FTSA "Not fit for war"

[monobrow]

The project which is five and a half years behind shedule will need retro fitting of kit to go on ops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8593788.stm

 

[FOMz]

If you read the article, the problem does not lactually lay with the FSTA, once again its the MoD procurement system not correctly identifying problems early enough.

Retro fit? maybe if the thought about these things early enough - it could have been written into the contract when the aircraft were in the pre-build stage and not start going... 'Oh bugger we forgot to....' at this late stage.

Surely the clowns at Abbey Wood must have thought that the FSTA would need to go into theater at some point and as such have the neccesary defensive suite fitted......... well obviously not!!!

 

[Realist78]

"The NAO said that when the MoD originally began work on the tanker aircraft procurement programme, it was not envisaged they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones, and no funding was provided for protective equipment."

It beggars belief, where did they think they would be operating, in an international safe zone?

 

[Combet Sheep]

Is anyone actually surprised by this buffoonery? I know I'm not.

 

[Oberon305]

Is anyone actually surprised by this buffoonery? I know I'm not.

'Mk3' Chinook Procurement........enough said.DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[metimmee]

"The NAO said that when the MoD originally began work on the tanker aircraft procurement programme, it was not envisaged they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones, and no funding was provided for protective equipment."

It beggars belief, where did they think they would be operating, in an international safe zone?

You do realise that "they" includes the end-users in conjunction with what ever statement of operating intent and usage that was envisaged for this fleet. The requirements would have been matched to the SOUI. Interesting to see that in this case, this defence project did not suffer requirements creep, as is usually criticised on these boards

If you read the NAO report in full, it doesnt criticise the armour element...although it doesnt go into detail on this. It looks like this was a big compromise. It wont be the first platform to be brought into service without armour.

One thing I read that jumped out of the report was the discount rate that is usually applied against investments was frigged to make the investment more attractive! This skewed the bid in its favour of the PFI....curious as this was authorised by the treasury. PFIs are fiendishly complex to contract, it seems that the complexity of this project is in the contracting and not so much with the deliverable itself. Funny how the NAO always seem to be around after the event.

 

[BillyBunter]

Has cancelled written all over it :/

Like was said It dont surprise me either, we are really screwed as a nation now to defend ourselves never mind fight any future conflicts lol

 

[The Original Weasel]

Possibly another prime example of kit being brought by people who want that big golden handshake? Buy now worry about the war-ish bits later! Not being an a/c trade person is it able to dual role at the same time? I dont fancy flying in a mahoosive petrol bomb

 

[busby1971]

Re: FTSA "Not fit for war"

The fact that the ac were never supposed to enter a conflict zone was decided at the start and that is why they were going to man them with reservists.

Now there is a need for them to join the war the scheme needs to be rewritten which is why the contract will cost more, much more!

 

[Combet Sheep]

The fact that the ac were never supposed to enter a conflict zone was decided at the start and that is why they were going to man them with reservists.

Doesnt 32Sqn have reservists that deploy out of area?

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Point to note is that from what I read in the press, the Americans are once again looking at the spec for the tanker bid. I guess someone in USAF doesn't want to be saddled with a tanker design for the next 40 years that is not based on a proven design nor necessarily the most capable.

On the upside the Aussies are getting theirs soon and the aircraft is the next generation of tankers. Question is isn't it better to have good kit in service, and then mod it to provide additional capability, than wait longer, especially given the age/flying hours left on VC10s and Timmys?

 

[Climebaer]

Shades of the Nimrod AEW3 fiasco of the 80's, when the RAF crews favoured the E3, or even a modified P3 over the Great White Elephant that was forced onto them for trials. £900m later, they ended up with the E3.

I don't suppose anyone will have to answer for this procurement going wrong either.

 

[busby1971]

You're not wrong

You're not wrong

Doesnt 32Sqn have reservists that deploy out of area?

Probably, but for a reservist to enter a conflict zone they have to be mobilised and cost as much as a regular, if they sit outside the zone they don't need to be.

