BAe146 Offered as tactical air to air
I always thought it was the linked accommodation building that was the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere; the TRI* hangar is relatively small IMHO. Anyway the argument is whether or not a Voyager would fit in and my money says no.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by moggiee
Get a drive through like at Charles de Gaulle airport.
Last edited by gr4techie; 19th Sep 2013 at 19:20.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The contract says the MoD cannot tank with anyone other than AirTanker
*Edit= Ok, I can believe only the Mod would be so bad to sign such a contract.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: God's own county
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have studied the AirTanker contract as part of some work I did into PFIs. While I will accept most of your points, the constant references to why we signed exclusivity to AirTanker I find puzzling.
Unfortunately, as we all know, we were not in a position to purchase a tanker platform outright. PFI was tabled as the only realistic option if we wanted the capability (you can debate the rights and wrongs of that). From a purely business perspective, because that's what AirTanker is after all, how could you expect any company to invest the capital required without the security that exclusivity offers? There simply would not be any profit in it. Yes you end up putting all your eggs in one basket, but when there are so few other options available, what choice do you have.
You could hound AirTanker down with financial penalties for missing contractual obligations which at best would destroy any relationship the MoD would have with the company (and I would bet their legal team would out perform our own), or at worst push a company that is providing our only tanking capability in the future towards insolvency.
The situation with PFI contracts is much more complex then some here are describing.
Osprey on and digging in...
Unfortunately, as we all know, we were not in a position to purchase a tanker platform outright. PFI was tabled as the only realistic option if we wanted the capability (you can debate the rights and wrongs of that). From a purely business perspective, because that's what AirTanker is after all, how could you expect any company to invest the capital required without the security that exclusivity offers? There simply would not be any profit in it. Yes you end up putting all your eggs in one basket, but when there are so few other options available, what choice do you have.
You could hound AirTanker down with financial penalties for missing contractual obligations which at best would destroy any relationship the MoD would have with the company (and I would bet their legal team would out perform our own), or at worst push a company that is providing our only tanking capability in the future towards insolvency.
The situation with PFI contracts is much more complex then some here are describing.
Osprey on and digging in...
It's the bit about not being able to afford a tanker that I find difficult. Other nations manage it so why not us? What is it the aussies say PFI stands for? Mind you if we didn't waste money with piss poor procurement then maybe we would not be in this position.
.
OAP
Out of interest why do you describe Voyager as "gold plated"? If anything I would describe it as a minimalist tanker. After all, despite the experts involved and their recommendations, it does not have a cargo door, cannot receive fuel in flight, does not have a boom, not all are 3-point tankers. In fact one might argue the only thing it does well is pax transport.
Out of interest why do you describe Voyager as "gold plated"? If anything I would describe it as a minimalist tanker. After all, despite the experts involved and their recommendations, it does not have a cargo door, cannot receive fuel in flight, does not have a boom, not all are 3-point tankers. In fact one might argue the only thing it does well is pax transport.
What is it the aussies say PFI stands for?
The RAF could have had 24-ish A310 tankers in service by now, if they hadn't gone down this absurdly expensive route....
The 6 x A310MRTTs currently flying with the Luftwaffe and RCAF have provided efficient, reliable AAR for some years now - including for the Libyan and Malian operations. They also have a Mission System which actually works - unlike a certain other Airbus tanker....
In fact one might argue the only thing it does well is pax transport.
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Sep 2013 at 07:23.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It's the bit about not being able to afford a tanker that I find difficult. Other nations manage it so why not us?"
maybe they're not building two carriers, a new series of SSN's, designing a follow on SSBN, and trying to play at being a Big Boy on the block in all areas of warfare??????
maybe they're not building two carriers, a new series of SSN's, designing a follow on SSBN, and trying to play at being a Big Boy on the block in all areas of warfare??????
Apologies Roland P, I thought everything was gold plated in this deal? Strange how every RAF tanker fleet before made-do and yet, they all did well!
OAP
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 20th Sep 2013 at 18:23.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making do isn't a cheap option in this context since the purchase cost is only part of the lifetime cost of a big aircraft. The most expensive option would be to make do and struggle on with aircraft which became too costly for every operator apart from us decades ago. The next most expensive is the A310 option detailed above. Sure there are some still about, albeit the very newest are at least 15 years old. We might even be able persuade their Iranian or Pakistan operators to sell us some. Then there is an expensive refurbishment and conversion process to pay for, retraining and reequipping, at the end of which we're left with a fleet suffering many of the issues and some of which are not a whole lot younger than those being replaced.
Last edited by ShotOne; 20th Sep 2013 at 19:01.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,941 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
I could see the MOD and the RAF doing a drive through deice bay..
It would start of with
How much????????? The budget won't stretch that far..
Wait, didn't we have a wash rig for the Nimrods?
That's got to be still rotting away at Kinloss, we can dig that up and ship it south..
But the Nimrod is tiny compared to the Voyager...
No problem, we can cobble something up from it, it won't be perfect but it will be cheap.
Ohhh I am cynical
..
It would start of with
How much????????? The budget won't stretch that far..
Wait, didn't we have a wash rig for the Nimrods?
That's got to be still rotting away at Kinloss, we can dig that up and ship it south..
But the Nimrod is tiny compared to the Voyager...
No problem, we can cobble something up from it, it won't be perfect but it will be cheap.
Ohhh I am cynical
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 20th Sep 2013 at 18:59.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,941 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Quote:
The contract says the MoD cannot tank with anyone other than AirTanker
The contract says the MoD cannot tank with anyone other than AirTanker
You are no longer tanking an MOD aircraft, job done
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP, absolutely not, as should be evident from my posts on other subjects.
Let's be careful not to allow the justified issues over the contract to become a general snipe-fest against the A330 operation. Likewise don't blame Air Tanker for PFI. That was a political tool to let Blair/Broon dish out jam today to be paid for years later. By all means debate the rights and wrongs but keep in mind the alternative might be no jam!
Let's be careful not to allow the justified issues over the contract to become a general snipe-fest against the A330 operation. Likewise don't blame Air Tanker for PFI. That was a political tool to let Blair/Broon dish out jam today to be paid for years later. By all means debate the rights and wrongs but keep in mind the alternative might be no jam!
