FT - New Tankers on the never never

[brakedwell]

UK defence plan hits finance snag
By Sarah O’Connor and Sylvia Pfeifer
Published: January 25 2008 22:48 | Last updated: January 25 2008 22:48


The turmoil in credit markets has dealt a big blow to the UK government’s defence procurement programme, putting in jeopardy plans to help fund a new fleet of Airbus tankers for the Royal Air Force with a bond issue.

The £13bn project over 27 years, the largest private finance initiative, is now expected to be financed by bank debt.

The government and a consortium led by EADS, the aerospace and defence group, had been planning to raise £2.5bn in the City through a combination of bank debt and a bond issue. These bonds were expected to be supported by guarantees provided by troubled bond insurer Ambac.

However, Ambac and other bonds insurers have been hit hard by losses on bonds they have insured. The credit rating of Ambac was cut below AAA by Fitch Ratings and further downgrades are thought likely, sharply reducing the value of their guarantees.

For the past 10 years, PFI deals have been using bond insurers to support their bonds when raising initial capital for the projects. The insurers, or “monolines”, give their triple-A creditworthiness to the bond, making them cheaper to sell and so cheaper for the government to raise money.

But as the credit turmoil has spread, the price of all monoline-wrapped bonds has shot up as the market worries about the ability of the insurers to stand behind their commitments.

“The investment banks didn’t think they could place any Ambac paper in today’s markets efficiently,” said somebody close to the deal.

The other monolines the government was considering working with – including triple-A rated MBIA – were similarly struck by a collapse in market confidence.

“Although other monolines have not been as hard hit, there is scepticism generally around the monoline market,” said Anthony Forshaw, managing director at Deutsche Bank, the consortium’s financial adviser.

Instead, the government and the AirTanker consortium are likely to revert to their earlier plan to finance the deal solely through bank debt. They had sought to raise some money through bonds after the banks demanded a high rate of interest during the summer credit-crunch.

Last night, Phill Blundell, the chief executive of the AirTanker consortium, said: “It is fair to say a more bank-driven solution is now likely. We still expect to achieve the affordability targets we agreed with the government.”

HBOS will lead the group of banks lending the money. Lloyds TSB are also involved, and the consortium expects to get the deal away by the end of March.

The shift could be the death-knell for the monolines’ involvement with PFI, because unless the market’s confidence in them returns, their “wraps” will be virtually worthless. “Unless the cost of capital arbitrage returns . . . it’s going to be very difficult for the monolines to recover market share,” Mr Forshaw said.

[BEagle]

"....and the consortium expects to get the deal away by the end of March."


Yes, but which 'end of March'? 2008...9...10...20??

[D-IFF_ident]

So the finances of the PFI might be in disarray, the contract hasn't been signed, the actual in-service date is unknown, the capability of the aircraft as a tanker will not be optimised and the FSTA version will have no capability to receive.

What good news has come of the project in recent times?

Peter Hain is currently available for fund raising, perhaps he could step-in. And perhaps a revised financing consortium, involving Northern Rock and Société Générale, with a financial team led by Jerome Kerviel?

:rolleyes:

[VinRouge]

Lets put this another way... I have been saying for a while now that UKPLC is bust. Noo Labs promise of no more boom and bust is going to bite them in the arse.
They have fought unemployment, not by generating a credible, well educated and respected workforce but by creating literally millions of non-job civil servants, allowing the unemployed to be passed off as unfit to work for reasons as rediculous as stress, whilst pouring billions into areas that needed more than funding to secure a healthy and equitable living environment. UKPLC now has the largest real public accounts deficit in its history, M4 money supply growth busting 15%, and falling tax revenues at a time we need to be spending more, in other words, we should have been saving for the past 10 years instead of spending it wantonly on millenium domes, the NHS and olympic stadia. :ugh: For me, its sad, because the last ten years were a wasted opportunity.

Back to the thread, it is really hard to see how they are going to resolve this one. Trouble is only starting for the international bond markets, with many of them expected to lose their AAA ratings. Banks will not lend to anyone, including the govt, without a significant punitative rate, and worse, they know they arent going to get in next time so they arent exactly going to go out on a limb to spend cash on something now that will only be in when the conseratives come to power.

Better get our tin hats on, as many many former bullish economists are predicting stagflation that could be worse than the 1970's. Once the public sector start to strike in force, just watch inflation go through the roof, along with pay deals! (and not neccesarily us either!)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just finished reading the Telegraph article over a coffee in London and having a chuckle to myself!! Only 6 months ago a member of the IPT was telling me we would "have a deal before Christmas"! How I laughed.

Just remind me, wasn't the Introduction To Service date supposed to be Apr 07? Which slipped to Apr 08? And we still haven't got funding for this programme!! It must be plain for all to see (except maybe the IPTL/DEC#/CM/DCDS(EC) and CAS) that PFI, to use the Aussie, is "a crock of sh*te". If 'Yes Darling' can stump up £24 - 55 BILLION for Northern Rock, he can find £2.5B to buy the RAF a desperately needed new tanker/transport fleet!!

# Perhaps I am being a bit harsh on the DEC as I understood that he had recommended canning the PFI a couple of years ago!

Wonders to oneself: Where does this leave the other great PFI White Elephant? MFTS anyone? :\

[In Tor Wot]

Roland - agree wholeheartedly, but I'm afraid the seats of 38 labour MPs aren't resting on which tanker to buy. Therefore spending twice the annual defence budget to prop up a bunch of incompetent bankers will always win out over the crying need to assure a military capability. :ugh:

[Squirrel 41]

Well, with all of these delays, we may (who knows) get a better deal by buying full-up KC-30Bs with RR Trent (:cool:!!) off the US production line (if the USAF can overcome Boeing's political arm-twisting...). :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, back in the real world; Yes, this PFI is a total - and totally predictable - shambles and it comes back to the fact that the Equipment Programme (or whatever it's called this week) is bust. And has been bust since the SDR in 1997, when it was clear that the "bow-wave" of projects would be in 2005-2012, and would require loads more cash, but it was in everyone's* interest, to worry about that later and claim credit for it now (1997). :hmm:

*Everyone = Ministers, Senior Military (now doubtless all enjoying their pensions) and Senior Civil Servants (ditto).

Unfortunately, later is now. And (as a non-Tory, it has to be said), what continues to grip my $hit is that Ministers keep spouting on that the forces wil get whatever they need, and then (spineless?) senior military and civil service types keep parroting that "front-line commanders have everything they need blah blah". Well, as far as I can see they certainly don't!! :*

What we really need is a recognition that we need to recapitalise the forces through investment in equipment and training, in the same way that we needed to do for the NHS and education.

IMHO, we also need a national debate on what we want the military to do, and once we know that, get cross-party consensus to fund it appropriately over a 10-15 year time horizon.

Rant Mode: OFF

S41

PS, despite the fact that I think the Govt has been appalling over the Northern Rock fiasco - either nationalise it or let the damn thing go bust! - it's not correct to say we've given them £55bn. Depending on the security provided, we should get this money back with interest (eventually).

[VinRouge]

On NR, we will only get the money back if individuals are stupid enough to hand over cash in return for NR bonds; IMO, not even worth the paper they are printed on and certainly not worth the risk with the returns they are talking about. Hence one of the reasons the radio 5 live money presenter calls them "Crock". Again, another issue Labour arent too bothered about as they know they wont be in next time and therefore not their long term problem. The fact is, NR are one of the biggest lenders to the UK Equivalent of US subprime going; massive loans to those that cant afford them, and worse, interest only morgages.

What scares me is this; Labour and the treasury wouldnt have dug this deep with NR UNLESS they werent expecting the credit crisis to unfold as deeply as it has, or didnt know how bad things are full stop. Which confirms one thing for me - they arent in the driving seat at the mo, which if you think about it, when they are supposed to be in control of the economy, is pretty scary. As for the military, public spending is going to have to get cut, lets face it, defence spending has never been one of Labours strong points, I dont think things are going to change overnight... :ugh:

[Art Field]

So Air Tanker are finding it very difficult to raise the cash for FSTA, quelle surprise. The Consortium is a collection of manufacturing companies and is relying on the troubled and sceptical finance world to back them. A thought then, too late I know, but the other, rejected, Consortium, TTSC, included Spectrum Capitol, investment and merchant bankers.

The 767 might not be such an overall perfect aircraft for the RAF as the 330 but the requirement was for a Tanker that Trucked not the other way round. Perhaps there could have been a couple on the line at Brize already and others on the way because finance had been sorted long before the present problems arose. Did the thought of a shiny new big fat aircraft dazzle the decision makers? There still seems to be a danger of ending up with nothing at all.

[BEagle]

Well, I'm afraid Boeing haven't done terribly well supplying the 767 tanker to the Italian Air Force - it's years late and not now due to be delivered until Q2 this year....:hmm:

And that's for modified 767-200ERs, not the full-up KC767.

What a pity the RAF didn't go for those A310MRTTs Filton were offering over a decade ago....:rolleyes:

[Impiger]

And if only we had some old and obsolescent large bombers we could bolt a HDU on the back of and call it a Bowser! Might even persuade the Beagley One to return!

Back to the FSTA - I now understand that the project is to be treated 'on balance sheet' so there's another fine mess you've got me in to .....

[BEagle]

Well, it's such a shame that your fast jet-centric air force scrapped all the real strategic bombers, my old mate, and as a result has something of a 'capability holiday' :yuk:.

"I now understand that the project is to be treated 'on balance sheet' "

No speako staff wankword-speak, chum. What does that mean in simple pilot-speak?

[knowitall]

"I now understand that the project is to be treated 'on balance sheet' "

as i understand it

Gordon Brown has brought in rules to state how much the govt could borrow over an economic cycle

PFI schemes are effectivley an attempt to borrow money with actually having to borrow it, thus keeping it off that balance sheet and therefore making G Brown look prudent

I.E. we pay an hourly rate for the use of the "privately owned" tankers instead of just buying them and paying loan/bond repayments

the down side to this is that governments can borrow money VERY cheaply

the question is therefore if this PFI scheme is looking ever more expensive, and now has to be classed as Govt borrowing, why don't the govt just buy the things?

[MrBernoulli]

Feckwits! And that includes the civil serpents AND senior arse-ifers who have overseen this horses-arse of a project. You clowns have cost the RAF a tanker force.

Game is up tanker drivers! There will be no more RAF tankers ...... ever! There is no more money, no more time. Enjoy what little AAR you do on the VC10 and Tri-shaw. It'll all be over soon.

[VinRouge]

Isnt this the wonderment of "Resource Account Budgeting" also known as "Governmet Level cooking of the books"?

[Squirrel 41]

Anorak Mode <<ON>>

I hate to be a finance anorak, but the on-balance sheet / off balance sheet hasn't got a great deal to with Resource Accounting (RAB) but quite a lot to do with the famed Golden Rule of then-Chancellor Gordon Brown.

As knowitall has (rightly!) said, the big presentational benefit of PFI for the government is that the contractor borrows the money and therefore it isn't public debt and therefore doesn't appear in the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR).

Add in the "Golden Rule" (authors: G Brown and E Balls), which says that over the economic cycle UK will only borrow to invest (ie, no debt for provision of services in any one year), and that the level of debt will be "prudent" ie, c. 40% of GDP (vs 100%+ in Italy and 140%(?) in Japan), then the attraction for £3bn (0.2-0.3% of GDP) of debt on someone else's balance-sheet (AirTanker, in this case) is very attractive as it "isn't" public debt. (I would violently disagree, but who am I? Merely a taxpayer, of course).

The problem is that PFI = renting something, which is always going to be more expensive than buying it, as (i) companies borrowing money is more expensive than the government, because their credit rating is lower and (ii) they need to make a profit.

In short PFI only makes sense if the amount of cost over-run you expect from incompetence in the public sector is greater than the additional cost of borrowing and the profit you expect the private sector to make.

Note to 10 Downing Street,

Dear Prime Minister,

For F:mad:'s Sake, Gordon, borrow the bl**dy money and buy the damn things! And whilst you're at it, we'll have 20 x KC-30B with RR Trents, there's a good chap.....

Your sincerely,

S41

Anorak Mode <<OFF>>

[XV277]

As knowitall has (rightly!) said, the big presentational benefit of PFI for the government is that the contractor borrows the money and therefore it isn't public debt and therefore doesn't appear in the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR).

Add in the "Golden Rule" (authors: G Brown and E Balls), which says that over the economic cycle UK will only borrow to invest (ie, no debt for provision of services in any one year), and that the level of debt will be "prudent" ie, c. 40% of GDP (vs 100%+ in Italy and 140%(?) in Japan), then the attraction for £3bn (0.2-0.3% of GDP) of debt on someone else's balance-sheet (AirTanker, in this case) is very attractive as it "isn't" public debt.

Which is also why they are so desparate to get the NR clusterf*ck sorted out through a bond/private sector deal.

[FrogPrince]

The accountancy profession attempted to eliminate these Spanish practices years ago by requiring the full substance of such transactions to be reported...

FRS 5 Reporting the Substance of Transactions

Issued: April 1994

FRS 5 addresses the problem of what is commonly referred to as 'off balance sheet financing'. One of the main aims of such arrangements is to finance a company's assets and operations in such a way that the finance is not shown as a liability in the company's balance sheet. A further effect is that the assets being financed are excluded from the accounts, with the result that both the resources of the entity and its financing are understated.

FRS 5 requires that the substance of an entity's transactions is reported in its financial statements. This requires that the commercial effect of a transaction and any resulting assets, liabilities, gains and losses are shown and that the accounts do not merely report the legal form of a transaction.

For example, a company may sell (ie transfer legal title to) an asset and enter into a concurrent agreement to repurchase the asset at the sales price plus interest. The asset may remain on the premises of the 'seller' and continue to be used in its business. In such a case, the company continues to enjoy the economic benefit of the asset and to be exposed to the principal risks inherent in those benefits.

FRS 5 requires that the asset continues to be reported as an asset of the seller, notwithstanding the transfer of legal title, and that a liability is recognised for the 'seller's' obligation to repay the sales price plus interest.

PPP/PFI has always been dodgy in my book.

FP
ACMA

[Roland Pulfrew]

but the on-balance sheet / off balance sheet hasn't got a great deal to with Resource Accounting (RAB)

Squirrel, are you siure about that? IIRC the other gotcha under PFI & RAB is that if an asset is a PFI it is deemed to be off balance sheet then you the user (in this case it would be Air Cmd/2 Gp) would not pay the RAB "cost of capital" and "depreciation". If the asset is treated as on balance sheet then the user (Air Cmd) has to pay the RAB cost of capital and depreciation charges = UNAFFORDABLE in this case!!

Now of course these are only HMT accounting guidleines so the solution is simple - scrap the complete @rse that is RAB.

[Grimweasel]

We are stuffed! The country is broke as are its soon to be heavily in-debted consumers who have been on a 10 year credit binge.

The trauma in the markets often takes 12-18 months to translate into the housing markets; prices will fall, MEW will stop and retailers will be up in arms as no one will have any money to spend. People will be laid off work; tax revenues will fall, just when we need the money the most. Inflation will increase (food/oil/etc are all getting more expensive as the cheap labour and imports from china revert to global averages) interest rates will go up to reduce the rate of inflation whilst the prices of goods also increase.

The only thing to do; hedge against the debts and inflation -

BUY GOLD!

[Archimedes]

Sage advice....


... which is why Gordon sold off quite a lot of our reserves at a low price a few years ago, despite advice that this was a bad idea. Prudence? I think not...

[ScufferEng]

I think you have a point MrBernoulli- AR may well be in it's twilight as far as UK taxpayers are concerned. However there may be an alternative plan; namely The MOD's plan B ,- Tristars! they are still available at low cost, spares issues could be negated by sacrificing a number of Airframes, plus there is tried and tested corporate knowledge. It also avoids PFIs funded with sub prime loans peddled by sub prime financers who as sure as eggs will tie the ,MOD in irreversible knots. And the best bit of all? There will be a future for a three person flight deck!:D.

[Wader2]

I was with a wg cdr many years ago who was all cock-a-hoop as he had just bought all the East African VC10 for £100k (all or each I am not sure). Of course they didn't come into service at £100k each.

[D-IFF_ident]

No, but did they cost EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS each either?

[cornish-stormrider]

I shall enter my tuppence-worth here and use the quote from Gremlins 2.

" we're advising all our clients to put their money in canned food and shotguns"

not bad idea IMHO.

lets face it, fiscally this government is screwed. we are taxed left and right, its all spent on crap and quangoes and shiny chairs for main building. Labour have run this nation up its own arse and will now sit back and watch, safe in their protected salaried and guarded mansions.......

F%&K it I say we have a revolution...........

all in favour

[MarkD]

the "Golden Rule" (authors: G Brown and E Balls), which says that over the economic cycle UK will only borrow to invest (ie, no debt for provision of services in any one year)
Let's not forget it was Broon who b@st@rdised the word "investment" when he didn't want to say "spending increase", but how is the procurement of equipment for HM Forces not an investment worthy of state borrowing? Maybe HM should ask her PM?

[Rigger1]

"F%&K it I say we have a revolution..........."

We do have all the guns!!!!


oh oh, big black car outside.

[ORAC]

what was that quote about PFIs transferring the risk to the private sector? Never mind, there's no money left in the kitty to buy any tankers, or carriers, anyway...

£2bn of public money goes down the Tube (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3321667.ece)

Taxpayers will have to pay £2 billion to rescue the failed privatisation of London Underground, the Government admitted yesterday.

Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, had to raid the Government’s contingencies fund to settle the debts of Metronet, which ran nine of the twelve underground lines but went bust in July.

The scale of the public liability for Metronet’s failure will be a severe embarrassment to Gordon Brown, who forced through the controversial Public Private Partnership of the Tube when he was Chancellor.

The payment also exposed the fallacy of the Government’s claim that it was transferring risk to the private sector. The five companies that owned Metronet – Balfour Beatty, Thames Water, EDF Energy, Bombardier and Atkins – had to pay only £70 million each towards the debt because they had won guarantees from the Government that limited their liability........

[Roland Pulfrew]

ORAC You beat me to it. Just finished reading a couple of articles on Metronet on the tube this morning.

So let's get this straight, New Liarbour can find £35 - 55 Billion to bale out Northern Rock and another £2 Billion to bale out Metronet.

Those 2 combined would more than solve the EP (or should that be PR) "bow wave"!! I think the government have their priorities a little screwed up. And buyt a few more machine guns for the guys on the front line (yesterday's Current Bun)

And today's Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/warmy207.xml)

[Gainesy]

a few more machine guns for the guys on the front line

Can't do that, they'd get through more ammo.

How about the £12billion being wasted so foreigners can come to London and show us how good they are at running, jumping, throwing sticks etc?

[Jackonicko]

"show us how good they are at running, jumping, throwing sticks etc?"

All usual cliches about coffee and keyboards apply.

(In truth, I did laugh so hard that I scared next door's cat).

[Gainesy]

:) I fagu.

Talking of cliches, if MoD cut back on this seemingly bottomless pit of black Omegas...

[NURSE]

well if there is a recession then air travel will fall and airlines will be only to willing to sell on some of their redundant airframes which will look in the press like a good buy until the costs of refurbishment and conversion are taken into account.
BTW I wonder if Tony's Mortgage for his London home is with Northern Rock?

[LFFC]

Some interesting comments regarding FSTA here:

Coming back to haunt him: the billions in debt that Brown thought he'd buried. The Independant 24 Feb 08 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/coming-back-to-haunt-him-the-billions-in-debt-that-brown-thought-hed-buried-786336.html)


The Government's reputation for prudence has been battered and pummelled by economic blow after economic blow ever since Gordon Brown left No 11. But it is a fiddle from his past as Chancellor that might yet deliver the knockout punch.


Next month the Treasury will be forced to overturn the great accounting scam that Mr Brown himself championed. The Prime Minister's fiercest critics argue that he has hidden more than £30bn of debt, which future generations will then be burdened with paying off.

The big attraction of the PFI has been to get spending off the Government's balance sheet. The capital value of the 621 contracts signed under the initiative is £56.9bn, yet only 42.4 per cent of this debt has made it on to the Government's books. The £32.5bn that has not been accounted for represents a staggering 541 projects.


In itself, all this is not proof of a scam. Some projects have such significant risk and control transferred to the private sector that those companies, rather than the Government, should indeed account for the project.

However, the Government has often gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that it has transferred the risk. For example, AirTanker, the consortium set up to run the Government's £13bn mid-air refuelling programme, has been given ownership of the 14 aircraft in the scheme. This means that its shareholders, which include EADS and Rolls-Royce, will keep assets paid for by taxation when the 27-year contract ends. During that contract, AirTanker will also be free to hire out those assets for commercial gain. Yet insiders say the consortium itself never deman-ded sweeteners.


In the next few weeks the Treasury, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Frab will agree to a new PFI accounting guideline, making it more difficult for departments to use the PFI simply as a driver to get those hospitals and schools off their books.

Most pundits have assumed that this will automatically mean that most or even all of the £56.9bn will be treated as on-balance sheet. But many projects would undoubtedly remain on the private sector's books as it bears the brunt of the risk – a Ministry of Defence source confirms that AirTanker would never end up on its budget – and there is no guarantee that the Government will reassess the schemes that are already built and operational.

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: Executives: U.K. Refueler Deal Near Completion (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3417721&c=EUR&s=AIR)

LONDON - It's taken more than four years of talks, but senior executives from two of the companies in the consortium negotiating to provide Britain's Royal Air Force with a fleet of Airbus flight refueling tankers say they expect to seal the deal by the end of the month.

Thales U.K. Chief Executive Alex Dorrian told reporters here during a company briefing that he could see nothing to stop the deal from going ahead in the first quarter of the year, "unless the world comes to an end in the next fortnight."

Dorrian's view was echoed by Hans Peter Ring, EADS' chief financial officer. Speaking at the company's annual results presentation in Paris earlier March 11, he said the closing of the contract was due in the "next days or weeks."

EADS, Airbus' parent company, is the leading shareholder in the AirTanker consortium poised to complete a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deal to supply 14 Airbus A330 air refueling aircraft to the Royal Air Force. They will replace Britain's aging fleet of VC-10s and Tristars. Other AirTanker shareholders are Thales, Cobham, Rolls-Royce and the VT Group. The consortium was nominated in January 2004 to provide the fleet of A330s to the RAF for tanking and transport duties.

The negotiations have been dogged by a series of delays, in part caused by the complexity of what is the world's largest defense PFI deal. At one stage, the MoD threatened to pull out of the negotiations after it tangled with AirTanker over the terms of the deal. Even at the last minute, AirTanker hit a hitch when efforts to finance the deal became a victim of the credit crunch. Moves to raise the 2.5 billion pound ($5 billion) cost of building the aircraft on the credit markets had to be abandoned. The money will be loaned from the banks instead.

A spokesman for AirTanker said the consortium members were "really confident now, we are very well placed to meet the March 31 date." An MoD spokesman confirmed the two sides were undertaking final steps to complete the negotiations. Industry executives here reckon the MoD could even announce completion of the deal before Parliament breaks for its Easter recess later this month..........

[MarkD]

So by this point will it be Mr Northrop and Mr Grumman supplying Sir's tankers?

[Guzlin Adnams]

:sad: I read somewhere that the discussions on the scheme had cost £47m so far....... Just an ordinary bloke me, a taxpayer and all that. It does seem a lot of money to me, for talking....

[Squirrel 41]

G-A - yes indeed. How much are the tankers themselves?

Also heard that the KC-45 competition was "completely irrelevant" to the UK, and that we'd be stuck with our plainest of plain vanilla A330 tankers. After waiting so long for the damn things in the first place, it really takes the biscuit that we're not "reaping the synergies" of the US buy.

Out of interest has anyone (BEagle, Jacko, Pr00ne?) managed to disentangle the figures to work out the unit purchase cost of the FSTA and the comparable figure for the KC-45A, and then the differential life-cycle costs? It would be very interesting to see how much we're saving by giving up the higher-spec tanker.

S41

[Transall]

S41,

I found post #63 by FJ2ME in the "Northrop Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid" thread quite interesting.

:ugh:

Cheers, Transall.

[knowitall]

"Also heard that the KC-45 competition was "completely irrelevant" to the UK, and that we'd be stuck with our plainest of plain vanilla A330 tankers."

your almost certainly right, though i would have thought that the ability to carry cargo on the main deck might be attractive to the bidding consortium, even if the boom wasn't

wishfull thinking on my part i know

the other advantage to that being buy a couple of paletized Exec suites and you can utilise any of the fleet in the "Blair force one" role

[Squirrel 41]

Transall, thanks

Forgive me for being picky, but to demonstrate that the PFI (Poms are F:mad:ing Idiots, according to the RAAF CAS [allegedly]) is rubbish value for money, we need to show that the whole life costs of the RAF owning 14 x KC-45 is less than £27bn. (Figures may need a bit of fudge of RR engines vs GE ones, but there's unlikely to be too much in it, as Airbus seems to sell A330s with RR and GE engines, and if it were very one sided, I assume that they - and the airlines - wouldn't bother.)

If this can be done, then the PFI will fail the Government's public sector comparator and by its' own rules, will be compelled to opt for the KC-45.

Unless they wanted to be accused of spin and hypocrisy, of course.... :rolleyes:

S41

[pr00ne]

Where the actual aircraft come from in this contract is down to the winning consortium and not the MoD.
Air Tanker will own the actual assets so it is in their interests to source the airframes in the cheapest possible manner thus maximising profit.
As the airframe provider in the deal it will be EADS who will be responsible for this sourcing.

There has been much talk about a mix of new build and second hand airframes, well good luck in finding second hand A330 aircraft, they are like rocking horse teeth! The fleet will need to be standardised so a mix is, in my view, most unlikely.

Now, I am not sure what the US final assembly line completion dates are like but surely it will be nothing but economical good sense for EADS (NOT the MoD for whom economical good sense seems to be on a par with science fiction) to maximise the throughput of the US assembly line and put an additional 14 non boom equipped airframes through?

There will be no pain for EADS or it's Airbus subsidiary as it just means final assembly in Mobile as opposed to Toulouse.

Interesting to see if this is a possibility.

Pr00ne

BTW;
WHAT is this US obsession with all Airbus products being French? The French make the nose sections for all and bolt some of the things together, they are as much British or German as they are French with the actual content of most, if they are fitted with RR engines, being over 60% British.

[Severus]

Squirrel 41

The reality is that we would only need to cost 9 x FSTA airframes, as the remaining 5 airframes are on long lease with industry on 30 days recall for major operations. As these 5 ac are planned for contingency use on AT rather than AAR tasks, DSCOM could just hire passenger ac from the civilian market. Admittedly civilian ac would not be equipped with DAS, but we could always cross deck the pax on to C130s for the last leg if the threat required it.

Of course, if we decided not to put a FSTA aircraft in the Falklands to fly a few hundred hours per year tanking, but instead used an A400 to tank the FJs then we would only need 8 x FSTA!! How can that cost £27Bn?

[Squirrel 41]

Pr00ne, Servus

Many thanks for your thoughts. It is clearly rght that the MoD couldn't grasp economics if they're lives depended on it. And it woud make sense to have single design, but I understood that FSTA is only going to provide 2 point tanking, with no cargo door, no UAARSI refueling receptacle, strengthened floor and cargo handling system of the KC-45A (let alone the boom).

So better phrased, how much extra would it cost HMG to have the KC-45A design (costs with / without boom most helpful) with RR engines rather than pax airliner wiht 2 x pods? Becuase only with information could you see whether the marginal cost of the additional capabilty was good or bad value for money. I suspect that it could be marginal, and though we only operate C-17s, E-3D and KC-45s with the boom, we could be in a position ot b much more flexible on coalition ops with those that prefer the boom.

