FSTA Runs Dry

[Klingon]

:confused:
I hear that the Airbus consortium couldnt afford the PR visit to Bronze Newton and that the Stach had been asked to foot the bill from his yearly allowance.
Hope he told them were to go! Green Shield stamps and all!

[BEagle]

In which case I must have imagined the flight in a bmi A330-200 courtesy of Air Tanker which several hundred of us experienced today! Nice to be invited to watch the start, taxy and take-off from the jump seat and to have the opportunity for a brief pole of the ac. This was a very useful visit and helped to clear up certain areas of misunderstanding.

Thank you Air Tanker, bmi, Airbus Mil and everyone else involved in arranging the visit!

..and it certainly didn't run 'dry'. Nice little snack and champers in First Class after my turn on the flight deck - served by very charming cabin staff!

Thanks also to the 99 team for hosting us in your palatial accommodation afterwards!

[MarkD]

Do you still want those 767Ks then BEags? :D

[Klingon]

Still doesn't answer the question of who paid!:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

I have but one lingering area of doubt regarding the best FSTA platform, I regret that I will not state it here due to certain sensitivities.

Bug.ger me with a fishfork if that doesn't sound like a political reply........... But that's all I have to say about that!

[Jeep]

Bagel :

That is the biggest U turn I have seen since Mr Fish told that little old lady, there would definately NOT be any storms the next day.

[BEagle]

Spheres!!

[spekesoftly]

If you've spent half you're life flying VC10s, then I guess it would be easy to be seduced by any reasonably modern aircraft - Boeing, Airbus, or whatever ! ;)

[Mike RO'Channel]

What's the point of having tankers, anyway? We only seem to use them for taking pointy jets on exercise to N America or SSII. Or at best, it seems that it is only by accident do they get left behind in the ME to help out the USN. In the meantime, no sign of RAF steely-eyed killers in ****.

Not that I'm having a go at the FJ pukes - it just seems that the politicos aren't interested in sending expensive stuff into the hills when we can get 'Dubya face-time' by sending in 'el-cheapo' 16AAB/45 Cdo and Wokkas to do Uncle Sams dirty work for him.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

That's one of my worries Mike, the present Government will turn us into nothing more than an extension of the US. Soon that will be all we can do, considering the assets and capabilities we are losing c.f. a certain naval STOVL fighter.

[RoboAlbert]

Nice to see several hundred station personnel are so under-tasked that they have got time to swan around all afternoon on a junket sipping free champagne – still, keeps the wheels of military procurement well oiled I suppose.

[BEagle]

Saucer of milk, dear?

In fact the majority of the people in the back of the ac were those who wouldn't normally get a chance to fly in anything; a few stn service personnel and some civilian personnel. Those stn aircrew who could fit the 2-3 hours into their programmes and who wanted to got the chance to fly in the ac and that was about all! There were also some people from MoD, Gp and DPA, as well as those from industry. So no, this was emphatically not a booze barge for 200 Brize personnel.

Incidentally, I have checked up on your nonsensical claim that A400M could not take-off from Lyneham at MTOW, it most certainly could! It probably won't have to when it comes into service, of course..........

And the words, 'crock', '$hit', 'of', 'utter' and 'C130J' were frequently to be heard. Often in the same breath!

[Klingon]

Someone got a retirement consultancy job lined up then?:rolleyes:

[Mike RO'Channel]

Beags
What is the latest 'sign to fly' time - 77 mths (6.5 yrs)? If so, that means we won't see the A400M delivered to Lyneham/Brize/SMG until 2009? Also, will it be delivered with all the LL, NVG, formation flying and dropping clearances that are taking an extra 4 years for the J model to get? Or once again, will we not specify such 'useless' things in the contract and end up with another white elephant?

[BEagle]

Mike - 'sign to fly' is 56 months with entry into service at 77 months. All bar one nation have now signed, the last nation is in the process of doing so. Final 'Sign' is anticipated by the end of June.

The Common Standard Aircraft will come with many of the features you mention. One nation is particularly keen for a good covert tactical night low level capability. An integral DASS is available; however I don't know whether the RAF has specified it. But survivability and NVG compatibility have been built-in from the outset.

With luck the expensive and procrastinating hand of QwintyQwoo won't be allowed anywhere near the project; instead a central multi-national tactical development organisation will be responsible for achieving the relevant clearances......

The C130J is nothing more than a digitally re-mastered 1950s design whereas A400M will be a generation ahead of even A330 as it will share A380 technology. Don't forget that, unlike certain aircraft companies, Airbus has always achieved 'first flight' on time - except for one design for which a different engine was specified after 'sign-off'. Even then it was only delayed 4 months....

[Klingon]

He's got the job!:p

[spekesoftly]

Sounds like Airbus has got it all sorted then ...... pass the champers!! :D

[BEagle]

Nonsense, Klingon. I'm still flying for HMFC- although the ATPL/IR arrives next week!

Enough of your insinuations, now go and eat your qagh like a good Klingon or I shall arrange for some tribbles to be beamed over to you! (Trekkie-talk courtesy of Mark-the-Author!).

Saw a good bumper sticker once: 'Klingons. The Universe's Bikers!'

Live long and prosper! Or rather "nI'yIn je chep"

[Klingon]

Good banter Beagle!
Some of that treckie talk sound like a flying manual I once read. The biker bit sound 'bout right though!

Whatever the future version of FSTA is, I hope lessons in one handed, four dimensional management are included. AAR trails will test the capacity of a 2 man flight deck.........both on the ground and in the air.

Unless of course Beagle knows something we don't?;)

[Chris Kebab]

BEagle:

"a central multi-national tactical development organisation will be responsible"

Can you name a successful model for this to be based on?

I can see a case for an AWC vs QinetiQ clearance argument/debate (suspect the ideal is somewhere in the middle) - but a multi-national one?

[Vertico]

BEagle - still banging on about "the expensive and procrastinating hand of QwintyQwoo" I see.

People who hadn't been involved used to say exactly the same back in the '60s about MOD(PE) as it then called itself.

Expensive - yes. But a damned sight less expensive in both money and lives than simply taking the maker's word (possibly supported by that new, never been there before, international rubber-stamp group) that everything's super.

Procrastinating - can be so, but more often it's the makers that take for ever to sort out a problem of their making - literally!

As a bright-eyed young jet jock, I used to think that aircraft manufacturers were wonderful chaps who built all this marvellous kit that we rushed around the sky in. Took a tutor at ETPS to open my eyes with his introduction to a morning lecture, delivered in ever such a quiet voice: "All aircraft manufacturers are rogues". (He had full attention from the class thereafter!) Sad but true.

Their aim: to get accepted the cheapest, nastiest piece of kit which they can persuade MOD to buy. Job of QwantiQwoo and its predecessors: to make sure that no unsafe kit is allowed into service AND to ensure that what does come into service actually meets the spec - which it often doesn't at first try. And that's before we get into the debate about how valid the spec was in the first place.

[BEagle]

Sorry - but little support for QwintyQwoo. An overly-expensive quangoistic organisation living on past glory. Apologies to any aircrew who have to work for this outfit.

tlhIngan - A400M employment in AAR trails with a 2-person crew would only be feasible with a very capable mission planning system with advanced trail computational software. AirbusM have been given some indication of what would be needed; the ac could do it, but could a 2-person crew.......??

[Phil Terfull]

If, as has been alluded to above, we're only capable of going to war with Uncle Sam's finest, then shouldn't our new tanker be capable of boom and drogue refuelling? Also, as the Italiens and USAF appear to be going for the 767K then here's a good time to standardise a NATO tactical tanker.

Just a thought!

[Iron City]

Just set it up for probe and drogue and then you only have to refill real aviators. The drogue is also a lot lighter and smaller, doesn't transfer as much gas as fast but if you are not refilling great big gas guzzlers it doesn't matter.

[BEagle]

But would the 'real aviators' please read the b£oody book and do things the standard way, not the 'Navy way'! The book is called ATP56a, you'll recognise it as that dust covered tome lurking at the back of the bookshelf in your ready room!

If you can't find it, then try a Google search for it - then download it. Tell your mates to as well please!

[Mike RO'Channel]

Sounds like AMC are thinking about the software for trails and the like. But what about its main role of Tactical Airlift (LL and/or HL to short austere strips in an intense COMAO type environment and coupled with a third generation MANPAD/RF/AAA threat). Is someone thinking about the software for this and/or is a 3 man flightdeck a possibility (other nations support this idea)?

Perhaps this should have been in the A400 thread but its disappeared from my screen now. It doesn't really matter, the fact is, someone had better be thinking about multifunctional mission planning/operating software for 2-3 person flt deck that is fully spammed up for the A400s introduction to service. If not, we will have a re-run of the shambles that is the J Model software - 3 yrs with us and unable to fly LL!

[Klingon]

Went to a brainbash on FSTA logistics and the "Team" were adamant about the 2 flight deck crew environment.

Lots of chat about money and funding and interoperatbility with the PFI chums.

Looks like a re-run of the C130J debacle is on the cards despite the dire warnings!:cool:

[BEagle]

A 3rd crewseat and work station will be available for certain applications. But the ac will normally be operated by 2 pilots with an ALM. Absolutely no question of a specific 'navigator' or 'air engineer' (as we currently understand the terms) being an A400M crew member on a regular basis - the 3rd crew person will be a 'Mission Systems Operator' with role-specific responsibilities.

The planned A400M flight deck displays make even those of the A330-200 seem crude.......

[Mike RO'Channel]

I think we all know a 2 man flt deck for trail and Tac work won't cut the mustard! However, its expensive and no-one who makes those sort of decisions knows anything about the complexity involved in either specialisation. I agree with Klingon - standby for shambles MkII

[BEagle]

So if you want to get it to work, you ask the end-user what would be needed in a 'price-is-no-limit' dream solution - but you do NOT let the end user cloud the issue by considering the cost. Then you see whether there's an appropriate COTS application available which could be ruggedised and might then satisfy the end-user when suitably modified. Then you employ an expert end-user to consult with the software team and aircraft designer so that you end up developing the COTS solution to a form which your consultant's expertise indicates will satisfy the end-user. You don't merely ask 'what' the end-user wants, you ask him 'how' he wants it to be done!

What you most certainly don't do is just to ask a remote-from-the-coal-face-it-won't-happen-in-my-tour Ministry desk-sucking blotter-jotter to attempt to specify the need and then to let a bunch of software nerds lose on it to produce something which, whilst ostensibly meeting the so-called spec on paper, is so user-unfriendly that you spend years trying to get the solution modified to the form the end-user would have wanted if you'd bothered to ask him in the first place!

An example? A famous fighter-bomber was designed with a clever opening canopy-cum-extending step because the nose was too far off the ground to use conventional kick-in steps. But the RAF used little stepladders instead - because when kitted out with full flying kit it wasn't possible for a pilot to climb up the step. "Bug.ger", said the designer, "if we'd known that we wouldn't have bothered with the step at all and that would have saved us lots of money and weight!".

[Mike RO'Channel]

Sounds great! But I remember when the J model was sold to the RAF - it sounded brilliant but look what we got instead. Until we see a 'finished' product entered into service that hasn't been totally fu<ked around by industry and the MOD bean-counters, then I remain a sceptic. Would love to be proved wrong by AMC tho'!

[1st Threshold]

Beagle

As you have stated, a mission specialist will be carried on certain missions. I have been led to beleive that all new a/c will have a Link system and a fully integrated DASS (except Merlin coz it was conceived 15+ years ago, and may not get any of this even at its mid-life update sometime next year!). If this is the case, where is the expertise going to come from?

The AEOp (sorry WSOp) branch is on the rise! You mark my words


1st Threshold


Edited to remove correct spelling at sauce

[BEagle]

I'm sure that the 130J saga has also been studied by Airbus Mil! They are also acutely aware of the honesty surrounding the grandiose claims made by LM for the digitally-remastered C130 that the RAF has been saddled with.

Regarding the 3rd crew station, I doubt that there will be a need for a submarine-spotter to be carried on tactical low level overland sorties or to work with MIDS should that be fitted - which I sincerely hope it will as it would be utter folly not to cary it! Have AEOps any relevant AAR trail expertise? Somehow I doubt it; sometimes they are good at getting out-of-date and irrelevant weather from Artichoke on North Atlantic trails rather than current weather from other sources. Last time I did such a trail, we had to tell the so-called communications experts in the Nimrod how to obtain Canadian MACS access........

[Captain Gadget]

BEagle

A famous fighter-bomber was designed with a clever opening canopy-cum-extending step because the nose was too far off the ground to use conventional kick-in steps

Apologies for being off-topic, but am I right to recall that a certain pilot also had to resort to a hazardous ground MDC firing because said steps wouldn't extend due to the fact that the nose was on the deck following a nosewheel collapse on landing - and therefore the canopy wouldn't open?

Great design!

[Mike RO'Channel]

Frankly, I dont care whether its a WSOp/AEOp/Nav/3rd pilot or ALM/GE (current J practice), just as long as there is another pair of eyes/another brain in the cockpit who is part of the crew not just an observer. Its always the 'spare' bod who is not totally engrossed 'in the loop' who spots the obvious big mistake/other aircaft/flock of birds etc!

[Klingon]

Update to my last!

Sources at grope tell me that there will indeed be a Mission Specialist for AAR Trails who will most probably be a mythical beastie called a WIZZO (or something like it). This will in fact turn out not to be an AEOp but, suprise suprise, a redundant three fixes and an area of uncertainty vendor.

Equally not suprised if the majority of the heads of sheds on this project have influence in this direction.

Wonder what the training cost differential is between training a Nav for the job, who is then b***dy useless at any other time and an ALM who can be used in the cabin when not required for AAR flight deck duties.

I hear the boys on the C17 and C130J are happy with their Mission Specialists! :cool:

[BEagle]

From today’s Sunday Times:

"June 09, 2002

Rolls pulls in allies to pursue aero deal

by Dominic O’Connell


ROLLS-ROYCE is to set up a pan-European company in an effort to win the £1.2 billion engine contract for the new A400M military transport aircraft.

Euro Prop International (EPI) will bring together Rolls-Royce, MTU and SNECMA, the German and French aero engine manufacturers; and ITP, the Spanish aerospace company in which Rolls-Royce holds a 47% stake.

A Rolls-Royce spokesman said that although the new company had not yet been formed, the partners had already submitted proposals to Airbus, the European aircraft maker that is to build the A400M.

EPI faces stiff competition from the American engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. Its Canadian arm is bidding to win the contract and the Canadian government has expressed an interest in buying the A400M. A choice of engine is expected to be made within the next few weeks, and may even be unveiled at the Farnborough air show in July, according to industry sources.

The A400M is an £11.5 billion joint project between Britain, Germany, France, Portugal, Turkey, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg. It will replace the partner countries’ ageing fleets of transport aircraft and be a cornerstone of the planned European rapid-reaction force.

But the project has been dogged by delays, notably in Germany, where MPs have been unwilling to provide guaranteed funding for the purchase of 73 of the aircraft. Last month, Portugal delayed its signing of the A400M contract.

While most industry sources believe the aircraft will be built eventually, they also expect even more delays. It is now unlikely to enter service before 2011, which could leave the Royal Air Force with a gap in its transport capability in the intervening years.

The Ministry of Defence, which will buy 25 A400Ms, is weighing up a stopgap purchase of 11 Boeing C-17 cargo planes in case the programme slips further. It could also buy more Lockheed C-130Js to augment its fleet."



More C130Js?? What a truly appalling idea……………

And yes, that’s ‘appalling’, not ‘appealing’!

[Jackonicko]

Eleven C-17s though! That's three squadrons if they each have as many as No.99!

Anyone care to fill me in on the internal RAF bid on FSTA?

[Reheat On]

From DSD (http://defence-data.com/current/page14752.htm)
---
The US Air Force is planning to deploy C-17 Globemaster III to Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, and Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. The plan, briefed to members of Congress, includes adding eight aircraft each to Hickam and Elmendorf to give Pacific Air Forces a new airlift capability.

"Pacific-based C-17s would be able to support strategic airlift requirements anywhere in the Pacific within 24 hours," said Brig. Gen. Paul Fletcher, PACAF director of plans and programmes. "We expect to be able to quickly respond to contingency or humanitarian relief operations anywhere in our area of responsibility much faster than can be done with continental US-based assets or our current tactical
---

That's 16 - and just to fill the Northern and Pacific gaps!

Also from DSD (http://defence-data.com/current/page14742.htm)
---
Several of the world's air forces will be converting commercial airliners for the aerial tanker role in the coming years. Germany will take delivery of Airbus A310s fitted out in a tanker/transport configuration; Israel Aircraft Industries will convert additional Boeing 707s for that country's aerial refuelling needs; and the United Kingdom is expected to convert 20 to 30 ex-British Airways Boeing 767s for its Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft requirement. [My italics - see below!]

The Royal Australian Air Force needs to replace five 707 tankers and is closely monitoring the US Air Force's new tanker program. The latter is expected to lease 767s, suitably modified, from Boeing, as replacements for its 450-strong KC-135 contingent. The first 100 767s, at least, will be new production aircraft and are thus not included in the Forecast International calculations.
---

So its a fact then..... The US numbers [450 KC135 replacements alone].... *sigh*

[BEagle]

Some people still keep mentioning an appalling awful backward step - to allow Arfur Daley of Cambridgeshire to convert some more ancient, clapped-out DeathStars into 3-point tankers.....

Which has support amongst the Air Engineers alone...

[nav attacking]

Rumour has it that Boeing has made the RAF a very sensible offer which it will no doubt refuse to save embarassment, i.e. buy/lease about 15 C17's and they (Boeing) will buy all the C130J's off us. Therefore allowing the closure of a certain airbase in Wiltshire whilst building up the airbase in Oxon.

Maybe the Army would then want Lyneham for the Apache as it needs to have much better infrastructure than they have at Middle Wallop, i.e , some concrete for a start!!! Much better infrastructure being purely relative of course!

All makes total sense really so its bound not to happen.

Somebody give me a slap around the face I need to come back to the real world!!

[Reheat On]

There would not be room at The Inn at Carterton would there for that many wide bodies?

Make more sense to put Apache at Wattisham and all the c17s at Wooton B....

wot am I missing?

The implications for that little deal to get various persons asses out of the fire do not bear thinking about. Stand by your beds - P45s on parade!

[teeteringhead]

Nav Attacking

Maybe the Army would then want Lyneham for the Apache as it needs to have much better infrastructure than they have at Middle Wallop, i.e , some concrete for a start!!!

I hate to intrude in a truckie/tanker thread, but I hope you're not proposing the closure of MW!! Can't do that; it's where the wegimental museum is don't yer know old chep!

Also the home of DAAvn, a curiously single-service organisation amidst the purple of JHC. Oh all right, close it then .......