'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage'
Airbus Military to table A330 tanker bids to France, Singapore
"Airbus Military expects to secure a fresh batch of orders for its A330-based multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) before the end of this year, with contracts to potentially be agreed with at least two new operators.
"We have a second wave of new tanker contracts, and a high probability to secure the majority of them in 2013," Rafael Tentor, head of programmes for light and medium aircraft and derivatives, said during a briefing at Airbus Military's San Pablo site in Seville, Spain on 29 May.
Also on 30 May, Airbus Military will present a "binding offer" to France for a fleet of between 12 and 14 three-point tankers, Tentor says. France would become the first MRTT customer to receive A330s equipped with a cargo door, also enabling the type to carry freight loads on its upper deck, he adds."
Airbus Military to table A330 tanker bids to France, Singapore
"We have a second wave of new tanker contracts, and a high probability to secure the majority of them in 2013," Rafael Tentor, head of programmes for light and medium aircraft and derivatives, said during a briefing at Airbus Military's San Pablo site in Seville, Spain on 29 May.
Also on 30 May, Airbus Military will present a "binding offer" to France for a fleet of between 12 and 14 three-point tankers, Tentor says. France would become the first MRTT customer to receive A330s equipped with a cargo door, also enabling the type to carry freight loads on its upper deck, he adds."
Airbus Military to table A330 tanker bids to France, Singapore
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better than RAPS
"Well, not particularly well paid non-FSTA 'lackeys' have developed a reliable trail planning and management system which has been in operational use in other Airbus tankers for several years now. Which does not use the archaic, mathematically non-rigorous methodology of the primitive 'RAPS'.....
Quite why AiM haven't been more interested in this reliable, combat-proven 'great solution' system already flying in their other tanker-transports? ICATQ! Perhaps 'No inventado aquí'??"
Quite why AiM haven't been more interested in this reliable, combat-proven 'great solution' system already flying in their other tanker-transports? ICATQ! Perhaps 'No inventado aquí'??"
Quote,
"Also on 30 May, Airbus Military will present a "binding offer" to France for a fleet of between 12 and 14 three-point tankers, Tentor says. France would become the first MRTT customer to receive A330s equipped with a cargo door, also enabling the type to carry freight loads on its upper deck, he adds."
Hey, that could be useful on Trails or Deployments, like a Combi or, how the TriStar KC1 has been for 25 years! Oh, I see my error, the RAF TriStar cost peanuts and made little money for the "fat cats". It carries more fuel though!
OAP
"Also on 30 May, Airbus Military will present a "binding offer" to France for a fleet of between 12 and 14 three-point tankers, Tentor says. France would become the first MRTT customer to receive A330s equipped with a cargo door, also enabling the type to carry freight loads on its upper deck, he adds."
Hey, that could be useful on Trails or Deployments, like a Combi or, how the TriStar KC1 has been for 25 years! Oh, I see my error, the RAF TriStar cost peanuts and made little money for the "fat cats". It carries more fuel though!
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 1st Jun 2013 at 08:27.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TriStar can carry a little more fuel (except when lim'd!), but also burns more fuel. Offload will be better, but not by much, on Voyager. Where it wins is the twin hose config with Tristar-ish offloads and decent serviceability. Freight goes downstairs. The weight penalty of a strengthened upper deck just isn't worth it if you can carry your trail spares downstairs (from the trooping/ AAR POV anyway). TriStars may cost junk metal prices but engineering them ain't cheap - not that Voyager is either. It's easy to bash the project, but let's not kid ourselves that we'd be better off with legacy types.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asking
I think Beags is referring to this system....
http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms...yer-MCS-A4.pdf
I think Beags is referring to this system....
http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms...yer-MCS-A4.pdf
Asking mate, TriStar K/KC can carry alot more fuel than Voyager. The 330 is virtually legacy anyway. The main issue is the cost of the whole thing. Their airships chose to "budget grab" as big a slice as possible and we see the result (no Harrier or Nimrod etc).
The plot was lost two decades ago. The airships chose not to seriously invest in TriStar as a long term platform and, they also chose not to fit the wing pods as a cost saving choice.
Yes, it is nice to have a new aeroplane for everyone to admire but, we get less capability than the platforms it replaces for £500Million a year for 27 years.
You say the TriStar was expensive, people don't realise how cheap it really was
.
OAP
The plot was lost two decades ago. The airships chose not to seriously invest in TriStar as a long term platform and, they also chose not to fit the wing pods as a cost saving choice.
