Tristar ZD949
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Water Bomber in America.
Yes the Timmys at Brunty will not carry ZD or other military registrations, they are all on the FAA register and will be flying to Texas to begin dropping water on fires.. Biggest loser? the tax payer.. Frames sold by the DSA for thousands have been sold for millions by the next vendor... DSA bring a cost effective return to the tax payer.. Rubbish.
Biggest financial loser is indeed the taxpayer, by £Billions!
Biggest capability loser of the whole deal is...the RAF.
. How can this unnecessary and hugely expensive replacement of a capability we already had go unremarked by journalists or anybody else?
OAP
Biggest capability loser of the whole deal is...the RAF.. How can this unnecessary and hugely expensive replacement of a capability we already had go unremarked by journalists or anybody else? OAP
The National Audit Office was very critical of the PFI method for contracting Voyager, noting that 80% of the annual average $585 million fee that AirTanker will receive over the coming years for the contracted baseline service is for financing, capital cost and profit.
No doubt the MoD was surprised that ATr actually intends to make a profit...
No doubt the MoD was surprised that ATr actually intends to make a profit...
Being serious (I know, on this forum?) with the availability of many Tristars stored in hot places on the other side of the Atlantic, the acquisition of another 6-10 airframes for IFR conversion and a huge holding of spares would surely have allowed the refurbishment and modernisation of the existing fleet for another 10-15 years at much less cost than the Voyager programme. The VC10s could have been phased out as they came to the end of their lives and the RAF would still have a 15+ strong fleet of relatively young tankers fitted with glass cockpits, modern avionics and a full DASS suite.
And yes, I agree that the Voyager is (or will be) a very capable airframe, but the Tristar was as well when it was available. And with the outright purchase of new tankers never going to happen, surely it should have been seriously considered?
And yes, I agree that the Voyager is (or will be) a very capable airframe, but the Tristar was as well when it was available. And with the outright purchase of new tankers never going to happen, surely it should have been seriously considered?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Martin,
Mid to late 2000's (2006-2007 maybe, my memory fails me) this was looked at, we got as far of receiving the quote from Marshalls (£1M per airframe + conversion costs), we even dispacted a team to inspect the 3 proposed frames in the desert. However, if memory serves me right, there was a clause in the AirTanker contract that put a stop to this.
Mid to late 2000's (2006-2007 maybe, my memory fails me) this was looked at, we got as far of receiving the quote from Marshalls (£1M per airframe + conversion costs), we even dispacted a team to inspect the 3 proposed frames in the desert. However, if memory serves me right, there was a clause in the AirTanker contract that put a stop to this.
Assuming the contact had by that point been signed, I doubt if it was a particular clause that was the problem.
More to do with having signed the contract?
Even the MOD wouldn't be daft enough to sign a contract for replacement tankers then go out and buy replacement tankers.
Then again........
More to do with having signed the contract?
Even the MOD wouldn't be daft enough to sign a contract for replacement tankers then go out and buy replacement tankers.
Then again........
Last edited by Arty Fufkin; 29th May 2014 at 18:59.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Even the MOD wouldn't be daft enough to sign a contract for replacement tankers then go out and by replacement tankers
Is there a clause in the contract about ownership of the company - ie is it feasible that someone averse to UK interests could end up having control of our sole tanker assets
But if push comes to shove, in an emergency we could revert to UK carriers. Might be more difficult if tankers were foreign owned/controlled, unless they were requisitioned, but crews?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it's ok to send our troops on aircraft based in another continent, flown by crews from, well, who knows, but assume that in an emergency we "could revert to uk carriers"..Would you apply such a reckless assumption to any other procurement decision?
Shot1 - I never said I agreed with it - personally I am against PFI in principle, because the Government is generally so rubbish at setting contractual terms they get taken to the cleaners, and usually cannot get from the contract what they thought they could - generally applies to contractorisation as well - eg catering at RAF stations. Rant button "OFF"!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being against PFI is an entirely valid point of view, wanderoo. Why does it have to be backed up with a pragmatic reason (which I strongly agree with) that the Govt is "rubbish at setting contractual terms?" Would your principles change if it WASN'T rubbish at this? What if we collectively left the rant switch firmly ON and demanded HMG hire clued-up professionals from the private sector to do the negotiating.... rather than let the deals be signed by any old duffer who happens to have been there a while -then hand him a knighthood when it falls flat?
demanded HMG hire clued-up professionals from the private sector to do the negotiating
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure why the maths confuses people
example hot and dusty location, trimotor lifted on average 130k of fuel
lets say 10 hr sortie, burn using worse case 8 k ph div fuel 15 k so thats 95 k available give is oohh 35k
voyager 94k capacity thrrefore max lift same sortie 6k ph average worse case burn div lets drop it a bit say 12 k thats total 72k so avai give is oohhh lets see 22k
pretty clear to me
hey ho it is what it is, thats the decision we have to live with
example hot and dusty location, trimotor lifted on average 130k of fuel
lets say 10 hr sortie, burn using worse case 8 k ph div fuel 15 k so thats 95 k available give is oohh 35k
voyager 94k capacity thrrefore max lift same sortie 6k ph average worse case burn div lets drop it a bit say 12 k thats total 72k so avai give is oohhh lets see 22k
pretty clear to me
hey ho it is what it is, thats the decision we have to live with
Valve closed
Not sure of your maths (or the punctuation) but I'm pretty certain the Voyager has a starting lift of 110k which sort of evens things up a bit. Oh and 2 wing pods!!
Not sure of your maths (or the punctuation) but I'm pretty certain the Voyager has a starting lift of 110k which sort of evens things up a bit. Oh and 2 wing pods!!
The official position was stated that the TriStar K/KC and FSTA have a "similar" AAR capability. Both have advantages in different scenario's. However, the TriStar had the advantage of the centreline hose that suits large or small recievers.
OAP
OAP
Excellent spin, OAP, to attempt to find an equivalence for an ageing single hose tanker.....
Had the TriStar ever been modified to include wing pods, there might have been a reason to keep the old things going for a few years longer. But it was clear that, as soon as Voyager showed that it had at least some AAR capability, MoD was keen to get rid of the TriShaw as soon as it could.
Had the TriStar ever been modified to include wing pods, there might have been a reason to keep the old things going for a few years longer. But it was clear that, as soon as Voyager showed that it had at least some AAR capability, MoD was keen to get rid of the TriShaw as soon as it could.