UK Defence Restructuring

[Postman Plod]

UK military faces major overhaul (BBC News)


The UK military looks set for change
The UK's top military officer has indicated a major overhaul of Britain's armed forces to respond to the demands of combating international terrorism.
Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Michael Walker signalled cuts in warships, aircraft and heavy armour.

The general - speaking ahead of Thursday's Defence White Paper - warned of "tough choices" ahead.

He said the plans had the backing of military top brass and were not being driven by politicians and accountants.

Adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made

General Sir Michael Walker


But Conservative defence spokesman Keith Simpson warned against cutting troop numbers.

"With the Army already under strength, and committed from Northern Ireland to Iraq and relying heavily on reservists, it would be highly irresponsible to cut the strength of the Armed Forces further," he said.

In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, Sir Michael cautioned that there must be "no change for the sake of change".

He added: "But this White Paper is about building 21st century armed forces."

Changes were being driven by the need for a more "flexible and agile" armed forces to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to tackle international terrorism.

"Counter-terrorism and counter proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects across the world," he said.

Fleet 'adjustments'

"This places a premium on the agility, deployability and sustainability of our forces."

With the Type 45 destroyer and two planned new aircraft carriers coming into service some of the Royal Navy's older warships would no longer be required - giving space for "some adjustments" within the existing fleet.

And new technology including the latest precision missiles would allow the RAF to achieve its military objectives while deploying fewer aircraft.

In the army, a new generation medium weight armoured vehicle would "inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery".

"Significant" amounts of cash would be invested so that weapons such as unmanned aerial drones could help spot and attack "targets of opportunity".

Large-scale operations

"It is inevitable that this will mean change - adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made," he said.

"It would be quite wrong for us to retain systems, within a finite budget, which we know are no longer effective."

The restructuring, said Sir Michael, would enable Britain to mount "limited national operations" unilaterally or take the lead in small to medium operations in international conflict.

UK forces would also retain the capacity to undertake large-scale operations but the "most demanding expeditionary operations" could only be "plausibly" mounted if the US was involved.

"Consequently, our Armed Forces will need to be interoperable with US command and control structures, maintain the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US," he said.

Polarisation warning

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon also stressed the importance of British forces being able to operate alongside the Americans - something which he acknowledged was both "technologically challenging and financially expensive".

Mr Hoon issued a warning to European allies against any move that would polarise relations with the US.

"In some places, a parody has been developing of America which all but demonises its power and its policies, and seeks to put all of the ills of the world at its door," he said.

"The dangerous consequence of this is that it can feed misunderstanding and encourage isolationist tendencies on both sides of the Atlantic."

It was important both to Europe and to the US that there continued to be an "effective and sustainable transatlantic alliance", preferably via Nato.

*************************************************
Sorry guys, but this doesn't bode well for the UK military. Guess its not unexpected, but other than to save on labour putting tax up before an election, I cant see any logic in it at all... Start thinking American seems to be the order of the day, cos we won't be able to do anything ourselves....

[soddim]

How can CDS try to pass this one off as a good move? Surely his pension is secure enuff to tell the truth?

[ChristopherRobin]

It is a good move - current Tornado support budget alone is more than the entire budget for Land Forces. Does that sound like value for money to you? When you consider the effect delivered (even at least in political terms)

I think there could be rocky times ahead for the RAF, but then, there is a lot of fat still to be cut from that particular organisation.

We'll find out soon with the Defence White Paper - out tomorrow if my memory serves?

[DropDeadFred]

Surely the cuts will fall mainly on the army? Of all 3 services, they are clearly ripe to be plucked (over). Remove a regiment of Challengers, chop the Apache programme, get rid of the antiquated regimental system and reinvest the surplus funding into the 21st century method of warfighting - airpower.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Guys

Anyone who doesn't believe the Armed Forces are in for a massive kicking is being niave (sp?). The Sunday Papers (Times?) had an article that suggested a shrinkage in the carriers, a reduced buy of TypHoon, JSF, Astute, T45 etc etc etc and a reduction in the numbers of Challengers and Regts etc.

Rumours around a station in Bucks are that the RAF will lose between 10 and 20 thousand and the army a similar number (but then they are already 5000 short). The figure of 39400 for the RAF was one that was going around. Which branches the RAF looses as a reult will be interesting and how many of those jobs become civil service??:( :( :{ :*

CP where would you suggest the RAF takes the cuts?? And land has a smaller budget than Tornado support????!!!!? Where do you get your figures?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Considering that defence consumes only a small percentage of public spending and an even smaller one of GNP/GDP, and the demands are going up...

Why is defence the first Government department to get cut? What about other departments? What about the thousands of civil service pen pushers who do nothing useful?

Perhaps we should give less money to the EU. And hand wringing liberal left do gooders. And the PC brigade...

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

CP where would you suggest the RAF takes the cuts??

Civilianise the whole of the Admin world and do away with the "Public Money" myth and all the accountability b@ll@cks that goes with that. You do not need a bl@@dy SWO or chief clerk full stop, let alone on det as all they do is make up stupid rules and pi@@ people off. Should save an absolute fortune:p and you could utilise the savings to employ a civilian guard force which would allow all the techies etc to return to their primiary duties!! Before anyone comments on guards there are plenty of civvy guarded stations out there none more so than where "rodney's" are created

Civilianise procurement for all three services and you will then have accountability and no more of the "two years in post then promoted before all the contractoral nieviety becomes painfully apparent" tosh that we currently have........J model, eurofarce, apache blah blah blah. How any millions would that save:mad: :mad:

How many senior officers..........cull a few of those fuc@ers and we would save even more money............rant over

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Mr C Hinecap]

ABIW

Lots of civvies in procurement - brought in from industry in fact. Also, we need military types in procurement - they are the customer and ensure objectivity and help (honest) get what the customer needs. Oh - they're also putting people in procurement jobs for longer.
I accept that we are probably in for another spending kicking. However, there might be some interesting thinking out there. Many people are frightened of change. I'm just frightened when I think of how much worse it might get! Doing even more with even less can only go so far. Unfortunately that might mean we take a right kicking before someone notices the elastic has no stretch left.

[NURSE]

Ok there is going to be cuts unfortunatley there will be pain for all 3 services. In Past cuts the army and the navy have been cut disporportinatley and are now not balanced. The RAF has goten of very lightly by trying to convince the Politicians you can control ground from the air. The same lie they have been peddling since 1919.
It has been proven time and time again the only way to control ground is to put troops on it.
So sorry guys and girls the RAF will have to realise it is another support service of the Army and Navy.

[BEagle]

Stick to changing bedpans, nursey dear.

[Flt Lt Spry]

Do Air Ranks really need to retire on full pay? We still have almost the same number as the end of WWII taking a healthy wedge from us each month whilst everything else has trimmed back to about 5% of what it was.

We could spend the money saved on extra RAFP to ensure that the disabled parking slots outside the squadron are not violated by people not entitled to park there (everyone on the squadron.)

Alternatively, we could get rid of them too....

[Training Risky]

1. Mandatory Equal Opportunities Awareness courses.
2. New No 1 uniforms for all JRs.
3. Admin Branch. (All of them.)
4. The Puma force.
5. The Merlin Force.

There... that's 5 ways the RAF could cut a heap of costs and not even notice a decline in operational effectiveness!

Cat + Pigeons = GO!

[ZH875]

1. Sgt Pilot
2. Aircrew buy their in flight meals, blunty's buy their lunch when on duty, so why not aircrew.
3. Down rank the Officer Posts.
a. Flight Commander = Flt Lt (vice Sqn Ldr)
b. Boss of Sqn = Sqn Ldr (Vice Wg Cdr)
c. Boss of a station (ie 3 wings) Wg Cdr. (vice Gp capt)
d. Boss of a group = Gp Capt. (vice Air Commode)
etc etc
4. On a voluntary ground tour, NO FLYING PAY.

5. If they bend a kite, pay for the damage.


Blue touch paper lit and legs running quickly......

(Better money saving idea - Bin the Bean Counters and the Bean Counter's Assistant)

[HOODED]

Nice post 875 if perhahps a little too close to the truth of what really needs to be cut. I remember a while back when all this jointery shi@ came in and a RAF Wittismore was formed there was a suggestion that one Station Commander and one OC Admin/OC Eng/OC Ops etc would be the order of the day. Didn't happen did it, why? because that would stop the oppertunities for progression for the hoopers! Now who was it that decided on 2 GP Capt posts insted of one? Some guy who now holds Air Rank I believe! :*

[timex]

Surely the cuts will fall mainly on the army? Of all 3 services, they are clearly ripe to be plucked (over). Remove a regiment of Challengers, chop the Apache programme, get rid of the antiquated regimental system and reinvest the surplus funding into the 21st century method of warfighting - airpower.

Sorry but unless you,ve got troops on the ground air power is only a minor irritant, remember the USA tried that particular ploy in Vietnam. Big fat Freddy...

[Hueymeister]

OOOHHH..could this be redundancy packages again..hmmm..interesting.....I'd give it some serious thought if it were to come around again!

[soddim]

I find it sad that the inter-service arguments are once again deployed at a time when this goverment is trying to screw all the armed services. That this should be happening in the immediate aftermath of so much achievement by all three over-stretched services in a war that need not have been fought if this government had its' act half way together is even more lamentable.

It is time to stop the inter-service squabbling - when are we going to see a CDS who fights for his budget instead of kissing political backsides? (and any senior RAF officer who resigns on a point of principle?).

[Oggin Aviator]

"when are we going to see a CDS who fights for his budget instead of kissing political backsides? "

Didnt he just leave his post early over Op Telic vs Op Fresco?

Oggin

[NURSE]

u not thinking of the admiral who resigned about the Sea Harrier

[BEagle]

Let’s hope that there’ll be as much robust debate in the House when Buff gets up on his back legs today as there was yesterday at PMQs. Mad George’s bum-licking poodle looked distinctly ruffled when grilled by Michael Howard over the government propaganda radio advert (paid for by you and me) concerning their university tuition fee proposals. Apparently “You’ll cough zip ‘till you bling”, whatever that means.

No doubt this bunch think that by pandering to yoof-cuwcha in this way, they’ll attract more votes when they try to drop the voting age to 16.

[Colonel W E Kurtz]

I could see all this coming years ago, the whole thing is toileted! Thank god I pulled the pin and got out of the UK and into a decent civy flying job when I did!

[CPN]

Mr C Hinecap has it right. Too many civvies in Procurement with no idea of our requirements. The contracts that the MOD signs up to all to often, mean that in the long run we the customer get ripped off. Too many civvie's are involved with first line maintenance and repair of equipment whilst our techs and mechanics are not allowed to perform such tasks. We need more military personnel involved with drawing up the contracts so that we can make best use of our kit. The MOD is a big business and surely it can fight for better deals. That would save money, cutbacks are not the way forward.

[pr00ne]

CPN

"too many civvies in Procurement?!

Bolleaux!!!!

The decision makers in DPA are military and very senior, it is their lack of contract awareness and ability that frequently leads to procurement disasters when the vendors run rings round them. Two and a half years in post is also a recipe for disaster in procurement, a short time in which you have to make your mark, so you change things even if they don't need changing and get a tick in the box for the next promotion. Some other poor sod then comes along and has two years to undo the damage, so it goes on, and on and on.


On the White paper, does anyone else share my view that we have been looking in the wrong place for cutbacks in fast jets?
Having read the paper in full, I think that the area that could be hit, and hit hard, is Tornado GR4 and Jaguar. The emphasis on multi role capability and the need to do away with single role platforms was stressed time and time again.

I would not be at all surprised to see Typhoon and JSF continue at full procurement levels and see Jaguar cut very early, Tornado GR4 to reduce substantially when A2G tranche 2 and 3 Typhoon hits and done away with entirely when FOAS enters service as a JSF or Typhoon derivative along with multi cruise missile launch platforms such as Type 45 Destroyer and maybe MR4.

Thoughts anyone?

[Chris Kebab]

Think I'll re-role onto UAVs and beat the rush.

[BEagle]

What - and join the Royal Aeromodelling Force?

[Runaway Gun]

Has anyone got a link to see the White Paper?

[Grimweasel]

Fast jet jockey days will soon be numbered!! Stay in a job and fly AT or Helo!! Pax will not settle for a chip flying them to Cyprus. UAV AT is a non starter. Otherwise they will have to develop a robot ALM to throw the white lunch boxes at the pax!!

[I was Lucky_B*]

The problem with all of this is what are we expected to do? A decent Strategic Defence Review, mmm, I think I heard that somewhere before, would come up with a list of requirements that the MOD would be expected to fullfill. We have had numerous reviews and all they do is save money, they do not enhance capability. Before you start I know that GR-4 is nore capable than a hunter, challenger than a centurion apache han a lynx. But it doesn't go quite right does it. How many Apache's did the Army buy, against how many can they actually fly. The MRA-4 will probably never leave the ground. Typhoon should be operational by now and yet it still hasn't been handed over to the RAF. Not only are there senior officers who make a Bo££ocks of the procurement and oversight of the procurement but then leave the RAF on full pay and oh what a surprise end up being an advisor to the company we're buying from. we are ripped off by British industry because they know we will pay! We get ripped off by senior management in the MOD and all three services because they think it makes men of us to rough it a little on deployment. Soldiers were fighting a war with every expectation of WMD being used and they didn't have all the protection they needed. Heads won't role we will learn the lesson. The whole point of Saif Sereaa was to learn the lessons, not go against a madman with enough poisons to kill the entire middle east. Wasn't it lucky he didn't.

Phew, rant over, sorry.:\

[ORAC]

Runaway Gun: Delivering Security in a Changing World (http://www.mod.uk/publications/whitepaper2003/index.html).

[Sideshow Bob]

Here's a link to the white paper-

http://www.mod.uk/publications/whitepaper2003/index.html

[ACW 335]

They have a thing on Beeb2 about the Defence Cuts ATM

[BEagle]

Rooting around upstairs, I found my old Phantom div card. It lists some 36 aerodromes which were available to us back then in 1982. Of those 36, Alconbury, Bedford, Bentwaters, Binbrook, Brawdy, Bruggen, Finningley, Holme-on-Spalding Moor, Honington, Laarbruch, Machrihanish, Scampton, Upper Heyford, Wattisham, Wethersfield, Wildenrath and Woodbridge are now either gone or are not available to fast jet traffic.....that's about half of the whole list.

Does anyone really think that Buff Hoon isn’t sharpening his knives for yet more cuts?

[soddim]

Interesting that the white paper lays emphasis on the need for multi role aircraft - a capability that we had and trained successfully for in 1969 with the Phantom and then abandoned in 1974 - a fine example of reinventing the wheel.

However, it is sound thinking - the smaller the force the more important it is to be able to switch roles to meet the current priority.

Does this secure the short-term future of the Tornado F3 as opposed to the GR4 for SEAD plus in-built AD capability?

Is the Euroblighter to enter service as a multi-role aircraft - if it ever makes it that far?

Will we see stand-off missiles fitted to AWACS and AAR aircraft?

In short, if you can't do at least two jobs, you ain't worth keeping?

[Vage Rot]

"Your commanding officer would have to be an absolute fool Blackadder!"

By the way, would everyone like Fries with that and what soft drink?

sorry, just getting in practice for my pending change to the RAF career structure!

[HectorusRex]

More pain for Defence Forces, and more 'spin from Buff Hoon:mad:

Forces face 'hidden' cuts in shake-up
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/12/2003)
A major revamp of the Armed Forces was announced yesterday with the publication of a defence White Paper signalling a cull of warships, tanks and aircraft.
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said the changes would better prepare Britain for combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
This would require smaller, more swiftly deployable forces able to fight on a number of fronts at the same time. Modern technology would reduce the amount of equipment needed, he told MPs.
But Conservatives described the move as "a smokescreen" to hide surreptitious cuts.
Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, accused the Government of "taking very serious risks with equipment and men".
The Liberal Democrats also expressed concern. "The real reason for this White Paper seems to be cover for cuts because the MoD is facing a cash crisis," said Paul Keetch, the defence spokesman.
Mr Hoon, however, insisted there was "no crisis".
But The Telegraph has learned that two major programmes, the Nimrod MRA4 surveillance aircraft and the Ground-based Air Defence radar system (GBAD), are to be cut to make immediate cash savings.
The contract for the £1.2 billion first phase of GBAD, which would upgrade a number of air defence systems, should have been signed some time ago. While a few small elements of the programme are expected to go ahead, the bulk of it will not.
Cancelling the contract for the new Nimrod, on which £428 million has been spent, would be more difficult, leaving the Navy with no long-range anti-submarine capability and the RAF without a strategic bomber.
But the aircraft has already encountered difficulties and it is the only other major programme where short-term savings could be made. Axing it would save £500 million this year and £2 billion overall.
Mr Soames found Mr Hoon's denial of a crisis "hard to believe. It is certainly very contrary to what we have been told. The White Paper is clearly a smokescreen".
The paper was short on detail with the main focus on restructuring the Army to bring in a new rapid reaction light infantry brigade. Heavy armour would be reduced in favour of a mixture of light, medium and heavy forces.
The number of warships, tanks and aircraft were no longer as important as their capabilities, Mr Hoon said.
"Multi-role capability will also allow us to deploy fewer aircraft than previously thought necessary."
The RAF's F3 Tornado fighters and Harrier and Jaguar ground attack aircraft were already due to be replaced by the Eurofighter but Mr Hoon's statement indicated that the number of combat squadrons could be slashed.
MoD officials admitted that although Britain was committed to the 55 aircraft in the first batch of Eurofighters, it was talking to the other countries in the consortium to renegotiate the 88 due in the second phase.
New weapons systems would "inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery", Mr Hoon said.
One tank regiment would immediately lose its 60 Challenger 2s with others to follow.
The Navy would lose some of its warships, he admitted. "Some of the older ships can contribute less well to the pattern of operations that we envisage, and some adjustments will be necessary."
Mr Hoon also came under fire for telling the Commons defence select committee that there had been no shortage of equipment in Iraq.
A National Audit Office report was highly critical of the amount of equipment, from desert boots to chemical filters, that did not reach troops.
"Geoff Hoon gave the Commons assurances that British troops were protected from such weapons, and adequately supplied," Mr Soames said. "This report shows that manifestly they were not."

:(

[BEagle]

I thought Bunter Soames did a good job demolishing Buff's spin yesterday, armed with the NAO report. Almost as good as the grilling Trust-me-Tone got from Michael Howard at PMQs on Wednesday.

Malvinas campaign - wrong boots.
GW1 - desert kit arrives after war ends.
GW2 - wrong boots AND desert kit arrives after war ends.....

That's progress.

[Tilt&Gain]

Am I missing something???? Nimrod MR4....strategic bomber....
No wonder it's taking British Wasteospace so long to upgrade them!

[HectorusRex]

A great boost for morale?

British Army now too weak to fight war

GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT

BRITAIN is no longer capable of launching a major military action against another nation state without the help of the United States, the government conceded yesterday.

The admission, in the long-awaited defence white paper, coincided with the publication of a damning report on the handling of the war in Iraq and an accusation from the chairman of an influential Commons committee that British troops in Iraq had been "shamefully let down" by the government.

The report, published by the National Audit Office (NAO), described the campaign in Iraq as a significant military success but lambasted the government for sending troops into combat without adequate equipment, including weapons, ammunition, body armour and medical supplies.

The findings were described by Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, as an "outrage".

"We expect the men and women of the armed forces to fight and maybe die for us. So it is an outrage that they could not expect all of the proper equipment, protection and even clothing to do the job we ask of them. They were shamefully let down," he said.

The report was published less than an hour before Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, stood up in the Commons to introduce the defence white paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World.

The document, the result of a lengthy review of defence policy, heralded a change in British military thinking, away from the doctrines of the Cold War and a reliance on heavily armoured forces towards lighter, more mobile forces which could be deployed quickly to trouble spots around the world.

Mr Hoon revealed a number of cuts in British forces, including an immediate reduction of the number of Challenger 2 main battle tanks in favour of a new light brigade, and future cuts in naval and air forces.

Speculation that the white paper would also include plans to axe historic regiments, including some of the most famous Scottish forces, proved unfounded. Mr Hoon, who had already pledged not to do away with regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, deferred any decision on the restructuring of the army until next year.

But the white paper did indicate a drastic reappraisal of the country’s military capabilities. Britain, it said, could never again mount an independent campaign against another nation state.

"The most demanding expeditionary operations, involving intervention against state adversaries, can only plausibly be conducted if US forces are engaged, either leading a coalition or in NATO," it said.

"The significant military contribution the UK is able to make to such operations means that we secure an effective place in the political and military decision-making processes.

"To exploit this effectively, our armed forces will need to be inter-operable with US command and control structures, match the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US."

The first changes will see the army’s three heavy brigades cut to two, and the creation of a new light brigade.

Addressing the Commons, Mr Hoon said that in future, the emphasis would be on using technology to deliver the maximum military effect. He warned that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by international terrorists, coupled with the consequences of failed or failing states, presented Britain with very real and immediate challenges.

Mr Hoon also played down the criticism of the government in the NAO report.

But last night, the widow of a British soldier killed in Iraq accused the Defence Secretary of failing to make sure that frontline troops were given vital protective kit.

Samantha Roberts said her husband, Steve, died because he was wearing a flak jacket without the normal protective ceramic plates fitted.

The NAO report was highly critical of the supply of body armour, noting that 200,000 sets of body armour issued since the Kosovo campaign has simply disappeared.

"Steve is dead, they can’t bring him back, but what they can do is stop this thing happening again. I am speechless," Mrs Roberts said.

The NAO report painted a chaotic picture with commanders simply unable to locate where their supplies were.

Many of the problems were exacerbated because, under pressure from the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence held only limited stocks of some equipment in order to cut costs.

[teeteringhead]

I Was Lucky_B* et al

.. just a small correction on a point of fact ... don't know where thissenior officers who make a Bo££ocks of the procurement and oversight of the procurement but then leave the RAF on full pay comes from, but with the possible exception of CDS (if a 5*) they don't.

2*s and above retire on a maximum of 50% of final pay which is about what 1* and below get. To forestall argument, after 34 years [ie 55 years old], an officer will get 48.5% of "a representative pay rate for the rank", which is usually the top rate. So the further you are from top rate, the closer you get to (and maybe exceed) 50%. But full pay - I don't think so.

And as a soon-to-retire (not very) senior officer, I've researched this closely!!

And let's not get into unpensionable flying pay, which I've only received for 35 years or so ........:(

[Regie Mental]

Does anyone have any thoughts on what the cutbacks to JSF/Typhoon will mean real terms vis a vis numbers of squadrons?

Will we be able to sustain all of 6, 11, 25, 41, 43, 54 and 111 (plus a resurrected 29)? I guess not.

:confused:

[RubiC Cube]

Tilt & Gain

Its actually MRA4 and the A stands for Attack. Times they are a changing!

[Mr C Hinecap]

pr00ne

"The decision makers in DPA are military and very senior, it is their lack of contract awareness and ability that frequently leads to procurement disasters when the vendors run rings round them."

Between that and the fact these decision makers are so far from the actual 'job' is why we are constantly screwed. They are making posts in procurement longer, but if we persist in putting the old, not very bold and out of touch there, we'll never get the proper kit! I'd rather see a closer link between that world and the front line - not a deepening void that is never crossed. Train some military types in contract law - and then stick it up the contractors!

[Flap62]

You could ask why we spend 3% of the defence budget on Trident. Yes it's a lot of bang for the buck but is it a bang we need to keep?

Bin Jag, bin new carriers, cut back GR4, halve the purchase of Typhoon, halve (or more) the purchase of JSF.

Spend the money on more AT, get the next tanker right, proper comms for the pongoes, I could go on!

[pr00ne]

Mr C Hinecap,

Can't disagree with your logic re the DPA but there is one fatal flaw;
if you "train some military types in contract law" then they'll be off to the City before you can say' C130J' to earn three times their current salary!

Regie Mental,

If you read the White Paper carefully I think it reveals that Typhoon is NOT where we willl see the fast jet cuts. There is a very heavy emphasis on multi role capability and a stated intention to reduce the number of single role fast jets.
That for me spells the end of the Jaguar and Tornado GR4 fleet. Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoon with an A2G capability is precisely what the White paper calls for.

I can see Typhoon and JSF continuing at full throttle. The White Paper says that the MoD is looking at "how and when we can reduce fast jet numbers"

So. look out for an immediate chopping of the Jag force, large cuts in the GR4 force when the final A2G tranche of Typhoon hits, another when JSF hits and the final dissapearance of GR4 when FOAS enters service in the guise of cruise missile launching platforms.
The units you quote may not be the one's to worry about, the Squadrons who are under threat I believe are; 2, 9,12, 13, 14, 31, 617 and maybe one of the Harrier units as a political fop to the RN to give a Naval number plate to more of the JSF units than their meagre staffing compliment will merit.
6, 41 and 54? I reckon it's good bye boys.

Cutting Tornado and Jaguar also neatly side steps the major political and industrial consequences of any reduction in UK Typhoon and JSF numbers.

[Archimedes]

One of the GR7 units will disappear and re-emerge as an RN-plated squadron once the SHAR has gone - it'll be 800, 801 plus two of 1, 3 and 4.

Assuming that seniority plays a part in the decision making over which plates remain, the GR7 squadron that goes is near-certain to be a Typhoon unit, or failing that, JSF (unless a number plate is required for something in between - C-17s?UAVs?). 6 is very likely to survive as a number plate, given that it has (depending on your sources) never disbanded or has been disbanded for the shortest amount of time of any squadron. There is a cunning plan for the formation of Typhoon units, and I suspect that this was worked out with an eye to returning some of the more 'distinguished' plates to use (56, for instance).

617 will also most likely survive, since it is one of the two units awarded its standard early for exceptional service in WW2 (120 is the other). This is why, when the V-force ran down, 617 survived, despite being the most junior plate, and why 44 and 35 (all senior to 617) disappeared when the Tornado appeared, and why 101 was re-equipped with the VC10 rather than GR1 (and why 50 would have gone in 1982 had it not been for the tanker variant).

[NURSE]

better idea

Bin Tornado
Bin Jaguar
Bin Euro fighter
Transfare JSF to fleet air arm
Transfare Puma, chinook & merlin to AAC
transfare sea king and nimrod to FAA
transfare Hercules and C17 to Army air corps or Heavy lift cargo as a specialist reserve
Disband RAF regt and transfare assets and personel to army
FTT to civy contractor
Sentry could go to FAA

DISBAND RAF and save billions

[BEagle]

Nursey dear, for heaven's sake learn to spell and punctuate the drivel you post.

[Postman Plod]

I see the biggest problem being that we are looking to buy things that don't yet exist to replace items we're going to get rid of now.

"Lets get rid of half our tanks now, and replace them with lighter AFVs errrr...... when we've contracted, designed, built, and tested them - in 20 years time then, when we decide we don't need them because we've not had them for 20 years!" or "Typhoon isn't in service yet, but we can get rid of the F3, GR4, Jag, Harrier, etc now, because we know we are getting the Typhoon to replace them in a couple of years time... maybe."

It's not so much the technology transfer we're promising now, its the cuts that will be made when the technology / upgrade doesn't work as advertised (MRA4) or they decide we've lived without it for years, so why bother.

[NURSE]

being serious

how multi role is eurofighter? could say 3 sqns of them replace 3 sqns of Jaguar and 3 tornado F3 sqns?

would eurofighter be able to replace Tornado GR4 and F3 sqn on the basis of 1:1:1?

I would sugest Jaguar will quietly slip away without replacement with the loss of 3 Sqns and Coltishal probably reroled as a base for troops withdrawn from Germany.

If Nimrod MRA4 goes the way of AEW3 what is the fallback position?

If the USN or Democrat president cut stovl JSF what is the fall back position for UK sea based airpower or will the navy be left with 2 white elephants?

[Archimedes]

Under 'Option Caucasian Pachyderm', the RN has ensured that the design of CV(F) is 'future proof' with the ability to operate the CV variant of JSF (plus E-2 if selected as MASC [or whatever the acronym is today]). That's to say that the design could be adapted to take catapults and arrestor gear if required.

Whether this would happen, though, is questionable. Since the USMC still appears to want STOVL F-35, I doubt that the aircraft will be binned entirely.

I'm not sure exactly how multi-role Typhoon is - but remember that in the very dim and distant past it was designed specifically to replace the Jaguar, implying some capability in that regard. 17(R) will know the answer to that one, though! I guess that the ability to carry PW4, Brimstone (when it eventually arrives), etc will help.

The drawdown plan for the Jaguar and F3 units is such that the Jaguar squadrons (as it stands) won't fade away. IIRC , from an article by, I believe, one of the contributers to this site, 6 Sqn is scheduled to stand down in 2006, and will re-equip with the Typhoon. Or something like that.

No MRA4 would, I suppose, mean continuation of MR 2 and collaborating in the hunt for a P-3 replacement (currently ongoing in most P-3 operating nations)?

[NURSE]

on a few of the other boards the discussion seams to agree that the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. could suffer from design by accountant rather than naval architect and suffer from shrinking carrier syndrome. If this is the case i would sugest the E2 will be the first capability abandoned in favour of yet another lash up the Merlin AEW4.

Doesn't the USN have final say over USMC aircraft buys and it I would say would like to see the Stovl die off so it can preserve its doctrine that only huge carriers are capable of carrying modern aircraft. And with the Stovl only being a small number in the over all buy it is prime target for delays/chop if the Democrats get elected and do the usual slash defence spending.

[Oscar Duece]

Me thinks some level minded civvy bean counters are needed to shake up this rabble we refer to as the UK armed forces.

Yes they need the kit, but they need to cut the cr@p.

Why bean counters (with real minds, not political ones), because they go after the real waste not the froth.

Cut out the history, it's the past after all. If you want no move foward, do so. Just get on with whats right, not what squadron or regiment must be kept, because they are yonks old. Merge, Merge Merge. Save, save , save.

Civvy the posts they are most suitable for, and get commercial reality onto purchasing and admin. Not clock watching to pension time. Scrap the money drain posts, stewards, horse guards, bands etc.

So what is MR4a for. Do we need 2 dozen sub hunters in this era ?. Multi role Typhoon ? Cold war junk ?. If you want euro multi role, buy the latest Saab offering, off the shelf, fixed price and 4th generation multi role.

How to raise more cash. How many acres of land do UK mod own. Sell, Merge, Move redundant bases. £ 1m an acre with planning ?

It's ok looking up to the US, but they spend more on burgers than our whole defence budget. Keep it real.

[NURSE]

interesting some posts here want to cut army history by merging regiments and yet RAF squadron Name plates must be preserved?

[Archimedes]

Oscar,

But part of the problem is that these professionally-minded civvy bean-counters never look at waste and inefficiency in the bean-counting arena... Also, it'd be nigh-on impossible to have cuts imposed without political elements. Can you imagine the scene in cabinet?

Buff: So our independent consultants say we should buy Aermacchi super-trainers rather than the Hawk 128.

Prescott: they do, do they? How much are we paying these bl**dy clowns, eh? What about my constituents? Not bl**dy likely, Geoffrey, boy!

etc, etc, etc...

MRA 4 - 18, not two dozen. Long Range Non-penetrating Aircaft. MRA 4 is (titter ye not) going to be a multi-role ASW, ASuW, ISTAR and Strategic Attack asset (if the funding to realise the capabilities is released).

[The Fin]

Ahem!

If I may just counter some of the clamor to bin GR4 in order to get more multi role aircraft:

GR4 flew more hours and sorties than any other British combat aircraft during Op TELIC.

Types of sorties included:

Stand off recce (no other combat platform can carry the pod)
Storm Shadow (no other combat aircraft can carry/is cleared)
Low level TST (no other UK combat aircraft has all weather day/night low level capability)
Enhanced PW2 and 3 attacks (no other UK combat aircraft cleared for both these types or can carry them in some cases)
ALARM (only GR4/F3)
Standard precision weaponry
Unguided weaponry
Strafe
Close air support

Without banging on too much, I would hazard to suggest that it has a valid role now and for some years to come, being that it is powerful and flexible, abeit over-engineered and expensive to support. That could change if the MOD changed the way it administers airworthiness of aircraft but that would be digressing..

[NURSE]

yes but did the white paper take tellic into account.......no so its an outdated cold war aircraft;)

[Neil Porter]

Will we have an Air Force, Army and Navy soon???

[soddim]

You just watch the RAF swap aircraft that work for new ones that don't.

Nothing new there - we've been doing it for years.

Big problem now though is that we will not be swopping one for one - so we'll end up with less that don't work.

Quantity has a quality all of its' own.

[NURSE]

why do we always accept kit that isn't properley developed? How long has eurofighter been in the pipeline? And when new kit arrives on operational units it doesn't do what its ment to. What is the procurment/evaluation process doing wrong?

[ZH875]

An easy way to save money:

Amalgamate all three services into one 'purple' outfit, and make 2/3 of all officers redundant.

We will then have the correct amount of management for the number of erk's that we have.

[RileyDove]

How about bining all the Sengo/Jengo's hanging round flight's and squadrons and actually admit that it's the Warrant Officers who are actually running the show!

[BATS]

Whilst we bemoan the 'restructuring of defence' the bottomless funding pit, the NHS, has just published this little gem for general consumption. What a waste of money.......

http://62.189.42.125/12stisofchristmas/12-stis.swf

[soddim]

Oh, I don't agree that it is a waste of money. After all, one of the reasons for reducing Defence expenditure is to fund the NHS to treat a whole variety of ailments caused by lifestyle problems. Whilst the armed services are keeping themselves fit and healthy the majority of those who fund the forces and the social security scroungers are busy abusing and otherwise neglecting their bodies in the certain knowledge that the cure will 'be free at the point of delivery'. One wonders what they would behave like if they had to pay for the cure.

[pr00ne]

soddim,

Get your facts straight, no-one's "reducing defence expenditure" so I'm afraid your nasty little diatribe is wrong as well as offensive.

[cyrus]

I think, proone, it depends how one defines reducing. In relative terms, to NHS expenditure, for example, our defence share is reducing.

I personally find it offensive that taxpayers money is being wasted, so I have some sympathy with the comments that offended you.

[soddim]

What's the matter, proone? Had a bad pint at the pub? Suggest next Friday or Saturday night you get yourself down to any A&E department at any central London hospital and just look at the social ailments of those taking up our precious NHS resources. Then go and look objectively at our remaining capability for defence of this country and prosecution of UK interests overseas and maybe you'll be less offended next time I post some less than politically correct words.

[Jobza Guddun]

And so say all of us.

Well, most of us anyway....:ok:

[NURSE]

Bats you have hit a nail on the head would a review of this nature take place into the sacred cow of the NHS?

I don't think any government Labour or Tory would have the necessary balls to do it! Yet having worked in it I would sugest that a total review of the NHS is actually what is required. To decide on a coherent strategy for the future so that provision of relevant healthcare free at the point of delivery can be sorted. Instead of this throwing money at it and tinkering round the edges.
I don't believe the way forward is health insurance for the general population. But am almost certain more than sufficient resources are provided to provide a modern health service and that what is preventing this happening is chronic missmanagement and beauracratic waste.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Proone

The Defence budget for the UK has been about £20 - 25B per annum for as long as I have been in the forces. The Social Security Budget is currently £117 Billion!!! I am sorry if you are offended but I would like to see this sacred cow take some (a lot) of pain. Work the firgures out 117 Billion (that is 117 000 000 000 [I think I have enough 0s]) divided by a population of 60 000 000. Somebody is getting a lot of my share!! Even the department concerned estimates there is some £2-3B per year of fraud. That would pay for a lot of Defence equipment.

And this doesn't include what is spent on health (circa £60B) education (circa £60B) and security which is now greater than Defence as well.

[NURSE]

a couple of million could be saved on the drug budget by proper use of proprietry name as opposed to brand name. And appropriate use of drugs.

[L J R]

The outright efficiency of this whole organisation is poor in the first place. Therefore expect as a berginning a review of how we do things administratively and domestically. Small examples are mess reception staff [believe it or not!!], catering staff in crew rooms, the culture and organisation of the Military Mess, and as indicated earlier, people such as the deployment SWO and some of the lazy admin types. As a result, you can expect a 'more from fewer' command ethos, that will give us all the shi*ts. Do we really need the multi tier command Group AND station level command over fighting elements?

I believe a review will occurr soon, and some hard to swallow changes will be recommended, even though we may not like them.

On the effectiveness of the RAF as a whole fighting force, I cannot see how the Jag AND Harrier force will remain intact - let alone sustain the number of GR-4s that are on line. I can forsee at least one GR-4 Sqn being reduced, even if all the jets and crews are spread throughout the other remaining Sqns. You woould then lose some 100 GND and Ops staff immediately.

Typhoon needs to be a muilti role jet on roll out - not just an air to air jet that will be modified later to do mud moving.

Apparent 'hard times' are ahead, but no matter what we think, the support and infrastructure of the RAF must get into the 80s at least before it can operate in the millenium.

[HectorusRex]

"The Service's Best Friend...............not":mad:


This man asks too much of our forces and gives too little
By Max Hastings
(Filed: 14/12/2003)


Tony Blair's electoral success has been founded upon articulating noble purposes nobody can quarrel with: health care that works, schools that teach, a representative Second Chamber, peace in our time. Unfortunately, his fervent rhetoric is all too often unmatched by convincing action.

So it is with last week's Defence White Paper. Mr Micawber would be lost in admiration for the lofty sentiments, worthy expressions of intent. Here is a document so vague and ill-defined, so self-consciously virtuous, that turkeys could endorse it for Christmas, as indeed have the chiefs of staff. It is bland, boring and rich in techno-babble.

It will do nothing, however, to remove the sense of apprehension that hangs over Britain's soldiers, sailors and airmen. They know that the Chancellor is prowling. The Treasury is fingering its well-sharpened axe. No one in Whitehall has contradicted the charge made by the former Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, in the Lords this week, that Gordon Brown wants to take £1 billion out of defence spending every year for the next four years.

A critical moment will come if the Government announces, as Tony Blair yearns to do, that armed conflict in Northern Ireland is officially at an end. There are today 10 battalions of troops in the province. If it is decreed that these are no longer required for peace-keeping, the Chancellor will demand that most or all are disbanded. This would be a huge blow to the capability, indeed credibility, of the British Army.

"You mustn't quote me anywhere that might be sourced," a close associate of the Prime Minister said to me coyly a few weeks ago, "but you should know that Tony would love to increase the size of the Army. It's just that Gordon won't let him."

I hear that the Prime Minister himself has made similar fatuous assertions to others. Sufficient to say that if the Army's manpower is cut further, it will come close to losing critical mass. Britain's falling birth-rate already threatens recruitment. The six Scottish regiments, in particular, are woefully under strength, and rely on injections of Commonwealth troops to fill their ranks.

Oddly enough, the charge against the Government which possesses least substance is the one which received most prominence this week. Headlines focused upon the National Audit Office's report castigating shortcomings in equipment for the Iraq war. These were valid as far as they went - some kit was delivered late, and in inadequate quantity. Yet the NAO's report underplayed the central fact, that British war-fighting equipment worked amazingly well, indeed better than the gear for any previous expedition in British history.

The real issue is not the Army's kit for today, but its manning for tomorrow. The rest of the world finds it bewildering that successive British governments - for John Major treated the Armed Forces shamefully - devote so much ingenuity to cutting them, when their cost as a proportion of government spending is now marginal.

The services command greater admiration than any other British institution. I remember Raymond Seitz, when he was US Ambassador in London in the early 1990s, expressing astonishment at the Government's parsimony: "Your Armed Forces really can enable Britain to punch above its weight," he said. "They are by far your most cost-effective means of exercising influence in the world."

The new White Paper's enthusiasm for lighter, more flexible forces is sensible. In the post-Cold War era, Britain needs few heavy tanks or interception fighters. Yet cuts seem likely to be made many years before the new generation of equipment can be put in place. Already the Army's reconnaissance vehicles are older than the soldiers who man them.

The Ministry of Defence is doing a rotten job of looking after its most precious commodity - its people. Barracks, both at home and abroad, are a disgrace to this country, yet no politician seems to care. How can soldiers be expected to inhabit quarters deemed unfit for asylum-seekers? Yes, really. When the Army recently surrendered some barracks for conversion to Home Office use, senior Army officers noted bitterly that the buildings were deemed to need an expensive upgrade before they would be acceptable to Kosovans or Afghans.

No Labour minister other than Tony Blair himself has the smallest interest in the Armed Forces, or speaks of them with real warmth. The White Paper claims that technology now makes crude counts of soldiers or weapons platforms irrelevant. Informed soldiers say that this sort of language is simply designed to divert attention from fears over impending cuts in manpower.

Mass matters, and Britain's Armed Forces are close to losing it. The Royal Navy is now tiny. Cutting its strength still further must have a drastic effect on its ability to recruit, train and operate with conviction.

The Government reinforced service scepticism about its good faith last week, by announcing British participation in a new Euro-headquarters in Belgium. Here is real, Government-inspired waste. There are already far too many international headquarters.

Only the British, and narrowly also the French, today possess forces of the size and quality to perform effectively as peacekeepers, never mind battlefield soldiers. Until European governments show some willingness to fund effective defence capabilities, putting more staff officers into Belgium represents mere shuffling of deckchairs.

One statement in last week's White Paper seems incontrovertible: it is hard to imagine Britain again fighting a war except alongside the United States. Yet this is an admission of Europe's abject failure, rather than a declaration of prudent strategic policy.

New conventional threats might well emerge over the next generation, which Government policy would make it impossible to meet. Even in the immediate campaign against terrorism, the Blair Government has done precious little towards homeland defence. When a serious terrorist atrocity takes place in Britain, ministers should be castigated if the perpetrators prove to have circumvented our almost worthless border controls. These, too, should be part of a credible national defence policy.

From the Armed Forces' viewpoint, the White Paper amounts to typical Blairite waffle. Behind it, a much graver threat is lurking. Some time in the next few years, Gordon Brown is likely to become prime minister.

The Chancellor regards defence with rather less enthusiasm than the euro, the services as mere squanderers of cash that might otherwise be thrown at his latest child poverty action scheme. Britain's Armed Forces are not in the least frightened of Iraqis or Afghans. But gosh, they are scared by the prospect of Mr Brown moving next door.

[NURSE]

in a time of cuts to funding for military capability a question should the costs of running messes be borne by the service or by the individual members?

[Mr C Hinecap]

Nurse

Have you ever BEEN near a Mess Bill? They're not that cheap a thing. Messes are needed because of the way we operate. They are (still, regardless of what anyone says) part of the military life and ethos we joined for. If you start eroding the real time daily stuff back at base, there is no point in pushing money into the front line. There has to be a balance.
Messes are paid for by public & private funds.

(I didn't even mention punctuation - oh, b.ugg3r.)

[NURSE]

yes just had 18 months of paying them even on deployment.
And living in the worst accomidation I have ever been in for 17 years.
In now other government job is their anything like the messing system and you get x-factor on top of that. Yes service life is different and i do understand that but maybe there are cheaper ways of delivering Food and accomidation?

[Lord Trenchards Brat]

Is Nurse for real. :hmm:

I suggest a Christmas present in the form of a "Dikshunry!" would be of great help to you when posting on this forum. My four year old has better writing skills. :D

[Jackonicko]

He must be a young AC2, Trooper or Ordinary Seaman with an education like that..... I hope.

But the content of his posts is often even more hilarious than his spelling and grammar.

[HOODED]

Jackonicko, how many AC2, troopers or Ordinary Seamen do you know who pay mess bills? I take you point though, it's amazing that Nurse claims to be at least SNCO level yet hasn't mastered the Queens English. I note he's new to the forums this month, and at least he's made me laugh! Back to the thread though, I heard today that redundancys may be required to get to the levels our lords and masters require. Unfortunately there isn't any money so they're hoping that enough p*ssed off old sweats with their pension earnt will PVR! I've just signed on in the hope of a bigger pay off, but hey what if they don't get the natural wasteage they're hoping for? Interesting times!:O

[soddim]

Hey chaps, lay off the Nurse! It's refreshing to have his/her views and at least one can understand them despite the English.

In any case, none of us are perfect - I heard today that redundancys may be required - remember that Hooded.

I've enjoyed your posts Nurse - don't get shouted down.

[NURSE]

try above senior NCO.
sorry about the spelling but typing isn't my thing.

The question about messes is to try and get people to look at what defence money is actually spent on and wether we're getting value for money or if there is a better way of doing things.
The army i agree spends loads on things that aren't useable on a modern battlefields eg Horses the HCMR is a superb spectcle and uses resources that could be diverted to saving some MBT's but it keeps alive traditions and is good at keeping the army in the public eye. I know that all the BBMF pilots are front line qualified aircrew but a Lancaster is hardly going to be used to Bomb Iraq but it keeps the RAF in the public eye and continues tradition all paid for at the expense of the defence budget. An accountant would say cut all that as it doesn't add capability directly but spectcle is an excellent recruiting tool and the sight of the HCMR display or a fly past of the BBMF may set a young person onto the path of a service career. But a bean counter would probably push for them to be cut. We are the current custodians of the armed forces of the UK and we know the Value of them we now have to fight the accountants who know the costs of everything and the value of nothing.

[Oggin Aviator]

Well said nurse. :ok:

I hear they are thinking of chopping up HMS Victory into firewood so some Pompey pensioners skint through all the hidden taxation can keep warm this winter :mad:

Oggin

[soddim]

There must be some merit in looking for a monetary return on expenditure on ceremonial and airshows. Certainly BBMF could charge more and we have enough talent around capable in less-stretched times to capitalise on such assets by running a major show - perhaps we should not always give all the proceeds to charities. We're getting to the point where Defence itself will have to look for charitable donations because this government does not appear to want to fund it.

[Biggus]

Rumours circulating at work of reducing the RAF down to a force of approx. 38,000-39,000. The impression given is that of a politician's/bean counter's number pulled out of a hat, that the RAF then has to decide how to achieve.

Has anyone heard any more on this subject?

[NURSE]

I guarantee someone will come up with the bright idea of selling of land like salisbury plain. But those ideas are one shot fixes what is needed is stable sustained investment in our forces.
Question :do all 3 services need a seperate medical or police service could savings be made by amalgamating these into triservice pro and triservice med?

[OKOC]

Nurse,

I reckon you're an OC Admin looking for promotion-your last missive suddenly became (almost) ISS "A" grade service writing. Clearly, you hate aircrew or, more likely, are jealous of their (extreme) wealth. May I respectfully suggest a PPL (at your expense naturally) as this may help as a stepping stone to facilitate your joining our master-race.

[soddim]

Please deliver us from deliverance

One fast jet type, and a capability now.

What if it's called Typhoon and doesn't turn up?

What if it's grounded?

What if they shoot them both down?

Quantity has a quality all of its' own

[insty66]

I don't think that any sensible government would buy aircraft from the US as the customer version is never as good as the model they keep for themselves. Plus what would the unions and industry say?
Having different types of a/c that can broadly speaking cover each others roles should help prevent an airforce from losing all it's available assets to one major fault (remember Buccaneer wing spars?).
What I believe this country needs is a varied and versatile sevice that has not put all it's eggs in one basket which it is in danger of doing if it relies too heavily on Typhoon.
Above all please save us from further jointery. I have the utmost respect for the other services but I do not want to join them

Stacked early again!

[NURSE]

Just to clear a few things up I'm not an OC Admin. I'm not even RAF.
I dislike the aircrew attitude that they are superior to everyone else they have a job to do. Just like The RAF policeman stagging on. Or the Infantry soldier on the front line.
At least the reality of purple oerations is now sinking in to the armed forces. On tellic I had to get RAF and RN personel to understand that the conditions they were living in were not that bad as they could be they were in buildings, under canvas and had some amenities. The RAF people just couldn't get their head around the fact that they had signed up to the armed forces and had been sent to do a job. We kept hearing I didn't join to live/work in conditions like this. The Navy guys when we exlained the alternatives ie hole in ground under camnet took it on board and were fine and got on with the Job. The RAF were constantly on the phone to their desk officers trying to be pulled out of theatre. Yet when Purple establishments are made the RAF start empire building and changing the existing systems to suit the Airforce and what the other services need is ignored. Leading to in some areas the systems being improved but in many others some very Dangerous dumbing down has taken place leading to capability shortfalls in the other two services.

[Jackonicko]

Not good enough for the RAF, clearly.

And with a chip on the shoulder to prove it.

And if your grammar and spelling are other than a clever joke, and if you're more than a Lance Corporal, then Army standards must have slipped alarmingly.

[soddim]

Sorry if you met the wrong RAF crowd, nurse. Let me try to assure you, RAF aircrew know they are not superior to everyone else and they fly crap kit most of the time to prove it. Other trades are all professional people and usually cope with challenge, hardship and change better than you witnessed. It is, however, interesting that in most operations since the Falklands it has been necessary to cobble together a motley collection from various units in order to form one sizeable enough to meet the task. That this should expose leadership and morale problems is no surprise to me and I was never happy to go to war in a unit that had not trained together in peacetime.

Nevertheless, there is no excuse for the behaviour you witnessed.

[PercyDragon]

Here's an idea. Why not follow what's happening in Financial Services and shed massive numbers of UK jobs to India.

The way you could do it is to recruit in India for 'Indian Only' British regiments. They would be paid 30% of what we pay our
troops over here, but after, say, eight years in the UK Forces they get the right to reside in the UK.

Let's face it. The same thing is happening with nurses in the NHS.

Bit of 'blue sky' thinking there. Remember foks, you heard it here first.:ok:

[soddim]

Yeh, and let's do the same thing with MPs - save us a fortune!

[NURSE]

The worst though was one of your doctors who instead of waiting to disestablish her post trailed a replacement out from the UK.
The next tranche of RAF were much better but the actions of your command at times left a nasty taste in the mouth eg pulling a dedicated aeromed flight to use the aircraft to Tank Tornado's back to uk and delaying the evacuation of sick and injured personnel from an operational theatre.

Sorry about the spelling if you'd put a spellchecker on here it would help anyway it the rules say nothing about having to comply with JSP101 or whatever they call it now.
Btw I am quite happy being army and don't have any RAF created chip. Most of the behaviour I have seen from the boys in light blue has lived up to army expectations ;) .I do now actually have some respect for the RAF regt having lived with them though I still think they would be better in the army. Your J1 side of the house is excellent if manpower heavy and I do wish the AGC would send people over to learn from you. I found TPW scary at what they thought they were. But unfortunatley the non professionally qualified side of you medical services is really frightening are thease guys and girls actually let loose on real patients in med centres?

the army do recruit from the commonwealth but because of the CRE we have to pay them the same. Its not great when large numbers of soldiers don't have English as their first spoken language.

the army do recruit from the commonwealth but because of the CRE we have to pay them the same. Its not great when large numbers of soldiers don't have English as their first spoken language.

[insty66]

NURSE
You appear to be judging the entire RAF on one bunch of pepple that you have met.
If only one of our commands decisions has left a sour taste then you are luckier than most of the RAF that has ever deployed. From your title I'll hazard a guess that you are medically orientated and have a high regard fot human life. In the RAF everything and every person is considered assets and more often than not aircraft come first then every thing else. It seems that people are easier to replace.
In my experience most of the RAF will go anywhere they are told and just get on with it. Of course people grumble, it passes the time (like reading forums on the internet) but as far as I'm concerned those you met are not typical.

[Mr C Hinecap]

This is only a guess, but......

the decision to bring aircraft back from TELIC was probably at a level higher that JUST RAF. I would guess that something of that magnitude would have been made fairly close to the top.

soddim said: Let me try to assure you, RAF aircrew know they are not superior to everyone else and they fly crap kit most of the time to prove it.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Thanks. Needed that. ;)