FSTA-When?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan - how about 155T, range of 10 000NM, M 0.84, 3 hoses, boom and UARSSI and about £43M each? Now THAT's a tanker.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...c-10-specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...c-10-specs.htm
True, D-IFF, but the KC-10 isn't really a MRTT in the pax/tanker role as your Gitmo Bay class seating is only available for around 75 people. Granted it has an impressive cargo carrying capability in addition to more AAR than anyone except the US really needs.
The 'modified A321' concept was only a paper concept to show up the gap between the A321 and A330 which Airbus once filled with the A300/310. The estimate was a fuel capacity of 43.8 tonne - not terribly useful as a purpose-built tanker, but perhaps as a secondary role for any air force thinking of replacing their existing smaller single role tankers?
A400M can only carry a useful tanker fuel load (I thought it was 62 tonne?) with the cargo bay tanks (CBTs) fitted. In that fit it has zero AT capability! Even with just 1 CBT, it could only manage around 57 troops in para seats or about 5.7 tonnes of cargo...... Without any CBTs, for 90 minutes on a towline 1 hr from base, my unofficial wet finger estimate is that it could offer a maximum of around 29 tonnes of fuel before landing with about an hour to tanks dry.
Which is somewhat less than even the Victor K2 could manage!
In the same scenario a VC10C1K offers around 36 tonnes. An A310MRTT could offer 48 tonnes and an A330MRTT could offer 84 tonnes (if you could find enough receivers!).
A400M will be an excellent AT aircraft, but it is not designed to carry its passengers in normal airline-type seats. It will also have a useful additional role of intra theatre AAR for the odd fast jet or helicopters even without CBTs. But for a next generation strategic multi-role AT/AAR platform the only modern solution is the A330MRTT.
The MoD really should have bought a couple of dozen A310MRTTs when they were offered to them years ago!
If the PFI FSTA really is as dead as the emerging rumours suggest, how many people will say "We told you so......"?
FSTA timeline:
Dec 2000 - Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) issued to industry.
Jul 2001 – Bids received from industry.
Feb 2003 – Final 2 bids received for assessment (AirTanker and TTSC).
Jan 2004 – Contract negotiations begin with AirTanker
Feb 2005 – AirTanker selected as FSTA preferred bidder.
??? 2007 - Contract award anticipated?
??? 2009 - First A330K training courses?
??? 2010 - First A330K certificated?
??? 2010+ - A330K deliveries........??
As far as I know, the 'site works' which were supposed to have started in 2006 haven't yet started - so the last 4 dates are probably rather optimistic.
"This programme will not slip".......
The 'modified A321' concept was only a paper concept to show up the gap between the A321 and A330 which Airbus once filled with the A300/310. The estimate was a fuel capacity of 43.8 tonne - not terribly useful as a purpose-built tanker, but perhaps as a secondary role for any air force thinking of replacing their existing smaller single role tankers?
A400M can only carry a useful tanker fuel load (I thought it was 62 tonne?) with the cargo bay tanks (CBTs) fitted. In that fit it has zero AT capability! Even with just 1 CBT, it could only manage around 57 troops in para seats or about 5.7 tonnes of cargo...... Without any CBTs, for 90 minutes on a towline 1 hr from base, my unofficial wet finger estimate is that it could offer a maximum of around 29 tonnes of fuel before landing with about an hour to tanks dry.
Which is somewhat less than even the Victor K2 could manage!
In the same scenario a VC10C1K offers around 36 tonnes. An A310MRTT could offer 48 tonnes and an A330MRTT could offer 84 tonnes (if you could find enough receivers!).
A400M will be an excellent AT aircraft, but it is not designed to carry its passengers in normal airline-type seats. It will also have a useful additional role of intra theatre AAR for the odd fast jet or helicopters even without CBTs. But for a next generation strategic multi-role AT/AAR platform the only modern solution is the A330MRTT.
The MoD really should have bought a couple of dozen A310MRTTs when they were offered to them years ago!
If the PFI FSTA really is as dead as the emerging rumours suggest, how many people will say "We told you so......"?
FSTA timeline:
Dec 2000 - Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) issued to industry.
Jul 2001 – Bids received from industry.
Feb 2003 – Final 2 bids received for assessment (AirTanker and TTSC).
Jan 2004 – Contract negotiations begin with AirTanker
Feb 2005 – AirTanker selected as FSTA preferred bidder.
??? 2007 - Contract award anticipated?
??? 2009 - First A330K training courses?
??? 2010 - First A330K certificated?
??? 2010+ - A330K deliveries........??
As far as I know, the 'site works' which were supposed to have started in 2006 haven't yet started - so the last 4 dates are probably rather optimistic.
"This programme will not slip".......
