Archimedes and Jacks Down
Archimedes first
Re the 108 Jags. That was the figure given out by the RAF at the press briefing. I know that 62 are for attrition but if the RAF is saying that is how many they are going to lose I am not going to play down the scale of the cuts. The subs will go down from 11 to 8. As for RN personnel numbers it is explained in the paragraph of the piece you were referring to where it said: "All three services are below their established strengths and the Army and the Royal Navy will need to lose only about 1,500 personnel." It was also explained in a graphic that ran alongside that piece on the front of the paper and there was a detailed rundown of the RAF cuts inside, but this may not have been so immediately apparent if you were reading the Telegraph on the internet.
Jacks Down's post is not so easy to understand.
Michael Smith has never said that the RAF Regiment was to close. I have never mentioned it in relation to cuts, in fact the last time I mentioned it was in relation to the SA80 well over a year ago. My only mention of the Harriers was in the context that this was one of the f***-wit proposals made by the work strands. I first reported it on April 2nd, when I added: "Defence chiefs are certain to try to block some of the more controversial moves. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of Air Staff, in particular is likely to argue strongly against the loss of the GR7 Harriers. The aircraft are due to be upgraded and scrapping them would also mean a loss of experience in short take-off and landing that would hamper the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) that are due to replace them."
I also reported that, as regards the RAF, the work strand proposals also included a threat to close five RAF bases and to scrap the Jags and the Pumas. At the time, everyone thought it was mad, indeed only last week it was being described on this forum as hysterical nonsense. But the bulk of the headlined cuts proposed have been made. As for the Pumas and Cranwell. the helicopters and bases are part of the "detail" that won't be announced until later this year. It's a bit early to start saying they aren't going to happen. The guy who told me about the pressure to close Dartmouth and Cranwell was the same guy who told me about the work strands and a number of other stories that subsequently turned out to be true. He was right about them so I am not about to call him a liar now without a bit better evidence than you have managed to produce.
There is an unfortunate tendency among some of the contributors to this forum to have a go at journalists and the Torygraph in particular. We didn't implement the cuts, we just warned you they were coming, and how big they were going to be, before anyone else did. The Daily Telegraph is and always has been very firmly on your side. I thought it was the Yanks who specialised in blue-on-blues but perhaps I got that wrong too.