PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Ageing air transport aircraft.... (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/362741-ageing-air-transport-aircraft.html)

airfarce1 22nd Feb 2009 15:13

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.

Doctor Cruces 23rd Feb 2009 11:51

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

The Real Slim Shady 23rd Feb 2009 18:24

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?

BEagle 23rd Feb 2009 18:57

....within a sensible budget....
Define 'sensible' first.

For passenger transport and freight?
How many, how much and over what distance?

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

For outsize freight?
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.

The Real Slim Shady 23rd Feb 2009 19:51


and with your collective specialist knowledge of the task requirement

Guzlin Adnams 23rd Feb 2009 22:13

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:

BEagle 24th Feb 2009 08:47

TRSS - Blond genug!

Still A330 + C-17 though!!

The Real Slim Shady 24th Feb 2009 09:11

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.

BEagle 24th Feb 2009 15:37

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

MarkD 24th Feb 2009 16:12

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

The Real Slim Shady 24th Feb 2009 18:17

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

D-IFF_ident 24th Feb 2009 23:24

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.


GreenKnight121 25th Feb 2009 02:37

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.

mr ripley 25th Feb 2009 08:12

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

The Real Slim Shady 25th Feb 2009 09:29

Take a peek here

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


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.

BEagle 25th Feb 2009 09:46

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.

The Real Slim Shady 25th Feb 2009 09:57

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.

The Helpful Stacker 25th Feb 2009 10:18

Are all the Boeing options 'available now'?

How is the KC767 project going BTW? ;)

Brain Potter 25th Feb 2009 12:19

frankly Beags I don't give a toss who made them
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......

Evalu8ter 25th Feb 2009 13:09

"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.

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:22.

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.