FSTA-When?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSTA-When?
Exactly 6 years ago today, MOD issued an 'Invitation to Negotiate' to Industry. The deal was to provide Tanker/Transport aircraft to replace the VC10 and the Tristar in those roles with a Private Finance Initiative service. The timescale was for the first aircraft to be in service in 2007 and the full fleet completed by 2009. The proposal was titled "Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft" (FSTA).
A fair drop of water has passed under the bridge since then but with 2007 just about to start and with the VC10 and Tristar fleets working considerably harder than anticipated by that timescale, the need for replacement is critical. Although it is nearly 2 years since the Air Tanker Consortium was awarded preferred bidder status and in spite of vague hints that the contract is about to be given the go-ahead, the hard pressed ground and aircrew of the current fleet have no solid prospect of relief even by 2010. Surely the FSTA decision can not be delayed any longer. Maybe tomorrow, better today.
A fair drop of water has passed under the bridge since then but with 2007 just about to start and with the VC10 and Tristar fleets working considerably harder than anticipated by that timescale, the need for replacement is critical. Although it is nearly 2 years since the Air Tanker Consortium was awarded preferred bidder status and in spite of vague hints that the contract is about to be given the go-ahead, the hard pressed ground and aircrew of the current fleet have no solid prospect of relief even by 2010. Surely the FSTA decision can not be delayed any longer. Maybe tomorrow, better today.
Who knows, Arters. Eevn AirTanker's own website shows 'contract signature' in 2007 now - and first tanker deliveries after 2010!
Meanwhile, work on the Aussie jet (which is to be owned and operated by the RAAF - no 'crock of $hit PFI' as they described it to me) continues well at Getafe. I saw it earlier in the year being busily worked on - and very nice it looks too! To have a boom and 2 pods.
I look back with interest at the statements made at the 1996 AT/AAR conference at Brize - and remember the civil serpent in charge of FSTA saying a few years later "This programme will NOT slip......"
Of course not. Never. No way. Couldn't happen, could it??
The fast jet-centric Air Staff will probably find this biting their bums before long - as you say, the dear old Vickers FunBus and the TriShaw are being worked very hard - and aren't getting any younger either!
Meanwhile, work on the Aussie jet (which is to be owned and operated by the RAAF - no 'crock of $hit PFI' as they described it to me) continues well at Getafe. I saw it earlier in the year being busily worked on - and very nice it looks too! To have a boom and 2 pods.
I look back with interest at the statements made at the 1996 AT/AAR conference at Brize - and remember the civil serpent in charge of FSTA saying a few years later "This programme will NOT slip......"
Of course not. Never. No way. Couldn't happen, could it??
The fast jet-centric Air Staff will probably find this biting their bums before long - as you say, the dear old Vickers FunBus and the TriShaw are being worked very hard - and aren't getting any younger either!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Heard a rumour (can't remember where, but this IS a rumour network) that FSTA was going to be cancelled, as the cost per aircraft was in excess of £1 billion.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard a rumour (can't remember where, but this IS a rumour network) that FSTA was going to be cancelled
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Browne: Army Size May Increase
Maybe the MOD needs the money for this instead:
The Times - 22 Dec 06
MOD Oracle - Fri 22 Dec 06
But then again, how will the Army plan to get their extra troops overseas?
The Times - 22 Dec 06
MOD Oracle - Fri 22 Dec 06
An increase in the size of the Army may be necessary to cope with Britain's long-running overseas military commitments, Defence Secretary Des Browne has acknowledged.
Last edited by LFFC; 22nd Dec 2006 at 20:10.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumor has it that the USAF are considering cancelling a number of F-22s and using the money instead to buy around 450 KC-Xs. Sounds reasonable given the average age of the KC-135 of 35 yrs. But, I don't think there are any manufacturers that can bang out 450 frames in short order - the best you'll get is around 15 frames per year. That being the case, watch this space as the DoD invest in Boeing 777s, 767s AND Airbus MRTTs (A-320)...
Japan has committed to it's future in AAR, Italy, Australia; the US will make its decision in 1/10th of the time the UK has deliberated. There is a real risk here that the UK will fall behind in yet another area of modern warfare.
And NKAWTG, preferably from a tanker with pods, boom, uaarsi, centre-line hose and a probe etc.
Japan has committed to it's future in AAR, Italy, Australia; the US will make its decision in 1/10th of the time the UK has deliberated. There is a real risk here that the UK will fall behind in yet another area of modern warfare.
And NKAWTG, preferably from a tanker with pods, boom, uaarsi, centre-line hose and a probe etc.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a very interesting post on the Trying To Get Home thread that suggests that the advent of FSTA might not make any diffence to air transport reliability.
You can change the charter as much as you want but if you don't address the real cause of the delays (and 58% shouldn't be acceptable) then we'll never sort the problem out. There's a lot we can do to improve these "stats" . . . if only we admit we have a part to play.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Watch this space for the announcement of the A400M(K)."
All very well and good for North Sea Towlines but falls some way short when it comes to intercontinental trails.........
All very well and good for North Sea Towlines but falls some way short when it comes to intercontinental trails.........
"AND Airbus MRTTs (A-320)..."
I think not, old horseman. Airbus manufacture the world's only 21st Century AT/AAR platform, the A310MRTT - and the A330 MRTT for the RAAF is currently being built. The KC-30 for the USAF is also under study.
A320 would be a bit too small for any worthwhile AT/AAR application as the extra tankage to make it any use would severely limit its AT capabilities. But A321 as a single point centreline probe-and-drogue tanker could offer about 25 tonnes to fighter-type receivers over 90 mins on an AARA 90 min from the tanker base, landing with normal IFR reserves. With an additional 25000 litre fuselage tank over the wing, there would still be space for 116 passengers (48 in a front cabin, 68 in a rear cabin).
But even the CSA A400M would offer about 20% more fuel in the same scenario - and with 2 wing pods, of course - as well as space for 120 troops.
A400M is primarily a tactical airlifter with an additional intra-theatre AAR capability. A strategic tanker it is not!
D-IFF - if you want to work closely with the A330MRTT, PM me!
I think not, old horseman. Airbus manufacture the world's only 21st Century AT/AAR platform, the A310MRTT - and the A330 MRTT for the RAAF is currently being built. The KC-30 for the USAF is also under study.
A320 would be a bit too small for any worthwhile AT/AAR application as the extra tankage to make it any use would severely limit its AT capabilities. But A321 as a single point centreline probe-and-drogue tanker could offer about 25 tonnes to fighter-type receivers over 90 mins on an AARA 90 min from the tanker base, landing with normal IFR reserves. With an additional 25000 litre fuselage tank over the wing, there would still be space for 116 passengers (48 in a front cabin, 68 in a rear cabin).
But even the CSA A400M would offer about 20% more fuel in the same scenario - and with 2 wing pods, of course - as well as space for 120 troops.
A400M is primarily a tactical airlifter with an additional intra-theatre AAR capability. A strategic tanker it is not!
D-IFF - if you want to work closely with the A330MRTT, PM me!
Is there any more progress with this, as according to this website a load of Airbuses have got RAF serial numbers allocated.
www.ukserials.com
ZZ330 to ZZ343 Airbus A.330, totals 14 aircraft.
Or is this just wishful thinking?
And another thing, why the sudden jump to ZZ prefixed numbers?
And another another, what will happen after ZZ999 is used (or will we never get that far)?
www.ukserials.com
ZZ330 to ZZ343 Airbus A.330, totals 14 aircraft.
Or is this just wishful thinking?
And another thing, why the sudden jump to ZZ prefixed numbers?
And another another, what will happen after ZZ999 is used (or will we never get that far)?
The fuel load of an A320 is 19.0T, the A321 18.9T. Additional Centre Tanks can be fitted to either, this increases the load to 20.9 or 20.8T respectively. A second ACT can be fitted to the 321 increasing the total load to 22.7T. At a fuel burn of 2.4/hr (320) and 3.0T/hr (321), this doesn't add up to a very capable tanker even with the major modification of additional cabin tanks.
Think big. From my expereince, and in my humble opinion a strategic tanker should not have any less than a total fuel load of 80T.
Think big. From my expereince, and in my humble opinion a strategic tanker should not have any less than a total fuel load of 80T.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a cruise capability of M.72 at FL370, a ferry range of 4750nm and a fuel capacity of 58t with the extra internal tanks fitted, the A400M has to be a contender. Question is, will we buy enough of them to fulfil both roles, or will we once again 'rob Peter to pay Paul'?