14greens
The BBC? The OP was from the witney gazzette!

From the OP
He said the Tristar grounded at Kandahar was also being investigated for a fault but was available for “tasking”.

I agree the Tristar does do a good job with the airbridge considering its age and its a testament to everyone involved, no other nation is able to do a direct service like us.

However the reliability is getting worst and the ac is seen as bit of a joke in Kandahar.

Been out of touch over the week end, so sorry for late response.

I'm with 411a on the old Tri*, wonderful machine. We operated one out of MAN for 9 months solid with only one significant delay. That was H24 for a roll spoiler actuator to be delivered from the states because there were none in Europe.

Maintained properly they just go, and go and go and go.

Perhaps a bit if Belfast syndrome here. Dunno why the RAF couldn't make them go without breaking with monotonous regularity, but Heavylift sure could!!!

Doc C

And the solution is FSTA?
 

So given that the RAF has an ageing AT and AAR fleet, and with your collective specialist knowledge of the task requirement, without dealing in route or theatre specifics, within a sensible budget, what do you want?

For passenger transport and freight?

For AAR?

For outsize freight?


And WHY?

Define 'sensible' first.

How many, how much and over what distance?

Of what? Fast jets, heavy receivers, probe and drogue only - or boom as well? Single role tanker or AT/AAR?

Whither? What do you mean by 'outsize'? Something that would only fit in a An124 - or something that would fit in an A400M?

However, I would recommend that the A330 would meet the first 2 requirements as far as the RAF is concerned; however, to move large green things painted pink, there is only the C-17 or leased An124/An225 right now.

Beags

RTFQ ;)

Oh go on, have a few C27's as well as additonal C17's. With the slump as it is there may be a few cheapish 330's around before too long to buy......yes My Broon, buy!:ok:

TRSS - Blond genug!

Still A330 + C-17 though!!

The RAF has a history of purchasing random types, primarily because the purchasing is not bounded by commercial realities.

It makes no sense to acquire and operate an Airbus when the RAF already has Boeings; E3 and C17.

Equally, it makes no sense to jump into the A400 programme when all the expertise is with the C130: moreover, the 130 provides commonality with our largest allies.

I was struggling to find a suitably apt riposte to such obvious rubbish, but decided that BOLLOCKS would suffice!

TRSS - so RAF should buy clapped out 135s to act in the tanker-transport role so that some sort of commonality can be had with the E-3 fleet? I assume there might be a rivet or two in common here and there.

I can only think you're trying to pop a Beag blood vessel...?

Although now you mention it RAF is taking on clapped out 135s in the surveillance role :E

That's what I enjoy about this forum, a reasoned structured debate based on fact. ;);)

Slim, perhaps you could give us your reasoned and structured rationale as to why you think the RAF should only operate Boeing aircraft?

Before you start, however, you might like to consider that Boeing frames make up a small minority of the RAF fleet. Less than 5% I'd suggest.

:ugh:

I seem to recall the RAF currently operating Vickers (VC-10) [15], de Havilland/Hawker Siddely (Nimrod) [15], and Lockheed (Tristar) [9] as large jet aircraft... vs 13 Boeing [7 E-3, 6 C-17].

39:13 (a 3:1 ratio against Boeing)...not quite a "Boeing-centric" RAF large jet fleet, now is it?

As for your "don't buy A400M (or anything but C-130) because C-130s are our only current large prop aircraft" "idea"... if the RAF thought they way you want them to, they would never have bought any aircraft from any manufacturer whose aircraft they weren't already operating when the RAF was formed (1918).

A really bad idea, I'd think.

And taking it further the C17 was from the McDonnell Douglas stable.

Take a peek here

and here http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post4458158

herehttp://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post4465446

and herehttp://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post4503996

and here for the FSTA timelineAirTanker - Business - Timeline

You need a solution NOW, not at some shifting future date.

Converting those 2 x A310-300s currently at Dresden into MRTTs would be a good start.....

They just need the Basic Tanker Kit; everything necessary has already been designed and certificated for the A310MRTT and CC150T Polaris.

Oh, and by the way, they're not made by Boeing.

frankly Beags I don't give a toss who made them so long as they are available now, provide the necessary capability and can do the job.

By now I mean within the next 18 months.

Are all the Boeing options 'available now'?

How is the KC767 project going BTW? ;)

But Slim, you did give a toss who makes them otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement about Boeing airframes in the first place.

Any boost to the AT force in the short-term (18-month) timescale you are talking about can only be achieved by increasing numbers of aircraft that are already in service, be they C-17, C-130 or TriStar. A completely new fleet would take at least that time to buy and build-up to any usable capability. The record in recent times must go to the C-17 which was about a year from 'flash-to-bang'. However, it had the great advantage of being able to graft-on military procedures that already existed in the USAF, and the aircraft was kept away from the the whole Qinetiq mire.

Do not think that just because there are some aircraft available from defunct airlines that this would be a quick and easy solution. The XL fleet for example are probably owned by leasing companies, who will be negotiating to place these jets with new operators. The military is a non-starter to take them as a short-term measure because once the jets are in military hands, have been worked on by unlicensed engineers and have received military mods they will become worthless to the the leasing company as they can't easily go back into commercial service.

BEags, as much as you are A310 salesman-of-the-year, I don't think that the AAR world is crying out for airframes right now so a couple of tanker-modified A310s would not really be a practical solution, unless they were to be part of a huge change of direction away from FSTA.

The optimum solution for Strat AT would be to accelerate the FSTA, but that is probably impossible. Additional C-17s and C-130s would be achievable relatively quickly but requires money......

"Additional C-17s and C-130s would be achievable relatively quickly but requires money...... "

...or a small fraction of the $5Bn of military aid that Israel gets gratis every year.. How 'bout it Barack? Good news for the C17 / C130 lines as well. Just for once treat your staunchest ally with your staunchest support, do a deal with your new best pal Gordon - 6 extra C17s for additional troops in AFG? Oh, and a dozen or so second hand CH47Ds would help as well.

Whose are the MRTTs BEags? Ex-GAF, or just surplus? That would be a most excellent interim solution...a bloody good aircraft and just what's needed at the moment. 200 pax, 5 tonnes an hour, 180 mins ETOPS plus there's some corporate knowledge of how to fly them. Well, not sure if one man = corporate knowledge, but it's a start. The previous incumbents might be available for a fee....:}

brit bus driver, the aircraft are not MRTTs, they are A310-300s. But, since they're sitting at Dresden already, conversion could start pretty quickly.

They are (unless someone has already grabbed them) FedEx-owned at present.

Both the CF and Luftwaffe are currently operating 2 x A310 MRTTs each (CC150T in CF service). As excellent in the AAR role as they always were in the AT role! The Luftwaffe have just completed a deployment of EF2000s from the Baltic to India and back; apart from one EF going u/s in Abu Dhabi, everything went well.

Last time I checked, there were around 8 x A310-300s available which could be converted to MRTT standard; most have CF engines but the FedEx ones have Pratts.

As for 'bringing FSTA forward'? Well, one pair of wings has now been built but that's all so far.......

Brian,

flash to bang for civilian airlines can be anything between 2 months ( been there, seen it, got the T shirt) to 9 to 12 months.

It is not inconceivable that if you say "go" tomorrow and provide adequate, not excessive, funding, that I could have 10 AT aircraft in service in 9 months: tankers a tad longer.

Hey Slim

Dont you start bringing my good name into your argument

Commercial operators don't have to work within HMG finance and accounting regulations. These rules make the procurement process much, much slower than it could be, but they cannot simply be swept away.

On a practical basis your 10 aircraft would need at least 50 pilots and perhaps 150 engineers. Unlike commercial airlines the operation of large-jet transport aircraft is relatively niche part of the whole organization. People with the right experience to make a new aircraft type happen quickly simply cannot be conjured-up in such a short timescale without seriously denuding the output of the existing fleets. The problem is exacerbated by the hurdle of a step-change in technology caused by prolonging the life of the previous aircraft. I would suggest that, as the TriStar is so heavily tasked, most of the people would have to come from the VC10. Either way the pilots have no experience of 2-crew, EFIS or ETOPS. It's not quite the same as taking a bunch of 737 pilots and converting them to say a 757. Lack of relevant experience is not insurmountable but would need to be much more carefully managed than your claim would allow.

The other issue is regulatory. Military aircraft airworthiness is the responsibility of the MoD, not the CAA. The C-17 release-to-service was readily accepted as the lease was directly coupled to the DoD regulatory process. A new type of transport aircraft would have to issued with a MAR and all the necessary DAS mods cleared by Boscombe.

I assure you that it is highly unlikely that it could be done in 2 years, let alone just 9 months.

The problem is exacerbated by the hurdle of a step-change in technology caused by prolonging the life of the previous aircraft. I would suggest that, as the TriStar is so heavily tasked, most of the people would have to come from the VC10. Either way the pilots have no experience of 2-crew, EFIS or ETOPS..............looks like we are buggered as we apparently have no pilots at all with experience of a 2 pilot flight deck :=

There are probably a couple of hundred heavy jet pilots in the UK either unemployed or stuck in an airline they'd rather not be in. Why not make some special deals al la WW2 "Hostilities Only". I know several people who would be happy trucking around for a couple of years while the airline industry drags itself out of the mess it's in.

