Depsite my anger with the way this has been funded, I should say that I'm very pleased we're finally going to get the tankers (too expensive, not KC-45A blah blah) but a step forward for the crews and maintainers of 101.
pr00ne
You very eloquently make my point.
13bn pounds less 2.5bn pounds borrowed = 10.5 bn pounds.
For these 10.5bn pounds over 20 or 27 years (suitably discounted so actually less, but without the payment profile impossible to provide an npv figure) the RAF is paying for "services" - presumably second and thrid line maintenance (I'm assuming that first line is light blue?), sim training and other "stuff". Within this other "stuff" is interest on the consortium's debt and profit.
This leads to a number of comments:
(i) no-one in the UK can borrow as cheaply as HMG on balance sheet and therefore we're over-paying for Airtanker's debt, and
(ii) is 10.5bn quid for "stuff" actually value for money?
(iii) How will we ever know?
(iv) How much profit will Airtanker make? Is it actually getting the best price for the kit, or, like the members of the Metronet consortium that made such a shambles of the tube - and reneged on the contract when it couldn't make any money, speaking volumes about the "risk transfer" to the private sector - charging the PFI company top-whack for their individual bit?
Again, doubtless, we'll never know. (Commercial in confidence, etc etc)
(v) BTW, does anyone know who's liable for replacing on in the event that it gets pranged, mortared at a FOB or (god forbid) crashes? Can't see it being Airtanker somehow....
And pr00ne - pls check PMs
All the best,
S41