Quick tanker Qs?
Thread Starter
Quick tanker Qs?
Can anyone answer any of these?
VC10 K4 3 point, C1K 2 point?
TriStar freight door - too small for an RB211?
TriStar HDUs - Mk 17B???
Likely guestimates of No.s of a/c and crews dedicated to FSTA and available for surge? Aprox proportion of sponsored reservists for FSTA?
Could FSTA contract cope with current commitments including Veritas?
Thanks, chaps!
Either Post or send a Private Message - either would be great!
VC10 K4 3 point, C1K 2 point?
TriStar freight door - too small for an RB211?
TriStar HDUs - Mk 17B???
Likely guestimates of No.s of a/c and crews dedicated to FSTA and available for surge? Aprox proportion of sponsored reservists for FSTA?
Could FSTA contract cope with current commitments including Veritas?
Thanks, chaps!
Either Post or send a Private Message - either would be great!
Jacko -
1. Yes. As per Jane's!
2. Don't know. Try Jane's and a ruler!
3. Mk 17T
4. Commercially sensitive so won't care to speculate. Not sure what the plans for the mercenaries would be if anyone was stupid enough to try it, so won't speculate either. But I do know that no military pilot I know wants to fly with a mercenary on the same crew.
5. Who knows. Depends on the contract. But you can bet your bottom dollar that MoD would without doubt be taken to the cleaners if they decided that they suddenly needed an unforeseen capability outside the original contract terms! "Sorry, Tony, you can't have any more aircraft until the end of the holiday season - unless you want to buy them from us at, ooooh, let's say £60M per aircraft? And pay for all the lost seats! Can't afford that? Best you try someone else then!"
6. Thanks, Lord F!!
[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
1. Yes. As per Jane's!
2. Don't know. Try Jane's and a ruler!
3. Mk 17T
4. Commercially sensitive so won't care to speculate. Not sure what the plans for the mercenaries would be if anyone was stupid enough to try it, so won't speculate either. But I do know that no military pilot I know wants to fly with a mercenary on the same crew.
5. Who knows. Depends on the contract. But you can bet your bottom dollar that MoD would without doubt be taken to the cleaners if they decided that they suddenly needed an unforeseen capability outside the original contract terms! "Sorry, Tony, you can't have any more aircraft until the end of the holiday season - unless you want to buy them from us at, ooooh, let's say £60M per aircraft? And pay for all the lost seats! Can't afford that? Best you try someone else then!"
6. Thanks, Lord F!!
[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Thread Starter
Thanks, chaps!
But the question remains:
"Likely guestimates of No.s of a/c and crews dedicated to FSTA and available for surge? Aprox proportion of sponsored reservists for FSTA?
Could FSTA contract cope with current commitments including Veritas?"
If you know, don't say (commercially sensitive), but if anyone doesn't know, how about an educated guess? Please???
But the question remains:
"Likely guestimates of No.s of a/c and crews dedicated to FSTA and available for surge? Aprox proportion of sponsored reservists for FSTA?
Could FSTA contract cope with current commitments including Veritas?"
If you know, don't say (commercially sensitive), but if anyone doesn't know, how about an educated guess? Please???
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, you're being naughty again!
If anyone else feels like doing this journo's work for him (he could approach MoD directly) it would be better done by private message.
If anyone else feels like doing this journo's work for him (he could approach MoD directly) it would be better done by private message.
Thread Starter
Fobotsco,
You're missing the point.
"Likely guestimates of No.s of a/c and crews dedicated to FSTA and available for surge? Aprox proportion of sponsored reservists for FSTA?"
I won't get (and couldn't use, so don't want) the real commercial-in-confidence figure, I just want an educated guesstimate.
"Could FSTA contract cope with current commitments including Veritas?"
I certainly don't want the official line (Yes, of course, perfect opportunity for third party revenue, etc. etc.), I want (unattributable) expert opinion on whether this scale of commitment has been taken into account.
But your suggestion about Private Messages is spot-on.
You're missing the point.
"Likely guestimates of No.s of a/c and crews dedicated to FSTA and available for surge? Aprox proportion of sponsored reservists for FSTA?"
I won't get (and couldn't use, so don't want) the real commercial-in-confidence figure, I just want an educated guesstimate.
"Could FSTA contract cope with current commitments including Veritas?"
I certainly don't want the official line (Yes, of course, perfect opportunity for third party revenue, etc. etc.), I want (unattributable) expert opinion on whether this scale of commitment has been taken into account.
But your suggestion about Private Messages is spot-on.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oxford
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko - RB211 several inches too small to fit through freight door, but is designed to fit under rh wing of TriStar when needed as a fourth engine ferry. Also fits in Herc or just into C17 several times !
Unfortunately the rumour about Arfur Daley Old Planes plc at Cambridge trying to flog some old TriShaws (but with pods) sems to be gathering ground. But there again, one thing about the FSTA programme is that, because they've gone so far down the road of PFI, there would be a legal objection from the genuine contestants to anyone else trying to get into the competition so long after the closure date - surely? It's not the 'Public Sector Comparator' which the MoD must provide, is it?
The last thing we'd really want is yet another aged aircraft programme facing us in a couple of years.
Face it - MoD needs to secure financial assistance to buy the aircraft it needs for the job. But because all the top brass are all ex-fighter people, it's unlikely that the FSTA will get as much support as the absurdly expensive and hugely late Eurofighter!
The last thing we'd really want is yet another aged aircraft programme facing us in a couple of years.
Face it - MoD needs to secure financial assistance to buy the aircraft it needs for the job. But because all the top brass are all ex-fighter people, it's unlikely that the FSTA will get as much support as the absurdly expensive and hugely late Eurofighter!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: ???
Age: 58
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't forget the MAD (sorry MOD) purchasing policy "Buy cheap, buy twice" 
In the current climate the ex BA 767's must be favourite as it will be a good "back door" government subsidy
Also in the current marketplace it will be interesting to see who is given the TriStar heavy maintenance contract, not a good time to put a multi million £ contract overseas me thinks (Sir Arthur will be knocking on Tony's door for sure)
In the current climate the ex BA 767's must be favourite as it will be a good "back door" government subsidy
Also in the current marketplace it will be interesting to see who is given the TriStar heavy maintenance contract, not a good time to put a multi million £ contract overseas me thinks (Sir Arthur will be knocking on Tony's door for sure)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always wondered, if you can put an RB211 under a deathstar's wing, then what's this argument about 'you can't put pods on, supercritical wing etc'?
I may be too young to remember the good old days of British Engineering, Vickers Corporation, English Electric et al, but surely what we need is some sort of procurement plan that is written by specialists in contract law with an advisory group of AAR operators (and, possibly, some engineering and supply specialists).
Fair enough, we may have to buy from used plane dealers, but enough of this PFI nonsense. The actual act of converting a suitable airframe to the tanker role can't be that difficult, it's been done enough before. So use the advisory group to research the suitable frame (sounds like BEagle's already done that), establish the size of fleet that represents the requirement, OK 800 to keep up with the Spams is too many, but about 30 should suffice. Get rid of the Tri* K variant and all the VC10s; the Tri* Cs may still have a role for - perhaps as strategic personnel movement while the C17s carry the equipment (hub and spoke, A4FLA00M + C130J for the spokes). Then BUY the jets - but only AFTER the corporate lawyers have been through the contract WITH the AAR advisory group (and eng and supply). That way, the operators shouldn't be disappointed at the end user product and a sensible spares procurement and servicing policy can be established.
NB, when I say AAR operators, engineering and supply specialists I do not mean specialists at pushing paper around and operators of the Command coffee machine, I mean people who actually use the product and know the pros and cons intimately.
I believe the rules are that the requirement drives the budget, and not the budget drives the requirement?
I may be too young to remember the good old days of British Engineering, Vickers Corporation, English Electric et al, but surely what we need is some sort of procurement plan that is written by specialists in contract law with an advisory group of AAR operators (and, possibly, some engineering and supply specialists).
Fair enough, we may have to buy from used plane dealers, but enough of this PFI nonsense. The actual act of converting a suitable airframe to the tanker role can't be that difficult, it's been done enough before. So use the advisory group to research the suitable frame (sounds like BEagle's already done that), establish the size of fleet that represents the requirement, OK 800 to keep up with the Spams is too many, but about 30 should suffice. Get rid of the Tri* K variant and all the VC10s; the Tri* Cs may still have a role for - perhaps as strategic personnel movement while the C17s carry the equipment (hub and spoke, A4FLA00M + C130J for the spokes). Then BUY the jets - but only AFTER the corporate lawyers have been through the contract WITH the AAR advisory group (and eng and supply). That way, the operators shouldn't be disappointed at the end user product and a sensible spares procurement and servicing policy can be established.
NB, when I say AAR operators, engineering and supply specialists I do not mean specialists at pushing paper around and operators of the Command coffee machine, I mean people who actually use the product and know the pros and cons intimately.
I believe the rules are that the requirement drives the budget, and not the budget drives the requirement?
