MoD Vs Treasury...

[The Diggler]

Chaps

Much has been said on various forums as to the problems the reduced defence budget will pose in the short and middle terms for the UK Armed Forces, notably the RAF and Senior Service.

The loss of the Sea Harrier, reduced Tornado and Nimrod front line aircraft are just three high-profile force reductions or losses facing us today.

This is the effect upon the demand side - as a result of a reduced supply - in this case of Government capital. The various PPP schemes - such as the future tanker - have thus far proven, or promise, to be less efficient than if held within the public sector and will further deplete the supply of funds in the future.

Should we not therefore, look to address the lack of capital by looking to begin providing proprietary services to the private sector, or other Armed Forces, as the market demands.

Put plainly - should the UK not provide some services for cash in times of peace.

This is not a silly suggestion. Cranwell trains oversea pilots for cash, for example.

I am principally suggesting that capabilities such as the Alberts ( when, and only if, not in use supporting the long list of deployments) and C17s be made available to the free market at a fixed or hourly rate in a similar way to AN 124s are presently. Heavy Lift could provide one link to the market.

If the RAF are prepared to do this – the capital could be directed to areas of need, pilots will have a more varied role, improving crew retention.

A counter argument that the Government will then reduce the MoD budget if this idea was successful is a valid one…. Suggestions….

I make this argument with no consideration for anything other than the economic points, and mearly introduce the idea for constructive discussion…….

[The English Passenger]

Nice idea Diggler, but...

If the RAF were to put aircraft out to be used for commercial cargo usage there would be a number of problems. Firstly, the already overstretched aircrew on the Sqns would soon be being abused even more by Sqb Cdrs and heirarchy keen to show how great they are by who can make the most money for HM Treasury (and if not them then MOD in general will love the money too much and overcommit the assets).

Secondly, all the crews would have to gain civil licenses in order to fly as commercial carriers, and although it would not require an ATPL (correct me if I am wrong as I am no expert on this being a rotary mate with no desire to do licenses), and I for one cannot see the RAF helping people even further towards ATPL status without believing that it will encourage them to leave in droves!!!

But if you shout loudly enough, someone at MOD will take it up, write a paper, waste millions of pounds, get promoted above the level of their own incompetence, and we will be stuck with more work, no more pay and a smaller defence budget.

This government needs to accept that if it wants an armed forces that can do anything, then it must pay for it! 3% of GDP on defence does not get a 1st world military.

Rant over....over to you.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[The Diggler]

English Passenger

Excellent points - I agree completely. Just the kind of informed answers I was hoping for.

The above arguement orginated during my time at Uni and no consideration was made for the welfare of RAF personnel or MoD attitudes.

One answer - ex military crews, already flying pax or freight on ATPLs, employed on an as-and-when basis via a civil agency with regular checks to ensure mil standards are maintained........

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Remember the golden rule....

Them thats got the gold makes the rules....sadly that the Treasury.

:(

[The English Passenger]

Diggler, nice idea, but then how do the mil guys get to keep up their currency when they are not on ops if the ac are around the world on contracts making money for El Presidente's retirement fund? You can almost guarentee that when the politicians smell a good thing, it will be us that loses!:D

[Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???]

Bet the Treasury win, Bets anyone?

[high spirits]

Surely the HM Govt cricket bat couldn't get any bigger - my eyes are beginning to water! Can't see it as a viable option myself. We struggle to generate crews day in day out - mainly due to the operational commitment to T.W.A.T.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

They know the price of everything and the value of nothing...

Says it all, doesn't it?

I have sometimes wondered why the services don't demand payment for some of their roles. For instance, a large part of the work of RN Survey Ships is taken up by work relating to oil and gas exploration. Why doesn't the MOD(N) charge? At least they should get the costs paid for.

[BEagle]

I understand that 'government' sponsorship of commercial activities by State aircraft is contrary to some euro-rule. And quite right too!

Mark you - if I'd received consultancy fees for all the various manufacturers for whom I've done work over the years....

[Reichman]

During the mid eighties I flew a VC10 out to Singapore to take 2 Wasp engines out for the Navy. Once the engines had been dropped off we asked our operating authority (the legendary ASCOT Ops) if they wanted us to take anything back, or perhaps pick something up from Hong Kong. "No", we were told. Just come home. So we flew an empty VC10 half way round the world back home.

The reason I mention this is that there was a RNZAF Boeing 727 with us in Singapore. He was told that he could tout for business, which he did and managed to take a load of civvy freight (no pax) back to NZ.

Our own government makes up the rules about mil/commercial business. Why not change the rules? :confused:

[gijoe]

Diggler,

Your idea is a sound one and displays much common sense. In other branches of the Services 'income generation', as it is known, is already being foisted upon those serving personnel who didn't expect to get caught up in such activities.

Examples,

Army teachers taking groups of execs away on 'team-building' weekends.

The flogging of courses to overseas students ( taught those myself) at high prices for what they in reality get.

This is slightly different from the selling of spare aircraft capacity but the money all comes from the same pot.

The worrying bit is this.....

If you are part of an organisation that manages to generate an income through activity ( whatever it may be )...be careful. Not only will you be given a target to reach, but it is highly likely that if you reach it that amount will be deducted from your budget next year because you will have become a highly marketable thing as proven by last years performance!! Therefore more income generation required next year to keep doing what you are already doing let alone any operational stuff.

HM Forces plc here we come

:rolleyes:

[steamchicken]

Anyone see the recent news reports about the rats controlled by electric signals, developed for the US forces? Well, that's the plan WE and me are working on - we think they could be trained to fly the SHAR as a saving.
Basically there will be a lump of cheese hanging from the refuelling probe...and the rat should look after the rest!

[Shouting Rad-Alt]

On a visit to Northolt nearly 2 years ago I was briefed by the Stn Cdr on how he was generating money. This was achieved By landing fees and general use of the Stn as a VIP alternative to Heathrow and other London airports.
"It was a way to boost the Stn budget having suffered cut backs over the previous years!"
It is a shame we are selling ourselves to the private sector. Or indeed the highest bidder!!!

[opso]

Lovely plan if it weren't for:

1. We have numerous military dispensations for the carriage of kit on our ac because we do not meet the civvy standards in some areas (particularly on the Hercs). If we were to tout for civvy business, we would have to bring our ac up to the required standards at great expense.

2. There are European rules and agreements (although no laws to my knowledge) in place that prevent a European state using its resources to undermine or unfairly compete with civilian commercial concerns. So we have to charge at least as much as, or more than the reputable civlian haulage firms that are able to offer a consistant and regular contract, not an ad hoc, 'whenever we can fit it in' service that military 'spare capacity' would provide. So which would you hire?

3. We already have 'spare capacity' agreements with other nations' armed forces that do not require us to modify our ac and are charged on a mutual airlift basis so that we comply with European agreements. However, we have so little 'spare capacity' that we have practically nothing to offer the agreements - much to the chagrin of the French and Germans who are in an even worse situation when it comes to the usage of their AT. (In fact, the French would be better placed than us if they pushed their fleets as hard as we hammer ours, but they are not willing to do so.)

4. Our air and ground crews are already pushed to the limit (just ask 99 Sqn or the Herc boys!) and could not cope with yet more tasking in current ac down times. To keep the ac in the air more of the time in a way similar to the airlines and maximise airframe usage, we would need a lot more personnel. Ex-military crews 'moonlighting' on days off from their civvy flying doesn't come close to providing the numbers and doesn't address the engineering shortfall. More personnel means more expense to the stn budgets, so unless the stn got to keep the money, it would be budgetary suicide for any stn cdr.

5. Whenever we do chargeable services to OGDs, NGAs etc, the money never comes back to the area that picked up the costs and disappears in the 'Treasury black hole' instead. Thereby meaning that whilst UK plc may potentially be able to make some extra income, it will actually be at increased expense to the defence budget!

6. The only people that this plan would help are the treasury and senior offices looking to gain the political support for a push to the top and who don't care that they are crapping on their own guys to get another rung up the ladder. I would like to think that there aren't any of them so callous and calculating, but I've witnessed to much believe that.

If you came up with this plot as part of your university course, I hope that it was enough to get you a pass, but it doesn't cut it as a feasible plan in the real world.

[BEagle]

Well said, opso!

[Mike RO'Channel]

Maybe the Stn Cdr at Lyneham should charge the PLO/Hammas/Yasser A a few squillion for getting their 'freedom fighters' out of the pooh in Bethlehem. Or perhaps ask Mr Karzai for a donation to the Offs and Sgts Mess Ents funds for trucking 500 of his afghanis to Mecca? Then again......maybe not!
Now that it has been proven safe to fly civilians in old Albert, the chaps will be allowed to fly their nearest and dearest on Families Day.... won't they!

(Incidently, last year they couldn't fly their folks in Albert cos no-one at their Gp HQ has 'les balons' enough to underwrite the 'risk'. However, they could and were planning to, fly them in a Chinook! Unfortunately, the ac went phut at an inopportune moment saving the ASCOT peeps a big red-face! What a mess!)

[high spirits]

Question. Who picks up the tab for military aid to civil power ie flood relief work etc? Who picks up the tab for the launch of albert and seaking on a long range sarop in the south atlantic? Do the MOD get seen off or do they bill other govt departments/foreign powers?

[opso]

Answer:

It depends on whether they go to the papers complaining about the cost or not. Just see Claire Short for details!

[Mike RO'Channel]

Apparently, a lot of the pilgrims who went CrabAir to Mecca had paid upwards of a £1000 for B747 flights from Kabul. They were rich Northern Alliance top-knobs supposedly and were quite miffed about the standard of in-flight catering on Albert and the fact the ALMs weren't wearing burghars!

I don't suppose El Tone fancies giving them all a refund!?

Probably take it out of the RAF budget if he did!