Mid-air refuelling tankers to the Royal Air Force

R

riksavage

Banned Member
Ministers have finally approved Britain's biggest out-sourcing contract, a £13bn deal to supply mid-air refuelling tankers to the Royal Air Force.

AirTanker (consortium made up of EADS, Thales, Cobham, Rolls-Royce and VT Group) will supply 14 modified Airbus 330 aircraft to fly troops around the world, and also run the bases and train aircraft pilots and crew. The RAF will pay for the refuellers when it uses them; when the aircraft are not in military use, AirTanker will be free to earn revenues by leasing them out.

This is good news not just for the UK, but the rest of Europe who will be able lease the tankers / transport aircraft when required. I understand moving troops in and out of theatre in both Afghanistan and Iraq has been a real pain as military aircraft are required for critical missions leaving troops stranded for days until a place is available (morale kick in-the-nuts).

I understand Australia is going to sign a similar deal, correct?
 
A

Alpha Epsilon

New Member
The Australians have already signed an agreement for iirc 4 such aircraft. They are being converted at the moment iirc. Countries that have signed or are reported to be close to signing on for the A330MRTT and/or the A310MRTT:

UK
Australia
Germany
UAE
Canada
Saudi-Arabia.

Other countries expected to go for the Airbus solution:

France and others (Spain?, etc... .).
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Alpha Epsilon said:
... Countries that have signed or are reported to be close to signing on for the A330MRTT and/or the A310MRTT:

UK
Australia
Germany
UAE
Canada
Saudi-Arabia.

Other countries expected to go for the Airbus solution:

France and others (Spain?, etc... .).
Click to expand...
Canada & Germany are A310, the others A330. Saudi Arabia hasn't signed anything, & was annoyed when it was leaked that it was negotiating: may have delayed a contract. I'd say France is a dead cert for A330, & Spain highly probable.

Since A310 is out of production, & the final demise of the A300 line means it's no longer practical to restart production, A310MRTT is only available as a conversion of secondhand aircraft. I reckon that limits it to air forces which foresee a fairly limited usage of their tankers, & want to keep down the purchase price. An A300 conversion would be relatively simple (commonality with A310 means little development work needed), but the same restrictions apply.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
riksavage said:
The following is link to the provider showing aircraft specs etc.

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/capability-airrefuelling.htm

Are the Aussies buying theres outright or leasing them under a PFI agreement?
Click to expand...
We are purchasing 5x A330's outright. It will be called KC-30B in RAAF service.

I hope Carlo Kopp and others like him who think the RAAF fleet should be doubled or tripled take a good look at this.

RAF is getting 14x KC-30B's compared to our 5x.

However they are paying $30 BILLION DOLLARS to do so...

Talk about distorting a force structure...
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Aussie Digger said:
We are purchasing 5x A330's outright. It will be called KC-30B in RAAF service.

I hope Carlo Kopp and others like him who think the RAAF fleet should be doubled or tripled take a good look at this.

RAF is getting 14x KC-30B's compared to our 5x.

However they are paying $30 BILLION DOLLARS to do so...

Talk about distorting a force structure...
Click to expand...
That's the total lifetime cost of owning & operating them. It includes crew costs, all maintenance, hangarage, aircrew training, etc, etc - for 27 years. You can't compare it with the purchase price of RAAF tankers. Of the £13 billion pound price, only £2 billion is the capital cost.

Does sound a lot, though.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
swerve said:
That's the total lifetime cost of owning & operating them. It includes crew costs, all maintenance, hangarage, aircrew training, etc, etc - for 27 years. You can't compare it with the purchase price of RAAF tankers. Of the £13 billion pound price, only £2 billion is the capital cost.

Does sound a lot, though.
Click to expand...
Yes but Carlo et al only seem to take into account the "flyaway cost" of the aircraft in their costings.

Fuel, crews, upgrades, hangars, hardstands, training, runways, spares, technical documentation, simulators etc is required for EVERY aircraft, regardless of type.

RAAF's program is budgetted at $2B. That is NOT the purchase prices of the individual airframes, but includes all that mentioned above.

Kopp has advocated a fleet of no less than 17x "widebody" AAR's for RAAF in various publications with his 5x strike fighters per AAR necessity mantra as the reasoning behind this.

RAF's 14x aircraft will cost around $30 BILLION to operate.

Operating MORE will cost RAAF MORE than this. Hence why I suggest his ideas along this line is absolutely ludicrous and why I suggest it'd distort ADF force structure rather significantly...
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Aussie Digger said:
...
Fuel, crews, upgrades, hangars, hardstands, training, runways, spares, technical documentation, simulators etc is required for EVERY aircraft, regardless of type.

RAAF's program is budgetted at $2B. That is NOT the purchase prices of the individual airframes, but includes all that mentioned above. ...
Click to expand...
Which seems consistent with the £2bn capital cost of the RAF tankers.

As for the rest. Well, yes. I didn't realise which force you were talking about distorting. :)
 
A

Alpha Epsilon

New Member
I strongly doubt that the 2 billion dollar figure is for purchase and 27 years of operating them. A normal A330 already costs ca. 200 million dollars, so more than half of your budget is going to be spent on the aircraft. This would mean that you have about (27 times 5 = 135) 7 million dollars per aircraft per year to operate them. That is just 0.6 million dollars a month. That seems way to low.
 
A

Alpha Epsilon

New Member
A different way to look at it: If the 2 billion is for 5 aircraft and all operations etc... then it would make sense to buy and operate the 14 RAF aircraft for 6 billion dollars (=3 billion pounds) and not 13 billion pounds! :)
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Alpha Epsilon said:
I strongly doubt that the 2 billion dollar figure is for purchase and 27 years of operating them. A normal A330 already costs ca. 200 million dollars, so more than half of your budget is going to be spent on the aircraft. This would mean that you have about (27 times 5 = 135) 7 million dollars per aircraft per year to operate them. That is just 0.6 million dollars a month. That seems way to low.
Click to expand...
He didn't say that it was for operating them - and he's talking Australian dollars, as is clear from his conversion between pounds & dollars. which means there's even less left for operations. He's talking about buying, including all the costs associated with the purchase (spares, crew training, enhancements to air bases, etc., etc), not lifetime cost.
 
A

Alpha Epsilon

New Member
He didn't say that it was for operating them - and he's talking Australian dollars, as is clear from his conversion between pounds & dollars. which means there's even less left for operations. He's talking about buying, including all the costs associated with the purchase (spares, crew training, enhancements to air bases, etc., etc), not lifetime cost.
Click to expand...
Ah and I thought he just got the pound-dollar exchange rate wrong. Ah these minor currencies. :D So, what is the total Australian cost? That is, how much is this PFI scheme costing us?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Alpha Epsilon said:
Ah and I thought he just got the pound-dollar exchange rate wrong. Ah these minor currencies. :D So, what is the total Australian cost? That is, how much is this PFI scheme costing us?
Click to expand...
If you mean "us" as in Australia, I doubt many of us have a clue as yet.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet acquisition has caused a bit of controversy "downunder", you may have heard of this? :eek:nfloorl:

However the most significant reason for this is the oft reported cost of anywhere from AUD$4B to AUD$6.6B. THE reason the figure is SO high is the fact that the Minister decided to include ALL operating costs for 13 years in the initial public announcement. Normally they don't bother, only anmouncing the intial acquisition cost.

The 2007 Australian Government budget papers costed the SH acquisition at AUD$6.6B, however this includes EVERY cost RAAF needs to operate the fleet for 13x years (not counting additional unexpected costs such as deployments etc).

The RAAF KC-30B purchase I expect, is intended to last at LEAST 27 years in RAAF service and I expect the cost of supporting the 5x strong fleet will GREATLY exceed the AUD$2b investment in them so far...
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Are the RAF A330 MRTT going to be newly built aircraft or second-hand conversions? To my understanding, the order book for A330 was larger than the available production which has (had?) become backlogged. This led me to believe that the possibility of ordering additional A330 MRTT would become a more difficult/expensive proposition given the delays in new build availability as well as an expected drop in A330 availability in secondary markets given increased demand for the aircraft.

-Cheers
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Todjaeger said:
Are the RAF A330 MRTT going to be newly built aircraft or second-hand conversions? To my understanding, the order book for A330 was larger than the available production which has (had?) become backlogged. This led me to believe that the possibility of ordering additional A330 MRTT would become a more difficult/expensive proposition given the delays in new build availability as well as an expected drop in A330 availability in secondary markets given increased demand for the aircraft.

-Cheers
Click to expand...
I believe they will all be new build, but the timescale is such that delivery slots shouldn't be a problem, except maybe for the first few. And as for them - well, the largest shareholder in the consortium is EADS, & I suspect they've kept a few delivery slots allocated, freeing them & replacing them by others further down the line as the finance negotiations have dragged on.
 
I

Izzy1

Banned Member
Something I have noticed on promotional pictures of RAF's A330's and quite dissapointed in is the lack of refuelling probe for the tanker itself. I asume this is partially due to the civilian aspects of the Air Tanker contract?

I'm sure it would not be too difficult to give the MRTTs in RAF service an emergency self-refuelling capability (rapid Falklands-style Vulcan and Nimrod conversions). But it would have been nice to have seen this from the outset.

I would rather the MoD have cut numbers procurred and equipped the A330s with both a self-refuelling capability and copied the Aussies whom I believe will have both drogue and boom configuration for their MRTTs.

For the RAF, this would aid C-17 deployment (which presently can not be refuelled by any RAF tanker given its lack of probe and partially why RAAF A330s are to be so equipped) and given us better inter-operability with allied air forces using USAF-sourced aircraft. If memory serves, the only RAF aircraft in operation that can accept either boom or probe/drogue refuelling are the E-3D's.
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Izzy1 said:
Something I have noticed on promotional pictures of RAF's A330's and quite dissapointed in is the lack of refuelling probe for the tanker itself. I asume this is partially due to the civilian aspects of the Air Tanker contract?

I'm sure it would not be too difficult to give the MRTTs in RAF service an emergency self-refuelling capability (rapid Falklands-style Vulcan and Nimrod conversions). But it would have been nice to have seen this from the outset.

I would rather the MoD have cut numbers procurred and equipped the A330s with both a self-refuelling capability and copied the Aussies whom I believe will have both drogue and boom configuration for their MRTTs.

For the RAF, this would aid C-17 deployment (which presently can not be refuelled by any RAF tanker given its lack of probe and partially why RAAF A330s are to be so equipped) and given us better inter-operability with allied air forces using USAF-sourced aircraft. If memory serves, the only RAF aircraft in operation that can accept either boom or probe/drogue refuelling are the E-3D's.
Click to expand...
The KC-30 images show a boom fuel receptacle behind the cockpit in the same manner as fitted to Wedgetail, hence no probe. I think the RAAF aircraft will be so equipped (not certain on this) allowing tanker to tanker fueling. I don't know what the situation is with the RAF version noting it does not appear to be fitted with a flying boom where as the RAAF KC-30B is equipped with both boom and drogue, as you indicate, as is the proposed USAF version of the KC-30.
 
H

Highwayman

New Member
Although the contract is for 14 aircraft I believe only 9 will be available to the RAF while the other 5 will be available for 3rd party work.
I'm guessing that with the extra equipment fitted for the refuelling role some of which can't be removed these a/c will be quite heavy compared to the civilian version. It will be interesting to see if anybody will want these a/c as the payload maybe restricted and the fuel burn will be higher thus higher operating costs.
Also I can imagine the cabin fit to be fairly basic for military use and would this be acceptable for the charter market.
In others areas such as the NHS PFI has not been as successful as hoped so it maybe interesting if the MOD have made the right decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top