Just picked the magazine up and I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I suspect it will put across a partictular viewpoint rather than a balanced view. That being said, Jon Lake the author of the piece seems IMO to be one of the more balance corespondents on the AFM team.
I've been an avid reader of AFM for some time now, I like the style and general reporting, but it seems to me that they tend to publish quite biased articles - the one recently about the great victories Argentinian crews scored against the RN in the Falklands stuck in the throat somewhat. That being said, it's their trainset...
(Paused to let the mess catch fire! Gave me a chance to read the article...)
Thoughts on the article:
"Fighting the crocodile nearest the canoe". Agree - but with little money you can only address one problem at a time. Furthermore, some of the problems we are encountering don't have instant solutions, such as procurement programmes, manning and recruitment.
"Crippling of Defence Medical Services". This is something which worries me. On the occasions I have been given a forum to talk to senior management I have asked if any checks-and-balances have been put in place to protect our quality of life against the high value aquisition projects. I don't think I have ever been given a convincing answer.
(Regarding centralising AT assets) "lack the capacity to allow unrestricted operations". To me that is an unquantified statement - unrestricted can mean infinite numbers of ops. A finite number of aircraft will have a finite capacity.
There are many more examples of the article taking a certain point of view on current affairs. I think the general point it makes is valid, but over dramaitised. Would it make such an atractive headline if it read "RAF: not that bad, really!" ?
Blunty