Stobiewan:
Damn right. Chartering out spare aircraft: fine. Keeps costs down. Having a long-term support contract with the suppliers of the equipment, who do much the same for loads of commercial customers: fine. Paying for the aircraft by getting a commercial consortium to borrow money at commercial rates, i.e. more than the government would pay, while the government still has the ultimate risk: just plain stupid.
Damn right. Chartering out spare aircraft: fine. Keeps costs down. Having a long-term support contract with the suppliers of the equipment, who do much the same for loads of commercial customers: fine. Paying for the aircraft by getting a commercial consortium to borrow money at commercial rates, i.e. more than the government would pay, while the government still has the ultimate risk: just plain stupid.
And it ignores the facts that using the FFNBW aircraft for civil charters saves money for the MoD, as the income is offset against the bill to the MoD, & that if we were making full use of the entire fleet in peacetime, something would go seriously wrong if we needed to fight a war of reasonable intensity.That article looks to be (aside from a beatup) one of the reasons why members who have been around awhile urge so much caution when quoting prices for aircraft.
Even if the article was accurate about the 2007 price for an A330 being £50 mil. I would not expect a military configuration A330 MRTT to have the same flyaway cost as the civilian airliner version. Then of course the article has very little breakdown on what the £10.5 bil. "price" covers, or over what span of time. From what I have read, it seems likely that the £10.5 bil. was or is the total projected cost over the entire life of the programme. If that is the case, then that is an entirely different situation from what the article appears to be presenting when it suggested that the cost for the MoD to purchase the aircraft outright would likely have been "only" £700 mil.