View Full Version : Staring into the abyss
Melrin Dip
4th Feb 2004, 03:03
Having viewed PPrune for years I am suprised that the gossip level is so low at the moment. Even the Senior Officer's comments of 'Its going to be painful for everyone' seem to have passed the normal wags amongst us goodbye. Is it because we all feel ther is a certain inevitability to it all or are we just pretending that our mates Tony and Geoff wouln't dare inflict the biggest set of cuts on the Armed Forces since 1977.
Heres my feel on the situation:
1. It doesn't matter whether your Navy, Army or Airforce this time around. We're all f@$%$d!
2. It might be for once the airforce are more f@$%$d than the rest.
3. Apparently somewhere out there are 75 airfields we use, not for much longer.
4. Odiham may be big, have new stuff and be comfortably close to London but maybe its days are numbered.
5. The Army's duty free days are very numbered.
6. Why do we need 3 dockyards?
7. How do Merlins look painted yellow?
8. How much redundancy pay (3 times final salary).
9. Just why do the Navy need 3 aircraft types?
10. BLUH - who wants it in FLYNX form?
11. Just how much does it cost to keep those nice Yellow Sea Kings and their myriad operational roles?
12. Where do we base the Jaguars, I know St Athan or Shawbury?
13. Nimrod - surely not 2 cancelled programs?
14. Anyone ever asked how they will replace the Gazelle -oh thats it they won't.
Well that's me for starters:{
Of course I wouldn't make this post to deliberately stir up some inter service tension would I?
Like my boss told me it's about time we did this defence stuff properly. If you can't do the job properly (including the funding) Don't do it at all?
Any another thing - apparently the whole funding fiasco was a treasury cock-up designed to reduce the budget by the back door!!!:oh: Gordon is sooooo generous
HAPPY DAYS
Arclite01
4th Feb 2004, 03:31
What is all this talk about Jaguars on here ?
Is Colt definately for the chop then ?
What sort of timescales ?
Do tell !!
Arc
soddim
4th Feb 2004, 06:33
Melrin Dip
Did you really register today just to post this?
BEagle
4th Feb 2004, 06:34
Arclite01, since Colt is a nice place in rural Norfolk, not too far from relative civilisation rather than in the ar$e-end of nowhere in Deep-Fried Mars Bar land, I'd say it was pretty odds-on. Very regrettably...
callsign Metman
4th Feb 2004, 20:05
Beags,
"$rse end of nowhere deep-fried mars bar land" - leave Oxfordshire and Wiltshire out of this.
Seriously though, perhaps MODs thinking is along these lines :-
more rural airfields = less risk of stupid noise pollution claims against MOD.
just a thought..
CM
RobinXe
4th Feb 2004, 20:12
Heh, good point CM.
One of my pet peeves is people who move into cheap housing near airfields/airports, then immediately start bitching about the noise and trying to get them closed down. :mad:
Dont get me started!
whowhenwhy
4th Feb 2004, 23:17
I think the thinking is that we did Telic without the Jag, therefore lets get rid early. Only one problem though if they do. What the hell are they going to do with all those single seat aircrew, albeit many without radar experience, while they wait for Typhoon to sort itself out?? If they want to save money I'm sure they could think of somewhere else to put the Jags so that they could close Colt. Scampton?? It's not like you could do it the other way around and have the sparrows play in the Norwich overhead!
detgnome
4th Feb 2004, 23:43
What are we always short of come times of conflict?
Answer - AT and RW assets.
What are we not short of ?
Answer - Strike & Attack ac.
Perhaps now is the time to admit that we don't really need all those fast sharp pointy things and to reconfigure the force structure to represent what is actually required.
For what it's worth (Guessing only):
Jag, MRA 4 and a lot of Typhoon to go
Strength of the RAF somewhere between 30000 - 39000
But surely any air force by definition must have fighting aircraft - that's the whole point and the more the better provided they are in the right place.
However, I suppose we will repeat our past mistakes and throw out the ones that work in order to bring into service the ones that don't.
Biggus
5th Feb 2004, 01:54
It seems to be generally acknowledged that the MoD, and RAF, will be looking to make cuts/savings. Again as part of that plan most people seem to feel that tranche 3 of EFA will be cut (I know there are contractual problems with that!). Therefore, getting rid of the Jaguar fleet now makes perfect sense to the treasury/bean counters.
By disbanding the Jags you get rid of a whole fleet, savings in terms of number of types operated etc, but only lose one airfield. Secondly, as the Jags no longer exist they will not need replacing by EFAs, hence the perfect excuse to get rid of tranche 3. A wonderfully logical arguement for the treasury and civil servants!
detgnome
5th Feb 2004, 02:10
Cyrus - I wasn't suggesting that we scrap the whole load, merely observing that we often see the majority if not all of our AT and RW assets used in a conflict but never the combat ac.
SirToppamHat
5th Feb 2004, 02:56
Cyrus,
The way this Government behaves, they will turn your logic on its head. Since Force implies some sort of offensive/defensive capabillity to exert FORCE, they could easily have us renamed as the Royal Air SERVICE!
If the real politicians think anything like that mob on Crisis Thingy last night, it will be a huge shock that we actually have armed ac at all!
STH
It all actually depends on how much Gordon Brown is willing to let the MOD have, consider the goverment will be looking to build a decent election war chest.
I keep hearing rumours of Eurofighter tranche 3 being cut, but considering the heavy contractual penalties the UK would pay to do so I dont know if this will happen.
Did anyone hear about that ex RN officer who quit and published several articles about how uselss most of the navies ships and subs are...any betting he's getting a new job at HM treasury?
Maybe our Tony is a secret admirer of Helen Clark - well, it worked for her - look at the money the Kiwi's have saved by scrapping their pointy things - and they must have been right because nobody has beaten them since!
Maybe this government would be better off with no forces because then they would not be tempted to wage war on a pretext that did not stand up to post conflict analysis.
It is quite clear that armed forces are a major distraction to a socialist goverment - much better to spend the money instead on millions of non-jobs that will guarantee millions of labour voters at the next election - oh, and don't forget lots of extra immigrants registered to vote to make sure of a labour victory.
country calls
5th Feb 2004, 18:05
As a confirmed conspiracy theorist, I would like to give perhaps another perspective on the defence cuts which are heading our way.
Its idealogy. Cast your mind back to the early eighties when we had Mrs T running the show. How may Labour MPs and candidates where fully paid up, badge wearing members of CND? The political animal may be adept at changing its spots, but if the heart of said animal still beats the same rythym?
Just a thought!
i had laways been led to believe that the Gazelle was to be replaced by the Lynx LBUH
RobinXe
5th Feb 2004, 19:32
1982 Mr. Nott?
:eek:
radish
22nd Feb 2004, 01:41
This isn't a party political issue - the defence (& esp. procurement) budget is as skint as most areas of public service. For the books to balance we have to stop trying to police the whole world. The only way ahead is, IMHO, to become more specialised in our roles even if that means relying on a coalition from either side of the Atlantic for those capabilities we are forced to relinquish. Just one suggestion by way of example, and to provoke debate:
We last used static line parachuting in anger during Suez (Sierra Leone doesn't count - it wasn't operationally necessary) so why not bin Parachute Regiment and concentrate parachuting within the existing more specialist units?
Which capabilities would you abandon to balance the books?!
(Stands back and dons tin hat!).