2 Pilot Flight Deck
 

Training a crew from a 3 crew to 2 crew operation is no big deal with the correct training facilities. I went from a Capt. on 3 crew 747-200 to 2 crew 747-400 with no previous EFIS experience in less than 8 weeks. No base training required with modern simulators, first trip on a/c with training Capt in RH seat and full load of pax.
Ref A330 FSTA training, Australia RAAF pilots train with QF. They are flying QF a/c under supervision of QF trainers as we speak to get route experience. We could do the same in UK, BM operate 330's and could train the RAF crews. Why a whole new training facilty at great cost at BZ?

I'm not sure the RAAF pilots will be converting to type in 8 weeks though. Nor that you could take RAF VC10 pilots out of their 4 person flightdeck and convert them to a modern type in 8 weeks. You're arguing apples and oranges.

The problem with the AT fleet lies in the delays of the FSTA project. But that is where the solution also lies - the contract has been signed and there's no money for an interim solution. Except more charters offset by less use of the Brize Norton Vintage Aircraft Society.

Don't be so sure that it's that difficult to go from a 4 man to a 2 man flight deck. Whilst the old herc may be a little less complex than, say, the VC10 is, the J is as complex, if not more so in some ways, than a modern civvy flightdeck. The only people that struggle on a 2 man flightdeck are those that were able to hide their lack of ability in the crowd of a 4 man flightdeck.

99.9% of people leaving the RAF to go civvy have no problem converting across to the civvy 2 man flightdeck.

Nail on the head, SS. To an vaguely competent bloke (hello!), 3 (or 4) to 2 is a doddle. Going back again is less straightforward - whadd'ya mean join the hold manually......:}

And I know it might be heracy but these 2 pilot glass cockpit aircraft are actually easier to operate. They are designed with loads of gadgets to make it so. The only issue is learning a new set of terminology.

At the beginning....."Flex, SRS, Runway"


At the end......"Autoland, 50' Radio"


If it all goes wrong......"My R/T, your ECAM."


That should just about cover it.


Tea white none works just the same.

:ok:

It can't be that difficult. After all, we all know some of the gear monkeys currently on 2 pilot ops...............

You still an Eng?

I agree that it isn't difficult for individuals to convert to newer-technology aircraft within an organization that is already operating and collectively experienced with the type. Such folks are products of an established training system and will usually be going initially into the RHS, with the luxury of learning the ropes whilst being watched over by somebody more experienced on type.

It is a quite a different matter to build a new fleet from scratch, where nobody has any experience of the aircraft. The C-17 initial cadre were experienced operators and were exposed to USAF ops for 3-months or so before returning to form a squadron. Moreover they did not have to set-up any basic conversion training, as that was going to remain with the USAF. The sqn itself ramped up gently to operate just 4-aircraft. TRSS is claiming that it is feasible to have 10 jets running within 9-months.

The RAF has very few jet, EFIS, 2-man flight-deck experienced instructors, particularly if by instructing one means the whole conversion training process. What experience does exist would have to be stripped away from fleets that would certainly not be reducing their tasking in response to the arrival of a new type. The fleet that could be "chopped" and re-trained en-mass (VC10) would have the challenges of the new technology to cope with. Of course it could be done, but with care and certainly not as quickly as TRSS claims. If you start to say that the training, or some of the operating, can be parcelled away to civilians then you are getting right back to the FSTA concept, which TRSS claims he could quickly circumvent.

New fleets always present these kind of challenges and they are inevitably overcome, but not by trying to declare FOC within 9 months. My point was that it would be reckless to attempt some half-baked, panic scheme as proposed by TRSS. The contracted-out solution is already in gestation with FSTA and it far enough developed that no other credible scheme could be operational in numbers any sooner. In the meantime efforts to boost the AT force should focus on more C-130s and C-17s.

Brian, the scheme is neither half baked nor is it a panic measure. The entire RAF AT and AAR capability is falling apart: FSTA will not work, it is already late and getting later. The FLA is way behind schedule and the C130 fleet is ageing.

There has to be an alternative, or does the RAF work on placing all the eggs in one basket?

"It is a quite a different matter to build a new fleet from scratch, where nobody has any experience of the aircraft. The C-17 initial cadre were experienced operators and were exposed to USAF ops for 3-months or so before returning to form a squadron. Moreover they did not have to set-up any basic conversion training, as that was going to remain with the USAF. The sqn itself ramped up gently to operate just 4-aircraft."

I think the J model and it's introduction flies in the face of most of what you have posted there old chap :=

From what I remember the C-130J took quite a bit longer than 9-months from introduction to FOC.

Brain,

And I mentioned 9 months where? Nice riposte though :rolleyes: