Sunday Times- RAF preparing to cut 10,000 staff.

RedCoat2009 said:
Scrapping the RAF does not equal no aircraft. We merely transfer the mission to those more capable: The RNAS for all fast jet ops, and the Army Air Corps get all the helicopters.

For strat and tac airlift, we place that mission in the hands of the RN. The do long range deployment by sea, air should be fairly easy to adapt.

Face it, the job will get do, more efficiently, and a lot cheaper as well.

1. What evidence do you base for FLEET to be more capable of running an air campaign than AIR?

2. If your logic is that long range deployment by sea could adapt to doing air, why would you not want the RN to be subsumed by the RAF- if it is so easy to adapt in fact if you are planning a campaign based on 600kt assets getting on target with millisecond precision surely you would find it easy to get a 40kt destroyer to roughly the right spot on the ocean easier than vice versa?

your profile name is appropriate for someone with a 19th century grasp of modern combined joint ops.
 
Terikdag:

And someone else mentioned the cost of Typhoons being £40 million. The Austrians appear to have paid €2bn, for 18 aircraft (see 3rd paragraph) - which is about €110 m a pop. Or about £100 million each, as I said.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH0309/FR0309d.htm

You didn't read all of that article, did you? Particularly not the bit which tells you the 'flyaway cost' of 62.9m Euros per aircraft? (a cost, by the by, which went up a bit because the new Austrian government declared it would cancel the whole buy, found that it couldn't for contractual reasons, added delay into the programme and sent the unit cost per airframe up by reducing the overall buy). £40m is too low, but the cost per airframe is nowhere near the £100m you claim - as a quick study of NAO project reports would also reveal.
 
Archimedes said:
Terikdag:

And someone else mentioned the cost of Typhoons being £40 million. The Austrians appear to have paid €2bn, for 18 aircraft (see 3rd paragraph) - which is about €110 m a pop. Or about £100 million each, as I said.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH0309/FR0309d.htm

You didn't read all of that article, did you? Particularly not the bit which tells you the 'flyaway cost' of 62.9m Euros per aircraft? (a cost, by the by, which went up a bit because the new Austrian government declared it would cancel the whole buy, found that it couldn't for contractual reasons, added delay into the programme and sent the unit cost per airframe up by reducing the overall buy). £40m is too low, but the cost per airframe is nowhere near the £100m you claim - as a quick study of NAO project reports would also reveal.


No, you read it again.

A flyaway price is not a flyaway price if it does not include "aircraft cannon and weapons stations, training for pilots and technical staff, logistics, some maintenance and a simulator." All commercial aircraft quotes for new fleets include ground and pilot training (but perhaps not a simulator).

I would like to see this "flyaway price" if the pilots have not had any training - and likewise a weapons platform is not a weapons platform if it has no weapons stations. (And even the original quote was €75 m per airframe.)

Admit it. However good the Typhoon is, it is a Farrari when the nation can only afford a Mondeo. The RAF should have recognised this long ago and invested in Grippen and Hawks and new-build Harriers. Not the best of fleets, I grant you, but all we can afford after Brown has bankrupted the nation.


.
 
The reality is that the price of a Typhoon is a very closely guarded commercial secret.

Different nations will have different requirements, its like asking for a price of a Ford Focus, impossible to know unless you know which model, which extras, does it include a servicing pack etc

Things get even more complicated if you include development costs, foreign sales (on which the development nations get a cut) and workshare tax revenue (corporation tax, private tax, VAT etc)

In short, its a hideously complex thing to nail down and isnt helped by Typhoon being the only major project in the various NAO reports that has it's costs specifically excluded because of commercial issues
 
Nowt wrong with a new build Harrier.

There are few planes that can match its capabilites, even if it has short legs and a smaller payload in VTOL.
 
For heaven's sake, Terikdag.

The article states that the flyaway cost of the airframe is 62.9m Euros.

That doesn't fit your argument now, so you're telling us instead that the author of the article doesn't understand flyaway cost. In which case why on earth we should take any of the other figures there seriously?

The cost of £100m is not the cost recognised by the National Audit Office. But what would they know?

(The NAO has produced projected unit costs for it in the past, commercial issues notwithstanding).


