FSTA-When?
With the cockpit commonality between the late A300s, A310s and A330s, perhaps the strategy should be to accept a mixed fleet (would it really be any more problematic than the present VC10 C1K/K3/K4 and TriStar C1, C1K, C2 fleet?) and to buy what's available as it becomes available. You could even buy a second hand A340 as Blair Force one. You'd probably want to avoid one-offs engine-wise, but otherwise.....
A phased, incremental acquisition of this sort would probably remain within the £500 m p.a figure, too.
Three A310s sounds like a darned good start to me, and if the 'non-standard' jet is available for lease, perhaps that would be a useful short term transport/trainer? You could always mix new-build and second hand jets.
See
http://airplanes.glo-con.com/images/AIR1_48_s.jpg
A phased, incremental acquisition of this sort would probably remain within the £500 m p.a figure, too.
Three A310s sounds like a darned good start to me, and if the 'non-standard' jet is available for lease, perhaps that would be a useful short term transport/trainer? You could always mix new-build and second hand jets.
See
http://airplanes.glo-con.com/images/AIR1_48_s.jpg
Very little cockpit commonality between any A300/A310 and the A330, unfortunately.
A pity there's no 'A325' a 310-sized A320/A330!
A321 is too small to offer much - and A330 is rather big if your Dear Leader insists on having little war-ettes in different parts of the world all the time. A bit difficult to have half an A330 in the UK and the other half in Iraqistan....or providing Bennyfit to the Fuerza Aerea Malvinas!
A pity there's no 'A325' a 310-sized A320/A330!
A321 is too small to offer much - and A330 is rather big if your Dear Leader insists on having little war-ettes in different parts of the world all the time. A bit difficult to have half an A330 in the UK and the other half in Iraqistan....or providing Bennyfit to the Fuerza Aerea Malvinas!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Any reason why the MOD can't do what all the airlines do, & what we did with the C17, & lease the tankers if we can't afford to buy them? Besides, what we really need are large ac full of seats for the transport role, with AAR as a secondary - although the fast jet air board probably see it the other way round.
Any reason why the MOD can't do what all the airlines do, & what we did with the C17, & lease the tankers if we can't afford to buy them? Besides, what we really need are large ac full of seats for the transport role, with AAR as a secondary - although the fast jet air board probably see it the other way round.
One of the reasons FSTA's primary role is AAR with AT as secondary is because the FJ world, DCRS and DTMA assumed that we would always be able to lease additional AT and it would never have to operate into anywhere other than a benign area - DOH!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it is a rumour network...
How about we take some of the money from the sale of the Typhoon to Saudi and use it to buy some new tankers? Better than spending it on wining and dining foreign Nationals so they might buy some more of them. We'll have a year or so to do the acquisition - bearing in mind that our first batch of fighters won't arrive - because they've been sold abroad. Then...
We'll have to act fairly fast - if the US are going to replace their KC135s over 10 years then there might not be any feasible frames available - all the 777s and 767s will be bought and there may even be a shortage of 310s/330s.
A330s, in the same fit as the RAAF's frames are our best bet - especially since Northrop Grumman might not bid to the US. "But we don't want booms" I hear you cry - "Yes we do" I answer - if we want to be serious players in the Global War on Reality then we need to be able to refuel all-comers. And we could force extend each other - now is the time to get into the game - esp with ATP 56(B) about to be released.
Okay - back in my box.
We'll have to act fairly fast - if the US are going to replace their KC135s over 10 years then there might not be any feasible frames available - all the 777s and 767s will be bought and there may even be a shortage of 310s/330s.
A330s, in the same fit as the RAAF's frames are our best bet - especially since Northrop Grumman might not bid to the US. "But we don't want booms" I hear you cry - "Yes we do" I answer - if we want to be serious players in the Global War on Reality then we need to be able to refuel all-comers. And we could force extend each other - now is the time to get into the game - esp with ATP 56(B) about to be released.
Okay - back in my box.
Slight thread creep - just to put some of the context about the so-called "fast jet air board" into context its current composition is 4 x Members of Parliament (SofS, Min AF, Min DP, USofS), 2 x Civil Servants (2nd PUS, Dir Air Wpns and Spt), 2 x Engineers (CinC PTC, DGES(Air)), 2 x FJ Pilots (CAS, ACAS), 1 x Rotary Pilot (CinC STC). All available via Wikipedia so no beadwindow required....
Hardly fast jet centric.
Prior to that (I think) delete one of the engineers and replace with a ME pilot.
