Sky Man Stuck in Kabul [Archive]

Set Power

18th Nov 2006, 17:24

This article just about sums up the whole Circus for me (What fabulous PR - Not!) - and I'm being told to publically support the whole operation on a day-to-day basis... Not any more....

How can we justify the political use of our Armed Forces when we obviously cannot support them with reliable AT into these remote operational theatres. Also, why on earth agree to allow the press on board? - why can't they use the civilian airlines, as eluded to in the article....

Bliar, Brown & Browne (BB&B) need to take a reality check and decide just how they want to conduct foreign policy come the New Year. It would be extremely sad for 'jointery' if they fail to show the committment to the airbridge that is at present dividing the 3 (4 inc RM) services..

FSTA is probably still a pipedream for the time being - why not just lease modern airliners and equip with DAS for a short-term solution... Perhaps A330?

Time to wake up and smell the coffee - things won't get any better under the current ethos - hands in pockets and cough up for PILOTS IN NEED!

Frustrated of Oxfordshire....

RETDPI

18th Nov 2006, 17:27

I couldn't understand, some years ago ,why the Service seemed so keen to actually get me back on time from one particular detachment post the first Great Gulf Misunderstanding.
Then I realised the rules of the time. Over 100 days in theatre put you automatically to the bottom of the list for the next roulement. Silly Boy!
As it was I had to jump a KC-135 to Mildenhall as Albert had Arthritis.

Colonal Mustard

18th Nov 2006, 18:13

Skeleton

18th Nov 2006, 18:38

I think this case proves that having a hack around can indeed be a good thing. No hack, no story.

The AT farce needs sorting, period. We used to grumble that the AT headed for BZN and not your home base. Now we grumble about the number of days it takes to head anywhere!!

Nice to see the island of olives receives yet another glowing endorsement.

How long before FSTA? := := :=

As ever not spel chkd.

SRENNAPS

18th Nov 2006, 18:54

Personally i cant see whats wrong in leaving the journos to catch a spare seat anyway.....if it had been me i would have made him wait two weeks to catch his flight let alone four days....."Sorry mr Meade no spare seats today as i got to fly the boys and girls who REALLY deserve it back home to blighty":E
I think you really missed the point. The bottem line is that the delays would still occur even if you made Mr Meade wait two weeks. At least he has the power to rasied the subject (again!!!) and so the service might get better.
And there is no point in blaming Blair and Brown - I think the problem is with the Yes Men who say there is no problem and their attitude of "bury head in sand". Our own blue suits need to put their necks on the line and start earning thier money and demand from the MOD more and newer kit.

LFFC

18th Nov 2006, 18:56

........The AT farce needs sorting, period....

How long before FSTA? := := :=

Good question. I've been having a look around t'internet for some clues.

I found this Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001122/text/01122w05.htm) extract from some time ago:

Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 22 November 2000:

I am replying to your questions (139163, 139162 & 139160) to the Secretary of State for Defence about DERA Boscombe Down and the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) project. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
FSTA is planned to begin replacing the RAF's current fleet of VC10 and Tristar tanker/transport aircraft from around 2007. We are currently investigating the potential for achieving a service based solution to the requirement under the Private Finance Initiative. Our core requirement is for an air to air refuelling service with some elements of air transport capability.

However, the Airtanker website (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/business-timeline.htm) seems to suggest that the first FSTA deliveries will be after 2010.

mary_hinge

18th Nov 2006, 19:10

Meanwhile, another £22 Mil to Margo Agro Space

http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=9148

If FSTA had remained on schedule, would this have been needed? :ugh:

Details sent:

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page821.asp

LFFC

18th Nov 2006, 20:09

Looks like there's life in the old Tristar yet then. Let's hope they can find a few quid to position some spare tyres around the route as well. Or won't the LEAN process allow that these days?

Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1241184,00.html)

The aircraft's captain could only agree. Spare tyres used to be held at Akrotiri, but were withdrawn to Britain to save costs.

"It's ridiculous," he told me. "Aircraft have punctures just like cars. We simply can't continue. Remember, it was a burst that caused Concorde to crash. There should be replacements kept here and in Kabul for just this happening."

soddim

18th Nov 2006, 20:16

So when are the CAS and his cohorts going to stop being a cando gaggle and start telling it like it is?

cymruflier

18th Nov 2006, 20:24

For the first time in sixty two years I am speachless - I don't want to blieve the report.

hobie

18th Nov 2006, 20:34

Let's hope they can find a few quid to position some spare tyres around the route as well.

I would pop a couple in the hold and to hell with them .... :p

Footless Halls

18th Nov 2006, 20:35

Even though, as a civvy PPL, my direct personal connection with the British armed forces is limited to paying huge amounts of tax to Bliar, G. Brown & Co., I hang my head in shame at reading this.

On_The_Top_Bunk

18th Nov 2006, 20:47

We had a spec task from the other transport base launch this week to rescue a Trimotor.
I really hope it didn't fly 12 hours with just a wheel change kit and a wheel down the back.

Just a slight waste of cash. :ugh:

Mind you......would be a good oportunity to get some indulgence freight back from Akronelli.

MINself

18th Nov 2006, 21:23

Just another example of the terrible service that the members of the UK armed forces suffer due to serving in these hot and dangerous places and having their meagre 2 weeks R & R reduced as a result of using poorly supported unsuitable equipment. Its a shame that this service was experienced by our service personnel but strangely gratifying that it was also experienced by this Journo, who probably thinks that in his writing about it it might change things.

There are thousands who have had similar experiences, one of my strangest was being forced to fly a scheduled Civ Air flight home from the middle east because of the infrequent and unreliable service AT. Wearing suitable clothing and lugging my bags through customs with the rest of the masses.

I found out afterwards that the initial connecting flight was with a Civ airline whose aircraft are banned from European airspace due to their safety record :eek:

It wasn't the flying Civ Air that bothered me, the flight after the connecting one was with BA and that was excellent, it was having to pay for it myself then having to explain to a disbelieving obstinate shiny a*** on my return that I had to fly Civ Air because of the lack of service AT, as I had just 1 week back in Blightey prior to my next overseas tour so could I please have my money back....:ugh:

I'm sure there will be more episodes of frustration due to the ageing AT fleet. You can only LEAN when theres something to LEAN from.

nigegilb

18th Nov 2006, 21:57

Maybe the silent RAF "leadership" should take note of how the Army leadership is taking on the Govt,

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417238&in_page_id=1770

Blair is a busted flush, light blues now is the time to press to test.

Well done Brigadier Lorimer, leading from the front.

gar170

18th Nov 2006, 22:04

heres another artical which puts the RAF in good light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1951325,00.html

SamCaine

18th Nov 2006, 22:09

heres another artical which puts the RAF in good light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1951325,00.html

Ummm, no, it doesn't.

L J R

18th Nov 2006, 22:16

I start to type, but,......aaah.......cant be bothered, what difference would it make!

soddim

18th Nov 2006, 22:53

All it takes for evil to triumph.......

Skeleton

19th Nov 2006, 02:08

Just so were clear on where priorities lay.

Not less than 2 weeks after 9 11.

Dropped at Ali.... flight required to another sandy place.

Bag drag .. full webbing.. kit bag... the whole lot.

That looked really great in the middle of Kuwait International. No flight, ok driver back to Ali please.

Nope you get to stay in this 4 star hotel.

Cheers Ill just tell them I am in the RAF shall I?

W:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Phochs3

19th Nov 2006, 10:25

I am now getting irritated by the constant criticism of RAF Close Air Support by the Army.

It is wholly unprofessional and short sighted to slate RAF aircrew for following ROE. (As per the Guardian article link above.) Not only does it display a misunderstanding of the implications that may be faced by a pilot should he break ROE and subsequently incur a blue on blue, but also shows a clear lack of understanding of the bigger picture.

The RAF only has a handful of aircraft in theatre. It would be great to have an aircraft CAP over every bloke on the ground but there are not enough assets. RAF's fault? Hardly, look at the way the Gov't has slashed the number of fast jet ground attack assets over the last few years.

There is always room for improvement in the way that the services interoperate, and public in-fighting does nothing for morale, public support, the credibility of the services, or their relationship. Ill thought-out statements about CAS are as helpful as saying, for example, the Army has been on the ground for 3 years and it still hasn't stopped all the fighting.

The way that some Army personnel were dealt with in Cyprus recently on their R+R was unacceptable, a '1 off' and it was right that a recurrence of this should not occur. However Public criticism of the RAF from Army quarters for having an ageing transport fleet and not enough CAS aircraft is completely misdirected.

Criticism on these fronts needs to be directed towards the Government and not the RAF who are out there trying their hardest to give the guys on the ground the best support they can.

AdanaKebab

19th Nov 2006, 10:50

And a Jack! :D

Chugalug2

19th Nov 2006, 11:14

Maybe the silent RAF "leadership" should take note of how the Army leadership is taking on the Govt,
Blair is a busted flush, light blues now is the time to press to test.
Well done Brigadier Lorimer, leading from the front.
Nige
The words 'Hell' and 'freezes' come to mind. I honestly think we will wait in vain, even in this window with the likes of Ms Harmon climbing on the band wagon, to expect anything other than craven subservience from their 'Airships'. It is so integral to RAF custom and practise to work with what it is given, good or bad, no matter what the cost in lives or material, that I doubt it will change its spots now. It could be said that Trenchard himself cast the dye in the 20's when he secured the future existence of the RAF by replacing the Army with the RAF on 'peacekeeping' duties in some far-off field in the Middle East. Where was that now, it will come to me soon! The Independent Air Force was never independent of its political masters, but of its sister services. If you want the Air Force Chief of Staff to speak out like Brigadier Lorimer, it may have to wait until he (or she) wears the same uniform as he does! A price worth paying?

nigegilb

19th Nov 2006, 11:20

Chug, it seems clear to me that this latest cut in personnel is a cut too far. As far as I can see the airships are simply managing a steady decline. Here is a possible explanation for the lack of a spare tyre at Cyprus. Lack of engineering assets and personnel has been something of a theme of late....Quote from e goat.

