FSTA Updates

[ORAC]

Just a couple of updates.

Firstly, Vince Cable is calling for an inquiry was to be held into the FSTA contract and it's costs, with industry experts stating that the MOD was being taken to the cleaners.

Cable calls for inquiry into Labour’s rip-off RAF deal (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Politics/article342335.ece)

Vince Cable, the business secretary, has demanded an inquiry into a £10.5 billion military aircraft deal that critics claim is costing more than double the going rate.

Cable told The Sunday Times he was seriously concerned about the contract for an RAF tanker jet, which he claimed was part of the Labour government’s “poisoned legacy”. He said a “very well-informed source” had given him “detailed information on massively expensive and unnecessary commitments”.

Secondly, there is also a sniff of interest from the French about joining the programme. It takes about it as a "shortgap measure", but these things tend to take on a lifr of their own...

Defense News: France To Delay Air Programs (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4703778)

A sketchy outline of affected programs emerged during a July 7 hearing in which Defense Minister Hervé Morin appeared before the parliamentary defense committee. Morin said the government plans to postpone orders for a new fleet of multirole tanker and transport (MRTT) aircraft to replace the C-135 fleet and the 700 million euro ($888 million) upgrade of Mirage 2000D aircraft, according to Jean-Claude Viollet, a member of Parliament who attended the hearing......

Given the planned cuts in Britain, France, Germany and Italy, decisions need to be made on pooling capabilities and a specialization of defense tasks, he said. Given the lack of money to perform the full range of missions, governments should think about which ones to opt for, he said.

Senior Air Force officers had been hoping an order of 14 air tankers will be placed next year to replace the aging fleet of 14 C-135 FR aircraft by 2015.

The parliamentary committee asked Morin if the British Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft fleet might be shared as a stopgap measure.

The MRTT is to refuel nuclear-armed strike aircraft, and also carry cargo long distances.

[BEagle]

France regards its nuclear mission as sacrosanct and a national obligation. They will be very unlikely to 'share' anyone else's tankers to support this mission.

MCCE can provide ATARES to non-tanker nations under certain circumstances, but I cannot imagine France being prepared to rely upon such a service for their nuclear mission.

However, an update programme for the C-135FR in particular and perhaps the KC-135R would be an entirely plausible and pragmatic way of delaying the need for 'Tanker de Future'.

[Sook]

The parliamentary committee asked Morin if the British Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft fleet might be shared as a stopgap measure.

Sounds more like they would want to lease the ones we weren't using from AirTanker rather than join the programme. Of course any monies received from France would go to AirTanker as they're only just making a profit out of the PFI deal...

[LFFC]

Here's another viewpoint:

Howard Wheeldon reads between the lines on the announcement to review the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme (http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/content/10764/FSTA_-_Just_get_on_with_it_please)

Nonetheless, I sense that behind this criticism is not the cost of the FSTA programme or whether what the previous government chose was the best option for taxpayers or not. Perhaps this is more about a previous Army Chief of the General Staff, one General Sir Richard Dannatt preferring to see the RAF completely starved of all investment. Why is it I wonder that I get the impression that there are still those in active Army service or that have recently left the service that just do not realise the massively important roll the RAF and indeed the Royal Navy play in meeting our full NATO obligations be those in Afghanistan, on the high seas, across the rest of the globe where our forces serve or here at home?

[VinRouge]

Paving the way to axe FSTA?

What are they going to do with that jolly big new hangar at Brize now?

[12 twists per inch]

Bang a mezzanine floor in, a couple of ramp thingys and voila, double decker fat albert servicing hangar. Can even provide long term storage for skips that land without dangling the dunlops. :p

[Trim Stab]

France regards its nuclear mission as sacrosanct and a national obligation. They will be very unlikely to 'share' anyone else's tankers to support this mission.



I think there is growing realisation on both sides of "La Manche" that we are going to have to share a number of major long-term strategic procurements or lose them completely. The French army and Bundeswehr already have a joint brigade, which has set a successful precedent. The French navy have occasionally expressed a (mostly non-reciprocated) desire for a joint naval carrier group with the RN, and even whispers about a joint nuclear submarine deterrent.

A joint FSTA programme is not that impossible by comparison.

[Shell Management]

The investment in Air Tanker is already too great for a cancellation. Letting other nations buy in to the service is a splendid idea.

[ORAC]

Airbus Military: UK Tanker to Fly By September (http://defensenews.com/blogs/farnborough/2010/07/21/airbus-military-uk-tanker-to-fly-by-september/)

By PIERRE TRAN, FARNBOROUGH, UK – A first flight of the A330 multirole tanker and transport (MRTT) aircraft ordered for Britain’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) program is due before the end of the third quarter, said Antonio Caramazana, Airbus Military vice president, head of Airbus military derivatives.

Flight trials of the second FSTA aircraft is expected “soon after,” Caramazana told journalists July 19 at the Farnborough Airshow. That is expected to be around two months after the flight of the first aircraft, a source familiar with the program said.......

[NURSE]

Flying white elephants: MoD orders £10.5billion planes that can't fly into warzones | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312435/Flying-white-elephants-MoD-orders-10-5billion-planes-fly-warzones.html)

Looks like the begining of the end. the public accounts select comittee report makes embarassing reading for both MoD and Treasury and if the sensible thing is done will cost £72million+ to get out of.

[Rakshasa]

Setting aside FSTA for a moment those defence spending figures look a little suspect without any context to me.

Japan for instance has a massive navy but lacks nuclear subs or aircraft carriers. It also has a massive US presence for security and little in the way of distant protectorates. Ditto for Germany, although their navy is small and the manpower is in the Air Force and Army. The fact that France, our most directly comparable peer, is absent from the list doesn't exactly demonstrate unbiased reporting. Mind you, it's the Mail so its all a bit moot...

[green granite]

try:
'Astonishing' Errors In MoD Aircraft Deal - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100916/tuk-astonishing-errors-in-mod-aircraft-d-45dbed5.html)

[BEagle]

Defence chiefs were condemned for wrangling for nine years over the contracts, which has forced the RAF to continue using ageing TriStar and VC10 jets dating back to the 1960s.

How clearly I recall an Abbey Wood civil serpent stating quite emphatically "This programme will not slip!"....:mad:

[NorthernKestrel]

Yet more chickens stacking up in a holding pattern...!

Is it true that the FSTA A330s are not fitted with probes so they can't buddy-buddy tank? (a capability we have had since Valiants?)

[Saintsman]

What state of the art defensive aids are fitted to Tristar and VC10? I believe that the FSTA will have a DIRCM and MAWS system fitted so is that less protection?

