RAF: More money for Libya operations please

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Snoreador, Apr 4, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

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

  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. 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. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

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

  9. Love to see the size of it for a Tornado to take off from!
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Good point. What a shame the RAF chose to retain the wrong type of aircraft. The Fleet Air Arm would have kept the Harriers. At least the replacement carriers will get us back on track again.
  11. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    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.
  12. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    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. 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?