RAF A330s
Plumbum Pendular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF A330s
See in FI this week that the RAF are going to be getting some shiny new A330s some of which will be given to airlines to use, that can then be put back into military use in 5 days.
I had heard this rumour some time ago.
Anybody know which airlines are going to be operating these A330s?
I had heard this rumour some time ago.
Anybody know which airlines are going to be operating these A330s?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Au contraire....
£13 billion deal for new Tanker Aircraft signed27/03/2008A fleet of new Air Transport and Refuelling Airbus A330-200s will replace the RAF's TriStar and VC-10 aircraft under a £13 billion Private Finance Initiative deal signed today, Thursday 27 March 2008.
A computer generated image of the A330-200 Airbus in flight [Copyright: AirTanker 2008]The deal with AirTanker Ltd, which was announced by Baroness Taylor, the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, expects to create up to 600 jobs at AirTanker Ltd, and will safeguard up to 3,000 jobs directly at British sites, with thousands more sustained indirectly.
The aircraft – which will be owned by AirTanker under the terms of the deal, but fly in RAF 'colours' – will undertake air-to-air refuelling and passenger air transport tasks. The aircraft are expected to enter service around 2011, to serve for three decades.
Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Baroness Taylor, said:
"This deal represents great news for the Royal Air Force and great news for British industry and jobs. The A330s will provide a state-of-the-art air-to-air tanker and passenger aircraft supporting operations around the world and delivering British forces to operational theatres.
"Achieving a satisfactory outcome to this complex, high value, PFI deal has been challenging, particularly given the factors currently affecting the financial markets. I congratulate all those involved in securing this cost effective deal."
Commenting on the announcement, Phil Blundell, CEO of AirTanker, said:"This is a major step forward for the MOD and AirTanker. The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme provides the MOD and RAF with state-of-the-art transport and refuelling equipment, which represents a step-change in performance. The Airbus A330 FSTA fleet will deliver unrivalled levels of capability, reliability, flexibility and economy to the UK Armed Forces. We are looking forward hugely to working with the MOD to put in place the new fleet and service."
Comparison chart of the new A330-200 Airbus and the VC10 K3 [Copyright: AirTanker 2008]Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff, said:"This is a very welcome announcement. Air-to-air refuelling and strategic airlift are fundamental to the UK's expeditionary capability and the Future Tanker is a crucial element of that capability. The A330-200 is an extremely versatile aircraft, which is ideally suited to our requirements, and I look forward both to the aircraft's introduction in 2011, and the significant private investment in the infrastructure at RAF Brize Norton. Overall, this is excellent news for the RAF and for the UK's Armed Forces."
Since June 2007 the Department has been working with AirTanker to raise the necessary private sector funding. Despite the current turbulence in the world's financial markets, AirTanker has successfully secured the necessary funding.The FSTA fleet will customarily carry a minimum of 80 tonnes (100,000 litres) of aviation fuel per aircraft roughly equivalent to the capacity of 2,500 Mini Cooper petrol tanks (at 40 litres each).
The total fuel dispensing rate from the aircraft is approximately 5,000 litres/min or about 80 litres per second. The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as an F1 pit stop. Using all three refuelling points, you could fill 125 Mini Coopers a minute – more than two a second.
I'm absolutely certain that the A330 is the best tanker for the job. PFI financing though? Bonkers.
As for leasing the aeroplanes to airline operators: it may have been a gimmick to persuade people that the cost can be constrained and thus greater value for money found in the project, for just a second though, lets think about it.
1. You are offered an aeroplane which is not entirely compatible with the rest of your fleet. Weights may be significantly heavier, fuel burn, payload potential, range, etc., may all be adversely affected.
2. What of the cabin fit? Most A330s in use in the UK have superbly fitted cabins, with extensive IFE suites. Pull that in and out in 5 days? Are the wing mounted pods going to stay in place? I surely hope not, it will take your favourite handling agent in XXXX just a moment to knock one off with the bowser/steps/baggage trolleys/catering trucks as it is not the same as the regular 'plane.
3. What guarantee will there be that as an operator you have the aeroplane when you need it. HMG picks a fight with someone, and hey presto! you have to surrender that lift capacity which you had banked on and indeed sold ahead for the next few months. It will be one heck of a contract to write, accept, sign up to. Sounds like you'll get 5 days notice that your LGW-XXX is now cancelled 'cause your 'plane is pumping gas.
4. What rates will you be charged/pay for the use of said tanker in a pax config? Will it be les than the going rate in the market for a similar type. If it is, then even I as a mere airline pilot could make a darned good case for anti-competitive practices, along the lines of state-sponsored assets being made available to certain customers putting them in an advantageous position in relation to thier competitors.
Is this a practical idea? I think not. A typically ill-informed plan by the present government which will result in only one thing: A ton of money heading to the lawyers who get involved.
Is it just a coincidence that so many ministers in HMG are ex-lawyers?
