Strategic -vs - Tactical
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Perhaps the AAR, AEW and other specialist roles are best left to the military but straightforward movement of personnel and freight could easily be devolved to civilian operators.
Well the septics do it...
Well the septics do it...
However, the US and UK DO NOT employ civvies to move personnel into forward areas in Afghanistan and Iraq for the reasons stated earlier.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contracting out services, is not always the best option, I can't imagen civvy pilots liking the option of flying into foward operating area at night with the chance of being shot at or having mortars being fired at them, can you imagen the insurance bill, Health and Safety would have a field day.....
Contracting out the aircraft, like the new tankers, maybe, but they should be flown by serving pilots,
Well thats my thoughts anyway
Duncan
Morning MM btw got your PM, they rather busy there at the moment, looks like a trip in August/Sept time
Contracting out the aircraft, like the new tankers, maybe, but they should be flown by serving pilots,
Well thats my thoughts anyway
Duncan
Morning MM btw got your PM, they rather busy there at the moment, looks like a trip in August/Sept time
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There are a number of scenarios which make certain features of a military transport mandatory. e.g. a low floor to be able to load and offload cargo such as MBTs etc and other loads, also advantageous for locations with no scissors loaders etc, this then leads on to the need for the undercarriage to be outside the cargo hold in sponsons. Also the need to keep engines clear of FOD, leading to a high wing etc etc etc.
The result being that whilst many of the tasks can be done by civil freight transport, some cannot. Hence many loads being carried by contract freight companies, the existance of CRAF etc - but also a strategic transport force.
Once you have to have some, it makes sense to utilise them both for training and as the direct operating cost, excluding the purchase price as you had to have them anyway, means it is cost effective to do so.
Why don't civil companies operate them? Apart from some legacy hand-me-downs where the cost has been previously amortised (and few of the beasts come on the market except for the odd AN-124 or Belfast), they end up being more expense to run than civil freighters and the limited number of specialist loads don't make it a commercially viable option.
See a previous discussion in Freight Dogs here.
The result being that whilst many of the tasks can be done by civil freight transport, some cannot. Hence many loads being carried by contract freight companies, the existance of CRAF etc - but also a strategic transport force.
Once you have to have some, it makes sense to utilise them both for training and as the direct operating cost, excluding the purchase price as you had to have them anyway, means it is cost effective to do so.
Why don't civil companies operate them? Apart from some legacy hand-me-downs where the cost has been previously amortised (and few of the beasts come on the market except for the odd AN-124 or Belfast), they end up being more expense to run than civil freighters and the limited number of specialist loads don't make it a commercially viable option.
See a previous discussion in Freight Dogs here.
