Ex ATA L1011's going to the RAF [Archive]

NutLoose

13th Jan 2009, 00:20

Why not do what the rest of the world does and buy something NEW and modern......... there is a reason the worlds airlines retire these old dogs, they cost a fortune to maintain and in the long term a A330 etc would pay you back dividends over flying something you get in African states these days....... Typical British Government spending plans, buy cheap tired old dogs then spend a fortune maintaining them....... there is good reason Airlines get rid of the old aircraft in their fleets, and that is they would go bust keeping them flying...

Look at the VC10....... that was on it's swan song when I worked on them 15 years ago, these days it must come with it's own zimmer frame.......

It amased me when the UK Government donated XYZ millions to Pakistan to combat terrorism of late........ when you look at what they fly and can afford to maintain and then look at what the RAF is still operating, one often wonders if the money should not be coming the other way......

Flight Detent

13th Jan 2009, 01:24

...Errr..sorry for butting in...I was just going to say what a great airplane the L1011 is, and has always been.
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.

My understanding of the main reason most larger airlines, at least, change their airplanes for later models is not because of higher maintenance costs, or even slightly higher running costs, but its because the airline wants the travelling public to see they're in a shiney new airframe, and the public like that to...not knowing anything else but what they can see, new seats and carpets.

This is not an issue here, and so they can go ahead and use good, reliable (generally) established types, that still have plenty of good hours, and an FE!
(can't overlook that!).

Cheers...FD...:ok:

pigsinspace

13th Jan 2009, 04:57

And of course Air Engineers trying to keep a job?

BEagle

13th Jan 2009, 05:14

Is this true? Would anyone seriously consider buying such ancient old clunkers in this day and age? No doubt Arfur Daley at Cambridge will be rubbing his hands together at the thought of the 'nice little earner' he would get for attempting to restore these shagged old heaps to working status....

How's the 'glass cockpit' coming along then, Arfur?

If true, it really would say it all about RAF priorities. Lots of jolly super whizzy TypHoons for the pointy heads to play about with - but modern AT aircraft? Forget it - kanckered old desert dogs will have to do....

Pontius Navigator

13th Jan 2009, 08:03

[QUOTE=Flight Detent;4645212a great airplane the L1011 is, and has always been.
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.[/QUOTE]

And which time would that be?

I lunched with a guy that bought all the EA VC10s in 1974. Pleased as punch he was with the low price, absolute bargain.

The L1011, as a pure passenger jet in a civilian environment might just cut the mustard. In a military environment you need one or two little gucci mods, like a paint job, UHF radios, IFF, and probably a new set of seats, facing the other way, and without TV screens.

I am sure Brize would just love to operate yet another aircraft type that 'looks' like a T* but is different from all the other birds there.

Available? Maybe.

Cheap? You jest.

The Helpful Stacker

13th Jan 2009, 08:26

...and probably a new set of seats, facing the other way...

I take it you've never been on one of the RAF's current Tristars then?

None of the Tristars I flew in on my way to various hot and sandy places had the seats facing the other way.

collbar

13th Jan 2009, 09:06

Civil airlines use newer aircraft because the fuel bill is cheaper!

Tri-motors are almost irrelievent these days with ETOP approvals, arguably the death of Lockhead and Mcdonald Douglas who had bet on tri-motors being the future.

This move by the raf maybe a good one if they dont arse about with them. As long as they are RVSM equiped they can deliver troops to somewhere like muscat with C-17s taking them direct to theater.
If no Mods are requird a good short term buy!

P.S. Sounds far to sensible though!

Zoom

13th Jan 2009, 09:26

At least the fighter department wouldn't do something as daft as this. There is no way that they would buy 15 cast-off 1960s jets from, say, the US Navy when the only common item would be the radome and then try to integrate them at minimum cost into the existing line up and find out that it just wouldn't pay. And then call it something weird like F-4J(UK) or F-4 Mk3. Just wouldn't happen.

Wader2

13th Jan 2009, 10:02

Zoom, cynic.

HaveQuick2

13th Jan 2009, 10:32

Performance-wise the F-4J was pretty impressive compared to the Spey ones.

Support-wise though it was a pig to deploy, taking nearly one C-130 per F-4J if you needed to take the massive air starters etc. as well as the normal support kit.

Happy days!

