SAVE THE BoB MEMORIAL FLIGHT! PETITION TO No. 10... [Archive]

Chugalug2

27th Jan 2010, 16:33

OK I'm going to get flamed here, but what's new? With Stations and Squadrons closing down like a bankrupt shopping chain going to the wall, with whole fleets heading for the great hangar in the skies, I would rather see whatever money is available to the Royal Air Force being used on its present commitments rather than its past ones. I am an enthusiastic supporter of both the London Bomber Command Memorial as well as the proposed saving of RAF Bicester as a Bomber Command Heritage Site in which could there could be a "Country" BC Memorial, paralleling the existing Fighter Command ones in London and Capel-le-Ferne, but neither will come out of the Defence Budget. If the BBF can be saved by alternative funding, be it on a Charitable or even Sponsored basis I'd be all for it, but it seems that the RAF can ill afford it for the foreseeable future. Other holy cows like the Reds, the UAS's, etc are bound to come under similar threats. Like this one they will be of orders of magnitude greater than any that have preceded them.

fergineer

27th Jan 2010, 16:43

Have to agree with you there Chug.....with all that is happening there and as much as I love to see them flying the money that we have has to go to front line.

Al-Berr

27th Jan 2010, 17:24

We do need to make a lot of cuts, and soon. However, I would like to see the Red Arrows and the BBMF at the bottom of the list. They should however cover some of their costs with sponsorship - the Virgin Red Arrows?

At the top of the list, I would get rid of the AEF tomorrow - an utter waste of money and simply jobs for the boys. And before anybody wades in with their size 10s, I have had almost daily interaction with an AEF for the last 3.5 years. It's not worth whatever we pay for it. Sell some Grobs and get rid of some of the smaller airfields in order that we can keep the likes of Cottesmore and Lyneham open.

Despite having been a UAS man myself, I would have the UAS next on the list.

Al

Squirrel 41

27th Jan 2010, 17:31

Supposedly it's about £3m a year; though I doubt whether this will include all of the hidden costs at CGY and in staffing it etc. However, let's give it the benefit of the doubt that £3m is the full cost.

And I'd cut it, too.

Not because I don't think that the Flight don't do a great job, they do. But because it is £3m we don't have for the front line - and after all, though they don't fly a Lancaster, RNHF is all voluntary funded IIRC.

Hard times, tough choices. Sorry, but that's the way it's going to be.

S41

Gnd

27th Jan 2010, 18:35

Looking at other threads, it is which order we get rid of things, not when. These must be high on the 'not needed' list?

The cost of things (airframes) is on intranet - look for Aviation Capitation rates - v interesting!

BEagle

27th Jan 2010, 18:54

No, the Defence Budget most certainly does NOT need to be pi$$ed down the sink fighting underfunded and unwinnable legacy-of-Blair wars in far-off lands against stone-age peasants resentful of being dragged into a modern world which they simply do not comprehend.

Blair and his 'come as you are and bring a bottle' Balkan wars started the rot, followed by his illegal attack on Iraq to please the idiot Bush and finally the lunacy of what is all too clearly Vietnam-istan. A corrupt puppet government with little domestic support, backed by western armed forces opposed by vicious terrorist extremists.....

'Defence of the Realm' seems a long-forgotten obligation in this day and age. But at least the BBMF still reminds us WHY we have an RAF at all. Rarely, if ever, do the genpub see anything of the RAF except pictures on the evening news of yet another sad repatriation; the nation's finest slaughtered in the meat-grinder which is the $hit-hole of Afghanistan; however, the BBMF do at least do a very fine job of honouring our past.

Real military prowess has been thrown away over the recent years - so-called 'capability holidays' becoming ever more commonplace. Enough is b£oody enough - and anyone who cannot see the worth of the BBMF simply does not deserve to wear a blue suit.

BEagle

27th Jan 2010, 19:27

Utter rot - is everyone in the RAF nowadays blind to the fact that there is not a hope in hell of an honourable victory in the North West Frontier unless the locals are won over by the Kabul government? Which is doubtful at best.

If liars like Blair and Brown want to indulge in ill-considered military adventurism, thier aspirations should be funded from a totally different budget to the budget needed to maintain sufficient forces for the defence of the UK.

Afghanistan is not the UK's 'front line', just as Viet Nam wasn't the USA's 'front line'. It is simply a black hole of despair which is destroying our nation's military for absolutely no tangible benefit.

The few £M which might be freed from defence spending should RAFAT, BBMF, UAS or AEF flying stop wouldn't even be noticed at your so-called 'front line' - it'd vanish in an instant.

anotherthing

27th Jan 2010, 19:28

Why do people talk about binning the BBMF etc? The RNHF manages to survive and flies some very nice aircraft on a charitable basis... it's not a difficult concept, I'm sure there would be an oversubscription of willing sponsors for the BBMF.

So the question is not should the BBMF be binned, but why are we spending defence budget money to run it when it could easily be funded by other means?

The few £M which might be freed from defence spending should RAFAT, BBMF, UAS or AEF flying stop wouldn't even be noticed at your so-called 'front line' - it'd vanish in an instant.
To quote you Beagle - that argument is utter rot. Or are you saying that if a 'paltry' couple of £Mil can be saved from several different budgets we shouldn't bother because it's a piddling amount, not worth saving? :ugh:

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves... remember that saying?

green granite

27th Jan 2010, 19:39

Well of course, if the government didn't waste money on stupid global warming adds on tv ..................................

Pontius Navigator

27th Jan 2010, 19:42

The BBMF is commanded by a full-time sqn ldr. He is supported by a D-grade CS and I think an E1 or E2. There is a small permanent cadre of engineering personnel.

The hangar is probably unsuitable for Typhoon and not required for anything else. In keeping with RAF tradition is is ripe for closure as it was recently refurbished IIRC.

The flight gets significant sponsorship AFAIK which includes part and labour from industry. Some spares are sourced on a swapsey basis. One set of wings for one of the Spitfire is stored at the RAF Muesum at Stafford while it flies on a different set :).

The cost, if it is £3m is peanuts.

people like you are the past, and not involved in what will be a tough future for a country that is at war

This, unfortunately, is the attitude of those that live in the here and now with no regard for history, traditions, or future generations. Military Museums with largely WW2 collections are all re-orientating their displays to appeal to granddads and grandsons. This is a vital link to the past as many, when they were dads, did not talk to their sons.

While the whole BBMF could be displayed in a hangar, and indeed the Lancaster and Bomber artefacts at East Kirkby etc are remarkable, the best place to see an aircraft is in the air.

UK plc must must maintain its historical heritage as long as it can. Yes there may be a possibility of a civilian group taking over the flight but are there any other comparable displays that do as many displays over as large a range as BBMF? Teeny weeny and RNHF are both local organisations. Warbirds are local. BBMF reaches displays, venues and events that the others simply do not reach and really reach out to veterans and the public alike far away from air shows.

PS, to answer Tim's message below with one word - VULCAN

Tim McLelland

27th Jan 2010, 19:43

I don't see what the problem is. If there was any prospect of BBMF being dumped (daft newspaper stories aside) then surely some sort of arrangement could be made to continue operations under civilian ownership? It's not as if any of the aircraft are in any danger of being grounded if they were taken from RAF ownership.

BEagle

27th Jan 2010, 19:46

anotherthing, if you really imagine that the alleged savings made by abandoning RAFAT, BBMF, UAS and AEF flying would actually be spent on our forces in 'The Stan', as people seem to like to call it, then you are sadly wrong. Those 'savings' would simply reduce the massive national debt accrued as a result of Blair's ill-considered military adventurism and no-one in the Armed Forces would see the slightest benefit.

As a member of the Fly Navy Heritage Trust, I contribute a meagre amount monthly to the Flight - and long may the Flight prosper! However, it would be wholly impossible for the Lancaster to be operated under similar funding constraints, let alone the BBMF's fighters, Dakota and Chipmunks.

brickhistory

27th Jan 2010, 19:57

An American here, feel free to skip the post:

While I disagree with BEagle's political commentary about illegal wars (different topic on necessary or not), I agree with his point about the need for your BBMF.

1. What an impressive and well-deserved tribute to the line of defense that kept you a free country (What you've done with that legacy is another thread and not really my place :p).

2. In an era where RAF stations, personnel, and interaction are fast diminishing from public view and thought, what a marvelous recruiting and public relations tool. I'd venture that many more potential RAF prospects see one of the BBMF assets up close as compared to your other hardware. How many thoughts of joining that heritage or even considering serving your country does the BBMF stir?

If you disband the Flight, how many of those airplanes (sorry, no "aero" from me) will wind up in the skies of Texas and not the UK? Personally, I'd love to see 'em over here. Professionally, don't p1ss away a national treasure.

Again.

Squirrel 41

27th Jan 2010, 20:09

BEagle, we've agreed and disagreed on much here over the years, but this

"and anyone who cannot see the worth of the BBMF simply does not deserve to wear a blue suit"

is offensive and unworthy; I think an edit or an apology is in order.

I am a big fan of the BBMF; and no, there is nothing like the noise of four Merlins in close formation. But that alone doesn't make the case for retaining it on the MoD budget when there's an under-funded war going on. And despite your views, Afghanistan is going to continue for sometime yet - I'd be surprised if we were out by 2020.

Again, look at the numbers in the likely budget settlement highlighted again by Max Hastings today. If there was a political party out there with plans to spend 5% of GDP - Cold War norms - on the military, then we'd be having different arguments, but from a much higher base. But no-one is proposing this, and cuts - deep, painful cuts - are coming, and the MoD needs to focus on the current wars, whilst being mindful of the past.

And the BBMF, Reds, HMS Victory et al are all capable of being funded by someone else - private enterprise, charity - or Reds, the Culture Media and Sport Dept (aka Dept of Fun). They're not producing material defence output at a time when we need to maximise this; sorry, but it's true.

Moreover, nothing is going to slam home the parlous state of defence to the general public who are largely ignorant of defence issues, than binning BBMF / Reds etc.

S41

BEagle

27th Jan 2010, 20:16

One of the more interesting notions I heard recently, was speculation that the 'overseas aid' budget should be used on agendas such as the North-West frontier, on the grounds that supporting the Kabul government is most definitely 'overseas aid'.

Better that than wasting it funding some corrupt dictator....

As for anything Max Hastings wrote, I'd give it a good ignoring if I were you.

Legalapproach

27th Jan 2010, 21:06

I'm with BEagle on this one

Don Coyote

27th Jan 2010, 22:25

I agree with BEagle and Pontious.

If we are worrying about 3 million a year then we have got serious problems and really should not be trying to throw our weight anywhere on the global stage.

We need to realise that if we want to play with the big boys then it will cost us; it is ridiculous to want to fight wars but then to try and reduce the defence budget. That can only be considered as culpable negligence by our lords and masters.

If we decide we do want to play with the big boys then the budgets should be made available for the troops to do their job properly, equally the troops should be commanded by people who are prepared to say no if the troops are not given the tools to do the job rather than the current breed of self servers who agree to tasks because they it will look good on an annual report or result in a knighthood rather than being commanded by people who will say no if the forces are not given the equipment or mandate to fight effectively.

If we decide that we can't afford to play with the big boys then we retreat to home base and pull down the shutters, what we save in fighting wars we can spend on proper border control and concentrate on looking after the terrorists within.

soddim

27th Jan 2010, 22:25

The paltry sum contributed by the taxpayer to BBMF is nothing compared to the advantage the flight gains by being part of the Royal Air Force and operating under military release to service. If it was civilian operated the aircraft would operated under CAA rules - what expensive and non-authentic modifications would the aircraft need to comply with modern CAA standards? The word VULCAN comes to mind.

Moreover, what would happen if the flight needed industry support to overcome a show-stopping issue with one of these precious aircraft. Would the support currently enjoyed by the flight be offered to a civilian company? I doubt it.

The Royal Air Force has a glorious history and it is all to do with aircraft - comparisons with the RN historic flight are simply not relevant - the RN operates mostly ships I believe. The BBMF aircraft remind us of the sacrifices made in the air and on the ground, particularly in the Battle of Britain.

May I remind those who would readily commit the BBMF to the past that the motto of the flight is 'Lest we forget'. Best we do not.

PPRuNe Pop

28th Jan 2010, 07:31

For info from the BBMF a week or so ago:

You may have seen the article in the Daily Mail today speculating about the future of the BBMF. Air Command have advised us that the potential demise of the BBMF as a cost saving measure is untrue;

There is no plan to cut any funding from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. We routinely review all spending to balance our resources and focus on the highest priority - operations in Afghanistan. A wide range of options are always considered in each annual planning round but not all of these are taken.

