Brown Blocks Blair Force 1

[ORAC]

Sunday Times: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1880086,00.html) Grounded: Brown blocks take-off of Blair Force One

GORDON BROWN is blocking Downing Street’s efforts to buy a new aircraft, nicknamed “Blair Force One”, which would be used on the prime minister’s official trips. The chancellor made clear at a meeting last week that there would be no new funds to buy the jet and two other aircraft for ministers.

Despite support for the plan from the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence (MoD), Brown is arguing that at a time when public funds are tight, there are bigger priorities than “prestige” prime ministerial travel. If Tony Blair were to get such an aircraft, likely to be a jet with up to 40 seats, it would put him on a par with leaders such as the US president, who has two Air Force One jumbo jets at his disposal. Blair’s plane would be kitted out with beds and sophisticated communications equipment.

A Treasury insider said: “Gordon has thrown a spanner in the works and rejected plans to spend additional money. He has made clear that if this plan is to go ahead, the MoD will have to fund it out of its own budget, which is very tight. We should be proud that we are the only G8 country not to have a dedicated plane for politicians.”

The row comes after Brown was presented with a report, commissioned by Downing Street, on upgrading the fleet of MoD aircraft that are provided for the royal family but shared with ministers. Brown argues that it should be the security of the Queen “and not the prestige of ministers” that should be decisive.

Last week Brown met Sir Peter Gershon, the government’s efficiency adviser, whose report recommends that three new aircraft be put at the disposal of ministers and the royal family. Ministers currently borrow aircraft from 32 Squadron, known as the Queen’s Flight. But the ageing fleet is unable to fly long distances. No 10 has often had to charter commercial jets for long-haul flights, spending £800,000 on overseas travel in the past year. Gershon recommends that Blair and ministers should get their own fleet. This would be “cost neutral” to the taxpayer although it would require a large initial expenditure.

[Wyler]

If the size and design of the aircraft are going to be based on prestige and influence, then I would not have thought three Cessna's would break the bank.
Maybe a compromise would be to get Blair a job as Cabin Crew on Air Force One.
Just a thought.

[Mr C Hinecap]

A slightly more expanded version of above - from the BBC website:

A prime ministerial air fleet is set to be launched, but Tony Blair is likely to miss the take-off, reports suggest.

Several newspapers say a Downing Street review will recommend the fleet should include a long-haul jumbo modelled on the US president's Air Force One.

But despite being dubbed Blair Force One, the fleet is unlikely to be in use until after Tony Blair leaves office.

Chancellor Gordon Brown has said the Treasury cannot afford to fund the project until 2008.

This means the fleet would not be ready until after the next general election - and Mr Blair has already said he intends to stand down before that election.

Sir Peter Gershon, the government's efficiency adviser, has been asked to examine the most cost effective way of updating the Royal Flight fleet.

The fleet, which ferries the Royal Family and ministers around the globe, is ageing badly.

According to Sunday newspapers, he is likely to recommend a 747 jumbo, a smaller short-haul plane and a helicopter.

Downing Street said Sir Peter's report had not yet been delivered. A spokesman said: "We are not going to pre-empt that."

The Chancellor is said to feel the project's costs should not be a current priority for the Treasury. If the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office do not want to shell out, the venture is set to be put on hold.

[DEL Mode]

Who does he think he is!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe having a small fleet of planes that can't fly overseas is a good thing. If ministers cant go anywhere it might keep this country out of further illegal actions.

How many times would the aircraft be used to fly long haul? Is it not cheaper for the ministers to hire a jet.

I would have thought that LEAN agents could do a VSA on this event and work out where the non-value added elements are.

Time these MP's were forced to jump through the same hoops the Front Line has to jump through to get paper clips.

This sounds very much like Tony and his cronies want to feel and look important. Well stuff them I say.

[DC10RealMan]

If Mr Brown succeeds Mr Blair and wins the next election to become PM, I wonder if he will still maintain the same stance, or will the money suddenly become available?