14greens

13th Jan 2009, 11:22

Nobody is saying that this is an ideal buy! BUT as a stop gap until out lords and masters can come up with some cash to buy something newer then it makes sense! And they are cheap in comparison
We have an engineering set up for the TriStar (even if undermanned), we have a training sytem set up and we have crews to fly it (yep incuding the Air Eng)

Face facts we need seats on jets to get bums to and from the sandy place, FSTA ia years away, the govt cannot afford to go out and buy shiney new airbus at the mo, it would be a cheap, QUICK option to increase capacity of the A/T fleet

microlight AV8R

13th Jan 2009, 11:34

Zoom Nice one :D Wattisham is a poorer place without them.

Tristars: If intended as only a short term stop gap, pending acquisition of decent arframes ... Methinks they'd make sense.

However, I bet they will be sink holes for cash.
Although the bean counters must be weighing the cost against the charter bill whilst allowing for savings in crew training as we already have crew qualified .

Just have to accept that this is the way it will be for some time to come. UK PLC is bankrupt.

Howzabout we dig out the jigs for the Belfast and put it back into production with uber sexy new turbofan engines and carlos fandango cockpit.
To be produced in the combi guise. Quickly convertible trooping, freighter, tanker and sea surveillance roles.
I know a factory that could reverse engineer one if the jigs are gone.
I'll find that phone number. Anyone got a Shanghai directory? :cool:

NutLoose

13th Jan 2009, 11:36

Flight Detent...Errr..sorry for butting in...I was just going to say what a great airplane the L1011 is, and has always been.
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.

My understanding of the main reason most larger airlines, at least, change their airplanes for later models is not because of higher maintenance costs, or even slightly higher running costs, but its because the airline wants the travelling public to see they're in a shiney new airframe, and the public like that to...not knowing anything else but what they can see, new seats and carpets.

This is not an issue here, and so they can go ahead and use good, reliable (generally) established types, that still have plenty of good hours, and an FE!
(can't overlook that!).

Cheers...FD...http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

The Wright Flyer was "ahead of its time" and if the ministry could find a way of hanging a couple of thousand pounders on it they would probably still be using them too!

An airline is in the industry to make money.... A lot of the budget airlines have a turn over of fleet every 5 years as once you get out of the 5 year warranty period you can start adding a lot of noughts to your maintainance bills, pure and simple... additionally as mentioned fuel burn is crucial in factoring this in, I realise the RAF is in a world of its own, they proved that when they rebuilt the Tristar that did an autoland at Brize many moons ago with the system not on and did the wing spars.......... no one in their right minds would have put it into a hanger for a year and throw money at it, but the RAF did, I do not even thing the Manufacurer could believe that one...

It's not rocket science to see that if airlines are dumping these things in the desert then they have had there time, the Governments of this Country on the other hand always have worked in quick cheap fixes that plaster over the real problems.
No Government is going to be popular by spending huge amounts of resources and increasing taxation to fund it when they can prop up a failing system with a few cheap off the shelf old dogs whilst looking to be doing something....... Take the landrover for example and the bodge it and scarper jobs they do on them for Iraq, this is plastering over the cracks cheaply to make it look like they are doing something when the best thing they could do with them is to replace them all with something that is up to the job in the first place..

Never going to happen as long as I have a hole in my butt, and there ain't much chance of that healing over....

Sideshow Bob

13th Jan 2009, 12:20

Pontius Navigator,
The only difference between a C2 and a civvy T* is the SIFF & DIRCM and it's only had that for couple of years (and the stupid grey paint scheme and the fact that Civvies are allowed to use their autoland). Why would you need UHF on a passenger jet?

moosemaster

13th Jan 2009, 12:45

There is something else that hads probably been taken into account by those "in the know" but not by anyone here yet.

If the RAF buy nice shiny new Airbus 3xx, then teach everyone to use them, where do you think all those nice, newly trained people are going to go?

Pilots with a nice new Airbus A3xx rating are going straight to the airlines, and all those engineers with Airbus maintenance experience? They'll see them there too!!

Keeping out of date equipment ensures that the guys have some marketable experience, but you can't make it too easy, can you?:8

Or am I being toooo cynical? :ok:

Re-Heat

13th Jan 2009, 14:09

My understanding of the main reason most larger airlines, at least, change their airplanes for later models is not because of higher maintenance costs, or even slightly higher running costs, but its because the airline wants the travelling public to see they're in a shiney new airframe, and the public like that to...not knowing anything else but what they can see, new seats and carpets.
No, the travelling public does not care or really understand. The difference in op costs is indeed that significant, that airlines are very keen to offload old aircraft and replace them with the new.

Now the sensible thing would have been to buy some off-market A330s to gain op experience on them. How silly of me for thinking that would be considered...!

NutLoose

13th Jan 2009, 14:09

Well they had that with the VC10 in the early days so made Pilots acting Sqn Ldrs to make the pay comparable so as to reduce the migration to the Civilian market...

Perhaps the Government is working on the premise of reducing the Armed forces manpower to fit the capability we have opposed to doing it the other way round...... Now I am being cynical.

tubby linton

13th Jan 2009, 14:52

"Now the sensible thing would have been to buy some off-market A330s to gain op experience on them. How silly of me for thinking that would be considered...!"

You would be very fortunate to get one!My airline has been looking for the last couple of years and still has not found any with the large doors at the three doors position.

Wycombe

13th Jan 2009, 15:02

If this is true, perhaps these old birds could be put to work on the South Atlantic, instead of the never-ending contracting-out?

One would imagine these a/c (it would actually only take 1 frame to run the pre-Globespan schedule) could be put to work on that route with no "mil" mods whatsoever?

Pontius Navigator

13th Jan 2009, 15:04

I take it you've never been on one of the RAF's current Tristars then?

None of the Tristars I flew in on my way to various hot and sandy places had the seats facing the other way.

Oh but I have. I had a forward facing window seat too. But that was a very long time ago before the aircraft did its PD to Lyneham - same skipper.

Seats was a cynical crack at the if it ain't broke we will improve it system.

As for UHF radios, I don't know if they were fitted to the C2 but they could just come in handy in a military environment?

harrogate

13th Jan 2009, 15:50

All of the cynicism here reminds me of that 'Ministry of Dements' faux memo that was posted on here last year. Made me giggle.

Keep it up!

GotTheTshirt

13th Jan 2009, 15:57

A lot of excellent comments by people with no money:ugh:

Of course a nice shiny new Multi role something or other would be much better.
The problem is that it takes time and money neither of which seem readily available.

At around $1m each the L1011 is hardly capital expenditure.
To put them into sevice as people have said just to ferry troops up and down would be minimal cost.

Then they can save the pennies for the next generation craft:p

Yes the major airlines have to change equipment to keep up with the Jones's
But if you cannot get cheap finance you have to burn a lot of fuel to go from an L1011 lease at $80,000 and month to a fuel efficient Boeing lease at $700.00

BTW could someone remind me what the Mighty USAF are doing for their current tanker aircraft:ok:

The Real Slim Shady

13th Jan 2009, 16:08

A better buy would be some 747-400s: there are enough available on the used market and they run to around $40 mill for a mid life example.

The 1011, as good an airplane as it is, doesn't make economic sense as the price of fuel rises: they are also maintenance intensive and the 400 can carry 25% more pax for not much more fuel. The problem you have is that the people who are in Procurement don't know the first thing about commercial aviation and airplane performance.

Farfrompuken

13th Jan 2009, 16:18

I'm fairly sure BA are getting shot of a couple of 744s.....

As superb as the TriMotor was, I'm sure there are stacks of newer cheaper-to-run, higher-spares-availability twin jets around too going for a song.

The RAF is spoilt for choice.

brakedwell

13th Jan 2009, 16:29

Government of this Country on the other hand can't afford to buy shiny new transport aircraft. The kitty is empty, the cupboard bare, but three or four mid-life 744's should be affordable.

harrogate

13th Jan 2009, 17:03

Any costs would be blown sky high by the government's inevitible engagement of a consultancy company to 'scope' the viability of other aircraft in a 2 year study, or something equally as inept.

You get what I mean.

OldCessna

13th Jan 2009, 17:03

If the RAF are committed to keeping their existing L1011's until 2015 it makes logical sense to add & integrate a few 'cheap" L1011's to give them redundancy. They know the airplane and it seems to be doing the job for them.

If you can buy these (L1011's) which are recently flying aircraft at $1.5M how can you possibly compare these to B747's which they have no experience of operating and are not going to be priced in this dollar range?