Besides, stating that it cannot fly into Afghanistan is moving the goal posts. It was primarily bought to be a tanker.

[WasNaeMe]

Aunty Beeb is reporting yet more pathetic money wasting & blundering in the dark by MOD.

Somebody will be along in a minute to blame BAE....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11316250

[BEagle]

NorthernKestrel, whilst that is correct, you may wish to recall that a similar capability was deemed superfluous for the TriStar tanker, so the probes were removed.

From what I read, it is not the requirement for future tankers which has been criticised (apart from MoD vacillation), it is the specific PFI contract.

BAE (or rather Airbus Filton) offered a much better solution over 15 years ago - conventional procurement of about 2 dozen A310MRTT tanker-transports to replace the VC10/VC10K and TriStar.

Coincidentally, the Luftwaffe have now formally confirmed that the A310MRTT has recently received its official transfer into service with 3 aircraft now fully operational and the 4th to follow later this year.

[Could be the last?]

The key point in the review is:

"PFI may be suited to projects like building schools or hospitals where there is a clear specification,"

"Defence programmes are by their nature different - activities and demands are far less predictable and much more susceptible to change.

I wonder how many other PFIs should now be reviewed to confirm VFM and whether or not they can actually deliver what they were originally set up for???

[BEagle]

I read from the AirTanker website:
The FSTA program is running on schedule, within budget and has met all major milestones to date.
Not really a formal press release - it was sent out via Tw@tter an hour ago....:rolleyes:

[Roland Pulfrew]

The FSTA program is running on schedule

That would be the FSTA programme that had an Introduction To Service (ITS) date of 2007; or is there a different FSTA programme that I have confused it with? :rolleyes:

[ORAC]

Link to the actual report, rather than the press: Delivering Multi-Role Tanker Aircraft Capability (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/425/42502.htm)

Summary

In March 2008, the Ministry of Defence (the Department) signed a private finance initiative (PFI) contract with AirTanker Ltd, for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) to provide air-to-air refuelling and passenger transport services. FSTA is based around 14 modified Airbus A330s and will replace the 24 Tristars and VC10s that form the RAF's current fleet.

Under the contract, AirTanker owns the aircraft and will provide them to the Department when required. AirTanker will also provide the associated aircraft support, maintenance and infrastructure, making the scope of the deal broader than any other defence PFI contract to date. The value of the contract, worth £10.5 billion over 27 years, also makes it the largest signed.

PFI works best where activities and demand are predictable. This is clearly not the case for FSTA. For instance, it is simply astonishing that the Department did not decide until 2006 that FSTA should be able to fly into high threat environments such as Afghanistan. Yet the Department is inhibited from changing the specification because of the implications to the cost of the PFI. Just two years after the deal was signed, the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review is likely to change the demand for the services AirTanker has been contracted to deliver. As the Committee's previous work shows, dealing with changes on PFI deals is expensive and the Review may question whether this PFI deal is sensible or affordable. The fact that no other country has chosen to procure air-to-air refuelling and passenger transport using PFI type arrangements is further indication that PFI is not a suitable procurement route for such important military capabilities.

There are significant shortcomings in the Department's procurement of FSTA and we do not believe the procurement was value for money. The shortcomings include:


assuming that PFI would be the right solution from the outset without a sound evaluation of alternative options;
running only a limited competition;
never developing a realistic fallback if the PFI solution proved unworkable;
failing to have a clear understanding of the full costs of running its current aircraft fleets and failing to secure visibility of sub-contractor cost data, meaning the Department was unable either to compare costs with the price being offered by AirTanker or determine whether the PFI option was good value for money;
not fixing the requirements until late into the process so that the negotiations themselves took over nine years to complete, more than double the expected four years. This delay in turn led to a considerable cost increase against initial estimates.
not having the right skills and experience in place and failing to provide firm leadership until the later stages of the procurement to effectively manage the procurement, and
not making timely decisions on fitting the necessary protection equipment to enable the aircraft to fly into high threat environments like Afghanistan, a task that the Tristar may have to continue doing until 2016.

In order to obtain best value going forward, the Department must retain contract expertise and ensure that staff make decisions regarding FSTA in the full knowledge of the financial implications. Without this action, the risk is that extra demands will be placed on AirTanker which result in additional, and unnecessary, payments being made by the Department.

On the basis of a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General,[1] we took evidence from witnesses from the Ministry of Defence on: why PFI was used to procure FSTA, shortcomings in the procurement process, availability of cost data, how the deal was managed and risks in the transition from the current fleets.

[Algy]

First FSTA is airborne on first flight from Getafe. Tim Butler captain.:ok:

[BEagle]

As the Committee's previous work shows, dealing with changes on PFI deals is expensive and the Review may question whether this PFI deal is sensible or affordable. The fact that no other country has chosen to procure air-to-air refuelling and passenger transport using PFI type arrangements is further indication that PFI is not a suitable procurement route for such important military capabilities.

Surely the same logic applies to MFTS? If not, why not??

Currently, FSTA is unable to fly into Afghanistan as it does not have the necessary protection equipment to fly into high threat environments. The United Kingdom started operations in Afghanistan in 2001, when the requirements for FSTA were still immature. However the Department did not recognise the need for such equipment until 2006 in their Concept of Use document for FSTA and took the decision not to include it in the contract negotiations to avoid further delays, given the advanced stage negotiations were already at. The Department's explanation for the delay in recognising such a need was the significant difference in operational conditions between 2001 and 2006, in particular the scale of the challenge in Afghanistan.
I find that quite surprising. When I provided input to the FSTA ISUN author many, many years ago (about 15 years ago, IIRC...), I certainly included a full DASS requirement which even included Towed Array Decoys to counter the monopulse radar threat.....

I guess the high-priced talent in the MoD-box decided otherwise...

It was also stated at an early FSTA stakeholder meeting that 'ACAS requires the best value-for-money AAR'.....:rolleyes:

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Beags....

shhhh! Stop speaking sense! Bad Beagle!

[Squirrel 41]

BEagle

Yes, MFTS is likely to be expensive bolleaux. Now pls go and sit on the naughty step.


S41

[Xercules]

You have to be sure of what you mean by delay - MoD and AirTanker will be talking about entirely different things. When MoD started a programme called FSTA there will have been a timeline with a stated EIS date. From my memory the discussions and negotiations that then followed dragged on and on, with what from some perspective could be viewed as changing of the goal posts, if not almost the pitch. These then extended the time until a contract could be signed. In that contract AirTanker will have agreed a delivery schedule of the service (rather than of the aircraft although the 2 are linked). When AirTanker talks of being on schedule it is referring to this plan and not the original MoD Procurement Plan. Much as many of you would like to do so, you cannot blame AirTanker for the internal MoD/Treasury created delays before the Contract signature.

[BEagle]

Xercules, very true. AirTanker should take no blame for any part of this affair. Once they were finally allowed to get on with it, they did precisely what they say they have done as regards the various milestones.

Whereas the MoD......:rolleyes: Did they really think that PFI AAR would attract a company which didn't wish to make a profit?

[Jig Peter]

I'm sure that most MoD people involved in the FSTA/AirTanker business realised the company chosen would wish to make a profit, but given the politicos' predilection for "off balance sheet" accounting (a dodge beloved of company accountants who want to keep apparent profits up and liabilities under the carpet), anybody who queried that approach would surely be marked down a "not a team player".
I'm thinking that PFI seemed such a "good" way to spend without appearing to do so that it became the polticos' preferred solution, never mind long-term problems which would in any case show up after the next election. And to "EL" with everyone else ...

:8

[NURSE]

as usual govern department trying to be like industry without the necessary skills/buissness Acumen being back seat driven by politicians and the tresuary and the actual specification being watered down to the bare minimum. But someone from RAF must have signed it of if so what was their tanker/ transport experience?

[Milarity]

£10.5 billion for 27 years. Thats more than £1million per day!

Glad to hear Tim Butler is still flying. His presence on the flight deck should dispel any slurs on MAUW limitations.

[Saintsman]

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Portals/0/Imgs/English/Press/PRMrtt09_16_10.jpg

[Ian Corrigible]

FF in the same sense as Brenda's birthday being on June 12th... :E

I/C

[Algy]

...just to clarify.

Official statement from Airbus Military.

Airbus Military Tanker for RAF completes first flight
16th September 2010
The first A330 MRTT Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) for the UK Royal Air Force has successfully completed its maiden flight from the Airbus Military facility at Getafe, Madrid following its conversion.
The aircraft, converted from a basic A330-200 by Airbus Military, took off at 11.41 local time (09.41 UTC) and landed at 13.37 local time (11.37 UTC) after a flight lasting close to two hours (airborne).
Chief Pilot FSTA Tim Butler captained the flight supported by Chief Test Pilot Eduardo Cuadrado. The engineering team on board included: Test Flight Engineer Santiago Manso, and Flight Test Engineers Jorge Fuentes and Alfonso Sopeña.
The crew reported that the aircraft, its systems, and two Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines performed entirely satisfactorily. As planned, no refuelling activity was undertaken during this flight.
Tim Butler said: “After this major conversion of the aircraft to a MRTT, it was very satisfying to find everything working so well. This first flight of a second version of the A330 MRTT confirms the handling qualities and maturity of the aircraft.”
The flight marks the beginning of a test campaign that will lead to first delivery to the RAF towards the end of 2011.

[Roland Pulfrew]

BEags

Whereas the MoD...... Did they really think that PFI AAR would attract a company which didn't wish to make a profit?

That's a bit harsh. Everyone knew that the chosen company would be making a profit. It was never about that; it was all about the bit that JP has succinctly stated in the post below yours.

Unfortunately, and despite the best efforts of several desk officers, no-one in the squirarchy were prepared to accept that PFI was a load of bolleauxs for a military capability. :ugh: A view apparently now (finally) shared by the House of Commons Defence Committee :D

[Art Field]

Nurse. The recent experience level of the staff officers on the project when I was working for the subsequently failed team from TTSC was mainly TriStar. At that time the TriStar was not doing so much AAR as later. However it must be said that the companies replying to the contract offer were pretty positive as to how they would configure the aircraft to meet the speck and no more. You only get what you ask for and what was asked for in the initial invitation to offer [which could have been updated] was rather vague and broad brush.

[NURSE]

Art thats the point i was trying to make. If its not in the spec its not in the contract. My partner is a registered procurement officer in local govt and has worked in industry as well. Her professional journal is full of stories of procurement gone wrong (mainly by Govt departments) MoD features occasionally. And usually it boils down to who ever drew up the spec left important pieces of information. But that spec is still being signed of by service officers who should be able to pick up on the fact that important items are missing from the spec.

[Squirrel 41]

Let's face it - the scale of the penalty clauses if they didn't hit their milestones will ensure that they do. I heard from someone who should've known that if they started missing their milestones, they'd breach their contract (and arguably more important) their banking covenants - at which point the banks could in theory pull the finance.

In other words, there is ever reason to expect AirTanker to meet the letter of the contract in order to pocket the cash - and I think that they will. In their position, I'd do the same thing. But for the sake of the RAF's operational flexibility and of the Poor Bl**dy Taxpayers (PBT), we need to scrap the PFI deal immediately, if not sooner.

S41

[cokecan]

anyone know if there is a get out clause at this stage - and how much it might be?

i'm assuming (yes, i know...) that if HMG could get out of the PFI, there'd be a number of A330 Tankers for sale for crab to coveniently buy...

[Saintsman]

there'd be a number of A330 Tankers for sale for crab to coveniently buy...

There would be two actually, one of which is still under conversion. If they then had to go through the procurement loop to buy and convert the remainder, the Tristars and 10s could find themselves lasting even longer....

But even if we went down that route, the MOD doesn't have the money to buy them up front.

Anyway, agreed that it is costly but people forget that it's not just about buying the aircraft. It's a complete package, and includes all the infrastructure and associated costs, even down to the cost of providing toilet rolls for 27 years. There are lots of hidden costs that people don't appreciate. Foe example, the aircraft may be deployed away from base so the crew have to be accommodated etc. AirTanker personnel would probably expect Ts & Cs that include a pension. Someone has to pay for all these things. Its all factored into the price. The real world is expensive.

Whether AirTanker will make excessive profits is another matter and there should have been levels agreed within the contract. If there weren't, perhaps that's a bigger scandal.

[D-IFF_ident]

Doesn't look as good with the RR engines...

I don't get the 'hostile environment' argument though - aren't those LAIRCM turrets in the picture?

[Could be the last?]

It will be interesting to see, other than pilots, who will crew the ac?????? With an upcoming surge in WSOs (FJ Navs), with no cockpits to fly in, it will be amazing how the job specs will be written..........

:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

MOD is just the same-hasn't got the money but can make regular payments to someone who has!

And therein lies the catch.

No PFI Contractor has any money sloshing around in the event they win a lucrative contract. They have to raise the money in the commercial market.

