tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post7498889712129755786..comments2024-01-12T18:59:05.080+00:00Comments on Defence With A "C": Lifting up the HeavensUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-35135802736198466072012-09-29T18:24:00.178+01:002012-09-29T18:24:00.178+01:00I guess the only real times we'd need a tanker...I guess the only real times we'd need a tanker to top up a tanker would be something like a direct flight to the Falklands, or if our tankers routinely planned for one to replace another on station. But if we don't do it that much then yeah, not really worth the expense.<br /><br />As for the AAR, that's the intriguing question. Do we only get fined for taking fuel from chartered tankers, or from allies as well? What about from other aircraft we own? If we have a tanker available, but it's in the UK and the aircraft that need tanking are in the Middle East, does that count as the tanker being available or unavailable? <br /><br />I wish one of the MP's would put in an official question. Either way, that damn PFI is truly a horrible deal.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-80587425550078534532012-09-29T17:47:11.823+01:002012-09-29T17:47:11.823+01:00Hi Chris
On the first point it wasn't done be...Hi Chris<br /><br />On the first point it wasn't done because it happens so really because there is little need for it. The stats were taken from the Tristar fleet it happened very rarely. I think it was in single figures since the 80's for needing to take fuel from another tanker. Although don't quote me on those figures it was a while ago when I saw them. With the A330 being a lot better on fuel it would be even less likely to happen since it would need less fuel for for itself due it's fuel efficiency.<br /><br />I don't know about the AAR portion. For the pax version it's a flat 'fine' then an hourly 'fine' for every hour airborne. This is levied against the MoD when we use a charter aircraft. However this is only levied when a Voyger is not available to fill the tasking that we require. None available means no fine. Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-63545739365163502672012-09-29T17:27:40.669+01:002012-09-29T17:27:40.669+01:00Hey Topman,
Capable of giving and receiving would...Hey Topman,<br /><br />Capable of giving and receiving would be nice! I wonder how much it would cost to put a probe on Voyager? The point has been made by many others in the past that the ability to offload spare fuel to a second tanker taking over on station would be desirable.<br /><br />Do you know anymore through your service mates about the exact nature of the AirTanker PFI, specifically how far reaching this bit about the not being able to use other tankers is?<br /><br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-72067740830136981742012-09-29T10:55:46.101+01:002012-09-29T10:55:46.101+01:00If we buy more Voyager, I'd like to see them t...If we buy more Voyager, I'd like to see them tanker capable<br /><br />Do you mean capable of recieving fuel via AAR or just a tanker for the extra ones you'd like to see?Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-43951219913078344562012-09-26T08:30:48.219+01:002012-09-26T08:30:48.219+01:00@ Mike,
Have a good scope!
I suspect that barrin...@ Mike,<br /><br />Have a good scope!<br /><br />I suspect that barring some sort of disaster then yes, Atlas will end up with an RAF roundel on it. I wonder though what the cost would be of exiting the program? I just think it's the wrong plane for the wrong time.<br /><br />As for Voyager, I'm not sure what the detail is of the PFI. I think it might only cover refuelling from private vendors, or at least I bloody hope it does. If it penalises the RAF for using other assets that it owns, or using allied refuelling, then things are going to get awkward. <br /><br />The only way out of that contract at this minute would appear to be hammering the aircraft into the floor with a relentless pace of operations such that the costs begin to rack up for the airtanker consortium. It truly is a terrible deal.<br /><br />If we buy more Voyager, I'd like to see them tanker capable, and in the freight carrying version. With palletised seats that does reduce the number of spaces versus dedicated seating (along with the comfort level I'd imagine), but it opens 60 tonnes of cargo carrying capacity to ranges in excess of 4,000 miles, and 70 tonnes out to almost 3,500 miles. Just madness that we didn't take the cargo variant from day one.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-58695472942054962782012-09-25T17:30:26.478+01:002012-09-25T17:30:26.478+01:00Interesting post Chris, and site as well, will sco...Interesting post Chris, and site as well, will scope around.<br /><br />I think A400 will be wearing HM's roundle, like it or not, though I do sternly belive the Herc should remain in some capacity.<br /><br />With your article, there was one thing;<br />"As for the rest of the cash? Well, a few more Voyager tankers wouldn't go a miss, except not on Private Finance Initiative (PFI) this time"<br /><br />Your Voyagers - they wont be in Tanker form right? To get around the insane clause of the PFI contract.<br /><br />mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-55393970408934499062012-09-25T05:32:31.028+01:002012-09-25T05:32:31.028+01:00@ WiseApe,
For me the C-17 is the tool for delive...@ WiseApe,<br /><br />For me the C-17 is the tool for delivering to theatre, along with things like Voyager for passengers and some cargo. Then C-130 or C-27 is the in theatre, moving to different bases type job, and doing the very common task of air dropping supply loads.<br /><br />There are two ways of looking at C-130/C-27 vs A400. You can either purchase a set number of aircraft (22) for a cheaper price, or say that for the allotted money for the program you can buy more of the first than you can of the latter. If that makes sense.<br /><br />I think C-17 + either C-130 or C-27 offers the best high/low mix.<br /><br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-10822653070264936822012-09-23T18:29:52.913+01:002012-09-23T18:29:52.913+01:00I'm back - knackered and sunburnt!
@ChrisB - ...I'm back - knackered and sunburnt!<br /><br />@ChrisB - we are slightly at cross-purposes - you seem to be concentrating solely on transportation to a theatre but I am also thinking about moving stuff around within theatre, e.g. from one base to another, or to a series of bases (I think Mick 346 is doing the same - RFA aren't much use moving stuff around in a landlocked country!). I'm also not advocating buying A400s at the expense of C-17s - I see them as a replacement for Herc C130s. So for me the question is: what is your force mix, C-17 and A400; or C-17 and C130? The latter is the cheaper option but for once HMG has sanctioned what I think is the better option.<br /><br />WiseApenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-66109662835451468322012-09-19T07:45:27.451+01:002012-09-19T07:45:27.451+01:00Not saying they aren't connected because they ...Not saying they aren't connected because they are, a lot of it comes from Kosovo where those pesky Russians beat us to the airport at Pristina using wheeled vehicles <br /><br />Have a read of this<br /><br />http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/a-brief-history-of-fres/<br /><br />The full gory details of FRESThink Defencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03403889570868740166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-48750757857429154722012-09-19T03:50:24.326+01:002012-09-19T03:50:24.326+01:00Didn't the USAF get all excited about airlifti...Didn't the USAF get all excited about airlifting vehicles after the Balkans? I think that played into the rational behind Stryker and some concept of rapid global response. <br /><br />There is actually a documented case of airlifting heavy vehicles, which I'm going to address in a post in a minute. It's not exactly a precedent setter though, and if anything confirms the value of C-17 over A400M.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-1777586553506056712012-09-19T03:46:42.712+01:002012-09-19T03:46:42.712+01:00Haha. I'll have to invest in a megaphone it se...Haha. I'll have to invest in a megaphone it seems.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-42577544556534329622012-09-18T23:15:31.349+01:002012-09-18T23:15:31.349+01:00If that is the case, I fail to see why the whole a...If that is the case, I fail to see why the whole air transportable battle group was the subject of extensive OA at the turn of the century (post Balkans). Nor why height / width / weight values well in excess of C130 were being assessed for AT between 2002-2007 in what was DEC(DSR), then EC(ELS). Spent some time in MB, saw the "scenarios". Wasn't convinced.<br /><br />There is no other rationale for the UK to continue with an "outsize cargo" airlifter to "compete" with C17, when the actual numbers of outsize cargo items are so low.Not a Boffinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-38502477371974130562012-09-18T21:42:45.365+01:002012-09-18T21:42:45.365+01:00NaB, not strictly true
The A400 can trace its des...NaB, not strictly true<br /><br />The A400 can trace its design to 1982 with the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) group.<br /><br />In 1989 we had the Future Family of Light Armoured vehicles (FFLAV) which through a couple of incarnations turned into FRES in 2001.<br /><br />The European Staff Requirement for the Future Large Airlifter (FLA) were defined in 1995<br /><br />FRES originally defined C130 transportability as a key metric and it wasnt until 2007 that this was changed to A400M<br /><br />FRES and A400M are no doubt intertwined but I think it is a bit much to say one was driven by the other, the dates don't tallyThink Defencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03403889570868740166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-43602076687771432952012-09-18T21:30:01.329+01:002012-09-18T21:30:01.329+01:00Great post Chris
I am simply going to say you are...Great post Chris<br /><br />I am simply going to say you are wrong, stick my fingers in my ears and say la la la la la la<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />la<br /><br />:)Think Defencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03403889570868740166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-83996287741549460692012-09-18T14:06:24.824+01:002012-09-18T14:06:24.824+01:00I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the dr...I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the driver behind the adoption of the A400 at the expense of Fat Albert. Back in the mid to late 90s and into the early noughties a fad was born. That fad was the air-transport of "future" infantry fighting vehicles (specifically what became known as FRES), direct from UK into a theatre of operations.<br /><br />While entirely logical as a concept to get round the speed limitations of sea transport, it tended to ignore the basic facts of logistics - that with vehicles come people and support equipment, all of which need protecting and then feeding with either fuel or food and water or all three! Pretty soon the sortie number requirements go through the roof....<br /><br />Suspending disbelief at the concept, the practicalities soon bit as FRES got heavier and conversely the limitations imposed by the A400 cargo envelope tended to make FRES variants with sufficient protection for the IED / Jundi threat impractical.<br /><br />Personally, if one assumes that the "air-transport a battle-group of FRES" idea is dead, I tend to agree that a C17/C130 mix is likely to be more flexible, particularly assuming higher airframe numbers. However, the moment to make that choice was SDSR and that moment has long passed.<br /><br />Like it or not, A400 (barring some catastrophe that invalidates the entire programme) is coming and not a moment too soon, as by the time we finish Herrick, the Herky-birds will be well and truly sh8gged. We will at least be able to move more "outsize" equipment, but probably less frequently.<br /><br />Not a Boffinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-27480082904959977522012-09-16T21:56:02.232+01:002012-09-16T21:56:02.232+01:00Evening gents. What a bugger that weekend was. Any...Evening gents. What a bugger that weekend was. Anyway, questions.<br /><br />@ Wise Ape,<br /><br />Enjoy your holidays. And if you don't read this till you get back then I hope you had a good holiday! Now I like a good disagreement! On that note.<br /><br />"... this will leave you with a small number of big lifters, 10-ish C-17s, instead of 22 A400s which can carry almost as much almost as far - that doesn't look like a good swap to me"<br /><br />-- The reduced number of C-17's is a slight issue, but it's a vastly more capable lifter. Around 75 tonnes maximum compared to around 35 tonnes for Atlas. The C-17 can carry a 40 tonne payload further than an A400M can carry 20 tonnes. That means it can carry something like the Terrier engineering vehicle (that TD mentioned recently as an example payload) a much greater distance than an A400M can, like directly into Afghanistan in a manner that Atlas can't. If heavy lift were needed to deploy Warrior IFV for some reason, you're looking at 1 in an Atlas, or three in a C-17. It truly is an impressive lifter (though still over shadowed by various Russian jobs).<br /><br />"vehicles are not just heavier, they are bigger and simply will not fit in the C130-size cargo box"<br />-- In a way yes. I'd be interested to see what the list of British owned vehicles is that can't be C-130 lifted. I suspect many of them would be loads that under normal circumstances would be either shipped to the destination anyway, or sent in numbers on a C-17 or commercial An-124. I'm having difficulty picturing a vehicle that doesn't top 20 tonnes but is also too big for Hercules? Maybe some of the lorry/trailer combinations? C-17 combined with C-130 has been a good combination so far.<br /><br />I also agree with Mick, there is only so big a vehicle can really go before it starts getting absurd. American Strykers are already having issues with rollovers, and obviously standard road dimensions keep ultimate vehicle size in check, except for specialist vehicles obviously.<br /><br />"Also, how does a C-17/C130 purchase help UK industry"<br />-- The C-17 doesn't I'm afraid. While I do advocate retaining a number of important design capabilities in the UK, I think there are times where we have to accept that some equipment just has to be "out sourced" as it were.<br /><br />The C-130J does do us some good. Marshalls have built a reputation for doing work on C-130's. But most importantly the engines on the Hercules are built by the North American branch of Rolls-Royce, so there is income there, although granted not sure how many UK jobs support that work.<br /><br />The Atlas itself doesn't have a huge UK industry impact. The wing work could (and I suspect would) be easily supplanted by proper Airbus work. Rolls Royce only has a percentage involvement in the engines on it.<br /><br /><br />@ Mick 346,<br />Me and TD tend to agree on a lot of things. This is one of the rare subjects we've disagreed on.<br /><br />"I agree with you about cost effectiveness and am adamantly opposed to all these multi national projects which take decades to do anything at an extremely high cost"<br /><br />Sadly that is a lesson that never seems to be learnt.<br /><br /><br /><br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-51465225048460087012012-09-15T16:53:28.971+01:002012-09-15T16:53:28.971+01:00Very nice post Chris. I do like a contrasting opin...Very nice post Chris. I do like a contrasting opinion on the same matter helps a third party with little knowledge(i.e idiot me) try and better understand the topic/subject. I agree with you about cost effectiveness and am adamantly opposed to all these multi national projects which take decades to do anything at an extremely high cost. <br /><br />WiseApe while I agree vehicle size has increased, I don't believe this is set to continue. For better or worse the NATO operation in Afghanistan will be drawn down to a very small level by 2014/15. After this why would vehicle size keep increasing? Vehicle size has massively increased recently to deal with the IED threats of the Afghanistan war but as has been shown you can only get so big before the vehicle loses its combat effectiveness. There's always going to be a bigger bomb out there that can destroy even the most protected vehicles. I personally think other ways will be sought to deal with the IED and mine threat to vehicles than simply adding armour.<br /><br />Also its not just vehicles that have to be carried, there's lots more of equipment which will fit into a smaller cheaper aircraft, leaving the C-17s to carry the rest. Also aren't we forgetting the RFA, surely if we want to move a large number of big vehicles its cheaper and makes more operational sense to ship them by sea? I understand this will take longer but in a war lasting 13 years, surely that's enough time to ship the vehicles from the uk!<br /><br /><br /><br /> mick 346https://www.blogger.com/profile/03777249489229912370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-69133493404467617862012-09-14T23:12:55.777+01:002012-09-14T23:12:55.777+01:00Excellent post Chris and a good counterpoint to TD...Excellent post Chris and a good counterpoint to TD's Atlas-friendly posts so far. Well that's me being nice out of the way, now I can get on with disagreeing with you!<br /><br />You advocate cancelling A400 and buying more C-17 and some new C130 and/or C27s; this will leave you with a small number of big lifters, 10-ish C-17s, instead of 22 A400s which can carry almost as much almost as far - that doesn't look like a good swap to me. As for more C130/C27s, TD makes a good point about what A400 will be carrying - vehicles are not just heavier, they are bigger and simply will not fit in the C130-size cargo box. This is a trend which is only likely to increase.<br /><br />Also, how does a C-17/C130 purchase help UK industry, always a consideration with military purchases, whether we like it or not.<br /><br />If you reply to the above, please excuse me for not responding quickly as I'm off on well deserved hols.WiseApenoreply@blogger.com