[MostlyHarmless]

If *someone* spent less time running around the globe being important and instead sat at home sorting out some of the mess they've made this would not be an issue... :suspect:

Didn't Gordon and Jack come whizzing back for the Terror bill vote? How much did that cost? Thought they could vote by proxy?...or was that the issue....

[JessTheDog]

I support Blair Force One - my solution would be a rocket pointed at the Sun with space for both of 'em!

[Ted III]

Would it work out cheaper for the taxpayer? Would 'Blair Force One' get the updates every time a new piece of kit came out for aircraft protection? Probably and probably at the expense of an aircraft that needs it !:suspect:
Or is that just me sounding a little too sceptical

[ImageGear]

The majority gets the government the majority deserves.

Everyone who put a cross for the current government deserves everything they've got.

Imagegear.

[Impiger]

No it wouldn't work out cheaper for the tax payer which is why it hasn't been done before and fails everytime it is suggested. The Vickers Funbus used to have a Ministerial VIP role but it was deleted when it was clear that the more cost effective option was civilian flights or when it was important to be in control - private charter. Only draw-back is ensuring private charter is equipped with self defence aids when visiting dodgy places.

I travelled in a PM chartered 767 back from a summit. First Class was the PM, some other high priced ministers (oh yes and their wives) and the top echelons of the high priced help. Business class was the rest of the official party - everyone from clerks to CDS! In cattle/coach/economy were the journalists. Each of our operating budgets was charged for our seats (flat rate) and the journos paid for theirs.

All in all it worked well and was a lot less cash than owning and operating an aircraft of our own.

Prestige? I'd rather have a Royal Yacht than a PM's aircraft regardless of who it is!

[BEagle]

The GAF are very proud of their 2 VIP-configured A310s. And quite rightly so, they are very well appointed. But for most of the time, the aircraft are used as regular transports; the chancellor's cabin and accompanying staff areas have little impact upon normal operations. Unlike the ageing Victorian railway carriage appearance of the 'VIP' Vickers Funbus role kit - which required considerable re-roling time between trips - that in the A310 is vastly superior. Also, with the A310 it's just a question of a quick checkover before the chancellor needs it. The A310 has such a spacious cabin (as wide as that of an A330/A340 - and wider than a 767 by at least an extra seat width), that keeping the VIP role kit installed is a very small penalty to pay for having a proper Head of State aircraft.

And yes, it does have a shower. Rather a nice one - a bit like the ones you see in good German hotels. And of course there was a socket for a hairdryer....

But then again, all the GAF's A310s are kept in an immaculate state - far, far better than any RAF aircraft I've ever seen.

Personally I think that there should be a UK Royal and Governmental aircraft. The A310 would be good, but they're hard to find. We had the chance some years ago, but MoD blew it with the FSTA PFI bolleaux.

Maybe when (if?) FSTA ever makes it - which is where, I guess, Grumpy Gordon's 2008 timeline comes from - consideration should be given to acquiring a pair of VVIP-configurable ACJs to add to the fleet. Crews could easily be qualified on both aircraft. When not corgi carrying, the aircraft could still carry 48 passengers.

It's good enough for the French! And Thailand...and Qatar...

But the UK has to rent jets off ba.

Frankly, that's pathetic.

[Impiger]

Pathetic? Absolutely but more cost effective.

I'd rather see the money spent on bombs, bullets, bayonets and boots!

[RileyDove]

In fairness to our RAF - we do clock up more air miles than the German Air Force . Our VC-10's might not be immaculate but what other airforce in the world can lay claim to having a Memorial Flight and a transport fleet which is bordering on historic!
As for your comments Impinger - I think when faced with public opinion on what to spend the cash on - armoured Land Rovers and body armour is the winner.

[BEagle]

"I'd rather see the money spent on bombs, bullets, bayonets and boots!2

Rather than £272000 paintings and £1000 per pop office chairs for the Whitehall warriors?

[monkeybumhead]

Why not let them make do with a herc fitted with as many rumbold seats as required. I mean they will have plenty of room to stretch their legs, the role change won't take too long and some have, what looks like, a good DAS.
I have just seen a flaw with this idea. Thanks to lean we are having all sorts of problems generating frames for the current tasking without the added hassle of pandering to to the grinning idiot and his wide mouthed frog, not to mention the other assembled ranks of political idiocy. Perhaps if he asks George nicely he may let him borrow one of his?

