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

Is it REALLY the RAFs?

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.

Is it REALLY the RAFs?

Old 16th Jul 2011, 11:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 145
Is it REALLY the RAFs?

Given that its a PFI does it really belong to the RAF?

BBC News - RAF's largest aircraft Voyager officially unveiled
GalleyTeapot is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 11:38
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
No, it is not owned by the RAF. It is owned by Air Tanker, who hold the AOC for operating the aircraft and do what the customer (The RAF) ask. The aircraft are maintained by Air Tanker with a pukka 145 approval from the UK CAA with sponsored reservists (LAEs), Civil LAEs, RAF LAEs and a combination of contracted and RAF personel as the mechanics. Management will be Civvy/RAF like the 2 line contracts.

Don't know about pilots (possibly all RAF), and military rules will apply to most operations I would assume (due to role, but the CAA cater for this).
Alber Ratman is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 11:39
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,882
Disappointing lack of detail in that article; there was no mention of double-decker buses or Olympic swimming pools.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 13:37
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,176
GalleyCoffeePot,

OF COURSE they are the RAF's. They may be financially owned by a contractor but that contract exists solely to provide the RAF with an Air Transport and Air to Air refueling capability.

They will be flown by RAF crews, maintained by RAF engineers, be organised into RAF squadrons and located on a Royal Air Force station.

How much MORE RAF could they be?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 13:52
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,541
I think the question is how less the RAF's could they be?

Suppose Roman Abramovich decides to buy AirTanker Plc and withdraw from the contract at VERY short notice?


In the words made famous in Snatch! You're gonna be "Proper Fcuked"
airpolice is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 13:54
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,541
Willard, they showed it in size relative to a Lancaster. Are you suggesting that most of the great unwashed are not familiar with a Lancaster as a unit of measure?

Maybe most Chavs living in Lincolnshire might have a better idea of the size of a Lanc than the size of an Olympic size pool right enough.
airpolice is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 13:59
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,176
airpolice,

Now you are just in plain old fantasy land!

WHY on earth Roman Abramovich want to buy AirTanker and what makes you think that the AirTanker share holders would want to sell?

You could make the same ludicrous argument about absolutely any defence company in the western world.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 14:07
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 82
Posts: 1,323
Thread creep off the ownership topic, but isn't the 'Voyager' the 1st new tanker a/c to ever be delivered to the RAF?

The Valiant's that I played with on 214, and the Victors that were rushed into the role when the Valiant's got their metal fatigue problems were 'field upgrades' from bombers, and of course the Tristars and VC-10 weren't even new airframes when the RAF got them. They were all 'tour ex' from civilian airlines.

I appreciate that the Voyager is a modified A-330, but it was modified on the drawing board and built as a Tanker not as an afterthought.
ian16th is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 14:13
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 515
Fourteen Voyager aircraft are being provided to the RAF under a 27-year, 10.5bn private finance initiative contract signed with the AirTanker consortium in 2008. The plane and its parts are being manufactured and assembled in France, Germany, Spain and the UK.

One of the Voyagers arrived at Boscombe Down on Monday, and two of the planes will be based there during an intensive programme of testing that will continue into next year.

Isn't that a bit arse about face? Test something AFTER you have signed a 10.5bn contract...
Trogger is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 14:15
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,176
Trogger,


That's been the exact same case for each and every military aircraft ever purchased by UK MOD.


ian16th,


I think you are right.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 14:24
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,878
QQ is doing the tests that can't be done on the drawing board and with equipment not available in Spain, that the RAF/MOD is insistant on keeping in its inventory until it's the same age as the Lancaster is now.

Still, we should know how it works in practice - not from theory...
Rigga is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 15:13
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
prOOne,

The question of who owns the Voyager fleet in not a simple one to answer. Some of the fleet will be available to thje RAF to meet daily tasking but some will be used by Air Tanker to meet purely civilian tasks. Whether those aircraft would be instantly available to the RAF if there was a sudden increase in tasking is debatable. Those aircraft on civilian tasks would certainly not be crewed or serviced by RAF personnel.

As far as equipment is concerned, only a proportion of the fleet will be 3 point Tankers, the rest will only have wing pods which may be removed for civilian operations. I suspect there are still some questions to be solved before the aircraft is in full service, welcome as it will be.
Art Field is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 15:44
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,187
If every aircraft in this fleet holds a full CAA Certificate of Airworthiness, then we should give thanks to every Aviation deity that we believe in. The obvious next point is, God forbid that there be an Air Accident involving one of them, who would then carry out the investigation, the AAIB or the MAAIB?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 15:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 619
So at a time when budgets are at a premium no one has picked up on how much this capability is going to cost!!!!

Current cost of A330-200 = $175-201m.
14 ac = $2450 - $2814m.
PFI = $16,9b for 27yrs.

If my maths is even close, and I've had to borrow a lot of fingers, this means each ac will cost $941m over the period of the PFI, or, $34m per yr, or, $2.9m per month etc etc etc

Questions:

Why did the MoD buy out the lease on the C17?
Is there an option to buy?
Who will own the ac after the 27 yr PFI?
Would Branson have 'purchased' his ac capability ( this includes addressing all the DLoDs associated with a new ac) in the same way?

Last edited by Could be the last?; 16th Jul 2011 at 16:06.
Could be the last? is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 15:54
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,878
As these hold a full UK CAA CofA it will be the UK AAIB and definately not the MAAIB (though the MAAIB may well be observers)

And yes - thanks to the deity that saved them from RAF certification.
Rigga is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 16:01
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 82
Posts: 2,133
They will be welcome stepping stones into the Airline World
brakedwell is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 16:02
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,878
CBTL,
You forgot to add the rest of the deal to your sums:

Hangars and buildings
SIMs,
part 147 ground staff and crew training,
part M,
part 145,
AOC,
FCL,
AIRWORTHINESS reviews

i.e. All those things the RAF does (or used to do) and more - and, hopefully, to a reliable standard for a reliable service. (No. I'm not employed by them)

Last edited by Rigga; 16th Jul 2011 at 16:07. Reason: 147
Rigga is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 16:03
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: essex mole hole
Posts: 100
It will not work without Loadmasters

The only way this aircraft will work is if you put loadmasters on it!!!!

Stand back and wait for the Flak

Mole Man
mole man is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 16:05
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,878
...and I thought the CofG was sorted?

Why would they need more weight?
Rigga is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2011, 16:19
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 124
and of course the Tristars and VC-10 weren't even new airframes when the RAF got them. They were all 'tour ex' from civilian airlines.
I believe the RAF took delivery of 11 Brand new VC10's from Vickers. There is an interesting book about the VC10, weird concepts were on the drawing boards
Nomorefreetime is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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