USN CAS AAR ID/IQ MAC 2020 - $TMPS / Omega Factors.
My comments - as a retired full-career military aerospace officer - against items from the USN Special Notice dated August 30, 2019 (underlined) on the relative merits of what $TMPS and Omega can provide:
NAVAIR intends to discuss areas shown underlined below.
General capabilities of aircraft services being sought.
- $TMPS can provide up to 4 x Tristar KC1 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) already equipped for "probe-and-drogue" refueling and also capable of concurrently acting in the mixed passenger / freight transport role.
- With a large cargo freight door to the main cabin - which is capable of carrying NATO standard pallets - the Tristar KC1 is ideally suited to supporting USN / USMC deployments away from Main Operating Bases (MOBs) carrying support personnel and equipment. For instance, in 2020 the USMC will be operating a force of F-35B from the RN aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth on the first Joint UK/US deployment cruise and these may require transatlantic AAR to join the ship.
https://www.facebook.com/275486342562773/phot...mp;theater
- By comparison, Omega can only provide 1 x KDC-10 [a converted ex-Japan Air Lines DC-10 passenger aircraft similar in size to the Tristar but without the transport capabiltiy] and 2 x KC-707 [converted civilian aircraft that door not have the large freight cargo that the USAF KC-135 does].
- The $TMPS Tristar aircraft - equipped with powerful Rolls-Royce RB211 engines - have significantly superior take-off performance to the Omega KC-707 - particularly at Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) - enabling them to use many more airfields particularly at hot / high locations.
- The $TMPS Tristar aircraft are fitted with 2 x Flight Refueling Ltd Mk 17T Hose & Drum Units (HDU) - ensuring redundancy so that the mission can continue if one unit is damaged during the refueling mission without the need to terminate and return to base.
- The $TMPS Tristar aircraft are wired for fitment of a Defensive Aids System - enabling them to be rapidly outfitted for self-protection against heat seeking shoulder launched surface-to-air missile threats.
- The $TMPS Tristar aircraft can also be used in the aeromedical evacuation role carrying multiple stretcher racks and an in-flight Intensive Care Unit.
Expected cost per flight hour.
- The $TMPS Tristars should have a lower cost per flight hour than the Omega KC-707s - particularly when maintenance costs incurred are amortized over the total flight hours on contract per year.
-- The Tristar can carry twice as much fuel as the KC-707.
-- The fuel that can be off-loaded from the Tristar - compared to the fuel used to transit from the operating base to the refueling task area - is much higher than for the KC-707.
-- The Tristar will only require less sorties to deliver a given amount of fuel - compared to the KC-707 - and can stay in the refueling task area longer. This will mean less takeoffs / landing for a given amount of fuel delivered, less fatigue cycle maintenance tasks and hence lower maintenance costs.
-- The $TMPS Tristars - with their RB211 engines - are 7% more fuel efficient than the Omega KDC-10 (which is a converted DC-10-40 and therefore has the Pratt & Witney JT-9D - fuel saving figure source is Quantas airline).
-- It is obvious from photos that the Omega KC-707s do not have the upgraded fuel saving CFM56 engine upgrade that USAF KC-135Rs have - so they probably have the 1950s technology originals from 1969 and are therefore both noisy and thirsty.
Existing licensing agreements with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) which may allow access to technical data required to fulfill the requirements.
- There is no doubt regarding the technical data relating to use of Tristar KC1 aircraft in the MRTT role. They were the primary front-line MRTT of the RAF from 1984 to 2014.
- The UK Design Authority Marshall's of Cambridge [now Marshall Aerospace & Defence Group] carried out the tanker / cargo conversions and will have all relevant technical details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_TriStar_(RAF)
https://marshalladg.com/our-stories
- The Tristar probe-and-drogue refueling equipment ( 2 x Mk 17T HDU each) was provided by Flight Refueling Ltd - a subsidiary of Cobham PLC which invented the "probe-and-drogue" AAR technique over 80 years ago and continues to provide through-life support worldwide.
https://www.cobham.com/mission-systems/air-to...-services/
Describe any challenges or barriers your company anticipates using a Multiple Award Contract (MAC). Estimated 4,000 flight hours per year.
Note: over the past 5 years, the Navy's CAS AAR flight hours has increased as follows: 1,726 > 1,815 > 1,960 > 2,116 > 2,773 flight hours.
- Omega is incapable of meeting the 4,000 flight hour requirement alone.
- Even the 2,773 flight hours Omega achieved in 2018 equated to over 11 hours per work day if averaged over all the 247 x Mon-Fri days (excluding public holidays).
- With 2 x Omega KC-707 equating to 1 x Omega KDC-10 or 1 x $TMPS Tristar, 2,773 flight hours is the equivalent of 5.5 hours per large aircraft every day of the year - more than a front-line air force can achieve.
- 4,000 flight hours over 247 days would equate to 16 hours per day for 247 days - $TMPS could achieve that with 3 out of 4 aircraft - Omega could not achieve it at all. Ideally both companies are required to ensure coverage on both the West and East Coast + flexibility for trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific deployments.
What is the guaranteed minimum annual flight hours required if all costs are covered within a single, flight hour CLIN, excluding fuel and travel ?
- The $TMPS figure should be lower due to lower maintenance costs per flight hour + HQ / base costs amortized over a larger aircraft fleet able to clock up earning flight hours at twice the rate of Omega: 4 x Tristar KC1 = 2 x [1 x KDC-10 + 2 x KC-707] in terms of fuel offload capacity + additional margin for less transit flight by the $TMPS Tristars than the Omega KC-707s.
What is the estimated overall contract dollar amount for 500 / 1,1000 / 1,500 / 2,000 / 2,500 flight hours for one year ? Provide the following cost breakdown, excluding fuel and travel.
- Mission rate per hour.
-- Lower for $TMPS for the the above stated reasons.
- Monthly fixed cost.
-- Should be lower for $TMPS due to HQ / base costs amortized over a larger aircraft fleet able to clock up earning flight hours at twice the rate of Omega.
- Start Up Cost.
-- Good news for $TMPS if the USN is willing to contribute to the start up costs - such as aircrew qualification (paying for time in the Northrop / Grumman Tristar simulator and check rides with their Training Captain) + deployment costs of Tristars from Bruntingthrope. Much cheaper and quicker than Omega converting additional aircraft as tankers.
-Quantity of flying aircraft to support.
-- This figure will depend on further detail the USN gives on locations where AAR is to be conducted relative to each company's MOB. At all times, $TMPS already has twice the capacity to hand with its existing fleet.
Aircraft year of manufacture.
- $TMPS has the advantage.
- $TMPS 4 x Tristar built 1 x 1978 / 2 x 1979 / 1 x 1980 - all reworked 1982-1986 as MRTT then continual upgrades throughout RAF service.
- Omega 1 x KDC-10 built 1979 - 2 x KC-707 built 1968/9.
My comments - as a retired full-career military aerospace officer - against items from the USN Special Notice dated August 30, 2019 (underlined) on the relative merits of what $TMPS and Omega can provide:
NAVAIR intends to discuss areas shown underlined below.
General capabilities of aircraft services being sought.
- $TMPS can provide up to 4 x Tristar KC1 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) already equipped for "probe-and-drogue" refueling and also capable of concurrently acting in the mixed passenger / freight transport role.
- With a large cargo freight door to the main cabin - which is capable of carrying NATO standard pallets - the Tristar KC1 is ideally suited to supporting USN / USMC deployments away from Main Operating Bases (MOBs) carrying support personnel and equipment. For instance, in 2020 the USMC will be operating a force of F-35B from the RN aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth on the first Joint UK/US deployment cruise and these may require transatlantic AAR to join the ship.
https://www.facebook.com/275486342562773/phot...mp;theater
- By comparison, Omega can only provide 1 x KDC-10 [a converted ex-Japan Air Lines DC-10 passenger aircraft similar in size to the Tristar but without the transport capabiltiy] and 2 x KC-707 [converted civilian aircraft that door not have the large freight cargo that the USAF KC-135 does].
- The $TMPS Tristar aircraft - equipped with powerful Rolls-Royce RB211 engines - have significantly superior take-off performance to the Omega KC-707 - particularly at Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) - enabling them to use many more airfields particularly at hot / high locations.
- The $TMPS Tristar aircraft are fitted with 2 x Flight Refueling Ltd Mk 17T Hose & Drum Units (HDU) - ensuring redundancy so that the mission can continue if one unit is damaged during the refueling mission without the need to terminate and return to base.
- The $TMPS Tristar aircraft are wired for fitment of a Defensive Aids System - enabling them to be rapidly outfitted for self-protection against heat seeking shoulder launched surface-to-air missile threats.
- The $TMPS Tristar aircraft can also be used in the aeromedical evacuation role carrying multiple stretcher racks and an in-flight Intensive Care Unit.
Expected cost per flight hour.
- The $TMPS Tristars should have a lower cost per flight hour than the Omega KC-707s - particularly when maintenance costs incurred are amortized over the total flight hours on contract per year.
-- The Tristar can carry twice as much fuel as the KC-707.
-- The fuel that can be off-loaded from the Tristar - compared to the fuel used to transit from the operating base to the refueling task area - is much higher than for the KC-707.
-- The Tristar will only require less sorties to deliver a given amount of fuel - compared to the KC-707 - and can stay in the refueling task area longer. This will mean less takeoffs / landing for a given amount of fuel delivered, less fatigue cycle maintenance tasks and hence lower maintenance costs.
-- The $TMPS Tristars - with their RB211 engines - are 7% more fuel efficient than the Omega KDC-10 (which is a converted DC-10-40 and therefore has the Pratt & Witney JT-9D - fuel saving figure source is Quantas airline).
-- It is obvious from photos that the Omega KC-707s do not have the upgraded fuel saving CFM56 engine upgrade that USAF KC-135Rs have - so they probably have the 1950s technology originals from 1969 and are therefore both noisy and thirsty.
Existing licensing agreements with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) which may allow access to technical data required to fulfill the requirements.
- There is no doubt regarding the technical data relating to use of Tristar KC1 aircraft in the MRTT role. They were the primary front-line MRTT of the RAF from 1984 to 2014.
- The UK Design Authority Marshall's of Cambridge [now Marshall Aerospace & Defence Group] carried out the tanker / cargo conversions and will have all relevant technical details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_TriStar_(RAF)
https://marshalladg.com/our-stories
- The Tristar probe-and-drogue refueling equipment ( 2 x Mk 17T HDU each) was provided by Flight Refueling Ltd - a subsidiary of Cobham PLC which invented the "probe-and-drogue" AAR technique over 80 years ago and continues to provide through-life support worldwide.
https://www.cobham.com/mission-systems/air-to...-services/
Describe any challenges or barriers your company anticipates using a Multiple Award Contract (MAC). Estimated 4,000 flight hours per year.
Note: over the past 5 years, the Navy's CAS AAR flight hours has increased as follows: 1,726 > 1,815 > 1,960 > 2,116 > 2,773 flight hours.
- Omega is incapable of meeting the 4,000 flight hour requirement alone.
- Even the 2,773 flight hours Omega achieved in 2018 equated to over 11 hours per work day if averaged over all the 247 x Mon-Fri days (excluding public holidays).
- With 2 x Omega KC-707 equating to 1 x Omega KDC-10 or 1 x $TMPS Tristar, 2,773 flight hours is the equivalent of 5.5 hours per large aircraft every day of the year - more than a front-line air force can achieve.
- 4,000 flight hours over 247 days would equate to 16 hours per day for 247 days - $TMPS could achieve that with 3 out of 4 aircraft - Omega could not achieve it at all. Ideally both companies are required to ensure coverage on both the West and East Coast + flexibility for trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific deployments.
What is the guaranteed minimum annual flight hours required if all costs are covered within a single, flight hour CLIN, excluding fuel and travel ?
- The $TMPS figure should be lower due to lower maintenance costs per flight hour + HQ / base costs amortized over a larger aircraft fleet able to clock up earning flight hours at twice the rate of Omega: 4 x Tristar KC1 = 2 x [1 x KDC-10 + 2 x KC-707] in terms of fuel offload capacity + additional margin for less transit flight by the $TMPS Tristars than the Omega KC-707s.
What is the estimated overall contract dollar amount for 500 / 1,1000 / 1,500 / 2,000 / 2,500 flight hours for one year ? Provide the following cost breakdown, excluding fuel and travel.
- Mission rate per hour.
-- Lower for $TMPS for the the above stated reasons.
- Monthly fixed cost.
-- Should be lower for $TMPS due to HQ / base costs amortized over a larger aircraft fleet able to clock up earning flight hours at twice the rate of Omega.
- Start Up Cost.
-- Good news for $TMPS if the USN is willing to contribute to the start up costs - such as aircrew qualification (paying for time in the Northrop / Grumman Tristar simulator and check rides with their Training Captain) + deployment costs of Tristars from Bruntingthrope. Much cheaper and quicker than Omega converting additional aircraft as tankers.
-Quantity of flying aircraft to support.
-- This figure will depend on further detail the USN gives on locations where AAR is to be conducted relative to each company's MOB. At all times, $TMPS already has twice the capacity to hand with its existing fleet.
Aircraft year of manufacture.
- $TMPS has the advantage.
- $TMPS 4 x Tristar built 1 x 1978 / 2 x 1979 / 1 x 1980 - all reworked 1982-1986 as MRTT then continual upgrades throughout RAF service.
- Omega 1 x KDC-10 built 1979 - 2 x KC-707 built 1968/9.
1
Tempus Applied Solutions Holdings, Inc. (TMPS) Stock Research Links
"Per Ardua Ad Astra" - "Through Adversity To The Stars"
A very apposite motto for those who trade successfully in the OTC market..
All posts are my opinion - trade at your own risk.
A very apposite motto for those who trade successfully in the OTC market..
All posts are my opinion - trade at your own risk.
