In this mornings Times Vince Cable MP said.
I fear that a lot of bad news about the public finances has been hidden and stored up for the new government. The skeletons are starting to fall out of the cupboard.
So the propaganda has already started; we will be able to somehow wriggle out of taking any responsibility for the UK’s massive public debt and the painful measures we are going to have to take by simply blaming ‘those big boys over there’
The thrust of the article is that Labour had hidden contracts from view, signed up for contracts just before the election to create a scorched earth that would make the Election winners incredibly unpopular and consign them to the electoral dustbin the next time.
Billions of pounds in public money was committed in the run-up to the election campaign in a deliberate strategy to boost Labour’s chances at the ballot box and sabotage the next government.
It goes on to list a number of these scorched earth contracts
The article then lists some of these so called ‘black holes’
The “black holes” that ministers have already unearthed include:
- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.
Now if those new ministers had bothered to read Think Defence they wouldn’t have been surprised, we covered the rush to splash the cash here and here.
One the FSTA, it has has been running for a couple of years, we covered it here, here , here and here
In our Future Defence Review we looked at it in a bit more detail and wondered if a straightforward purchase or availability contract was the more sensible solution to provide a cost effective and more relevant capability than what is actually being provided. What is being provided is a massive leap forward compared with the ‘held together with blood, sweat and tears’ solution that we have now but it will still be short in many areas.
It might be cheap because we can spread the cost out over the 27 year term, but it is definitely not value for money.
Liam Fox MP, now Secretary of State for Defence recently stated it was
one of the most absurd procurement decisions taken by this Labour government
I happen to agree with Mr Fox, but to say it has been unearthed is rather ridiculous.
Or would that perhaps be a deliberate act from tricky politicians.
The same goes for the SAR helicopters. Surely the most obvious choice would be ghe Merlin NOT the S92!
The merlin is a far superior helicopter and there will be a steady strea
of qualified pilots.
We could transfer the 28 HC3/3a from the RAF/RM and get new aircraft with folding blades etc for the RM
Just when you think the FSTA could not be any worse, how’s this news (gleamed from this month’s copy of Airforces).
The editorial examines the costs of providing, essentually nine tankers (5 are kept in civvy configuration and leased out to the commercial sector). The costs based on £450 million a year equate to a per hour cost to the RAF of….. Wait for it £77,580. The costs quoted from Omega Aircraft Refueliing Services costs would be in the order of £12,000 per hour (85% cheaper).
Now for the real sting in the tale and I will quote the text from the article
“the FSTA contract mandates AirTanker to be the sole supplier of tankers for RAF use from the time the FSRA service starts – which is why the RAF us not taking up the AAR option on its a400M aircraft”
WHAT!!!!
So the RAF will never be able to refuel the Merlin HC3/3a or Chinooks as they will not be able to fit refuelling equipment to the C130s or the A400M or any other aircraft.
It does not mention if AirTanker could offer such a facility but that would be even more. The £12.3 billion RIPOFF must be stopped and stopped PDQ!!!
Discuss….
Just to put a cherry on top Phil
FSTA will not be fitted with a boom, so that rules out air refuelling the C17 and new(ish) Rivet Joints, unless we pay for a refuelling probe that will enable hose/drogue refuelling.
How about a candle on top of the cherry
FSTA will not be able to receive fuel itself whilst airborne, vital for extra long range missions
There’s more
Proper cargo door, no
Proper cargo floor, no
That means it can only carry cargo in the hold, not the main deck/
If you really want to depress yourself, have a read of the NAO report
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0910/tanker_aircraft.aspx
This throws up gems like
Of the 7 aircraft that will be fitted for refuelling large aircraft, only 5 will be actually fitted with the kit to do so
The original contract did not make any provision for survivability features like DAS, armour or interting the fuel tanks. The original delivery schedule has not been changed and any additions will come after delivery, at extra cost of course
If over any 12-month period, FSTA military air transport or air-to-air refuelling usage reduces or increases by pre-defined amounts from the expected rates because of a strategic change in Departmental policy, the contract allows AirTanker to review the service charges payable by the Department
Ordinarily, the expectation is that the Department will use FSTA rather than charter commercial aircraft. With a limited number of exceptions, if the Department chooses to use charter aircraft it would have to pay AirTanker additional payments of, for example, £8,000 per flight and £300 per hour (subject to indexation).
I dare you to go and read it
Admin,
Yep knew most of that. What Fcuk-head actually agreed to this. I want his balls on a plate. This makes the Chinook HC3 fiasco look like the worlds best military contract!
FFS… I have said it before and I will keep on saying it.. the MOD is not I repeat NOT fit for purpose.
I am not sute its fit for anything. Close the fcuking department down it can’t get any worse surely…
Stop calling me Shirly!!!!
Phil, best go have a lie down mate and prepare yourself for my next post
Not more bad news I don’t think I can take it….
Just has a nice BBQ.. you know apple juice sprayed over the food really does stop it burning…. Tastes good too!!!
Now I am going to slit my wrists!!!
so my XC-2/ eurofighter swap idea doesn’t sound so bad now…
to recap the new japanese airlift aircraft flies faster than C-17, twin engined carries 37 tonnes, and can be fitted for tanker role.
Japanese forces looking at Eurofighter as their 5th gen aircraft so give them some tranche 1 aircraft which they can use as trainers do deal to take some xc-2′s (their govt is changing export rules as we speak before someone brings that up) that way we now have a reason for the tranche 3 (therefore no penalties) and as these aircraft will be ready before A400 (bonus)!!
drop the number of A400′s (can go as low as 15 before penalties) money saved aircraft on the pan that can be troop/cargo carrier or refuelling all the aircraft in service, so logical it will never happen