Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

32(TR) Sqn - Why do we have/need them?

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

32(TR) Sqn - Why do we have/need them?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 7th Nov 2010, 07:13
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
32(TR) Sqn - Why do we have/need them?

Many of you will know of my outbursts on the subject of the Nimrod MRA4 and the total loss of LRMPA coverage for this nation, not to mention SAR cover, and I make no apology for them, however;

In light of this and other significant cuts in the inverntory of our front line Armed Forces, I wonder if someone 'in the know' could explain to me what the heck we still have 32 Sqn for and their role as the so-called Royal Flight??

It appears to me that in recent times, their Highness's fly commercial pretty much everywhere they go, so why do we need them?? I would much prefer to see an MPA asset on the books rarther than an ageing fleet of 125's and 146's (are the 146's still going??)

That would then leave the way clear to bin Northolt, sell it off for some ridiculous figure and em..............................pay for Nimrod MRA4 maybe!!

On the other hand, it's a bit too convenient for the likes of CAS, ACAS and their entourage when they want to go to an airshow at the weekend isn't it? so I guess it will never happen. Shame really.

Winco
Winco is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 08:15
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cost !

The operation at Northolt is in money terms very small in comparison with the Nimrod project, the aircraft are cheap , parts are cheap and Netjets is paying a large part of the cost of the airfield.

The Nimrod is hand built , packed with very costly kit and takes a lot of people to fly and maintain it.

So all in all I dont think selling the Northolt operation would pay for 2% of the Nimrod operation.

That is not to say that I don't think scrapping the Nimrod was a very silly thing to do.
A and C is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 09:28
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bin Northolt ...
Good God man! Don't you know that Northolt is home to HQ RAF Music Services and it's ever-expanding 'Musician's Uniform Design and Embellishment Section' ? How can we expect piccolo players to carry more gold braid than an Air Marshal if we do away with such important establishments!
Ray Dahvectac is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 09:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Plus Northolt is probably the only RAF Airfield to run a profit/ break even due to all the private customers wanting to get to London in their private jets and not wanting to brave Heathrow/ Gatwick.
kharmael is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 09:34
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Winco

So you wish to see the end of emergency Casualty Evacuation for premature babies born overseas to Military Families - coupled with an end to Compassionate Evacuation for Serving Personnel overseas to enable them to visit dying loved ones before it is too late? In the 14 years I served on 32 these were regular occurrences. Is this a price worth paying to keep what is basically a 58 year old airframe design in operation for a few more years?
cazatou is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 10:09
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the heathen lands
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Cazatou
"So you wish to see the end of emergency Casualty Evacuation for premature babies born overseas to Military Families - coupled with an end to Compassionate Evacuation for Serving Personnel overseas to enable them to visit dying loved ones before it is too late? In the 14 years I served on 32 these were regular occurrences. Is this a price worth paying to keep what is basically a 58 year old airframe design in operation for a few more years?"

is there no other platorm - C-130/A-400M/C-17/VC-10/Tristar/CH-47/Merlin - that can perform these roles?

can - and i ask because i don't know - the platforms on 32(TR) drop into Bastion to bring the unfortunate Cpl Goodbloke back to Newcastle to be with his dying mum, and do we really send the families of service personnel to areas where premature babycare doesn't exist?

do we really need - given the less than palatable other options available - to retain what apears to be a very much 'one-trick pony' platform, and not one with unique capabilities - at the expense of a single GR4, or Frigate, or ASTOR, or a Bay class landing ship?
cokecan is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 11:32
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Big Blue House
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those of you who are actually in the forces and actually deploy would know that 32 Sqn's main role is operational flying, both Iraq and Afghan (that includes Bastion). There is a quote kicking around, I think from CJO, stating that a 125 trip (bearing in mind that this could be to any airfield at short notice) can save up to 3 weeks of negotiations. Imagine a C130 doing these trips; they are stretched enough as it is without leaving troops/freight behind to move our leaders around.

The jets are paid for, Northolt makes a profit and I think you'll find the few million that may have been saved (although I'm not convinced it would save anything ref. T&S, chartering aircraft, using C130/C17) is a drop in the ocean compared to the BILLIONS needed for Nimrod?

thebarrel is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 11:45
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,795
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Quite so. The days of corgi-chauffering and flying Air Miles Andy between parties various are long one.

Nevertheless, I still feel that we should have a proper 'Head of State' aeroplane, just as France, Germany and other major European nations have.
BEagle is online now  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 12:23
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah but Mr Barrel??

The Nimrod money has already been spent. So NOT finishing the bloody project we have completely wasted the Billions and lost LRMPA Brilliant.

Now that is
alwayzinit is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 12:35
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Big Blue House
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Indeed. But that's a different argument (and I for one don't condone the decision). But suggesting closing Northolt and 32 will pay for the through life cost...?
thebarrel is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 12:37
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BEagle

re the "Head of State" aircraft - are you sure it is not being delivered direct to Mr Brown?
cazatou is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 16:13
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Poole
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
32 Sqn will withdraw all its A109 rotary assets APR 11 and funding is only secure for the fixed wing assets until 2015, when the next SDSR is due.
standrews is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 17:30
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the same note the Red Arrows, the other night on the BBC One Show they were giving a jolly to some fat bloke reporter bigging them up, great I know its only 9 million a year or whatever small costs they carry but 9 million can buy a lot of equipment for the guys on the ground. That is what this SDSR is about is it not. Saving at all corners of defence and saving lives, not recruitment as its pretty obvious now we dont need numbers as we are loosing 9000 people, a third of our strength.
RumPunch is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 18:05
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London Village
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why does the plight of the Nimrod, as sad as it is, have to appear in almost every thread on this forum.
Redcarpet is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 18:50
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,795
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Why does the plight of the Nimrod, as sad as it is, have to appear in almost every thread on this forum?
Because anyone with even half a brain cell is absolutely livid about the loss of such a crucial national capability, perhaps?
BEagle is online now  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 19:31
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: west lancs uk
Age: 76
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The sad thing is that, though I left in 75, people I work with ask me how can it make sense that we will not have a real maritime capability
chopd95 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 21:50
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philippines
Age: 81
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quite so. The days of corgi-chauffering and flying Air Miles Andy between parties various are long one.

Nevertheless, I still feel that we should have a proper 'Head of State' aeroplane, just as France, Germany and other major European nations have.

Totally 100% agree
Q-RTF-X is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2010, 23:46
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"a proper 'Head of State' aeroplane" -

How about a Nimrod? I believe there's a few airframes in Cheshire that are looking for a home. New engines, wings, the works. All paid for too.

Rip out the expensive electronics down the back, whack in a few comfy seats and you're golden.
Roadster280 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2010, 03:48
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
9 million can buy a lot of equipment for the guys on the ground
Like what that isn't being bought already? £9m isn't very much in procuring and supporting any piece of equipment.
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2010, 07:09
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cazatou
"So you wish to see the end of emergency Casualty Evacuation for premature babies born overseas to Military Families - coupled with an end to Compassionate Evacuation for Serving Personnel overseas to enable them to visit dying loved ones before it is too late? In the 14 years I served on 32 these were regular occurrences. Is this a price worth paying to keep what is basically a 58 year old airframe design in operation for a few more years?"

Your comments are simply not worthy of comment other than to suggest you grow up a little bit and stop being so bl00dy stupid! If you are now saying that bthe CURRENT role of 32 Sqn is CASEVAC and COMP cases, then fine. I was unaware that we had a dedicated squadron undertaking that role. As has been pointed out, there are many other platforms doing just that role and I can't see a 125 being that good for the job either.

Anyway, I am aware of the civilian traffic using Northolt, and that kind of highlights the point that, in these cash-strapped times, we could sell of Northolt for a huge sum of money and begin to put things right on the old MPA front.

BEagle - 100% agree my dear chap.

Regards
Winco
Winco is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.