It will be interesting to see, other than pilots, who will crew the ac?????? With an upcoming surge in WSOs (FJ Navs), with no cockpits to fly in, it will be amazing how the job specs will be written..........
:ok: |
Originally Posted by luchboxlegend
(Post 5940022)
MOD is just the same-hasn't got the money but can make regular payments to someone who has!
No PFI Contractor has any money sloshing around in the event they win a lucrative contract. They have to raise the money in the commercial market. Now the MOD could, in theory, enter the commercial market too and borrow the money by selling stocks in MOD.com plc. They would then have to repay the stocks in 25 years time, a dividend to bond holders. The difference is that the PFI Contractor raises the money in the commercial market, pays interest on this and passes the interest plus profit on to the MOD. They also provide the through life service on the same cost plus basis. Either way MOD pays for the annual running costs of the contract but in the later they pay a profit premium on the costs. If they raise MOD Bonds they would discount the future and put off the evil moment of repaying the loan for 25 years. |
Not sure of his connection, if any, with the FSTA programme, but he seems in favour.
'You can't kick ass without tanker gas' Shameful contract or shining light? Director of The Air League Andrew Brookes shares his thoughts on the merits of the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme….. |
The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as a Formula One pit stop. And it's 'NKAWTG', to be strictly accurate! ;) |
Could it be the last?
It will be interesting to see, other than pilots, who will crew the ac?????? With an upcoming surge in WSOs (FJ Navs), with no cockpits to fly in, it will be amazing how the job specs will be written.......... |
The wing pods alone refuel twice as fast as a Formula One pit stop. |
Certainly the best option would be for any tanker Mission System Operators to have a significant level of long-range / high level navigation expertise and aircraft systems knowledge.
I doubt very much indeed whether any rear seat aircrew except navigators and air engineers would be capable of necessary task skills. Kipper fleet signallers? I don't think so.... |
long range/High level nav? what punch the FP into a computer and press enter? An air engineer would need a significantly longer PET course than a navigator from any background. Other air forces who thought that an 'Operator' would be sufficient in 21st century tanker aircraft soon realised that they were wrong. Whereas their ex-FJ or ex-C130 navigators were ideal MSOs. |
Just the kind of justification for NAVs I was expecting.......... What a load of B*&^&*ks. I have sat on the side lines and listened to the various FSTA project members bending over backwards to ensure that WSOps do not get onto the flt deck.
Years past there was a difference in the tech knowledge of AEng v LMs/AEops but not anymore!!! A WSOp/AEng/LM can be trained to maximise the ac capability and, more importantly, would cost a lot less. Also, with the potential demise of the Maritime/FJ/C-130K fleets which employ Navs, this would mean you would keep an entire trg pipeline open for ONE ac type! VFM, I don't think so.:E |
Beags is wrong
I doubt very much indeed whether any rear seat aircrew except navigators and air engineers would be capable of necessary task skills. So I can't do MSO? Thanks for the bigotry. |
NKAWTG... Nobody!
Punchiest catchphrase EVER! Apart from, maybe - 'Safely, by the book and then on time'. |
An air engineer would need a significantly longer PET course than a navigator from any background. It sounds as though the FSTA team have heeded the lessons of others. Another country proposes using pilots as MSOs to assist the boom operator when h/she is busy. When the RAF runs out of navigators, perhaps they might also need to consider using pilots. MSOs would only be required for AAR sorties, so why bother with an additional trade at all? |
I doubt very much indeed whether any rear seat aircrew except navigators and air engineers would be capable of necessary task skills. Sorry Beags, but posts like that show just how out of touch you are with where things are going now. I know even some VC10 ALMs who would be up to the job with the right training package :uhoh: |
Originally Posted by Could be the last?
(Post 5941095)
Also, with the potential demise of the Maritime/FJ/C-130K fleets which employ Navs, this would mean you would keep an entire trg pipeline open for ONE ac type! VFM, I don't think so.:E
Instead, recruit purely for the single skill of MSO, add additional training modules if required in the future. The USAF recruited pure AWAC mission crew rather than multi-role AGE/AWAC. |
recruit purely for the single skill of MSO would cost a lot less |
On the subject of MSOs, a couple of thoughts......
Firstly BEagle doesn't have a track record of being too in love with WSOs, he points out their errors with glee and takes the mickey on numerous occassions......(but maybe he doth protest too much, maybe he does have a sneaking admiration?). BEagle made the following comment...."Other air forces who thought that an 'Operator' would be sufficient in 21st century tanker aircraft soon realised that they were wrong. Whereas their ex-FJ or ex-C130 navigators were ideal MSOs." Are we once again so arrogant as to believe we don't need to learn lessons from elsewhere? I'm not saying that many WSOps wouldn't be capable of the job, I'm sure they would. Hopefully they will even get the chance.... Why don't we adopt the following approach? See what surplus aircrew we have post SDR (both WSO and WSOp) - and how long they have left in the RAF. If someone has say 10 years left then you either have to make them redundant or gainfully employ them. For those we elect to retain, start the MSO cadre with a mix of both WSOs and WSOps. Gain some experience with the fleet, and as the source of underemployed WSOs/WSOps start to run out decide exactly what, in terms of rank/training you need to recruit off the high street to replace them with...... Simples! Reference Wrathmonks comment - I'm sure someone one told me that SACs were trained to operate radars and sat in the back seat of Javelins, but maybe I was being wound up, and I can't be bothered to try a google search on the matter. |
KF,
And let me guess the Nav will be a SO2 and will be the Flt Cdr....... What a surprise.:ok: |
Originally Posted by Biggus
(Post 5941776)
Reference Wrathmonks comment - I'm sure someone one told me that SACs were trained to operate radars and sat in the back seat of Javelins, but maybe I was being wound up, and I can't be bothered to try a google search on the matter.
|
KF,
So the jobs are already "stitched up" by the Brize (+Lyneham?) mafia? 10 Air Engineers (ex VC-10 and Tristar) - Brize 10 VC-10/Tristar LMs - Brize 10 C130J/C-17 LMs - Mainly Brize? 6 other (?) 1 Nav (ex VC-10?) So what happens when the Air Eng banch finally dies, as this is a 25 yr project, the Air Eng school closed several years ago, and most Air Engs these days aren't spring chickens? More WSOps from wherever I suppose - LMs whose knees have gone whilst on SH? |
KF......Nice 'fishing' expedition....... Take one correct fact and mix it with speculation......or fiction if you prefer
:ugh: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.