FSTA-When?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Razor you are quite correct. I was referring to the wider flexibility FSTA not just a single sortie, I didn't want to end up writing an essay in my last post though.
In my experience large aircraft rarely require fuel on an ad-hoc basis and it has been decided well before the sortie, the basket would only need fitting for those trips. The basket would only need to be fitted to one or two aircraft at a time, this would give flexibility to the rest of the fleet on Coalition Ops/Exercises (Afghanistan 2001, Flag etc.) and give us options for C17, E-3D.
In my experience large aircraft rarely require fuel on an ad-hoc basis and it has been decided well before the sortie, the basket would only need fitting for those trips. The basket would only need to be fitted to one or two aircraft at a time, this would give flexibility to the rest of the fleet on Coalition Ops/Exercises (Afghanistan 2001, Flag etc.) and give us options for C17, E-3D.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan,
Going off back to the KC-135, i overheard a comment made by KC-135 crew chatting to KC-10 crew and the comment was about the KC-10 having autonomous throttle control when conducting AR whereas the KC-135 has not?
Something along those lines if anyone can confirm what i'm talking about is correct or complete bollocks.
Going back to FSTA. Saudi Arabia have ordered the A330 now, as did Australia. I Remember a few years ago the BMI A330 with Tonka in tow (and Falcon 20 for taking pics) above my head in AARA10 on a wake turbulance trial (i think). Since then, several air forces have taken up the Airbus apart from the UK where we continue to dither as always about a decision.
Going off back to the KC-135, i overheard a comment made by KC-135 crew chatting to KC-10 crew and the comment was about the KC-10 having autonomous throttle control when conducting AR whereas the KC-135 has not?
Something along those lines if anyone can confirm what i'm talking about is correct or complete bollocks.
Going back to FSTA. Saudi Arabia have ordered the A330 now, as did Australia. I Remember a few years ago the BMI A330 with Tonka in tow (and Falcon 20 for taking pics) above my head in AARA10 on a wake turbulance trial (i think). Since then, several air forces have taken up the Airbus apart from the UK where we continue to dither as always about a decision.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For reasons already stated (weight, drag, civil clearance), a boom fit for FSTA would be most unwelcome to Air Tanker. If the number of HDU fitted aircraft meets the RAF daily requirement then they could perhaps have a boom and a pod centreline as Beags suggests. The hose on the end of a boom is a very poor third option. As far as one can gather from the limited information available Air Tanker would expect to have a number of frames available each day for their own use unless they have been given a fairly long period of warning. That is the PFI deal.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For reasons already stated (weight, drag, civil clearance), a boom fit for FSTA would be most unwelcome to Air Tanker
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as one can gather from the limited information available Air Tanker would expect to have a number of frames available each day for their own use unless they have been given a fairly long period of warning. That is the PFI deal.
The idea that the RAF only has access to limited amount of airframes for Ops is absurd while the other airframes are flying around doing civilian operations.
The VC-10/Tristar fleet are up to their neck in flying AR and Cargo/Pax and so leasing a limited number of airframes to start with which do not tally up to the number of AT we currently have surely is a waste of time. Those limited number of airframes would be in use by the RAF non-stop i should imagine with no 'other use' available by Air Tanker due to the silly numbers being acquired under the leasing agreement.
Razor
Unfortunately therein lies the problem of the whole PFI deal. Remember that FSTA was supposed (under PFI) to replace the UK's AAR requirement. It was always assumed that AT "could be chartered" when needed. The FSTA fleet sizing is therefore based on the AAR requirement (and a little bit of core AT) ONLY.
Sadly since this decision was made we have found out that there is a HUGE AT requirement and that civil AT isn't necessarily available and almost certainly wont go into hostile areas (unless you are prepared to charter aircraft from some cough, cough, 3rd world airlines). If you fleet sized FSTA on the totality of the UK AAR and AT requirement the number would not be 14 - more like 22-ish.
If we carry on with new Liarbours wars of choice we will need the entire FSTA fleet all of the time(in the process solving AirTankers financial problems). We would also have to crew them at a much higher rate than currently planned if they were to be used effectively!! Don't forget we can have the whole fleet if we want, it's just that then there is no 3rd party revenue and "gainshare"
Unfortunately therein lies the problem of the whole PFI deal. Remember that FSTA was supposed (under PFI) to replace the UK's AAR requirement. It was always assumed that AT "could be chartered" when needed. The FSTA fleet sizing is therefore based on the AAR requirement (and a little bit of core AT) ONLY.
Sadly since this decision was made we have found out that there is a HUGE AT requirement and that civil AT isn't necessarily available and almost certainly wont go into hostile areas (unless you are prepared to charter aircraft from some cough, cough, 3rd world airlines). If you fleet sized FSTA on the totality of the UK AAR and AT requirement the number would not be 14 - more like 22-ish.
If we carry on with new Liarbours wars of choice we will need the entire FSTA fleet all of the time(in the process solving AirTankers financial problems). We would also have to crew them at a much higher rate than currently planned if they were to be used effectively!! Don't forget we can have the whole fleet if we want, it's just that then there is no 3rd party revenue and "gainshare"
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 54
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And NEVER used for rcvr AAR I believe.
DAN - Thanks for your answer, clears up my thoughts nicely.
Anyone else remember what the 3 platforms on offer when the RAF bought L1011s were? Wasn't it the ones they have, some others and KC10s? Sounds to me like they got the worst deal possible then and they are going to do the same again.
DAN - Thanks for your answer, clears up my thoughts nicely.
Anyone else remember what the 3 platforms on offer when the RAF bought L1011s were? Wasn't it the ones they have, some others and KC10s? Sounds to me like they got the worst deal possible then and they are going to do the same again.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
Thanks for clarifying that.
I suppose Northern Rock comes first though... rather than the Tankers!
FFP / DIFF
The crew in question were on a training sortie and the KC-10A was refuelling the KC-135R from Mildenhall to Lajes. They did their AR in AARA10 above here before going Oceanic and were talking to each other during the AR period about the auto-throttles.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I suppose Northern Rock comes first though... rather than the Tankers!
FFP / DIFF
The crew in question were on a training sortie and the KC-10A was refuelling the KC-135R from Mildenhall to Lajes. They did their AR in AARA10 above here before going Oceanic and were talking to each other during the AR period about the auto-throttles.
I suppose Northern Rock comes first though... rather than the Tankers!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-10A was refuelling the KC-135R
Didn't think the majority of 135's have a UAARSI to be refuelled. Was it definately 10 refuelling a 135 or might it have been the other way around ? 135 refuelling a 10 is quite common (I'm off to try it in about 6hrs myself...)
DIFF,
Very true. Should have specified that I was talking about Tanker AR for the 10 there. ATS works well in Rx AR up to .5 of a mile though
You have a PM too.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit I was a bit surprised that the government could pluck £24B out of the hat just like that.
I think that just indicates the desperate problems that would have transpired had the government let the first British Bank Run in 188 years continue.
It also illustrates the complete mess that the Treasury was left in by you-know-who.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 60
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hic......
RP.....thought it was £52b and counting for the NR fiasco.
Lets dither with FSTA for the rest of the Son of the Manses term of temporary power.....when he's gone.........maybe later this year......do the sensible thing and order the things properly...and enough of them.
Ok, so I've got through most of a bottle of Hawkstone Cab-Sauv...
makes the brain shink a lickle clearer.
Lets dither with FSTA for the rest of the Son of the Manses term of temporary power.....when he's gone.........maybe later this year......do the sensible thing and order the things properly...and enough of them.
Ok, so I've got through most of a bottle of Hawkstone Cab-Sauv...
makes the brain shink a lickle clearer.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently all KC-135R/T models (Receiver capable) are with the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell AFB, KS. Most of these are used for force extension and Special Operations missions, and are crewed by highly qualified receiver capable crews. If not used for the receiver mission, these aircraft can be flown just like any other KC-135R.
Didn't think the majority of 135's have a UAARSI to be refuelled. Was it definately 10 refuelling a 135 or might it have been the other way around ? 135 refuelling a 10 is quite common (I'm off to try it in about 6hrs myself...)
Didn't think the majority of 135's have a UAARSI to be refuelled. Was it definately 10 refuelling a 135 or might it have been the other way around ? 135 refuelling a 10 is quite common (I'm off to try it in about 6hrs myself...)
It was not a Mildenhall based KC-135R but one based in CONUS. As far as i am aware it was the KC-10A (from McGuire) leading the KC-135R but seeing as you have far more experience in them, i'm not doubting you, so you are probably correct in which position they were in. Either way, one was refuelling the other, why i don't know, unless it was literally just for training purposes as the leg between the UK and Lajes isn't that far!
Thanks for clearing it up.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could well have been. My sources gave answers of between 8 and 11 of the 500 odd 135's have UAARSI's so maybe it was.
135's usually refuel the 10 as a force extension measure although why the need on a leg to Lajes I'm not too sure.
135's usually refuel the 10 as a force extension measure although why the need on a leg to Lajes I'm not too sure.
1. The BDA is a truly dreadful device. I suspect it was invented so that SAC could score points off the USN for specifying probe and drogue as their preferred refuelling method! I've used it once - in a heavy Q-fit F4 with 8 missiles, 3 tanks and without having had any dual, let alone a briefing... It was horrible - although I did eventually teach myself how to use it when the boom-bitch stopped moving the damn thing every time I missed! And NEVER to be used with large receivers!
2. Triple point is essential in some, though probably not all, FSTA.
3. The boom would aid interoperability, but is by no means essential for the RAF.
I agree with you, Roly, regarding the numbers. Funny old thing, that! Yes, thanks to NuLabor's 'Come-as-you-are-and-bring-a-bottle' wars, really the need is for 22-ish aircraft AT/AAR aircraft.
Which is precisely what was on offer back in about 1996....24 x A310MRTT...
2. Triple point is essential in some, though probably not all, FSTA.
3. The boom would aid interoperability, but is by no means essential for the RAF.
I agree with you, Roly, regarding the numbers. Funny old thing, that! Yes, thanks to NuLabor's 'Come-as-you-are-and-bring-a-bottle' wars, really the need is for 22-ish aircraft AT/AAR aircraft.
Which is precisely what was on offer back in about 1996....24 x A310MRTT...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't the rationale that you could transfer fuel at a greater rate? Cynics would suggest it was so Boeing could get the tanker contract....Re the Tristar, the alternates were (If my grey cells still work) ex-Laker DC-10s and ex-BA (?) 747s (Certainly someone's 747s)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 54
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the 747's, but there were the L1011s now in-service and the Laker DC-10s which, I think, were already plumbed for AAR stores. IIRC another option was from the DoD who would have let us jump the production line for some KC10s before they got their 60. Not sure what the costs for all the options were but I'd bet we paid more and got less. Why? So that the money went to places where it could be used for political benefit rather than operational benefit. Some things don't change then.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the RAF got a really good deal for the first 6 TriStars from BA. BA were in a tight spot at the time and needed cash fast.
John King's achievement at British Airways is part of the folklore of the Thatcher era. When he took on the chairmanship of the state-owned airline in February 1981 - against the advice of some of his friends - it was badly run, demoralised and over-manned. Its aircraft fleet and route network revealed chronic failures of business planning. It had been making heavy losses.
King set about his task in the rumbustious, sometimes bruising style which was his hallmark. The old guard of senior managers was abruptly replaced by newcomers such as Colin (now Sir Colin) Marshall, a brilliant marketing specialist who joined King as chief executive. Staff numbers were cut from 52,000 to 37,500 within two years. Surplus aircraft and other assets were sold off.
King set about his task in the rumbustious, sometimes bruising style which was his hallmark. The old guard of senior managers was abruptly replaced by newcomers such as Colin (now Sir Colin) Marshall, a brilliant marketing specialist who joined King as chief executive. Staff numbers were cut from 52,000 to 37,500 within two years. Surplus aircraft and other assets were sold off.