Telegraph - RAF bare bones article

[Selatar]

Full article below. Much hype some truth. Whilst the RAF can contribute, can they sustain?

DT
By Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent
6:00PM BST 25 Sep 2014

Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon says the RAF is at “rock bottom” after years of cuts and sustaining air strikes against Isil would be “quite a stretch”

Britain will struggle to mount a lengthy air campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq because its air force has been reduced to the “bare bones” by defence cuts, a former head of the RAF has warned.

Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon said the RAF was at “rock bottom” after years of cuts and sustaining air strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) fighters would be “quite a stretch”.

MPs are on Friday expected to back a Government motion authorising a bombing campaign on Isil targets in Iraq to try to help the Baghdad government beat back the militants who have seized large parts of northern Iraq.

RAF Tornados stationed at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus are poised to begin bombing as soon as the weekend.

Ministers have warned the campaign to defeat Isil will be a long haul that could take years.

Sir Michael, a former Chief of the Air Staff, said with fighters already committed to defending UK air space and operations in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and the Falklands, the RAF would be badly stretched to take on a new campaign.

He said: “The lack of combat air craft is a major weakness in our make up. This has been raised time and time again and basically ignored. We really are at rock bottom.”

The RAF is short of pilots and navigators, while the longer the campaign carried on, the more wear and tear would hit the reliability of the ageing Tornados, he said.

Sir Michael, vice president of the UK National Defence Association, said: “To sustain this operation is going to be quite a stretch.”

Britain currently has just seven combat-capable air squadrons, compared to 15 for the French air force.

Air Cdre Andrew Lambert said: “I think it’s doable, but we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. There’s nothing more there, so let’s hope Ukraine doesn’t bubble up into something nasty.

“I think ministers are just coming back to being briefed on this and realising how far they have taken it.

“Weapons stocks are parlous and when you chuck this all together, it’s a pretty poor position. We have too few air craft, too few pilots and too much tasking.”

British combat jets have been sent to the Baltic to police Nato air space this year and also to Nigeria to search for kidnapped school girls in Nigeria.

Six RAF Tornados have been stationed in Cyprus for the past six weeks and have been flying surveillance flights over northern Iraq.

The jets could begin dropping Paveway IV guided bombs and Brimstone missiles within hours of the Prime Minister giving orders.

[junior.VH-LFA]

A sad day for you Poms when your colonials send a better and bigger fast jet component than you :E

[Selatar]

Good post...

Whilst I don't disagree that the current UK declared fast jet component is small, the GR4 is bloody good at its business. The force has been dropping weapons in large quantities every year since 98. I think six battle hardened tonkas with some of the worlds best weapons and all that rests behind is worth more than a virgin F-18 sqn...

[air pig]

Same in the Daily Mail,

Six Tornados will lead the blitz against ISIS- but former air chief says RAF is at 'rock bottom' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2770171/Six-RAF-Tornados-lead-blitz-against-ISIS-just-hours-Parliamentary-vote-got-war-militants.html)

Isn't it a pity that their 'airships' did not speak out publically when they were in the service and resign as a matter of principle, or did they fear a Dr Kelly being done on them?

[air pig]

How many GR4s are in flyable storage and how many tornado crew's are in other posts, may have increase squadron sizes or stand some more squadrons up again.

[rjtjrt]

RAF is still a formidable thing, despite the cuts. A tribute to its crews and ground staff.
I never thought of it at the time, but I wonder if it was ever thought to ask if we could use RAF Cyprus instead of UAE as a base? Much closer. And a pleasant and safe place for crews.

[Bob Viking]

You wouldn't have to look too far back into the annals of Pprune history to find evidence of politicians, senior officers and, let's be honest, half the people on this forum complaining about how the RAF is too FJ centric.
We should have more helicopters and stuff the FJs was the general consensus.
Maybe we just need to admit that it's time to stop cutting useful equipment and stand united in our views. We need everything we have. And more.
BV

[NickPilot]

Given that Flightglobal.com reported this week that "Tornado Could Fly Into 2030s", what are the chances of it staying in RAF service into the 2020s now that the world is not a warm, fuzzy place full of rainbows and unicorns?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I think they'd struggle to regenerate enough to keep the GR4 going for 10+ years on top of its planned OSD. We don't have a FJ navigator training system anymore! We've cut the force down to 2 front line squadrons and an OCU. I imagine the OCU would struggle with suddenly getting enough refreshers to stand up another squadron, never mind re-training 100-odd engineers, and moving enough people around the force to keep dilution and experience at sensible levels.

The 5th Typhoon squadron is just a flight right now but is in the process of standing up. Maybe getting the chequebook out and paying for the proper integration of the GR4's weapon set into Typhoon, and admitting that the original plan for 7 sqns (maybe 6 as a compromise!) was a better idea would help us sustain "years" of bombing IS.

[Wander00]

All very sad, and yet another correspondent who cannot spell "Marshal"!

[1.3VStall]

NP,

I think that with what is going on in the world, together with an unproven Typhoon strike capability, the chances of the pitifully small Tornado force continuing longer than currently planned is a certainty!

[Frostchamber]

The current PM has talked down the value of what he calls pointy jets and while a better emphasis on non-FJ was undoubtedly important, as with everything else it's a case of striking the right balance. Recent events seem to be pointing up that current plans do not have the balance quite right.

That is something SDSR 2015 will need to look at. For one thing, the idea that in 2019 the nascent F35 force will be able seamlessly to step into the shoes of the highly developed Tornado capability sounds more than a tad optimistic. Rescinding the decision to bring Tornado OSD forward from 2022 would be a helpful first step that would buy some breathing space, without trying to string Tornado out too far.

After that, making provision at least for a second batch of say 20 F35 to allow generation of a third front line squadron in the early mid 2020s would be proportionate and achievable. And necessary. Doing nothing more between the initial 48 and Typhoon OSD doesn't strike me as a good idea.

[VinRouge]

Would we still be on the bones of our arse if mod had funded swing role and ground attack on tiffy instead of a more advanced radar? Seems to me decisions are being made to ensure the longevity of a 2 fast jet fleet when actually, one should be able to manage both roles by now?

Also suspect there may be a bit of gamesmanship in the offing at the mo, especially with sdsr 2015 around the corner and options being persued.

About time the strategic defence was taken back off the mod's books to unload the budget perhaps?

Rescinding decisions may not be so easy, particularly with training streams (FJ WSOP) programmed to end at some stage...

[Thelma Viaduct]

These senior officers never speak up when in the forces.

How do they expect people to follow and put their lives on the line when they show no leadership qualities or military ethic themselves???

They're nearly as bad as politicians.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I wonder how the training system will cope full stop if you decide to change the numbers; the FJ pilot training world has been in perilous state recently, and I don't know if there's the manpower to ramp it up any more. If you decide you need to add a few extra GR4 pilots to the existing plans for Typhoon and LII guys over the next 5 years or so, it has a surprising impact on the whole system.

Never mind the requirement to start retraining navs. Even if it was a small number, you're looking at more QFIs at the BFJT and AFT/TW stages, and extra ones double-hatted as QPNIs at the BFJT level plus bolstering 100 Sqn. Then you need to maintain the experience and numbers on the 2 existing GR4 sqns, while increasing the numbers on the OCU to cope with the increased training throughput, all while generating enough people to form a 3rd squadron, say...?

If you take everyone who left II(AC) Sqn and send them all back, then all of their new jobs will need filling too; and if many of them wound up at 100 Sqn, 1 or 4 FTSs, then those jobs will be critical to sustaining and building any increased number of GR4 crews for the future.

It's the problem when you cut this small and that finely. Going back isn't particularly easy. This is all assuming everyone says "yes," when guys being sent back to the GR4 are facing what, 5 more years on a 2-squadron force, with a constant commitment to Akrotiri and flying over Syria and northern Iraq?

The last time we had a 2/3 sqn force sent on ops it eventually broke it pretty fundamentally. That time there was another force about to stop one op that moved into the other. This time we don't have that, as Typhoon's heavily committed to QRA, Baltic air policing, the FI, etc etc.

Be interesting to see if they extend or increase the GR4. I'd love to see some expansion instead of contraction...!!

[Phil_R]

What do you mean by "broke it pretty fundamentally?"

[PostMeHappy]

Gents,

We've still got 3 FL GR4 sqns, all at Marham, plus the OCU at Lossie, caveat current plans to transfer II(AC) across to Tiffies next Apr.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Whoops, I was speaking a few weeks in advance... given that they've already started picking staff for a reformed Typhoon II Sqn, I guess they best make some decisions quickly...!

[Roland Pulfrew]

the GR4 are facing what, 5 more years on a 2-squadron force, with a constant commitment to Akrotiri and flying over Syria and northern Iraq?


We could do something radical, like move the last 2 Tornado sqns and all of the crews, groundcrews and families to RAF Akrotiri - permanently.

To be slightly fair to the Air Chief Marshal in question, he did stand up to the politicians when he was in. He had a pop at Portaloo when he wes SofS Def and was told to resign or apologise; he chose to apologise knowing that he had already scored a DH with the press.

As for the RAF - my guess is we are on the verge of implosion. We can no longer surge the tarining pipeline because we have no irreducible spare capacity and we have contracted everything out. We have insufficient crews across all of the frontline squadrons whether FJ, ME or RW and there is virtually no way of regenerating them because the OCUs do not have any spare capacity. We don't have sufficient aircraft because we don't have sufficient grdouncrew or spares holdings because of leaning and "just too late" policies. We don't keep a proper level of capability becuase of the barking mad decsion that you cannot increase aircrew/groundcrew numbers during transition to a new type, but have to drawdown one capability early to allow the new one to build up. Alll this means is that you take out the fully capable fleet with nothing to replace it ewhilst it works up, trains and buildds experince and its TTPs. HMFC is a shadow of its former self; we keep taking "savings" to pay for Gucci future shiney toys rather than spending money on keeping a capability in service up to its OSD and waiting until the new tech has matured a little bit! :{

[Ronald Reagan]

Terrifying to think we have gone from 18x RAF combat squadrons plus 2x Fleet Arm Combat squadrons in year 2000 to just 7x RAF combat squadrons now.

[tucumseh]

It disgusts me the way the BBC continue to pander to Graydon. After his LIES on Mull of Kintyre, he should have the decency to crawl under a rock. Anything he utters is forever tainted.

[LowObservable]

Just as well the MoD's already sunk a billion into new FJ...

Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft: 2 Jul 2014: Hansard Written Answers - TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-07-02b.201930.h)

[Valiantone]

Perhaps the government might actually wake up and smell the coffee?

Then again, I doubt it:rolleyes:

V1

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I'd take £1Bn sunk into F35. If you want to see real waste, see how close the MOD is to spending the same amount on Watchkeeper....! :eek:

[Just This Once...]

I'd take £1Bn sunk into F35. If you want to see real waste, see how close the MOD is to spending the same amount on Watchkeeper....! :eek:

Is it really that close to that milestone?

Perhaps this is one stretch target Wastekeeper can reach.

[Out Of Trim]

Six Tornados, Six? Is that it?

My God, things must be even worse than I thought!

I was expecting at least 12..

Words Fail me, how embarrassing! :mad:


.

[Whenurhappy]

Belgium and Denmark are contributing 6 'planes' (BBC-speak for aircraft) each, as well.

[Fonsini]

When has the RAF ever said "we simply have too many assets to complete that mission".

Until the Chief of the Air Staff turns round and actually says "no, we can't do it" as opposed to "we can do it, but we'll be stretched" it all means nothing.

At the end of the day if the RAF was down to just one squadron of tired old Tornados it could still launch "attacks", judging how effective they will be on ISIS/ISIL is entirely subjective.

[air pig]

Sometimes it makes you yearn for the days of GSFG and their friends. The world was a more 'peaceful' place with the superpowers kicking the a**e of their proxies when they got too big for their boots.

The Peace Dividend, don't you just love it.

[Courtney Mil]

Terrifying to think we have gone from 18x RAF combat squadrons plus 2x Fleet Arm Combat squadrons in year 2000 to just 7x RAF combat squadrons now.
Smaller threat to your USSR, Ronald. Don't forget to report it.

[Hangarshuffle]

Yes Ronald R. year 2000, you are quite right- how quickly it all went, and now there is nothing left at all. Whilst I disagree with the present Govts. thinking on having a never ending war with people in Iraq, in year 2000 I well remember having a drive around Yeovilton's south side and having a last look around the hangars before I departed. I counted 25 x FA2 Sea Harriers either whole and ready to go, or with a few in fairly big bits that could have been reassembled in a routine manner by our excellent sets of highly trained and experienced engineers. A reasonable if smallish number of aircrew knocking about, some RNR admittedly but many combat proven, experienced carrier-trained airmen.
And its all gone in a few short years. Sorry, I've nothing positive to add to this thread at all.

[Saintsman]

What a poorly written article. I almost lost count the number of times "Quite a stretch" and " Bare bones" were mentioned.

Even if it is somewhat true.

[Wander00]

I thought they said Denmark is providing 7 aircraft - I noticed particularly as we are off to one of the younger Ws and his family in Copenhagen tomorrow

[Typhoon93]

What's wrong with sending the Army Air Corps in to contribute as well?

It would relieve some of the pressure off of the RAF and the Apache's can also do things that jets can't and vice versa. The US Army are already over there flying their AH-64's. It's doable.

I remember reading somewhere that it's only going to get worse for the RAF for the foreseeable future - by the end of this year there will only apparently be six flying combat sqns. That's not a lot.

[Selatar]

There is no doubt the AH-64 is an impressive platform. However, probably a step too far for HMG at this time given the need for a deployment into Iraq and increased threat given exposure to small arms and MANPADS. Range and endurance will increasingly be an issue as this turns into an ISTAR soak op in the weeks ahead..

[Typhoon93]

Good point regarding the Apache's.

Does anybody think the government (or a future government next year) will invest in 'cheaper' aircraft to form or reform more squadrons?

Such as the F/A-18 or even the new F-15SE?

How many squadrons are the new F-35's supposed to create?

Not just FJ's, but the other disciplines too.

[glad rag]

Any reprieve for Sentinel? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[ShotOne]

With a hundred or so Tornados, does deploying six justify this outburst? The only thing stretched to breaking point seems to be this guys credibility.

[MAINJAFAD]

Six here, Six there, six hanger queens, Six on exercise, 12 on the OCU (min), 4 on the OEU plus god knowns how many on depth servicing makes quite a hole in of that one hundred.

Typhoon93, read something about the US Army's attempt to do a deep penetration AH-64 raid in Iraq during 2003. They did take a bit of a shoeing. One Apache shot down and most of the others damaged.

[salad-dodger]

Six here, Six there, six hanger queens, Six on exercise, 12 on the OCU (min), 4 on the OEU plus god knowns how many on depth servicing makes quite a hole in of that one hundred.

Typhoon93, read something about the US Army's attempt to do a deep penetration AH-64 raid in Iraq during 2003. They did take a bit of a shoeing. One Apache shot down and most of the others damaged.
You've gotta love these threads. The naive musings of a wannabe spotter mixed with those with of a B&T retired radar bod.

In the words of the great (well, well known) Ronan Keating: "you say it best when you say nothing at all"

Sometimes it's best to just observe unless you have something to add........whoops!

S-D

[MAINJAFAD]

Retired Radar Bod who spent his last 4 years in the service trying to manage a very important service (very aircraft related) that required 24/7 cover with a lack of experienced manpower (All Ranks) and when I got people totally 'Q'ed they were nicked for OOA on mass (almost 1/4 of the section on one occasion) or posted. Morale down the Sh!ter, plus no budget to deal with a number important issues raised due to changes enforced by the MAA. The RAF is broken, but it isn't my problem anymore.

[Basil]

How much of the problem is due to paying fit men to sit on their arses whilst we import foreigners to do the work which they should be doing?
Or paying for the bastard children of runaway fathers. Nothing against bastards, just the runaway fathers - and the women who intentionally got themselves pregnant for the benefits.
Our social services need a root and branch overhaul.

[salad-dodger]

Retired Radar Bod who spent his last 4 years in the service trying to manage a very important service (very aircraft related) that required 24/7 cover with a lack of experienced manpower (All Ranks) and when I got people totally 'Q'ed they were nicked for OOA on mass (almost 1/4 of the section on one occasion) or posted. Morale down the Sh!ter, plus no budget to deal with a number important issues raised due to changes enforced by the MAA. The RAF is broken, but it isn't my problem anymore.

Did I mention B&T? I will take that with a portion of chips!

S-D

[TEEEJ]

1.3VStall wrote

together with an unproven Typhoon strike capability

What is unproven about it?

Op Ellamy (Libya)

Sqn Ldr Bolton led the first ever Typhoon-only strike mission and a multi-aircraft COMAO at night against a target near Tripoli. Setting the scene Sqn Ldr Bolton told AIR International:

“We were due to fly with some French Rafales, a Growler, and tankers from France and the UK. Very bad weather in Corsica meant the Rafales were unable to safely get airborne or recover to their base leaving us and the Growler to continue the mission.”

He added: “Not only did we get airborne and strike our own targets we re-rolled whilst airborne and took out the targets assigned to the other aircraft also.”

'Typhoon a year on the road' pdf download is available at the following link.

http://www.baesystems.com/download/BAES_063239/typhoon--a-year-on-the-road

[Whenurhappy]

Did I mention B&T?

Please enlighten us of the details of your private squabble. We really want to know.

[PapaDolmio]

Is Typhoon cleared for Brimstone, Stormshadow, Raptor, gun yet?

[ShotOne]

Salad dodger "naive musings..." This is pprune. What were you expecting?

If senior officers -or anyone else -want to air their moans in the Daily Telegraph is it then reasonable to expect everyone to "just observe"?

[Melchett01]

Typhoon93, read something about the US Army's attempt to do a deep penetration AH-64 raid in Iraq during 2003. They did take a bit of a shoeing. One Apache shot down and most of the others damaged.

Apologies for thread drift, but correct. It was an 11 Attack Helicopter Regt mission up around Karbala that didn't go quite according to plan. To cut the long story very short, the coalition spent an eternity trying to work out how to degrade Saddam's 'traditional' IADS capability only for locals and militias on the ground to step up and fill the gaps using observers with hand held radios and telephones and their not inconsiderably supply of small arms and HMGs that was so prevalent. What had basically happened was that the 12 years of operating over Iraq to police the no fly zones between 1991 and 2003, as well as familiarising the coalition with Iraqi TTPs also enabled the Iraqis to get a good idea of our TTPs. Not such a problem if you're in a FJ either operating above the threat or with the speed and experience to be able to do something about it, but AH didn't have any of those luxuries operating low and slow in the heart of the small arms threat let alone the SAM threat and with crews that had little corporate experience of the AO being new to Theatre.

In that one night, the Iraqi militias did a good job of destroying the notion that we had air supremacy and instead made us realise that at best we had air superiority and even then, in the worst case scenario, only at a defined and local level when we could commit resources to ensuring it.

Fast forward to 2014, with the amount of kit including MANPADS floating round N Iraq - remember ISIL have been moving kit freely back and forth across the Iraqi Syrian border and have captured all sorts inc SA-16 and Air a Defence Artillery, then if you do put AH into Iraq, it should be with the expectation of losing a few.

Now, back to that small strike capability we've deployed! But don't forget we've had AT and ISR deployed since the start of this venture nigh on 2 months ago, so taking the whole package together it is quite a commitment for a now relatively small Air Force, but with SDSR round the corner, vital if we are to prevent losing even more capability next year.

[MAINJAFAD]

Melchett01

In other words, somebody in Iraq read a book on the history of air power including the chapter that covered how a technically and numerically inferior force can disrupt the operations of a superior one (examples would be Vietnam and the Battle of Britain (ROC)). Just because the some method of operation is old fashioned, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Whenurhappy

Bitter and Twisted? Hardly. I don't know the other guy from Adam.

[MaxReheat]

'We have too few aircraft, too few pilots and too much tasking' - didn't I recall the same scenario around this time 74 years ago?

Politicians are amateurs. Despite their first-class degrees in useless subjects and their supposedly mighty intellects, they learn nothing except how to pander to popularism. Their ability to look into the future, especially where military spending and capability is concerned, doesn't even make it to the end of their smug noses.

When the guano does hit the fan out they crawl out in an attempt to recover a situation of their own making. The 'political class' of the past 2 decades has reduced our Armed Forces to 2nd division levels of capability yet 'they' still have aspirations, nay delusions, of the Premier League. To extend the analogy, money has to be spent not only to get into the Premier League but, more pertinently, has to be spent to stay there and that is where we, as a nation, have been failed.

Amateurs the lot of them and not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier......or a pilot or nav or 'grunt' or 'bootneck'.:ugh:

[ATFQ]

ZZZZZZZZZZ

[iRaven]

ATFQ - I note you corrected his spelling of 'Marshal' :ok:

[Selatar]

Rather good to see an MP who appears to know what he is talking about and has got his facts straight. Parliament appears well stocked with former army officers who ruthlessly champion their old service. Good to have some balance. Not sure if it will have any effect mind....

[thing]

Today’s combat aircraft are more capable than those of 1991 but eventually technology cannot substitute for numbers

'Quantity has a quality all its own'. Lenin.

[4everAD]

So at a time where we are struggling to hang onto our ac techs we go and warn them off for on/off Ops for up to 3 years. Don't think even the new Techy pay will prevent large numbers from banging out.

[Heathrow Harry]

I hate to say this but the next 5-10 years will see even more cuts - not just in defence but in everything else - the politicians are loth to say anything (or "forget") the deficit

Expect we'll be down to a couple of FJ squadrons by then :(:(

[Melchett01]

I hate to say this but the next 5-10 years will see even more cuts - not just in defence but in everything else - the politicians are loth to say anything (or "forget") the deficit

The latest thinking from RUSI on that front doesn't make for enjoyable reading when one considers the implications if they are correct:

'The Financial Context for the 2015 SDSR: The End of UK Exceptionalism?' argues that on current spending plans and growth projections UK defence spending is set to fall below the NATO 2 per cent target for the first time next financial year, to an estimated 1.88 per cent of GDP in 2015/16.

The briefing shows how existing Ministry of Defence (MoD) planning assumptions (for modest real-terms growth in its budget after 2015/16) would, in the context of projected GDP growth, see spending falling to around 1.7 per cent of GDP by 2020/21. Given wider government plans for spending cuts after 2015/16, however, this could prove over-optimistic. Further cuts in the 2015 Spending Review (of between 4 per cent and 10 per cent in real terms over five years) could see defence spending falling to between 1.5 per cent and 1.6 per cent of GDP in 2020/21.

Given the risk of further such cuts, the MoD’s interests would be best served by conducting the next SDSR in parallel with (rather than subsequent to) the 2015 Spending Review. This would help to ensure that government leaders (in both Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street) are fully aware of the capability consequences of proposed spending cuts before they are finalised.

Because of the short time involved in such a schedule – perhaps only three months after the election before key capability choices need to be made – the MoD will need to complete much of the detailed work on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a range of possible policy options in advance of the May 2015 General Election. Without such work, ministers could find themselves – as in 2010 – being forced to make key decisions without adequate supporting data.

The full paper can be found here http://https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/201409_BP_Financial_Context_of_the_2015_SDSR.pdf

[ShotOne]

While I very much agree with those wanting to see the RAF being given the tools for the job, it's concerning to hear that some feel that a deployment of six aircraft will leave it "fundamentally broken". Is this a true statement? If so, how did we come to a point where deploying less than a twentieth of our fast jets can have such an effect?

[Lima Juliet]

Politicians are amateurs. Despite their first-class degrees in useless subjects and their supposedly mighty intellects, they learn nothing except how to pander to popularism. Their ability to look into the future, especially where military spending and capability is concerned, doesn't even make it to the end of their smug noses.


:D:D:D:D:D:D

Oh, how very true!

LJ

[Just This Once...]

Not sure it is a twentieth of those held and funded at readiness.

By my maths we have 3 Tornado squadrons left and 3 out-of-area commitments for them….

[5 Forward 6 Back]

ShotOne, it's not aircraft, it's people!

We may have, on paper, 100 GR4s left. Some are knackered, some are in depth, others allocated to squadrons. Some are the wrong fit or the wrong software, but it's not that tricky, as we've just proven, to find a pile of them to take to a new op. Likewise ELLAMY.

But who flies and maintains them? We're down to 3 (thanks for the correction) squadrons. That means at any one time, you have one squadron going through the pre-SHADER workup, you have one squadron deployed, and you have one squadron at home. That squadron at home has to handle ALL your other commitments, detachments, training, everything, as well as giving its people the lion's share of leave.

Guys on the GR4 Force right now have done maybe 4 HERRICK dets during a tour. 16 months at Kandahar in 36 months; almost half their entire tour on ops. When you then add the fact that a lot of them did 3-4 months supporting ELLAMY as well, and now they're being retoured because of a lack of GR4 aircrew and being asked to sustain SHADER for 2-3 years....?

Take a guy who's had 20 months away out of 36, move him to another squadron, and tell him he's looking at 4 months on ops, 8 months at home for another 36 months and I'm not sure very many of them are going to be happy. That's not taking into account the fact that HERRICK isn't finished, so a third of your force is already deployed!

The GR4 Force worked fine handling HERRICK when it had 7 front line squadrons to service it. It managed ELLAMY as well with those numbers. With 5 squadrons it got a bit tighter. With 3, you're back into the situation the Harrier force had with HERRICK when it was just 1 Sqn, 3 Sqn and the NSW; sustainable for a while but eventually it just falls apart.

Three squadrons is not a big enough force to sustain a medium term op, really. The remaining GR4 Force should really be covering the bespoke commitments, like RAPTOR and Stormshadow, while the Typhoon picks up the rest.. although on that note, not so long ago people were pointing out that we used to have 5 sqns of F3s purely providing Q, so how are 5 smaller Typhoon sqns meant to do the job of the whole F3 force, the whole Jaguar force, and half the GR4 force?

Not enough people; and the more you push them, the more they'll push back!

[CoffmanStarter]

When you overlay the shocking, and I suspect highly accurate, analysis provided by 5F6B to the stats published last week by the MOD on manning ... when are the Politicians going to wake up :ugh:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tri-service-personnel-bulletin-2014

See headline table at Table 2.01.01a ... RAF Total Strength 1st April 2014 33,210 and that's 5.7% below the stated Requirement by the MOD ... if you are easily upset ... don't read any further ... especially the declining number of personnel in training.

[Just This Once...]

From Coffman's link:

 The deficit between strength and requirement of full-time trained Armed Forces was 8,750 or 5.5 per cent at 1 April 2014. This deficit has increased from 2,230 (1.4 per cent) at 1 April 2013 and increased from 7,880 (4.0 per cent) at 1 April 2000. The increase in the deficit since 1 April 2012 is due to the fact that SDSR-driven requirements have reduced quicker than the strength.

If the requirements have reduced quicker than the strength would that not reduce the deficit?

Have I gone mad or are clowns providing the manning evidence?

[Heathrow Harry]

"Guys on the GR4 Force right now have done maybe 4 HERRICK dets during a tour. 16 months at Kandahar in 36 months; almost half their entire tour on ops. When you then add the fact that a lot of them did 3-4 months supporting ELLAMY as well, and now they're being retoured because of a lack of GR4 aircrew and being asked to sustain SHADER for 2-3 years....?"

I thought they joined to fly?

there are plenty of complaints on here when there isn't much flying................

[downsizer]

Let's not forget that 3 sqns will very shortly become 2.

[Evalu8ter]

...and not forget that 3 Sqns of CH47 have done the same, if not more, than the GRs in Afg for 8 years (GRs only there relatively recently) plus Iraq, FRY, NI and the Falklands for 20 years before that.

And the AH force is in an even worse place, and CHF have been flogged too. At least Merlin Transition might help some draw breath.

Most of the time spent in tents...aircon Coremec being a relatively late luxury.

It's bloody hard work for the crews, and symptomatic of a regime which sees 'surge' as the new 'norm'...

Safe flying to all involved.

[andrewn]

Heathrow Harry - you must be a troll! I'll happily bite.


Despite some confusion over numbers I disagree with ShotOne and think that much of the discussion on this topic has been considered and therefore useful.


What I'm surprised no-one has mentioned is the Tornado Force Elements @ Readiness (FE@R) - as per open source data the Tornado FE@R are on a "phased" drawdown from 40 to 18 (by March 2015). Assuming FE@R is some combination of available jets, CR crews and the myriad support functions required to generate an agreed combat capability, then its difficult (without understanding the logic that underpins FE@R) to determine actual force capacity based purely on volumes of jets, sqns, etc. Of course I suspect the logic behind FE@R is deliberately complex as this then ensures those vital elements of ambiguity and vagueness (which as we all know are essential to any good plan).


But just to give some meat to the bone the last significant funded GR4 upgrade was for a total of 59 jets (which gives a pretty strong indication of the total number of jets required to support 18 FE@R - and fits quite nicely with the 3:1 ratio in terms of total jets needed to support the task).


Anyway I digress, I think the real point I am trying to make is that (1) the cut from 40 to 18 FE@R is significant (over 50%), and (2) 18 is a LOW number (somewhat irrespective of what it actually equates to).


In conclusion it is my view that available capacity in the Tornado Force is currently VERY low, with no doubt some ability to support short term "surge" but that's probably about the lot.


Unlike HH I can see beyond the pure flying hours point and I feel quite sorry for the guys and gals that are working their butts off to generate the task (both at home and overseas).

[ATFQ]

ZZZZZZZZZZ

[ratpackgreenslug]

Today’s combat aircraft are more capable than those of 1991 but eventually technology cannot substitute for numbers


'Quantity has a quality all its own'. Lenin.

Wrong despot. The quote is attributed to Stalin.

[Selatar]

GR4 force wind down plan was always too aggressive and driven purely by cost. As we know the enemy (and parliament) have a vote. The utopia of contingency ain't going to happen with SF and the light blue being the weapons of choice. Keeping the third GR4 sqn appears an obvious choice as the op looks like it will be similar in tempo to the no fly zones of 98 to 03 ie lots of sorties with regular use of weapons and lots of dets to AKI vice AAS.

FRIs for WSOs anyone....

[fergineer]

Will the fleets be able to keep up with the PVR's that will surely come. Airlines recruiting mean less able men the only ones to remain. Lack of frames no lack of people yes that is what will stop this war effort.

[ShotOne]

If a few months in Cyprus is the deal-breaker for your RAF career I'd think twice about airline flying these days, ferg!

5 forward, thank you for that reasoned explanation. Pity the Air Marshal didn't frame his argument so well.

Just this once, "3 out of area commitments" for tornado: Afgan (not for long) now Cyprus, where's the third?

[4everAD]

A few months in Cyprus away from family (again). Having been over to Aki they're not exactly on holiday, time off being limited, no Op bonus (standby for pilots to get it for days they fly over Iraq). Not sure of the accom they're in but doubt it'll be slam etc.
Typical image of Cyprus eh? It's all fun out here well believe me it isn't, working out here is more stressful than in the UK, where I work we support Ops 24/7 365 with working hours to match.

[Just This Once...]

If a few months in Cyprus is the deal-breaker for your RAF career I'd think twice about airline flying these days....

Just this once, "3 out of area commitments" for tornado: Afgan (not for long) now Cyprus, where's the third?

Shot, nobody would ever suggest that a few months in Cyprus is a deal-breaker. This thread talks of the constant stretch for aircrew and ground crew alike. The crews supporting this new task are the very same people we have asked so much of over several years. This situation is not unique to the FJ world either.

The 3rd location is in the original article at the start of this thread. Probably worth re-reading it before challenging it.

[Bill4a]

Looks like Heathrow Harry, in common with a lot of civilians, thinks that the RAF is composed entirely of pilots or aircrew! I know we lower orders don't do anything remotely important, or have families who like to see us etc etc ......!

[Roadster280]

If the RAF has 60 aircraft of a particular type (I know it's 59x GR4, but we'll go with easy maths), and is struggling to provide 6 for a new task, this raises two questions in my mind:

1. (Less important). What happened to the other 40 from the previous 100? Just retired as 30 year old hulks? If so, what does that say about the inability of the latest jet (i.e. Typhoon) after 6 years in service (FGR4) and 11 years for the Typhoon as a whole, to take on the roles it needs to in order to do its job?

2. (More important). If the structure and procedures of the RAF are such that it needs 10x as many aircraft to provide a small force for a new op, then that looks like something is very wrong.

The RAF has shed many airfields (Cottesmore, Kinloss, Leuchars, Coltishall all major airfields) , several aircraft types (Tornado F3, Jag, Harrier, Nimrod, C130K, Tristar, Merlin off the top of my head), and yet still is in this position. What is wrong?

If the savings produced by shedding aircraft fleets (and aircraft within remaining fleets) haven't produced a efficient and capable air force, then something is very wrong at the top. Looks like a systemic failure of thinking.

6 aircraft needing 60 on strength (or worse still, 100 on strength, with 40 in a shed at Shawbury or similar) looks very inefficient. It may be that there are a legion of reasons for this, but that's not what is being read in the papers, and ultimately, voted for.

I don't know what the answer is, and it thankfully isn't my problem, but it does look pretty bad.

[Just This Once...]

Roadster, your question is only valid if the number of aircraft was the only factor in generating FE@R. The underfunding of Typhoon development and the salmi slicing of some fleets and rapid disposal of others is outwith the control of the MoD. These are government directed cuts underpinned by a supine electorate. The cuts were justified on the basis that our need to participate in conflicts would end by will-power alone.

As for efficiency, I am not aware of any fleet failing to meet its funded posture. Indeed, our continued ability to pull rabbits out of hats is seen by some politicians as evidence that we cry wolf. Of course, the true penalty is felt only by real servicemen and their all-too-real families. Counting tail numbers stored for disposal is a poor measure of military capability and our ability to sustain.

[Finningley Boy]

You're spot on Roadster but whenever anyone attempts to get a Government person to explain this, a well worn mantra is recited, as follows; (delivered in the manner of a cross English Primary School Teacher telling off a persistently griping child) "Look this country is the fourth largest spender on Defence across the world, further I feel what is far more important to mention in these difficult times, is the immense gratitude we owe to the marvellous men and women of our armed services and the difficult and often dangerous job they do, one more thing I'd like to say about the previous government's blah blah blah...."

One thing I'd like to say myself, it is becoming all the more difficult I'm sure, with the greater degree of overseas campaigns with increasingly much sparser resources.
Indeed, the trumpeted deployment of just six Tornados is an indication of how far H.M. Forces have come, at the hands of an increasingly detached and unfamiliar parliament driven by an increasing desire to convince the electorate that they are the party best placed to meet evermore demands for public spending on welfare and the NHS.

FB:)

[Roadster280]

All valid points, so WTF does the MOD spend the money on? 4th largest spender indeed, but on what?

It doesn't appear to be people.

Yes, there are large capital equipment programmes, e.g. new boats for the Navy, trucks and tanks for the Army, and Chinooks, Typhoons, A400Ms etc for the RAF. But these are continuing needs. The services all have ongoing requirements for replacement of kit approaching its OSD. Therefore not a new problem, and one that isn't going away. The MOD ought to have enough experience of managing this ongoing problem for it not to be an issue. The procurement black hole has been plugged, right?

In the meantime, if I am British Airways, and I buy 50 new 787s, my shareholders are not going to be happy if I am only using 25 of them to earn revenue. If the other 25 are in hangars various, or don't have the right seats in them so can't be used, I would be strung up by the balls. Similarly, if I have 25 shiny new 787s AOG because I can't find crews, then my recruitment and training organization(s) is/are for the high jump.

Granted scheduled airline service is quite different from running an Air Force that has to build in contingency planning, so I need a lot of aircraft if I am CAS. If I can only use 6 of them when the **** hits the fan, why should I not be brought to account? Why can't I provide 20? or 30? I have two Ground Attack fleets, and I am rolling out a half-dozen 30 year old airframes, and struggling to do that. Yet I run the Air Force for the 4th largest defence spender in the world?

Something very not right here.

[Just This Once...]

Your BA analogy is a good one.

Can you imagine BA surviving if a completely different company held all the money and saw moving passengers around as discretionary?

Can you imagine BA surviving if this separate company decided that the future was short-haul and on delivery of new assets binned them?

Can you imagine if BA didn't shop around for the best deal on its aircraft and was directed to buy stuff from a failing company just to keep the workers employed?

We are directed to waste money and then blamed for that waste.

CAS has little or no control.

[tucumseh]

We are directed to waste money and then blamed for that waste.


As I may have said before (!) there are firm rules about how to avoid waste. Implementing them is a legal obligation.

But it's a disciplinary offence to implement them, and has been since December 1992.

Unless of course the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Head of the Civil Service wish to rescind this ruling, which they kindly confirmed in writing less than a year ago.

[Party Animal]

Roadster,

If you re-read the very 1st post of this thread, you will note:


Sir Michael, a former Chief of the Air Staff, said with fighters already committed to defending UK air space and operations in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and the Falklands, the RAF would be badly stretched to take on a new campaign.

The RAF is short of pilots and navigators, while the longer the campaign carried on, the more wear and tear would hit the reliability of the ageing Tornados, he said.




Which means it isn't 6 ac required from a pot of 59, its 6 for Iraq plus (x) for AFG plus (y) for Nigeria. Added to the airframe management is the lack of aircrew problem, which has already been mentioned.

Back to the BA analogy with lack of crews to man aircraft. Good luck with a recruiting campaign that starts with the expectation of being away from family and friends for 6 months each year in a sh1t hole, sharing a room with a pilot who snores and having to walk down the corridor for a p1ss and a shower matched to rates of pay that are non-negotiable for a period of several years etc.....

[Red Line Entry]

Roadster,

On top of Party Animal's numbers for the operational activity (6+x+y), there's also a need for jets for OCU training (a), jets for sqn training at home (b) and jets in scheduled maintenance (c). So perhaps 6+x+y+a+b+c does equal 60.

But as identified, it's people, not aircraft, that is often the limiting factor.

[Roadster280]

All good points, again.

I'm out of this discussion now, as the next obvious question is how many combat-ready crew are available, but that's obviously an OPSEC issue.

Good luck to all involved.

[Flugplatz]

Bit of a farce to recall Parliament over 6 jets - we've got more in the Red Arrows. Maybe just declare a major airshow in Baghdad? :hmm:

[Frostchamber]

The real culprits must be some combination of defence inflation and inefficiency. As I understand it, defence spending in real terms (ie AFTER allowing for inflation) is not that much less than it was in 1991. In 2010 it was about the same and has dipped slightly since.

Yet the difference in what that money buys is eyewatering - eg 7 combat sqns down from around 30; 19 frigates and destroyers down from around 50; 7 non-SSBN submarines down from around 25; and around 160,000 total personnel down from around 306,000.

You pays your money and you gets a lot less (what you do get is more capable, unit for unit, but then again it can't be in two or more places at once).

[andrewn]

ROADSTER - If the RAF has 60 aircraft of a particular type (I know it's 59x GR4, but we'll go with easy maths), and is struggling to provide 6 for a new task, this raises two questions in my mind:

1. (Less important). What happened to the other 40 from the previous 100? Just retired as 30 year old hulks? Refer to my previous post on FE@R - Tornado Force is on a "phased" drawdown to 18 FE&R (to save money) so one of the impacts of this is that the jets not required to sustain the new FE&R will be withdrawn. If so, what does that say about the inability of the latest jet (i.e. Typhoon) after 6 years in service (FGR4) and 11 years for the Typhoon as a whole, to take on the roles it needs to in order to do its job?

2. (More important). If the structure and procedures of the RAF are such that it needs 10x as many aircraft to provide a small force for a new op, then that looks like something is very wrong. Refer to previous post on FE&R - no-one is saying that "10x" as many jets are needed to support a 6 a/c det ALONE. 3:1 ratio is about right, in other words for every one deployed there will be another 2 required to sustain that deployment, be they in maint, OCU, used for workup training by a non-deployed unit, etc

The RAF has shed many airfields (Cottesmore, Kinloss, Leuchars, Coltishall all major airfields) , several aircraft types (Tornado F3, Jag, Harrier, Nimrod, C130K, Tristar, Merlin off the top of my head), and yet still is in this position. What is wrong?

If the savings produced by shedding aircraft fleets (and aircraft within remaining fleets) haven't produced a efficient and capable air force, then something is very wrong at the top. Looks like a systemic failure of thinking. Now I'm warming to your thinking and I agree that it looks poor. It would take a long time to answer your questions properly but, fundamentally, it boils down to a few things:



The constant broken promises of "if you just cut Capability X, then you can keep Y and Z" (only to find that next week/month/year capability Y and then Z get cut as well)
The constant broken promises of "jam tomorrow", which similar to the above require taking a cut (or two) now for a future capability that never materialises
Short term thinking - money that's been spent is considered spent, i.e. gone as opposed to being an investment. No-one cares if £Xm was spent last year resurfacing an airfield runway to keep it serviceable for the next 25yrs. What's important is how much money can be saved NOW by turning off the runway lights. The same logic applies to investment in a/c fleets as has been evidenced in recent years.
6 aircraft needing 60 on strength (or worse still, 100 on strength, with 40 in a shed at Shawbury or similar) looks very inefficient. It may be that there are a legion of reasons for this, but that's not what is being read in the papers, and ultimately, voted for. No - 6 a/c do not need 60 on strength. My best guess, as stated in previous post on FE@R, is that 18 FE@R requires ~60 jets total

I don't know what the answer is, and it thankfully isn't my problem, but it does look pretty bad.

I'll back off now as I've had my say:)

[Party Animal]

In all fairness Andrewn, that's a pretty good 'say' :ok:

[PapaDolmio]

IIRC from my time on a Gr4 sqn some (5yrs) time ago, only a small number were considered war goers out of a fleet of 135. I can't remember exactly how many 'diamond' fleet jets we had- I wouldn't say in this forum anyway but it wasn't that many.

While I agree with Sir MIcheals concerns, who does he think he's trying to get to? Those in the RAF already know and from what I've seen at work (civvy now thankfully) nobody really cares outside. Nobody I work with has even mentioned this latest adventure at all in the course of conversation.

[ShotOne]

People outside bl**dy do care! And we're struggling to place the blame entirely on funding or wicked politicians. If we had been in the happy position of the RAF budget increased tenfold, we'd presumably now instead have hundreds of knackered aircraft with the wrong fit or software, corroding expensively in hangars with nobody to fly or maintain them.

Finally, in anticipation of responses highlighting the commitment and hard work of RAF personnel, let me say you are preaching entirely to the converted.

[Typhoon93]

Bill4a, I have to agree with that. Techies and other ground crew don't get a lot of recognition from the general public, and the Regiment get even less.

[PapaDolmio]

'People outside do b****y care! '
Do you honestly think the average civvy even read this article?
Do you think people lay in bed at night worrying that the RAF has only got 7 FJ Sqns?
I don't think so.

[vetflyer]

Yes People do care ! Honest :ok:

[PapaDolmio]

Vetflyer,
Yes I've no doubt you do care, however your presence on this forum illustrates that you've got more than a passing interest. The point I am making is that your average man or woman on the street is not the slightest bit interested in what Sir has to say or the problems within the service. What was he expecting? A demo outside the House of Commons to demand more money for the RAF?
Until bombs start going off on the tube or an RAF base the GBP will not take any notice of what he or a succession of retired Army Officers have to say.

On a different note: If the manpower situation is so bad, isn't it time to call on our reserves to augment the front line? There must be plenty of ex Gr4 techs out there with a reserve commitment to call on who would welcome a few months at Akr or Marham? Or even use the RauxAF to bolster the front line?
We seem to be very keen on the reserves at the moment- let's give them the opportunity.

[4everAD]

Not sure if we have a/c techs as "regular" reserves surely it would be difficult to remain current
If you only turn up at weekends when there is no flying?
I think most of our reserves are in trades that can play at weekends I.e. chefs/regt/stackers/medics.

[Doobry Firkin]

Aircraft Tech Trades are part of the reserve - only Ex-forces aircraft techs may apply (and have your pension messed up if your receiving it).

Seems to be mainly concentrated around Brize according to the RAF Recruitment web site

[PapaDolmio]

Not sure if we have a/c techs as "regular" reserves surely it would be difficult to remain current
If you only turn up at weekends when there is no flying?
I think most of our reserves are in trades that can play at weekends I.e. chefs/regt/stackers/medics.

Yes, fully aware of that, my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. I think you've hit it on the head with your last sentence.

Surely a tech/pilot/WSO who has a reserve commitment and has recently left (say 6mnths to a year) would only need a minimum amount of training to bring them up to speed and be able to augment the regulars.

[4everAD]

Papa, they may well only need a minimal amount of training but you'll probably find that very few would be interested, after all many of them left for the reasons that we need them back!
Besides that doesn't it take something slightly more threatening to the realm than IS to call out the reluctant time served reserves (not the voluntary types)?

[Whenurhappy]

Not sure if we have a/c techs as "regular" reserves surely it would be difficult to remain current
If you only turn up at weekends when there is no flying?
I think most of our reserves are in trades that can play at weekends I.e. chefs/regt/stackers/medics.

Are we talking active reservists (FTRS, Auxiliaries, sponsored reserves) or are we talking about mobilising the General Reserve, ie, those who have left and still have a (theoretical) reserve commitment? One of the 2007 cost-savings on JPA was to remove the contacts data base for those who have left the service. Ooops.

[Selatar]

If Con Coughlin is saying shiny 2 should saved as a GR4 Sqn then things must indeed be bad! His defence articles are unapologetically pro army and anti light blue. Despite the inaccuracies in the article, dismissal of the SA threat, push to get 16 AAB deployed and lack of appreciation that Air is simply a sticking plaster to buy time and space to indigenous land forces, it at least shows some appreciation of the issues facing the RAF. Who replaces II (AC) at Christmas being one....

Today's DT:

So here we go again: we’re counting the RAF Tornado GR4 warplanes as they take off from Cyprus to attack Islamic fighters in Iraq; and then we’re counting them safely back to base. Only this time, our main interest is focused not so much on the number of warplanes flying back from their combat missions, but whether any of them have actually managed to drop their bombs on the enemy.

Even at this early stage of Gulf War Three, as the military operation against Islamic State has somewhat ambitiously been labelled, it is pretty clear that it bears no relation to the two conflicts that preceded it.

Back in 1991 and 2003, RAF pilots were in very real danger of being shot down by Iraqi air defences. Indeed, during the opening low-level bombing raids of Operation Desert Storm, the initial campaign against Saddam Hussein, Tornado air crews were forced to conduct operations at a safer height after several planes were shot down by intense Iraqi ground fire.

By comparison, Islamic State fighters, so far as we know, have no meaningful air defences, which means that RAF bombers can operate with relative impunity. Their Brimstone bomb loads can be fired well beyond the reach of the rudimentary weapons – mainly automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades – being used by the fighters on the ground.

Yet while the RAF and coalition warplanes operating over Iraq now enjoy the advantage of flying missions in uncontested air space, it seems they are finding it rather difficult to find suitable targets to attack. At least that is the conclusion we must draw from the combat sorties flown by the Tornados thus far; to judge by the full bomb payloads, which are clearly visible as they return to their base at Akrotiri, they are struggling to make serious inroads against the enemy.

Relying on air power alone to confront a resourceful and well-organised outfit such as Islamic State, as I have previously argued, was always going to be a tough call. This reliance, combined with the inability of our political classes to come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with this menace, means that we are now reduced to trying to engage with the enemy from a distance of around 15,000ft.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State fighters, despite the coalition air strikes they have suffered in recent weeks, were yesterday reported to be involved in heavy fighting with Iraqi forces just a few miles outside the capital Baghdad. This is surely a damning illustration of the limitations of the West’s military response.

As numerous retired military chiefs, including Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, have warned since the military action was authorised last week, the Islamist threat can only seriously be challenged by combat forces on the ground. Moreover, these need to be forces capable of prevailing against the determined Islamist fighters which, to judge by the unconvincing performance of the Iraqis to date, are unlikely to be either the Iranian-backed Shia militias or the Kurds’ Peshmerga fighters.

But no politician of rank in either London or Washington is even contemplating committing ground forces to deal with the Isil threat. As a result, the military action that has been authorised now looks more like a token gesture than any serious desire to see this menace destroyed. Indeed, nothing better illustrates the confused thinking in the Government’s approach than its almost exclusive reliance on the RAF to tackle the Isil threat, when it has just spent the past four years dramatically reducing the number of combat squadrons to a level where it is barely able to cover its existing international commitments – let alone open up a new theatre of operations.

As Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, the former Chief of the Air Staff, has pointed out, the RAF had 30 combat squadrons at its disposal at the start of the 1991 conflict; today it has only seven. And demonstrating the exquisite lack of foresight with which our politicians these days approach military issues, the MoD is currently in the process of disbanding one of our three remaining Tornado combat formations, 2 Squadron. This at a time when the ageing fleet provides the only aircraft capable of delivering the pinpoint accuracy required to avoid large numbers of civilian casualties – or collateral damage, as the military planners prefer to call them.

Crippling shortages of combat aircraft severely hampered the RAF’s effort in the 2011 air campaign to overthrow the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, with the result that we flew significantly fewer combat missions than countries such as France (which has 15 combat squadrons). On that occasion, David Cameron was forced to delay his decision to scrap two Tornado squadrons so that the RAF could meet its commitments in Libya, as well as Afghanistan. With the air campaign in Iraq set to run for many years, Mr Cameron should do the same with 2 Squadron’s complement of Tornado bombers.

It costs around £25 million a year to maintain the squadron’s base at RAF Marnham which, given the billions of pounds the Coalition squanders on foreign aid, seems a small price to pay if the Government wants even this modest effort in Iraq to succeed.

[PapaDolmio]

Are we talking active reservists (FTRS, Auxiliaries, sponsored reserves) or are we talking about mobilising the General Reserve, ie, those who have left and still have a (theoretical) reserve commitment? One of the 2007 cost-savings on JPA was to remove the contacts data base for those who have left the service. Ooops.[/QUOTE]

So if we did need to activate even a few reservists to augment the Gr4 fleet we can't contact them and our 'proper' reserves don't have the skills (in this case) to help either?

Splendid

[Willard Whyte]

Those made redundant, ok that was over 2 years ago, also had the option to be removed from the reserve list altogether.

[dervish]

Back in ........ 2003, RAF pilots were in very real danger of being shot down by Iraqi air defences.

Not just Iraqis.

[Bob Viking]

Cheap shot mate. Not the time to bring that up, IMHO.
BV:hmm:

[Wrathmonk]

All this comment by so-called experts on the bringing back of weapons makes me wonder why we ever needed gun clearing pits in MOBs / FOBs etc - clearly every soldier who ever went out on patrol in NI, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghan etc must always have come back with no live rounds remaining or they weren't doing the job! Same principle applies, just slightly different calibre / weapon effect!;)

And without wishing to rattle WEBFs cage too much but had we still had "Harrier on Carrier" as part of the golf bag we wouldn't have had images of aircraft returning without weapons - they would have had to jettison the weapons 'safe', into the sea, before being able to land back on ;):E

Cue outrage.....:ok:

Edited to add latest news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29434628)... Not even back for tea and medals and the debrief has started without them!!

[downsizer]

it at least shows some appreciation of the issues facing the RAF. Who replaces II (AC) at Christmas being one....

Not really sure that's an issue as they've already been told!

[Tocsin]

Are we talking active reservists (FTRS, Auxiliaries, sponsored reserves) or are we talking about mobilising the General Reserve, ie, those who have left and still have a (theoretical) reserve commitment? One of the 2007 cost-savings on JPA was to remove the contacts data base for those who have left the service. Ooops.

So if we did need to activate even a few reservists to augment the Gr4 fleet we can't contact them and our 'proper' reserves don't have the skills (in this case) to help either?

Splendid

From a RAuxAF portion of the picture, I guess that phone call I got in early August this year was a figment of my imagination, then? (Just like the one I got in March 2011). Some reservists are working in support of our Regular brethren - we don't have big "A"s on the uniform any more, just a few more grey hairs to ID us. [I'm not saying where I'm working - not a GR4 techie, though - you need to raid BAe for those Sponsored Reservists, maybe?]

[Finningley Boy]

'People outside do b****y care! '
Do you honestly think the average civvy even read this article?
Do you think people lay in bed at night worrying that the RAF has only got 7 FJ Sqns?
I don't think so.
PapaDolmio is offline Report Post

Yet a pound to a pinch of fertilizer if a Conservative or Conservative led Government dared to try and realistically redress the situation by as much as an additional (in real terms) Squadron or two, perhaps the resumption of operations at a former FJ station as well, you can be sure Joe Public will get to here about that. And it will be couched in as negative a presentation to the press as possible, by the H.M's disloyal opposition. All of a sudden we'd be hearing a hell of a lot of substantially informed unlikely commentators demanding that the sooner these neo-imperialist war mongering tories are kicked out of government the better, so that we can get one which will place people ahead of Banks, Bombs and Bullets etc, etc.

We all know the score, no amount of military retrenchment will be tolerated by the mainstream left, let alone the fringe element. Because in truth, they have never understood the case for any kind of military posture under any circumstances, its not in their DNA, they maintain the status quo just, when in office, simply to avoid a major upheaval in the other direction, but any attempt to reverse the cuts to defence whatever the case would be presented, by them, as forcing the poor and the NHS to bear the brunt of reducing the deficit while wasting money on unnecessary and expensive military hardware. However, untrue that would be.:ugh:

FB:)

[alfred_the_great]

Apart from the fact that every major cut has been done under a Conservative Government: Options for Change, Front Line First and SDSR 10 all spring to mind....

[Hempy]

This is one of the problems with modern Democracy imo. Politicians don't plan 'long term' anymore, especially if it costs big money. In todays days of instant gratification they are only prepared to 'live in the moment' and they don't look past the end of their current term in office. It's all about popularity, not what's best for the country. And it's the same in just about every western country.

[Finningley Boy]

Apart from the fact that every major cut has been done under a Conservative Government: Options for Change, Front Line First and SDSR 10 all spring to mind....


Don't forget "Strategic Defence Review" 1998 which saw 17 and 29 Squadrons go, then "Delivering Security in a Changing World" 2004 when the entire Jaguar force disappeared along with 5 and 11 Squadrons, we also lost a Nimrod Squadron somewhere along the way and the Army lost a number of Infantry Battalions. Before 2010, 56(r) 25 and 43 Squadrons all disbanded and the Navy lost their Sea Harriers.
However, what is markedly different are the circumstance behind each set of cuts; Options for Change was unavoidable, it and Front Line First were intended to set the defence posture for the long term future following the end of the Cold War, but I'll admit, the latter was something of a cut for cuts sake exercise and little priority given to the front line.

All of the Labour cuts took place under entirely different circumstances, no economic woes yet a growing expeditionary nature, unprecedented indeed. For all that, cuts were imposed routinely. SDSR was driven by the worst economic crisis since the end of the Second World War. But I'll make no excuses for the Conservatives, they're in the race for votes as well, hence the recent promise to spend "Billions" more on the NHS.

FB:)

[MAINJAFAD]

Apart from the fact that every major cut has been done under a Conservative Government: Options for Change, Front Line First and SDSR 10 all spring to mind....

And of course the daddy of them all, 1957 Sandys White Paper!!!

[Hueymeister]

Appreciate they've got to get off the jet cleanly...but they look almost 'bent' on the mountings...why are they mounted that way? Must be drag indusive?

[Finningley Boy]

To be honest, both parties have had their moments in office, but indeed, the Conservatives have some noticeable set piece cuts in their history such as the Sandys white paper. But again, Labour abandoned TSR2 for the F-111, not such a massive crime against the nation's security as against the Great British Aircraft Industry. Then they abandoned the F-111 and ended the Carrier programme as a result of the nothing East of Suez policy. They had some good reasons for all this and in fact wanted to concentrate resources, quite realistically on confronting the Warsaw Pact. But Labour, as always, have pursued a grand plan to provide for all, which is most efficacious. Even more so, ambitious, it was trying to created a plan for public investment which resulted in the financial crisis of 1967 to 68, this brought the cancellation of the F-111. When the Conservatives returned in 1970, they promised to, and indeed did, reverse the carrier de-commissioning programme albeit only as far as a stay of execution to 1978, that's how the Audacious class Ark Royal was kept on. In the meantime, the cancellation of the two planned CV-01 carriers had precipitated a massive cut to the planned buy of 120 or more Phantoms, just for the Fleet Air Arm, to around 40 or so (sorry don't have exact figures in my head as I type), some of which (originally meant to be all) were off loaded on the R.A.F. which meant 43 would live again after the Aden withdrawal. But when Labour returned in 1974, they embarked instantly with a quite savage assault on the Armed Forces assets and personnel, during which 12 R.A.F. stations were up for closure, although they did apply the knife to Air Support Command and FEAF rather than Strike or RAFG. But again, there was no real driving cause for this, no real financial crisis, just a desire to spend a lot more money on public welfare, I'm not averse to that but then in opposition when Foot became the leader, they began to show their true socialist nature and a swell of unrestrained anti-establishment anti-military resentment spewed forth including demands for the removal of all nuclear weapons and heavy defence cuts on top, not to mention the withdrawal of American Nuclear facilities from Uk soil as well. Hence the longest suicide note in history! As the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman so described the Labour manifesto to fight the 1983 General Election.

You should all buy my book; Fading Eagle.:ok:

FB:)

[ShotOne]

If we're putting this down to party politics, his TSR2/F111 cancellation double-whammy was arguably the least of Dennis Healey's crimes as Defence Secretary. He wasn't even slightly interested in the fact that RN torpedoes were slower than Soviet subs, leaving ours effectively unarmed.

But I don't believe it's about party politics. Nor does it help insulting the public. Many of us DO care very much. To be fair to politicians and their electorate, they have voted significant amounts to Defence. Perhaps not as much as we'd like but enormous sums none the less. To put the amounts in context, for the price of two of the GR4's sitting broken in a hangar somewhere, India has placed a probe in orbit around Mars! Let's say the money-fairy dropped in tomorrow and doubled the defence budget. (As if!) . Would we now be debating whether or not we could (just about) manage to send twelve Tornados to Cyprus?

[Torquelink]

I think it goes deeper and further back than that. Despite numerous regional engagements since, this country has not faced an existential threat since WW2 and politicians have seen plundering the armed forces' budgets as an easy way of plugging holes elsewhere. The problem with this mind-set is that the nature of the threat continues to evolve and other, less friendly, parties don't see the situation the way our politicians do. So these other parties continue to expand and modernise their military capabilities and, because we (the Western democracies generally) have forgotten - or ignored the fact - that a strong military is the ultimate guarantor of our own peace and democracy, we cavil and obfuscate as Russia, for example, occupies the Crimea and threatens Ukraine, or China flexes its muscles in the South China Sea. And such is the run-down of our military capabilities generally that we fool no-one with our embarrassingly pathetic contribution to combat threats such as ISIS which, if allowed to continue to grow, could become the next existential threat to us and our way of life. At least in 1936 we had just enough time to re-arm. This time none of our politicians show the slightest comprehension of the necessity of a strong defence let alone the appreciation that a democracy needs to make material sacrifices to maintain such a defence.

We're doomed, doomed I tell you. (Rant over)

[Finningley Boy]

Hi Shotone,

My reaction is more in response to the way that the politicians get everyone's backs up, or indeed the press, over such matters. I don't think, however, that a doubling of the defence budget is as straight forward as you suggest. With the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, I'm not entirely sure it needs increasing in real terms but it would be interesting to know what it all goes on. I understand that while all these hefty cuts to the R.A.F's frontline aircraft have gone on, certainly over the last 15 years or so, the defence budget hasn't actually budged, not one way or the other. There was some argument made by George Osborne at one stage around the SDSR that the Nuclear deterrent should be paid for out of the peace time defence budget also other areas of agreed direct capital expenditure such as the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and wherever else, I suspect have been funded either directly from the defence budget... or the Defence Budget Peter has been plundered to pay the Treasury Paul in order to make good the cost of war going operations around the Globe. Well middle east anyway.

FB:)

[hello1]

But again, there was no real driving cause for this, no real financial crisis, just a desire to spend a lot more money on public welfare, I'm not averse to that but then in opposition when Foot became the leader, they began to show their true socialist nature and a swell of unrestrained anti-establishment anti-military resentment spewed forth including demands for the removal of all nuclear weapons and heavy defence cuts on top, not to mention the withdrawal of American Nuclear facilities from Uk soil as well.

That's a long sentence.....but one that I agree with! All the politicians seem to care about these days is blowing increasing amounts of money on the NHS. All the public seem to care about these days is that the politicians blow increasing amounts of money on the NHS. A token military response is all that they are interested in.

[Typhoon93]

You've gotta love these threads. The naive musings of a wannabe spotter mixed with those with of a B&T retired radar bod.

In the words of the great (well, well known) Ronan Keating: "you say it best when you say nothing at all"

Sometimes it's best to just observe unless you have something to add........whoops!

S-D

S-D,

It is apparent that you have a problem with anybody posting on here who isn't currently serving in the RAF. I've seen a number of your previous posts as I wanted to get an idea what you were all about before I responded to this.

"The naive musings of a wannabe spotter" is just unnecessary and very elitist. With that kind of attitude I would expect you to have 4000+ FJ hrs under your belt with multiple tours of duty. Then I could understand. Or could I? Members like Courtney, BEagle, 5F6B and Bob Viking have thousands of hours behind the stick between them and they are in no way arrogant or obnoxious, in fact they've been helpful and encouraging, even inspiring. Another member who I discovered last night was a fighter pilot in WWII and served in the RAF for years after the war had ended, probably in other conflicts too. He came across as incredibly humble and respectful, despite having achieved so much.

From what I have seen, few members agree with your stance.

Please drop the arrogance - we are all here because we're interested in military hardware.

T93.

[Just This Once...]

T93, in fairness this part of PPRuNe is:

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

There are other parts of the forum dedicated to those who are interested in military hardware but do not meet the criteria above. You are a guest in these parts so I would careful in calling the shots or trying to shape this sub-forum in your own image.

:ok:

[Typhoon93]

JTO, understood, and if any offence was caused then I apologise. However I see nothing that states non-military aircrew and groundcrew can't contribute to this forum.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Well, actually, I thought Typhoon93 made some good points in a measured and reasonable manner; guest or not. Had he been a career civilian professor of military history from a respected university, would he have been so summarily put back in his box? Under the Forum rules, i suppose he would.

[salad-dodger]

T93


"It is apparent that you have a problem with anybody posting on here who isn't currently serving in the RAF."


No I don't. I'm not in the RAF, I left a few years ago. I don't have thousands of flying ours either. But I am directly involved in both military and civil aviation. I am one of the "...backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground."


You do come across as a spotter and JTO put it very well above. There are forums for spotters and wannabes, I'm just suggesting (bluntly) that perhaps some of your (more inane) questions and comments would be better on those?



Perhaps I could be more subtle/polite/diplomatic etc.

S-D

[ShotOne]

...yes you could!

Not quite sure what typhoon's said to deserve that

[PeregrineW]

Well, I hope no-one on here minds me saying this, but some of the posts I have read on this section of the forum have left me feeling a bit of a second class citizen - I no longer qualify as one of the "backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground" having finally left the world of aviation behind some ten years ago.

I do, however, occasionally have an opinion which I think is worth as much as anyone else's (in other words, exactly what you paid for it), but have been loathe to share it in the light of the reception that has been given to others who have dared to venture forth on what some so obviously see as Hallowed Ground.

I don't think that it would hurt to show a little politeness and respect for the opinions of others, even if they don't have a claim to "full membership" of this sub forum.

That is all, I shall go back to my corner now.

[salad-dodger]

Ah, but Peregrine, you comment from a position of experience!


S-D

[Typhoon93]

S-D, perhaps it's best you and I avoid each other like the plague, as we aren't going to get along.

There is nothing wrong with a bit of arrogance when it's justified. Yours is not.

For what it's worth, I haven't seen a military aircraft that wasn't flying over wherever I was at the time, while on a routine sortie, for quite some time. That quite some time being nearly a decade. So I am not a "spotter".


If you class a "wannabe" as just somebody who aspires to do/be something, then yes, I guess I am. However, unlike most 'wannabes', I am actually getting off my ar$e.


Anyway, enough of that. Let's get back to the subject, which I believe is about the RAF being on its knees.

[salad-dodger]

Fortunately T93, I don't see our paths crossing in the real world. I'm not a regular in McD's!


S-D

[ShotOne]

SD, what has Typhoon said to warrant such ignorant posts? I find your attitude most odd, especially since, as an engineer, you are a guest on a forum for professional pilots.

[Finningley Boy]

Hey SD,

is the reason you call yourself Salad Dodger some form of self flagellation for a personal weakness?:p

No stranger to a Desperate Dan Cow pie and chips I imagine!??!?!

FB:)

[The Helpful Stacker]

ShotOne - Professional pilots and (at least in the military forum) "the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground."

We mere mortals who support the flying are no more guests in these parts than aircrew are.

I do however find SD's crusade against Typhoon93 distasteful.

[PPRuNe Pop]

He is having a short rest - to (perhaps) reflect. But don't hold any breaths. But......he might see it as a warning.

[Chugalug2]

No stranger to a Desperate Dan Cow pie Ah, you speak of the recommended diet for Hastings pilots, to the extent that 'Menu Cow Pie' was inscribed on some of the control column spectacle bosses!

T93, be of good cheer. I speak as one who has been told to shuffle off in my carpet slippers and puff on my pipe. Evidently it's 'only' banter. Charming is not one of the words that come immediately to mind though...

[LowObservable]

"Directly involved in aviation" can cover all kinds of things...

http://cdn.fairfaxregional.com.au/silverstone-feed-data/27585a76-76e2-4079-b6b2-8301f597ad3a.jpg

...altogether better to judge the post by its relevance and accuracy, and its contribution to the discussion, and assess the poster (if need be) by his or her track record. Because in the end that's all we have to go on. Remember, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

[Finningley Boy]

Remember, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

What made you think of a Dog?:uhoh:

Anyway, back to the thread, I've just been watching Phil Hammond being interrogated by Andrew Neil at the Toga Party conference, recorded earlier this week, in which Andrew asked Phil if he knew how many frontline squadrons the R.A.F. had back in 1991. Phil clearly did not know or he wasn't prepared to admit the sparsity in numbers compared with today. When Mr Neil put it to him that today the R.A.F. has only 7 frontline combat squadrons (ok FJ squadrons then) to the adla's 15, Phil became quite cross and put it to his quite well briefed tormentor that simply comparing numbers of formations is irrelevant, that training and standards of equipment need to be taken into consideration as well. While I'm not directly quoting, this is what he said. He was clearly stating that our aircraft, weapons and crews are far enough superior to those of the French Air Force to put their significant numerical superiority firmly in the shade!?!

But what do we all think?

FB:)

[thing]

I think that Phillip Hammond is a politician. Doesn't that say it all?

Three professions are paid to lie; journalists, lawyers and politicians. (I think there's a fourth, met men but we'll not go there...)

[langleybaston]

bollocks

signed

Met man.

[thing]

.........:)

[langleybaston]

I seem to have raised the tone of the debate somewhat.

[exhorder]

@Finningley Boy: I don't want to dispute any of your arguments, but the actual number of AdlA frontline FJ squadrons is nine, with seven "regular" and two "strategic" units - two M2000C/-5, three M2000D, one M2000N (nuclear only), three Rafale, one of which has a nuclear mission as well. OF course, you have to take into account the two Aéronavale squadrons with Rafale M and one with Super Étendard Modernisé.

It may seem like nit-picking from ze overcorrect German, and it probably is. However, the French air forces have been brutally hit by the 2013 Defense White Paper, so they might not be the best benchmark - especially since their flight hours have been seriously affected as well.

[Just This Once...]

Do you know how many hours they get per month?

For reference we are working our way down to 11 hours per month.

:(

[Finningley Boy]

exhorder,

I'll take your correction, the figure of 15 was put to Hammond by Andrew Neil, and to be honest, he was clearly unaware of the correct figure as instead of correcting Andrew Neil he chose the less means more argument to shoot him down in flames with.

FB:)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

BBC News reporting that the PM's decided that II(AC) will be flying GR4s for a year longer than planned....! I wonder if there'll be another Sqn stood up for the TyF or if they're going to have to manage with one less...?

[Onceapilot]

No doubt, Hammond is creepy....and a polie:mad:.

OAP

[Finningley Boy]

5F6B,

As I'm sure you've suspected, there'll be no 5th Typhoon squadron next year, just the retention of a 3rd Tornado Squadron for a year. If we get a Labour Government in May, and I know many think I'm too sweeping about the left and their approach to all things military, but it would afford them an opportunity far too good to miss. Milliband, I just can't see making good the 5th Typhoon unit when they get round to disbanding 2 Sqn eventually.

FB:)

[downsizer]

Manpower is already gathering for II typhoon, so what's going to happen to them and their soon to be allocated airframes?

[Easy Street]

FB, where have you seen it written that the GR4s will continue under the II(AC) banner or that the 5th Typhoon sqn will be delayed? That would have serious implications as the ground and aircrews for that sqn are undergoing conversion courses at the moment, or already sitting on the existing 4 sqns biding their time....


I've started a separate thread on the postponement of this disbandment. I think it's slightly separate from the discussion about this Telegraph article. What say you?

[drustsonoferp]

Just this Once, do you know what the average hours are working out at including sim time now? I'm presuming 11 hours doesn't include sim time already. So long as the allocated sim time is reasonable, 11hrs might not be quite so scandalous as it seems on first impression, if not exactly glorious.

[Finningley Boy]

RAF Tornado squadron saved from the scrap heap to bomb Isil - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11137489/RAF-Tornado-squadron-saved-from-the-scrap-heap-to-bomb-Isil.html)

The link here carries the story that the Typhoon Squadron will form a year later. In other words because there is a case to retain a third Tornado Squadron, there is no expectation of this happening over and above the planned total of Squadrons. Whether the 5th Typhoon Squadron will still be 2 Squadron or whether the current 2 Squadron will still continue as such I suspect the case will be that number doesn't change. But the initial impact of the story was that something of a reversal in the reduced Fast Jet fleet was at hand. But as everyone has been saying on here about our Parliamentary representatives...

FB:)

[Finningley Boy]

Easy Street,

Appreciate your thread on the GR4, on second thoughts, yes comments would fit better there. It also occurred to me that those who would form the next Typhoon squadron would be some way down the line to being ready, I dare say this story will receive further attention as over the weeks ahead. I can't help thinking that had this situation risen some 30 years ago, the Typhoon Squadron wouldn't be pospone, that was then though.

FB:)

[Jerry Atrick]

As the Tornado II Sqn was to stand down on March 31 and Typhoon II Sqn stand up on April 1, I would have thought manning streams were largely separate. Thus continue as planned but reallocate 12 Sqn badge to the Norfolk unit - simples. No doubt reality is much more complex, but financial inducements to retain GR4 crews would maybe be the answer...?

[MAINJAFAD]

Jerry

Renumber isn't that hard, It has been done on numerous occasions in the past (Most primary source documentation is soft copy these days anyway). Other option is the Typhoon Sqn keeps the designate plate while they work up and formal handover happens in 2016 (that's been done before as well).

[Typhoon93]

I really hope we don't get a Labour government next year. It is because of them that the country is currently under so many budget cuts and will continue to require to be put under cuts until the deficit is wiped.

When the country originally went under while Brown was at the helm, Miliband and Balls were his right hand men. Miliband and Balls are at another level of incompetence!

I have far too much respect for this country and those who serve to protect it, to vote for those who will inevitably destroy it. If Miliband and Ballsy are the best Labour has to offer, then the only light at the end of the tunnel is that of an oncoming train.

[Willard Whyte]

Defence is likely to be cut ~7% in the next parliament, if the Conservatives get in. Labour may borrow more and keep spending higher - resulting in even greater cuts beyond 2020. Reckon things are up sh1t creek either way, personally (re. defence).

[Finningley Boy]

This question has been asked before, but what indeed would have happened should the Cold war have carried on as it was widely expected to, just where would we be now. Likely all the intervening conflicts wouldn't have happened. The irony of that being no cuts as a result. However, with the shift to a new political generation, would ludicrous cuts, even just relative to the circumstance of the cold war have been applied? Would the Labour party have maintained its unilateralist stance through to today? What if a unilateralist Tony Blair (as he once was) became Prime Minister and where would our military orbat be now? What impact would that have had on Soviet Foreign policy?

Currently everyone can see only more cuts on top of more, this doesn't suggest a recovering economy, for if it does, it certainly suggests a woefully off hand and dismissive consideration of the nation's defence arrangements. Hence, Sir Michael Graydon's and other senior military officers' constantly expressed concerns.

FB:)

[Madbob]

FB

Remember that during the height of the Cold War the RAF could even spare aircrew on loan service duties to the likes of Oman and maintain out-of-area tasks such as Belize and in our own backyard for Northern Ireland.

Perhaps we ought to see whether we can attract some loan service aircrew from the RAFO. After all their pilots have been taught well:ok: and Iraq is almost in their own backyard, relatively speaking.

Mightn't look too good politically to admit that the RAF is so cut-to-the-bone.:ugh::ugh:

MB

[Typhoon93]

Speaking of Northern Ireland.... who is responsible for their Q?

Does Coningsby have that responsibility?

[Selatar]

Typhoon93,

NI is part of the UK. Your question is a bit like asking who is responsible for Q in Wales.

[Typhoon93]

Not really, Selatar. Is it Coningsby or Lossiemouth?

[Selatar]

Typhoon93,

Although geography plays it's obvious part no Q element has defined allocated turf I believe. Who goes where and when will be based on numerous factors considered at the time. So I guess the specific answer to your question is either or both.

[Melchett01]

Here's a question then if we're talking about the RAF being at bare bones.

If SDSR in 2010 set out a plan for Defence going forward over the next decade, the result of which is Future Force 2020, implicit in that intent is that the next SDSR should just be a bit of tinkering to keep the plan to deliver in 2020 on track.

However, not being a believer in unicorns, the Easter Bunny or Santa, that clearly isn't going to happen and given the ongoing deficit further real terms cuts are inevitable, even if spending is set to match inflation (Defence inflation always being higher than RPI/CPI). So do we scrap any ideas for FF2020 now or does FF2020 just become a way point on the path to FF2025?

The whole situation of constant cuts and reviews and the inordinate distraction that causes to Defence as thousands of personnel get wrapped up in staff work, papers and business cases rather than actually doing the fundamental thing the military was designed to do does rather strike me as a waste of time. Often the outputs are out of date or over taken by events as soon as they are finished - or just ignored - and puts me in mind of the letter the Duke of Wellington reportedly sent back to Whitehall when he was campaigning in Spain in the C19th

Gentlemen,

Whilst marching from Portugal to a position which commands the approach to Madrid and the French forces, my officers have been diligently complying with your requests which have been sent by H.M. ship from London to Lisbon and thence by dispatch to our headquarters.

We have enumerated our saddles, bridles, tents and tent poles, and all manner of sundry items for which His Majesty’s Government holds me accountable. I have dispatched reports on the character, wit, and spleen of every officer. Each item and every farthing has been accounted for, with two regrettable exceptions for which I beg your indulgence.

Unfortunately the sum of one shilling and ninepence remains unaccounted for in one infantry battalion’s petty cash and there has been a hideous confusion as the the number of jars of raspberry jam issued to one cavalry regiment during a sandstorm in western Spain. This reprehensible carelessness may be related to the pressure of circumstance, since we are war with France, a fact which may come as a bit of a surprise to you gentlemen in Whitehall.

This brings me to my present purpose, which is to request elucidation of my instructions from His Majesty’s Government so that I may better understand why I am dragging an army over these barren plains. I construe that perforce it must be one of two alternative duties, as given below. I shall pursue either one with the best of my ability, but I cannot do both:

1. To train an army of uniformed British clerks in Spain for the benefit of the accountants and copy-boys in London or perchance.

2. To see to it that the forces of Napoleon are driven out of Spain.

Your most obedient servant,

Wellington

Seems as though nothing ever changes and at the end of the day J8 / Finance have always and will always be the dominant staff function in any military.

[Madbob]

Interesting post Melchett01. I wonder if the bean-counters got involved in WW2 in the same way they do now.....Can't begin to imagine "bomber" Harris being told that his next 1,000 bomber raid was going to be cut to say 700 to save money!

FFS, why can't we just accept it will either cost whatever it must to get the job doe - and then do it properly once and for all. OR to keep stum and stay in the background if we haven't the £££'s, the stomach or the political will to step up to the plate.....

MB

BTW, what's the current annual interest burden to service the national debt? I bet it is more that the WHOLE of the defence budget and more. Thanks a lot Gordon/Tony et all. Oh, and what happened to out gold reserves? Where were the proceeds of that sale invested I wonder?

As a country it seems we're right up the creek and can't afford a ruddy paddle!

[ShotOne]

In a word, yes, Madbob Without the bean counters you haven't got 10 bombers, never mind 1000. Managing the money has been a key responsibility for military leadership for at least the last thousand years. Nelson would not have been in any way surprised at present day budget arguments; a letter recently came to light written in his handwriting immediately before Trafalgar querying the accounting procedures of a consignment of lemons.

ps fully agree with your last para but we are where we are

[Frostchamber]

Interest on national debt is currently around £50bn, so yes larger than the entire defence budget by a considerable margin.

[alfred_the_great]

MadBob - you obviously don't know your history very well: WW2 operations were frequently curtailed due to lack of assets (which we couldn't afford and/or build quick enough).

[Army Mover]

Interest on our National Debt is £50 bn (p/year?)! Someone is getting very rich at our expense! Are their any official records of who we are paying this to?

[Melchett01]

Usually national debt is in the form of government bonds and gilts bought by banks, investment companies and other countries. But bizarrely, as a nation you can be in debt to yourself, which we are through the Bank of England.

The latter of those is borrowing based on projected future income from taxation, returns on its own investment in overseas firms and other states' bonds and gilt equivalents and subsidies.