Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

FT - New Tankers on the never never

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

FT - New Tankers on the never never

Old 13th Mar 2008, 11:34
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Transall, thanks

Forgive me for being picky, but to demonstrate that the PFI (Poms are Fing Idiots, according to the RAAF CAS [allegedly]) is rubbish value for money, we need to show that the whole life costs of the RAF owning 14 x KC-45 is less than 27bn. (Figures may need a bit of fudge of RR engines vs GE ones, but there's unlikely to be too much in it, as Airbus seems to sell A330s with RR and GE engines, and if it were very one sided, I assume that they - and the airlines - wouldn't bother.)

If this can be done, then the PFI will fail the Government's public sector comparator and by its' own rules, will be compelled to opt for the KC-45.

Unless they wanted to be accused of spin and hypocrisy, of course....

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 12:26
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,217
Where the actual aircraft come from in this contract is down to the winning consortium and not the MoD.
Air Tanker will own the actual assets so it is in their interests to source the airframes in the cheapest possible manner thus maximising profit.
As the airframe provider in the deal it will be EADS who will be responsible for this sourcing.

There has been much talk about a mix of new build and second hand airframes, well good luck in finding second hand A330 aircraft, they are like rocking horse teeth! The fleet will need to be standardised so a mix is, in my view, most unlikely.

Now, I am not sure what the US final assembly line completion dates are like but surely it will be nothing but economical good sense for EADS (NOT the MoD for whom economical good sense seems to be on a par with science fiction) to maximise the throughput of the US assembly line and put an additional 14 non boom equipped airframes through?

There will be no pain for EADS or it's Airbus subsidiary as it just means final assembly in Mobile as opposed to Toulouse.

Interesting to see if this is a possibility.

Pr00ne

BTW;
WHAT is this US obsession with all Airbus products being French? The French make the nose sections for all and bolt some of the things together, they are as much British or German as they are French with the actual content of most, if they are fitted with RR engines, being over 60% British.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 12:33
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 4
Squirrel 41

The reality is that we would only need to cost 9 x FSTA airframes, as the remaining 5 airframes are on long lease with industry on 30 days recall for major operations. As these 5 ac are planned for contingency use on AT rather than AAR tasks, DSCOM could just hire passenger ac from the civilian market. Admittedly civilian ac would not be equipped with DAS, but we could always cross deck the pax on to C130s for the last leg if the threat required it.

Of course, if we decided not to put a FSTA aircraft in the Falklands to fly a few hundred hours per year tanking, but instead used an A400 to tank the FJs then we would only need 8 x FSTA!! How can that cost 27Bn?

Last edited by Severus; 13th Mar 2008 at 13:14.
Severus is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 13:55
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Pr00ne, Servus

Many thanks for your thoughts. It is clearly rght that the MoD couldn't grasp economics if they're lives depended on it. And it woud make sense to have single design, but I understood that FSTA is only going to provide 2 point tanking, with no cargo door, no UAARSI refueling receptacle, strengthened floor and cargo handling system of the KC-45A (let alone the boom).

So better phrased, how much extra would it cost HMG to have the KC-45A design (costs with / without boom most helpful) with RR engines rather than pax airliner wiht 2 x pods? Becuase only with information could you see whether the marginal cost of the additional capabilty was good or bad value for money. I suspect that it could be marginal, and though we only operate C-17s, E-3D and KC-45s with the boom, we could be in a position ot b much more flexible on coalition ops with those that prefer the boom.

Just my 0.02,

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 14:17
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Hmmm

A few bits of dangerous misinformation starting to appear.

As these 5 ac are planned for contingency use on AT rather than AAR tasks
Incorrect. FSTA fleet sizing is/was always based on the pure AAR task, as in Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. AT was never allowed to be a driver for FSTA fleet sizing, with the exception of a number of "core" AT tasks.

Regrettably there was always an erroneous assumption that "AT can always be chartered" - Oh how we laughed and how we have been proved right!! Any assumption that 5 ac are for contingency AT shows a worrying lack of understanding of the KURs (if that's what they are still called).

Squirrel

Regrettably you are partially correct. A number of FSTA will be equipped with centreline refuelling capability - there are still a number of receivers out there that require it - C130, A400, E3, R1 and MRA4(?).

There wil be no cargo door as AT was never a driver for FSTA and of course there are very few airlines out there that want this capability on their bucket and spade jets.

FSTA will not be able to refuel in flight though and a boom was not a UK requirement (Oh apart from the E3 and now the C17 - never saw that coming did we?!?!?)

Sadly Squirrel you can't really blame the MOD on this one, PFI was directed by the government. Every one knows that PFI is more expensive for the taxpayer in the long run but it solved a short term problem for the chancellor - oh and now it looks like it will becoming back to bite the new chancellor (and his boss) in the bum.

source the airframes in the cheapest possible manner thus maximising profit
Maximising "gainshare" surely, pr00ne
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 14:59
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 4
Roland,

You are right in that the original requirement for FSTA was based on AAR tasking, however it became apparent during the Assessment Phase that without the AT tasking the PFI was even more unaffordable than it is now. Therefore AT was included in scope of the project although the title was never changed for presentational reasons (HM Treasury might ask why we were permanently hiring pax ac as opposed to spot hiring pax lift), and the decision to settle on 9+5 ac was the result of modelling on the total AT and ARR requirement. Slightly more than 50% of the ac and 50% of the peacetime AFT requirement is now based on AT.

I also agree that charter can't always be hired direct to the final destination, but in recent years we have always managed to hire ac for as much of the route as we put out to the market. However, sometimes the boot is on the other foot; the Army couldn't understand why we in theatre were being resupplied by commercial freighters whilst 2 Gp refused to fly in a Tristar or VC10 prior to the fitting of LAIRCM!

Squirrel 41

For AT tasks the FSTA will be in the same as any commercial A330, i.e. all seats, and no cargo door or floor on the main deck. Despite the IPT for years trying to tell the world that DAC could be carried in the hold, it means we are taking a step backwards compared to the KC1.

Surely, new capability should improve on the old. Instead we will get an ac that can't move frt except for non-dangerous cargo in hold baggage bins, doesn't have the flexibility to undertake mixed pax/frt/AAR tasks, can't land at many of the airfields used by the VC10, is too large for many small pax moves, and with only 9 ac available to us daily the ac will be overstretched to meet the daily tasking.

End result for pax and frt tasks: pay more, get less!!
Severus is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 15:42
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,217
Squirrel,

Design is the responsibility of the contractor not MoD, they have to deliver a capability not a specific aeroplane type. If it is cheaper to take a non boom equipped KC-45 clone off the Mobile production line and use that to provide the basis for the 14 a/c fleet then I cannot see how that would cost the MoD anything additional.

As to the core fleet of 9 with 5 out on long term lease, I have yet to come across any airline who thinks that is a practical proposition, for them OR for the consortium. If the present circumstances do not comprise of surge conditions requiring the utilisaton of the entire fleet then I find it hard to concieve of just what would.


Gainshare? There has to BE a profit to your bottom line first beflore you can even consider sharing it with the customer.
Anyone like to place a bet on just how much 'gainshare' the MoD ever sees out of this partucular deal?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 16:31
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Severus

That is even more worrying....

Therefore AT was included in scope of the project... and the decision to settle on 9+5 ac was the result of modelling on the total AT and AAR requirement. Slightly more than 50% of the ac and 50% of the peacetime AFT requirement is now based on AT.
That is illogical. If the original requirement was to meet the DSG tasks and the number of aircraft required to meet the AAR requirement was 14 (actually it was more than that + 1 spare) and that only included core AT, how can the fleet sizing go down when more AT is brought into core?

So we need fewer aircraft to do more tasks at maximum concurrency?

Something stinks?
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 19:04
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MARS
Posts: 1,035
Following up an earlier comment.. GOLD is now at record levels! 6 O' clock news.
Widger is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 21:08
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,058
Oh bugger. There goes the American economy. Last time there was a situation like this (mahoosive spending to fund far-flung wars in the name of religion) I believe was the Ottoman Empire, and we know how that one went! Funny old thing the last time gold reached this price, it was because Nixon turned the US $ fiat to pay for the Vietnam war....

CNNFN were talking today about 2 medium to large US banks going under, together with another load of hedge funds... This is going to get interesting.

Ah well, a good time to be buying more C-130J's and C-17's no? Together with any other gucci pieces of kit. Shame Labour have pissed all the money up the wall on social welfare programmes that have created a generation of Chavs..

Oh, and we arent even half way through the credit crunch yet!!!

Pr00ne, you must be reet proud of the mess this government has got us in to, being a spokesman for the Noo Labour and all...

Last edited by VinRouge; 13th Mar 2008 at 21:31.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2008, 22:30
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 681
For anyone who missed it last time:

FSTA Update
harrogate is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2008, 10:06
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 774
Biggest PFI deal finally takes off

The Financial Times - 22 Mar 08

Ministers plan to place a contract with the AirTanker consortium next week, according to defence sources, kick-starting a deal worth about 13bn over 27 years. It follows the expected completion of a finance package, more than four years after the EADS-led consortium was selected as preferred bidder.
At last!
LFFC is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2008, 11:54
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Based on the assumption that this deal is finalised by the end March 2008, what is the forecast ISD date for the 1st Airframe.


Based on the assumption that this deal is finalised by the end March 2008, what is the forecast date for the 1st excuse of a programme slippage and why the ISD date will slip?
mary_hinge is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 22:45
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Age: 41
Posts: 70
Question

No rumours of when this week then?
SidHolding is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2008, 09:43
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 774
RAF in private deal for mid-air tankers

RAF in private deal for mid-air tankers - The Times Wed 26 Mar 08

The Ministry of Defence will announce the largest private finance initiative (PFI) so far tomorrow with a 13 billion deal to buy a new fleet of air-refuelling tankers
Shame about the picture!
LFFC is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2008, 17:02
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Well, that's pretty good news in the sense that the capability may appear but all of the previous comments appear to remain valid. However, there's some good news about PFI - when they don't work, you can buy them out - as El Ken's Transport for London did a week or so ago: http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4792

So there's some hope that we can bring them in house.... maybe....

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 15:32
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 49
Posts: 715
Is this the announcement we've been holding our breaths for:

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/press%20r...ease-27308.doc

Yay etc
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 16:22
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Frying pan and hat for one please!!

I still think 14 is rather a small number given current ops, but it's better than having to keep the old 10s running on for another 10 years.


Although I was looking forward to an invite to the 50th anniversary dining-in.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 16:32
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In the Doghouse...
Posts: 89
An impressively absurd rip-off if I ever saw one. How can Airtanker and the MoD come up with a figure of 13 billion for 14 aircraft, it's just beyond stupidity...
tonyosborne is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 16:38
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,217
tonyosborne,

It's for 14 aircraft, new build hangars and infrastructure, simulators, spares, training, maintenance, ground support equipment, fleet management and flight operations support, design and certification over 27 years.

You trying doing that for less.............................
pr00ne is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.