RAF tanker aircraft - Boeing ups bid
G4B
What is your point regarding the Cobham/Flight Refuelling kit? I understand that TTSC is offering Smiths AirTanker is offering FRL/Cobham. The Mk 32 is in service; the Smiths kit is an unproven and unflown design. I understand that any perceived problems are not with the (Mk 32) pod but with the servicing (or lack of) of the pod.
What is your point regarding the Cobham/Flight Refuelling kit? I understand that TTSC is offering Smiths AirTanker is offering FRL/Cobham. The Mk 32 is in service; the Smiths kit is an unproven and unflown design. I understand that any perceived problems are not with the (Mk 32) pod but with the servicing (or lack of) of the pod.
....and Roly, by the time FSTA enters service the -900 series pods will have been flying for several years on other ac as well.
Wasn't there a court case about the Smiths' lot being accused of intellectual property rights 'acquisition'? Another sad addition to the list of 'concerns' at Boeing's 'ethics', perhaps?
Wasn't there a court case about the Smiths' lot being accused of intellectual property rights 'acquisition'? Another sad addition to the list of 'concerns' at Boeing's 'ethics', perhaps?
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Dec 2003 at 03:30.
..and G4B (presumably one of the ex-Victor brigade?), the 'bin ends' to which you refer would, I guess, be a lot younger than the old Boeings from ba being proposed by TTSC.
My guess would be that the bmi A330s apparently on their way back from SAA would be a hot favourite?
Meanwhile Phil Condit has just resigned as Boeing's CEO - and Airbus has secured yet another 20+ aircraft order....
My guess would be that the bmi A330s apparently on their way back from SAA would be a hot favourite?
Meanwhile Phil Condit has just resigned as Boeing's CEO - and Airbus has secured yet another 20+ aircraft order....
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Dec 2003 at 21:04.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Zürich (but a Brit)
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the Boeing tanker deal in the USA is in a bit of a mess. Allegations (ahem) that a Pentagon official or six might have taken a wee back-hander.
Shurely not trooooo, perish the thought.
But any hypothetical back-hander needs at least two parties: the 'bungee' and the 'bunger'. I wonder who the bunger could be when there's a $18 billion tanker deal at stake?
Allegedly.
Now, I wonder whether the UK government wants to get dragged into this (alleged) buggah's muddle, when they could stick a roundel onto the side of an A330 instead? More popular with British industry, more 'European' for the EU fans, more 'synergies' (hawk, spit, I hate that bloody word) with our European military counterparties, better paid jobs for the lads when they leave the RAF to pursue a career in the airlines. Whoops, forget that last one.
Politics and sticky sh1t'll settle this one, not cost and logic.
Ric
Shurely not trooooo, perish the thought.
But any hypothetical back-hander needs at least two parties: the 'bungee' and the 'bunger'. I wonder who the bunger could be when there's a $18 billion tanker deal at stake?
Allegedly.
Now, I wonder whether the UK government wants to get dragged into this (alleged) buggah's muddle, when they could stick a roundel onto the side of an A330 instead? More popular with British industry, more 'European' for the EU fans, more 'synergies' (hawk, spit, I hate that bloody word) with our European military counterparties, better paid jobs for the lads when they leave the RAF to pursue a career in the airlines. Whoops, forget that last one.
Politics and sticky sh1t'll settle this one, not cost and logic.
Ric
Arters - another month's delay means yet another month's fatigue on those old Boeings of ba.....
You should see what the European press are saying about the EADS/Boeing issue....
You should see what the European press are saying about the EADS/Boeing issue....
'With respect' G4B it doesn't require a degree in rocket science to know that the BA 767s are old and hard used, and that despite excellent maintenance are showing their age.
Nor does it require too much intelligence to know that the fact that they are too narrow to take two pallets side by side make them inferior freighters to the A330s. Nor that they need to use underfloor tanks to get anywhere close to the required fuel offload figures, further compromising their AT capability.
The RAAF are now looking hard at the A330, and there is some pressure on the USAF to do the same.
That's because its broadly the right size to meet the requirement.
Now if Boeing were offering a tanker 777...... it would be too big and too expensive, but perhaps a little closer to what's needed.
Nor does it require too much intelligence to know that the fact that they are too narrow to take two pallets side by side make them inferior freighters to the A330s. Nor that they need to use underfloor tanks to get anywhere close to the required fuel offload figures, further compromising their AT capability.
The RAAF are now looking hard at the A330, and there is some pressure on the USAF to do the same.
That's because its broadly the right size to meet the requirement.
Now if Boeing were offering a tanker 777...... it would be too big and too expensive, but perhaps a little closer to what's needed.
Hmm, G4B, touched a nerve perhaps?
ba's factbook 2003 show the following utilisation rates for their 767-336 fleet:
Longhaul 11.6 hours/day average/aircraft
Shorthaul 6.6 hours/day average/aircraft
So, that's around 200-350 hours per ac per month clocked up by these ageing ac every time the programme decision is delayed.
Hardly 'inside knowledge' - it's just that they're old and getting older!
And their capability, whichever way you try to hide it, is waaaaaaaaay less than that of the A330-200 in every area!
Errr - and Jacko, they're not even planned to have any additional tanks. So, only the same max fuel capacity as they have at present. Good, eh? One wonders why even the USAF are being offered elderly designs such as the 767 when Boeing is already looking at the 7E7... Jobs for the boys being pushed hard after the post 11 Sep downturn in order to keep domestic production lines running and the politicians happy rather than meeting a clear defence requirement?
ba's factbook 2003 show the following utilisation rates for their 767-336 fleet:
Longhaul 11.6 hours/day average/aircraft
Shorthaul 6.6 hours/day average/aircraft
So, that's around 200-350 hours per ac per month clocked up by these ageing ac every time the programme decision is delayed.
Hardly 'inside knowledge' - it's just that they're old and getting older!
And their capability, whichever way you try to hide it, is waaaaaaaaay less than that of the A330-200 in every area!
Errr - and Jacko, they're not even planned to have any additional tanks. So, only the same max fuel capacity as they have at present. Good, eh? One wonders why even the USAF are being offered elderly designs such as the 767 when Boeing is already looking at the 7E7... Jobs for the boys being pushed hard after the post 11 Sep downturn in order to keep domestic production lines running and the politicians happy rather than meeting a clear defence requirement?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - any chance you could enlighten us about the average daily hours being put on AirTanker's surplus A330-200 fleet, wherever they are going to come from? Emirates, perhaps? Surely if the BA jets are "ageing aircraft" - and the youngest is about six years old - then surplus A330s are too?
Better stick to the size argument (although the 767 is fully compliant) - or are we going to go back to the troop transport issue again?
What a difference a year makes! 24 September 2002: "My personal preference? Well, the Skunk Works tanker concept looks very interesting. But with BA shares plummeting yet again, we could make them an offer they can't refuse for their 767-300ERs". Hmm - wonder who said that...
1 October 2002: "One of the reasons (according to Flight) that the Italians turned away from an Airbus tanker was that the A330 was simply too big for many applications..."
Better stick to the size argument (although the 767 is fully compliant) - or are we going to go back to the troop transport issue again?
What a difference a year makes! 24 September 2002: "My personal preference? Well, the Skunk Works tanker concept looks very interesting. But with BA shares plummeting yet again, we could make them an offer they can't refuse for their 767-300ERs". Hmm - wonder who said that...
1 October 2002: "One of the reasons (according to Flight) that the Italians turned away from an Airbus tanker was that the A330 was simply too big for many applications..."
I have no more definite knowledge of where the A330-200s will come from than you do, although I have some guesses. In any case, they'll be younger than the 767s no matter what.
What a difference a year makes? Indeed. Something called GW2 and the change in operational imperative away from Cold War philosophy towards the long range capability now more clearly indicated. The basing issue is nihi ad rem; it's purely the age and lower fuel capacity which mitigate against ba's old ac. It would indeed have been a smart move to make Uncle Nigel an offer he couldn't refuse and to have spent money bringing up the 767s fuel capacity to the 90+ tonnes we'd anticipated, had that been done a while back....and a freight door!
But that didn't happen and now the choice looks as though it'll be between old, 73 tonne (fuel) jets with limited AT capabilities at high fuel weights and also need long runways at such weights (particularly at high ISA dev) - or younger, vastly more capable 111 tonne (fuel) jets which have a much better performance.
Even an earlier Boeing acquaintance of mine admitted that the 330's runway performance was better than any 767's.
What a difference a year makes? Indeed. Something called GW2 and the change in operational imperative away from Cold War philosophy towards the long range capability now more clearly indicated. The basing issue is nihi ad rem; it's purely the age and lower fuel capacity which mitigate against ba's old ac. It would indeed have been a smart move to make Uncle Nigel an offer he couldn't refuse and to have spent money bringing up the 767s fuel capacity to the 90+ tonnes we'd anticipated, had that been done a while back....and a freight door!
But that didn't happen and now the choice looks as though it'll be between old, 73 tonne (fuel) jets with limited AT capabilities at high fuel weights and also need long runways at such weights (particularly at high ISA dev) - or younger, vastly more capable 111 tonne (fuel) jets which have a much better performance.
Even an earlier Boeing acquaintance of mine admitted that the 330's runway performance was better than any 767's.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if the operational imperitive is now for a larger aircraft, shouldn't the contract be opened for bids again to reflect this? One of my sources told me last month that the MoD has made absolutely no noises to suggest that the straight VC10 replacement that the UK has asked for is viewed as having insufficient fuel or AT capability, so maybe this decision is going to be more status quo than capability upgrade? I agree with you that a larger aircraft with more fuel and cargo capacity is the right way to go, but only if money were no object. Which it clearly isn't.
With all due respect, aircraft age is a red herring, as military usage rates will be way lower than the commercial sector; the 767s are hardly going to be wrecks, are they?
I look forward to seeing the new white paper later this week - maybe that'll give us a clearer indication of which way this might go.
With all due respect, aircraft age is a red herring, as military usage rates will be way lower than the commercial sector; the 767s are hardly going to be wrecks, are they?
I look forward to seeing the new white paper later this week - maybe that'll give us a clearer indication of which way this might go.
Well I'm not sure whether aircraft age is a red herring any more. The 767 is already described as needing 'substantial upgrade, including engine modifications' whereas the A330 needs 'minimal modification' (open source information).
The bidder who trusts that MoD won't notice capability in excess of the old requirements paper - a capability which is now clearly needed even more than ever before - is a pretty naiive bidder.
Huge penalties for re-opening the bidding process, I'm sure. The bidders' lawyers would probably eat whoever decided to try that for breakfast!
No doubt next week's morale-raising Christmas present for the forces will provide some indications as to whether the UK's strategic force-enabler will a ba hand-me-down - or a proper 21st century aeroplane.
The bidder who trusts that MoD won't notice capability in excess of the old requirements paper - a capability which is now clearly needed even more than ever before - is a pretty naiive bidder.
Huge penalties for re-opening the bidding process, I'm sure. The bidders' lawyers would probably eat whoever decided to try that for breakfast!
No doubt next week's morale-raising Christmas present for the forces will provide some indications as to whether the UK's strategic force-enabler will a ba hand-me-down - or a proper 21st century aeroplane.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been out of touch with any changes for some time now I can only comment on the operational requirements as laid out in the Invitation to Negotiate issued at the start which required the tendering consortiums to state how they would meet certain current at that time operations. Most of these were deployments and in almost all of them the limiting factors were not the tankers fuel capacity but the limit of four receivers to a tanker and receiver crew duty times, limitations imposed by MOD. The ITN was biased towards a tanker requirement, whatever one may want now, you get what you ask for.
Quite so, Arters. The ISUN capability requirements were indeed as you state. But that was quite a while ago and the world has moved on to an era where the capability of the A330, which some might argue is excess to the ISUN requirements, is now an eye-catching added-value item in AirTanker's bid.
Don't let us forget; to use BMW terms, MoD always wants a 5-series which has all the performance, bells and whistles of a 7-series - but only wants to pay for a bottom-of-the-range 3-series!
Except that on this occasion some government bean-counter thinks that it'll be cheaper to rent a 5-series for 24 years from a car hirer than it would be to buy it outright in the first place. Oh yes, that'll save money, won't it chaps?
Don't let us forget; to use BMW terms, MoD always wants a 5-series which has all the performance, bells and whistles of a 7-series - but only wants to pay for a bottom-of-the-range 3-series!
Except that on this occasion some government bean-counter thinks that it'll be cheaper to rent a 5-series for 24 years from a car hirer than it would be to buy it outright in the first place. Oh yes, that'll save money, won't it chaps?
Not wanting to stick the knife in too much further, but a headline from Defence Systems Daily:
"Roche orders widening of Boeing probe"
(See http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1175271.html )
But on a more positive note, I'm pleased to report that the Airbus A310 MRTT has now been rolled out at Dresden, as they also report. In fact it wasn't a bad day for Airbus, all in all, as there was also been an order worth up to $3billion for (civil) aircraft from Qatar.
"Roche orders widening of Boeing probe"
(See http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1175271.html )
But on a more positive note, I'm pleased to report that the Airbus A310 MRTT has now been rolled out at Dresden, as they also report. In fact it wasn't a bad day for Airbus, all in all, as there was also been an order worth up to $3billion for (civil) aircraft from Qatar.
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Dec 2003 at 23:24.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with regards the whole process the fact that the part of the tanker/transport fleet will be being used as comercial jets to my mind creates a huge security problem and what happens if surge capicity is needed in a hurry?
The 767 does offer interoprebility with the USAF withh regards type but as they use completley different refueling technique to us thats an obvious non starter. If both the competitors aren't probed or capable of being probed what happens when for example we get a very long range deployment like the Falklands could a 767 or A330 make the run there unrefueled with a useful payload?
The American Govt want to keep beoing in buisness hence the defence orders and I would say a certain ammount of pressure to buy being applied to the UK and other countries.
The other line of the CGS speech was about making us more interopreable with the yanks so we may be pushe into the Beoing.
Personally I'd prefer it not to be PFI and the RAF to own/operate outright and be in control of its own destiny.
The 767 does offer interoprebility with the USAF withh regards type but as they use completley different refueling technique to us thats an obvious non starter. If both the competitors aren't probed or capable of being probed what happens when for example we get a very long range deployment like the Falklands could a 767 or A330 make the run there unrefueled with a useful payload?
The American Govt want to keep beoing in buisness hence the defence orders and I would say a certain ammount of pressure to buy being applied to the UK and other countries.
The other line of the CGS speech was about making us more interopreable with the yanks so we may be pushe into the Beoing.
Personally I'd prefer it not to be PFI and the RAF to own/operate outright and be in control of its own destiny.