FSTA-When?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFI blamed for delivery delay of tanker fleet
From todays Financial Times.
The use of the private finance initiative to acquire a fleet of air refuelling tankers for the Royal Air Force has delayed the acquisition of the aircraft and increased the cost, according to a senior executive of the company building the aircraft.
The widely criticised initiative seeks to transfer the risks associated with public sector projects to the private sector in part or in full. The contract for the air tanker - estimated to be worth £12bn - has been described as the largest PFI.
The widely criticised initiative seeks to transfer the risks associated with public sector projects to the private sector in part or in full. The contract for the air tanker - estimated to be worth £12bn - has been described as the largest PFI.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
What a farce. With a projected fleet of just 14 a/c when is a civil airline going to be able make use of these a/c for ferrying people to Tenerife and back if current operational commitments of the AT/AAR fleet are considered? Without the civil usage the costs of operating them will be thrust back on the RAF alone surely?
'Person for person the best air force in the world' my arrse. Its embarrassing.
Plastic training aircraft on PFI are one thing, operationally vital aircraft are quite another.
'Person for person the best air force in the world' my arrse. Its embarrassing.
Plastic training aircraft on PFI are one thing, operationally vital aircraft are quite another.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On what is today the seventh anniversary of the invitation to tender for a service to provide Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft for the Royal Air Force one has to once again raise the question,when, and maybe add if?. What little information that has appeared recently seems more negative than positive with further VC10 life extension and TriStar re-instrumentation being mentioned.
It is now far too late surely to consider re-engining the Fun Bus but how much longer will the world accept four Conways in full song, a magnificent but ear shattering experience? More importantly, the need for reliability in both the Transport and Tanker roles will only become more challenging as the current fleet gets even older
It is now far too late surely to consider re-engining the Fun Bus but how much longer will the world accept four Conways in full song, a magnificent but ear shattering experience? More importantly, the need for reliability in both the Transport and Tanker roles will only become more challenging as the current fleet gets even older
Last edited by Art Field; 4th Jan 2008 at 08:10. Reason: splg
All sorts of rumours abound:
- The VC10 might have to stagger on until 2020
- Financing the A330 PFI is proving a lot more difficult/expensive in the wake of the Northern Rock and 'Sub prime' loans problems.
- 'Civilian owned' aircraft used in operational theatres will not necessarily be considered to be military aircraft.
Saudi Arabia picks EADS to supply three Airbus A330-based tankers
See:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...d-tankers.html
Meanwhile, what news of the UK's FSTA programme?
One wonders quite how the RAF officers at Abbey Wood on the FSTA programme manage to fill their days....
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...d-tankers.html
Meanwhile, what news of the UK's FSTA programme?
One wonders quite how the RAF officers at Abbey Wood on the FSTA programme manage to fill their days....
Yes, it's on my CV - after well over 30 years of practice I am a recognised expert in occupying my day with totally unproductive pursuits. I really cannot understand why Abbey Wood hasn't snapped me up long ago!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking back at the first post in this thread, Art Field pointed out that the FSTA Invitation To Negotiate (ITN) was issued in December 2000. That started me thinking; work on the FSTA project must have started some time before that. Sure enough, I found that consortia were invited to submit outline proposals for FSTA in November 1999.
So we're now about 8 years, one month and a few days into the FSTA project.
Here are a couple of other interesting facts:
So we're now about 8 years, one month and a few days into the FSTA project.
Here are a couple of other interesting facts:
President Kennedy made his famous "Let's Go To The Moon" speech to Congress on 25 May 1961.
Apollo 11 landed on the moon on 20 July 1969.
I calculate that it took NASA 8 years, one month and 25 days to achieve their goal.
I wonder how much longer we'll have to wait for FSTA?
Apollo 11 landed on the moon on 20 July 1969.
I calculate that it took NASA 8 years, one month and 25 days to achieve their goal.
It went further back than that!
I was first tasked to provide information about potential tanker aircraft to 'MoD Future Systems' as it then was - in 1994. And they'd been looking at potential aircraft for a while earlier than that.
Of the options presented, we identified the best options as the Boeing 767-200ER and the Airbus A310-300 (with additional fuel tanks and a cargo door). At that time, the A330 wasn't under consideration.
Worst overall option as a tanker was the 'FLA' - which eventually became the A400M.
Then came PFI........
I was first tasked to provide information about potential tanker aircraft to 'MoD Future Systems' as it then was - in 1994. And they'd been looking at potential aircraft for a while earlier than that.
Of the options presented, we identified the best options as the Boeing 767-200ER and the Airbus A310-300 (with additional fuel tanks and a cargo door). At that time, the A330 wasn't under consideration.
Worst overall option as a tanker was the 'FLA' - which eventually became the A400M.
Then came PFI........
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 54
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just had a surf around to look for any news... Neither the MOD nor the Airtanker websites have been updated for about 6 months. Although the Airtanker site suggests that the contract should have been signed by the end of 2007 (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/business-timeline.htm) and that 'Aircraft development', 'Conversion and Cert', 'New hangar', and 'New trg school' will be complete by 2010 - which I make now less that 2 years away.
Quite clever how they have put the a/c delivery on the graphic - if you hover over the 'Tanker deliveries' tab a little window opens with the date - 2034.
Quite clever how they have put the a/c delivery on the graphic - if you hover over the 'Tanker deliveries' tab a little window opens with the date - 2034.
Wasn't it 4 years ago this month that Air Tanker were selected as "preferred" bidder? And wasn't the original plan 3 years of assessment, 4 years of transition from initial to full service followed by 20 years of full service delivery? And we still don't have a contract yet...........
Feb 2005, wasn't it, Roland?
I rather liked this from the 'FSTA Questions and Answer' - last updated 15 Sep 2006:
Q. What is happening now?
A. We are in final negotiations with AirTanker aimed at securing detailed agreement on the PFI service contract.
Hmmm..... 'Final', eh?
Do I hear that the ancient old FunBus may now have to stagger on until 2020...
I rather liked this from the 'FSTA Questions and Answer' - last updated 15 Sep 2006:
Q. What is happening now?
A. We are in final negotiations with AirTanker aimed at securing detailed agreement on the PFI service contract.
Hmmm..... 'Final', eh?
Do I hear that the ancient old FunBus may now have to stagger on until 2020...
Whilst preferred bidder status was conferred in Feb 2005, it was actually Jan 04 when Air Tanker was announced as "the bidder most likely to provide a value for money solution".
This decision effectively ended the chances of TTSC, the BAE Sytems/Boeing offer to provide ex-BA 767s. So it really is over 4 years since the decision to adopt the A330 was taken.
This decision effectively ended the chances of TTSC, the BAE Sytems/Boeing offer to provide ex-BA 767s. So it really is over 4 years since the decision to adopt the A330 was taken.
No BEags 2004 was the announcement that AirTanker were the chosen partner, and TTSC were dropped, but that significant work was required to bring the bid to contract. 2005 was confirmation that the next step was going ahead.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 5th Jan 2008 at 16:47. Reason: Damn. Beaten to it by Mr Potter
Ah yes, you are of course correct, Roland.
There have been so many dates and changes throughout the sorry FSTA saga that I forgot that one!
For example, in 1996 we were told by MoD AO AD3 that the VC10 and TriStar would be completely replaced "within the next 10 years"...... And yet, nearly 12 years later and with tens of mi££ions having been spent on the assessment phase, there is still no contract.
Mind you, at the same meeting we were also told that the ISD for 'FLA' was to be 2004.........
Thank heavens for the C-17!
HNY to you too, mate!
There have been so many dates and changes throughout the sorry FSTA saga that I forgot that one!
For example, in 1996 we were told by MoD AO AD3 that the VC10 and TriStar would be completely replaced "within the next 10 years"...... And yet, nearly 12 years later and with tens of mi££ions having been spent on the assessment phase, there is still no contract.
Mind you, at the same meeting we were also told that the ISD for 'FLA' was to be 2004.........
Thank heavens for the C-17!
HNY to you too, mate!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mid-central South of England
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coalition Assets
Those in the real know, why are we not having a boom receptical and boom fitted to the centre rear of our version? It would seem more relevant since we are (in truth and reality) pretty much always going to be working with coalition aircraft so multiple interoprability would be ace...... Consolodation an asset as well keeping fuel in the sky ready as and when. Is it anything to do with the required space to fit these systems not being compatable with the partners (PF side) requirement for the frames?
Axel
Sadly 2 simple answers:
There was no UK requirement for boom refuelling. The C17s were leased and we couldn't AAR them. The E3 has a probe for tanking from RAF tankers. The JSF variant that the UK were looking at would be probe and drogue equipped. Therefore the scrutineers in the MOD would not allow "gold plating" of the FSTA by allowing a boom and receptacle.
Which airline would be willing to lease, under the PFI irreducible spare capacity malarky, an airliner that would have additional weight (structural strengthening etc) for it to be capable of carrying a boom thereby eating into their profits.
Not defending the decision, which we all know flies in the face of coalition warfare and flexibility, just answering the question.
Sadly 2 simple answers:
There was no UK requirement for boom refuelling. The C17s were leased and we couldn't AAR them. The E3 has a probe for tanking from RAF tankers. The JSF variant that the UK were looking at would be probe and drogue equipped. Therefore the scrutineers in the MOD would not allow "gold plating" of the FSTA by allowing a boom and receptacle.
Which airline would be willing to lease, under the PFI irreducible spare capacity malarky, an airliner that would have additional weight (structural strengthening etc) for it to be capable of carrying a boom thereby eating into their profits.
Not defending the decision, which we all know flies in the face of coalition warfare and flexibility, just answering the question.