Just my 0.02,

S41

[Roland Pulfrew]

Hmmm

A few bits of dangerous misinformation starting to appear.

As these 5 ac are planned for contingency use on AT rather than AAR tasks

Incorrect. FSTA fleet sizing is/was always based on the pure AAR task, as in Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. AT was never allowed to be a driver for FSTA fleet sizing, with the exception of a number of "core" AT tasks.

Regrettably there was always an erroneous assumption that "AT can always be chartered" - Oh how we laughed and how we have been proved right!! Any assumption that 5 ac are for contingency AT shows a worrying lack of understanding of the KURs (if that's what they are still called).

Squirrel

Regrettably you are partially correct. A number of FSTA will be equipped with centreline refuelling capability - there are still a number of receivers out there that require it - C130, A400, E3, R1 and MRA4(?).

There wil be no cargo door as AT was never a driver for FSTA and of course there are very few airlines out there that want this capability on their bucket and spade jets.

FSTA will not be able to refuel in flight though and a boom was not a UK requirement (Oh apart from the E3 and now the C17 - never saw that coming did we?!?!?)

Sadly Squirrel you can't really blame the MOD on this one, PFI was directed by the government. Every one knows that PFI is more expensive for the taxpayer in the long run but it solved a short term problem for the chancellor - oh and now it looks like it will becoming back to bite the new chancellor (and his boss) in the bum.

source the airframes in the cheapest possible manner thus maximising profit

Maximising "gainshare":yuk: surely, pr00ne

[Severus]

Roland,

You are right in that the original requirement for FSTA was based on AAR tasking, however it became apparent during the Assessment Phase that without the AT tasking the PFI was even more unaffordable than it is now. Therefore AT was included in scope of the project although the title was never changed for presentational reasons (HM Treasury might ask why we were permanently hiring pax ac as opposed to spot hiring pax lift), and the decision to settle on 9+5 ac was the result of modelling on the total AT and ARR requirement. Slightly more than 50% of the ac and 50% of the peacetime AFT requirement is now based on AT.

I also agree that charter can't always be hired direct to the final destination, but in recent years we have always managed to hire ac for as much of the route as we put out to the market. However, sometimes the boot is on the other foot; the Army couldn't understand why we in theatre were being resupplied by commercial freighters whilst 2 Gp refused to fly in a Tristar or VC10 prior to the fitting of LAIRCM!

Squirrel 41

For AT tasks the FSTA will be in the same as any commercial A330, i.e. all seats, and no cargo door or floor on the main deck. Despite the IPT for years trying to tell the world that DAC could be carried in the hold, it means we are taking a step backwards compared to the KC1.

Surely, new capability should improve on the old. Instead we will get an ac that can't move frt except for non-dangerous cargo in hold baggage bins, doesn't have the flexibility to undertake mixed pax/frt/AAR tasks, can't land at many of the airfields used by the VC10, is too large for many small pax moves, and with only 9 ac available to us daily the ac will be overstretched to meet the daily tasking.

End result for pax and frt tasks: pay more, get less!!

[pr00ne]

Squirrel,

Design is the responsibility of the contractor not MoD, they have to deliver a capability not a specific aeroplane type. If it is cheaper to take a non boom equipped KC-45 clone off the Mobile production line and use that to provide the basis for the 14 a/c fleet then I cannot see how that would cost the MoD anything additional.

As to the core fleet of 9 with 5 out on long term lease, I have yet to come across any airline who thinks that is a practical proposition, for them OR for the consortium. If the present circumstances do not comprise of surge conditions requiring the utilisaton of the entire fleet then I find it hard to concieve of just what would.


Gainshare? There has to BE a profit to your bottom line first beflore you can even consider sharing it with the customer.
Anyone like to place a bet on just how much 'gainshare' the MoD ever sees out of this partucular deal?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Severus

That is even more worrying....

Therefore AT was included in scope of the project... and the decision to settle on 9+5 ac was the result of modelling on the total AT and AAR requirement. Slightly more than 50% of the ac and 50% of the peacetime AFT requirement is now based on AT.


That is illogical. If the original requirement was to meet the DSG tasks and the number of aircraft required to meet the AAR requirement was 14 (actually it was more than that + 1 spare) and that only included core AT, how can the fleet sizing go down when more AT is brought into core?

So we need fewer aircraft to do more tasks at maximum concurrency?

Something stinks?

[Widger]

Following up an earlier comment.. GOLD is now at record levels! 6 O' clock news.

[VinRouge]

Oh bugger. There goes the American economy. Last time there was a situation like this (mahoosive spending to fund far-flung wars in the name of religion) I believe was the Ottoman Empire, and we know how that one went! Funny old thing the last time gold reached this price, it was because Nixon turned the US $ fiat to pay for the Vietnam war....

CNNFN were talking today about 2 medium to large US banks going under, together with another load of hedge funds... This is going to get interesting.

Ah well, a good time to be buying more C-130J's and C-17's no? Together with any other gucci pieces of kit. Shame Labour have pissed all the money up the wall on social welfare programmes that have created a generation of Chavs..

Oh, and we arent even half way through the credit crunch yet!!!

Pr00ne, you must be reet proud of the mess this government has got us in to, being a spokesman for the Noo Labour and all...

[harrogate]

For anyone who missed it last time:

FSTA Update (http://www.freewebs.com/ministryofdements/index.htm)

[LFFC]

The Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d9b5d2a-f768-11dc-ac40-000077b07658.html) - 22 Mar 08

Ministers plan to place a contract with the AirTanker consortium next week, according to defence sources, kick-starting a deal worth about £13bn over 27 years. It follows the expected completion of a finance package, more than four years after the EADS-led consortium was selected as preferred bidder.

At last!

[mary_hinge]

Based on the assumption that this deal is finalised by the end March 2008, what is the forecast ISD date for the 1st Airframe.


Based on the assumption that this deal is finalised by the end March 2008, what is the forecast date for the 1st excuse of a programme slippage and why the ISD date will slip?:E

[SidHolding]

No rumours of when this week then?

[LFFC]

RAF in private deal for mid-air tankers - The Times Wed 26 Mar 08 (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3621599.ece)

The Ministry of Defence will announce the largest private finance initiative (PFI) so far tomorrow with a £13 billion deal to buy a new fleet of air-refuelling tankers

Shame about the picture!

[Squirrel 41]

Well, that's pretty good news in the sense that the capability may appear but all of the previous comments appear to remain valid. However, there's some good news about PFI - when they don't work, you can buy them out - as El Ken's Transport for London did a week or so ago: http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4792

So there's some hope that we can bring them in house.... maybe....

S41

[D-IFF_ident]

Is this the announcement we've been holding our breaths for:

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/press%20releases/Contract-closure-press-release-27308.doc

Yay :D etc

[Roland Pulfrew]

Frying pan and hat for one please!!;)

I still think 14 is rather a small number given current ops, but it's better than having to keep the old 10s running on for another 10 years.


Although I was looking forward to an invite to the 50th anniversary dining-in.:E

[tonyosborne]

An impressively absurd rip-off if I ever saw one. How can Airtanker and the MoD come up with a figure of £13 billion for 14 aircraft, it's just beyond stupidity...