Now the MOD could, in theory, enter the commercial market too and borrow the money by selling stocks in MOD.com plc. They would then have to repay the stocks in 25 years time, a dividend to bond holders.

The difference is that the PFI Contractor raises the money in the commercial market, pays interest on this and passes the interest plus profit on to the MOD. They also provide the through life service on the same cost plus basis.

Either way MOD pays for the annual running costs of the contract but in the later they pay a profit premium on the costs.

If they raise MOD Bonds they would discount the future and put off the evil moment of repaying the loan for 25 years.

[ORAC]

Not sure of his connection, if any, with the FSTA programme, but he seems in favour.

'You can't kick ass without tanker gas' (http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=14863)

Shameful contract or shining light? Director of The Air League Andrew Brookes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Brookes) shares his thoughts on the merits of the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme…..

[BEagle]

The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as a Formula One pit stop.

Do sharpen up, Andy me old. Refuelling in F1 is soooo last year!

And it's 'NKAWTG', to be strictly accurate!

;)

[flipflopkebab]

Could it be the last?

It will be interesting to see, other than pilots, who will crew the ac?????? With an upcoming surge in WSOs (FJ Navs), with no cockpits to fly in, it will be amazing how the job specs will be written..........

I don't think the WSO (Nav) bretheren will get a look in, plenty of capable and cheaper WSOps around!!

[Trim Stab]

The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as a Formula One pit stop.


So how many "male african elephants" is that per minute then?

[BEagle]

Certainly the best option would be for any tanker Mission System Operators to have a significant level of long-range / high level navigation expertise and aircraft systems knowledge.

I doubt very much indeed whether any rear seat aircrew except navigators and air engineers would be capable of necessary task skills.

Kipper fleet signallers? I don't think so....

[BEagle]

long range/High level nav? what punch the FP into a computer and press enter?

Hardly; there's a fair bit more to it than that.

An air engineer would need a significantly longer PET course than a navigator from any background.

Other air forces who thought that an 'Operator' would be sufficient in 21st century tanker aircraft soon realised that they were wrong. Whereas their ex-FJ or ex-C130 navigators were ideal MSOs.

[Could be the last?]

Just the kind of justification for NAVs I was expecting.......... What a load of B*&^&*ks. I have sat on the side lines and listened to the various FSTA project members bending over backwards to ensure that WSOps do not get onto the flt deck.

Years past there was a difference in the tech knowledge of AEng v LMs/AEops but not anymore!!! A WSOp/AEng/LM can be trained to maximise the ac capability and, more importantly, would cost a lot less.

Also, with the potential demise of the Maritime/FJ/C-130K fleets which employ Navs, this would mean you would keep an entire trg pipeline open for ONE ac type! VFM, I don't think so.:E

[Spurlash2]

I doubt very much indeed whether any rear seat aircrew except navigators and air engineers would be capable of necessary task skills.



Sorry, Mate, you are wrong. Although your implied point on apptitude is accepted: as a serving scroat, non Nav, non FE, I am quite capable of getting get a fix; be it radar, beacon, transferred position line or pinpoint, et al; and then windfind, fixed depart, intercept/reintercept a moving waypoint using a Dalton, (inside of 4 minutes).

So I can't do MSO?

Thanks for the bigotry.

[D-IFF_ident]

NKAWTG... Nobody!

Punchiest catchphrase EVER!

Apart from, maybe - 'Safely, by the book and then on time'.

[BEagle]

An air engineer would need a significantly longer PET course than a navigator from any background.

RTFM!

It sounds as though the FSTA team have heeded the lessons of others. Another country proposes using pilots as MSOs to assist the boom operator when h/she is busy. When the RAF runs out of navigators, perhaps they might also need to consider using pilots. MSOs would only be required for AAR sorties, so why bother with an additional trade at all?

[c130jbloke]

I doubt very much indeed whether any rear seat aircrew except navigators and air engineers would be capable of necessary task skills.

Wrong, wrong and wrong :=

Sorry Beags, but posts like that show just how out of touch you are with where things are going now. I know even some VC10 ALMs who would be up to the job with the right training package :uhoh:

[Pontius Navigator]

Also, with the potential demise of the Maritime/FJ/C-130K fleets which employ Navs, this would mean you would keep an entire trg pipeline open for ONE ac type! VFM, I don't think so.:E

May be single trg pipes are the way to go. Not an 'entire trg pipeline' but a specialist pipeline for the role. Recruit and train as an MSO and not as at present as a WSO(Nav) who is subsequently streamed and is then multi-skilled for a variety of mission roles when in fact much of the career would have been in a single role (I am thinking F3 or GR4).

Instead, recruit purely for the single skill of MSO, add additional training modules if required in the future.

The USAF recruited pure AWAC mission crew rather than multi-role AGE/AWAC.

[Wrathmonk]

recruit purely for the single skill of MSO

Yep. And whilst we are at it, if you make them LAC/SAC on completion of training, (after all TSW RW refuellers aren't SNCOs by default...) it

would cost a lot less.:E

[Biggus]

On the subject of MSOs, a couple of thoughts......

Firstly BEagle doesn't have a track record of being too in love with WSOs, he points out their errors with glee and takes the mickey on numerous occassions......(but maybe he doth protest too much, maybe he does have a sneaking admiration?).

BEagle made the following comment...."Other air forces who thought that an 'Operator' would be sufficient in 21st century tanker aircraft soon realised that they were wrong. Whereas their ex-FJ or ex-C130 navigators were ideal MSOs." Are we once again so arrogant as to believe we don't need to learn lessons from elsewhere?

I'm not saying that many WSOps wouldn't be capable of the job, I'm sure they would. Hopefully they will even get the chance....

Why don't we adopt the following approach? See what surplus aircrew we have post SDR (both WSO and WSOp) - and how long they have left in the RAF. If someone has say 10 years left then you either have to make them redundant or gainfully employ them. For those we elect to retain, start the MSO cadre with a mix of both WSOs and WSOps. Gain some experience with the fleet, and as the source of underemployed WSOs/WSOps start to run out decide exactly what, in terms of rank/training you need to recruit off the high street to replace them with...... Simples!

Reference Wrathmonks comment - I'm sure someone one told me that SACs were trained to operate radars and sat in the back seat of Javelins, but maybe I was being wound up, and I can't be bothered to try a google search on the matter.

[Could be the last?]

KF,

And let me guess the Nav will be a SO2 and will be the Flt Cdr....... What a surprise.:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Reference Wrathmonks comment - I'm sure someone one told me that SACs were trained to operate radars and sat in the back seat of Javelins, but maybe I was being wound up, and I can't be bothered to try a google search on the matter.

They might have started as airmen but were actually SNCO ROs, Radar Operators. Their navigation skills were minimal and as the RO trade was abandoned several underwent commissioning and re-training as proper Navs. I went through training with one such Tom C******* (Horse was his favourite expression). He did his entire career in in 2-seat fighters and retired as a sqn ldr.

[Biggus]

KF,

So the jobs are already "stitched up" by the Brize (+Lyneham?) mafia?

10 Air Engineers (ex VC-10 and Tristar) - Brize
10 VC-10/Tristar LMs - Brize
10 C130J/C-17 LMs - Mainly Brize?
6 other (?)
1 Nav (ex VC-10?)


So what happens when the Air Eng banch finally dies, as this is a 25 yr project, the Air Eng school closed several years ago, and most Air Engs these days aren't spring chickens? More WSOps from wherever I suppose - LMs whose knees have gone whilst on SH?

[bunta130]

KF......Nice 'fishing' expedition....... Take one correct fact and mix it with speculation......or fiction if you prefer

:ugh:

[bunta130]

More fiction.....

The MSO requirement is a fixed-wing background.

KF.....you obviously enjoy winding people up; fair enough, but, by quoting specific trade and background figures, you are giving an air of authority and credibility that you do not have.

Your numbers and trades are no better than guesswork, and incorrect at that. Feel free to PM me for a credibility check

[bunta130]

The MSO will indeed be dual-hatted as CSD when not operating on AAR.

Rest assured that I will.....

[bunta130]

No

You have an element of knowledge....

That does not make your words 'gospel'..... and you are, of course, relying on second-hand information.

Still.....it is a rumours network........

[bunta130]

More than happy to.....

[BEagle]

Gentlemen, I just have to point out that BEagle is a consultant for Air Tanker on all aspects of the FSTA from piloting the aircraft to who presses the button to put the hose out.

No, I am not.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

No, I am not.

Now thats not something you see everyday :ok:

[BEagle]

No, I merely told you that I do not act as a consultant to a specific commercial organisation.

Whether or not I have provided advice to military AAR requirements staffs is an entirely different matter.

[Biggus]

KF,

You appear to be a right miserable so and so......

I hope you haven't lied about your age, in which case you will be out in 2 years, at which point all your comments will no doubt become "irrelevant and superflous"........

Or are you just having a bad hair day? :)

[Shipwreckcx]

The main reason for the removal of probe on Tristar was the engine fatigue life Whilst Pilot chaps paractised the fatige life was getting trashed. At the end of the day the Engines were not design to spoole up and down throughout the cruise.

[StopStart]

bunta130 - I see that the ill-informed tosh on here has finally reached the point where its driven you into print! Knew it would get to you eventually :ok:

[Biggus]

KF,

I don't want to start a pi**ing contest, but for the purposes of clarification:

Yes, I am a Nav. :)

I already have a rewarding and meaningful job, at least for the next few years. I am not personally interested, nor have I ever been, in becoming a MSO. The thought of working at Brize alone is enough to put me off, and the job itself doesn't appeal.

It was BEagle that first talked about using Navs as MSOs. I suggested initially using a mix of "surplus but in need of employment" aircrew of various trades as a sweep up post SDR. That included both Navs (WSOs) and WSOps.

I guess that will teach me to take an interest in a part of the RAF that doesn't effect me directly.....

My comment that you "appear" to be a miserable so and so (what an insult eh!!!) was in regard to your "put down" comments to BEagle on this thread and PN on another I had literally just read. Your comment to me could also be seen as something of a put down (I know, I should......"dry your eyes princess", "man up", "if you can't take a joke", etc).


Enjoy your time on BA, and remember, lying is a bad thing.....:ok:



Edited for an afterthought!

[bunta130]

As promised......

First 'names' have been identified. There are no hard and fast quotas in either trades or backgrounds. Minimum qual will be FW WSOp course, no 'max' qual. As ever, it will be best individual for the job, recognising that plans may change following early experience with the type.

I shall revert to lurking in the background......

[Sook]

The aircraft has up to date gizmos to get it from A to B and it has the same gizmo's that can do the job of an Air Eng.

It could be argued that with all the up to date gizmos to get it from A-to-B they don't really need a pilot either.....

[Trim Stab]

Air Tanker have just announced a new vacancy for a Chief Sandwich Maker;

Cabin Services Manager | AirTanker Careers (http://www.airtankerjobsearch.co.uk/vacancies/details/4030/)

[Algy]

Madrid, end of summer, pretty obvious what the WX is going to be... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuhMZ8iE73g&feature=player_embedded)

[VX275]

I see they've announced that the FSTA servicing will be by Lufthannsa

[D-IFF_ident]

Has Mr Butler been working out?

Beautiful aeroplane, even though the RR engines don't look as good as the GEs; no doubt Mil Cert will come very quickly.

[Algy]

...for VX275, to clarify, it´s really not correct that Lufthansa Technik will be responsible for FSTA servicing. The contract announced last week (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/PressRelease/tabid/133/ArticleId/102/-Airbus-Military-selects-Lufthansa-Technik-for-RAF-tanker-component-support.aspx) broadly covers provision and replenishment of components (and has an optional clause covering painting.) There is as yet no contract placed for heavy maintenance (which is obviously not a very pressing question at this point). Bear in mind also that items such as engines, AAR system and military avionics will be supported by the respective vendors.

[Rigga]

Algy is right - but I expect that some form of Component Workshop may be required at BZN - or is it to be on a "Power-By-The-Hour" contract for replacement components?

[BEagle]

From Flight International:

A330 tanker gains military certification (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/06/348171/a330-tanker-gains-military-certification.html)

How's ol' Bubba's 767NoGo coming along? Have they even managed to sort out the Italian aircraft's wing hose problems yet?

[Sideshow Bob]

An air engineer would need a significantly longer PET course than a navigator from any background.

Must remember that if I ever get off my shiny @rse and go back to Tristars

[D-IFF_ident]

BEagle: ref the Italians - I think the answer is 'almost', sort of, 5 years late and counting:

UPDATE 3-Two Boeing tankers finally heading to Italy | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE68R1M820100928)

The "NewGen Tanker" looks like another hybrid: wing and fuselage from the 767-200 (but modified wings), the cargo door and floor from the 767-300F and the cockpit from the 767-400ER with 787 displays.

:cool:

[BEagle]

Indeed, mate:
Robbin Laird, co-founder of the Second Line of Defense aerospace Website, said he was troubled about Boeing's decision to delay delivery of the second batch of refueling planes.

"If you've really solved the problems, you could deliver all four tankers," Laird said, questioning when Italy would be able to use the first two planes to bring fuel to fighter planes.

"If they want to build the tanker for the U.S. Air Force, they should be able to demonstrate that they can build a relatively simple tanker for the Italians," Laird said.


And build it within the promised time frame!

(PS - Please check your Hotmail!)

[ORAC]

And following on from the Spanish certification.

Defense News: Australia Certifies A330-based Tanker Aircraft (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4864896&c=AIR&s=TOP)

EADS officials confirmed Oct. 7 that the company's Airbus A330-based refueling aircraft built for the Royal Australian Air Force has been certified by the Australian government to operate as a military tanker.

Tying this milestone for the EADS A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) to the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion KC-X contest, EADS officials said in an announcement, "The EADS North America KC-45 is the only modern tanker/transport in the U.S. tanker competition that is flying today, certified for military operations and meets U.S. Air Force refueling requirements."......

[blumoon]

KC-30 remains on Projects of Concern list, AP-3C ESM added | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/kc-30-remains-on-projects-of-concern-list-ap-3c-esm-added/)

Defence Minister Stephen Smith and Defence Materiel Minister Jason Clare have added the AP-3C Orion’s Air 5276 Phase 8B ESM upgrade program to the list of ‘Projects of Concern’, while Project Air 5402 to acquire five Airbus Military KC-30 tanker/transports remains on the list, despite the aircraft recently gaining Spanish military certification (http://australianaviation.com.au/airbus-a330-mrtt-certified/).

Air 5402 is running more than 18 months late, with the main focus of the project now on addressing further schedule risk, and to keep working with contractor Airbus Military to ensure delivery and acceptance of the first two aircraft by the end of the year.

“I toured the aircraft conversion centre in Brisbane last week and was briefed on progress,” said Minister Clare. “Our focus is now on working with Airbus Military in Spain on developmental activities to support timely completion of testing and supporting activities.”

:(

[Saintsman]

It looks like they are going to be able to recruit pilots after all.

AirTanker: FSTA preparations on track (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/15/348481/airtanker-fsta-preparations-on-track.html)

[airsound]

I thought Beags and others might be encouraged by this from Airbus Mil

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/FSTA.jpg
The first A330 MRTT Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) for the RAF with both its underwing pods and fuselage refuelling unit
(FRU) deployed simultaneously. The photo was taken from a Spanish Air Force F-18 during a handling qualities flight as the FSTA
nears civil and military certification.

Two FSTAs are flying, and the first is on schedule to transfer to the UK in the second quarter 2011 to begin qualification flights
with receiver aircraft, leading to first delivery towards the end of the year.

airsound

[BEagle]

Nice piccy! Thanks, Airsound!

The hoses obviously trail OK and the jet flies nicely. But how goes the mission system, eh chaps? Hmmm???

[airsound]

Not being a tankertrashnav (but rather a trukkietrashnav) I don't really know much about things like turbulence around drogues behind big hairyoplanes. But is there anything to be read into the apparent smooth, straight looks of the hoses in the pic?

airsound

[lastmanstanding]

Nope!

Mind you they won't have been subject to a Convex receiver or dare I say a foreign ally pushing into the end of the tensator zone!!:ugh:

LMS

[27mm]

Baskets are always steady until you're about to prod - from then on it's either akin to pushing wet spaghetti into a cat's arse, or taking a flying frack at a rolling donut....

[BEagle]

But is there anything to be read into the apparent smooth, straight looks of the hoses in the pic?

Yes, there is! It's all due to the synergy between Cobham (Flight Refuelling Limited) and Airbus Military, to ensure that the hose dynamics are as smooth as possible. When the A310MRTT first trailed its hoses, some drogue nutation was evident (although to me it looked not unlike the small degree of nutation often to be seen with a VC10 wing drogue) - this was fixed very quickly with a small modification to the pod fairing.

Whereas the POS wing hoses which Ol' Bubba Boeing tried to fit to the Italian KC-767I never really did learn to 'straighten up and fly right' - hence Cobham, not Smiths, will now be the supplier for KC-46A wing pods. Any problems which arise from the installation are likely to be fixed quickly - because Cobham has years of expertise in this area.

And the Italian jets will also now be fitted with Cobham wing pods, I understand!

[Trim Stab]

synergy


Have you been reading some nobby management consultancy book? You mean "cooperation".

[BEagle]

Nope, I mean synergy. When the interaction of two or more components is such that their combined effect is greater than their mere sum.

A gyrocompass is a classic example of a synergistic device, as is GPS/LINS.

I don't do overarching blue water thinking, or bring out of the box imagineering to the table.....:yuk:

[airsound]

Beags - I was quite impressed with 'nutation' as well as 'synergy'. But anyway, I spose Cobham have been at it a while - 1930s if memory serves.

I have to say, 27mm, that I'm slightly wallowing in a small morass of indecision over which to choose, the cat or the doughnut.

Anyway, thanks for the answers, folks.

Since one of the Brize departures comes over my house, I'm looking forward to seeing the beast - and possibly hearing a little less noise than lovely old Vickie makes.

airsound

[Cannonfodder]

Any truth in the rumour that potential Air Eng and Nav MSOs will not have to complete the ALM fixed wing course at Cranners prior to posting onto the KC30?

[BEagle]

I was quite impressed with 'nutation' as well as 'synergy'

A legacy of my (brief) time on the F-4 and being taught about radar feedhorn nutation.

[LFFC]

Airbus Military A330 MRTT FSTA for UK RAF awarded certification (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/mil-log/airbus-military-a330-mrtt-fsta-for-uk-raf-awarded-certification/9992/).

Airbus Military has obtained military and civil certification for the Future Strategic Transport Aircraft (FSTA) version of the A330 MRTT for the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom. This paves the way for first delivery of the aircraft to the RAF in the coming weeks.

At last! :O

The initial configuration which will enter service, and which is covered by the certification, is the two-point aircraft with hose-and-drogue refuelling pods under each wing. The three-point configuration, which also includes a centreline Fuselage Refuelling Unit (FRU will be certified at a later date as contracted.

[ORAC]

Defense News: France Eyes Public-Private Lease for Tanker (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7826438&c=EUR&s=AIR)

PARIS - The French government is leaning toward a public-private partnership (PPP) lease deal to acquire a fleet of 14 multirole tanker transport (MRTT) aircraft, a Defense Ministry official said Sept. 29.

