Government could pay £75m for exclusive use of charter aircraft

Lee, I’m far from an expert on this but getting older I do see patterns, while I can’t see what’s going to ‘banana skin’ I’m pretty sure that there will be something, its the way of things. We seem to be in a cycle of boom and bust despite however many times we’ve been told that it won’t happen so the ‘its not real debt, we owe ourselves’ does scare me.

Why does it scare you? What happened is the the government needed money so they simply printed some. The only danger is that as more money exists in the system then it is possible that more is spent by the public which can potentially increase inflation. However as there are other downward pressures in inflation at the moment it is not something to be worried about. What is worrying is the Government’s seemingly lying about it in an effort to increase taxes or make cuts. The worry is their motives for doing such a thing when there is no need.

“Why does it scare you?”

“The only danger is that as more money exists in the system then it is possible that more is spent by the public which can potentially increase inflation.”

There’s one for starters.

“What is worrying is the Government’s seemingly lying about it in an effort to increase taxes or make cuts.”

There’s another one.

I don’t need to fully understand how economics works to know that we have boom and bust’s. I’ve been around long enough to have been told that this was a thing of the past, only for it to happen again. Using an extreme example, didn’t Greece put a tax on everyone who owned a certain amount when they went to rat shit ? Loads of reasons to be fearful about how this country runs its finances/economy.

There if there are other internal issues threatening the economy then we can simply print more money. If inflation starts to increase too much then money can gradually be removed from the economy. External issues like Brexit are different matter. It is not quite as easy to fix those by printing money (although that could help a bit). I agree that there are reasons to be worried. Not really by the covid debt though. We out to be printing a load more money to pay for changes to combat climate change as that is a far bigger issue than covid ever was. Although even with that it would be cheaper to simply stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry. As the renewables industry is subsidised to help it compete with the fossil fuel industry it would mean that most of that could also stop and the saving could then be spent on climate change policies. The housing market and inequality in the UK are the main economic issues we need to sort out. But the people in Government have too much to lose by fixing those issues.

Hmm not so sure. Argentina was one of the world’s top economies, its currency was one of the most traded in the early part of the 20th century.The notion that powerful economies can’t fail has been proved wrong. Currency is valued as anything is more desirable it is the higher the value. If your theory is correct then why didn’t Britain just print money instead of taking an IMF loan in 1976 or print money to pay off Ww2 debt. The USSR could have won the Cold War by just printing money to fund their internal weapons programs. If the solution was just print more all developed nations would have the presses running full chat. Surely if printing more was a flawless solution the Tories would have just done that and lowered taxes, guaranteed vote winner I’d say. Something is telling me there’s a flaw in the plan somewhere 🙂

For one thing, it is a relatively new solution that I think has come from the more detached essence of currency compared to 50 or so years ago. Currency really is no longer a real thing as such and is essentially made up. It has not always been that way. I also never said large economies can not fail. I have said that printing money is a solution to some internal issues not external ones. Then there is the overall state of the economy when you choose to inject printed money. If you are stable then things are fine, if you are not stable then it is possible you can destabilise even more. It is like building a tall building. If you have good foundations you can add more floors, if you have weak foundations then if you add extra floors your tower will collapse. Russia during the cold war had a very fragile economy. Millions were starving and huge parts of the country were ignored in favour of spending on defence. There was little point in printing money as the currency was almost worthless. They effectively achieved the same goal by controlling wages so that they barely had to pay anyone.

Russia certainly does print money now, although it is mostly in order to enrich the elite.

They might have saved their economy through such measures if anyone in Greece actually paid their taxes…

Silver mate, golds a bit rich for my blood but lovely shiny silver coins in my safe. £12 pounds an ounce coin when I got em all now at around £30 a coin happy days.

Agree. I think the cost is the issue for many not the need.

Robert, I’m a well travelled boy ye ken, I’ve even been out of Fife a couple of times.  😂 

I’m not sure wanting better than we have in our politicians is a bad thing is it ? Our political system is on the older side and we have some stuff that doesn’t exactly scream modern democracy. Can I assume that you’re completely content and wouldn’t change a thing,

Can I also assume that you don’t like me ‘moaning’ about it and that’s what’s ‘triggering’ you ? Its one of the perks of living in a modern semi democratic First World country and I’m not afraid to use it.  😉 

As for more than one jet, we do now (or at least recently did) and I’m cool with it, I want value for money though and I’m not entirely sure spunking 75 mil on renting a jet for a couple of years is money well spent after making a big deal of converting one of the tankers.

Doesn’t seem to be much you don’t moan about pal 😄. Things can always be better, but we do have it pretty cushy in our green and pleasant land, and we all take a hell of a lot for granted. 75M is a big number, but really it’s pittance in spending terms. And none of us know the details behind the agreement. And I certainly don’t buy the opinions of some that it’s MP’s doing pals favours. It just seems lately that no matter the subject, to many look for the negative angle, even when it’s a positive defence news story. I imagine what we spend on VIP transport is nothing compared to what it costs the Americans. Or even the rich Middle Eastern nations.

“even when it’s a positive defence news story”

Sorry Robert, with the best will in the world, how is this a positive defence story ?? As for hypothetically comparing what we spend to either the US or the playboy Middle East boys, hardly a fair comparison, now if you’d said Germany, Japan or the the like then you might have some validity.

At least in my view, I mainly ‘moan’ about what I perceive as vainglorious projects like the ‘National’ yacht or in this case spunking millions on a 2 year lease and paint job. I’d be happier to either buy a second hand one or even convert a second tanker, both seem more cost effective.

You’re maybe focusing on this as you maybe have no problem with either. I’m guessing we come from different angles, no bad thing, nothing worse than a ‘jerk circle’ on a site. I promise you though, despite what you see as my negativity, I’m more than content to live in our little corner of the globe and play an active part in local community stuff. I am cynical about our political class though, its a career now for far too many of them and they’re there for themselves and their parties before those they’re supposed to represent.

It’s a 5 year deal Andy. 5 years.

My spider senses detect an article edit then. There have been quite a few of us quoting 2 years so we must have got that from somewhere after reading the article.

The Germans are currently in the process of purchasing and fitting out, for VIP use, three brand new Airbus A350-900 airliners. Total spend must be many many hundreds of million Euros! Japan flies Boeing 747s. The UK VIP transport service is remarkably efficient in comparison.

A Good dictator is better than bad democracy. 🙂 Back on topic this looks like a poor deal there’s literally 1000s of jets laid up and we appear to have sign the worse wet lease in history.

“A Good dictator is better than bad democracy.”

There’s a lot in that, a ‘benign’ ruler who doesn’t have to worry about the ‘niff, naff and trivia’ of keeping everyone happy is probably more effective. The problem comes when this ‘all singing, all dancing’ ruler either dies or starts to decline and those who maybe aren’t so noble in intent circle to take over. Basically great in theory but crap in practice, at least in the long term. For me I’m leaning towards the whole democracy thing, at least we can get a say in whichever temporary ruler we get. Its the least worst for me, especially in the more enlightened corners of the planet. And we still get to debate it at least.

Certainly not against democracy but when you get hung parliaments and a minority hold the balance it all goes pear shape. We saw this with the last parliament nothing got done. I think this is why bojo won because people were fed up with too much democracy. I can’t think of another reason why he won :).

I think the size of the Tory victory was a shock but I think Corbyn & Co. had a big part to play in that, whether you wanted Brexit or not, the Tories were the only party that was going to carry out the ‘will of the people’ on it.

I can’t see a decent opposition to the Tories for a long while and that’s not good for democracy either.

Well said, they are quick to slag them off but nearly every country I can name is far worse

For me the problem is more that fact we have a two party system in which one party managed to make itself unelectable for your average social democratic type person ( your average centre/left of centre voter). Which means that functionality the party in power knows it can get away with more out there agenda. Being a bit of a small c conservative, I don’t like governments that are radical ( no one gets hurt by slow and steady and weak governments).

Pay the penalties and it will likely pay off in the long run. The problem is that the Government have been handing out new PFI contracts. Those are not the fault of Blair…

Expand the “unfair contract act” of 1977 to include PFI (& big tech contracts).

So how crippling would it be? Currently our Military is crippled by the contract. So tear it up and pay the penalties.

I would probably agree Lee, we would be better off in the long run by buying the 14 aircraft outright and having the full bells and whistles boom MRR Airbus conversion.

We might well be in flight refuelling a lot of UCAS’s in the future as well as manned assets, so the RAF tanking demand could well go up.

Plus trading costs for a new type, engineering costs, parts stock pile, all the assessments that have to be done. It makes me laugh when people just say “buy 5 of these” the long term costs can be 5 times platform costs. Not so cheap then

It certainly isn’t cheap Andy 👍

Just a pity the same logic doesn’t stack when we’re talking about the ‘£250 million yacht’.

I know you don’t agree, but I think it’s worth a shot. A floating embassy for the 21st century. And brand Britain is a winner overseas. If it helps secure new deals that keeps folks in jobs back home, or new jobs, then it could be worth every penny. Time will tell.

I’m sure with the current state global aviation is in you pick up a couple of small-mid sized passenger jets for that much yes!

It’s slightly disingenuous to lump in all of the support costs given that there is an existing training and maintenance pipe-line for 32 Squadron and it’s 4 BAE 146’s which is being de facto replaced. Of course the comparative costs wouldn’t be exactly the same but it wouldn’t represent a whole new additional burden on the budget.

My point is that after 5 years we will have to fork out another £75 million or a similar figure to charter this kind of capability for longer when we could have either looked to bring some of the 5 extra Voyagers under the tanker contract into the core fleet or buy a couple of second hand passenger jets with low hours that could have remained in service for decades to come.

Is the US president riding Airforce One just ego then? Or the Chinese leadership? or Putin in his fleet of aircraft and helicopters

The Army’s required strength has been cut from 82;500 to 72;500. But the Army has only 77K, and we haven’t been at 82k for many years. So in real terms it’s 5k cut. The aircraft the RAF are loosing are Hawk T1 jet trainer’s, that haven’t been used for training for years. We use the newer Hawk Mk2 for traning now. Typhoon T1 is being retired early, because it is very expensive to update them, and the money saved is going to fund upgrades to the remaining Typhoon fleet. T1 Typhoons are not used for out of area operations.

correct its all about cutting the deadwood and stuff that cannot be updated

Some corrections needed to what you say.

The army is not just being cut to 72,500, the mid-term aim announced is 70,000. (That incidentally is a 33% cut in numbers from the 105,000 the Blair/Brown government left us, the Conservatives sure know how to cut public spending to the bone).

The army has not been at its full establishment strength for some years, for good reason – HMG’s decision to scrap recruiting offices and outsource to a hapless, hopeless private company and HMG’s stealth cuts to numbers.

I assume all realise that, when you create an infantry SIG or now a Rangers bn, you lose half a battalion in the process? The 280 or so officers, WOs and NCOs form the training cadre in the SIG, the 300 squaddies are farmed out to other battalions in the admin division, which keeps these units up to strength and means they don’t have to recruit 60 newbies each. So forming 4 SIGs means you have just cut the equivalent of 2 infantry bns, plus of course a matching proportion of CS and CSS supporting units. So hardly surprising that the army is not at full establishment, it’s not possible to be because the establishment figure has been quietly reduced.

The aircraft the RAF is losing is a much longer list than the two types you single out. If certain types are ageing/old, then they generally need replaced, but there are no replacements in HMG’s plan. The aircraft being lost or already cut are:

* 24 or 36 Typhoon F2
* 3 AEWs
* 5 sentinels
* 14 Hercules C-130J-30
* 9 Defenders
* 4 Islanders
* 6 BAe 146
* Likely 12 Chinooks
* Likely all 33 Gazelles
* 54 Hawk T1s
* 14 RN Hawk T1s
and I’ve probably overlooked others.

That’s up to 190 aircraft, pilots, maintenance troops cut at one savage stroke which is what, a third of the RAF?

The Typhoon F2s are not being withdrawn because they are ‘very expensive to update’, the RAF was not planning to update them. The oldest ones are under 20 years old and they remain a very potent interceptor, ideal for the Norwegian and North Seas and QRA for at least a decade to come. They are being cut simply to save money.

These cuts reduce the RAF to its smallest number of aircraft since the RFC was formed. We are down to just 139 fast jet combat aircraft now, under half the number France and Germany can field and down to 6th or maybe 7th in NATO Europe.

We should see all this for what it is – a major cut to two of the three services to save money, some iof which will be spent on new kit, some of it on political ploys like national yacht, paint jobs and VIP jets for the PM and chums, and some will no doubt be grabbed back by the Treasury.

Trying to minimise the impact as you do is just disingenuous.

No, it’s 72k. You didn’t really read my post did you. It’s 24 T1 Typhoons. And the money saved will fund the Mk2 AESA Radar upgrade and a host of other enhancements, which will be the most advanced AESA radar once in service anywhere in the world, and will add huge capability to the Typhoon fleet, and also enhance the capability of the F35. As the two types will heavily work together in the future. Sentinel cut was announced back in 2015. AEW was also 2015, with the E7 being purchased as a replacement. 14 additional Chinooks are being purchased. A new medium lift helicopter will be purchased to replace Puma. Already explained why Hawk is going. Hawk T1 will remain In service with the Red Arrows until 2030. 22 Gazelles will also be replaced by the new medium lift helicopter and also the bell212. More F35B’s will be ordered, so that is a growing fleet. Loyal wingman is in development, 16 Protector UCAV’S have been purchased. 14 Hercules are being withdrawn in 2025, Atlas and C17 will absorb it’s tasking. More money is going in cyber capabilitys, UCAV’s, the Tempest project ect ect. P9 is still being delivered ect. New weapons are bring funded, SPEAR CAP 3, SPEAR EW, SPEAR 4, which is a Storm Shadow upgrade, and SPEAR 5 which is the Storm Shadow replacement. So basically, it’s out with the old, and in with the new. The investment is in the capability, not vast numbers of old aircraft just to look nice on a sqn wallchart. And Germany operates a fleet of 7 or 8 aircraft plus helicopters for the government VVIP role, all painted in a very pleasant Germany flag. So it’s ok for them, but not for us. Calling such things vanity projects, makes you sounds nieve and out of touch. All aircraft need painting, and the cost is covered in the contracts, regardless if it’s a Union Jack, or standard RAF air defence grey. And one last thing. No reduction in the RAF ‘s manned strength was announced in the defence review, same for the RN. And we don’t call them troops. They are pilots or ground trades. Aircrafts Men/Women.

And also, what would you do about it all then? add tens of billions to the defence budget? Because that isn’t going to happen is it, not with this government, or a Labour government.And they are 10 years away from being in office again. 🇬🇧

The 75M is over 5 year’s, and that’s a max figure, it could be less than that depending on how the aircraft are used. And it will be cheaper than the current operating costs of the very old BAE146 fleet. All aircraft need painting, and that is part of the contract regardless if it’s a union jack or standard RAF air defence grey. The yacht is worth a shot, and 250M is cheap for a vessel. If it helps bring in new jobs and contacts for UK plc, it could pay for it’s self many times over. Time will tell.

The defence cuts are so we can afford the 90Bn equipment programme over the 10 years. And get the kit we actually need for the future instead of holding on to old equipment designed to fight past conflicts. I don’t like cuts as much as the next guy, but it’s all for a reason. And the cost of defence will only get more expensive. And most nations add military pensions as part of the defence budget, so that was nothing new.

Sorry that’s utter bollox, I’m totally calling out that out. NAO review in 2013/14 showed an NHS spend of 6.7 Billion per annum, with the five year forward view estimates of costs in management of cancer standing at around 13 billion for 2021.

I’ve been following and involved in defence for over 20 year’s. Nothing surprises me. And you didn’t answer my question about what you would suggest to sort it all out? You just come across as very anti Great Britain Karl.

Likewise its like supa tanker onion. slow to turn and stop and has so many layers

Yes as until a party invites enough immigrants into the country, and gives them free everything.
no party is going to get near beating the torries.

Labour are finished and Liberals abandoned their own policies and agenda they help put in place when there shared the tea room.

Happy to vote Tory @ General but Voted Liberal at the local

The tabloid speak comes for guys like you, and a few other new names to this site who seem hell bent on criticising every move, with some very uninformed opinions. It’s not about defending the Conservatives, as ex RN I don’t like cuts as much as the next guy. But many of the decisions made are for legitimate reasons and for long term planning. The UK Armed Force’s are still the most powerful in Europe by some margin,and some very exciting capabilites are coming over the next few year’s. It’s not all bad news. And Boris bashing just because we like the Union Jack on all of 3 aircraft doesn’t really wash.

I never suggested landing at Northolt. I was just pointing out the advertised price of a zero hour, new but stored, A330-200.

Indeed.
It matters not,
I’m not expecting a reply in any detail….

These posts are like drive by shootings. Throw mud, winge Tory this or that, and go back to annonyminity until the next time.

He’s one the new guys I was on about. Great post though mate, brought a smile to my mugshot 😃

Who are all the newbies? Think RB hit the nail on the head..