"There use to be a whole cart load more than that mate, Akrotiri once had a full TASF (Transport Aircraft Serviceing Flight). 40 odd of us all spammed up on Hercs and VC10s with talk of extending it to Timmys as well. Spare props, donks, wheels, specialist tools up the ying-yang, a full transtock of commonly used spares including ovens (surpise surprise), the full monty.
When was this, nineteen sixty dot? Nope, 1993 was when TASF was disbanded and we became VAHS (Visiting Aircraft Handling Section) with a remit to wave our arms at taxying aircraft but virtually ****-all else. This was AFTER the first Gulf War when aircraft transitting through to the middle east had increased in number many fold.
The reason for this downsizing was quite simple...dosh . HQBFC refused to pay to support Strike Command aircraft. Strike wouldn't pay to maintain TASF so bye bye it went.
Along with a whole ****-load of posts in all ranks and trades."

Chugalug2

19th Nov 2006, 11:45

Chug, it seems clear to me that this latest cut in personnel is a cut too far. As far as I can see the airships are simply managing a steady decline."

Which surely makes my point? The incumbents of high office in the RAF would see it as nothing other than doing their duty to preside over the continued shrinkage of the RAF until it disappeared up its own tailpipe, if that was MOD policy! Of course constitutionally that is right, until the cuts result in the dysfunctional mess as reported in the MoS piece that you highlight. That is when the Army (as shown by CGS as well as Brigadier Lorimer) and to a lesser extent the Royal Navy speak up. We don't and we have to ask ourselves why?

TOPBUNKER

19th Nov 2006, 13:21

When the inevitable happens and the SPAMs run away bravely from the cauldron they have created in Iraq the Brits may well be left behind through lack of AT capacity.

A fighting withdrawal will not be a pretty sight.

It very nearly happened in Northern Iraq first time around (but for the actions of C130 crews on the ground); but this time it's much more likely.

This time though I really think it could result in the cauldron turning into a bloodbath.

However, by then of course Bush and Bliar will have snuck off the 'leadership' plinth, having kept the whole thing going - wasting lives - to save face and desperately trying to create a decent legacy.

It's going to be an even bigger disaster than at present, simply add time!

Rev I. Tin

19th Nov 2006, 14:02

And a Jack! :D

Naah, just send the wrong one!

Nibbled2DeathByDucks

19th Nov 2006, 14:15

Naah, just send the wrong one!

Care to elaborate ? :confused:

Rev I. Tin

19th Nov 2006, 14:42

Care to elaborate ? :confused:

Sure if anyone asks, but you know already!

glum

19th Nov 2006, 15:30

Does our laundry need to be washed in public?

TheWizard

19th Nov 2006, 15:42

Does our laundry need to be washed in public?

Ah now thats yet another topic concerning the sandpit ..........

Chugalug2

19th Nov 2006, 16:53

When the inevitable happens and the SPAMs run away bravely from the cauldron they have created in Iraq the Brits may well be left behind through lack of AT capacity.

Don't forget the trump card up HM Government's sleeve, which was alluded to when the Cold War had its last rise through tepid under Mrs T; the requisition of the Civil Airfleet. This was seen with some detached interest by my fellow Civil comrades, until it was pointed out that the requisition would include them!

mutleyfour

19th Nov 2006, 17:14

As a direct result of options for change circa 1993 the UK Armed Forces are supposed to be a leaner meaner fighting force which will be equipped with the very latest and best equipment.......I seem to remember words similar to those being spoken not long after Op Granby.

SamCaine

19th Nov 2006, 17:24

mutley, I remember that as well. "A smaller, but better equipped, British Armed Forces". Hollow words and total lies. :mad: We've become smaller, now where's the rest of the bargain? We've taken on more and more whilst watching all the lily-livered liberals in the political parties line their own pockets and ensure the livelihoods of their cronies.

Come the revolution brothers [and sisters ;)] !!

nigegilb

19th Nov 2006, 17:26

Ah yes mutley, the early 90s that would be Malcolm Rifkind and front line first. I assume they did not consider Akrotiri to be front line hence the engineering cuts. I think we all now agree there is no such thing as an unsupported front line. And now we are being cut again at a time of war. Where is that Rifkind chap? Ah yes the official opposition complaining about cuts to the Medical Services which they instigated. Funny old world isn't it?

Chugalug2

19th Nov 2006, 18:07

I can only imagine that being an airship is like being a member of the last Callaghan Govt, managing the decline of UK PLC in a splendid fashion, complete with power cuts in winter. Oh well the nights are drawing in, hope it's not a cold one could run out of gas this year....

Crisis? What Crisis?

Sorry Nige, I seem to have Edited rather than Quoted your post. Not sure how, but our thoughts seem to run on such similar lines that the mighty steam driven Pprune computer got us confused!

nigegilb

19th Nov 2006, 18:32

Crisis? What crisis indeed. I assume the only relief planned is a massive troop reduction in Iraq over the coming months. Glad I am not an Iraqi. In many ways the Forces were sold a pup when they were told that they would get that troop reduction. What amazes me is why the chiefs believe anything they are told by any Govt. Once you get rid of your troops you aint getting them back...My 6 year old daughter could probablywork out it is not a good idea to down size in time of war. Unbelievable.

