THE RAF is under fire for blowing nearly £2 million to take part in an air show in Ma

[Blue Bottle]

RAF hit by £2m bill row | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/4897050/RAF-hit-by-2m-bill-row.html)

So easy to pick holes, wonder if they will get any sales which is the main reason they displayed..

[smujsmith]

That's a bit rich, when the hypocrites in the house of con men are still troughing on subsidised food and drink:*

[Courtney Mil]

To be honest, it's just a leftie politico and a retired guardsman having a pop. I won't start taking it seriously until I hear it from the Bearded Idiot.

[phil9560]

Out of interest what are the operating costs of these aircraft and their support over the period if they simply stayed in the UK and operated as normal ?

In other words is the cost of the detachment really 2 mil or 2 mil minus above mentioned costs?

Bit confusing I know.

[OutlawPete]

I don't think £1.85 mil is too bad considering how much money has been wasted on countless other white elephant schemes by some of our previous governments. In fact, as the RAF has had a pay freeze for so long (which effectively amounts to a pay cut in real terms) it's about time they had some perks.
I hope the girls and boys who went on this little trip had a jolly good time, they deserve it.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[vascodegama]

Perhaps one of the biggest costs was the hiring of another country's tankers.

[seadrills]

Sending 4 jets to an air show can be easily justified. What is criminal is sending 100 maintainers to look after 4 aircraft ! An outrageous waste of money. I'd love to see the business case for that one.

[lj101]

Perhaps one of the biggest costs was the hiring of another country's tankers.

Not really, it comes out of a 'pot' of hours via the MCCE European Agreement

https://www.mcce-mil.com/

We trailed their (Italian) Tornados to South Africa a few years ago.

[HEDP]

Surely this must only be the bill for the hotels alone!

[NutLoose]

Sending 4 jets to an air show can be easily justified. What is criminal is sending 100 maintainers to look after 4 aircraft ! An outrageous waste of money. I'd love to see the business case for that one.

Totally depends on what they are doing whilst there, if they are say flying day and nights you will need two shifts, so that is 50 for 4 aircraft per shift, so if you have say have per one aircraft an SAC tech or 2, Corporal, Sgt, Chief per trade, x that by Avionics and Airframe/ engines, armourers etc, add a Flight Sgt in charge of a Shift, two or three Safety equipers, Storemen, refueller, possibly catering staff, and WO/ Jengo/ Sengo between shifts, then possibly the odd bay chappy, rag packers, lox if they need it, it soon mounts up.

[BEagle]

Not really, it comes out of a 'pot' of hours via the MCCE European Agreement.

Yes. However the MCCE tariff for the KC-767I covers the 'hours exchange rate' for mutual services - there's no saying that 4 TriStar hours are offset by 4 KC-767I hours, for example. And who picks up the incidental costs for hotac, T&S etc. when another nation's assets are used for such a deployment?

One hears a rumour that the RTB could have been supported by a TriShaw, but that the reliability of the old beasts is nowadays so poor that pressure was brought to bear to ensure that the KC-767I was also used to support the recovery, so that the Typhoons could be reasonably sure of getting back on the planned date....:rolleyes:

Still, at least the Italian air force actually has a 21st century tanker which can support its own front-line fighter deployments. As does Japan, Germany, Canada......

[lj101]

What is criminal is sending 100 maintainers to look after 4 aircraft

That's crap; don't believe everything you read in the rags.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Quote:What is criminal is sending 100 maintainers to look after 4 aircraft

Showing your naivety with a 'criminal' lack of understanding :ugh:

Probably 20 maintainers with the rest made up of 'Klingons' from Air Command to ensure no one paid more than 1 Ringgit too much on a curry :rolleyes:

[DITYIWAHP]

No one should expect such a rag to aim for balance or, indeed, total accuracy with any such reports. Have a look at this old link about the article's author - I think you'll agree that he's exactly the kind of upstanding member of society we want to have making reports about our armed forces....

Sun royal editor Duncan Larcombe held in 'illegal payment' raids - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9213455/Sun-royal-editor-Duncan-Larcombe-held-in-illegal-payment-raids.html).

[dctyke]

Sending 4 jets to an air show can be easily justified. What is criminal is sending 100 maintainers to look after 4 aircraft ! An outrageous waste of money. I'd love to see the business case for that one.


.......... and a pre planned exercise! You have no idea what it takes to maintain jets a long way from home, 100 sounds about right. Seadrills, one could argue a navy warship only has one steering wheel so why all the other 'hangers on':rolleyes:

[airborne_artist]

The RAF has a number of roles, and one is an expeditionary force, able to deploy and operate across the world.

Sending four aircraft to Malaysia seems like a great opportunity to work up many of the skills specific to expeditionary operations - and while sending 100 maintainers may seem like overkill, their training matters just as much as for the two-winged master race.

Think through all the aspects of the task and you'll find that it probably was pretty cheap and will have tested quite important bits of the system.

But that won't interest a journo with a political axe to grind ;)

[orca]

I completely agree with AA, foreign land-aways, and trails in particular are great training and if we aspire to having a expeditionary capability then we need the practice.

I do, however, suspect that the maintenance side of the house did not number 100, for if it had - it might be viewed as a little inefficient.

The point about warships is worth exploring. I remember being alongside in a Type 42 with a gun, sea dart and a helo. Next to us was an Israeli Sa'ar class with Harpoon, Oto Melara, Gabriel, CIWS and more HMG than you could count. We had circa 300 on board - I think they had 60! I'm pretty sure our helo had about 8 chaps to mend it, not the 240 this might suggest.

Have a good Sunday all.

[Jimlad1]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me - we'd spend the money on the crew in Leuchars or Malaysia, so the only difference is the T&S.

The Typhoon is an exceptionally capable aircraft which seems to stand a very reasonable chance of success at a number of export prospects, including Malaysia, and the value of which would massively dwarf the minor cost of T&S for the exercise.

Its also worth remembering that its a bloody complicated aircraft, and that actually 100 people to support what is a complex bit of kit, presumably during 24/7 conditions at times, doesnt seem to be that bad to me.

[orca]

Here's a question.

If one is going on a 'sales orientated' detachment, do you take the troops you ordinarily would or do you over egg the maintenance slightly? Just thinking out loud - but if someone tried to sell you a wonder toy but appeared to require a lot of support then maybe you would ask questions. But then if you were selling one you would want all bases covered - just in case.

[lj101]

The det would not have nearly 100 engineers. Having trailed with the Typhoons many times with 4 -6 a aircraft we took on average 18 Typhoon engineers. The exercise was designed to test many areas including;

1(Fighter) Squadron, based at RAF Leuchars, have been flying Close Air Support (CAS) training missions in Malaysia, working in conjunction with RAF Regiment Joint Tactical Air Controllers (JTACs), to further develop Typhoon Multi-Role capability.

The JTACs – who provide a critical link between air assets and those units requiring air support on the ground – forward deployed to the Cameron Highland Mountains in the centre of the Malaysian peninsula. Having carried out a thorough reconnaissance of the area, the JTACs from RAF Honington’s Air Land Integration Cell and 16 Air Assault Brigade took up positions deep in the jungle, from where they could provide accurate control to the 1(F) Squadron pilots.

The tropical terrain provides the Typhoon pilots from 1(F) Squadron and their ground-based colleagues with a rare opportunity to practice their skills in a difficult and complex jungle environment.

1 (Fighter) Squadron (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/1-fighter-squadron-16042013)

I'm guessing total det was roughly 100 personnel. Edited to link to direct quote for P.

[orca]

These Joint Tactical Air Controllers sound quite useful - I wonder how they compare to Joint Terminal Attack Controllers?

Thanks for expanding on their role though!;)

[Onceapilot]

"One hears a rumour that the RTB could have been supported by a TriShaw, but that the reliability of the old beasts is nowadays so poor that pressure was brought to bear to ensure that the KC-767I was also used to support the recovery, so that the Typhoons could be reasonably sure of getting back on the planned date.." Beags

Why did they not use a VC10?

OAP

[Pontius Navigator]

Did anyone mention force protection as well?

[ex-fast-jets]

Never mind Force Protection!

In Malaysia the most important people to deploy to maintain credibility is a strong Karaoke team!

[Plastic Bonsai]

I remember a cartoon at Dunsfold after some Tornados went to Malaysia (1987?) on sales tour. The cartoon showed a line up of a couple of hundred personnel, tankers and 4(?) Tornados with the Hawk 100 demonstrator that went as well in one corner with just 3 blokes. Malaysia ordered Tornados and then changed their minds for some reason and bought Hawk 108s and 208s instead.

Typhoon is a very capable aircraft but how many air forces can maintain it?

[Gullwings]

The point about warships is worth exploring. I remember being alongside in a
Type 42 with a gun, sea dart and a helo. Next to us was an Israeli Sa'ar class
with Harpoon, Oto Melara, Gabriel, CIWS and more HMG than you could count. We
had circa 300 on board - I think they had 60! I'm pretty sure our helo had about
8 chaps to mend it, not the 240 this might suggest.
Orca
In answer to your RN Helo maintenance manning exploration point, the RN maintenance crew for a Lynx helicopter on a Frigate/Destroyer was usually only 7 in my day and they were not just responsible for mending the helicopter. As those ships often deployed for long periods (perhaps several months without any main base workshop support or maintenance crew/aircraft rotations) the helo maintenance crews were also required to carry out other supplementary roles including the maintenance/repair of the aircraft’s Ground Support Equipment, Crew Survival Equipment, Weapons/Role Equipment, Hangar and Flight Deck facilities, also dealing with aircraft spares, publications updates, aircraft/ships fire fighting, other ship support roles, carrying out Aircrewman roles, etc.
It was also not uncommon to regularly work 18 hour days (in peacetime) at sea to meet day and night flight operations/maintenance commitments as there was no other helo Shift on such ships that operated one Lynx. As such work could also sometimes be carried out in poor aircraft operating and maintenance environments, that created increased workloads, due to worse corrosion/damage risks, etc.
Those well cross-trained, capable and hard-working aircraft maintenance teams therefore provided very good value for money to the tax payers.

With regards to RN Type 42 Destroyer ship manning levels seeming high when compared to the Israeli warship, the Type 42s were of course a late 1960s/early 1970s design and none of them appear to be left in service (as far as I am aware). More modern RN ships do have much smaller crews than the Type 42s (as more modern and automated systems have also been progressively introduced within the RN).
As the RN ships usually have to spend much more time operating independently a very long way from their home bases (than the Israeli ships do) so they may also require bigger crews for that reason.

[vascodegama]

LJ

I am aware of the MCCE system, the problem is that we are supposed to barter various tasks against each other (it is measured in C130 hour equivalents) my concern is how we actually get any credits at all since we have so many capability gaps. How long are we allowed to run an overdraft?

[BEagle]

Why did they not use a VC10?

No doubt they might have had to, had a TriStar been allocated.....which would have broken down somewhere exotic.

There are only 4 x VC10s left. 1 in the South Atlantic, 3 others. I imagine that their availability is thus somewhat limited?

[Pontius Navigator]

PB, good point. BiL was involved with their Hawk programme. They didn't have 6000psi nitrogen and used air instead with predictable consequences.