First Voyager FSTA arrives in UK

HAVE YOUR SAY

19 April 2011

Course if you didn't keep underhandedly destroying the Navy you wouldn't need such expensive refueling and logistics aircraft because a CVBG or ARG is more capable of delivering larger numbers of more independent cost effective platforms. Without the need to request over fly rights in foriegn airspace.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

19 April 2011

It's still too expensive and there is too few of them... Another PFI disaster that taxpayers will be shelling out for again and again.

Anthony has made a good point about naval power being able to provide a lot of the service that the air force provides, but you can't drop paras or do inflight refuelling for MPAs or dedicated interceptors from a frigate or an LPD... That said, a powerful navy is an essential and the destruction of the Royal Navy borders on treasonous.
Andy Cole - Manchester

19 April 2011

Anthony

You assume that in any conflict the airspace we require is accessible from the sea. It may also be that we have use of an inland base perhaps courtesy of an allied nation but do not have overflight rights via the sea.

For example if Pakistan refused overflight rights to Afghanistan then the only alternative from the sea is Iran which would not allow access either.

The fact is we need BOTH a maritime strike capability and the ability to operate from inland basing. However we cannot afford the enormous cost of large dual FAA and RAF fast jet fleets hence the concept of joint force where both operate the same type and have the ability to help surge the other as required.
Graham - High Wycombe

19 April 2011

Dropping Paratroppers in a modern day war would be asking to have them all shot and killed. Deployment from Helicopter is far more likely.

Graham, over 3/4 of the worlds cities are within 300 miles of the coast. 75% of the world is water. Britain is an Island.

As for not being able to afford large numbers of jets. That is simply not true. The harrier is a versatile and cheap aircraft. The Sea Harrier was very capable by all accounts. Sea Harrier and Typhoon would have done for the next 5-10 years while the QE class was brought into service.

Or as I have pointed out, F18 which is half the cost of the Typhoon. Carrier capable AND almost as capable a combat aircraft. Thus enabling us to have over 300 based on the buget for the Typhoon.

The simple fact is that we have the 3rd largest defence budget. We can't manage because of situations like when the RAF constantly tries to destroy the FAA when the FAA is a better carrier force.

Every nation in the world except US deploys a FAA and ONLY a FAA to it's carriers due to the realities of carrier service...

I'm sorry, of all the forces we need the Navy is the most important simply due to geography and Britains strategic and trade assets being within access of the sea. As a result if we can't do something the Navy should NOT be the one to take the hit first.
Anthony - Fingolfin-01

19 April 2011

Anthony

* F-18E/F would not be half the cost of a typhoon. flyaway cost of a Typhoon 75m we would not be paying what the US pays we would pay the export price as the Australians had to so don't expect any change from 65M

* I keep trying to explain even if we paid half the cost of Typhoon (we wouldn't, see above) there is no way we would have been able to operate any more than 150 Maximum we could not justify any more than that as much as you would like to pretend we would. Operational cost would have been practically the same and the treasury would determine how many we operate.

* The US can afford totally separate services we can't end of ! It's either a joint force where we get to use the same aircraft for both services or in the FAA's case probably nothing. That's just the reality of it.

* We have a requirement for being able to deploy to inland basing and Maritime strike. Together they cover it all. If we want it then the only way we are going to afford it is a joint force with separate squadrons but able to interoperate as needed.

* We have the fourth largest defence budget (not third) however it is not the RAF alone that is to blame. What about Astute or T-45 hopelessly over budget and late the reality is UK defence procurement is a joke. Blame the MoD.
Graham - High Wycombe

19 April 2011

@ Anthony - Fingolfin...

Why do we have a Parachute Regiment then? Why do every major (and more than a few less major!) military powers have parachute troops? It's because you can airdrop them behind front lines and play merry hell with supply lines. That's just one reason for having them. Anyway, this is very off-topic...

Voyager K1 - doubtless a fine aircraft but it's not owned by the RAF - it's leased. I cannot comprehend the stupidity of leasing a military aircraft. What if there is yet another deployment requiring an airbridge and AAR? How much will the leasing company clobber the MoD for if we have to use Voyager more than it's contracted flight hours?
Andy Cole - Manchester

19 April 2011

A Carrier Battle Group would not need these expensive air to air refuelling aircraft, nor would it need to put up its aircrew in expensive Italian hotels!!!
An Amphibious group with suitable Air cushion landing craft and helicopters would deliver fresh, fit troops wherever needed too!!!
Para insertion of troops is still required. However, I would suggest that: now and in future the requirement will only be to insert small groups .... we went from Airborne Division to Para Brigade to Para Battalion and now, most likely, are at an Airborne Company (max) requirement!! Para insertion can be done from Helos too!! Don't get me wrong .... at the time I deplored the disbandment of 16 Para Bde!!
Norman - UK

19 April 2011

Is it £ 10.5 billion?
Those in the know still expect it to go over £12 billion, but say the headline figure is being massaged down. A breakdown of figures would be good.
My guess, is that had we bought them outright to the higher standard of the RAAF A330, we would have got better equipped planes & saved around £1.5 billion.
That was the economic genius of Gordon Brown.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

20 April 2011

Out of interest, does anyone know the monthly cost of keeping a CBG at sea and what daily strike sortie rate can it sustain?
Peter - Sheffield

20 April 2011

Andy Cole - Manchester
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

The idea behind PFI is to get the purchase costs off book for the treasury. A private consortium makes the initial outlay and rents it back to the government. This is effectively the same as a mortgage so you end up paying the total outlay cost back several times over the period you are locked into. The idea of PFI's dates back to John Major and as a consequence we are paying private companies for everything from schools to hospitals and our children will be left with massive debt and that was before the financial crisis of September 2008 caused national debt to soar.

Worse still this agreement with Air Tanker consortium only leaves 9 of the 14 a/c in RAF use and the remainder used commercially by airlines and so their airframe hours will be trashed. Meanwhile the consortium makes the profit for the subleased a/c. The agreement states in an 'emergency' the RAF can ask for the subleased a/c back but it will take three months to convert them back. Also there are concerns that the aircraft have not been fitted with sufficient self protection systems and so might not be able to be used without expensive modification.

The SDSR concluded it was an acceptable deal as we would have such a small fast jet fleet that 9 would be sufficient to replace 25 VC10/Tristars and that cancellation penalties were too high in any case for it to be considered.

The PFI deal is worth £10.5Bn to Air Tanker yet purchasing them outright from Airbus including tanker conversion would have cost around £2.5Bn and we would have had all 14 a/c.

In all this this is another gold plated MoD/Treasury cock up.
Graham - High Wycombe

20 April 2011

Graham
My guess is £2 to 2.5 billion to buy them (to higher RAAF standard), plus don't forget £6 billion to run them over 27 years. Even with a billion for finance, it would have been a billion (to 3 billion) cheaper to buy them than go down the PFI route. If anyone has a better breakdown of the figures, I would like to see them.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK