Ageing planes force MoD to pay for civilian troop transporters

[Lyneham Lad]

Wasn't sure whether to add this to one of the (many) other threads regarding underfunding, MOD 'spin' and the disgraceful treatment of the Services by our wonderful Government..................Mods, by all means move it if you see fit.
An article in today's DT starts:-
An ageing fleet of RAF transport aircraft has forced the Ministry of Defence to spend £11 million on chartering civilian jets, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
With its 40-year-old Tristar and VC10 passenger aircraft in need of constant repair and a second front opening in Afghanistan, the RAF has turned to non-military airlines to help ferry troops to operational theatres.
Frustration at Britain's vintage military transport fleet has sometimes led to near mutiny among soldiers who have been stranded for days while trying to get home on leave or at the end of a six-month tour.


Full article


Good to see that some of the media are continuing to pick-up and report on the continuing saga of ageing AT and consequent problems.

[ProfessionalStudent]

I see the Telegraph has it's finger on the pulse then...

"It often makes no sense to use flying hours of specialised military aircraft when the same task can be performed as well or better – with shorter flying times and more comfortable seats – using commercial alternatives," said an MOD spokesman.

Yes, perish the thought of using specialsed TRANSPORT aircraft to actually TRANSPORT things.

Penny-pinching government W***ERS.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

the same task can be performed as well or better – with shorter flying times and more comfortable seats – using commercial alternatives

I haven't flown on many commercial airliners with as generous a seat pitch as the shiny fleet, and isn't the VC-10, now Concorde has retired, the world's fastest airliner (if not THE fastest, I'm sure it's right up there). Despite the spin quoted, I'd rather fly Ascot every time rather than some Air Random clapped out 727, with 40000 cycles and 19" seat pitch. The Government just need to put their hands in their pockets and foot the bill for their Air Force's airline. Too much to ask I suppose.

[will fly for food 06]

The at world is over flowing with pilots, cant we find some cash out of the war chest and buy some more off the shelf ready to go stuff for them to use?

[Wycombe]

I'm sure the "drivers, airframes" will correct me, but I think the Vickers Funbus is speed limited these days (in order to make it last even more than 40years!).

While there aren't many that are faster, the almost as old B747 for one can cover the skies at least as quickly, if not a bit more so.

I think the A380 is capable of similar speeds.

[LFFC]

Originally Posted by will fly for food 06

The at world is over flowing with pilots, cant we find some cash out of the war chest and buy some more off the shelf ready to go stuff for them to use?

If you mean the military AT world, then I think you're sadly mistaken!

Just ask yourself how many crews per aircraft a civilian organisation employs to get the most from their fleet.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Originally Posted by ProfessionalStudent

"It often makes no sense to use flying hours of specialised military aircraft when the same task can be performed as well or better – with shorter flying times and more comfortable seats – using commercial alternatives," said an MOD spokesman.
Yes, perish the thought of using specialsed TRANSPORT aircraft to actually TRANSPORT things.
Penny-pinching government W***ERS.

Well - it makes sense to use tactical aircraft to fly tactical tasks ie C-130 & C-17 and it also makes sense to use aircraft fitted with defensive kit to fly into the higher risk areas. It makes complete sense to me to contract in airlift into benign environments and use the more complex stuff for the more complex tasks.
We are in dire need of less whizzy small things and more large freighty paxy things - but there you go - Cold War ended and we didn't react quick enough.

[will fly for food 06]

Originally Posted by LFFC

If you mean the military AT world, then I think you're sadly mistaken!

Just ask yourself how many crews per aircraft a civilian organisation employs to get the most from their fleet.

I agree, very sad. I wish some people within the organization realised that too. I am an example of this and am having to PVR instead of being used in the AT world.

[sarsteph]

Originally Posted by ProfessionalStudent

"with shorter flying times and more comfortable seats – using commercial alternatives," said an MOD spokesman.

I don't know which flight the "MOD Spokesman" was on, but the last "commercial" flight I did from the sandpit took an hour longer than the equivelant flight on a Tri, and I had to empty the thigh-pockets of my CS95s to fit in to the very thin and uncomfortable seats... (and don't mention the extra time wasted by having to fly out of the operational area on the Alberts and waiting for half a day in the Died!)

[Exrigger]

I wonder if it would actually be more cost effective and cheaper to actually fix our own aircraft rather than hiring civilian varients. The only reason I ask is at St Athan they decided to save £600 worth of repairs to a Coles crane as a trial. The hire costs and time wasted waiting for the hired version to turn up was stupid as it cost over a grand a day and by the time it arrived from Cardiff or Swansea it was late morning. Sometimes they sent the only one they had which could barely fit in the hangar and could not move with the load. After a few weeks/months of this they finally decided it would be cheaper to fix and maintain our own crane.

Unless it is that we do not have enough engineers to actually fix them, even if the money and spares were available and it is feasable to keep them flying.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Originally Posted by Mr C Hinecap

We are in dire need of less whizzy small things and more large freighty paxy things - but there you go - Cold War ended and we didn't react quick enough.

An understandable and very common reaction to events in the old fashioned LTC Period. Fighting tribal wars in the World's crap holes is AT intensive. Although, once Charlie Chan gets his s**t in one sock and kicks off for dwindling resources, thoughts may well soon change. Just a thought.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

It was pointed out to me by a very "Senior Sire" that the day we STOP being fast jet centric is the day those thieving feckin pongoes take over

Like all of us in the AT world we would love more toys etc but the thought of being forcibly, or even more forcibly armyfied brings me out in a cold sweat

[glum]

Me too, but if we are going to fight protrated ground wars, then we have to adapt and become a military transport centric RAF surely?

As another thread states, the RAF has not shot down a single enemy aircraft in over 50 years. We have however provided thousands of hours of AT, thoudsands of gallons of fuel on AAR sorties, and thousands of hours of air support for the Army on the ground.

Is it time to acknoweldge our new role IS to support the Army and stop defending the skies over foreign lands?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

There is a big difference between supporting the Army and being in the Army..... which is ultimately what the olive drab pikey's REALLY want

[dodgysootie]

Why not strip out and refit 5 Nimrod MR2s, Oh, I forgot, the've been scrapped!

[sharmine]

Nothing new there then

I don't really see why there is so much suprise about using charter flights, its been going on for decades so nothing new. British eagle flew a lot of troops around in the 60s/70s as did Airtours. The RN often use Ships Taken Up From Trade when surge is required.

No country, even the yanks, can aford to have a fleet of aircraft around to meet all surge requirements it is just not affordable. We have a sizeable fleet for normal ops plus some surge but to expect us to be able to support this and fight war on 2 fronts whilst maintaining worldwide detachments is not possible. It never was and never will be, therefore, we will always seek to hire extra capacity. Even in peace time we need to hire extra capacity, take Belfasts and Antonovs, it would be pointless owing them for the rare occasions we need outsize lift capability but we can always go and hire them.

If you want to knock the MOD on cost grounds I might suggest its on the grounds of personal kit and accomodation.

After all, I would rather fly with a dolly bird or two to offer me coffee and peanuts rather than have a crab cardboard box stuffed in my hands by a grumpy SAC.

Sharmine

[moggiee]

Originally Posted by glum

As another thread states, the RAF has not shot down a single enemy aircraft in over 50 years.

I may be wrong, but weren't a few Argentinian aeroplanes brought down by sidewinder equipped GR3s in the Falklands?

[Faithless]

I find it hard to believe that all the airliners sitting in the bone yards in the states are older and more expensive that any of the RAF Fleet to run and maintain!!!
I stand to be corrected

[14greens]

so if it is due to the jets being old and broken, why do the USA do exactly the same thing and charter when they need to

Think its pretty interesting when the Tri* is linked in with the VC10 age wise as well, they are a different generation jet remember, not saying the Tri* is a youth!

Could it be something to do with that old adage of "overstretch" rather than problems with the jets. That is why the South Atlantic got put out to charter, the Tri* fleet could not sustain the SA, Mid East schedule at the same time, not enough jets or crews. But that would not make good news story would it?????

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Moggiee.

Shop around, it saves time and effort. http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258277