Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
I thought a study for the 1998 SDR said the UK would need 12 T45 to provide air defence for the fleet. If we have only 6, then there must be holes in the defence, what with the Earth being round. So yes, either 6 more T45 or some fast jets on a carrier.
Observer
Wise, 2 words regarding EMP.
Faraday Cage.
WiseApe
@Observer – I suspect the main target may well be CNN and those pesky mobile phone cameras.
Mark
Do we know anyone who has a few aar aircraft to rent out
Looks like it’s dawned big brother isn’t going to be around as much from now on.
martin
@ Mark – Interesting read. It’s terrible that the entire EU can only field 42 tanker’s vs the USA at 650.
If we had the extra cash I would dearly like to see us purchase AAR kits for our A400M’s. I know we already have a decent capability with our 13 voyager’s. However having an extra 10 – 12 A400M’s with AAR would be a real force enabler for the EU and would give us additional diplomatic leverage.
Not a Boffin
One lesson from Ellamy learned then…….
x
How many tankers do the Chinese and Indians have?
Mark
I would agree counting on US support a/c will be a lot less in the future. As Europes talked about expeditionary capability it will now have to pay for it.
Martin the 900e series pods are on a330 and a400m. Though an older pod may be used for the raf a330 isd. Don’t know what pods are on vc10 but if there compatible transfer them to the a400m might be an option.
martin
I wonder how much a 10 or 12 kits for the A400M’s would be. Can’t imagine it would be that expensive. Maybe it would have been a better idea to buy extra A400M’s with AAR kit than the extra aircraft for the Voyager fleet.
Given that the main concept behind the Voyager PFI is to lease the spare aircraft to other EU member’s it does little in reallity to boost our capability.
@ X According to Wiki (obviously not the best source) the Chinese have 10 with 8 on order.
WiseApe
I’m sure if TD were not off fulfilling his “We’re gonna need a bigger boat” fantasy he would be posting this:
Sadly the idiots who signed the ghastly Voyager PFI, agreed to ban RAF A400M doing AAR.
So either the RAF needs strike jets with longer legs or we keep back some C-130J to use as tankers.
Or we buy out or jail the traitors behind the Voyager PFI.
WiseApe
If just 1200-1800 get ordered by the US that’s really going to hurt the cost of our small buy:
“unmatched situational awareness” – where have I heard that before? Oh yes, every piece of aircraft sales literature for the last 30 odd years!
topman
‘Sadly the idiots who signed the ghastly Voyager PFI, agreed to ban RAF A400M doing AAR.’
I can’t say how true that is but I’ve seen it stated many times online. Have you seen anyone state that ? If it’s similar to pax part of the contract it’s not as bad as people might think, although the pax part is easier to find spare capacity for.
Simon
WiseApe,
Intersting read.
“the cost to build each F-35 has risen to an average of $137 million from $69 million in 2001″ Do they not realise that as a rule of thumb things double in price every decade anyway.
“the Pentagon would need to shift money to longer-range planes as China and other countries expanded the reach of missiles capable of destroying American ships and bases.” Of course, this doesn’t apply to British ships and bases. The F35B is perfect against an ever improving array of missiles
Mark
I believe not having aar on a400m is entirely an raf decision prob driven by cost.
Wiseape someone obvious forgot to tell the USAF there reducing there f35 buy they said only yesterday they weren’t anyway lot 5 agreed
Looks like they’re trying to tie down as many Lots as they can to avoid possible sequestration cuts. Any commitments made before 2nd January would be untouched:
Last paragraph
” The FSTA contract is wide open and transparent. Exclusivity clauses mean that AirTanker aircraft will refuel all UK military fixed wing AAR operations. ”
I have asked Airtanker’s media contact for a comment. Will post it if they say anything genuinely interesting, which I doubt.
there is not an outright exclusion (but it’ll cost you)
” MoD will have to compensate AirTanker if it uses alternative aircraft for significant passenger moves or AAR, but that seems fair given that the consortium has spent so much on expensive aircraft and infrastructure. ”
PS: One wonders whether refuelling rotary assets is therefore excluded from the contract, and what the definition of “significant” might be too.
