Is it REALLY the RAFs?
 

Given that its a PFI does it really belong to the RAF?

BBC News - RAF's largest aircraft Voyager officially unveiled

No, it is not owned by the RAF. It is owned by Air Tanker, who hold the AOC for operating the aircraft and do what the customer (The RAF) ask. The aircraft are maintained by Air Tanker with a pukka 145 approval from the UK CAA with sponsored reservists (LAEs), Civil LAEs, RAF LAEs and a combination of contracted and RAF personel as the mechanics. Management will be Civvy/RAF like the 2 line contracts.

Don't know about pilots (possibly all RAF), and military rules will apply to most operations I would assume (due to role, but the CAA cater for this).

Disappointing lack of detail in that article; there was no mention of double-decker buses or Olympic swimming pools.

GalleyCoffeePot,

OF COURSE they are the RAF's. They may be financially owned by a contractor but that contract exists solely to provide the RAF with an Air Transport and Air to Air refueling capability.

They will be flown by RAF crews, maintained by RAF engineers, be organised into RAF squadrons and located on a Royal Air Force station.

How much MORE RAF could they be?

I think the question is how less the RAF's could they be?

Suppose Roman Abramovich decides to buy AirTanker Plc and withdraw from the contract at VERY short notice?


In the words made famous in Snatch! You're gonna be "Proper Fcuked"

Willard, they showed it in size relative to a Lancaster. Are you suggesting that most of the great unwashed are not familiar with a Lancaster as a unit of measure?

Maybe most Chavs living in Lincolnshire might have a better idea of the size of a Lanc than the size of an Olympic size pool right enough.

airpolice,

Now you are just in plain old fantasy land!

WHY on earth Roman Abramovich want to buy AirTanker and what makes you think that the AirTanker share holders would want to sell?

You could make the same ludicrous argument about absolutely any defence company in the western world.

Thread creep off the ownership topic, but isn't the 'Voyager' the 1st new tanker a/c to ever be delivered to the RAF?

The Valiant's that I played with on 214, and the Victors that were rushed into the role when the Valiant's got their metal fatigue problems were 'field upgrades' from bombers, and of course the Tristars and VC-10 weren't even new airframes when the RAF got them. They were all 'tour ex' from civilian airlines.

I appreciate that the Voyager is a modified A-330, but it was modified on the drawing board and built as a Tanker not as an afterthought.

Isn't that a bit arse about face? Test something AFTER you have signed a £10.5bn contract...

Trogger,


That's been the exact same case for each and every military aircraft ever purchased by UK MOD.


ian16th,


I think you are right.

QQ is doing the tests that can't be done on the drawing board and with equipment not available in Spain, that the RAF/MOD is insistant on keeping in its inventory until it's the same age as the Lancaster is now.

Still, we should know how it works in practice - not from theory...

prOOne,

The question of who owns the Voyager fleet in not a simple one to answer. Some of the fleet will be available to thje RAF to meet daily tasking but some will be used by Air Tanker to meet purely civilian tasks. Whether those aircraft would be instantly available to the RAF if there was a sudden increase in tasking is debatable. Those aircraft on civilian tasks would certainly not be crewed or serviced by RAF personnel.

As far as equipment is concerned, only a proportion of the fleet will be 3 point Tankers, the rest will only have wing pods which may be removed for civilian operations. I suspect there are still some questions to be solved before the aircraft is in full service, welcome as it will be.

If every aircraft in this fleet holds a full CAA Certificate of Airworthiness, then we should give thanks to every Aviation deity that we believe in. The obvious next point is, God forbid that there be an Air Accident involving one of them, who would then carry out the investigation, the AAIB or the MAAIB?

So at a time when budgets are at a premium no one has picked up on how much this capability is going to cost!!!!

Current cost of A330-200 = $175-201m.
14 ac = $2450 - $2814m.
PFI = $16,9b for 27yrs.

If my maths is even close, and I've had to borrow a lot of fingers, this means each ac will cost $941m over the period of the PFI, or, $34m per yr, or, $2.9m per month etc etc etc:eek:

Questions:

Why did the MoD buy out the lease on the C17?
Is there an option to buy?
Who will own the ac after the 27 yr PFI?
Would Branson have 'purchased' his ac capability ( this includes addressing all the DLoDs associated with a new ac) in the same way?

As these hold a full UK CAA CofA it will be the UK AAIB and definately not the MAAIB (though the MAAIB may well be observers)

And yes - thanks to the deity that saved them from RAF certification.

They will be welcome stepping stones into the Airline World :E

CBTL,
You forgot to add the rest of the deal to your sums:

Hangars and buildings
SIMs,
part 147 ground staff and crew training,
part M,
part 145,
AOC,
FCL,
AIRWORTHINESS reviews

i.e. All those things the RAF does (or used to do) and more - and, hopefully, to a reliable standard for a reliable service. (No. I'm not employed by them)

It will not work without Loadmasters
 

The only way this aircraft will work is if you put loadmasters on it!!!!

Stand back and wait for the Flak

Mole Man:ok:

...and I thought the CofG was sorted?

Why would they need more weight?

I believe the RAF took delivery of 11 Brand new VC10's from Vickers. There is an interesting book about the VC10, weird concepts were on the drawing boards

I notice the airforce-technology.com website talks about a "refuelling officer's station" behind the pilots' seats. Anyone know what aircrew category that will be, or are all single brevet aircrew WSOs these days, irrespective of whether or not they are operating weapons systems? Will we still have flight engineers?

Genuine question, I'm very out of date on this sort of thing.

Also anyone know what the fuel transfer rate is going to be from the pods? If a number of them are only going to be two-pointers I hope it's faster than the 2000lb/min we used to manage with the old Mk 20b pods.

Rumour has it that in the short term that particular crew station is going to smell of wee as the Nav Mafia have forced their way in.....:mad:

Have a good look round the aircraft, there's no ramp.

Loadmasters are only employed to raise and lower the ramp. Any fule kno that.

TTN, given the very commercial nature of this service, I would expect there to be a choice of flow rates depending on how much you are prepared to pay.

On getting a bra for the tanker you would be asked what rate you are paying, and that will dictate which pod they line you up with.

Obviously there will be queues forming as some Typhoon drivers struggle to work out if the extra fuel burn during a protracted transfer is better value than paying the higher rate to get all 4 tons in a short burst.

No Boom
 

How will we refuel the RIVET JOINT when it arrives? Needs a boom and VOYAGER doesn't appear to have one...:ugh:

The VC10 Tanker was fairly advanced as a project. When I did my tanker course on the Valiant in 1962 the training boards for the VC10 had been produced and awaiting use; but like so many other projects of the time it was abandoned.

Correction to my earlier post - it's not a CAA C of A at all...these are not "State Aircraft" so they will all have an EASA AC with an ARC.

So, if required, it's definately a CAA investigation into any incident or accident. MOD beware.

Rigga:
OK, I really am confused now. Why would the UK CAA investigate an Air Accident? Is that not the AAIB's job, or are the goal posts on the move yet again?

Red kicking in again - you're right.

OK, much relief! Thanks Rigga. Having held up the AAIB as an example for the MAAIB, ie separate and independent of both operators and regulator, I was fearful that some Treasury inspired rearranging had occurred. So much relieved that I can go on demanding a similarly independent MAA and MAAIB, of the MOD and of each other of course. Which reminds me:-
Self Regulation Never Works and in Aviation it Kills!

The RAF may operate them but the RAF did not buy them and the RAF do not own them.

But the RAF is paying for them, lol!

Incorrect. The taxpayer is paying for them.

This is a Service provided to the MOD paid for by the taxpayer.
The FSTA Contract « AirTanker

MAAIB
 

Rig, Chug,

Some good news....

Aircraft likely to be split across 2 registers (G reg and mil reg). Those aircraft on mil reg = MAA regulation = MAAIB.

Still some issues with respect to G reg as CAA definition of state aircraft has changed (now mil type 'activity' vice mil type 'aircraft').

CAA oversight only of Part 145/21J/G through leaflet 1-16 arrangements for ZZ aircraft.

Doh! Now I'm confused again :(
Not sure how it's good news if half the fleet is going to be subject to MAA Regulation and MAAIB Investigation, but hopefully you can explain, MOA. Good news would be if all UK Military Aircraft were to come under the auspices of an independent MAA and MAAIB, separated entirely from the MOD and each other, with full authority to exercise their respective remits. The words water and bridge come to mind....

About the civil use when the RAF don't require the aircraft -

It wouldn't make sense to have a military painted aircraft with military bits on it taking the Joneses to Orlando to go and see Mickey. Not to mention a potential diplomatic incident in some places, landing a military aircraft. The implication is that some of the aircraft will be nothing more than civil airliners, pure and simple, including paint job and markings, and lack of mil addons. The further implication of that is that the RAF will have somewhat less than 14 aircraft to do "military tasks", and for benign tasks such as trooping flights to Canada, they will be handled by the "bucket and spade" aircraft.

Have I got this right? How many frames will be in the "bucket and spade" role?

Purely from the maintenance aspect, if you've ever heard of Human Factors - splitting a single operator's fleet over two registers and two different Regulation sets is going to prove it does(n't) work.

I suppose they could get away with it if the civil and military sides don't touch, but it will be confusing if/when they do.

If anyone has operated an ETOPS fleet within a non-ETOPS fleet you might know what I mean...

So if 5 of these things at any one time are going to be transporting tattooed feckwit sun readers about how on earth could any sane thinking person think that we the military own them :mad: