BACH'S ORGAN WORKS. OR DOES IT??

[BEagle]

The local rag quotes DPA Minister Lord Bach as saying "Air-to-air refuelling is a key military that has proved its worth repeatedly in military operations over the last 2 years".

Last 2 years, eh, Barbara? Try decades you d*ckhead. Ever heard of OP CORPORATE or OP GRANDY??

But it makes the present government's love affaire with the bo££ocks of PPP look even more ridiculous. Why the hell should such a 'key military capacity' be farmed out to mercenary 'Service Providers' if the worth of it has been repeatedly proven? If Italy can afford 4 or 6 brand new tankers, why can't the UK? Especially if Hoon has just pinched £1.2B from the Tornado replacement budget!!

Or have they spent all the UK's spare cash on nonsense like the wretched Mandeldome?

[L J R]

Touch a sensitive nerve hey Beags...

[Max Brakin]

Hey BEagle maybe it's Uncle Tony's long term plan to sell off a certain piece of real estate close to your heart. Soon no tankers, no transports (BA can do the job.....so they say) Lots of prime land ready for exploitation......

Just coz I'm paranoid don'y mean they ain't out to get me !?!?!?!?

[Scorpius]

I was able to talk to Geoffrey Hoon a few months back and I must admit that he was extremely well briefed on what was going on! He even seemed to listened to my point of view on how we are( or not ) coping! None the less that doesn't necessarily mean he will do the right thing for us.

[BEagle]

Was Hoon 'listening' or just 'hearing what you say' (aargh!!)?

Touch sensitive? Yes - like 100% of my colleagues I am outraged that a core military capability could be put in the hands of profiteering mercenary 'Service Providers' under the widely criticised Public Finance Initiative. At a time when our activities are chiefly expeditionary in support of world-policing, how can any private company be expected to provide the necessary levels of AAR at short notice every time some tinpot dictator provokes further trouble which we then become involved in sorting out.

How PJHQ's, sorry, UK CAOC's Friday afternoon panic sessions will cope with "No - you can't have any more tankers until next Thursday because that's all the contract allows for - unless you want to pay huge penalty costs" I cannot imagine.

Face it. There has never been a greater need for a substantial AAR capability. There has rarely been a less stable global situation. Our current AAR fleet is certainly well past its sell-by date. All other air forces with elderly tanker fleets are investing in new equipment and others are developing their own AAR capability.

So how is it that MinDP knows so much more than everyone else involved in this game?? Or is this just regurgitated government dogma aimed at preventing Gordon Brown from having to dip into his wallet?

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[only1leftmate!]

The last I heard was that we only actually want to 'borrow' new AAR jets from a private consortium for a handfull of wedge, naturally. What could be so wrong with that? we already do it with all our engines and the Tristar servicing set-up not to mention 99 Sqn!!!!

[BEagle]

Not really the same thing. Contracted maintenance of engines and airframes is one thing, having to guess how many aircraft we can safely get away with renting from a mercenary unless there's a period of notifiable tension which fits the contracted availability timetable is quite another.

However, leasing 767Ks from Boeing the same way we lease our C-17s would be a lot better than the daft PFI scheme so beloved of the DPA suits!

Public Private Partnership - or P*ss Poor Plan??

[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Flatus Veteranus]

BEagle, if you were a politico and wanted to do away with one of the armed services, causing the least possible stink, and without provoking the troops to march on London and raise the baricades, how would you set about it? You would contract most of it out, and then pare away most of the contracts salami-fashion. Then, one-day, you would quietly shut down what was left of the "dumb bastards" and "Sh**ty Six", and it wouldn't even make the TV news.

[BEagle]

FV - that almost seems to be the case! Along with collusion from on high, perhaps? "I'll put in a good word for your consortium if you see me right with a nice little 'advisory' job or 'non-executive directorship' when I retire with my nice big pension......."??

Disturbed to read the MoD Press release on the FSTA ITN response which crows about 'the MOD's biggest PFI deal' and goes on to say 'if the PFI remains the best solution.....' NO conclusion has been reached about whether the widely-criticised PPP mechanism will form the basis for our future AAR capability!! But the suits seem to be taking it as a fait-accompli; perhaps that's because Trust-me Tony has a complete timetable of all the crummy little diamond-protecting wars he's going to get us snarled up in over the next 25 years?

I repeat; PPP for core military capabilities - it's complete bo££ocks!

[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[BEagle]

If a global downturn in commercial aviation results from the aftermath of the criminal attack on the USA, I see little scope for 'Third Party Revenue' generation for those bidding for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. As many people have said, the only thing certain about defence is unpredictability - so what talk now of 'agreed call-back periods' and 'assumed RAF AAR needs'?

Sorry all, si vis pacem, para bellum. And that means, rather like an insurance policy, there can be no such thing as inadequate miltary cover!