RAF only pays two to three times what it should

Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by BONNACON, May 11, 2012.

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. I love that they think this is somehow 'news'...
  2. PFI = Paying private companies three times as much as you could have done the job yourself for but somehow claiming that it saves you money.

    At some point we're going to fall into a massive debt blackhole when someone works out exactly how much we actually owe out on the PFI never never.
  3. Does that £150m include 27 years of running costs? Its hard to follow the numbers form the article. I mean, statistically, the PFI deal's likely to be a crock of shite but comparing apples & oranges doesn't prove it
  4. unfortuatly el tone had decided there was only cash via PFI we shoud surcharge the **** for every single bad deal he did.
    for ffs the vc10s and tristars should have been put out to grass after granby.

    pfi means they actually get the aircraft which may not be perfect but are a damm sight more usable than a study into an aircraft.
  5. It's what is says on the tin "Private Finance Initiative" so it's a clever idea to get finance, i.e. taxpayers money, into private hands, if it was about saving money it would be CCI - Cost Cutting initiative.

    The Engineer plant equipment in Germany used to be serviced by units and fixed by some old German contractor bloke in a van. When nothing was broke he didn't get paid.

    Now there are loads of blokes in suits, people in offices and blokes in covies all lording it up on the BFG net and working in encroachments. Some savings there then!
  6. CAS at the time - Sir Glenn Torpy - admitted to his staff in Main Building during an RAF Briefing that Air Tanker wasn't the cheapest way of getting new AT and AAR aircraft - it was the only way. The previous Adminsitration were in love with PFI (as were the Tories in the 1990s) but 4 years ago when this PFI was signed off, there was simply insufficient capital to acquire the aircraft any other way.

    let's look at it another way:


    The Daily Heil can reveal today that there are thousands of hard working middle class families forced to pay many times the sale price on family homes. We can reveal that most buyers are forced to take on a mortgage which will see them paying for their homes several times over - over a period of 25 years!

    Kevin Stupid, of Walsall, says: I though I was paying GBP 150,000 for my damp, squalid 2 bedroomed terrace. I learn now that after 25 years, I will have paid over GBP300,000. it's a disagrace! Fukcing ripped off, I am.

    Josh Rangerover-Smythe, of Eton ffinancial Services (Bahamas) Ltd, said 'common householders lack the negotiation skills to get a good deal when buying estates (sorry, small, squalid houses). The should remember that 'Cash is King', and should never be tied in to long-term financial arrangments like err, mortgages, unless it's like Uncle Quentin's Trust Fund that put me through prep and Cambridge.'

    Or am I being cynical?
  7. No that's being realistic. PFI is just that - someone else stumps up the cash (that you don't have) and over many years you pay back two or three times what you "borrow".
  8. The mortgage analogy doesn't really work though, as we won't even own the aircraft at the end of it.
  9. True, we won't own them (like Shrivenham and MB then?)but at least we won't be saddled with the upkeep of decades old aircraft such as the VC-10, Tri*, C130H...I could go on.
  10. It's a bit like living permanently in a hotel to avoid having to pay for DIY though...
    • Like Like x 1
  11. And it never occurred to Torpy, the chief fanboi of the Typhoon, to cancel just 10 of his new wizzy wonders and use the money to buy the tankers outright complete with all the proper military tanker bells and whistles from EADS?

    Just like the Navy is now utterly up shit creek surface ships wise thanks to a fanatical desire to get two carriers at any cost, the RAF got itself in the same place thanks to it's fanatical desire to buy 232 Typhoons at any cost to the rest of the service.
  12. Its a misleading figure. The cost quoted for the project is for the entire running costs for the fleet of aircraft, and a contractually guranteed level of availability for the next 25 years or so. For the BBC to make its costs meaningful, it would need to turn around and work out the entire cost from start to finish of buying, equipping, training, operating, maintaining and delivering a specified level of capability for the life of the project.
    I genuinely dont know what the difference would be, but I suggest its not the situation the BBC is making it out to be.

    Also worth noting that on PPRUNE, they are suggesting that A330s actually cost a lot closer to £150M anyway off the shelf...
  13. Is that a figure for proper OTS military tankers or converted airliners like we're getting?