Yes, it is nice to have a new aeroplane for everyone to admire but, we get less capability than the platforms it replaces for £500Million a year for 27 years.
You say the TriStar was expensive, people don't realise how cheap it really was
.OAP
Champagne anyone...?
The main issue is the cost of the whole thing.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headline costs
I figure that comparing headline costs would give a false perspective.
How many receivers were being provided for in the VC10 and TriStar hay day?
Would you compare the same with the Victor of the 70s and 80s.
You do have to compare the whole life costs across all Lines of Development. I don't think we had the tools for cost capture back then. I think the same is the case today.
I would suggest a measure of cost per gallon transferred or something.
How ever you cut it really makes no odds. the fact is that we need tankers to project our interests. No one is going to bring the TriStar or VC10 back. I do hold the view that it was daft to embark on the scheme we have today. We should own and operate the aircraft just as we do our fighters and other assets. I can't see how it can be best value for the tax payer.
The whole thing is just an experiment. Do the MoD retain any option to buy out the lease/PFI. It all sounds too entrenched with the infrastructure and staff part of the package. What happens when the propeller flies off? I am sure the cost of fixing it back on will fall to the public purse.
How many receivers were being provided for in the VC10 and TriStar hay day?
Would you compare the same with the Victor of the 70s and 80s.
You do have to compare the whole life costs across all Lines of Development. I don't think we had the tools for cost capture back then. I think the same is the case today.
I would suggest a measure of cost per gallon transferred or something.
How ever you cut it really makes no odds. the fact is that we need tankers to project our interests. No one is going to bring the TriStar or VC10 back. I do hold the view that it was daft to embark on the scheme we have today. We should own and operate the aircraft just as we do our fighters and other assets. I can't see how it can be best value for the tax payer.
The whole thing is just an experiment. Do the MoD retain any option to buy out the lease/PFI. It all sounds too entrenched with the infrastructure and staff part of the package. What happens when the propeller flies off? I am sure the cost of fixing it back on will fall to the public purse.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drag
The VC10 and Tristar are still in service.
The VC10 and Tristar are still in service.
PFI’s are a fundamentally poor way of procuring capabilities that are unpredictable and involve risk because the cost of that risk is always transferred back to the customer and interestingly, one of the funding partners for Air Tanker is the Royal Bank of Scotland. We will therefore be borrowing money off ourselves because we can’t afford it!
The MoD has traded affordability for value for money, penny wise pound foolish as it seems so often to be.
Whatever the pros of FSTA, and there are many, I suspect it will ultimately be very poor value for money and will fail to deliver the capability that we actually need, with too much air refuelling for a fast jet fleet we longer have and not enough air transport of sufficient flexibility for future sustained expeditionary operations.
The A330MRTT with Rolls Royce engines is absolutely the right aircraft but in trying to scrimp and save we have knobbled the fleet, they will be inflexible, inappropriate and overly expensive.
Seems like a depressing pattern repeating itself.
Still, at least those nice chaps at Air Tanker have allowed the RAF to use its shiny new hangar at Brize Norton for C130 maintenance, awfully good of them.
Oh, hang on a minute, there is a contract involved.
You didn’t think they offered it at no cost did you!
Whatever the pros of FSTA, and there are many, I suspect it will ultimately be very poor value for money and will fail to deliver the capability that we actually need, with too much air refuelling for a fast jet fleet we longer have and not enough air transport of sufficient flexibility for future sustained expeditionary operations.
The A330MRTT with Rolls Royce engines is absolutely the right aircraft but in trying to scrimp and save we have knobbled the fleet, they will be inflexible, inappropriate and overly expensive.
Seems like a depressing pattern repeating itself.
Still, at least those nice chaps at Air Tanker have allowed the RAF to use its shiny new hangar at Brize Norton for C130 maintenance, awfully good of them.
Oh, hang on a minute, there is a contract involved.
You didn’t think they offered it at no cost did you!
Stopstart, was it worth re-sparing the C130? To right it was.
I would prefer to have seen a proper life extension and fleet enhancement for the TriStar (with the wing pods fitted that were left off 25 years ago), then we could have afforded to keep Harrier and Nimrod and not be blowing £13Billion.
Wonder why the Americans run older* platforms where mega agility and stealth are not required?
*Older than TriStar or VC10.
