Money versus Cost effectivness

[VfrpilotPB/2]

Can anyone here put an actual figure on how much is the cost to the RAF budget in making daily flights with Army replacements to the Afghan theatre, for it seems the figures that some talk about could be cut almost in half if that sort of work was farmed out to private air charters with some like BA or others, just seems to me that the Brown effect is about to totally Shaft our armed forces, so why cant some of these highly paid non active types look at this sort of cost cutting! this is almost as bad as the Talibs being out of range but yet able to shoot back!
Peter R-B

[Green Flash]

Ah, just checked my roster and it seems I'm the Duty Biting Officer today.
So I'll bite, twice, if that's OK with everyone?

DAS?

Insurance?

[orgASMic]

Why don't you submit a Freedom of Information request to Defence Supply Chain Operations and Movements? I am sure that the Assistant Head of Movement Operations has nothing better to do.
:ugh:

[vecvechookattack]

just seems to me that the Brown effect is about to totally Shaft our armed forces



how much is the cost to the RAF budget in making daily flights with Army replacements to the Afghan theatre


Nope....its their job. Nobody wants to "outsource" the movement of troops....Thats what the RAF do....its their role

[Double Zero]

Here's this for an ( old ) idea ?

British Airways, who are in the S**t, go & have a fair few suitable airframes fitted with what countermeasures & possibly paint we can round up, and help out our military, who are also in the s**t for heavy aircraft ?

I wouldn't normally be a supporter of BA, as EVERY flight they did for we groundcrew from Heathrow to Glasgow for Harrier range jobs was cocked up by them even for such short internal flights, but maybe such flights as proposed may attract ex-forces experienced volunteers among them?

If not, I'm sure Mr.Branson would be happy to respond, he's not just good at spotting business opportunities, he's good...

[Blue Bottle]

Great idea to charter, why pay for it twice, when we can do it using our own AT..(apart from the DAS issue making it a non-starter), not the best money saving idea in the world is it..:ok:

[nice castle]

Works for the Falklands. The A330 used so little fuel compared to the Tri* that the fuel saving paid for the charter on each round trip, which lasted approx 32 flying hours.

OK, flying deep into a warzone might not be a player for obvious reasons, but one could break the back of moves to a relatively safe part of the Middle East and operate hub and spoke, no?

[Blue Bottle]

Great idea, we should be buying some of them then...then we can fly the troops to and from where they need to be, rather than somewhere else...

[Dr Schlong]

Here's a suggestion - they could fit some refuelling pods to the A330 so they could be used as a tanker when not moving SLF around. That would be cost-effective.

[Blue Bottle]

Maybe someone could get a gems award for these great ideas

[Pontius Navigator]

AKAIT the idea is not stupid. The RAF AT has a planned and funded role. Supporting the Army in OOA for how many years was not one of their roles.

Similarly the USAF had a Military Airlift role. In Vietnam, moving a million men back and forth was not part of the original plan. They used charter flights.

Using Charter for FI is an example where the RAF AT planned and funded role was expanded by the addition of charter airlift rather than the provision of more T* which, you may remember, were procured purely to meet the revised AT role supporting FI.

With the withdrawal of the Funbus there is a reduction in airlift capacity. The C17 might replace this; alternatively charter to 'near-theatre' would replace some capacity.

[VfrpilotPB/2]

Its interesting to see that certain posters on this little question of "What about saving funds," seems to think and feel sarcasim is the answer, when you have a bunch of derranged accountants iching to sharpen their pencils in order to win a Gong for saving money at your service sections demise, seems to be slightly like sticking yer head in the sand, so be it, but you type could be the first to be selling the Big Issue, or worse!


Peter R-B
Vfr

[Blue Bottle]

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it really does become a way of life on the inside. Any accountant’s job is to look at all the numbers, so do you really think the idea of paying of a commercial contract to undertake AT tasking, whilst defence assets sit on the ground doing nothing would get the accountants saying it’s a good money saving idea. ?
Sure the current AT fleet is expensive, but it does get to where it needs to go (not always on time) and it does have DAS, and is owned by us, so no other company is going to have the power to turn off our air-bridge.

There are plans to replace it with modern, brand new aircraft, and they have been funded, if we were to scrap the current fleet now, what do we do with all the air and ground crews until the airbus comes along, pay them to do nothing and lose currency, again I can’t see even the most deranged accountant getting a medal for that idea.

Got to go now or I will never sell all this month’s Big Issue…

[Justanopinion]

Pontius Navigator

You are misinformed - the VC10 is allowed to move troops again -

[Diablo Rouge]

I have travelled C17 in the centreline Pax configuration, and whilst there was no window to look out of, it was really quite comfortable. Although my opinion may be tainted by lack of sleep before flight, noise reducing headphones and iPod Touch. I missed the cockpit invite (I knew the loadie) because I was already sleeping like a good one before he came to get me. .....and the knackered aircon of the funbus did not soak me in the descent either.

The 4 hour stopover at :mad: before en-route travel by charter was a :mad: disgrace. however the civair charter (757) was fantastic with bodies kipping everywhere and understanding hoasties tiptoeing around so as not to disturb. A pragmatic approach to H&S rules that gets a big tick VG from me.