace the tanker fleet? Face facts it's not going to happen and CDP has said almost as much recently (FT 22 06 04). Industry do not accept risk, they price risk. If you want industry to take risk they will charge you for it!

And how old are the A310s? There was a debate not long ago, on this forum, regarding 3rd generation 767s v 4th generation A330s. So where does the 2nd/3rd generation A310 fit in?

I hope the RAAF do not regret announcing their decision, just as the ItAF might be regreting theirs!!

[BEagle]

Quite so. If you can't afford to buy something yourself outright, don't be surprised if it costs you more to rent it or pay for it on the never-never!

The A310s are as old as you can afford. Beggars can't be choosers - or can they?

Anyway, get back to LAI and PAT, old chum!

[Open Sauce]

I'm all for a new jet - the Vickers Funbus is just too long in the tooth. Ok the B52 is older - but it will survive to see 50 years because money is being spent on it. My, pessimistic, opinion is that politicians want to appear to save money during their tenure in office - so we save pennies now to spend pounds later. I can hear the next leader of the opposition, circa 2016:

"But look how much WE saved from the defence budget - re-elect US, these idiots have increased defence spending at the cost of YOUR health, YOUR children's education etc etc."

[Tonkenna]

Perhaps we could get a lottery grant:confused:

May be the only way. I hear that it has worked for the Vulcan;)

Tonks:sad:

[Open Sauce]

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373261620

Hmmmm

[BEagle]

More PFI problems, according to today's paper:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1166995,00.html

Marshall's plan to scour scrapyards to find yet more ancient TriShaws seems a really sound idea - after all, they've done such a good job in fitting pods to the current ones, haven't they?

When will MoD ever wake up to the fact that it'll only ever get what it's prepared to pay for....

[betty_boo_x]

Flawless plan, I can see no sangs.
Lots of new crews on the mighty wonder jet.
Easy to engineer outboard pods.
Flight Engineer school closed.
More big aircraft for a nice and empty BZN.
All the arguments I hear lately start and stop with the fact we (UK Mil PLC) have no cash now or for the forseable future - and you need a good telescope to see it even then.
Good luck everyone.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1979/images/minder173.jpg

"I hear you're interested in some tankers....."

[BEagle]

Err, yeah, guv. Dahn't mind if they're a bitt iffy and if the log books or mileage ain't quite kosher, I know a mate who can sort it, catch my drift? Lick of paint should hide the rust, coupla pods, bish bosh et voila, TriShaw tankers for 'err up the Mall.

Kushti bok....

[mary_hinge]

First post................... so be gentle but:

Lots of new crews on the mighty wonder jet.
So….None on the A330 then?

Easy to engineer outboard pods.
Was it not done ?

Flight Engineer school closed.
So why not re-open?

More big aircraft for a nice and empty BZN.
Where were the A330s going then?:

[betty_boo_x]

First post or no, please try to catch my drift.
Like most things of late(start with we have no money) we end up with a fudge of such proportions that the end result is so far removed from the initial plan, they bare no comparison.
The mighty wonder jet in question has recently gained lots of new crews from mates on a similar (but different type) across the same airfield.
Now was this pre-emptive,or was my remark set to wearily provoke reaction or set my stall for yet another weary point?
Outboard pods- a massive success on the venerable Tri motor, absolute roaring plus point, cant fail, no problem, or pile of horse p**h?
Could well re-open the school for switch monkeys, difficulty would be(as is now) who on earth would /could you persuade to sign up for such a glorious plan. All Flt Engs have seen the light or have gone already - the youngsters are as dissillusioned as the crinklies.
BZN is set to house everything south of Stalag Cranditz so extra simple to engineer old old old Tri old motors would look good against old VC10.C130J,A400,C-17, why are all the movers left in UK being drafted to sunny Oxon now to help a station stretched to not coping?
I see no snags - fill the place up with the entire southern air force, soon we will all fit into a phone box anyway.
The Tristar would be a fudge of an answer, bring on the outboard pods, I will get back to you when Ive spoken to old Mr Steptoe.
Sorry for the extended whinge but Im just too tired

[The Gorilla]

Mary

I speak as a Flt Eng who has seen the light, has gone already and was once an instructor at the School.

Once the school shuts it will never be able to be re-opened. It is true that nothing is impossible but in century 21 politics it will never ever be possible. No one in authority in the Air Farce would ever admit they were wrong, it just doesn't happen!! And re-opening the school could be seen to be just such an admission.

In addition Flt Eng critical core manning is almost at the point where there can be no return. Where would you get the instructors from? Most FE's are so disillusioned that I doubt you would get volunteers and if you did or they ordered pressed men, they would have to come from the last remaining front line posts thus robbing Peter to pay Pauline!!

betty..

Agree with you, eventually I think only BZN and CWL will remain!!!

Why do you need tankers if you have no (or just a few) fighters to refuel?? The Tri* if it comes in would be a big fudge but better that than no tankers at all.

I can't see the PFI AAR programme surviving in the shape it is today, we can't afford it as a nation and as far as Joe Public is concerned we most certainly don't need it!!



:ok:

[S.Potter Returns]

Strangely, jungly:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373470380&p=1012571727159

[BEagle]

Which 'civilian' refuellers has the RN operated forever, quite nicely?

The real RN used to operate buddy-buddy with the Vixen and refuel Mark 1 Buccs from Scimitars, plus the SHARs have always used a wide range of AAR assets in-theatre. Quite far forward in fact.

Do enlighten us as to precisely what you are actually referring? If you think hovering over a few drums of kerosene on the back of an oiler or landing at a FARP is the same as FW AAR, perhaps you might care to discuss the matter with your SHAR colleagues.

[Yellow Sun]

Beagle

Which 'civilian' refuellers has the RN operated forever, quite nicely?

He means the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA), you know the grey floaty things which are military but aren't.

Sorry jungly, but not really analagous to getting Air2Bob to do the trail out where-ever-next. RFA don't tout for trade in the normal merchant market when they're not being the HVU.

YS

[BEagle]

Strange how the German, Italian and Japanese air forces are all in the process of equipping themselves with 3rd generation tankers of their own, yet the MoD can't afford to?

[Jackonicko]

What exactly went wrong when they tried to produce a 3 point TriStar? Why? Wing flex? Active ailerons? Fatigue? Why was it so very hard?

When did they try?

Who exactly did the trying?

[Thunderball 2]

If you've ever wondered what FSTA really stands for, look no further;

http://www.fsta.org/

:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Jacko - Arfur Daley was supposed to have fitted FRL Mk32B pods to the TriShaw back in the mid-to-late '80s when he was converting the ex-ba jets. But failed to - and when the amount of money being poured into the project was queried, work stopped after Questions were Asked in the House.

A gang from Marshall came flying with us once in the Vickers FunBus. When they saw the degree of hose whip associated with winding and trailing, there was some teeth sucking and long faces. "We're probably going to have to redesign the whole pylon", one said.... And that was years after the podded TriStar was supposed to be in service!

But Marshall got a nice hangar out of the whole deal.....

If they couldn't get it right then, what fatih can anyone have in their ability to do it today to ex-desert stored ancient TriShaws well past their use by date?

Mates still in the mob reckon that the RAF would be the laughing stock of the AAR world if, after all the pissing about over PFI/FSTA, they ended up flying yet more clapped-out desert dinosaurs. There's a significant retention incentive amongst many who have the prospect of flying the A330 MRTT - but they certainly don't feel the same about Marshall's plan!

[betty_boo_x]

Start with "we have no money"
Was around when the mighty Tri motor came into service, it was the cure to all ills. 3 point tanker,bigger, faster,less crew,longer life blah blah. This relied on a slight redesign of the wings by the Design Auth of sorting the refuelling pods. Jacko why did you have to ask who did the spannering? Now the crew room experts of the time will quote all the buzzwords already mentioned but they also invented "supercritical" ( wing not the proles!) and it was all far too difficult and expensive.
Beags was obviosly closer to the argument than me, but it was all a bit of a let down. We struggled on and removed all the gucci in-flight passenger luxuries and recruited a bunch of hitler youth to work down t'back who are trained to look sullen for long periods. Leaving us with a very big single point petrol station.
Whether or not we get our hands on a decent machine will not really affect the price of fish. Nothing suprises me anymore.
We have no money.

[haltonapp]

If the RAF ever gets a PFI tanker, and it is on the civil register so that it can be used when the RAF doesn't want it, how will they service it? Will all groundcrew get a JAR licence? Perhaps though I have misunderstood its use. I am sure Bald Eagle will put me right!

[airborne_artist]

Strange how the German, Italian and Japanese air forces are all in the process of equipping themselves with 3rd generation tankers of their own, yet the MoD can't afford to?

Perhaps MoD could ask the German, Italian and Japanese air forces to tender for the deal.;)

[Alex Whittingham]

My memory is that the TriStar was purchased in the post-Falklands euphoria to satisfy a particular specification which was to tank a Herc to Port Stanley, fail to get in, then tank it back.

Very shortly after they bought the TriStars they started building MPA. The word on the street at the time was that no-one wanted to go back and change the spec to a three point air defence/strategic tanker in case their Airships noticed the original specification no longer applied. No RAF Port Stanley, no need for TriStar tankers.

[Art Field]

I can confirm Alex's memory of the initial reason for the Tristar purchase although a lot of people invented a lot more reasons as time went by. The wing pod option came later (or not as it turned out). Having been to several meetings at Cambridge I can also confirm that Marshalls do not come cheap. On asking for NVG compatible electro-luminescent lighting for the line-up lines we were quoted one million pounds per frame and that was in 1982.
Not only that, we only got coffee and biscuits, never a meal.

[Follow Me Through]

Your facts are not correct I am afraid. Having worked on both C130 and TriStar tankers I remember that the Herk has never been cleared behind the TriStar. It was tried with the C130K and the vibration as the fin came up behind the TriStar No2 engine was apparently something to behold and handle. It was discussed again when JATE wished to clear the J-model behind the TriStar in 98/99. Fortunately the ex-TTF C130 pilot that had done the original trials was then a TriStar captain and explained as the J fin was the same as the Ks to all intents and purposes it was a waste of time. Unfortunately the TriStar books still show the C130 as a cleared receiver - bit of a waste of time as the C130 books do not show it as cleared to receive from the TriStar.

FMT

[rudolf]

I can confirm, having tried it, that the Herc K behind the Tristar is not something that should be attempted without acceptance that you might end up finless. It certainly focuses the mind and other parts of the anatomy.

We only just about got to pre-contact before it was agreed that to continue probably wouldn't be a good idea.

[BEagle]

Which would indicate that the tail of an A400M behind a TriStar might also be subject to some interesting effects...?? Although there was no problem prodding with the Vickers FunBus.

[mr ripley]

C130K/TriStar Clearance
The C130K has always been cleared behind the TriStar. I think the line in the RTS was 'with strengthened HF aeriels or aeriels removed'. It just wasn't done previously as there were enough suitable alternatives.

[BEagle]

Re. maintenance of the A330 MRTT; my understanding is that if the a/c and operator are certified to civil ETOPS standards, then any maintenance on the a/c must be performed by ETOPS-qualified personnel to the appropriate JAA quality standards... The full requirements as published by the CAA can be viewed at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP513.pdf



Bodge tape and blacksmithery would not be acceptable.

[Art Field]

FMT. Whilst the TriStar turned out to be unsuitable as a tanker for the Herc it was bought, in a bit of a rush, as a strategic tanker and the only regular strategic task at the time was the chocolate lorry run to the Falklands. It was only subsequently that its truckie and other refuelling roles were found to make use of what turned out to be a very versatile asset.

[brit bus driver]

FMT & rudolf

Think you'll find the Herc K is cleared behind the Tri*. Either that or I've been buggering about for hours at a time over the southwest approaches in an illegal fashion.......

[BEagle]

Hopefully the threat of Arfur Daley's shagged old ex-desert TriShaws seems to have receded:

AirTanker reprieve as EADS told to revise plan

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373571708

[betty_boo_x]

I asked some monkeys "in the know" yesterday and am told what BBB says is true. It would be a scandal were it not. The C130 (not sure about J yet) is cleared to rx from the venerable T*.
Apparently it wasnt always thus, after initially being cleared for a period of years,clearance was withdrawn but now reinstated.
Turbulence from the central motor is apparently mitigated by the T* reducing power on its middle wicket,posing a trim/balance problem for the T* crew but allowing the chocolate bomber to rx and keep its fin/hf aerials.
Any further advice welcome from T* experts and C130J lot.
Still dont change the fact we have no money.

[pr00ne]

Jungly thing,

If you read the DPA or contractore websites on the FTSA PFI you will see a commitment to 75% RAF manning on the engineering side.

I know this is all up in the air right now and may well change.

[NURSE]

Having read the AFM news article the airbus tanker for the RAF is in big trouble as the finance is not up to scratch.

[MrBernoulli]

I just cannot see this deal going ahead. The Treasury think it will cost the MOD WAY too much. Knackered Tristars, or anything else similar will always be preferred because it is cheap TODAY. The fact that a few years down the line the RAF tanker force will be right back where it is now is irrelevant. The dirty deed will have been done by someone who has been posted on, doesn't care, never will. The operators, on the other hand, will be left with an old piece of junk wondering why they are so rarely consulted about what is REALLY needed. Typical.

[brit bus driver]

Betty

No trim or balance problems, just have to power the old girl up once every so often to keep the oil in the right place, as Messrs Rolls and Royce never envisioned needing to keep the RB211 at idle for long periods of time. Have the same restriction with Nimrod and similar with E-3D.

[betty_boo_x]

BBB,thank you I was a little puzzled at the original explanation but took it at face value as the individual spoke with conviction (will I ever learn!).
Will be an interesting week with Big Gordon talking this afternoon.
I gather that "the suits" at EADS have been doing some fast talking these last few days and also that Boing (i know i did it for fun) have not given up on the deal.
Its difficult to seperate the spin from the fact these days.

[pr00ne]

JunglyAEO,

I think the idea is that the 75% will be First Line with maybe a modicum of 2nd Line for deployable support. Anything deeper than that will be ALL contract.

If the PFI dies a death and they somehow manage to cobble together enough pennies to actually BUY the things, I would expect that the contract to blue suiters ratio will still be the same.