[Pontius Navigator]

Beags wrote

<<very small penalty to pay for having a proper Head of State>>

but we have a proper Head of State and it was her husband who lobbied back in the 70s for the 146s.

Wonder what he would opt for now?

[Green Flash]

How about another C-17? Roll in a self contained Blair Pod and we can still use it when No10 isn't swanning round the empire? It will have the defensive kit fitted for the frequent trips to Dodgyland!

[joe2812]

Sorry for a slight off-topic deviation type question thingy...

But does the PM not use the aircraft on 32 Sqn? Or is that strictly for the Royals?

Why does Blair need an Airforce One of any sort anyway, is he just keeping up with our neighbours over the pond??

:mad:

[PPRuNe Pop]

The Sunday Mail is at odds with the Sunday Times. It says that three aircraft have been approved including a 744! The jollies go on it seems.

[Confucius]

Face it, anything smaller than a "744" is going to have trouble taking off if that fat b****** prescott is on board.

Nor would any other type have enough room for all the pies.

[Magp1e]

"But does the PM not use the aircraft on 32 Sqn? Or is that strictly for the Royals"?

need to Know
:}

[JessTheDog]

They will demand space for a whole entourage - the Witch's hairdressers, feng shui experts, homepaths, beauticians etc...

Can't we just kill them both a la Ceaucescu and install someone cheaper? :E

[Squirrel 41]

Don't all rush in and tell us what you really think, guys! :D

I can't see this being a goer somehow; it can't make any sort of economic sense to go and buy / lease large jets given the amount of actual use they'd get. If there is anything at all to this proposal - other than optimisitc kite-flying by those looking for a new toy - it can only make sense to have a role fit for the new tankers.... whenever they arrive..... :rolleyes:

If (and it's a big If) there is a need for this for security rather than ego reasons, then let's consider it. If not, and the money exists for this sort of project, I know that I'd much rather spend it on something more useful for the front line.... 744 indeed!! :hmm:

In any event, you'd surely not want yet another type to maintain and keep crews currrent on - BEagle's point on the Airbus cross-type ratings notwithstanding.

Of course, you can land a SEA HARRIER on Horse Guards Parade so maybe FA2s and T8s are the answer.... :E

S41

[norvenmunky]

Would the 310 be able to use the Rwy at EGWU?

just a thought!:8

[Melchett01]

Of course, you can land a SEA HARRIER on Horse Guards Parade so maybe FA2s and T8s are the answer

S41 - capital idea. Keep the Dark Blue jobs in business for a bit longer and they can always moonlight as fleet defence when not required for their VIP role - plus you wouldn't have to worry about the DAS fit. Anyway I think there's a precedent for your suggestion ..... didn't they do that in one of the Bond films?:E

However, with every silver lining comes a cloud, and I can think of a few problems that you will need to sort out first:

1. How will the First Witch, sorry Lady, get all her duty free, knocked down bling-bling and gifts from her foreign chums home in a T8?

2. You'll need to sort out the weight limits to get that fat t:mad:t Prescott in it

3. His equally repugnant missus will no doubt complain about the bone dome mucking up her hair do

[buoy15]

Come on guys

We've been on top this buoy many times before with no results

About 4 years ago, at 0900, Bliar and his entourage took a 146 from Northolt to Italy to attend an important EU meeting

At 0930, Brown and his entourage took another 146 to the same meeting

At 1000, whispy Straw and his entourage took another 146 to the same meeting

Well done to 32 for getting 3 serviceable and airborne - but what about the abuse of the system

By the way, when these elected parasites were in theatre, they did not share tents, live on reduced allowances, with pay back phone cards, or use the same Mess Facility

Might be cheaper to bring back the Royal Yacht - the wind is free!

Love many, Trust a Few, Politics may be for you!

[Squirrel 41]

Melchett....

Very well put Sir!

