Airbus A400M as a maritime aircraft ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the C130 is twice as small/ light as a A400M so it seems less of a waste.
If the existing C130J's can be converted (at guaranteed significantly lower costs then a brand new platform!) it seems an acceptable multi role MPA platform.. it can be refuelled and can even carry a 30mm
If the existing C130J's can be converted (at guaranteed significantly lower costs then a brand new platform!) it seems an acceptable multi role MPA platform.. it can be refuelled and can even carry a 30mm
Why make an unproven modification to the P8? Why not just get a boom on the tails of the A330's. That is a proven fitment - and will allow better interoperability as well as being able to re-fuel the Rivet Joint aircraft you guys are buying and the C-17's you already have.
The Old Fat One
So, where's that solution mate? You did say that none of us have the first idea (or words to that effect). You seem to have oodles of experience in this area, what, when and how much for the solution.
Roland:
Post nos 113 & 114 on page 6
Yes, I know it's been covered before. But question for you - where is the greater risk in cost and time? Renegotiating a contract for a proven existing design (that would also add the ability to refuel C-17 and Rivet Joint as well as other coalition assets), or designing, and modifying an airframe that was not designed to use a probe?
It's not rocket surgery (to paraphrase the could-a-beens).
Post nos 113 & 114 on page 6
Yes, I know it's been covered before. But question for you - where is the greater risk in cost and time? Renegotiating a contract for a proven existing design (that would also add the ability to refuel C-17 and Rivet Joint as well as other coalition assets), or designing, and modifying an airframe that was not designed to use a probe?
It's not rocket surgery (to paraphrase the could-a-beens).
Mk 1 & BGG
Well off topic - but actually it is "rocket surgery" in this case. My info is a few years old now, so I am sure someone will have more up-to-date knowledge.
- The UK are funding FSTA/Voyager through PFI.
- The aim is to have the assets "off the balance sheet" and thereby exempt from smoke-and-mirrors HMT/Accountant buffoonery (cost of capital/depreciation charges/resource accounting and budgeting) etc etc.
- To be off balance sheet the owners need to be able to use their assets for "third party revenue" generation.
- No airline renting spare FSTAs is likely to want to pay to cart the weight of a boom around or the weight of the additional airframe structure associated with the boom mounting (even though they keep falling off at the moment
) when that weight could be used to charge for additional baggage allowance for the SLF.
Renegotiating the PFI contract to include booms on a number of "our" jets would cost £££££££ and I would be very surprised if anyone in DE&S has even the remotest guess as to how many £s that would be. Once boom equipped they are unlikely to be able to be used for 3PR, and therefore on balance sheet, and therefore attract a whole new set of budgetry issues in the newly balanced MOD budget.
As already mentioned in this thread - when FSTA was in its infancy there was no UK requirement for boom tanking - even though the AAR experts said it should be included for operational/interoperability reasons. It is the same reason why "our" FSTAs do not have the ability to receive fuel - an even bigger error on the part of the "scrutineers" and the IPT if you ask me - it was assessed that with an A330s fuel load you would never need tanker-tanker AAR.
Well off topic - but actually it is "rocket surgery" in this case. My info is a few years old now, so I am sure someone will have more up-to-date knowledge.
- The UK are funding FSTA/Voyager through PFI.
- The aim is to have the assets "off the balance sheet" and thereby exempt from smoke-and-mirrors HMT/Accountant buffoonery (cost of capital/depreciation charges/resource accounting and budgeting) etc etc.
- To be off balance sheet the owners need to be able to use their assets for "third party revenue" generation.
- No airline renting spare FSTAs is likely to want to pay to cart the weight of a boom around or the weight of the additional airframe structure associated with the boom mounting (even though they keep falling off at the moment
) when that weight could be used to charge for additional baggage allowance for the SLF.Renegotiating the PFI contract to include booms on a number of "our" jets would cost £££££££ and I would be very surprised if anyone in DE&S has even the remotest guess as to how many £s that would be. Once boom equipped they are unlikely to be able to be used for 3PR, and therefore on balance sheet, and therefore attract a whole new set of budgetry issues in the newly balanced MOD budget.
As already mentioned in this thread - when FSTA was in its infancy there was no UK requirement for boom tanking - even though the AAR experts said it should be included for operational/interoperability reasons. It is the same reason why "our" FSTAs do not have the ability to receive fuel - an even bigger error on the part of the "scrutineers" and the IPT if you ask me - it was assessed that with an A330s fuel load you would never need tanker-tanker AAR.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 25th Mar 2013 at 16:15.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland, I do follow your drift but why would it be the IPT who should identify the trade offs in capability? Who really makes decisions about which whistles and bells to include? I always thought it was the guys in the DEC who did this complicated stuff!
BGG, our mistake is we are using LOGIC - and as we all know, that will never do when it comes to defense!
Roland, and this is just the start of the problems that will arise when you put civvies into the system. I remember back in the day when I was a platoon commander with the ADF embracing "civillianisation" of many formerly service roles writing a paper on why it was a bad idea. The examples I quoted showing that there were substantial limitations were from the UK MoD where you guys had initially jumped into the civvies doing base functions in the 1970's.
Why would a subaltern otherwise dedicated to chasing skirt and pickling his liver be writing a paper on the topic for a defense publication? About 2 months after the civvies moved into the messes on Holsworthy barracks were were plodding around the Close Training Area in our 1960's vintage M113's when one of our buckets broke an idler wheel. Of course murphy's law dictates that this only happens at the end of a day when returning to the sheds, in mid winter when it's drizzling with rain. Normally, you would radio Range Control, and ask them to ring the mess and ensure the Sgt Catering knows to keep some of his guys back as we would be late for dinner. We passed message as per SOP.
Finally dragged ourselves in freezing cold, muddy and wet looking for a nice hot feed... Only to find the civvies had knocked off (as per their contract), but they had left us sandwiches, and a popper juice box each. Needless to say nobody was particularly impressed as contrary to popular opinion on the military, the food in the diggers mess was usually very good.
When I addressed this with my OC, he suggested the paper (me and my big mouth).
We (the ADF) were finding the same sorts of problems that you UK MoD bods found 10 -15 years earlier. Whatever imaginary cost savings that were achieved were blown out the window by the reduction in flexibility by the civvies and the reduction in morale in the troops (probably contributing to retention issues). The classic case of not examining the bigger picture.
Later after I had pulled the pin, I heard that the ADF found they had to reinstate a mustering they had gotten rid of due to civillianisation - the job as steward. Apart from the mundane jobs in messes, these guys were the experts on running canteens - when the ADF deployed into East Timor in 1995, they had to offer absurd amounts of money to contarctors to operate the canteens, and they had recruitment issues as well as issues with costs etc. So the ADF bit the bullet and reinstated that position.
Our RAN patrol boats are operated with RAN crews, but all of the maintenance etc is handled by a contractor that was supposed to supply x hours of seagoing hours per year. Given the dash by refugees from halfway across the globe to all come to Australia at once in matchwood boats, the patrol force is doing double time and has been for some years. The contract didn't cover this and so quite a few boats are having availability issues. The RAN engineers crewing the boats are not permitted to fix anything(!!!), they just monitor and run the equipment. If it breaks down, that is the contractors responsibility to fix (and naval are prohibited from doing anything but whatever is required in an emergency to keep the hull afloat). Preventative maintenance that would add to the reliability of the boats is out the window, so too is availability. Brilliant.
And now Roland, as you have pointed out the tail again appears to be wagging the dog (thanks BGG). Civillianising the tanker force, whilst a wonderful initiative to some shinybum in Whitehall, looks to have caused a stack of expensive problems even before it has entered service. Classic own goal. As they say, people don't learn from history.
Rant off.
Roland, and this is just the start of the problems that will arise when you put civvies into the system. I remember back in the day when I was a platoon commander with the ADF embracing "civillianisation" of many formerly service roles writing a paper on why it was a bad idea. The examples I quoted showing that there were substantial limitations were from the UK MoD where you guys had initially jumped into the civvies doing base functions in the 1970's.
Why would a subaltern otherwise dedicated to chasing skirt and pickling his liver be writing a paper on the topic for a defense publication? About 2 months after the civvies moved into the messes on Holsworthy barracks were were plodding around the Close Training Area in our 1960's vintage M113's when one of our buckets broke an idler wheel. Of course murphy's law dictates that this only happens at the end of a day when returning to the sheds, in mid winter when it's drizzling with rain. Normally, you would radio Range Control, and ask them to ring the mess and ensure the Sgt Catering knows to keep some of his guys back as we would be late for dinner. We passed message as per SOP.
Finally dragged ourselves in freezing cold, muddy and wet looking for a nice hot feed... Only to find the civvies had knocked off (as per their contract), but they had left us sandwiches, and a popper juice box each. Needless to say nobody was particularly impressed as contrary to popular opinion on the military, the food in the diggers mess was usually very good.
When I addressed this with my OC, he suggested the paper (me and my big mouth).