Granted, it will change at the next "reshuffle" but current decisions are hardly being made by a FJ mafia. Lets blame the engineers instead - they have the same number of votes!
Back to the thread - can't we get KC135 with BDA. Hours of entertainment to be had!
Hardly fast jet centric.
Prior to that (I think) delete one of the engineers and replace with a ME pilot.
Granted, it will change at the next "reshuffle" but current decisions are hardly being made by a FJ mafia. Lets blame the engineers instead - they have the same number of votes!
Back to the thread - can't we get KC135 with BDA. Hours of entertainment to be had!
D-IFFers, the further the RAAF A330MRTT progresses through development, the more expensive it will be to delete all the 'boom' items for a small handful of if, perhaps, maybe RAF FSTAs.
The biggest bolleaux of the FSTA PFI is that the scope wasn't capped at any defined level such as airframe leasing and second level maintenance. The bidders were encouraged to consider anything from in flight sandwiches to complete training solutions and 'full time reserve' aircrew. More properly termed 'mercenaries'......
Yes, ATP-56B is coming soon. But will the USN actually bother to read it this time? Or still insist on screwing up by doing things 'the Navy way'??
The biggest bolleaux of the FSTA PFI is that the scope wasn't capped at any defined level such as airframe leasing and second level maintenance. The bidders were encouraged to consider anything from in flight sandwiches to complete training solutions and 'full time reserve' aircrew. More properly termed 'mercenaries'......
Yes, ATP-56B is coming soon. But will the USN actually bother to read it this time? Or still insist on screwing up by doing things 'the Navy way'??
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: England
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saintsman
We cannot extend the VC10 for ever and the Tristar is not very far behind. FSTA still shows no sign of delivery so we have to do something radical now!
JN
As already discussed the A310 is in short/non-existant supply and can therefore be discounted.
Therefore, and given that FSTA is likely to cost some £500M per annum, you kill off the PFI, take the funding line and then buy new A330 (or B767/B777, lets call them KC-X) tankers at the rate of 3 to 4 per year, starting next FY and do an incremental acquisition. As JN suggested, as new tankers are delivered you retire a VC10 or 2. We have funding lines for FSTA, we have funding lines for VC10 (just extended) and Tristar so the money is out there, just not enough to buy the 20 A330 sized ac that the RAF really needs in one go. So after 5 years (2012 and 2-3 years prior to VC10 OSD) you have a 15 strong fleet of new KC-X aircraft and the VC10 should be out of service (unfortunately just before its 50th
). A few years later we can start to withdraw the Tristars, unless we still need them to augment the still expanding fleet of KC-X, and let's face it the way we are going on war fighting we are still likely to need them!!
It's time to do the unthinkable and sacrifice the Sacred Cow of PFI on the altar of common sense.
We cannot extend the VC10 for ever and the Tristar is not very far behind. FSTA still shows no sign of delivery so we have to do something radical now!
JN
As already discussed the A310 is in short/non-existant supply and can therefore be discounted.
Therefore, and given that FSTA is likely to cost some £500M per annum, you kill off the PFI, take the funding line and then buy new A330 (or B767/B777, lets call them KC-X) tankers at the rate of 3 to 4 per year, starting next FY and do an incremental acquisition. As JN suggested, as new tankers are delivered you retire a VC10 or 2. We have funding lines for FSTA, we have funding lines for VC10 (just extended) and Tristar so the money is out there, just not enough to buy the 20 A330 sized ac that the RAF really needs in one go. So after 5 years (2012 and 2-3 years prior to VC10 OSD) you have a 15 strong fleet of new KC-X aircraft and the VC10 should be out of service (unfortunately just before its 50th
). A few years later we can start to withdraw the Tristars, unless we still need them to augment the still expanding fleet of KC-X, and let's face it the way we are going on war fighting we are still likely to need them!!It's time to do the unthinkable and sacrifice the Sacred Cow of PFI on the altar of common sense.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags - I received a copy of the ATP 56(B) training package yesterday - it's being formally released today and all US military tanker crews 'are to' read it before 1 Apr 07 - when it replaces all '-33s and -32s' as the source document for the DoD.
Mind you, ask around the USAF mates and they'll all say "it'll never happen; I'm not going to read it".
Mind you, ask around the USAF mates and they'll all say "it'll never happen; I'm not going to read it".
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D-Iff....that's OK, I'm sure UK (FJ) will treat it in the same way!!
Agree wholeheartedly with the boom too; not just for coalition ops with your current employers (sort of) but why fanny around putting probes on A400M when every other nation will have a UARRSI? Could also have one on A330.....no need comes the cry! What, you can guarantee there will always be friendly HN support? 24 hr crew days are a reality now...think of the possibilities with AAR and a proper crew rest area!
The whole deal is pants....I'm off!
Agree wholeheartedly with the boom too; not just for coalition ops with your current employers (sort of) but why fanny around putting probes on A400M when every other nation will have a UARRSI? Could also have one on A330.....no need comes the cry! What, you can guarantee there will always be friendly HN support? 24 hr crew days are a reality now...think of the possibilities with AAR and a proper crew rest area!
The whole deal is pants....I'm off!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: England
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an Idea...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New HOC Defence Committee Inquiry
Announced yesterday.
DEFENCE COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO UK’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT MILITARY OPERATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE
Isn't it finally time to include FSTA in the inquiry?
DEFENCE COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO UK’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT MILITARY OPERATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE
The Defence Committee’s inquiry will examine the progress made since the Strategic Defence Review in improving its Strategic Lift. The MoD has sought to improve this capability through a Public Finance Initiative (PFI) deal for six Roll-on Roll-off ferries, the purchase of five C-17 large transport aircraft from the US and the future procurement of 25 new A400M aircraft. But experience in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that problems remain, particularly with airlift.
The Committee will examine the adequacy of the MoD’s current Strategic Lift and whether the proposals in the Strategic Defence Review need to be revisited. The inquiry will also examine the MoD’s use of commercial organisations to provide Strategic Lift.
.
.
.
The Committee would welcome written evidence on these matters. This should be sent to the Clerk of the Defence Committee by Thursday 29 March 2007.
.
.
.
The Committee would welcome written evidence on these matters. This should be sent to the Clerk of the Defence Committee by Thursday 29 March 2007.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saudi's looking at getting 2 A330 MRTT aircraft for between 350 and 400 million Euros.
http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...mktNews&rpc=44
http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...mktNews&rpc=44
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
DefenseNews.com: UAEAF Signs Tanker Aircraft MOU with EADS
In a surprise announcement, United Arab Emirates officials declared that the country’s Air Force and Air Defense Command has picked the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport Aircraft (MRTT) as its preferred choice for a contract to provide three aerial tankers.
“The UAE Armed Forces has signed today [Feb. 19] a Memo of Understanding [MOU] with EADS for the tanker aircraft,” said Maj.Gen. Obaid Al-Ketbi, the UAE Armed Forces Chief of Logistics, at a press conference at the International Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX-07) in Abu Dhabi.
The selection was the second Middle East victory in a week for the Airbus aircraft, and the second loss for Boeing’s KC-767.
Ketbi said the value of the deal would be negotiated in the coming months. “This is just an MOU and not the final deal with EADS,” said Ketbi. “If negotiations with [Airbus parent] EADS proceed successfully we will sign with them, but if for any reason these talks fail then we will move to our second choice, Boeing.”
Ketbi’s announcement surprised officials at both companies. EADS officials appeared to be unaware of the announcement by the UAE or the signing of the agreement. “We would rather wait and see this on paper,” said an EADS official.
This is the second setback for the Boeing KC-767 in the past couple of weeks. On Feb. 12, officials at French Ministry of Defense announced a contract with Saudi Arabia for two A330 MRTTs. Although French officials later retracted the announcement, saying that deal was still under negotiations, officials at Boeing and EADS acknowledged that the MRTT had won the bid.
“I can’t imagine why any customer right now, with the U.S. Air Force in its final stages with that [tanker] program, would not wait six months to see where that goes,” said Jeff Johnson, Vice President of Boeing IDS Middle East. “It’s a potential 180-plus airplanes, and you know the logistics chain alone to support those airplanes will lower the cost significantly.”
Johnson said an hour before Ketbi’s press conference that if customers in the region had an immediate need for a tanker “there are KC-135 aircraft available that we can bring in and use for training and for refueling capability until the USAF program is declared, and we are confident we will win it.”
He said that the USAF is actively marketing excess KC-135 aircraft, which could be used by customers who have an immediate need for air refueling capabilities. But Johnson did not specify whether the USAF would want to lease or sell its KC-135s.
Many Boeing officials and experts had said the USAF indecision on its future tanker platform had affected customers worldwide, who have become impatient with the lengthy selection process.
Boeing KC-767 is competing for the USAF deal against the A330 (KC-30), offered jointly by EADS and Northrop Grumman.
In a surprise announcement, United Arab Emirates officials declared that the country’s Air Force and Air Defense Command has picked the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport Aircraft (MRTT) as its preferred choice for a contract to provide three aerial tankers.
“The UAE Armed Forces has signed today [Feb. 19] a Memo of Understanding [MOU] with EADS for the tanker aircraft,” said Maj.Gen. Obaid Al-Ketbi, the UAE Armed Forces Chief of Logistics, at a press conference at the International Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX-07) in Abu Dhabi.
The selection was the second Middle East victory in a week for the Airbus aircraft, and the second loss for Boeing’s KC-767.
Ketbi said the value of the deal would be negotiated in the coming months. “This is just an MOU and not the final deal with EADS,” said Ketbi. “If negotiations with [Airbus parent] EADS proceed successfully we will sign with them, but if for any reason these talks fail then we will move to our second choice, Boeing.”
Ketbi’s announcement surprised officials at both companies. EADS officials appeared to be unaware of the announcement by the UAE or the signing of the agreement. “We would rather wait and see this on paper,” said an EADS official.
This is the second setback for the Boeing KC-767 in the past couple of weeks. On Feb. 12, officials at French Ministry of Defense announced a contract with Saudi Arabia for two A330 MRTTs. Although French officials later retracted the announcement, saying that deal was still under negotiations, officials at Boeing and EADS acknowledged that the MRTT had won the bid.
“I can’t imagine why any customer right now, with the U.S. Air Force in its final stages with that [tanker] program, would not wait six months to see where that goes,” said Jeff Johnson, Vice President of Boeing IDS Middle East. “It’s a potential 180-plus airplanes, and you know the logistics chain alone to support those airplanes will lower the cost significantly.”
Johnson said an hour before Ketbi’s press conference that if customers in the region had an immediate need for a tanker “there are KC-135 aircraft available that we can bring in and use for training and for refueling capability until the USAF program is declared, and we are confident we will win it.”
He said that the USAF is actively marketing excess KC-135 aircraft, which could be used by customers who have an immediate need for air refueling capabilities. But Johnson did not specify whether the USAF would want to lease or sell its KC-135s.
Many Boeing officials and experts had said the USAF indecision on its future tanker platform had affected customers worldwide, who have become impatient with the lengthy selection process.
Boeing KC-767 is competing for the USAF deal against the A330 (KC-30), offered jointly by EADS and Northrop Grumman.
"He said that the USAF is actively marketing excess KC-135 aircraft, which could be used by customers who have an immediate need for air refueling capabilities."
Why on earth, if the USAF has 'excess KC-135 aircraft' do they have such a perceived urgent need for a -135 replacement?
KC-767 really is looking a bit of a turkey these days, it seems......
Why on earth, if the USAF has 'excess KC-135 aircraft' do they have such a perceived urgent need for a -135 replacement?
KC-767 really is looking a bit of a turkey these days, it seems......
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doing some maths based on the top end figure of 400m Euros for the 2 Saudi MRTT, I came up with the following:
1xA330 MRTT costs approx £139m to purchase.
£500m per year is the approx budget per year for FSTA under PFI.
RAF will get what 9 to 14 aircraft under this scheme.
For the same £500m per year, the following could be purchased outright:
3xA330 MRTT
Spares & Training.
I would make the following proposals regarding FSTA.
Year 1 budget - use this as deposits for aircraft. Based on a 10% deposit the RAF could secure slots for 30 aircraft and have money left. Remember final payment for each aircraft occurs on delivery. Let's say we order 24 aircraft in the following fits:
8 X MRTT with Boom.
8 X A330F
8 X A330-200 include 1 in a dedicated VIP fit and 1 in a re-rollable VIP fit.
Deliveries at the rate of 3 a year for 8 years.
So over the course of 8 years we would have increased our capablities and bought and paid for the aircraft.
The A330 & A330F both have the range to easily do UK to Middle East non stop.
1xA330 MRTT costs approx £139m to purchase.
£500m per year is the approx budget per year for FSTA under PFI.
RAF will get what 9 to 14 aircraft under this scheme.
For the same £500m per year, the following could be purchased outright:
3xA330 MRTT
Spares & Training.
I would make the following proposals regarding FSTA.
Year 1 budget - use this as deposits for aircraft. Based on a 10% deposit the RAF could secure slots for 30 aircraft and have money left. Remember final payment for each aircraft occurs on delivery. Let's say we order 24 aircraft in the following fits:
8 X MRTT with Boom.
8 X A330F
8 X A330-200 include 1 in a dedicated VIP fit and 1 in a re-rollable VIP fit.
Deliveries at the rate of 3 a year for 8 years.
