Ageing air transport aircraft....

[BEagle]

From the Witney Gazette:

Troops stuck at Brize
9:28am Wednesday 18th February 2009

By Matt Wilkinson

Hundreds of troops are stuck at an airbase in Oxfordshire following “technical malfunctions” on two RAF planes.

Soldiers and Marines heading out to Helmand Province, in Afghanistan, on board a Tristar troop carrier returned to base at RAF Brize Norton twice yesterday, only hours into their flight.

Hundreds more hoping for a return trip are stuck in Kandahar in Afghanistan because of an aircraft fault.

Investigations into both Tristar plans have begun and Press Association is reporting up to 1,000 troops may be affected.

Flt Lt ( ), duty air movements officer at Brize Norton, said: “The aircraft suffered a technical malfunction that is under investigation.

“An aircraft going out and returning on this schedule is very unusual."

“We do problems but generally speaking the air bridge is a success.”

He said the Tristar grounded at Kandahar was also being investigated for a fault but was available for “tasking”.

It is believed a flights are due to restart later today.

The Ministry of Defence was unavailable to comment
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

“An aircraft going out and returning on this schedule is very unusual." Did he really mean to say that nowadays it is 'very unusual' for RAF AT aircraft to depart or arrive on schedule? Because that's how it reads.....:uhoh:

Good luck to the aircrews and groundcrews keeping these aged jets flying - I'm sure you're doing the best you can with the resource available and I just hope that the passengers realise that.

[gijoe]

Ditto BEagle.

As a regular commuter over the last 2 years it has become more and more evident that the jets are past their 'best before', let alone 'use before', date. The crews do a very good job given the tools.

If the government follows Obama's lead and up the no of players what is the plan?

G:eek:

[microlight AV8R]

Six BA 757s available very soon. Lease them for troping and keep AAR Tristars for AAR only. Non AAR Tristars for spares, retire VC-10.

Buy more C130J and don't fart about trying to resurrect the older C130s.

When A400M comes along, adapt some C130Js as tankers, retire Tristar.

In the meantime, ask allies to help with AAR when we have shortfall. Likewise for heavy lift.

If they don't want to help, that defines our limitations and we should not deploy toops in hot places beyond that point of capability.

Oh yes, cancel that stupid PFI AAR/AT nonsense.

Summarise: Cut suit according to cloth. The purse is empty.

[Data-Lynx]

BBC Oxford local radio reported this afternoon that the two returns to BZZ were particulalry unfortunate because this outbound T* had onboard the spare for the bird in theatre.

[gar170]

BEagle
Good luck to the aircrews and groundcrews keeping these aged jets flying - I'm sure you're doing the best you can with the resource available and I just hope that the passengers realise that.

And good luck to the Movers who have to face the ones that don't.Some might think that we have a modern Airforce.

[hello1]

cancel that stupid PFI AAR/AT nonsense

Pity about the little matter of the contract with Air Tanker!:ok:

[brit bus driver]

Sadly BA needs good hard cash, not an IOU from the one-eyed idiot from north of the border. I think they already have a home for the 757s.

What is needed is a reliable interim solution, ideally with an Airbus or three on which the crews can cut their teethe prior to FSTA. I assume that UK plc is now legally bound by the PFI? If not, can it and buy the hardware.

Any interim solution has to be cheaper than keeping the VC10 in the air for the next 5 years.

[collbar]

The RAF should stop cocking about with the T* and use the Charter/C-17 option.

[Redcarpet]

Collbar,

How many C-17s to transport 250 pax and how many charter Jets have DASS ? Simple fact is that the AT fleet and Brit Mil in general are under resourced, under funded and under manned.

[brit bus driver]

But the C-17s are working their t!ts off as it is, without picking up the pax loads as well. There's no easy/cheap answer but the decision makers in their ivory towers need to pull their finger out sharpish. FSTA was being 'planned' over 10 years ago and it's still 5 years away. C17 was what, 12 (18?) months flash to bang? Dry lease some Airbus now, train the crews (plenty of spare sim time out there at the moment, plus a bit of Airbus experience who may have a little spare time on their hands?), stick the T*s in Akronelli and run a hub & spoke.

Pay for it with the money saved by retiring the VC10, with the Tri* and A.N.Other solution picking up the towlines. AAR shortfall? Who cares in the short term.

Simples.

[brit bus driver]

Just watching this on the local news. Once again, it's not the 'ageing TriStar' that's failed, but the DAS - again! Another well thought out UOR....support, what support.

[rolandpull]

I hear the standard answer to how long left in theater is ' xx days and a Tristar' The Tristar being the variable.

Seems to me part of the burden is the R&R bridge back to blighty. What might be useful is a Pontin's/beach in Oman that is Herkable. Maybe......

[Pete268]

As someone who was serving when the 'new' Tri* entered service way back in the 1980's, I had a very pleasant flight home as an indulgee on one, still resplendent in BA colours with a BA crew. Unfortunately I later had to be aeromedded back to the UK on one, by then in shiny RAF colours (there was a surprising amount of leg room on a stretcher). Hence, twenty something years later I am somewhat surprised to find these aircraft are still flying with the RAF.

I, even then, remember that the VC10 was regarded as 'old' and am even more surprised to find they are still in use. It wouldn't be a surprise to find we still have the Belfast in service at this rate.

Anyway, if it is not a military secret, how many of the nine Tri* have we still left in service?. Any how many VC10's still fly the pax backwards to their destinations?.

I really do feel sorry for those still serving in that they have to rely on what are now surely museum pieces, in order to travel to/from operational theatres. I feel a letter to my MP will shortly be dispatched (again).

Peter

[SirToppamHat]

Extracts from an item in the current issue of Private Eye (1230 dated 2 Feb-5 Mar 2009):

Transport of no delight

The pisspoor state of the RAF's air transport aircraft has long been a major complaint for service personnel deployed on ops...

...the ancient Tristars of 216 Squadron are grounded so often they have been nicknamed the "Brize Norton Static Display Team" by irate squaddies.

...return flights...regularly delayed by 36-48 hours...those coming back to the UK for some precious leave often find that 25 percent of their time off is spent on the ground at airports.


STH

[BEagle]

How we chortled when the civil serpent talking about FSTA announced "This programme will NOT slip to the right!"

That was sometime last century.

Not long after the time we were told that 'FLA' (which became A400M) was to have an in-service date of 2004....and that the RAF would replace all TriStars and VC10s with '25-30 Multi-role tanker transports'. At a rate of around 4 a/c per year with a 50% fleet achieved in around 2007-8.....

I think there's an old Comet which still runs up at Bruntingthorpe - perhaps that could be refurbished?

There are around 8 A310-300s for sale around the world. Someone should take a serious look at them as interim tanker-transports, now that A400M has been delayed until heaven knows when......

[Doctor Cruces]

We're broke, Beags, and the relatively invisible spend on keeping old crocks flying is more politically acceptable to Broon and his ilk (and predecessors)than an announcement in the press that we've spent millions on buying new aeroplanes instead of sticking it in the pockets of the great unwashed (and bankers). Won't buy as many votes either.

:ugh::ugh:

Doc C

[Miles Magister]

There are a few more old comets up at Kinloss that desparately need refurbishing.

[Biggles225]

My God Beags, don't you realise that to buy the A310s would take actual folding money? The b :mad: s lent it all to the banks and can't even borrow it back!
I can remember when the mighty moonship was queen of the skies, never mind the T*!!
BG

[Roadster280]

It's often quoted that to keep the VC10s in the air is MASSIVELY expensive.

What exactly (if not classified) is the source of this? Of course there's direct (such as fuel) and indirect (crew training & pay etc) costs.

I know the engines are old and thirsty, but how much more fuel efficient is an A330 vs the same lift in a VC10? Say moving 650 men 4000 miles.

Are the spares having to be specially manufactured? Tyres? I can't imagine RR have 50 x Conways in the stores, so I'm thinking they have to be rebuilt, but is that much more expensive than rebuilding a Trent? Much more frequent?

I'm not advocating keeping the 10s, just trying to understand what the costs (comparatively) are.

[brit bus driver]

Using Calgary as a representative destination (3760nm):

You need (conservatively) 6 x VC10 to move 650 troops; 2 x A330s would do it (with room to spare).

The VC10 would needs to do it in 2 legs.

Thus, 12 x VC10 cycles vs 4 x A330 cycles. There is a cost associated with that.

Fuel costs. VC10 circa 7 tonnes an hour; A330 about 6 tonnes an hour.

So, 2 x A330 @ 6 tonnes/hour, times 8 hrs (3760nm @ M0.80 still air) = 96 tonnes.

6 x VC10 @ 7 tonnes/hour x 9 hrs (extra time to go via Goose) = 378 tonnes.

At today's fuel prices
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm (http://http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm) that works out at just over $40,000 for the 330 solution and just shy of $165,000 for the VC10.

This is without factoring in the HOTAC for the delayed pax, spares provision, additional T&S for the multitude of crew etc etc.

