Tristar ZD949
TriStar had the advantage of the centreline hose that suits large or small receivers.
No need for spin chaps, the RAF has already crashed and burned here! Oh yes, and please, the wing pod fit was available for TriStar but, the RAF did not buy it because we used to cut our cloth. What happens today? We cut out most of the Air Force to rent new shiny jets that we did not need yet! 
OAP
OAP
OAP,
The TriStar fleet was knackered! End of!
It had just about kept its head above water on a single AT task line for years, and it's reliability as a tanker was pretty shocking as well.
I am genuinely at a loss as to how you can claim that it did not need replacing. What exactly was your plan to turn back the clock on the fleet from an engineering perspective? Genuinely interested.
The TriStar fleet was knackered! End of!
It had just about kept its head above water on a single AT task line for years, and it's reliability as a tanker was pretty shocking as well.
I am genuinely at a loss as to how you can claim that it did not need replacing. What exactly was your plan to turn back the clock on the fleet from an engineering perspective? Genuinely interested.
Arty, yes the chance was missed/ignored 15-odd years ago. However, the implications and consequences of the chosen path remain open for debate. As for the serviceability of RAF TriStars, if you actually knew anything through working on 216, then I am surprised by your negativity, if not, how can you comment? Strange, how we can go from a totally under-resourced fleet for 25 years, to a massive and hugely expensive replacement doing the same job-and damn the cost! Oh yes, just bin half of the RAF to pay for it!
OAP
OAP
Valveclosed
To achieve a 130k (I guess you mean tonnes) the Tri would need to have a ZFW of 115t (a bit low if I recall). Not only that how many airfields could the Tri take off from at 245T? Voyager on the other hand can lift the 110t of fuel from a range of airfields.
To achieve a 130k (I guess you mean tonnes) the Tri would need to have a ZFW of 115t (a bit low if I recall). Not only that how many airfields could the Tri take off from at 245T? Voyager on the other hand can lift the 110t of fuel from a range of airfields.
Yes. I can only assume that people are working with the wrong figures. The SRD gives a max fuel load of 109,000kg. Of course, this is all tittle-tattle.
The Elephant in the room is VFM and the wasting of a perfectly good asset that we already had. There must be something that caused such a bad move for the RAF?
OAP
The Elephant in the room is VFM and the wasting of a perfectly good asset that we already had.
There must be something that caused such a bad move for the RAF?OAP
OAP,
I think Beagle was alluding to th edifference between ZFW and APS weight.
Anyways,
"Perfectly good asset"
THEY DIDNT BLOODY WORK YOU LOON!!!!!
Jeezz
Sorry for shouting.
Arty
I think Beagle was alluding to th edifference between ZFW and APS weight.
Anyways,
"Perfectly good asset"
THEY DIDNT BLOODY WORK YOU LOON!!!!!
Jeezz
Sorry for shouting.
Arty
Arty
I think you are being a tad harsh. There was a period where a lack of spare parts, engineers and investment meant the Tri* was "struggling" - OK broken. But following the J Blunt, "utterly, utterly useless RAF" and that TA MP (forgotten his name) incidents with the Air Bridge much more time and effort was invested in the fleet which meant much better availability towards the end.
Unfortunately the period of availability/unserviceability is symptomatic of the lack of investement in spares (driven by the utter stupidity of RAB and "just too late" spares support) and engineer penchant for "leaning". No-one ever forecast that would happen, did they? Oh. Yes they did, but no-one ever listens!
And of course the Tri* still only had one refuelling point, so it really was time for it to go.
THEY DIDNT BLOODY WORK YOU LOON!!!!
Unfortunately the period of availability/unserviceability is symptomatic of the lack of investement in spares (driven by the utter stupidity of RAB and "just too late" spares support) and engineer penchant for "leaning". No-one ever forecast that would happen, did they? Oh. Yes they did, but no-one ever listens!
And of course the Tri* still only had one refuelling point, so it really was time for it to go.
....must be some reason ...? What would make VSO's want to support a huge private contract within the core of the RAF? Why would "thrusters" want to be involved with a shiny new project instead of getting VFM with an older one they already had? Why did the RAF a neglect a good asset and then have to spend £15Billion to replace it? Whatever the reason, IMO it is a deal that has cost large chunks of RAF capability.
OAP
OAP
What would make VSO's want to support a huge private contract within the core of the RAF? Why would "thrusters" want to be involved with a shiny new project instead of getting VFM with an older one they already had? Why did the RAF a neglect a good asset and then have to spend £15Billion to replace it?
"They" didn't; they were directed to look at PFI as a potential solution against a traditional procurement; it was government directed solution when "service provision" and PFI were in vogue. This meant that the assets were "off balance sheet" and therefore not subject to the RAB charging idiocy brought in by a certain Chancellor.
Because the Tri* wasn't a very good tanker despite having shed loads of fuel.
Well actually if you were a thruster would you really want to be involved with a 20+ year old jet rather than a shiny new toy?Because:
- the Tri* was going out of service;
- it was getting increasingly difficult to maintain;
- the govt directed a RAB charging regime that meant IPTs sold off our stock of spares to avoid capital charges which impacted upon our ability to maintain it;
- we needed a modern tanker;
- the £11 billion (not £15B) could be spread over 25 years (even though I accept buying the jets ourselves and maintaining them ourselves would probably have been the more cost effective solution)
- "we" couldn't afford the £2B up front costs to buy our own (new) fleet (second hand B767s/A310s may have been cheaper).
A cheap shot Roland, regularly regurgitated.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 3rd Jun 2014 at 12:58.
OAP,
In its latter years, a huge amount of effort was put in to ensuring aircraft availability for the airbridge. Pretty much to the exclusion of everything else. The tipping point for the TriStar fleet was when it became too unreliable to be trusted with any AT tasking aside from those handful of trips into theatre each week.
From that point on, the Tristar did not represent VFM by any stretch of the imagination.
What could have been done in the dim and distant past to avert that state of affairs is just conjecture, as is how successful it would have been given that the problem the fleet sufferd wasn't purely spares related.
The fact is, the jet was long overdue for replacement.
The treasury didn't want to or couldn't stump up the cash to purchase the replacement aircraft and support infrastructure outright.
They decided to go out and get them on the never never.
The new tanker is in service, very capable and the nature of the contract is such that the aircraft will be available for the next 25 years. Unlike the Tristar which withered to an available fleet of 1 or 2 in the twighlight of its years.
I assume that you object to the fact that Airtanker makes a profit out of all this. The way I see it, it is only that profit which represents any difference in the overall cost of the PFI versus in house management and ownership by the MOD.
That said, given the MODs track record for managing projects on time and on cost, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the overall cost would have wound up being pretty similar in the long run anyway. You would have just found yourself reading a NAO report slating the procurement for different reasons.
Either way, don't try to persuade me that the Tristar was a usefull, efficient capable fleet of aircraft. Once it was, but not as it started showing its age. It wasn't down to willfull neglect or subterfuge, the jets just got old.
Like the rest of us.
In its latter years, a huge amount of effort was put in to ensuring aircraft availability for the airbridge. Pretty much to the exclusion of everything else. The tipping point for the TriStar fleet was when it became too unreliable to be trusted with any AT tasking aside from those handful of trips into theatre each week.
From that point on, the Tristar did not represent VFM by any stretch of the imagination.
What could have been done in the dim and distant past to avert that state of affairs is just conjecture, as is how successful it would have been given that the problem the fleet sufferd wasn't purely spares related.
The fact is, the jet was long overdue for replacement.
The treasury didn't want to or couldn't stump up the cash to purchase the replacement aircraft and support infrastructure outright.
They decided to go out and get them on the never never.
The new tanker is in service, very capable and the nature of the contract is such that the aircraft will be available for the next 25 years. Unlike the Tristar which withered to an available fleet of 1 or 2 in the twighlight of its years.
I assume that you object to the fact that Airtanker makes a profit out of all this. The way I see it, it is only that profit which represents any difference in the overall cost of the PFI versus in house management and ownership by the MOD.
That said, given the MODs track record for managing projects on time and on cost, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the overall cost would have wound up being pretty similar in the long run anyway. You would have just found yourself reading a NAO report slating the procurement for different reasons.
Either way, don't try to persuade me that the Tristar was a usefull, efficient capable fleet of aircraft. Once it was, but not as it started showing its age. It wasn't down to willfull neglect or subterfuge, the jets just got old.
Like the rest of us.
The jets did not "just get old". All points have been previously covered in my posts. Now, maybe you have a message for the USAF, with their 65 years old KC135? Maybe they should indulge in a cull, cut a few jobs and get a replacement that costs so much they have to lose another capability or two? Hey! Those B52's should be replaced with nice new ones as well! Whats that you say? "Hell no! Why replace something you already have Limey?" 
OAP
OAP
Now, maybe you have a message for the USAF, with their 65 years old KC135?
Maybe they should indulge in a cull, cut a few jobs and get a replacement
