Tanker PFI announced...after many years.
 

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 6 June 2007
New RAF tanker and transport aircraft programme approved by MoD

Defence Minister Lord Drayson today announced that the Government had
approved a PFI solution as the most cost-effective way of replacing
the RAF's fleet of VC10 and TriStar aircraft. The Ministry of Defence
will now proceed towards the financial and contractual close of the
FSTA (Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft) PFI deal with AirTanker Ltd.
AirTanker Ltd is expected to begin the fund raising process shortly.
Lord Drayson said:

"FSTA will provide the RAF with a modern air-to-air refuelling and
strategic air transport capability which is crucial in this era of
expeditionary operations. It will replace the RAF's fleet of VC10 and
TriStar aircraft. A PFI solution is the best way to provide our Armed
Forces with significantly improved capability." "The Ministry of
Defence and AirTanker Ltd will now work together to secure financial
and contractual close on a PFI deal as quickly as possible."

Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff added:

"This announcement represents an enormous step forward in this vital
programme for the RAF and UK Defence. Air-to-Air refuelling and
strategic airlift are fundamental to the UK's expeditionary
capability and FSTA is a crucial part of that. Although our current
fleets of VC10 and Tristar aircraft are doing a superb job, both
fleets are coming towards the end of their useful lives. I am,
therefore, delighted that this key milestone has been achieved, and I
look forward to getting the new aircraft and facilities into service
as soon as possible."

ENDS

Notes
1. The MoD's website can be found at http://www.mod.uk
2. AirTanker Ltd was selected as Preferred Bidder through competition
and its shareholders, consist of Cobham EADS, Rolls-Royce, VT and
Thales.
3. FSTA is a project to assess the feasibility of a PFI solution to
replace the RAF's Fleet of VC10 and TriStar aircraft.
4. AirTanker Ltd's service solution is predicated on provision of
Airbus A330-200 aircraft plus associated training, infrastructure,
and through life maintenance support.

And he also added that "we will make them as safe as they need to be, though we err are err not quite sure what that is yet".

"The Ministry of Defence will now proceed towards the financial and contractual close of the FSTA (Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft) PFI deal with AirTanker Ltd."

So after all these years since the downselect to preferred bidder, they still haven't actually got the contractual agreement ready to sign? More jam tomorrow announcements from the floppy-haired fool.....

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1894035.ece
Quote:
The MoD claimed that the project would directly sustain avour 3,000 jobs in the UK, and a further 4,500 indirectly.
Could be wrong (not for the first time) but that does seem very high for less than 20 aircraft:(

any likelihood of RAF and bmi doing a deal on training up crews as I believe QF and RAAF are doing with A330K/Wedgetail?

If SMB won't go for it I bet Dermot Mannion would - if rugby can be played at Croke Park... :)

Ironic how a word like cost can devalue a word like effective.

And when I first moved to the VC10 tanker fleet there was a prospect :rolleyes: that I could see a new tanker coming into service ....... and I have now been out the RAF for over 2 years.

Pathetic. What has changed since a year ago or 3 years ago? Nothing. What have these tossers been doing all these years ...... except polishing their effing arses on posh and expensive chairs? Wankers.

Well Mr B, I am not sure where you stand on this:confused: Get off that fence...

It will be nice to see what happens next... I believe the jets were supposed to be in-service this year??? How long for the 10 now???

We need to see more flesh on this plan.

Tonks :rolleyes:

Oi! BEagle! 10 posts and counting fella! Get in there son!

I will cheer when the first aircraft actually arrives, until then fingers crossed.

AdLib, I've been working my nuts off this week on the world's only in-service 21st Century tanker, the A310MRTT, thanks very much.

We've literally just completed the first phase of System Acceptance Testing of the upgraded Mission Computer System. Which does the planning and management of AAR missions and is operated by the Air Refuelling Operator; MCS workload is low and the next phase is to include trail planning and management, already under development. A bit like an automatic AARC. But none of that primitive RAPs nonsense - this is much more gucci. Neither does it get drunk down route, have 'blonde moments' :p or dent hire cars etc.

I've no idea what's intended for the A330K, but I guarantee that the crews will like it if the requirements of the AAR role are taken fully into account by the manufacturer. Personally I canot see the A330K ARO position being filled by people without considerable navigation experience; the GAF/CF have certainly accepted this for their A310MRTT and CC-150T AROs. Ex-Tornado navigators, perhaps?

14 nice new jets :ok:. But no probes.....:{

Oi, Tonkenna!

No bloody splinters in my arse son!

See you, and BEagle no doubt, at the 101 do in July? Still awaiting confirmation of my July roster. Fingers crossed.

Although our current
fleets of VC10 and Tristar aircraft are doing a superb job, both
fleets are coming towards the end of their useful lives.

Sorry dont know or care how to work the Quote tool.

A quote from CAS....
Clearly playing the line the new labour conspiracy has supplied.

Comming towards the end of their useful lives?????
Or just plan knackered and still being given servce in an RAF which is (in parts) in a 70s time warp.

PS no disrespect to the guys who actually fly these old ladies.

The Oz air force is supposedly aquiring some of those A330 converted air refueling tankers.
Maybe the RAF should negotiate with the RAAF so they could offload the A330s and get some B767 tankers.

With the mess-up going on right now with the airbuses acquision, I'm thinking the RAAF would be very happy to get rid of them and go for the much better B767 tanker, now the US Congress is about to take them for the US Air Force.

That, of course, means many airplanes, which means lower costs for all, both initially and in the years to come!

Cheers...FD...:ooh:

BEagle: 'Blonde moments'. Who could you possibly mean?

And as for "Denting hire cars". that's not the exclusive domain of the Society of Directional Consultants and Aliied Trades. I seem to remember a pilot (who may or may not be Tonkenna) denting a top brand hire car in Holland using another pilot's head (who may or may not be a fairly senior officer still in the AAR world).

Mr Bernoulli: Hope the Tourettes gets better soon!

Anyone know how many aircraft we are talking about here ?

14 aircraft.

'Much better 767 tanker'? ROFLMAO at that!

Just compare capabilities - the inadequate 767 simply doesn't meet the OzAF requirement spec. It was downselected some years ago.

Yes, see you at the July do, MrB!

Do I detect some goal-post shifting here?

And on the same day
 

This from the defence intranet news briefings


Half of PFI deals fail "good value" test

Half the private finance initiative contracts that have so far undergone "value testing" have failed to produce value for money, the National Audit Office said in a report today. Independent 06/06/2007 p. 46

I wonder which half we'll end up in?

They reckon it's that low........:hmm:

From my experience in PFI I'd be suprised if better than 20-25% give 'good value'.

As ever the bean counters know the theoretical cost of everything, but the true value of nothing.

XV277. You are dead right about goal-post shifting. Page 1 of the Invitation To Negotiate for the VC10, Tristar replacement issued at the end of 2000 says the replacement is to be known as Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and that only responses to this ITN that offer PFI solutions will be considered. I can not find reference to feasibility anywhere in all of the 4 volumes.

Beags said:
"Personally I canot see the A330K ARO position being filled by people without considerable navigation experience"

Ex Tri-Star air engineers perhaps?

Knowing the RAF, I am surprised they have not conducted a feasability report on recommisioning the victor fleet :}

Seriously though, what makes a good tanker?? I am thinking good lowish speed handling, low stall speed and lots of lift capacity? :ok:, we were chatting about this at work the other night, the trusty old 747 was mentioned, would this make a decent flying fuel station? :ok:

Call me a cynic but isn't this announcement spookily close to the results of the Nimrod AAIB being due??

Additionally, how have they let a PFI when there are still issues on whether we will be able to use US defensive aids or not??? :ugh:

Who runs the fleet of VC10 and TriStar refuelling aircraft at present is it the RAF or another contractor ???

Quote "it will require someone with navigation experience"

Or a VC10 eng who already has load and trim experience, operating AAR equipment and who is more than capable of operating an FMS. Cheaper than a PA Spine Nav.:ok:

Kengineer-130,

I doubt very much the 747 would make a good tanker. Four engines on the wings leaves you very little room for wing hoses that won't be interefered with by jet engine effects. 747 needs a LOT of augmented lift at low(er) speeds, making its fuel burn rate just horrendous. And all that modified lift would play havoc with any aircraft trying to get behind a hose. It could never cope with the speeds required to refuel a C130.

Even a VC10 needs a low-speed drougue and some flap as well as a shallow descent ('toboggan') to allow a C130 to remain in contact for a lengthy refuel. In this config, in level flight, the VC10 burns near 10 tonnes an hour! A 747 does that in a normal cruise - IF (a very big IF) it could go slow enough for a C130 what the hell would it be burning?

Well, Flying and 1st line maint. is done by the RAF.
Mr B... nice to see that you remember the slow speed drogue burn rate... perhaps the captain I did a ground cat on today could contact you:E as he didn't know it:p (oh and yes it was me that damaged the Merc some years ago Dan!! and the other chap is still a FL... but not for long... soon to be a !st Officer)
I am not really sure, from what I have read so far, just how much closer we are to seeing these aircraft for real. I think I can safely say I will need my VC10 FRCs for a while yet though. I looked at the airtanker web site yesterday and there was nothing new there... suppose we will just have to wait... and we are good at that:ugh:
Tonks :hmm:

Beags. As you say, no probes. It occurs to me to wonder if the A330 could easily have proper plumbing inserted at manufacture so that, if ever, the need should arise for Tanker/ Tanker refueling {heaven forbid} a safe and easy modification could be made by just adding a probe to the aircraft. Without pre-judging the current Nimrod concern the problems during Corporate, when bowser hose ran through the cabin and one daintily tripped over it could have been avoided if appropriate internal pipes had been installed. It is worth noting that many of the Valiants, indeed many of the V,s were fitted internally for refuel but minus the probe. Maybe we should remember that history is not all bunk?.

The OzAF are intending to operate their A330s in the receiver role - but not with a probe. Fitted 'for, but not with' a receiver system would indeed seem to make sense, Arters.

Of course the OzAF also have to haul that lumbering great boom around with them. But now that the 'Pig' (F111) is to be replaced by the Super Hornet rather sooner than many thought, I wonder whether they will actually do very much boom AAR?

Kengineer,

You asked what makes a good tanker. My tuppence:

High total fuel load. This is self-explanatory, but can incur a penalty for heavy footprint in terms of aircraft size, ACN, logistics etc.

A low burn rate at around 280-320 KCAS. This characteristic is very important but cannot alone turn an airframe that lacks fuel capacity into a good tanker.

A combination of boom and hose systems, ideally with simultaneous 2 point hose refuelling. The coalition ops of recent years would have been much easier if all tankers could have serviced all receivers. Unfortunately a boom is hard to justify on the basis of interoperability alone.

Capability to receive fuel. The lessons of history have shown the value of tanker-tanker fuel transfer. The USAF can compare and contrast the operation of KC-135 (most can't receive) to KC-10 (all can) and have clearly stated the KC-X must be able to receive fuel. The Aussies, Italians and Japanese all agree. The UK MoD has convinced itself that the receiver AAR is not necessary. Specifying a UAARSI (boom receptacle) would also help to justify an indigenous boom capability.

Low speed handling characteristics are not that important as long as the aircraft can be slowed to around 180-200 knots for C-130 AAR. I don't think that a high burn rate in this regime is terribly significant, as it is for only for a small proportion of the sortie. The older USAF tankers with very simple high lift devices seem to manage C-130 AAR without a drama - although again the boom might be better for this type of refuelling.

Ancillary equpment pertinent to Air Transport is also important, as all new tankers will have to perform other roles - so freight door, airstairs, aeromed fit, crew rest area etc are all valuable. Sadly, again the UK is falling behind.

Finally, I would personally prefer to have more than 2 engines so that critical missions would not have to be aborted for technical failures. When the latest twins are new I'm sure that they will hardly ever have an engine failure. But what about when they are knocking on 40 years old? Unfortunately no one builds anything suitable that has more than 2 engines. Network capability and reliability aside, none of the new aircraft actually surpass the physical capabilities of the KC-10. It's a shame that Long Beach only make C-17s.

Beagle

Wedgetail if it ever shows.

Where ever we seem to buy from, US or Euro, chances are it'll be a cock up someway.

Super Hornet - what happens when a GP is in charge of your defence force.

Navigational experience and TriStar Air Engineers! I dont think so!

Slight thread creep but I think it is near enough.

A new glossy hit my desk this week - Eurofighter Review - Issue 1 - 2007.

Inside is contains on page 19 "External fuel tanks, for increased range, are certified for supersonic flight while "wet" air to air refuelling, with the unique fully-retractable refuelling probe, is cleared for all specified customer Tanker types, including "buddy-buddy" refuelling from Tornado aircraft."

Wow, all along I thought external fuel tanks were there to increase drag and reduce the number of available weapons stations. :)

I guess the unique fully-retractable refuelling probe is an in-house concept and owes nothing to McDonald Douglas or Panavia?

As for buddy-buddy, correct me if I am wrong but Tornado-Typhoon is not buddy-buddy.

Iranians had several 747 tankers, dont know anything about its capability or operations though. Several were still parked in Tehran a couple of years ago.Guess if you're only fuelling fast jets with a boom its probably an awesome capability !!!

Hey Dragon79....

What do you mean..."If it ever shows", A30-001 just completed its full mission cabin fitout, and is off continuing its mission system flight testing as we speak.
That doesn't mean to say that the mission system testing hasn't been going on for some time, but without the full cabin fit.

And yes, you're right, it uses the UARRSI connection to the tankers flying boom for AAR.

Great little mean machine!

Cheers...FD...:ok:

In Australia, doing what we paid for it to do, and not for static display at air shows.

No doubt it may be the business, but yet another procurement with major issues.

Sorted last year: Blanket Approval for US Supplied Military Equipment

Considerable navigation experience required/?????
 

Beags: "Personally I canot see the A330K ARO position being filled by people without considerable navigation experience; "

Get real Beags, go down to Halfords this weekend, navigators come in little boxes and get stuck to car windows now! However, if you think pilots can't use an FMS and need navs to do it....... Oh yes, of course, they are all on VC10s :}