It is a no-brainer.:ugh:

[KeepItTidy]

Well got to agree with Dr Cruces on this one , we have to make do with what we have , there is no spare money in the pot,there is no other way to put it. its wrong and I agree with all but this is the same throughout the air force and at ISK its no different.

[brit bus driver]

KIT

I agree that the train set is seriously broken, other than at the FJ ponity end of course, but apathy is our greatest enemy. To simply 'make do' is not right. Frankly, this needs the PM to have some bloody balls and make the funds available.

Btw, what is the latest figure from DSCOM for the annual charter budget?

And the annual maintenance cost per VC10?

If there is nothing to be done but accept the status quo, please have SecState take out a full page ad in every national paper explaining the situation, such that Mrs Miggins is at least given the heads up that there is no plan to improve the chances of her son getting home on time for the next five years. Out of interest, I wonder what he promised at today's meeting in Krakow.

This shouldn't bother me any more, but somehow it does.

[Skilly]

Thanks for doing the sums, I've always wondered how much it cost to do a run to Calgary. As for the extras etc it truly is shocking, I was always suspicious of the up front drivers when we always seemed to break down in Washington on the way back from Belize and actually on the tarmac at Calgary.

That Calgary breakdown cost the MOD a fortune in hotels, Pay per view movies, food etc but for some reason they insisted on flying the spares from Brize on another T* rather than paying $10,000 Canadian for the part from a maintenance company across the runway.

[14greens]

Been mentioned in an earlier post so not saying anything out of order, but both events were caused by DAS problems rather than Aircraft issues! its high profile so it will get mentioned, you would have same problems with any platform with a DAS bolted on as an afterthought!!! So kicks the Ageing jet theory in to touch in this case, as its the newest bit of kit on the jet thats had the problem! the frames do have problems, but any frame does! of course the C17 never breaks down! or is it when it does it does not get mentioned or does not effect so many people in 1 go like a full TriMotor

Why turn back when it has a fault? bloody obvious the answer to that.

Why not hub and spoke as was always the plan in the past, send the multi mover to a safe airfield and then swap platform and spoke in to theatre and direct to where they need to go, or close anyhow, that way need or DAS on the people mover would not be as critical!!!
And would not have to be Akronelli,

[Lou Scannon]

Some months ago a Government Minister was rabbiting on about the pollution caused by civil aviation. Being an ex trucker who flew your C130's back in the 60's I felt obliged to write to the Times.

I pointed out that he was effectively on the board of the most polluting airline in the West. The fact that it was called the transport fleet of the RAF was hardly an excuse and he should put his own house in order before criticising the civvies.

The suggestion to grab some of the spare 757/767's and put them into service would seem to solve his problem.

The airlines could run the training course at minimum cost and time.

[Lord Elpus]

Brit Bus Driver:

The following is a few years old and all approximate figures, however, it gives you an idea.

Costs in thousands per Flying hour:
Tristar: c 16K
VC-10: c 23K
C-17: c 40K


Major Servicing: VC10= several million!!!!! I heard 3-4 M be willing to be corrected on this.

TRI, rumoured to be in the 0.75-1.25 Million dependant on whom you are talking to.

C-17 I do not know!

On the above figures, you have to ask what does the VC10 bring to the party to justify the above costs? Surely the money saved from scrapping them immediately could be put into the A310/330 option mentioned previously?

Using the C17 on pax runs (even short hops) is a waste of valuable hours/cycles given its operationg costs?

As 14 Greens alludes to, there is no need to use AKT. The extra fuel in getting to/from AKT uses valuable resources in theatre. Use non DASS equipped jets to get the troops as close to theatre as poss, then use DASS equipped jets for the final leg to theatre?

What about Tristars doing UK-Gulf states, no need for DASS, therefore, allowing more DASS spares for other assets in theatre?

[plasticAF]

currently civilian jets from up north go from BZZ to gulf states on PAX runs. Ok only able to carry about 200 and a bit. they fly beyond GWII land and could comfortably reach the Stan just not allowed to.

[Regie Mental]

I was one of the pax who was delayed four days. I did not see anyone give either the crew or the movers a hard time. This was despite many returning on 14 days R and R or on end of tour who had family friends awaiting their return. It was frustrating reporting in for the same jet even though nobody had tried to fix it in the interim but that aside we understood the position.

[dallas]

To be fair Regie, the airbridge aircraft are top priority, so any inaction would be a result of not having the necessary spares or perhaps expertise (in theatre) to hand. The difficulty is always somewhere in between briefing the pax in a timely manner, yet waiting long enough to provide a reasonable new report time before everyone bomb bursts - there's nothing more frustrating that stacking the pax for the day, to then find out it's only a 3hr fix.

[Madbob]

With the state of the RAF's AT fleet and the lack of in-theatre "spokes" even C47 Dakotas would be useful additions.

Basler conversions with PT6's, modern commas and nav kit, DASS and you've got the fixed wing equivalent of a CH47 (ok it can't hover or VL) but they were built like trucks and could still be a useful asset at a fraction of the cost of a helo/C27/C130. If it's worth building new Twotters it could be worth starting with a few new DC3's/C47's........

You ought to get 4 sqns of Daks for the same cost as one sqn of Chinooks. Just think what flexibility that might offer......
MB

[411A]

Costs in thousands per Flying hour:
Tristar: c 16K


Exclusive of fuel and handling charges, our small airline charges $5600/hr for the 'ole Lockheed trimotor.
It can be maintained properly, and have superb dispatch reliability...all you have to have is folks who know how.

Good grief, is there not a Lockheed rep with the RAF now?
IF so, is he not listened to?

Sorry to barge into the military forum folks, but the 'ole trimotor is a fine aeroplane, IF maintained by folks who have a dedication to the job.

Tin hat on, awaiting incoming...:}

[The Helpful Stacker]

Good grief, is there not a Lockheed rep with the RAF now?
IF so, is he not listened to?

From what I understand about such things (very little I'll freely admit) aren't 'modern' (and I'm including the Tristar in this) passenger aircraft designed to be operated almost constantly? As in, fly, land, disembark pax, fuel, embark pax, take-off, fly, etc, with minimal serious servicing required outside of minors/majors?

Isn't part of the problem with the RAF Tristar fleet the fact that even though they are used a hell of a lot they aren't operated at anything like the frequency that they were designed to be operated at by civil airlines, with the periods of relative idleness being what causes problems to appear?

Oh and yes, I'm aware that the recent instances of Tristars going U/S is down to the UOR kit rather than the airframes themselves, its just a shame some others haven't read the whole thread.

[dallas]

I got chatting with a bloke a little while ago who was telling me he worked on 216 - I think he said he was a sooty. When I suggested it must be frustrating working with such a temperamental fleet, he said actually no, the majority of the techies loved working on the jet, and did their utmost to turn it for HERRICK trips.

Just as I was thinking what a perfect bloke he was to be working on 216 - or any RAF sqn - he said '...but I've PVRd and am out in 6 months'. Gobsmacked, I asked him why, and he said that, over the years, the RAF has expanded its engineering hierarchy to a point where the jet is over-serviced, particularly because IPTs and other special interest groups are constantly changing the rules, both to keep themselves in a job and/or simply appear to be doing something! He was leaving because he was fed-up being told to over-service the jet by people who didn't know the aircraft.

In some ways this makes sense - home base policy for a RAF Tristar requires the engineers to be given the jet for 8 hours between tasks, and that doesn't include any re-roles or Mover activity. It also confirms what I've thought for the past few years - the lack of any one person with an obvious plan has led to the dilution of frontline staff - by that I mean techies with dirty hands etc - in favour of more desks, policy writers, bureaucracy and current favourite study groups, many of whom only exacerbate the pinch by their absence from anything useful, while adding to the hurdles.

[9.81m/s/s]

The C-17 is NOT a passenger aircraft. Yes it is capable of doing so but is categorically NOT a passenger aircraft.

That is all.

[airfarce1]

I was in Kandahar at the time the T* was U/S. It wasnt DAS related, it was a big engineering fault though and it took quite a while to fix (even when the spare part did arrive.)

The Hub and spoke idea is a good one, except we dont have enought tac AT to do it. Its also extremely costly and manpower intensive, The americans do it at the moment - but hey guess what they have the ac. The MOD cant get passenger charter ac to go to kandahar direct. At the moment the T* is the best we have.

The best idea would be to follow the basic plan of the C17. They were bought as a stopgap between the present day and the A400M. Lets buy or lease 4 A330's, slap DAS on them (but get it done properly like on the C17) and use them. Retire the 10's and use the Tanker T* for AAR. The 3 remaining T* C2 should be able to manage the cyprus flights...... shouldnt they......

Also, isnt there two civvy T*'s sat at marshalls waiting for the MOD to buy them? Just a thought.

[411A]

home base policy for a RAF Tristar requires the engineers to be given the jet for 8 hours between tasks...
Really?
If this were the case at the mob I work for, we certainly would absolutely not make a profit.
Looks like more than a few ah...less qualified, at the RAF airplane maintenance department.
Good grief...:*

[glhcarl]

Good grief, is there not a Lockheed rep with the RAF now?
IF so, is he not listened to?


Lockheed lost the TriStar support contract to Marshall in 2005.