The nation needs a military force which is well-equipped, and capable. This will not facilitate it.
BSD.
As for leasing the aeroplanes to airline operators: it may have been a gimmick to persuade people that the cost can be constrained and thus greater value for money found in the project, for just a second though, lets think about it.
1. You are offered an aeroplane which is not entirely compatible with the rest of your fleet. Weights may be significantly heavier, fuel burn, payload potential, range, etc., may all be adversely affected.
2. What of the cabin fit? Most A330s in use in the UK have superbly fitted cabins, with extensive IFE suites. Pull that in and out in 5 days? Are the wing mounted pods going to stay in place? I surely hope not, it will take your favourite handling agent in XXXX just a moment to knock one off with the bowser/steps/baggage trolleys/catering trucks as it is not the same as the regular 'plane.
3. What guarantee will there be that as an operator you have the aeroplane when you need it. HMG picks a fight with someone, and hey presto! you have to surrender that lift capacity which you had banked on and indeed sold ahead for the next few months. It will be one heck of a contract to write, accept, sign up to. Sounds like you'll get 5 days notice that your LGW-XXX is now cancelled 'cause your 'plane is pumping gas.
4. What rates will you be charged/pay for the use of said tanker in a pax config? Will it be les than the going rate in the market for a similar type. If it is, then even I as a mere airline pilot could make a darned good case for anti-competitive practices, along the lines of state-sponsored assets being made available to certain customers putting them in an advantageous position in relation to thier competitors.
Is this a practical idea? I think not. A typically ill-informed plan by the present government which will result in only one thing: A ton of money heading to the lawyers who get involved.
Is it just a coincidence that so many ministers in HMG are ex-lawyers?
The nation needs a military force which is well-equipped, and capable. This will not facilitate it.
BSD.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mil Transport Ops makes sense. Apart from the refuelling kit the tanker version will also need military IFF/SIF, UHF, possibly night vision kit even if only external for the receivers, maybe a countermeasures suite.
Then you may find some airports closed to military aircraft even if the aircraft was full of tourists.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this mean that RAF personnel posted onto these aircraft will be required to gain an EASA Pt66 B1/2 licence, in order to sign the aircraft off as serviceable? Currently the RAF and Civair operate very differently, but surely complete commonality will be required if the jets are to be seamlessly handed back to the airlines.
Who would be paying for that to happen, and what retention problems would that cause within the Engineering branches of the RAF. Work as a Licenced Sgt/Chf Tech on £35k, or as a A330 Type rated Licenced engineer in Civvy street on £50+k?
Flipflopman
Who would be paying for that to happen, and what retention problems would that cause within the Engineering branches of the RAF. Work as a Licenced Sgt/Chf Tech on £35k, or as a A330 Type rated Licenced engineer in Civvy street on £50+k?
Flipflopman
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The FSTA fleet will customarily carry a minimum of 80 tonnes (100,000 litres) of aviation fuel per aircraft roughly equivalent to the capacity of 2,500 Mini Cooper petrol tanks (at 40 litres each).
The total fuel dispensing rate from the aircraft is approximately 5,000 litres/min or about 80 litres per second. The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as an F1 pit stop. Using all three refuelling points, you could fill 125 Mini Coopers a minute – more than two a second.
The total fuel dispensing rate from the aircraft is approximately 5,000 litres/min or about 80 litres per second. The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as an F1 pit stop. Using all three refuelling points, you could fill 125 Mini Coopers a minute – more than two a second.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flipflop
The last time I saw a presentation on this, and it was a while ago, that had all had been very carefully thought through. There was certainly an intention to maintain them to meet all of the civvy requirements. One of the main priorities seemed to be to avoid the award of licences etc to people who would then jump ship.
Sorry
S_H
The last time I saw a presentation on this, and it was a while ago, that had all had been very carefully thought through. There was certainly an intention to maintain them to meet all of the civvy requirements. One of the main priorities seemed to be to avoid the award of licences etc to people who would then jump ship.
Sorry
S_H
With 2000hrs P2 on civilian VC10s, it will be a very sad day for me to see the “Ten” grounded, but the A330 should be a worthy replacement. [Perhaps the B777 would be even better, but it’s not available, has non-British wings, and is probably just too large.]
The deal for the purchase, however, sounds to be the kind of political fudge for which this Administration is already famous. We continue increasingly to over-commit our armed forces, while trying to avoid spending money on core equipment. I’m sure generations of crews would agree that it is a mark of the quality of the airframe, and the integrity of its 1962-technology systems, that the VC10 has − touch wood − managed to serve in the RAF without major incident (if memory serves) for over 40 years, many of them in at least two rôles.
Now that there is no alternative but to replace them, the Government wants to do it on a shoe-string, while continuing to pour your money and mine into a defunct bank. Given the choice, I would rather donate less than £100 of tax to this purchase than another penny into Northern Rock.
Moving on, can someone tell us non-RAF types whether the existing VC10 tankers are used also as transports, and how long it takes to re-configure them for a transport mission? The idea of an airline using such an aeroplane to fly fare-paying passengers sounds totally off the wall. For a start, the security aspects would surely be a nightmare?
The deal for the purchase, however, sounds to be the kind of political fudge for which this Administration is already famous. We continue increasingly to over-commit our armed forces, while trying to avoid spending money on core equipment. I’m sure generations of crews would agree that it is a mark of the quality of the airframe, and the integrity of its 1962-technology systems, that the VC10 has − touch wood − managed to serve in the RAF without major incident (if memory serves) for over 40 years, many of them in at least two rôles.
Now that there is no alternative but to replace them, the Government wants to do it on a shoe-string, while continuing to pour your money and mine into a defunct bank. Given the choice, I would rather donate less than £100 of tax to this purchase than another penny into Northern Rock.
Moving on, can someone tell us non-RAF types whether the existing VC10 tankers are used also as transports, and how long it takes to re-configure them for a transport mission? The idea of an airline using such an aeroplane to fly fare-paying passengers sounds totally off the wall. For a start, the security aspects would surely be a nightmare?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S_H,
Fear not, I have already 'jumped ship' as it were, so this has no direct bearing upon myself, I am just curious as to how this set up will be implemented.
In pure terms, the RAF signatures for work, although satisfactory for military operation, will mean absolutely nothing to the CAA, and therefore ALL work on an aircraft destined to be used in a civil environment to carry fare paying passengers MUST be signed off and certified by a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, who holds a valid EASA Pt66 licence. This was the part that I was curious at.
Surely, if the RAF are to share the aircraft with the airlines, then either the RAF must have their own Licenced Engineers certifying all maintenance tasks IAW civil legislation and paperwork, therefore running the risks of poor retention, or else the airline concerned must provide the Licenced Engineers for this, which strikes me as a very expensive way of doing business in the long run
I'd be genuinely interested to hear how they plan to get around this situation.
Flipflopman
Fear not, I have already 'jumped ship' as it were, so this has no direct bearing upon myself, I am just curious as to how this set up will be implemented.
In pure terms, the RAF signatures for work, although satisfactory for military operation, will mean absolutely nothing to the CAA, and therefore ALL work on an aircraft destined to be used in a civil environment to carry fare paying passengers MUST be signed off and certified by a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, who holds a valid EASA Pt66 licence. This was the part that I was curious at.
Surely, if the RAF are to share the aircraft with the airlines, then either the RAF must have their own Licenced Engineers certifying all maintenance tasks IAW civil legislation and paperwork, therefore running the risks of poor retention, or else the airline concerned must provide the Licenced Engineers for this, which strikes me as a very expensive way of doing business in the long run
I'd be genuinely interested to hear how they plan to get around this situation.
Flipflopman
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flipflop
My memories of that presentation are vague, probably two years ago minimum. But I recall it involved full time reservists holding the licenses, and without trying to sound derogatory, the rest of the RAF guys would be little more than tyre kickers and fuel pump attendants.
S_H
My memories of that presentation are vague, probably two years ago minimum. But I recall it involved full time reservists holding the licenses, and without trying to sound derogatory, the rest of the RAF guys would be little more than tyre kickers and fuel pump attendants.
S_H
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who's going to fly these new AT/AR platforms?? Full-time reservists with ATPLs??
Bit of a kick in the teeth for serving ME AT/AR crews? Are these reservists going to hold national standby duties as well as possibly deploy for months of the year?
Will the A330 be suitably equipped to operate into the current/future theatre of ops??
In service when?? Airframes to be purchased, modified, trialled and relevant support equipment in-place??
Don't let the Movers get hold of it or we'll be waiting 4 years for a pink TDS for a landrover!!!!
Bit of a kick in the teeth for serving ME AT/AR crews? Are these reservists going to hold national standby duties as well as possibly deploy for months of the year?
Will the A330 be suitably equipped to operate into the current/future theatre of ops??
In service when?? Airframes to be purchased, modified, trialled and relevant support equipment in-place??
Don't let the Movers get hold of it or we'll be waiting 4 years for a pink TDS for a landrover!!!!
So who's going to fly these new AT/AR platforms?? Full-time reservists with ATPLs??
Panic ye not. The majority (75% IIRC, or was it 66%?) of the crews will be regular light blue. The remaining 25% will be SRs, so a nice job, if you can get it, between 55 and 65
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the A330 be suitably equipped to operate into the current/future theatre of ops??
In service when?? Airframes to be purchased, modified, trialled and relevant support equipment in-place??
In service when?? Airframes to be purchased, modified, trialled and relevant support equipment in-place??
S_H
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Through which door on this jet will the movers get a 'landy'? Actually, dont answer this question..................
Sorry, couldn't resist.
