Tanker PFI announced...after many years.

[scribbler614]

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 6 June 2007
New RAF tanker and transport aircraft programme approved by MoD

Defence Minister Lord Drayson today announced that the Government had
approved a PFI solution as the most cost-effective way of replacing
the RAF's fleet of VC10 and TriStar aircraft. The Ministry of Defence
will now proceed towards the financial and contractual close of the
FSTA (Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft) PFI deal with AirTanker Ltd.
AirTanker Ltd is expected to begin the fund raising process shortly.
Lord Drayson said:

"FSTA will provide the RAF with a modern air-to-air refuelling and
strategic air transport capability which is crucial in this era of
expeditionary operations. It will replace the RAF's fleet of VC10 and
TriStar aircraft. A PFI solution is the best way to provide our Armed
Forces with significantly improved capability." "The Ministry of
Defence and AirTanker Ltd will now work together to secure financial
and contractual close on a PFI deal as quickly as possible."

Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff added:

"This announcement represents an enormous step forward in this vital
programme for the RAF and UK Defence. Air-to-Air refuelling and
strategic airlift are fundamental to the UK's expeditionary
capability and FSTA is a crucial part of that. Although our current
fleets of VC10 and Tristar aircraft are doing a superb job, both
fleets are coming towards the end of their useful lives. I am,
therefore, delighted that this key milestone has been achieved, and I
look forward to getting the new aircraft and facilities into service
as soon as possible."

ENDS

Notes
1. The MoD's website can be found at http://www.mod.uk
2. AirTanker Ltd was selected as Preferred Bidder through competition
and its shareholders, consist of Cobham EADS, Rolls-Royce, VT and
Thales.
3. FSTA is a project to assess the feasibility of a PFI solution to
replace the RAF's Fleet of VC10 and TriStar aircraft.
4. AirTanker Ltd's service solution is predicated on provision of
Airbus A330-200 aircraft plus associated training, infrastructure,
and through life maintenance support.

[snakepit]

Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff added:
"This announcement represents an enormous step forward in this vital
programme for the RAF and UK Defence. Air-to-Air refuelling and
strategic airlift are fundamental to the UK's expeditionary
capability and FSTA is a crucial part of that. Although our current
fleets of VC10 and Tristar aircraft are doing a superb job, both
fleets are coming towards the end of their useful lives. I am,
therefore, delighted that this key milestone has been achieved, and I
look forward to getting the new aircraft and facilities into service
as soon as possible."


And he also added that "we will make them as safe as they need to be, though we err are err not quite sure what that is yet".

[Not_a_boffin]

"The Ministry of Defence will now proceed towards the financial and contractual close of the FSTA (Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft) PFI deal with AirTanker Ltd."

So after all these years since the downselect to preferred bidder, they still haven't actually got the contractual agreement ready to sign? More jam tomorrow announcements from the floppy-haired fool.....

[mary_hinge]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article1894035.ece
Quote:
The MoD claimed that the project would directly sustain avour 3,000 jobs in the UK, and a further 4,500 indirectly.
Could be wrong (not for the first time) but that does seem very high for less than 20 aircraft:(

[MarkD]

any likelihood of RAF and bmi doing a deal on training up crews as I believe QF and RAAF are doing with A330K/Wedgetail?

If SMB won't go for it I bet Dermot Mannion would - if rugby can be played at Croke Park... :)

[OCCWMF]

Ironic how a word like cost can devalue a word like effective.

[MrBernoulli]

And when I first moved to the VC10 tanker fleet there was a prospect :rolleyes: that I could see a new tanker coming into service ....... and I have now been out the RAF for over 2 years.

Pathetic. What has changed since a year ago or 3 years ago? Nothing. "The Ministry of Defence and AirTanker Ltd will now work together to secure financial and contractual close on a PFI deal as quickly as possible." What have these tossers been doing all these years ...... except polishing their effing arses on posh and expensive chairs? Wankers.

[Tonkenna]

Well Mr B, I am not sure where you stand on this:confused: Get off that fence...

It will be nice to see what happens next... I believe the jets were supposed to be in-service this year??? How long for the 10 now???

We need to see more flesh on this plan.

Tonks :rolleyes:

[hoodie]

AirTanker Ltd is expected to begin the fund raising process shortly.


http://www.ssafa.org.uk/images/NewMastheads/makedonation.jpg

[AdLib]

Oi! BEagle! 10 posts and counting fella! Get in there son!

[Art Field]

I will cheer when the first aircraft actually arrives, until then fingers crossed.

[BEagle]

AdLib, I've been working my nuts off this week on the world's only in-service 21st Century tanker, the A310MRTT, thanks very much.

We've literally just completed the first phase of System Acceptance Testing of the upgraded Mission Computer System. Which does the planning and management of AAR missions and is operated by the Air Refuelling Operator; MCS workload is low and the next phase is to include trail planning and management, already under development. A bit like an automatic AARC. But none of that primitive RAPs nonsense - this is much more gucci. Neither does it get drunk down route, have 'blonde moments' :p or dent hire cars etc.

I've no idea what's intended for the A330K, but I guarantee that the crews will like it if the requirements of the AAR role are taken fully into account by the manufacturer. Personally I canot see the A330K ARO position being filled by people without considerable navigation experience; the GAF/CF have certainly accepted this for their A310MRTT and CC-150T AROs. Ex-Tornado navigators, perhaps?

14 nice new jets :ok:. But no probes.....:{

[MrBernoulli]

Oi, Tonkenna!

No bloody splinters in my arse son!

See you, and BEagle no doubt, at the 101 do in July? Still awaiting confirmation of my July roster. Fingers crossed.

[The Scottish Fg Off]

Although our current
fleets of VC10 and Tristar aircraft are doing a superb job, both
fleets are coming towards the end of their useful lives.

Sorry dont know or care how to work the Quote tool.

A quote from CAS....
Clearly playing the line the new labour conspiracy has supplied.

Comming towards the end of their useful lives?????
Or just plan knackered and still being given servce in an RAF which is (in parts) in a 70s time warp.

PS no disrespect to the guys who actually fly these old ladies.

[Flight Detent]

The Oz air force is supposedly aquiring some of those A330 converted air refueling tankers.
Maybe the RAF should negotiate with the RAAF so they could offload the A330s and get some B767 tankers.

With the mess-up going on right now with the airbuses acquision, I'm thinking the RAAF would be very happy to get rid of them and go for the much better B767 tanker, now the US Congress is about to take them for the US Air Force.

That, of course, means many airplanes, which means lower costs for all, both initially and in the years to come!

Cheers...FD...:ooh:

[Dan Winterland]

BEagle: 'Blonde moments'. Who could you possibly mean?

And as for "Denting hire cars". that's not the exclusive domain of the Society of Directional Consultants and Aliied Trades. I seem to remember a pilot (who may or may not be Tonkenna) denting a top brand hire car in Holland using another pilot's head (who may or may not be a fairly senior officer still in the AAR world).

Mr Bernoulli: Hope the Tourettes gets better soon!

[F900EX]

Anyone know how many aircraft we are talking about here ?

[BEagle]

14 aircraft.

'Much better 767 tanker'? ROFLMAO at that!

Just compare capabilities - the inadequate 767 simply doesn't meet the OzAF requirement spec. It was downselected some years ago.

Yes, see you at the July do, MrB!

[XV277]

3. FSTA is a project to assess the feasibility of a PFI solution to
replace the RAF's Fleet of VC10 and TriStar aircraft.


Do I detect some goal-post shifting here?

[endplay]

This from the defence intranet news briefings


Half of PFI deals fail "good value" test

Half the private finance initiative contracts that have so far undergone "value testing" have failed to produce value for money, the National Audit Office said in a report today. Independent 06/06/2007 p. 46

I wonder which half we'll end up in?

[GeeRam]

Half of PFI deals fail "good value" test

Half the private finance initiative contracts that have so far undergone "value testing" have failed to produce value for money, the National Audit Office said in a report today. Independent 06/06/2007 p. 46

They reckon it's that low........:hmm:

From my experience in PFI I'd be suprised if better than 20-25% give 'good value'.

As ever the bean counters know the theoretical cost of everything, but the true value of nothing.

[Art Field]

XV277. You are dead right about goal-post shifting. Page 1 of the Invitation To Negotiate for the VC10, Tristar replacement issued at the end of 2000 says the replacement is to be known as Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and that only responses to this ITN that offer PFI solutions will be considered. I can not find reference to feasibility anywhere in all of the 4 volumes.

[Throttle Pusher]

Beags said:
"Personally I canot see the A330K ARO position being filled by people without considerable navigation experience"

Ex Tri-Star air engineers perhaps?

[Kengineer-130]

Knowing the RAF, I am surprised they have not conducted a feasability report on recommisioning the victor fleet :}

Seriously though, what makes a good tanker?? I am thinking good lowish speed handling, low stall speed and lots of lift capacity? :ok:, we were chatting about this at work the other night, the trusty old 747 was mentioned, would this make a decent flying fuel station? :ok:

[themightyimp]

Call me a cynic but isn't this announcement spookily close to the results of the Nimrod AAIB being due??

Additionally, how have they let a PFI when there are still issues on whether we will be able to use US defensive aids or not??? :ugh:

[Tappers Dad]

Who runs the fleet of VC10 and TriStar refuelling aircraft at present is it the RAF or another contractor ???

[pikeyeng]

Quote "it will require someone with navigation experience"

Or a VC10 eng who already has load and trim experience, operating AAR equipment and who is more than capable of operating an FMS. Cheaper than a PA Spine Nav.:ok:

[MrBernoulli]

Kengineer-130,

I doubt very much the 747 would make a good tanker. Four engines on the wings leaves you very little room for wing hoses that won't be interefered with by jet engine effects. 747 needs a LOT of augmented lift at low(er) speeds, making its fuel burn rate just horrendous. And all that modified lift would play havoc with any aircraft trying to get behind a hose. It could never cope with the speeds required to refuel a C130.

Even a VC10 needs a low-speed drougue and some flap as well as a shallow descent ('toboggan') to allow a C130 to remain in contact for a lengthy refuel. In this config, in level flight, the VC10 burns near 10 tonnes an hour! A 747 does that in a normal cruise - IF (a very big IF) it could go slow enough for a C130 what the hell would it be burning?

[Tonkenna]

Who runs the fleet of VC10 and TriStar refuelling aircraft at present is it the RAF or another contractor ???
Well, Flying and 1st line maint. is done by the RAF.
Mr B... nice to see that you remember the slow speed drogue burn rate... perhaps the captain I did a ground cat on today could contact you:E as he didn't know it:p (oh and yes it was me that damaged the Merc some years ago Dan!! and the other chap is still a FL... but not for long... soon to be a !st Officer)
I am not really sure, from what I have read so far, just how much closer we are to seeing these aircraft for real. I think I can safely say I will need my VC10 FRCs for a while yet though. I looked at the airtanker web site yesterday and there was nothing new there... suppose we will just have to wait... and we are good at that:ugh:
Tonks :hmm:

[Art Field]

Beags. As you say, no probes. It occurs to me to wonder if the A330 could easily have proper plumbing inserted at manufacture so that, if ever, the need should arise for Tanker/ Tanker refueling {heaven forbid} a safe and easy modification could be made by just adding a probe to the aircraft. Without pre-judging the current Nimrod concern the problems during Corporate, when bowser hose ran through the cabin and one daintily tripped over it could have been avoided if appropriate internal pipes had been installed. It is worth noting that many of the Valiants, indeed many of the V,s were fitted internally for refuel but minus the probe. Maybe we should remember that history is not all bunk?.

[BEagle]

The OzAF are intending to operate their A330s in the receiver role - but not with a probe. Fitted 'for, but not with' a receiver system would indeed seem to make sense, Arters.

Of course the OzAF also have to haul that lumbering great boom around with them. But now that the 'Pig' (F111) is to be replaced by the Super Hornet rather sooner than many thought, I wonder whether they will actually do very much boom AAR?

[Brain Potter]

Kengineer,

You asked what makes a good tanker. My tuppence:

High total fuel load. This is self-explanatory, but can incur a penalty for heavy footprint in terms of aircraft size, ACN, logistics etc.

A low burn rate at around 280-320 KCAS. This characteristic is very important but cannot alone turn an airframe that lacks fuel capacity into a good tanker.

A combination of boom and hose systems, ideally with simultaneous 2 point hose refuelling. The coalition ops of recent years would have been much easier if all tankers could have serviced all receivers. Unfortunately a boom is hard to justify on the basis of interoperability alone.

Capability to receive fuel. The lessons of history have shown the value of tanker-tanker fuel transfer. The USAF can compare and contrast the operation of KC-135 (most can't receive) to KC-10 (all can) and have clearly stated the KC-X must be able to receive fuel. The Aussies, Italians and Japanese all agree. The UK MoD has convinced itself that the receiver AAR is not necessary. Specifying a UAARSI (boom receptacle) would also help to justify an indigenous boom capability.

Low speed handling characteristics are not that important as long as the aircraft can be slowed to around 180-200 knots for C-130 AAR. I don't think that a high burn rate in this regime is terribly significant, as it is for only for a small proportion of the sortie. The older USAF tankers with very simple high lift devices seem to manage C-130 AAR without a drama - although again the boom might be better for this type of refuelling.

Ancillary equpment pertinent to Air Transport is also important, as all new tankers will have to perform other roles - so freight door, airstairs, aeromed fit, crew rest area etc are all valuable. Sadly, again the UK is falling behind.

Finally, I would personally prefer to have more than 2 engines so that critical missions would not have to be aborted for technical failures. When the latest twins are new I'm sure that they will hardly ever have an engine failure. But what about when they are knocking on 40 years old? Unfortunately no one builds anything suitable that has more than 2 engines. Network capability and reliability aside, none of the new aircraft actually surpass the physical capabilities of the KC-10. It's a shame that Long Beach only make C-17s.

[Dragon79]

Beagle

Wedgetail if it ever shows.

Where ever we seem to buy from, US or Euro, chances are it'll be a cock up someway.

Super Hornet - what happens when a GP is in charge of your defence force.

[ElTeneleven]

Navigational experience and TriStar Air Engineers! I dont think so!

[Wader2]

Slight thread creep but I think it is near enough.

A new glossy hit my desk this week - Eurofighter Review - Issue 1 - 2007.

Inside is contains on page 19 "External fuel tanks, for increased range, are certified for supersonic flight while "wet" air to air refuelling, with the unique fully-retractable refuelling probe, is cleared for all specified customer Tanker types, including "buddy-buddy" refuelling from Tornado aircraft."

Wow, all along I thought external fuel tanks were there to increase drag and reduce the number of available weapons stations. :)

I guess the unique fully-retractable refuelling probe is an in-house concept and owes nothing to McDonald Douglas or Panavia?

As for buddy-buddy, correct me if I am wrong but Tornado-Typhoon is not buddy-buddy.

[bvcu]

Iranians had several 747 tankers, dont know anything about its capability or operations though. Several were still parked in Tehran a couple of years ago.Guess if you're only fuelling fast jets with a boom its probably an awesome capability !!!

[Flight Detent]

Hey Dragon79....

What do you mean..."If it ever shows", A30-001 just completed its full mission cabin fitout, and is off continuing its mission system flight testing as we speak.
That doesn't mean to say that the mission system testing hasn't been going on for some time, but without the full cabin fit.

And yes, you're right, it uses the UARRSI connection to the tankers flying boom for AAR.

Great little mean machine!

Cheers...FD...:ok:

[Dragon79]

In Australia, doing what we paid for it to do, and not for static display at air shows.

No doubt it may be the business, but yet another procurement with major issues.

[ORAC]

Additionally, how have they let a PFI when there are still issues on whether we will be able to use US defensive aids or not???
Sorted last year: Blanket Approval for US Supplied Military Equipment (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/press%20releases/AirTanker%20Press%20release%20-%20US%20Licence%20FINAL.pdf)

[scpc]

Beags: "Personally I canot see the A330K ARO position being filled by people without considerable navigation experience; "

Get real Beags, go down to Halfords this weekend, navigators come in little boxes and get stuck to car windows now! However, if you think pilots can't use an FMS and need navs to do it....... Oh yes, of course, they are all on VC10s :}

[BEagle]

No, you misunderstand.

Control of the AAR Mission Planning System in the OzAF's A330MRTT is the responsibility of either the Mission Coordinator or Air Refuelling Operator at the ARO/MCO's console using a Multi Function Control and Display Unit, keyboard and trackball or by either pilot using their Onboard Information Terminals (in place of the tray tables) and keyboards.

However, it was always the assumption that the RAF's A330K would only have the minimum chnages from the generic A330-200, to allow it to be re-roled between military and civil roles relatively simply. Thus, if it doesn't have OITs for the pilots, then the ARO will need to be very au fait with AAR navigation calculations, in particular those needed for AAR trails.

In-flight AAR trail re-planning in the A310MRTT will be similar to the work of an AARC, but the user HMI will be much simpler than working with a laptop program. Basically, the new constraints are entered (e.g hose state, receiver fuel limits, change of available enroute diversion aerodromes etc etc) and the whole trail plan recrunched in half a heartbeat. If the new plan puts brackets in unacceptable locations, then the ARO can amend them and recrunch the plan again and again until an acceptable plan is achieved. So, nothing as primitive as the RAP system, the earlier NAP system or the 'worst diversion fuel state' system of the days of black-and-white tanking.

So if, unlike the OzAF A330MRTT, the pilots' stations are to be relatively unmodified in the A330K then the ARO will need to be the mission re-planner. As far as systems management is concerned, that will be the responsibility of the pilots; the only system of direct concern to the ARO will be the fuel system associated with the pods and centreline hose. Which is simpler than in the A310MRTT where the ARO needs to monitor those internal transfer systems which maintain the centre tank at the level needed for supplying fuel to the pods - and to operate the inner to centre transfer system in manual if the auto system is not available.

The pre-employment course for an A330K ARO will need to ensure a baseline level of navigational competence. Personally I feel that this should be similar to the old style Jet Provost BFTS generic pilot navigation ground school, not the current BFJT fast-jet optimised teaching. Basic understanding of IAS/TAS/IMN relationships, triangles of velocity and basic navigation planning using a nav computer - that sort of thing. Plus all the theory of trail planning etc.

No inherent reason why those without a navigation background shouldn't be able to cope with this, but the work of the A330K ARO will certainly be different to that of either a navigator or an air engineer in the RAF's current AAR fleets.

And yes, I do know about in-car SatNav systems. My Garmin nüvi 660 is an ace piece of kit. 20 ft position accuracy at 500 kts TAS and FL300 is not unknown (when I'm allowed to try it!).

[Dan Winterland]

Remove the tray table! How do you eat lunch?
It's the best feature of the Airbus. Most disconcerting :(

[Udonkey]

BEags,
why not just put the AAR programme on a laptop, with the rest of the mission planning tools and reporting system and leave that with the PNF?
Costs a shed load less than incorporating it into the aircraft systems and clearances for such, n'est pas!
Oh and the Pilots can 'plug in' when they get to the hotel and receive the following days Flight Plan, wx, Notams etc etc!
Cheap boys alternative!

[BEagle]

In order to replan trails dynamically, the mission planning system needs continuous ARINC feeds from the aircraft air data systems, fuel quantity systems and navigation systems.

Your 'laptop' solution would not achieve this, due to the limitations of the food-powered data input device, so would be little better than a RAPS calculator. That primitive system needs to become a museum piece!

Last year I did a simulated AAR trail from Germany to Lajes in real time with 4 Tornados using prototype software still under development. The route I chose crossed the North Sea, then went through the RCs and UK overland AARAs to Lands End and on to the ocean. The initial software planned some brackets in 'illegal' places, so those were edited manually and a satisfactory plan was then generated. We flew it on the rig, including single hose reversion and trapped receiver fuel. Within the development state of the software, the concept of trail management looked very promising. The software later proved unacceptable for other reasons; however the second generation system currently under development will be much, much better as it amends route waypoint fuel and ETA estimates dynamically.

In its towline mode, last week I flew the new software on the test rig from Germany to Norway and back and offloaded 24000kg in 4 hours of CAP support on a forward area tactical towline. The ability to add or delete receivers, manage the available offload in response to changes in MOTF and ATC requirements etc - and to see the 'actual' vs. 'planned' fuel lines on the display, together with the spare fuel available, takes away all that 'do it in your head' stuff needed in earlier years. The system receives over a dozen live ARINC data streams and is very fast and accurate. It also has a global moving map (north or track up, Lambert or Mercator), fuel system synoptic display, fuel graph, CG display, flight data display and a DDRMI which shows TACAN, DF aircraft heading AND track on an electronic representation of a normal RMI.

Why on earth would you suggest a cheap and nasty 'balance it on your knee' laptop in-flight solution? Yes, your laptop should upload the latest forecast met data and apply it to the stored plan; this should then be transferred to the aircraft. Due to the lack of a suitable 'universal' met system (all to do with propriety data formats or something equally nerdy :8), currently the end users will either have to apply an average component to selected parts of the plan or enter the met for every waypoint manually....:hmm:. But then the plan is regenerated, popped onto a USB stick and fed to the aircraft Mission Computer System the following day. It will also print out the waypoint list for the pilots to feed to the FMS.

The mission planning software is also able to be hooked up to a classroom ground training rig (son of son of Pennants/TFAST) for basic AAR role training. We trained a customer AAR crew earlier this year using the old software on such a system and will soon be training others using the vastly improved new system.

Perhaps something which future A330K AAR role instructors might be interested in? Orders of magnitude cheaper than a full-up dynamic flight simulator.

[WildRover]

Its a long time coming the RAF replacement tanker.

Strangely enough the arguments haven't changed since I last looked on these Forums eight years ago.

What's worse its the same players contributing - I ask has anybody listened to you over the years? NO!

My guess is the money will be diverted by Gordon Brown to other worthy needs. Who needs a strategic tanker these days - we don't. Just well equipped ground troops.

[themightyimp]

Who needs a strategic tanker these days - we don't. Just well equipped ground troops.How are those grunts going to refuel a plane in mid-air?? :ugh:

I take it you don't think strategically, just short-term tactical. Which is nice. For now.............

[WildRover]

That's the whole point the Uk doesn't need AAR anymore. Once we withdraw from the Blair egotistic skirmishes and defend Blighty we won't need expensive AAR machinery.

Spend the money on turning Brize Norton into a home for immigrants, which would be far more effective than the current home for retired RAF types which we seem to have these days!

[Roland Pulfrew]

That's the whole point the Uk doesn't need AAR anymore. Once we withdraw from the Blair egotistic skirmishes and defend Blighty we won't need expensive AAR machinery.

And your area of expertise is? We have always needed AAR to help defend the UK. Note the topic recently about the Russians pentrating UK airspace again. How do you suppose the fighters had enough fuel to shadow our visitors? A bunch of "well equipped ground troops"???

And who do you suppose provides the fuel to those assets supporting our well equipped ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Oh yes of course that would be AAR assets.

And of course by your own theoryOnce we withdraw from the Blair egotistic skirmishes and defend Blighty we won't need any well equipped ground troops......!

With understanding of air power like yours you must be an army officer and I claim my £5!:mad:

[BEagle]

Don't feed the trolls, Roly old bean.

See you on 6th July?

[cheese bobcat]

As an ex-A330 driver and ex-Military (albeit a long time ago), I cannot understand the problem. Notwithstanding the false Take-off weight limits imposed by the CAA, the A330-200 is capable of taking off with a full 110 tonnes of fuel as well as a compliment of some 350 plus passengers. All it would need is the in-flight-refuelling pipework. It has the capacity to refuel a great number of little aeroplanes (fighters) as well as transporting a goodly number of troops to anywhere in the world.

However, I cannot see it refuelling fighters from wing points; the vortex would be too much.

CB

[BEagle]

Proximity trials have already demonstrated that there are no vortex problems associated with the A330 wing pod locations.

They're actually quite a way inboard of the wing tips as they are fitted where the outer engine hard points for the A340 are located.

[Brain Potter]

Cheesebobcat,

You will see it refuelling fighters from wing points. If this cannot be done then Airbus are in serious trouble with the whole A330 MRTT programme and the bid for KC-X would also be a non-starter. Proximity trials with Tornados holding station in the refuelling position have already been done.

I think most people believe the basic airframe is a sound choice for a tanker. The scepticism concerns the decision to use a PFI to supply the service to the RAF. Also, the "optional extras" that Australia are wisely specifying, giving their aircraft added flexibility, are noticeably absent in the UK version.

[Fluffy Bunny]

They're actually quite a way inboard of the wing tips as they are fitted where the outer engine hard points for the A340 are located.

Wondered when someone was going to mention that.

Strange that no-one's mentioned using A340 or 380 in a militarised role yet! :)

[BEagle]

"Strange that no-one's mentioned using A340 or 380 in a militarised role yet!"

Such as....??

[Fluffy Bunny]

The post earlier on in the thread for instance that questions 2 donk reliablity, or the post about the Iranian 747s.

On the other hand I hear there's some fairly low hours KC135's sat in the Mojave desert that could be re-engined with CFM56's!

[Roland Pulfrew]

On the other hand I hear there's some fairly low hours KC135's sat in the Mojave desert that could be re-engined with CFM56's!

So we could replace some 40 year old aircraft with some 40+ year old aircraft. I marvel at your logic!! One of the reasons they USAF want start replacing their KC135s is because they are 40 years old and are getting more and more expensive to maintain!!!!!!!:ugh:

[Fluffy Bunny]

Maybe I should have wrapped that bit up in sarcasm quotes... :rolleyes:


Can someone lend a hand reeling this one in! :P

[FFP]

and who is more than capable of operating an FMS

VC10 Eng capable of operating an FMS ?

You mean lean over and press "direct to" when the Nav's out having a Jimmy Riddle ?

Suppose that classes as operating an FMS......:E

(From an ex VC10 driver than now handles his own FMS......just.)
(P.S. VC10 FE's. Salt of the earth in all honesty. :ok:)

[WildRover]

BEagle as a retired Officer what would you know about Trolls, you need to get out more. I think we all tire of your pompous holier than though attitude. It was a point of view - juts like anyones on this Forum.

A for operating FMS's - anyone with half a brain can programme an FMS. The /H function could be very useful if adapted to fly a towline.

[Clockwork Mouse]

WR (Probationary Pruner)
Yes, this forum represents points of view. However, Beags posts (with the exception of his regretable prejudice against cavalwy orficers) are usually to the point, highly expert and well expressed. Yours, on the other hand, are facile, puerile, bigotted and combative.
I suspect we know whose attitude we really all tire of. Are you still on probation?

[South Bound]

"Who needs a strategic tanker these days - we don't. Just well equipped ground troops."

WR, not a dig at you, you are entitled to your opinion and I do see the question as fairly muddied. It just so happens that this question is why we are where we are today. Someone decided we did not need it and took the money from the EP as it used to be. No money, ongoing requirement, must be funded somehow - PFI is all that is left. Bugger.

[haltonapp]

So anyway, under this PFI how will the aircraft be registered for them to be able to fly on "civilian flights" when not needed by our airships, and who will maintain them if they are on the civvie register? I am sure there are more than a couple of legal issues to be overcome. Can't see the RAF becoming a JAR approved maintenance organisation, and how many RAF ground engineers would stay if they were given a JAR licence and a type rating on an Airbus 330!

I do remember when the RAF acquired its Tristars it soon found out that it had to change the rules to ensure that as BA trained the crews they didn't just go straight out the door into the arms of BA or other airlines.

[dallas]

So anyway, under this PFI how will the aircraft be registered for them to be able to fly on "civilian flights" when not needed by our airships, and who will maintain them if they are on the civvie register?
I'm sure we've got our best 2-years-in-post contract writers on the job as we speak.

...so in accordance with tradition I expect RAF ops to end up second fiddle to the fare-paying public demanding transit to Ibiza, while our engineers will undoubtedly enjoy favouritism over their expensive civvy counterparts when it comes to pesky maintainance issues.

[Sloanar]

" 'Much better 767 tanker'? ROFLMAO at that! " ...Mr Beagle, I can think of several reasons why a 767 is better suited than the A330. Better suited to the requirement - won't come back half full; softer footprint - operates from softer runways; smaller aircraft = larger fleet so you get more assets; Nah, the 330 is too big.

I reckon the Aussies only chose it because the MoD did - they must be crackers. Have you seen how weak most of their runways are??

[Sloanar]

" 'Much better 767 tanker'? ROFLMAO at that! " ...Mr Beagle, I can think of several reasons why a 767 is better suited than the A330. Better suited to the requirement - won't come back half full; softer footprint - operates from softer runways; smaller aircraft = larger fleet so you get more assets; Nah, the 330 is too big.

I reckon the Aussies only chose it because the MoD did - they must be crackers. Have you seen how weak most of their runways are??

[BEagle]

Heard you the first time.

If you examine the OzAF requirements spec you'll see that, whereas the 767 cannot meet it, the A330 exceeds it. Easily.

[Sloanar]

Sorry B - didn't mean to send it twice. Must admit, I haven't sighted the OzAF spec for some time. Has it changed much?

[BEagle]

Nice to see the first OzAF A330MRTT being rolled out!

See http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/12/214571/pictures-first-australian-airbus-a330-mrtt-air-to-air-refuelling-tanker-rolled.html

Here are the rough assessments I made a while ago of the comparative capabilities of various tankers based on the OzAF spec:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Oz900.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Oz400.jpg

The A330MRTT is clearly far more capable than the KC-767A according to my estimates.

[D-IFF_ident]

Just back from an interesting couple of weeks down route and catching-up on my PPRune-ing, so apologies for bubbling this one back up to the surface. Anyway, I can't find, anywhere in the original post or in any of the links, or anywhere else I've searched, any actual commitment to dates or specifics. What is the significance of this new announcement that is anything other than what has been announced before?
Sounds like about the 4th or 5th "If we ever get FSTA it will be a PFI with frames provided by AirTanker Ltd, or something" announcement to me. Any specifics anyone? Any reference to actual contracts being signed and actual aircraft being provided?
:ugh:

Sloanar - which Oz runways are too soft? A, ahem, friend, flies large USAF tankers down that way and he doesn't seem to have any problems....

Edited for bad grammar and inaccuracy.

[MarkD]

Beags, the 762LRF based offering for the KC-X programme is likely to be a bit more capable than the 762ER based KC-767A? Any figures yet based on that?

[BEagle]

Just a digitally-remastered 767 with nowhere near the capability of the A330MRTT.

What fun it would be to be cooped up in the back of one of those Boeing things without even any passenger windows. Still, at least that'll be useful for disorientating 'guest of Guantanamo' on direct flights to Cuba....:eek:

And I just love the Boeing bull**** of a 'lowest-risk solution' - they only managed to trail and wind the wing hoses for the first time a couple of months ago.....:hmm:

[cheese bobcat]

There's no contest! Are we willing to have our brave tanker drivers eating their meals off their laps for the next 40 years?

Far better to have the A330 with a suitable desk, much more civilised.

Let's get our priorities right!

[cyrilranch]

First Northrop Grumman KC-30 Tanker Begins Final Assemblyhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gif
(Source: Northrop Grumman; issued June 18, 2007)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gifLE BOURGET, France --- Northrop Grumman Corporation's first KC-30 Tanker will begin final assembly this week, reflecting the industrial team's commitment to the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 replacement program.

"The first KC-30 Tanker platform's early entry into final assembly is evidence of our team's commitment to the KC-X program that we intend to win," said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman's vice president and general manager of the KC-30 program. "The world's most modern and capable tanker will be ready to meet the U.S. Air Force's test and delivery requirements right away. Early assembly of the first development aircraft, D-1, is a tangible reflection of the KC-30 Tanker team's ability to reduce risk and ensure a time-certain development process.

"We're prepared to deliver D-1 to the Air Force this November, one month after projected contract award," Meyer concluded.

Drawing on suppliers in the United States and other allied nations, final assembly of the first KC-30 Tanker platform -- an A330-200 commercial airliner derivative -- will be performed at the state-of-the-art final assembly line in Toulouse, France. If selected by the U.S. Air Force, the KC-30 Tanker will ultimately be built at a new final assembly and modification center in Mobile, Alabama. This center would directly employ more than 1,000 aerospace engineers and technicians at rate production.

The KC-30 Tanker benefits from the A330's active production line and its fully operational industrial supply chain, as these jetliners continue their sales success with airlines and government customers worldwide. To date, more than 1,110 A330/A340s have been sold, with approximately 800 delivered to international operators and over 240 A330s in current backlog.

Northrop Grumman has assembled a powerful U.S. and allied industrial team to produce and supply KC-30 Tankers for the U.S. Air Force, basing this aircraft on the A330 Multi-role Tanker Transport -- which won the last three tanker competitions to support the air forces of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.

The Royal Australian Air Force's initial KC-30B has now been outfitted with its aerial refueling systems and has entered the validation flight testing phase. Following its maiden flight on June 15, this aircraft was flown to France to participate in this week's Paris Air Show at Le Bourget Airport.

"Robust production and a strong, proven supply chain are critical to meeting the Air Force's aggressive schedule for modernizing its tanker fleet," said John H. Young, Jr., CEO of EADS North America Tankers, a business unit of EADS North America. "The KC-30 Tanker benefits from both of these key elements. Sales of the A330 are continuing at a brisk pace for an aircraft recognized worldwide as the most modern and capable in its category, as reflected in the fact that A330/A340 production output is increasing to the impressive rate of more than two aircraft per week."

About the KC-30:
Northrop Grumman's KC-30 Tanker carries 45,000 more pounds of fuel than a KC-135 or any competitor, providing a significant boost to the U.S. Air Force's global reach. The KC-30 is also designed to refuel Navy and coalition aircraft, and to serve as a multi-role transport aircraft to move passengers, cargo and medical evacuation patients. The KC-30 incorporates defense systems, precision fly-by-wire technology, and the ability to integrate a communications suite and a global support network.

The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and create or support more than 25,000 U.S. jobs. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS, General Electric Aviation, Honeywell and Sargent Fletcher.


Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $30 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

:D

[MarkD]

"Just a digitally-remastered 767 with nowhere near the capability of the A330MRTT" - but it doesn't have to have A330s capability Beags - it has to meet the specified tender requirement.

Even if A330 surpassed the USAF's requirements it's hard to see Boeing losing this one on political grounds, having spent who knows how much keeping the 767 line open, unless 767K(LR) fails the requirement in the way that 767K(ER) appears to have failed the RAAF's according to your charts.

[ORAC]

And I just love the Boeing bull**** of a 'lowest-risk solution' - they only managed to trail and wind the wing hoses for the first time a couple of months ago.....

Boeing Tanker Troubles (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003531.html)

[D-IFF_ident]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6227700.stm

:ok:

[BEagle]

".....the well-established Boeing KC-767 Global Tanker"

The what?

Meanwhile the world's only 21st Century tanker-transport, the well-established A310 MRTT, put on a nice display at Le Bourget, I understand. :ok:

[antipodean alligator]

Whilst it is great to hear that our first KC-30B has finally flown, and also that they are becoming quite popular with other air forces, can an informned type (such as M'Sieu B Eagle) please let me know about Doors and Floors?

I must admit that I have not been following the project closely, but I am of the understanding that the jet has some limitations wrt deploying a FJ SQN somewhere (ie what we'll really do with it for 75% of it's useful life, vice just filling thirsty jets).

Has any country (or EADS itself) ponied up the Euros to fit a decent-sized cargo door on the side or to re-inforce the floor so 1 or 2 KC-30Bs can deploy 8 Jets, a spare donk and a bunch of maintainers and their FAK somewhere......to help lighten the load on the RAAF AT fleet?

[BEagle]

Standard fit is with a lower 106" cargo door.

The A330 MRTT can carry pallets up to 96" x 125" in the underfloor area. So if your spare fighter engine and maintenance FAK can fit onto such pallets, then no problem.

If your pointy jet spare engine + FAK weighs 10 tonnes and you take another 40 pax, you'd probably get about 95 tonnes of fuel onboard at MTOW.

Even at the max ZFW of 168 tonne, you could still carry 62 tonne of fuel!

[Squirrel 41]

M BEagle,

Many thanks for the clairifcation - but does A330MRTT / KC-30B whatever come with a main deck door?

And in the trail conditions at Max ZFW what is the a/c range, and with say 8 x Typhoon recievers, how far could it deploy? And how would this compare with the current 767 tanker variant (whatever form that takes). Not a flame, just curious.

Many thanks

S41

[BEagle]

8 receivers? On just 2 hoses?

That would be a difficult plan indeed.

Sorry - I don't have enough data to answer your question.

Years ago some Airship thought that, just because a TriStar held 3 times as much fuel as a Victor, it could trail 6 receivers where a Victor could only trail 2. The fact that it only had one hose available didn't affect his thinking......:rolleyes:

The A330 MRTT does not have an upper cargo floor or door - because it doesn't need one. There is an enormous amount of space in the underfloor cargo area - and no additional tanks are needed for the AAR role.

Whereas the A310 MRTT, when fitted with 4 additional center tanks, has restricted underfloor cargo space, hence needs an upper cargo door and cargo floor.

As for the 767, it falls somewhere between the 2. It doesn't have the wide body of either the A310 or A330 (both of which have an identical fuselage cross section) and thus cannot carry normal LD3 bins in pairs. It may be fitted with an extended center tank, if that's what the customer wants, or indeed an upper deck cargo door. In fact, the customer can even ask for passenger windows and proper airline seating, which are of course standard in the A310 and A330.

[D-IFF_ident]

Beags,

What are the chances of Airbus "match[ing] Boeing's tanker expertise - not least its established aerial refuelling system, which enables jets to fly side-by-side with the tanker while filling up"?

Jets flying side-by-side with the tanker while filling up? Imagine that!

Any idea who that particular 'Defence expert' was? Coz I reckon I could become an expert too if that's the standard one has to attain....

:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

I sincerely hope that Airbus' tanker expertise won't be contaminated by old school Boeing thinking!

Perhaps the journo was thinking of this:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Tu16.jpg

How on earth did they do that? Like hedgehogs $hagging, I guess - carefully!

By the way, are you guys really using that daft "Reform" call nowadays?

[D-IFF_ident]

Not that I'd have much knowledge of US procedures of course.... :}

But I have a mate out there who suggests that they are mostly still using their old procedures. Rumour has it that the aircrew manuals all change on Monday though, so be interesting to see how they cope then. Meanwhile, I think the USN may be to blame for some of the less popular phrases currently in use.

:ugh:

[BEagle]

Who mentioned US procedures, mon vieux?

I can well imagine that the SAC tanker mafia would be happy to blame the latest nonsense on the USN!

Those new ATP-56B RT calls of "Observation" and "Reform" are, in my considered opinion, utter bolleaux. What RT calls are you supposed to make when directing receivers who wish to swap hoses for training? Neither 'Observation' nor 'Reform' (by their own definitions) suit that case.

What was wrong with the simple, unambiguous 'echelon' call?

Is that too 'French' for our Cousins? Or do they have difficulty in pronouncing it?

Or is it too easily confused with a certain organisation which allegedly monitors.....uh-oh, black Omegas outside!!

[PPRuNe Radar]

Meanwhile the world's only 21st Century tanker-transport, the well-established A310 MRTT, put on a nice display at Le Bourget, I understand.
Not bad for a 25+ year old airframe design ;). It's a 20th century aircraft with 21st century kit surely ??

[airsound]

I saw the (Luftwaffe) A-310-MRTT display au Bourget. It did a couple of flypasts with hoses streamed, and a third while they wound them in. It might have been nice to have had a couple of Tornados in position (as at RIAT with an A-330 a couple of years ago), even if the receivers were not allowed to be actually plugged in, but that didn't happen, on the trade days at least.

But having that in the air, with the A-330 MRTT in RAAF colours on the ground, was quite a good combination - although I understand from 'a source close to the project' that the A-330 was not really anywhere near being in full working order. Good to see it though.

airsound

[D-IFF_ident]

I understand there have been a lot of questions regarding Observation / Reform and how tanker crews on Trails / Coronets or training sorties can move receivers around. Pprune may not be the best place to discuss this, but I know that everybody likely to express an opinion reads the forum.
There are 2 parts to this story - Why not use 'Echelon', and how to control receivers that are not just arriving, taking fuel, departing the tanker?
Part 1 - Observation and Reform were not, I believe, the first choice of the authors, but it may be possible that at least one organisation that it was hoped would sign-up to ATP 56(B) would not agree to use anything else. Perhaps the authors initially put those words in to appease the recalcitrant organisation and then, when the other 27 organisations got to read the document nobody complained. Also, it got through the NATO ratification procedure without any complaints. To change the document now would take a proposal from a National representative to NATO. Any National Reps reading will know how to do that. Anyone else should take a look at - http://www.arsaginc.com/dnn/Resources/ATP56/tabid/79/Default.aspx.
Part 2 - A 'ahem' friend of mine who occasionally works with the US was asked this question numerous times in April. Eventually my 'friend' contacted the authors directly to clarify. The authors expressed a desire to have been allowed just one extra paragraph toward the front of the document - it would have read something like this:

"Notwithstanding the regulatory and procedural nature of this document, users are expected to employ common sense and good airmanship throughout all employment of AAR. Plain english, for example, is still a recognised format for RT transmissions in all countries that are signatories to ATP 56(B)."
The explanation that my 'friend' fed back to crews that had asked the question was accepted by the authors as correct and went something like this (N.B. this question applies in a limited way to boom AAR, and is more relevant to multi-point probe and drogue):

2 fast jet receivers cleared to join (let's call them F-18s so everyone can relate). Tanker says 'XXX Clear Join'. No need to say observation - that is implicit in the command 'clear join'.

The recievers should know whether the tanker has an observer or not, but let's say, for arguments sake, that although qualified to take fuel from this tanker they have forgotten. Common sense should dictate that they assume there is no observer and join on the tanker such that the pilot can see them. (There is currently always a pilot - he can tell the observer that the receivers have arrived).

"XXX1 clear astern right, XXX2 clear astern left".

Receivers procede to take their fuel. And here's where the confusion could set in. When they have their fuel should they be cleared 'reform' or 'observation'? By definition observation is the initial formation position and reform is the position where receivers reform upon completion of AAR. For a trail or a coronet mission, unless the refuel was in the final bracket, the receivers have not completed AAR. Therefore, although not striclty to the letter of the Lexicon Part 2 of ATP 56(B), the appropriate words of command for the tanker crews would be "XXX1 / 2, go observation left / right" as appropriate.

The tanker crew can continue to command the receivers to the observation position on either side as required through as many brackets as they need or to cross receivers over for ease of neck ache, sun glare, or for training purposes, until the final refuelling, when it would become appropriate, on completion of the final refuel, to direct the receivers "XXX1 / 2 go reform". After the tanker has obtained ATC clearance for the receivers the appropriate post AAR message should be passed, followed by "XXX Clear to leave".

These procedures assume that there was no prior briefing between the crews and a plan was not agreed beforehand on where the receivers would like to position themselves while in the enroute portions, nor were any of the crews willing to speak in plain English over a discrete frequency while in the cruise. Should the crews involved invoke the unwritten paragraph then it becomes much easier for everyone involved.... "Hey Tanker Johnny, it's XXX1, can I go over to the right after this plug, the sun's in my eyes on the left?" - "Willco, just n/b. that XXX2 is gonna be on that side too."

If there is no RT then things change of course, but one would hope that there would be a much more involved face-to-face briefing before launch, especially considering the likelihood and reasons behind a trail / coronet in EMCON 3/4.

This explanation has been generally accepted by friends of friends who may or may not be involved in the business of AAR. Personally, I agree with Beagle, and don't like the terms 'observation' and 'reform'. I'd much rather 'Echelon', and I hope that somebody approriate requests a change in time for Change 2 (it's too late for Change 1). There will probably be a 'fight' with the organisation who demanded the current terms though - Lord knows there's been enough discussion over more widely accepted terms that individuals want changed.
And I'm spent.
:ok:

[BEagle]

D-IFFers, the SOP has to allow for no pre-flight face-to-face and simple standard minimum necessary RT. No people bleating their life stories away on the air-to-air frequency either - particularly boom operators! How many times over Iraq during Op Warden did we hear "Yeah, OK, well we'll givya as much as ya want on this plug, 'n y'all let us know if ya want more" and similar crap on the 'minimum comms' AAR frequencies?

The changes I continue to advocate are:

1. Unless the tanker has an operational need to direct otherwise, receivers given the 'clear join' call shall always join on the left. But if the tanker commander requires otherwise, he/she should be empowered to order 'clear join, echelon right'.

2. Fast jet receivers should always join where the pilots can see them, then stabilise (or stabilize) and call 'echelon' when ready to move astern. None of the 'if the tanker is known to carry rear facing observers' caveat to waive this- it should be a one rule fits all requirement. How is a receiver to know? Is the ALM/ARO in the KDC-10 a 'rearward facing observer'? Or in the RAAF 707? And what if he/she's busy with other receivers at the time? The only exception should be boom-only AAR with large receivers.

3. Any moves from one side to the other etc should only use 'echelon' and 'astern' as required. All moves to be directed by the tanker commander - although I understand that the boom mafia think that's their job in some forces....

4. Receivers should depart from 'echelon' (right) when 'clear to leave' is ordered.

'Reform' and 'Observation' should be $hitcanned! Immediately!!

Incidentally, none of this is new. It's what we used to do before 1990 (although back then it was 'depart' rather than 'leave') and worked fine then, so why not now?

But hey, I don't do it any more - just teach it on the ground. But I hate having to teach garbage!!

And back to the thread - yes, the A310 is indeed a mature design. But it makes a very efficient and affordable tanker tranpsort! There are things I would change if I could - fitting a fifth ACT, another TACAN, Link 16 and increasing the MTOW to 164 tonnes for example.

[Dragon79]

Fount this new pic of the new Australian Tanker on airliners.net

Australian MRTT (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1224307&WxsIERv=Nveohf%20N330-203&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Nhfgenyvn%20-%20Nve%20Sbepr&QtODMg=Znqevq%20-%20Trgnsr%20%28YRTG%29&ERDLTkt=Fcnva&ktODMp=Whar%2015%2C%202007&BP=0&WNEb25u=Qvrtb%20Ehvm%20qr%20Inetnf%20-%20Vorevna%20Fcbgg)

[Saintsman]

Any idea what is hanging down from the wing between the No2 Engine and the RH pod?

[Dragon79]

Hook for a Webber?

[ArthurR]

Saintsman, It looks like the RAT, but I will go and have a look at the aircraft in a minute....never noticed it in the photo till you pointed it out.

[forget]

Looks like a RAT. ( Ooops. Too slow. Agree with Arthur.)

[ArthurR]

It is the RAT, flap track fairing is longer there to incorperate all the workings. No idea why it was deployed, probrally belt and braces.

[Saintsman]

I didn't expect it to be positioned there, I thought it was more likely near the wing root. It was probably operated as a flight test requirement.

[Art Field]

Since I am now a few years removed from the sharp end I would normally refrain from commenting on procedure changes but the introduction of "reform" and "observation" into AAR can not go unchallenged. I am entirely with Beags on this. Over the 30 years I spent as an AAR pilot there was never a need to complicate procedures and calls around the Tanker, indeed just the opposite. I assume the Tanker captain [A/C?] is still the formation leader [ATP56 does not appear to state that specifically] therefore the join should always finish in his view. Once close to the Tanker, receivers are either in echelon or astern, positioned by the leader using conventional formation control wording, I have not heard the Arrows going to "observation".

The fact that nobody objected to these changes could well be due to lack of AAR experience at staff level in many of the Nato countries. Do we still have a Command Air to Air Instructor [CAARI] ?.

[BEagle]

Arters, I think the real problem is that the changes were not seen by those who had the relevant experience to challenge them until it was far too late. Also, the staff officers seem more interested in process than product and don't like to be told that their new baby is damn ugly.

Your explanation of the need for simple, conventional calls around the tanker was a model of clarity!

I can't see many RAF tanker pilots saying "Go buddy cruise" :yuk: when they just want the receivers to widen between brackets!

Personally I consider the ATP-56(B) formation calls to represent a potential Flight Safety hazard. For example, "Reform" can be misheard as "..frm" - Was that "Reform", "Affirm" or "Confirm"?

[ArthurR]

Saintsman just checked the AMM's for RAAF and Air France and the RAT is standard fit for the A330. We all thought as you did..

[Sloanar]

“The A330MRTT is clearly far more capable than the KC-767A according to my estimates.”


Sure, Mr B, the A330 is a much more capable tanker if you judge capability solely by how much fuel it can carry. But surely if it carries 20t more than you need, it’s too big. Which means you can’t buy as many of them for your budget.



D-IFF ident – Don’t have the figures to hand right now, but it was most of them. If the large US tanker to which you refer is the larger of their two mainstays, it does have an extra undercarriage leg which reduces the pavement loading considerably. Big aircraft + lots of wheels = lower runway strength required:

A330 ACN at MTOW = 66 (and 20 t too much fuel)
B767 ACN at MTOW = 58

[MarkD]

Sloanar: "But surely if it carries 20t more than you need, it’s too big."

You have clearly never shopped in an American supermarket, or eaten at an American restaurant. :p

[ORAC]

The tanker offered as the KC-X will consist of a modified 767-200 freighter fuselage, and the 767-400 wing, undercarriage and cockpit (for commonality with the 777 if it offered later for the KC-Y or KC-Z competitions*).

*The USAF is holding 3 competitions to buy tankers in 3 batches. They want to end up with a mixed capability along the lines of the KC-135/KC-10 mix. They are not specifying maximum size and payload up front, waiting to see the offers. If they buy larger aircraft now, i.e. KC-330, they will probably specify a smaller payload/larger numbers in the later competitions - and vice-versa. So the proposition the KC-300 carries too much fuel does not make any sense within the overall structure of the requirement.

The figures I can find show the A330 as having lower ACN requirements than the 767.

767-400ER (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec7.pdf)- ACN for Rigid Pavement Subgrades (MN/m^3):
High (150): 58
Medium (80): 68
Low (40): 80

767-300ER: (http://www.eddh.de/x-files/dl_files/acn-tables.pdf)
High (150): 48
Medium (80): 57
Low (40): 68

A330-200: (http://www.eddh.de/x-files/dl_files/acn-tables.pdf)
High (150): 46
Medium (80): 54
Low (40): 64

[ORAC]

Antipodean Alligator: Whilst it is great to hear that our first KC-30B has finally flown, and also that they are becoming quite popular with other air forces, can an informned type (such as M'Sieu B Eagle) please let me know about Doors and Floors?
AWST - June 18th: "Included in the Air Force program is a cargo-hauling requirement. Beginning with the 5th aircraft, airframes will be delivered in an A330-200F configuration, which includes doors and structural strengthening."....

USAF asked, and will get. If the RAAF didn't, blame the people who wrote the requirements.. :confused:

[antipodean alligator]

Thanks,

My understanding is that we knew we'd like it but that there was sticker shock when they asked how much it would cost to do.....As usual we chose to wait until someone else ponied up with the $$$$$.

I guess it will be too late now????

[Squirrel 41]

It suddenly occurred to me (slow, I know) that C-17s have a boom (only) IFR system. Now that we're buying them, does this suggest that the FSTA A330Ks will now be contracted with boom capability? Or are we going to put probes on the C-17s or not bother with C-17 AAR capability at all?

I appreciate that the cost of the boom for A330K may have seemed extortionate for the E-3Ds alone, especially as they're bisexual anyway... but with the C-17s, hey presto there's a (small) fleet of UK boom (only) recievers out there.

And if our A330Ks are to be equipped to receive as well (BEagle?), one presumes that (at least for the US competition), the design work for a boom recepitcle is underway / done. All of a sudden, we're looking at not just a significant number of RAF a/c, but the core of the strategic force multipliers, too.

(And not to mention interoperability with our US equipped allies, this is only likely to increase assuming that most of the international sales will be of Dave-A.)

Thoughts? Rumours? News?

S41

PS: To PSOs and Treasury types reading this, AFAIK, the wrong answers are:

- We don't need / will never use C-17 AAR
- E-3Ds are much better using the hose, therefore they don't need a boom
- We will never need A330K receive capability, as the tankers will always support ops within their unrefueled range
- We therefore don't need to boom the A330K nor do we need to specify a boom recepitcle on the A330K

Quiz on Friday!

[ORAC]

AirTanker (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/capability-overview.htm)

RAF FSTA (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/futurestrategictankeraircraft.cfm)

Low risk conversion of the civil transport. Some to be delivered as 2 point tankers, some as 3 point. No boom, no receptacle.

[Squirrel 41]

ORAC: Many thanks.

This is precisely my concern, and the problem with the PFI - it's very restrictive: if it's not contracted, it's not happening (unless MOD ponies up lots of cash).

Thus, a signficant enhancement to operational capability that can be built into the aircraft on the line (receptical, boom, freight door) would prove to be prohibitively expensive once they're finished (maybe not for the door?) meaning for the next 20-something years that we're likely to be stuck with:

- the most expensive;
- least flexible; and
- least capable A330 tankers in the world.

Or in the words attributed to the OzAF CAS on being briefed on PFI:

"PFI - Poms are F*ckin' Idiots!!"

Way to go MOD!

S41

[Sentry Agitator]

S41

I was considered to have been very opinionated back at OASC in 04 for suggesting that our new FSTA was 'not fit for task'. I then had to go on to explain to the selection officers that what we really needed was a multi capable tanker (KC10) like I had seen from OAF/V&O and T and the flexibility that platform gave to enable real time force multiplying to coalition aircraft.

I don't think they believed me but there you go.........

SA

[Wader2]

Didn't I read in yesterday's or Sunday's paper that PFI's are so yesterday's ideas? The true costs are now coming home to roost.

[Squirrel 41]

Careful chaps, can't have too much sense in one place - someone might notice!

SA - good to hear. Hopefully OASC gave you the benefit of the doubt despite your heretical views on FSTA!

W2 - well, it's been coming down the pike for a long time now. Awfully embarassing for El Gordo watching Tube PPP go belly up as it was absolutely his personal policy. Suppose we have to hope that we can $hit can PPP and just order properly equipped A330Ks ( 2 hoses, door, boom receive capable, boom) in conventional procurement. It's not over until the wrong contract is signed!

Can anyone give us a rough estimate (guestimate?) of the difference in acquisition and through-life costs of having fit-for-role A330Ks (2 hoses, door, boom recepticle, boom) vs A330K (RAF Vanilla, 2 or 3 hoses only) pls?

S41

[BEagle]

The RAF will still need a centreline hose for A400M, Nimrod '2000', MR2 and R1 and C130....

You don't really need an A330 upper deck door or freight floor as there is already ample space underfloor. Very expensive to modify.

Boom would require a fair bit of operator training and practice to become proficient. Bit of a bugger if you've only got E-3s to joust - unless the C-17A AAR clearance is taken on board by the RAF. Or, of course, if another NATO player with a receptacle is around.

Boom would, however, enhance interoperability and would also be feasible for UAV AAR. If anyone thinks that they would trust one of the little sods to make contact on a drogue, think again!

As for tanker-tanker refuelling - definitely a nice to have rather than a 'must have'. Probably easier to use the boom with the A330 inertia and thrust control system, rather than probe-and-drogue. TriStar probe was very draggy and very noisy on the flightdeck, so was $hitcanned.

And it was ME, not the OzAF CAS who coined the term "Poms are f*****g idiots" regarding the absurdity of PFI! Perhaps he read it on PPRuNe?

[Squirrel 41]

BEagle,

Many thanks for this- so in your view what does a full-up A330K for the RAF actually consist of? Can you confirm that Airbus/Northrop Grumman have designed a boom receptacle for A330K in the US competition- if so, what's the price differential?

Is it feasible to have a dual centreline boom / HDU fitted?

And it's entirely possible that OzAF CAS's PSO read it here on Pprune - I heard that he said it after a few beers in Vauxhall a couple of summers ago...

Many thanks,

S41

[ORAC]

KC-30 Performance (http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/performance/delivering.html)

The KC-30 is able to simultaneously refuel multiple receiver aircraft. Its mix of boom and hose & drogue refueling systems ensures that U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allied aircraft can be accommodated on the same mission without the need for on-ground tanker reconfiguration.

The advanced boom uses the same proven fly-by-wire technology as the KC-30's flight control system, and it includes an automatic load alleviation system, independent disconnect function, along with redundant actuation systems and power supply. Improved controllability is provided by the boom's roll and pitch joint. Maximum fuel offload rate for the boom is 8,000 lbs./min.........

The KC-30's two underwing refueling pods are installed on pre-existing hardpoints that already are outfitted for fuel and power - requiring no structural modifications to the wing. The maximum offload rate for the pods is 2,800 lbs/min.

A centerline hose drum refueling unit is located under the aft fuselage, providing an additional hose and drogue contact point with a 90-ft. hose length. Maximum offload rate for this refueling unit is 4,000 lbs/min.

.......Parker Aerospace (Irvine, Calif) will provide the KC-30 Tanker’s Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI). Similar UARRSI systems are currently used on the U.S. Air Force’s A-7K, B-1B, C-141B, C-130, C-17, and KC-10 aircraft.

[XV277]

It suddenly occurred to me (slow, I know) that C-17s have a boom (only) IFR system. Now that we're buying them, does this suggest that the FSTA A330Ks will now be contracted with boom capability? Or are we going to put probes on the C-17s or not bother with C-17 AAR capability at all?



I don't know if anyone saw the letter in one of the papers (might have been the Mail) recently from someone suggesting that we cancelled Nimrod, A300K and A400M and just bought lots of 'surplus' used C-17s from the Yanks for the large aircraft tasking. :ugh::)

[tornadoken]

PFI's are so yesterday's ideas. The true costs are now coming home to roost. Daily Telegraph

The State does not do amortisation: it's an annual piggy-bank, cash in: cash out. If a Supplier offers to defer payment, Treasury must choose: tax today, or SKI tomorrow (Spend our Kids' Inheritance). May cost more cradle-to-grave: PFI/PPP as the State's credit card. Case A: FSTA as cash buy; Case B, buy-now, pay-later. Spec is written by the User to meet an approved Task: it is constant - AAR fit, say, is unaffected, so long as Credit is confined to procurement. McKinsey (Torygraph friend, young W.Hague then involved) sold the notion to Mrs.T and it kept taxes lower, and/or let us enjoy more buses and trains.

For FSTA we intend to operate on tick. Has FSTA Spec been tarnished by requiring the Contractor to tramp in dwells between State Tasks? RAF hulls must be heavier, burdening his ACMI (rate-per-flight hour) bids v.an operator of a civil Spec. (What dwells? We've turned 4xC-17 lease to 6xbuy, cos they're busy). Sea Lift has always been STUFT (Ships Taken Up From Trade). USAF for SEAsia paid PanAm et al to freight-convert 747s remaining normally in pax use, as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Govt. paid hourly offset for the weight penalty, and had Reserve draft Rights. That's what our procurers have been addressing all this time. FSTA is a hoary theme reversed.

[cyrilranch]

"Boom would, however, enhance interoperability and would also be feasible for UAV AAR. If anyone thinks that they would trust one of the little sods to make contact on a drogue, think again!"

Did not NASA prove that a UAV could be refuelled(i.e only doing a dry contact) with a specially modified F18 aircraft with the pliot not in control of the aircraft and only present for safety reasons?:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

And when there isn't a pilot able to take over for safety reasons?

The prospect of having some UAV attempting to joust with a tanker is not one I would fancy. But if the little sod just sits there and formates whilst the boom operator spears it, then fine. As long as its feeble robotic brain doesn't perceive the impact of the boom as a downward pitching moment - and command the little bugger to climb......

[ORAC]

Aug 2006: First Ever Autonomous Airborne Refueling Engagement (http://www.sncorp.com/PDFs/SNC_news/SNC%20AARD%20Press%20Release%2013Sep06.pdf)

[LFFC]

It looks like the FSTA project is finally facing the harsh reality of life!

Air tanker fleet is hit by credit crunch - The Times 7 Oct 07 (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2602476.ece)

Details of the financing were revealed last week by Thomson’s Project Finance International, a financial publication. It said the programme, called Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) “hangs in the balance”. Its report said that a plan for a group of banks to provide the loans came unstuck when they raised the price because of the credit crunch.


Cue Beagle!

[Flyingblind]

RE the above link, Jesus wept! what is it with this Government! this is a major state acquisition that is badly needed and long overdue, stop p%^&ing about with where the moneys coming from and get on with the bloody thing.

Very sad situation that reflects badly on current UK Government.

[Tonkenna]

Well, I guess Adam Ingram's promise to me a couple of years ago (in the Falklands) of getting a new jet is going to be delayed AGAIN!!!!!! (Not that I believed him then)

What with this and the cuts coming....:ugh::rolleyes:

Tonks :hmm:

[BEagle]

Pass-A-Frozo, mate, I can well believe you!

But if you want to see a really good AAR Mission Planning System, which plans/manages both Towline and Trail Missions, you should come and see what we've been developing for the A310MRTT!

As for FSTA....well, quelle effing surpris! The bolleaux of PFI is coming home to roost at last, it would seem.

So, Greedy Gordon, get your hand in your sporran and come up with the readies!

[South Bound]

Beags

I'm with you. No surprise here, just shaking my head in disappointment. Hope the boys and girls on the Project Team at Abbey Wood are thinking of miraculous ways to rescue this one (more likely over a latte), but don't see a way out without a major cash injection from treasury...


SB

[Squirrel 41]

Interesting, though not exactly surprising. Remember that the Treasury's problem here is two-fold.

First, that they've not got (the political will to spend) the money on FSTA as a conventional procurement. Solution? Hire it in through PFI, which is cheap now and is off balance sheet. (Let's not tell anyone that it's much pricier in the long term.)
Second, even if the political will existed to do an old-fashioned procurement that meant that we, well, er, bought the aircraft, then they'd have to pay for them on delivery - BEagle can doubtless advise on the delivery schedule. Solution? Borrow the money over the procurement period in the form of government bonds . (Assuming that the government isn't running a surplus, which at the moment it certainly isn't).

Problem: Prudent Gordon's famous golden rule allows the State to borrow only to invest over the economic cycle - fair enough, FSTA qualifies as investment - but crucially, sets debt as a maximum proportion of GDP - not defined but about 40%. They're running into this ceiling, and therefore can't borrow more and thus can't borrow for the jets. Cue PFI, the debt isn't the government's, therefore it doesn't exist.

So, it's the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) and the Golden Rule that are probably scaring the Treasury - hence the mad rush for PFI.

No excuse - Gordon, tell Darling to buy the sodding jets... and whilst he's at it, make it more than 14, there's a good chap.

S41

[GreenKnight121]

Agreed... the US Congress axed the KC-767 lease deal, it is well past time for Parliament to do the same with the FSTA PFI scheme.

Buy them!!!

[sumps]

Just a thought - When (if) we get this new tanker who is going to maintain it? RAF or Civies - if it’s the RAF then what plans are there to retrain us techies to gain an EASA aircraft licence in order to return the aircraft back to its civilian status.