I know when I was at Brize I had a real good rapport with both the engineering and maintenance staff.

One problem I did see when I was with the RAF was that they would not ulitized the rep away from Brize. I think it was an insurance problem with the RAF, not Lockheed as we had many reps in hot areas. If here was a problem away from Brize there was no hands on support, you had trouble shoot by faxes and phone calls.

[14greens]

Yep there was a TriStar at U/s in Kandahar last week, that was not wht the BBC repoting was about
Look at the airbidge! How often have you seen the jet sat on the ground bust in theatre, not often!
the issue discussed on this thread was the jet that turned round twice due to other issues!
The on on the ground did have a tech issue that requiered spares, and then fixing including all ath associated indies due to the snag! and its the sort of snag all aircraft have irrelevent of age

One day you never know we might see the positive reports of how many trips actually get out on time and not talking just about the TriMotor, oops thats not news is it? so what would be the point.
its annoying and yes upsetting for those that are effected but the crews and the techies on all the fleets have a pride in what they do and do all they can to get the job done

[cazatou]

Back in 1969 I was in a crew returning from a 3 week VIP tour of the Carribean when we went U/S in Bermuda with an inoperative fire warning on the Stbd Engine. BOAC signalled UK with the part number and the time of that evening's BOAC VC10 departure from Heathrow to Bermuda. We had the groundcrew to replace and test the system and would be able depart on schedule.

We were there for 5 days and departed 2 hrs after the 4th firewire sent out actually arrived. One of the missing firewires reappeared in S America some years later.

[BEagle]

Tales of the wrong bits of HM's shagged-out old jets being sent to the wrong parts of the world probably merit their own thread.....

I was once told that a Victor crew needed some bit to be sent to Offutt, where they were quietly enjoying life in whatever-the-Bellevue-Ramada-was-currently-called.

Eventually a large box turned up - when the crew chief opened it, he was amazed to find that it actually contained.......a Bedford 4-tonner crankshaft!

No idea if it's a shaggy dog story, but I also experienced lots of bits being sent late, or to the wrong place - or the wrong bit altogether, despite the GE's very clear description.

But hey.....CHING..:ok::ok:!!!

As for the numpty in Eng Ops who refused to do anything unless he received a signal; well, thanks for the extra day the 15 of us had on full rates whilst we tracked down a fax machine..:hmm:

[airfarce1]

14greens
The BBC? The OP was from the witney gazzette!

From the OP
He said the Tristar grounded at Kandahar was also being investigated for a fault but was available for “tasking”.

I agree the Tristar does do a good job with the airbridge considering its age and its a testament to everyone involved, no other nation is able to do a direct service like us.

However the reliability is getting worst and the ac is seen as bit of a joke in Kandahar.

[Doctor Cruces]

Been out of touch over the week end, so sorry for late response.

I'm with 411a on the old Tri*, wonderful machine. We operated one out of MAN for 9 months solid with only one significant delay. That was H24 for a roll spoiler actuator to be delivered from the states because there were none in Europe.

Maintained properly they just go, and go and go and go.

Perhaps a bit if Belfast syndrome here. Dunno why the RAF couldn't make them go without breaking with monotonous regularity, but Heavylift sure could!!!

Doc C

[The Real Slim Shady]

So given that the RAF has an ageing AT and AAR fleet, and with your collective specialist knowledge of the task requirement, without dealing in route or theatre specifics, within a sensible budget, what do you want?

For passenger transport and freight?

For AAR?

For outsize freight?


And WHY?

[BEagle]

....within a sensible budget....

Define 'sensible' first.

For passenger transport and freight?
How many, how much and over what distance?

For AAR?
Of what? Fast jets, heavy receivers, probe and drogue only - or boom as well? Single role tanker or AT/AAR?

For outsize freight?
Whither? What do you mean by 'outsize'? Something that would only fit in a An124 - or something that would fit in an A400M?

However, I would recommend that the A330 would meet the first 2 requirements as far as the RAF is concerned; however, to move large green things painted pink, there is only the C-17 or leased An124/An225 right now.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Beags

and with your collective specialist knowledge of the task requirement

RTFQ ;)

[Guzlin Adnams]

Oh go on, have a few C27's as well as additonal C17's. With the slump as it is there may be a few cheapish 330's around before too long to buy......yes My Broon, buy!:ok:

[BEagle]

TRSS - Blond genug!

Still A330 + C-17 though!!

[The Real Slim Shady]

The RAF has a history of purchasing random types, primarily because the purchasing is not bounded by commercial realities.

It makes no sense to acquire and operate an Airbus when the RAF already has Boeings; E3 and C17.

Equally, it makes no sense to jump into the A400 programme when all the expertise is with the C130: moreover, the 130 provides commonality with our largest allies.

[BEagle]

I was struggling to find a suitably apt riposte to such obvious rubbish, but decided that BOLLOCKS would suffice!

[MarkD]

TRSS - so RAF should buy clapped out 135s to act in the tanker-transport role so that some sort of commonality can be had with the E-3 fleet? I assume there might be a rivet or two in common here and there.

I can only think you're trying to pop a Beag blood vessel...?

Although now you mention it RAF is taking on clapped out 135s in the surveillance role :E

[The Real Slim Shady]

That's what I enjoy about this forum, a reasoned structured debate based on fact. ;);)

[D-IFF_ident]

Slim, perhaps you could give us your reasoned and structured rationale as to why you think the RAF should only operate Boeing aircraft?

Before you start, however, you might like to consider that Boeing frames make up a small minority of the RAF fleet. Less than 5% I'd suggest.

:ugh:

[GreenKnight121]

I seem to recall the RAF currently operating Vickers (VC-10) [15], de Havilland/Hawker Siddely (Nimrod) [15], and Lockheed (Tristar) [9] as large jet aircraft... vs 13 Boeing [7 E-3, 6 C-17].

39:13 (a 3:1 ratio against Boeing)...not quite a "Boeing-centric" RAF large jet fleet, now is it?

As for your "don't buy A400M (or anything but C-130) because C-130s are our only current large prop aircraft" "idea"... if the RAF thought they way you want them to, they would never have bought any aircraft from any manufacturer whose aircraft they weren't already operating when the RAF was formed (1918).

A really bad idea, I'd think.

[mr ripley]

And taking it further the C17 was from the McDonnell Douglas stable.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Take a peek here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/344960-jsf-a400m-risk-2.html#post4427662)

and here http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/344960-jsf-a400m-risk-8.html#post4458158

herehttp://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/344960-jsf-a400m-risk-9.html#post4465446

and herehttp://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/344960-jsf-a400m-risk-10.html#post4503996

and here for the FSTA timelineAirTanker - Business - Timeline (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/business-timeline.htm)

You need a solution NOW, not at some shifting future date.

[BEagle]

Converting those 2 x A310-300s currently at Dresden into MRTTs would be a good start.....

They just need the Basic Tanker Kit; everything necessary has already been designed and certificated for the A310MRTT and CC150T Polaris.

Oh, and by the way, they're not made by Boeing.

[The Real Slim Shady]

frankly Beags I don't give a toss who made them so long as they are available now, provide the necessary capability and can do the job.

By now I mean within the next 18 months.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Are all the Boeing options 'available now'?

How is the KC767 project going BTW? ;)

[Brain Potter]

frankly Beags I don't give a toss who made them

But Slim, you did give a toss who makes them otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement about Boeing airframes in the first place.

Any boost to the AT force in the short-term (18-month) timescale you are talking about can only be achieved by increasing numbers of aircraft that are already in service, be they C-17, C-130 or TriStar. A completely new fleet would take at least that time to buy and build-up to any usable capability. The record in recent times must go to the C-17 which was about a year from 'flash-to-bang'. However, it had the great advantage of being able to graft-on military procedures that already existed in the USAF, and the aircraft was kept away from the the whole Qinetiq mire.

Do not think that just because there are some aircraft available from defunct airlines that this would be a quick and easy solution. The XL fleet for example are probably owned by leasing companies, who will be negotiating to place these jets with new operators. The military is a non-starter to take them as a short-term measure because once the jets are in military hands, have been worked on by unlicensed engineers and have received military mods they will become worthless to the the leasing company as they can't easily go back into commercial service.

BEags, as much as you are A310 salesman-of-the-year, I don't think that the AAR world is crying out for airframes right now so a couple of tanker-modified A310s would not really be a practical solution, unless they were to be part of a huge change of direction away from FSTA.

The optimum solution for Strat AT would be to accelerate the FSTA, but that is probably impossible. Additional C-17s and C-130s would be achievable relatively quickly but requires money......

[Evalu8ter]

"Additional C-17s and C-130s would be achievable relatively quickly but requires money...... "

...or a small fraction of the $5Bn of military aid that Israel gets gratis every year.. How 'bout it Barack? Good news for the C17 / C130 lines as well. Just for once treat your staunchest ally with your staunchest support, do a deal with your new best pal Gordon - 6 extra C17s for additional troops in AFG? Oh, and a dozen or so second hand CH47Ds would help as well.