Chugalug2

19th Nov 2006, 19:18

Nige,
I think that the Service Chiefs know very well what is going on, but as has been said before, what can they do? CGS's strop is already yesterday's news and fading from memory, and this thread is now considering the possibility of a premature US rather than UK withdrawal. That old hand Harold never said a truer word than a fortnight being an eternity in politics. So standing up and being counted has a very short shelf life, which leaves what has been graphically described as falling on one's sword as their only other option. This is really the only honourable course left for the Army and Air Force Chiefs of Staff, though no doubt a similar crisis will befall the Royal Navy soon enough. If those two walked out, their successors could insist on the reforms needed to make their Services, though much reduced, militarily viable again. Whether it would work or not who knows, and it would cause mayhem when, as you say, we are at war. It would also put paid to any nice little defence industry sweeteners they no doubt had lined up. But a crisis is indeed looming, and if your daughter could spare say half an hour after school each day to advise on a consultancy basis, I've no doubt she could well double or even triple her pocket money!

Sideshow Bob

20th Nov 2006, 09:03

I'll make one thing clear from the start, I am a 216 Sqn Air Eng so yes I'm going on the defensive. The Tristars being used for this flight are actually quite reliable, I've been doing this route every week for the last 6 months and have only delayed once and that was due to Kabul refusing us due to a lack of fuel (see point 1 below), there is nothing you can do about metal in a tire except buy us some spares and pre-position them (we can't carry tyres and jacks in a flyaway pack, have you seen the size of them) instead of making us look like fools or actually get rid of all the fod that is knocking around that supposedly international sh*thole. There are two main problems with flying into Kabul:-
1. The amount of fuel you can uplift is limited to 10,000ltr (check the NOTAMs). This causes us to reduce passenger loads to carry more fuel, we are often forced to fly half empty. This is not an RAF problem but a NATO one.
2. The second point is we do not have GPS navigation for the approach (we have GPS but are not R-NAV compliant). We have to obey the minima. Again check the NOTAMS the ILS is unserviceable and has been for some time, so is the approach RADAR (so no PAR's) and the VOR/DME is very unreliable. Kabul has lots of big mountains, it is very high up, effecting performance (we can not operate Perf A out of there) and the weather is starting to get quite poor.
We do our best to get in and out everyday we can, we are quite proud of what we do and try to do our best for our passengers, we want to get you home, It's no fun having 120 pi**ed off people sat behind you.

nigegilb

20th Nov 2006, 09:16

Don't think you will find anyone blaming the Tri Star crew here SB. You have just given a precise explanation that made perfect sense. No ILS no radar and no RNAV option. I seem to remember a notional decision of 5000' over Bagram and it aint pretty in the winter time. Maybe someone will send a tyre or 2 down route following this report. As for the infrastrucure and nav facilities at Kabul, well considering the supposed threat to the West that the Taliban represent, it's a joke isn't it?

SaddamsLoveChild

20th Nov 2006, 09:27

I have travelled into and out of both theatres over the last 3 years and it is clear it is a big picture thing. The army generally arent air aware but their experience starts with the movers and administration which treats passengers as cattle and fails to pass on timely information. They also pass alot of the blame onto the aircrew who are bound by necessary rules and are not there to defend or explain exactly what the problem is. They also want to get into and out of dodge as quickly as they can. IMHO The movements staffs interpersonal skills are generally lacking (borne out by my own experience) and it is the few who let the majority down. Unless the RAF per se start working together to provide a reasonable service from arrivals to departures we will always be an easy target.

Fit the aircraft with the kit it requires to do the job and give the airfield the kit it needs to provide a precision approach...........theres something to spend the underspends on your airships.

mutleyfour

20th Nov 2006, 09:50

Sideshow Bob,

I don't think anyone including the Sky man is blaming you or your peers at Brize! I agree and think so do most on here that the movers are in desperate need of some management skills, I for one would not be happy with the so called terminals at both Kabul and Ali'deed and would move heaven and earth to make them better.

Troops arriving on your plane are already on the backfoot as they have been in a system that seems to employ "resistance to Interrogation" techniques by making passengers arrive overly early and then forcing them to sit around and wait for hours and hours for your plane to arrive.

I am convinced that I would have been much happier when I was delayed in kabul had I not already spent the whole blooming day waiting inside a horribly inept building without anything to occupy my mind.

As for your tyre problem, I think the type of response expected is that a spare is either available or another aircraft is found or chartered immediately. Those days on R & R are so precious and should not be squandered at Akrotiri. Once again, not your fault but it does show a lack of care in the sysytem. There appears to be no regard to why these people (Yes People) need to get home as soon as they physically can, no recognition by the Government as to the importance of them getting back.

My final point is as I said a few posts earlier, we are supposed to be a more mobile and better equipped Armed Force, so why arent we?

Mr Blake

20th Nov 2006, 10:06

we are supposed to be a more mobile and better equipped Armed Force, so why arent we?

Of course we are, but unfortuneately we committed all our cash to buy a state of the art cold war fighter/bomber, and not the AT required to move our rapidly deployable forces around the globe. Perhaps this was a lack of fwd thinking, but to be fair the Typhoon was off the drawing board at the time of the New Romantics, and subsequently it would have taken a greater clairvoyant than Mystic Meg to see the fall of the Berlin Wall etc.... With BAE tying us in tighter than a tight thing, and costs esculating, we have little cash in the pot to upgrade the aged AT currently in use, to support the vision of a more mobile and better equipped Armed Force. Things will get worse before they get better, despite the excellent efforts of the crews trying to make do.

dionysius

20th Nov 2006, 10:36

Here we go again, blame the Movers, even though :

1. the wrong jack was sent, nothing to do with movs.

2. no main wheel/jack is carried as part of the a/c fap. not a movements decision.

3. no fap with main wheels etc are prepositioned at KBL/AKT route staging posts, again not a movs decision.

I appreciate something is lacking on passenger information/handling, but lets not blame the movers for other peoples(command decisions) cock-ups.

:=

mutleyfour

20th Nov 2006, 10:42

Mr Blake

Thanks for the reply, however I seem to remember that about the same time it was announced we would be hiring C17 to move men and equipment about the place. So why aren't we using said C17's in Theatre more commonly?

plans123

20th Nov 2006, 11:27

Strange that the pic is taken at Akrotiri and not at Kabul though.............surely he would have taken some piccies there to while away the hours he spent stranded..........:}

Mr Blake

20th Nov 2006, 12:11

Mr Blake

So why aren't we using said C17's in Theatre more commonly?

I think the simple answer to this is that we just don't have enough.

Fortyodd2

20th Nov 2006, 14:40

"leaner meaner fighting force which will be equipped with the very latest and best equipment.......I seem to remember words similar to those being spoken not long after Op Granby".

..............and Op Corporate!!!

Flatus Veteranus

20th Nov 2006, 18:10

A few random thoughts:-

It seems incredible that a key staging post like Akrotiri does not hold such basic items as spare wheels for transport aircraft. IIRC the Vulcan FAP carried on every ranger flight had them. It also seems incredible that a logistics terminal like Kabul does not have a precision approach aid compatible with RAF transports.

I ask myself whether the roulement of troops on two weeks R&R during a six month (?) tour of duty was an operational requirement, or a bonus "if we can manage it, chaps; we will do our best but no guarantees". Such sweeteners soon become inalienable rights. I remember the groans and grunts (pardon) from Stanley at the end of CORPORATE when every soldier and reporter (including Max Hastings) thought it was his inalienable right to be flown home by the RAF even before Beetham's bomb crater could be repaired. "The Argentine AF" I believed Max said " managed to fly Herculeses in and out a week or two ago - why cannot the RAF?" I love the British Army (yes I do!) but my expectations of them fall far short of any understanding of the effect of stage-lengths and operating weights on landing and take-off performance. Considering how totally dependent is the Army on logistic air support, I am surprised that the basics of aircraft performance are not taught at Sandhurst. But maybe they are not up to it interllectually.

splitbrain

20th Nov 2006, 19:49

It seems incredible that a key staging post like Akrotiri does not hold such basic items as spare wheels for transport aircraft.

Although it didn't at the time cater fully for Tristar, up until 1993 Akrotiri had a whole section of transport type trained engineers, with tools and spares including wheels, engines, propellors etc in theatre. Some of the older crews here may remember TASF. If TASF had still been going today the Tristar support may have been in place, who knows.
TASF was reduced in status to a simple handling section (VAHS) due to differences of opinion between HQBFC or Strike Command over over who should pay for the 40 odd engineers to be stationed in Cyprus.
It does seem quite mad now, up to 1991 Akrotiri was relatively quiet with respect transport movements. Since then its seen umpteen ops, relief ops etc in support of Middle Eastern and African campaigns.

Chugalug2

20th Nov 2006, 20:14

TASF was reduced in status to a simple handling section (VAHS) due to differences of opinion between HQBFC or Strike Command over over who should pay for the 40 odd engineers to be stationed in Cyprus.
It does seem quite mad now, up to 1991 Akrotiri was relatively quiet with respect transport movements. Since then its seen umpteen ops, relief ops etc in support of Middle Eastern and African campaigns.

So the no brain solution would be to re-establish TASF, surely? We are at war, and the AKR staging facilities are woeful. They need more money and more personnel expended on them. Not going to happen? Then other consequences surely will!

glum

20th Nov 2006, 21:28

But Tone promised that anything we needed, we'd get. And at least this ask won't break the bank, and may even buy him some smartie points with the guys doing his bidding...

mutleyfour

21st Nov 2006, 09:41

I am surprised that the basics of aircraft performance are not taught at Sandhurst. But maybe they are not up to it interllectually.

Hmm, regardless of the necessity to know about aircraft performance and fuel cals etc FV the system simply isnt up to fully supporting an Airhead such as in place at kabul it seems.

You may blame the Army, others the RAF, but essentially its our Lords and Masters that have determined our fate, and indeed keep us restrained by poor funding and very little regard for our well being.

note: I haven't put any emphasis on spellings as it it is so tiersome when folk do!

Flatus Veteranus

21st Nov 2006, 11:54

Hmm, regardless of the necessity to know about aircraft performance and fuel cals etc FV the system simply isnt up to fully supporting an Airhead such as in place at kabul it seems.
You may blame the Army, others the RAF, but essentially its our Lords and Masters that have determined our fate, and indeed keep us restrained by poor funding and very little regard for our well being.
note: I haven't put any emphasis on spellings as it it is so tiersome when folk do!

I was not "blaming the army", M4, so much as suggesting that some of their moans have to be taken with a bucketful of salt. Their bitching about "crabair" is almost a tradition.

L1011GE

21st Nov 2006, 18:09

Does the tristar not carry a spare nose/main wheel in its fly away pack ?

the answer is no....do you realise how big a mainwheel and heavy is?
and as for a jack? a jack alone weighs over 550 lbs and its not known as a toe crusher for nothing...oh and we only own 2-3 servicable ones.. 1 in seeb, 2 at Brize.

kilwhang

21st Nov 2006, 21:38

I have a question......... I left the RAF in 1988, having flown Hercs for 15 years. Whenever we operated to new or remote airfields, we carried a fly-away pack which always included a jack and spare wheels. Since leaving, I've been flying the 747 Classic - and still do. We sometimes fly to unsupported airfields and carry a comprehensive spares pack (with, of course, a wheel and jack). The weight of the pack is 1 Tonne which, against a MTOW of 377 Tonnes, has very little effect on performance. I have no idea what the operating limits of the RAF Tristar are, but are you really trying to tell me that the weight of a jack (265kg) plus wheel are so prohibitive that you can't carry them?
As for lack of jacks........why don't you talk to those nice people in the Mojave Desert, they must have lots lying around (for you, special price :)).

Preparing to duck behind the parapet...............

brit bus driver

21st Nov 2006, 22:20

Once again the tail appears to be wagging the dog....sure, the TriStar could carry spare wheels, jacks etc - hell you can even sling a spare engine under the wing (honest!). I have been many places with main wheels as part of the TPU/FAP, indeed it used to be SOP on a trail, but they do take up space and valuable payload, especially when faced with having to restrict pax as it is given the fuel constraints mentioned.

The point is, surely, that operations to regular destination(s) should be properly supported on the logistics front; there is no excuse for not having the basics in place. Only 3 jacks.....let's give http://www.aviatorsale.com/aix972/ a call, see if they'll sell just the jack (never mind the spare ex-Transat TriStar). We could use some of that spare £6 million that's kicking around.

Anyway, rant over; the problem will soon go away. No matter how much you tell the guys doing the job that "it's not your fault.." and "no-ones blaming you.." and "we'll support you.." I'm sure the folks on two-sixteen are getting pretty pi$$ed off with the constant negative press surrounding the airbridge. Once they've decided that enough's enough and come to the "I won't get this sort of treatment from easy/BA/Virgin/Monarch" conclusion, where do we go then?

L1011GE

21st Nov 2006, 22:25

It would be an ideal world if we could have wheels and a jack prepositioned at every airfield we fly into but in these days of penny pinching it just is not possible.. The aircraft that fly into Kabul are mainly C2's (Laircm) Aircraft,
The FAP (fly away pack) is held in the rear cargo bay, if we were to carry wheels and a jack the space for pax baggage would be limited. So there is just no space for them.

Even on a KC if we carry an enhanced FAP (including wheels) it takes up another pallet, therefore limiting other freight or pax bags.

brit bus driver

21st Nov 2006, 22:33

It is possible - someone just needs to prioritise it. Same with the carriage of spares on board - risk management.
Out of interest, I wonder what the fuel costs for all the Typhoon diamond nine practises were?
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/diamondNineDebutForTyphoon.htm (Typhoon Diamond Nine)
Sure it looked great, but was it really necessary? And no, it's not a different budget these days!!

rjtjrt

21st Nov 2006, 22:35

Hasn't Cherry's husband ordered a vital national asset so his wife can keep up with the Bush's - Blair Force One?

Bugger the services - let them eat cake.

ORAC

24th Nov 2006, 06:47

BBC: RAF transport fleet 'out of date' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6178858.stm) Aircraft in the RAF's fleet urgently need replacing, MPs and armed forces sources have told the BBC......

Wycombe

24th Nov 2006, 07:35

There was a quite good, and reasonably factually accurate report on the BBC 10 o'clock last night (perhaps redeeming themselves a bit with this after the "sources are indicating it was a Chinook" :mad: reporting fiasco).

Some good publicity for the ESF campaign also.

nigegilb

24th Nov 2006, 07:54

Unfortunately I missed the Beeb last night. I was assured several weeks ago that there was going to be an acceleration in the foam fitting program, I hope the BBC were using out of date info in their piece.

Back to the thread. i am curious about Tri* ops. Why do they want to fly in the day time? I understand, I think, the reasoning behind no night ops. I assume it is something the Sqn has decided amongst themselves, however chances of being shot at are reduced by 90% at night, so, in many ways it is far safer to fly at night. With this in mind, why does Kabul have no nav facilities to speak of 5 years after we first went there? Why are we fighting the World's 21st Century war with 1940s technology? That airport should be bristling with decent radar and approach aids. Is this another case of empty statements and promises from our so called leaders? So much so, that hundreds of troops are being put at risk by the insistence of flying day ops.

A strange set of priorities indeed.

mutleyfour

24th Nov 2006, 08:19

I would have thought it wiser to fly to Kandahar as thats where the bulk of the pax need to go anyway.

LFFC

24th Nov 2006, 08:37

Back to the thread. i am curious about Tri* ops.

Nige,

I don't think we should talk about tactics here.

I just hope that whatever transport aircraft we end up with for FSTA, it is properly supported around the route. Even if BA were operating a brand new fleet of A330s, they would suffer delays if they didn't have proper route support! But I understand that is all part of the FSTA deal.

MightyGem

24th Nov 2006, 12:36

I am surprised that the basics of aircraft performance are not taught at Sandhurst.
I understand that it's ready to got to print for the syllabus as soon as Cranwell starts teaching the basics of platoon/company attacks and living in holes in the ground. :rolleyes:

glum

24th Nov 2006, 12:54

I understand that it's ready to got to print for the syllabus as soon as Cranwell starts teaching the basics of platoon/company attacks and living in holes in the ground. :rolleyes:

I hear what you're saying, but do we need to know that to deliver support to them?

I don't think we call upon the army to support our aircraft (perimiter defense aside), but they do call in re-supply and CAS from us, and not knowing our capabilities and limitations can, and has, lead to some major cock ups.

Even the fact that the Army pay the RAF for the transport is not widely known. 216 gets grief for always going back to Brize, leaving soldiers to climb on coaches and drive a further 3 hours or so home. If the Army paid for it, the aircraft would deliver them to their closest airport!

A better understanding may prevent disappointment!

mary_hinge

24th Nov 2006, 13:02

BBC: RAF transport fleet 'out of date' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6178858.stm) Aircraft in the RAF's fleet urgently need replacing, MPs and armed forces sources have told the BBC......

Taken from the NAO Report 2006:

"After a competition and several years of complex PFI negotiations AirTanker Ltd, a consortium comprising EADS, Rolls Royce, Cobham, and Thales were judged to offer the best prospective PFI solution. VT Group joined the consortium shortly after. Following subsequent resolution of key commercial terms, Secretary of State announced on 28 February 2005 that AirTanker Ltd had been selected as Preferred Bidder for FSTA. A final decision on the PFI deal for the FSTA programme can be made only when negotiations are complete, the detailed contract is agreed, and the risks to the
programme are fully understood. While the MOD, in consultation with the rest of Government, hopes to complete its assessment soon, further progress has to be made with AirTanker towards agreeing a fully developed contract covering all the commercial terms and service provision aspects. This has led to a further extension, and increase in investment to the Assessment Phase in order to further de-risk the Main Gate Business Case."

It would seem, perhaps others know better, that we are no further forward, and now approaching 10 years from when FSTA (PFI) was announced and still no metal has been cut.

nigegilb

24th Nov 2006, 13:16

In layman's terms I think that means the MoD screwed up the FSTA contract requirement and thought they were getting more than they asked for. This screw up has led to a potential significant costing increase. In the words of an interested partner it was not a mature deal. I am told the PFI contract for flying training is much more "mature", if that is the right word.

Shackman

24th Nov 2006, 14:32

BBC: RAF transport fleet 'out of date' Aircraft in the RAF's fleet urgently need replacing, MPs and armed forces sources have told the BBC

This in the same week that I read one of the many shiny 'in house' magazines that seem to arrive on the Squadron at regular intervals from diverse logistic places (so I can't remember which one) that the Tristars are about to go to Marshall's for yet another cockpit and DAS upgrade 'to enable them to operate well into the next decade (and beyond?).

So the overworked fleet is to be denuded of airframes just when it is most required, more money thrown at it - and then wait for the airframe to start telling us it's too old, when we could at least have been spending a (relatively) small amount more to have a modern AT fleet that would not forever cause problems for engineers and bring continuing complaints from the users.

Although I don't suppose we can do anything about the movers!

mary_hinge

24th Nov 2006, 14:44

This in the same week that I read one of the many shiny 'in house' magazines that seem to arrive on the Squadron at regular intervals from diverse logistic places (so I can't remember which one) that the Tristars are about to go to Marshall's for yet another cockpit and DAS upgrade 'to enable them to operate well into the next decade (and beyond?).
So the overworked fleet is to be denuded of airframes just when it is most required, more money thrown at it - and then wait for the airframe to start telling us it's too old, when we could at least have been spending a (relatively) small amount more to have a modern AT fleet that would not forever cause problems for engineers and bring continuing complaints from the users.
Although I don't suppose we can do anything about the movers!

http://www.marshallaerospace.com/events/newsdetail.asp?id=142

£22mil I've heard.

Brain Potter

24th Nov 2006, 16:22

216 Sqn are doing a magnificent job maintaining the Afghan airbridge. It is taking a huge amount of effort and skill. It is always unfortunate when unseviceabilities, circumstances beyond their control or just honest mistakes delay a movement - but there is no slack in the system and hence the poor passenger inevitably suffers. Please do not linger under the mis-apprehension that other ways of doing this airbridge have not been examined. 216 Sqn have plenty of operators with Tac AT/SH or FJ experience so, believe me, all these things that are "obvious" to you have been considered. The end result is just about the best way that it can be done given the nature of the aircraft and the other limitations (no of crews etc). A more generous budget for spares and manpower would help though; LEAN is also a hinderance.

Without going into the whys and wherefors of operating into Kabul, I can tell you that BA/Virgin etc could not achieve what the 216 crews are doing almost daily; their unions and insurance companies simply would not let them. It must be demoralizing to have every glitch hung-out in public, but 216 are still delivering on the great majority of occasions.

216 Sqn - keep up the good work and stay safe.

Flatus Veteranus

24th Nov 2006, 19:09

SamCaine

24th Nov 2006, 19:21

I hear what you're saying, but do we need to know that to deliver support to them?

