FSTA-When?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was some interesting banter in the Lords on Monday about the air bridge to Afghanistan and Iraq. The top line award [sorry 216 mates] definitely goes to Earl Attlee: "My Lords, can the Minister say at what date the flying scrapheaps known as the Tristar aircraft will be replaced?"
Now I think Drayson is a pretty good chap and is genuinely trying to make things better on procurement, but his answer just doesn't ring right, given the VC10/2015 angle: "Our intention is to bring the future strategic tanker aircraft into service at the end of the decade." Duh, which one?
The bottom line on the air bridge from April-December 2006 is: 86% of strategic air transport flights left for Iraq on time or with a delay of less than 3h, and 75% to Afghanistan, with the number of Tristars fit for purpose "very close to the 4.75 to 4.8 target."
Drayson also says: "We are investing in Brize Norton to improve the experience for passengers while they wait." So when's the Gateway coming down then?
Keep up the good work, AT mates - no complaints at all from my Afghanistan trip last April! Well, apart from the bogs packing up on the Timmy, that is!
Now I think Drayson is a pretty good chap and is genuinely trying to make things better on procurement, but his answer just doesn't ring right, given the VC10/2015 angle: "Our intention is to bring the future strategic tanker aircraft into service at the end of the decade." Duh, which one?
The bottom line on the air bridge from April-December 2006 is: 86% of strategic air transport flights left for Iraq on time or with a delay of less than 3h, and 75% to Afghanistan, with the number of Tristars fit for purpose "very close to the 4.75 to 4.8 target."
Drayson also says: "We are investing in Brize Norton to improve the experience for passengers while they wait." So when's the Gateway coming down then?
Keep up the good work, AT mates - no complaints at all from my Afghanistan trip last April! Well, apart from the bogs packing up on the Timmy, that is!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Keep up the good work, AT mates - no complaints at all from my Afghanistan trip last April! Well, apart from the bogs packing up on the Timmy, that is!"
So you had one complaint then.........?
So you had one complaint then.........?
86% of strategic air transport flights left for Iraq on time or with a delay of less than 3h, and 75% to Afghanistan, with the number of Tristars fit for purpose "very close to the 4.75 to 4.8 target."
So, roughly 1 in 4 of the RAF's museum pieces is more than 3 hours late leaving its main operating base...
That's frankly appalling when LoCos can manage dispatch reliability of 99%.
Once upon a time, any delay of more than 20 minutes was considered reportable - but 3 hours???!!!
So, roughly 1 in 4 of the RAF's museum pieces is more than 3 hours late leaving its main operating base...
That's frankly appalling when LoCos can manage dispatch reliability of 99%.
Once upon a time, any delay of more than 20 minutes was considered reportable - but 3 hours???!!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the USAF are finding it difficult to provide military transport for the troops.
3rd Inf Div are leaving today on chartered An-124's apparently. cheaper option? or just not enough C-5s or C-17s to go round?
3rd Inf Div are leaving today on chartered An-124's apparently. cheaper option? or just not enough C-5s or C-17s to go round?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSTA - hopefully soon!
The FSTA business case went to the Ministry late last year. There was a number of technical issues still to resolve, so the MoD are now working to resolve these. A further decision from the Ministry is expected late Jan, early Feb. If the news is good, the Contract will be signed by the Autumn. Better late than never!
The Australian MRTT is progressing, although there are some technical delays. The delivery date currently remains as late 2008, early 2009.
The Australian MRTT is progressing, although there are some technical delays. The delivery date currently remains as late 2008, early 2009.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better late than never!
Ha ha ha ha ha ..... FSTA ......... effing joke and a half! Horses arse more like. I am NOT sorry to have left. The MOD are a shower of ****e ...... steaming, head-high massive heap of stinking ****e ......couldn't fly an aircraft on an airfield. Don't laugh ..... we are so close to that being the reality.
Well, yes, MrB.......
A310 was the jet to have bought - you try finding any ex-airline A310-300s these days! Snapped up as soon as they become available.
Around 4.5 tonne per hour rather than 7.5 tonne per hour and with a 71.5 tonne fuel load - or possibly 77 with a 5th ACT and MTOW increase? But a bit limited if you want to carry full fuel in terms of pax/cargo potential as the available ZFW is somewhat limited.
Fictional Strategic Tanker Aircraft does seem to be getting close to the buffet of procurement, from what people are saying on this thread.
A310 was the jet to have bought - you try finding any ex-airline A310-300s these days! Snapped up as soon as they become available.
Around 4.5 tonne per hour rather than 7.5 tonne per hour and with a 71.5 tonne fuel load - or possibly 77 with a 5th ACT and MTOW increase? But a bit limited if you want to carry full fuel in terms of pax/cargo potential as the available ZFW is somewhat limited.
Fictional Strategic Tanker Aircraft does seem to be getting close to the buffet of procurement, from what people are saying on this thread.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A310s "snapped up as soon as they become available"? Not as tankers mate! Canada and Germany have funded hose and drogue work to a very small number of theirs, but other than that there aren't any out there. And have you heard much about the EADS boom on the A310 demonstrator recently? I haven't.
Given that FSTA is using an Airbus platform, I'd have thought you'd be singing its praises BEags...
But then I suppose it's just the business model that's a total farce, isn't it?
Given that FSTA is using an Airbus platform, I'd have thought you'd be singing its praises BEags...
But then I suppose it's just the business model that's a total farce, isn't it?
sprucemoose, the only reason they can't been snapped up as tankers is that other people have been quicker off the mark!
A310MRTT is the only 21st century tanker actually in service; A330MRTT will be a top jet for the Aussies and CSA A400M will also have a good AAR role.
I'm not a believer in PFIs - but I most certainly am a believer in both A310MRTT and A330MRTT as excellent strategic AT/AAR aircraft! Whether the full capability of the A330MRTT would routinely be used is something the customer would have to consider - does he want 110 tonne in one place or 55 tonne in one place and another 55 in another. Or 2 x 55 tonne tankers in cell offering 4 hoses in the formation in preference to 1 x 110 tonne tanker offering only 2....
One presumes that the customer will have "done his maths" when it comes to procurement preference, should there be such alternatives available to him.
A310MRTT is the only 21st century tanker actually in service; A330MRTT will be a top jet for the Aussies and CSA A400M will also have a good AAR role.
I'm not a believer in PFIs - but I most certainly am a believer in both A310MRTT and A330MRTT as excellent strategic AT/AAR aircraft! Whether the full capability of the A330MRTT would routinely be used is something the customer would have to consider - does he want 110 tonne in one place or 55 tonne in one place and another 55 in another. Or 2 x 55 tonne tankers in cell offering 4 hoses in the formation in preference to 1 x 110 tonne tanker offering only 2....
One presumes that the customer will have "done his maths" when it comes to procurement preference, should there be such alternatives available to him.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have only been contracts to put AAR kit six A310s, and all of these were already owned by the air forces in question: Canada (two) and Germany (four). This could just be because secondhand A310s are as rare as rocking-horse whatsit, but it doesn't look to me like the mod has inspired anyone else to follow suit.
As for the UK buying A310s for use in this role, you are joking, right? Ditch the PFI approach at this stage and 101 and 216 won't be seeing a new aircraft for a hell of a lot longer than the delay they're already facing!
As for the UK buying A310s for use in this role, you are joking, right? Ditch the PFI approach at this stage and 101 and 216 won't be seeing a new aircraft for a hell of a lot longer than the delay they're already facing!
Mousse,
I'm puzzled by your dismissive attitude to the 310 tanker.
Second hand 310s are snapped up very quickly, whereas second hand 767s seem to have rather easier availability.....
The A310 tanker is in service and has flown live refuelling missions with real receivers. The KC-767 has not.
The A310 boom is at about the same point in development/test as the 767 boom.
The A310 underwing pods were fitted without incurring major flutter problems, and thus without incurring the drag penalty of the 767's pylon mod.
The A310 can operate at full weight from a balanced 10,000 ft runway..... Shouldn't your esteemed rag be asking the question as to why the Italians are suddenly reported to be extending the runway at Pratica?
The A310 fuselage cross section is wide enough to accomodate standard pallets side-by-side - the 767's is not.
I'd have thought that the best option for the RAF would be to continue with the PFI (too late to cancel) for the nine A330s and to procure nine A310s to augment them - aiming for a rapid conventional procurement. 18 new tankers ought to be able to come close to replacing the VC10/TriStar AAR/AT capacity we had before they had to start cannibalising VC10s.
I'm puzzled by your dismissive attitude to the 310 tanker.
Second hand 310s are snapped up very quickly, whereas second hand 767s seem to have rather easier availability.....
The A310 tanker is in service and has flown live refuelling missions with real receivers. The KC-767 has not.
The A310 boom is at about the same point in development/test as the 767 boom.
The A310 underwing pods were fitted without incurring major flutter problems, and thus without incurring the drag penalty of the 767's pylon mod.
The A310 can operate at full weight from a balanced 10,000 ft runway..... Shouldn't your esteemed rag be asking the question as to why the Italians are suddenly reported to be extending the runway at Pratica?
The A310 fuselage cross section is wide enough to accomodate standard pallets side-by-side - the 767's is not.
I'd have thought that the best option for the RAF would be to continue with the PFI (too late to cancel) for the nine A330s and to procure nine A310s to augment them - aiming for a rapid conventional procurement. 18 new tankers ought to be able to come close to replacing the VC10/TriStar AAR/AT capacity we had before they had to start cannibalising VC10s.
If we conventionally procured our new tankers what would be the problem with cancelling this PFI farce? Let's face it, despite BEags assertions about there being only one 21 C tanker, the choice for us falls to one of 2 - The B767 or the A330. You can rule out the A310, (actually last century) none available and too old, and the A400M, too slow for what we require it for. The RAAF, JASDF and the ItAF will all receive their tankers within 4 years of contract award (all about 1 year behind what Airbus and Boeing originally promised). So if we signed this year that would be first delivery in 2010 assuming that the problems will have been ironed out by then and Airoeing deliver on the originally quoted 3 years.
When will we see first delivery of FSTA? Who knows? Afterall this year was when it was supposed to enter RAF service!! With FSTA we still don't have contract signature with AirRipOff almost 3 years after they were announced as preferred bidder. RuMour has it that both the ECC and elements of DPA want to kill this programme now. Even the government are getting cold feet over PFIs.
Sadly we all know the state of the EP and there is no money. Where do you find circa £2.5B to buy a new fleet of tankers? It is time that the 'Centre' actually took a stand and cancelled a big ticket programme. The options are few, but the front runners have to be the new carriers (and I am actually a supporter of the RN getting them), Astute (but would it save that much), JSF or Typhoon (but again we wouldn't actually save much on procuring them). Sadly it should be the CVFs. If the government still want to be a global player then they should be forced into paying for the kit we need to do their bidding.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What-ho Jacko. I'm dismissive of the A310 as a tanker because I don't think it's any good; too old, too small etc. I made no mention of the KC-767 in my post, and am not comparing the A310 with it as it is of no relevance to the UK argument. But is the EADS boom any further down the line than the Boeing one at this stage? They haven't talked about it for a good long while now, which makes me suspicious. Nine A330s and nine A310s for the RAF though - I bet you a fiver that isn't going to happen!
Roland, I agree that the big PFI seems a bad plan, beyond easing the EP budget, but we're probably going to be stuck with it. Yes Australia will get its A330s very quickly, but that's because it is prepared to spend money on kit and doesn't faff about for a decade in the planning and procurement phase like us. That's not going to change. BTW, Drayson said last week in the Lords: "our intention is to bring the future strategic tanker aircraft into service at the end of the decade"; how's that for optimism? He also seems very commited to signing the CVF deal, so I don't think you are going to see a big ticket procurement go - probably just important bits cut off everything we do buy!
Roland, I agree that the big PFI seems a bad plan, beyond easing the EP budget, but we're probably going to be stuck with it. Yes Australia will get its A330s very quickly, but that's because it is prepared to spend money on kit and doesn't faff about for a decade in the planning and procurement phase like us. That's not going to change. BTW, Drayson said last week in the Lords: "our intention is to bring the future strategic tanker aircraft into service at the end of the decade"; how's that for optimism? He also seems very commited to signing the CVF deal, so I don't think you are going to see a big ticket procurement go - probably just important bits cut off everything we do buy!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's actually not very optimistic at all; I bet it could be brought into service for Air Transport duties very quickly! Now, had he said, "...into AAR service at the end of the decade", then I would be more happy.
Not very good?
I'd suggest that it's the best small tanker out there. Way better than a -135/707, and enjoying significant advantages over the -767.
Too small?
Perhaps, but when you need hoses in the sky, an all 330 fleet simply won't ever give us the numbers required.
I'd suggest that it's the best small tanker out there. Way better than a -135/707, and enjoying significant advantages over the -767.
Too small?
Perhaps, but when you need hoses in the sky, an all 330 fleet simply won't ever give us the numbers required.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.atwonline.com/news/other....Date=1/22/2007
Finnish Ministry of Defense published a report last week proposing that Finnair acquire A330 MRTT widebodies that the state could lease for troop transports and possible evacuations in crisis situations. Finnair said it sets business fundamentals as the primary justification for all of its projects. "We are currently working on a modernization of our long-haul fleet and we must consider very carefully how we will implement the huge investment that lies ahead. Irrespective of the company's ownership structure, Finnair will act in future for the good of both its Finnish and other customers as each crisis situation demands, just as we have done so previously on our own initiative," President and CEO Jukka Hienonen said in a statement. Finnair representatives were consulted as experts in the working group that outlined the project.
Finnish Ministry of Defense published a report last week proposing that Finnair acquire A330 MRTT widebodies that the state could lease for troop transports and possible evacuations in crisis situations. Finnair said it sets business fundamentals as the primary justification for all of its projects. "We are currently working on a modernization of our long-haul fleet and we must consider very carefully how we will implement the huge investment that lies ahead. Irrespective of the company's ownership structure, Finnair will act in future for the good of both its Finnish and other customers as each crisis situation demands, just as we have done so previously on our own initiative," President and CEO Jukka Hienonen said in a statement. Finnair representatives were consulted as experts in the working group that outlined the project.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Perhaps, but when you need hoses in the sky, an all 330 fleet simply won't ever give us the numbers required.
Now that's a nice tactical tanker, I wonder if it could be fitted with bang seats....
Suspicion breeds confidence
Its OK, apparently the VC10 fleet is having a £400m life extension programme to see it through to 2013. Good value for money these 40 year old jets.