Fsta Delayed

[BEagle]

PFI malaise strikes again. Due to their continued effort to try to get someone else to pay for core military activities such as force-enabling AAR, MoD’s procurement suits have had to announce yet another delay to the FSTA programme. This classic case of ‘smart’ procurement now means that the ancient old VC10s and TriStars will have to stagger on for yet a further year. Wasn’t it such a jolly good idea to scrap so many VC10s before the FSTA ISD was firmed up?

MDP stated: “While we have received substantial responses from both consortia progress in contract discussions has been slower than we had hoped. Coupled with our experience in the length of time taken to close a PFI deal after the preferred contractor announcement we have concluded that we should delay the entry into service of the new arrangements by 12 months from early 2007 to early 2008”

“I understand that this will be unwelcome news for both consortia but, FSTA is a highly complex and innovative project and it is essential that the programme is soundly based. We are working very closely with both consortia to achieve the earliest possible announcement of the preferred contractor.”

Err - what happened to the Public Sector Comparator? Has this now been quietly forgotten on the altar of DPA’s determination to make this ludicrous nonsense of military PFI a reality?

No doubt the 2 bidding consortia will be overjoyed at this decision...............

Lets’ see:

Nimrod 2000 - delayed and numbers cut
C130J - delayed and still to achieve full clearance
FSTA - delayed
A400M - still awaiting a firm date

The only thing I used to envy the airlines for was their new aircraft. I am just getting utterly pig sick of flying knackered, unreliable old aircraft with seemingly no prospect of the situation ever getting any better..........and at the constant bleat of “There’s no money for..................

[Brizzo]

FSTA delayed.

Pope Catholic

Bears cr@p in woods


Hold the front Page!



(excuse the levity Beagle - it ain't personal;)

[ORAC]

At least we might still have some organic AAR (+FARP/ALARP) capability in a few years. If only for 2 or 3 aircraft sets for SF/CSAR support

Jane's Defence Weekly:

RAF C-130Js cleared for Afghanistan role
CRAIG HOYLE JDW Aviation Editor
London

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is close to declaring fully operational its fleet of 25 Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules, following the clearance of the transport aircraft's Block 5.3 software standard delivered earlier this year.

In a key development, a limited number of the aircraft will from early June be available for deployment to Afghanistan in support of UK activities as part of the US-led Operation 'Enduring Freedom'. This development follows the aircraft's recent receipt of defensive aids suite (DAS) equipment, which was acquired under an urgent operational requirement.

Service officials said that while the aircraft are not yet cleared to deliver their fully anticipated tactical capability, the DAS-equipped platforms are poised to deploy to the Afghan theatre of operations. These "first flights east of Cyprus" will see the new-generation transports boost the UK's ability to support its military deployment in both the US-led campaign and the International Security Assistance Force, which has until now been largely reliant on older-model C-130s conducting flights into Bagram airbase near the Afghan capital, Kabul. Further details of the DAS upgrade, such as the equipment installed and the contract value, have not been disclosed.

The RAF will also this month officially stand up 30 Squadron, its second unit to convert to the new-generation C-130J, at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire. The UK in 1998 became the first customer to receive the aircraft, which is designated the Hercules C4 (stretched CC-130J) and C5 (short-fuselage C-130J) in UK service. The aircraft were procured without self-protection equipment.

The UK's clearance of the C-130J to meet its international peacekeeping and operational requirements also comes at an important time for Lockheed Martin, as the company is poised to revive promotion of the aircraft should the partner nations in Europe's 196-aircraft A400M programme fail to launch the manufacturing effort. The development also marks an end to the UK's protracted process to approve full military aircraft release for its new transport, which has now been achieved through the integration of several software standards and other enhancements.

RAF officials said further capabilities for the C-130J fleet are still being evaluated, but that one likely option will lead to the procurement of in-flight refuelling systems common to those installed in the US Marine Corps' KC-130J tankers to equip an undisclosed number of the service's 10 C5 platforms.

This system comprises two wing-mounted Flight Refuelling Ltd Mk32B-901E hose-and-drogue systems, which would enable the aircraft to refuel both fixed-wing aircraft and future probe-equipped Chinook HC3 and Merlin HC3 transport helicopters. The design also enables the aircraft to refuel helicopters and vehicles while the platform is on the ground.

[Reheat On]

I smell the evil hand of the Treaury in all this. Picture the scene at the Club. Treasury wallah speaking to hi-flying MoDman.

Sorry, old boy, you have as you know wilfully overspent even into next years budget, and as you know our Minister is keen to ensure prudence at all times. Your futile excuses about the Foreign Office and serving the Government of the day do not wash - if you keep spending at the present rate, I am afraid old boy that the news will only get worse. But meanewhile your job is now to delay all capital projects. Usual routine, I am sure you understand - make it all sound ever so complex, parties need time to consider, best for all, usual sort of stuff old boy. 'nother gin?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Forgive me if this is a stupid idea and demonstrates my lack of knowledge but.....

VC10 aircraft entered service with the RAF back in 1966. The tankers are ALL converted tanker aircraft, some of these a ex civil VC10s. Similarly the Tristars are converted transports. Clearly the UK has the expertise to convert transports to tankers.

However, the FSTA has been delayed until 2008. Apart from the daftness of the PFI concept, keeping these elderly aircraft going must be bad for morale and retention (not just aircrew, but engineers as well) and expensive (lots of maintenance to keep old airframes and engines going, cost of spares etc).

I was out getting some exercise when I saw a tanker truck go past and the following occured to me....

Why doesn't the RAF/DPA go and buy some more modern aircraft (Airbus or Boeing airliner or transport types) and convert them to carry big fuel tanks and all the AAR equipment, military communications kits, avionics, defensive gear, JTIDS and so on?
Maybe this would not be as good as a tanker built from scratch, but surely it would be better and cheaper than keeping the VC10 and Tristar going?

Perhaps our learned colleague BEagle can rate my comments on a 1 to 10 stupidity scale (1= hardly stupid at all, 10 = so stupid you must be a Minister).

[rivetjoint]

Neither us or our richer brothers the Americans are in a position where we can afford to buy the required tanker aircraft outright, let alone kit them out for the AAR role.

[The Gorilla]

I have a better suggestion, which Beags can also rate from 1 to 10!

Why do we need our own tanker fleet at all?? Since we will only be able/allowed to do ops on our American allies terms, why not convert all our aircraft to boom tanking and bum tanker slots off our allies????? You know George, no tanker slots no show!!!

That way, we can scrap all of our rubbish and maybe save the Sea Harrier or procure some nice flying suits?? Or perhaps invest it in the Railways?? That option certainly gets my vote!! ;)

[ORAC]

WEBF. Go buy a dozen eggs and visit your grandmother. And why aren't you out training?

Gorilla,

0 out of 10.

The USAF hasn't even got enough for itself let alone to support the USN. Which is why our tankers were flying so many sorties over Afghanistan in support of the USN.

Boom receptacles have to be designed into an airframe from day 1. Chances of modifying our aircraft? Zero.

[BEagle]

WEBF - not a stupid idea at all and one which makes much sense. Except for one important aspect - money!

The RAF has never, ever paid the going rate for AAR aircraft. The first were converted V-bombers, the next were all converted from a previous role or bought secondhand - or even thirdhand!

I liken the PFI nonsense to replacing one's car. Say you bought a secondhand car several years ago, then flogged it to death but kept paying for bigger and bigger repair bills. You then failed to put enough money aside to replace it after you'd kept it for longer than you'd ever intended and also had to use it far more than you ever planned to. You now have 2 options - go and ask the bank for a loan which you'll pay off over a few years, or ask Avis, Hertz, Godfrey Davis and 'No Questions Asked' to tender for providing you with a car. You agree that you'll only use it for 10000 miles per year - if you need more you'll always be able to give them enough notice and you'll agree to pay a hefty premium in order to do so.............

Which option would you take?

BEagle Tankers Plc would go to a commercial bank and ask for a loan to make Uncle Nigel happy to part with his RR-engined B767-300ERs. Done deal, bish bosh, here's your wedge. Then we'd offer a deal to the MoD including converting them to AT/AAR aircraft with all the Gucci kit you mention, to include all associated maintenance and an agreed hourly flying rate, all repayment to be spread over the first 20 years of their life, including BEagle's profit, after which they will become property of HMFC...........

[ORAC]

Beagle, being a devil's advocate to some extent:

Working on the economies of scale, would you be able to buy, modify and maintain them for less than Boeing will for their proposed tanker-lease of 100 x 767-200ERs?

Will you be able to find a bank which will undercut the Boeing rate?

Would it not be advantageous to operate the same model as the USAF both to cover future upgrade R&D costs?

Would it not be advantageous to start with new airframes rather than buy second hand aircraft - again - with all the associated risks?

If you own them, whose register are they on, what can they do with them and what licences do they need? What hours can they fly? What is their combatant status if someone takes them to the International Court?

I had hoped the campaign in Afghanistan would have put an end to the whole PFI FSTA saga. It seems criminal to be privatising one of the essential strategic assets.

[sycamore]

I thought BEags anomaly with a new car was what we had done with the C-17,ie,no low-level,no para,no tac-strips,nothing the a/c was actually designed to do; as described in an aviation mag.-buying a Ferrari,cash,no discount,no haggling,even though the manufacturer can`t get rid of it,only used to p/u the shopping,definitely NO speeding over 70mph,and return it in a few years time,cleaned and polished so M-D can flog it on!!
However,a solution to the FSTA would be to bring back FSFAT(FUTURE STRATEGIC FAT ALBERT TANKER!)
Take your shiny tanks out of theVC-10`s as they go to make pots and pans,likewise,the pods, take a C-3,or C-4 Albert,stick a pod under each wing,drill large hole in each rear door for hoses to shiny tanks inside fuselage,sling a pod on each door,a cctv on the duckbill,fill all to full with Avtur and get airborne-25p/litre ,sir,CC no.!
If the FSTA ever comes along and will be also available for charter when not rqd for tanking,why not give the crews ATPL`s and gold stripes ,then they can do ass`ntrash one day,and be a tanker****er,the next;save taking out all the sensitive gear that won`t work the next time!!;) ;)

[sf mov]

Beagle, on the subject of contracts, do you know who the tenders are for the new airfield services contract (cargo/pax/refuelling etc) ?, i know one is logicair (serco/ryder consortium).

[Dan Winterland]

BEagle. I like your idea, it's good. But it has one major flaw - it sounds too much like common sense. Ergo, it will never be accepted.

[BEagle]

Sorry - I won't comment on any rumours concerning the FSTA bidding consortia. That includes the scope and scale of their proposals.

[canberra]

i keep reading in the press that the fsta will be available for hire by civvies when mod dont need it, dont forget the at force is a tri-service asset. can anyone spot the flaw in that proposal? what month of the year did saddam invade kuwait? yes correct it was august. oh sorry says mod weve hired out most of the at force cos most of the sqns are on leave, we cant possibly reinforce the falklands/ gulf/ e timor until after the holidays! if anyone from mod is reading this think again about leasing fsta.

[BEagle]

No, no, no. Silly Cranberry! Didn't you know that all the world's dictators, terrorists and threateners of El Presidente's diamonds have agreed to give the DPA suits plenty of warning so that their Pi$$ Poor Planned FSTA aeroplanes can be cleared of shell-suited lager louts going to Oybeefa and refitted as full up military AT/AAR aircraft in plenty of time for any future conflict......

Baldrick - fetch me some underpants and 2 pencils....

[Reheat On]

Now then, Wing Leader BEagle, you are, by any analysis, being unreasonable. As you will perfectly well know all wars are preceded by a rise in area tension which your eminently qualified political executive are well qualified to assess and evaluate. Indeed, rarely are we caught out. Indeed, we have helpful input all the time from you lads in uniform. I know we often ignore it, but lets not forget a war is a political act. Now be a good chap, and please go an make a joint civvie/mil FSTA work, because it is as of now in your job description, and if you don't we shall have to consider whether your fibre is sufficiently moral, and its 1369 time soon. Not that I want you to feel under any pressure you understand.

Sorry what was that? 1982, 1991 and 9-11 you say ?
are they part numbers?
I am sorry could you talk English please......