OAP
I would prefer to have seen a proper life extension and fleet enhancement for the TriStar (with the wing pods fitted that were left off 25 years ago), then we could have afforded to keep Harrier and Nimrod and not be blowing £13Billion.
Wonder why the Americans run older* platforms where mega agility and stealth are not required?
*Older than TriStar or VC10.
OAP
Champagne anyone...?
The C130Ks were reboxed and planked in the mid/late 70s because the old wings were crap. There were some wing swaps around 2002 time because some of the Mk1s were End of Life. Redoing the wings in the 70s/80s was clearly worth as we'd only had the things about 10 years and they soldiered on for another 20 or 30. Rewinging of a couple of aircraft in the early 00s was a sticking plaster to mask general procurement failings elsewhere. Was that worth it? 50/50 I'd say.
The TriStars are old, complex aircraft. The Herc, whilst also old, is mainly just a few bits of metal bodged together with some engines bolted on. The TriStars are tired and knackered and far too complex to keep running from the Defence budget. Nowadays you need the off balance-sheet magic and sleight of hand of PFI if you want to fund big projects.
One would have to be more than a little deluded to think that keeping the TriStar running would've magically given the RAF £13 Billion to do with as they pleased. The Harrier was sacrificed partly to save money but mainly to stiff the FAA. The Nimrod MR4 would've consumed all of that imaginary £13 Billion and still not be right.
Yes the USAF run older aircraft however they also run to very different levels of risk acceptance. I'll be interested to see what was behind the midair break up of the KC135 recently....
The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson; there is no way on earth anyone would want to sign off on yet another bodged-up update of a knackered old airframe nowadays.
The TriStars are old, complex aircraft. The Herc, whilst also old, is mainly just a few bits of metal bodged together with some engines bolted on. The TriStars are tired and knackered and far too complex to keep running from the Defence budget. Nowadays you need the off balance-sheet magic and sleight of hand of PFI if you want to fund big projects.
One would have to be more than a little deluded to think that keeping the TriStar running would've magically given the RAF £13 Billion to do with as they pleased. The Harrier was sacrificed partly to save money but mainly to stiff the FAA. The Nimrod MR4 would've consumed all of that imaginary £13 Billion and still not be right.
Yes the USAF run older aircraft however they also run to very different levels of risk acceptance. I'll be interested to see what was behind the midair break up of the KC135 recently....
The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson; there is no way on earth anyone would want to sign off on yet another bodged-up update of a knackered old airframe nowadays.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: off-world
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whole Life Costs
Drag,
Quite correct, but an integrated suite of 'tools', together with the specialist knowledge to use them, is available now. UK MoD, US DoD, use them, and other applications that are not publicly advertised, and have been doing so for a number of years.
You do have to compare the whole life costs across all Lines of Development. I don't think we had the tools for cost capture back then. I think the same is the case today.
The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson; there is no way on earth anyone would want to sign off on yet another bodged-up update of a knackered old airframe nowadays.
Quote StopStart,
"
The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson; there is no way on earth anyone would want to sign off on yet another bodged-up update of a knackered old airframe nowadays."
Agree entirely, and it is far too late to do anything sensible that would extend the service life of the venerable Trimotor. The chance was missed twenty odd years ago to expand that fleet and invest a modest amount in a long term life program that could have given a good AT/AAR platform till 2025ish... it just trucks fuel/people or cargo for goodness sake, 2tonnes/hr less fuel burn is no basis for spending £13Billion
! No, in the great bunfight that seems to occupy all the days of our senior figures, the decision was made to ignore value for money and go all-out for a BIG spend. Well great! Look where it will get us, mega deals that provide few combat aircraft and, a transport capability that costs more than charter.
Would being efficient and not falling for the sales-pitch have saved enough to keep Harrier, YES. (Just my opinion)
OAP
"
The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson; there is no way on earth anyone would want to sign off on yet another bodged-up update of a knackered old airframe nowadays."
Agree entirely, and it is far too late to do anything sensible that would extend the service life of the venerable Trimotor. The chance was missed twenty odd years ago to expand that fleet and invest a modest amount in a long term life program that could have given a good AT/AAR platform till 2025ish... it just trucks fuel/people or cargo for goodness sake, 2tonnes/hr less fuel burn is no basis for spending £13Billion
! No, in the great bunfight that seems to occupy all the days of our senior figures, the decision was made to ignore value for money and go all-out for a BIG spend. Well great! Look where it will get us, mega deals that provide few combat aircraft and, a transport capability that costs more than charter.Would being efficient and not falling for the sales-pitch have saved enough to keep Harrier, YES. (Just my opinion
)OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 1st Jun 2013 at 17:04.
