PPRuNe Forums - 'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage'

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - 'AirTanker aims to solve European tanker shortage' (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/514463-airtanker-aims-solve-european-tanker-shortage.html)

To be fair.....

Quote:

12. Currently, FSTA is unable to fly into Afghanistan as it does not have the necessary protection equipment to fly into high threat environments.[30] The United Kingdom started operations in Afghanistan in 2001, when the requirements for FSTA were still immature. However the Department did not recognise the need for such equipment until 2006 in their Concept of Use document for FSTA and took the decision not to include it in the contract negotiations to avoid further delays, given the advanced stage negotiations were already at. The Department's explanation for the delay in recognising such a need was the significant difference in operational conditions between 2001 and 2006, in particular the scale of the challenge in Afghanistan.[31]

13. However, four years after this recognition, the Department has still not yet decided whether it will install this equipment on FSTA, citing that the need for FSTA to fly into high threat environment is not completely self-evident.[32] The Department has also only indicative costs from AirTanker over how much the modification work would cost and no funds have been ring-fenced for such work. Given the proximity of the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Department is now awaiting the outcome to see if it concludes there is such a need and what funding will be available before making a final judgement.[33]

14. Furthermore if the Department does decide to install this equipment, these are not quick modifications to make. On security grounds the Department did not wish to provide a clear indication of the time it might take, but estimated that a modification developed from scratch would typically take at least two years.[34] In the meantime, the Department is extending the life of the Tristar to allow it to fly into high threat environments, such as Afghanistan, up to 2016 and at a cost of £23.5 million.[35] Until a decision is made to install this equipment, FSTA will not be able to replace the Tristar fleet in its current role of flying personnel in and out of Afghanistan.[36]

Sourced from;

House of Commons - Delivering Multi-Role Tanker Aircraft Capability - Public Accounts Committee

Quote:

13. However, four years after this recognition, the Department has still not yet decided whether it will install this equipment on FSTA, citing that the need for FSTA to fly into high threat environment is not completely self-evident.

I'm a bit bemused by the thought that the honourable gentlemen couldn't foresee a time when the new FSTA would be required to fly into a high threat environment. We have armed forces, we expect to use them, we don't know where or when this will happen, but we won't equip our new fleet to cope with a current, let alone a future threat. :confused:

At the time of the report we were still in both Iraq and Afghanistan and won't be leaving the latter until 8 years after the report was written.

Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?

Quote:

alfred_the_great - Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?

Buying an aircraft to do something and having an aircraft that has a capability are two very different things. The C17 inherited the HERRICK pax role due to the shortcomings of the rest of the AT fleets.
It is, of course, highly capable but the additional tasking is having an adverse long-term effect on the fleet and its operators, whilst detracting from its capacity elsewhere.

Lets have elements of the fleet that can all do their bit and spread the love.:ok:

Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?

I believe the C17 and A400 where brought to carry cargo, and outsized cargo at that. They are a very expensive way to move passengers when you work out the MPG of each type and divide by the number of passengers

Sorry to pick holes Uncle Ginster but I thought the C-17s were the only fleet doing Pax moves to Herrick long before the dedicated pax aircraft were allowed to to the job. Remember the RAF news article covering the first Tristar in to Afgan with that great quote from the loadmaster "its tough moving freight and PAX". Agreed the PAX fleet has inadequacies... not of their own doing.

To be fair to Airtanker, they had the defensive aids that NG (the system designers) said would be adequate installed...Its the RAF arse covering brigade that insisted on the belt and braces system... 2/3rds more defence than most U.S C-17's!!

Collbar, not really the case and the RAF (and NG) knew of the issues way before any metal was cut. Unfortunately Airtanker had the signed contract in their hands and proceeded as per every single 'frozen' letter of it.

Why get paid once for a job when you can get paid twice?

"Why would you want it to fly into a high threat environment when you've just brought A400Ms and C-17s to do exactly that?

I believe the C17 and A400 where brought to carry cargo, and outsized cargo at that. They are a very expensive way to move passengers when you work out the MPG of each type and divide by the number of passengers"

But didn't we buy these as tankers and not as AT aircraft, hence the name FSTA - Future Strategic TANKER Aircraft.

Fair do's Just this Once!!!

I have seem Airbus Mil in action...astounding mentality!!

AirTanker Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2008 the Ministry of Defence signed the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) contract with AirTanker to provide the Royal Air Force (RAF) with an air transport and air-to-air refuelling capability.

Wikipedia, must be true then! My belief is that the RAF were looking for tankers but acknowledged the fact that any aircraft could be used as an AT asset when not in the tanker role.

Blue Bottle, I get what they do now, that is not the point. What was the requirement at contract close? Clearly, if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.

Quote:

if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.

Post 121 explains

Strange how the whole FSTA plan has morphed, and still lacks the capability of the legacy platform.
I wonder how the FSTA would have turned out as a straight military purchase with none of this AirTanker nonsense?

OAP

Quote:

I wonder how the FSTA would have turned out as a straight military purchase with none of this AirTanker nonsense?

Head, parapet, go!

Quote:

Clearly, if the RAF wanted protected AT for the airbridge to be provided by Air Tanker, then surely the contract would have stipulated that the aircraft would have been suitably equipped as per the current fleet of TriStars and C17's.

Strangely enough, back at the start of the last decade, DAS for FSTA was a key user requirement. Obviously some idiot decided to trade it off against cost, time & performance based on some stupid notion that we don't ever put our tankers (for it was a tanker first) in harms way!!

Quote:

DFC

Squadron Leader MITCHELL was a flight commander on No 216 Squadron whose role it was to carry out air-to-air refuelling of NATO combat aircraft. On two missions alongside the Serbian border he drew the effusive praise of fighter aircrews for his courageous flying and remaining on station to complete his tasks regardless of the threats to his tanker aircraft. His performance on over 30 missions in support of combat aircraft was outstanding.

I have no experience of this other than in the IT world but I wonder if it's applicable here:

Often a project that I was involved in would never have been contemplated for a second if the true cost in time and money had been known at the start. People who understood knew that without the effort the company would have had nothing more than short term strategy and would eventually face some completely unexpected challenge of a magnitude that it could not respond to for lack of preparation.

So knowing the management's low appetite for any kind of risk and general lack of understanding of the situation that faced them, one would either skimp and scrape on the plan and thus get permission to commence or put in a realistic estimate and be shot down.

It was also always important to appear to have a working product quickly even if it didn't work properly because otherwise cancellation also loomed. Again this was part of the way managers are under great pressure to appear to achieve things and that their bosses don't know the difference between appearance and fact and don't want to know because they are trying to look good to someone themselves.

The company in which I had most of this experience no longer exists of course, because it was put to the sword by smarter foreign rivals.

Roland, did FSTA have a DAS fit when it entered service?