Tanker PFI announced...after many years.
Half of PFI deals fail "good value" test
Half the private finance initiative contracts that have so far undergone "value testing" have failed to produce value for money, the National Audit Office said in a report today. Independent 06/06/2007 p. 46
Half the private finance initiative contracts that have so far undergone "value testing" have failed to produce value for money, the National Audit Office said in a report today. Independent 06/06/2007 p. 46
From my experience in PFI I'd be suprised if better than 20-25% give 'good value'.
As ever the bean counters know the theoretical cost of everything, but the true value of nothing.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XV277. You are dead right about goal-post shifting. Page 1 of the Invitation To Negotiate for the VC10, Tristar replacement issued at the end of 2000 says the replacement is to be known as Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and that only responses to this ITN that offer PFI solutions will be considered. I can not find reference to feasibility anywhere in all of the 4 volumes.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing the RAF, I am surprised they have not conducted a feasability report on recommisioning the victor fleet 
Seriously though, what makes a good tanker?? I am thinking good lowish speed handling, low stall speed and lots of lift capacity?
, we were chatting about this at work the other night, the trusty old 747 was mentioned, would this make a decent flying fuel station?
Seriously though, what makes a good tanker?? I am thinking good lowish speed handling, low stall speed and lots of lift capacity?
, we were chatting about this at work the other night, the trusty old 747 was mentioned, would this make a decent flying fuel station?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: themightyimp
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me a cynic but isn't this announcement spookily close to the results of the Nimrod AAIB being due??
Additionally, how have they let a PFI when there are still issues on whether we will be able to use US defensive aids or not???
Additionally, how have they let a PFI when there are still issues on whether we will be able to use US defensive aids or not???
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sunny south
Age: 52
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote "it will require someone with navigation experience"
Or a VC10 eng who already has load and trim experience, operating AAR equipment and who is more than capable of operating an FMS. Cheaper than a PA Spine Nav.
Or a VC10 eng who already has load and trim experience, operating AAR equipment and who is more than capable of operating an FMS. Cheaper than a PA Spine Nav.
Kengineer-130,
I doubt very much the 747 would make a good tanker. Four engines on the wings leaves you very little room for wing hoses that won't be interefered with by jet engine effects. 747 needs a LOT of augmented lift at low(er) speeds, making its fuel burn rate just horrendous. And all that modified lift would play havoc with any aircraft trying to get behind a hose. It could never cope with the speeds required to refuel a C130.
Even a VC10 needs a low-speed drougue and some flap as well as a shallow descent ('toboggan') to allow a C130 to remain in contact for a lengthy refuel. In this config, in level flight, the VC10 burns near 10 tonnes an hour! A 747 does that in a normal cruise - IF (a very big IF) it could go slow enough for a C130 what the hell would it be burning?
I doubt very much the 747 would make a good tanker. Four engines on the wings leaves you very little room for wing hoses that won't be interefered with by jet engine effects. 747 needs a LOT of augmented lift at low(er) speeds, making its fuel burn rate just horrendous. And all that modified lift would play havoc with any aircraft trying to get behind a hose. It could never cope with the speeds required to refuel a C130.
Even a VC10 needs a low-speed drougue and some flap as well as a shallow descent ('toboggan') to allow a C130 to remain in contact for a lengthy refuel. In this config, in level flight, the VC10 burns near 10 tonnes an hour! A 747 does that in a normal cruise - IF (a very big IF) it could go slow enough for a C130 what the hell would it be burning?
Pilot Officer PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who runs the fleet of VC10 and TriStar refuelling aircraft at present is it the RAF or another contractor ???
Mr B... nice to see that you remember the slow speed drogue burn rate... perhaps the captain I did a ground cat on today could contact you
as he didn't know it
(oh and yes it was me that damaged the Merc some years ago Dan!! and the other chap is still a FL... but not for long... soon to be a !st Officer)I am not really sure, from what I have read so far, just how much closer we are to seeing these aircraft for real. I think I can safely say I will need my VC10 FRCs for a while yet though. I looked at the airtanker web site yesterday and there was nothing new there... suppose we will just have to wait... and we are good at that
Tonks
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags. As you say, no probes. It occurs to me to wonder if the A330 could easily have proper plumbing inserted at manufacture so that, if ever, the need should arise for Tanker/ Tanker refueling {heaven forbid} a safe and easy modification could be made by just adding a probe to the aircraft. Without pre-judging the current Nimrod concern the problems during Corporate, when bowser hose ran through the cabin and one daintily tripped over it could have been avoided if appropriate internal pipes had been installed. It is worth noting that many of the Valiants, indeed many of the V,s were fitted internally for refuel but minus the probe. Maybe we should remember that history is not all bunk?.
The OzAF are intending to operate their A330s in the receiver role - but not with a probe. Fitted 'for, but not with' a receiver system would indeed seem to make sense, Arters.
Of course the OzAF also have to haul that lumbering great boom around with them. But now that the 'Pig' (F111) is to be replaced by the Super Hornet rather sooner than many thought, I wonder whether they will actually do very much boom AAR?
Of course the OzAF also have to haul that lumbering great boom around with them. But now that the 'Pig' (F111) is to be replaced by the Super Hornet rather sooner than many thought, I wonder whether they will actually do very much boom AAR?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kengineer,
You asked what makes a good tanker. My tuppence:
High total fuel load. This is self-explanatory, but can incur a penalty for heavy footprint in terms of aircraft size, ACN, logistics etc.
A low burn rate at around 280-320 KCAS. This characteristic is very important but cannot alone turn an airframe that lacks fuel capacity into a good tanker.
A combination of boom and hose systems, ideally with simultaneous 2 point hose refuelling. The coalition ops of recent years would have been much easier if all tankers could have serviced all receivers. Unfortunately a boom is hard to justify on the basis of interoperability alone.
Capability to receive fuel. The lessons of history have shown the value of tanker-tanker fuel transfer. The USAF can compare and contrast the operation of KC-135 (most can't receive) to KC-10 (all can) and have clearly stated the KC-X must be able to receive fuel. The Aussies, Italians and Japanese all agree. The UK MoD has convinced itself that the receiver AAR is not necessary. Specifying a UAARSI (boom receptacle) would also help to justify an indigenous boom capability.
Low speed handling characteristics are not that important as long as the aircraft can be slowed to around 180-200 knots for C-130 AAR. I don't think that a high burn rate in this regime is terribly significant, as it is for only for a small proportion of the sortie. The older USAF tankers with very simple high lift devices seem to manage C-130 AAR without a drama - although again the boom might be better for this type of refuelling.
Ancillary equpment pertinent to Air Transport is also important, as all new tankers will have to perform other roles - so freight door, airstairs, aeromed fit, crew rest area etc are all valuable. Sadly, again the UK is falling behind.
Finally, I would personally prefer to have more than 2 engines so that critical missions would not have to be aborted for technical failures. When the latest twins are new I'm sure that they will hardly ever have an engine failure. But what about when they are knocking on 40 years old? Unfortunately no one builds anything suitable that has more than 2 engines. Network capability and reliability aside, none of the new aircraft actually surpass the physical capabilities of the KC-10. It's a shame that Long Beach only make C-17s.
You asked what makes a good tanker. My tuppence:
High total fuel load. This is self-explanatory, but can incur a penalty for heavy footprint in terms of aircraft size, ACN, logistics etc.
A low burn rate at around 280-320 KCAS. This characteristic is very important but cannot alone turn an airframe that lacks fuel capacity into a good tanker.
A combination of boom and hose systems, ideally with simultaneous 2 point hose refuelling. The coalition ops of recent years would have been much easier if all tankers could have serviced all receivers. Unfortunately a boom is hard to justify on the basis of interoperability alone.
Capability to receive fuel. The lessons of history have shown the value of tanker-tanker fuel transfer. The USAF can compare and contrast the operation of KC-135 (most can't receive) to KC-10 (all can) and have clearly stated the KC-X must be able to receive fuel. The Aussies, Italians and Japanese all agree. The UK MoD has convinced itself that the receiver AAR is not necessary. Specifying a UAARSI (boom receptacle) would also help to justify an indigenous boom capability.
Low speed handling characteristics are not that important as long as the aircraft can be slowed to around 180-200 knots for C-130 AAR. I don't think that a high burn rate in this regime is terribly significant, as it is for only for a small proportion of the sortie. The older USAF tankers with very simple high lift devices seem to manage C-130 AAR without a drama - although again the boom might be better for this type of refuelling.
Ancillary equpment pertinent to Air Transport is also important, as all new tankers will have to perform other roles - so freight door, airstairs, aeromed fit, crew rest area etc are all valuable. Sadly, again the UK is falling behind.
Finally, I would personally prefer to have more than 2 engines so that critical missions would not have to be aborted for technical failures. When the latest twins are new I'm sure that they will hardly ever have an engine failure. But what about when they are knocking on 40 years old? Unfortunately no one builds anything suitable that has more than 2 engines. Network capability and reliability aside, none of the new aircraft actually surpass the physical capabilities of the KC-10. It's a shame that Long Beach only make C-17s.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
Wedgetail if it ever shows.
Where ever we seem to buy from, US or Euro, chances are it'll be a cock up someway.
Super Hornet - what happens when a GP is in charge of your defence force.
Wedgetail if it ever shows.
Where ever we seem to buy from, US or Euro, chances are it'll be a cock up someway.
Super Hornet - what happens when a GP is in charge of your defence force.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread creep but I think it is near enough.
A new glossy hit my desk this week - Eurofighter Review - Issue 1 - 2007.
Inside is contains on page 19 "External fuel tanks, for increased range, are certified for supersonic flight while "wet" air to air refuelling, with the unique fully-retractable refuelling probe, is cleared for all specified customer Tanker types, including "buddy-buddy" refuelling from Tornado aircraft."
Wow, all along I thought external fuel tanks were there to increase drag and reduce the number of available weapons stations.
I guess the unique fully-retractable refuelling probe is an in-house concept and owes nothing to McDonald Douglas or Panavia?
As for buddy-buddy, correct me if I am wrong but Tornado-Typhoon is not buddy-buddy.
A new glossy hit my desk this week - Eurofighter Review - Issue 1 - 2007.
Inside is contains on page 19 "External fuel tanks, for increased range, are certified for supersonic flight while "wet" air to air refuelling, with the unique fully-retractable refuelling probe, is cleared for all specified customer Tanker types, including "buddy-buddy" refuelling from Tornado aircraft."
Wow, all along I thought external fuel tanks were there to increase drag and reduce the number of available weapons stations.
I guess the unique fully-retractable refuelling probe is an in-house concept and owes nothing to McDonald Douglas or Panavia?
As for buddy-buddy, correct me if I am wrong but Tornado-Typhoon is not buddy-buddy.
Last edited by Wader2; 8th Jun 2007 at 12:34. Reason: typo
Iranians had several 747 tankers, dont know anything about its capability or operations though. Several were still parked in Tehran a couple of years ago.Guess if you're only fuelling fast jets with a boom its probably an awesome capability !!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Dragon79....
What do you mean..."If it ever shows", A30-001 just completed its full mission cabin fitout, and is off continuing its mission system flight testing as we speak.
That doesn't mean to say that the mission system testing hasn't been going on for some time, but without the full cabin fit.
And yes, you're right, it uses the UARRSI connection to the tankers flying boom for AAR.
Great little mean machine!
Cheers...FD...
What do you mean..."If it ever shows", A30-001 just completed its full mission cabin fitout, and is off continuing its mission system flight testing as we speak.
That doesn't mean to say that the mission system testing hasn't been going on for some time, but without the full cabin fit.
And yes, you're right, it uses the UARRSI connection to the tankers flying boom for AAR.
Great little mean machine!
Cheers...FD...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Additionally, how have they let a PFI when there are still issues on whether we will be able to use US defensive aids or not???
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Cotswold International Airport
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considerable navigation experience required/?????
Beags: "Personally I canot see the A330K ARO position being filled by people without considerable navigation experience; "
Get real Beags, go down to Halfords this weekend, navigators come in little boxes and get stuck to car windows now! However, if you think pilots can't use an FMS and need navs to do it....... Oh yes, of course, they are all on VC10s
Get real Beags, go down to Halfords this weekend, navigators come in little boxes and get stuck to car windows now! However, if you think pilots can't use an FMS and need navs to do it....... Oh yes, of course, they are all on VC10s