RAF Aircraft Struggling
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It called on the MoD to procure more C-17 large transport planes "given the current operational tempo"
Stn Cdr at Brize is also quoting the party line - local radio and newspaper.
I guess "struggled to cope" means "left lots of people in the desert 'cos there weren't any 'frames to fly".
(And Inquisitor - thanks for an entertaining post. Always nice to have a laugh!)
I guess "struggled to cope" means "left lots of people in the desert 'cos there weren't any 'frames to fly".
(And Inquisitor - thanks for an entertaining post. Always nice to have a laugh!)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, a bit tongue in cheek and vastly over-simplified (just how us drivers like it) - but tell me I was wrong about the lack of eng manpower? I'd still maintain (no pun intended) it is one of the biggest causes of current poor availability.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inquisitor,
A lot of what you said had a ring of common sense to it but you then lost credibility completely by suggesting purchasing a new fleet of K's............to any sane individual that thought ranks alongside the LEAN idea and we all know how barkingly mad that was
A lot of what you said had a ring of common sense to it but you then lost credibility completely by suggesting purchasing a new fleet of K's............to any sane individual that thought ranks alongside the LEAN idea and we all know how barkingly mad that was
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WEST
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i sent this email to the defence minister...
found mod website for emailing the defence minister. in the box marked "Please enter the full details of your request (please be as specific as possible)" entered the following:
Dear Sir,
I am very concerned about the future of the RAF’s tanker fleet. After much investigation, it appears that the current fleet of VC10 aircraft (a/c) are due to retire within the next few years. Their proposed replacements will be civil airliners with air-to-air refuelling (AAR) capability.
The VC10 is an outstanding a/c for its AAR purpose and has given 40 years venerable service. My internet research has revealed some startling information, particularly from the ‘horse’s mouth’ – a forum dedicated to the views and thoughts of all those directly associated with operating the VC10 fleet (u lot!). Whilst it takes many an hour to trawl through every word, the overview can be condensed as follows:
The fleet is now 40 years old and still going strong, but they are gradually being taken to RAF St. (Welsh Airfield) to be “reduced to spares”; once they are gone, they are gone.
Solution: refurbish, upgrade and rebuild. Nimrod has received this treatment: fortunately someone realised that there was no suitable replacement for it and stored MR2s were completely redesigned and rebuilt – imminently about to enter RAF service as MR4s. The airframes used are even older and of a more antiquated design than the VC10. Whilst the Nimrod MR4 programme has encountered the usual delays and overspend, much was due to the nature of the project:
Looking at all the information I have seen, I am convinced that rebuilding the VC10 fleet is the most sensible and economic solution. The RAF already have the a/c, the infrastructure and the personnel; why scrap it all to only to replace it with something that will never be even half as effective in fulfilling Britain’s vital AAR requirement. It would be like scrapping all ministerial Jaguars and replacing them with Minis – not up to the job! VC10s were built to last and they have – a fleet upgrade would solve the problem for the next 40 years. It must be done soon though, as one-by-one, they are ending up in the back of the scrap-man’s lorry. Not one airforceman/woman involved with AAR wants to see the VC10 go as they know, more than anyone, just how good they are.
I would be grateful for your reply.
Yours,
(saracenman)
tonge in cheek in places but basically the truth! any comments?
probablybut did similar when last comet canopus (@ secret wilts base) looked as if it would be auctioned off to a yank home - 
sent letters to pm, culture sec, my mp, min def, etc. etc.
comet withdrawn from auction the day before - now at brunt!
similar letters suggesting retiring concordes for s.sonic AAR actually got reply from lab-coat-wearing boffin somewhere, answering all my points in detail!
uk still hanging on to democracy - just!
comments???????????
Dear Sir,
I am very concerned about the future of the RAF’s tanker fleet. After much investigation, it appears that the current fleet of VC10 aircraft (a/c) are due to retire within the next few years. Their proposed replacements will be civil airliners with air-to-air refuelling (AAR) capability.
The VC10 is an outstanding a/c for its AAR purpose and has given 40 years venerable service. My internet research has revealed some startling information, particularly from the ‘horse’s mouth’ – a forum dedicated to the views and thoughts of all those directly associated with operating the VC10 fleet (u lot!). Whilst it takes many an hour to trawl through every word, the overview can be condensed as follows:
- VC10 can maintain a higher airspeed than any other current a/c – it always has an excess of power enabling much more efficient AAR (bear in mind a tanker needs to keep pace with its receiver a/c – Tornado/Typhoon/JSF etc.)
- VC10 can refuel 3 a/c simultaneously – (RAF Tristar fleet: 2 at a time and USAF tankers: only 1!)
- The basic VC10 design, with high-mounted rear engines produces zero turbulence for the receiving a/c – AAR is difficult at the best of times, let alone being thrown around by the wash of the wing-mounted engines of other AAR a/c. Accidents refuelling from VC10s are very very rare, not so with other a/c types.
- RAF Tristar a/c are limited to which airfields can accept them due to runway length. This is true of all other a/c types (due to engines mounted on the wings, flap and slat areas are reduced). VC10 was designed from the outset to operate into and out of very short airstrips – it can land on and take-off from the proverbial postage stamp. This will not be a problem in the future as long as the next war is fought somewhere near to runways that are long enough; should the ‘warmonger’ be less considerate, VC10 could be deployed with little difficulty.
- Further, VC10 was designed to be very rugged – intended to operate to and from airstrips with a very poor surface. No existing a/c matches it in this respect. In short it, can operate from almost anywhere in the world. This would certainly not be true of ANY proposed successor a/c.
The fleet is now 40 years old and still going strong, but they are gradually being taken to RAF St. (Welsh Airfield) to be “reduced to spares”; once they are gone, they are gone.
Solution: refurbish, upgrade and rebuild. Nimrod has received this treatment: fortunately someone realised that there was no suitable replacement for it and stored MR2s were completely redesigned and rebuilt – imminently about to enter RAF service as MR4s. The airframes used are even older and of a more antiquated design than the VC10. Whilst the Nimrod MR4 programme has encountered the usual delays and overspend, much was due to the nature of the project:
- Replacing Nimrod’s engines with up-to-date designs meant a completely new wing (the engines are buried inside the wing). VC10 engines “stick out the back” by themselves, nowhere near the wing – bolt new, quieter and more efficient ones on, job done!
- Nimrod is a flying computer designed to search and find things – MR4 is THE most advanced a/c in the sky; that’s its job. VC10 doesn’t need to find missiles, tanks or submarines; all it does is fly in a straight line with a “hose hanging out the back”! It is not a ‘complex’ a/c.
Looking at all the information I have seen, I am convinced that rebuilding the VC10 fleet is the most sensible and economic solution. The RAF already have the a/c, the infrastructure and the personnel; why scrap it all to only to replace it with something that will never be even half as effective in fulfilling Britain’s vital AAR requirement. It would be like scrapping all ministerial Jaguars and replacing them with Minis – not up to the job! VC10s were built to last and they have – a fleet upgrade would solve the problem for the next 40 years. It must be done soon though, as one-by-one, they are ending up in the back of the scrap-man’s lorry. Not one airforceman/woman involved with AAR wants to see the VC10 go as they know, more than anyone, just how good they are.
I would be grateful for your reply.
Yours,
(saracenman)
tonge in cheek in places but basically the truth! any comments?
probably
but did similar when last comet canopus (@ secret wilts base) looked as if it would be auctioned off to a yank home - sent letters to pm, culture sec, my mp, min def, etc. etc.comet withdrawn from auction the day before - now at brunt!
similar letters suggesting retiring concordes for s.sonic AAR actually got reply from lab-coat-wearing boffin somewhere, answering all my points in detail!
uk still hanging on to democracy - just!
comments???????????
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too long.
You could have mentioned the planned life of the USAF equivalent of the VC10. The KC135 may be in service to 2040 although competition momentum may allow its earlier retirement.
"That will require that the youngest KC-135Rs of today will still have to fly missions 30 years from now. They will be nearly 80 years old."
Although there is a programme to replace the VC10 we cannot say that it has any momentum. Also we do not have the economic muscle to hustle sufficient tankers into service.
Your proposal to re-engine would seem a good one it that was the limiting factor.
You could have mentioned the planned life of the USAF equivalent of the VC10. The KC135 may be in service to 2040 although competition momentum may allow its earlier retirement.
"That will require that the youngest KC-135Rs of today will still have to fly missions 30 years from now. They will be nearly 80 years old."
Although there is a programme to replace the VC10 we cannot say that it has any momentum. Also we do not have the economic muscle to hustle sufficient tankers into service.
Your proposal to re-engine would seem a good one it that was the limiting factor.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I found this:
Best Answer - Chosen By Voters
The pylon mounted engine is much better. Remember also the 727's MD-80's etc. don't use hi-bypass turbofans.
With wing-mounted:
*Weight balance works out better with the engine weight near CG
*Catastrophic engine failure is much easier to manage (although never a pretty thing) because of "Fuse pins" that allow a violent engine to simply depart the plane versus what happened to United 232 in Sioux city.
*Easier maintenance access
*Asymmetrical thrust can be used which is more efficient than the rudder
*Fuel is closer to the engines (less plumbing)
Best Answer - Chosen By Voters
The pylon mounted engine is much better. Remember also the 727's MD-80's etc. don't use hi-bypass turbofans.
With wing-mounted:
*Weight balance works out better with the engine weight near CG
*Catastrophic engine failure is much easier to manage (although never a pretty thing) because of "Fuse pins" that allow a violent engine to simply depart the plane versus what happened to United 232 in Sioux city.
*Easier maintenance access
*Asymmetrical thrust can be used which is more efficient than the rudder
*Fuel is closer to the engines (less plumbing)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N51 09".94 W001 45".51
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cracking letter but
That is a cracking letter. Especially the end where you saved the last remaining airworthy comet from a terrible fate, being looked after serviced and FLOWN !!!! for all to see. Luckily you stepped in and had it sent to rot and never fly again. Phew that was close thank you so much from all of us that loved the old girl
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope you get a reply, but with incorrect statements such as:......
Surely it's the other way round?
Really? How does it do that then? (I think you're getting mixed up with the fact that it has 2 HDUs for redundancy.)
Hmm.... I take it you've never seen a C130K HF aerial (or what's left of it) after some AAR sorties?
...... I doubt the minister would be inclined to take your argument seriously.
bear in mind a tanker needs to keep pace with its receiver a/c –
RAF Tristar fleet: 2 at a time
The basic VC10 design, with high-mounted rear engines produces zero turbulence for the receiving a/c
...... I doubt the minister would be inclined to take your argument seriously.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige, Drayson has sorted out the Chinook fiasco? Eh? Standby on that one; Mk3's don't miraculously morph into Mk2's overnight. That decision has shafted the programme good and proper, and the misconception that these Chinnies will enter service any earlier than the projected Mk3 entry date is, IMHO, complete bolleaux!
There's lots to do, and few people appreciate the intricacies of it all, least of all the Govt, it would appear.
It's ok though, we've got some massively incompatible with the rest of the fleet Merlins, (causing the lovely fleet within fleet situation we all know and love) which need yet more spares we haven't got.
I appreciate they needed an eye-catching headline, and to be seen to be doing something - anything - for the commanders on the ground, but believe me, the situation has yet to be 'sorted'.
Nothing personal BTW, just thought I'd bung in my 2p.
Cheers.
There's lots to do, and few people appreciate the intricacies of it all, least of all the Govt, it would appear.
It's ok though, we've got some massively incompatible with the rest of the fleet Merlins, (causing the lovely fleet within fleet situation we all know and love) which need yet more spares we haven't got.
I appreciate they needed an eye-catching headline, and to be seen to be doing something - anything - for the commanders on the ground, but believe me, the situation has yet to be 'sorted'.
Nothing personal BTW, just thought I'd bung in my 2p.
Cheers.
saracenman, virtually all of that letter is utter nonsense. Sorry, but that's the brutal truth.
However, no-one can deny your enthusiasm. Had the rear-engined BAC-311 ever been built, it would probably have made as good a tanker as the A310MRTT.
Now - what's this really barking mad idea a little bird whispered in my ear recently about attempting to remove 2 Mk17 HDUs from utterly shagged-out K4s and install them in 2 modified VC10C1Ks....?? Someone please tell me that's a wind-up......it is, isn't it?
However, no-one can deny your enthusiasm. Had the rear-engined BAC-311 ever been built, it would probably have made as good a tanker as the A310MRTT.
Now - what's this really barking mad idea a little bird whispered in my ear recently about attempting to remove 2 Mk17 HDUs from utterly shagged-out K4s and install them in 2 modified VC10C1Ks....?? Someone please tell me that's a wind-up......it is, isn't it?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WEST
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm not a magician!
loadsa people campagned for it canopus to stay in uk - better here than accross the pond. my letter was prob 1 outta 1,000,000,000,000,000!got to know one of the pointy end chaps a bit - EVERYONE sad to see it stuck on tarmac but the new corp-look dera/Q/whatever they are called now thought that a 'silly old comet' was not the image best to woo foreign business! f***ing bean-counters! - it only had a couple k hrs on the clock and i was at BD watching dep & arr of last sortie - 'catseyes' cunningham on board. chatted with him after - spot on! i was chuffed to bits - rather meet 1 like him in my life than all the worlds footballers put together! when i aksed 'my contact' if he'd let cunningham 'have a go' the reply was "no no he's far too old!" said with a broad grin and exagerated wink!
ACE! first man to fly the comet and very nearly the last.
i'd love to see the puss in the sky again - praps 558s imminent flight has paved the way???????
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WEST
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nonsense...
i know, but does anyone in w.hall ever know whats really going on? fatique/spares etc...granted but nimrod mr4 is a far bigger project than vc would be. granted engines would be the easy bit but tis feasable tho'
anyway, if u don't ask u don't get!
anyway, if u don't ask u don't get!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WEST
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry mystic meg, got me nums mixed up!
...general drift of letter has to be that vc is dogs nads. politicians don't seem to see things in the same way as others do - wonder why?
prob find parl. committee member is a dir. of airbus!
politicians never get to see just how much front line kit is held together with black tape! £££s please - it's ours anyway!
prob find parl. committee member is a dir. of airbus!
politicians never get to see just how much front line kit is held together with black tape! £££s please - it's ours anyway!
Saracenman - put the bottle down, take your medication and go to bed......
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N51 09".94 W001 45".51
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U sure
You are very badly informed saracen. Dera/qinetiq wasnt even invented 10 years ago when the comet was taken from here it was the mods decision. She had about 8000 hrs when she left and was perfectly airworthy. Now she is too rotten to do anything struggling to even taxi i heard. I would rather see what ever is left of our aviation heritage airborne in the states or south africa than rotting on the ground turning to scrap here ! I spent many happy hours on Canopus she was built to fly
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WEST
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
point taken!
yep, i know it was pre "dera" but what were the real reasons (the 'old-fasioned image' was the only one i heard at the time) the mod retired her? everyone i spoke to at BD at the time thought it mad. led to believe that spares/maintainence weren't issue (nimrod?) so WHY?
quite agree re flying vs. rotting but rumour at time was US buyer looked to stick her on a pole in vegas!
followed news closely after she was withdrawn from philips auction the day before and seem to remeber that she was 'donated to DH hatfield' (?) and would be hangered and loved and plans for continued flight. kinda missed the next news updates and next thing i knew was she was at brunt. what happend?
my part in campaign clearly backfired i know
but at the time it was unthinkable that the LAST example of the WORLDS FIRST jetliner should end up on a stick - hence furious writing.
heritage - quite agree: always seems to be an up-hill sruggle in UK. so many priceless icons seem to get willfully destroyed by determined people - look whats happened recently at cosford. nothing new (remember last vulcan B1 cut up!)
would be nice to save everything but i know that's unworkable. even so there are some things which, in historic building terms, would be classed as grade 1. comet/vulc/victor/lanc/welly/vc10/conc...the list goes on. what's going on? 558s learning curve with 'complex' a/c might help future schemes?
imagine national outcry if BBMF met with gas-axe! why not others?
if only i had a long sharp stick...
quite agree re flying vs. rotting but rumour at time was US buyer looked to stick her on a pole in vegas!
followed news closely after she was withdrawn from philips auction the day before and seem to remeber that she was 'donated to DH hatfield' (?) and would be hangered and loved and plans for continued flight. kinda missed the next news updates and next thing i knew was she was at brunt. what happend?
my part in campaign clearly backfired i know
but at the time it was unthinkable that the LAST example of the WORLDS FIRST jetliner should end up on a stick - hence furious writing.heritage - quite agree: always seems to be an up-hill sruggle in UK. so many priceless icons seem to get willfully destroyed by determined people - look whats happened recently at cosford. nothing new (remember last vulcan B1 cut up!)
would be nice to save everything but i know that's unworkable. even so there are some things which, in historic building terms, would be classed as grade 1. comet/vulc/victor/lanc/welly/vc10/conc...the list goes on. what's going on? 558s learning curve with 'complex' a/c might help future schemes?
imagine national outcry if BBMF met with gas-axe! why not others?
if only i had a long sharp stick...