PDA

View Full Version : Strategic -vs - Tactical


Justin Cyder-Belvoir
16th Jun 2008, 21:37
Can you can up with any good reason why the RAF needs Strategic airlift capability as opposed to Tactical, given that civilian aircrew and aircraft could do the job?

Magic Mushroom
16th Jun 2008, 21:39
Yes, plenty.:ugh:

Justin Cyder-Belvoir
16th Jun 2008, 21:44
OK smart Alec.

ISS 101.

Explain?

Being as I pay so much tax you steely eyed killers who live on my tax owe me an answer.:D

Jackonicko
16th Jun 2008, 21:47
1) The MoD needs such a lot of strat airlift that it makes sound economic sense to have a core capability in military hands, augmenting that with leased in capacity as and when necessary. I'd suggest that strategic airlift is more useful, more often than CVF will be.

2) What is Strategic, and what is tactical? Do C-17s flying intra-theatre missions count as strat, or tac?

3) Do you want risk averse civilian crews, flying 'vanilla' airliners in theatre, or trained military professionals, flying dedicated aircraft with properly integrated DASS, DIRCM, MAWS and expendables?

4) There will always be strat transport missions that require military assets and crews to be used.

5) The RAF will have VERY little dedicated strat airlift in the future (depending on your definition) - just the C-17s, which offer capabilities that you can't easily lease in, and the FSTA aircraft - which double up as tankers.

6) Where would the airlines get their very best people from without 10, 99, 101, and 216? ;)

Magic Mushroom
16th Jun 2008, 21:54
Strategic airlift is routinely required to operate into and out of airfields where there is a significant threat from MANPADS and other threat systems.

Such threats require extremely advanced Defensive Aids Systems (DAS) which are developed, integrated and deployed using exceptionally specialised knowledge and sensitive data. These are not available to civilian opertors, and nor should they be.

Even were civilian companies able to offer such capabilities, how do we varify system calibration and data bases? How do we ensure aircrew proficiency in their use, not to mention the TTPs required to ensure exposure to threats are minimised. Who pays for upgrades as new threats emerges? Who pays for expendables? Who trains the civvy aircrews? How do they stay current in such systems?

Secondly, said strategic aircraft are also commonly employed for other tasks such as AAR. I don't enviage many civilian companies being willing to operate over hostile territory for extended periods to provide such a service.

Finally, I'd suggest that this...

Being as I pay so much tax you steely eyed killers who live on my tax owe me an answer.

...is a tad arrogant. Perhaps the military personnel who go into harms way on your nation's behalf are owed appropriate defensive measures, rather than transport into and out of theatre by the lowest bidder.

Obviously, if the comment was said in jest, I apologise.

Regards,
MM

spectre150
17th Jun 2008, 05:01
JCB - I love the nick name! MM and Jacko have given you the answer much more eloquently than wot I cud of (thats about the standard of your English so dont quote the ISS manual!). By the way - we are tax payers too.

Harumph.

collbar
17th Jun 2008, 16:20
Does the anybody know the annual cost of the significant number of charter aircraft that can be seen parked at Brize Norton almost any day of the week?
Surely the cost, which i assume covers insurance, would be better spent on Strat airlift for the armed services, which lets face will be shuttling to Afganistan for years to come!!!

Background Noise
17th Jun 2008, 16:33
Can they take their weapons with them on civilian aircraft?

N Joe
17th Jun 2008, 19:45
Contracting out strategic AT tasks can only make sense where the task is known well in advance, doesn't require any flexibility and is to/from a benign location. Contracting out these type of tasks (e.g. RED FLAG manpower roulement) can reduce the strain on military assets without being prohibitively expensive.

And to provoke debate...

"6) Where would the airlines get their very best people from without 10, 99, 101, and 216?"

I'm surprised you haven't had an answer from anyone on 24 or 30. Unless the airline in question only operates near-lifex aircraft, J pilots are far more likely to be familiar with the modern flightdeck than anyone from 10, 101 or 216!

N Joe

Dan Gerous
17th Jun 2008, 19:49
Can they take their weapons with them on civilian aircraft?


Yes, but they can't take more than 100ml of liquids. ;)

Zoom
17th Jun 2008, 20:34
7) Someone would have to tell the bosses of BA, Virgin, etc that when their pilots are flying military ops and getting shot at just like the RAF chaps they should get paid just like the RAF chaps, ie take a mega pay cut. It does come out of JCB's taxes after all.

wheezykid
17th Jun 2008, 20:59
10 Sqn hasn't provided many airline pilots in the last couple of years.. :(

Mighty Quercus
17th Jun 2008, 21:29
Forget Strategic or Tactical, the C17 has been proved as a Stratical aircraft by flying missions in/out and intra theatre! Stratical is the way forward!

Remember you heard it here first!!

XV277
17th Jun 2008, 23:51
Stratical eh? Is that like strategical?



An interesting concept.



No, it's a bit like Tactegic

k3k3
18th Jun 2008, 13:36
Quote:
proved as a Stratical aircraft
Stratical eh? Is that like strategical?

Quote:
Stratical is the way forward!
An interesting concept.



Please speak slowly and clearly for the hard of thinking.

Mike Read
18th Jun 2008, 15:35
Re post 4, Question 6, they always came from the fast jet world.

Justin Cyder-Belvoir
18th Jun 2008, 22:37
Now the reason I asked is that when I'm flying my civilian jet around Europe I hear the "Reach" callsign all the time. These are, more often than not, civil operators carrying troops and freight for the US military using a military callsign.

The MOD has also, if my memory serves me, used civil operators for the FI airbridge.

So where do you draw the line?

Perhaps the AAR, AEW and other specialist roles are best left to the military but straightforward movement of personnel and freight could easily be devolved to civilian operators.

Well the septics do it :rolleyes:

And Zoom....get paid the same as the military??? What's the equivalent rank for £120K a year?;)

Hägar
18th Jun 2008, 22:57
The definition of Strategic Airlift is basically the ability to move force and equipment between theaters of war. The Uk, being an island state, will (hopefully) always fight outside its borders, ie, in different theaters of war. Although the Air Power of a state is, as you said, a combination of its military and civilian capability, specialised and fast reaction airlift can and will always be vested with the military. Not many civilian pilots would like to fly into active battle zones, and not many operators would see their way clear to employ their aircraft within such conditions, UNLESS an official state of war exists, which will then give the state the right to use all resources. However, for a state of war to exist, one country must officially declare such a state. So, in the "modern" concepts of armed conflict (Irac being the most recent example), no formal state of war exists. However, Britain is involved as part of an international agreement. As such, the state cannot commandeer any civilian resources, and has to rely on its statutory military force capabilities.

That is why a military force will always require an inherent stategic airlift capability. And this would also be true for operational and tactical airlift, and the other elements of Air Power.

Hope this helps.

Modern Elmo
19th Jun 2008, 01:49
Perhaps the AAR, AEW and other specialist roles are best left to the military but straightforward movement of personnel and freight could easily be devolved to civilian operators.

Well the septics do it

Well, the pilots doing it are likely to be Air National Guard peepul.

What's the RAF equivalent of the ANG?

moosemaster
19th Jun 2008, 05:48
This might be interesting to some...

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=173&page=1

Supplementing resources is a good idea as our strat fleet are over-worked and under-funded (as is everyone!!) as well as working with massively outdated kit (C17 excluded)

Completely replacing resources with civilian contracts is just irresponsible as the lack of flexibility, training and specialist knowledge could prove fatal to both crews, and passengers.

The line defining Strategic and Tactical is a wee bit blurry these days. What would have been a tactical sortie only 2 years ago, is now considered a routine strategic mission. It doesn't mean it's any less challenging or dangerous, only that it has to be done so often that it has become "routine".

Magic Mushroom
19th Jun 2008, 08:04
...Perhaps the AAR, AEW and other specialist roles are best left to the military but straightforward movement of personnel and freight could easily be devolved to civilian operators.

Well the septics do it...

No they do not. The US use contractors to move personnel into safe rear areas where civvies can fly without placing peoples lives at risk. The UK also does that with regular charters to Al Udeid.

However, the US and UK DO NOT employ civvies to move personnel into forward areas in Afghanistan and Iraq for the reasons stated earlier.

Regards,
MM

dunc0936
19th Jun 2008, 08:42
Contracting out services, is not always the best option, I can't imagen civvy pilots liking the option of flying into foward operating area at night with the chance of being shot at or having mortars being fired at them, can you imagen the insurance bill, Health and Safety would have a field day.....

Contracting out the aircraft, like the new tankers, maybe, but they should be flown by serving pilots,

Well thats my thoughts anyway

Duncan

Morning MM btw got your PM, they rather busy there at the moment, looks like a trip in August/Sept time

ORAC
19th Jun 2008, 12:03
There are a number of scenarios which make certain features of a military transport mandatory. e.g. a low floor to be able to load and offload cargo such as MBTs etc and other loads, also advantageous for locations with no scissors loaders etc, this then leads on to the need for the undercarriage to be outside the cargo hold in sponsons. Also the need to keep engines clear of FOD, leading to a high wing etc etc etc.

The result being that whilst many of the tasks can be done by civil freight transport, some cannot. Hence many loads being carried by contract freight companies, the existance of CRAF etc - but also a strategic transport force.

Once you have to have some, it makes sense to utilise them both for training and as the direct operating cost, excluding the purchase price as you had to have them anyway, means it is cost effective to do so.

Why don't civil companies operate them? Apart from some legacy hand-me-downs where the cost has been previously amortised (and few of the beasts come on the market except for the odd AN-124 or Belfast), they end up being more expense to run than civil freighters and the limited number of specialist loads don't make it a commercially viable option.

See a previous discussion in Freight Dogs here. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=267481)

spectre150
19th Jun 2008, 14:15
Rescue 3 - now what makes you ask that? Was it mycommand of the inglish languidge or the fact that I owned up to be a tax payer. :}

Airborne Aircrew
19th Jun 2008, 16:18
What's the equivalent rank for £120K a year?

<Insert Rank Here> RAF (Retired) :ok:

Mine was Sgt... Now I'm in your pay band... Sucks to be you huh?