I don't have a problem with the red arrows - but I do have an issue with people who constantly moan about the level of taxes in the country and then complain when "services" get cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn
...the Red Arrows ... ... has made the Hawk one of the best selling trainer/light strike aircraft around.
|
Shouldn't BAE Systems be funding them then?
In fact when I looked on their website to see how much they cost here is the answer:
"
How much does the Team cost to operate?
There is no meaningful answer to this question. The RAF already has the pilots and aircraft so they really cost nothing. The only real saving that could be made by not having the Red Arrows would be the cost of the fuel they use but that is insignificant when set against the advantages accruing from the Team's appearances.
The additional costs of sending The Red Arrows on overseas tours such as the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia in the autumn of 1997 and 1999 and Canada in 2002 were entirely borne by British companies. The Ministry of Defence takes the view that British tax-payers should not bear the cost of these overseas tours. However it is happy for The Red Arrows to demonstrate the “Best of British” overseas when the companies that stand to benefit are willing to pay the bills."
If this is true - then the "review" should result in the conclusion that they provide value for money. All government spending should be reviewed from time to time. A review does not necessarily lead to a "cut".
Edit : Just found a reference on another site saying their budget for next year will be £5.6m. Less than the cost of one Hawk jet, and less than 10p per person in the UK. So there is probably an ecconomic argument for retention even if there were not a sentimental one! However at some point the current aircraft will need replaced at a cost of £100m or more.