 

[Rigga]

Not that I'm pointing a finger...but at the time of this PFI's proposal wasn't "Bliar Force One" (another Airbus) and the possibility of a Bliar Force Two, being drummed out too?

Perhaps these were part of the Discount being offerred?

Busby is right.
These aircraft were initially to be hired to fly beside the 1011's and Vicky's taking up the training slots around the UK and overseas - not the combat slots.

The later intent arrived after lots of (unexpected?) emergent ageing aircraft issues.

To be honest, I somehow dispute the need for an armoured flight deck seat in an aircraft flying so slowly and full of so much fuel.

The best thing that could happen is to receive these jets without any armour and modify afterwards. Cheaper and more cost effective (well, normally for civvies!)

Unless the IPTs get involved - it should be relatively cheap to do.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Not that I'm pointing a finger...but at the time of this PFI's proposal wasn't "Bliar Force One" (another Airbus) and the possibility of a Bliar Force Two, being drummed out too?

Perhaps these were part of the Discount being offerred?

Busby is right.
These aircraft were initially to be hired to fly beside the 1011's and Vicky's taking up the training slots around the UK and overseas - not the combat slots.

The later intent arrived after lots of (unexpected?) emergent ageing aircraft issues.

To be honest, I somehow dispute the need for an armoured flight deck seat in an aircraft flying so slowly and full of so much fuel.

The best thing that could happen is to receive these jets without any armour and modify afterwards. Cheaper and more cost effective (well, normally for civvies!)

Unless the IPTs get involved - it should be relatively cheap to do.

Surely such changes will require an STC for the aircraft from EASA?? (that it must have for the additional refuelling kit anyway?)

 

[metimmee]

Surely such changes will require an STC for the aircraft from EASA?? (that it must have for the additional refuelling kit anyway?)

Ok, standing by to be corrected, but if the aircraft manufacturer undertake the major mod, cant they issue the STC themselves?

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Ok, standing by to be corrected, but if the aircraft manufacturer undertake the major mod, cant they issue the STC themselves?

Yeah, I think you're right, that part of mod 10 is a bit vage in the memory. But the 72 I'm working on is having a first time SFAR 88 compilant STC mod being done on it at the mo, so I'll check what the proceedure is in regards to the FAA. The EASA system ain't much different.

Saying that though, the CAA website says THIS. Looks like I was right after all.

Armoured seats, etc will require an STC.

 

[Dirty Harry]

To be honest, I somehow dispute the need for an armoured flight deck seat in an aircraft flying so slowly and full of so much fuel

I agree. Not much point in having the drivers alive if a couple of well placed rounds have taken out the PRIM's and SEC's below their seats. The aircraft will take on the flying characteristics of a brick if those computers cease to function.

 

[Rigga]

Yes, an approved Mod will be needed, but it doesn't need to be an airbus one and some other company's approved design are likely to be far cheaper than Airbus.

Also, if another company's design is sold to the RAF, that company (likely with fewer overheads than Airbus) may be able to sell it to other customers, thereby making the initial design potentially cheaper for the RAF/AirTanker.


Metimmee,
If the Manufacturer designs the Mod it's just another Mod.

If an independant (Part 21) third party designs the Mod and it is accepted as suitable for that aircraft Type by the Competent Authority (i.e. EASA or FAA), it is issued with a stand-alone Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), meaning that it belongs to that design company (outside the OEM) but is an approved additional option available for that aircraft Type.

e.g.
The Eurocopter EC145 is built between Japan & Germany, but the only option for an Air Conditioning system is designed by Metro Aviation Inc, an air ambulance company, in good 'ole USA. The STC Kit is either supplied direct to the factory to be installed at build, or installed after delivery, keeping your craft on the ground.

Hope this helps.
Rigga

PS - I believe the RAF's L1011 Cargo Doors are a Marshall's STC, not a Tristar Mod.

 

[CashMachine]

Possibly another prime example of kit being brought by people who want that big golden handshake? Buy now worry about the war-ish bits later! Not being an a/c trade person is it able to dual role at the same time? I dont fancy flying in a mahoosive petrol bomb

I know, I mean, its not as if any other aircraft have fuel tanks!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist!!!