'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage'
13. However, four years after this recognition, the Department has still not yet decided whether it will install this equipment on FSTA, citing that the need for FSTA to fly into high threat environment is not completely self-evident.
At the time of the report we were still in both Iraq and Afghanistan and won't be leaving the latter until 8 years after the report was written.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alfred_the_great - Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?
It is, of course, highly capable but the additional tasking is having an adverse long-term effect on the fleet and its operators, whilst detracting from its capacity elsewhere.
Lets have elements of the fleet that can all do their bit and spread the love.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?
I believe the C17 and A400 where brought to carry cargo, and outsized cargo at that. They are a very expensive way to move passengers when you work out the MPG of each type and divide by the number of passengers
I believe the C17 and A400 where brought to carry cargo, and outsized cargo at that. They are a very expensive way to move passengers when you work out the MPG of each type and divide by the number of passengers
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by TMK1; 4th Aug 2013 at 16:12.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to pick holes Uncle Ginster but I thought the C-17s were the only fleet doing Pax moves to Herrick long before the dedicated pax aircraft were allowed to to the job. Remember the RAF news article covering the first Tristar in to Afgan with that great quote from the loadmaster "its tough moving freight and PAX". Agreed the PAX fleet has inadequacies... not of their own doing.
To be fair to Airtanker, they had the defensive aids that NG (the system designers) said would be adequate installed...Its the RAF arse covering brigade that insisted on the belt and braces system... 2/3rds more defence than most U.S C-17's!!
To be fair to Airtanker, they had the defensive aids that NG (the system designers) said would be adequate installed...Its the RAF arse covering brigade that insisted on the belt and braces system... 2/3rds more defence than most U.S C-17's!!
Last edited by collbar; 4th Aug 2013 at 17:57.
Collbar, not really the case and the RAF (and NG) knew of the issues way before any metal was cut. Unfortunately Airtanker had the signed contract in their hands and proceeded as per every single 'frozen' letter of it.
Why get paid once for a job when you can get paid twice?
Why get paid once for a job when you can get paid twice?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?
I believe the C17 and A400 where brought to carry cargo, and outsized cargo at that. They are a very expensive way to move passengers when you work out the MPG of each type and divide by the number of passengers"
But didn't we buy these as tankers and not as AT aircraft, hence the name FSTA - Future Strategic TANKER Aircraft.
I believe the C17 and A400 where brought to carry cargo, and outsized cargo at that. They are a very expensive way to move passengers when you work out the MPG of each type and divide by the number of passengers"
But didn't we buy these as tankers and not as AT aircraft, hence the name FSTA - Future Strategic TANKER Aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirTanker Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2008 the Ministry of Defence signed the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) contract with AirTanker to provide the Royal Air Force (RAF) with an air transport and air-to-air refuelling capability.
In 2008 the Ministry of Defence signed the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) contract with AirTanker to provide the Royal Air Force (RAF) with an air transport and air-to-air refuelling capability.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wikipedia, must be true then! My belief is that the RAF were looking for tankers but acknowledged the fact that any aircraft could be used as an AT asset when not in the tanker role.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Bottle, I get what they do now, that is not the point. What was the requirement at contract close? Clearly, if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.
Strange how the whole FSTA plan has morphed, and still lacks the capability of the legacy platform.
I wonder how the FSTA would have turned out as a straight military purchase with none of this AirTanker nonsense?
OAP
I wonder how the FSTA would have turned out as a straight military purchase with none of this AirTanker nonsense?
OAP
Clearly, if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.
DFC
Squadron Leader MITCHELL was a flight commander on No 216 Squadron whose role it was to carry out air-to-air refuelling of NATO combat aircraft. On two missions alongside the Serbian border he drew the effusive praise of fighter aircrews for his courageous flying and remaining on station to complete his tasks regardless of the threats to his tanker aircraft. His performance on over 30 missions in support of combat aircraft was outstanding.
Squadron Leader MITCHELL was a flight commander on No 216 Squadron whose role it was to carry out air-to-air refuelling of NATO combat aircraft. On two missions alongside the Serbian border he drew the effusive praise of fighter aircrews for his courageous flying and remaining on station to complete his tasks regardless of the threats to his tanker aircraft. His performance on over 30 missions in support of combat aircraft was outstanding.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 5th Aug 2013 at 08:49.
I have no experience of this other than in the IT world but I wonder if it's applicable here:
Often a project that I was involved in would never have been contemplated for a second if the true cost in time and money had been known at the start. People who understood knew that without the effort the company would have had nothing more than short term strategy and would eventually face some completely unexpected challenge of a magnitude that it could not respond to for lack of preparation.
So knowing the management's low appetite for any kind of risk and general lack of understanding of the situation that faced them, one would either skimp and scrape on the plan and thus get permission to commence or put in a realistic estimate and be shot down.
It was also always important to appear to have a working product quickly even if it didn't work properly because otherwise cancellation also loomed. Again this was part of the way managers are under great pressure to appear to achieve things and that their bosses don't know the difference between appearance and fact and don't want to know because they are trying to look good to someone themselves.
The company in which I had most of this experience no longer exists of course, because it was put to the sword by smarter foreign rivals.
Often a project that I was involved in would never have been contemplated for a second if the true cost in time and money had been known at the start. People who understood knew that without the effort the company would have had nothing more than short term strategy and would eventually face some completely unexpected challenge of a magnitude that it could not respond to for lack of preparation.
So knowing the management's low appetite for any kind of risk and general lack of understanding of the situation that faced them, one would either skimp and scrape on the plan and thus get permission to commence or put in a realistic estimate and be shot down.
It was also always important to appear to have a working product quickly even if it didn't work properly because otherwise cancellation also loomed. Again this was part of the way managers are under great pressure to appear to achieve things and that their bosses don't know the difference between appearance and fact and don't want to know because they are trying to look good to someone themselves.
The company in which I had most of this experience no longer exists of course, because it was put to the sword by smarter foreign rivals.
Last edited by t43562; 5th Aug 2013 at 10:46.