We (the ADF) were finding the same sorts of problems that you UK MoD bods found 10 -15 years earlier. Whatever imaginary cost savings that were achieved were blown out the window by the reduction in flexibility by the civvies and the reduction in morale in the troops (probably contributing to retention issues). The classic case of not examining the bigger picture.
Later after I had pulled the pin, I heard that the ADF found they had to reinstate a mustering they had gotten rid of due to civillianisation - the job as steward. Apart from the mundane jobs in messes, these guys were the experts on running canteens - when the ADF deployed into East Timor in 1995, they had to offer absurd amounts of money to contarctors to operate the canteens, and they had recruitment issues as well as issues with costs etc. So the ADF bit the bullet and reinstated that position.
Our RAN patrol boats are operated with RAN crews, but all of the maintenance etc is handled by a contractor that was supposed to supply x hours of seagoing hours per year. Given the dash by refugees from halfway across the globe to all come to Australia at once in matchwood boats, the patrol force is doing double time and has been for some years. The contract didn't cover this and so quite a few boats are having availability issues. The RAN engineers crewing the boats are not permitted to fix anything(!!!), they just monitor and run the equipment. If it breaks down, that is the contractors responsibility to fix (and naval are prohibited from doing anything but whatever is required in an emergency to keep the hull afloat). Preventative maintenance that would add to the reliability of the boats is out the window, so too is availability. Brilliant.
And now Roland, as you have pointed out the tail again appears to be wagging the dog (thanks BGG). Civillianising the tanker force, whilst a wonderful initiative to some shinybum in Whitehall, looks to have caused a stack of expensive problems even before it has entered service. Classic own goal. As they say, people don't learn from history.
Rant off.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So many valuable lessons in that post Mk1. Difficult to see anyone disagreeing with any of that.
Another thread has just started on the imminent end of the RAF Tornado, which got me thinking. Once the Tornado has gone, what will be left in the RAF inventory that still refuels through a probe?
I left out the aircraft that don't do AAR.
Looks like we brought either the wrong tanker or the right tanker to the wrong spec.
S-D
Another thread has just started on the imminent end of the RAF Tornado, which got me thinking. Once the Tornado has gone, what will be left in the RAF inventory that still refuels through a probe?
- Typhoon - obviously
- E3D - both probe/drogue and boom/receptacle, but does it better through the latter
- Hercules - probe (limited life)
- A400M - probe
- VC10 - going v soon
- C17 - boom/receptacle only
- Rivet Joint
- boom/receptacle only
I left out the aircraft that don't do AAR.
Looks like we brought either the wrong tanker or the right tanker to the wrong spec.
S-D
But at least under PFI, we have some form of AAR capability. Under the business model of lets give £4Bn to BAE 'Waste of Space', we no longer have any form of MPA whatsoever!
While I realize that this is something of a "what if" thread, can anyone contributing to it kindly acknowledge that, in the light of:
Armed Forces and police to face further spending cuts, Danny Alexander warns - Telegraph
the UK is highly unlikely to get back into the MPA game before 2023, and quite possibly never.
Time to bring back the seedcorn? Quietly of course, without mentioning it in parliament....
Armed Forces and police to face further spending cuts, Danny Alexander warns - Telegraph
the UK is highly unlikely to get back into the MPA game before 2023, and quite possibly never.
Time to bring back the seedcorn? Quietly of course, without mentioning it in parliament....
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bristol
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...... and as from Monday the budgets for the £8bn new equipment programme are being held by the flcs who I suspect do not have this that high up there things2do list. There is an arguement that mpa/mma is a cross govt role but historocally we haven't been too successful in cross govt procurement.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't any money to do much of anything.
The A400M would be a beast of a maritime aircraft, but is not going to happen.
The converted C-130J is the most likely option, and will be good enough.
The A320 would make a pretty good MPA, but that is not going to happen.
It's all about money and there isn't any.
The A400M would be a beast of a maritime aircraft, but is not going to happen.
The converted C-130J is the most likely option, and will be good enough.
The A320 would make a pretty good MPA, but that is not going to happen.
It's all about money and there isn't any.
KHI gives MSDF first P-1 antisub patrol aircraft - The Japan Times
No sign of any AAR kit. Just saying. That's all.
Ken. AFAIK RAF A400s are coming with probes, but we aren't buying any of the tanking (giving fuel) kits.
No sign of any AAR kit. Just saying. That's all.
Ken. AFAIK RAF A400s are coming with probes, but we aren't buying any of the tanking (giving fuel) kits.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last information I got was that RAF will not use their A400M for AAR at all because of the Voyager-(A330MRTT)-aircraft.