10 Sqn Disbandment
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Overlooking the beach, NZ
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bye bye 10.
As has been said before the RAF does have a huge excess of tankers, I can remember many times as prog trying to think what to do with all these excess tankers offered and how on earth I could keep the sqns hours down with such largesse especially when I was dealing with the tornado's excellent servicibility! I agree with 6'tanker, how on earth is a tri* better than a 10? No insult to the large load carrying * guys but when you are in a typically overloaded and underpowered brit jet 2 hoses rule! Trying to get a pair (let alone a 4) through a single hose is a nightmare, our jets don't suck enough -fuel that is!
Anyway not that it effects me anymore......
ps is the tanker staying in the FI? Have fun LIMA fit I reckon!
As has been said before the RAF does have a huge excess of tankers, I can remember many times as prog trying to think what to do with all these excess tankers offered and how on earth I could keep the sqns hours down with such largesse especially when I was dealing with the tornado's excellent servicibility! I agree with 6'tanker, how on earth is a tri* better than a 10? No insult to the large load carrying * guys but when you are in a typically overloaded and underpowered brit jet 2 hoses rule! Trying to get a pair (let alone a 4) through a single hose is a nightmare, our jets don't suck enough -fuel that is!
Anyway not that it effects me anymore......
ps is the tanker staying in the FI? Have fun LIMA fit I reckon!
IIRC, there is no single hose plan for tanking 3 Jaguars from the Azores to Canada with a single tanker. Certainly when I did it with 3, the only option available if we lost a hose was to divert the whole formation.
But that, of course, is no longer a problem because the Jaguar is going out of service.....
But how many other trail routes have tricky, or impossible, single hose plans if more than 2 receivers are to be trailed?
But that, of course, is no longer a problem because the Jaguar is going out of service.....
But how many other trail routes have tricky, or impossible, single hose plans if more than 2 receivers are to be trailed?
Last edited by BEagle; 13th Jun 2005 at 06:45.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Close to Wales
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
From what I hear there is now a superb team of AARCs (or is that ARCs depending on wether there is a y in the day) based at the super secret Oxfordshire airbase. Which is just as well, as I hear that the refuel rates of our super new fighter are not much better than the Jag.
Thoughts go to all on 10Sqn, gutting news. I cannot believe it was easy for the Staish to lose one of his sqns. At least the engineers will now, once again, be part of a proper sqn. Should make for interesting beer calls and a few more well travelled 'souvenirs' in the bar.
From what I hear there is now a superb team of AARCs (or is that ARCs depending on wether there is a y in the day) based at the super secret Oxfordshire airbase. Which is just as well, as I hear that the refuel rates of our super new fighter are not much better than the Jag.
Thoughts go to all on 10Sqn, gutting news. I cannot believe it was easy for the Staish to lose one of his sqns. At least the engineers will now, once again, be part of a proper sqn. Should make for interesting beer calls and a few more well travelled 'souvenirs' in the bar.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how the hell can they claim the Tri* to be a better tanker than the 10???
That said, it is easy to say that a Smart car is more efficient than an Audi A4, but if I were a sales rep doing 40K miles per annum, I'd tell you where to shove your Smart car. Judging by its size, it would probably fit too!
The upside of all this looks like being that the reduction of 3 aircraft (or the increase in spares by 3 aircraft's worth!) may even increase the number of serviceable VC10s available each day for a while.
opso, the MoD website states:
"Six crews from the RAF’s ageing VC10 air to air refuelling fleet are to be transferred to the more efficient Tristar aircraft.
The move means an extra 2000 flying hours for the more capable Tristar and will allow a reduction in the VC10 fleet from 16 to 19 aircraft."
Now, the specific reference is to air-to-air refuelling. Unless one has the mentality of Bliar, the 'more efficient' reference is clearly implied to be within this context - and nothing at all to do with the TriStars undoubted superiority in moving passengers around in larger numbers further than can the VC10C1K.
Personally, I consider the loss of dual hose aircraft to be very serious - unless there are insufficient bits left in museums, shipyards and blacksmiths to fix the old 10s with, of course.
Time will tell - and hopefully it'll act as a catalyst for the FSTA programme to move ahead less glacially than it currently is!
"Six crews from the RAF’s ageing VC10 air to air refuelling fleet are to be transferred to the more efficient Tristar aircraft.
The move means an extra 2000 flying hours for the more capable Tristar and will allow a reduction in the VC10 fleet from 16 to 19 aircraft."
Now, the specific reference is to air-to-air refuelling. Unless one has the mentality of Bliar, the 'more efficient' reference is clearly implied to be within this context - and nothing at all to do with the TriStars undoubted superiority in moving passengers around in larger numbers further than can the VC10C1K.
Personally, I consider the loss of dual hose aircraft to be very serious - unless there are insufficient bits left in museums, shipyards and blacksmiths to fix the old 10s with, of course.
Time will tell - and hopefully it'll act as a catalyst for the FSTA programme to move ahead less glacially than it currently is!
A sad moment for 10 indeed, and for the VC10 fleet in general. I hope all at BZN enjoy the final few months (but at least Her Majesty's finest VC10 Sqn lives on) and the engineers will get to be back where they belong - with the squadron!
Good to see the IPT still trotting out the old 'spares' argument. I seem to remember that was used to justify the scrapping of the K2s! Did anyone actually remember seeing an improvement in availability and/or serviceability?
Anyway isn't holding spares against the principles of RAB?
Surely we must sell the 'to be retired' airframes to the lowest bidder, who will then convert the ac into spare parts, and who will then sell us those spare parts, via a 'just-in-time' stores system, at a vastly inflated price as and when we need them (or more usually after we need them). This will keep the spares off the balance sheet so that we do not incur depreciation and cost of capital charges. Accountants w
rs
Good to see the IPT still trotting out the old 'spares' argument. I seem to remember that was used to justify the scrapping of the K2s! Did anyone actually remember seeing an improvement in availability and/or serviceability?
Anyway isn't holding spares against the principles of RAB?
Surely we must sell the 'to be retired' airframes to the lowest bidder, who will then convert the ac into spare parts, and who will then sell us those spare parts, via a 'just-in-time' stores system, at a vastly inflated price as and when we need them (or more usually after we need them). This will keep the spares off the balance sheet so that we do not incur depreciation and cost of capital charges. Accountants w rs
Which would mean either BDA time - and I can sssure anyone who has never had the pleasure of that, that it's 'cking difficult. As the very brave Italian AF proved on night 1 of GW1......
Or else hiring the services of the good ol' boys of Omega Air flying prehistoric 707s.
When the spares support of your fleet is so awful that you have to cannibalise perfectly good jets to keep the rest going, it's time to quit......
Incidentally, when the last VC10K2 was flown to RAF St Athan to be turned into pots, pans and razor blades, as dutiful co-pilot to my captain, herself the grand-daughter of the chap who'd brought the aircraft into service with BOAC, I phoned Brize on my spiv-phone to report the serviceability. It was, of course, fully serviceable........
MoD-box, cut the bolleaux and shift your ar$e on FSTA.
Or else hiring the services of the good ol' boys of Omega Air flying prehistoric 707s.
When the spares support of your fleet is so awful that you have to cannibalise perfectly good jets to keep the rest going, it's time to quit......
Incidentally, when the last VC10K2 was flown to RAF St Athan to be turned into pots, pans and razor blades, as dutiful co-pilot to my captain, herself the grand-daughter of the chap who'd brought the aircraft into service with BOAC, I phoned Brize on my spiv-phone to report the serviceability. It was, of course, fully serviceable........
MoD-box, cut the bolleaux and shift your ar$e on FSTA.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Just for edjumacation and to further your 1st point in this thread, I share an office with a man who has been in the RAF longer than the VC10 has been in service. He has some of the greatest stories and has seen many wheels invented many times.
Just for edjumacation and to further your 1st point in this thread, I share an office with a man who has been in the RAF longer than the VC10 has been in service. He has some of the greatest stories and has seen many wheels invented many times.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opso,
'...They claimed the Tristar to be a more efficient aircraft which is easily supportable - if you want to move 220 squaddies from the Gulf to Hannover, which of the 2 aircraft could achieve the task the quickest? Or with the least fuel burnt (and so is the cheapest)? Or without limitations to the approach times at Hannover owing to the noise bans on VC10s...'
This statemant is true most of the time, but the nice Shiny Jet has had its own bad U/S periods, and the Jet to pick up the pieces...you guessed it, the Mighty 10. The approach times at Hannover are in force for all Jets that may ring the bells, not just the VC10. The last T/O time is around 2100z. Yes we are the loudest, but normally out of Hannover we are light (coming back to the Uk), so our take off procedures mean we don't ring the bells to get fined!! ( or we could do what the russians used to do...and fly around them!!).
On another note, because I am out of the loop, does anyone know when the 2000hrs are going across to the TRI, or are they going to do the same thing as before and transfere them across immediately. Thus giving the TRI more tasking than the crews can handle before the new crews come online?
Plus I have given in, and will be buying new badges and T-shirts. Only after the Party though!!
'...They claimed the Tristar to be a more efficient aircraft which is easily supportable - if you want to move 220 squaddies from the Gulf to Hannover, which of the 2 aircraft could achieve the task the quickest? Or with the least fuel burnt (and so is the cheapest)? Or without limitations to the approach times at Hannover owing to the noise bans on VC10s...'
This statemant is true most of the time, but the nice Shiny Jet has had its own bad U/S periods, and the Jet to pick up the pieces...you guessed it, the Mighty 10. The approach times at Hannover are in force for all Jets that may ring the bells, not just the VC10. The last T/O time is around 2100z. Yes we are the loudest, but normally out of Hannover we are light (coming back to the Uk), so our take off procedures mean we don't ring the bells to get fined!! ( or we could do what the russians used to do...and fly around them!!).
On another note, because I am out of the loop, does anyone know when the 2000hrs are going across to the TRI, or are they going to do the same thing as before and transfere them across immediately. Thus giving the TRI more tasking than the crews can handle before the new crews come online?
Plus I have given in, and will be buying new badges and T-shirts. Only after the Party though!!
The RAF does not seem to have got much of a return on the money it spent on converting the super VC10 to K4 standard. A project managed by BWOS, as usual a bit late and overbudget. Mind you the project team in MOD didn't do too well, they specified a navigator station but forgot to request a seat for said crewmember. I remember we had quite a laugh when we went to Filton to see the fit of the first a/c and saw the supernumary seat, not one to sit on for 5+ hrs, mounted on a turntable!
As an aside the managers were removing the fire extinguishers as soon as we saw where they were mounted because otherwise they would be nicked.
Happy days at Filton and at FR in Poole with John M. Walking past a pub that was open was not an option, John always thought that Snake E would be inside and would report him for letting the side down!
Sad to find out that shiny ten had to go, I have good memories, and bad, of my time on 10 and 101, the 10 was always a great a/c, be it a very noisy one. As the famous Wally Walters used to say: " VC10s are rocket ships they are flown by red hot sh*ts, and they make a mighty ROARRRR"
As an aside the managers were removing the fire extinguishers as soon as we saw where they were mounted because otherwise they would be nicked.
Happy days at Filton and at FR in Poole with John M. Walking past a pub that was open was not an option, John always thought that Snake E would be inside and would report him for letting the side down!
Sad to find out that shiny ten had to go, I have good memories, and bad, of my time on 10 and 101, the 10 was always a great a/c, be it a very noisy one. As the famous Wally Walters used to say: " VC10s are rocket ships they are flown by red hot sh*ts, and they make a mighty ROARRRR"
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UAE - Al Ain
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had 12 great years at BZN mostly on the 101 rocketship with John M and the like. As soon as an end of era bash is organised please advise, and I will jet home from the sun and sand for the party!!
Hi to all
Hi to all
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: An airfield cunningly close the Thames
Age: 46
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, given that 2 of the jets to be scrapped will be 3 hose jets (K4s), there will be a further reduction in the capacity to refuel the likes of Nimrod or E3s, or as a spare hose for the mini jets. I guess flexibility is no longer a factor for the MOD.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Republic of the Philippines ex L1011 GE
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ".....the more efficient Tristar aircraft" can only refuel one receiver at a time and is limited in the number of aerodromes from which it can operate. So how, you utter f*ckwit, can it possibly be 'more efficient' in the AAR role?
when overseas the mighty T* can land at larger airfiels they dont have to be small military aerodromes as you call them.
AND if tanking in UK airspace the T* will make it home with lots of gas to spare....
sorry to burst your bubble old chap.
Sure the TriStar can work from International Airports. Which is fine if they happen to be where the task is.
If the TriStar had wing AAR pods, I would concede that it is more capable than any previous RAF tanker. But it doesn't, so as a tanker it is cannot possibly be as efficient in dealing with a thirsty 4-ship (when there's one around which is servceable, of course) than a VC10 or any other 2/3-hose tanker can.
On an AAR trail, the TriStar has to take off with a single hose plan. Which means supporting TypHoons across the Atlantic could be somewhat thought provoking. Whereas at least the '10 uses a 2-hose plan as standard and only has to revert to single hose in the event of a degrade. There are some combinations of route/receiver for which no single hose plan is available for more than 2 receivers; I think I'm right in saying that a VC10 can support 3 Jaguars from Lajes to Halifax whereas a TriStar could only support 2 - purely because there is nowhere for a 'C' bracket before the next 'A' bracket is needed at one point along the route. There's little point in carrying a huge amount of fuel if people can't actually get at it when they need it!
Does Ingram know that the TriStar cannot use both hoses simultaneously? Or even begin to understand the consequences? I doubt it...
Sorry to burst your bubble, youngster.
If the TriStar had wing AAR pods, I would concede that it is more capable than any previous RAF tanker. But it doesn't, so as a tanker it is cannot possibly be as efficient in dealing with a thirsty 4-ship (when there's one around which is servceable, of course) than a VC10 or any other 2/3-hose tanker can.
On an AAR trail, the TriStar has to take off with a single hose plan. Which means supporting TypHoons across the Atlantic could be somewhat thought provoking. Whereas at least the '10 uses a 2-hose plan as standard and only has to revert to single hose in the event of a degrade. There are some combinations of route/receiver for which no single hose plan is available for more than 2 receivers; I think I'm right in saying that a VC10 can support 3 Jaguars from Lajes to Halifax whereas a TriStar could only support 2 - purely because there is nowhere for a 'C' bracket before the next 'A' bracket is needed at one point along the route. There's little point in carrying a huge amount of fuel if people can't actually get at it when they need it!
Does Ingram know that the TriStar cannot use both hoses simultaneously? Or even begin to understand the consequences? I doubt it...
Sorry to burst your bubble, youngster.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Republic of the Philippines ex L1011 GE
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought provoking or not It has been done with the Typhoon and numerous other types...
stop crying and griping the VC10 is dying (so will the T* eventually), the govt are scrapping 3 so learn to live with it, times change, move on, this is the 21st century the vc10 is very 20th century.
I think we all agree a new tanker is needed but unless we buy of the shelf from usa we will have to wait for the govt to spend money...
and if they buy a multi point or single point tanker it is not up to you or me, we just have to utilise whatever they give us to use...my guess is we will not see a new tanker for 10 plus years and I personally will be long clear of my blue/green/desert suit....and to tell the truth when I leave I will not give a monkeys.
stop crying and griping the VC10 is dying (so will the T* eventually), the govt are scrapping 3 so learn to live with it, times change, move on, this is the 21st century the vc10 is very 20th century.
I think we all agree a new tanker is needed but unless we buy of the shelf from usa we will have to wait for the govt to spend money...
and if they buy a multi point or single point tanker it is not up to you or me, we just have to utilise whatever they give us to use...my guess is we will not see a new tanker for 10 plus years and I personally will be long clear of my blue/green/desert suit....and to tell the truth when I leave I will not give a monkeys.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dearest Pigs,
I'm not so sure that the esteemed gentleman is 'crying and griping the VC10 is dying', so much as suggesting that the RAF is releasing a substantial amount of force multiplying/force extending/force enabling Strategic AND Tactical capability with not so much as a contract signed for a replacement. Remember that the PFI can still be cancelled at any time at the moment, by either party.
No matter how anyone views the current Defence cuts/realignment/Increases in defence spending etc, yes, we need Air To Air Refuelling Tankers. And we need them now, not in 10 years time. Your suggestion that we could buy some 'of the shelf from usa' startles me. As an operator of American equipment I get to see just how much they need the assets too. Believe me, I don't think they have many 'on the shelf' to be selling, with the collapse of the last Boeing deal there are a few DC10-30s sitting in the Mojave that are looking quite appealing just now. And don't think the USAF will bail us out with deploying our fighters either; they're too busy already and I'm guessing a retrofit of a UAARSI on the Typhoon won't happen.
I'm happy for you that you will no longer have a care about the defence of our nation after your retirement, here's hoping that you have no reason to care, and that the world will once again be filled with free love, and perhaps some pink bunny rabbits too.
Or Monkeys, if you prefer.
I do give a monkeys, I wany to know how we're going to get our fancy new fighters into austere airfields thousands of miles away, and how they will operate from such.
I'm not so sure that the esteemed gentleman is 'crying and griping the VC10 is dying', so much as suggesting that the RAF is releasing a substantial amount of force multiplying/force extending/force enabling Strategic AND Tactical capability with not so much as a contract signed for a replacement. Remember that the PFI can still be cancelled at any time at the moment, by either party.
No matter how anyone views the current Defence cuts/realignment/Increases in defence spending etc, yes, we need Air To Air Refuelling Tankers. And we need them now, not in 10 years time. Your suggestion that we could buy some 'of the shelf from usa' startles me. As an operator of American equipment I get to see just how much they need the assets too. Believe me, I don't think they have many 'on the shelf' to be selling, with the collapse of the last Boeing deal there are a few DC10-30s sitting in the Mojave that are looking quite appealing just now. And don't think the USAF will bail us out with deploying our fighters either; they're too busy already and I'm guessing a retrofit of a UAARSI on the Typhoon won't happen.
I'm happy for you that you will no longer have a care about the defence of our nation after your retirement, here's hoping that you have no reason to care, and that the world will once again be filled with free love, and perhaps some pink bunny rabbits too.
Or Monkeys, if you prefer.
I do give a monkeys, I wany to know how we're going to get our fancy new fighters into austere airfields thousands of miles away, and how they will operate from such.
Well put, D-IFF_ident!
The US does indeed need to call heavily upon its organic AAR assets - and frequently needs those of other nations to support USN/USMC aircraft in OOA operations.
The most quickly affordable replacement tanker aircraft would be the A310MRTT. Indeed, a few years ago before the PFI nonsense started, it was anticipated that both VC10 and TriStar would be replaced by a fleet of 25-ish A310MRTTs.
The GAF will soon have 4, the CF will soon have 2. And there are quite a few A310s around the world which could be converted into 157t MAUW A310MRTTs with 72t of fuel, a cargo floor and upper deck cargo door and a 5.4t/hr burn rate on typical AAR towline operations. A most efficient aircraft - though not quite in the same league as the 230t A330MRTT with its 111t of fuel!
Airbus A310 MRTT - Worldwide Mission Support
PSOs, ANOTHER ONE FOR YOUR MORNING BRIEFS!
The US does indeed need to call heavily upon its organic AAR assets - and frequently needs those of other nations to support USN/USMC aircraft in OOA operations.
The most quickly affordable replacement tanker aircraft would be the A310MRTT. Indeed, a few years ago before the PFI nonsense started, it was anticipated that both VC10 and TriStar would be replaced by a fleet of 25-ish A310MRTTs.
The GAF will soon have 4, the CF will soon have 2. And there are quite a few A310s around the world which could be converted into 157t MAUW A310MRTTs with 72t of fuel, a cargo floor and upper deck cargo door and a 5.4t/hr burn rate on typical AAR towline operations. A most efficient aircraft - though not quite in the same league as the 230t A330MRTT with its 111t of fuel!
Airbus A310 MRTT - Worldwide Mission Support
PSOs, ANOTHER ONE FOR YOUR MORNING BRIEFS!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dearest Pigsinspace,
I think its you who should move from the 21st back to the 20th. The RAF work in there to keep things simple, for people like me I reckon. Name me a piece of equipment, that flys, which was brought into a FULLY operational role in the 21st century.
We are not debating whether the VC10 is dying, its been doing that for years. What we are saying is that the tanker fleet is now less flexible than before. The Tristar does little to no home/abroad AAR. Thus the VC10 will just have to cope, as we always do.
In response to your 'buy it off the shelf' quote. What are we supposed to buy. An aging boeing!!!
How about we wait for the newer A330, and keep the VC10 going till then?
Sounds fair? To me the Govt are daft, but not daft enough to notice that single point tankers are v ineffective, whereas multipoint tankers are the way ahead, oh look the A330 will be multipoint !! With things like fighters, yes we should buy from the shelf, but with tankers, we were always miles ahead of the americans, lets keep it that way. 
I think its you who should move from the 21st back to the 20th. The RAF work in there to keep things simple, for people like me I reckon. Name me a piece of equipment, that flys, which was brought into a FULLY operational role in the 21st century.
We are not debating whether the VC10 is dying, its been doing that for years. What we are saying is that the tanker fleet is now less flexible than before. The Tristar does little to no home/abroad AAR. Thus the VC10 will just have to cope, as we always do.
In response to your 'buy it off the shelf' quote. What are we supposed to buy. An aging boeing!!!
How about we wait for the newer A330, and keep the VC10 going till then? Sounds fair? To me the Govt are daft, but not daft enough to notice that single point tankers are v ineffective, whereas multipoint tankers are the way ahead, oh look the A330 will be multipoint !! With things like fighters, yes we should buy from the shelf, but with tankers, we were always miles ahead of the americans, lets keep it that way.