RAF Aircraft Struggling

[BigGrecian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6270406.stm

I'm glad to see the Defence Committee, have "real doubts".

Fills me with confidence in politicians, as usual.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Good to see! Although :

Defence minister Lord Drayson said the MoD was buying five large aircraft.

"We are making long-term improvements to our airlift capability, adding a fifth C-17 to the four we are currently buying," he said.

does kinda make it sound like we don't already actually have 4 of them already.....

and:

"It called on the MoD to procure more C-17 large transport planes "given the current operational tempo".

They also said the MoD should look at increasing its A400M order, especially as three Hercules had been lost on operations recently."

does actually require more money.... large aircraft don't just grow on trees folks!

[Follow Me Through]

Just a thought but if they want to more rapidly replace the 3 lost C130Ks might they not order 3 more C130Js as I would be confident they would arrive before the A-400Ms and we will be operating a mixed fleet either way?

[Uncle Ginsters]

"We are making long-term improvements to our airlift capability, adding a fifth C-17 to the four we are currently buying," he said.

does kinda make it sound like we don't already actually have 4 of them already.....


Well, it does a little, but he's refering to the fact that until now, our C17s have been operated on a lease basis as they were originally intended as a gap-filler. Now we're finally buying them out.

[Widger]

Good news...they are needed. However, there is no extra money, someone else will lose out to pay for these!

[WhiteOvies]

The defence committe would be better off directing their doubts at the Treasury rather than the MoD. The MoD know how 'stretched' everyone is, but are way short on funds to do a vast amount about it. Perhaps the committee should write the business case to get more real money out the PMs old department and not just bleat to the converted.:ugh:

[Kitbag]

Listening to James Arbuthnot on R4 this morning what struck me most was that it wasn't until CDS was questioned back in March by the Committee that they started to have 'doubts'. This in spite of other headline grabbing failures such as that from the MP/TA soldier a couple of years ago.
I suspect that the hoary old process of assuring your boss that you can do your job with no resources is what has got us to where we are. At least CDS was upfront enough to use a euphimism (I think he said 'gravely concerned') that the politicos understood to mean 'we are going the wrong way down a certain body of water without adequate means of navigation or propulsion'.
Still, Drayson implying we are increasing the size of the C17 fleet by purchasing what is already in use is a criminal excess of spin. One can only hope that his deity (if he has one) is a vengeful one and he will suffer in his own personal hell along with the rest of this 'government' for his economical truths.

[threeputt]

Follow me through

Wasn't it 2 x K's and 1 x J that were lost?

3P

[Not_a_boffin]

Drayson is an @rse of the first order, lord alone knows where his reputation as a doer rather than a talker comes from.

His much vaunted industrial strategy is dying on its feet and in any case is predicated on some rather incomplete work from Rand Europe among others. The whole "use the CVF contract as a stick to beat industry with" approach is now being exposed as the excuse for further prevarication that it always was.

[Jackonicko]

To be fair, Paul Drayson does not control the purse strings, so does not always have the means to be able to do what he would want to.

Alone among New Labour politicians, he is someone I'd actually defend, however.

He's an impressive bloke, unlike every other Min DP I've met and dealt with - he is charismatic, articulate and straightforward, and speaks very well. He also has a phenomenal grasp and understanding of his brief - he's someone who could talk intelligently about air power and aircraft capabilities to someone like me, and he has a similar grasp of land and sea systems, too. If ever he's looking for a lower-stress job, he'd make a perfect editor for JDW!

He's not the usual pulic school/Oxbridge PPE/Classics barrister/professional politician fop - he's grounded in the real world - he trained as a production engineer (BSc from Aston, and a PhD in Robotics) and is a successful businessman and entrepreneur.

All that only makes him a talker, and not a doer, of course, but I'd rather have a straight-talking, intelligent and interested bloke in the job than a second rate political appointee like Willy Bach, Liz Symons, and the various Tory occupants of the post before them.

[Not_a_boffin]

Jacko

Wouldn't disagree with your assessments of the previous incumbents and having never met MinDP in person cannot comment on how he comes across. However, he's been in post long enough to have sorted those projects that are urgently required and do not require Treasury refinancing. There are some - MARS tankers (and of course FSTA) that are being held back by process - a process he is i/c of implementing.

Judging by the lack of progress on virtually all fronts procurement-wise, he's talking a good game (as do we all!) and little else.

[LowObservable]

"If ever he's looking for a lower-stress job, he'd make a perfect editor for JDW!'

You have a sadistic streak a mile wide.

[Razor61]

Follow me through

Wasn't it 2 x K's and 1 x J that were lost?

3P

As i recall yes. The "J" was blown up in dramatic style in the desert after hitting a mine upon landing i think. Video of it being destroyed went on Youtube but was taken down shortly afterwards.

[dallas]

The committee said that it was "very concerned" that figures for last November showed that only 41 of the 75 RAF Hercules, TriStar and VC-10 aircraft were available to undertake "required tasks".
Sounds like they happened upon a very good day - either that or they knew the committee were coming. Or are they saying 41 were available for the month?

[nigegilb]

When (cough, cough), news of the stalling of the Herc foam program hit the press, Lord Drayson called in various civil serpents and mil officers from MOD into his office and read them the riot act. He offered to take the request for funding directly to No 11.

He impressed me then and has impressed me since, (he has sorted out Chinook fiasco), even if he acquired his peerage under New Labour SOPs.

[gar170]

I don't think he impressed the troops on the ground with this one.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/LatestArmyVehiclesGoOnDisplayAtMillbrook.htm

seeing that most losses have been with IED's along side the roads this does not give a lot of protection.But i suppose it will be ideal for the fast hit and run attack on some teliban airfield.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Gar - a lot of the work done in the 'Stan and in the wilds near the Iran/Iraq border requires exactly these sort of vehicles.... (although I'm a traditionalist and believe nothing will ever be more british than a landrover!)

[TheInquisitor]

"..Ageing fleet of aircraft....blah blah..."

How often I hear this phrase, and how it conveniently sidesteps the REAL issue.

The AGE of the aircraft is ALMOST irrelevant - after all, about the only parts of the K's that are ACTUALLY 40 years old are the fuselages. The real issue here is that we cannot fix or service them, because they have LEANed away all our manpower, and we don't have the bits to fix them, because they have 'Just-In-Time'-ed all the spares (now THAT'S a spin-phrase if ever I heard one!

If we somehow managed to aquire, from somewhere, a brand new fleet of K's built to exactly the same specifications as the ones we have, they would require no less (or very little less) maintenance than the '40 year old' ones do. I suspect the same is true of the VC10 and Tristar fleets.

If we could get back the eng manpower, and the spares stocks, we would see availability rocket.

Yes, I KNOW that doesn't address the fatigue issue, but that can be cured (or at least postponed) by bolting on new wings, which puts it straiight into the 'spares' and 'manpower' pidgeonhole in my book.

Another bad decision by a particularly daft bint chasing an OBE...

[Safety_Helmut]

If we somehow managed to aquire, from somewhere, a brand new fleet of K's built to exactly the same specifications as the ones we have, they would require no less (or very little less) maintenance than the '40 year old' ones do. I suspect the same is true of the VC10 and Tristar fleets.


That could only have been written by a pilot ! :ugh:

S_H

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Well said SH, though I suspect a fleet of brand new Ks would probably require more maintaining than a fleet of something exceedingly new, shiny and designed for ease of/low maintenance in a modern styleee. Witness the difference in serviceability between, say, the Hawk T1/T1a/T1w fleet at valley (i.e. slim to none) vice the serviceability of the more modern hawk fleets across the world (pretty much the same basic design for the 100 series) and the serviceability is significantly better, but not at the same level that a truly modern aircraft could achieve imho, even on a (relatively) simple airframe.

[MarkD]

It called on the MoD to procure more C-17 large transport planes "given the current operational tempo"great idea, but from where? Someone should tell them the line's closing. (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/c17-production-line-out-of-time-02534/) They aren't cheap either. But they could certainly arrive before A400M since the last current slots are 2009.

[propulike]

Stn Cdr at Brize is also quoting the party line - local radio and newspaper (http://www.oxfordmail.net/display.var.1527350.0.raf_transports_still_up_to_job.php).
I guess "struggled to cope" means "left lots of people in the desert 'cos there weren't any 'frames to fly".

(And Inquisitor - thanks for an entertaining post. Always nice to have a laugh!)

[TheInquisitor]

Ok, a bit tongue in cheek and vastly over-simplified (just how us drivers like it) - but tell me I was wrong about the lack of eng manpower? I'd still maintain (no pun intended) it is one of the biggest causes of current poor availability.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Inquisitor,

A lot of what you said had a ring of common sense to it but you then lost credibility completely by suggesting purchasing a new fleet of K's............to any sane individual that thought ranks alongside the LEAN idea and we all know how barkingly mad that was :ugh:

[TheInquisitor]

Didn't suggest it at all, as that would be madness indeed - just pointing out that even if we did, we'd still have the same problems!

[saracenman]

found mod website for emailing the defence minister. in the box marked "Please enter the full details of your request (please be as specific as possible)" entered the following:

Dear Sir,
I am very concerned about the future of the RAF’s tanker fleet. After much investigation, it appears that the current fleet of VC10 aircraft (a/c) are due to retire within the next few years. Their proposed replacements will be civil airliners with air-to-air refuelling (AAR) capability.
The VC10 is an outstanding a/c for its AAR purpose and has given 40 years venerable service. My internet research has revealed some startling information, particularly from the ‘horse’s mouth’ – a forum dedicated to the views and thoughts of all those directly associated with operating the VC10 fleet (u lot!). Whilst it takes many an hour to trawl through every word, the overview can be condensed as follows:

VC10 can maintain a higher airspeed than any other current a/c – it always has an excess of power enabling much more efficient AAR (bear in mind a tanker needs to keep pace with its receiver a/c – Tornado/Typhoon/JSF etc.)
VC10 can refuel 3 a/c simultaneously – (RAF Tristar fleet: 2 at a time and USAF tankers: only 1!)
The basic VC10 design, with high-mounted rear engines produces zero turbulence for the receiving a/c – AAR is difficult at the best of times, let alone being thrown around by the wash of the wing-mounted engines of other AAR a/c. Accidents refuelling from VC10s are very very rare, not so with other a/c types.
RAF Tristar a/c are limited to which airfields can accept them due to runway length. This is true of all other a/c types (due to engines mounted on the wings, flap and slat areas are reduced). VC10 was designed from the outset to operate into and out of very short airstrips – it can land on and take-off from the proverbial postage stamp. This will not be a problem in the future as long as the next war is fought somewhere near to runways that are long enough; should the ‘warmonger’ be less considerate, VC10 could be deployed with little difficulty.
Further, VC10 was designed to be very rugged – intended to operate to and from airstrips with a very poor surface. No existing a/c matches it in this respect. In short it, can operate from almost anywhere in the world. This would certainly not be true of ANY proposed successor a/c.Overall, the VC10 fleet represents the RAF’s highest value asset – tankers are everything. Losing them will seriously harm the effectiveness of Britain’s air defence.
The fleet is now 40 years old and still going strong, but they are gradually being taken to RAF St. (Welsh Airfield) to be “reduced to spares”; once they are gone, they are gone.
Solution: refurbish, upgrade and rebuild. Nimrod has received this treatment: fortunately someone realised that there was no suitable replacement for it and stored MR2s were completely redesigned and rebuilt – imminently about to enter RAF service as MR4s. The airframes used are even older and of a more antiquated design than the VC10. Whilst the Nimrod MR4 programme has encountered the usual delays and overspend, much was due to the nature of the project:

Replacing Nimrod’s engines with up-to-date designs meant a completely new wing (the engines are buried inside the wing). VC10 engines “stick out the back” by themselves, nowhere near the wing – bolt new, quieter and more efficient ones on, job done!
Nimrod is a flying computer designed to search and find things – MR4 is THE most advanced a/c in the sky; that’s its job. VC10 doesn’t need to find missiles, tanks or submarines; all it does is fly in a straight line with a “hose hanging out the back”! It is not a ‘complex’ a/c.I wouldn’t be at all surprised that, if you turned up at RAF Oxonian base with a large crate full of engines and other goodies, a quietly-spoken engineer would say, “Thank you, your brand new VC10 will be ready at the end of the week!”
Looking at all the information I have seen, I am convinced that rebuilding the VC10 fleet is the most sensible and economic solution. The RAF already have the a/c, the infrastructure and the personnel; why scrap it all to only to replace it with something that will never be even half as effective in fulfilling Britain’s vital AAR requirement. It would be like scrapping all ministerial Jaguars and replacing them with Minis – not up to the job! VC10s were built to last and they have – a fleet upgrade would solve the problem for the next 40 years. It must be done soon though, as one-by-one, they are ending up in the back of the scrap-man’s lorry. Not one airforceman/woman involved with AAR wants to see the VC10 go as they know, more than anyone, just how good they are.
I would be grateful for your reply.
Yours,
(saracenman)

tonge in cheek in places but basically the truth! any comments?
probably:ugh:but did similar when last comet canopus (@ secret wilts base) looked as if it would be auctioned off to a yank home - := sent letters to pm, culture sec, my mp, min def, etc. etc.
comet withdrawn from auction the day before - now at brunt!

similar letters suggesting retiring concordes for s.sonic AAR actually got reply from lab-coat-wearing boffin somewhere, answering all my points in detail!

uk still hanging on to democracy - just!

comments???????????:bored:

[Wader2]

Too long.

You could have mentioned the planned life of the USAF equivalent of the VC10. The KC135 may be in service to 2040 although competition momentum may allow its earlier retirement.

"That will require that the youngest KC-135Rs of today will still have to fly missions 30 years from now. They will be nearly 80 years old."

Although there is a programme to replace the VC10 we cannot say that it has any momentum. Also we do not have the economic muscle to hustle sufficient tankers into service.

Your proposal to re-engine would seem a good one it that was the limiting factor.

[Safety_Helmut]

when do they put your back in your rubber wallpapered room, and do you find that jacket uncomfortable ?

[Wader2]

However I found this:

Best Answer - Chosen By Voters


The pylon mounted engine is much better. Remember also the 727's MD-80's etc. don't use hi-bypass turbofans.

With wing-mounted:

*Weight balance works out better with the engine weight near CG
*Catastrophic engine failure is much easier to manage (although never a pretty thing) because of "Fuse pins" that allow a violent engine to simply depart the plane versus what happened to United 232 in Sioux city.
*Easier maintenance access
*Asymmetrical thrust can be used which is more efficient than the rudder
*Fuel is closer to the engines (less plumbing)

[billynospares]

That is a cracking letter. Especially the end where you saved the last remaining airworthy comet from a terrible fate, being looked after serviced and FLOWN !!!! for all to see. Luckily you stepped in and had it sent to rot and never fly again. Phew that was close thank you so much from all of us that loved the old girl :ugh:

[mystic_meg]

I hope you get a reply, but with incorrect statements such as:......
bear in mind a tanker needs to keep pace with its receiver a/c – Surely it's the other way round?
RAF Tristar fleet: 2 at a time Really? How does it do that then? (I think you're getting mixed up with the fact that it has 2 HDUs for redundancy.)
The basic VC10 design, with high-mounted rear engines produces zero turbulence for the receiving a/c Hmm.... I take it you've never seen a C130K HF aerial (or what's left of it) after some AAR sorties?

...... I doubt the minister would be inclined to take your argument seriously.

[nice castle]

Nige, Drayson has sorted out the Chinook fiasco? Eh? Standby on that one; Mk3's don't miraculously morph into Mk2's overnight. That decision has shafted the programme good and proper, and the misconception that these Chinnies will enter service any earlier than the projected Mk3 entry date is, IMHO, complete bolleaux!
There's lots to do, and few people appreciate the intricacies of it all, least of all the Govt, it would appear.
It's ok though, we've got some massively incompatible with the rest of the fleet Merlins, (causing the lovely fleet within fleet situation we all know and love) which need yet more spares we haven't got.

I appreciate they needed an eye-catching headline, and to be seen to be doing something - anything - for the commanders on the ground, but believe me, the situation has yet to be 'sorted'.

Nothing personal BTW, just thought I'd bung in my 2p.
Cheers.

[BEagle]

saracenman, virtually all of that letter is utter nonsense. Sorry, but that's the brutal truth.

However, no-one can deny your enthusiasm. Had the rear-engined BAC-311 ever been built, it would probably have made as good a tanker as the A310MRTT.

Now - what's this really barking mad idea a little bird whispered in my ear recently about attempting to remove 2 Mk17 HDUs from utterly shagged-out K4s and install them in 2 modified VC10C1Ks....?? Someone please tell me that's a wind-up......it is, isn't it?

[saracenman]

:rolleyes:loadsa people campagned for it canopus to stay in uk - better here than accross the pond. my letter was prob 1 outta 1,000,000,000,000,000!
got to know one of the pointy end chaps a bit - EVERYONE sad to see it stuck on tarmac but the new corp-look dera/Q/whatever they are called now thought that a 'silly old comet' was not the image best to woo foreign business! f***ing bean-counters! - it only had a couple k hrs on the clock and i was at BD watching dep & arr of last sortie - 'catseyes' cunningham on board. chatted with him after - spot on! i was chuffed to bits - rather meet 1 like him in my life than all the worlds footballers put together! when i aksed 'my contact' if he'd let cunningham 'have a go' the reply was "no no he's far too old!" said with a broad grin and exagerated wink!
ACE! first man to fly the comet and very nearly the last.
i'd love to see the puss in the sky again - praps 558s imminent flight has paved the way???????

[saracenman]

maybe! comfy tho' :)

[saracenman]

i know, but does anyone in w.hall ever know whats really going on? fatique/spares etc...granted but nimrod mr4 is a far bigger project than vc would be. granted engines would be the easy bit but tis feasable tho'

anyway, if u don't ask u don't get!