So over the course of 8 years we would have increased our capablities and bought and paid for the aircraft.
The A330 & A330F both have the range to easily do UK to Middle East non stop.
The MOD cannot afford to buy new aircraft outright which is why they are going to lease them.
It is no different to an individual leasing a car. It is going to cost them more in the long run. The leasing company has to buy the car, recover their costs and make a profit (otherwise why bother?). If you include routine servicing with the deal it will cost extra.
Aeroplanes cost more to buy and run, thats why the figures are so high.
It is no different to an individual leasing a car. It is going to cost them more in the long run. The leasing company has to buy the car, recover their costs and make a profit (otherwise why bother?). If you include routine servicing with the deal it will cost extra.
Aeroplanes cost more to buy and run, thats why the figures are so high.
Saintsman
You are missing the point. We cannot afford to purchase the 20-ish KA330s that we need NOW. We might be able to afford an incremental procurement of X number per year for Y years and introduce them slowly and affordably. Even the USAF are looking at in the order of 17 KC-Xs per year for a number of years!!
GLGNDB
Fine idea but too many pax only A330s and not enough tanker A330s in your suggestion. And could we have the freighters as tankers as well? I would suggest 10 x KC30s (boom, centreline hose and wing podded), 8 KA330s (with wing pods) and 2 KA330s with a VIP fit (and the ability to fit wing pods). Then perhaps we could rightfully have the honour of transporting the Boss of Her Majesty's Flying Club again!!
You are missing the point. We cannot afford to purchase the 20-ish KA330s that we need NOW. We might be able to afford an incremental procurement of X number per year for Y years and introduce them slowly and affordably. Even the USAF are looking at in the order of 17 KC-Xs per year for a number of years!!
GLGNDB
Fine idea but too many pax only A330s and not enough tanker A330s in your suggestion. And could we have the freighters as tankers as well? I would suggest 10 x KC30s (boom, centreline hose and wing podded), 8 KA330s (with wing pods) and 2 KA330s with a VIP fit (and the ability to fit wing pods). Then perhaps we could rightfully have the honour of transporting the Boss of Her Majesty's Flying Club again!!
Australian A330MRTT will have pax, freight and tanker capability, including a flyable boom. No extra tanks needed.
Useful for not only our pointy-jets, but also those of our NATO allies who are often, nay, always the first to squeal for more AAR when Mad George has another war.
Might I suggest (after $hitcanning PFI):
10 x A330MRTT (identical to the RAAF aircraft with 2 hoses and a boom)
6 x KA330F (full freight with 3 hoses)
2 x A330-200 (VIP or pax)
That's 10 x A330C1K, 6 x A330KC2 and 2 x A330CC3
......and an old Varsity off the Catterick fire dump for Bliar, Brown and Browne....
Useful for not only our pointy-jets, but also those of our NATO allies who are often, nay, always the first to squeal for more AAR when Mad George has another war.
Might I suggest (after $hitcanning PFI):
10 x A330MRTT (identical to the RAAF aircraft with 2 hoses and a boom)
6 x KA330F (full freight with 3 hoses)
2 x A330-200 (VIP or pax)
That's 10 x A330C1K, 6 x A330KC2 and 2 x A330CC3
......and an old Varsity off the Catterick fire dump for Bliar, Brown and Browne....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any word on the fit for the UAE or Saudi? Booms and UARRSIs?
Agree with RAF being dragged into the 20th Century with Booms - but a centreline hose could be useful for the legacy jets. Mind, the E3 has a UARRSI, who else would need the centreline, MR4? VC-10s will be gone, C-130s I guess. Maybe would could start force extending the short legged C-17s if we had booms...
I'm suspicious that we won't see booms for years though because that would require a change in strategy, and we fear change. Much better to stick with the out-dated systems we have and not rock the boat.
BEags - Saw the A-310 Boom demonstration went well - does the POD system route fuel to the opposite wing a la KC-10, or jettison valve a la VC10?
Agree with RAF being dragged into the 20th Century with Booms - but a centreline hose could be useful for the legacy jets. Mind, the E3 has a UARRSI, who else would need the centreline, MR4? VC-10s will be gone, C-130s I guess. Maybe would could start force extending the short legged C-17s if we had booms...
I'm suspicious that we won't see booms for years though because that would require a change in strategy, and we fear change. Much better to stick with the out-dated systems we have and not rock the boat.
BEags - Saw the A-310 Boom demonstration went well - does the POD system route fuel to the opposite wing a la KC-10, or jettison valve a la VC10?