FSTA-When?
 

Exactly 6 years ago today, MOD issued an 'Invitation to Negotiate' to Industry. The deal was to provide Tanker/Transport aircraft to replace the VC10 and the Tristar in those roles with a Private Finance Initiative service. The timescale was for the first aircraft to be in service in 2007 and the full fleet completed by 2009. The proposal was titled "Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft" (FSTA).
A fair drop of water has passed under the bridge since then but with 2007 just about to start and with the VC10 and Tristar fleets working considerably harder than anticipated by that timescale, the need for replacement is critical. Although it is nearly 2 years since the Air Tanker Consortium was awarded preferred bidder status and in spite of vague hints that the contract is about to be given the go-ahead, the hard pressed ground and aircrew of the current fleet have no solid prospect of relief even by 2010. Surely the FSTA decision can not be delayed any longer. Maybe tomorrow, better today.

Who knows, Arters. Eevn AirTanker's own website shows 'contract signature' in 2007 now - and first tanker deliveries after 2010!

Meanwhile, work on the Aussie jet (which is to be owned and operated by the RAAF - no 'crock of $hit PFI' as they described it to me) continues well at Getafe. I saw it earlier in the year being busily worked on - and very nice it looks too! To have a boom and 2 pods.

I look back with interest at the statements made at the 1996 AT/AAR conference at Brize - and remember the civil serpent in charge of FSTA saying a few years later "This programme will NOT slip......"

Of course not. Never. No way. Couldn't happen, could it??

The fast jet-centric Air Staff will probably find this biting their bums before long - as you say, the dear old Vickers FunBus and the TriShaw are being worked very hard - and aren't getting any younger either!

When will the Aussie's get this ? Next year ?

I heard a rumour that FSTA had gone to the IAB well over a week ago. Still no announcement?!?! Doesn't look good does it!!!:ugh:

Heard a rumour (can't remember where, but this IS a rumour network) that FSTA was going to be cancelled, as the cost per aircraft was in excess of £1 billion.

I'd heard the same rumour, albeit the reason was put down to irreconcilable legal wranglings between the contract team and the bidders.....

Well that's two rumours - so it's official, FSTA is now cancelled.
You heard it here first! :cool:

:) :) Does anyone know whether it is possible to buy shares in Omega Air?

Browne: Army Size May Increase
 

Maybe the MOD needs the money for this instead:

The Times - 22 Dec 06

MOD Oracle - Fri 22 Dec 06

But then again, how will the Army plan to get their extra troops overseas?

The same way they do the MPA change over, the EID changeover, and the rescue of guys in Bangor to get them to Belieze (sp?)

Charter it out.

As the MOD have found out to their cost over the last few months and years - there are some tasks on which you just can't use charter aircraft!!!

If FSTA is cancelled, what then? Would it be a good idea to jump aboard KC-X and benefit from the economies of scale of 100+ aircraft order would bring?

Rumor has it that the USAF are considering cancelling a number of F-22s and using the money instead to buy around 450 KC-Xs. Sounds reasonable given the average age of the KC-135 of 35 yrs. But, I don't think there are any manufacturers that can bang out 450 frames in short order - the best you'll get is around 15 frames per year. That being the case, watch this space as the DoD invest in Boeing 777s, 767s AND Airbus MRTTs (A-320)...

Japan has committed to it's future in AAR, Italy, Australia; the US will make its decision in 1/10th of the time the UK has deliberated. There is a real risk here that the UK will fall behind in yet another area of modern warfare. :ugh:

And NKAWTG, preferably from a tanker with pods, boom, uaarsi, centre-line hose and a probe etc. :8

There is a very interesting post on the Trying To Get Home thread that suggests that the advent of FSTA might not make any diffence to air transport reliability.

Watch this space for the announcement of the A400M(K). :hmm:

"Watch this space for the announcement of the A400M(K)."

All very well and good for North Sea Towlines but falls some way short when it comes to intercontinental trails.........:=

"AND Airbus MRTTs (A-320)..."
I think not, old horseman. Airbus manufacture the world's only 21st Century AT/AAR platform, the A310MRTT - and the A330 MRTT for the RAAF is currently being built. The KC-30 for the USAF is also under study.

A320 would be a bit too small for any worthwhile AT/AAR application as the extra tankage to make it any use would severely limit its AT capabilities. But A321 as a single point centreline probe-and-drogue tanker could offer about 25 tonnes to fighter-type receivers over 90 mins on an AARA 90 min from the tanker base, landing with normal IFR reserves. With an additional 25000 litre fuselage tank over the wing, there would still be space for 116 passengers (48 in a front cabin, 68 in a rear cabin).

But even the CSA A400M would offer about 20% more fuel in the same scenario - and with 2 wing pods, of course - as well as space for 120 troops.
A400M is primarily a tactical airlifter with an additional intra-theatre AAR capability. A strategic tanker it is not!





D-IFF - if you want to work closely with the A330MRTT, PM me!

Is there any more progress with this, as according to this website a load of Airbuses have got RAF serial numbers allocated.

www.ukserials.com

ZZ330 to ZZ343 Airbus A.330, totals 14 aircraft.

Or is this just wishful thinking?


And another thing, why the sudden jump to ZZ prefixed numbers?

And another another, what will happen after ZZ999 is used (or will we never get that far)?

The fuel load of an A320 is 19.0T, the A321 18.9T. Additional Centre Tanks can be fitted to either, this increases the load to 20.9 or 20.8T respectively. A second ACT can be fitted to the 321 increasing the total load to 22.7T. At a fuel burn of 2.4/hr (320) and 3.0T/hr (321), this doesn't add up to a very capable tanker even with the major modification of additional cabin tanks.

Think big. From my expereince, and in my humble opinion a strategic tanker should not have any less than a total fuel load of 80T.

With a cruise capability of M.72 at FL370, a ferry range of 4750nm and a fuel capacity of 58t with the extra internal tanks fitted, the A400M has to be a contender. Question is, will we buy enough of them to fulfil both roles, or will we once again 'rob Peter to pay Paul'?