By the way, these very same ATA aircraft were making regular runs ferrying troops in & out of Iraq & Afghanistan with very few hiccups. A lot more reliable than the DC10's

Pontius Navigator

13th Jan 2009, 17:13

If the RAF are committed to keeping their existing L1011's until 2015 it makes logical sense to add & integrate a few 'cheap" L1011's to give them redundancy. They know the airplane and it seems to be doing the job for them.

The point that was made above was that cheap is an illusory 5-letter word. The VC10s that were bought in were cheap to buy but not cheap to bring in to service.

It is true the T* might be a diferent kettle of fish but these ones are a lot older, I presume, than the others when we bought them. How well were they treated when put in to storage?

gas path

13th Jan 2009, 17:41

I'm fairly sure BA are getting shot of a couple of 744s.....
Yep! Two parked up so far and at least one other to follow! Do a swop for the trimotors?:}

lincman

13th Jan 2009, 18:35

All the ATA L-10s are ex-somebody else. The RAF rumor concerns ATA's ex-RJ (Royal Jordanian) -500s. At least that makes them the same as the 9 the RAF already has. ATA used the -500s on Round the World cruises, so they must have been reasonably reliable. Also, the FAA took a very close look at them before they went to ATA. S/N 1217 needs closer scrutiny than the other 4 RJ -500s and could be a touch tail heavy.

WildRover

13th Jan 2009, 19:02

Ok, looks like a great opportunity for an ex-FE!

Where do I sign up? AFCO's don't even know what an FE or Air Eng is?

Yes, like a look I've tried to rejoin the RAF!

ChristopherRobin

13th Jan 2009, 19:32

this is criminal if true. Who is the largest buyer of airliners in the world? AA? BA? Cathay? Nope, its ILFC. Who they? ILFC (http://www.ilfc.com/index.htm) lease aircraft out to airlines around the globe so they don't have to buy them themselves. Now there's a crazy idea.

OK, for special mods like DIRCM I can understand why we need our own (and do we need DIRCM for the trips they do? really?), but is it only a matter of time before one of these knackered old birds with the best efforts of the engineers (and they have my total sympathy and admiration) fatigues out of the sky with a battalion of chaps returning from places sandy? I hope and pray it never happens, but until it does, then the criminals who allow this situation to continue will continue to get away with it. It's a f**cking disgrace.

Raffles

13th Jan 2009, 21:20

The ATA L1011-500 not quite identical as they sport a couple of extra doors!!! I would imagine that one aircraft would be used as donor parts for the others & the existing RAF L1011 fleet.

XV277

14th Jan 2009, 10:31

Is that 'not identical' to the mk1s or to the mk2s - or to each other? I seem to remember that it was not until after the C2s were purchased was it realised that not all -500s were the same.......

Sideshow Bob

14th Jan 2009, 11:42

I seem to remember that it was not until after the C2s were purchased was it realised that not all -500s were the same.......
It's correct that there are some differences between the KC1's,K1's (which where built for BA) and the C2's, due to different Airlines wanting different specks (BA bought the GL version where the Yanks bought the Ghia). There were even more differences after Marshalls had finished butchering the KC1's and K1's. The C2's originally had digital autopilots which where removed and replaced with an analogue unit to make them standard with the others!! You could understand this if they had done this with everything, unfortunately there is a reason you have to do an "Aircraft Differences" package before you start the Flying phase of the conversion course.
The 3 new aircraft where being looked at just before I was posted, the rumour was that due to the FSTA contract, the RAF was prohibited from acquiring any other Large passenger jets, so the aircraft were to be purchased by Marshalls and leased to the RAF for a fee. No sure how true the rumour was. The one thing that was certain was that if the new jets did arrive there would be no increase in the number of crews.

NutLoose

14th Jan 2009, 11:46

Do you remember the plans to use them as freighters when they first got them, however as they had not freight doors fitted at the time someone designed some freight containers that were like the fullsize items but only wide enough to fit through the standard pax door lol.......

We just looked at them and burst out laughing when they arrived.....:D

Wycombe

14th Jan 2009, 12:04

Ahh, the "K1" bins, the system by which they have to be "shuffled" around the forward cabin in order to gain access to load/un-load each in turn is something of a joke.

For this reason, these 2 a/c are only really much good for AAR.

Is it not one of these frames that is currently enjoying a long break at Cambridge?

Wader2

14th Jan 2009, 12:28

We can't keep a line of jets on one unit at the same standard. How do you exepct to acquire second-hand aircraft from multiple users to a common standard?

brakedwell

14th Jan 2009, 12:58

By moving a secret Oxfordshire air base to a secret desert in Arizona? :)

Speedbird48

14th Jan 2009, 18:55

If there is such a shortage of L1011 capability within the RAF, why did one spend most of Christmas parked on the ramp in Calgary (CYYC)??

Or, was it broke???

Union Jack

14th Jan 2009, 20:32

If there is such a shortage of L1011 capability within the RAF, why did one spend most of Christmas parked on the ramp in Calgary (CYYC)??

That's probably exactly the same question the crew asked themselves, especially since they were supposed to be somewhere a lot warmer for Christmas!

Or, was it broke???

I couldn't possibly comment ......

Jack

Dengue_Dude

14th Jan 2009, 22:08

Why would you want rearward facing seats on an aircraft that cruises 4º nose up for the body lift? Your lumpy box would slip off your lap . . .

Speedbird48

15th Jan 2009, 01:14

Hi Union Jack,

I trust that Alberta treated you well with your enforced rest. Sorry about the temperature!!

The machine looked good with White trimmings!!

Speedbird 48.

Wader2

15th Jan 2009, 08:47

Why would you want rearward facing seats on an aircraft that cruises 4º nose up for the body lift? Your lumpy box would slip off your lap . . .

Quite, which was why the the leather seats on the valetta and Britannia were sods as you slipped off. Can't remember the 10 but probably the same.

Matter of interest, what is the pitch on the T* and 10? On a 767-300 last month the 31 inch, I think, was quite adequate.

The Real Slim Shady

15th Jan 2009, 10:04

Horses for courses.

The solution is to choose the airframe for the job, not to just pick up whatever is around and make it do 3 separate jobs.

For the Iraq, Afghanistan run a large twin like the A300 would be adequate: there are freighter and passenger around.

For MPA, go for the 747-400: lots of capacity and 4 donks for long overwater legs, freight capacity and freighters also available.

Convert the T*s to tankers and let them concentrate on that.

6 A300s and 4 747s would cost around $300 mill on the secondhand market.

Nomorefreetime

15th Jan 2009, 10:23

How many of you guys have actually been involved in the airbridge in the last 6 month's. All involved in this operation are fighting battles on a hourly basis. The solution is nice shiney new aircraft but the problem needs a short gap answer not one 18 months down the line.
Hats off to all involved at the home base,

The Real Slim Shady

15th Jan 2009, 10:38

Nomorefreetime, crisis management again. A stop gap solution becomes de facto a long term solution. A lack of foresight, planning and fundamental misunderstanding of the capabilities of a second hand civilian airframe will simply prolong the agony.

If the Army and RAF now have global commitments the RAF needs to be provided with a mix of transport aircraft optimised for each task.

Nomorefreetime

15th Jan 2009, 10:58

SS

Question.
Whos flies said airplanes when we buy off shelf?
Who maintains above when delivered tomorrow?

2nd hand tristars are not the solution, but where do we go?

The Real Slim Shady

15th Jan 2009, 11:24

NoMoreFreetime,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating an instant solution: the introduction of 10 new heavies would take at least 9 months but a long term solution is needed. The T*s may be a stopgap but they can't be expected to carry out med range airlift, long range airlift and tanking when, for the sake of $3-400mill other aircraft could be introduced to take on the transport tasks.

10 used 744s would cost around $400 mill: they have better fuel burns, lower maintenance costs, more seats, more freight capacity and can cover the ME and MPA routes. I only suggested the A300s as they provide almost the same capacity as the T* but cheaper to run.

14greens

15th Jan 2009, 12:04

So where is the MOD getting 3-400 mil from???

As for the Tri motor in Alberta over the last few days, the crew did not stay out there!

The Real Slim Shady

15th Jan 2009, 14:50

If the Govt can afford to throw money at RBS, Northern Rock and now another £20 Mill for employment schemes, the money is there, just not allocated to the MoD.

Alternately they shave it from the Social Security budget, which is bigger than NHS, Education and Defence combined.

14greens

15th Jan 2009, 23:26

ahh sorry forgot of course its that easy! so what about all the other procurment issues then!?

MarkD

16th Jan 2009, 02:38

@Union Jack - said crew should thank their lucky stars they were in Canada then and not this week! Brrrrrrrrr....

The Real Slim Shady

16th Jan 2009, 14:42

ahh sorry forgot of course its that easy! so what about all the other procurment issues then!?

Only when the military are involved. Commercially it would be very straightforward to handle, spares, training and the metal.

Perhaps a more effective, and cost effective, solution would be remove the strategic transport task from the RAF and civilianise it. Better service, cheaper.

I don't know how much it costs to run a T* but typically the 744 runs to around $40K per hour assuming LLPs and burdened maintenance at around $3K per flt hour.

Re-Heat

16th Jan 2009, 22:56

Government of this Country on the other hand can't afford to buy shiny new transport aircraft. The kitty is empty, the cupboard bare, but three or four mid-life 744's should be affordable.
As another poster said, ILFC, or pay BA to do it.

I quite agree with comments on this thread that procurement know nothing whatsoever. My limited experience with those lot is of gross incompetence. Furthermore, with little experience of procuring aircraft, they simply do not have the competence to do it. Of course, in this day and age, the powers that certify those aircraft to the mil register (or better the CAA if they remain civilian) might prevent such future acquisitions from massive over-modification...would they...?!

Anyone else agree with Digby Jones that the whole Civil Service should be lined up and shot?

Re-Heat

16th Jan 2009, 23:03

I don't know how much it costs to run a T* but typically the 744 runs to around $40K per hour assuming LLPs and burdened maintenance at around $3K per flt hour
Get the RAF to provide the fuel, markup for risk, and someone could make a nice return from such a venture.

As a matter of interest, has anyone ever tried to cost a RAF Tri* sector against a similarly-laden 767 sector, including maintenance costs etc? Even better...VC10?

The Real Slim Shady

17th Jan 2009, 11:03

The figure I quoted includes fuel, maintenance, crew costs etc, all the DOCs in fact.

Ignoring any emotive aspects, the issue is simple: how can the Govt provide the most effective and cost effective strategic air transport facility for the military?

Given that the C130Js and C17s can provide tactical, and strategic freight and para dropping, the question falls to the provision of tankers and AT.

By making 216 Sqn a 3 flt, 3 type Squadron the T*s can take full time responsibility for tanking. Buying, not leasing, 10 used widebodies to provide medium and long range AT is a better option, I contend, than having the numbers of the already stretched T* force increased.

Wet leasing or ACMI from BA or VS or bmi is not a practical option as they would have prohibitive clauses for the safety of their crews: moreover, you would also be tied to existing union agreements and FTLs. In addition, it would be expensive as they would want to make a profit, as much, if not more, than they could make running the same jet commercially.

A further option is to give a contractor a shed load of wonga to buy used airframes and set up a new independent dedicated civilian AT capability: the advantages are that the operator is not encumbered by existing work practices, it is a very quick fix ( 9 months max from go ahead to flying), a better service for the passengers and the MoD, much cheaper than using service personnel as civvies don't need the back up services, pensions etc and highly trained service personnel and equipment are released to do other tasks.

For around $50 million I could buy and refurbish a 744 with 400 economy seats, 45 flat bed business seats and full IFE. That will give a non stop capability to Iraq and Afghanistan and to the training areas in the US and Canada : it gives the capability to tech stop ASI and operate the MPA sector with ASI as the alternate carrying a full passenger load and up to 20 tonnes of freight.

OldCessna

17th Jan 2009, 13:02

The latest update is that the MOD were outbid and the 3 aircraft will go to an outfit in Amman, Jordan.

The Real Slim Shady

17th Jan 2009, 13:39

Sounds like Globejet then.

whiowhio

17th Jan 2009, 14:11

"A further option is to give a contractor a shed load of wonga to buy used airframes and set up a new independent dedicated civilian AT capability: the advantages are that the operator is not encumbered by existing work practices, it is a very quick fix ( 9 months max from go ahead to flying), a better service for the passengers and the MoD, much cheaper than using service personnel as civvies don't need the back up services, pensions etc and highly trained service personnel and equipment are released to do other tasks."

Far too simple, cost effective and logical! :rolleyes: