FSTA?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest I have seen, thanks to Lazer-Hound, is here.
http://www.defensenews.com/farnborou...php?id=1957338
http://www.defensenews.com/farnborou...php?id=1957338
FSTA is still struggling to get to contract award. You have to remember its not a straight aircraft purchase but a service for 27 years and will provide aircraft, crew and ground support. It is a somewhat complecated process. It also has a mix of both civil and military personnel, rewards and penalties and above all AirTanker has to make a profit (otherwise why else would they want to do it?). MoD also needs to be happy too.
However, the first aircraft is still planned to undergo conversion in early 2008 and after trials and testing, will be in service in 2010.
The MRTT for the RAAF is already undergoing conversion. With the design similar, it should make the FSTA aircraft less risky so I would expect the above dates to be met. Unlike other military projects, the design is not dependent on new technology and will not suffer the sort of problems Nimrod has faced.
I would still like it to be in service sooner than later though, even though it will see the demise of the VC-10.
However, the first aircraft is still planned to undergo conversion in early 2008 and after trials and testing, will be in service in 2010.
The MRTT for the RAAF is already undergoing conversion. With the design similar, it should make the FSTA aircraft less risky so I would expect the above dates to be met. Unlike other military projects, the design is not dependent on new technology and will not suffer the sort of problems Nimrod has faced.
I would still like it to be in service sooner than later though, even though it will see the demise of the VC-10.
"With the design similar...."
Not so. The RAAF design includes a boom; this plus the potential US KC-30 contract means that EADS are being excessively influenced by US and FAF boom-mafia. The RAAF aircraft is being designed for a 4-person crew whereas, thanks to the well-proven quality of current RAF tanker crews, FSTA could easily manage with a more flexible 3-person crew.
If I was an RAF policy maker, I would demand a much larger voice of influence at Toulouse and Madrid!
Not so. The RAAF design includes a boom; this plus the potential US KC-30 contract means that EADS are being excessively influenced by US and FAF boom-mafia. The RAAF aircraft is being designed for a 4-person crew whereas, thanks to the well-proven quality of current RAF tanker crews, FSTA could easily manage with a more flexible 3-person crew.
If I was an RAF policy maker, I would demand a much larger voice of influence at Toulouse and Madrid!
"The big question being who will get the MSO job?
WSOs (Navs) or WSOps (Air Eng, ALM & AEOp)"*
To my mind, that depends mostly on the architecture supporting the Mission Planning System. If it is accessed through the pilots' Onboard Information Terminals ('electric tea trays'), then there is no reason why the MSO should not be chosen from any aircrew branch as the job will require mainly equipment operation plus some RT work (as is currently the case in the TriStar).
But if the aircraft is designed for the pilots to become mere taxi drivers for the Mission System Operator (as was the original concept for another nation's new tanker), then the MSO will probably need to be an experienced AAR navigator.
Probably the best FSTA crew model to think of is a TriStar with the aircraft systems automated so significantly that the Air Engineer's aircraft system management function is no longer required due to the basic aircraft design. But the 3rd pair of eyes, airmanship and AAR expertise most certainly are needed.
The RAF needs to let EADS know, in words of one syllable, their AAR crew operating concept. As I sincerely hope they already have.
* Edited for apostrophe abuse!
WSOs (Navs) or WSOps (Air Eng, ALM & AEOp)"*
To my mind, that depends mostly on the architecture supporting the Mission Planning System. If it is accessed through the pilots' Onboard Information Terminals ('electric tea trays'), then there is no reason why the MSO should not be chosen from any aircrew branch as the job will require mainly equipment operation plus some RT work (as is currently the case in the TriStar).
But if the aircraft is designed for the pilots to become mere taxi drivers for the Mission System Operator (as was the original concept for another nation's new tanker), then the MSO will probably need to be an experienced AAR navigator.
Probably the best FSTA crew model to think of is a TriStar with the aircraft systems automated so significantly that the Air Engineer's aircraft system management function is no longer required due to the basic aircraft design. But the 3rd pair of eyes, airmanship and AAR expertise most certainly are needed.
The RAF needs to let EADS know, in words of one syllable, their AAR crew operating concept. As I sincerely hope they already have.
* Edited for apostrophe abuse!
Yes BEags, but WHEN is this bloody thing going to be settled? The VC10s are being scrapped to a schedule but there is STILL no decision on the replacement. Young AAR crews have absolutely no idea of what their future careers might involve.
If the RAF is not bloody careful there wiil be no more AAR assets (or so few as to make sod all difference) and this saga of indecision about FSTA will still be drifting like a rudderless ship. What are all the high-paid help actually doing? I can clearly recall being told that a decision was due 2 years before I left the RAF ....... and that was over 3 years ago!
If the RAF is not bloody careful there wiil be no more AAR assets (or so few as to make sod all difference) and this saga of indecision about FSTA will still be drifting like a rudderless ship. What are all the high-paid help actually doing? I can clearly recall being told that a decision was due 2 years before I left the RAF ....... and that was over 3 years ago!
