Boris Johnson questions grey colour for Voyager

[Ewart]

I think this thread sort of sums up BJ's point quite concisely:

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=80040&p=810222#p810222

[ericbee123]

If its grey its a target. Why Boris is scared.
Nato seem to be grey color code. Civvie jets bright and colorful. Helps stop shooting down of civvie
Airlines or private jets etc.
Thats the main reason. Not camo as grey is not really a camo color. Plain and simple is to split mill away from civvie.

Well that’s a bit of truth mangled into an arguenent.

When flying airliners into Bagram or Kabul it’s probably safer, from MANPAD attack, to have a white airliner than an obvious military grey. That’s why the US and UK sometimes used charters or white painted aircraft rather than obvious troop transports.

The opposite obviously applies outside of a “hot zone”.

If you are a terrorist with a anti aircraft missile and your canped outside Berlin airport for a summit of world leaders are you more likely to shoot down one of the shiny aircraft screaming “president on board” or one of the boring grey aircraft carrying ancillary stuff ?

[vulcan558]

If its grey its a target. Why Boris is scared.
Nato seem to be grey color code. Civvie jets bright and colorful. Helps stop shooting down of civvie
Airlines or private jets etc.
Thats the main reason. Not camo as grey is not really a camo color. Plain and simple is to split mill away from civvie.

Well that’s a bit of truth mangled into an arguenent.

When flying airliners into Bagram or Kabul it’s probably safer, from MANPAD attack, to have a white airliner than an obvious military grey. That’s why the US and UK sometimes used charters or white painted aircraft rather than obvious troop transports.

The opposite obviously applies outside of a “hot zone”.

If you are a terrorist with a anti aircraft missile and your canped outside Berlin airport for a summit of world leaders are you more likely to shoot down one of the shiny aircraft screaming “president on board” or one of the boring grey aircraft carrying ancillary stuff ?

True in a some regarding the camped terrorist outside Berlin,
It would make it difficult visually with lots of other colorful jets landing and takeing off and on the ground as to what one to fire at, the grey one stands out. So safer to be camouflaged as your surroundings, that being nice colorful jets to amongst . The grey is a high value mill prize in the scheme of things, stands out like a sore thumb against civvie.
Gone i guess are camo tankers, but added to there camo was high vis dayglo areas to make them more viable for tanking.

[Rampvan]

Here's ZZ341 arriving at RAF Ringway this morning...

Good post. I had no idea that within 2 years of taking delivery of our tanker fleet, you could be taking an RAF jet to [insert holiday destination]. It's no wonder none are available. Why oh why???

because they are leased, nd that's part of the leasing deal

[Tommy]

Here's ZZ341 arriving at RAF Ringway this morning...

Good post. I had no idea that within 2 years of taking delivery of our tanker fleet, you could be taking an RAF jet to [insert holiday destination]. It's no wonder none are available. Why oh why???

It's the lease, as stated above, but there's a little more nuance than that. I don't think that lease clause applies to the whole tanker fleet.

Of the 14 delivered, the RAF has a "core" fleet of 9 machines (serials ZZ330 - ZZ338 I think/presume), and the remaining 5 (ZZ339 - ZZ343) form part of the "surge" fleet. When the surge fleet is surplus to RAF demands, AirTanker can lease them for commercial flights, and save(make?) money. When demands press, the RAF gets them back. So it's not like the RAF can hawk every single one of its Voyagers off to civvis for a bit and leave the force without AAR capacity.

Actually, a quick research tells me that (as of February this year) the RAF are currently operating one aircraft out of the surge fleet (ZZ343?) - and presumably have 10 on strength at Brize. Or maybe it's to cover one of the core fleet in maintenance or something.

Overall, it's a flexible approach to me, other than it must be a right balls and arse to have to repaint them all the time. It seems one of the more intelligent corporate decisions the RAF has made in recent years.

Edit - I'm sure someone will come along and tell me how crap and wrong that is, mind.

[verreli]

Here's ZZ341 arriving at RAF Ringway this morning...

Good post. I had no idea that within 2 years of taking delivery of our tanker fleet, you could be taking an RAF jet to [insert holiday destination]. It's no wonder none are available. Why oh why???

because they are leased, and that's part of the leasing deal

Leasing can be a cost effective way of acquiring capital goods however it doesn't explain why after less than 2 years from acquisition, some tankers / transports were released to another operator. Were too many ordered? Can they be required at short notice in the event of a war? That Bojo says they are never available seems to suggest that too many were released. The RAF seems to be in danger of becoming a state sponsored flying club with sub contracted support services run under a corporate structure. It just needs a logo...

[FarnboroJohn]

Here's ZZ341 arriving at RAF Ringway this morning...

Good post. I had no idea that within 2 years of taking delivery of our tanker fleet, you could be taking an RAF jet to [insert holiday destination]. It's no wonder none are available. Why oh why???

because they are leased, and that's part of the leasing deal

Leasing can be a cost effective way of acquiring capital goods however it doesn't explain why after less than 2 years from acquisition, some tankers / transports were released to another operator. Were too many ordered? Can they be required at short notice in the event of a war? That Bojo says they are never available seems to suggest that too many were released. The RAF seems to be in danger of becoming a state sponsored flying club with sub contracted support services run under a corporate structure. It just needs a logo...

That BoJo thinks they should be available to him doesn't mean they should.... If they are never available to him, perhaps a message is being sent - personally I would endorse that.

[verreli]

That BoJo thinks they should be available to him doesn't mean they should.... If they are never available to him, perhaps a message is being sent - personally I would endorse that.

Like him or not he's still the foreign secretary of the UK and in time it will be someone else. The trips he goes on are not alone; he's always accompanied by civil servants. All travel will be at least business class and in Borris's case, as a minister of state, likely first class so it's hardly a hardship. There is value over and above the cost in travelling on a state aircraft. I think the current decision makers are making many mistakes and this is one.

[Orion]

I think the problem here is that the Voyager is too big for the sort of thing BoJo does, but the 146 is too small. An A320 would be a good choice for governmental service, but adding anything to the Queen's Flight after the 'Blair Force One' incident of 20 years or so ago is going to be a fraught business.

[verreli]

Those are fair comments. I'm not sure the 146 is too small for the party size but it will certainly be range limited compared to the bigger jets. I always preferred to go commercial. Because you were in a public place you couldn't talk shop and so the trip was just good food and a few G&T's. When you fly on company aircraft you inevitably spend the whole time working.

[Dan213]

That BoJo thinks they should be available to him doesn't mean they should.... If they are never available to him, perhaps a message is being sent - personally I would endorse that.

Like him or not he's still the foreign secretary of the UK and in time it will be someone else. The trips he goes on are not alone; he's always accompanied by civil servants. All travel will be at least business class and in Borris's case, as a minister of state, likely first class so it's hardly a hardship. There is value over and above the cost in travelling on a state aircraft. I think the current decision makers are making many mistakes and this is one.

I wouldn’t be so sure. I would have thought in many situations it would be cheaper to fly him, plus his entourage first class on a civil flight

[verreli]

I wouldn’t be so sure. I would have thought in many situations it would be cheaper to fly him, plus his entourage first class on a civil flight

I would have thought in a lot of cases this would be true although the difference in cost may not be as big as many think. My point is that cost is not always the best measure. Can you for instance put a value on the time spent working in transit? This is not a new policy. I remember a few years back, I was working on a job that was supported by a government minister and a few civil servants. We went by private jet and talked strategy all the way there and the minister went commercial so we had to brief him when he arrived because he'd not been able to be briefed in transit. The minister couldn't come with us because that would be seen as a conflict of interest despite the cost savings, time savings and efficiencies it would bring.

Regarding the aircraft paint scheme which is where this thread started, I've seen no evidence to suggest a grey scheme adds any tactical advantage and there is evidence to suggest that a branded state aircraft has a positive effect, albeit an intangible one. If you consider the waste and misallocation of state spending in other areas, I think that the cost of this is trivial, no matter what the public perception is. Blairforce-one though is perhaps a step too far.

[Brevet Cable]

From those I've seen, am I correct in thinking that other than the Union Flag, none of the Royal Flight aircraft ( FW or RW ) are 'branded', in fact they don't even have 'Royal Air Force' on them?

[verreli]

Does it even need to be an RAF aircraft?

What I would do is partner with an airline, preferably the flag carrier which in our case is British Airways (just). The deal would be that several of their aircraft, perhaps an A380, an A320 and a 146 were painted externally and internally with a unique design (i.e. nothing to do with the airline), designed by a professional marketing company and incorporating elements of the national identity i.e Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and all the dependencies such as the Falklands, British Virgin Islands, etc. Government would have priority over its use for state trips but the general public would use it as part of the airline at all other times. The aircraft can be crewed by RAF pilots and trolley dollies for state trips and even have specific bolt-ons such as chaff, flare, comms, IFF if deemed necessary.

BA and any other carriers could bid to be the supplier which should keep costs to an absolute minimum. I'm sure Branson would be all over this. This way you get benefits similar to AF1 but with the added benefit that the tax paying public get to sample it too and with minimal cost.

[Berf]

Does it even need to be an RAF aircraft?

What I would do is partner with an airline, preferably the flag carrier which in our case is British Airways (just). The deal would be that several of their aircraft, perhaps an A380, an A320 and a 146 were painted externally and internally with a unique design (i.e. nothing to do with the airline), designed by a professional marketing company and incorporating elements of the national identity i.e Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and all the dependencies such as the Falklands, British Virgin Islands, etc. Government would have priority over its use for state trips but the general public would use it as part of the airline at all other times. The aircraft can be crewed by RAF pilots and trolley dollies for state trips and even have specific bolt-ons such as chaff, flare, comms, IFF if deemed necessary.

BA and any other carriers could bid to be the supplier which should keep costs to an absolute minimum. I'm sure Branson would be all over this. This way you get benefits similar to AF1 but with the added benefit that the tax paying public get to sample it too and with minimal cost.

Why would BA or any other airline want to be involved with that? They are there to maximise profits for shareholders not pay the finance on an aircraft that is not fully utilised earning its keep. How could they possible schedule its use effectively if it was on demand for Boris or anyone else to flit off anywhere?

[verreli]

Why would BA or any other airline want to be involved with that? They are there to maximise profits for shareholders not pay the finance on an aircraft that is not fully utilised earning its keep. How could they possible schedule its use effectively if it was on demand for Boris or anyone else to flit off anywhere?

Because there is prestige in being the national flag carrier. It also helps marketing which helps sales. I know many people who would unbearably brag that they'd flown on the 'national aircraft'. How many flew Concorde just to say they'd flown Concorde so it does happen? The bid would be priced to ensure that costs were covered to the extent that the board deemed appropriate. Trips don't just happen on a whim, they are planned weeks and possibly months in advance so scheduling is easy. Also, airlines do have scheduled maintenance and aircraft do occasionally go tech so normal operations should cover any flexibility needed.

[Berf]

Why would BA or any other airline want to be involved with that? They are there to maximise profits for shareholders not pay the finance on an aircraft that is not fully utilised earning its keep. How could they possible schedule its use effectively if it was on demand for Boris or anyone else to flit off anywhere?

Because there is prestige in being the national flag carrier. It also helps marketing which helps sales. I know many people who would unbearably brag that they'd flown on the 'national aircraft'. How many flew Concorde just to say they'd flown Concorde so it does happen? The bid would be priced to ensure that costs were covered to the extent that the board deemed appropriate. Trips don't just happen on a whim, they are planned weeks and possibly months in advance so scheduling is easy. Also, airlines do have scheduled maintenance and aircraft do occasionally go tech so normal operations should cover any flexibility needed.

I might have agreed with you 40 years ago but no longer. Finance is more important than prestige. 'I know many people' - well you might but not enough for BA to make any money on your venture. And frankly, if you travelled that much there are a lot of other carriers that are far superior to BA so I wouldn't brag too much. Concorde was Concorde and it is gone. And I am afraid you could not price a bid that is going to satisfy any commercial enterprise and the government for the use of the aircraft as you propose. Finally, yes of course some trips are planned well in advance but many are not - so that means you have to have aircraft on permanent standby and that costs.

[verreli]

I might have agreed with you 40 years ago but no longer. Finance is more important than prestige. 'I know many people' - well you might but not enough for BA to make any money on your venture. And frankly, if you travelled that much there are a lot of other carriers that are far superior to BA so I wouldn't brag too much. Concorde was Concorde and it is gone. And I am afraid you could not price a bid that is going to satisfy any commercial enterprise and the government for the use of the aircraft as you propose. Finally, yes of course some trips are planned well in advance but many are not - so that means you have to have aircraft on permanent standby and that costs.

Funnily enough, I haven't flown with BA for over two decades since they 'deleted' my frequent flyer points. I have a long memory. That decision must have cost them over £1m in sales.

You sound like you have knowledge of board level decisions. Please expand on the basis of your comments or are you just guessing?

[CJS]

Have you seriously spent £1 million on flights in the past 20 years?

[Tommy]

I might be missing the point, but I'm not sure why a new aircraft is being discussed. I thought that we had a VIP-retrofitted Voyager, at any rate?

A very swift 30 second flick through Wiki produced this:

In November 2015, it was announced that an RAF A330 MRTT would be refitted to carry government ministers and members of the Royal Family on official visits. The refit would cost £10m but would save around £775,000 annually compared to the current practice of chartering flights. The aircraft, nicknamed "Cam Force One" by some in the media, will be fitted with 158 seats. The aircraft entered service on 6 May 2016, with the then Prime Minister David Cameron making his first flight on it to visit the 2016 Warsaw summit.

FlightGlobal reported the refit was in service and available to the royal family and politicians on request, but also has economy seating and retains its grey paint so that it can be used to fulfil it's normal operational role within the RAF when not used by VIPs. Again, much like the surge fleet principle, it seems like a sensible idea to me.

[Dan213]

I wouldn’t be so sure. I would have thought in many situations it would be cheaper to fly him, plus his entourage first class on a civil flight

I would have thought in a lot of cases this would be true although the difference in cost may not be as big as many think. My point is that cost is not always the best measure. Can you for instance put a value on the time spent working in transit? This is not a new policy. I remember a few years back, I was working on a job that was supported by a government minister and a few civil servants. We went by private jet and talked strategy all the way there and the minister went commercial so we had to brief him when he arrived because he'd not been able to be briefed in transit. The minister couldn't come with us because that would be seen as a conflict of interest despite the cost savings, time savings and efficiencies it would bring.

Regarding the aircraft paint scheme which is where this thread started, I've seen no evidence to suggest a grey scheme adds any tactical advantage and there is evidence to suggest that a branded state aircraft has a positive effect, albeit an intangible one. If you consider the waste and misallocation of state spending in other areas, I think that the cost of this is trivial, no matter what the public perception is. Blairforce-one though is perhaps a step too far.

There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest why the military are painted grey. The aircraft, as previously mentioned is effectively performing this as a secondary duty so what would be the point in painting it up? Who would benefit from a painted aircraft anyway? The spotters? Boris Johnson’s ego?

[Binbrook 01]

While sitting at Coningsby last Tuesday, watching the grey things and that one with the nice RAF100 sticker...

There were plenty of occasions to watch the airliners coming out of Manchester and other locations heading out over the east coast.

While the big white things were cruising over at 33,000 odd feet a as easy to find as a ninja in a nun house. A Typhoon appeared and spent almost 30 mins flying around at high level.... And guess what!! Bright sky and light grey....



Was like trying to find a tiny boat in the pacific ocean. (probably, but you all knew that anyway)

So Boris old chap, maybe do a wee bit of research perhaps....

[FarnboroJohn]

That BoJo thinks they should be available to him doesn't mean they should.... If they are never available to him, perhaps a message is being sent - personally I would endorse that.

Like him or not he's still the foreign secretary of the UK and in time it will be someone else. The trips he goes on are not alone; he's always accompanied by civil servants. All travel will be at least business class and in Borris's case, as a minister of state, likely first class so it's hardly a hardship. There is value over and above the cost in travelling on a state aircraft. I think the current decision makers are making many mistakes and this is one.

In that case I think a G650 or similar is the answer. Sized for his team, intercontinental range and in common use so supported worldwide. Could stick the servicing on the same contract as the Sentinels (and use the same grey paint ).

I actually agree about travelling non-scheduled, being limited to airline schedules is not good use of BJ's time or that of his team, and there would be advantages in being able to enter and leave places via the local Air Force base rather than civil airport, too.

Not to mention it making life more difficult for the media - or for BJ's access to the media. That can only be a good thing.

John

[Hammy]

That BoJo thinks they should be available to him doesn't mean they should.... If they are never available to him, perhaps a message is being sent - personally I would endorse that.

Like him or not he's still the foreign secretary of the UK and in time it will be someone else. The trips he goes on are not alone; he's always accompanied by civil servants. All travel will be at least business class and in Borris's case, as a minister of state, likely first class so it's hardly a hardship. There is value over and above the cost in travelling on a state aircraft. I think the current decision makers are making many mistakes and this is one.

In that case I think a G650 or similar is the answer. Sized for his team, intercontinental range and in common use so supported worldwide. Could stick the servicing on the same contract as the Sentinels (and use the same grey paint ).

Surely given that the basis of the Sentinel is a Global Express, acquiring a Global Express for such a role would make most sense. Although given the Sentinel R.1 is due to be retired in less than three years and that any procurement process would almost certainly take longer than three years for an aircraft to be delivered, I suppose that doesn't really matter.

[FarnboroJohn]

Surely given that the basis of the Sentinel is a Global Express, acquiring a Global Express for such a role would make most sense. Although given the Sentinel R.1 is due to be retired in less than three years and that any procurement process would almost certainly take longer than three years for an aircraft to be delivered, I suppose that doesn't really matter.

Oops.... quite right on the ID. However I prefer the Gulfstream line which is better looking. Something not quite right about the Challenger line's nose profile to me.

If the procurement was COTS I can't see why it would take very long (indeed why not lease it?), but no doubt mods would be required.

John