RAF Tankers

[cessnapete]

From another thread, EADS not bidding for US Tanker order. Hopefully might mean earlier A330 deliveries to RAF.
Tristar tanker availability at all time low with crews having 6 trips in a row cancelled due no serviceable airframes. Lack of recency can't be good for morale.
Some 'silver lining', one lucky crew and a/c u/s in Las Vegas!!

[Pete268]

If it's not a secret, how many Tri* does the RAF now have? Also, again if not a secret, how many VC10's are still left?

I seem to recall three of the Tri* were passenger only aircraft, but not sure how many 'aerial fuel stations' there are.

Reading on the other thread about the Cyprus schedule going out to tender, does that free up any Tri* or VC10's for tanking?.

When I was in (1980-1993) the Cyprus schedule seemed to move from being a VC10 to Tri* schedule, with the Tri* also doing the South Atlantic run, but I gather that is no longer the case?

Peter

[cessnapete]

9 I think. Only 8 in service as one been at Marshalls at Cambridge for a couple of years, trying to get a glass cockpit/avionic upgrade. It won't be ready until A330 in service and the Tristar due to retire!
A civil contract would have had an upgrade like this up and running in less than a year. BOAC/BA fitted a two system digital FMS avionics upgrade to 20+ B747 -100/200 about 3 years.
It can be done when the MOD is not involved.

[MarkD]

The US tanker situation would probably have negligible impact, since the US KC-45s would have been coming off an Alabama line, not the Toulouse A330 line. When you're wondering why A330Ks aren't in service yet, recall that the Australians started their KC-30A process AFTER the UK did, but their tankers are fairly well along. The "Airtanker" fiasco held everything up.

[Pete268]

CP,

Many thanks for that.

I didn't realise one of the Tri*s is 'in doc' at Marshalls or had been there for so long!

How many VC10 tankers are left?. I gather some of them have been scrapped, so there cannot be too many of them left either?

No doubt until the A330 arrive (eventually) aerial tanking will be at a premium.

Peter

[Squirrel 41]

MarkD

> The "Airtanker" fiasco held everything up.


Well, PFI and all of that. According to this (Work in Progress: The provision of multi-role tanker aircraft capability (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/work_in_progress/tanker_aircraft.aspx)) the National Audit Office are currently investigating the value for money of the PFI solution. Should be interesting!

S41

[Eckster]

Yes we do have 9 Tri* aircraft, and yes one is currently at Marshalls getting a glass cockpit upgrade but will be back this year and not just as we are retiring the fleet, got another 6-8 years before that happens.

Yes there is a lack of frames but also aircrew for other commitments other than the Herrick airbridge.

[Lyneham Lad]

MarkD

> The "Airtanker" fiasco held everything up.


Well, PFI and all of that. According to this (Work in Progress: The provision of multi-role tanker aircraft capability) the National Audit Office are currently investigating the value for money of the PFI solution. Should be interesting!

S41

And the result is... (From the Press Association)

The Ministry of Defence faces a bill for hundreds of millions of pounds if the RAF's new fleet of tanker and transport aircraft is to be able to fly in warzones such as Afghanistan, the Whitehall spending watchdog has warned.
In a highly critical report, the National Audit Office said that the £10.5 billion private finance initiative (PFI) deal to provide 14 new Airbus A330-200 aircraft was already running five-and-a-half years behind schedule.

It warned that there could now be years of further delays if the MoD decided they should be "retro-fitted" with flight deck armour and other protective equipment to enable them to operate in "high threat environments".

In the meantime the RAF was having to rely on its ageing - and increasingly unreliable - Tristars and VC10s to carry out air-to-air refuelling operations and transport troops to and from theatres like Afghanistan.

The NAO said that when the MoD originally began work on the tanker aircraft procurement programme, it was not envisaged that they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones and no funding was provided for protective equipment.

Although that changed in 2006, the MoD did not add the requirement to the contract it was negotiating with the AirTanker consortium - which is supplying the aircraft - for fear of causing further delays to the project.

Instead it was decided that the additional equipment would have to be "retro-fitted" once the RAF starts taking delivery of the aircraft next year - a process which the NAO said could cost "several hundred million pounds" if it goes ahead.

Overall, the NAO said it was impossible to assess whether the PFI deal provided value for money to the taxpayer and it criticised the MoD for failing to carry out a "sound evaluation of alternative procurement routes".

It said that there had been "assumption" in the MoD that the aircraft would be provided through a private finance deal - therefore keeping them "off-balance sheet" - due to "affordability pressures and the prevailing policy to use PFI wherever possible".

Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee which oversees the work of the NAO, strongly criticised the use of PFI and said the MoD should have foreseen the aircraft would need to operate in warzones. :ugh:

[ian16th]

The NAO said that when the MoD originally began work on the tanker aircraft procurement programme, it was not envisaged that they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones and no funding was provided for protective equipment.Military a/c flying into 'conflict zones', whatever next?

What the h*ll do these idiots in the MoD think their job is?

[tucumseh]

it was not envisaged that they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones and no funding was provided for protective equipment.

I can state quite categorically that in (at least) June 2001 it WAS envisaged, for all air platforms, and this was endorsed by various DECs and in DPA. The question then becomes - Who decided to overrule the DECs and why? And, who rolled over and allowed their belly to be tickled by the beancounters?

[c130jage]

EADS have not pulled out of the tanker deal for the US airforce YET...
The are at the moment considering their options and if they stand a chance against their rival manufacturer.
Dont write them off ................:cool:

[NURSE]

NAO highlights cost of delayed refuelling aircraft deal | Supply Management (http://www.supplymanagement.com/news/2010/nao-highlights-cost-of-delayed-refuelling-aircraft-deal/)

from the professional journal of procurement.

Wonder if we did a Freedom of information request to find out how many people working there are professionally qualified in procurement?

[MrBernoulli]

The[y] are at the moment considering their options and if they stand a chance against their rival manufacturer.
Dont write them off ................http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gifWell, the US goverment has done exactly that - written them off! After all, the last US tanker selection process was a serious embarrassment for all those senators and congressmen with 'interests' in parts of the country that house Boeing and it's suppliers. They stomped their feet, gave their teddies a 'distance check', and had the tender process declared null and void. Better that than to have to pay back the contents of all those under-the-table brown envelopes.

The process has now been couched in language such that anyone but Boeing doesn't have a raccoon's chance in hell of getting close. They are well and truly, written off! :rolleyes:

[Squirrel 41]

Mods, can we merge with the other NAO thread pls?

Thank-you,

S41

[Flyt3est]

Guys,

firstly, Northrop Grumman are an organization who's corporate strategy is to maximize profits, therefore when KC-X didn't allow them to compete at their usual margins, they pulled the plug - Not a core business etc etc. Now Airbus have a slightly different take.. They are after growth in overall market share. Combine this with a US systems integrator who has the same strategy, say L3, one of the fastest growing companies in the USA in terms of market share, then you have bidders who may be prepared to take a hit on the margins to get the market floor space.

Anyone who seriously believes that Airbus cannot compete this bid under the current rules is totally out of touch. My personal belief is that if Airbus bid, then I'd bet a heap of money that they will win it, and you can bet that Boeing know this as well, which is why Senator Murray is screaming like a stuffed pig in protest at the possible RFP deadline extension.:E