And to counter the argument, how many holidaymakers understand about aircraft? They don't care. It doesn't matter. They just want the people who are tasked/paid to provide the support, to provide the support!

A soldier doesn't need to know about aircraft performance, just know the time the aircraft is due to leave and what time he/she needs to be there to get on it. The RAF are the ones who are tasked with providing that support. When you catch a train, do you now how the rail system works (good question now, does it work?).

LFFC

28th Nov 2006, 07:07

Telegraph.co.uk - 28 Nov 06 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/28/cnavy28.xml)

Navy carrier plans delayed as MoD and builders argue price

Also, a decision on supplying mid-air refuelling aircraft may be brought forward.

Sources say the MoD may give the go-ahead for the £2bn Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) next month, rather than next March as forecast.

A consortium led by Franco-German EADS is the preferred bidder.

Looks like Mr Meade may have had an impact!

BEagle

28th Nov 2006, 07:15

£300 million cost increase for those 2 little grey ships is nothing compared to the criminally stupid amount being poured into the London Olympic Games fiasco. Or was wasted on that stupid millenium wart in the middle of nowhere.

Just how many £billion are being wasted on a few people running around, throwing things and getting wet?

FSTA agreement coming forward? Surely a porcovolant comment.

glum

28th Nov 2006, 09:41

how many holidaymakers understand about aircraft?
When you catch a train, do you now how the rail system works

And what the hell has that got to do with tactical re-supply or CAS? Dunno which stone you've been living under, but there is more to the RAF than broken Tristars...

mary_hinge

28th Nov 2006, 10:09

Also, a decision on supplying mid-air refuelling aircraft may be brought forward.

Sources say the MoD may give the go-ahead for the £2bn Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) next month, rather than next March as forecast.

So, which parts of the deal has HMG backed away from? Fit, Delivery, Price?:rolleyes:

mutleyfour

28th Nov 2006, 10:44

And what the hell has that got to do with tactical re-supply or CAS? Dunno which stone you've been living under, but there is more to the RAF than broken Tristars...

Hold on Glum, this is a thread about the air bridge to and from theatre and not CAS etc.

The point was made by an earlier poster that Army Officers should be taught at Sandhurst about AUM and Aircraft limitations etc in order to brief their troops accordingly. Quite rightly Sam merely points out that he disagrees with that statement.

Set Power

28th Nov 2006, 18:10

"Navy carrier plans delayed as MoD and builders argue price

Also, a decision on supplying mid-air refuelling aircraft may be brought forward.

Sources say the MoD may give the go-ahead for the £2bn Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) next month, rather than next March as forecast.

A consortium led by Franco-German EADS is the preferred bidder."

Last I heard FSTA was supposed to cost £13bn...

What exactly will £2bn buy these days???

Or are the latest rumours of an off-the-shelf A330 buy coming to flourition??

Having DAS fitted to an A330 might take some time too... The KAB/KDH slip will still have to be done by the TriMotor for some time...

What exactly is going on with the Strat AT/AAR fleets - is there anyone out there who can let us all know??

Confused of Oxfordshire...

brit bus driver

28th Nov 2006, 23:20

What makes me laugh/cry is that none of this particular incident was due to the age of the aircraft. Weather - sunset - nail on runway - logistics support. I fail to see how a new aircraft could have performed better (maybe they have run-flats!)

As for KC-30B; no idea as to the cost, but given that the Chines are buying A330s for between $121 and $132 million a pop, and Libya has a $1.7 billion deal for 14 A320 and 6 A330, prices for the tanker can't be far off. Oh, and you get a boom (interoperability) and a freight door too! Buy a few 321s and you get a 200 seat airliner capable of reaching AKT burning about 2 tonnes an hour. Convert a few to VIP fit and hey presto a flexible fleet that can be operated by the same pilots with a CCQ.

Hang on, let me go back to that......£830 million (roughly) to buy a dozen A330s outright. What exactly is the other £12.17 billion giving us?

mary_hinge

29th Nov 2006, 07:12

Hang on, let me go back to that......£830 million (roughly) to buy a dozen A330s outright. What exactly is the other £12.17 billion giving us?

Another 5 years of delays, 6 years of further delays to the ISD, 2 years of trials and 4 years of modifications to bring the aircraft upto the ordered spec:E

Needs to be funded some how:ok:

matkat

29th Nov 2006, 10:35

I have a question......... I left the RAF in 1988, having flown Hercs for 15 years. Whenever we operated to new or remote airfields, we carried a fly-away pack which always included a jack and spare wheels. Since leaving, I've been flying the 747 Classic - and still do. We sometimes fly to unsupported airfields and carry a comprehensive spares pack (with, of course, a wheel and jack). The weight of the pack is 1 Tonne which, against a MTOW of 377 Tonnes, has very little effect on performance. I have no idea what the operating limits of the RAF Tristar are, but are you really trying to tell me that the weight of a jack (265kg) plus wheel are so prohibitive that you can't carry them?
As for lack of jacks........why don't you talk to those nice people in the Mojave Desert, they must have lots lying around (for you, special price :)).
Preparing to duck behind the parapet...............
I am also astounded that they are not carried as I used to be a flight mechanic(GE) on Tristars for American transair and we always caried spares and a jack in the fly away kit, more recently did the same for B747-200/300s (different operator)and again we carried spare wheels and a jack.