Thread Starter
Asking
I think Beags is referring to this system....
http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms...yer-MCS-A4.pdf
I think Beags is referring to this system....
http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms...yer-MCS-A4.pdf
If there's a receiver fuel degrade, you just supply the facts to the system and it recomputes the trail automatically. Similarly, as soon as a receiver is full, it may be disconnected - none of the wasteful 'keep in contact until geographic end of bracket' Victor-think of the last century. You just call the receivers for a gravy check, enter the figures and tell it to update. It then shows you its solution; if you wish to amend the proposed plan, that can be achieved either by drag-and-drop on the map or by 'distance to waypoint' definition.
It's simple, reliable and user friendly - and has been proved in support of combat operations in both Libya and Mali.
According to one of the end users, it is more accurate than their 'official' CFP provider's system for fuel planning.....
The modern RAF is more risk averse than a primary school road safety lesson...
The plot was lost two decades ago.
Attempting to fit pods to the TriStar became a complete money pit. Thankfully, for once the MoD made the right decision and cancelled the whole concept.
As for the 'glass cockpit' TriStar fiasco:
October 2006 - Marshall Aerospace is awarded a £22M contract to upgrade the RAF TriStars' avionics and FMS including a 'glass cockpit' as the 'MMR upgrade'. This should have been a relatively low-risk programme as it used elements of the C-130 cockpit upgrade already underway for the RNAF.
November 2007 - ZD949 arrives at Cambridge for the trial installation with a planned completion date of Q3 2008 at which time the second TriStar would begin conversion.
2008 came and went.
2009 came and went.
January 2010 - ZD949 finally makes its first flight with the MMR upgrade.
October 2010 - SDSR indicates that the TriStar will start to leave RAF service in 2013; TriStar MMR programme is to be discontinued.
December 2010 - After 100 hours of flight test, ZD949 finally passes MoD review and is due to be back in service in Spring 2011.
2011 - Due to the change in out-of-service date now planned for the TriStar and with the A330MRTT due in service by the end of the year, ZD949 remains at Cambridge in a pristine state under 'storage' and is to be 'reduced to spares' - a euphemism for being scrapped - as it would be too expensive to convert it back to its original state.
October 2011 - A330MRTT (now 'Voyager') fails to meet release to service date; now expected to be 'sometime in January 2012'.
January 2012 - Voyager still not in service.
January 2013 - Voyager still not in AAR service.
May 2013 - Voyager is finally given RAF clearance to refuel the Tornado.
November 2007 - ZD949 arrives at Cambridge for the trial installation with a planned completion date of Q3 2008 at which time the second TriStar would begin conversion.
2008 came and went.
2009 came and went.
January 2010 - ZD949 finally makes its first flight with the MMR upgrade.
October 2010 - SDSR indicates that the TriStar will start to leave RAF service in 2013; TriStar MMR programme is to be discontinued.
December 2010 - After 100 hours of flight test, ZD949 finally passes MoD review and is due to be back in service in Spring 2011.
2011 - Due to the change in out-of-service date now planned for the TriStar and with the A330MRTT due in service by the end of the year, ZD949 remains at Cambridge in a pristine state under 'storage' and is to be 'reduced to spares' - a euphemism for being scrapped - as it would be too expensive to convert it back to its original state.
October 2011 - A330MRTT (now 'Voyager') fails to meet release to service date; now expected to be 'sometime in January 2012'.
January 2012 - Voyager still not in service.
January 2013 - Voyager still not in AAR service.
May 2013 - Voyager is finally given RAF clearance to refuel the Tornado.
Thread Starter
I ask, could it not all have been done better.....? 
Also, 'better' is a comparative - so 'better' than what, exactly?
Thread Starter
101 to the rescue!
I gather that the mighty Wanderer went U/S on Friday - but because 101 Sqn had 100% VC10 serviceability, they were able to launch and save the day.
Well done, 101! I look forward to the formal announcement that the next Voyager squadron will bear your number.
Well done, 101! I look forward to the formal announcement that the next Voyager squadron will bear your number.
Thread Starter
They did? Good for them if true - that'd be a first....
However, my info. came from someone in the know.
Maybe more than one Wanderer task was salvaged by legacy tankers?
However, my info. came from someone in the know.
Maybe more than one Wanderer task was salvaged by legacy tankers?