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Dec 2006 at 08:38.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right now I don't think the RAF would say no to a dozen KC-10s. Global boom and probe AAR capability (the E-3s would love that and we could even sell gas to the US!) and a strategic AT capability to take the pressure off of the C-17s. What's even better is they are a tried and tested platform that people all over the world know how to fix. None of this risky and expensive "launch customer" stuff.
How can I buy shares in Omega Air?
How can I buy shares in Omega Air?
They turned down the DC-10 series around 24 years ago when they acquired the first TriStars from ba.......
A few decidedly used KC-10s would probably be OK as a short term stop gap, but new models are required to invest for the future - as the USAF also understand!
A few decidedly used KC-10s would probably be OK as a short term stop gap, but new models are required to invest for the future - as the USAF also understand!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
England cannot afford or see the need for new tankers otherwise we would have found the money and had them a long time ago like we did with the C-17s, Danish Merlins(if they're still being bought) and Storm Shadow.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speeddial. I was not aware that England had an Air Force, in spite of certain efforts towards independence I believe Scotland, NI and Wales are still in there with us. I also think you will find it difficult to find too much evidence to support your view that the RAF, let alone the British military, will be provided with equipment by a generous government as soon as it proves a need, indeed just the opposite.
As far as the case for new Tanker/Transport aircraft is concerned, a quick perusal of many of the posts on these forums would seem to provide enough evidence from the operators and users for a long term reliable replacement, particularly in relation to the rapid deployment and out of theatre defence policy of the government. The policy requirement needs to be matched by the wherewithal to carry it out.
As far as the case for new Tanker/Transport aircraft is concerned, a quick perusal of many of the posts on these forums would seem to provide enough evidence from the operators and users for a long term reliable replacement, particularly in relation to the rapid deployment and out of theatre defence policy of the government. The policy requirement needs to be matched by the wherewithal to carry it out.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags, the KC-10 seating arrangement is poor, but the KDC-10 makes a good compromise - put the seats at the back, much better idea.
The KC10s on the West coast are rapidly becoming expensive C-17 hood ornaments, since the USAF C-17s don't have the extra fuel tanks and can't make it very far over the Pacific without being 'refueled'.
The KC10s on the West coast are rapidly becoming expensive C-17 hood ornaments, since the USAF C-17s don't have the extra fuel tanks and can't make it very far over the Pacific without being 'refueled'.
Pilot Officer PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSTA delays may force UK to prolong VC10 operations...
No suprises in todays (9 Jan) Flight Intenational. Extensions being looked at for 2014/15.
When will this get sorted... and will the 10 see 50 years of service. Looks like a good bet to me
Tonks
No suprises in todays (9 Jan) Flight Intenational. Extensions being looked at for 2014/15.
When will this get sorted... and will the 10 see 50 years of service. Looks like a good bet to me
Tonks
Funny you should mention "good bets" but as I was driving to work this morning one of the local radio stations was discussing "speculating to accumulate" and they had decided that £5 or £10 invested in a long shot bet might reap lots of rewards. Perhaps you should try Ladbrookes and see what odds they would give you on the Queen of the Skies still being operational at the 50 year point!!! You never know, in 9 and a bit years time you might be in for quite a windfall!!!
On the other hand they might only give you "Evens"
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first RAF VC10 and I share a birthday - maybe I can hold my 50th on board one over the North Sea!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a link to the VC10 story Tonkenna refers to, if anyone wants to read more:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...perations.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...perations.html
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Close to Wales
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no need for new tankers provided we are able to get a written guarantee that all future conflict will be confined to Kent. Recent experience in Bosnia, Afghanistan & Iraq suggest otherwise. Just because Gordon & his cronies(sp) will not stump up the cash does not suggest there is no need.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is anyone out there from TTSC (Other FSTA contender) then maybe we got the best of the deal, at least we got a mug and a mouse mat.
It is amazing the Fun Bus looks like lasting 50 years, still original engines and unmodified airframe. No requirement to re-engine they said in the 80's, will not last much longer.
It is amazing the Fun Bus looks like lasting 50 years, still original engines and unmodified airframe. No requirement to re-engine they said in the 80's, will not last much longer.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in my view they were right. You can't keep moving the out of service date to the right, because eventually one of them is going to fall out of the sky due to fatigue. Watch the cr*p hit the fan then!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from "Flight International"
FSTA delays may force UK to prolong VC10 operations
Continuing delays in signing a contract for the UK's Future Strategic Tanker
Aircraft (FSTA) fleet appear set to drive the Royal Air Force to extend
operations of its Vickers VC10s by a further four years until 2015.
An expression of interest is sought from BAE Systems by 17 January to extend
its current Project Javelin support deal for the RAF's 16-strong VC10 fleet,
which in mid-2006 marked 40 years of operational service. An invitation to
tender for a full availability-based deal will be released by the UK Defence
Logistics Organisation (DLO) late this month, with BAE to respond by 28
February.
A solicitation document for the so-called "Javelin Green" arrangement notes:
"The objective is to develop the most cost-effective way to meet the needs
of the fleet to extend the out-of-service date from 31 March 2011 to 31
March 2013, and provide further options to extend beyond this date to 2014
and 2015."
The RAF's replacement FSTA capability was to have entered service this month
under the project's original schedule, but the MoD and preferred bidder EADS
UK-led consortium AirTanker have been embroiled in slow-moving contract
negotiations since February 2005.
Expected to be delivered under a 27-year private finance initiative deal
worth up to £13.9 billion ($27.2 billion), the new system will comprise a
core fleet of nine Airbus A330-200 tanker-transports, plus a further five
held at short readiness. These will replace the RAF's 101 Sqn-operated VC10s
and 216 Sqn's nine Lockheed TriStars, six of which have air-to-air
refuelling equipment.
Worth between £100 million and £400 million, the new VC10 contract also
follows the planned evolution of the Javelin partnership, which involves
BAE, the DLO and the UK Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA). Two previous
deals, worth a combined £245 million, cover the provision of engineering
support at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and major maintenance services at
DARA's St Athan site in south Wales.
The new project phase will transition this work to a full aircraft
availability-based deal, and will also incorporate so-called depth
maintenance activities and support for in-flight refuelling equipment at
Brize Norton.
The DLO says the agreement will also address the impact of recent and future
reductions in the RAF's VC10 fleet size, and develop a disposal plan for the
aircraft.
--end----
"So, guys, you will have to share fuel from a French KC-135F operating today in the North Sea and in the South West"
"Why?"
"Because all nine of our A330s are in Cyprus, Middle East, the States and the Falklands."
"Well what about the other five?"
"Well they haven't been 'readied' yet"
Meanwhile enroute to AARA12 they fly over all the VC-10s and Tristars parked up beside the scrap man at St Athan.
Nine tankers to replace 25....with '5' 'maybe' ready aircraft.
FSTA delays may force UK to prolong VC10 operations
Continuing delays in signing a contract for the UK's Future Strategic Tanker
Aircraft (FSTA) fleet appear set to drive the Royal Air Force to extend
operations of its Vickers VC10s by a further four years until 2015.
An expression of interest is sought from BAE Systems by 17 January to extend
its current Project Javelin support deal for the RAF's 16-strong VC10 fleet,
which in mid-2006 marked 40 years of operational service. An invitation to
tender for a full availability-based deal will be released by the UK Defence
Logistics Organisation (DLO) late this month, with BAE to respond by 28
February.
A solicitation document for the so-called "Javelin Green" arrangement notes:
"The objective is to develop the most cost-effective way to meet the needs
of the fleet to extend the out-of-service date from 31 March 2011 to 31
March 2013, and provide further options to extend beyond this date to 2014
and 2015."
The RAF's replacement FSTA capability was to have entered service this month
under the project's original schedule, but the MoD and preferred bidder EADS
UK-led consortium AirTanker have been embroiled in slow-moving contract
negotiations since February 2005.
Expected to be delivered under a 27-year private finance initiative deal
worth up to £13.9 billion ($27.2 billion), the new system will comprise a
core fleet of nine Airbus A330-200 tanker-transports, plus a further five
held at short readiness. These will replace the RAF's 101 Sqn-operated VC10s
and 216 Sqn's nine Lockheed TriStars, six of which have air-to-air
refuelling equipment.
Worth between £100 million and £400 million, the new VC10 contract also
follows the planned evolution of the Javelin partnership, which involves
BAE, the DLO and the UK Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA). Two previous
deals, worth a combined £245 million, cover the provision of engineering
support at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and major maintenance services at
DARA's St Athan site in south Wales.
The new project phase will transition this work to a full aircraft
availability-based deal, and will also incorporate so-called depth
maintenance activities and support for in-flight refuelling equipment at
Brize Norton.
The DLO says the agreement will also address the impact of recent and future
reductions in the RAF's VC10 fleet size, and develop a disposal plan for the
aircraft.
--end----
"So, guys, you will have to share fuel from a French KC-135F operating today in the North Sea and in the South West"
"Why?"
"Because all nine of our A330s are in Cyprus, Middle East, the States and the Falklands."
"Well what about the other five?"
"Well they haven't been 'readied' yet"
Meanwhile enroute to AARA12 they fly over all the VC-10s and Tristars parked up beside the scrap man at St Athan.
Nine tankers to replace 25....with '5' 'maybe' ready aircraft.
This just seems nuts. I didn't believe a post a while ago talking of 1 BILLION per plane... I don't get it...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lancs. The billion per plane is the cost to MOD to have that aircraft available over the full 27 years. The contract is complex as it includes servicing, some crewing, training, ops staff and other base services. It is not so complex, however, that it should take this long to sort out.
Last edited by Art Field; 9th Jan 2007 at 19:10. Reason: Wrong name
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodea
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts