RAF Tankers
Thread Starter
RAF Tankers
From another thread, EADS not bidding for US Tanker order. Hopefully might mean earlier A330 deliveries to RAF.
Tristar tanker availability at all time low with crews having 6 trips in a row cancelled due no serviceable airframes. Lack of recency can't be good for morale.
Some 'silver lining', one lucky crew and a/c u/s in Las Vegas!!
Tristar tanker availability at all time low with crews having 6 trips in a row cancelled due no serviceable airframes. Lack of recency can't be good for morale.
Some 'silver lining', one lucky crew and a/c u/s in Las Vegas!!
If it's not a secret, how many Tri* does the RAF now have? Also, again if not a secret, how many VC10's are still left?
I seem to recall three of the Tri* were passenger only aircraft, but not sure how many 'aerial fuel stations' there are.
Reading on the other thread about the Cyprus schedule going out to tender, does that free up any Tri* or VC10's for tanking?.
When I was in (1980-1993) the Cyprus schedule seemed to move from being a VC10 to Tri* schedule, with the Tri* also doing the South Atlantic run, but I gather that is no longer the case?
Peter
I seem to recall three of the Tri* were passenger only aircraft, but not sure how many 'aerial fuel stations' there are.
Reading on the other thread about the Cyprus schedule going out to tender, does that free up any Tri* or VC10's for tanking?.
When I was in (1980-1993) the Cyprus schedule seemed to move from being a VC10 to Tri* schedule, with the Tri* also doing the South Atlantic run, but I gather that is no longer the case?
Peter
Last edited by Pete268; 13th Mar 2010 at 11:58.
Thread Starter
Tristar
9 I think. Only 8 in service as one been at Marshalls at Cambridge for a couple of years, trying to get a glass cockpit/avionic upgrade. It won't be ready until A330 in service and the Tristar due to retire!
A civil contract would have had an upgrade like this up and running in less than a year. BOAC/BA fitted a two system digital FMS avionics upgrade to 20+ B747 -100/200 about 3 years.
It can be done when the MOD is not involved.
A civil contract would have had an upgrade like this up and running in less than a year. BOAC/BA fitted a two system digital FMS avionics upgrade to 20+ B747 -100/200 about 3 years.
It can be done when the MOD is not involved.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US tanker situation would probably have negligible impact, since the US KC-45s would have been coming off an Alabama line, not the Toulouse A330 line. When you're wondering why A330Ks aren't in service yet, recall that the Australians started their KC-30A process AFTER the UK did, but their tankers are fairly well along. The "Airtanker" fiasco held everything up.
CP,
Many thanks for that.
I didn't realise one of the Tri*s is 'in doc' at Marshalls or had been there for so long!
How many VC10 tankers are left?. I gather some of them have been scrapped, so there cannot be too many of them left either?
No doubt until the A330 arrive (eventually) aerial tanking will be at a premium.
Peter
Many thanks for that.
I didn't realise one of the Tri*s is 'in doc' at Marshalls or had been there for so long!
How many VC10 tankers are left?. I gather some of them have been scrapped, so there cannot be too many of them left either?
No doubt until the A330 arrive (eventually) aerial tanking will be at a premium.
Peter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MarkD
> The "Airtanker" fiasco held everything up.
Well, PFI and all of that. According to this (Work in Progress: The provision of multi-role tanker aircraft capability) the National Audit Office are currently investigating the value for money of the PFI solution. Should be interesting!
S41
> The "Airtanker" fiasco held everything up.
Well, PFI and all of that. According to this (Work in Progress: The provision of multi-role tanker aircraft capability) the National Audit Office are currently investigating the value for money of the PFI solution. Should be interesting!
S41
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AT/AARterton
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we do have 9 Tri* aircraft, and yes one is currently at Marshalls getting a glass cockpit upgrade but will be back this year and not just as we are retiring the fleet, got another 6-8 years before that happens.
Yes there is a lack of frames but also aircrew for other commitments other than the Herrick airbridge.
Yes there is a lack of frames but also aircrew for other commitments other than the Herrick airbridge.
£10bn fleet 'can't fly in warzones'
MarkD
> The "Airtanker" fiasco held everything up.
Well, PFI and all of that. According to this (Work in Progress: The provision of multi-role tanker aircraft capability) the National Audit Office are currently investigating the value for money of the PFI solution. Should be interesting!
S41
> The "Airtanker" fiasco held everything up.
Well, PFI and all of that. According to this (Work in Progress: The provision of multi-role tanker aircraft capability) the National Audit Office are currently investigating the value for money of the PFI solution. Should be interesting!
S41
The Ministry of Defence faces a bill for hundreds of millions of pounds if the RAF's new fleet of tanker and transport aircraft is to be able to fly in warzones such as Afghanistan, the Whitehall spending watchdog has warned.
In a highly critical report, the National Audit Office said that the £10.5 billion private finance initiative (PFI) deal to provide 14 new Airbus A330-200 aircraft was already running five-and-a-half years behind schedule.
It warned that there could now be years of further delays if the MoD decided they should be "retro-fitted" with flight deck armour and other protective equipment to enable them to operate in "high threat environments".
In the meantime the RAF was having to rely on its ageing - and increasingly unreliable - Tristars and VC10s to carry out air-to-air refuelling operations and transport troops to and from theatres like Afghanistan.
The NAO said that when the MoD originally began work on the tanker aircraft procurement programme, it was not envisaged that they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones and no funding was provided for protective equipment.
Although that changed in 2006, the MoD did not add the requirement to the contract it was negotiating with the AirTanker consortium - which is supplying the aircraft - for fear of causing further delays to the project.
Instead it was decided that the additional equipment would have to be "retro-fitted" once the RAF starts taking delivery of the aircraft next year - a process which the NAO said could cost "several hundred million pounds" if it goes ahead.
Overall, the NAO said it was impossible to assess whether the PFI deal provided value for money to the taxpayer and it criticised the MoD for failing to carry out a "sound evaluation of alternative procurement routes".
It said that there had been "assumption" in the MoD that the aircraft would be provided through a private finance deal - therefore keeping them "off-balance sheet" - due to "affordability pressures and the prevailing policy to use PFI wherever possible".
Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee which oversees the work of the NAO, strongly criticised the use of PFI and said the MoD should have foreseen the aircraft would need to operate in warzones.
In a highly critical report, the National Audit Office said that the £10.5 billion private finance initiative (PFI) deal to provide 14 new Airbus A330-200 aircraft was already running five-and-a-half years behind schedule.
It warned that there could now be years of further delays if the MoD decided they should be "retro-fitted" with flight deck armour and other protective equipment to enable them to operate in "high threat environments".
In the meantime the RAF was having to rely on its ageing - and increasingly unreliable - Tristars and VC10s to carry out air-to-air refuelling operations and transport troops to and from theatres like Afghanistan.
The NAO said that when the MoD originally began work on the tanker aircraft procurement programme, it was not envisaged that they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones and no funding was provided for protective equipment.
Although that changed in 2006, the MoD did not add the requirement to the contract it was negotiating with the AirTanker consortium - which is supplying the aircraft - for fear of causing further delays to the project.
Instead it was decided that the additional equipment would have to be "retro-fitted" once the RAF starts taking delivery of the aircraft next year - a process which the NAO said could cost "several hundred million pounds" if it goes ahead.
Overall, the NAO said it was impossible to assess whether the PFI deal provided value for money to the taxpayer and it criticised the MoD for failing to carry out a "sound evaluation of alternative procurement routes".
It said that there had been "assumption" in the MoD that the aircraft would be provided through a private finance deal - therefore keeping them "off-balance sheet" - due to "affordability pressures and the prevailing policy to use PFI wherever possible".
Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee which oversees the work of the NAO, strongly criticised the use of PFI and said the MoD should have foreseen the aircraft would need to operate in warzones.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NAO said that when the MoD originally began work on the tanker aircraft procurement programme, it was not envisaged that they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones and no funding was provided for protective equipment.
What the h*ll do these idiots in the MoD think their job is?
it was not envisaged that they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones and no funding was provided for protective equipment.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EADS have not pulled out of the tanker deal for the US airforce YET...
The are at the moment considering their options and if they stand a chance against their rival manufacturer.
Dont write them off ................
The are at the moment considering their options and if they stand a chance against their rival manufacturer.
Dont write them off ................
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAO highlights cost of delayed refuelling aircraft deal | Supply Management
from the professional journal of procurement.
Wonder if we did a Freedom of information request to find out how many people working there are professionally qualified in procurement?
from the professional journal of procurement.
Wonder if we did a Freedom of information request to find out how many people working there are professionally qualified in procurement?
The[y] are at the moment considering their options and if they stand a chance against their rival manufacturer.
Dont write them off ................
Dont write them off ................
The process has now been couched in language such that anyone but Boeing doesn't have a raccoon's chance in hell of getting close. They are well and truly, written off!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
firstly, Northrop Grumman are an organization who's corporate strategy is to maximize profits, therefore when KC-X didn't allow them to compete at their usual margins, they pulled the plug - Not a core business etc etc. Now Airbus have a slightly different take.. They are after growth in overall market share. Combine this with a US systems integrator who has the same strategy, say L3, one of the fastest growing companies in the USA in terms of market share, then you have bidders who may be prepared to take a hit on the margins to get the market floor space.
Anyone who seriously believes that Airbus cannot compete this bid under the current rules is totally out of touch. My personal belief is that if Airbus bid, then I'd bet a heap of money that they will win it, and you can bet that Boeing know this as well, which is why Senator Murray is screaming like a stuffed pig in protest at the possible RFP deadline extension.
firstly, Northrop Grumman are an organization who's corporate strategy is to maximize profits, therefore when KC-X didn't allow them to compete at their usual margins, they pulled the plug - Not a core business etc etc. Now Airbus have a slightly different take.. They are after growth in overall market share. Combine this with a US systems integrator who has the same strategy, say L3, one of the fastest growing companies in the USA in terms of market share, then you have bidders who may be prepared to take a hit on the margins to get the market floor space.
Anyone who seriously believes that Airbus cannot compete this bid under the current rules is totally out of touch. My personal belief is that if Airbus bid, then I'd bet a heap of money that they will win it, and you can bet that Boeing know this as well, which is why Senator Murray is screaming like a stuffed pig in protest at the possible RFP deadline extension.