Arclite01

28th Jan 2010, 07:50

and I am with Beagle on this as well................. 3M is lost in the shouting and if you really think it would be directed to Afghan if it was released - well you've obviously not worked in the MoD !!! (as I have)

and Soddim - I actually see the Bomber and remember the Bomber Command Aircrew most (no disrespect to the fighters or the BoB which was the Iconic battle) it's just about physical presence............and sheer losses which seem to be swept under the carpet by this generation.

Arc

dakkg651

28th Jan 2010, 08:29

Definitely with Beagle on this one.

And I think Brick has hit the nail on the head.

Anyway, we may need the Lanc to replace the tonkas and harriers out in the stan once they've gone to museums. And the Dak is far more reliable than the tens and tristars. We should buy more!

Romeo Oscar Golf

28th Jan 2010, 09:12

There opinions expressed here appear to be age related - -the wrinklies say yes and the kids say no. It's taken me a long time to accept that my views and opinions are worth very little, probably because I'm a wrinkly, and seem to have no relevance in todays "modern" armed forces. Be that as it may, I am surprised at the apparent lack of imagination and understanding shown by the younger generation with regard to fiscal management by the MOD.I agree wholeheartedly with the following comments 3M is lost in the shouting and if you really think it would be directed to Afghan if it was released - well you've obviously not worked in the MoD !!! (as I have)if you really imagine that the alleged savings made by abandoning RAFAT, BBMF, UAS and AEF flying would actually be spent on our forces in 'The Stan', as people seem to like to call it, then you are sadly wrong. Those 'savings' would simply reduce the massive national debt accrued as a result of Blair's ill-considered military adventurism and no-one in the Armed Forces would see the slightest benefit..
Is the displayed sensitivity"and anyone who cannot see the worth of the BBMF simply does not deserve to wear a blue suit"

is offensive and unworthy; I think an edit or an apology is in order. simply a manifestation of todays PC gone mad or are the youngsters too soft to take "hard" (if not accurate) comment?

I predict that we will be out of the costly Afghanistan nonsense within five years and maybe then we will realise where our real front line is.

Of couse the Bof B Flight should continue, as should the Sparrows, the Falcons (if they still exist) UAS's , AEF's and all the other established institutions which encourage fun, engender good will and make the RAF a career and not just another Government job.

Disclaimer, I am not suggesting that all wrinklies are good and youngsters bad, my comments are clearly a generalisation,

sled dog

28th Jan 2010, 09:55

Signed with pleasure. Two things are certain to bring tears to my eyes:
the sound of Merlins, and The Last Post.

bast0n

28th Jan 2010, 10:42

I added my vote some way back because the flight is too important to lose. How you lot fund it is another matter altogether. Funding is also a huge problem with the FAAHT.

peppermint_jam

28th Jan 2010, 11:00

Signed with pleasure. Two things are certain to bring tears to my eyes:
the sound of Merlins, and The Last Post.

Amen to that, signed satis.

jindabyne

28th Jan 2010, 11:07

To avoid repetition, I agree entirely with BEagle, ROG and Pontious; and Oscar Wilde ---

Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing

hoodie

28th Jan 2010, 13:09

PPRuNe Pop, I see you waving and shouting, but perhaps the windows on the Outrage Bus are all steamed up. :}

Widger

28th Jan 2010, 13:37

Though it pains me to say it, I have to agree with BEagle's sentiments. Having now read this thread I can see why there was, for a short time last night, a vitriolic post directed at him. Come on....who was it?? Own up, it was one of you!!!!!!

I think the Spam said it best, don't p!$$ away a national treasure!

Airborne Aircrew

28th Jan 2010, 16:00

In the "if it wasn't so sad it would be funny" category...

While all of you clamoring for the disbandment of the BBMF on the grounds there's no cash left in the pot you are all missing the point that said "pot" is an arbitrary figure conjured up by the military hating Prime Minister and his gaggle of simpering, pantywaist followers.

It costs £3M/annum to keep the BBMF and, while I don't begrudge the money at all, Brown managed to match the entire UN contibution to Haiti of £6.1M in just a couple of days. There is plenty of money in the government's coffers. Your money!!! Start to insist it is spent appropriately.

Source (http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/pm-browns-6-1-million-response-to-haiti-earthquake-21255.html)

bast0n

28th Jan 2010, 16:12

AA

Quite - not to mention the money going to India.................................:confused:

newt

28th Jan 2010, 16:22

I agree with everthing you have said Beags! The cost of BBMF is a tiny fraction of the Defence Budget! If you want to make cost savings have a good look at the shambles of procurement! Billions could be saved buying off the shelf items or cutting metal under licence!

It does worry me that many of the younger generation have little respect for history and tradition. Many associations and reunions are poorly supported. Its easy to use the term 'overstretch' and say it can't be done anymore!

And for those who believe BBMF should be handed over to a civilian organisation then let them take a look at the Vulcan saga! They seem to have run out of money yet again so is it viable these days to keep antique aircraft in the air using public subscription? I think not!

Oh well, off to the bunker again, flack jacket on and whiskey in hand:*

higthepig

28th Jan 2010, 16:29

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/372616-bbmf-lancaster-flypast-heythuysen-4-mei-2009-a.html

Still loved in the Netherlands, they appreciate what the BBMF stand for.

Ken Scott

28th Jan 2010, 19:06

Just added my signature to the petition.

It's thanks to those that flew aircraft like the Lancaster & the fighters that we enjoy our freedoms today, to cut the flight to save the relative small change of £3m would dishonour those that it was set up to commemorate.

BEagle

28th Jan 2010, 19:14

Definitely with Beagle on this one..... Steady on, chaps, it'll be tongues next:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/tongues.jpg

Ignore the troll - I do!

By the way, airpolice, Strongbow is gnats'! "Natch oi up, sez I!"

jindabyne

28th Jan 2010, 21:08

I know I'm old, but WTF ----

By the way, airpolice, Strongbow is gnats'! "Natch oi up, sez I!"

does this mean?

BEagle

29th Jan 2010, 04:38

Sorry, nothing to do with BBMF - it was banter for 'airpolice', jindabyne....

He lists his interests as including 'Strongbow' - a sort of alcopop made by Bulmers which some describe as 'cider', although it is considered to be gnats' wee by many. The superior alternative used to be 'Dry Blackthorn', which has now been ruined and is almost as ersatz as 'Strongbow'. Which leaves only that which was once 'Taunton Natural Dry', now made by Gaymer, locally known as 'Natch' down Somerset way. It is indeed dry and strong; the call "Natch I up Barman" being a West Country way of requesting another glass of said brew....

Anyway, back to BBMF and the news posted by PPRuNe Pop is indeed most heartening for it seems to confirm that the Flight is not under threat...at the moment.

kluge

29th Jan 2010, 05:07

also sold to Thailand as "FruitWine":E

"Natch" Strong Dry Cider Cider (http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/263900436/_Natch_Strong_Dry_Cider.html)

The brand name should work particularly well in Pat Pong. :ooh:

Long may the BBMF fly and remind everyone why they do.

bast0n

29th Jan 2010, 08:50

Airpolice

Try Hecks "Kingston Black" - comes from Street in Somerset - wins all the prizes - and is delicious!.................:ok:

Capt Pit Bull

29th Jan 2010, 09:13

Ah, the usual 'tangible cost' versus 'intangible benefit' problem

How many times have folks in this forum trotted out the standard line about accountant "understanding the cost of everything but not understanding the value of anything".

BBMF, UAS, Air Cadets are all cases in point.

clunckdriver

29th Jan 2010, 11:31

I tried to sign but to my shock I find that in spite of the contribution made by No One Sqdn RCAF, and the other Canadians serving in RAF units during the battle, that Canadians are not included in this petition! The logic I supose is that we dont pay for its upkeep, no we dont, but many of us have made contributions to keep such historic aircraft in the air both in the UK and Canada. I am fully aware that the ethnic/social make up of the UK has changed over the years, but to exclude those who came to your country to fight along side Britain during such times is an oversight which I find offensive.{RCAF Retired}

Romeo Oscar Golf

29th Jan 2010, 12:16

Clunk, I share your annoyance that British Governments show little concern for Canada and understand that you should find it offensive that you are unable to sign this petition.
The logic I supose is that we dont pay for its upkeep,
Not so in this case- the petition format and management is administered by the Prime Minister's Office and is on their official web site. Consequently to sign any of the petitions you have to be a British Citizen or resident. Many may disagree with this limitation but I suppose it's something to do with living and voting in theUK. You can be rest assured that if this petition was being administered by the BofBMF or the RAF, all loyal Commonwealth Citizens would be welcomed to sign.:ok:

clunckdriver

29th Jan 2010, 12:40

ROG, Thanks for that explanation, seems like Ten Downing Street like to restrict dissent just as our Prime Ministers Office does over here, be that as it may, it would be worthwhile Im sure if someone involved could get through to them that such a decision would have implications far outside the shores of the UK, as an example on one UK layover I was on three complete Air Canada crews {including the "back end"}spent a day watching the BB flight perform, also each year in Canada the Battle is remembered in ceromonies across our nation.As you may know "Old Gordon", that was of course F/L Gordon Mcgregor RCAF was not only an ace in the Battle but post war rose to be CEO of TCA/Air Canada, an outstanding man to work for!

airborne_artist

29th Jan 2010, 13:08

Nothing to stop overseas residents signing it, and using a UK address/postcode. SW1A 1AA works well, and I'm sure Betty won't mind. It's her Air Force after all.

bast0n

29th Jan 2010, 21:20

Why not get rid of the Red Arrows?

Historically significant? I don't think so.

Good recruiting tool? Probably.

Cost effective..........................?

A and C

29th Jan 2010, 23:14

The UK PLC has lost its direction this is because the leasons of the past have been forgotten and dropped like a cigarette end in favour of the bean counters who can tell you he cost of everything and know the value of nothing.

Lets look at two notionaly national airlines and the way thet view the past, British Airways let the staff restore a HS Trident to prestine condition and then told them if they did not remove it from the premisis they would have it cut up.

Lufthansa backs the staff effort to run a historic flight and uses it for publicity, they are even about to get a Conie on line!

BA sells its staff flying club

Lufthansa encourages its staff by making flying affordable for its staff with flying clubs at all main bases.

BA is about to go to the wall with industral strife looming.

Lufthansa is one of the expanding players in the airline market.

This all says to me that the value of the BBMF cant be measured by numbers on a balance sheet, it is at the very heart of what the Royal Air Force stands for and without it and its links to the past the RAF will slowly fall apart.................. Just like the UK's once proud airline.

But may be that is the price to pay for a Nu labia goverment.

The director now cuts to the Disband the RAF thread.

OnaBeach

31st Jan 2010, 00:51

I served with BBMF for 3 seasons in the late 90's. I can not over emphasise what an honour and a priviledge it was to display the Lancaster, show veterans around and hear stories from days when the world was in a much worse state than it is now. To talk about disbandment is utter rubbish and the senior hierarchy of the RAF should be ashamed of themselves if this is what they are considering, to save a few pounds which will melt into the defence budget with no trace. How about some of the air officers positions are disbanded? At least maybe a few bad decisions and a whole heap of money will be saved.

OnaBeach

BEagle

31st Jan 2010, 07:52

airpolice, I can confirm the unpleasantness of some of those items on your list, having been tempted to try them against my better judgement....:eek:

Guinness - perhaps not the best moment to try it for the first time was after a dining-in night, hip flask of Glenfiddich and a couple of beers at a UAS back in the 1970s...it lasted as long as the time it takes to run from the ULAS THQ bar to trap 2. I haven't been tempted to try Pope's Pi$$ since, although it seems to be OK in thick, rich beef casseroles.

Skodas. The company had 2 pool cars - a Volvo and a Skoda. Worse still, both were diesels. The Volvo died, so I had to use the Skoda. On non-Autobahns I was forever having to shift between 4th and 5th - and even 6th, given a straight-ish stretch. Fortunately no-one recognised me.

Yoghourt isn't actually too awful - no real Akrotiri kebab was complete without it.

But as for the rest of the list, that must be for others to report as I have no intention of experimenting further.....:ooh:

Regarding the BBMF petition, some may think that it is a waste of time. But at least it is a way of letting No.10 know how much people value the contribution which the Flight makes to commemorating our wartime history - as indeed does the Royal Navy Historic Flight, of course.

grandfer

31st Jan 2010, 16:23

Do some of you really think that any money saved on either the Reds or the BBMF would actually make any difference to our Frontline equipment ?
Have we seen any improvements in our forces with the alleged savings of the retirement of the Royal Yacht , Queen's Flight ,the Royal Tournament ,various Army bands , early retirement of the Jaguar + other countless cost-saving cuts ? That money will simply disappear into our corrupt pathetic Governments black hole of Financial "good causes" , I'll let you all decide on those .

Good Luck for May 6th. :ugh::ugh::mad::mad:

Chugalug2

31st Jan 2010, 18:57

I can takes so much Olive and then I can't takes no more! My Grandchildren and most probably my Great Grandchildren will be paying off the debts run up by Sir Fred and all his chums. The Defence Budget is a prime target for the squeeze that will have all the pips squeaking. It is not a question of how much more spending will be available for the front line but more a question of how much less there will be if the BBMF, the AEF's, the UAS's etc etc have to go on being funded out of the same budget. The irony in all this is that there is a fair chance that the only aircraft in full compliance with the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations are those operated by the BBMF, given that it directs its own procurement, maintenance and servicing procedures. Lack of funds to do that for the front line fleets has already cost far too many lives. When the new MAA starts its business of trying to rectify that, the first thing it will need is money and probably far more than was ever "saved" by deliberately flouting the Airworthiness Regulations for more than twenty years. Again that has to come out of that very same Defence Budget. We are at war, whether members posting here support that or not is immaterial, we are still at war. There is a desperate need for more AT and especially SH, again that has to come out of the same budget. I really think that we have to face up to reality and quickly. If something is done in good time it is possible that the Flight can carry on, albeit under different funding arrangements. Do nothing and the likelihood is that it will be disbanded and the aircraft sold off. I do not believe that the annual cost is a mere £3M. I do not believe that the MOD has not plans to save whatever the real financial cost is. My point is that the real cost of diverting money to worthy but unessential ends will be in lives lost in avoidable accidents if this burden is not lifted from the Defence Budget. Oh, seeing as I'm going to get jumped on anyway, may as well get hung for the sheep etc. Beags, your comment that those who do not support this petition are unworthy of wearing the light blue was outrageous. You may have been aiming it at those younger ones who are still serving, that simply makes it more outrageous in my view. Well I don't support it and resent the slur on my service in the Royal Air Force. Disagree with me by all means, as indeed you do, but keep that sort of "banter" to yourself!

BEagle

31st Jan 2010, 19:59

Bolleaux, I did not suggest that those who didn't support the petition were unworthy; what I actually wrote was:

Enough is b£oody enough - and anyone who cannot see the worth of the BBMF simply does not deserve to wear a blue suit.

Which I stand by.

Lest we forget

Samuel

31st Jan 2010, 20:13

Oh dear, EGDG thinks we're living in the past, then presents a view that proves that he has no understanding whatsoever of that past which, incidentally, prevented him from living and speaking German. He clearly has a chip on his shoulder, possibly sourced from the teak higher up. He seems to be very much your average model youth, although apparently not a fully equipped and working model.

Destroying the highly visible links with what it is we all stand for, or used to stand for before Prime Ministers rejected principles of honesty and trust in committing to an illegal war, is a seriously negative step when shiny-arsed pen-pushers in your MOD get massive bonuses for mis-managing a job which could be done by a couple of good NCOs with a bit of nous.

The Memorial Flight doesn't need to be cut due to lack of funds; the funds are there already, but are being mis-spent in layers of incompetence. The funding to maintain the links are there, if the whole budget wasn't being used so much as a lottery.

Chugalug2

31st Jan 2010, 20:38

Beagle:

what I actually wrote was:
Quote:
Enough is b£oody enough - and anyone who cannot see the worth of the BBMF simply does not deserve to wear a blue suit. Which I stand by.

This thread is about supporting a petition to the Government calling upon it to keep supporting the BBMF (via the Defence Budget). What other interpretation of your above comment is there other than that those who do not support the petition cannot see the worth of the BBMF and thus do not deserve etc etc? Has anyone, including me, said that they do not see the worth of the BBMF? My posts are, rightly or wrongly, an attempt to preserve rather than disband the BBMF which is more likely to happen by doing nothing other than to simply sign this petition. Make provision for it now rather than face a fait accompli then! Oh, and bolleaux to you as well!

moosemaster

1st Feb 2010, 13:23

Strange how there is complete uproar over the BBMF (allegedly costing £3M per annum) and yet this statistic goes unnoticed.

Why does the UK have a foreign aid budget of £7.8 billion and an NHS deficit of £1.3 billion

As has been said, it is not a lack of money, it is a lack of competence on behalf of those in charge of spending it. Add that to the fact that those spending it are "Politically correct" and "vote chasing" and the future doesn't look good for anything that is, or ever was in the slightest way, ever connected with "Great Britain"!

I for one would rather spend £3M on the BBMF and a mere £7.797 billion on foreign aid. It is much cheaper to maintain a capability, than to try to reclaim it once it's been lost!