Talks are being held on the basis of a lease and a traditional purchase, said Hughes Bied-Charreton, director of financial affairs for the secretary-general for the administration. With a PPP, lease payments would smooth out and help absorb the MRTT acquisition cost, he said. A decision could be made earlier, but an order would not be made before 2013, which would mean a tight timetable for delivery in 2017, Bied-Charreton said.

The French Air Force is keen to acquire the new aircraft because the fleet of Boeing C-135 FR tankers is about 40 years old. The tanker acquisition could cost 2.4 billion euros ($3.26 billion), at a unit price of 175 million euros, based on Australian and British purchases of the Airbus A330 MRTT, according to the business magazine Challenges.

The Libya campaign showed that in-flight refueling was a French capability gap because of the age of the fleet, Adm. Edouard Guillaud, the chief of the Defense Staff, told the summer defense university conference.

France has been discussing, as a temporary measure, a pooling of the 14-strong fleet of A330 MRTT jets acquired under lease for the British Royal Air Force's Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program. The A330 MRTT is a military conversion of the A330 commercial airliner, which this year lost to Boeing in the U.S. Air Force's KC-X replacement program.

[Trim Stab]

"pooling" is an interesting choice of verb. Is the FAF hoping to lease some of the aircraft, base them in France, and fly them with FAF crews within the command structure of the FAF? Or would the FAF just become a client of the RAF, leasing the aircraft as and when required?

[Art Field]

Surely it would be at the call of Air Tanker. The RAF will not own any of the aircraft, just use them on a day to day basis, what is left over is the PFI's to get what they can.

[ORAC]

Add a few more aircraft and a some FAF crews and fly as the task demands.

Frankly, it has the possibility of expanding to become the civil equivalent of the NAEWF.

[Trim Stab]

My thoughts too - and am wondering if the French really are planning to acquire their own fleet. Anglo-French cooperation on major defence programmes is likely to substantially increase over the lifecycle of the FSTA contract so I suspect there might be some big deal to be done somewhere..

[LFFC]

We provide the tankers and the carriers - and the French provide the fighters?

It might even unite the RN and RAF against the common enemy! :E



PS. Have now taken shelter in my bunker!

[jamesdevice]

easy way to stop that.
Name the two new carriers HMS Crecy & HMS Agincourt.
And if we build a new marine assault ship name it HMS Waterloo...

[Rigga]

Did anyone notice this:

"The approval was granted by Spanish military certification authority Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Aerospacial (INTA). "


Not to MAA standards but to the new "European Military Airworthiness Standards" I assume?

[D-IFF_ident]

The aircraft can be 'certified' in its country of production - hence INTA is appropriate. It may need to be 'qualified' in its country of use.

I'm not convinced the Voyager specs would fit the FAF requirements though. The K/C-135/Rs have booms, so if it's them they want to replace, won't the replacements need booms?

[BEagle]

Things do seem rather quiet on the Voyager front, given that the official ITS date was supposed to be tomorrow, IIRC?

:hmm:

[brit bus driver]

Surely this doesn't surprise you BEags....:hmm:

[E-Spy]

Well, it was definitely flying last Wednesday with a few chicks plugged in, or so London Mil told me to watch out for....

[hunterboy]

I see it was in Delhi a few days ago.Anything to do with the Typhoon competition or just out route proving,etc?

[JliderPilot]

Does anyone know of the implications for an ex-mil guy working working for Airtanker with regards to RAF pension / Gratuity etc? As a sponsored reservist do they claw back some or all of it?:hmm:

[lj101]

Well, it was definitely flying last Wednesday with a few chicks plugged in, or so London Mil told me to watch out for....

It continues to fail to refuel the GR4 - leaks at the probe apparently.

[PhilipG]

Does anyone know if as I understood it the deal says that the FSTA aircraft are the only aircraft that the UK can use for in flight refuelling of its military aircraft, what the situation is for carrier planes? I don't think that it would have been a problem with the F35B due to weight considerations, the F35C could be configured for buddy tanking, does the MoD have to pay for this privilege?

[Rigga]

JliderPilot said:
"Does anyone know of the implications for an ex-mil guy working working for Airtanker with regards to RAF pension / Gratuity etc? As a sponsored reservist do they claw back some or all of it?"


I would guess that it depends on the Post you fill...

If you don't work as a reserve, you would be working as a civilian. In which case it should not interfere with any MOD pension or gratuity.

If you DO work as a reserve - it will definately affect your pension and may require some return of gratuity - dependent on the time since you left.

More details from MOD on application...probably.

[ORAC]

Defense News: France to Buy Airbus Tankers From 2013: Air Force Chief (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8308309&c=EUR&s=AIR)

PARIS, Nov 19 - France will buy the new Airbus A330 MRTT tanker aircraft from 2013, French air force chief Gen. Jean-Paul Palomeros was quoted as saying Saturday by an aviation website..........

Palomeros said France's missions during the NATO-led action in Libya had shown the need to replace its fleet of 14 Boeing KC-135s for in-flight refuelling. Paris planned to buy a similar number of Airbus multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) aircraft, beginning with five to seven in 2013 for speedy delivery, he said.

A second batch also would have the role of replacing France's A340 and A310 VIP and transport fleet.

The French defense ministry denied in September that it had fixed on the Airbus, and said that deliveries of a KC-135 replacement were not planned for earlier than 2017........

[opsjockey]

I understand nthat the first FSTA 'Voyager' was delivered to Air Tanker at Brize today...

[ORAC]

Ref post ±116 above. Interesting is the deletion of the centre line drogue and, presumably, a probe above the cockpit.

French AF To Take 2 MRTT Versions (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140221/DEFREG01/302210021/French-AF-Take-2-MRTT-Versions)

PARIS — The French Air Force has agreed to take two versions of the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft due to be ordered soon, with the first type to be equipped with off-the-shelf avionics and refueling system, Chief of Staff Gen. Denis Mercier said Feb. 20.

Under the defense and security white paper, France has been cleared to order 12 of the tankers built by Airbus Defense and Security to replace an aging 14-strong fleet of C-135 FR jets. The service had asked for a cargo door, a specific refueling rig and a satcom datalink, but a lack of funds and a need for early delivery led to an order of two versions of the MRTT aircraft.

“We made a choice for budgetary reasons,” Mercier told journalists.

The planes in the first tranche will be equipped with avionics and a central boom and an underwing drogue and hose system already developed, which saves costs and speeds up delivery, he said. Those planes should be delivered as soon as possible, he said.........

Mercier said the service will take a second tranche in the next multiyear budget law. A second MRTT version includes the cargo door and a datalink that allows the plane to receive information from the Rafale fighter, which carries many sensors, and transfer it by satellite, he said. The first aircraft type will later be retrofitted, he said........

The service had asked for a central drogue and hose to be added to the boom system so that its version could be refueled in flight. Those features have been canceled...........

Under the 2014-19 multiyear budget law, two MRTT units are to be ordered, with the others to follow. With an expected first order for the MRTT this year, “I will break open the champagne I have kept just for that,” Mercier said.

[Yeller_Gait]

The Aus KC30 seems to be on track, happily refuelling using the drogues. I look forward to the day, hopefully soon, when we can refuel from our own tankers.

And by the way, it is a very comfortable aircraft to fly as pax, having recently spent 16 hours on an RTA trip.

Y_G

[D-IFF_ident]

Rumour has it Rafale is soon to have a full AAR clearance against the A330 MRTT. Quite forward thinking of the FAF imho.

[BEagle]

Rafale already has AAR clearance against the A310MRTT - as do the M2000, F1 and (I think) the SuE.....

[ORAC]

Confirmed: Singapore Inks Six-Plane Deal With Airbus (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140307/DEFREG03/303070021/Confirmed-Singapore-Inks-Six-Plane-Deal-Airbus)

LONDON — Singapore has finally confirmed it has signed an agreement to purchase six A330 MRTT multi-role tanker transport aircraft from Airbus Defence and Space. The Southeast Asian state had been expected to announce the deal at the recent Singapore Air Show but failed to do so even though the deal had reportedly been inked several weeks earlier.

The Singaporean selection was the first rebuff in the international market for Boeing’s 767-derived KC-46A tanker, which had been selected by the US Air Force in a fierce — and sometimes controversial — competition with the Airbus product.

The focus of the competition between the two aircraft makers has now switched to South Korea where a request for proposals on a deal for between four and six tankers has already been issued. India is in final negotiations for six MRTT tankers from Airbus, and France is also lined up as a customer for between 12 and 14 aircraft.

Deliveries of the Singaporean aircraft are scheduled to start in 2018.

In a statement, Boeing it was “disappointed by the decision but remains proud of our longstanding relationship with Singapore. ... We continue to see strong interest in the KC-46A from nations looking to modernize their aerial refueling capabilities.”

The aircraft will be capable of refueling drogue-refueled receivers like the Singaporean F-5s and boom-refueled receivers, including the F-15 and the F-16. It will also come fitted with a system that allows the A330 to be refueled from another tanker, be capable of ferrying 266 passengers while fulfilling its refueling role and will able to carry 37,000 kg of palletised cargo.

Singapore is the sixth customer for the MRTT following orders from Australia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the UK.

Urena Raso, the head of military aircraft at Airbus Defence, said the Singapore decision “confirms the A330 MRTT’s status as unquestionably the world’s most advanced tanker/transport as well as it’s pre-eminent suitability for the Asia-Pacific region.” ■

[ORAC]

From AW&ST (behind firewall for subscribers) - a snippet I found interesting....

European Defense Agency Advances Refueler Plans (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesStory.aspx?id=38af7487-2d7f-4c90-8681-75725f92ae69)

......All A400Ms are built to be able to provide fuel using under-wing hose-drogue units (HDUs), but only 29 of Europe’s 160 or so A400Ms will be equipped with the modified rear door that allows the aircraft to employ a fuselage-mounted centerline HDU, usually used to refuel larger types.

Although not all nations are planning to buy the wing-mounted HDUs, Donnet is examining the potential of the EDA or a third-party agency owning a number of spare under-wing HDUs, possibly supported by industry, that could be leased by nations as needed.

The U.K. is not planning to use the A400M for refueling, but senior officers have stated a desire to fit HDUs to one or more of that aircraft to be deployed in the Falkland Islands in support of the four Eurofighter Typhoons based there. This would eliminate the need to deploy one of the U.K.’s Airbus A330 Voyager tankers to that site on a permanent basis.........

[BEagle]

ORAC, Laurent has several good ideas for an EDA AAR aircraft pool...

Regarding A400M, The U.K. is not planning to use the A400M for refueling, but senior officers have stated a desire to fit HDUs to one or more of that aircraft to be deployed in the Falkland Islands in support of the four Eurofighter Typhoons based there. This would eliminate the need to deploy one of the U.K.’s Airbus A330 Voyager tankers to that site on a permanent basis.........

Yes, the Atlas would certainly be ideal for the South Atlantic theatre. Even better if there were 2, both with probes, the modified rear door, palletised FRU when required, a pair of wing AAR pods and at least 1 cargo bay tank. I sincerely hope that the Atlas CBTs are generic, so that with 2 in theatre one aircraft could be re-roled to the 2 CBT fit when necessary...:hmm:

But of course there's the none-too-small matter of the AirTanker exclusivity clause to consider....:uhoh:

[Onceapilot]

Beagle, you are correct. However, even better would have been the continued use of a cheap tanker that we already had. How much does that FSTA cost in the Falklands? £100,000 PER DAY (more if it flies)?:eek:

OAP

[BEagle]

The TriStar would have had limited use for any length of time - at the end of a long spares supply line and incapable of replacing the C-130.

Whereas a (properly equipped) Atlas can do all the in-theatre fixed-wing South Atlantic tasks, replacing both C-130 and Voyager. It can also use both RWs routinely (unlike the TriStar) - and fit in the Timmy hangar (unlike the Voyager). No doubt it could also be 'missionised' for coastal maritime surveillance as well.

[ShotOne]

"Cheap tanker that we already had....", with all credit for its great service, OAP, there's nothing cheap about trying to keep flying the last surviving examples of an elderly, decades out of production airliner.

[Onceapilot]

Gentlemen, I consider that the opportunity to have a cheap tanker fleet into the future was squandered years ago when the hugely expensive FSTA PFI plot was hatched. Just my opinion. However, what is wrong with a mature airframe that is well maintained and supported? What about the KC135, is that fleet a waste of money? Sorry, I do not see the point of wasting money, it has caused huge holes in key capabilities.:ouch:

OAP

[ShotOne]

KC135's not quite so bad as there are still loads on the inventory. Even then it's a thirsty bird by today's standards. But, hey Uncle Sam can always print some more money! But operating the last remaining specimens (give or take the odd satellite launcher) is a ruinously expensive hobby; most parts need to be made from scratch, often starting by making the tools or jigs, originals having been scrapped years ago.