[pr00ne]

tonyosborne,

It's for 14 aircraft, new build hangars and infrastructure, simulators, spares, training, maintenance, ground support equipment, fleet management and flight operations support, design and certification over 27 years.

You trying doing that for less.............................

[tonyosborne]

I think that's rather possible, there are numerous airlines around the world who have managed to achieve the same with considerably larger fleets of A330s which are flying more hours the day under heavier strain.

Put simply an A330-200 will not cost £1 billion over 25 years...

[pr00ne]

tonyosborne,

Put simply and totally wrongly!

It's NOT for 14 aircraft, it's for total provision of the fleet and it's entire operation and support for 27 years. They are not airliners and will not be flying an airline operation when operated by the RAF so the comparison is meaningless. They are going to be fully certified military tanker transports.

Don't get me wrong, I think a PFI for this capability is a nonsense but we just do not have the cash up front now.

[Squirrel 41]

pr00ne,

Completely agree that PFI is a scandal for this - but would take a small amount of issue with your comment,

"but we just do not have the cash up front now".

Surely what you mean is:

"The Government has chosen not to fund this as a conventional procurement because it wants to spend money in other areas, and therefore is prepared to pay a higher through life cost for a more limited capability"

Or more bluntly

"We're getting a PFI deal because the Government is not interested in recapitalising defence as it has done with the NHS"

Yes? No?

S41

[pr00ne]

Squirrel 41,


Did you listen to the last budget?

[8-15fromOdium]

Am I missing something? The USAF are getting 179 Aircraft provided by Airbus for £20bn we are getting 14 from the self same company for £13bn. I understand that they are being procured in different ways, but even then ... that must be a hell of a lot of 'support' we are getting.

[pr00ne]

8-15fromOdium,

Yes, you are missing oodles and oodles!

The USAF are buying 179 aircraft for £20bn, the RAF are acquiring a total capability for 27 years for £13bn.

The USAF will have to spend a fortune on supporting that fleet for the next 27 years which will add hugely to that £20bn total, the RAF will not.

[tonyosborne]

No, they will be flying significantly less than airliners, and the infrastructure, simulators, spares, training, maintenance, ground support equipment, fleet management and flight operations support, design and certification that you previously mention just doesn't add up in terms of cost.

This aircraft is now a virtually off-the-shelf product with the Aussie purchase and the KC-45 programme, a bare minimum of design and certification should be required.

[pr00ne]

tonyosbourne,


...................over 27 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VARIABLE_KNIFE]

Another kick in the teeth for the UK military. How much infrastructure work has been done at BZN under CATARA? How are the civilians who run the ops side of things going to integrate? How much do we get charged extra if 6 Typhoons pitch up on a towline instead of the fragged 4?

PFI = short sighted nonsense, as someone previously mentioned the Chief of the RAAF summed it up.....utter rubbish.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Some good news from the MOD. A PFI may not be ideal, the aircraft may be too few in number, but at least FSTA is on the horizon.

£13 billion deal for new Tanker Aircraft signed (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/13BillionDealForNewTankerAircraftSigned.htm)

[Squirrel 41]

*****e,

Ok, I get it, this is to pay for the next 27 years. But in their press release, AirTanker state that they're raising 2.5 bn quid - which implies a lot of service if the total cost to UK taxpayers is 13bn (or c. 0.5bn / pa).

It may be that the numbers add up - I don't know, I've not seen them; but an equally important point to the value for money (vfm) one is this: what happens if the PFI provider starts losing money? It does happen, and as we saw with the Tube PPP / PFI fiasco, if they lose enough money, then the private sector walks away, leaving the state to take over if the service is sufficiently important. And an RAF without AAR is capable of doing....?

So in effect, we've written the classic "heads you win, tails I lose" contract with the private sector, which in the case that they lose money we still pick up the tab and under every other scenario, they make a profit.

Why?

Simply because this government - freely elected, and in power to make these choices - has decided not to find the capital to purchase these mission-critical assets.

And it's that that I have a problem with.... :*

S41

PS, the last budget was the chickens of Brown + Balls' profligacy in a favourable economic climate since about 1999 coming home to roost. See "The Economist", passim.

None of which should have any impact on FSTA as it should've been ordered years ago when, ooh look, there was plenty of cash at HMT. :=

[Edited for spollink and PS]

[polyglory]

One thing for sure ,we can play all day with the figures etc.

Leasing should not be an option at all, one would have thought we had learnt a few things with the leasing of the C17.

At least the RAAF got it right:ok:

[Roland Pulfrew]

It's NOT for 14 aircraft, it's for total provision of the fleet and it's entire operation and support for 27 years.

pr00ne

I am intrigued by your interest in this, you aren't one of those "advising" the MOD are you. Sadly you are also wrong. It isn't a 27 year capability, it's at best 24 years and at worst a 20 year capability. The 27 years comprised 3 years of assessment, D&D, and work-up to the introduction to service. 4 years of transition with full fleet availability not until the 4th year and then 20 years of full service delivery.

Hat slowly frying in pan as we speak!!:ouch:

[pr00ne]

Roland,

NO involvement on the MoD side I can assure you, and no direct involvement with the consortium.

27 years? The contract is pretty clear;

"London, 27th March 2008 - AirTanker and its Shareholders (Cobham, EADS, Rolls-Royce, Thales UK and VT Group) have TODAY signed a 27-year contract with the UK Ministry of Defence for the provision of an advanced Air to Air Refuelling and Air Transport capability for the Royal Air Force"

Squirel 41,

The £2.5bn is direct funding raised by the consortium, the £13bn is the amount the MoD will pay over the 27 year life of the contract for the provision of the service. They only pay for it when it is being used by the RAF on an as and when basis.

Of course, the fact that this is off balance sheet debt for the Government is only a MINOR consideration.....................

[f4aviation]

Contract start dates can always be back-dated...

[rolandpull]

Never mind all the money hullabaloo, what colour are the 'commercial' jets gonna be painted? Grey or in the house colours of a certain charter broker down Gatwick way? I suppose a good IFE fit is not going to be an option?

[Squirrel 41]

Depsite my anger with the way this has been funded, I should say that I'm very pleased we're finally going to get the tankers (too expensive, not KC-45A blah blah) but a step forward for the crews and maintainers of 101.

pr00ne

You very eloquently make my point.

13bn pounds less 2.5bn pounds borrowed = 10.5 bn pounds.

For these 10.5bn pounds over 20 or 27 years (suitably discounted so actually less, but without the payment profile impossible to provide an npv figure) the RAF is paying for "services" - presumably second and thrid line maintenance (I'm assuming that first line is light blue?), sim training and other "stuff". Within this other "stuff" is interest on the consortium's debt and profit.

This leads to a number of comments:

(i) no-one in the UK can borrow as cheaply as HMG on balance sheet and therefore we're over-paying for Airtanker's debt, and

(ii) is 10.5bn quid for "stuff" actually value for money?

(iii) How will we ever know?

(iv) How much profit will Airtanker make? Is it actually getting the best price for the kit, or, like the members of the Metronet consortium that made such a shambles of the tube - and reneged on the contract when it couldn't make any money, speaking volumes about the "risk transfer" to the private sector - charging the PFI company top-whack for their individual bit?

Again, doubtless, we'll never know. (Commercial in confidence, etc etc)

(v) BTW, does anyone know who's liable for replacing on in the event that it gets pranged, mortared at a FOB or (god forbid) crashes? Can't see it being Airtanker somehow....

And pr00ne - pls check PMs

All the best,

S41

[Cannonfodder]

Airtanker have updated their web site to reflect the news of a contract signature. Interesting to see that the in service date of 2011 is for the AT element and we wont get any tanking out of them until at least 2014!

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/business-timeline.htm

[Squirrel 41]

So, on that timescale it's just possible that the last VC-10s may make it to Nov 2015 - and therefore score a VC-10 "50" in RAF service.*

*If Wikipedia is right that the first C1 was delivered on 26 Nov 65, and we're prepared to honour date of test flying rather than operations, (Dec 66 according to Wiki).

S41

[Dr Schlong]

Any thoughts on what the Sqn number will be? A continuation as 101 or something else? :confused:

[Hot Charlie]

Assuming 101 keeps the 10s going until 2015ish, then one would assume another identity would be taken up. 44 or 57 perhaps?

[pr00ne]

10, it's a magic number...................................................

[Roland Pulfrew]

Surely it will go on seniority (cue debate on how the RAF calculates seniority). Assuming that 216 (16 RNAS) Sqn will be around beyond 2015, then it falls to 10 and 101. IIRC 101 has the edge on seniority.:E

[Jackonicko]

Cough! 206. Cough!

[South Bound]

Surely the aircraft will arrive in a stagger allowing a serving sqn to convert to type, or must we really go through the faff of 'standing up' another sqn only to watch one be stood down a few months later???

[rolandpull]

Question. Will all these jets operate under a civvy AOC?

[RS30]

May I suggest a brand new trade name for this contract...

"I can't believe its not charter!" :suspect:

[ScufferEng]

I would be surprised if it were 101 Sqn as I assume there will be some overlap when the FSTA comes on line. However seeing that running the mighty Vickers fun bus is bankrupting Northern Rock -eh sorry....the government, they may choose to retire the old girl at the first oppurtunity.:D

[BlackWater01]

... any latest news about this never ending italian tanker story?

[BEagle]

The last I heard, they were still having problems with the AAR pods - something rather essential on a tanker. And I've yet to see any photos of it conducting any wet offloads to receivers through the pods.

The Italian aircraft (converted airliners, not full-up KC-767As) seem to be blessed with the same 'no windows, crap seats' Rendition-class passenger seating as most other Yank tankers. Nice... Narrower cabin than the A310MRTT too. Which, of course, has proper airline seating.

I understand that the Italians might get one 767 later this year?

They trusted Boeing. Wadda mistake-a to make-a!

[Jig Peter]

Beagle, I think I saw somwhere last week a shot of the Italian KC-767 refuelling from a KC-135 (but not giving any out from the pods ) but I can't remember where ... Another very late programme making justa leetla bitta progressa ???

[Brain Potter]

I understand that the IAF wanted a windowless, austere seating arrangement to prevent the aircraft being being nabbed for VIP transport duties. It may seem like a strange decision but their internal politics are notoriously complex.

At least they were wise enough to specify a freight door and a receiver capability.

[Jackonicko]

Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares....

The 206 numberplate won't be available, as the mighty octopus is soon to make a return in sunny Wiltshire......

[BEagle]

I think I saw somwhere last week a shot of the Italian KC-767 refuelling from a KC-135

Are you sure it wasn't Boeing's picture of one KC-767 refuelling from another?

The KC-30A has also been successfully practising contacts against the A310MRTT; the A310MRTT has been refuelling fighters for several years now and the KC-30A has also conducted wet offloads.

Whereas, unless I'm very much mistaken, the KC-767 has yet to refuel anything except from the boom.

[NURSE]

or should we tag onto the US Tanker order when they go for the Beoing 777?


Personally I think PFI should be scrapped and we buy the airbus product.

[Farfrompuken]

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | PFI 'may need government funds' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7891475.stm)

Looks interesting.

As predicted, really.

[Guzlin Adnams]

:E Will be interesting to see McCyclops and his band of near do wells squirm and spin now. Try to justify less a/c when there aren't enough to start with.

[BEagle]

Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.......

No wonder the OzAF realised that PFI was an utter crock and that they needed to buy their own tankers.

And next, perhaps that utter nonsense of MFTS?

[pr00ne]

"Oh dear, what a pity, never mind......." indeed............

With the Tories very probably soon to take office they REALLY must be rueing the day they invented PFI..............

[BEagle]

With the Tories very probably soon to take office they REALLY must be rueing the day they invented PFI..............

Perhaps. But years of nuLabor have continued to perpetuate the folly.

The MFTS business model must look somewhat...:\...'interesting' right now.

How lucky you and I were to go through training when the RAF could afford all those Chipmunks, Jet Provosts, Gnats, Varsities etc, as well as QFIs to fly them and military aerodromes from which to operate them.

[The Real Slim Shady]

The 330 and FSTA program is another Govt lemon.

14 airframes to replace all the existing AAR and AT assets.

When will they get time to service the poor things?

[Jig Peter]

I knew I was one of the lucky ones when I got my wings in 1950 (Prentice/Harvard) and then went on to fly such "fast" types as Various Vampires, Meteors, Venom FB1s and Canberras (also various). I was also a bit jealous when I left of those about to get the new kit (like Jags, Phantoms and Buccaneers) that "policy" prevented "my" generation from getting.*
But it's even more sad/angry-making when I read these posts and see what's happened since ...
You're right, Beagle ! (and I think yours was/is a good generation after mine).:cool:

*PS Not to mention TSR2 ... (NOT, I said !!!).:{

[giblets]

The KC-30A has also been successfully practising contacts against the A310MRTT; the A310MRTT has been refuelling fighters for several years now and the KC-30A has also conducted wet offloads.

Whereas, unless I'm very much mistaken, the KC-767 has yet to refuel anything except from the boom.

What is the latest in the KC-30? Has it done wet offloads with the boom AND drogues?

If not, what is the time scale on these?

Cheers

[Art Field]

P R E S S R E L E A S E

FSTA WINGS TAKE FLIGHT

Broughton, UK , 25 February 2009 – AirTanker announces the completion of the first set of Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) wings today. Witnessed by Quentin Davies MP, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, these wings will be loaded into a Beluga transport aircraft at Airbus in the UK's Broughton facility for their onward journey to Bremen, Germany, for final equipping (which includes the fitment of the high lift devices) and then Toulouse, France, for final assembly.

The FSTA fleet of 14 new Airbus A330-200s will replace the RAF’s TriStar and VC-10 aircraft, under a £13 billion PFI deal signed on 27 March 2008. The aircraft – which will be owned and operated by AirTanker under the terms of the deal - will undertake air to air refuelling and passenger air transport tasks. The aircraft will enter service in 2011, to serve for three decades.

Witnessing the wings leaving Broughton, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support Quentin Davies MP said:

“Today’s wing ceremony marks a significant stage in the life of the Future Strategic Air Tanker and is good news for the RAF and good news for industry and UK jobs.

These state-of-the-art tanker aircraft will provide an important contribution to operations, enabling the RAF to continue its essential air to air refuelling tasks, as well as providing more reliable and economical transport for our personnel, delivering them to the heart of our operations around the world.”

Phill Blundell, AirTanker CEO, said:

“We are all delighted to see the completion of this early milestone in the delivery of the FSTA programme. Everyone has worked extremely hard to ensure that we meet our targets and we are all very excited to see the first aircraft taking shape.

“The FSTA programme will provide the MOD and the RAF with the most advanced transport and refuelling equipment, representing a step-change in performance. The new Airbus A330 FSTA fleet will deliver unrivalled levels of capability, and AirTanker Services, working with the MOD, will put the new fleet and service in place.”

[Saintsman]

The wings will still need modifying if they want to put pods on them. So they are not 'FSTA' wings per say.

[BEagle]

You know, I think they know that......:rolleyes:

The AAR pods on the KC30A / A330 MRTT are installed on the outboard engine pylon points of the common A330 / A340 wing.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

There is no need for a bespoke FSTA wing per se!

[Art Field]

According to Air Tankers own figures it will be 2014 before they will be able to provide an AAR service to the RAF. That is 15 years after the Invitation to Tender was issued. Good thing there is no hurry!

[glad rag]

PICTURES: Wings for RAF?s first A330 tanker head for assembly (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/27/323208/pictures-wings-for-rafs-first-a330-tanker-head-for.html)

[pma 32dd]

France closing on structure of tanker deal: AirTanker (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/28/323207/france-closing-on-structure-of-tanker-deal-airtanker.html)

So now the French are in and have seen through the PFI idea - always wondered where Scoffham went to. :suspect:

[Art Field]

Wonder how the French like being addressed as 'Shag'?

[Cannonfodder]

When the first airframe arrives in 2011, will it be a passenger ac or have the tanker bits fitted and actually be able to provide a tanker service?
I was led to believe that the first one will only be a pax jet and we won't have any FSTA tankers until 2014ish!

[BEagle]

Art Field, perhaps I should point him to this thread?

It was the RAAF who 'saw through' the PFI concept. I understand it was described, quite accurately, with the usual mildly-spoken antipodean epithets......:D

The C135FR is to have a significant upgrade programme to keep it in service until the A330 MRTT is available to take over.

Somehow I don't quite see the French choosing the KC-767A.........:D

[Cannonfodder]

My question is not as stupid as you think BEagle.
I was talking to someone involved with AirTanker the other week and they were of the view the first airframe will indeed be delivered as a fully fledged tanker, quite contrary to the AirTanker websites timeline.

[sycamore]

Has the C-130J been cleared for AAR yet ?And are there any thoughts on a `J` tanker for the Tactical roles,such as Herk-Herk/Chinook/Merlin, with outboard pods and a `scab` pod on the fuselage like the IL-76/C-160,and use the fuselage tanks from the Vc10 inside ? or would that be too much to consider ?

[Man-on-the-fence]

The J Tanker is not possible due to the T&Cs of the Airtanker contract.

AKA a stitchup

[Saintsman]

The AAR pods on the KC30A / A330 MRTT are installed on the outboard engine pylon points of the common A330 / A340 wing.


There is no need for a bespoke FSTA wing per se!

Unfortunately the pods are not hung on the outboard engine pylon points of an A330 wing because there aren't any. Neither is the wing strengthened at that point (why would you want un-necessary weight?). The wings are the same in size and shape only. There are considerable modifications to be done at the rib 26 position before the pods and pylons can be fitted.

[BEagle]

Well, that's interesting. Old documents indicated that A340 wings would be modified for FSTA by installing pods, rather than engines, on the outboard pylon points.

However, perhaps now that A340-200/300 production is all but complete, that 'simple' concept is no longer in the frame - and A330 wings are now required?

But, as I say, it is a long time since I was given that information.

[D-IFF_ident]

Interested to know your sources for that info Saintsman. I've read elsewhere that the A330 MRTT and derivatives thereof are specifically being built with A340 wings, so that they will have the hardpoints and plumbing in-place.

[XV277]

Is it time to open the debate about what it should be called?

[Brain Potter]

A330 KC Mk 1?

I can't see the point of making up a different name to add to the model number; it wasn't done for the VC10 or HS125. Even if the RAF give it a name, it will always be known as the A330 because that's what the rest of the world call theirs.

Does anyone else remember it initially being touted as having the A340 centre-body gear to alleviate ACN/PCN issues? Or am I just dreaming?

[XV277]

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Dave'.

How about 'Len' - Late, Expensive (on the) Nevernever

[Saintsman]

Interested to know your sources for that info Saintsman. I've read elsewhere that the A330 MRTT and derivatives thereof are specifically being built with A340 wings, so that they will have the hardpoints and plumbing in-place.

I was fortunate enough to have a look at the first Aussie MRTT whilst it was being modded at Getaffe and had a good look at the CATIA drawings. Before that I too was led to believe that the wings were the same.

I suppose its not worth the cost of new jigs to have them built in-situe. Similarly its the same for the fuselage. Airbus would have made the complete aircraft bespoke if it had been worth it.

[glhcarl]

I have read several replys where it has been stated that the fourteen (14) FSTA aircraft will be used to replace the RAF VC-10's and TriStars. However, unless the contract has been restructured in the last few years I was lead to believe that the RAF was only going to operated 9 of the aircraft at any one time, with the remainder in cilivan service. The five reserve aircraft could be modified and put into service as needed with a like number being de-modiferd and returned to cilivian service. That was the public/private part of the program?

Has that all changed?

[D-IFF_ident]

I've not read the contracts or seen the aircraft, but I had heard that the RAAF KC30A was specifically ordered with the A340 wing - because of the extra hardpoints, plumbing and an extra spar. FSTA, on the other hand, was ordered with the A330 wing, to be modified.

The extra centre gear would be nice - don't both wings share a common centre section with space for the gear blanked on the 330? I would guess it was ditched due to weight penalties.

As for a name... The "A330 MRTT FSTA KC-30A KC-30B KC-45" is a bit of a mouthful.

[GreenKnight121]

Cousin of Frankentanker.

Its sounding less and less like the "off-the-shelf" item it was supposed to be (in any of its mutations).

[The Real Slim Shady]

FSTA wont happen.

Look at the history.

TSR2, NIMWACS.

FRES.

Dreams.

[cornish-stormrider]

Soon to be seen on a street corner near you...........
Some Jock Tw4t who destroyed this country to a level undreamed of by any other. And he shall be saying

" spare a copper guv, I need to fund a whloe county. I gave all our money away, and the bit I didn't give away I wasted on some crap or other to try and buy enough voters to make sure I would follow Tone into the top job........."

Shame this useless one-eyed nostril miner has crippled this country. Him and his fat bwankers that gave such sound financial advice.....

I stand by last years comment about canned food and shotguns. Does anyone know where I can get hold of an UZI?