The RAF should have recognised this long ago and invested in Grippen and Hawks and new-build Harriers. Not the best of fleets, I grant you, but all we can afford after Brown has bankrupted the nation.

Problem here is that Brown hadn't bankrupted the nation when the RAF was making the procurement choices - you are, in effect, criticising the RAF and the last Conservative government for not anticipating the credit crunch when they signed up to the Typhoon programme.

And can we stop this fascination with the Hawk? As has been noted multiple times, even in its latest incarnation, it would be of very little utility in current operations - and it certainly wouldn't have been if the RAF were now operating 1994/95 vintage Hawk 200s.
 

RedCoat2009

Old-Salt
Vladimir_Ilyich_Crab said:
RedCoat2009 said:
Scrapping the RAF does not equal no aircraft. We merely transfer the mission to those more capable: The RNAS for all fast jet ops, and the Army Air Corps get all the helicopters.

For strat and tac airlift, we place that mission in the hands of the RN. The do long range deployment by sea, air should be fairly easy to adapt.

Face it, the job will get do, more efficiently, and a lot cheaper as well.

1. What evidence do you base for FLEET to be more capable of running an air campaign than AIR?

2. If your logic is that long range deployment by sea could adapt to doing air, why would you not want the RN to be subsumed by the RAF- if it is so easy to adapt in fact if you are planning a campaign based on 600kt assets getting on target with millisecond precision surely you would find it easy to get a 40kt destroyer to roughly the right spot on the ocean easier than vice versa?

your profile name is appropriate for someone with a 19th century grasp of modern combined joint ops.

Proudly so, thanks!
 
Archimedes said:
For heaven's sake, Terikdag.

The article states that the flyaway cost of the airframe is 62.9m Euros.

Well if you could fly it away without being trained, I would be impressed. Its like Ryanair saying your ticket price is 54p, until you add on the tax, baggage fees, handling fees, insurance, credit card fee, seat fee, toilet fee, ticket fee. Lifejacket? Woa, that'll be extra sir. Safety?? Come, come now sir, you will have to pay a supplement for that...

So that will be 54p for the flight and £138 for the extras. Kerrrchingg...



Archimedes said:
Problem here is that Brown hadn't bankrupted the nation when the RAF was making the procurement choices - you are, in effect, criticising the RAF and the last Conservative government for not anticipating the credit crunch when they signed up to the Typhoon programme.

The first Typhoons did not come into service until 6 years after Brown was in government. The writing was on the wall, and the RAF should have cut their losses and run.



Archimedes said:
And can we stop this fascination with the Hawk? As has been noted multiple times, even in its latest incarnation, it would be of very little utility in current operations - and it certainly wouldn't have been if the RAF were now operating 1994/95 vintage Hawk 200s.

It happens to be cheap, capable, locally produced airframe - that can do air-defence, anti-shipping and ground attack (especially in its 21st century guise). And if they could hang precision guided on an old Buccaneer, I am sure they could do so with Hawk. And someone said that the Hawk cannot do air-refueling. Well, the Malaysian's can

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Hawk#Hawk_200

Are Grippen and Hawk good as Typhoon? Of course not. But you would have a more credible airforce with 1,000 Grippens and Hawks than a couple of hundred Typhoons.


.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
tekirdag said:
Are Grippen and Hawk good as Typhoon? Of course not. But you would have a more credible airforce with 1,000 Grippens and Hawks than a couple of hundred Typhoons.

And where are the pilots going to come from?

Not to mention the cost of all that flying pay!
 
B

blindfire

Guest
Majorpain said:
tekirdag said:
Are Grippen and Hawk good as Typhoon? Of course not. But you would have a more credible airforce with 1,000 Grippens and Hawks than a couple of hundred Typhoons.

And where are the pilots going to come from?

Not to mention the cost of all that flying pay!

why they'll just cull the RN :D
 

metimmee

Old-Salt
tekirdag said:
Are Grippen and Hawk good as Typhoon? Of course not. But you would have a more credible airforce with 1,000 Grippens and Hawks than a couple of hundred Typhoons.


.
The only man on this thread who is advocating increasing RAF numbers (to service the jets etc.), thank you sir!
 
spaz said:
Yeah wait until it comes our way, I heard a figure much higher than the alleged 10K for the RAF, being bandied about today.
Amongst all the Inter-Service boll0cks being spouted on this thread, what was the number being bandied about? 8O

All 3 Services should start fighting the penny pinching scum that are politicians rather than each other!
 
metimmee said:
tekirdag said:
Are Grippen and Hawk good as Typhoon? Of course not. But you would have a more credible airforce with 1,000 Grippens and Hawks than a couple of hundred Typhoons.


.


The only man on this thread who is advocating increasing RAF numbers (to service the jets etc.), thank you sir!


Read my previous posts.

The real cost of these aircraft is in the capital costs of these huge projects, not the day-to-day running and servicing costs. My ball-park figure is the RAF can purchase and run 6 Hawks for every Typhoon - or 3-4 Grippens for every Typhoon.

Thus yes, you could increase the size of the RAF four-fold, if you purchased smaller aircraft and ensured that you did not increase non-aviation support staff in the same ratio (a mess could quadruple the number of meals for only a doubling of staff etc:) .



.
 
I think you will find that capital costs are generally dwarfed by running costs including spares, attrition, training, modifications etc etc over the life span of an aircraft which with those like the Typhoon is in decades. That said, newer aircraft like the Typhoon and A400 specifically have low maintenance written into the requirements early on and component consolidation also plays its part here.

The wider point about the procurement death spiral of all western equipments is fair enough though, Ray Mabus, the US Secretary for the Navy recently said

If we keep designing ever more exotic, ever more expensive ships, we’re going to unilaterally disarm

Its a quote that equally applies across the defence spectrum so the thrust of your argument is probably worth consideration.

However

The problem with your ball park costs though is that they are plucked out of your arrse.
 
metimmee said:
tekirdag said:
Are Grippen and Hawk good as Typhoon? Of course not. But you would have a more credible airforce with 1,000 Grippens and Hawks than a couple of hundred Typhoons.

.


The only man on this thread who is advocating increasing RAF numbers (to service the jets etc.), thank you sir!


Here is another of those big-ticket items that the RAF loves.

Purchase and running of 14 tanker aircraft for £13 billion over 20 years.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3621599.ece

That's £650 million a year income, for 14 aircraft that will operate perhaps 8 hrs a day on average.

In comparison, Easyjet receives 'funding' of about £2.4 bn a year for operating 181 aircraft, each of which operate for about 16 hours a day - every day except Xmas day.


So the back of an envelope calc is as follows:

Easy - £2,300 per a/c flying hour.
RAF - £15,900 per a/c flying hour.

Ok, so the RAF aircraft are larger, so let's double the Easy income, as if they were operating a larger aircraft. But remember that the RAF tankers do not do as many landings (which wears out airframes), and do not pay passenger tax or landing fees.)

Easy - £4,600 per a/c flying hour.
RAF - £15,900 per a/c flying hour.


Perhaps you can see why the RAF is running out of money. Wrong aircraft, wrong contracts, costly management structure, and no control of costs.


.
 
tekirdag said:
Here is another of those big-ticket items that the RAF loves.

Purchase and running of 14 tanker aircraft for £13 billion over 20 years.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3621599.ece

The FSTA is NOT a purchase contract, it is one for services. The aircraft, hangars, maintenance and even crews will have very little to do with the RAF, except perhaps having having the same paint job. The numbers are irrelevant because they are what Air Tanker think they need to deliver the requirements, if they need more, then they have to get more.

As for comparing the business model of Easyjet with the RAF I only have one question...




Are you on crack?
 
meridian said:
I think you will find that capital costs are generally dwarfed by running costs including spares, attrition, training, modifications etc etc over the life span of an aircraft which with those like the Typhoon is in decades. That said, newer aircraft like the Typhoon and A400 specifically have low maintenance written into the requirements early on and component consolidation also plays its part here.

The wider point about the procurement death spiral of all western equipments is fair enough though, Ray Mabus, the US Secretary for the Navy recently said

If we keep designing ever more exotic, ever more expensive ships, we’re going to unilaterally disarm

Its a quote that equally applies across the defence spectrum so the thrust of your argument is probably worth consideration.

However

The problem with your ball park costs though is that they are plucked out of your arrse.


You might be right on the maintenance. Easyjet maintenance costs are 50% of aircraft costs (see page 5, but not all aircraft are on lease)
http://corporate.easyjet.com/en/inv...t-center/easyjet_interim_release_h1_fy07.ashx

Perhaps we should increase that maintenance cost to 100%, in lieu of military aircraft being more complex (but they don't fly half as much).

But that increase in maintenance does not alter the fact that you can run about 6 Hawks for every Typhoon.

Typhoon
Airframe £5m a year capital cost (20-year span)
Direct personnel x 10 £300,000
Spares £5m
Consumables £1.5m
Total £11.8 million

Hawk
Airframe £0.8m a year capital cost (20-year span)
Direct personnel x 7 £200,000
Spares £0.8m
Consumables £200,000
Total £2.0 million

The only thing I did not include was ordnance, as that is highly variable and as I understand it there is a top-up income from the government to cover these expendables during wars.


.
 
tekirdag said:
meridian said:
I think you will find that capital costs are generally dwarfed by running costs including spares, attrition, training, modifications etc etc over the life span of an aircraft which with those like the Typhoon is in decades. That said, newer aircraft like the Typhoon and A400 specifically have low maintenance written into the requirements early on and component consolidation also plays its part here.

The wider point about the procurement death spiral of all western equipments is fair enough though, Ray Mabus, the US Secretary for the Navy recently said

If we keep designing ever more exotic, ever more expensive ships, we’re going to unilaterally disarm

Its a quote that equally applies across the defence spectrum so the thrust of your argument is probably worth consideration.

However

The problem with your ball park costs though is that they are plucked out of your arrse.


You might be right on the maintenance. Easyjet maintenance costs are 50% of aircraft costs (see page 5, but not all aircraft are on lease)
http://corporate.easyjet.com/en/inv...t-center/easyjet_interim_release_h1_fy07.ashx

Perhaps we should increase that maintenance cost to 100%, in lieu of military aircraft being more complex (but they don't fly half as much).

But that increase in maintenance does not alter the fact that you can run about 6 Hawks for every Typhoon.

Typhoon
Airframe £5m a year capital cost (20-year span)
Direct personnel x 10 £300,000
Spares £5m
Consumables £1.5m
Total £11.8 million

Hawk
Airframe £0.8m a year capital cost (20-year span)
Direct personnel x 7 £200,000
Spares £0.8m
Consumables £200,000
Total £2.0 million

The only thing I did not include was ordnance, as that is highly variable and as I understand it there is a top-up income from the government to cover these expendables during wars.


.

But how much more capable is Typhoon than Hawk? I suppose it would be difficult to quantify this, but it can definitely carry a lot more ordnance a lot further- and has the electronics etc. to deliver it accurately and survive.
 
meridian said:
tekirdag said:
Here is another of those big-ticket items that the RAF loves.

Purchase and running of 14 tanker aircraft for £13 billion over 20 years.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3621599.ece

The FSTA is NOT a purchase contract, it is one for services. The aircraft, hangars, maintenance and even crews will have very little to do with the RAF, except perhaps having having the same paint job. The numbers are irrelevant because they are what Air Tanker think they need to deliver the requirements, if they need more, then they have to get more.

And so is Easyjet a 'service contract'. The Easyjet 'contract' also "includes aircraft, hangars, maintenance and even crews" (surprisingly enough, the aircraft don't run too well without crews). And Easyjet also has to pay for its airfields and government taxes.

Both of these 'contracts' (Easyjet and Tanker Fleet) run large aircraft as a complete business - the only difference is that Easy flies people instead of fuel.

What other differences are there?




meridian said:
As for comparing the business model of Easyjet with the RAF I only have one question...

Are you on crack?

In terms of a tanker fleet using modified civilian aircraft, what is the difference? Give me one. Security and defence will be an RAF role, not a Tanker Fleet role. So what are the differences?


.
 
LAIT said:
tally_target said:
Maybe the RAF Regiment could/should provide a Sqn to the Bde in Helmand as boots on the ground. I am sure they would relish the chance to prove to the army that they are good soldiers.

We did actually try that during the summer - the opposition came from the upper echelons at PJHQ. I don't disagree that the blokes themselves would have jumped at the chance.

Also anyone that thinks we should disband the RAF is a complete fool.

Completely agree.

Why? Have you any reasons for this belief?
 
Top