But V/STOL goes with V/STOL, then maybe we'd better get some MV-22s to lug the loot about in... and of course, cart the odd Jaguar about. After all, there's always more than one....! :p

(NB: Pls break the idea that more than one V/STOL fixed wing aircraft exists in the world to WEBF gently, though... And with our luck MV-22s would be in service before HC3s I suppose.... :rolleyes: )

Of course, a nice A340-500 in VC10 C1 white would definetely look the business, and might even be useful as a strategic transport.

BEagle - can your Airbus chums take a can-opener to an A345 and add a front cargo door, main deck cargo handling system and some of those nice Mk 32 pods pls?

Before you mention A330 FSTA, 2 x (nice shiney) RR badges always looks better on the telly than 1x when they televise the red carpet arrivals....

S41

[BEagle]

Only problem with a tanker variant of the A34-anything would be where to fit the pods- the outboard engines would get in the way! Mk 32s? Dear me no - so last century!

A300, A310, A330, A350 - no probs.

Could an A310 use Northolt? Well, the runway length is only 5500 ft. So not at MTOW. Not sure about ACN/PCN and taxiway sizes either.

Probably no snag for the ACJ though.

[hobie]

No 10 has often had to charter commercial jets for long-haul flights, spending £800,000 on overseas travel in the past year

..... sounds like the BA 777 service is a good deal :cool:

[MarkD]

Operating a B744/B748 when FSTA has been selected as A330 would require separate sims and pilot typing - so I guess that makes it odds on then? :D

Air Canada has two nearly new A345s coming up for replacement by 777s from 2007... just the job methinks :D

Alternatively there are 333s also due for replacement by the same order... or bmi's A332s if the VS merger ever happened.

All of the above are RR powered, naturally :D

[Blacksheep]

Bush has the use of two Air Force One B747s full of fancy communications equipment because their primary task is as flying command posts for the President and the Veep. Especially when Mr. President is on an overseas trip and needs to get his finger on the nuclear trigger PDQ. There is no equivalent task for our PM, who is not "The Commander In Chief".

Then there is the question of the 32 Sqn aircraft. I'm not sure if the 146s were purchased or leased, but the 125s were definitely leased from Hawker Siddely - now BAe - which was why they're maintained by civilian licensed aircraft maintenance engineers using a civilian AMP and with civilian release certification. In other words, aged or not, they can be replaced by returning them from lease and signing out new aeroplanes. No need to buy, and I can tell you for sure that leasing a long-haul widebody would cost much, much more than 800,000 quid a year.

Finally there is the question of the establishment's own very private air base at Northolt. Her Majesty was just wined and dined at RAF Coltishall to celebrate the station's 65 years of continuous service in the defence of the realm. Unfortunately, it won't be long before it becomes another 'light industrial' park or housing estate like so many of our former RAF Stations. Meanwhile it seems that RAF Leeming will go the same way as RAF Catterick and become another pongo playground. Which do you think is more important for the nation's security - Coltishall or Northolt?

I'd much rather the RAF had a squadron of new combat aircraft than a fleet of shiny luxury transports for the Queen, His (and Her) Tonyness and the rest of the political elite. Such toys are all very well, but surely they and the base they operate from, should be funded from No 10's and the other user's own budget, not the nation's defence budget?

[Krystal n chips]

Confucius

that fat bxxxxxx prescott on board

Depends really on whether the weight penalty incurred is more advantageous than paying for and carrying an extra steward for the trip:E

[Zoom]

If it is kudos Blair is after - and it undoubtedly is - then it has to be a A380. He could carry an awful lot of toadies in one of those, with the emphasis on awful.

[Zoom]

Actually, belay my last. It has to be a C-5; with it's strengthened floor and massive donks it can carry a couple of Abrams, which means that it should just about be able to lift a single Prescott for those times when Blair needs to parade his fat, token deputy overseas.

[pr00ne]

Blacksheep,

Are you SURE the 125’s were leased? I think that you will find they were a straight purchase, certainly when the fleet was down sized not so long ago they were sold by the MOD, not returned to a leasing company.

Your point about maintenance is an irrelevance, the 125 fleet, along with the rest of 32 Sqn, is maintained by civilian licensed engineers because it is cheaper that way, the Devons, Pembrokes, Bassets and all the other comms aircraft from days of yore based at Northolt have been maintained by civilians for donkeys years, as far back as 1970 the Dominie fleet at Manby was maintained by civilian engineers as were the Canberras of 7 Sqn at St.Mawgan.

Coltishall or Northolt?

Again an irrelevance, there is no need for Coltishall, Northolt on the other hand is about to become a core London establishment with massive investment.

Surely the obvious choice is some form of amendment to the FSTA contract that provides 1 or 2 pure pax fitted A330 frames?

[Pontius Navigator]

<<There is no equivalent task for our PM, who is not "The Commander In Chief". >>

Oh, has this changed then?

In Bomber Command days the chain of command was PM-AOCinC Bomber.

In the absence of the one Cinc could launch the V-force. The mandarins didn't like it but had to lump it.

What's the succession now?

[pr00ne]

PN,

Pretty sure that not much has changed, for all intents and purposes the PM has been the equivalent Commander in Chief for decades, Queen is only ceremonial head.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jess

I support Blair Force One - my solution would be a rocket pointed at the Sun with space for both of 'em!

Perhaps they missed the boat? (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/content.php3?page=1&article=960)

[Squirrel 41]

WEBF - what? No SHar considerations here? Perhaps we need a "Missile Boat" thread in case the V-Boats are in danger of not being replaced.... :E

BEagle Fair enough, I thought that Airbus may be able to mount the pods far enough outboard for the jet efflux on A34X series to be less of problem - and after that, it's just engineering.... :p

Seriously, (for a second), is it a major engineering issue to add a side loading door and install a frieght handling system in A34X?
And no, it still makes no financial sense at all to buy / lease wide body capacity for VVIPs when they only spent £800k on hiring B777s last year.

Cheers

S41

[Twonston Pickle]

S41,

I think it was £800K just on Bliar's travel alone.

TP

[FrogPrince]

Not so long ago I set up the 32 Sqn a/c (BAe125/146) on the FCO's shiny new e-procurement system at the standard (DTMA?) hourly rates.

The FCO paid the MoD by the hour but then recharged the Metropolitan Police a portion of the total cost for those seats occupied by close protection officers. OGD's also picked up the tab for any of 'their' civil servants travelling on a flight.

I'm sure the OGD's in turn recharged someone else in the food chain.

Well it keeps someone in a job... (me aside !!)

[brakedwell]

>I think it was £800K just on Bliar's travel alone.<

Wasn't that last year's taxi taxi bill for Number Ten?

>How will the First Witch, sorry Lady, get all her duty free, knocked down bling-bling and gifts from her foreign chums home in a T8?<

In a pair of monster drop tanks!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

does the FA2 not have a baggage pod kind of affair in a buccaneer stylee?

[Nantucket Sleighride]

surprised no-one has suggested a shiny new global express - same crew type as Astor and various British bits,yet not overly extravagant

[Blacksheep]

Are you SURE the 125’s were leased? I think that you will find they were a straight purchase, certainly when the fleet was down sized not so long ago they were sold by the MOD, not returned to a leasing company.Well pr00ne that would suggest that the 125s were sold to the MoD for a 'consideration' at the conclusion of the operating lease - its not unusual for long-lease agreements to contain such a clause and the aircraft weren't exactly cutting edge! However 32 Sqn ‘A’ Flight’s HS125s were certainly leased from Hawker Siddeley and maintained by civilian LAEs under BCAR A8-13 requirements (as I think it was then) as a condition of the lease when I served at Northolt, maintaining 32's 'B' and 'C' Flight aircraft.

My point was simply that the cost of operating a fleet of reserved VVIP transport aircraft and their dedicated RAF Northolt base are hidden from public view. For proper transparency in the use of public funds, the full cost of both the aircraft and the base should be charged directly to the budgets of those who use them. The RAF’s miserly budget should be used for combat, operational support and training aircraft and any (surviving) bases used to support these military operations.

[monkeybumhead]

I still think my idea of using already overstretched albert should be a goer. There is no need for the use of a runway on uk flights, just strap the fockers onto a pallet and give our air dispatcher friends a bit of target practice.:ok:

[pr00ne]

Blacksheep,

Having just had a chat with a mate who was involved in the procurement, I think we can conclude that the 125 fleet WAS purchased and not leased, he thinks that two aircraft may well have been leased some time in the 70’s but that the rest were a direct buy, leading up to a fleet of 12 in the end before the drawdown to 6. This doesn’t include the 4 CC1s bought in the 60’s.

Anyway…………………………………………………

As to your point about “reserved VVIP transport aircraft” don’t forget that they have a war role, there is a big place just up the road at Northwood you know.
Providing secure transport IS a role of the RAF, not just flash bang whizzie things.

[Blacksheep]

Mmmm. At the time, (35 years ago) we were told our civvy friends were looking after them because they were on lease, but who tells the truth to the erks, eh? Or the public for that matter. As Alice said "It gets curiouser and curiouser..." So, I guess the BCAR A8-13 maintenance must have been an MoD requirement, just in case MoD needed to sell them on the civil market. They're not exactly military aircraft after all... ;)

However, since the Andover "CC Mk2s" were in fact HS 748 Series 2A aircraft (and bore civil serial number placards with this designation on them) why weren't they also maintained under BCAR A8-13? [One of the five 'Whirlwinds' was also a civilian machine in disguise, XR486 being a Westland Sikorsky S55 series 3T, hiding behind the RAF designation Whirlwind "HCC12"] If it really were cheaper to have civilian maintenance and UK CAA certification, why were half the fleet maintained by RAF personnel?

[steamchicken]

Hate to rain on any parades, but two out of three news reports mentioned the Airbus Corporate Jet (ie A319 with gucci seats and more fuel).

The one that claimed it would be a 747 is quite evidently a typo for 737 (BBJ).

[Climebear]

Blacksheep

The RAF’s miserly budget should be used for combat, operational support and training aircraft and any (surviving) bases used to support these military operations.

But who decides what are military tasks? Answer, the elected representatives of the people (taxpayers) or in the absence of them, the Government. Guess what - the Government has made it clear that it is a military task in the Defence White Paper 2003 (Supporting Essay 2) (http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/whitepaper2003/volume2.pdf)

MT 2.5 Public Duties and VIP Transport. The Department provides military capabilities for state ceremonial, routine public duties, and to promote the Armed Forces in the public eye and secure air transport for the use of the Royal Family and senior members of the Government.

QED

[MarkD]

Airbus offered the 319CJ for the Irish BJ procurement, as apparently the CJ can also be a combi for transporting freight as required.

[pr00ne]

Blacksheep,

Look at 32 Sqn now, 100% civilian contracted maintainence, same for the Tucano fleet, the Dominies, 100 Sqn Hawks, 4 FTS Hawks, all the Boscombe Down fleet, all RAF owned but civilian maintenance, I guess it really IS cheaper!

As to why half the Northolt fleet was still RAF maintained all those years ago, who can explain the vagaries and rational of what was then MOD(PE), at the same time you were at Northolt the RAF Dominie fleet was split between Manby with the College of Air Warfare and Finningley with No.6 FTS; all the servicing at Finningley was RAF, all of the servicing at Manby was civilian, why? Who knows!
It was the same with the Canberra Target facilities fleet, 7 Sqn at St.Mawgan civilian maintenance, 85 and 100 at West Raynham RAF maintenance, logic? None!


The future? A319CJ or Global Express. Guess who will be doing the maintenance?????????

[Blacksheep]

There's an enormous difference between "maintenance by civilian contractors" and maintenance under civil certification pr00ne! If the RAF's Tucano fleet, the Dominies, 100 Sqn Hawks, 4 FTS Hawks and all the Boscombe Down fleet were placed under EASA Part 145 and JAR-OPS 1, Sub-part 'M' there'd really be a war on! :ok: