RAF: More money for Libya operations please

S

Snoreador

Guest
#1
BBC News - RAF planning for six months in Libya, says chief

RAF planning for six months in Libya, says chief
Tornado GR4 aircraft taking off from RAF Marham Sir Stephen Dalton expects operations over Libya to last months, rather than weeks

The RAF is planning on the basis that operations over Libya will last at least six months, its chief has said.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton warned the service would need "genuine increases" in its budget to run the range of operations ministers demand.

He told the Guardian that without more investment, the RAF would struggle to maintain levels of capabilities.

The Army and Royal Navy will set out details later of the first wave of job losses from October's defence review.

Ministers have denied the review is simply a "cost-saving exercise".
 
#2
Unlimited supplies of money form the sinews of war. That's what the Romans said 2000 years ago. Nothing has changed.



I could be facetious and say that all that hi tech gear costs a bomb.
All right I'm going.
 
#3
How about dropping grenades from the Red Arrows? Got to justify their existence somehow!
 
#4
How about dropping grenades from the Red Arrows? Got to justify their existence somehow!
 
#5
It's always refreshing to see something new and fundamentally different in the news. "Fast jet jockey says 'Give us more money for shiny new supersonic penis extensions.'" And we really expected anything else?

At least there are 5* hotels in Italy for the aircrew ...
 
#6
RAF: More money for Libya operations please
Never mind more money, they need more planes, bring back the harriers!
 
#7
If only we could move the airfield 500 nm closer to Libya to reduce transit time, airframe hours, fuel consumption, maintenance load, etc., (thereby improving sortie generation) and provide in situ HQ facilities, hangar space, workshops, our own (cheaper) fuel and other logistic support including service accommodation & victualling.

How about an aircraft carrier?
 
#8
If only we could move the airfield 500 nm closer to Libya to reduce transit time, airframe hours, fuel consumption, maintenance load, etc., (thereby improving sortie generation) and provide in situ HQ facilities, hangar space, workshops, our own (cheaper) fuel and other logistic support including service accommodation & victualling.

How about an aircraft carrier?
Don't be silly...we don't need one of them till 2020...didn't you read the SDSR?

S_R
 
#9
If only we could move the airfield 500 nm closer to Libya to reduce transit time, airframe hours, fuel consumption, maintenance load, etc., (thereby improving sortie generation) and provide in situ HQ facilities, hangar space, workshops, our own (cheaper) fuel and other logistic support including service accommodation & victualling.

How about an aircraft carrier?
Love to see the size of it for a Tornado to take off from!
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#11
Has anyone thought of going off on less half cocked military expeditions in future rather than asking for more money? If the country can't afford to have 8 aircraft go off and bomb bits of the Med then perhaps they shouldn't start things that can't be afforded.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#12
There was quite an interesting item on R4 as I was driving North on Friday evening on the subject of paying for the Libyan Op.

Whoever the 'expert' was he was saying that it should not actually cost that much. Most of the costs are sunk costs anyway. The RAF and the Navy use fuel and ordnance whilst going about their normal daily training business. They won't be using a lot more in Libya. Additional costs will only occur with stuff that is replaced out of the normal procurement cycle.

He also said the accountants would then enter into a squabble where the RAF/Navy would try and charge every drop of fuel, round fired, hours flown etc outside of the Defence Budget and the treasury will try and get the MoD to pay for the lot.

I don't know if he is correct or not.

Still you can hardly blame the RAF for trying it on. Personally I wish they would present a united front. I think the defence of the realm is much to important to be left to chance and inter-service rivalry.
 
#13
How about giving them the money that the government will make from sacking soldiers, bless the new co-alition government..
 
#14
BA whilst the RAF does use fuel on a daily basis, the consumption of weapons is limited. During normal peace time training and exersizes, bombs will be either 28lb freefall type or the 4 Kg practice retard, or perhaps the 1000lb concrete bomb. All a good deal cheaper than the real thing. The air defence people get to fire one whole missile a year, the rest of the time its aquisition rounds or just an empty pylon. I have been out of touch too long to know what the smart weaponry costs that is being liberally spread around, but one thing for sure, it is not cheap and will exceed normal peace time budgets by a very long way. If HMG wants to fight yet another war, then that means more otherwise unplanned expenditure.
 
#15
There was quite an interesting item on R4 as I was driving North on Friday evening on the subject of paying for the Libyan Op....
I heard it too on 'More or Less' with Tim Harford. The speaker was Malcolm Chalmers of RUSI. Listen again on BBC iPlayer here from minute 17:48.

Somehow, I don't think rental of the Italian air base facilities and expenditure on locally purchased fuel plus COMAIR flights, food, accommodation, LOA, etc., for RAF aircrew and support personnel in situ can be regarded as 'sunk costs'. How many are deployed to maintain and operate 14 A/C for less than one sortie per aircraft per day - c.150 or is it even more?
 
#16
BA whilst the RAF does use fuel on a daily basis, the consumption of weapons is limited. During normal peace time training and exersizes, bombs will be either 28lb freefall type or the 4 Kg practice retard, or perhaps the 1000lb concrete bomb. All a good deal cheaper than the real thing. The air defence people get to fire one whole missile a year, the rest of the time its aquisition rounds or just an empty pylon. I have been out of touch too long to know what the smart weaponry costs that is being liberally spread around, but one thing for sure, it is not cheap and will exceed normal peace time budgets by a very long way. If HMG wants to fight yet another war, then that means more otherwise unplanned expenditure.
Not if they just drop the concrete ones all the time. It will save a fortune on the expensive smart weapons and also there will not be so much collatoral damage if they end up dropping it in the wrong place.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#17
BA whilst the RAF does use fuel on a daily basis, the consumption of weapons is limited. During normal peace time training and exersizes, bombs will be either 28lb freefall type or the 4 Kg practice retard, or perhaps the 1000lb concrete bomb. All a good deal cheaper than the real thing. The air defence people get to fire one whole missile a year, the rest of the time its aquisition rounds or just an empty pylon. I have been out of touch too long to know what the smart weaponry costs that is being liberally spread around, but one thing for sure, it is not cheap and will exceed normal peace time budgets by a very long way. If HMG wants to fight yet another war, then that means more otherwise unplanned expenditure.
I understand that there will be additional costs - what the 'expert' was suggesting that whilst smart ordnance is expensive to buy, £0.5 million for a Tomahawk cruise, the test of additional cost is whether they are replaced outside the normal procurement cycle. The suggestion was that in the short term they won't be. Of course if the Op goes on then bombs and bullets will have to be replaced.
 
#18
Whoever the 'expert' was he was saying that it should not actually cost that much. Most of the costs are sunk costs anyway. The RAF and the Navy use fuel and ordnance whilst going about their normal daily training business. They won't be using a lot more in Libya. Additional costs will only occur with stuff that is replaced out of the normal procurement cycle.
That "some" of the flying costs "may" merely displace training costs is an idea I reached, but couldnt find any real information one way or the other.
The ordance isnt expended during training on a regular basis, however, its quite unlikley we will order an replacement Storm Shadows in the next few weeks, or even years, to replace those expended.
We should still have some 800 in storage.

I'd be quite interested if anyone has some information on the flight time displacement idea.

He also said the accountants would then enter into a squabble where the RAF/Navy would try and charge every drop of fuel, round fired, hours flown etc outside of the Defence Budget and the treasury will try and get the MoD to pay for the lot.
The Afghanistan campaign is funded from the Treasurey Reserve, rather than the MoD budget. In Theory
However thats a polite fiction,and the MoD budget is just cut to fund the Treasurey Reserve Budget, which goes on to fund the Afghanistan War, so the MoD doesnt have to...
 
#20
If only we could move the airfield 500 nm closer to Libya to reduce transit time, airframe hours, fuel consumption, maintenance load, etc., (thereby improving sortie generation) and provide in situ HQ facilities, hangar space, workshops, our own (cheaper) fuel and other logistic support including service accommodation & victualling.

How about an aircraft carrier?
They'll be along in 2016 and 2018. Better late than never. So, for now, we'll be seeing aircraft flying out of Italy and elsewhere.

Good point. What a shame the RAF chose to retain the wrong type of aircraft. The Fleet Air Arm would have kept the Harriers.
The Fleet Air Arm and the Navy could have kept the Harriers and the CVS's but chose not to as it would have meant even bigger hits to the escorts and other fleets.

Of course, there is always the fantasist option of cutting the NHS budget to pay for warships.
 

Latest Threads

Top