Fsta

[RCOV 2 ENG]

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE 2 BIDDERS FOR THE FUTURE TANKER PROGRAMME, BUT WHICH ONE IS MORE FAVOURABLE TO M.E. GUYS AND WHY? IS IT BOEING OR AIRBUS THAT WILL WIN?

[ORAC]

There's no need to shout! And it's been done to death. Do a search in this forum and you'll loads of past threads. As a start

Thread 1 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39307&highlight=fsta)

Thread 2 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38986&highlight=fsta)

Thread 3 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39225&highlight=fsta)

Thread 4 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53623&highlight=fsta)

Thread 5 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56948&highlight=fsta)

And no doubt there will be another if and when the the USAF sign the lease deal with Boeing for 100 KC-767s. (Notwithstanding LMs unsolicited "skunk works" design for an FET tanker. See below.)

LM has put forward a proposal for a mix of strategic tankers and tactical FETs (Force Employment Tankers) capable of penetrating enemy airspace.

The FET would feature a large composite wing, about the same size as the KC-135's, housing the aircraft's fuel with a much smaller streamlined fuselage with just a pressurised cockpit (hopefully, equipped with ejection seats). It would have two fusealage mounted engines above the wing to reduce interference. Refuelling would be from dual boom/hose underwing pods.

Projected unit cost is around $80 million (over several hundred units). The cost of a KC-767 is somewhere between $150 million and $200 million. The proposed lease will cost $20 million a year for a 10 year lease.

(Details courtesy of Flight International).

[BEagle]

FSTA negotiations are at a very 'commercial-in-confidence' stage, so even if anyone did have any inside gen, they wouldn't post it here.

A rhetorical question. How many other countries have decided upon new tankers?

A310: Germany and Canada. Converting ac they already own to MRTT spec.

B767: USA and Italy, others are very interested. Plus Japan, I think.

A330: No-one.

FSTA types under consideration have been declared as B767 and A330. Everyone else has rejected theA330, so the UK decision will be............

[Denzil]

A330 it is then:p

Or why not buy the B767's off BA? Less public and more PC than just giving them cash!!!

May the best NEW BUILD aircraft win ;)

[ORAC]

A bit presumptious there Beagle, I don't think the pentagon has yet DECIDED on the KC-767, though I agree it is a foregone conclusion. Conversely both Japan and Italy have confirmed orders ( 4 each).

Australia should also be on your list. They have been looking at the UK FSTA competion. Whether in interest or incredulity I cannot say. It will be interesting to see which way they go.

Australia AAR - Part1

RAAF - AAR options part 1 (http://f-111.net/CarloKopp/aar-expand-1.html)

RAAF - AAR options part 2 (http://f-111.net/CarloKopp/aar-expand-2.html)

Air 5402 (http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/asd/air5402/air5402.cfm)

[G Zip]

Don't seem to recall a new platform ever having been bought by MOD purely for FSTA-type role (yeh, betcha someone out there does!). Also, if USAF take KC767, commonality issue must be a big factor so my money's on ex-BA 767s when MOD can bring the dosh into earlier LTCs, perhaps after IRAQ II?? OK, the RR engines are non-standard but the bottom line is how easily/quickly you can get a 4-ship of keen prodders across the big bird - and I always preferred the VC10 for that reason (let alone it's speed, better wake environment etc). It was traditional to trial this after HMG had decided on the purchase (isn't that why the wing pods were never finally fitted on the TriStar?)... :)

[Denzil]

G Zip, actually the L1011 can have wing pods (I have seen the drawings) it's down to the fact that nobody will pay the money to fit them!!!

Lets face it the B767 is the preferred option, but why have secondhand BA aircraft (other than BA cash inject) when "new build" is available?

[BEagle]

Watch the adverse yaw motion of an ageing old DeathStar as it rolls into a turn and you'll soon realise that it wouldn't be much fun trying to maintain contact on any wing hose with which it might be fitted.

[Dan Winterland]

Thought it was too difficult due to the necessity to having to disabe the automatic aileron upset feature of the L1011-500. Incidently, the A330 Manouevre Load Alleviation system may also cause similar problems.

Agree with you Beags. I didn't like staying in contact on the centleline of the Tristar when rolling in or out. It was the only time you deliberately went out of position. If you corrected, you had to reposition when the thing stopped rolling. It was OK during the day, but at night!

[Denzil]

Dan the -500 only has the ailerons upset (by I recall 7degs) if the active control has failed, the other variants use a higher fuel load in the 2L/2R tanks to provide wing load alleviation.

Tha main reason they have never been fitted is that of cost (no shock there then), the same as not putting a freight door on the K1's and not doing anything to the C2's.

Obviously no fun refuelling an ancient old relic from the L1011 then;) I am sure you will have plenty of fun flying rubber dog $hit out of HKG in your -300SF:p

Joking apart, I really hope the RAF get a "new build" aircraft that has a long term future, be it B767, A330 or anything else that crops up. Having been in the RAF and worked on both the outdated L1011 and the ancient VC10 I know the problems of operating and maintaining old aircraft, that are becoming very difficult (in the case of the L1011) or impossible (VC10) to source spares for.