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 27th Mar 2008, 16:54
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In the Doghouse...
Posts: 89
I think that's rather possible, there are numerous airlines around the world who have managed to achieve the same with considerably larger fleets of A330s which are flying more hours the day under heavier strain.

Put simply an A330-200 will not cost 1 billion over 25 years...
tonyosborne is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 16:58
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,218
tonyosborne,

Put simply and totally wrongly!

It's NOT for 14 aircraft, it's for total provision of the fleet and it's entire operation and support for 27 years. They are not airliners and will not be flying an airline operation when operated by the RAF so the comparison is meaningless. They are going to be fully certified military tanker transports.

Don't get me wrong, I think a PFI for this capability is a nonsense but we just do not have the cash up front now.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 17:14
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
pr00ne,

Completely agree that PFI is a scandal for this - but would take a small amount of issue with your comment,

"but we just do not have the cash up front now".

Surely what you mean is:

"The Government has chosen not to fund this as a conventional procurement because it wants to spend money in other areas, and therefore is prepared to pay a higher through life cost for a more limited capability"

Or more bluntly

"We're getting a PFI deal because the Government is not interested in recapitalising defence as it has done with the NHS"

Yes? No?

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 17:16
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,218
Squirrel 41,


Did you listen to the last budget?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 17:17
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Am I missing something? The USAF are getting 179 Aircraft provided by Airbus for 20bn we are getting 14 from the self same company for 13bn. I understand that they are being procured in different ways, but even then ... that must be a hell of a lot of 'support' we are getting.
8-15fromOdium is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 17:22
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,218
8-15fromOdium,

Yes, you are missing oodles and oodles!

The USAF are buying 179 aircraft for 20bn, the RAF are acquiring a total capability for 27 years for 13bn.

The USAF will have to spend a fortune on supporting that fleet for the next 27 years which will add hugely to that 20bn total, the RAF will not.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 17:38
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In the Doghouse...
Posts: 89
No, they will be flying significantly less than airliners, and the infrastructure, simulators, spares, training, maintenance, ground support equipment, fleet management and flight operations support, design and certification that you previously mention just doesn't add up in terms of cost.

This aircraft is now a virtually off-the-shelf product with the Aussie purchase and the KC-45 programme, a bare minimum of design and certification should be required.
tonyosborne is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 17:43
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,218
tonyosbourne,


...................over 27 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pr00ne is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 19:19
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bogota, Colombia (Sometimes Langley, Va)
Posts: 26
Another kick in the teeth for the UK military. How much infrastructure work has been done at BZN under CATARA? How are the civilians who run the ops side of things going to integrate? How much do we get charged extra if 6 Typhoons pitch up on a towline instead of the fragged 4?

PFI = short sighted nonsense, as someone previously mentioned the Chief of the RAAF summed it up.....utter rubbish.
VARIABLE_KNIFE is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 19:22
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,454
Some good news from the MOD. A PFI may not be ideal, the aircraft may be too few in number, but at least FSTA is on the horizon.

13 billion deal for new Tanker Aircraft signed
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 19:33
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Exclamation

*****e,

Ok, I get it, this is to pay for the next 27 years. But in their press release, AirTanker state that they're raising 2.5 bn quid - which implies a lot of service if the total cost to UK taxpayers is 13bn (or c. 0.5bn / pa).

It may be that the numbers add up - I don't know, I've not seen them; but an equally important point to the value for money (vfm) one is this: what happens if the PFI provider starts losing money? It does happen, and as we saw with the Tube PPP / PFI fiasco, if they lose enough money, then the private sector walks away, leaving the state to take over if the service is sufficiently important. And an RAF without AAR is capable of doing....?

So in effect, we've written the classic "heads you win, tails I lose" contract with the private sector, which in the case that they lose money we still pick up the tab and under every other scenario, they make a profit.

Why?

Simply because this government - freely elected, and in power to make these choices - has decided not to find the capital to purchase these mission-critical assets.

And it's that that I have a problem with....

S41

PS, the last budget was the chickens of Brown + Balls' profligacy in a favourable economic climate since about 1999 coming home to roost. See "The Economist", passim.

None of which should have any impact on FSTA as it should've been ordered years ago when, ooh look, there was plenty of cash at HMT.

[Edited for spollink and PS]
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 19:37
  #72 (permalink)  

Walkabout Specialist
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The other side of the Black Stump
Age: 73
Posts: 192
One thing for sure ,we can play all day with the figures etc.

Leasing should not be an option at all, one would have thought we had learnt a few things with the leasing of the C17.

At least the RAAF got it right
polyglory is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 19:48
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
It's NOT for 14 aircraft, it's for total provision of the fleet and it's entire operation and support for 27 years.
pr00ne

I am intrigued by your interest in this, you aren't one of those "advising" the MOD are you. Sadly you are also wrong. It isn't a 27 year capability, it's at best 24 years and at worst a 20 year capability. The 27 years comprised 3 years of assessment, D&D, and work-up to the introduction to service. 4 years of transition with full fleet availability not until the 4th year and then 20 years of full service delivery.

Hat slowly frying in pan as we speak!!
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 20:05
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,218
Roland,

NO involvement on the MoD side I can assure you, and no direct involvement with the consortium.

27 years? The contract is pretty clear;

"London, 27th March 2008 - AirTanker and its Shareholders (Cobham, EADS, Rolls-Royce, Thales UK and VT Group) have TODAY signed a 27-year contract with the UK Ministry of Defence for the provision of an advanced Air to Air Refuelling and Air Transport capability for the Royal Air Force"

Squirel 41,

The 2.5bn is direct funding raised by the consortium, the 13bn is the amount the MoD will pay over the 27 year life of the contract for the provision of the service. They only pay for it when it is being used by the RAF on an as and when basis.

Of course, the fact that this is off balance sheet debt for the Government is only a MINOR consideration.....................
pr00ne is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 20:16
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 103
Contract start dates can always be back-dated...
f4aviation is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 21:17
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 157
Never mind all the money hullabaloo, what colour are the 'commercial' jets gonna be painted? Grey or in the house colours of a certain charter broker down Gatwick way? I suppose a good IFE fit is not going to be an option?
rolandpull is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 21:25
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Depsite my anger with the way this has been funded, I should say that I'm very pleased we're finally going to get the tankers (too expensive, not KC-45A blah blah) but a step forward for the crews and maintainers of 101.

pr00ne

You very eloquently make my point.

13bn pounds less 2.5bn pounds borrowed = 10.5 bn pounds.

For these 10.5bn pounds over 20 or 27 years (suitably discounted so actually less, but without the payment profile impossible to provide an npv figure) the RAF is paying for "services" - presumably second and thrid line maintenance (I'm assuming that first line is light blue?), sim training and other "stuff". Within this other "stuff" is interest on the consortium's debt and profit.

This leads to a number of comments:

(i) no-one in the UK can borrow as cheaply as HMG on balance sheet and therefore we're over-paying for Airtanker's debt, and

(ii) is 10.5bn quid for "stuff" actually value for money?

(iii) How will we ever know?

(iv) How much profit will Airtanker make? Is it actually getting the best price for the kit, or, like the members of the Metronet consortium that made such a shambles of the tube - and reneged on the contract when it couldn't make any money, speaking volumes about the "risk transfer" to the private sector - charging the PFI company top-whack for their individual bit?

Again, doubtless, we'll never know. (Commercial in confidence, etc etc)

(v) BTW, does anyone know who's liable for replacing on in the event that it gets pranged, mortared at a FOB or (god forbid) crashes? Can't see it being Airtanker somehow....

And pr00ne - pls check PMs

All the best,

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 22:04
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Airtanker website Timeline

Airtanker have updated their web site to reflect the news of a contract signature. Interesting to see that the in service date of 2011 is for the AT element and we wont get any tanking out of them until at least 2014!

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/business-timeline.htm
Cannonfodder is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 22:13
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
So, on that timescale it's just possible that the last VC-10s may make it to Nov 2015 - and therefore score a VC-10 "50" in RAF service.*

*If Wikipedia is right that the first C1 was delivered on 26 Nov 65, and we're prepared to honour date of test flying rather than operations, (Dec 66 according to Wiki).

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 12:11
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The dark side...
Posts: 94
FSTA Numberplate?

Any thoughts on what the Sqn number will be? A continuation as 101 or something else?
Dr Schlong 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.