Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the Air Tanker consortium has placed a nice little advert on the PPrune Military Forum page extolling the virtues of their submission for the FSTA.
Some Marketing idiot probably thought they were being really clever! What a pillock. As if anyone who has real influence on the eventual selection will a) read the advert, b) care about it. Wonder how much it cost them - money well spent, NOT!
Makes me glad I serve the Queen and am not paid to come up with stupid marketing ideas!
By the way, do any of the VC10/Tristar fraternity have a preference for which one we eventually get - Boeing or Airbus?
Some Marketing idiot probably thought they were being really clever! What a pillock. As if anyone who has real influence on the eventual selection will a) read the advert, b) care about it. Wonder how much it cost them - money well spent, NOT!
Makes me glad I serve the Queen and am not paid to come up with stupid marketing ideas!
By the way, do any of the VC10/Tristar fraternity have a preference for which one we eventually get - Boeing or Airbus?
I note from Flight that the Aussies have also taken a keen interest in the Boeing lease-purchase scheme being offered to the US military. It seems that they lost interest in the procrastination of the FSTA and particularly the PPP idea, now that the FSTA programme has slipped yet further to the right....
If it was merely a question of straightforward airframe acquisition unclouded by the PPP concept, a straightforward comparison of airframe types would have been possible.
Regrettably, it isn't. It is far more complicated than that. But surely we can learn from the decisions made by others? Germany and Canada are going ahead converting their existing A310s to 3-person crewed MRTT standard, Japan, Italy, USA and Australia seem to have decided upon the KC767. No-one else seems to have expressed any interest in a potential tanker which is so big (60m wingspan) that it won't fit into many of the smaller aerodromes where the VC10 and TriStar will, namely the A330-200 being proposed by Air Tanker. Since the airframe is so expensive, they will need to have a fleet which, as well as meeting FSTA tanker requirements, also gives them the best chance of earning revenue through operation by partner airlines. They obviously think that the A330 will allow them to achieve this.
My personal preference? Well, the Skunk Works tanker concept looks very interesting. But with BA shares plummeting yet again, we could make them an offer they can't refuse for their 767-300ERs, give them a comprehensive rebuild to 3-point tanker-transport standard and junk the whole PPP concept - if HMG would release the necessary capital, of course! We could also ensure that our A400Ms have the required mission software and AAR equipment to use them as tanker/transports in a secondary role.
Realistically? My personal, unofficial and non-attributable preference would be for the.........
If it was merely a question of straightforward airframe acquisition unclouded by the PPP concept, a straightforward comparison of airframe types would have been possible.
Regrettably, it isn't. It is far more complicated than that. But surely we can learn from the decisions made by others? Germany and Canada are going ahead converting their existing A310s to 3-person crewed MRTT standard, Japan, Italy, USA and Australia seem to have decided upon the KC767. No-one else seems to have expressed any interest in a potential tanker which is so big (60m wingspan) that it won't fit into many of the smaller aerodromes where the VC10 and TriStar will, namely the A330-200 being proposed by Air Tanker. Since the airframe is so expensive, they will need to have a fleet which, as well as meeting FSTA tanker requirements, also gives them the best chance of earning revenue through operation by partner airlines. They obviously think that the A330 will allow them to achieve this.
My personal preference? Well, the Skunk Works tanker concept looks very interesting. But with BA shares plummeting yet again, we could make them an offer they can't refuse for their 767-300ERs, give them a comprehensive rebuild to 3-point tanker-transport standard and junk the whole PPP concept - if HMG would release the necessary capital, of course! We could also ensure that our A400Ms have the required mission software and AAR equipment to use them as tanker/transports in a secondary role.
Realistically? My personal, unofficial and non-attributable preference would be for the.........
Last edited by BEagle; 25th Sep 2002 at 04:58.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 54
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clicked on the link - couldn't find a game anywhere so left disappointed.
I note that the MOD FSTA website lists the bidders as offering Boeing or Airbus. Surely, to avoid corporate favouritism, they should be listed in alphabetical order?
I note that the MOD FSTA website lists the bidders as offering Boeing or Airbus. Surely, to avoid corporate favouritism, they should be listed in alphabetical order?
Last edited by D-IFF_ident; 25th Sep 2002 at 08:45.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the industry grapevine, with HM Treasury absolutely refusing to inject capital by buying tankers, MoD have dropped their requirement for a freight door and strengthened floor which thus favours the Tanker & Transport Service Company (TTSC) bid. The problem with overutilisation of the C17s should indicate caution, but it seems that the deal will end up as a B767 lease, probably with TTSC providing the machinery and the RAF providing the crews, using sponsored reserves as back-up.
This may not be the best approach from an RAF point of view, but buying BA's old B767s and tarting them up isn't really a solution either. It would just be the VC10/TriStar story all over again. Maybe one day we'll be leasing combat aircraft from Boeing or Mikoyan and tendering crewing out to the private sector. What do we need an Air Force for anyway?
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
This may not be the best approach from an RAF point of view, but buying BA's old B767s and tarting them up isn't really a solution either. It would just be the VC10/TriStar story all over again. Maybe one day we'll be leasing combat aircraft from Boeing or Mikoyan and tendering crewing out to the private sector. What do we need an Air Force for anyway?
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the tristar
smaller airfields used by the tristar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what planet are you on? i remember a loadie on a tristar stating with glee that they used very few raf airfields. the only raf airfields that the timmy(oh how apt) uses apart from brize are akrotiri and mpa. asi and goose arent raf before anyone says anything! we were meant to have them use leuchars on jmc, they even brought one in to see how it would work. the day they were supposed to arrive i rang them up to ask what time they would be arriving"oh didnt we tell you were flying from brize on this exercise?" i personally think the reason they stayed at brize was the fact that they didnt want to stay in the mess! we definetly should have bought lakers dc10's.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if the RAF would provide the facilities etc we require to operate the ac, then we'd do it. No bloody point pitching up only to find that there's no way to get off the jet! And if it's a PCN problem....sorry but that's not our fault.
Oh, and btw canberra, just how many RAF bases are there worldwide now? You mentioned them, and the Tri* goes to both. In the RAFG days we used Bruggen, Gutersloh and Wildenrath....one even ended up in laarbruch one night, but that's another story.
Oh, and btw canberra, just how many RAF bases are there worldwide now? You mentioned them, and the Tri* goes to both. In the RAFG days we used Bruggen, Gutersloh and Wildenrath....one even ended up in laarbruch one night, but that's another story.
Question for you, britbusdriver (whilst we are still waiting to see what the future UK AAR force will fly - and when....):
The Canucks are going to have some A310s modified to MRTT standard, with 2 AAR pods, 4 additional centre tanks giving a total fuel capacity of, I think, 70.5 tonnes plus a new air refuelling operator's work station. In these tanker-transports, which aircrew trade will provide the operator? Pilots? Loadmasters? Navigators? Or someone else. Because that'll have quite an impact on the AAR mission computer you'll be getting to number crunch your AAR trails.
Regarding the PCN point - the runway might be long enough, it might even be strong enough. But if the taxiways are too small for a 60m wingspan aeroplane with a less-than-brilliant turning radius, things become somewhat difficult! Infrastructure limits can be just as much a problem - and try parking a 60m wingspan A330 in a certain well-known hangar.....
One of the reasons (according to Flight) that the Italians turned away from an Airbus tanker was that the A330 was simply too big for many applications...whereas the 767 is about the same physical size as a VC10 - and aboot the same size as an A310, eh?
Please note that these are purely personal opinions and should not be taken as representing any official views concerning the FSTA programme.
The Canucks are going to have some A310s modified to MRTT standard, with 2 AAR pods, 4 additional centre tanks giving a total fuel capacity of, I think, 70.5 tonnes plus a new air refuelling operator's work station. In these tanker-transports, which aircrew trade will provide the operator? Pilots? Loadmasters? Navigators? Or someone else. Because that'll have quite an impact on the AAR mission computer you'll be getting to number crunch your AAR trails.
Regarding the PCN point - the runway might be long enough, it might even be strong enough. But if the taxiways are too small for a 60m wingspan aeroplane with a less-than-brilliant turning radius, things become somewhat difficult! Infrastructure limits can be just as much a problem - and try parking a 60m wingspan A330 in a certain well-known hangar.....
One of the reasons (according to Flight) that the Italians turned away from an Airbus tanker was that the A330 was simply too big for many applications...whereas the 767 is about the same physical size as a VC10 - and aboot the same size as an A310, eh?
Please note that these are purely personal opinions and should not be taken as representing any official views concerning the FSTA programme.
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Oct 2002 at 07:08.
