Tanker PFI announced...after many years.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sloanar: "But surely if it carries 20t more than you need, it’s too big."
You have clearly never shopped in an American supermarket, or eaten at an American restaurant.
You have clearly never shopped in an American supermarket, or eaten at an American restaurant.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The tanker offered as the KC-X will consist of a modified 767-200 freighter fuselage, and the 767-400 wing, undercarriage and cockpit (for commonality with the 777 if it offered later for the KC-Y or KC-Z competitions*).
*The USAF is holding 3 competitions to buy tankers in 3 batches. They want to end up with a mixed capability along the lines of the KC-135/KC-10 mix. They are not specifying maximum size and payload up front, waiting to see the offers. If they buy larger aircraft now, i.e. KC-330, they will probably specify a smaller payload/larger numbers in the later competitions - and vice-versa. So the proposition the KC-300 carries too much fuel does not make any sense within the overall structure of the requirement.
The figures I can find show the A330 as having lower ACN requirements than the 767.
767-400ER - ACN for Rigid Pavement Subgrades (MN/m^3):
High (150): 58
Medium (80): 68
Low (40): 80
767-300ER:
High (150): 48
Medium (80): 57
Low (40): 68
A330-200:
High (150): 46
Medium (80): 54
Low (40): 64
*The USAF is holding 3 competitions to buy tankers in 3 batches. They want to end up with a mixed capability along the lines of the KC-135/KC-10 mix. They are not specifying maximum size and payload up front, waiting to see the offers. If they buy larger aircraft now, i.e. KC-330, they will probably specify a smaller payload/larger numbers in the later competitions - and vice-versa. So the proposition the KC-300 carries too much fuel does not make any sense within the overall structure of the requirement.
The figures I can find show the A330 as having lower ACN requirements than the 767.
767-400ER - ACN for Rigid Pavement Subgrades (MN/m^3):
High (150): 58
Medium (80): 68
Low (40): 80
767-300ER:
High (150): 48
Medium (80): 57
Low (40): 68
A330-200:
High (150): 46
Medium (80): 54
Low (40): 64
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Antipodean Alligator:
AWST - June 18th: "Included in the Air Force program is a cargo-hauling requirement. Beginning with the 5th aircraft, airframes will be delivered in an A330-200F configuration, which includes doors and structural strengthening."....
USAF asked, and will get. If the RAAF didn't, blame the people who wrote the requirements..
Whilst it is great to hear that our first KC-30B has finally flown, and also that they are becoming quite popular with other air forces, can an informned type (such as M'Sieu B Eagle) please let me know about Doors and Floors?
USAF asked, and will get. If the RAAF didn't, blame the people who wrote the requirements..
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bris Vegas Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers ORAC
Thanks,
My understanding is that we knew we'd like it but that there was sticker shock when they asked how much it would cost to do.....As usual we chose to wait until someone else ponied up with the $$$$$.
I guess it will be too late now????
My understanding is that we knew we'd like it but that there was sticker shock when they asked how much it would cost to do.....As usual we chose to wait until someone else ponied up with the $$$$$.
I guess it will be too late now????
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slow, I know....
It suddenly occurred to me (slow, I know) that C-17s have a boom (only) IFR system. Now that we're buying them, does this suggest that the FSTA A330Ks will now be contracted with boom capability? Or are we going to put probes on the C-17s or not bother with C-17 AAR capability at all?
I appreciate that the cost of the boom for A330K may have seemed extortionate for the E-3Ds alone, especially as they're bisexual anyway... but with the C-17s, hey presto there's a (small) fleet of UK boom (only) recievers out there.
And if our A330Ks are to be equipped to receive as well (BEagle?), one presumes that (at least for the US competition), the design work for a boom recepitcle is underway / done. All of a sudden, we're looking at not just a significant number of RAF a/c, but the core of the strategic force multipliers, too.
(And not to mention interoperability with our US equipped allies, this is only likely to increase assuming that most of the international sales will be of Dave-A.)
Thoughts? Rumours? News?
S41
PS: To PSOs and Treasury types reading this, AFAIK, the wrong answers are:
- We don't need / will never use C-17 AAR
- E-3Ds are much better using the hose, therefore they don't need a boom
- We will never need A330K receive capability, as the tankers will always support ops within their unrefueled range
- We therefore don't need to boom the A330K nor do we need to specify a boom recepitcle on the A330K
Quiz on Friday!
I appreciate that the cost of the boom for A330K may have seemed extortionate for the E-3Ds alone, especially as they're bisexual anyway... but with the C-17s, hey presto there's a (small) fleet of UK boom (only) recievers out there.
And if our A330Ks are to be equipped to receive as well (BEagle?), one presumes that (at least for the US competition), the design work for a boom recepitcle is underway / done. All of a sudden, we're looking at not just a significant number of RAF a/c, but the core of the strategic force multipliers, too.
(And not to mention interoperability with our US equipped allies, this is only likely to increase assuming that most of the international sales will be of Dave-A.)
Thoughts? Rumours? News?
S41
PS: To PSOs and Treasury types reading this, AFAIK, the wrong answers are:
- We don't need / will never use C-17 AAR
- E-3Ds are much better using the hose, therefore they don't need a boom
- We will never need A330K receive capability, as the tankers will always support ops within their unrefueled range
- We therefore don't need to boom the A330K nor do we need to specify a boom recepitcle on the A330K
Quiz on Friday!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC: Many thanks.
This is precisely my concern, and the problem with the PFI - it's very restrictive: if it's not contracted, it's not happening (unless MOD ponies up lots of cash).
Thus, a signficant enhancement to operational capability that can be built into the aircraft on the line (receptical, boom, freight door) would prove to be prohibitively expensive once they're finished (maybe not for the door?) meaning for the next 20-something years that we're likely to be stuck with:
- the most expensive;
- least flexible; and
- least capable A330 tankers in the world.
Or in the words attributed to the OzAF CAS on being briefed on PFI:
"PFI - Poms are F*ckin' Idiots!!"
Way to go MOD!
S41
This is precisely my concern, and the problem with the PFI - it's very restrictive: if it's not contracted, it's not happening (unless MOD ponies up lots of cash).
Thus, a signficant enhancement to operational capability that can be built into the aircraft on the line (receptical, boom, freight door) would prove to be prohibitively expensive once they're finished (maybe not for the door?) meaning for the next 20-something years that we're likely to be stuck with:
- the most expensive;
- least flexible; and
- least capable A330 tankers in the world.
Or in the words attributed to the OzAF CAS on being briefed on PFI:
"PFI - Poms are F*ckin' Idiots!!"
Way to go MOD!
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 31st Jul 2007 at 09:04. Reason: Edits for spollink
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Lincoln
Age: 54
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual Capability - That's What We Want!
S41
I was considered to have been very opinionated back at OASC in 04 for suggesting that our new FSTA was 'not fit for task'. I then had to go on to explain to the selection officers that what we really needed was a multi capable tanker (KC10) like I had seen from OAF/V&O and T and the flexibility that platform gave to enable real time force multiplying to coalition aircraft.
I don't think they believed me but there you go.........
SA
I was considered to have been very opinionated back at OASC in 04 for suggesting that our new FSTA was 'not fit for task'. I then had to go on to explain to the selection officers that what we really needed was a multi capable tanker (KC10) like I had seen from OAF/V&O and T and the flexibility that platform gave to enable real time force multiplying to coalition aircraft.
I don't think they believed me but there you go.........
SA
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outbreak of common sense on Pprune!
Careful chaps, can't have too much sense in one place - someone might notice!
SA - good to hear. Hopefully OASC gave you the benefit of the doubt despite your heretical views on FSTA!
W2 - well, it's been coming down the pike for a long time now. Awfully embarassing for El Gordo watching Tube PPP go belly up as it was absolutely his personal policy. Suppose we have to hope that we can $hit can PPP and just order properly equipped A330Ks ( 2 hoses, door, boom receive capable, boom) in conventional procurement. It's not over until the wrong contract is signed!
Can anyone give us a rough estimate (guestimate?) of the difference in acquisition and through-life costs of having fit-for-role A330Ks (2 hoses, door, boom recepticle, boom) vs A330K (RAF Vanilla, 2 or 3 hoses only) pls?
S41
SA - good to hear. Hopefully OASC gave you the benefit of the doubt despite your heretical views on FSTA!
W2 - well, it's been coming down the pike for a long time now. Awfully embarassing for El Gordo watching Tube PPP go belly up as it was absolutely his personal policy. Suppose we have to hope that we can $hit can PPP and just order properly equipped A330Ks ( 2 hoses, door, boom receive capable, boom) in conventional procurement. It's not over until the wrong contract is signed!
Can anyone give us a rough estimate (guestimate?) of the difference in acquisition and through-life costs of having fit-for-role A330Ks (2 hoses, door, boom recepticle, boom) vs A330K (RAF Vanilla, 2 or 3 hoses only) pls?
S41
The RAF will still need a centreline hose for A400M, Nimrod '2000', MR2 and R1 and C130....
You don't really need an A330 upper deck door or freight floor as there is already ample space underfloor. Very expensive to modify.
Boom would require a fair bit of operator training and practice to become proficient. Bit of a bugger if you've only got E-3s to joust - unless the C-17A AAR clearance is taken on board by the RAF. Or, of course, if another NATO player with a receptacle is around.
Boom would, however, enhance interoperability and would also be feasible for UAV AAR. If anyone thinks that they would trust one of the little sods to make contact on a drogue, think again!
As for tanker-tanker refuelling - definitely a nice to have rather than a 'must have'. Probably easier to use the boom with the A330 inertia and thrust control system, rather than probe-and-drogue. TriStar probe was very draggy and very noisy on the flightdeck, so was $hitcanned.
And it was ME, not the OzAF CAS who coined the term "Poms are f*****g idiots" regarding the absurdity of PFI! Perhaps he read it on PPRuNe?
You don't really need an A330 upper deck door or freight floor as there is already ample space underfloor. Very expensive to modify.
Boom would require a fair bit of operator training and practice to become proficient. Bit of a bugger if you've only got E-3s to joust - unless the C-17A AAR clearance is taken on board by the RAF. Or, of course, if another NATO player with a receptacle is around.
Boom would, however, enhance interoperability and would also be feasible for UAV AAR. If anyone thinks that they would trust one of the little sods to make contact on a drogue, think again!
As for tanker-tanker refuelling - definitely a nice to have rather than a 'must have'. Probably easier to use the boom with the A330 inertia and thrust control system, rather than probe-and-drogue. TriStar probe was very draggy and very noisy on the flightdeck, so was $hitcanned.
And it was ME, not the OzAF CAS who coined the term "Poms are f*****g idiots" regarding the absurdity of PFI! Perhaps he read it on PPRuNe?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Many thanks for this- so in your view what does a full-up A330K for the RAF actually consist of? Can you confirm that Airbus/Northrop Grumman have designed a boom receptacle for A330K in the US competition- if so, what's the price differential?
Is it feasible to have a dual centreline boom / HDU fitted?
And it's entirely possible that OzAF CAS's PSO read it here on Pprune - I heard that he said it after a few beers in Vauxhall a couple of summers ago...
Many thanks,
S41
Many thanks for this- so in your view what does a full-up A330K for the RAF actually consist of? Can you confirm that Airbus/Northrop Grumman have designed a boom receptacle for A330K in the US competition- if so, what's the price differential?
Is it feasible to have a dual centreline boom / HDU fitted?
And it's entirely possible that OzAF CAS's PSO read it here on Pprune - I heard that he said it after a few beers in Vauxhall a couple of summers ago...
Many thanks,
S41
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
KC-30 Performance
The KC-30 is able to simultaneously refuel multiple receiver aircraft. Its mix of boom and hose & drogue refueling systems ensures that U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allied aircraft can be accommodated on the same mission without the need for on-ground tanker reconfiguration.
The advanced boom uses the same proven fly-by-wire technology as the KC-30's flight control system, and it includes an automatic load alleviation system, independent disconnect function, along with redundant actuation systems and power supply. Improved controllability is provided by the boom's roll and pitch joint. Maximum fuel offload rate for the boom is 8,000 lbs./min.........
The KC-30's two underwing refueling pods are installed on pre-existing hardpoints that already are outfitted for fuel and power - requiring no structural modifications to the wing. The maximum offload rate for the pods is 2,800 lbs/min.
A centerline hose drum refueling unit is located under the aft fuselage, providing an additional hose and drogue contact point with a 90-ft. hose length. Maximum offload rate for this refueling unit is 4,000 lbs/min.
.......Parker Aerospace (Irvine, Calif) will provide the KC-30 Tanker’s Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI). Similar UARRSI systems are currently used on the U.S. Air Force’s A-7K, B-1B, C-141B, C-130, C-17, and KC-10 aircraft.
The KC-30 is able to simultaneously refuel multiple receiver aircraft. Its mix of boom and hose & drogue refueling systems ensures that U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allied aircraft can be accommodated on the same mission without the need for on-ground tanker reconfiguration.
The advanced boom uses the same proven fly-by-wire technology as the KC-30's flight control system, and it includes an automatic load alleviation system, independent disconnect function, along with redundant actuation systems and power supply. Improved controllability is provided by the boom's roll and pitch joint. Maximum fuel offload rate for the boom is 8,000 lbs./min.........
The KC-30's two underwing refueling pods are installed on pre-existing hardpoints that already are outfitted for fuel and power - requiring no structural modifications to the wing. The maximum offload rate for the pods is 2,800 lbs/min.
A centerline hose drum refueling unit is located under the aft fuselage, providing an additional hose and drogue contact point with a 90-ft. hose length. Maximum offload rate for this refueling unit is 4,000 lbs/min.
.......Parker Aerospace (Irvine, Calif) will provide the KC-30 Tanker’s Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI). Similar UARRSI systems are currently used on the U.S. Air Force’s A-7K, B-1B, C-141B, C-130, C-17, and KC-10 aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It suddenly occurred to me (slow, I know) that C-17s have a boom (only) IFR system. Now that we're buying them, does this suggest that the FSTA A330Ks will now be contracted with boom capability? Or are we going to put probes on the C-17s or not bother with C-17 AAR capability at all?
I don't know if anyone saw the letter in one of the papers (might have been the Mail) recently from someone suggesting that we cancelled Nimrod, A300K and A400M and just bought lots of 'surplus' used C-17s from the Yanks for the large aircraft tasking.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFI's are so yesterday's ideas. The true costs are now coming home to roost. Daily Telegraph
The State does not do amortisation: it's an annual piggy-bank, cash in: cash out. If a Supplier offers to defer payment, Treasury must choose: tax today, or SKI tomorrow (Spend our Kids' Inheritance). May cost more cradle-to-grave: PFI/PPP as the State's credit card. Case A: FSTA as cash buy; Case B, buy-now, pay-later. Spec is written by the User to meet an approved Task: it is constant - AAR fit, say, is unaffected, so long as Credit is confined to procurement. McKinsey (Torygraph friend, young W.Hague then involved) sold the notion to Mrs.T and it kept taxes lower, and/or let us enjoy more buses and trains.
For FSTA we intend to operate on tick. Has FSTA Spec been tarnished by requiring the Contractor to tramp in dwells between State Tasks? RAF hulls must be heavier, burdening his ACMI (rate-per-flight hour) bids v.an operator of a civil Spec. (What dwells? We've turned 4xC-17 lease to 6xbuy, cos they're busy). Sea Lift has always been STUFT (Ships Taken Up From Trade). USAF for SEAsia paid PanAm et al to freight-convert 747s remaining normally in pax use, as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Govt. paid hourly offset for the weight penalty, and had Reserve draft Rights. That's what our procurers have been addressing all this time. FSTA is a hoary theme reversed.
The State does not do amortisation: it's an annual piggy-bank, cash in: cash out. If a Supplier offers to defer payment, Treasury must choose: tax today, or SKI tomorrow (Spend our Kids' Inheritance). May cost more cradle-to-grave: PFI/PPP as the State's credit card. Case A: FSTA as cash buy; Case B, buy-now, pay-later. Spec is written by the User to meet an approved Task: it is constant - AAR fit, say, is unaffected, so long as Credit is confined to procurement. McKinsey (Torygraph friend, young W.Hague then involved) sold the notion to Mrs.T and it kept taxes lower, and/or let us enjoy more buses and trains.
For FSTA we intend to operate on tick. Has FSTA Spec been tarnished by requiring the Contractor to tramp in dwells between State Tasks? RAF hulls must be heavier, burdening his ACMI (rate-per-flight hour) bids v.an operator of a civil Spec. (What dwells? We've turned 4xC-17 lease to 6xbuy, cos they're busy). Sea Lift has always been STUFT (Ships Taken Up From Trade). USAF for SEAsia paid PanAm et al to freight-convert 747s remaining normally in pax use, as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Govt. paid hourly offset for the weight penalty, and had Reserve draft Rights. That's what our procurers have been addressing all this time. FSTA is a hoary theme reversed.
Refuelling UAV's
"Boom would, however, enhance interoperability and would also be feasible for UAV AAR. If anyone thinks that they would trust one of the little sods to make contact on a drogue, think again!"
Did not NASA prove that a UAV could be refuelled(i.e only doing a dry contact) with a specially modified F18 aircraft with the pliot not in control of the aircraft and only present for safety reasons?
Did not NASA prove that a UAV could be refuelled(i.e only doing a dry contact) with a specially modified F18 aircraft with the pliot not in control of the aircraft and only present for safety reasons?
And when there isn't a pilot able to take over for safety reasons?
The prospect of having some UAV attempting to joust with a tanker is not one I would fancy. But if the little sod just sits there and formates whilst the boom operator spears it, then fine. As long as its feeble robotic brain doesn't perceive the impact of the boom as a downward pitching moment - and command the little bugger to climb......
The prospect of having some UAV attempting to joust with a tanker is not one I would fancy. But if the little sod just sits there and formates whilst the boom operator spears it, then fine. As long as its feeble robotic brain doesn't perceive the impact of the boom as a downward pitching moment - and command the little bugger to climb......
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air tanker fleet is hit by credit crunch
It looks like the FSTA project is finally facing the harsh reality of life!
Air tanker fleet is hit by credit crunch - The Times 7 Oct 07
Cue Beagle!
Air tanker fleet is hit by credit crunch - The Times 7 Oct 07
Details of the financing were revealed last week by Thomson’s Project Finance International, a financial publication. It said the programme, called Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) “hangs in the balance”. Its report said that a plan for a group of banks to provide the loans came unstuck when they raised the price because of the credit crunch.
Cue Beagle!
Last edited by LFFC; 7th Oct 2007 at 10:43.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE the above link, Jesus wept! what is it with this Government! this is a major state acquisition that is badly needed and long overdue, stop p%^&ing about with where the moneys coming from and get on with the bloody thing.
Very sad situation that reflects badly on current UK Government.
Very sad situation that reflects badly on current UK Government.