For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
By tomtytom
#1778102
Does anyone know?

The RAF voyager that has recently been in the news that is getting a new paint job,

Is it the one that has been leased to a airline and is currently sprayed in thier colours? Or is is one that is currently sprayed in RAF colours?

Cheers
Tom
User avatar
By Rob P
#1778103
I believe it's the grey, low-vis job.

Rob P
User avatar
By skydriller
#1778112
I had the misfortune to bear witness to a phone call-in show where the host invited the public to comment on "£900000 paint job for RAF VIP jet"....

One chap phoned in pointing out that this aeroplane would have to be stripped and repainted anyway as part of its overhaul, so what colour they used was irrelevant, but was cut off mid-explanation. The media is only interested in public outrage. :roll: :roll:
Propwash, tomtytom, townleyc and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Trent772
#1778770
And it will be greener in Raspberry Ripple than in matt grey !

Shiny, gloss paint has less drag and will be more efficient !

This should be applauded and is well overdue - anyone who says that it is a waste of money should ask why these aeroplanes were procured as they were, they got too many, for too much, for too long - the RAF didn't need them all, hence they have been leased out to civilian operators. So now those ones are returned, they will lay idle no doubt :wink:
User avatar
By kanga
#1778801
Trent772 wrote:.., they got too many, for too much, for too long - the RAF didn't need them all, hence they have been leased out to civilian operators. So now those ones are returned, they will lay idle no doubt :wink:


[I've been out of a small corner of the strategic planning game a long time :oops: , but:]

.. most military assets are idle most of the time, against the unwanted day when lots are needed in a hurry. It cannot be like an airline wanting to keep its fleet airborne and earning revenue most of the time.

I can recall 3 Squadrons of Victors at Marham. During big NATO ADXs, or multiprong SovBloc intrusions, they could be very busy with both scrambles and standing patrols. Fewer Voyager airframes now presumably have to inherit those tasks and those of the VC10s, (later, 2nd hand) TriStars and (because I'm old enough to remember) Comets; with some help on the bulk cargo and trooping side from the C17s and A400Ms. If there are then simultaneous longhaul VIP requirements (2 Ministers, a Royal) in different directions, this must stretch the capability. I can recall a UK PM being stranded abroad without adequate secure long-haul communications, when an old DC-8 chartered from a foreign airline 'went tech'. No Brize aircraft had been available and serviceable, and the charter had apparently been a lot cheaper than the BA offer. The media were scornful, but the same media mocked as a personal vanity project by that PM any proposal for the RAF to procure more longhaul passenger aircraft. I always wondered whether the superficial versatility of the outsourced, rerolable, outleasable, tanker/transport (with VIP interior option) owed as much to the appeasement of the media (and the Treasury) as to real strategic need.

I'm not bothered about the likely due repaint, but see nothing wrong for the UK image of a Minister or Royal arriving in a 'grey drab' aircraft.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1778806
kanga wrote:... most military assets are idle most of the time, against the unwanted day when lots are needed in a hurry. It cannot be like an airline wanting to keep its fleet airborne and earning revenue most of the time.


Quite. On a project I have been working on recently a colleague put it like this:

"Military aircraft cost money when they fly. Civil commercial aircraft cost money when they don't."
kanga, MikeE liked this
User avatar
By Morten
#1778820
Both the Airtanker project as well as the SkyNet 5 project were hugely successful PPPs (1) - for the SPC (2) which ran them, both of which just happen to be EADS (at the time - now Airbus. Main shareholders: governments of Germany, France and Spain.)

Being involved with these at the time, I was saddened by what was a demonstrably poor risk/reward recognition. Although part of the idea of a PPP was to shift more risk to the private sector than a traditional procurement, most of any risk ultimately never left the taxpayer - but most of the profitability did.

I guess they can be dressed up as win-win, but the balance of who won most was not in the UK taxpayers' favour.

And don't get me started on the huge additional frictional costs in a PPP where there will be at least 4 parties involving each their own legal team compared to 2 parties in a traditional procurement and the impact that has on time, cost and contractual clarity.

Still - it paid the bills ... :?

1: Private Public 'Partnership'
2: Special Purpose Company, typically a new company set up by the main contractor which creams off the benefits but takes few of the actual risks.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1778854
kanga wrote:The media were scornful, but the same media mocked as a personal vanity project by that PM any proposal for the RAF to procure more longhaul passenger aircraft. I always wondered whether the superficial versatility of the outsourced, rerolable, outleasable, tanker/transport (with VIP interior option) owed as much to the appeasement of the media (and the Treasury) as to real strategic need.

I'm not bothered about the likely due repaint, but see nothing wrong for the UK image of a Minister or Royal arriving in a 'grey drab' aircraft.


Presumably these would be the same media that get a free seat in the same aeroplane as the VIP when they do the big political / trade trips? Maybe if they made their own way the VIPs could use something smaller and have multiples thereof instead of calling up the the RAF or buying random BA tickets. In an ideal world BAe would develop something similar to the Embraer E jets with intercontinental range instead of buying Deffault Falcons from the Old Enemy. ;)

The idea of double / triple duty aeroplanes just seems like a political sop instead of a practical (or even money saving?) reason. In this day and age it's not unreasonable for an outward looking nation to run a dedicated flight of business a/c and helis for diplomatic and trade purposes outside the confines of the military. Beggar the media, let them buy their own tickets.

The colour is inconsequential in real terms but these days we shouldn't try to look like the military on tour if it can be helped - this is business travel, not an expeditionary force. There's a lot of image value abroad in making a big entrance so why not go the full raspberry ripple on a gaggle of UK developed aircraft painted and fitted out as individual showpieces by British / Commonwealth designers and manufacturers?

While we're at it... UKS Britannia Atlantica / UKS Britannia America / UKS Britannia Africana / UKS Britannia Pacifica too - all four of em. :twisted:
Sooty25 liked this
By riverrock
#1778860
I read elsewhere that it normally costs up to $200,000 to paint a large airliner.
Why are marshal charging us £900k? I'm guessing its more than a paint job?
User avatar
By kanga
#1778875
eltonioni wrote:resumably these would be the same media that get a free seat in the same aeroplane as the VIP when they do the big political / trade trips? Maybe if they made their own way .. Beggar the media, let them buy their own tickets...


Aiui, for Ministerial trips, the media are charged, a full 'airline' rate too, and extra for bulky luggage eg camera gear. This was started aiui in 1997 on change of Government and new frugal Chancellor :) as a result, some trips actually covered their costs for the taxpayer :thumright:

Media folk then have a dilemma:

Pay up (and by being on board having the chance of an interview or useful eavesdropping), or

Find a cheaper commercial flight at short notice (running risk of landing at the wrong airport, or wrong time, or being caught out by change of Ministerial plans); if there is one at all (tricky to get to Falklands without RAF!), or

Find alternative surface transport within time (tricky outside near Europe), or

Rely on local correspondents or stringers at the far end (who may not be abreast of subtleties of UK domestic interests), or

Not cover the visit

Having seen how boorishly and demandingly the press pack can behave, while waiting and on board, when returning with RAF from a combat zone, I am all for making them pay through the nose :)
johnm, eltonioni, Sooty25 liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1779086
Looks bloody lovely!

Nearly up to Morley's standards

Rob P
T6Harvard liked this
By johnm
#1779092
It is a great deal better than I feared, the designers have produced an elegant representation of the Union Flag.

I'll leave others to consider which way up it might be :-)
T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1779103
I like that alot, like the old Transport Command but with a stylish flag kinda like the one that adorned the Hawks at one time.

Regards, SD..
T6Harvard liked this