So its come to this: renting helicopters for our Forces!

Today's Independent (31 July 08) reports that the Army is so short of helicopters in Afghanistan & Iraq that it looks likely they will need to be rented. This reminds me of the state of the RAF in the 1930s. The public were told that our airforce had the aircraft it needed whereas in reality that was a lie. So too it seems with equipment for the Army.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/forces-may-have-to-rent-helicopters-881384.html

 

Nothing new here... the RN started out as rented merchant ships did it not?

 

Cancelling just 10 of the 232 Typhoons the RAF has ordered, (twice as many as they actually need), would free up enough funds to buy 110 UH-60L Blackhawks… Problem solved.

 

Well O_S, that's sort of true.

If you were to cancel ten typhoons in a normal world you would indeed save that money. However (strategic studies lecturer mode ON):

At the end of the Cold War Germany unified and inherited some really quite good upto date Soviet kit from the E German Air Force. Other partners in the project began to cut their future requirements as well. GB had no plans to draw down future fighter requirements and the govt panicked- inserting a clause into the Eurofighter contract which suggested that, in the event of any country subsequently reducing their requirements further, they would still be liable for the full amount of money for their original order.

I.e., if you cut the requirement, you don't cut your expenditure (in order to keep the whole programme afloat for everyone). Oddly enough we have essentially been hoist by our own petard here. Never saw that one coming.

 

Indeed, but the contract does allow Government to Government sales out of the total commitment to buy.

UK .Gov could have offset the sale of some or all of those 72 Typhoons we sold to Saudi Arabia against our commitment to buy 232 airframes for the RAF.


It was suggested, but Neue Arbiet choose not to do it.

 

Interestingly, I was at the press conference yesterday and could see this was going to be the issue in the nationals.

The chap from the Torygraph kept banging on about helos (although it was the Independent chap who wrote most about it; the Telegraph led on RN personnel filling all the gaps). More helos would, of course, be great (as Buster Howes quite rightly said) ... but where are the personnel to fly them? Look at the pinch-points here, for example http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-07-07c.214347.h

And let's not forget, helos are not a panacea. The Yanks had quite a few in Vietnam...

 

In practice we lease quite a lot of kit, and have done for a very long time. Currently that includes maritime heavy lift, large air transport, road haulage, satellite communications (protected and unprotected). In budgetary terms it makes a lot of sense, although there needs to be quite a lot of work done around the contracts to assure availability.

In this case it sounds like a bit of a panic measure though, so my issue is not aorund leasing, but around leaving it this late, and imagining that having the poltical filth chairing the meeting is actually going to make a difference...

 

Helos are an absolute panacea to IED and mine strikes…

We loose lots of people to mines and IED's in AStan, the Yanks don't.

We drive most of the time, they fly most of the time.

There is no shortage of Helo pilots either.

 

No shortage of pilots, Oil Slick? I refer to my previous post ;-)

 

If you like, I can have word with I guy I know at Lex Vehicle leasing.

Or Airfix.

 

Very interesting figures showing how the FAA is hurting in particular. What price manning the CAGs of the CVF?

There's an error somewhere with these for the Army:

I'm surprised that our 100,000-strong Regular Army (link) is only meant to include 14,615 Infantrymen Pte-LCpl. These PBI (plus RMs of course) comprise the boots on the ground performing most of the bread & butter work in two war zones and several other places around the world. It's no wonder we are feeling the pinch and relying on the TA to make up numbers where they can.

Remembering that we actually only have around 13,000 regular Infantrymen Pte-LCpl, it certainly puts things into perspective when you consider that the US Marine Corps numbers about 190,000 (link) overall while the US Regular Army numbers around 520,000. Add the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve and it makes a combined Army strength of well over 1,000,000 (link).

 

Plenty of helo pilots driving desks in all 3 services for want of an airframe.

 

Not quite the some of the Saxon kings did operate a 'proer' navy, but the Normans and their descendants were not good at keeping a decent navy, partly why they lost all of France and also why the Grimaldi family own Monaco. It was only after the tudors that it started to dawn on the nation that a proper Navy was really a good thing.

 

Shit! You mean there's more than one of him? And they've been around for so long; I had no idea... 8O :lol:

 

The funny thing was that we were supposed to be 'ramping' up aircrew recruiting with an eye to CVF. Surely today's people have still got the right stuff that the Buccaneer, Phantom, etc fliers had...

I interviewed the new 2SL on Monday. He wants to increase RN recruiting across the board by about 10 per cent.

 

Best ask Nutty for the answer to that one,he might remember it! :thumright:

 

Welcome to our world. We've been renting/leasing equipment from other countries for a while now. We're using the Antonov at 300,000 bucks an hour for some of our heavy strat lift. Chinooks, leopards, and other equipment all started off with someone else's flag painted on them.

At least this time, no one is claiming isolationism and ignoring the requests for loaners.

 

And there is that rumour of the 'Norman Conquest'

:thumright:

 

..that'll never happen! :wink: