VC10 Replacement??? ... maybe

Quixoticish · Post by **Quixoticish** » 08 Jun 2007, 11:18

Forgive my scepticism but what's the betting that they use the fact that the "higher fuel capacity allows it to fly at longer ranges, to stay on station longer and to refuel more aircraft" to cut the initial order to 18, and then cut the order again down to 12?

Edit : It appears the PFI initiative only covers 14 aircraft. How many L-1011 and VC-10 are they supposed to replace? Is it still 15 VC-10 and 9 L-1011 (24 aircraft) or is it less than that these days?

Post by **DaveB** » 08 Jun 2007, 11:39

Dunno about that Chris :think:

I thought they were going to be 'new build' aircraft too Garry. If the RAF are going to punish them over the next 40years, zero hour airframes must be the way to go.

ATB

DaveB :tab:

chockhead819 · Post by **chockhead819** » 08 Jun 2007, 16:10

"And what happens if we end up with something like the Falklands War again?"

We hand them over to Argentina, because we can't defend the place properly and haven't enough ships to retake them again or CAP capability to protect the "fleet".

Simply a lot of brave men & women would be sacrificed due to lack of spending on defence, lets not forget that the Junglies/Lynx/chinooks are getting on for 25+ years old as well as doing more hours than ever.

like most serving/ex forces we are digusted the way they have been chopped & changed, as well as JOINT FARCE HARRIER isn't working.

:crying: :crying: :crying: :crying:

Quixoticish · Post by **Quixoticish** » 08 Jun 2007, 16:54

Tonks wrote:To be honest Dave we don't punish our ac anywhere near as much as a civvy airline... that's why the Cs are so low houred compared to the Ks on the 10 fleet.

They will be new build and similar to the RAAF A330 but sadly no receiver capability (very short sighted in my view... in the overal cost it is not a lot to add for supreme flexibility!!)

Those numbers look about right though Chris...

There is still a long way to go with all this though, so I have a few years left on this fleet I think.

Tonks

I was afraid my figures my be correct, which does in fact mean 14 aircraft to replace 24. I know the A330 will carry more fuel and have a greater range but sometimes you still need numbers to do a job. And this is a promise of 14 at this early stage in the game, looking at how all defence procurements seem to be chopped in numbers the longer the project goes on I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with 12, or even 8 airframes.

Post by **DaveB** » 08 Jun 2007, 17:32

Rgr that Mr T

When I said 'punish'.. I didn't actually mean they were to spend 18hrs a day in the air, more the fact that the RAF will want to keep them going for a good many years so new/zero hour airframes would be the obvious choice

Pity there's no planned 'receive' fit mind you. It does seem they're penny pinching on what is going to be an expensive exercise and hardly worth the effort! :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Hot_Charlie · Post by **Hot_Charlie** » 08 Jun 2007, 21:12

XR219 wrote:Its g to be Rejiged Navada ones. What will be interesting is to see how many a/c they can refule at once. Don't fance doing that with two big turbulent fans on the wings

Thankfully, as Tonks says, they'll be new build. However, IIRC, the other bidder's bid centred around "recycled" 767s...