7) 15 VC.10: 10 C.1K, 2 K.3, 4 K.4 (yes this is 16, an unknown version was retired July 2008). CUrrently planned as March 2011, but will probably be extended to 2016.
As of August last year, the 16 were the 10 C1K (various), 4 K3 (ZA147-150), and 2 K4. ZD242, the penultimate K4 was retired to Boscombe Down, leaving the last K4 ZD241, the 4 K3s and 10 C1K. Another one or two are expected to be scrapped/preserved in the next year.
The OSD is September 2014 as it currently stands (it was 2011 in 2003), when the last K3 is retired. The Tristar OSD has been moved to 2016 in the past 12 months.
As to the VC10/Tristar I was under the impression there are 16 VC10s(although I’m working on old info and IIRC they’ve begun to retire the fleet before replacements arrive so Charlie’s 14 is probably right) and 9 Tristars (3 of which are not tankers). Either way a considerable amount more than there will be in replacements
I was wrong too – just checked my figures and there are 15 (I was a C1K short. There were 16 until August 2009, when ZD242 was retired)
the 14 quoted above for MRRT rings a bell and prompts my own question; is there any chance of the RAF opting for another 4 or so more? 14 isn’t enough by about half, the alternative being to buy refueling kits for the some of the A400s (or a non-linear, non-sensical alternative being to retire 30% of the fleet so there are enough tankers to go around, surely the Call-me-Dave’s wont be as bad as labour?)
I’m sure if you threw enough money in the right place they could provide more tankers. Frankly, there will be enough A330, considering their servicability compared to VC10/Tristar.
As for the A400M, any attempt to convert these would break the terms of the FSTA agreement, in that FSTA is the only MoD operated tanker once it has achieved full operating capability.
As for the “Call me Daves” – don’t forget that a certain secret Oxfordshire AAR/AT base is in Dave’s constituency!
A330 MRRT was a mistake, a little bit more cash and thought would have gone a long way, RAF could host a fleet of 767s with various different missions, 4-5 JSTARS type(ignoring the fact ASTOR was a couple of years before FSTA), 18-20 tankers, 3 ELINT and later perhaps 6 767 Wedgetail derrived AEW and if you’re that way inclined theres always Blair Force One. Would not work with A330 due to increased costs, theres no way of fitting it into any dreamable budget (it’d take a fair chunk more to stretch this far) with lower chances of any international collaberation.
I think a lot has to be read into the fact unlike others, the A330 will be 50:50 tanker transport. In fact a member of AirTankers opponent consortium said to me that even though they offered (second hand) 767s, in his opinion, the best solution was the A330-200 converted to use the A340’s central undercarriage bogey.
Another question on the subject of airlift: the Globemasters; a couple of years ago there were plans to bring total numbers upto 8, did that plan die and if not is it now too late?
No it didn’t; I suspect any further orders will be as cashflow allows in a tightening budget. There were strong rumours recently that a seventh may be signed for soon.
LOL, the only item in which KC-767AT actually managed to best KC-135 is offload at 1000nm from 7000ft runway.
I find it difficult to believe they expect to be constrained by runway length! The NATO standard 9,000ft will be considered short before too long.:)
Actually the RAF is not buying any A330 tankers. Their plan is to lease them from a civilian consortium that is buying 14.
Fair point, yes, it is a PFI with military registered airframes owned by a third party.
We knew what REF meant.:)
Airbus offered the aircraft they thought could win, at least it was real aircraft which has flown now rather then the paper Frankentanker.
Are you sure the RAAF A330 MRTT on trials is not just a photoshop job? 😉 😀
Well the most notable difference came up during the RAF selection process…
With the VC10 operating out of Brize Norton and the a330 launching from Tolouse in France the a330 could stay an extra hour on station over the North Sea.
That would also depend on the type of VC10 too, as the 4 K3s can (on paper) carry just under 2 hrs more fuel than the C1K & K4.
I suspect that’s based on the K3.
As for the use of tankers; it all depends on the way each service operates, which can be quite different.
As for the fuel capacity. Better to have spare than not enough. A case in point, looking at current operations, and the available operating bases, they are often more than an hour or twos flying time from the operating area.
the 2 crew Tornado is overkill when other nations are operating simpler F16, Mirage F1 and AMX etc although this is no purely academic as the Jaguar is long gone.
Somewhat of an over simplification – certainly the Tonka may be better suited to some of the work compared to the Harrier. Besides are the Germans and Italians also operating the IDS in the ‘Stan as well.
7 = How Many VC10’s remain in service on the books, and currently expected out of service date for the last one?
15 (10 C1Ks, 4 K3, 1 K4), and by the end of 2014. A gradual draw down I believe, as aircraft come up for their “majors”, or as operational circumstances dictate within that.
6 = How many A330 future tanker / personnel transports the RAF intends to buy, & currently expected in-service date?
Off the top of my head, 14, and autumn 2011 for #1 – have a look at http://www.airtanker.co.uk. Transport only initially, but fully operational in the AAR role by 2014 (strongly linked with the above I suspect!)
3 = How many, if any, C-130J’s are still on order?
None, and there are no slots for delivery until late 2012 IIRC – hence the lack of further orders in lieu of A400M.
I used to say go speak to tanker commanders & crew YOURSELF (as I have done)
I have (as you may have noted from my previous post!).
Funny (NOT) how Airbus/EADS/KC-30 supporters aren’t in an uproar over the UK FSTA contract…
? Why? It was completely different, and the offer of the correct aircraft/infrastructure for the job was taken up, seeing as it’s replacing two aircraft, the VC10 (comparable to the KC135, but comfier for passengers!) and the Tristar.
The RAF are also in the fortunate position of not having to overcome a historical link to either Boeing or Airbus products.:D
It sure would be nice if the decision makers would listen to those who know what they are talking about…
I’m sure there are plenty of people who know what they are talking about who’d suggest the other contender. All down to opinion, and deciding exactly what they want – and IIRC they’d be getting the same number of whichever tanker (and of course which non-executive directorship they intend to take up once retired!).
Whether they’d need to upgrade infrastructure is another matter. One of the saving graces of the UK FSTA contract is that the direct infrastructure changes are part of the contract, so will be ready when the jets arrive – whether the RAF’s infrastructure is ready is, er, another hurdle altogether!
Either way, I wouldn’t expect anything less from a Boeing operator. The ones I know are just the same!:D
Babcock? No offense, but all this outsourcing is stupid, since on top of paying the wages, you are also paying the management fee’s to babcock, who need show a profit to their shareholders, unlike the RN/MOD which doesnt need to make a profit.
Wages, as mentioned above, probably less than the equivalent serviceman, and I don’t suppose they are incremented every year, as a serviceman’s would be. Add to this that they don’t need to be kitted out from stores for every eventuality (as we all do), don’t have to have service accommodation made available for them, and don’t have to have to be sent on courses, annual “ticks in the box” etc.
Yet more unsourced bull**** from the times IMO
I’m not really sure it’s bull****, but more what was inevitably going to happen at some stage anyway, which we already knew.
EDIT: Just remembered if both RAF Linton-on-Ouse and RAF Leeming were closed and the aircraft moved to RAF Valley it would without a doubt be the busiest UK base maybe even busiest European base as you would also have the turboprop trainer fleets based there. Is there even enough room for all those aircraft??
Really until the post Tucano fast jet training solution is announced, it’s impossible to tell what will need to be based anywhere. It may end up being a solution that involves the current Tucano and Hawk AFT syllabuses being performed on a single type (such as PC-21, M311), with the students not even flying the Hawk until their tac-weapons course on 19(R).
Amazing what a cascading reaction in the press can be brought about by one quarter-page article in the Sunday Times!
For example, had anyone noticed how the expansion-scheme airfields are the ones that survived post-war cuts, and not the later wartime ones?
They were the ones with infrastructure of bricks and mortar though, so far more usable – a point which the MoD continues to believe to this day!:D