FSTA Slips a Year

[ORAC]

Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=561830):

£13bn RAF tanker deal delayed a year
By Michael Harrison, Business Editor
15 September 2004


A £13bn deal to provide the RAF with a new fleet of air-to-air refuelling tankers is now running a year late, one of the leading contractors on the project disclosed yesterday. The aerospace group Cobham, which owns a 20 per cent stake in the Air Tanker consortium, said that a contract was not likely to be signed with the Ministry of Defence until the end of next year.

Air Tanker, which was originally selected for the contract in January, in preference to a consortium led by Boeing, had expected to agree terms with the MoD by the end of this year. Gordon Page, the chairman of both Cobham and Air Tanker, said the delay meant that the fleet of 17 Airbus A330 refuelling aircraft would not now come into service until 2008.

Mr Page said the delays had been caused by the insistence of the MoD and the Treasury that the maximum amount of risk be transferred to the private sector. The 27-year deal is being funded through the Government's private finance initiative and relies upon the Air Tanker consortium generating commercial revenues from the refuelling aircraft when they are not in use with the RAF.

Mr Page said he was hopeful that Air Tanker would be named as the MoD's preferred bidder by the end of this year, paving the way for the deal to go ahead under the PFI. He dismissed suggestions that the MoD might still opt to fund the purchase of the aircraft itself, saying it did not have enough money in its budget.....

[MrBernoulli]

I'll be surprised if this deal EVER comes off. Second-hand Tri* will be ever so much more preferable to the Treasury .... but not the operators.

[The Gorilla]

PFI's are getting a very bad press at the moment. The Jarvis fiasco has a lot to do with PFI's going horribly wrong, not to mention that the treasury is getting serious flak from the city over Gordon's dodgy accounting system. If PFI's have to be included in fiscal accounting, an awful lot of them are going to have to be binned!!

Now I know that at times my predictions on PPrune have left much to be desired, but I am going to stick my neck out here and say that IMHO this contract will never be signed!!

:ok:

[brit bus driver]

aaaaand......cue BEagle!

Should have made a decision years ago and saved the poor old VC10 from a slow, agonising and ever-less graceful death. sadly, the mighty Tri-motor will probably go the same way by the time it's finally put out to pasture.

[BEagle]

Hi bbd!

The main concern I have is that with the constant erosion of the strength of HMFC fom the levels assumed at the launch of the PFI competition, someone will observe that there is a parallel need to review the FSTA numbers.....

And more delay...

And neither the FunBus nor TriShaw are getting any younger.

[The Maintainer]

Surely the point of a PFI is that there are no up-front costs - you pay for the service when you get it. Even buying a fleet of used Tri* will require some up-front investment, and the cash for that (or buying A330s) isn't in the Plan, as the bloke from Cobham states. Consequently, PFI is probably still HMT's preferred route - methinks there is still some life in this project... Incidentally, would the pilot fraternity really prefer to spend the next 20+ years flying around in antique Tri*s as opposed to new A330s?

[Tonkenna]

I doubt very much that anyone will give the pilots any thought whatsoever. Of course we would all love to fly something new, that works. In the long run we will do the best job we can with whatever we get. The delay of a year comes as no suprise at all, and I am sure it will not be the only delay.

[Kolibear]

consortium generating commercial revenues from the refuelling aircraft when they are not in use with the RAF.

Are there any civilian commericial opportunies for a tanker?

Does this mean that I could be jetting off to the sun, accompanied by a couple of Tornadoes? Or has Stelios got plans for a non-stop UK-Australia route?

"Ladies and Gentleman - BP_Air welcome you aboard this A330 flight, we would like to apologise for the for the faint smell of AVTUR and would like to stress that is is definately a no-smoking flight. Please remove all garments capable of generating static electricity and hand them , with all electrical appliances to one of of cabin staff. Nomex suits are available for your comfort. Cold drinks and a salad will be served later. Due to the large metal tank currently filling the cabin, access to the forward toilets is not possible. "

[M609]

I'll bet Beagle will reply to Koli's post....... :E

[BEagle]

The only large metal tank in the front fuselage would be for the crew's post flight gin-and-tonic!

Please remove all garments capable of generating static electricity? Yup - no knickers then. So just a large wipe-clean area covered in baby oil rather than seats?

[Art Field]

Whilst one has the greatest sympathy for the Tanker Force awaiting the arrival of something modern to do their excellent job there are a fair number of people sitting at Air Tanker twiddling their thumbs having already sat there for some time. It is no wonder that relations between MOD and industry can go sour, its not all one sided.

[Runaway Gun]

If I have to take off my knickers I won't be flying on Beagle's jet. Unless he warms up the baby oil first.

[BEagle]

Well, the first of 6 A310 MRTTs were handed over to their military customers yesterday. At a VIP ceremony at Elbeflugzeugwerke in Dresden, Airbus handed over one to the Luftwaffe and another to the Canadian Forces.

The first 2 Twenty-First Century tanker aircraft. Amused to hear the senior Luftwaffe general refer to the aircraft as a 'force enabler' - a term I first invented in an article for Air Forces Monthly back in 1991!

2013 for the RAF's FSTA now, I gather....?? Is there enough speed tape and black bodge tape left in stores to patch up the dear old Vickers FunBus for that long?

And as for the KC-767A.................

[Old Bus Driver]

Beagle

The A310's may have been handed over but, for many reasons which you and I both know about, they are a long way from being a fully operational tanker. My best guess is spring 06 for a fully equipped and tested trail/towline capable machine.

I can only hope the FSTA timescales don't mirror those of the A310.

OBD

[BEagle]

The CF guys should be using the CC150T on domestic AARAs without much delay. Yes, there are some things which need tweaking - and the Mission Computer Subsystem, essential for trails, has yet to reach PDR let alone CDR. But it will - and you'll get a great jet!

The difference with FSTA is that the customer will want everything up and running at delivery, whereas with A310 MRTT they've accepted an IOC first, then a full operational capability once the MCS and avionic upgrades are up and running.

[brit bus driver]

Does that mean you'll be angling for another extension then, OBD? ;)

[Old Bus Driver]

BBD

I think another year would be pushing it. I'm sure all the potential replacements waiting at BZN would get together and hire a hit man to terminate my tour.

Early indications are that the A310 mission computer will be a very capable piece of kit with features such as real time calculation of brackets and abort points, instantaneous reversion to a single hose plan, mission extraction from an ATO, map display of everything you would need from ACO/SPINS and a host of other useful stuff. There is a good reason for this and it's a concept unheard of in normal military procurement - the company making the piece of kit have gone straight to the guys who will be using it and asked them what they want - genius! :ok:

[BEagle]

OBD - Yes, the company has had some contact with the potential end-user, but the spec for the MCS is being finalised by the Konsortium. Rest assured that there will be strong SME input to meet your wishes, but design acceptance will be reviewed by industry in accordance with normal practice.

And it won't just be a "We want it to do this 'cos that's what we did on Boeings" piece of kit - it'll produce the most efficient solutions based on precise calculations and conventional safety requirements.

As for trails, it won't just calculate brackets and APs instantaneously, it will also offer solutions for any AAR system degrades such as single hose, receiver fuel limit, partial transfer, change of en-route div, change of destination etc. It will have as simple a GUI as can be evolved to simplify the ARO's task.

It'll also have display redundancy once the current FOS layout has been upgraded to 2 x 15" displays. No display for the pilots though.

Unfortunately it won't be able to update the FMS with replanned trail information because that would require a massive investment and probably a new FMS architecture. That would delay the programme considerably and be very expensive. So the pilots will have to enter updated navigation data manually.

Hope you like it!

[propulike]

This story from todays FT.

EADS closes in on $25bn UK air tanker deal (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/655e17f0-85e7-11d9-9011-00000e2511c8.html)

[Uncle Ginsters]

I'm sure any tech issues can be sorted with the application of science. The one snag with the whole PFI thing that concerns me is the legal/insurance side of the bargain. A couple of years ago, we had the pleasure of taking the FSTA legal team on a westward trail for 6 days - or at least that was the plan!

They couldn't fathom how anyone in their right mind would insure the charter carriers against lost routes due 'unforeseen' extensions to RAF tasking.....and more to the point, who would insure against flying said ac over the line?

Does anyone know if this has been resolved?

Or maybe no-one involved is 'in their right mind' :ok:

Uncle G

[tucumseh]

“The one snag with the whole PFI thing that concerns me is the legal/insurance side of the bargain. A couple of years ago, we had the pleasure of taking the FSTA legal team on a westward trail for 6 days - or at least that was the plan!

They couldn't fathom how anyone in their right mind would insure the charter carriers against lost routes due 'unforeseen' extensions to RAF tasking.....and more to the point, who would insure against flying said ac over the line?

Does anyone know if this has been resolved?”



I think this post is dead on. Spending less now looks good in the short term, but in a few years the much vaunted increases in the Defence budget will be used for paying for very expensive PFI programmes. (In that sense, PFI contradicts the policy of spending more up front to reduce risk). Even if the cost over 30 years is fair and reasonable, the fact that payments will be squeezed into 20 years is a nightmare. Many of these contracts will have galactic size loopholes because of issues like the one Uncle describes. You can bet the MoD won’t benefit.

PFI? Political dogma and a cash cow for the chosen few, at the expense of many.

[chippy63]

tecumseh,

I agree with you. Another set of mouths to be fed, and greedy ones at that, trust me, I used to be in the business.

PFI is a way of reducing government expenditure in the short term, but at a significantly increased cost later.

[BEagle]

I changed my car last year. Before doing so, I worked out the cost of doing so and for how long I wanted to make repayments. I also secured an advantageous maintenance contract and a guarantee programme.

But that sort of logic escpaes MoD. Replacing their $hagged out old 1960s jets seems to have come as a total shock....

"It's reached the end of its life and needs replacing!"

"Err, keep it going for a year whilst we sort out what to do...OK chaps, let's see what the manufacturers have to offer. Hmmm, that one looks nice, that one looks even better - let's ask the nice man how much it costs..."

"Certainly sir. We could do you a nice little deal for say £££££"

"HOW MUCH? Is that Turkish lire... Or pesos?"

"No, sir, that's the price in £. Would you like it in €uros? Or US Dollars"

"But...but....that's far too much. We can't possibly afford it"

"With respect, Sir, your current tankers are either secondhand ex-EAAC and ex-BA Super VC10s (we'll forget about the thirdhand ex-BOAC, ex-Gulf Air ones you threw away), ex-BA secondhand TriStars, or your own old transport VC10Cs which FRL hung some pods on for you over a decade ago. Before then you used $hagged-out converted ex-nuclear bombers and 3 old Hercs. It looks as though this time you're going to have to pay for aircraft the same as anyone else does"

"But the budget won't stretch to that...."

"Goodbye, Sir"


"So - what do we do chaps. Could we get a bank loan - like buying a new car when you haven't got the dosh? No, Fat Gordon would never allow that and Buff wouldn't be able to persuade him in any case. I know-let's rent some tankers like we do with our staff cars. Just pay for them when we need them - easy. That'll work!"

"Err, let me get this right. You can't afford to buy them, the government won't let you borrow the money but you think that it'll be cheaper to rent them for 30 years?"

"Exactly!"

"But that's like renting a car from Avis because you can't afford the repayments on a bank loan. I may be simple, but how on earth can that possibly be cheaper in the long run?"

"Blue sky thinking....overarching plan....out of the box....hear what you say....customer orientated focus...whole life support...."

"Well, when are we going to get them, then?"

"Initial Gate Approval...Risk Transfer...Indicative Statement of User Need....Core Business Plan..."

"In English?"

"Err, in the near term subject to satisfactory selection of a preferred bidder and assessment of the cost/benefit against a public sector comparator...."

"Which means you don't know"

"It would be inappropriate to attempt to define specific milestones at this point in time..."

"Which means you DEFINITELY don't know. I see. Hello, is that Virgin Atlantic? Any jobs going? Fine - see you in 6 months..."

[Art Field]

New readers to this column might like to note that the "Invitation to Negotiate" for FSTA was issued on 21st Dec 2000. A response had to be at MOD by 1000 on 3rd July 2001. We still wait.

[BEagle]

Or read the whole sorry saga at:
http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/FSTA_Detail.htm

[Roland Pulfrew]

Beags

With an understanding of Smart Procurement like that, you should be in DPA!!! ;) ;)

[BEagle]

The only good example of Smart procurement I know of is the appointment of the current OC 10 Sqn!

Eh...eh..

[John Farley]

I think we are in danger of taking our eye off the ball.

That the UK needs a viable tanker capability is not being questioned by anyone.

The present capability will run out of life in a quite irrevocable way in a few years time.

A lack of forward planning in the past has resulted in the fact that we cannot afford a capital purchase to replace the capability

We have no option but to rent even though this will be more expensive (as it always is at home or at work)

Let’s not waste any more time on this debate but concentrate on making sure that what is rented will do what the mates need.

[Art Field]

JF. Having been involved with AAR in the RAF from Valiants, through Victors to the Tens and then with the losing TTSC, one now feels helpless in that matters have moved well away from those that do to those that dictate. If one can just exert a tiny bit of pressure through this forum then at least I feel I have made an effort to support those that have come after me. The merits of the two options are now irrelevant, what matters is a quick decision

[Roland Pulfrew]

JF

The money was in the Equipment Programme for the replacement of 'our' tanker fleet. Then some idiot decided that the replacement tanker programme could be a PFI. However the cost of the replacement was then stripped from the EP before PFI was proven as a viable route. The "savings" were transferred to other programmes and now we cannot afford a tanker replacement programme. I understand that the MOD's own financial advisors said that "PFIs for buildings, roads, hospitals a good idea, but for a "Service" like FTSA utter madness"

[Now a 'J' Bloke!!]

Ermmm...Mr Beags;

We had six, then five 'old' Herc Tankers...retired for the wrong reasons really as five 'in use' reserve aircraft. The FI was high compared to hours but the frames were looked after until near the end.....:*

Twas a pleasure to fly in 192,201,203,204,213 & 296.....:D

Them were the days...even if we used them for JMC tasking illegally!!!:ok:

Regards..SFS :cool:

Edited for Red Wine spelling!!

[Trumpet_trousers]

Latest from BBC:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4302595.stm

[The Maintainer]

Now it's official...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4303959.stm

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/airtanker/dynamic/airtanker64.jsp

Progress, of sorts. At least it's heading in the right direction, and not down the pan (which was, I believe, an option being considered).

Re: insurance, which came up earlier on this thread. Who insures our current aircraft? Answer - nobody, we take operations 'at risk' and if something gets shot down, the MoD decides whether it needs (and can afford) to replace it. Why should FSTA be any different while on the military register? It's the same with MT vehicles, albeit on a different scale - the MoD assumes the risk.

[totalwar]

Sounds great.... a real coop for the RAF at last

[Archimedes]

a real coop for the RAF at last

In which chickens will not come home to roost, one hopes...

[Gainesy]

From the picture on the airtanker link above, it appears its more VC10s:) :rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

The Maintainer,

I think the challenge on the insurance side is from the operation of these aircraft when they are NOT being flown by the RAF. Who would undertake the risk on a quasi military aircraft that any potential terrorist with a copy of Ian Allans Civil or Military Aircraft Markings would be able to identify as a part time military tanker cum transport being used to haul the great unwashed about.

If it was MY risk I'd tell them to poke it, or ask that they stump up such a premium that they would need to charge a fortune per seat just to break even.

I do hope this doesn't all end in tears........................................