UK Defence Forum

Well unless the MoD makes a costly change to AirTanker's contract there is no chance of it happening... And the only way that will really have a chance of happening is if AirTanker can make money refuelling other nations (like Omega does).

That could be a possibility given the shake up the MoD is going to be put through after the Integrated review, in all likelihood. Ideally I would like the Government to play hard ball with Air Tanker and push for greater flexibility. At least the MoD has learned that all a PFI does is put them in a Straight Jacket, and are paying for that mistake. As a result we have too many Tankers for our needs and they lack capabilities that should have been available if the planes had been bought outright. I wonder if National Security Issues would allow the MoD to walk away from the contract?

Everyone and his dog knew the Airtanker PFI was a major mistake way before it was signed. Well except for that buffoon Gordo Brown who just wanted to keep his out of control borrowing off the governments books and was willing to spend countless taxpayer millions in order to do so. Efffing clod. The Aussies sent a team over to study the deal, looked at it for a couple weeks, shook their heads, went home and bought the same tankers outright. Saved themselves and Australia a fortune.

Lord Jim wrote:I still think we should modify the core fleet of Voyagers to have Cargo Doors and a AAR Boom. Yes we will only need it for the C-17 and P-8 at present though I am not sure about the E-7, but it would open the way for a F-35A purchase and allow the aircraft to refuel allied aircraft that use this system when conducting Coalition operations.

Yeah, good luck. Ever tried to renegotiate a PFI deal? No? Nor has anyone else. There's a reason.

Ron5 wrote:Everyone and his dog knew the Airtanker PFI was a major mistake way before it was signed. Well except for that buffoon Gordo Brown who just wanted to keep his out of control borrowing off the governments books and was willing to spend countless taxpayer millions in order to do so. Efffing clod. The Aussies sent a team over to study the deal, looked at it for a couple weeks, shook their heads, went home and bought the same tankers outright. Saved themselves and Australia a fortune.

While I think that the potential benefits of PFI are pretty meagre even in the best circumstances, I think that it could work well enough if the economy is stable for the length of the contract with a fairly steady rate of GDP growth and inflation remaining slightly below it, and that's the massive, catastrophic problem with PFI because that sort of economic stability just isn't remotely likely.

Some hi tech communications stuff about to take place, plus trials from QE with swarming drones

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/ra ... Ng.twitter

Pseudo wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Everyone and his dog knew the Airtanker PFI was a major mistake way before it was signed. Well except for that buffoon Gordo Brown who just wanted to keep his out of control borrowing off the governments books and was willing to spend countless taxpayer millions in order to do so. Efffing clod. The Aussies sent a team over to study the deal, looked at it for a couple weeks, shook their heads, went home and bought the same tankers outright. Saved themselves and Australia a fortune.

While I think that the potential benefits of PFI are pretty meagre even in the best circumstances, I think that it could work well enough if the economy is stable for the length of the contract with a fairly steady rate of GDP growth and inflation remaining slightly below it, and that's the massive, catastrophic problem with PFI because that sort of economic stability just isn't remotely likely.

In business you look at the source, if an idiot comes to you with an idea, it's an idiot's idea and is doomed not to be implemented.

Airtanker was Gordo Browns idea. A self proclaimed financial genius with zero aptitude, education, training, or experience in financial matters added to his inbred idiocy. And he seriously thought he was a suitable candidate for head of the world bank. Good grief.

Ron5 wrote: Airtanker was Gordo Browns idea. A self proclaimed financial genius with zero aptitude, education, training, or experience in financial matters added to his inbred idiocy. And he seriously thought he was a suitable candidate for head of the world bank. Good grief.

Same as just about every chancellor of the Exchequer before or since...

What might be the meaning of all that (sounds good, when munching on those words)?
- what's new
- what can it replace
- what is the resilience (the so-called AWACS-killers could be used against tankers, too, from a great distance)
- in the light of all of the above, what is the cost increment (or delta: a plus, or a minus)?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:What might be the meaning of all that (sounds good, when munching on those words)?
- what's new
- what can it replace
- what is the resilience (the so-called AWACS-killers could be used against tankers, too, from a great distance)
- in the light of all of the above, what is the cost increment (or delta: a plus, or a minus)?

It’s about ensuring information can be shared across various platforms from what I’ve read, So that a common picture of what’s happening can be accessed by all that needs it regardless of who or what collected the data.

Being on voyager spreads the risk out could even have senior decision makers on the aircraft if needed it’s gonna be there anyway might as well use the massive cabin. Multi domain battle managers is what I think the US calls it.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -refueling

Airbus has developed a new system for its A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) that enhances safety for receivers using the aircraft’s wing-mounted and fuselage hose-drogue units (HDUs). The system comprises a sensor that monitors the length of hose that is deployed from the HDU, and a circular LED light array. In the wing pods the array is mounted in the rear tip of the pod, easily visible to the receiver pilot.

SW1 wrote:Multi domain battle managers is what I think the US calls it.

You could have the 'BirdDog' - of the VietNam fame - or several swimming in the v cold N. Atlantic if we follow this line of reasoning?

At the very least the Voyagers should be able to be used as Data Transfer Nodes. Investment in the planes, or at least those that are retained in the core fleet, to installed cargo doors would greatly increase the flexibility of the fleet allowing cargo to be carried both above and below the cabin floor and especially non standard on top. Ideally we should still look to install a boom allowing the Voyager fleet to co-operate with NATO's MRTT force in a similar way to how our E-3D force integrated with NATO's E-3A force. Given the Voyager is basically a MRTT without a boom I cannot see the costs being too great and would probably be out weighed by the benefits both to the RAF and in financial terms to the Companies from whom the RAF lease the aircraft from in the longer term, being able to refuel a greater number of allied aircraft.

The RAF do not own the Voyagers. AirTanker Services Ltd do, and they lease them to the RAF.
https://www.airtanker.co.uk/
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/06279646

SKB wrote:The RAF do not own the Voyagers. AirTanker Services Ltd do, and they lease them to the RAF.
https://www.airtanker.co.uk/
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/06279646

Have you actually read what you're replying to?

RichardIC wrote:Have you actually read what you're replying to?

What reply? To whom? Eh?!

Lord Jim wrote:At the very least the Voyagers should be able to be used as Data Transfer Nodes. Investment in the planes, or at least those that are retained in the core fleet, to installed cargo doors would greatly increase the flexibility of the fleet allowing cargo to be carried both above and below the cabin floor and especially non standard on top. Ideally we should still look to install a boom allowing the Voyager fleet to co-operate with NATO's MRTT force in a similar way to how our E-3D force integrated with NATO's E-3A force. Given the Voyager is basically a MRTT without a boom I cannot see the costs being too great and would probably be out weighed by the benefits both to the RAF and in financial terms to the Companies from whom the RAF lease the aircraft from in the longer term, being able to refuel a greater number of allied aircraft.

If the leasing company are already very happy with the terms of the contract (which I believe they are), what's the inventive to increase the risk at the end of contract? (I.e. modify the airframe to such an extent it may not be suitable for commercial resale)

Doubt there will be any commercial value in 25 year old legacy a330 at the end of there service life. Infact I doubt a330 will still be in production at that stage.

Any idea how the utilisation by the RAF and other, alternative uses stack up (so far)?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Any idea how the utilisation by the RAF and other, alternative uses stack up (so far)?

Do you mean compared to a civil jet? Would remembering as well that airbus has only been selling a330 neo for a while and ever that is running out of steam

No, I seem to remember that the airtanker contract has a guaranteed 'base load' and then a variable part (according to need) on top of that
... this goes as far back as TD, so my recollection may be a bit hazy

RunningStrong wrote:If the leasing company are already very happy with the terms of the contract (which I believe they are), what's the inventive to increase the risk at the end of contract? (I.e. modify the airframe to such an extent it may not be suitable for commercial resale)

Well they double the number of prospective buyers by installing a cargo door, and have as part of the contract that if a Military buyer cannot be found the MoD will fund the removal of the boom which it can then install on another platform or sell on.

Brazil recently announced the acquisition of 2 A330. I believe they will come from the AirTanker fleet. One of them has already come to a demonstration in 2019.

Brasil wrote:Brazil recently announced the acquisition of 2 A330. I believe they will come from the AirTanker fleet. One of them has already come to a demonstration in 2019.

From the press i've read nobody really knows exactly where they come from although it's unlikely to come from AirTanker. They're more likely to be second hand A330 to be converted to MRTT standard.

It's not even a given they will be converted into MRTT, most of the public domain discussion focusses entirely on the strategic transport role