FSTA-When?

[BEagle]

D-IFFers, the A400M will also have a 'man's way of refuelling' (probe) rather than the girl-flaps thing the USAF still uses....

As will MRA4 and any other RAF jet equipped for AAR, such as Sentinel....?? Only the E-3D has hermaphrodite AAR systems.

But it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a boom for Uncle Spam (and his customers') aircraft, so that the RAF could support NATO mates who fly F-16s, for example.

As for the World's only 21st Century tanker currently in service, the superb Airbus A310MRTT has an AAR gallery fed by 3 hydraulically driven DC Carter fuel pumps located in the centre tank; internal transfer systems ensure that the centre tank is kept supplied with fuel. Normally the left pod is fed by the left half of this AAR gallery, fed by a Blue System pump and the right pod is fed by the right half, fed by a Yellow System pump. If either Blue or Yellow pumps fail, a Green System pump can take over the supply to the failed side. How this is done is currently being slightly modified, to ensure that both halves of the gallery will always maintain independence of supply. This is to ensure that full supply pressure to the pods should be maintained in the event of a single failure.

The A310MRTT does not have a fuel dump system. Although it wouldn't be too difficult to modify the pods to incorporate a 'dump to atmosphere' mode with a suitable T-piece and actuator system based on the 901 pod's 'ground refuel' system, should there prove to be a need.

[LFFC]

GLGNDB

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.

Sadly, that £500m figure was a very simple average of the £13b over 27 years. But life isn't really that simple.

If you assume that the deal is indexed at a 5% cost increase every year, then the first yearly payment would be about £222m and the last payment about £828m. The total cost over 27 years would then be about £13b.

So you can see the attraction of PFI - very little initial outlay. The downside is that it does mortgage our future funds.

[BEagle]

"So you can see the attraction of PFI - very little initial outlay. The downside is that it does mortgage our future funds."

I wonder who gave the MoD that idea....

"So let me ask you. You gotta funding problem? Tell you what I'm gonna do - I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse...... Capisce?"

[MarkD]

Beags - 2 x ex airline A345s would be a better VIP bet I would think - in VIP config it would have an incredible range. Common cockpit and Trent family engines assuming Trents on the MRTTs.

AC are divesting their A345s in the near future and while they probably already have homes perhaps SQ might be willing sellers. 330s are hard to come by these days.

[LFFC]

In the House of Lords this afternoon:

Earl Attlee: "Finally, the Minister has commented upon air trooping. If we are to keep large numbers of troops deployed on overseas operations, we must have modern wide-bodied jets to get them to and from theatre and to take them on leave when they expect to be on leave. I have written to the Minister on that point and I look forward to his reply in due course"

Lord Drayson: "I absolutely agree that we need modern jets, and as quickly as possible. The jets that we have are too old, which puts a lot of pressure on the air bridge."

So what's holding up FSTA? If a PFI deal is too difficult, lets just buy them!

[hoodie]

From Today's Times:

The Treasury is threatening to cut defence projects worth up to £35 billion in the Government’s next spending round, The Times has learnt.

The Treasury view of a budget increase is, typically, more sceptical and it is understood to be questioning the need for a number of high-profile projects.

Those questioned include the next batch of Eurofighter Typhoons...

The Treasury’s view is that the MoD does not need Tranche 3... as well as Joint Strike Fighter...

Another possible RAF casualty is FSTA, the tanker refuelling project. The Treasury is not thought to be keen on this project, but as a Private Finance Initiative there is less pressure to kill it.

[Cannonfodder]

Was under the impression that there was going to be a big meeting about FSTA this month, with possible contract signature soon thereafter.
Any truth in this or am I just dreaming.........again!!!!

[ORAC]

Things still moving along, albeit slowly....


REUTERS: Britain Preparing to Sign Refueling Plane Contract

The British government is to sign in the next few days a contract for refueling aircraft worth $24.6 billion, the French newspaper La Tribune reported March 16. The British defense ministry is to finalize the deal, which includes aircraft and servicing for 27 years, before asking for final approval from the finance ministry.

The order will be placed in the next month with the AirTanker consortium, which includes European aerospace group EADS, French group Thales and British companies Rolls Royce, Cobham, and VT Group.

The contract is to include an order for about 15 Airbus A330-200 planes for the refueling of the Royal Air Force (RAF).

----------------------------------------------------

DefenseNews: Financial Bids for U.K. Tanker Competition Pending

PARIS: A financial competition for Britain’s acquisition of Airbus A330 military tankers under the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) program is expected to open in the coming weeks, a spokesman for the AirTanker consortium said March 16.

“We are optimistic the next stage of the process can begin in the next few weeks,” said a consortium spokesman, confirming a report in French daily La Tribune.

The next stage is the financial competition, in which banks submit proposals under public-private partnership rules to fund acquisition of the A330s. Under the deal, the Royal Air Force’s in-flight refueling needs for the next 27 years will be met under a lease arrangement held by the consortium.

A signing of the FSTA contract was contingent on the outcome of the financial competition....

[Art Field]

Thanks for that ORAC. I had understood that the long delay had been due to uncertainty about the financial aspects of the contract for FSTA. It would appear that that side of things is only just being addressed. One would like to think that as the banks have our money coming out of their ears they will come up with the cash pronto.

[Jackonicko]

Hmmm.

It was the failure to obtain exactly this kind of funding that reportedly put paid to the plan to obtain the ex-Danish Merlins (though that programme may now be back 'on') - and that was very, very small beer by comparison.

[Sloanar]

ORAC quotes:

"The next stage is the financial competition, in which banks submit proposals under public-private partnership rules to fund acquisition of the A330s."

Hmm..."financial competition" eh? One wonders how long that will take, said Grandfather.

I thought having a sound financial solution was part of the compliancy checks that were pre-requisite to passing the Down-select Stage. What is the DPA (or whatever it's called now) playing at in allowing three years to pass with no further guarantee that the financial solution will actually fit the bill? Where's the sound financial footing that was necessary for a just Downselect?

Hmmm

[philrigger]

Beagle
"the A400M will also have a 'man's way of refuelling' (probe)....
As will MRA4 and any other RAF jet equipped for AAR, such as Sentinel....?? "
As I understand it funding has not been obtained for the RAF version of the A400M to be AAR equipped.
The Sentinel is not AAR equipped.





'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[South Bound]

I think your understanding is wrong - I believe the probe is a part of the common standard aircraft, but no doubt Beags will confirm presently...

[mary_hinge]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2602173&C=europe 12th March
The 12 billion pound, 27-year Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program has stalled just short of a go-ahead for preferred service provider AirTanker, while the British government resolves an unrelated argument with consortium leader EADS over Airbus investment in the United Kingdom.

Airbus to invest heavily in UK composite capabilities
(30Mar07,
Airbus is planning a €570 million ($760 million) investment to upgrade composite capability at its Broughton site in the UK,
The company will start the two- to three-year investment plan next year as part of its overall Power8 restructuring plan.

[yimkin]

FSTA

Rumour has it that A400M will have pods fitted but no HDU!

[LFFC]

Defence Select Committee - Strategic Lift

There was some really good stuff discussed by the Defence Select Committee on Tuesday. Here is a clip about FSTA.

You should see the discussion about A400M, C130 etc too!!

Q178 Chairman: Moving on to the Future Tanker Aircraft, when is it expected to enter service? What does "by the turn of this decade" mean?
Mr Rowntree: Assuming that the approval comes through very shortly, and we believe that is now in the approval process, if that happens and the programme runs as expected, it will start to deliver its first aircraft in 2011.
Q179 Chairman: When did the MoD first expect it to enter service?
Mr Rowntree: Because it has only just gone through main gate, we did not have an approved level. I would have to send you a note on that, I am afraid, rather than go through my notes.
Q180 Chairman: Would it be right to say that at the initial gate the forecast in-service date was January 2007.
Mr Rowntree: Let me check.
Q181 Chairman: Which is a few months ago now. That was the earliest possible in-service date, and the latest was January 2009.
Lieutenant General Figgures: I think, Chairman, if we may, we must drop you a note to confirm that.
Mr Rowntree: The dates that you suggest sound about right to me.
Q182 Chairman: Yet we have not signed a contract yet. When do you expect to sign a contract? AirTanker expect it by the end of 2007. Does that sound consistent?
Mr Rowntree: Yes, pending the approval coming through, the next phase is to enter a funding competition, and we would expect to close the contract in November of this year.
Q183 Chairman: You do expect approval to come through, do you, because CDS said when he came in front of us we have a fifth C-17 coming along the next year, we have the A400M somewhat down the track - we have heard about that - and, hopefully, the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. That does not sound very promising, does it?
Mr Rowntree: I cannot really comment on where this is in the approvals process and on the likelihood of that happening.
Q184 Chairman: General Figgures?
Lieutenant General Figgures: Again I have to be careful about pre-empting my elders and betters. My planning assumption is the FSTA coming into service, the first one, and being able to use it, in 2011. That does not mean to say everyone has signed up, agreed or anything, but that is my plan for the moment. It is back to: there are risks and how would I manage them, and so on and so forth. That is my plan, Chairman.
Q185 Mr Holloway: Is anyone thinking about other solutions like going shopping in Utah and converting things?
Lieutenant General Figgures: No, we are committed to the FSTA in-service 2011 with the current procurement strategy.
Q186 Mr Holloway: If people started talking about this as a potential PFI deal in 1997 and it has taken until just now, 2005, to get AirTanker as a preferred bidder, why has it all taken so long?
Mr Rowntree: I think the point about the Private Finance Initiative is that it passes a huge amount of risk on to industry. This is about the biggest PFI we have ever done, but the consequence of that risk transfer is that industry needs to be very confident that they understand the requirement and how they are going to deliver it, and that does take a long time. This will move quickly once we get the contract closed, because a lot of the risks that we would normally bottom out after the main contract placement we have done a massive amount of work in these early phases to make sure that the solution is very robust, both financially and technically.
Q187 Mr Holloway: Have you done any analysis of what premium you will be paying over the long-run for the person who takes this risk as compared to if we had just done it ourselves?
Mr Rowntree: Yes, very much so.
Q188 Mr Holloway: How much more is it going to cost over the long-run, how many millions or billions of pounds?
Mr Rowntree: It is a value for money solution.
Q189 Chairman: I am not sure that is a fully comprehensive answer.
Mr Rowntree: We have compared it considering, if you look at conventional procurements, what the historic trends tell us in terms of what cost growth there is in those. So we have taken an informed judgment as to what the through-life cost of this deal will be, considering also the availability of this service, because we are buying a service, not an aircraft, and it is value for money compared to a conventional procurement.
Q190 Mr Holloway: You say you are buying a service, but there is also the question of third-party revenue for whoever has these aircraft?
Mr Rowntree: Yes.
Q191 Mr Holloway: Are there any issues with restrictions from the US in terms of the electronic equipment on this aircraft which might restrict third-party revenue and deployment?
Mr Rowntree: That issue has been assessed and addressed through the assessment phase and we are confident that we have a way forward on any of those sorts of issues. That is a mature position.
Q192 Mr Holloway: What about this question of them switching between being on military registers and then on civil registers? I do not understand this, but this is an issue that someone suggested I raise. What is behind that and what is your answer to it?
Mr Rowntree: We have a means of achieving that quickly and effectively when necessary.
Q193 Mr Holloway: What does the caveat "when necessary" mean?
Mr Rowntree: Well, when we need it for military use, that is when necessary. So, when it is going to be earning civil revenue, we have a means of making sure that it can do that and that any security conditions of the type that you have mentioned are properly addressed.
Q194 Mr Holloway: Finally, are you confident that in 20 years' time people will not look back at this gigantic PFI contract as a long-run thing where the British taxpayer has paid a gigantic premium that we could have avoided?
Lieutenant General Figgures: I think the answer is in your question "which we could have avoided". The proposition would be that the supplier is better able to manage some of these risks than perhaps the Ministry of Defence, because we want the service, we do not necessarily want to run all that goes with the provision of that service. So, in terms of availability of aircraft, support costs, capability, all that is dealt with by the supplier.
Q195 Mr Holloway: So it has got nothing to do with the inability of the Treasury at the moment to put money up front; it is all about getting a better service and something that the MoD does not have to trouble itself with over the long-run?
Lieutenant General Figgures: We trouble ourselves with getting value for money because of course we have to ensure that the money that we are allocated is spent to best effect. In terms of our assessment of how we were going to meet this requirement over time, this looked the best option.
Q196 Mr Holloway: I am trying to get at whether this, probably gigantic, premium that these people are going to earn over the long run is because the Treasury is not in a position to put its hand in its pocket now and fund it that way rather than doing a PFI?
Lieutenant General Figgures: If you turned it over, we would have to find a premium within our own budgetary system because there are risks attached there. We would have to make some provision either to manage these risks out and retire them or to buy out the impact should these risks mature. The idea that we pay a premium over and above the contingency we would have to put aside in the equipment plan is not valid. The question is: Where best are these risks managed?
Q197 Willie Rennie: Are the problems being experienced on other Airbus aircraft programmes having an impact upon the FSTA programme?
Mr Rowntree: The FSTA programme is based on a mature aircraft, the A330, so we would not foresee that the problems with the A380, which are primarily problems of development and production, would impact on that, no.
Q198 Willie Rennie: You have not experienced any knock-on effects of those problems?
Mr Rowntree: No.
Q199 Willie Rennie: Would the MoD be able to maintain and support the current fleet of VC10 and Tristar aircraft if there are delays in the FSTA programme?
Mr Rowntree: My answer to that is along the same lines as I answered slightly more comprehensively on C-130. Tristar and VC10 fit within my cluster of projects, as does Future Tanker, and the team leaders concerned are working closely together with Andrew's people to make sure that we pull the right levers to make the right sort of investments to keep the Tristar and VC10 running longer. Both Tristar and VC10 have the capability to run longer and it is just a matter of making those investments and making those decisions at the right decision points.
Q200 Willie Rennie: Could you elaborate on some of the difficulties in extending the life and what the cost would be?
Mr Rowntree: A lot of it is to do with ageing aircraft issues and making sure that the systems have the right sorts of lives and the structural type for modifications. If you would like more detail on that, I could send you a note.
Chairman: I think we would.

[BEagle]

Back in 1996 when we had an AT/AAR symposium in the Gateway, if I recall correctly the ISD for FSTA was supposed to be 2004? That's 50% delivered and in service....

Now it's 2011 for just the first?

Meanwhile the Aussies, who shrewdly spotted what an utter crock of $hit the whole PFI farce really is, have had their first 'green' (actually a very fetching shade of gray, complete with RAAF markings) A330-200 at Getafe for almost a year now being converted into the first A330MRTT.....

And for just how long is the dear old VC10 expected to stagger on? Shares in companies which make black bodge tape and speed tape must be looking pretty healthy.

Is there anyone still alive at Rolls Royce who still remembers what a Conway actually looks like?

[Art Field]

To be fair Beags [but I do not see why we should be] the first in service date was planned to be Jan 07 with all delivered by Jan 11. That was, however, when the Numbers were expected to be around 23. The current guess seems to be around 14. Since the lead-in time looks to be at least 4 years even 2011 is rather optimistic, the last VC10 was due to expire in 2010.

[LFFC]

What fascinates me is Mr Rowntree's insistence that this deal represents best value for money:

Q188 Mr Holloway: How much more is it going to cost over the long-run, how many millions or billions of pounds?
Mr Rowntree: It is a value for money solution.
Q189 Chairman: I am not sure that is a fully comprehensive answer.

Yet he goes on to say:

Mr Rowntree: We have compared it considering, if you look at conventional procurements, what the historic trends tell us in terms of what cost growth there is in those. So we have taken an informed judgment as to what the through-life cost of this deal will be, considering also the availability of this service, because we are buying a service, not an aircraft, and it is value for money compared to a conventional procurement.

So, he expects cost growth over the whole life of the project, but wants Airtanker to take that at risk, not the MOD. But if I was the boss of Airtanker, I'd just factor that extra cost growth into the whole contract price, and charge that to the MOD from the onset, regardless of whether the growth was likely to happen or not. Chances are that, if the cost growth happens years in the future, I could claim that I couldn't afford it and raise the price anyway. In every way, I'd be onto a winner!

That doesn't sound like good value for money to me. However, spreading the cost over the whole life may make it more affordable. To me, the real question is, although it may be affordable now, will it still be affordable in 20 years time?

[BEagle]

Arters, that was true once the PFI nonsense hijacked the FLA programme a couple of years later, but at the time (1996) the first 'MRTT' was supposed to be entering service well before 2007! Still intended then to be the excellent A310MRTT, albeit of the Filton flavour......

I remember a certain civil serpent announcing "This programme WILL NOT SLIP!!" when the PFI idiocy first came along.

Will not slip, eh?