[brit bus driver]

Whose are the MRTTs BEags? Ex-GAF, or just surplus? That would be a most excellent interim solution...a bloody good aircraft and just what's needed at the moment. 200 pax, 5 tonnes an hour, 180 mins ETOPS plus there's some corporate knowledge of how to fly them. Well, not sure if one man = corporate knowledge, but it's a start. The previous incumbents might be available for a fee....:}

[BEagle]

brit bus driver, the aircraft are not MRTTs, they are A310-300s. But, since they're sitting at Dresden already, conversion could start pretty quickly.

They are (unless someone has already grabbed them) FedEx-owned at present.

Both the CF and Luftwaffe are currently operating 2 x A310 MRTTs each (CC150T in CF service). As excellent in the AAR role as they always were in the AT role! The Luftwaffe have just completed a deployment of EF2000s from the Baltic to India and back; apart from one EF going u/s in Abu Dhabi, everything went well.

Last time I checked, there were around 8 x A310-300s available which could be converted to MRTT standard; most have CF engines but the FedEx ones have Pratts.

As for 'bringing FSTA forward'? Well, one pair of wings has now been built but that's all so far.......

[The Real Slim Shady]

Brian,

flash to bang for civilian airlines can be anything between 2 months ( been there, seen it, got the T shirt) to 9 to 12 months.

It is not inconceivable that if you say "go" tomorrow and provide adequate, not excessive, funding, that I could have 10 AT aircraft in service in 9 months: tankers a tad longer.

[BTDTGTTShirt]

Hey Slim

Dont you start bringing my good name into your argument

[Brain Potter]

Commercial operators don't have to work within HMG finance and accounting regulations. These rules make the procurement process much, much slower than it could be, but they cannot simply be swept away.

On a practical basis your 10 aircraft would need at least 50 pilots and perhaps 150 engineers. Unlike commercial airlines the operation of large-jet transport aircraft is relatively niche part of the whole organization. People with the right experience to make a new aircraft type happen quickly simply cannot be conjured-up in such a short timescale without seriously denuding the output of the existing fleets. The problem is exacerbated by the hurdle of a step-change in technology caused by prolonging the life of the previous aircraft. I would suggest that, as the TriStar is so heavily tasked, most of the people would have to come from the VC10. Either way the pilots have no experience of 2-crew, EFIS or ETOPS. It's not quite the same as taking a bunch of 737 pilots and converting them to say a 757. Lack of relevant experience is not insurmountable but would need to be much more carefully managed than your claim would allow.

The other issue is regulatory. Military aircraft airworthiness is the responsibility of the MoD, not the CAA. The C-17 release-to-service was readily accepted as the lease was directly coupled to the DoD regulatory process. A new type of transport aircraft would have to issued with a MAR and all the necessary DAS mods cleared by Boscombe.

I assure you that it is highly unlikely that it could be done in 2 years, let alone just 9 months.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

The problem is exacerbated by the hurdle of a step-change in technology caused by prolonging the life of the previous aircraft. I would suggest that, as the TriStar is so heavily tasked, most of the people would have to come from the VC10. Either way the pilots have no experience of 2-crew, EFIS or ETOPS..............looks like we are buggered as we apparently have no pilots at all with experience of a 2 pilot flight deck :=

[Daysleeper]

On a practical basis your 10 aircraft would need at least 50 pilots and perhaps 150 engineers. Unlike commercial airlines the operation of large-jet transport aircraft is relatively niche part of the whole organization. People with the right experience to make a new aircraft type happen quickly simply cannot be conjured-up in such a short timescale without seriously denuding the output of the existing fleets

There are probably a couple of hundred heavy jet pilots in the UK either unemployed or stuck in an airline they'd rather not be in. Why not make some special deals al la WW2 "Hostilities Only". I know several people who would be happy trucking around for a couple of years while the airline industry drags itself out of the mess it's in.

[cessnapete]

Training a crew from a 3 crew to 2 crew operation is no big deal with the correct training facilities. I went from a Capt. on 3 crew 747-200 to 2 crew 747-400 with no previous EFIS experience in less than 8 weeks. No base training required with modern simulators, first trip on a/c with training Capt in RH seat and full load of pax.
Ref A330 FSTA training, Australia RAAF pilots train with QF. They are flying QF a/c under supervision of QF trainers as we speak to get route experience. We could do the same in UK, BM operate 330's and could train the RAF crews. Why a whole new training facilty at great cost at BZ?

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm not sure the RAAF pilots will be converting to type in 8 weeks though. Nor that you could take RAF VC10 pilots out of their 4 person flightdeck and convert them to a modern type in 8 weeks. You're arguing apples and oranges.

The problem with the AT fleet lies in the delays of the FSTA project. But that is where the solution also lies - the contract has been signed and there's no money for an interim solution. Except more charters offset by less use of the Brize Norton Vintage Aircraft Society.

[StopStart]

Don't be so sure that it's that difficult to go from a 4 man to a 2 man flight deck. Whilst the old herc may be a little less complex than, say, the VC10 is, the J is as complex, if not more so in some ways, than a modern civvy flightdeck. The only people that struggle on a 2 man flightdeck are those that were able to hide their lack of ability in the crowd of a 4 man flightdeck.

99.9% of people leaving the RAF to go civvy have no problem converting across to the civvy 2 man flightdeck.

[brit bus driver]

Nail on the head, SS. To an vaguely competent bloke (hello!), 3 (or 4) to 2 is a doddle. Going back again is less straightforward - whadd'ya mean join the hold manually......:}

[mr ripley]

And I know it might be heracy but these 2 pilot glass cockpit aircraft are actually easier to operate. They are designed with loads of gadgets to make it so. The only issue is learning a new set of terminology.

[brit bus driver]

At the beginning....."Flex, SRS, Runway"


At the end......"Autoland, 50' Radio"


If it all goes wrong......"My R/T, your ECAM."


That should just about cover it.


Tea white none works just the same.

:ok:

[isaneng]

It can't be that difficult. After all, we all know some of the gear monkeys currently on 2 pilot ops...............

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

You still an Eng?

[Brain Potter]

I agree that it isn't difficult for individuals to convert to newer-technology aircraft within an organization that is already operating and collectively experienced with the type. Such folks are products of an established training system and will usually be going initially into the RHS, with the luxury of learning the ropes whilst being watched over by somebody more experienced on type.

It is a quite a different matter to build a new fleet from scratch, where nobody has any experience of the aircraft. The C-17 initial cadre were experienced operators and were exposed to USAF ops for 3-months or so before returning to form a squadron. Moreover they did not have to set-up any basic conversion training, as that was going to remain with the USAF. The sqn itself ramped up gently to operate just 4-aircraft. TRSS is claiming that it is feasible to have 10 jets running within 9-months.

The RAF has very few jet, EFIS, 2-man flight-deck experienced instructors, particularly if by instructing one means the whole conversion training process. What experience does exist would have to be stripped away from fleets that would certainly not be reducing their tasking in response to the arrival of a new type. The fleet that could be "chopped" and re-trained en-mass (VC10) would have the challenges of the new technology to cope with. Of course it could be done, but with care and certainly not as quickly as TRSS claims. If you start to say that the training, or some of the operating, can be parcelled away to civilians then you are getting right back to the FSTA concept, which TRSS claims he could quickly circumvent.

New fleets always present these kind of challenges and they are inevitably overcome, but not by trying to declare FOC within 9 months. My point was that it would be reckless to attempt some half-baked, panic scheme as proposed by TRSS. The contracted-out solution is already in gestation with FSTA and it far enough developed that no other credible scheme could be operational in numbers any sooner. In the meantime efforts to boost the AT force should focus on more C-130s and C-17s.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Brian, the scheme is neither half baked nor is it a panic measure. The entire RAF AT and AAR capability is falling apart: FSTA will not work, it is already late and getting later. The FLA is way behind schedule and the C130 fleet is ageing.

There has to be an alternative, or does the RAF work on placing all the eggs in one basket?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"It is a quite a different matter to build a new fleet from scratch, where nobody has any experience of the aircraft. The C-17 initial cadre were experienced operators and were exposed to USAF ops for 3-months or so before returning to form a squadron. Moreover they did not have to set-up any basic conversion training, as that was going to remain with the USAF. The sqn itself ramped up gently to operate just 4-aircraft."

I think the J model and it's introduction flies in the face of most of what you have posted there old chap :=

[Brain Potter]

From what I remember the C-130J took quite a bit longer than 9-months from introduction to FOC.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Brain,

And I mentioned 9 months where? Nice riposte though :rolleyes:

[Brain Potter]

SFFP,

Go back and re-read the debate from where TRSS issued a claim that he thinks the RAF could have a fleet of 10 modern commercial jets in AT service within 9-Months. He based that claim on having seen airlines achieve similar feats.

I said that 2-years would even be a outside bet because, amongst other things, the RAF does not operate any similar types and has a very limited pool of experience with modern, 2-crew, EFIS twin-jets to draw-on (and I mean all of these characteristics together on one aircraft type). I did not say that introduction of a new type was impossible, but was disagreeing with TRSS's ambitious timeframe. I used the C-17 as an example of how a new type can be quickly and successfully brought to FOC, but also highlighted aspects of it's operation that were favourable to achieving such a smooth introduction.

