FSTA (again)
FSTA (again)
Seems the arguments are starting between the bidders. From a source yesterday:
AirTanker has argued that a proposal from TTSC, which includes Boeing and BAE Systems, to modify second-hand British Airways B767s would run the risk of becoming a repeat of the Nimrod debacle. TTSC, said comparing the engineering changes to the more modern 767 to putting new wings on the Nimrod, dating from the 1950s, was a different issue.
TTSC attacked the AirTanker bid on safety grounds. It released a slide entitled "Greater 767 Tanker Airborne Margin of Safety" which, it claimed, showed that aircraft refuelling from the Airbus A330 proposed by AirTanker, must fly considerably closer to the tanker.
Now how did they get the pods onto the VC10 and KC135 - and hasn't this guy heard of th cone of safety behind a hose?
AirTanker has argued that a proposal from TTSC, which includes Boeing and BAE Systems, to modify second-hand British Airways B767s would run the risk of becoming a repeat of the Nimrod debacle. TTSC, said comparing the engineering changes to the more modern 767 to putting new wings on the Nimrod, dating from the 1950s, was a different issue.
TTSC attacked the AirTanker bid on safety grounds. It released a slide entitled "Greater 767 Tanker Airborne Margin of Safety" which, it claimed, showed that aircraft refuelling from the Airbus A330 proposed by AirTanker, must fly considerably closer to the tanker.
Now how did they get the pods onto the VC10 and KC135 - and hasn't this guy heard of th cone of safety behind a hose?
Some estimates I did over 3 years ago for the lateral clearance between hose and engine for various aircraft:
Boeing 767: 11.8 m
A310MRTT: 10.6 m
A330: 10.2 m
.....all of which compare rather favourably with the 6 m of the KC135! Somehow I don't think that 1.6 m less clearance than the B767 is going to make much difference on A330!
As regards 'risk' in the conversion, TTSC talk of 'substantial refit including engine upgrade' being needed for their old Boeings, whereas AirTanker state that only 'minimal modifications' are needed to the A330......
Boeing 767: 11.8 m
A310MRTT: 10.6 m
A330: 10.2 m
.....all of which compare rather favourably with the 6 m of the KC135! Somehow I don't think that 1.6 m less clearance than the B767 is going to make much difference on A330!
As regards 'risk' in the conversion, TTSC talk of 'substantial refit including engine upgrade' being needed for their old Boeings, whereas AirTanker state that only 'minimal modifications' are needed to the A330......
Another small thought from today's broadsheets...
If closer defence ties are sought for interoperability within the EU defence pact, how many EU operators use a boom system? The F16 operators spring to mind.... any more out there? What will the JSF operators select? Boom or drogue?
Or is the chosen aircraft not going to be suitable for the job due to the PFI programme (Sticking a boom on adds probably adds lots of drag, i.e. extra burn=less profitability)
If closer defence ties are sought for interoperability within the EU defence pact, how many EU operators use a boom system? The F16 operators spring to mind.... any more out there? What will the JSF operators select? Boom or drogue?
Or is the chosen aircraft not going to be suitable for the job due to the PFI programme (Sticking a boom on adds probably adds lots of drag, i.e. extra burn=less profitability)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sangiovese, boom system? Basically anybody flying the F-16. Which means the Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Hungary. (They might not have their own tankers, but most do regular training with the USAF to maintain crew qualification).
There is an Israeli designed, F-16 compatible, AAR pod with a retractable probe, but, of course, it takes up a station and adds drag and weight. Useful for deployments. Don't know if anyone in Europe has bought any though.
Which system their JSF replacements will have will depend on the model bought, The CTOL F-35A for the USAF has a refueling-boom socket behind the cockpit, while the STOVL F-35B and CV F-35C versions for the USMC and USN have a retractable refueling probe on the right side of the nose.
I'm not sure if the probe could be fitted to the A model or not, it sounds simple but with a different wing and internal avionic layout and the gun it might not be possible. Time will tell.
There is an Israeli designed, F-16 compatible, AAR pod with a retractable probe, but, of course, it takes up a station and adds drag and weight. Useful for deployments. Don't know if anyone in Europe has bought any though.
Which system their JSF replacements will have will depend on the model bought, The CTOL F-35A for the USAF has a refueling-boom socket behind the cockpit, while the STOVL F-35B and CV F-35C versions for the USMC and USN have a retractable refueling probe on the right side of the nose.
I'm not sure if the probe could be fitted to the A model or not, it sounds simple but with a different wing and internal avionic layout and the gun it might not be possible. Time will tell.
Last edited by ORAC; 5th Oct 2003 at 00:57.
A recent EADS press release confirms that development funds have been allocated for a boom system to be trialled on an A330 tanker. This will dramatically increase the attraction of the A330 tanker for those air forces stuck with the Spam 'female' system on their fast jets.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
'The Tanker Team proposes to re-engineer old Boeing 747 aircraft that are being sold by British Airways'
Really? Wrong company name, wrong aeroplane - but correct that they're old BA aircraft. Just goes to show how unimpressive TTSC's PR has been when compared against AirTanker's. Allegedly they were really miffed when AirTanker arranged the A330/Tornado flypast at RIAT - even trying to get their invited guests into lunch early to avoid them seeing the flypast, I hear!
And as for 'But an adviser to Tanker Team said it remained convinced that its bid was the best.', I quote the words of Mandy Rice-Davies - "He would say that, wouldn't he".
A pretty lacklustre article for the Thunderer - but yes, interoperability is a key issue and the DGA have reportedly identified the A330-200 as the best potential AR/AT replacement for the C135FR.
And here's an article for you from the Grauniad on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...055065,00.html
Really? Wrong company name, wrong aeroplane - but correct that they're old BA aircraft. Just goes to show how unimpressive TTSC's PR has been when compared against AirTanker's. Allegedly they were really miffed when AirTanker arranged the A330/Tornado flypast at RIAT - even trying to get their invited guests into lunch early to avoid them seeing the flypast, I hear!
And as for 'But an adviser to Tanker Team said it remained convinced that its bid was the best.', I quote the words of Mandy Rice-Davies - "He would say that, wouldn't he".
A pretty lacklustre article for the Thunderer - but yes, interoperability is a key issue and the DGA have reportedly identified the A330-200 as the best potential AR/AT replacement for the C135FR.
And here's an article for you from the Grauniad on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...055065,00.html
Last edited by BEagle; 7th Oct 2003 at 04:38.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to get into a slanging match here, but you're talking class a bo11ocks, BEags.
I suspect the fact that The Times reporter got both the consortium name and the aircraft type wrong in his article was probably due to a lack of familiarity with the project, rather than the quality of anybody's PR. From my experience, AirTanker's PR machine has actually been less evident and forthcoming over the course of the competition.
Whatever the merits of the respective PR campaigns, your allegation that TTSC tried "to get their invited guests into lunch early to avoid them seeing the flypast" is utter rubbish. The flyby happened well after lunch, after most of their guests and PR people (and spectators) had left Fairford. And no, there were no last minute changes in the flight scheduling to avoid the event.
By all means keep banging the drum for EADS and the A330, but get your facts right next time - you're swift enough to criticise journalists when they get theirs wrong.
I suspect the fact that The Times reporter got both the consortium name and the aircraft type wrong in his article was probably due to a lack of familiarity with the project, rather than the quality of anybody's PR. From my experience, AirTanker's PR machine has actually been less evident and forthcoming over the course of the competition.
Whatever the merits of the respective PR campaigns, your allegation that TTSC tried "to get their invited guests into lunch early to avoid them seeing the flypast" is utter rubbish. The flyby happened well after lunch, after most of their guests and PR people (and spectators) had left Fairford. And no, there were no last minute changes in the flight scheduling to avoid the event.
By all means keep banging the drum for EADS and the A330, but get your facts right next time - you're swift enough to criticise journalists when they get theirs wrong.
Which is why I said 'Allegedly' and 'I hear' - I was hundreds of miles away at the time and the info came from someone else. Apologies for the error - I was obviously fed Class A bolleaux by him!
He ought to be a journo.....
He ought to be a journo.....
The problem seems to be understated within the press. Regardless of which airframe is chosen (preferably the one with most gas/time on station), the problem of the contract is much deeper.
In commiting to a 27yr contract what of upgrades? What if required for interoperability it needs a boom fitted? Will the contract allow for refuelling UAVs in 20 yrs time? What of the performance detriment in future upgrades - modern IRCM? use of the aircraft as an electronic node for this new fangled network centric warfare? Lots of questions in this contract remain unanswered for an extraordinarily large PFI.
I am beginning to really believe the most economically beneficial option will win regardless of service requirements.
In commiting to a 27yr contract what of upgrades? What if required for interoperability it needs a boom fitted? Will the contract allow for refuelling UAVs in 20 yrs time? What of the performance detriment in future upgrades - modern IRCM? use of the aircraft as an electronic node for this new fangled network centric warfare? Lots of questions in this contract remain unanswered for an extraordinarily large PFI.
I am beginning to really believe the most economically beneficial option will win regardless of service requirements.
"I am beginning to really believe the most economically beneficial option will win regardless of service requirements. "
Doesn't it always?
Doesn't it always?
