jt2 - Absolutely spot on. Admit that the measures are to save money, look at where there is truly a need and have the gumption to say what the new service really is.
The idea of national air support is a good one and should save money simply by having procurement and management provided centrally.
Central management should have meant a better use of air support but from what I can see it has meant quite the reverse with units seeming to fly regardless of the efficacy of doing so. One SMT, rather than 30 inspectors and sergeants, should have provided savings through more intelligent use of air support.
There is undoubtedly a need to save money and, I would argue, that RP is correct in some of what he says. A lot of the flying done by units throughout the UK seems wasteful and unnecessary and - contrary to what Sky Sports said - anyone with a bit of sense and five minutes in the job could tell you that it was a pointless waste of time and money before lifting.
I have read a great deal about the central control centre but fail to see why it's needed. A regional radio channel monitored by professionals with understanding of what is a reasonable request and with real tactical decision making responsibility, which was available to all local forces would surely see appropriate and timely response.
Technology and CCTV has meant that the detection of urban crime and the deterrent effect previously supplied by air support is now not required to the same extent as it was. TF is right about what ASUs did in the 80s and 90s - and he can be rightly proud of what was achieved - but they are simply not required to such a degree in that role any longer.
There need to be fewer bases, there need to be fewer aircraft, there needs to be joined up thinking in fleet composition and inter-agency co-operation. Perhaps fewer aircraft and fewer bases really can be more effective and efficient but not if the remaining bases are simply doing what has been done for twenty or thirty years.
I'm not involved in police aviation and I acknowledge that it is always simple to run other people's business for them but it would appear to me that decisions were originally made in isolation without the benefit of understanding and then several years have been spent pretending that all was well while all the middle and lower level yes men confirmed that for the top brass.
Covering 90% of the population poorly is not better than covering 70% well and being honest about it. It seems to me that to chop coverage in rural areas simply because few people live there - which is precisely what makes air support effective in many cases - is muddle-headed. Then to pretend that this is somehow providing a better service is just plain wrong.
Just my two-pennyworth.