RAF A330s

[fmgc]

See in FI this week that the RAF are going to be getting some shiny new A330s some of which will be given to airlines to use, that can then be put back into military use in 5 days.

I had heard this rumour some time ago.

Anybody know which airlines are going to be operating these A330s?

[A4]

easyJet! :ok:

[Skipness One Echo]

Has been around for years and still not signed off. Worst idea ever ! ( with apologies to Comic Book Guy )

[Cpt_Pugwash]

http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/NR/rdonlyres/07D71332-D407-4861-A288-BBC5606E2154/0/c_logo_des.gif£13 billion deal for new Tanker Aircraft signed27/03/2008A fleet of new Air Transport and Refuelling Airbus A330-200s will replace the RAF's TriStar and VC-10 aircraft under a £13 billion Private Finance Initiative deal signed today, Thursday 27 March 2008.
http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/DefenceIntranet/Templates/GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/3CD0A5CE-70D1-421E-AE1D-C1945713A933/0/AirbusPFI1.jpg&maxSize=203 (http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3CD0A5CE-70D1-421E-AE1D-C1945713A933/0/AirbusPFI1.jpg)A computer generated image of the A330-200 Airbus in flight [Copyright: AirTanker 2008]
The deal with AirTanker Ltd, which was announced by Baroness Taylor, the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, expects to create up to 600 jobs at AirTanker Ltd, and will safeguard up to 3,000 jobs directly at British sites, with thousands more sustained indirectly.

The aircraft – which will be owned by AirTanker under the terms of the deal, but fly in RAF 'colours' – will undertake air-to-air refuelling and passenger air transport tasks. The aircraft are expected to enter service around 2011, to serve for three decades.

Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Baroness Taylor, said:

"This deal represents great news for the Royal Air Force and great news for British industry and jobs. The A330s will provide a state-of-the-art air-to-air tanker and passenger aircraft supporting operations around the world and delivering British forces to operational theatres.


"Achieving a satisfactory outcome to this complex, high value, PFI deal has been challenging, particularly given the factors currently affecting the financial markets. I congratulate all those involved in securing this cost effective deal."

Commenting on the announcement, Phil Blundell, CEO of AirTanker, said:

"This is a major step forward for the MOD and AirTanker. The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme provides the MOD and RAF with state-of-the-art transport and refuelling equipment, which represents a step-change in performance. The Airbus A330 FSTA fleet will deliver unrivalled levels of capability, reliability, flexibility and economy to the UK Armed Forces. We are looking forward hugely to working with the MOD to put in place the new fleet and service."

http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/DefenceIntranet/Templates/GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/B738CE3D-452C-4100-B79C-CCFFED96550D/0/AirbusPFI3.jpg&maxSize=203 (http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B738CE3D-452C-4100-B79C-CCFFED96550D/0/AirbusPFI3.jpg)Comparison chart of the new A330-200 Airbus and the VC10 K3 [Copyright: AirTanker 2008]Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff, said:

"This is a very welcome announcement. Air-to-air refuelling and strategic airlift are fundamental to the UK's expeditionary capability and the Future Tanker is a crucial element of that capability. The A330-200 is an extremely versatile aircraft, which is ideally suited to our requirements, and I look forward both to the aircraft's introduction in 2011, and the significant private investment in the infrastructure at RAF Brize Norton. Overall, this is excellent news for the RAF and for the UK's Armed Forces."

Since June 2007 the Department has been working with AirTanker to raise the necessary private sector funding. Despite the current turbulence in the world's financial markets, AirTanker has successfully secured the necessary funding.

The FSTA fleet will customarily carry a minimum of 80 tonnes (100,000 litres) of aviation fuel per aircraft roughly equivalent to the capacity of 2,500 Mini Cooper petrol tanks (at 40 litres each).

The total fuel dispensing rate from the aircraft is approximately 5,000 litres/min or about 80 litres per second. The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as an F1 pit stop. Using all three refuelling points, you could fill 125 Mini Coopers a minute – more than two a second.

[BSD]

I'm absolutely certain that the A330 is the best tanker for the job. PFI financing though? Bonkers.

As for leasing the aeroplanes to airline operators: it may have been a gimmick to persuade people that the cost can be constrained and thus greater value for money found in the project, for just a second though, lets think about it.

1. You are offered an aeroplane which is not entirely compatible with the rest of your fleet. Weights may be significantly heavier, fuel burn, payload potential, range, etc., may all be adversely affected.

2. What of the cabin fit? Most A330s in use in the UK have superbly fitted cabins, with extensive IFE suites. Pull that in and out in 5 days? Are the wing mounted pods going to stay in place? I surely hope not, it will take your favourite handling agent in XXXX just a moment to knock one off with the bowser/steps/baggage trolleys/catering trucks as it is not the same as the regular 'plane.

3. What guarantee will there be that as an operator you have the aeroplane when you need it. HMG picks a fight with someone, and hey presto! you have to surrender that lift capacity which you had banked on and indeed sold ahead for the next few months. It will be one heck of a contract to write, accept, sign up to. Sounds like you'll get 5 days notice that your LGW-XXX is now cancelled 'cause your 'plane is pumping gas.

4. What rates will you be charged/pay for the use of said tanker in a pax config? Will it be les than the going rate in the market for a similar type. If it is, then even I as a mere airline pilot could make a darned good case for anti-competitive practices, along the lines of state-sponsored assets being made available to certain customers putting them in an advantageous position in relation to thier competitors.

Is this a practical idea? I think not. A typically ill-informed plan by the present government which will result in only one thing: A ton of money heading to the lawyers who get involved.

Is it just a coincidence that so many ministers in HMG are ex-lawyers?

The nation needs a military force which is well-equipped, and capable. This will not facilitate it.

BSD.

[KiloB]

Can a Mini Cooper maintain 250kts with the fuel flap open? :O

[J.O.]

Doesn't passenger transport operations mean movement of military personnel in this case?

[Wader2]

Doesn't passenger transport operations mean movement of military personnel in this case?

Reading the quotes above, yes. What was said before, no.

Mil Transport Ops makes sense. Apart from the refuelling kit the tanker version will also need military IFF/SIF, UHF, possibly night vision kit even if only external for the receivers, maybe a countermeasures suite.

Then you may find some airports closed to military aircraft even if the aircraft was full of tourists.

[flipflopman RB199]

Does this mean that RAF personnel posted onto these aircraft will be required to gain an EASA Pt66 B1/2 licence, in order to sign the aircraft off as serviceable? Currently the RAF and Civair operate very differently, but surely complete commonality will be required if the jets are to be seamlessly handed back to the airlines.

Who would be paying for that to happen, and what retention problems would that cause within the Engineering branches of the RAF. Work as a Licenced Sgt/Chf Tech on £35k, or as a A330 Type rated Licenced engineer in Civvy street on £50+k? :confused:


Flipflopman

[Timmyflyer]

The 'passenger transport' part...does mean the transport of forces personnel and their families to destinations worldwide(well not so worldwide anymore).

[airborne_artist]

The FSTA fleet will customarily carry a minimum of 80 tonnes (100,000 litres) of aviation fuel per aircraft roughly equivalent to the capacity of 2,500 Mini Cooper petrol tanks (at 40 litres each).

The total fuel dispensing rate from the aircraft is approximately 5,000 litres/min or about 80 litres per second. The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as an F1 pit stop. Using all three refuelling points, you could fill 125 Mini Coopers a minute – more than two a second.

How far could you drive a double-decker bus on that quantity of fuel? :ok:

[Safety_Helmut]

flipflop

The last time I saw a presentation on this, and it was a while ago, that had all had been very carefully thought through. There was certainly an intention to maintain them to meet all of the civvy requirements. One of the main priorities seemed to be to avoid the award of licences etc to people who would then jump ship.

Sorry :(

S_H

[Chris Scott]

With 2000hrs P2 on civilian VC10s, it will be a very sad day for me to see the “Ten” grounded, but the A330 should be a worthy replacement. [Perhaps the B777 would be even better, but it’s not available, has non-British wings, and is probably just too large.]

The deal for the purchase, however, sounds to be the kind of political fudge for which this Administration is already famous. We continue increasingly to over-commit our armed forces, while trying to avoid spending money on core equipment. I’m sure generations of crews would agree that it is a mark of the quality of the airframe, and the integrity of its 1962-technology systems, that the VC10 has − touch wood − managed to serve in the RAF without major incident (if memory serves) for over 40 years, many of them in at least two rôles.

Now that there is no alternative but to replace them, the Government wants to do it on a shoe-string, while continuing to pour your money and mine into a defunct bank. Given the choice, I would rather donate less than £100 of tax to this purchase than another penny into Northern Rock.

Moving on, can someone tell us non-RAF types whether the existing VC10 tankers are used also as transports, and how long it takes to re-configure them for a transport mission? The idea of an airline using such an aeroplane to fly fare-paying passengers sounds totally off the wall. For a start, the security aspects would surely be a nightmare?

[flipflopman RB199]

S_H,

Fear not, I have already 'jumped ship' as it were, so this has no direct bearing upon myself, I am just curious as to how this set up will be implemented.

In pure terms, the RAF signatures for work, although satisfactory for military operation, will mean absolutely nothing to the CAA, and therefore ALL work on an aircraft destined to be used in a civil environment to carry fare paying passengers MUST be signed off and certified by a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, who holds a valid EASA Pt66 licence. This was the part that I was curious at.

Surely, if the RAF are to share the aircraft with the airlines, then either the RAF must have their own Licenced Engineers certifying all maintenance tasks IAW civil legislation and paperwork, therefore running the risks of poor retention, or else the airline concerned must provide the Licenced Engineers for this, which strikes me as a very expensive way of doing business in the long run :confused:

I'd be genuinely interested to hear how they plan to get around this situation.


Flipflopman

[Safety_Helmut]

flipflop

My memories of that presentation are vague, probably two years ago minimum. But I recall it involved full time reservists holding the licenses, and without trying to sound derogatory, the rest of the RAF guys would be little more than tyre kickers and fuel pump attendants.

S_H :\

[Truckkie]

So who's going to fly these new AT/AR platforms?? Full-time reservists with ATPLs??

Bit of a kick in the teeth for serving ME AT/AR crews? Are these reservists going to hold national standby duties as well as possibly deploy for months of the year?

Will the A330 be suitably equipped to operate into the current/future theatre of ops??

In service when?? Airframes to be purchased, modified, trialled and relevant support equipment in-place??

Don't let the Movers get hold of it or we'll be waiting 4 years for a pink TDS for a landrover!!!!

:mad:

[Roland Pulfrew]

So who's going to fly these new AT/AR platforms?? Full-time reservists with ATPLs??


Trukkie

Panic ye not. The majority (75% IIRC, or was it 66%?) of the crews will be regular light blue. The remaining 25% will be SRs, so a nice job, if you can get it, between 55 and 65 ;)

[Safety_Helmut]

Will the A330 be suitably equipped to operate into the current/future theatre of ops??

In service when?? Airframes to be purchased, modified, trialled and relevant support equipment in-place??

I shouldn't worry about any of that, it will all have been sorted out by the MoD before the contract was signed. Watertight ! :uhoh:

S_H

[rolandpull]

Through which door on this jet will the movers get a 'landy'? Actually, dont answer this question..................

[The Helpful Stacker]

Through which door on this jet will the movers get a 'landy'? Actually, dont answer this question..................

As if movers would use a cargo door.

Sorry, couldn't resist.:E

[Postman Plod]

Considering all the points mentioned above, who carries the risk here if commercial ops just dont take off? Is it AirTanker, or is it the MoD? How dependant on the commerical ops is the deal to the make the whole contract sustainable for AirTanker? Would they not just outsource the whole ground support operation to AirTanker, and just have RAF crews flying it?

As rubbish a deal as it sounds, and as little sense as it seems to make, (and I'm probably being naive here...) it seems to me that the MoD / RAF are pretty isolated from the issues / pitfalls, as they'll have jets available when they need them to fly, and all they need to do is crew them?

Different type and scale of operation, but is it a similar sort of set up with the UAS / AEF Tutors and VT Aerospace (or whoever runs it)?

[Saintsman]

If you are an accountant, twice the fuel load means half the number of aircraft required. Simple really until you consider that that the aircraft can only be in so many places at once. My view is that 9 aircraft is not enough and the five destined for civil use will never make it. They will be utilised by the RAF (because they need them) or leased to 'friendly' forces on an as required basis.

[devonianflyer]

With reference to the Licenses etc...

I heard that the Aussies are currently allowing pilots (mil) to fly in the right seat of Quantas flights in order to maintain currency and get some experience on the aircraft whilst they wait for the 737 wedgetail to come into service. Left seat airline captain and right seat mil co-pilot flying in blues! It's almost like they have thought about how to get value for money from trained guys without operational aircraft to fly, and get some experience in the bag at the same time.

Anyone heard the same?

Imagine the retention head ache if they tried that over here (if they thought of it that was)

DF

[BEagle]

Roly, the concept of mercenaries flying the A330 alongside regular military aircrew is not very appealing. Yes, they could do the 'rubber dog $hit out of Hong Kong' trash hauling, but AAR with all that entails these days? I doubt it.

As, IIRC, a certain chap of my acquaintance told the then boss of AirReach quite firmly indeed after a sherbet or two at RIAT Cottesmore...;)

I once asked a an ex-RAF airline pilot how much he would need to be attracted back from Virgin Atlantic to be an FSTA mercenary. "£100K p.a. minimum, plus loss of licence insurance, health insurance, no tents or sharing rooms, no gas masks or fitness tests etc etc....." was the reply.

Then came the question of who would be paying the additional life insurance costs for mercenary flying....

I simply cannot see anyone rushing off to become a mercenary at the age of 55 if they're already type rated on anything from the A318 to the A340-600 as there's a much easier world out there which is their lobster if they just want a change of employer.

9 jets on a regular basis will be one thing; I can almost guarantee that the cost of calling back the other 5 from bucket-and-spading to add to the number of tankers will be hugely expensive to the RAF.......:hmm: Now won't that be a surprise...:ugh:



(Up at some ungodly hour right now not due to PRuNe addiction, but thanks to something I ate at the Italiano restaurant last night:eek::eek:)

[Siggie]

Devonian Flyer - I believe it was Virgin. I understand it's now stopped after person/people left to fly civvy fulltime. (They went to Virgin - what a surprise)

[Arty Fufkin]

So are these aircraft definately coming on line equiped with DAS and a centreline hose? I've heared rumours to the contrary and to my mind a lack of either represents quite a loss of capability over what we have now.

[6foottanker]

A few people seem to be missing the point of this new jet: Tanker! The fact that it will have 200+ seats and will be used for AT is a bonus, and one which the RAF could not operate without IMHO. From the last rumour I heard, there won't be a full AAR capability til 2014 anyway. But there was never a requirement for cargo-carrying capacity except for the normal the under-floor hold space.

According to the contract people, all the risk is firmly with Air Tanker if the civvies don't take up the offerred 5 aircraft, but these 5 won't be seen anywhere near Brize unless we go to war. Now what are the chances....?!

And apparently, there is a flight deck module which can be plugged in, to turn these aircaft from normal A330s into mil spec. What that involves remains to be seen.

[Arty Fufkin]

6Foot,
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head there. FSTA was concieved as a tanker first and foremost, and it was concived at a time when tanking was in much demand. The thinking at the time was that A/T (pax moves in particular) could be augmented through chartering. The sad fact is that these days there are fewer fast jets to refuel and the highest priority requirement is the movement of personnel in and out of theatre. It is fortunate that the 330 will have an A/T capability, but unless it arives with DAS and flight deck armour it will represent a drop in capability ( or saftey) measured against the much maligned Trimotor. It will be great to get a shiney new aeroplane, but removing the T from FSTA would be a more truthful representation of what it will be required to do.

Anyway, could someone answer my question? Will it have DAS and a CL capbility?

[rolandpull]

I guess I should invest in OMNI after all. Seems we are replacing our PCF/tanker acft with a 'Tanker'. Charter Co-ord must be getting a budget increase, maybe?

[BEagle]

Some aircraft will have a centreline hose.

I'm pretty sure that DASS was a core requirement for the aircraft. All things DASS are 'need to know' - which I don't. But hopefully it will be something rather better than chaff, IR decoys and an 18228!

The KC-30B has a very gucci DASS fit though.

Quite what the Air Refuelling Operator will have on the flight deck (behind the CM2...'co-pilot' seat) remains to be seen. The KC-30B's dichroic boom enhanced viewing system, complex camera system and boom control system won't be needed - and, to be quite honest, the A310MRTT's Mission Computer System is more than good enough for the FSTA. The MCS is a really superb system which instantly provides new tanker crews with the AAR mission management skill levels it would otherwise take them many hours of expensive training to achieve. It's been created by a specialist company (Funkwerk Avionics) who clearly understand exactly what aircrew need for flexible, efficient AAR operations with the latest generation of tanker aircraft.

[Saintsman]

The FSTA aircraft will have DASS. Look at photos of the Aussie MRTT for clues.

[dignitycruising]

Not sure if it is a Gucci system - looks more like Northrop Grumman to me!! Anyone confirm?

[Green Flash]

or else the airline concerned must provide the Licenced Engineers for this

Here's a scenario. Aforemention 330 goes tech in Iraqistan. I wonder if they can either a) get volunteersto play dodge the 107's or b) force someone (it's in your contract son!) to go out to fix it - and you can imagine that the 'deployable' civvy enginereers would expect to trouser alot of the folding stuff!

[Seloco]

Please can we have the VC10s back in civvyland then by way of exchange? I'm just aching to fly in one again, and the noise is worth paying extra for!

[6foottanker]

Just have to make do with Brooklands/Duxford, and flight sim like everyone else! How many are going to be left when the RAF chop them up for spares to keep the last few going, when air tanker declare they are 'slightly behind schedule'?:eek:

[airsound]

I was at the announcement on 27 March. A couple of things I picked up in the questions afterward:
1. The cost is £13bn whole life cost over 27 years. The RAF doesn't pay until the first aircraft is in service - currently 2011.
2. There will be 37 crews, on 2 sqns.
3. All aircraft will have DAS.

Here are some slides

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/FSTA/FSTA1ed.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/FSTA/FSTA2ed.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/FSTA/FSTA3ed.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/FSTA/FSTA4ed.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/FSTA/FSTA5ed.jpg


airsound

[rmac]

Beagle,

I think you might be a touch pejorative with the use of the word mercenary. Would a Sponsored reserve (SR) pilot not be similar to a medical professional with a TA field hospital rather than a Blackwater gun for hire ?

[Green Flash]

rmac

Agreed. SR's are not guns for hire. They jump through all the hoops that the Regulars do.

[BEagle]

Strictly speaking, that is probably correct. Although whether their employer is considered to be a private military company might be another issue.

Nevertheless, 14 pilots prepared to accept the conditions of volunteering as Sponsored Reservists does seem rather optimistic to me when there is such strong competition for their services from civilian airlines.

But I'll doubtless be proved wrong.....

But 2 sqns and 37 crews for 7/8 aircraft? Presumably the '14 sponsored reservists' fly the '1 or 2' flown by ArT if the remaining 5 aircraft are routinely leased to other airlines?

[Wader2]

May I refer you ro Joint Doctrine Note 1/08 - Military Interaction with Private Military and Security Companies.

Standby for issues of grey combats!

[Wader2]

<<The aircraft – which will be owned by AirTanker under the terms of the deal, but fly in RAF 'colours' – will undertake air-to-air refuelling and passenger air transport tasks. The aircraft are expected to enter service around 2011, to serve for three decades.>>

Given the Funbus has been around 40 odd years and the T* 34+ off the second hand market why only 3 decades? Have we bought a low spec economy model or are we planning on a trade-in?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Nah, they only have to last for 10 yrs as RAF airframes until there is no RAF left then they can be transferred to the Navy for 20 years until there is no Navy left.:ugh:

[flyboy007]

This'll be a good one to watch from the sidelines. This will be the biggest Cake and Ar$e party for Defence Procurement yet I'd say; and God knows they've had some big ones over the years. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[ComJam]

It's my understanding that F R Aviation (as part of Cobham) will be partly responsible for the crewing / training of AirTanker's "civilian operation" with RAF pilots operating the aircraft on Military tasks. The civvy guys being "sponsored reservists" available for "surge capacity".

Nice wee job I reckon :E

www.airtanker.co.uk has all the information.

[harrym]

Have we been here before? Around fifty years ago, when the Britannia was about to be put into RAF service, someone in the Airbox or maybe MOS had the bright idea of ordering several more that would be leased to charter companies for their own use, but subject to recall to the RAF "in times of national emergency" as back-up for their own Brits; and so it came to pass that three shiny new Britannias (designated type 252) duly appeared in British Eagle livery, fully fitted out for pax use (but with rearward-facing seats) and a large freight door.

However when BE and other potential operators, foreseeing problems if the aircraft were recalled during holiday peak periods, asked for a definition of the term "national emergency" they were met with a deafening silence and so not unnaturally declined to have anything to do with this hare-brained scheme - although it did have a happy ending. With delivery of their own type 253s seriously delayed, the RAF were only too glad to accept these three extra aircraft despite them being non-standard in some important respects, and the crews equally glad to have them - for they were fitted out to a better standard, having VOR, anti-collision lights and a few other items that the Service apparently considered unnecessary. Less happily, the engine ice protection system was totally different from that on the 253, although this was in later years brought into line.

So, is history about to repeat itself? Quite possibly, for it is well known that Whitehall seldom learns from past mistakes.

[NURSE]

or will the balance be leased to omega?

[Green Flash]

Aaahhhhh! Nurse, methinks you have just hit the nail firmly on the thumb! :eek: Good call, didn't think of that. :hmm:

[Jig Peter]

Not having been born early enough to travel by Short C-Class flying boat, the most enjoyable trip as pax in my memory is the run from Yookay to Singapore in an Eagle Britannia (in spite of those rearward-facing seats the RAF seemed to think were safer ...). It was quiet, you could really see out of those good-sized windows, and it didn't have to tip up on its back end to get airborne ...
All downhill from then on, at least for the poor SLF ???
;)
As far as a name for the RAF's A330s goes, well, the Oz AF will get some first, so it'll possibly be called the "Tankaroo" by then ...
Coat & hat, got ...
:E