New Tanker Deal??
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Here's a link to the article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Perhaps we could just have some more tristars then, with a nice comforty seat for the eng.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Perhaps we could just have some more tristars then, with a nice comforty seat for the eng.
If it's in the Daily Mail, it must of course be true.......??
What contract? AirTanker was selected as the 'preferred bidder' - no contract was awarded although the clear political will is for a PFI solution. But that'll require some dosh from Greedy Gordon's sporran.
Surely no-one is still talking about getting hold of a few ancient TriShaws from some desert junkyard to meet Trust-me-Tone and BuffHoon's expeditionary aspirations?
Of course if we were to bin those little grey targets which the RN wants for its JSFs...perhaps then the UK could afford some new tankers? Australia can....and Italy....and Japan.....
What contract? AirTanker was selected as the 'preferred bidder' - no contract was awarded although the clear political will is for a PFI solution. But that'll require some dosh from Greedy Gordon's sporran.
Surely no-one is still talking about getting hold of a few ancient TriShaws from some desert junkyard to meet Trust-me-Tone and BuffHoon's expeditionary aspirations?
Of course if we were to bin those little grey targets which the RN wants for its JSFs...perhaps then the UK could afford some new tankers? Australia can....and Italy....and Japan.....
Erm - Jacko....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Government has been putting pressure on the consortium to reduce their prices, almost before the ink was dry on the January agreement. I expect there will be many more changes before the contract is signed!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to take the bait on this one...
The last comments were obvoiusly made by folk who are either too young to remember the lessons of the falklands campaign, Having a slow news day, or don't fancy the idea of going to sea "cos it's not my job"
How difficult/costly can it be to convert an airline to a tanker anyway???
The last comments were obvoiusly made by folk who are either too young to remember the lessons of the falklands campaign, Having a slow news day, or don't fancy the idea of going to sea "cos it's not my job"
How difficult/costly can it be to convert an airline to a tanker anyway???
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Newcastle, UK & Cyprus
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tad more detail here in the FT.:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1012571727085
It will be interesting to follow developments post - 24th June.
TACCY
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1012571727085
It will be interesting to follow developments post - 24th June.
TACCY
and without tankers expeditionary is meaningless....
and 95% of the time, Gripens forward based in an adjoining country will be there quicker than the carrier, will achieve and sustain a higher sortie rate, and will do so much more cheaply.
So for 5% of the time the op may be more difficult.....
Perhaps they\'ll have better luck with wealthier customers ....
"Airbus Can Enter Bidding for Tanker, Official Says
Europe\'s Airbus has qualified to compete with U.S. rival Boeing Co. to provide the Pentagon with aerial refueling tankers if the bidding is reopened, Air Force Secretary James Roche said in an interview published Thursday.
"I don\'t care if the planes are made by Martians," Roche told the Financial Times. "Airbus was not prepared before; now they are."
The comments suggest that the Air Force is preparing for possible long delays in upgrading its tanker fleet. They also show that Boeing could face stiff competition.
Before a contracting scandal derailed its acquisition plans last year, the Air Force chose Chicago-based Boeing\'s 767 over the Airbus 330 for a $23.5-billion deal to lease 20 and buy 80 new tankers.
The 767 is "the only solution that fulfills all 26 of the Air Force\'s stated requirements," said Boeing spokeswoman Deborah Bosick. The North American division of Airbus unit EADS had no comment.
Roche said he favored more European access to U.S. aerospace contracts to spur transatlantic competition: "It\'s the only way we\'re going to discipline the big airframe makers in the United States."
The Pentagon put the tanker deal on hold Dec. 1 after Boeing fired its chief financial officer for recruiting an Air Force official who was still overseeing negotiations on the tanker deal."
and 95% of the time, Gripens forward based in an adjoining country will be there quicker than the carrier, will achieve and sustain a higher sortie rate, and will do so much more cheaply.
So for 5% of the time the op may be more difficult.....
Perhaps they\'ll have better luck with wealthier customers ....
"Airbus Can Enter Bidding for Tanker, Official Says
Europe\'s Airbus has qualified to compete with U.S. rival Boeing Co. to provide the Pentagon with aerial refueling tankers if the bidding is reopened, Air Force Secretary James Roche said in an interview published Thursday.
"I don\'t care if the planes are made by Martians," Roche told the Financial Times. "Airbus was not prepared before; now they are."
The comments suggest that the Air Force is preparing for possible long delays in upgrading its tanker fleet. They also show that Boeing could face stiff competition.
Before a contracting scandal derailed its acquisition plans last year, the Air Force chose Chicago-based Boeing\'s 767 over the Airbus 330 for a $23.5-billion deal to lease 20 and buy 80 new tankers.
The 767 is "the only solution that fulfills all 26 of the Air Force\'s stated requirements," said Boeing spokeswoman Deborah Bosick. The North American division of Airbus unit EADS had no comment.
Roche said he favored more European access to U.S. aerospace contracts to spur transatlantic competition: "It\'s the only way we\'re going to discipline the big airframe makers in the United States."
The Pentagon put the tanker deal on hold Dec. 1 after Boeing fired its chief financial officer for recruiting an Air Force official who was still overseeing negotiations on the tanker deal."
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
It wasn't just in the Daily Mail! It appeared in several news feeds.
Jacko
Because of the current expeditionary mess we are in, Tony and Gordy don't want expeditionary any more!!
PFI's in general have come under special scrutiny recently. The rules regarding the way Gordy treats them have to be changed so that they show up on the books in future. Many analysts and MP's doubt that any real savings will be made.
My humble view is that if there really are to be serious capability cuts across all 3 services, then HMG\MOD\Civil Service cannot justify the PFI for an AAR capability that we will NEVER use.
And of course, it helps get Gordy out of a small hole!!!
Strange isn't it though, that you get the likes of Jock strap in the stirrups threatening to throw himself on his sword over the possible demise of the Reds (really important asset they are!!) and yet no one in the Ivory tower murmurs about real capability losses!
It wasn't just in the Daily Mail! It appeared in several news feeds.
Jacko
Because of the current expeditionary mess we are in, Tony and Gordy don't want expeditionary any more!!
PFI's in general have come under special scrutiny recently. The rules regarding the way Gordy treats them have to be changed so that they show up on the books in future. Many analysts and MP's doubt that any real savings will be made.
My humble view is that if there really are to be serious capability cuts across all 3 services, then HMG\MOD\Civil Service cannot justify the PFI for an AAR capability that we will NEVER use.
And of course, it helps get Gordy out of a small hole!!!
Strange isn't it though, that you get the likes of Jock strap in the stirrups threatening to throw himself on his sword over the possible demise of the Reds (really important asset they are!!) and yet no one in the Ivory tower murmurs about real capability losses!
Typical MoD:
As was said years ago, "They want a Cortina with all the bells, whistles and performance of a Granada, but expect it to cost no more than an Escort"
Except now they can't even afford to rent a Focus, let alone buy some.
I wonder when the penny suddenly dropped - in a PFI, the private sector which takes the risk does actually expect to make some money out of it. They're not a charity!
Perhaps if all the bolleaux inflicted by politicians, civil serpents and other time wasters had been bypassed about 10 years ago, the RAF would now be operating the 26 or so A310 MRTTs it was offered by Airbus Filton all those years ago?
I replaced my car this year. I realised that the last one wouldn't last for ever, assessed the value, did my research and snapped up an amazing deal. Funnily enough it didn't strike me as a particularly good idea not to have budgeted for it a while back nor to think that renting one from Hertz every time I needed it would be cheaper. So why should it come as such a surprise to the MoD to realise that PFI tankers were not going to be as cheap as they would have liked? Hardly rocket science, I would have thought!
As was said years ago, "They want a Cortina with all the bells, whistles and performance of a Granada, but expect it to cost no more than an Escort"
Except now they can't even afford to rent a Focus, let alone buy some.
I wonder when the penny suddenly dropped - in a PFI, the private sector which takes the risk does actually expect to make some money out of it. They're not a charity!
Perhaps if all the bolleaux inflicted by politicians, civil serpents and other time wasters had been bypassed about 10 years ago, the RAF would now be operating the 26 or so A310 MRTTs it was offered by Airbus Filton all those years ago?
I replaced my car this year. I realised that the last one wouldn't last for ever, assessed the value, did my research and snapped up an amazing deal. Funnily enough it didn't strike me as a particularly good idea not to have budgeted for it a while back nor to think that renting one from Hertz every time I needed it would be cheaper. So why should it come as such a surprise to the MoD to realise that PFI tankers were not going to be as cheap as they would have liked? Hardly rocket science, I would have thought!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting to note that the Invitation to Negotiate for this contract was issued on 21 Dec 2000 and as far as the service is concerned they are no closer to getting replacements for the 10's and Trimotors than they were then, indeed probably further away.
I think TTSC are well out of it.
I think TTSC are well out of it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Far and Away
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's my guess at what will happen: July 2004 - cancel FSTA project. March 2005 pass all Pax/freight to charter/Tri*; commit 12 VC10s to be available for Tanker tasking at any time. Scrap 1 VC10 every year until 2015 - use spare parts generated to rectify 12 jets in service. 2015 - different government; somebody else's problem, but look how much money we saved off the defence budget when we were in power etc.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sauce,
Nice theory, but it'll get kind of tricky towards the end.
The VC10 - a great machine in her day, but the old girl's a bit past it now. Let's face it, if she were a dog, you'd have got fed up with the vets bills to replace all the major parts with specially fabricated ones - "Sorry sir, not much call for mastadon legs these days, but I can set up a lathe or two and build you one from scratch if you like.....for a (hugely inflated) price?" - and would have taken her for one last walk, armed with one's service issue revolver, and a club for when that too failed to work!
Interestingly enough, (or perhaps not) I was having a clear out the other day and came across some bumph from Airbus about the MRTT they gave out at RIAT in 1995(!!), offering the 310, as BEagle alluded to. What a solution; was pretty state of the art then, still not too shabby (the Canadians now have twin GPS feeds to the FMS and EGPWS); can carry a couple of hundred pax further than a 10 (but not quite as far as the Tri*) but only burns 4 tonnes an hour; can be converted to a freighter/PCF role; are still in service worldwide, so Airbus still make the spares; FANS compliancy (2010?) is an easy fix, I believe - remove one A310 front panel, insert one A330 front panel - but BEagle probably knows a little more on that subject. And Lord only knows how cheaply we could pick up half a dozen or so, and have them converted by Airbus. I mean, the Canadians are getting a couple and their defence budget is about £2.57 a year and a couple of old bottle tops, for f
s sake!
Oh, and they have a credible strategic VIP capability, enabling the Queen et al to fly with their Air Force, rather than the local airline.
Rant over.
Nice theory, but it'll get kind of tricky towards the end.
The VC10 - a great machine in her day, but the old girl's a bit past it now. Let's face it, if she were a dog, you'd have got fed up with the vets bills to replace all the major parts with specially fabricated ones - "Sorry sir, not much call for mastadon legs these days, but I can set up a lathe or two and build you one from scratch if you like.....for a (hugely inflated) price?" - and would have taken her for one last walk, armed with one's service issue revolver, and a club for when that too failed to work!
Interestingly enough, (or perhaps not) I was having a clear out the other day and came across some bumph from Airbus about the MRTT they gave out at RIAT in 1995(!!), offering the 310, as BEagle alluded to. What a solution; was pretty state of the art then, still not too shabby (the Canadians now have twin GPS feeds to the FMS and EGPWS); can carry a couple of hundred pax further than a 10 (but not quite as far as the Tri*) but only burns 4 tonnes an hour; can be converted to a freighter/PCF role; are still in service worldwide, so Airbus still make the spares; FANS compliancy (2010?) is an easy fix, I believe - remove one A310 front panel, insert one A330 front panel - but BEagle probably knows a little more on that subject. And Lord only knows how cheaply we could pick up half a dozen or so, and have them converted by Airbus. I mean, the Canadians are getting a couple and their defence budget is about £2.57 a year and a couple of old bottle tops, for f
s sake!Oh, and they have a credible strategic VIP capability, enabling the Queen et al to fly with their Air Force, rather than the local airline.
Rant over.
BEagle,
Understandable sentiment, but which bunch of slimy con-men would you replace them with?
The Lib-Dems? They have long proposed a 50% cut in defence expenditure.
The Tories? Their shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised defence cuts along with £40Billion of cuts to Public spending AND tax cuts!
Better the devil you know.......................................?
Understandable sentiment, but which bunch of slimy con-men would you replace them with?
The Lib-Dems? They have long proposed a 50% cut in defence expenditure.
The Tories? Their shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised defence cuts along with £40Billion of cuts to Public spending AND tax cuts!
Better the devil you know.......................................?
