Yes, but it's not on the same basis as most of the other costs.
They're mostly purchase prices: FSTA is total cost for the duration of the contract.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
They're mostly purchase prices: FSTA is total cost for the duration of the contract.
kev 99
Member
True enough and there are infrastructure upgrades as well, but it still looks like a complete dogs dinner, especially considering the restrictive nature of it.
:drunk1:lul:cry2:nutkick:frown:dodgy
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I don't think the £12b covers infrastructure upgrades. Just PFI costs for 14 tankers that haven't been delivered, not even first flight...delivery exp oct 2011 (5 yrs late) + insufficient protection.
The mail cites construction and conversion costs of the aircraft = £2.69billion. Air crew training and maintenance of the fleet = £2.16billion, £5.65billion = financing.
Guardian claims officials have no idea of total cost...
Flying white elephants: MoD orders £10.5billion planes that can't fly into warzones | Mail Online
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/16/mod-refuelling-aircraft-project-report
BBC News - MPs criticise MoD air tanker deal
I don't think the £12b covers infrastructure upgrades. Just PFI costs for 14 tankers that haven't been delivered, not even first flight...delivery exp oct 2011 (5 yrs late) + insufficient protection.
The mail cites construction and conversion costs of the aircraft = £2.69billion. Air crew training and maintenance of the fleet = £2.16billion, £5.65billion = financing.
Guardian claims officials have no idea of total cost...
Flying white elephants: MoD orders £10.5billion planes that can't fly into warzones | Mail Online
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/16/mod-refuelling-aircraft-project-report
BBC News - MPs criticise MoD air tanker deal
I heard the tankers may be split with the French. Fitting countermeasures can't be too much of a hastle one would have thought. The Daily Wail loves to blow a story out of all proportion.
The ongoing exercises between the UK and Brazilian Marines are no coincidence considering the current economic climate. Operating off OCEAN, could be part of a sales pitch - 2nd hand LHP going cheap? Also rumours abound that BAE & UK Government are pushing T26 & OPV's in unison. A Brazilian buy of T26 and C3 could have a beneficial knock-on for the RN allowing UK yards to drag out construction - 1 for Brazil, 1 for the RN, so on and so forth. Link below
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Britains-Future-Frigates-06268/
Last edited:
FluffyThoughts
Member
Brazil will build her own boats and will probably choose a different load-out to the UK. I think it would be stretching reality if anyone considers the Navy not getting a vessel per year up-until 2036 to replace the Type 23s.
kev 99
Member
I am very sure that it does, there was a piece about it in Desider months ago (sorry can't remember which one).
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
However, no mention that this will be funded out of the £12b.
I did however find this release.
http://www.cobham.com/media/2932/cobham fsta press release final.pdf
- The contract includes provision by AirTanker Services Limited (‘AirTanker Services’) of all necessary infrastructure, training, maintenance, flight management, fleet management and ground services to enable air-to-air refuelling and transport missions worldwide.
- A new purpose-built tanker facility and base is to be constructed at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire with building commencing in 2008.
No desider doesn't confirm it. There was an article in Apr 09 issue which mentioned development of facilities at RAF Brize Norton. Make sense cos I think that's where the FSTA will be based.
However, no mention that this will be funded out of the £12b.
I did however find this release.
http://www.cobham.com/media/2932/cobham fsta press release final.pdf
- The contract includes provision by AirTanker Services Limited (‘AirTanker Services’) of all necessary infrastructure, training, maintenance, flight management, fleet management and ground services to enable air-to-air refuelling and transport missions worldwide.
- A new purpose-built tanker facility and base is to be constructed at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire with building commencing in 2008.
kev 99
Member
Well that's pretty poor reporting from Desider then since: From Page 15 of that edition of Desider:
"Before ground work could start, existing facilities, dating from before 1960, had to be re-provided elsewhere on the station as part of the FSTA contract."
Their was announcement quite soon after the new government came to power that the contract was being look at again. I believe Vince Cable made the announcement
Blame Gordon Brown's penny wise, pound foolish 'save now, pay twice later' policies.The government insisted on a PFI deal, & wanted AirTanker to take on a lot of financial risk, but wouldn't pay a risk premium. AirTanker couldn't raise the capital on the basis of the contract the government wanted. There was a world banking crisis, & again, AirTanker couldn't raise the money, & the government dithered over providing guarantees.
Is there a case that with the CVFs we will need less tankers, and less RAF deployments to overseas basis? I appreciate they are not just there to refuel Typhoons but there will likely be less of those aswell, the RAAF is only ordering 5 and they don't plan to have carrier support?
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Not enough if RAF insists on operating fully in areas like Afghanistan...
Although fuel load wise, the A-330s are supposed to be higher than the VC-10s (110 tons vs 70-80 tons, I'm still sceptical that the lower numbers can sufficiently support the entire aircraft fleet esp when the reliability/serviceability of the A-330s are not proven. Every a/c out of service has a significantly larger impact on tanker ops.
Not enough if RAF insists on operating fully in areas like Afghanistan...
Although fuel load wise, the A-330s are supposed to be higher than the VC-10s (110 tons vs 70-80 tons, I'm still sceptical that the lower numbers can sufficiently support the entire aircraft fleet esp when the reliability/serviceability of the A-330s are not proven. Every a/c out of service has a significantly larger impact on tanker ops.
By the time they come in we will hopefully be out of Afghanistan. We can't rule out future land locked engagements but they are rare and if the F35bs can be fully deployed from the CVFs. Also we may have far less Typhoon/Tornados.
This surely is an area where we can share resources with allies to reduce numbers?
A good defence of the need for two carriers yesterday in the house, from the the MP for Portsmouth North (at 2.46pm):
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Sep 2010 (pt 0002)
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Sep 2010 (pt 0002)
The reliability of the A330 in civil service is very well established, & is much better than the VC-10 or Tristar ever was, even when brand new. IIRC the age of the VC-10s is now having a major impact on availability.
As of last year, I believe we had 6 Tristar & 15 VC-10 tankers, but I think the number of operational VC-10s has reduced since then.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I've got no beef with the reliability of the A-330 in civil service. Same with the Boeing 767. However, that does not guarantee reliability as an air tanker. The profile and mission usage of a tanker is different from a transport variant. There's different avionics and tanker specific equipment eg boom which makes it different. There's no guarantee that those new equipment will work according to specs (though there's nothing to suggest they won't either).
Same reason why US added $3b to the KC-767 proposal in view of risk and same reason why Boeing claimed there's little risk and yet EADS is claiming they have a workable boom today (just no idea on its reliability). The A-330 MRTT like the KC-767 doesn't exactly have a long track record in service. It also depends on the reliability of the supplier and the UK won't exactly have a lot of money to throw at issues that may crop up mid-way.
Credit to EADS on the first flight of the FSTA. But hundreds of hours in the air for the RAAF doesn't make it or guarantee a reliable tanker.
I'm not so sure the MRTT is more capable than the tristars (which has a bigger fuel load if I'm not wrong) but the 14 MRTT will replace both tankers.
1805's hansard post is interesting and thanks to him for posting that. The back-bench debate is typical in that everyone wants everything ie nuclear deterrent, strong AF, carriers, etc but no one (except one conservative MP) willing to state their priority if a trade off is required.
I've got no beef with the reliability of the A-330 in civil service. Same with the Boeing 767. However, that does not guarantee reliability as an air tanker. The profile and mission usage of a tanker is different from a transport variant. There's different avionics and tanker specific equipment eg boom which makes it different. There's no guarantee that those new equipment will work according to specs (though there's nothing to suggest they won't either).
Same reason why US added $3b to the KC-767 proposal in view of risk and same reason why Boeing claimed there's little risk and yet EADS is claiming they have a workable boom today (just no idea on its reliability). The A-330 MRTT like the KC-767 doesn't exactly have a long track record in service. It also depends on the reliability of the supplier and the UK won't exactly have a lot of money to throw at issues that may crop up mid-way.
Credit to EADS on the first flight of the FSTA. But hundreds of hours in the air for the RAAF doesn't make it or guarantee a reliable tanker.
I'm not so sure the MRTT is more capable than the tristars (which has a bigger fuel load if I'm not wrong) but the 14 MRTT will replace both tankers.
1805's hansard post is interesting and thanks to him for posting that. The back-bench debate is typical in that everyone wants everything ie nuclear deterrent, strong AF, carriers, etc but no one (except one conservative MP) willing to state their priority if a trade off is required.
The sad thing is the defence establishment is the same, no one wants to blink till the final moment. The Treasury axe is so wasteful because it often comes so late in a projects life.
Regardless of your individual view few people would disagree there were plenty of better times to cancel the TSR2 then when they had nearly finished it.
Few politicians are brave enough to take on defence brass so they duck the issue until they the money runs out.
We can afford an excellent balanced defence capability, but we can't do it with the current level of waste. Projects will always have issues but we have to many for to long....the list sometime seems endless!
Last edited:
No, it does not guarantee reliability as a tanker, but it is a very useful indicator.
The boom is irrelevant: the RAF tankers won't have it. They will have hoses & drogues from Cobham, which has an unrivalled record, having been making them (under the name Flight Refuelling Limited) since 1934.
As for reliability, I don't see your argument. Are you suggesting that we'd be better off keeping the clapped-out & now very unreliable VC-10s? Even the Tristars are antiques, & when new, they were far less reliable than would be acceptable in a modern airliner. It will be astonishing if the A330s aren't much more reliable. Australia is kindly working out all the teething troubles for us.
Agreed why do we keep such old and not that great designs in service for so long. The Nimrod, I know completely rebuilt but why? At least yoou could argue the VC10/Tristar were 2nd generation the Comet was 1st gen (I'm not sure such marketing terms apply to civilian airliners?)
Oh I think inertia has a large part of it as they have been paid for and all the expenses bar running costs. The planes have been paid for. The USAF have first gen tankers their ancient KC-135 pre date the 707s