You appear to have taken the 2-crew, EFIS aspect of my point in isolation and are offering the C-130J as counter-argument. In many ways the introduction of the J reflects what I am saying; it wasn't as easy and quick as some people expected. I absolutely agree that Hercules pilots do have relevant experience with glass, and many of them would have to be stripped away at very short notice to help setup the kind of operation that TRSS proposes. Could Lyneham afford such a loss right now?

Even if Lyneham, 99 Sqn and Astor were plundered there would still be no aircrew or groundcrew experience with Boeing or Airbus commercial airplanes. Again, I re-iterate that this would not be an insurmountable problem, but it is certainly one of reasons why, unlike an airline, the RAF could not have a new fleet of 10 modern twin-jets at FOC within 9-months.

[dallas]

Brain

With a buoyant market for pilots right now, why not either opt for a civvy crew and/or sign-up willing volunteers to the RAuxAF? With the exception of some added tactical stuff, they shouldn't need to do much more than fly a familiar type between A, B and C, should they?

Ditto servicing - apart from fitting DAS, what else do we need for purely pax trips around the world? A temporary solution to a temporary(...ish) problem doesn't necessarily have be 'we always do it that way', does it?

[Brain Potter]

Dallas,

A fair point, but if you think about it the MoD already does an extensive amount of business that way by simply chartering, with the added bonus of no ownership or training costs.

Could the MoD hire civilians to fly RAF aircraft into theatre? I suppose so, but you are entering into a whole new debate about mercenaries. Type-experienced pilots could certainly be signed on as Reservists if they had previous military service. Either way, could enough personnel be sourced to make procurement of an interim type a viable project before FSTA arrives? Doubtful, but even if it was deemed worthwhile I just don't believe that 10 aircraft in 9 months is in any way possible.

I have a feeling that an unsolicited bid for an interim aircraft was made about 18-months ago. It was studied (by staff work and not by internet hearsay) and rejected as too difficult to implement and not offering value-for-money with the imminent (in MoD terms) arrival of FSTA.

If government policy continues to dictate that AT aircraft must have DAS to operate into theatre, then I cannot see how any solution that it not simply traditionally-procured and RAF-operated could proceed in any way that doesn't end-up looking exactly like FSTA (which does include type-experienced reservists). Any new direction will have to replicate the years of staffwork and contractual negotiations that have already been accomplished. The contract has been signed and FSTA is coming, but if it is cut-off at the knees right now a replacement programme will not be on the ramp at Kandahar any sooner.

[RS30]

Lets talk numbers..bums on seats!

Suppose we were able to fly a 6 day a week shed into theatre with some modern, reliable, properly equipped 250 seat class strat airlifters.

That's 1500 bods a week.

Say we had 10,000 bods in theatre (a figure banded about recently in the media as possible in the near future)

It would take 7 weeks to rotate everyone once, allowing for a bit of flex for WX and snags. Another 7 weeks to give everyone an R&R break and another 7 weeks to rotate out the replacements giving a min 21 week tour.

To run such a schedule needs at least two of these 250 seat a/c plus a reserve to ensure against tech snags. Two crews for each return flight (min) so a manning to cover leave/sickies/training/JPA of at least 3 and possibly 4 crews per jet.

So that 3 frames for just one schedule. Same again if we support two theatres and some extra for EX and training, plus the crews to make it so.

The thing is we need this NOW! Not in 5-10 years! I don't care who makes 'em as long as they can do the job and be delivered by monday!

To paraphrase the guy in the filum "We were Soldiers"
"If the planes stop coming...we all die!":\

A TP

[Truckkie]

Suppose we were able to fly a 6 day a week shed into theatre with some modern, reliable, properly equipped 250 seat class strat airlifters.

That's 1500 bods a week.

Say we had 10,000 bods in theatre (a figure banded about recently in the media as possible in the near future)

It would take 7 weeks to rotate everyone once, allowing for a bit of flex for WX and snags. Another 7 weeks to give everyone an R&R break and another 7 weeks to rotate out the replacements giving a min 21 week tour.

To run such a schedule needs at least two of these 250 seat a/c plus a reserve to ensure against tech snags. Two crews for each return flight (min) so a manning to cover leave/sickies/training/JPA of at least 3 and possibly 4 crews per jet.

So that 3 frames for just one schedule. Same again if we support two theatres and some extra for EX and training, plus the crews to make it so.



Er - isn't that 216 Sqn and their Tristars various?

3 C2s for the main pax schedule - Tankers and PCF for the rest?

:ok:

[RS30]

Pity is you can't get 250 in a C2 on that shed and we are lucky to have even one C2 servicable some weeks!

As I said, we need reliable frames, not withstanding or decrying the near heroic efforts of 216 aircrew and eng dets on a very punishing schedule, the decision to replace the Tristar was 10 years too late.

[The Real Slim Shady]

It was studied (by staff work and not by internet hearsay) and rejected as too difficult to implement and not offering value-for-money with the imminent (in MoD terms) arrival of FSTA.

That is PRECISELY what holds the RAF back: staff work.

Regulated thinking, a failure to look beyond the next posting or career move.

Too difficult to implement? 9 months, I can have 10 widebodies transporting your troops and freight around the world - easy.

At a push, 6.

[brit bus driver]

TRSS...I hear you fella, I really do. But DSCOM have widebodies trucking the troops aroundthe world...to the tune of about £250 million a year on charter.

That doesn't fix the inter-theatre airlift problems, nor could you in 9 months.

The biggest issue is the DAS; unless there is a sea-change in the goverment's appetite for risk, this will continue to be the Achilles' heel of the AT force. It's an A4 (or A6) problem which has to be dealt with by 2 Gp, Brize Norton and, ultimately of course, the boys & girls of 216 who are - as everyone has acknowledged - doing a sterling job.

Too little, too late..as ever.

[glhcarl]

Pity is you can't get 250 in a C2 on that shed and we are lucky to have even one C2 servicable some weeks!

As I said, we need reliable frames, not withstanding or decrying the near heroic efforts of 216 aircrew and eng dets on a very punishing schedule, the decision to replace the Tristar was 10 years too late.


Sorry but the actual numbers don't support your conclusions:

In the final six months of 2008 (July - December) the three C2's operated 501 flights (1787 flight hours). In the 184 days one C2 flew 179 times.

[ASCOT Ops Retd]

That is PRECISELY what holds the RAF back: staff work.

Regulated thinking, a failure to look beyond the next posting or career move.

Too difficult to implement? 9 months, I can have 10 widebodies transporting your troops and freight around the world - easy.

At a push, 6.
I used to be reflexely suspicious of officers who claimed to 'staff' something, as opposed to 'work on it', as well as SNCOs who referred to themselves as 'senior NCOs' rather than 'Sneks' - as an unscientific rule of thumb it proved to be surprisingly good w@nker AEW.

[BEagle]

"It's being staffed" actually means "I've buried it at the bottom of my in-tray and hope it won't rise to the top before I'm posted".
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

The only way things are done quickly is through a UOR (if it's still called that). But later various shiny ar$es will float to the surface and announce that the UOR 'wasn't intended for long term sustainability'....:ugh:

The sort of dross :8 who used to fill obscure corners of the Wyton gin palace, for example.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Hear hear BEags.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Brit Bus............on the face of it 9 months is easy.

Buy 6 more J's, find somewhere friendly and close to the Stan, then adopt the method currently used for the other sandy place and voila.........

How difficul to put that into practice is another matter :(

[glad rag]

...so on the money it hurts to read.....IMO:ok:

[Mighty Quercus]

Surely once the troops pull out of Iraq that would free up the Telic C130's to do the Charter-Tac airlift from a friendly Middle east base into Afg.

As SFFP said, this all worked well for Telic so with that headache gone hopefully by Jul09, cant it be switched to support Herrick from then.

Or is that all too simple!!!!

[Willard Whyte]

I said that 2-years would even be a outside bet because, amongst other things, the RAF does not operate any similar types and has a very limited pool of experience with modern, 2-crew, EFIS twin-jets to draw-on (and I mean all of these characteristics together on one aircraft type). I did not say that introduction of a new type was impossible, but was disagreeing with TRSS's ambitious timeframe. I used the C-17 as an example of how a new type can be quickly and successfully brought to FOC, but also highlighted aspects of it's operation that were favourable to achieving such a smooth introduction.

You appear to have taken the 2-crew, EFIS aspect of my point in isolation and are offering the C-130J as counter-argument. In many ways the introduction of the J reflects what I am saying; it wasn't as easy and quick as some people expected. I absolutely agree that Hercules pilots do have relevant experience with glass, and many of them would have to be stripped away at very short notice to help setup the kind of operation that TRSS proposes. Could Lyneham afford such a loss right now?

Even if Lyneham, 99 Sqn and Astor were plundered there would still be no aircrew or groundcrew experience with Boeing or Airbus commercial airplanes. Again, I re-iterate that this would not be an insurmountable problem, but it is certainly one of reasons why, unlike an airline, the RAF could not have a new fleet of 10 modern twin-jets at FOC within 9-months.

Out of interest, and I ask because I don't know the answer(!), how long does it take to convert to a different type for our civil brethren?

[Daysleeper]

Out of interest, and I ask because I don't know the answer(!), how long does it take to convert to a different type for our civil brethren?

..... couple of weeks for ground school, ten simulator sessions (say 2 weeks with days off) day for circuits, day to get all the paperwork sorted then line training.

Call it 5-7 weeks before starting to make money for the company.

Then anything from 20 - 50 sectors line training (but done on revenue flights) with a trainer.

Depending on the type of operation line training can be done in 3 - 6 weeks.

So 10-12 weeks till fully released.

Depending on type might be a day or two more or less.

[The Real Slim Shady]

As Daysleeper says for an experienced Captain on another type / experienced FO staying in their seats 3 months.

Experienced FO on another type moving to LHS new type up to 4 months.

Ab initio cadet FO on first commercial job up to 5 months.

[A and C]

Last year I went from the B738 to the A320, from the start of the course to the end of line training was 10 weeks.

As the core course was an Airbus "generic" rather than a company course it took about two weeks longer than a company specific course, So If the trainning used the company SOP,s from the start the course time would be nearer eight weeks.

[tubby linton]

When the 330 eventually appears as a tanker in the RAF will the boys from Boscombe want to play with it or will it be certified within the current civil envelope?An ex-boscombe friend told me that they discovered a lot more about the Tristar than Lockheed knew at the time when he and his colleagues got hold of it.
It may be interesting what Boscombe find.I wonder if they would give a 320 a going over?

[cessnapete]

You do not need a bunch of previosly EFIS experienced crews to man the A330 it is all part of the Conversion Course. This includes Cat 111 operations, all part of the course in civieland. I was amazed to learn the TriStar is a Cat 1 operation in the RAF the same a/c were no DH/100 metres RVR with BA.
The first few crews could do their line training with a civil operator ie BM who operate the same type.
The AAR could be done at the end of the Course with RAF instructors.
Hopefully the RAF will be liasing fully with the RAAF who will have done the same thing a year or two earlier with the same a/c.

[highveldtdrifter]

'You appear to have taken the 2-crew, EFIS aspect of my point in isolation and are offering the C-130J as counter-argument. In many ways the introduction of the J reflects what I am saying; it wasn't as easy and quick as some people expected. I absolutely agree that Hercules pilots do have relevant experience with glass, and many of them would have to be stripped away at very short notice to help setup the kind of operation that TRSS proposes. Could Lyneham afford such a loss right now? '

The delay in getting the C130J in to useful service was nothing to do with the training and transition to a modern cockpit, but rather some shabby initial software loads. It also took along time to accrue the various RtoS clearances, due in part to perhaps QQs unfamiliarity with the new way of doing things.

The C130J schoolhouse system is an outstanding model which hopefully will be followed if/when the A400 comes along. Few Ab Initios or retreads had any real problems, and the crew build up was as predicted once we allowed to start training. After all Airbus, Lockheed and Boeing have invested a lot in EFIS/HUDS and, in Airbus's case the side stick, all of which of course make the pilots task easier. With the C130J we had the luxury of an RAF driven and designed course, tailored to our needs. FSTA could be different if all they get is the basic Airbus civvy oriented TR course. For a new operator with no corporate experience on the jet, top up training may be needed.

[Brain Potter]

HVD,

Earlier in in this thread I mentioned that lack of corporate experience with 2-crew, EFIS, ETOPS jets was one - just one - of the reasons why a fleet of 10 interim transport jets couldn't possibly be operating in support of the Herrick airbridge within a timescale of 9-months as claimed by some contributors. The subsequent debate then seemed to have focused on the 2-crew and EFIS aspects, and has not ventured into the whole framework required to get a new aircraft into service, including issues like regulatory responsibility, which some seem to regard as just MoD foot-dragging.

I am not personally familiar with the introduction of the J, but my point wasn't so much about it's flight-deck but about the fact that it was originally seen as an easy step to take because of the deep corporate knowledge with the airframe. As you have said, ironing out issues with equipment and clearances for it's military functions took longer than had been expected. To perform it's military function any 'quick-solution' jet will also have to be fitted with a significant amount of new equipment and the whole platform will have to be cleared to operate under a MAR.

There is a debate running over on Arrse, featuring a very frustrated staff officer, whose job is dealing with this exact topic. I'll post of few of his quotes. Apologies for the the length, but I feel that this guys passionate postings really do show that there are guys in MoD working their guts out on these issues. If anything he shows that they aren't all quite the oily political toads that some like to believe they are:

There was time when I would have joined in any Crab bashing thread. But now, as it's my job to see the detail and try and find solutions, from a 'Defence' perspective of course, I have investigated almost every avenue and, I am afraid that the old story of operate within Defence Assumptions and 'Budgetary constraints' comes to mind (if any politician happens to be watching).

The ATF has been underfunded for 50-60 years. Why are we so surprised that it is so 'on the cusp' of failure now? Is that the fault of the Government? Or the RAF?

Do any of them have crystal balls?

We weren't truly 'expeditionary' (in today's terms) until many years after the Berlin Wall came down - how many of you saw the end of the Cold War?


Have you no idea how MOD (or any other part of Government) works? I write a paper outlining the requirement and making recommendations. It gets staffed at desk level, then 1, 2, 3 and ultimately 4* level (for AT amongst other things, tomorrow actually).

4* grownups come to a decision.

Advice given to Ministers.

Ministers are convinced. Or not.

Treasury is convinced. Or not.

If HMT smiles, then C17s et al appear as if by magic. If they don't then tough s*it, carry on normal jogging. Don't hold your breath given the credit crunch.

We have come up with numerous options, believe you me.

It takes time.

Only in your world could you justify the requirement, get the finance, get the aircraft, modify them to TES, train the crews and engineers and get them into service in a few short weeks.

It takes years FFS and it costs a fortune.

Of your taxes and mine.

If you want to know why it takes a long time, talk to the politicians that fund Defence, don't criticise me, and many other military officers (and civil servants, I might add) that spend all the hours that God sends trying to make things better as if we're some kind of conspiracy. Precisely what you are doing in this respect eludes me, apart from sniping from the sidelines.

On second thoughts, are you one of these barking mad civilian opportunists that email me with suggestions as to how they can solve our AT problems at a stroke (now that the financial pressure's on and you're finding it tough to find work for your airframes) and then, when I fcuk you off because you have no earthly chance of meeting the requirement, threaten to write to the Daily Telegraph/your MP?


We originally asked for 8 x C17.

We got 4.

Now, very slowly, and due to commitments (and mainly due to the work of the very MOD staff officers that you love to slag off) we have 6. and perhaps, only perhaps, we may have 8.

But of course, it will all be down to 'people' (and I use the term very loosely) like you and all the others out there who have no responsibility and no accountability.

I think not.

Any increase in our capability is all down to serving officers and men in squadrons and guys in theatre who see what's required, busy staff officers in PJHQ who support it, and more busy guys and gals (military and civilian) in the centre who push it through.

I do this every fcuking day. You just toy with it on a temporary basis with little or no accurate knowledge but a whole sh1tload of 'opinion'.


It is immensely frustrating but it's important and the outside perception needs to be dealt with. I am simply continuously gobsmacked by the one-eyed perception of almost everyone.

Still, now that I have 'proof' that almost all Tristar delays are caused by weather or DAS problems............................

I very nearly didn't answer as it really isn't in my interest to resurrect the thread either but - feel free to reproduce my words on PPrune or anywhere else. I don't care - they're the truth and I shall stand by them.


It's not a process issue - it's a finance issue, simple as. Your point about civvie carriers is tosh. They might be able to get the planes but they can't meet TES and never will.

And as for 'doing different' it's the use of commercial business practice that has got us into many of these problems in the first place!


Well, that all depends on who think my colleagues are. The FSTA PFI deal was done some time ago, probably before the whole Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns kicked off - I don't know. As was A400M.

Unlike your fantasy world, where you can simply order aircraft that miraculously meet the required standard in no time at all and there are lines of fully trained air and ground crew crying out to man them I work in a world where I have to do the best with what I have.

And - do you know what? It's made a lot easier when I'm not doing it with the background noise of people who clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about. This may not be your fault as you may not have access to the details of the requirement. That's fair enough, but I'm afraid it is the constant sniping that tends to make me drive my fist through the PC screen both at work and in my flat.

Oh, and you mentioned earlier that you hadn't criticized me and others in MOD about the airbridge?

You have - every time you say we aren't relevant, that we have no impact or effect, that we aren't in touch, you criticize me.

I know what I'm talking about and it would seem that you don't, apart from saying that somehow UK plc should shift to a Total War footing.

It would of course, be nice if we did. But at the end of the day, the audit of war will say that actually we suffered minimally in blood and perhaps more in treasure (for what is a different matter). If you want the HMT response to that to change (and your taxes to increase) then speak to politicians -don't get on Arrse and hit the very people who are trying to do their best.

[glum]

Some interesting points, but might I suggest he stops reading AARSE for the sake of his blood pressure?

[The Real Slim Shady]

What is this acronym TES?

And MAR??

[Finnpog]

TES = Theatre Entry Standard.

Thanks for the steer to the Arrse thread - a good read with good context provided.

At the end of the day, if the Country through the Government / Treasury do not want to provide the additional funding needed then there is no way that the equipment / airframes can be bought.

This is a symptom of political decisions rather than an inadequacy of the RAF who are trying to do their best whilst wearing the financial straightjacket that they have been forced into.

[Kaveman]

MAR = Military Aircraft Release, replaced by the Release To Service (RTS) these days. It's the big book of airworthiness limitations that the aircraft must be operated within.

K

[Daysleeper]

and the whole platform will have to be cleared to operate under a MAR.
It's the big book of airworthiness limitations that the aircraft must be operated within.

Yeah cos you see you buy modern airliners without any limitations , no really the manufacturer provide nothing and every airline has to make them up for themselves...:ugh:

[Brain Potter]

Daysleeper,

The RAF is not an airline. It operates aircraft under the authority of the MoD, not the CAA/JAA. As such the MoD is responsible for the airworthiness of the basic aircraft, as well as any military modifications however small. The MAR (or RTS) does not just mean how fast, how high etc - it covers all aspects of the platform and it's equipment.

As a simplistic illustration, let's say a bolt-on military IFF transponder catches fire in-flight, the subsequent damage causes failure of flight controls and the aircraft crashes on London. Who would then be responsible for standing up in court and saying that the aircraft was airworthy?

The CAA/JAA would have no authority or interest in approving such modifications. The MoD could not say that the equipment was safe in isolation without considering it's impact on the rest of the aircraft and therefore must take responsibility for the whole platform.

Just think of the fall-out from Nimrod, Hercules and Chinook airworthiness issues and then imagine the complexity of some sort of joint civil/military regulatory framework.

[BEagle]

I think you'll find that any Airbus design will be certificated to civil standards, although when operating under 'miitary conditions', military certification will apply.

The definition of 'military conditions' will be something for various folk to exercise their minds over, however. But, for example, if flying passengers from A to B (outside a high threat area), there is no reason whatsoever why a military operated transport aircraft should not be required to meet civil certification standards.

Which might also include the nonsense of fitting an armoured flight deck door.....:ugh:

[The Real Slim Shady]

Certification and operating standards are apples and pears.

The aircraft, Airbus, Boeing or Lockheed or Vickers, will originally be a civil aircraft, certified to comply with the national requirements - now EU Ops within contracting nations or FAA in the US.

Any modification from the type approval will have to be submitted to the Authorty for acceptance: hence if you bolt wing pods on to an A330 that mod, together with any other mods required for military operation e.g a freight door, would require Authority approval.

The Operational aspects fall under EU Ops: however, the first paragraphs of EU Ops specify the limits on the applicability, which excludes military aircraft. My interpretation, which may be at variance with BEag's, or anyone else's, is that the applicability caveat relates to aircraft which hold a military registration and fall within the remit of Military Flying Regulations or JSP 318 ( as it was in my day).

If the aircraft has a civilian registration it will be bound by EU Ops: if a military reg by JSP 318.

If it is civil registered the crews will need ATPLs / CPLs and be bound by EU Ops. If military registered they would have to be Reservists, or have some other affiliation to the Crown.

Opinions and comments please.

[aw ditor]

Who will hold the AOC for "Commercial Air Transport"? Or will they be bolted-on to a current AOC holder with the type already on the AOC.

[EGT Redline]

If it is civil registered the crews will need ATPLs / CPLs and be bound by EU Ops. If military registered they would have to be Reservists, or have some other affiliation to the Crown.

In addition, if the aircraft are to be operated on the civil register there will be a requirement to maintain them under civil regulations. Whilst the military to civilian crossover for aircrew is relatively straightforward (as some have stated on here), the transition for maintenance staff and policy is not so easy. All maintenance activities on civil registered aircraft need to be certified by a suitably qualified person - a Licensed Aircraft Engineer (LAE) holding the relevant type rating and company approval. The RAF does not utilise LAE's or hold a Part-145 maintenance approval, thus there would be a requirement to employ the services of a civilian maintenance and repair organisation (MRO) under contract.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Redline

Absolutely agree.

The FSTA project is for civil registered aircraft, I believe.

The use of civil registered aircraft does not fall within the remit of TES or MAR, hence bolt ons, whilst they may be desirable, are not essential.

[collbar]

I beleive the FSTA program will be bound by civil pt-66 maint regs. Which is why airtanker are going to train our RAF engineers to proper civil standards with type ratings.

Interestingly only engineers with hands on experience will be able to make airworthiness calls, making JEngOs and SEngOs surplus to requirements(look at the savings there!).

[Alex Whittingham]

the same a/c were no DH/100 metres RVR with BA

The minimum CAT IIIB RVR was 75M for the TriStar, 100M was used for the B747. We always maintained the TriStar should be released to at least CAT II limits (DH100ft Radio/300M RVR) when it entered service. There is a cost, though, to maintaining aircraft and training crews to CAT II and III standards which their Airships were unwilling to pay. I mean, how often are you going to get fog at BZN?

[cessnapete]

Alex I stand corrected I was a 747 -400 man!
I always assumed that BZN as the RAF Transport Base would have at least a Cat II or III ILS as all new A330's/Boeings etc. come equiped as standard out of the factory. Would save a lot of diversions, with Birmingham littered with C17's and TriStars with low viz at BZN as happens at the moment.

[haltonapp]

When RAF engineers get a maintenance licence with an A330 rating on it just wait at General Office to see the queue for PVR forms!! I wish I was paid per hour what our licensed engineers get!

[Sideshow Bob]

The Real Slim Shady

From the ANO (The Air Navigation Order 2005 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm))

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person may act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without being the holder of an appropriate licence if, in so doing, he is acting in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces.

So no need for any flight crew licences as long as the aircraft are on the UK register. No such exemptions for engineers though!!

[The Real Slim Shady]

Which, of course, explains the need to acquire an ATPL when one leaves the service of HMG.

Sorry, only applies to military aircraft: i.e those with a military registration, or commandeered civilian aircraft in time of war, operated by a military crew or the military.

[Blacksheep]

lack of corporate experience with 2-crew, EFIS, ETOPS jets was one - just one - of the reasons why a fleet of 10 interim transport jets couldn't possibly be operating in support of the Herrick airbridge within a timescale of 9-months It didn't take 9 months to convert Flight Crew and engineers from ancient analogue B737-200s to the digital B757-200ER. Why should the RAF be different? There's nothing particularly magic about 2-crew, glass cockpit, ETOPS aeroplanes.

[StopStart]

So what about this (http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/countermanpads/index.html) piece of kit? Bung a few of these on some civvy airliners and bob's your uncle....

[Brain Potter]

Any modification from the type approval will have to be submitted to the Authorty for acceptance: hence if you bolt wing pods on to an A330 that mod, together with any other mods required for military operation e.g a freight door, would require Authority approval.


Nope, not if it is a military aircraft operating under a MAR. The "certification" lies with the MoD airworthiness authorities.

The FSTA A330s have been allocated military serials ZZ330-ZZ343.

I think that there may be a plan for the aircraft to hold dual-identities so that they may also be operated as civilian aircraft under the AOC held by AirTanker Ltd. The aircraft's civilian type-certification will depend on the military equipment being deactivated when it is used for this purpose. Such concepts are entirely new-ground and are part of the reason that the project is taking a long time to get up-and-running.

In the past few years there have been several different iterations of civilian-owned aircraft in military service. The Grob Tutor is civilian registered and as such has to observe CAA operating regulations. The King Air originally had a civilian registration but now carries military serials. I believe that this change had to be made so that diplomatic clearance for overseas flights could be obtained, as there was no mechanism for the military to apply for such clearances with civilian aircraft. I don't know whether it has a MAR, but the fact that it is ostensibly unmodified for any military function would make the safety-case straightforward.

Blacksheep, I will say one more time. The 2-crew, EFIS, ETOPS thing is not a show-stopper, but converting airline pilots within an existing TRTO is not the same thing as starting a military operation from scratch with very little relevant corporate knowledge in any training or supervisory postions. As soon as you start trying to ameliorate this problem by importing civilian experience, you are right back into the same contractual issues that affect FSTA. And this is just one of the hurdles that any interim solution would have to face, along with the massive regulatory and airworthiness problems that have only just been touched on here. They could all be overcome, but the timescale is pure fantasy.

Anyone who has any experience of HMG practices knows that it is risible to suggest that a new aeroplane of this kind could be procured and modified, with crews trained and worked up, within 9-months. The person who made this claim had never heard of TES which, quite frankly, says it all about the validity of his argument.

[cessnapete]

Why not? Qantas are doing just that for the RAAF A330 Tankers. The aircrew do their conversion sim and line training with QF. The Role training can then be done within the RAAF.

[Brain Potter]

The RAAF A330 MRTT (KC-30B) project has been in gestation for several years.

They never expected to go from nought-to-sixty in 9-months.

The very fact that the RAAF are sending guys to QF for line-training means that they acknowledge that they have no experience with the jet and think that it is sensible to accrue some corporate knowledge before setting-up their own operation.

Such contracts are not knocked-up overnight and require diligent "staffing". Again, this is eminently achievable but not within the fantasy timescales that have been suggested.

[Truckkie]

I think that there may be a plan for the aircraft to hold dual-identities so that they may also be operated as civilian aircraft under the AOC held by AirTanker Ltd. The aircraft's civilian type-certification will depend on the military equipment being deactivated when it is used for this purpose. Such concepts are entirely new-ground and are part of the reason that the project is taking a long time to get up-and-running.



Not that easy to deactivate a lot of said equipment. Just having it fitted will actually security classify the airframe.

Not fitting it is not an option either - can't have a military tanker/trooper without the equipment to do the job.

Interesting problem....

[spongebob66]

Im reading this thread on the 330 with interest, my old boss is the DFO for Airtanker, and is working on there entry in to service, I have heard that he must be able to pass a RAF Medical when they start flying as he will be given a military rank, this could prove quite interesting, they have given him a trainer and fitness prog to follow as he is not in the best and slimest shape. I also understand the flying is going to done bu both Military and civil pilots, And as for line training , well he is flying the line with BKI to keep him current so my be that will happen with you guys.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Anyone who has any experience of HMG practices knows that it is risible to suggest that a new aeroplane of this kind could be procured and modified, with crews trained and worked up, within 9-months.

Brain, that's the kind of MoD and Service bullsh1t that hinders progress: that and your comment regarding "staffing" reflects the muddled "but we have always done it this way" style of thinking that quite clearly differentiates your culture from the results driven commercial culture.

The thread title is "Ageing air transport aircraft" not AAR aircraft.

Flash to bang - 9 months: at least 10 AIR TRANSPORT aircraft.

Civil registered, civilian operated.

And since when have Globespan needed TES to go to the Falklands???

[Brain Potter]

TRSS,

You may think that it is bull****, but that won't change the way that HMG works. The efforts of staff officers to get results within a framework of what they know is achievable is not "muddled thinking"; it is realpolitik. The idea that these guys are some breed of headquarters-dwelling pseuds is simply a fallacy. The chances are that immediately prior to their time in Whitehall they were in a command tour on an operational unit, and have first-knowledge of all the problems. They will expect to go back to these same units and want to see them equipped and managed as well as can be achieved. "Staffing" is not a self-serving headquarters process, it is how every single decision in the MoD is reached. It is only a parochial name for the same kind of managerial research that takes place in every organization before decisions are taken (except perhaps in RBS). There is good and bad staffwork and much of the good work never comes to fruition because of budgetary issues, but to simply dismiss "staffing" as an anachronistic concept is quite wrong. Diligent staff work is the only method by which the Treasury can be persauded to part with taxpayer's money. If you want to revolutionize the HMG processes you need start by becoming a big player in national politics, because that would be the level of clout required. I am not endorsing these practices, but am simply defending those who have to work within them.

To go back to the detail of the debate, I cannot see the point of MoD aquiring it's own fleet of 10 civilian operated "vanilla" transport aircraft. It would have no impact on the operational airbridge and would offer nothing that could not be achieved by chartering from the the likes of, as you say, Globespan. If the aircraft cannot go into theatre what would be the point of the investment?

I think this debate needs some perspective. Yes, the airbridge can be a painful experience for the user, costing them valuable days of R&R. But ultimately it is only an inconvinience, whereas other issues actually kill people. Snatch Landrovers are costing lives. Lack of SH costs lives. Nimrod airworthiness has cost lives. These are the problems that really do require the urgent application of precious MoD resources.

[BEagle]

To go back to the detail of the debate, I cannot see the point of MoD aquiring it's own fleet of 10 civilian operated "vanilla" transport aircraft. It would have no impact on the operational airbridge and would offer nothing that could not be achieved by chartering from the the likes of, as you say, Globespan. If the aircraft cannot go into theatre what would be the point of the investment?

I was just about to make the very same comment, BP!

Whilst there is a downturn in the civil airline market, yielding ample spare leasing capacity, I cannot see any advantage in the RAF acquiring any single role strategic AT assets of its own.

[Chugalug2]

Brain Potter:
Nimrod airworthiness has cost lives. These are the problems that really do require the urgent application of precious MoD resources.
The airworthiness, or lack of it, of many military aircraft involved in accidents to date leads one to wonder if the urgent application of precious resources that you speak of, BP, should be in the hands of just about anyone other than the MOD! As the UK military airworthiness authority it has reneged on its duty of care to ensure that the UK military airfleet does indeed comply with the military airworthiness regulations as highlighted in the Hercules (OK, FFP there), Nimrod and Chinook threads. From what I understand the failure is/was systemic and by extension affects all fleets, not only those that have suffered such terrible tragedies. Just as financial pressure does not excuse civil AOC holders from full compliance with CAA regulations, the same should apply to military operators. But the catch is that operator and regulator are one and the same. As with all self regulation the result is a compromised system, and in this case a deadly one. Military Airworthiness regulation needs to be removed from the MOD into a separate and independent Military Airworthiness Authority ASAP. The mess it will encounter will take years, probably decades, to put right. Yes, it will cost lots of money and we would never know for sure how much needless loss of life it prevents, but if the present arrangement continues we will only know of the loss that it could have prevented.

[Brain Potter]

Chug,

I agree with a lot of your sentiments.

However, the issues highlighted by Nimrod, Hercules and Chinook make it even less likely that any politician, civil servant or air officer is going to approve the abbreviated airworthiness process that would be necessary to get a new aircraft, that meets TES, into service in the sort of timescale that TRSS has claimed.

[Sideshow Bob]

Sorry, only applies to military aircraft: i.e those with a military registration, or commandeered civilian aircraft in time of war, operated by a military crew or the militar

Sorry, applies to any aircraft on the UK register, at any time. If it didn't I'm sure it would say so.

[BEagle]

Sideshow Bob, correct!

For example, it applied to the multi engine training flying conducted at Prestwick for some ab-initio RAF pilots in the late 1990s.

[NutLoose]

And working with a Major National Institution, the Government are please to announce a Bipartisan, Multicultural, Job Creating Initiative to address the current temporary percieved shortfall in the RAF transport fleet whilst maximising assets and commonality across the present fleet, this ground breaking multifaceted and cost saving lease programme will give the men on our front lines what they both need and want...... Gentlemen I give you the Nimroooo....eeeeerm Comet :ok:

http://www.skonk.net/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=657&g2_serialNumber=1

Call me Cynical :ugh:

[moggiee]

I was always suspicious of the up front drivers when we always seemed to break down in Washington on the way back from Belize and actually on the tarmac at Calgary. .
Horse****!

Never ONCE in my time on 10 Sqn did we have a "breakdown" that was not genuine - in fact we carried a good many faults (sometimes when we shouldn't have done) in order to get the job done. Personal and professional pride dictated that we do such.

[petoprobe]

I second that Moggiee I spent ten years on the fleet and never once did we pull a fast one. Busting a gut to get the job done was a fact of life.

[desmonev]

The great majority of AT (and AAR) crews continue to bust a gut to get the job done against all the obstacles that are placed in their way, from the Goverment, through inadequte funding, all the way down to uninformed PPruners. Some people really need to get a life!:cool:

[The Real Slim Shady]

des, and the provision of adequate resources to facilitate the best service to the customer should be a priority, be that " vanilla" civilian aircraft or juiced up heavily armed / self defensive military aircraft.

[Sideshow Bob]

TRSS
We can't just introduce an aircraft into service and fly it straight into theatre, to expect this shows a degree of inexperience with the MOD set-up and the problems we face. Any new type to be operated under military rules requires a Release to Service. No RTS, no fly, end of. This is normally provided by Boscombe, every bit of kit used on the A/C has to be tested and entered into the RTS. This takes time and money. It can be done quicker, under an UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement), but even this takes some time.
To expect a jet to be introduce as quickly as an airline brings one into service is a bit like living in cloud cookooland. The airforce has quite a diverse fleet, all operated under the same broad rules, similar to but not the same a civvy regs. It took several months just to certifie the DAS for the Tristar, then each type (C2(A), KC1, K1) had to be done separately.
There is no quick solution; it will take time, even longer when you involve PFI's and politicians. What we needed was a fleet that was kept up to date and not left till it is on its knees, but it is too late for that now.
As for " vanilla" civilian aircraft there are not enough assets in theatre to allow hub and spoke, and no one stupid enough (thank god) to fly straight into theatre without DAS.

[Blighter Pilot]

there are not enough assets in theatre to allow hub and spoke, and no one stupid enough (thank god) to fly straight into theatre without DAS.


Hopefully our lords and masters will cancel the A400M asap, buy the extra 4/9 C130Js and C17s and we might be able to hub and spoke.

Then with FSTA we might have a chance at operating an up to date AT/AR fleet.

Limited types - just C130J, C17 and A330s. Streamline engineering, spares and training support.

Give us AT crews the tools to provide the service the troops and users require!:ok: