'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage'

[BEagle]

An interesting article in Aviation Leak:

AirTanker Aims To Solve European Tanker Shortage (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_06_2013_p30-575213.xml)

However, to read:

Challenges remain, however. AirTanker's Voyagers have not yet refueled any RAF front-line combat aircraft. Clearances for the tanker to dispense fuel remain unsigned by the U.K. Military Aviation Authority (MAA). AirTanker said the clearances were imminent in January and continues to say they are imminent now.

must be rather worrying. But what really caught my eye was:

In a deployment of RAF Eurofighter Typhoons to Malaysia for a military exercise and participation in the Langkawi International Maritime & Aerospace Exhibition 2013 in March, the fighters were supported by a pair of Italian air force Boeing KC-767s. The NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency gave the clearances to refuel from those aircraft because Italian Eurofighters have already worked up the capability. Commanders did not want to rely on the VC-10s or TriStars in case they became unserviceable during the trip and delayed the inbound or outbound legs of the deployment.

Have things really got so bad that 'Commanders' no longer trust their own equipment?

:\

[Ken Scott]

Have things really got so bad that 'Commanders' no longer trust their own equipment?

Yes, things really are that bad.

[Onceapilot]

I will not comment on the reasons for using the Italian tankers, without any MOD information it is all pure speculation. However, other than the delayed AAR clearance, the worrying thing is the part of the report which seems to state that there is no positively defined work for the other half of the Voyager fleet! How much will this whole stupid program cost us, and that is not just in £'s:uhoh:

OAP

[BEagle]

The article states:

It can take about a week to remove all the military equipment from the Voyagers, such as radio systems and refueling pods, and “blank” off the parts of the aircraft where that equipment had been connected. Therefore, AirTanker would prefer to keep the aircraft in the military configuration to reduce costs.

But surely the 'other five' will normally be in 'de-militarised' configuration, so the notion that they will be swapping back between civil and military configuration on a regular basis is pure journalistic speculation?

I'm sure that ATrS must have a more robust business plan in place for third party revenue generation than this article imples - and presumably there are also contractual restrictions on military use by (rather then for) non-RAF military services?

:bored:

[Just This Once...]

Why is everyone presuming that the Italian tankers came with a full clearance to pass fuel to Typhoons?

Not sure that is the case...

[racedo]

Why is everyone presuming that the Italian tankers came with a full clearance to pass fuel to Typhoons?


If you need it and the Italian mobile gas tank is the only one dispensing, would you really care whether it has full clearance or not ?

[lj101]

would you really care

Personally no, but it (clearance to tank off), doesn't work on a 'do I care' basis sadly.

[Stitchbitch]

If it's good enough for the MAA....:E

[Onceapilot]

How late is the Voyager AAR clearance?:ooh:
So, let's see, that should mean a pretty big penalty repayment for the MOD? What is that I hear... no terms have been broken?;)

OAP

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

Have things really got so bad that 'Commanders' no longer trust their own equipment?
Come on BEagle, surely you should understand that! ;) The VC10 should have gone out of service at the end of March (Tristar as well?) but due to the Voyager being unable to do it's job, the VC10 fleet (now 4 aircraft?) had a belated extension to September. Think of the manpower and spares 'rundown' that has occurred for that, leaving expertise and capability in very short supply. So yes, the Commanders have finally been forced to acknowledge the situation. I'm not sure the RAF can actually meet it's declared capability e.g. To NATO.


However, other than the delayed AAR clearance, ......
"Delayed"? Is that the term that is used? More like bloody incompetence and indifference, and Air Tanker has to accept it's major part in that. :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

....and Air Tanker has to accept its major part in that.

How so? if they haven't been given the tools, how can they be expected do the job?

[BBadanov]

BEags, I guess you are in the loop.

Although the boom on the Oz KC-30As is not yet cleared - and might still be a way off - it is cleared to hose tank F/A-18A Classics and F/A-18F Supers. Hawks, not sure yet.

(The boom of course will be helpful for C-17, E-7 Wedgetail, P-8 Poseidon. I doubt C-27J is AAR.)

But as we are now ahead of UK in this area, is there any exchange of T&E data occurring?

[dragartist]

Not sure I am following this very well. I have been out foralmost two years. Some questions:- Does anyone at the MAA actually sign any RTS(or whatever they might call it these days)?

How do we “clear” non RAF aircraft that are not even RAFtypes to refuel RAF Aircraft? Have QinetiQ Boscombe Down passed their handsover it? I noted the reference to NETMA having “cleared” RAF Typhoons to refuelfrom Boeing tankers. Is it perhaps that the Duty Holder has accepted the NETMAadvice and procedures for inclusion in the RTS perhaps under some NATO STANAG.
I had some experience of Recommending “Clearances”for other nation’s kit to be used with RAF aircraft. Or our kit to be used withother nations aircraft. I found out that there were so many variations of C130saround NATO that you had to be careful.

For some odd reason Q2 did not like the notion of sharing T&E data.

[cobalt42]

It can take about a week to remove all the military equipment from the Voyagers, such as radio systems and refueling pods, and “blank” off the parts of the aircraft where that equipment had been connected.

A week to de-role from AAR to 'Chav-fit'? They are taking the urine!! IF that is the case, how long is a re-role back to a 2-point fit going to take? As for a re-role to 3-point...? Someone needs to start asking serious questions on this.

And where is the AAR RTS? 'We' were briefed two months ago that it was due before Easter but it has gone very quiet since. :oh::oh:

[BEagle]

BEags, I guess you are in the loop.

Not so, mate.

[lj101]

Some information here;

RAF - ATP-56(B) Part 5 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/atp56bpart5.cfm)


Open source.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Love the Table at page D-1. Receiver clearances for VC10 - Lots; For Tristar - Lots; for Voyager - Errr........

I wonder if we will ever see a UK tanker with the number of clearances that the VC10 has. :(

[dragartist]

Lj101 - thanks for posting that interesting stuff. Appears a lot of effort goes into same. well done chaps.

Is this the authoritive document? Does every platform RTS refer out to it?

My question was really aimed at who gives the final signature. I left at a time when the MAA was standing up and the position of the RTSA, the Project Engineer and the Operating Authority was confused (well I was confused anyway!) One of my roles was to prepare stuff for signature - I saw many changes over the 12 years since I adopted what was the MAR from the DPA.

Interesting read no the less Lj - puts into context some of the stuff I have just been reading in Vulcan 607 Black Buck. You tanker guys went up in my estimation.

[GreenKnight121]

I missed this earlier...

Why is everyone presuming that the Italian tankers came with a full clearance to pass fuel to Typhoons?

Not sure that is the case...

Probably because the article BEagle quoted to start the thread said The NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency gave the clearances to refuel from those aircraft because Italian Eurofighters have already worked up the capability.

Eurofighter = Typhoon, remember?

[dat581]

How much difference is there in an F-18 tanking and a Typhoon? I just thinking if the RAAF can use a Spanish F-18 to clear using the drogues what's the *&^%$#@ problem? The pods can't be that different and the Typhoon can use the Italian B767s.

Why do I get the feeling the most likely cause is the approval process instead of technical problems.

[BEagle]

How much difference is there in an F-18 tanking and a Typhoon?

That's what clearance trials should identify - it could be a little, it could be significant.

Also, was the full AAR envelope tested, or merely 'heart of the envelope'? In all representative configurations?

The approval process has every right to be cautious for approving release to service and any temporary restrictions which might be applied.

If Voyager arrives without a fully-functioning mission mangement system, I'd be curious as to whether non-rigorous legacy trail management techniques will be re-assessed by the UK MAA. For example, one such 'technique' requires the user to calculate a factor which can be thought of as K = 1/(a-b). Which becomes utterly meaningless when a = b as, in such a case, K = ∞....:\

[BBadanov]

I just thinking if the RAAF can use a Spanish F-18 to clear using the drogues what's the *&^%$#@ problem? The pods can't be that different and the Typhoon can use the Italian B767s.

Dat, that is nowhere near what has happened. Spanish F-18 was use purely for DT&E for the HDUs and Portuguese F-16 for initial boom trials. These are not clearances.

Once KC-30A arrived in Oz, the Classic OT&E took place. Very intensive through the envelope as Beags described, over 2011-12, I guess. Then the Supers were done and finally cleared about 2 months ago.

This is a long drawn out process to ensure fit for service and safety, not as you suggest.

[Onceapilot]

Quote BEagle
"If Voyager arrives without a fully-functioning mission mangement system, I'd be curious as to whether non-rigorous legacy trail management techniques will be re-assessed by the UK MAA. For example, one such 'technique' requires the user to calculate a factor which can be thought of as K = 1/(a-b). Which becomes utterly meaningless when a = b as, in such a case, K = ∞....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif"

Yes, the "unbelievable" bracket correction!:ooh:
I do hope they can rise to the challenge. The highly paid FSTA lackeys were certainly given all the info they needed to come up with a great solution. Personally, I would always prefer the mental picture and calculations way:)

OAP

[BEagle]

The highly paid FSTA lackeys were certainly given all the info they needed to come up with a great solution. Personally, I would always prefer the mental picture and calculations way :)

Well, not particularly well paid non-FSTA 'lackeys' have developed a reliable trail planning and management system which has been in operational use in other Airbus tankers for several years now. Which does not use the archaic, mathematically non-rigorous methodology of the primitive 'RAPS'.....:ok:

Quite why AiM haven't been more interested in this reliable, combat-proven 'great solution' system already flying in their other tanker-transports? ICATQ! Perhaps 'No inventado aquí'??

[cobalt42]

RTS today... 1st sorties due Monday with Tornado... allegedly :hmm:

[Just This Once...]

That is good news, now we can say 'AirTanker aims to solve UK tanker shortage'… as we all hoped it would when we handed over all the money.

[BEagle]

RTS today... 1st sorties due Monday with Tornado... allegedly :hmm:

Really? I'm surprised there's nothing about that on the major aviation websites - or even ATr's own website....:\

[racedo]

I'm surprised there's nothing about that on the major aviation websites....................

Sounds like you dissing PPRune as not being major..............

[BEagle]

Sounds like you dissing PPRuNe as not being major..............

Whatever. Like some $hit like that, blud.....

Random.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/AampM_zpsb5d1fb53.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/AampM_zpsb5d1fb53.jpg.html)

[BBadanov]

is that chap on the right John Cleese??

[BEagle]

No.





.

[mr snow]

Good luck to the ATrS Madras tomorrow. No pressure!

[BEagle]

Well, how did it go......??

:\

[Easy Street]

Good luck to the ATrS Madras tomorrow.

Blimey, it has been a while since 10 Sqn was around. I had forgotten that there were other UK AAR callsigns besides Fagin and Tartan!

[BEagle]

AirTanker Cleared To Begin Air-To-Air Refueling Operations (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_20_2013_p0-580613.xml)

:ok:

I'm surprised that there's no information on the ATr website though.....

[Onceapilot]

Ho-bloody-ray! So now we will see how effective this all singing and dancing money making contract is. Lets see...with those three aircraft, 20 crews and 18hrs a day utilisation they should be able to do everything. Well, thats what it says in this brochure :rolleyes:.

OAP

[mr snow]

Very well. More today.

[Art Field]

At last ,10 Squadron, an honest job for you as you join a tanker fleet with a tradition of service that goes right back to 214 and it's Valiants and which I am sure you will make every effort to maintain though I am glad to be well clear of all that new organisation. Good Luck

[ICM]

Art: As a taxpayer, I'm delighted to hear news of the long-delayed AAR release but I'd also slip in a reminder that 10 Sqn's history in its AT role goes back a little further to May 1945 when the assets of 4 Group were transferred to Transport Command, and continued with service in India and Burma and on to the Berlin Airlift.

[BEagle]

10 Sqn flew in the AT/AAR role from 1993-2005, including operational service, so are hardly new to the AAR role!

[cyrilranch]

"Airbus Military expects to secure a fresh batch of orders for its A330-based multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) before the end of this year, with contracts to potentially be agreed with at least two new operators.

"We have a second wave of new tanker contracts, and a high probability to secure the majority of them in 2013," Rafael Tentor, head of programmes for light and medium aircraft and derivatives, said during a briefing at Airbus Military's San Pablo site in Seville, Spain on 29 May.
Also on 30 May, Airbus Military will present a "binding offer" to France for a fleet of between 12 and 14 three-point tankers, Tentor says. France would become the first MRTT customer to receive A330s equipped with a cargo door, also enabling the type to carry freight loads on its upper deck, he adds."

Airbus Military to table A330 tanker bids to France, Singapore (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-military-to-table-a330-tanker-bids-to-france-singapore-386429/)

[Asking]

"Well, not particularly well paid non-FSTA 'lackeys' have developed a reliable trail planning and management system which has been in operational use in other Airbus tankers for several years now. Which does not use the archaic, mathematically non-rigorous methodology of the primitive 'RAPS'.....
Quite why AiM haven't been more interested in this reliable, combat-proven 'great solution' system already flying in their other tanker-transports? ICATQ! Perhaps 'No inventado aquí'??"

Beagle, I'm intrigued. What is this combat-proven, reliable system that is better than RAPS? By all means post a link rather than feeling obliged to fill your post with fuel maths!

[Onceapilot]

Quote,
"Also on 30 May, Airbus Military will present a "binding offer" to France for a fleet of between 12 and 14 three-point tankers, Tentor says. France would become the first MRTT customer to receive A330s equipped with a cargo door, also enabling the type to carry freight loads on its upper deck, he adds."

Hey, that could be useful on Trails or Deployments, like a Combi or, how the TriStar KC1 has been for 25 years! Oh, I see my error, the RAF TriStar cost peanuts and made little money for the "fat cats". It carries more fuel though!:D

OAP

[Asking]

The TriStar can carry a little more fuel (except when lim'd!), but also burns more fuel. Offload will be better, but not by much, on Voyager. Where it wins is the twin hose config with Tristar-ish offloads and decent serviceability. Freight goes downstairs. The weight penalty of a strengthened upper deck just isn't worth it if you can carry your trail spares downstairs (from the trooping/ AAR POV anyway). TriStars may cost junk metal prices but engineering them ain't cheap - not that Voyager is either. It's easy to bash the project, but let's not kid ourselves that we'd be better off with legacy types.

[lj101]

Asking

I think Beags is referring to this system....

http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms/upload/Downloads/Flyer-MCS-A4.pdf

[Onceapilot]

Asking mate, TriStar K/KC can carry alot more fuel than Voyager. The 330 is virtually legacy anyway. The main issue is the cost of the whole thing. Their airships chose to "budget grab" as big a slice as possible and we see the result (no Harrier or Nimrod etc).
The plot was lost two decades ago. The airships chose not to seriously invest in TriStar as a long term platform and, they also chose not to fit the wing pods as a cost saving choice.
Yes, it is nice to have a new aeroplane for everyone to admire but, we get less capability than the platforms it replaces for £500Million a year for 27 years.
You say the TriStar was expensive, people don't realise how cheap it really was:ouch:.


OAP

[StopStart]

The main issue is the cost of the whole thing.

I'd love to see how the lifetime costs of purchasing, modding, maintaining, training, supporting, manning and operating the VC10 and TriStar fleets stacks up against the headline figures being quoted in connection with Air Tanker. You can include in that the costs of the legions of charter aircraft we've needed over the last 10 years to fill the gaps too. :hmm:

[dragartist]

I figure that comparing headline costs would give a false perspective.

How many receivers were being provided for in the VC10 and TriStar hay day?

Would you compare the same with the Victor of the 70s and 80s.

You do have to compare the whole life costs across all Lines of Development. I don't think we had the tools for cost capture back then. I think the same is the case today.

I would suggest a measure of cost per gallon transferred or something.

How ever you cut it really makes no odds. the fact is that we need tankers to project our interests. No one is going to bring the TriStar or VC10 back. I do hold the view that it was daft to embark on the scheme we have today. We should own and operate the aircraft just as we do our fighters and other assets. I can't see how it can be best value for the tax payer.

The whole thing is just an experiment. Do the MoD retain any option to buy out the lease/PFI. It all sounds too entrenched with the infrastructure and staff part of the package. What happens when the propeller flies off? I am sure the cost of fixing it back on will fall to the public purse.

[lj101]

Drag

The VC10 and Tristar are still in service.

PFI’s are a fundamentally poor way of procuring capabilities that are unpredictable and involve risk because the cost of that risk is always transferred back to the customer and interestingly, one of the funding partners for Air Tanker is the Royal Bank of Scotland. We will therefore be borrowing money off ourselves because we can’t afford it!


The MoD has traded affordability for value for money, penny wise pound foolish as it seems so often to be.

Whatever the pros of FSTA, and there are many, I suspect it will ultimately be very poor value for money and will fail to deliver the capability that we actually need, with too much air refuelling for a fast jet fleet we longer have and not enough air transport of sufficient flexibility for future sustained expeditionary operations.

The A330MRTT with Rolls Royce engines is absolutely the right aircraft but in trying to scrimp and save we have knobbled the fleet, they will be inflexible, inappropriate and overly expensive.

Seems like a depressing pattern repeating itself.

Still, at least those nice chaps at Air Tanker have allowed the RAF to use its shiny new hangar at Brize Norton for C130 maintenance, awfully good of them.

Oh, hang on a minute, there is a contract involved.

You didn’t think they offered it at no cost did you!



:ok:

[Onceapilot]

Stopstart, was it worth re-sparing the C130? To right it was.
I would prefer to have seen a proper life extension and fleet enhancement for the TriStar (with the wing pods fitted that were left off 25 years ago), then we could have afforded to keep Harrier and Nimrod and not be blowing £13Billion.
Wonder why the Americans run older* platforms where mega agility and stealth are not required?


*Older than TriStar or VC10.

OAP

[StopStart]

The C130Ks were reboxed and planked in the mid/late 70s because the old wings were crap. There were some wing swaps around 2002 time because some of the Mk1s were End of Life. Redoing the wings in the 70s/80s was clearly worth as we'd only had the things about 10 years and they soldiered on for another 20 or 30. Rewinging of a couple of aircraft in the early 00s was a sticking plaster to mask general procurement failings elsewhere. Was that worth it? 50/50 I'd say.

The TriStars are old, complex aircraft. The Herc, whilst also old, is mainly just a few bits of metal bodged together with some engines bolted on. The TriStars are tired and knackered and far too complex to keep running from the Defence budget. Nowadays you need the off balance-sheet magic and sleight of hand of PFI if you want to fund big projects.

One would have to be more than a little deluded to think that keeping the TriStar running would've magically given the RAF £13 Billion to do with as they pleased. The Harrier was sacrificed partly to save money but mainly to stiff the FAA. The Nimrod MR4 would've consumed all of that imaginary £13 Billion and still not be right.

Yes the USAF run older aircraft however they also run to very different levels of risk acceptance. I'll be interested to see what was behind the midair break up of the KC135 recently....

The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson; there is no way on earth anyone would want to sign off on yet another bodged-up update of a knackered old airframe nowadays.

[cobalt42]

Drag,

You do have to compare the whole life costs across all Lines of Development. I don't think we had the tools for cost capture back then. I think the same is the case today.

Quite correct, but an integrated suite of 'tools', together with the specialist knowledge to use them, is available now. UK MoD, US DoD, use them, and other applications that are not publicly advertised, and have been doing so for a number of years.

[Chugalug2]

The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson; there is no way on earth anyone would want to sign off on yet another bodged-up update of a knackered old airframe nowadays.
Well would you, Stopstart? It isn't the age of these airframes per se that is the problem, it is the lack of an audit trail spanning that age. The "bodging" was done well before the various updates (proposed and/or abandoned). It was done when certain VSO's decided that well established engineering custom and practise was no longer needed. They ordered the regulations to be subverted, that those engineers who wouldn't comply be got rid of, that they be replaced with unqualified yes-men and -women, and finally threw out the regs so that they couldn't be quoted back at them (or so they hoped). Unairworthiness crept like a canker into the military airfleets thereafter, fatal airworthiness related accidents ensued, all finally leading to Haddon-Cave. All that led to was a hamstrung MAA that had only one option, to ground those fleets ASAP (or those that seemed the most compromised, which generally meant the oldest ones). What goes around comes around...

[Onceapilot]

Quote StopStart,
"
The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson; there is no way on earth anyone would want to sign off on yet another bodged-up update of a knackered old airframe nowadays."

Agree entirely, and it is far too late to do anything sensible that would extend the service life of the venerable Trimotor. The chance was missed twenty odd years ago to expand that fleet and invest a modest amount in a long term life program that could have given a good AT/AAR platform till 2025ish... it just trucks fuel/people or cargo for goodness sake, 2tonnes/hr less fuel burn is no basis for spending £13Billion:eek:! No, in the great bunfight that seems to occupy all the days of our senior figures, the decision was made to ignore value for money and go all-out for a BIG spend. Well great! Look where it will get us, mega deals that provide few combat aircraft and, a transport capability that costs more than charter.
Would being efficient and not falling for the sales-pitch have saved enough to keep Harrier, YES. (Just my opinion:ok:)

OAP

[BEagle]

Asking

I think Beags is referring to this system....

http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms...yer-MCS-A4.pdf

lj101, yes, that is indeed the system. Although the screenshots in that brochure show software of a couple of years ago which is now being further improved.

If there's a receiver fuel degrade, you just supply the facts to the system and it recomputes the trail automatically. Similarly, as soon as a receiver is full, it may be disconnected - none of the wasteful 'keep in contact until geographic end of bracket' Victor-think of the last century. You just call the receivers for a gravy check, enter the figures and tell it to update. It then shows you its solution; if you wish to amend the proposed plan, that can be achieved either by drag-and-drop on the map or by 'distance to waypoint' definition.

It's simple, reliable and user friendly - and has been proved in support of combat operations in both Libya and Mali.

According to one of the end users, it is more accurate than their 'official' CFP provider's system for fuel planning.....

The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson...

Which makes you wonder how the MAA can accept the mathematically flawed 'RAPS' for Voyager in-flight trail re-planning when there's a perfectly good system already in use in another Airbus tanker.

The plot was lost two decades ago.

Indeed. The RAF was offered a good deal for a fleet of 24(?) A310 MRTTs to replace the ageing VC10 and TriStar fleets.

Attempting to fit pods to the TriStar became a complete money pit. Thankfully, for once the MoD made the right decision and cancelled the whole concept.

As for the 'glass cockpit' TriStar fiasco:

October 2006 - Marshall Aerospace is awarded a £22M contract to upgrade the RAF TriStars' avionics and FMS including a 'glass cockpit' as the 'MMR upgrade'. This should have been a relatively low-risk programme as it used elements of the C-130 cockpit upgrade already underway for the RNAF.

November 2007 - ZD949 arrives at Cambridge for the trial installation with a planned completion date of Q3 2008 at which time the second TriStar would begin conversion.

2008 came and went.

2009 came and went.

January 2010 - ZD949 finally makes its first flight with the MMR upgrade.

October 2010 - SDSR indicates that the TriStar will start to leave RAF service in 2013; TriStar MMR programme is to be discontinued.

December 2010 - After 100 hours of flight test, ZD949 finally passes MoD review and is due to be back in service in Spring 2011.

2011 - Due to the change in out-of-service date now planned for the TriStar and with the A330MRTT due in service by the end of the year, ZD949 remains at Cambridge in a pristine state under 'storage' and is to be 'reduced to spares' - a euphemism for being scrapped - as it would be too expensive to convert it back to its original state.

October 2011 - A330MRTT (now 'Voyager') fails to meet release to service date; now expected to be 'sometime in January 2012'.

January 2012 - Voyager still not in service.

January 2013 - Voyager still not in AAR service.

May 2013 - Voyager is finally given RAF clearance to refuel the Tornado.

[Onceapilot]

Aha! The BEagle returns...

I ask, could it not all have been done better.....? ;)

OAP

[BEagle]

I ask, could it not all have been done better.....? ;)

That would depend upon what you mean by 'it'?

Also, 'better' is a comparative - so 'better' than what, exactly?

[BEagle]

I gather that the mighty Wanderer went U/S on Friday - but because 101 Sqn had 100% VC10 serviceability, they were able to launch and save the day.

Well done, 101! I look forward to the formal announcement that the next Voyager squadron will bear your number.

[Throttle Pusher]

Beags

Sorry to correct you, but it was 216 who came to the rescue :D

[BEagle]

They did? Good for them if true - that'd be a first....:p

However, my info. came from someone in the know.

Maybe more than one Wanderer task was salvaged by legacy tankers?

[Blue Bottle]

not good press today..

Returning soldiers grounded for 48 hours in MoD tyre farce: Troops were forced to wait at Middle Eastern base in row over replacing aircraft's flat wheel | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381636/Returning-soldiers-grounded-48-hours-MoD-tyre-farce-Troops-forced-wait-Middle-Eastern-base-row-replacing-aircrafts-flat-wheel.html)

[Dysonsphere]

Im not surprised if VIP brass had been on plane im sure it would have been done localy, classic we dont give a **** for the boys.

[Onceapilot]

Pity they didn't send BOB :).

OAP

[BEagle]

'Flying replacement tyres out from the UK on the next available aircraft was the quickest solution available.'

How on earth can that be true? Surely one of the benefits of using a modern airliner is the ready availability of such spares world-wide....:confused:

Mind you, didn't something similar happen to a TriStar in the early 1980s at Dulles? Needed a tyre replacement, plenty available locally but MoD refused and sent a Herc with the tyre....

[Heathrow Harry]

someone needed the duty free.................

[Blue Bottle]

It's no way to treat returning troops, facilitys at that location are very basic and not fit for 48 delay for that number of passengers :ugh:

[Wyler]

Sad but nothing new.
Falklands, 2001, radar goes U/S on one of the mountain sites. Chief Tech says job will take 15 minutes as it is only a board change.
Due to 'Warranty' issues we had to wait 10 days as a Civilian Tech had to be sent from the UK to carry out the repair on behalf of the Company.
Fair play to him, he did it in 10 minutes..............................

[vascodegama]

Beags

It certainly happened in the early 90s at Denver. The starring part of the episode was the sending of the Herc to Colorado not Denver which added another 3 hours to the already lengthy parts delivery fiasco.

[gijoe]

'someone needed the duty free.................'

More often than not cheaper at home than from the UAE (tobacco aside).

G:ok:

[Saintsman]

Do they no longer take a spare as part of the flyaway pack?

[cessnapete]

I can't believe AirTanker don't have an agreement to use Airline pooled spares..
In that part of the world Emirates would have had it up and running in a few hours.
Unbelievable lack of planning!

[lj101]

Airtanker (I assume) will be penalised for the delay under their contract's T & C's.

[BEagle]

lj101 - I think that's probably rather porcovolant......:\

[Arty Fufkin]

All this from the rag that gave you back-flipping tornadoes!

Look through a host of threads on this rumour network and you will rightly see the Daily Mail identified as a peddler of illinformed, under-researched, sensationalistic codswallop.
I am curious as to why in this instance the band wagon is groaning under the weight of otherwise rational folk who are now treating it as a bastion of informed comment.

Fact is, like it or not, the Voyager team (mil and civ) are achieving dispatch rates that would make your average airline blush.

So lighten up ladies !!

[ExAscoteer]

Fact is, like it or not, the Voyager team (mil and civ) are achieving dispatch rates that would make your average airline blush.

They goddamn bloody should be considering the whole bloody shebang is costing us over £1million per day!

[Whoosh1999]

Fact is, like it or not, the Voyager team (mil and civ) are achieving dispatch rates that would make your average airline blush.

That's a big claim. Almost as credible as a Daily Mail statement.

[Bigpants]

Your claim not backed up by fact. Provide examples and data please.

Personally I think what happened was a complete disgrace and Air Tanker Management shameless self serving oafs.

[Krystal n chips]

" A check of the stricken £150million transport plane revealed the collision had punctured a tyre - which was replaced with a spare carried on board.

However, during the emergency landing a second tyre was damaged and needed to be replaced before the plane could take off"

The article is a classical piece of Mail histrionics, orientated towards those who actually believe the contents of the rag to be accurate, irrespective of the context. As always, note the word stricken..implies seconds from death etc, and the inclusion of a price tag...invariably the same with the value of a house when reporting about an accused.

However, with the above, seemingly, an aborted take-off has now become....an emergency landing !....which also leads to further confusion as to the facts, albeit common place in any Mail article.

If, after the abort, inspection revealed a damaged wheel assy, no drama and they do carry a spare...so far, so normal..but then, it seems, a second wheel assy. was also found to be damaged....again, hardly unknown after an aborted T/O.

Thereafter comes the intriguing bit. I find it hard to believe that no spares pooling agreements are in place..these are basic operational practices in the airline world after all, and, whilst the Voyager is being operated by the R.A.F, in one sense it remains a commercial aircraft.

Which leads to the possibility that, due to the fact of whom the operator is, i.e. Mil, there may well have been a reticence shall we say, on the part of airlines to loan a spare wheel assy.

No doubt the facts may well emerge in time, obviously not in the Mail, but as always, you can't help thinking there is an entirely different and hence factual account of what happened and why.

It's easy to slam the blame on the M.o,D / Air Tanker,,and you might as well include next doors cat for that matter, but would it not be prudent to wait a short while, rather than react to a Mail article that is, lets face it, designed to produce as much moral outrage as possible.....seems to have worked as well given some of the responses on here.

[BEagle]

From defencenews, official news blog of the UK MoD:

RAF Voyager tyre replacement

The Daily Mail reports that a 'row' over replacing a punctured tyre on an RAF Voyager caused by a bird strike as the aircraft was taking off led to military personnel on their way home from Afghanistan being delayed for 48 hours at a Middle East airport.

The Mail claims that a replacement tyre could not be sourced locally as this would breach a private finance deal and that under the terms of the contract both a new tyre and engineers to fit it had to be flown out from the UK.

These statements are factually incorrect as there are no clauses in the terms of the contract which require the use of certain tyres or engineers. In addition, RAF Voyagers carry a spare tyre and the necessary engineers to replace damaged tyres as a matter of course.

In this instance, after the bird strike, a safety inspection found that the combination of the heat and pressure caused by halting the take-off meant a second tyre was no longer airworthy and needed to be changed as a precaution. It is standard MOD operating procedure to dispatch replacement parts using existing flights and flying out a replacement tyre on the next available aircraft from the UK was the quickest resupply solution.

Sourcing replacement parts, including tyres, from the local area is not as straightforward as it may appear and it was not possible to use a tyre from a nearby commercial airport. In addition, MOD does not keep stockpiles of tyres at air bases because it is not cost-effective to maintain the specialist storage conditions required to meet aviation safety standards. In this case, the engineers on board the Voyager replaced both tyres as quickly as possible, allowing the aircraft to return to the UK.

We understand how much the chance to be reunited with loved ones means to our Armed Forces personnel and that is why any leave lost will be given back in line with standard policy. While we of course try to get Service personnel home from theatre as quickly as possible, unforeseen circumstances can cause delays, and safety has to be a priority.



Hmm...'Sourcing replacement parts, including tyres, from the local area is not as straightforward as it may appear and it was not possible to use a tyre from a nearby commercial airport.'

Why not?

:hmm:

[Just This Once...]

It's a sensitive location that lives in its own little bubble.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hmm...'Sourcing replacement parts, including tyres, from the local area is not as straightforward as it may appear and it was not possible to use a tyre from a nearby commercial airport.'

Why not?

Of course only the MOD would know the reason why and may be someone on site who was refused, but Krystal, above. may have the size of it. The commercial organisation may have political reasons to refuse to supply a foreign military organisation.

[Easy Street]

Oh dear, an overly-defensive response from HQ Air M&C.
The Daily Mail reports that a 'row' over replacing a punctured tyre on an RAF Voyager caused by a bird strike as the aircraft was taking off led to military personnel on their way home from Afghanistan being delayed for 48 hours at a Middle East airport.

The Mail claims that a replacement tyre could not be sourced locally as this would breach a private finance deal and that under the terms of the contract both a new tyre and engineers to fit it had to be flown out from the UK.

These statements are factually incorrect...The majority of the first statement is entirely correct; M&C must have been so shocked by this comparitive accuracy (coming from the Mail) that they had to resort to a cheap spin trick by hanging the reference to "a row" on it so they could say it was incorrect. Sounds like more PPRuNe grammar triv, but what it actually is is an attempt to bluster away an embarrassing story of which the essence has (unbelievably) been accurately reported by the Mail. Recovering somewhat from that shock, it does the MOD no favours to come out with tripe like

Sourcing replacement parts, including tyres, from the local area is not as straightforward as it may appear and it was not possible to use a tyre from a nearby commercial airport.without any further rebuttal, because anyone with the slightest bit of nous about them would immediately ask WHY? :confused::confused: This major engineering organisation less than 20 miles away (http://www.emiratesengineering.com/) would have a significant quantity of A330 wheels on hand - and given the friendly nature of UK-UAE relations, it would have been very straightforward for the UAE government to provide a suitable cloak into which to supply the part to avoid embarrassing the airline. We take fuel from civilian airports in the Gulf, do we not - this is standard business for Defence Attache staff. Airbridge operations through Minhad are not secret; if OPSEC is wheeled out as a reason then we really are going mad. One presumes that food and water for the Minhad staff are locally sourced; why not commercially-available aircraft parts?

[BEagle]

It would have been interesting to know whether any story about this incident was reported in 'Our Boys Favourite Paper', The Sun - but from today Murdoch has erected yet another paywall....

I can understand the odd person paying to read The Times, but would anyone really bother to pay for The Sun???

I doubt whether many of 'Our Boys' will.....:\

The Ministry of Truth's response simply raises more questions than answers...:(

[esscee]

So why not pre-position some appropriate equipment, wheels and other "no-go" items at the regular used location, as we used to do with VC10, Tristar, C-130, etc!!!! For heavens sake, can nobody think sensibly anymore or do they have to go up to Director ( Air*anker ) or AC level still to make a decision!!! We have been flying into Minehead, as called GW1, for many years and likely for many more in the future!!!

[BEagle]

We have been flying into Minehead, as called GW1, for many years and likely for many more in the future!!!

Minehead?

vlmGknvr_Pg

"..not much fun in Stalingrad!"

And now back to the thread!

[cessnapete]

I still can't believe the huge waste of taxpayers money over a couple of spare standard A330 wheels.
The Voyager is joint mil/civilian registered and there are many spares and suitable qualified personnel in the immediate area to fit them. You don't need your own military engineers to do the work.
If BA flew a Hercules to the Gulf every time an aircraft tyre burst!!!

[Blue Bottle]

In addition, MOD does not keep stockpiles of tyres at air bases because it is not cost-effective to maintain the specialist storage conditions required to meet aviation safety standards :ugh:

So there are no C17 or C130 tyres at that location then, becouse it's not cost effective..Bet there are, and I know they wont fit on the airbus, but if it's cost effective and correct storage for them, why not add a few more for Air Tanker. It has got to be more cost effective than flying then route on each trip, that's just extra payload on a standard route

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Looking on the bright side, it might have given the returning lads and lasses some rare "decompression time". Having a good drip about "bloody Crabair" might be therapeutic.

[mr snow]

Thank you for the expert analysis of the all the facts presented by such a wonderful newspaper. :ugh

[Wander00]

So long as they don't start thumping young airmen as they did in the Falklands after delays caused by TriStar problems in spring 86.

[BEagle]

Of course the wonders of PFI were supposed to have started delivering an AAR service some 7 years ago.

One hears whispers that the on-board spares were also somewhat beyond their use-by date.....:rolleyes: Perhaps they were procured to meet the original PFI delivery date....:\ ??

Hopefully the in-flight catering provided on board Voyager flights isn't out of date as well?

Oops - whadda mistakea to makea...:mad:

[3engnever]

Clearly they would have been better placed on the TriStar!!

[cessnapete]

When Airtanker start leasing spare flight hours to civil operations,as is their stated intention.
Will a Hercules with RAF maintenance team and MOD spares be dispatched for example to Palma, when operating a bucket and spade charter, when a Voyager goes u/s?

[Easy Street]

cessnapete

:D Superb question! Anyone from 2 Gp prepared to roll that hand grenade into the next command group?

[Daysleeper]

More to the point... Why stop for a bird strike.

[Arty Fufkin]

Stopping for bird strikes is apparently written into the PFI contract. Just there to make more money charging the RAF for tyres I guess......

Now where did I put that Bacofoil hat?

[1.3VStall]

cessnapete,

The chances of AirTanker selling spare hours to civilian operators are precisely nil - and will remain so throughout this ludicrously expensive contract. Also, forget about the similarly risible idea of leasing out Voyager airframes to civilian airlines; that will simply not happen.

Has AirTanker yet got ETOPS clearance????:ugh:

[Arty Fufkin]

1.3VS

ETOPS 180 granted on 28 Jun. I assume the rest of your post is similarly well informed.

[99luftballon]

You're missing the point Cessnapete

The spares were flown out on the next scheduled flight form Brize to that location, and fitted by the engineers on board the stricken jet, so no taxpayers money was wasted at all. How much would spares from a local airport cost?

Not that I'm supporting the operation, but if your going to be outraged, then fight the right battles. The only taxpayers money wasted was on carrying around out of date spares!!!

[Biggus]

99,

So there were no costs incurred by having 250 odd personnel stuck in that location for 48 hrs?

Separation allowance costs alone would be in the order of 250 x £10 x 2 = £5000. That's probably a minimum, then there are costs of food, accommodation (yes, I know - huts), etc. Lots of hidden costs that wouldn't have been incurred if the flight had got away on time.....

[Wander00]

Seems another case of "price of everything and value of nothing"

[Blue Bottle]

it's about the people, how many guys and girls left stranded for 48 hours in very basic conditions, while a company that costs 1M per day gets it's act together. If that was a normal commercial operator they would be paying HOTAC costs and tickets home FAA, not leaving brave young troops laying on a floor with no shower's etc while they sorted a wheel out..
They can have the best despatch rate in the world but their customer services needs an overhaul. Oh no they have a captive market and long contract, so no changes required.

[VinRouge]

Genuine question, not a dig, why didn't they use dhl or FedEx priority to get the bits there? Or did they have a mahoosive jack to get there too?

Could this have been the problem? It's all good having a tyre, not much use without the tools to fit it?

[collbar]

I suspect the Spanish airbus military have something to do with this...Cobham had the same problem. Although its an airbus part if it doesn't come from an airbus military approved supplier then it cant be fitted...
Pedro in Spain (well his brother actually) can supply it at only 2 times the civil price...bargain!

[Easy Street]

Biggus

To your costs you can add the hotel bill for the flight crew. As "99" will no doubt be aware, the huts are simply incompatible with crew rest (despite being used for weeks at a time by visiting dets). Let's conservatively assume 6 rooms downtown at £100pn, there's another £1200.... then they get some subsistence allowance..... 10 pers at £30pn, another £600ish. Presumably there are some costs being incurred in the UK by pax who were supposed to have been moved on the frame's next movement as well. Damn, that wheel is looking cheap!

[mr snow]

Can someone tell me how much it cost the UK taxpayer to finance the hotac and allowances for the VC10 and Tristar aircraft crews, scattered across the globe, unserviceable/ awaiting spares over the years and also, how many service personnel have been delayed as a result of this?
I remember, from my VC10 AGE days, it taking us 10 days to deploy to Nellis to take part in a Red Flag exercise because our K3 went Tech at every stop on the way. When we finally arrived we also had to replace one of the engines! Occurrences like this were commonplace and made life for the engineers very interesting.
I believe that a Tristar recently took several weeks to return to Brize from Red Flag due to technical issues with a main gear door?
Voyagers MAR aircraft have a 98% dispatch rate and the CAR aircraft 99%, which are comparable to civilian airline OTP/ dispatch rates.
The military, SR and civilian personnel who operate and support these aircraft are doing a fantastic job in achieving these figures and are always striving to get our boys and girls home on time every time.

[Biggus]

Mr Snow,

Apples and pairs. When the Voyagers are as old as the Tristars currently are, i.e. in more than 30 years time, what will their dispatch rate be then? Probably considerably less than 98%!! :ugh:

Also, how many locations around the world can currently supply tech support and spares for a Tristar or VC-10??

The question was, what were the costs incurred in a 48 hour delay of a Voyager, which appeared to be avoidable if help was sourced locally, and, perhaps more importantly, how robust are the arrangements for obtaining spares and support around the world for what is essentially a civil aircraft in widespread commercial use.

I have no doubts that everyone who operates and supports these aircraft are doing their best, as indeed did/do VC-10 and Tristar personnel before then. However, they can only work within the constraints of the system that has been set up for them - does this include access to spares and support from commercial third parties around the world, or are they always required to go down the "self help" route?

[alfred_the_great]

I have no doubt the single biggest factor in not popping to the stores shed in the next airport would've been trying to get the thing into Minhad. UAE customs quite simply doesn't do flexibility - I have personal experience of this - so getting it on the next in-bound flight to the airfield was likely the quickest thing to do.

[Biggus]

a_t_g,

Thanks for the input!

[alfred_the_great]

Biggus - not sure if that was a pisstake or not....

[lj101]

Can anyone tell me how much 10.5 billion over 27 years equates to as a daily cost?

Assuming 1 billion = 1,000,000,000,000.

Thanks, my brain can't cope. :sad:

[Biggus]

a_t_g,

Not! :ok:


lj101,

Even in English now 1Bn is normally 1,000,000,000.

(10.5 x 1,000,000,000)/(27 x 365) is £1,065,449 according to my calculator!!

[lj101]

Biggus

Thanks

In British English, a billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.

The same sort of change has taken place with the meaning of trillion. In British English, a trillion used to mean a million million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000). Nowadays, it's generally held to be equivalent to a million million (1,000,000,000,000), as it is in American English.

I should have read it properly.

[mr snow]

My point was really about how any delay, whether it is technical or operational, costs money. The VC10 and Tristar AT/AAR fleet are costly to operate and very unreliable.

The Government cocked up years ago by keeping the VC10 and Tristar in service too long. Maintenance and operational costs rose as reliability fell. Now they have no money so they have had to pay for the replacement aircraft on the 'never, never'.
Of course it is going to cost more but it would appear that there is no other option?

It is hard to accept, but ATrS are providing a service that the MOD were unable to do due to the government's lack of forward thinking. Moving on......

[esscee]

Since that "unfortunate" incident, how many times has the question been asked of their cabin crew, " Are there any spare mainwheels here in Minehead now?"

[Justanopinion]

Since that "unfortunate" incident, how many times has the question been asked of their cabin crew, " Are there any spare mainwheels here in Minehead now?"


I think a more relevant question is , "are the spares we are carrying in date?"

[downsizer]

All well and good slating the Tri*, but remind me, can Voyager fly into Bastion...?? :rolleyes:

[alfred_the_great]

All well and good slating the Tri*, but remind me, can Voyager fly into Bastion...??

No, because it wasn't brought to do that.

[Onceapilot]

Quote atg,"No, because it wasn't brought to do that".

Oh yes it was supposed to.... along with several other core tasks!;)

OAP

[lj101]

To be fair.....

12. Currently, FSTA is unable to fly into Afghanistan as it does not have the necessary protection equipment to fly into high threat environments.[30] 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.[31]

13. However, four years after this recognition, the Department has still not yet decided whether it will install this equipment on FSTA, citing that the need for FSTA to fly into high threat environment is not completely self-evident.[32] The Department has also only indicative costs from AirTanker over how much the modification work would cost and no funds have been ring-fenced for such work. Given the proximity of the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Department is now awaiting the outcome to see if it concludes there is such a need and what funding will be available before making a final judgement.[33]

14. Furthermore if the Department does decide to install this equipment, these are not quick modifications to make. On security grounds the Department did not wish to provide a clear indication of the time it might take, but estimated that a modification developed from scratch would typically take at least two years.[34] In the meantime, the Department is extending the life of the Tristar to allow it to fly into high threat environments, such as Afghanistan, up to 2016 and at a cost of £23.5 million.[35] Until a decision is made to install this equipment, FSTA will not be able to replace the Tristar fleet in its current role of flying personnel in and out of Afghanistan.[36]

Sourced from;

House of Commons - Delivering Multi-Role Tanker Aircraft Capability - Public Accounts Committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/425/42502.htm)

[skydiver69]

13. However, four years after this recognition, the Department has still not yet decided whether it will install this equipment on FSTA, citing that the need for FSTA to fly into high threat environment is not completely self-evident.

I'm a bit bemused by the thought that the honourable gentlemen couldn't foresee a time when the new FSTA would be required to fly into a high threat environment. We have armed forces, we expect to use them, we don't know where or when this will happen, but we won't equip our new fleet to cope with a current, let alone a future threat. :confused:

At the time of the report we were still in both Iraq and Afghanistan and won't be leaving the latter until 8 years after the report was written.

[alfred_the_great]

Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?

[Uncle Ginsters]

alfred_the_great - Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?


Buying an aircraft to do something and having an aircraft that has a capability are two very different things. The C17 inherited the HERRICK pax role due to the shortcomings of the rest of the AT fleets.
It is, of course, highly capable but the additional tasking is having an adverse long-term effect on the fleet and its operators, whilst detracting from its capacity elsewhere.

Lets have elements of the fleet that can all do their bit and spread the love.:ok:

[Blue Bottle]

Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?

I believe the C17 and A400 where brought to carry cargo, and outsized cargo at that. They are a very expensive way to move passengers when you work out the MPG of each type and divide by the number of passengers

[TMK1]

AirTanker to start defensive aids upgrade on RAF Voyagers (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airtanker-to-start-defensive-aids-upgrade-on-raf-voyagers-383914/)

Flight Article March 2013

[collbar]

Sorry to pick holes Uncle Ginster but I thought the C-17s were the only fleet doing Pax moves to Herrick long before the dedicated pax aircraft were allowed to to the job. Remember the RAF news article covering the first Tristar in to Afgan with that great quote from the loadmaster "its tough moving freight and PAX". Agreed the PAX fleet has inadequacies... not of their own doing.

To be fair to Airtanker, they had the defensive aids that NG (the system designers) said would be adequate installed...Its the RAF arse covering brigade that insisted on the belt and braces system... 2/3rds more defence than most U.S C-17's!!

[Just This Once...]

Collbar, not really the case and the RAF (and NG) knew of the issues way before any metal was cut. Unfortunately Airtanker had the signed contract in their hands and proceeded as per every single 'frozen' letter of it.

Why get paid once for a job when you can get paid twice?

[3engnever]

"Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?

I believe the C17 and A400 where brought to carry cargo, and outsized cargo at that. They are a very expensive way to move passengers when you work out the MPG of each type and divide by the number of passengers"

But didn't we buy these as tankers and not as AT aircraft, hence the name FSTA - Future Strategic TANKER Aircraft.

[collbar]

Fair do's Just this Once!!!

I have seem Airbus Mil in action...astounding mentality!!

[Blue Bottle]

AirTanker Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTanker_Services)

In 2008 the Ministry of Defence signed the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) contract with AirTanker to provide the Royal Air Force (RAF) with an air transport and air-to-air refuelling capability.

[3engnever]

Wikipedia, must be true then! My belief is that the RAF were looking for tankers but acknowledged the fact that any aircraft could be used as an AT asset when not in the tanker role.

[Blue Bottle]

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) - Defence Projects - Armed Forces - Defence Suppliers Directory (http://www.armedforces.co.uk/projects/raq3f57577b331c4)

:ok:

[3engnever]

Blue Bottle, I get what they do now, that is not the point. What was the requirement at contract close? Clearly, if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.

[Justanopinion]

if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.

Post 121 explains

[Onceapilot]

Strange how the whole FSTA plan has morphed, and still lacks the capability of the legacy platform.
I wonder how the FSTA would have turned out as a straight military purchase with none of this AirTanker nonsense?

OAP

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I wonder how the FSTA would have turned out as a straight military purchase with none of this AirTanker nonsense?


Head, parapet, go!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Clearly, if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.

Strangely enough, back at the start of the last decade, DAS for FSTA was a key user requirement. Obviously some idiot decided to trade it off against cost, time & performance based on some stupid notion that we don't ever put our tankers (for it was a tanker first) in harms way (http://www.gov-news.org/gov/uk/news/army_heroes_honoured_for_dramatic_rescue/54157.html)!!

DFC

Squadron Leader MITCHELL was a flight commander on No 216 Squadron whose role it was to carry out air-to-air refuelling of NATO combat aircraft. On two missions alongside the Serbian border he drew the effusive praise of fighter aircrews for his courageous flying and remaining on station to complete his tasks regardless of the threats to his tanker aircraft. His performance on over 30 missions in support of combat aircraft was outstanding.

[t43562]

I have no experience of this other than in the IT world but I wonder if it's applicable here:

Often a project that I was involved in would never have been contemplated for a second if the true cost in time and money had been known at the start. People who understood knew that without the effort the company would have had nothing more than short term strategy and would eventually face some completely unexpected challenge of a magnitude that it could not respond to for lack of preparation.

So knowing the management's low appetite for any kind of risk and general lack of understanding of the situation that faced them, one would either skimp and scrape on the plan and thus get permission to commence or put in a realistic estimate and be shot down.

It was also always important to appear to have a working product quickly even if it didn't work properly because otherwise cancellation also loomed. Again this was part of the way managers are under great pressure to appear to achieve things and that their bosses don't know the difference between appearance and fact and don't want to know because they are trying to look good to someone themselves.

The company in which I had most of this experience no longer exists of course, because it was put to the sword by smarter foreign rivals.

[3engnever]

Roland, did FSTA have a DAS fit when it entered service?

[TMK1]

3engnever
See article at #126 for your answer

[3engnever]

TMK1, thanks,that is what I thought.