WiseApe
Just to be clear I am not “michael-notts” in the comments:
I did however get to know Ginger Lacey in the early 80s (shameless name-dropping).
WiseApe
First flight of the European (i.e. French) UAV:
martin
@ Wise Ape – Interesting video, Does anyone know if Neuron has the sophisticated self flying system that Taranis will have or is it simply just remote controlled. It’s a little disappointing that BAE did not get their first given their first flight was suppose to be almost 2 year’s ago.
x
Topman said “I can’t say how true that is but I’ve seen it stated many times online.”
It is written on the back of the gentleman’s agreement between the RAF and the AAC concerning helicopter weights……..
To be honest seeing how compartmentalised and narrow contracts have to be I can’t see the MoD signing a contract that bans all AAR by any other platform. My concern was buddy-buddy tanking for F35 flying off CVF. Would the Voyager bods really think there was a need for it? I can’t see 1SL agreeing to his assets being hobbled by another service’s PFI agreement; especially seeing how inflexible AAR tankering and the RN’s need for global coverage. But as you say it oft repeated.
Topman
@ x
‘My concern was buddy-buddy tanking for F35 flying off CVF. Would the Voyager bods really think there was a need for it?’
The two tend not overlap that much, any FJ with said kit isn’t really a replacement for a proper tanker. 2 Group are well used to AAR for carrier ops, one of the biggest users is the USN. So it wouldn’t be something that would be out of the blue or something unusual.
‘I can’t see 1SL agreeing to his assets being hobbled by another service’s PFI agreement; ‘
Well it’s not upto 1SL, if the gov. want that clause added then it will be and everyone will have to get on with it.
x
@ Topman
As I understand the head of all three services have some input into the large decisions. If HMG doesn’t consult service chiefs about decisions who are they going to consult?
Now CTOL operations don’t compare directly with STOVL ops when landing back on. Too many missed landings with CTOL means finding a tanker. But surely there may be a need to extend F35b by using a tanker?
I am sure 2 Group do a superb job at providing AAR. But are you going to be everywhere all the time especially with only 9 tankers? It might work in the Gulf with the absence of peer enemy but what off the coast of East Africa or in the middle of the Indian Ocean, any where south of Sierra Leone, etc? “Where is the UK carrier today?” “I don’t know. Why don’t we just track that very large aeroplane to see where it goes?”
None of what I say is meant to disparage the RAF AAR capabilities. Carriers are about freedom of movement, being dependent (not quite the right word) on a land based tanker to get the job done sort of goes against that a bit.
Topman
Yes they have an input, but it’s not always listened to was my point. At that level a big one, for example this PFI wasn’t the RAF’s first choice they had a input and were consulted and still…
‘But are you going to be everywhere all the time especially with only 9 tankers? It might work in the Gulf with the absence of peer enemy but what off the coast of East Africa or in the middle of the Indian Ocean, any where south of Sierra Leone, etc? ‘
More than likely yes. Pretty unlikely it won’t involve something on land. It could happen if there was some ship on ship ops in the middle of an ocean but I’d rate it as an unlikely op.
‘Carriers are about freedom of movement, being dependent (not quite the right word) on a land based tanker to get the job done sort of goes against that a bit.’
I don’t see it as being tied to them, I see it as giving carrier ops greater flexibilty that AAR gives you. Nothing exists in a bubble, every is reliant on other assets to a lesser or greater degree.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a buddy buddy system just that it’s not really a replacement for proper AAR.
x
@ Topman
No of course buddy-buddy isn’t a replacement for proper AAR. Never meant to say that. What I was saying I couldn’t see the Voyager PFI contract being so all encompassing as to ban all AAR of any type other than Voyager. And I couldn’t see 1SL, whether he was listened to or not, actually being happy with the idea and not making his feelings known.
No nothing exists in a bubble, but by the same token it doesn’t mean it always wise to use one system or technology to answer a given problem. There is a difference between say the USN taking advantage of land based RAF tankers in the Gulf because they are available and that being a model for other carrier operations. Further if the fleet is dependent on land based AAR that means Voyager is even worse value because it has hobbled another capability. Those PFI payments would have bought a lot of assets to make CVF even more potent.
As for operation in the deep ocean two thirds of the planet is covered in water. The sea bed is replete with minerals and other resources. Don’t discount the idea of states fighting over empty grid squares.
Mark
A330 has serveral hours on station time at around 1000nm from base given our disturbed territorial bases around the world and the fuel capacity of f35 where into real Tom Clancy stuff as to operations where this becomes an issue.
The aar contract can’t be quite as bad as portrayed just think on coalitions operations were hardly likely to not tank from coalition tankers because we have to use only voyager ect
Topman
@ x
‘No nothing exists in a bubble, but by the same token it doesn’t mean it always wise to use one system or technology to answer a given problem. There is a difference between say the USN taking advantage of land based RAF tankers in the Gulf because they are available and that being a model for other carrier operations.’
No it needed always be that way, but usually would be.
‘Further if the fleet is dependent on land based AAR that means Voyager is even worse value because it has hobbled another capability.’
It might not be essential at all times, but it’s unlikely to hobble anything. AAR will more than likely give the extra range needed on carrier ops. If it’s very close to the op, then all well and good.
I don’t see any AAR asset being flown from uk carriers on the horizon?
I’m not saying it’s the best thing since sliced bread, but they are a big part of all big ops I don’t see that changing.
‘Don’t discount the idea of states fighting over empty grid squares.’
We never know what’s around the corner but like I said to me it’s highly unlikely.
Topman
‘The aar contract can’t be quite as bad as portrayed just think on coalitions operations were hardly likely to not tank from coalition tankers because we have to use only voyager ect’
That was my thought, probably similar to the pax side. It’s not that bad, in a way I suppose it causes us to maximise the use of what we have before we go off bringing charter pax a/c.
x
@ Topman
Is there any technical reason why F35b can’t do buddy-buddy? A Harrier is too small, but the F35b is in a different class.
@ Mark re A330 endurance
Sorry makes no sense to me at all. What is the ticket price of an A330 tanker? How much to keep it in the air? How much infrastructure on the ground? And will that infrastructure need to be moved? If F35b range is such a problem surely external tanks etc. and as I said buddy-buddy (as a safety net) would make more sense that a great big flapping air liner making your presence known to all and sundry. Will the tanker move from air field to air field to keep in range of CVF? Ships have this awkward capacity for moving about. Or shall we drag Australia a few thousand miles west, again?
Topman
Not that I know of, but then I don’t know much about the real details of the fuel system.
I wouldn’t worry about giving away the position, anyway aren’t these ships near impossible to find anywhere, the ocean is a big place etc . It’s not like it would be doing circuits around the bridge.
Well aircraft can move from place to place, we could even do something outrageous like have more than one and put them at different airfields
Mark
x
F35b doesn’t have a range problem and doesn’t need buddy buddy as a safety net. No reason why it can’t do buddy buddy but there’s no reason to have it. A330 is there to allow fastjets to stay on task for up to 6hrs if needs be.
Does a ships need to take its port factilities around with it for when it puts in for a repair or re-supply. A330 sticker price about 140m pounds lot less that 3b per ship the navy uses:)
paul g
ummmm, at the risk of sounding very stupid (won’t be the first or last time) with ref to F35B refuelling, as it’s selling point is it’s ability to hover/fly very slowly. why couldn’t you have a roll on roll off system for the merlin? wheel it up the ramp, pipe and basket out the back of ramp bish bash bosh plane refuelled!!!!
I know it sounds completely stupid but thinking outside the normal parameters has worked in the past and one of the worlds best manufacturers of re-fueling equipment is british
(stands by for incoming)!!!
x
@ Topman re ships impossible to find
That depends on what I am trying to argue…
Simon
x,
Buddy refueling on F35B would only give an extra 33-50% range depending on if the “buddy” has the wing tanks or not.
x
@ Simon
It isn’t so much the range (or whether the RAF will be there if needed), it is more whether that Voyager PFI contract forbids it or not.
We need somebody to make an FOI request….
Simon
x,
Strewth… what a mad mad world! £750m each!! £10-12b for the entire contract till 2035!!!
I suppose it depends what it includes, and as you say, prohibits. £1m per day for tanker availability could be considered pretty reasonable.
x
I just can’t see the Voyager team at some management brainstorming session coming up with lots of weird and wonderful terms and conditions and then nobody on the HMG side opposing aforementioned conditions. Doesn’t make sense.
Isn’t customer always right? (Don’t laugh at the back I no after working for over 10 years for a leading retailing the customer is an ATM on two legs…)
WiseApe
£10-12b – yes but at least HMG gets most of that back in fuel duty
x
Knowing our luck they probably tanker it across the Channel. I am lead to believe that a Continental company can fill up on their side, pay the ferry fare, and still turn a profit on a UK job.
Observer
@x
The exclusivity contract for AAR is hardly unique, it’s not the first time I’ve come across it, and despite how stupid it may sound, yes, it happens. Can’t remember the first time I’ve come across it, but the rational behind it was that if an external company spends so much just to ensure that you have AAR, then they need to turn a profit, and to do that, they need the exclusivity contract to prevent them from being undercut by a 3rd party and making a massive loss. IIRC, it does not stop you from having a 3rd party take up any slack, just that you have to compensate the original company if you go to another supplier.
Depending on how the contract is worded, it might be that they compensate only if they have not used up full capacity of AAR, or even a total monopoly, though the reverse sometimes happens, the AAR company gets sued if it can’t deliver the needed refueling capability.
Hardly unique, it’s the company covering their ars-.
Observer
paul, hovering takes up a lot of fuel and works only under low load conditions, which is why Harriers still used jumpramps. When a plane is moving fast, the wings create lift. When it is stationary…
That being said, V-22 AAR is a possibility, though execution would still be with both planes moving.
@ Observer – I wonder if their is an issue with using V22 for AAR given the back draft coming of the props. I would imagine that the drouge would buffet around quite a bit.
Observer
martin, no idea, though won’t that be a common problem to all prop driven tankers?
Chris.B.
@ Observer,
“Depending on how the contract is worded, it might be that they compensate only if they have not used up full capacity of AAR”
– As far as I’ve managed to unearth any details, that appears to be the plan. So the MoD would only be fined if there was perfectly adequate and viable tanking availability from Voyager and yet the MoD opted to use someone else, which like you say essentially guarantees that the AirTanker group can’t then be undercut by commercial opponents.
It makes a lot of commercial sense for them and it’s a smart move on their part. It just doesn’t make sense for the MoD.
What makes AirTanker even worse is that the NAO is just starting to fully get to grips with all the implications of PFI projects in Health and Education, digging up a lot of the dirty details. If those experiences are anything to go by then the worst is yet to come with this AAR PFI.
Challenger
Some interesting news about Crowsnest today, in case anyone hasn’t seen…
Looks like we will be taking a ‘capability holiday’ which isn’t really shocking given that the current Sea Kings will leave service in 2016. I don’t really get why though it will take 5 or 6 years to take equipment off the retiring Sea Kings and put it onto some Merlin’s.
Why as well is their now talk of bolting Crowsnest onto the active fleet of 30 HM2? What happened to the 8-12 spare airframes in storage that were going to be utilised?
All said it’s a complete mess as usual, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this level of idiocy any-more!
Two good “pros and cons” articles from AOL Defence. The first looks at Boeing’s CHAMP EMP weapon, while the second looks at stealth:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/28/how-revolutionary-is-champ-new-air-force-microwave-weapon/
http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/27/will-stealth-survive-as-sensors-improve-f-35-jammers-at-stake/
I thought a study for the 1998 SDR said the UK would need 12 T45 to provide air defence for the fleet. If we have only 6, then there must be holes in the defence, what with the Earth being round. So yes, either 6 more T45 or some fast jets on a carrier.
Wise, 2 words regarding EMP.
Faraday Cage.
@Observer – I suspect the main target may well be CNN and those pesky mobile phone cameras.
Do we know anyone who has a few aar aircraft to rent out
http://www.eda.europa.eu/info-hub/news/2012/11/28/increasing-europe-s-strategic-tanker-capability-by-2020
Do we know anyone who has a few aar aircraft to rent out
http://www.eda.europa.eu/info-hub/news/2012/11/28/increasing-europe-s-strategic-tanker-capability-by-2020
@ Mark
Looks like it’s dawned big brother isn’t going to be around as much from now on.
@ Mark – Interesting read. It’s terrible that the entire EU can only field 42 tanker’s vs the USA at 650.
If we had the extra cash I would dearly like to see us purchase AAR kits for our A400M’s. I know we already have a decent capability with our 13 voyager’s. However having an extra 10 – 12 A400M’s with AAR would be a real force enabler for the EU and would give us additional diplomatic leverage.
One lesson from Ellamy learned then…….
How many tankers do the Chinese and Indians have?
I would agree counting on US support a/c will be a lot less in the future. As Europes talked about expeditionary capability it will now have to pay for it.
Martin the 900e series pods are on a330 and a400m. Though an older pod may be used for the raf a330 isd. Don’t know what pods are on vc10 but if there compatible transfer them to the a400m might be an option.
I wonder how much a 10 or 12 kits for the A400M’s would be. Can’t imagine it would be that expensive. Maybe it would have been a better idea to buy extra A400M’s with AAR kit than the extra aircraft for the Voyager fleet.
Given that the main concept behind the Voyager PFI is to lease the spare aircraft to other EU member’s it does little in reallity to boost our capability.
@ X According to Wiki (obviously not the best source) the Chinese have 10 with 8 on order.
I’m sure if TD were not off fulfilling his “We’re gonna need a bigger boat” fantasy he would be posting this:
http://www.defencetalk.com/bae-completes-upgrade-of-raf-eurofighter-typhoons-45702/
Sadly the idiots who signed the ghastly Voyager PFI, agreed to ban RAF A400M doing AAR.
So either the RAF needs strike jets with longer legs or we keep back some C-130J to use as tankers.
Or we buy out or jail the traitors behind the Voyager PFI.
If just 1200-1800 get ordered by the US that’s really going to hurt the cost of our small buy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?hp&_r=1&
Wonder who Boeing sees as it’s customers for these? Seems like a lot of trouble to go to just for a small order from Brazil:
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/07/bds_f18_enhancements_07_10_12.html
“unmatched situational awareness” – where have I heard that before? Oh yes, every piece of aircraft sales literature for the last 30 odd years!
‘Sadly the idiots who signed the ghastly Voyager PFI, agreed to ban RAF A400M doing AAR.’
I can’t say how true that is but I’ve seen it stated many times online. Have you seen anyone state that ? If it’s similar to pax part of the contract it’s not as bad as people might think, although the pax part is easier to find spare capacity for.
WiseApe,
Intersting read.
“the cost to build each F-35 has risen to an average of $137 million from $69 million in 2001″ Do they not realise that as a rule of thumb things double in price every decade anyway.
“the Pentagon would need to shift money to longer-range planes as China and other countries expanded the reach of missiles capable of destroying American ships and bases.” Of course, this doesn’t apply to British ships and bases. The F35B is perfect against an ever improving array of missiles
I believe not having aar on a400m is entirely an raf decision prob driven by cost.
Wiseape someone obvious forgot to tell the USAF there reducing there f35 buy they said only yesterday they weren’t anyway lot 5 agreed
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-usa-defense-fighter-idUSBRE8AT0X920121130?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
Hello Mark
Looks like they’re trying to tie down as many Lots as they can to avoid possible sequestration cuts. Any commitments made before 2nd January would be untouched:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/11/29/sequestration-deadline-speeds-f-35-negotiations/
Seems they were unable to agree prices for Lot 6.
@topman
FWIW: Article credited to an interview with Director of The Air League Andrew Brookes:
http://www.defencemanagement.com/article.asp?id=552&content_name=Aerospace&article=18884
Last paragraph
” The FSTA contract is wide open and transparent. Exclusivity clauses mean that AirTanker aircraft will refuel all UK military fixed wing AAR operations. ”
I have asked Airtanker’s media contact for a comment. Will post it if they say anything genuinely interesting, which I doubt.
From a very similar article:
http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=14863
there is not an outright exclusion (but it’ll cost you)
” MoD will have to compensate AirTanker if it uses alternative aircraft for significant passenger moves or AAR, but that seems fair given that the consortium has spent so much on expensive aircraft and infrastructure. ”
PS: One wonders whether refuelling rotary assets is therefore excluded from the contract, and what the definition of “significant” might be too.
Just to be clear I am not “michael-notts” in the comments:
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=21585
I did however get to know Ginger Lacey in the early 80s (shameless name-dropping).
First flight of the European (i.e. French) UAV:
@ Wise Ape – Interesting video, Does anyone know if Neuron has the sophisticated self flying system that Taranis will have or is it simply just remote controlled. It’s a little disappointing that BAE did not get their first given their first flight was suppose to be almost 2 year’s ago.
Topman said “I can’t say how true that is but I’ve seen it stated many times online.”
It is written on the back of the gentleman’s agreement between the RAF and the AAC concerning helicopter weights……..
To be honest seeing how compartmentalised and narrow contracts have to be I can’t see the MoD signing a contract that bans all AAR by any other platform. My concern was buddy-buddy tanking for F35 flying off CVF. Would the Voyager bods really think there was a need for it? I can’t see 1SL agreeing to his assets being hobbled by another service’s PFI agreement; especially seeing how inflexible AAR tankering and the RN’s need for global coverage. But as you say it oft repeated.
@ x
‘My concern was buddy-buddy tanking for F35 flying off CVF. Would the Voyager bods really think there was a need for it?’
The two tend not overlap that much, any FJ with said kit isn’t really a replacement for a proper tanker. 2 Group are well used to AAR for carrier ops, one of the biggest users is the USN. So it wouldn’t be something that would be out of the blue or something unusual.
‘I can’t see 1SL agreeing to his assets being hobbled by another service’s PFI agreement; ‘
Well it’s not upto 1SL, if the gov. want that clause added then it will be and everyone will have to get on with it.
@ Topman
As I understand the head of all three services have some input into the large decisions. If HMG doesn’t consult service chiefs about decisions who are they going to consult?
Now CTOL operations don’t compare directly with STOVL ops when landing back on. Too many missed landings with CTOL means finding a tanker. But surely there may be a need to extend F35b by using a tanker?
I am sure 2 Group do a superb job at providing AAR. But are you going to be everywhere all the time especially with only 9 tankers? It might work in the Gulf with the absence of peer enemy but what off the coast of East Africa or in the middle of the Indian Ocean, any where south of Sierra Leone, etc? “Where is the UK carrier today?” “I don’t know. Why don’t we just track that very large aeroplane to see where it goes?”
None of what I say is meant to disparage the RAF AAR capabilities. Carriers are about freedom of movement, being dependent (not quite the right word) on a land based tanker to get the job done sort of goes against that a bit.
Yes they have an input, but it’s not always listened to was my point. At that level a big one, for example this PFI wasn’t the RAF’s first choice they had a input and were consulted and still…
‘But are you going to be everywhere all the time especially with only 9 tankers? It might work in the Gulf with the absence of peer enemy but what off the coast of East Africa or in the middle of the Indian Ocean, any where south of Sierra Leone, etc? ‘
More than likely yes. Pretty unlikely it won’t involve something on land. It could happen if there was some ship on ship ops in the middle of an ocean but I’d rate it as an unlikely op.
‘Carriers are about freedom of movement, being dependent (not quite the right word) on a land based tanker to get the job done sort of goes against that a bit.’
I don’t see it as being tied to them, I see it as giving carrier ops greater flexibilty that AAR gives you. Nothing exists in a bubble, every is reliant on other assets to a lesser or greater degree.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a buddy buddy system just that it’s not really a replacement for proper AAR.
@ Topman
No of course buddy-buddy isn’t a replacement for proper AAR. Never meant to say that. What I was saying I couldn’t see the Voyager PFI contract being so all encompassing as to ban all AAR of any type other than Voyager. And I couldn’t see 1SL, whether he was listened to or not, actually being happy with the idea and not making his feelings known.
No nothing exists in a bubble, but by the same token it doesn’t mean it always wise to use one system or technology to answer a given problem. There is a difference between say the USN taking advantage of land based RAF tankers in the Gulf because they are available and that being a model for other carrier operations. Further if the fleet is dependent on land based AAR that means Voyager is even worse value because it has hobbled another capability. Those PFI payments would have bought a lot of assets to make CVF even more potent.
As for operation in the deep ocean two thirds of the planet is covered in water. The sea bed is replete with minerals and other resources. Don’t discount the idea of states fighting over empty grid squares.
A330 has serveral hours on station time at around 1000nm from base given our disturbed territorial bases around the world and the fuel capacity of f35 where into real Tom Clancy stuff as to operations where this becomes an issue.
The aar contract can’t be quite as bad as portrayed just think on coalitions operations were hardly likely to not tank from coalition tankers because we have to use only voyager ect
@ x
‘No nothing exists in a bubble, but by the same token it doesn’t mean it always wise to use one system or technology to answer a given problem. There is a difference between say the USN taking advantage of land based RAF tankers in the Gulf because they are available and that being a model for other carrier operations.’
No it needed always be that way, but usually would be.
‘Further if the fleet is dependent on land based AAR that means Voyager is even worse value because it has hobbled another capability.’
It might not be essential at all times, but it’s unlikely to hobble anything. AAR will more than likely give the extra range needed on carrier ops. If it’s very close to the op, then all well and good.
I don’t see any AAR asset being flown from uk carriers on the horizon?
I’m not saying it’s the best thing since sliced bread, but they are a big part of all big ops I don’t see that changing.
‘Don’t discount the idea of states fighting over empty grid squares.’
We never know what’s around the corner but like I said to me it’s highly unlikely.
‘The aar contract can’t be quite as bad as portrayed just think on coalitions operations were hardly likely to not tank from coalition tankers because we have to use only voyager ect’
That was my thought, probably similar to the pax side. It’s not that bad, in a way I suppose it causes us to maximise the use of what we have before we go off bringing charter pax a/c.
@ Topman
Is there any technical reason why F35b can’t do buddy-buddy? A Harrier is too small, but the F35b is in a different class.
@ Mark re A330 endurance
Sorry makes no sense to me at all. What is the ticket price of an A330 tanker? How much to keep it in the air? How much infrastructure on the ground? And will that infrastructure need to be moved? If F35b range is such a problem surely external tanks etc. and as I said buddy-buddy (as a safety net) would make more sense that a great big flapping air liner making your presence known to all and sundry. Will the tanker move from air field to air field to keep in range of CVF? Ships have this awkward capacity for moving about. Or shall we drag Australia a few thousand miles west, again?
Not that I know of, but then I don’t know much about the real details of the fuel system.
I wouldn’t worry about giving away the position, anyway aren’t these ships near impossible to find anywhere, the ocean is a big place etc
. It’s not like it would be doing circuits around the bridge.
Well aircraft can move from place to place, we could even do something outrageous like have more than one and put them at different airfields
x
F35b doesn’t have a range problem and doesn’t need buddy buddy as a safety net. No reason why it can’t do buddy buddy but there’s no reason to have it. A330 is there to allow fastjets to stay on task for up to 6hrs if needs be.
Does a ships need to take its port factilities around with it for when it puts in for a repair or re-supply. A330 sticker price about 140m pounds lot less that 3b per ship the navy uses:)
ummmm, at the risk of sounding very stupid (won’t be the first or last time) with ref to F35B refuelling, as it’s selling point is it’s ability to hover/fly very slowly. why couldn’t you have a roll on roll off system for the merlin? wheel it up the ramp, pipe and basket out the back of ramp bish bash bosh plane refuelled!!!!
I know it sounds completely stupid but thinking outside the normal parameters has worked in the past and one of the worlds best manufacturers of re-fueling equipment is british
(stands by for incoming)!!!
@ Topman re ships impossible to find
That depends on what I am trying to argue…
x,
Buddy refueling on F35B would only give an extra 33-50% range depending on if the “buddy” has the wing tanks or not.
@ Simon
It isn’t so much the range (or whether the RAF will be there if needed), it is more whether that Voyager PFI contract forbids it or not.
We need somebody to make an FOI request….
x,
Strewth… what a mad mad world! £750m each!! £10-12b for the entire contract till 2035!!!
I suppose it depends what it includes, and as you say, prohibits. £1m per day for tanker availability could be considered pretty reasonable.
I just can’t see the Voyager team at some management brainstorming session coming up with lots of weird and wonderful terms and conditions and then nobody on the HMG side opposing aforementioned conditions. Doesn’t make sense.
Isn’t customer always right? (Don’t laugh at the back I no after working for over 10 years for a leading retailing the customer is an ATM on two legs…)
£10-12b – yes but at least HMG gets most of that back in fuel duty
Knowing our luck they probably tanker it across the Channel. I am lead to believe that a Continental company can fill up on their side, pay the ferry fare, and still turn a profit on a UK job.
@x
The exclusivity contract for AAR is hardly unique, it’s not the first time I’ve come across it, and despite how stupid it may sound, yes, it happens. Can’t remember the first time I’ve come across it, but the rational behind it was that if an external company spends so much just to ensure that you have AAR, then they need to turn a profit, and to do that, they need the exclusivity contract to prevent them from being undercut by a 3rd party and making a massive loss. IIRC, it does not stop you from having a 3rd party take up any slack, just that you have to compensate the original company if you go to another supplier.
Depending on how the contract is worded, it might be that they compensate only if they have not used up full capacity of AAR, or even a total monopoly, though the reverse sometimes happens, the AAR company gets sued if it can’t deliver the needed refueling capability.
Hardly unique, it’s the company covering their ars-.
paul, hovering takes up a lot of fuel and works only under low load conditions, which is why Harriers still used jumpramps. When a plane is moving fast, the wings create lift. When it is stationary…
That being said, V-22 AAR is a possibility, though execution would still be with both planes moving.
Reserve Cyber force to be set up
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20578691
@ Observer – I wonder if their is an issue with using V22 for AAR given the back draft coming of the props. I would imagine that the drouge would buffet around quite a bit.
martin, no idea, though won’t that be a common problem to all prop driven tankers?
@ Observer,
“Depending on how the contract is worded, it might be that they compensate only if they have not used up full capacity of AAR”
– As far as I’ve managed to unearth any details, that appears to be the plan. So the MoD would only be fined if there was perfectly adequate and viable tanking availability from Voyager and yet the MoD opted to use someone else, which like you say essentially guarantees that the AirTanker group can’t then be undercut by commercial opponents.
It makes a lot of commercial sense for them and it’s a smart move on their part. It just doesn’t make sense for the MoD.
What makes AirTanker even worse is that the NAO is just starting to fully get to grips with all the implications of PFI projects in Health and Education, digging up a lot of the dirty details. If those experiences are anything to go by then the worst is yet to come with this AAR PFI.
Some interesting news about Crowsnest today, in case anyone hasn’t seen…
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-to-launch-crowsnest-aew-assessment-in-2013-379366/
Looks like we will be taking a ‘capability holiday’ which isn’t really shocking given that the current Sea Kings will leave service in 2016. I don’t really get why though it will take 5 or 6 years to take equipment off the retiring Sea Kings and put it onto some Merlin’s.
Why as well is their now talk of bolting Crowsnest onto the active fleet of 30 HM2? What happened to the 8-12 spare airframes in storage that were going to be utilised?
All said it’s a complete mess as usual, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this level of idiocy any-more!