[saracenman]

...general drift of letter has to be that vc is dogs nads. politicians don't seem to see things in the same way as others do - wonder why?
prob find parl. committee member is a dir. of airbus!
politicians never get to see just how much front line kit is held together with black tape! £££s please - it's ours anyway!:}

[[email protected]]

Saracenman - put the bottle down, take your medication and go to bed......:)

[billynospares]

You are very badly informed saracen. Dera/qinetiq wasnt even invented 10 years ago when the comet was taken from here it was the mods decision. She had about 8000 hrs when she left and was perfectly airworthy. Now she is too rotten to do anything struggling to even taxi i heard. I would rather see what ever is left of our aviation heritage airborne in the states or south africa than rotting on the ground turning to scrap here ! I spent many happy hours on Canopus she was built to fly

[saracenman]

yep, i know it was pre "dera" but what were the real reasons (the 'old-fasioned image' was the only one i heard at the time) the mod retired her? everyone i spoke to at BD at the time thought it mad. led to believe that spares/maintainence weren't issue (nimrod?) so WHY?
quite agree re flying vs. rotting but rumour at time was US buyer looked to stick her on a pole in vegas!
followed news closely after she was withdrawn from philips auction the day before and seem to remeber that she was 'donated to DH hatfield' (?) and would be hangered and loved and plans for continued flight. kinda missed the next news updates and next thing i knew was she was at brunt. what happend?
my part in campaign clearly backfired i know :* but at the time it was unthinkable that the LAST example of the WORLDS FIRST jetliner should end up on a stick - hence furious writing.
heritage - quite agree: always seems to be an up-hill sruggle in UK. so many priceless icons seem to get willfully destroyed by determined people - look whats happened recently at cosford. nothing new (remember last vulcan B1 cut up!)
would be nice to save everything but i know that's unworkable. even so there are some things which, in historic building terms, would be classed as grade 1. comet/vulc/victor/lanc/welly/vc10/conc...the list goes on. what's going on? 558s learning curve with 'complex' a/c might help future schemes?
imagine national outcry if BBMF met with gas-axe! why not others?

if only i had a long sharp stick...

[The Helpful Stacker]

So is your ultimate argument for keeping the VC10 flying one of 'heritage'?

The RAF has a flight for displaying historic aircraft and although it may seem otherwise with the age of some of the aircraft we operate the purpose of the rest of the RAF is not to act as a flying museum.

[saracenman]

no! certainly not! funnily enough my scribblings at the time re canopus was exactly that point - puss perfectly good a/c for job. it seemed that bean-counters were the ones that used its age for retirement reasoning!

same happened with press reporting of conc fleet retiring (don't start me on that one!) "oh, 27 yrs is very old for an a/c..." NO! it's hours not years!

same point with vc fleet - seems some of you guys have missed my point entirely. vc may be 'old' in some eyes but still v. effective - better suited to role (or roll - that'd be nice to see!) than proposed replacement (?)

between lines in letter to def min is that (as ever in all arms) defence expected to be delivered on a shoestring. everything seems to be JIT these days. all too often is Just Outta Time! can't call him an a**e to his face can i?

look what nearly happened with vulcs - blackbuck a/cs waiting for gas axe at the time - even AAR probes had to be 'borrowed' (incedentally heard that stores pylons were cobbled with dexion shelving - is that true? wouldnt suprise me LOL)

usaf never seem to behave like this - but then its not the british way is it?!?!

[drustsonoferp]

Trying to create the MRA4 from MR2s was a bad idea. It would have been far cheaper and easier to buy newer, more modern a/c than the hotch potch that the MRA4 will be.

Don't underestimate the cost of trying to re-engineer an old a/c. Better sparfes availability and therefore cost, the lack of having to go through an entire flight test and engineering regime from the outset...Rebuilding a VC10 could have enormous expense. Bring on the A330, and sod the publiuc use contractural nightmare and buy them outright, soon as.

[SirToppamHat]

Please don't let NATO nations (including UK of course) buy any more/different tankers - it took the best part of 3 hrs on Friday just to print-out the 'new' ATP 56(B) (effective 1 Apr 07) !

See here:

ATP 56 (B) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/atp56bwarning.cfm)

And was with half the Nations not having any capability!

STH

[BEagle]

And what do you think of the 'observation', 'reform' and 'buddy cruise' nonsense?

Still waiting to discover the correct calls for swapping receivers between hoses for training or during trails.......

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

drustsonoferp. Regarding Nimrod alternatives, I'm fascinated by your proposals for providing a weapons bay; which are? I am, of course, aware that submarine killing isn't fashionable this week.

[saracenman]

GBZ - good point! could throw sharp rocks from the hold i guess. are we the only operator of MR jets? guess everyone else has orion - what about former cccp these days?