State of the Nation - an open letter

[Strimmer Trimmer]

It is time to speak out. I do not relish this task; indeed I am prevented from doing so through normal channels, which is why I must resort to the anonymity of this forum. These are my views, but walk into any crewroom in the RAF and it will be patently clear that the sentiment is widespread. I am a serving member of the Royal Air Force, so I can only speak from that viewpoint, but I believe what follows is indicative of the situation in all three services.
The Armed Forces have undergone massive change in the last decade, as the Cold War ceased to be the threat we faced, and we struggled to find a credible new role for the three services. Whilst we may have gone a long way in the transition to an expeditionary force, we have largely ignored other changes in society. The last decade has seen an overwhelming change in the hopes, aspirations and needs of society as a whole, and of the individuals who make up that society. We need to change not only to reflect our new task, but to look after our personnel properly.
Morale is low throughout the Services. One look at the threads in PPruNe is enough to emphasise that we are facing a very serious situation, whilst those with the power to do something about it continue to bury their heads in the sand. Feedback sent up the chain of command is merely watered down before it reaches Air rank; sadly even when it does get that high, our senior officers are reluctant to bring it to the attention of the politicians.
“If you don’t like it, get out.” There may be some validity in that sentiment, but people are voting with their feet. Our front-line squadrons are under-manned; is there a single squadron which is fully up to strength at the moment? We don’t have enough pilots to fill all the projected Eurofighter cockpits when it comes in; even if the training system worked at maximum capacity from today onwards, there would be a shortfall. But it cannot. Successive cutbacks have ensured that the training system, which was once the envy of the world, is a shadow of its former self. So much has been cut that the front line despairs of the product of our flying training.
The airlines are waking up to the fact that they are going to face a major pilot shortage in the next 5-10 years. Many first-tourist RAF pilots are doing ATPL exams at present (partly to beat the introduction of JAR), but in 5 years’ time they will be prime material for the airlines, just when they are the squadron supervisors, the people we most need to retain. And has the RAF realised this yet?
Pay is one bone of contention. The Services do not pay badly, but they do not compare with the major airlines. The additional pay it would take to make qualified, experienced aircrew remain in the RAF is a pittance when compared to the training costs of replacement aircrew. But instead we introduce enhanced rate flying pay, of a couple of thousand pounds per year, to a very small number of pilots. Never mind the navigators; we have enough navigators. They can sit in the same aircraft, fly the same missions, get shot at by the same enemy, but be paid less. All the hallmarks of a well thought out policy. Oh, and by the way, we will be short of navigators in a couple of years too. It is time the policy-makers grasped the nettle, and confronted the Treasury with the hard facts. We have a crisis, and we need action now to stop it getting worse. If we leave it much longer, the hole will be so deep we will be powerless to dig ourselves out.
Workload has increased markedly since the Gulf War. Fewer people are doing more, with fewer resources, as we become the world’s policemen. All those secondary duties are spread between fewer people, on under-manned squadrons, and left to be done in the precious few months our personnel have back in the UK. And they have to be done, because no-one ever got promoted for being good at their job. No, they got promoted for being good at being Mess Secretary, or running the Christmas Draw. Isn’t it time we employed administrative staff to do the administration of our squadron, to let the pilots do the piloting, the navigators do the navigating, and allow people to be promoted for being good at the job they were trained to do?
At recent “Flight Safety” days we were asked our opinions on a range of matters, and sure enough all the usual gripes came out. But, seeking a more positive response, many ideas were put forward to relieve the pressure on our front-line personnel. The ideas tended to be simple, and fairly cheap to implement, but all were dismissed out of hand; they simply could not be entertained if any cost was involved. Positive ideas were not even given enough credit to go beyond station level. Once again, the goodwill of the workers is lost simply because their positive suggestions are dismissed.
Student pilots going through training at the moment are not issued with their full scale of (two) flying suits. Reason: there is a shortage of flying suits in the RAF.
Front-line Tornado squadrons frequently are unable to get a 4-ship airborne. Reason: lack of spares, and lack of manpower to carry out the repairs when spares are available.
Multi-engine pilots are trained on the Jetstream. Yes, the Jetstream. We routinely have just one serviceable.
We have ceased to be a credible force; we cannot even clothe our aircrew or maintain our aircraft.
In the meantime our senior officers have embraced all the management catch-phrases used in business. We have agencies, chief executives, and top-level budget holders. Long gone are the military terms we are used to. What does all this achieve? The cynics say it sets senior officers up for cosy jobs once they leave the services; the realists spot the alienation it generates between senior and junior ranks.
Once, not so many years ago, our training was second-to-none, and emulated by large companies. Now we have lost our way, and make do with trying to reach civilian standards of practice, rather that setting the standards for others to follow. We now have an organisation of managers, not leaders. We wholeheartedly subscribe to Investors in People, widely discredited by civilian companies as a standard that is largely irrelevant. In the bottom of a drawer I have a personal development folder, issued to everyone in the RAF many months ago, no doubt at great expense to you and I, the taxpayer. It hasn’t been used, nor do I expect it will. I may be busy developing, but no thanks to the RAF.
Since SDR, DCS et al we have become a top-heavy structure; too many chiefs, and far too few indians. Because there are so many chiefs, they all filter out the feedback from the indians in their efforts to look good in front of their superiors. Because there are so many chiefs, change takes too long to implement; by the time everyone has been consulted, years can have elapsed. It is time some of our efficiency savings were made at the top, not at the bottom of the organisation. The workforce cannot cope as it is; unless something is done quickly we will not just lack a credible armed force, we will lack any armed force. Nobody in this “can do” organisation wants to be the first to say “can’t do”, but someone soon must do it, for the sake of the organisation as a whole. Team needs must take priority over task needs for once.
The feeling is growing that we are undervalued: undervalued by the senior officers who manage us, undervalued by the politicians who are our ultimate masters, and undervalued by the British public, whose only view of the Armed Forces is in terms of low-flying aircraft disturbing their peace, and squaddies brawling outside pubs. We may necessarily have been forced to be low-profile when in the public view, but our public relations are appalling. It is time we stood up for ourselves, and banished the apologetic attitude we always seem to take. Whether it is complaints about tanks on Salisbury plain, or low-flying aircraft, we assume we are in the wrong at the outset. Tragic though it may have been, the Jaguar-Cessna mid-air collision at Carno was the fault of the Cessna, who was contravening the Air Navigation Order. But ask any member of the public who was to blame; the vast majority will say the Jaguar. Maybe it is time to start using the press, rather than suffering at their hands. We can start educating the public, who ultimately pay our wages, so they know what we are doing, and why.
“Their Country Needs You” was a terrible advertisement for the RAF, but its reaction is worth noting. The public see little need for us to police the world, and resent taxpayers money being spent doing so. Sentiment is similar within the forces. It is now time to reassess where we are going, and concentrate on a credible force to defend our own nation. We no longer have the support, of either public opinion, or financially, to be the world power we once used to be.
For too long our senior officers have been afraid to stand up to the politicians, and tell the story as it really is. Maybe our new CAS, Pete Squire, will buck this trend. Maybe, if he does, Geoff Hoon will listen to him. Maybe Gordon Brown will listen too. If not, whoever is last out, please switch off the lights.


[This message has been edited by Strimmer Trimmer (edited 07 June 2000).]

[Jackonicko]

Well said, and bloody well done for having the guts to say it.

As a member of the public, may I say that I think that you're perhaps a little too pessimistic in your assessment of what we think. Most PPLs (admittedly not the to$$ers who edit Pilot) regarded the Jaguar-Cessna mid-air collision at Carno as being entirely the fault of the Cessna pilot, who was too low, and who could not have been exercising a proper lookout, since he was attempting to fly the aircraft and photograph houses. There's also some doubt as to whether he was properly licensed, whether or not he was strictly contravening the ANO.

As someone who works in the media I've often thought that the RAF should be playing a cleverer game and should be using its many friends and symapthisers within the press, rather than suffering at the hands of the more hostile elements. Unfortunately, too many senior officers, and the PR organisation, see it as their role to 'spin' party policy, rather than further the interests of their service. Only by speaking out on forums like this can you brief your natural allies, let alone start educating the public.

And while anonymity is essential, maybe our profiles could be slightly fuller (type, or community could be given without compromising identities, surely!) and maybe we should all display nice anonymous hotmail addresses. There are some issues which may not be entirely suitable for an open forum. There have been a number of suggestions that there should be some kind of 'Union'/Armed Forces Federation - something which is not possible under the law. But an Air Power Association which RAF officers could be members of (alongside Retired Officers and interested civvies) might work, and might be a useful campaigning body. Perhaps?

I don't recall or remember “Their Country Needs You” , but I don't think you're right in your assessment of the public perception. I think that the post Cold War interventions have generally played very well (Gulf War, Bosnia, maybe Kosovo and Sierra Leone) and that many actually feel that the defence dollar is now being spent wisely and even 'morally'.

But there are problems. The MoD 'charging' the Overseas Development bods for shipping Pumas to Mozambique played badly (the money should have been there in a contingency fund), while revelations about equipment shortcomings coupled with the complete lack of meaningful progress on Smart Procurement lead many to believe that defence spending could be more efficient. Where is the evidence that the RAF has any clue as to what it costs to use its various assets, or makes any effort to use those assets which may be more cost effective?

But discouraging the debate and preventing scrutiny is not the way forward, IMHO.

You say that: "many ideas were put forward to relieve the pressure on our front-line personnel. The ideas tended to be simple, and fairly cheap to implement, but all were dismissed out of hand; they simply could not be entertained if any cost was involved. Positive ideas were not even given enough credit to go beyond station level. Once again, the goodwill of the workers is lost simply because their positive suggestions are dismissed."

So why not post them here! Start a "Good ideas" thread.

[kbf1]

It saddens me to read this, not on account of its content, but because largley it is true. I command a TA unit, and I am an ex-regular officer. I joined just after the Options paper was published and watched as morale began to sink, not because of our changing role but because it was felt that the senior officers respnsible for those of us subordinate to them rolled over. In sweeping blows our regiments were taken out of existence and merged. Generations of loyalty gone.

Now I look at our political situation with dispair. Our political leaders are far more arrogant and detached than ever before, democracy is being smashed, and tradition discarded. Our rulers are "in with the in crowd" promoting an image of Cool Britania. What they represent is not what I see as British. They take on the politics of "Islington Liberal Man" worrying about minority issues such as fox hunting,allowing gays into the services, putting women on the front line, the kind of things that most people don't care about. At times of crisis we of the armed forces serve willingly. We risk our lives and our freedom to defend the defenceless. I believe that we do have an international role to play in this respect. In return I ask not for fame or glory, but to be allowed to say who I do or do not think is suited to serve with and alongside me. For this reason I see morale falling when the once proud few are told to obey quotas on ethnic minorities, gays and women in the services. Like flying the people who are there are there on merit and that should be the only quota in operation!

Our kit is sub-standard. I do not have the kit or vehicles to deploy on camp. I will not get them. In the theatre of operations this equates to lost lives. In aviation terms, one in the air, two in the hangar u/s. This can't be good. I watch as we are committed to bloodless feuds, drop a few missiles and bombs and victory is ours. PR is king, PC it's court jester! It no longer counts that what we do has value, but how it can be spun into public opinion. This is our service, and this is our shame. Perhaps soon it will claim my morale, and when it does it will not be surrendered quietly!

[ShyTorque]

I suggested a while back (when we were short of cash for airframes) that all those large aluminium door handles should be removed from the "push" side of doors in all station buildings. Enough metal could soon have been found to cast a few new Buccaneers or Phantoms. Did they listen? Seemed perfectly sensible to me...

Seriously though, I voted with my Size 9s six years ago. It seems things haven't improved any.

[ChristopherRobin]

Although Strimmer's opening gambit is obviously leaning towards the RAF, his astute view is applicable to all three services, and sadly true.

The politicians and people of this country had better pray that we never go to total war. Our people are up to it, but our yes-man leadership and our equipment is not.

The world is more unstable than ever and the only thing that stands between all we hold dear and the spectres of annihilation or subjugation is our armed services.

We know that money is needed in areas like health etc., but defence is our insurance policy and it has been neglected for too long.

Without our freedom, without the incredible good fortune of living in the world's foremost democracy everything else pales into insignificance. It nearly happened in 1940.

Let's try to ensure we don't have to be that lucky twice.

------------------
Christopher Robin

[samsonyte]

The writing has been on the wall since the end of the cold war. The armed forces were the 'quick hit' money-saving option; it seems to me, though, that savings of pennies are being negated by the wasting of pounds - can anyone out there really tell me that Eurofighter is cost effective?

I left the RAF 6 years ago now; my involvement with the RAFVRT has kept me in touch, and it doesn't look pretty. There is an Officers Mess in Northern England with TWO serving RAF Officers in it! I was there for 3 days (including a Friday), and saw one other person outside the group I was with - what has happened to the comradeship (an un-PC word, nowadays) that made up for the crap?

Well done, anyway, for having the courage of your convictions - I hope someone 'up there' is reading this thread and squirming.

A final thought - in 1945 we had 1m people in the RAF, we now have about 60,000 (?). I don't believe we have lost a single 'Air Rank' post in that time ...

[Mr.Proach]

Well said, and what a pity it's true. All branches of Military Aviation are approaching the 'beyond saving' point. The sad part is, that although I'm sure some reasonably high ranking individuals will read your post, nothing will come of it. Our best hope is that a journalist from a high quality paper will pick up this thread. I used to be a Lynx Pilot, I say used to be, because I have been grounded through the lack of servicable helicopters. I leave the Army fairly soon, utterly disillusioned with this Government and our hierarchy. I have worked hard, as have many others to make things happen, perhaps this was the mistake. How do you make things happen in a Unit which is scaled for 12 Lynx, but will actually have only 2 per day working? The Forces loss will only be the Airlines gain. Mr Hoon,or anyone else senior enough to make a difference, if you are reading this, wake up. Stop listening to what you want to hear, try to see through the clouds of Bull**** thrown up in front of you by middle ranking clowns over eager for promotion. Rant over.

[Col Lective]

It seems that, despite the banter (which is essential!), we all agree that all our services are becoming shadows of their former selves. All you people who are leaving or have left - spare a thought for those of us who have just started our military aviation careers! I have no intention of leaving the forces in the next few years but I fully understand anyone who does - my last glimmer of optimism is that maybe it'll be better a few years down the line. Is this totally misplaced? Over the last few days I've heard a few things that make me believe that maybe the message is getting through to planet DAAvn (and JHC) and even though things won't get better immediately at least steps are being taken.
I think that this website has probably had at least a tiny bit to do with that.
Fly safely boys and girls!! :)

[James Gordan]

I think we are all a bunch of whingers and quite right too! And nothing ever gets done about it.

We work in an establishment who can spend 1000s on useless Personal development folders (not a modern idea 'cos I seem to remember the black filofax of the early 90s) but if we want our offices cleaned up and given a lick of paint, then there is no-one to do it because its too expensive; But we can do it ourselves, but there is no money for paint. But we can buy that ourselves too!

A minor whinge I know but on the big picture Strimmer Trimmer is spot on.

So c'mon Mr Newspaper man Read this thread and write an article somewhere.

Finally Airships, I know you dont really make the calls, but at least take sides and whinge to the politicians on our behalf.

JG

[Harvey Essem]

I admire your sentiment, but as the thread is so sadly true, the machine will need to break before the owners get it serviced!

[Jensen]

What has changed in a year?
This article was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 18 Apr 99, three weeks after the start of Operation Allied Farce.
The article was titled: THE FEW ARE NOW TOO FEW

THE past three weeks have undermined many Western military conceits - about the supremacy of air power, the effectiveness of "surgical strikes" and the wisdom of Nato's political leadership. It looked, too, as if another casualty might be the reputation of the Royal Air Force.
In the first 11 days of Operation Allied Force, the RAF managed to attack only three targets. Britain's "devastating blitz smashing key Serb strongholds", as one newspaper put it, turned out to have been largely aborted because it was raining. "This is turning into an attack force straight out of British Rail," said one MP last month, as low cloud stopped bombing for the sixth successive night. Matters have improved, but close scrutiny of MoD statements reveals that RAF jets have successfully attacked targets on only 14 of the past 24 days.
What is more, most of those attacks were only partly successful. American warplanes flew more days and attacked proportionately more targets successfully; even the Dutch were able to claim a Serb MiG kill in the first 24 hours.
The RAF is actually doing quite well by comparison with most coalition partners' air forces. Only the United States, France and Britain have the full capability to drop precision-guided bombs - and France has seemed reluctant to use its weapons. "Of the air forces, the RAF is a respectable second," says Andrew Brooks, an air analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. But it is a very distant second place. By comparison with the United States - and, more pertinently, by comparison with public expectations - the RAF is way behind.
It has nothing to do with the quality of the people involved: the experts agree that, if anything, the aircrew and maintenance staff perform miracles with the resources available. It has little to do with the quality of the aircraft. In temperate climates at least, the Harrier is an extremely agile and capable machine, while the Tornado was specifically designed for the sort of work it is now doing and compares favourably with the Americans' closest equivalent, the F-15E.
The problem is that the RAF has few weapons - and less money. As the frustrated Harrier pilots of Gioia del Colle told The Sunday Telegraph, theirs has become almost a "one-club air force". Unfortunately, RAF chiefs have often chosen the wrong club.
In the early days of the Gulf war, the RAF tried its "Cold War" role of bombing enemy runways - but, though effective against small European airbases, it had little impact on large Iraqi ones. The low-level raids also meant that the British Tornados suffered an unacceptably high casualty rate. Since then, the RAF has switched to becoming a laser-guided bomb force - ideal for the clear skies of Iraq, less suited for rain-swept Europe.
Well before the Balkans crisis blew up, RAF chiefs had started to adopt a more flexible approach, recognising the need to be ready for a range of threats. But for the moment, the RAF has only three main offensive weapons - laser-guided bombs, cluster bombs and straightforward, Second World War-style "free-fall" bombs, lumps of explosive dropped on targets.
Laser-guided weapons are highly accurate - but, as we all now know, the laser beam is diffused by cloud and the bomb cannot be steered to its target. Cluster and free-fall bombs can be used in bad weather, but they are far less precise. In a campaign where avoidance of "collateral damage" sometimes seems to be the main strategic aim, this has put the RAF in serious difficulty.
There are four main ways around the problem. The RAF could wait for the weather to clear - which, as summer approaches, it will - but it risks seeming impotent in the meantime.
Secondly, it could use special forces (or the KLA) on the ground to illuminate the target with lasers below the cloud. The RAF is doing this, but it is necessarily dependent on a rather small supply of special forces men, limiting the number of targets that can be attacked.
The third option is to fly below the cloud. The Tornado, with its advanced terrain-following radar, can do this even when the cloud is almost down to the ground - but then, as was proved in Iraq, there is a much greater risk of the planes being picked off by Serb air defences. So far Nato, with its almost squeamish dread of allied deaths, has largely rejected this option, to the scorn of some RAF aircrew. "Low-level flying is what we do best and have trained for," said one Tornado pilot. "There is plenty of terrain masking [hills to hide behind]. If we don't use our skills, why the hell have we been making Welsh sheep farmers' lives a misery for the past 20 years?"
There is deep concern that political constraints are forcing the RAF - and everyone else - to fight a half-hearted war. "Air power has to be applied massively if it is to work," said one defence insider. "The problem is that we appear to be operating on rules of engagement drawn up by the editorial writers of the Washington Post."
The fourth option is to provide the RAF with weapons that are both precise and all-weather. The US has them - that is one of the main reasons why it is more successful - and there are plenty to choose from, such as Maverick, Hellfire, JDAM . . . These weapons use navigation satellites, infra-red imaging or television guidance to find their targets. They do it on their own: unlike an RAF laser-guided bomb, the pilot does not have to monitor them after they have left the aircraft. Because of their "fire-and-forget" capability, the pilot can lose off two at once: he does not have to wait in the danger zone until he has finished with the one he fired earlier. But these weapons are costly.
After years of argument with the Treasury, Britain has now placed orders for some of these weapons: Brimstone, an anti-tank missile based on the Hellfire, and Storm Shadow, a satellite-guided stealth missile. There are also various programmes to improve existing bombs. But not one will arrive in time to see action in Kosovo.
Not only does the RAF have too few weapons, it may also have too few planes. The tiny force of 20 combat aircraft deployed for the Kosovo operation is a reflection of the cuts which have reduced the RAF's deployable fast jet squadrons by almost half since the end of the Cold War. The RAF is severely limited in what it can do and, because the Harriers usually work in pairs - one "designating" targets while the other strikes - the actual number of "guns" is more like 14. But sending many more jets would put an intolerable strain on an already overstretched and undermanned Service. The neat assumptions in the Government's recent defence review, handing out further cuts to the RAF, may not survive the bombing in Kosovo.
The final reason why the RAF has not lived up to public expectations is that those expectations were too high in the first place. "The British still have this idea of themselves as a bit of a superpower, and the politicians encourage it," sighed one senior RAF officer. "It therefore comes as a shock to find that we're actually a medium-sized country, a junior partner to the US, and our air force is tiny."

[Strimmer Trimmer]

Jensen

Nothing has changed.

I rest my case.

ST

[Gentleman Aviator]

Strimmer Trimmer.

I couldn't have explained it better if I had tried.

Bravo

[captain jismo]

strimmer trimmer, inspired, truly inspired. A damning indictment which is long overdue, hopefully this will be publicly acknowledged. It is very frustrating for the indians to see experienced chaps walking out the door, and as you so rightly said, even guys undergoing ATTU and OCU's are studying for ATPL's. This experience drain, at both ends, is not being addressed. The fact is that the guys at the coal face are not being shown the loyalty they require by their Airships or politicians. Loyalty has to work both ways. Spot on fella.

[flap22]

ST
A brilliant open letter.

I just wish that Hoon and his 'PC' cronies could seee that we care about our respective services, but we are sick of overwork & underfunding.

Just give us the right investment for personal and equipment, then let us get on with the job knowing that we have the backing/infrastructure to do it!

[RRAAMJET]

Strimmer:
Great work. Hopefully, one of the Airships will use your words to "strim" the trees so they can see the woods.

Another point, specifically to all the senior officers reading this that were junior-ish in my day of the mid-eighties:
remember all the guys leaving in the 80's hiring boom; remember the Robson Report? Remember what it felt like to be stuck-in, with some years to go and all the guys around you were pi$$ing off to sunnier climes
and your wife was asking why don't you go,dear? Mrs X is now soooo happy.....and she doesn't have to put up with purple carpets anymore.....
If you do remember....THEN STOP PRETENDING YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT'S WRONG NOW.
Nothing has been fixed in a decade. Fix it. If you don't, well, my hiring dept. here at Sunnier Climes Airways is ready to shut you down. You have been warned....

[Jag Jock]

Strimmer,

Good words, well said. As another serving officer, I would like to echo your sentiments and reinforce their validity to any third parties reading this thread. Isn't it sad that(excellent)forums like this give us our only chance to speak out with any hope of being heard. It seems that most servicemen have given up on our so-called leadership and think it better to throw our voices into the void and hope for an echo.

Our flight safety seminar was very similar to yours. Our main comments was, "Why does the Air Force Board keep asking questions of its servicemen without listening to the replies?"

Given the size of our Air Force, we have far too many senior officers who do far too little. By that, I'm not arguing that they are idle. Rather that they busy themselves with trivia and personal career development rather than grasping the nettle with big issues and difficult decisions. It is they who should be addressing the fundamental lack of funding which undermines our current system.

Major changes are required in the higher structure of both the RAF and MOD. Given the number of tactical assets within the RAF, why do we still have Group HQ's within Command HQ's under the Air Force Board which drowns in a myriad of MOD agencies and committees run by a veritable army of civil servants. (Is it true that civil servants outnumber servicemen in the MOD, I'm pretty sure that they outnumber our Army, desertions not included!)

There are plenty of BIG cuts which can be made to funnel money back to where it's needed most. Remember Front Line First! Call me a cynic but perhaps self-interest has prevented senior officers from axing senior officer positions. Speak to any of them and they will passionately defend the staffing structure of the RAF which produces such high caliber senior officers. Such a shame then that most of them couldn't make a decision if their ar$e was on fire! Interestingly, it is hard to generate the same level of enthusiasm from a senior officer on the subject of current Ops.

I seem to have typed myself into a frenzy. I must lie down.

To any senior officers reading this:

1. Cut down on the number of HQ's, bite the bullet and accept fewer Air Rank officers. (Can we really justify CAS being a 4-star?)
2. Radically simplify our procurement structure and procedures. This will save Billions.
3. For God's sake do something about AFTS and our ageing Hawk fleet. (If Canada is it, then it's not enough!)
4. Yes, I know that not all senior officers are bad leaders.
5. To the good ones, we desperately need strong leadership now before it's too late.
6. You are going to get a good pension whether you get that promotion or not.

To any journalists reading this:

1. Please publicise our plight.
2. Put pressure on the politicians. They want blood from a stone. A shoddy military will mean that it's real blood. Ours.


Thank you for your patience.
(All the good guys leave - but isn't it a shame.)

[WhoNeedsRunways]

I had the pleasure of speaking to a variety of military aircrew whilst on a course in a secret location in southern England last week. ( Caveat : I'm neither a military pilot, nor a journalist, but someone with whom the comments struck home. Also some of the comments are as I interpreted them, perhaps not as the originator intended, and any errors / misconceptions are down to me ). Anyway, once they stopped talking shop amongst themselves ( takes tongue out of cheek ) I noted the following :

1. Most appeared to be PVR'ing / planning their ATPLs because, amongst lots of other things, they're pissed off with either not flying enough ( a Lynx man getting 6 hours a month, Tornado people getting 10 - 12 a month ? ) or the fact that their lifestyle isn't conducive to a good home life ( 7 moves in 7 years - wasn't that a film ? - or crap housing / loss of family medical cover and so on ).

2. Some are studying for the ATPLs because they're coming to the end of their time and good luck to them, they've repaid the commitment given to them by virtue of their training.

Either way, if things don't change, then I would suspect the increase in leaving rates won't match the intake rates, and when there's no money to keep Lynx serviceable ( is 34 good ones in a total of over 200 acceptable ? ) or they have to buy their own kit to ensure they are comfortable when flying, or other pissy little and not so pissy little reasons which all add up, who can blame them ?

If you are asked by the politicians I helped elect to fight on my behalf, the least I as a taxpayer can expect is that you're trained / equipped / looked after properly. And that doesn't seem to be happening.

[Poor Pongo]

Couldn't agree more.

What is needed now is real radical change. Not just changes to the current practice but wholescale revision of the entire system.

Less senior officers. More preparedness to publicise our concerns. Remember moral courage? Its at the heart of leadership, I seem to recall. It's not that I don't believe that many of our senior officers are good guys. The vast majority are. But it is getting to be time for people to stand up and be counted.

The bottom line is that you only get what you pay for and if the government (and the public at large who elect them) only want a third rate defensive militia incapable of engaging in meaningful conflict or influencing events across the globe then this must be spelt out and clearly stated. If that is the will of the electorate then so be it. But what is not on is to only pay for that third rate level of service and then expect, at a moments notice, our brave boys to pitch up and save the day. There is a serious disconnect between the resources being provided and the output desired. That gap is currently being filled by the goodwill and professionalism of the individual servicepeople and their families who endure the low standards of pay, lifestyle and operational effectiveness yet continue to do their best. And the bad news is... that the light is beginning to dawn and the people are beginning to go.

I leave you with a quote from Winston Churchill. It dates from 1904 and is specific to the Army but I think that the meaning is tri-service nowadays.

'The Army is not like a limited liability company, to be reconstructed, remodelled, liquidated and refloated from week to week as the money market fluctuates.

It is not an inanimate thing, like a house, to be pulled down or structurally altered at the caprice of the tenant or owner.

It is a living thing.
If it is bullied, it sulks;
If it is unhappy, it pines;
If it is harried, it gets feverish;
If it is sufficiently disturbed, it will whither and dwindle and almost die;

And when it comes to this last serious condition
It is only to be revived by lots of time and lots of money.'


Take a lesson or two from history...

[This message has been edited by Poor Pongo (edited 08 June 2000).]

[StopStart]

Funny how history has a habit of repeating itself and how a political quote from 100yrs ago can be as apt today as it was then.
I spent most of the morning watching the Discovery Channel today (waiting for u/s aircraft to come up - never did). Interesting documentary about the military during the inter-war years. Apparently the navy at times didn't have enough fuel to put to sea. Can you imagine something like that happening today.......?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

It makes me sad to read this. I nearly got in in ´93. Glad now that I didn´t.

It seems a stark contrast between the picture you paint here and the one I see at work every day. New equipment, more resources, building work going on, new hires arriving, place expanding. Yes you go through pains but they at least they are growing pains. I´ve got a career path, decent progressions, no complaints pay, no non-flying duties unless you want them... And all this is just in the training world.

What a terrible waste of a service and a tradition. The day I heard the RAF had bought into IIP I knew things were terminal.

Glumly,

WWW

[Wholigan2]

Whilst I fully concur the general tenor of Strim’s thread, and wholeheartedly admire the size of his ba££s (we’re allowed to do that nowadays), I do have a few points of my own to make. I’ll use Strim’s words to set points in context.

“Feedback through the chain of command is merely watered down before it reaches air rank”.
Yes, I agree that there is a tendency on the part of some people to do just that. Whether they are protecting their own ar$es with an ‘emperor’s clothes’ approach, or really believe that what they are doing is the ‘right thing', I don’t know. However, I do have my own opinion about their motivation and have to say that – in general – I don’t admire them for it!! For this very reason, the Intermediate Command and Staff Course introduced a session with a very senior RAF officer into each course. The ICSC aims for this session are to expose the RAF’s middle-ranking officers to the thought processes, aims and ideals of the hierarchy, and what state they think the RAF is in and where it is going, and – in my opinion more importantly – to expose the hierarchy to the thought processes and concerns of today’s sqn ldrs. This should – at a stroke – remove some of the possible filtration levels between our ‘middle-management’ (deliberate choice of phrase, like it or not) and the ‘boss men’. Of course, this only works well when the visiting ‘wheel’ is totally open and honest and doesn’t just give ‘party line’ answers. Those who have attended the ICSC in the past couple of years will recognise which of the ‘camps’ (can I say that?) the person who spoke to them fitted into. Nevertheless, what is always said to the course students is that whatever the ‘wheel’ is like, whether he is the open and honest type or the ‘I’ll just tell you what I think you should think’ type, you learn something about the people who are currently ‘leading’ us, making the decisions and representing our case to the politicians. Whether you like it or not, you learn what you need to know about them!!

Pay aspects.
I’m an old bu$$er, but I like to think not a dynosaur. Back when I started flying, and on through the 70s, we were very poorly paid, both relative to the airlines and also relative to the public in general. However, we had comparatively decent kit, great places around the world to serve (frequently accompanied), good leadership and good jobs. Furthermore, we were not over-tasked for our numbers and did not spend all of our time away from our families. We had pride in ourselves, our Service and our uniforms, which incidentally were always seen on the streets and on the trains etc. In fact, I can distinctly remember (well not all of it) going to restaurants (actually mostly transport cafes!) in mess kit at breakfast time after dining in nights. Whether or not that was a ‘good thing to do’ is neither here nor there; the fact is that we were in the public eye and much respected. The point I wish to make is that, despite not earning proper money, we were a happy bunch and morale was high. Airlines were recruiting, but people wanted to stay to do the ‘real fun stuff’ that drove them to join in the first place. Today, we are actually earning a pretty good ‘screw’. If the bu$$eration factors were reduced, the trivia s**t-canned, and tasks matched to resources (because we cannot possibly match resources to tasks without spending money which simply will not be provided) I am convinced that less people would be inclined to vote with their feet. However, what we need to achieve this is a hierarchy who will stand up to the politicians and say “enough is enough”. We are supposed to be operating a ‘foreign policy driven’ capability. Unfortunately, the ‘foreign policy’ targets keep changing. The UK must learn to accept that we are actually no longer wealthy enough to keep pretending that we are still in the Victorian era of world power. We can still remain influential throughout the world by improving and retaining our professionalism and the respect which we once had from everybody else, including the Super Powers. We do not need to try to be the one and only world policeman, going in where others fear to tread, because we perceive (perhaps erroneously) a need to do absolutely everything – regardless of whether or not we have the resources - to protect our influence and our seat on the UNSC. The fact that we have been involved in over 60 operations involving UK Service personnel since Mar 96 speaks for itself. Look back in history and find me a time – since the second World War – when we had so many commitments!?!?!? And what are we meeting these commitments with? Half as many people as we had in the 70s!! Enough said.

“Let the pilots do the piloting, the navigators do the navigating, and allow people to be promoted for being good at the job they were trained to do”
This is an OK sentiment as far as it goes. There is no doubt that people must be - first and foremost – expert at their prime task. To be able to operate effectively in today’s ‘joint’ world, they must also be totally expert and knowledgeable in the core business of their own Service first. Only when these 2 objectives have been achieved can personnel contribute - as well as is needed - to joint and combined operations and the planning and C2 of such operations. However, if we neglect to train our people in command, management and staff skills, we risk grooming a new generation of ‘leaders’ who do not have the capability or capacity to make the right decisions and fight for our cause against those who would like to emasculate us even further in order to save a few more pennies. So my question is – just how far do you want us to promote people who are just ‘good at flying’, but crap at admin and management? There is a half way house here!!

“Because there are so many chiefs, they all filter out the feedback from the indians in their efforts to look good in front of their superiors”.
There is some truth to this accusation, human nature being what it is. There are several areas in which this has become noticeable. One is that when change is postulated for whatever reason (sociological, technological, economic [most common today], or political [second most common and probably combined with the last]), it will inevitably need a study to determine: whether or not it is needed; the aims and objectives of the change; any constraints; and possible solutions to the problem. This process takes time and must be done thoroughly and carefully in order to ensure that the right outcome actually occurs. All too frequently, however, the time-scales allowed, resources applied and deadlines imposed are ludicrously unrealistic, inadequate or both; this leads to half a job being done and we end up with a ‘back of a fag packet’ solution which is frequently not ‘fit for purpose’. Things then inevitably get worse. One of the reasons for this is the human nature need for people (whether they be at wg cdr level or 3 / 4 star level [which is most common?]) to ensure that a project which is going to carry a measure of kudos is completed while the ‘person’ is still in ‘office’ so that he/she will get the credit and earn a few more ‘brownies’. We must – as a Service – drive out this ‘me first/system last’ attitude, or we will never achieve our full potential. Unfortunately, vested interest and human nature are going to produce a huge resistance to that particular change. What can we do about it? Sorry, wish I knew. However, the right people at the top insisting that you actually lose merit points by not pulling for the team might help. Hmmmm – how do they get to the top?????

“Maybe our new CAS, Pete Squire, will buck this trend”.
Maybe he will (and knowing him and of him in the past, I am sure he’ll try), but will it work. We need all the Chiefs to be of one mind; we need them all to work together for the common good and not protect their own corners. Maybe they are now, but I’m not in a position to know (and never will be). What we don’t have a place for is people who fight for their own particular corner, whether or not it is the right thing for the UK as a whole. We must fight together or not at all. If the politicians insist on our being tasked to well over the hilt just to ensure that their own position is safe, we – as a nation – will eventually reap the whirlwind. Why? Because the lights will go out and there will be nobody to respond to the call to arms. We need a hierarchy that is prepared to stand up and be morally accountable for their troops. CHIEFS, JUST SAY NO – YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!!
I’ll finish with a quote from one of my very best friends and hope he doesn’t mind. Although he is talking about the Canadian Forces, the same principles apply. This is an extract (dots are gaps to protect the innocent) from an outstanding letter that he wrote to a certain high ranking Canadian minister; God, I wish I had written it.

“You and your colleagues have systematically emasculated the Canadian Forces to the point that they are hanging on by a thread. The fact that elements of the Army, Navy and Air Force continue to perform in an exemplary manner is in spite of the lack of support that has been given them. We have always prided ourselves on our can-do attitude. It is also our second-worst enemy, because it is used by our worst enemy (you) to keep sucking the life blood from our veins. The Air Force in recent years pointed with pride to the fact that they were still doing 90% of their former taskings with 45% less assets. Pride was justified to the extent that the Air Force was operating more efficiently; but it should also have set off alarm bells. The Air Force has suffered further severe cuts since then and the tasks keep coming. The same can be said for the Army and the Navy.

As proud as we are of our peacekeeping efforts, you cannot keep asking the same people to respond time after time while, at the same time, you are cutting their numbers and resources. The inevitable result is a marked increase in social problems within the forces. These include marital difficulties, financial hardship, suicide and other inappropriate behaviour at home and abroad. When something happens to bring attention to an incident, the public and politicians stand around wringing their hands and asking the military leadership how they could have let this happen. The public should be looking over the generals’ and admirals’ heads at you; and you should be looking in the mirror.

The whole scenario creates an atmosphere of mistrust and despair where political correctness rules, and esprit de corps is crushed. We used to be a work hard/play hard outfit. Today, they are just a work hard/work harder outfit with morale in their boot-tops and one eye on where they can go to find an employer who appreciates them. …….. any commander who says that morale is high and everything is just fine is either asleep or fearful for his job. Commanders are being asked, nay ordered, to lie to their people. The ones with integrity refuse and, hopefully, more will follow their example. The people they are leading are bright and intelligent and should be given the support that would engender their dedication. ………………..

………………………I’m not so naïve as to believe that you will even personally read, much less care about, what I’ve said. I do know that you and your colleagues are killing the effectiveness - and the spirit upon which that depends - of an institution that has shed untold amounts of blood to make Canada a nation, and you a free man. The day is coming when there will be an ice storm, or a flood, or an East Timor and the Government will call. There will be no answer, because no one will be home, and you and the rest will stand around wringing your hands and trying to find a general to blame. Mr A*******, for God’s sake, wake up!”

SOUND FAMILIAR??? Mr Blair and Mr Hoon – does this apply to you???? Answers by e-mail if you wish or can be bothered.

Incidentally, you will note that I have made no attempt to hide who I am. My nickname is well known at all levels of the RAF, but I feel strongly enough about this matter that I am prepared to stand up and be counted. If the wheels want to e-mail me (or perhaps call me in for yet another one-sided interview without coffee) feel free.

In response to Jackonicko – fast-jet various over a long period and in most areas of the World at some time or another. I have used my Hotmail account, but only because I don’t want to snarl up my private e-mail with the thousands of responses I expect from the Cabinet and other areas of Whitehall!!! NOT!!

[Jackonicko]

James Gordon and Jag Jock.

I'd really rather not say this here, but:

What seven key points would you most like to see plastered across the DTel/R4/BBC TV News?

I wish you guys would get Hotmail addresses so that a journo isn't seen to be seen being what some would consider an Agent Provocateur!

[Col Lective]

Maybe the fact that we do a good job with no back up and duff kit is a double edged sword (that goes for all three services) - the headshed (be they military or politicians) don't realise there is a problem because the forces perform despite ourselves....

[JHC]

Hi Everyone,

Sorry that I have been off line for a while. A superb piece of writing by Strims, and I know that it is through despair that it is written and pure professionalism that it has not ended up as a letter in the Times or Telegraph.

Howver, a word of warning. The Feds / Rozzers / Monkeys / Snow Drops etc, MOD computer geeks,and a number of the hierarchy are on to PPRUNE. It has definetly been fired down to our frontline to be careful what we say. Infact, to be honest, the exact words were..'use the chain of command to air grievances'!?!

Lets hang in there lads and lasses. The next Op is only just around the corner. Believe it or not, I do believe in Queen and country. What has made my Service career so much fun ( apart from some outrageous flying ) is the characters and personalities that have similiar hopes, fears and aspirations. Ignoring all the rest of the bollocks, if we lose sight of this ethos, friendship, cohesive bond, then those of us that are left behind are well and truly buggered. I have no hesitation with Op Certain Death 37 or in being one of the 20 minuters ( I am not to question why, I am here but to do and die ) and I knew that when I signed the dotted line. We need to be in it together though, with all the enthusiasm and committment that has been witnessed with the Falklands, Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and all the other low intensity Ops around the world. If we fly forward with doubt in our colleagues in the aircraft checking our six, we are already onto a hiding, forget any equipment shortages, crap pay, overstretch etc.

But I had hairs rising on the back of my neck whilst reading, and realising, the depth of feeling in these posts. It was obvious that this was not whinging or whining that has been the epitomy of so many PPRUNE threads.

I love my flying, hate ground tours, but we are going to have to do something about it. Once ISCS, JCSC, ISC, ASCS, HCSC all get completed, those destined for the top have to have the morale fibre, experience and honesty to know the difference between what is good for their career and what is good for the Service and ultimately their country.

How come all us minions at the bottom of the pile, from all walks of life, academic backgrounds, numerous aircraft types, have the same consistent line of reasoning to the posts?

I will stop now. It is Saturday, thoroughly depressed and genuinely worried ( I want to stay in, the thought of 33,000 feet for 7 hours at a time gives me a nose bleed!) I am off to the local to purchase a hangover.

Cheer up, but remember, be careful and as predicted Big Brother is watching us. Good post Strims. Well written and an ideal submission for your Service paper at Staff College!

[This message has been edited by JHC (edited 10 June 2000).]

[This message has been edited by JHC (edited 10 June 2000).]

[StopStart]

I'm not entirely sure what the Feds or those on high are worried about really. There's no military secrets being released here just a few military facts. This is probably the only open forum where people in the military can air their grievances: I can't see Strim's post being Star Letter in The RAF News, can you? If our political etc masters don't like these views being aired they can either ban us from using this site (interesting - make a good story in the Telegraph) or they can face up to what is wrong with today's military. Don't get me wrong, as I've said before in previous posts, I enjoy my job and have no intention of leaving any time soon. That said, I agree with pretty much everything in Strim's post. The military is being torn apart by massive underspending and massive overtasking. What little money we do have is then frittered away on nonsense like IIP and ISO 9001 accreditation. What relevance is any of that garbage to a cash strapped military force? (If any body can actually provide a valid reason why we get involved in that sort of rubbish then I'm all ears)
Please, Mr Blair: we're not a Superpower and we're not equipped or manned to be a Global Policeman. The only analogy I can come up with is that we are, at the moment, a Waitrose Security Guard - with a hat that doesn't fit very well - trying to cope with the Poll Tax riots on his own.

[Dan Winterroll]

I Guess the really sad thing is letters like Strimmers and the replies show that people still care about the "Firm" QED we will still achieve the 3 simultaneous tasks when we are 80% manned and one task should be enough. Therefore, I suspect nothing will happen until all 4 wheels are off the wagon.

[Jackonicko]

The new roles and responsibilities of the new expeditionary air force are not, in themselves, the problem. The problem is overstretch. The RAF is simply too small, and too under-funded to do its job. But the answer (IMHO) isn't to scale back the commitments (you then run the risk of politicos asking "Why bother at all, what's the RAF for?"). The answer is to spend the available money much more wisely, and not to use the defence budget to prop up and subsidise excessive profits and share dividends for British Industry. If we were procuring 'smarter' most programmes would cost 1/7 of their present cost. Compare Tornado GR4 and Jaguar GR3A, as a quick 'for instance'.

And now is the time to point out that in the post Cold War world, we may no longer need WE177 (not convinced about that) and we may no longer need big Armoured Divisions in Germany. We certainly don't need Trident. But actually, we did need deployable fast jet squadrons, and to cut them back from 29 to 18 was short-sighted and stupid - especially when five of those units are next to bugger all use. (So why not give the F.MK 3 some useful capabilities, for starters - Vicon, an ELS and ALARM, etc.?) and why not up the number of OS squadrons, there are dozens of Jags sitting at Cosford with 1-2,000 hours on the clock, which could be converted to Jag 97 standards for under £0.5m a pop.

Oops! In dreamland again. Or am I?

[Stoutnav]

Jackonicko,
I agree with most of your comments above, especially about proper smart procurement (unfortunately I don't expect the politicos to give us any decent kit unless British Wasteofspace or Wastelands have a complete aberation and actually get it right for once) but there are a couple of areas that I'd query (it's OK that's allowed today and tomorrow this government will make it compulsory anyway).

The scale of the forces vice the commitments issue is the first. The idea of SDR was supposedly a foreign policy led attempt to match our capabilities and our commitments. However, it appears to me that despite all the good words it was take with one hand and slap around the ear with the other. If the Government were serious they would have to either increase the size of the forces or reduce the amount of time away for the frontline (and the supporting assets)in order to reduce the feeling of overstretch - which, in my experience, most guys feel is currently the worst factor of service life today.

Secondly, in this terribly uncertain world I still feel that we DO need a nuke deterrent like Trident to prevent some tin-pot dictator or terror group from doing a number on us. Before anyone condems this as a hysterical reaction read the reports of the various UN arms inspectors (particularly Richard Butler) and see how many scary nations are close to having their own nuke and (more frighteningly) viral weapons programmes. Add to this mix a few slack handfuls of religious or political extremism and I would suggest that having our own deterent now (and especially in about 5 - 10 years time) is a must.

As for the Jaguar idea - I agree that it would be better than nothing but a real starting point would be to get the GR1 / GR4 fleet sorted out in respect of servicability and numbers (it has the edge over the Jaguar in terms of range, weaponry and flexibility due to the 2 crew - anyone see the problems that the Harriers had flying single seat night designation in Kos?). This is not to decry either the Harrier or Jag forces, but in the current operating environment I believe that the Tornado's strengths are what is needed.

Like the idea about fitting out the F3 with a SEAD role - anyone out there got any hard gen on the chances/tech difficulties involved?

Sorry to bang on so long, really do agree with most of your posts!

[Jackonicko]

First-off, I'd personally agree about the need for nukes, but would suggest that without the need to penetrate Moscow's (largely mythical) ABM defences, Trident is unnecessary. What was needed was a stand-off replacement for WE177, which would have been cheaper and more versatile.

Jag idea is undeniably 'second-best' in payload/range, but it's achievable cheap capability, and the Cosford airframes have about 4,500 flying hours left 'on the clock' each, without requiring an expensive MLFP. (And a more cost effective way of deploying low-level - in both senses airpower). In an ideal world we'd just go and buy 60 F-15Es to cover the capability gap, but it ain't going to happen. And the beauty of Jag is that its now accepted that we don't need to involve BWoS in upgrading it, an existing infrastructure is in place, and each new one requires only one new aircrew chap or chappess. With regard to single-seat night designation and the Harrier, I'd venture to suggest that the Harrier's problems were more the result of attitude ("Using TIALD is just like using ARBS, we don't need to practise it that much") and a poor TIALD integration with latency problems. I draw my noble friend's attention to the success Jag had with night designation in Bosnia in 1995, achieving a 'high 90's' percentile accuracy still not rivalled by Tornado/TIALD or Harrier/TIALD.

FACT: The GR4 as it is now (without Raptor, smart weapons, the required mid-life fatigue programme, the new main computer, etc.) comes in at £6.7m per jet. The existing Jag upgrade works out at around £1m - with a better AMLCD, ETAPS and EFRCs, a Helmet Sight, wiring for digi-ASRAAM, TIALD that really works, a better nav solution, better weapons aiming (can't spell Runge Kuttar, can anyone please help), and (very soon) EO GP(1) recce pod. And it's cheap to keep and cheap to operate, with total hourly operating costs (including DLO and HQ overheads) estimated at one tenth those of the Harrier, and one fifth those of a Tornado.

In essence, you could have two extra Jag squadrons for about £20 m (£400,000 each - the non-recurring costs have already been paid, plus a Major for each aircraft). This kind of money would get you three GR4 upgrades, always assuming that you had the spare Tornado airframes to upgrade, and ignoring the fact that they'd soon need structural work.

My sources suggest that a UOR for ELS on F.Mk 3 was actually issued during the Kosovo thing, and was then cancelled when the war stopped. With regard to technical difficulty/cost it would be easy and cheap for DERA/DARO, and probably very costly if given to the 'w@nkers from W@rton'.

[Wholigan2]

Jackonicko,

I’m sorry to disagree with you. I suspect that we’ll agree on more things than we disagree on, but on this occasion we don’t.

The fact is that UK plc has a limited “pot of gold”, and there are vast numbers of areas competing for their share. Hospitals and education are much more high profile in the minds of the public than is Defence; unless (God forbid) there is a major war, that will inevitably remain so.

Therefore, the Defence vote is never going to be big enough to provide overnight solutions to the problem of people voting with their feet. I’m afraid that buying our way out of trouble is not an option. So, if we can’t instantly buy lots of new shiny kit and pay airline wages to our crews, what’s left? The only way left is to stop pi$$ing them off and, unfortunately, that is NOT REPEAT NOT something that the military hierarchy has total control over, much as we might wish that it were so. Political imperatives are such that the Service hierarchy is also under pressure. I’m not sure quite how far the “chiefs” can go in saying NO (notwithstanding my earlier post) before it is construed as some sort of “mutiny”. However, they need to know that they would have the total backing of everybody in all 3(4) Services in doing whatever it takes to convince the Government that there is a genuine, deep-seated, underlying problem. We would also need to achieve public support and sympathy for our situation. I’m pretty confident that Joe Public would be happier that the UK did not get involved in absolutely every semi-crisis that occurred in the World, if they knew that the sad, inevitable result of doing so was a steadily reducing capability to do anything meaningful in the future.

We have (certainly in the RAF and I’m sure - from my experience -it is so in the other Services) a fantastic bunch of people who are all desperate to be loyal and do their utmost to sort out our current problems. I speak with some considerable authority on this, as I have spent a very long time training personnel at all levels. In particular, I have seen some 800 sqn ldrs at very close quarters over the past few years. Almost entirely without exception, they are exceptionally high quality officers who are NOT dissidents or rebels, but generally and genuinely just wish they were able to come up with instant solutions that would allow them to continue to pursue the career that they joined for. Life can be FUN. Unfortunately, they have pressures from home because they are away from their families for too long, and are tired and pi$$ed off even when they are home. They are under pressure at work and find it difficult to be the happy-go-lucky, cheerful souls (at all times) that their wives/husbands married. But – most of all - they are also genuinely worried about how the RAF is going to get itself straightened out again. I will say one thing to all of you. I am tremendously heartened by the quality of our people, and I therefore have to have confidence that “all will be right in the end”. The major problem we have, therefore, is how do we stop these high quality people leaving before we can fix the problem?

I remain convinced that the major part of the solution is to reduce some of these pressures. Of course, getting some new kit is important, not just the shiny new “wonder jet” but training aircraft that are not knackered. Some of this is in train. People need to see a light at the end of the tunnel and, although it does not yet comprise gigaquanta of photons, there is a glimmer. But they also need to know that, while they are in that dark and damp place waiting to reach the end of that tunnel, they are not going to be tasked with constantly achieving the impossible with few resources and no time to enjoy their lives. AGAIN I SAY THAT – SINCE THERE IS NO MORE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE RESOURCES TO MATCH THE TASKS – WE MUST MATCH THE TASKS TO THE RESOURCES WE HAVE! This will not be very palatable to the politicians, but they have to realise that failure to do so could lead to a distinct worsening of the situation, with our best and brightest seeking pastures new at an ever increasing rate, a situation which could become absolutely unsustainable, if it hasn’t already.

I know you’re not very well liked if you provide a problem without a proposed solution, but I’m not sure how it would be best to present the case to the Government. I can only plead that ALL Chiefs present a united case to the Government, explaining openly and honestly that there really is a problem and seeking an understanding of the situation, and an undertaking to genuinely try to provide some ameliorative measures, by reducing the unnecessary tasks that they are currently quite happy to throw at the Services with ever increasing regularity. It’s not broken, but it’s quite well bent – that might straighten it a bit and give time for other measures to take effect!

[flap22]

As I type, Lord Robertson is being interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby.

Although I remain sceptical of all politico's, he's actually made a rather excellent plea to 'all Nato members finance ministers and this includes Gordon Brown to increase defence spending', also saying that 'antique equipment is a complete waste of money and a useless comfort blanket'.

Maybe is Gen Sec of Nato, he knows much of a cluster Kosovo was. I dont expect more money or changes overnight, however, maybe (hopefully!) this is the start of a waking up and smeeling the coffee process by our goverment.

[Captain Ed]

I personally think this Kosovo thing was all wrong, morally and militarily. Clinton was behind it, and I suspect it was a "Wag the Dog" attempt to take the heat off him.

The Serbs were our allies in WWII and did nothing to any of the NATO nations to bring this on themselves, as far as I can tell. They rescued 500 allied airmen shot down in their area, at considerable risk to themselves.

[Banggearo]

Captain Ed

How can you say the Serbs did nothing to bring this Kosovo thing on themselves? Doesn't Ethnic cleansing etc count? I would not disagree that the whole thing was handled badly by NATO and there will be a million different opinions as to what we should have done but surely we had to do something?

[Captain Ed]

Bangeron - I dissagree. It was not in NATO'S balliwick to interfere there. This should have been handled by the UN.

NATO didn't interfere with the ethnic cleansing in Uganda and other African ethnic cleansings, and they are doing nothing to protect the whites from being cleansed by the Zimbabweans at this moment. There is mayhem there, and the world does nothing.

Clinton saw an opportunity to take the heat off his miserable awrse, and used it. He is a despicable man. He made John Kennedy look moral, and Carter look competent. He will stoop to anything.

For a look at the Serbian point of view, I suggest:
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-6-4(June).html

[This message has been edited by Captain Ed (edited 11 June 2000).]

[Bill O'Average]

Capt Ed,
er obviously forgotten about how the UN coped with Bosnia a couple of years before! UN can't bring force down, thats NATO's job. So to save five years of p!ssing in the wind, NATO went in to help prevent the needless cleansing that the UN were powerless to stop previously. Serbs, innocent....are you quite mad or on Slobolots payrole! Suppose Adolf was a nice chap too! With respect, get real!


Capt Ed,
just had a brief look at the link you provided. Very nice. There is always two sides to a story, no doubt Hitler had his side too, but are you trying to say that his opinion was right?
Just depends on which side of the fence you are straddling at the time. I appear to be comparing the two, well from my experience (served as UN and NATO/IFOR/KFOR/UNAMEIT!), the damage created by the Serbs was no different from certain atrocities caused by Mein Fuhrer. I know, I was present at several of the discoveries of the mass graves, history tells us who is to blame. Appreciate your sentiment on their efforts during the war, fair one, but we are living in a very different world. The recent history, I think, is the one that will reflect a state of affairs. Not fifty years ago.



[This message has been edited by Bill O'Average (edited 11 June 2000).]

[Captain Ed]

Bill - I never said the Serbs were innocent. The Albanians and the Serbs, as well as the Croats have all been involved in this for centuries. What I am saying is that if the UN couldn't handle it, then it's a civil war, which neither the UN or NATO should get involved in.

[Paul Wesson]

The Kosovo problem probably arose because of the proximity of NATO nations. We don't have as many hundreds of thousands of African refugees in Europe, but as I write, one tenth of the population Of Greece, NATO member, is of displaced Balkan origin. Italy likewise has a problem whilst Germany has hundreds of thousands of former Yugoslavs. There are more Bosnian Muslims, refugees of a century of conflict, living in Turkey than there are in Bosnia! The problem is very much a 'NATO backyard' thing and I suspect that had we been in the very private meetings we would have heard many NATO members asking Clinton to help.

Problem is that the Balkans are like Ireland - impossible to keep sorted for very long.

On the earlier point about disbanding frontline squadrons - I may be wrong, but I think that a lot were scrapped because of SALT 2. Tornado is strike capable and therefore falls within the remit of arms limitation treaties.

[Bill O'Average]

Capt Ed, "The Serbs were our allies in WWII and did nothing to any of the NATO nations to bring this on themselves, as far as I can tell." Er, please translate!
So what your saying is in a european theatre (excuse you, lots of miles from all that), we should allow a 'Civil War' to rage, suck in all the other satellite countries (Bosnia effort was trying to prevent this) therefore causing all the other unstable former Eastern Block communities to break down 100% and have a 'Civil War' erupt in europe! Not trying to insult you or your bretheren, Capt Ed but this is on our doorstep if not in the front room. USA has had to 'deal' with the likes of Grenada, Panama, Cuba and any other small Carribean island it takes a dislike to, political or economic. A bit differant I think.
I'll agree, we have to rely on America when it comes to enforcing stability anywhere in the world, not a thought we all cherish! You just have to dig through what possible political intent there is and try and see if it is all worth while.

[Shouting Rad-Alt]

A reply to Jag-Joc;
I was fortunate to assist in the humanitarian relief in Mozambique earlier this year. There were 115 approx deployed to Maputo, 4 ac, 20 aircrew,30 engineers, 30 logistics (TMW TSW etc) 34 PJHQ!
The last figure is indicative of the Blunt direction that this airforce is heading.
We could have coped addequately with half the numbers, and been twice as effective!

[Captain Ed]

If it was for "humanitarian purposes", it was a sham. What we did to the Serbs was inhumane. (I'll quit at this point befoe another thread is closed)

[PPRuNe Towers]

Thanks for the offer Ed but the thread won't be closed.

It may have slipped a little off track with the Serbian interlude but it still remains an outstanding and particularly well written series of posts. It's an honour to be able to provide this forum and see so much thoughtful writing from people who really do care.

------------------
Regards from the Towers

[email protected]



[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 11 June 2000).]

[Harvey Essem]

The Kosovo crisis: Anyone who's attended staff college since then will have views on 'international terrorism' and 'unlawful intervention'

The Mozambique crisis: Those Antonov's sat out on the pan for a fair while while the rotorheads were taken off the Pumas. We got the job done OK, but the lack of our (own) resources was highlighted more than once.

And now Sierra Leone: Apart from being largely due to our influence (Sandline, UN sanctions written by the UK etc.). Does it count as another minor operation towards the 2 that we're able to mount, post Options?

Coming back around to the heart of the matter. I think the problem with our armed forces is not only at the top. I am prepared to use second rate kit, spend 6 months each year away from home and work 17 hour days. But I am not prepared to do it when I get NO gratitude from the middle 'management'.

A word of thanks is free and goes a long way. A little appreciation from 1st and 2nd ROs would boost morale AT NO COST.

CHAIN OF COMMAND IS NOT A PRINCIPLE OF ORGANIZATION!

(Now, I might have given myself away on that one!)

[This message has been edited by Harvey Essem (edited 12 June 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Harvey Essem (edited 12 June 2000).]

[Check 6]

Very thoughtful comments from airmen who obviously care. The US Military have many of the exact same problems with staffing, replacement parts, aircraft, and the political desire to be the "world's policeman." Hopefully our (US) political leadership will change shortly for the better and then our new leadership will ensure ample funding for the US Military.

------------------
Kick the tires, light the fires, first off is lead, brief on guard.

[Gentleman Aviator]

I feel that one of the biggest problems we have is that since ‘Options for Change’ we have been consistently lied to.

‘Defence Cost Studies’ was meant to find out what we did and at what cost. From there we could then be tasked up to the absolute maximum. Fine; a pretty good idea, but what we have seen is tasking way beyond that maximum.
“Sorry guys, it’s an Op”
Well of course it’s an Op. There are always Ops. There will always be some tiny country somewhere in the middle of nowhere that decides that unlike the current Western democracies, it wants its Civil War now, rather than 200 years ago. Our civil wars were good, theirs are bad, and therefore, “Something must be done”

From the RAFs point of view this involves inappropriately trained aircrew flying inadequate aircraft “around the clock” until all is well in the world.

Surprisingly ‘Tea & Medals’ is not the conclusion to the episode. The conclusion is always a little more sinister. It involves wringing of hands as we are told that we have overspent our budgets and as such, training, expeditions & rectification is now on the back burner.
“All non-core training is to stop and any budget surplus is to be returned to Command to pay for the Kosovo War effort”
However, we have just been awarded Investors in People accreditation, hurrah!

‘Front Line First’. You have to be joking. ‘Front Line Forever’ would be more appropriate. Imagine having ground and aircrews who could have ‘breather tours’ where they had some chance of family stability.
“Sorry old love, that costs money”
No it doesn’t. Happy people stay in the Service. They do not leave and as such there is no recruitment or retraining cost. A child could present this as a viable argument, yet we have civilianised every possible post. At the same time as transforming ourselves into a civilian, stay-at-home outfit, some bright spark decided we were now expeditionary! With what? With whom?

To top it all off we are told that everything has a cost. We must all become budget holders. Money, money, money.

Cool.

Snag is, if you keep telling people that we should follow civilian working practices under civilian contracts, some of us will want civilian wages. We will do the maths, look at our predicted pensions and run away from the crumbling top-heavy mess that is left behind.

[propulike]

Strimmer Trimmer, what a sadly accurate opening post.

I believe it was Not the Nine O'clock News who wrote a sketch which proffered the chance to buy shares in the newly privatised Armed Forces that were going to be run to not only cost the taxpayer nothing, but would make them profitable. Highly entertaining at the time, but you could now hold it up as our masters' ideal.

Cost cutting is always the order when there is no threat to blighty this week, but the sweeping cutbacks and introduction of civilianisation into a military world has been devastating. Most sinister is reduction in ability to regain lost ground.

"Successive cutbacks have ensured that the training system, which was once the envy of the world, is a shadow of its former self. So much has been cut that the front line despairs of the product of our flying training."

The destruction of the training system for all trades and branches, not just for flying training, is going to be incredibly difficult to overcome. We all knew, and said before it happened, that contractors would become prohibitively expensive as soon as they needed to train new personnel instead of giving ex-servicemen different suits. We are now approaching the stage where we cannot afford to go on, but are unable to go back. We can't spare people for leave, never mind try to take the few remaining experienced personnel out of the system in order for them to train new blood. Creating a force which is officially trained for competence instead of excellence is a deed which should have brought about the resignation of top brass instead of the creation of 'top management'. Further 'MoD plc' degeneration brings more and more despair to those of us who want to be proud of our service.

The sad fact is that despite the generation currently reaching office being the first in modern history to have lived without war or conscription, we all know there will never be a worldwide outbreak of peace. Yet we now have a set of Armed Forces which are struggling to meet their commitments whilst we're at raging peace - for God's sake what are we doing?

[ChristopherRobin]

Oy jackonicko! hands off the RN's Nukes!

I mean more fastjets is a good idea, and lets face it, we all agree that IIP is a crock of new-age cr@p, but themonuclear warfare is a guy's best friend!

------------------
Christopher Robin

[kbf1]

I have just spent 3 days scrambling round for kit and vehicles to run an exercise this w/end. I was amazed at the levels of commitment from MTOs and fleet mgrs to bend over backwards to give me green vehicles. It was embarassing for me to explain that although I was RLC, and although I cmd a support unit that we don't have any serviceable vehicles left because another sqn in the Regt took them all on camp. None of us have the vehicles we need to run a full scale exercise, let alone deploy in support of the regular army in tmies of crisis. Vast amounts of cash is being spent on vehicle emission checks and as a result when the money runs out to do this i am left with vehicles on the yard that work, but are technically U/S and can't move.

If I turned up to fly and was told that the a/c I booked out was fit to fly, but u/s because engineering ran out of money to do an emission check I would go apoplectic! Why should I have to put up with it in the TA? You could re-write this scenario for every flying sqn in the AAC/RAF/RN, and every ship, and operational Army unit from the smallest Regt to the might of the RLC

------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!

[Wholigan2]

OK! Enough of the “wouldn’t it be nice if ‘they’ did something”!

What can we suggest?

I don’t pretend to have all the facts to hand, nor a monopoly on ideas (certainly not these) and I’m sure somebody will tell me if what I suggest is not possible or not acceptable. I emphasise that the following thoughts are only just “my thoughts” and would rely on Government acceptance that we have a problem and need to do something about it, even if it means some criticism from some areas of the World.

1. Reduce the Falkland Islands manning. Who believes that Argentina is going to try another 1982 in our lifetime? Argentinians are attending staff courses in the UK. Our relations with them are more than affable at the moment. How about a small infantry detachment (sorry Marines, this probably means you, but you are used to it and it is a good ‘grunt/bootie’ training area for all that macho stuff you are so very good at). Add a Rapier MPC capability. Meander the odd RN presence through the area. Who will know whether or not there is a submarine presence there, especially if we tell people there probably is! AND THAT’S ALL!

2. Remove the presence from the Middle East. We don’t need to be the policeman for that area. Who believes that Saddam will try another Kuwait invasion? Other policing roles in that area should be undertaken by the Saudis and other Gulf states. They are capable of doing so and might even welcome a withdrawal as an improvement in presentational terms to their people, some of whom do not welcome our presence in their countries.

3. I can’t give you exact figures for the numbers involved in the last 2 suggestions, as it would make this Pprune post classified. However, the numbers are not insignificant in their contribution to the “stretch” we are experiencing, especially as it tends to be the same groups of people time after time.

4. Remove our independent nuclear deterrent (“SACRILEGE” I hear you cry, or at least some of you will). Sorry Navy, but who believes that we will be likely to get into a full-scale shooting match with the US, China, Russia, India, Pakistan et al? Furthermore, who believes that we would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Lybia or some other rogue state decided to attack with chemical or biological agents? It’s a thought!

5. Perhaps the much vaunted Northern Ireland peace process will also allow a large reduction in presence there? It may even be essential to the eventual success of the peace process. Perhaps we should start the process of reduction now?

Not Earth-shattering stuff, and only scratching the surface of the problem, but think of how many people we have involved in all these areas and how frequently the same people return time and time again to the above operations! Such moves would go a reasonable way to relieving some of the pressure on the Services, and would go a LONG WAY towards persuading the troops that the Government has our best interests at heart.

Or don’t you think so? Other thoughts please???

[Bill O'Average]

Wholigan 2,

I can't comment on your first couple of ideas as I have little knowledge of those areas, but the latter I feel is a no go.
Many reasons. Reducing manpower and assets in S Atlantic/Gulf seems fairly reasonable. As for the Nuke deterrent, not too sure on that one.

NI as is read in the majority of the press appears to be back on line for peace what with the assembly coming back together and the general lack of 'incidents' being reported on. As anyone will be well aware, it's, yet again a false horizon. Reading into the media, Drumcree will be 'a spectacular' then there is the case of 'the other side of the line'. Heavy activity politically, that to be quite honest makes my blood boil. The issue of refusing to fly the Union flag over official buildings that are run by republicans! Now this isn't the usual provocation of flag waving as can be seen in almost every community, left or right, but total descent over the ruling government that 'elected' these people into ruling bodies. Another issue I read concerns the re-hash of the RUC. The argument regards the Republicans not wanting to advance on the 'new improved RUC' unless former CONVICTED IRA terrorists will be considered eligible for entry into the new order. HELLO, what the f ck is going on! We are, i.e. Bliar is actually going to allow negotiations into this! If it means they will disarm. All I can say is, never in a month of Sundays will the 'opposition' disarm. The PIRA might offer token .303's, but they are only using the name to show they are making the effort. Remember '69, the OIRA did a similar stunt only to re-org under the banner of PIRA. Lest us not forget CIRA, RIRA.

To summarise, NI should not be left to carry on as is. The South doesn’t want it; they on the whole don't give a toss what goes on up there. If we 'pull out', it will be left to be ruled by a bunch of crim's.

We need an election that votes in someone who gives a toss about what is going on around the Bazaars, not some lily livered 'Yes' man who has a cute smile and considers himself a 'new man'. Is it right that half his cabinet prefer the intimate company of blokes. NO...........I will shortly become a minority (cut to thread 'Happy F3 guys').

Here endeth the lesson. (Bring back Maggie, I could live with the poll tax compared to the pile of ****e we are in now!!!!!)

[StopStart]

Wholigan

First off I have to agree with the FI point. The level of manning and commitment down there is bordering on the paranoid. I think HMG may be gambling on the future possible mineral resources down there that are, at present, not commercially viable. At the same time the locals get a warm fuzzy feeling from some military presence. All this does not, as you say, justify our maintaining Defcon 2 down there. A definite source of savings then. However, show me one politician that will have the cojones to be the first to take an axe to the commitment down there (although it is a prime candidate for cuts-by-stealth - no one would probably ever know) and then weather the media storm that follows.

The Gulf region is, however, a slightly different kettle of fish. We in the West are fairly, oh go on then, totally dependent on that which flows from the Gulf: Oil. Far be it from me to suggest that we fought a war over oil - although so what if we did? It pretty much forms the basis of the western economies, not to put too fine a point on it: OPEC has a wendy, puts $1 on the price of a barrel of crude, and all hell breaks loose. I'd suggest that the maintenance of a UK military presence in the Gulf region a) helps defend our allies (from threats tangible or otherwise) and b) helps us keep a foothold in the region and maintain a little leverage in matters politico-economic.

The Balkans? Europe's back yard sadly and if we, the UK, want to be a player within Europe and prevent a recurrence of history then we have to turn up to this sort of thing. We've done the Mr-Chamberlain-Herr-Hitler-piece of paper-head-up-derriere thing once. I'd suggest we don't repeat it.

Sierra Leone? As the former colonial power and, if you go back far enough, the possible progenitor of some of the trouble there I personally feel we again have a duty to offer assistance to this beleaguered state. If we hadn't done something we would have found ourselves, in a couple of years time, going through all the hand wringing that has gone on recently over the UN's and the West's flaccidity over the genocide in Rwanda.

Northern Ireland? Well, what can you do? A hot potato that I don't want to pick up suffice it to say we're stuck with it and can only hope, for everyone's sake, that something good comes of the peace process.

So where does that leave us then? It kind of leaves us with a series of ultimately justifiable deployments of the UK military around the world. I know in previous posts I've suggested we're not a superpower and aren't the world's policeman but I do also feel that the Defence of the United Kingdom and her interests goes beyond the Royal Observer Corps counting bombers over Kent.
HMG has to face the fact that decent defence costs money. We're not a business and we don't make profits, at least not in the traditional sense. But, invest in Defence and it pays dividends in many other ways.
I don't believe it is up to us "Indians" to suggest ways of saving money and deciding the thrust of UK foreign and Defence policy. We are the tools through which our "Chiefs" effect UK Foreign and Defence Policy. What we can do, however, is to flag up to our Chiefs and HMG (and the taxpayer) just quite how run down the military has become and how it won't be long before we won't be able to carry out that which is being asked of us.

PS. Nukes. I'm afraid I'm of the "talk softly and carry a big stick brigade" here. They do a consume a lot of money but I don't believe the world is a stable enough place for members of the UN Security Council to go ditching their deterrents. No one believes that there will be a shooting war involving us or the USA nuking some rogue state but then of course WWI was The Great War, The War To End All Wars wasn't it? Hmmm.

[Jackonicko]

It is exercising these commitments (perhaps especially the FI) that has led to the warm cosy contented consensus on defence. Worth remembering that no-one now disputes the need for you guys - the arguments are on how to save and spend money.

Apart from his willingness to pull out of the South Atlantic, StopStart illustrates Joe Public's attitude very well. I'd be the last person to do away with the nuclear big-stick - I just question whether Trident isn't too big and too expensive a stick to wave. A few nuke-armed Storm Shadows would be cheaper and just as effective (perhaps even more effective) at deterring the Libya/Iraqi level of threat than a system which is neither independent nor autonomous.

And also worth remembering that if money was spent more wisely, there needn't be this level of overstretch. Dear Geoff under-spent by £300 m this year (tw@t!), while the money wasted by uncompetitive and dumb procurement practises could fund forces big enough to more than meet the existing commitments - and then some.

But I say again, spending well over £2.5 Bn on GR4 (and that's what it will be with smart weapons, their integration, Raptor and the MLFP) is scandalously bad practise, and represents a huge waste of money. Over £1 Bn has already been committed, including the new Main Computer - which gives no synergy with Harrier or Jag, and no upward compatability with Eurofighter either. Smart move, chaps! Tornado is a Good aeroplane being made better, but more could be achieved for so much less. And similar examples could be found in every community in the Forces.

And that's what needs to be put right.

[Wholigan2]

I seem to spend my life disagreeing with people lately.

LET’S START WITH THE BALKANS. If they are “in our back yard” then they must be in the LIVING ROOM (or should I say “LEBENSRAUM” – oops – bring back memories?) of Germany, Poland and the Czech republic. They must also be in the BEDROOM AND SHARING THE BED with Italy, Greece, Turkey and Hungary. Also, Denmark, Holland and Belgium have “back yards”. I limit the list to these countries as they are all NATO members, but even more closely involved in the geographic area are other aspiring NATO members, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. I know it would be difficult for these latter countries to get involved without the risk of further expansion of the problem. The peoples of the area, especially in the FRY, have been fighting each other since 1389 (less the time that Tito had control), and we aren’t likely to fix the underlying problem overnight. France wants to take a leading role in Europe and should also be counted as having the Balkans in their back yard/living room. My question is, what is the comparison of percentage contribution to peace in the FRY by all of these countries and the UK?

THE MIDDLE EAST. You say that the oil from this area is vital to the interests of “the West”. My question is: does not “the West” comprise not just the UK and the US, but also Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, (and now effectively) Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and those other aspiring NATO nations? Not to mention all of North America and South America. Again, what is the comparative contribution by these countries in the Middle East? Also, if you argue that it is vital to our interests to protect the oil industry in the area, it must be even more vital to the interests of the countries in the region to protect THEIR OWN OIL INDUSTRIES. They should be able to do it, and – more importantly – they know that we will come to their aid (because we’ve shown that we will) should anything else occur in the future that is outside their combined capabilities --- AND SO DOES SADDAM!!!

This all adds up to my previous question; should the UK learn to come to terms with the fact that we are no longer a Victorian era super power, and don’t have the money or other resources to be the only World policeman that gets involved with everything that happens? I do actually agree that we were morally obliged to help in Sierra Leone, as we probably helped to caused the problem in the first place.

The same argument used in the Middle east above also strengthens the case for reduction of the FI manning – we’ve done it before and will do it again! There are those that say that we no longer have the capability to mount another Falklands campaign but, the British being how they are, ‘where there’s a will there will always be a way’. Furthermore, money saved (together with that saved from the independent nuclear deterrent) could go a long way to producing the new carrier fleet, really giving us an “expeditionary” capability. After all, what would the Falklands be if not an expeditionary campaign.

The “big stick” argument is all very well, but just how big does the stick have to be? How much would a big stick deter a rogue nation that knows that, not only would we not be able to use the big stick on them, but we also don’t have any “little sticks” to use - should they be naughty - because we’ve run out of money, ideas, kit and people??? Maybe you’re right though; maybe we need a small number of air delivered, stand-off “son of W***7s”? Oh God, not back to “Q” again?!?!?!? Does give the FO/FLs a good place and time to do ISS though!!!!

[Tamaze Man]

Strimmer,
Having just read this thread from start to finish, I have only two things to say.
First, you have expressed the thoughts of many of us still serving, more eloquently than I could of. For this I give you thanks.
Second, to any of our 'Airships' out there who may be reading this, if you send 'The Word' down that we should not be using this site to express our opinions you will merely serve to prove to many of your operators that you do not listen. Use this opportunity to take forward the ideas and feelings expressed here, by your troops. Pass these up the chain, get in Hoons' face and show him this page, go to the press if you have to. You must save Her Majesty's Armed Forces. I do not say this lightly. If you lead, I will follow. I have done my bit over Kosovo, now you do yours! You have, in all the Services, some of the finest men and women in the country. Do not let us down by ignoring the stark reality that faces us all. To quote one of our cousins from across the pond who has served with us on exchange, we are "the only 3rd World air force not flying F-16s". I am not saying we should buy F-16s, but that in the eyes of the world, we are slipping into obscurity. If you take a stand, we will be with you (or behind you if you prefer(can I say that)). The loyalty is still here, prove it is justified.

[StopStart]

Whugelian2

Your arguments seem to centre round the "they're not doing it so why should I?" approach. I'd agree these aren't our problems per se but the argument that no one else is doing anything shouldn't be an argument for us to do nothing.

As regards the Balkans, you answer your own questions as regards the involvement of the "local" states but Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium all made limited contributions, the French do their own thing anyway, the Italians are more than doing their bit allowing the basing of allied forces in their country (against a fair degree of public protest) as well as accommodating the oodles of refugees that paddle across the Adriatic every day. Those states hoping to join NATO are still quite closely bordered by Russia, an unpredictable state at the best of times) and would have their own security (internal and external) to consider before getting involved heavily against Serbia. Heavy involvement of German Armed forces would (and did a bit) cause a stir given their past history. I think we'll see more of the German armed forces out and about in the future though. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of a Federal Europe but as things go that way we need to ensure our position within Europe. We won't do that by peering at regional turmoil (plus the odd bit of genocide) from behind our net curtains. At the same time we're (Europe) not going to be able to rely on the USA to always come to our assistance in the future and, as George Robertson said, the countries of Europe need to start investing properly in their defence and stop hiding behind the efforts of others.

You apply the same argument to the Gulf. I'd reiterate my response as well as adding that we are, to be blunt, currying favour in the region with our presence there. Islamic fundamentalism is bubbling away quite nicely in Saudi Arabia and parts there about. I'd suggest again that the maintenance of a Western presence in region does more than stop Saddam invading Kuwait again (which, of course, he'd not do anyway). As aside, one could also argue that as the Kuwaiti state was pretty much another product of British Colonialism that we may have a slight responsibility there too. As for the rest of the West doing nothing - I suppose we could join them on the sidelines and then when it all goes pear-shaped we could join them in asking why nobody did anything to prevent it happening? Hmmm.

Yes, we're not a colonial superpower/world policeman, I agree, but then I don't believe that we should just call it quits and stick our heads in the sand. We have a "duty" (wrong word) as a member of the UN security Council to provide some sort of lead in matters of regional security. We can't afford financially to have the huge standing armies, fleets and air forces of the past but at the same time I don't believe we can afford politically or perhaps morally to kick it all into touch and join those other countries who choose to do nothing but sit by and mutter about how "terrible it all is" and how "someone should do something" from the sidelines.
This isn't meant in a tub-thumping, flag waving, isn't-Britain-great kind of way but more as the expression of my opinion that the defence of the UK doesn't end of at Lands End and that the Defence issue cannot be dealt with in isolation from politics and economics. They all affect one another which is something our politicians could probably take note of before they run us down any further


PS. I do agree with your points on the FI as well as those on the size of our nuclear weaponry.

[Wholigan2]

I don't believe that I said anywhere that we should do nothing. The thread of my argument is that we should do less, for many reasons. The best way for that to happen is for the British Government to use its influence to pressure other NATO/European states to do more. The load should be shared more equitably amongst those who benefit from the work done. If we follow your logic and simply carry on the way we are doing, the rate of people leaving will increase, the rate of use of our transport fleet will mean they break before their time, and all our money will be spent doing something that may or may not be of any use in the future. As I said, we aren't going to change attitudes embedded in the psyche since 1389 simply by putting some troops in the area to keep them apart for a few years. The whole thought process of the region's people needs to be changed to make them realise that economic recovery and living together - if not in harmony then in tolerance - is the only way forward for the betterment of them all. We will not do that militarily. So, even if others do not help, we still need to re-assess the size of our contributions (as The Misstress and Wifeof will tell you "size isn't everything"). The probability is that, by trying to do everything all the time, we risk not being able to do anything downstream.

As for stopping religious "fundamentalism" (which is, in fact, a common mis-use of a phrase as any Muslem will tell you - "fundamental" is good, "terrorism" is bad), ask the USA and the Shah how much good military might was at the time of his overthrow.

[Wholigan2]

My good friend from Canada has been at it again! This time he has gone straight to the top. Once again, I have put in a few dots to "protect the innocent". I'm sure he wouldn't mind people knowing who he is, but it's not my place to tell them. I've - in fact - just told him about this site, so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't "come clean" on here and start contributing himself. Wnatever happens, I bet we get more people on from Canada in the very near future.

Here goes - direct quote ---The Right Honourable Jean Chretien June 13, 2000
Houses of Parliament, Ottawa


Dear Mr. Chretien:

I am moved to write this letter out of deep concern for an institution, which I served loyally and with enthusiasm for over thirty years, the Canadian Air Force. I think that my remarks are probably equally applicable to the Army and the Navy. I don’t expect that you will understand or appreciate many of the things I will address, but I thought I might as well go right to the top. I will be sending copies of this letter to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chief of the Air Staff and a number of like-minded retired officers who share and have expressed the same concerns.

The specific impetus for this letter was provided by what I, and many others, consider the appalling treatment of an outstanding officer, Colonel .......... of .................. He has been charged by the National Investigative Service (NIS) over a childish prank gone awry. He did not perpetrate the incident, but the NIS has decided that his attempts to use common sense in the aftermath constituted serious criminal activity, as is their mandate to investigate. The charges are absurd and I have no doubt that .............. will beat them at his day in court. Regrettably, he has already been convicted in the media, with help from such military rejects and malcontents as Scott Taylor. I hope that it does not come to pass, but ............... may have already been removed from his position. This would seem a trifle odd, when convicted felons still hold seats in the House of Commons and the Senate, while the wheels of justice grind on.

................. has an exemplary record as a fighter pilot and a leader. He is skilled in the air and commands respect and admiration on the ground. He has devoted his life to the Air Force and has given Canada some great moments. He was part of Canada’s best known and most effective ambassadors, the Snowbirds. You proudly shook his hand in the House of Commons after he led Team Canada to a first-ever victory at William Tell in 1996. He is the kind of leader that the military should be grooming; but they are being driven out, instead. Many fine officers and enlisted personnel have left early and many, many more will leave. To be sure, there are still many fine people at all levels in the Canadian Forces, but they are questioning the future. While the NIS is not to blame for this, they are playing a part and I strongly believe that they are out of control. They exceed their mandate of investigating serious criminal activity by engaging in witch hunts, until they can manufacture a crime. They appear to be accountable to no one and can circumvent the chain of command at will. I have worked with many fine individuals in that trade and have had them under my command. It is a fact, however, that there is a certain number who find Nirvana when they can pin something on an officer, especially a senior officer, and most especially an aviator. I think that their conduct on many issues is inappropriate and I feel that their role and mandate should be re-evaluated.

While ...............'s case troubles me deeply, it is only symptomatic of a disease that threatens the long-term health of the Air Force and, probably, the entire Canadian Forces.
-2-


It is the plague of political correctness and it has completely stifled the essential spirit that gave Billy Bishop the ‘courage of the early morning’; inspired the ‘few’ of the Battle of Britain; made Sabre pilots the rulers of the air in Europe; won tactical air competitions in the Starfighter era; made our CF-18 squadrons the most capable fighter operation in NATO; won William Tell; put our Air Force at the forefront of success in the Gulf and Kosovo; and motivated the countless transport, maritime and helicopter operations that have earned us worldwide respect. I spend a lot of time talking to military personnel of all ranks and I sense that they are losing respect for themselves and are becoming exceedingly disillusioned with the institution. What is happening to .............., and has happened to others, effectively kills aspirations of leadership among many fine candidates. People see little reward and unlimited liability.

There is no tolerance of spirit in the military and the low state of morale is testament to that fact. No one can condone causing injury or willful damage, but leaders used to be trusted to deal with those who caused it. That trust is gone. During my service from 1964 until 1994, I was blessed with leaders of vision, courage and humour. I tried to pattern myself after them and I believe that I was reasonably successful. They were men who worked hard and played hard. They weren’t afraid to drive a jeep into the mess on Friday night. They weren’t afraid to sing songs that had inspired their predecessors in previous wars. They weren’t afraid to play what, to the outside world, would seem like silly bar games. The outside world would never tolerate being asked to do the distasteful things that militaries must do and what they think of such activities should be irrelevant. They weren’t afraid to stick their necks out for their people. They weren’t afraid to fly that extra trip in the middle of the night to get a ground crew home to a dying parent. They weren’t afraid to put an arm around the shoulder of a subordinate, male or female, in a moment of consolation or congratulation. They weren’t afraid to offer praise or rebuke, as the situation dictated. They weren’t afraid to shed a tear and even break a brandy glass in the fireplace in salute to a fallen comrade. They weren’t afraid to offer their bosses the wisdom of an ale or three on a Friday night. They weren’t afraid to enforce the standards that made us a world-class organization. They weren’t afraid to be alone in a room with someone, lest they be accused (and be, therefore, guilty) of some crime. I did all these things, and more, and was not unique.

The atmosphere within the military is now one of fear of all of the above, and much more. What is now encouraged and rewarded is being well-educated, multi-lingual, gender-sensitive, politically correct and utterly devoid of spirit and colour. The personnel evaluation system places inordinate emphasis on these attributes, called potential, and not enough on actual job performance. This trend needs to be reversed. I am told that the Canadian public expects more of the military, and that is undoubtedly true. While the potential attributes I just mentioned are very fine and should be encouraged, they have absolutely nothing to do with what the public should ultimately be able to expect. That is that the military will be made up of warriors. Although many people are dedicated to keeping it alive, the warrior spirit is rapidly dying. What happened?
- 3 -


Political correctness happened, inspired by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that no truly civilized nation should need. It has replaced common sense with self-righteous indignation at anything and everything. Anyone can find something to be upset about, if they try. The impact on the military has been disastrous, and this does not apply just to Canada. To try to force the military to be a reflection of society is a concept doomed to rendering it ineffective in fulfilling its most basic mandate. Standards have been lowered in many trades to cater to people who can’t meet the physical or mental challenges of the past. Were past standards too high? Hitler and Hirohito might think so, but I do not. Leaders are not allowed to lead, without fear that anything they do or say may be twisted by someone within their organization or from the outside into a violation of some mythical law.

Mr. Prime Minister, this is not a condemnation of our senior military leadership. They are dedicated, sincere individuals coping with enormous challenges. Their hands are effectively tied by a defence budget, inadequate by any measure; by too many priorities set by too many other government departments; and by political correctness. The recent injection of funds into defence is welcomed and appreciated, but it is much too little and much too late. We are losing capabilities, such as Combat Service Support, that will be replaced by civilian contract and, in many cases, this will prove to be a huge mistake. We are in danger of losing the Snowbirds, and I don’t believe that it is the military playing a game with you, as you have suggested. The Snowbirds are part of our national heritage and, as our best ambassadors (along with the RCMP Musical Ride), should be supported by the nation, from outside the DND budget, if necessary.

Sir, I hope that you read this personally and that you give it some consideration. I would be hard-pressed to find a retired (or serving) officer who wouldn’t agree with much of what I’ve said. The last time I spoke out, I was rewarded with an audit by HRDC. If this letter, which is intended to be a respectful, but very earnest, plea for a re-orientation of defence priorities and a restoration of its spirit, earns me the same reward, so be it. As a retired Lieutenant-Colonel, as the Honourary President of .......... Group of the Air Force Association of Canada, as the current Honourary Colonel of ... Combat Support Squadron at ................ and as a Canadian citizen, I feel it is my duty to the Air Force and to you to bring these matters to your attention. I may stand to be corrected by others and that is a price that I’m prepared to pay.

Good luck to us all and “Per Ardua Ad Astra”.

Respectfully and sincerely,

[This message has been edited for cr**ppy spelling by Wholigan2 (edited 14 June 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Wholigan2 (edited 14 June 2000).]

[StopStart]

Wholigan - I'm not suggesting we carry on as we are. We are all well aware of the strains on the Services at present and the unsustainability of the current levels of tasking. All I was doing was responding to your thoughts on the possible savings that could be made. My point, such as it is, is that we run the risk of ending up in a situation where national policies is being driven by the size of the Armed Forces: not a particularly sensible way of doing business. I believe that the Op examples you quoted are, by and large, justifiable and that rather than bin Ops and tasks, the Government recognize the importance of what we're doing and fund us accordingly. Of course I'm not suggesting we carry on with this level of tasking and this level of funding. Such a suggestion would be crass in the extreme.
As for Fundamentalism, it is the strict adherence to religious beliefs and doctrines (COED). The resultant adjective, fundamentalist, is obviously, one who does the adhering. The "Fundamentalists" were also a group of US Protestants in the early C20 who, among other things, rejected all things scientific and took all things in the Bible literally in a particularly fervent way. Whilst the term has been hijacked of late to use as a blanket description of mid-east terrorists it has also come to refer to that particular brand of corrupted Islam we see in Iran and to a worse extent, Taliban Afghanistan. As for military might "protecting" the Shah of Iran - not entirely relevant. The Shah (installed by the UK during WWII) was overthrown because he ruled in an oppressive and authoritarian way. The people of Iran were thus easily whipped up by the Ayatollahs into religious fervour and revolution. I'm not suggesting that our presence in the Mid-East will prevent revolution. I am however suggesting that it gives increased confidence to the people living there as well as their rulers (whatever you may think of their system of government). This leads to a degree of stability in the region which has got to be a good thing.

And after all that what will the Government actually do? I personally think we're going to see a reduction in the size of commitments rather than a reduction in the actual number of commitments. I would that suggest force sizes in the Gulf could be reduced slightly without affecting our standing in the region, we're already seeing a clean (so far) pull out from Sierra Leone, there may be some scope for draw-down in force size in the FRY especially Kosovo as civilian infrastructure is put in place and finally DefCon 2 in the FI will be raised to DefCon 1 following the sighting of an Argentinian fishing boat 300 miles off the coast.

PS. Wholigan, your Canadian mate rocks! You want to copy that to the Rev Blair.

[BinAroundaBit]

This is my first post, so please excuse any execution errors!!

The identification of the "State of the Nation" is correct, however, why? This has been a trend for many years. Actually my wife proposed an interesting hypothosis, and it goes like this:

If you were a polititian, and your aim was to reduce the armed forces to a very small defence force. Possibly a force which would fit neatly into a European collaborative force structure, How would you do it? and remain electable. Well you couldn't just slash the forces to the required level, because public opinion would not tollerate that. But, you could progressively down size, to a point of non-sustainabilty, and watch everyone leave "Of their own free will" That way, it wouldn't be your fault, you could blame market forces, airlines, pull factors or pretty much anything. The good news would be that you wouldn't need to buy so many expensive Typhoons, and therefore you could sell them ( Because they are already essentially paid for) at very competative prices or even lease them. Result, the armed forces reduce to a level where they have to go purple, and eventually join with other smaller nations. You save a fortune, to be spent on your next election bribes. But the best bit, is you achieve your aim, you don't get slagged in The SUN, keep your job and everyone thinks you are the Boy for intergrating with Europe ( Without actually signing up for the Euro).

I admit, my wife can be a little cynical, but ask yourself the question " Why is this happening?", not from your perspective, but from the perspective of the people who actually make policy. Far be it for me to suggest that politicos might have hidden agendas!!!

Fly Safe.

[This message has been edited by BinAroundaBit (edited 15 June 2000).]

[Wholigan2]

Good God, Algy, BinAroundaBit might be right!!

Mr Arbuthnot Hoon-Bliar is a dashed sight cleverer than we thought!

He's been spinning us along all this time and we've fallen into his dastardly trap!

Right chaps, time to rally round the flag. He can't get away with that. We'll show him and get all our mates who have left to join right back again. I know several with their own aircraft, so we can use them against the baddies.

(Your wife might be cynical, but YOU NEVER KNOW!!!)

[Jackonicko]

I say again. If we weren't pouring money down the drain, these commitments would be easily affordable.

And I think you're wrong about public support. The days when isolationism and pacifism had any appeal are long gone. Joe P now likes the idea of bashing Johnny Foreigner, especially in the context of UN approved 'peace enforcement ops'. Remember that the Falklands and Granby both resulted in election victories for the parties in power. Even Labour have realised this, and have ditched unilateralism, and were assiduous in presenting SDR as a re-structuring, not a package of cuts. TV pictures of dead Kosovan children and machete-scarred `Sierra Leonians made these interventions popular. The danger is that we won't intervene somewhere and the public will ask: "Where are our forces? Why aren't they there?"

But spend the defence dollar wisely, scale the Armed Forces to meet the potential requirement and there doesn't have to be a problem.

But if you decide that home defence is enough, then disband everything and just sit tight with Trident!

[Strimmer Trimmer]

Having been beyond the radar horizon for several days, I have just returned to the FIR and re-read this thread.

I knew this was going to be an emotive subject, judging by the banter which flies around every crew-room in the country. I thought long and hard before writing my original submission, and having done it I quickly convinced myself that I had done the wrong thing, even in this anonymous forum. Thankfully I now believe my fears were ill-founded.

Two things strike me: firstly, the majority of responses reflect a real desire at grass-roots level to identify the problems we face, and suggest ways to overcome these problems. They go beyond the superficial crew-room banter, and present well-thought out responses that our masters, military and political, would do well to heed.

Secondly, what is abundantly clear to me is the loyalty of our personnel. Some may say I was disloyal to write in the first place, and indeed it was to protect myself from those people that I chose to speak anonymously. However, it was my loyalty to the Services, and the desire to see an end to the degenerative spiral we are in, that prompted me. It is clear that this feeling is widespread.

We all know that the “wheels” have access to this forum, and no doubt some are looking on closely as this forum develops. All I say is please come down from your ivory towers. Your people want to show you as much loyalty as they have ever done, but they need loyalty from you in return. It may not be appropriate for you to reply in this forum, but for everyone’s sake, we need you to reply somewhere, soon. Time is ticking away…..

[James Gordan]

Yes Strimmer you are right.

I know lots who are PVRing just now and I have a 12 yr option next year. Ill be taking it. I think. Unless.......

[BinRoundabit]

For BinAroundabit. May or may not agree with you or your wife's comments but we must try not to start arguments in threads when guys read our VERY SIMILAR idents.

[Big Yid]

Still a classic case of 'tail wags dog' syndrome. The sooner the our partially-armed services are administrated, once again, in a non-commercial fashion, the better. We are not a company, we are not out to see how much profit can be made, so stop fannying about with the purse-strings and let us get on with our jobs!

[This message has been edited by Big Yid (edited 15 June 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Big Yid (edited 15 June 2000).]

[Big Green Arrow]

Having just read this forum from top to toe I can say I'm flabbergasted. Some excellent pieces of clear and logical debate....wow! Having just been to one of the poorest nations in the world and 'supported' the UN there I can honestly say that there IS still a need for us to participate in Global crises. The UN troops in SL were apalling; poorly organised and shoddily led. The Troops involved from UK sorted a huge mess out (again) and hopefully put things in place to stop the wheels falling off the peace process (again). I wholeheartedly agree with Jackinoko when he says that our budgets need to be better spent; NMS did nothing but cloud the issues on how and where money could be properly used. 8 yrs ago at a Green and Lush RAF Station where it rained alot, some £3000 was left over in the IT budget....if they didn't spend it they stood to lose it the next FY, so they blew it on loads of extra 386's which stood around and gathered dust...no-one could use them coz they could't afford the software licences to put stuff on them. Great use of OUR money eh? I also agree with wholigan 2 in that if someone in authority stood up to the way our Armed forces are being constantly denuded, they would have the wholehearted support and admiration of those of us at the coal face. I am loyal to the service in which I serve, have been for 12 yrs now, but doing what we have been doing for so long can make one a touch cynical.

A Mate of mine told me a good analogy about how the hierarchy of any organisation could best be described.
Picture a tree...full of monkeys....the important monkeys at the top and the also rans at the bottom.....the monkeys at the top of the tree look down and all they see is faces looking back up at them....those at the bottom look up and all they see is a bunch of arseholes! Harsh...but....

[Jackonicko]

At the risk of getting very boring, being administrated in a commercial fashion is fine - what isn't fine is squandering scarce resources on non-priority line items, slavishly demanding rigid annual accounting, and making decisions without assessing the cost of those. Spend the money more sensibly (and that includes proper manning, good man-management (rather than trendy management speak) pay and conditions), and many of these problems would go away.

And on the commitments side. If we need armed forces we need them to defend our sovereignty, territorial integrity, interests and values. It's not trying to be a Superpower (if we were we'd do things alone, or insist on leadership), nor is it trying to be a World/Global/Colonial policeman. It's doing the right thing, standing up for our principles and values, and fulfilling the obligations which go with being on the Security Council, a G7 nation and what Mr Blair would like to see as a beacon of democracy, enlightenment, etc.

It's unfortunate that 'doing what's right' sounds so idealistic and naive, and while these are cynical times, in which such attitudes may be unfashionable, if you didn't agree, you would never have joined the armed forces, never have sworn anything to Queen and Country, and would now be working in the city, diddling old ladies out of their carefully hoarded savings. So please don't be too cynical - it's just too easy a cop out to say "Falklands - electioneering. Gulf - oil. Bosnia - sucking up to the EU/Clinton, whatever." What they all have in common (like 39-45, 14-18 and maybe even Suez) is doing the right thing.

We can laugh at talk about 'an ethical foreign policy' but actually it had huge resonance among the voters. This might all sound like high-flown b0ll0cks, but actually.....

And the alternative is to ignore the fact that massive threats can develop more quickly than we could restructure to meet them, and say (as we did in the 1920s and 1930s) there is no immediate direct threat to Britain, therefore we only need token armed forces.

In 1920 everyone thought that Germany was broken, that its people and politicians had fundamentally changed, and that the nation had learned the lessons of history and defeat, and was thoroughly bankrupt (and thus unable to be a threat). Sensible, well-informed strategic analysts believed that a second World War was impossible. We were at war within 20 years.

In 1990 everyone thought that Russia was broken, that its people and politicians had changed, and that the nation had learned the lessons of history and defeat, and was thoroughly bankrupt (and thus unable to be a threat). I'm not predicting a new Cold War, but history teaches us that the world is a dangerous, unstable and unpredictable place. If being a 'global policeman' (and I don't think that's what we are) helps pay for the armed forces which might deter a future enemy, then that's a price which we should be prepared to pay. And I think the bulk of the population are prepared!

What they are not prepared to support is to see their hard earned taxes used to prop up inefficient monopolistic suppliers, to be used wastefully or inefficiently, to buy crap, to further corruption, or to be spent with no obvious visible return.

Sorry to rant on!

[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 15 June 2000).]

[James R Swift]

What a grand surprise, on P2 of this, Captain Ed defends the Serbs (expect he'd let them in his chapter of the Klan) and rubbishes three Presidents - Kennedy (morality), Carter (competence) and Clinton (morality and competence).

Just to be helpful, perhaps we should add Ike (Nazi and senility), Nixon (truthfulness, morality and competence - Strike Three!), Ford (bungling second-rater), Reagan (neo-fascist views and senility) and Bush (competence, charisma and cynicism).

[chequesicks]

Come out of denile? The airships are in Egypt? No wonder the whole thing is going to hell in a handbasket if the airships are spending the defence budget on holiday cruises instead of sorting out all our woes....perhaps some sort of ISS might be in order greenlight!

[Radhaz]

Having read much and said little of late, I feel the I ought to put my bit in (as much to check the reaction as anything else...)
StrimmerTrimmer. Top job, lad. Never a truer word spoken on anonymous forum for like-minded people. However, although the Balkans has been the starting point of previous wars, the overall European picture was somewhat different then (Austro-Hungarian Empire?!)
JackoNicko - as a Journo, does anyone know/care/ask the REAL public's opinion, or is it just what the media present as their opinion that counts? - I have been very impressed by your knowledge and concern for the matter, but I really feel that the public haven't a clue and honestly don't really care too much, as long as it doesn't affect them (and so few of them read the Indie).
Can anyone see any realistic (a hard one to define, so I haven't) scenario when we would actually use a nuclear warhead? Hardly PC and green, is it? Can't see the Blair backbone holding up to that one.

This is not to say that I agree, or disagree with any of the points I mention, but...

I would like to say that I feel the decline may be irreversible and that BinAroundabit's wife may not be cynical, but might indeed show the astute nature shown by the ladies of this forum (what was her view on Wifeof's topic?).

Anyway, keep up the good posts, but please keep them short. Having not done (or intending ever to do) ISS, I can't read for too long.

[Jackonicko]

Rad,

As a journo (RAF/UAS trained PPL) I like to think I can see a bit of both sides. I do most of my drinking in civilian pubs, and most of my colleagues and many of my friends are civilians. And it's been my experience that from the Sun-reading 'patriots' through the Telegraph-devouring Colonel Blimps right thru to the Guardian Readers and Indie consumers, there does seem to be more of a consensus on defence now than I've ever seen before. It's not total, and for most people it's by no means a priority, but many are half-heartedly on-side. And that's all I meant. It's certainly not a matter of imagining that my prejudices and opinions are in any way representative of what Joe P might think!

PS: Harriers, Radhaz? And do you have a hotmail? Feel free to use mine!

[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 22 June 2000).]

[Wholigan]

There is a severe rumour going round that somebody with large spheroids has copied and printed all of the words on this thread and placed the subsequent lump of paperwork in the "in-tray" of a certain one-star in PMA. If true - stand by for fireworks!!! Or NOT!!!

[Radhaz]

Jacko,

No need for bad language. Harriers indeed!
Nah, not good enough for them - I'd only do something stupid like crash and kill myself. Wisely chopped from single seat at the role disposal at Valley! - Too many friends, too little ego - usual stuff!
Two seat's my thing, and damned happy to have someone help my capacity, carry my bags, check the oil on turnrounds, buy me drinks in the pub and talk to me on trails.

Indeed I do hope that the public is wising up to the situation, but have always feared that things only happen when you boys get involved (ie no involvement in Algeria, despite rather nasty war....) and 'cause' (?!) public opinion to be swayed. But then 3 years of holding and barely enough flying to maintain currency when on the front line, have made me a tad cynical. Shame really, used to be such a nice chap.

[EESDL]

Just thought Strim's post should go to the top of the pile again!

[Jackonicko]

Me too!

It's all these bleedin' Wannabe Cranditz OASC strands, which should really be amalgamated or exported!

[Rock & A Hardplace]

Jack

To keep you happy it's now back on top. Obviously the threads were getting to you too. Tried to delete a boring topic, "but not authorised" I was advised!

Where has all the nice pics gone to?

------------------
Happiness is a 378 Ton airliner!

[EESDL]

It's the feeling of helplessness that grips me. Being powerless to do anything whilst the Firm that I have signed 16 years of arguably the prime years of my life too, is ruined by dithering, fickle politicians and quiet Airships. The Airships surely realise that the coal facers would welcome strong leadership and logical decisions (no gun on a fighter indeed). This is our air force, as much as anybody elses. Sure, the higher up you go, the more you have to lose, but I suggest that it's all relative. You may lose favour with one politician but you'll still get that seat on the board.
Ditch the surveys and the spin doctors, get down to stn level. Do not talk to stn cdrs, talk to those who have the least to lose. Not only will you gain credibility as a leader (is that allowed in this era of maagement speak), but you may find that our Royal Air Force employs many honest, loyal crews, who only want a fair deal (Bliar should understand that).
I didn't join the Force to be misled like a civilian watching some Party Political broadcast, or to be unindated with management speak. I joined the to fly planes, see the world and have a great time enjoying Air Force life. Sure, if the planes I fly fall apart and are surpassed in quality by a Third-World nation, if the worldly travels consist of backing-up crass foreign policy, and I'm treated like a civilian, then, sure, the only time I can exercise any control over my future in the RAF is when I reluctantly hand in my 1250.

[Ham Phisted]

EESDL,

Suspect that following poll was not taken from representative cross-section of PPRuNers:

Poll says Hoon is popular

"Geoff Hoon will be pleased to know that his "approval rating", according to a Mirror/ICM
poll, has risen by eight per cent since January. The poll put Mr Hoon as second only to Mo Mowlam as the most popular cabinet
minister with his approval rating of +17 per cent (and that was before Mo suggested the
Royals move out of Buckingham Palace.....)."

Well, what's everybody complaining about then?

[This message has been edited by Ham Phisted (edited 28 June 2000).]

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Hoon may well be popular, but I have oft been told that 'leadership is not a popularity contest'.

If the message coming out of Whitehall was that the armed forces were well led then perhaps there wouldn't be any manpower shortages. If Hoon's a good leader, why do so many people want to leave his employ?

Anyone taking a quick look at the many serious threads would believe that the most experienced and able servicemen are leaving the military in droves. Their places, apparently, are to be taken by a bunch of semi-literate 'wannabes' (see other threads). A cynic might suggest that Hoon would attain maximum popularity by closing down the armed forces altogether!

[captain jismo]

this thread is too contentious to let it die. Pause for thought - wouldnt it be better to increase the length of postings for airships, so someone actually becomes culpable for some of the shocking decisions we have seen? Rather than have higher echelons consisting of, say, 5000+ individuals intent on forging ahead with their own career, why cant we have a degree of culpability which may in some way contribute turning the higher echelons into cohesive units, which could then (possibly) recognise many of the problems highlighted in this thread. I wont be holding my breath. Credibility is the key. Lack of credibility creates yawning chasms between chiefs and indians, which is why the majority of people i know are PVR'ing. What makes matters even worse is the arrogant attitude that this is no major loss. Not for those chaps maybe, but for the sqn that experience loss is crucial. Consequently, although i (we) tire of the eager ramblings of the wannabes the airships need this influx of bare faced enthusiasm to counter and replace the growing numbers of super-cynical old g*ts like myself becoming alienated from the service. However, this experience drain will come back and bite whoever viciously on the @rse. Oh yes and we're over 300 pilots short - ooh bugger.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Hi All

Been away for a bit (unfortunately at my own expense this time). Just wanted to add -Strims your first post - spot on. Now does anybody still have the e-post address for that Observer journo?

[John Nichol]

Can I humbly refer you folk on "State of Nation" to my post on page 4 of Eurofighter thread?

[kbf1]

Do we not come here to hear things straight from the horses mouth and discuss the issues? If this is true then the "Cranditz Wannabes" as some of you have so crudely described them are quite right to come here and ask those of us with inside knowledge of the armed forces how to proceed? Clogging up the forum with such low brow questions for us high-brow intellectuals? No I don't think so. It wasn't a "Cranditz Wannabe" who started "The Bar" thread, amusing though it is, it can hardly be described as topical. Didn't see any of you complain about that being at the top of the therad list!

------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!

[Nil nos tremefacit]

'Cranditz wannabes' should be here, but, if we are concerned about the 'State of the Nation', we must be concerned about their lack of spelling and grammar skills.

Attention to detail and accuracy are key qualities required in aircrew. Youthful enthusiasm alone will not replace the high calibre officers, WOs and SNCOs who are leaving. If our armed forces are to be a potent threat to people with hostile intent, they must contain the highest calibre individuals. There must be a wealth of experience to pass on to the new and enthusiastic youngsters who are joining. My fear is that we are losing those very people that the young 'wannabes' look up to.

The leadership issue is real. A well led, well motivated, well paid and well equipped service will attract the highest calibre young men and women in droves. Officers, WOs and SNCOs will want to be part of that service. For any young man or woman there surely is no real attraction in being an airborne bus driver when the alternative is military flying, but perception is everything when morale is low.

Yet again we have a massive shortfall in potential recruits and, apparently, the largest number of 'mid-life crises' in the country. Many others on this thread have waxed lyrical about the reasons for this. It would be nice to think that the 'leaders' will sit down and analyse the detailed and constructive comments from those who serve and have served in the finest armed forces in the world.

[Reluctant Staff Officer]

This topic has made me :mad:; not because of the content, which is of exceptional quality, but because it shows that a large number of OUR people give a sh*t what happens to OUR Services and that their often constructive views are either being ignored, or that the military's utter lack of ability to communicate EFFECTIVELY to its personnel has hidden a reasonable response/action.

As my username shows my job, you can understand that I am unwilling to staff this through the normal system. However, I believe that our Airships must have our peoples' perceptions presented to them, no matter the pain. So, would anyone mind if I print off this entire topic and snail it direct (ie not via outer office sh*t filters)to the CAS, CINCSTC and AMP? If you don't want it done, fine, but it would be a wasted opportunity.

In order to prevent this Q becoming a separate thread, feel free to e-mail replies.

[YakYak]

I will endeavour to ensure my spelling and punctuation is of the highest standard so as not to get slated later.

There's obviously a worry about recruitment, and being of an age where I am surrounded by potential 'Cranditz Wannabes' I am able to tell you why. PR is the biggest problem, young people see nothing of our armed forces except for the odd broadcast about commitments abroad. Not being able to wear uniforms or acknowledge your job in public, means that youngsters have an impression of the RAF/ Army / RN as being full of moustache touting toffs that enjoy shouting a lot and hiding from the world. Eighty percent of people I talk to do not even know the difference between Officers and Ranks! The only sight they get is of the occasional group of squaddies trashing a local establishment, but they cannot think to consider that such squaddies are stressed and overstretched, as are their commanders.

Sorry to ramble - but the key is PR to sort out this shortage. Telling any A-level student the starting salary for a DE would get them hooked INSTANTLY, but such information is not available to them. I remember a touring RN recruitment drive at my school four years ago nabbed at least twelve of my buddies into joining up! But such things don't happen any more, the public isn't interested in the armed forces because they never get to see them hidden behind the razor wire and barriers. People need to be told the potential for the AF as a valid career opportunity, there ar eplenty of high claibre youngsters but sadly businesses nab them first. Aim for DE, everyone wants to go to Uni these days so presenting them with a valid alternative is a good shot, bearing in mind nobody likes debt!

Get me? Just thought it might be handy advice for any airships / peoples in the careers branch swooping down. You can get back to talking about the stuff way over my head now.

YY

[Wholigan]

Reluctant,

I refer you to my earlier post "There is a severe rumour going round that somebody with large spheroids has copied and printed all of the words on this thread and placed the subsequent lump of paperwork in the "in-tray" of a certain one-star in PMA. If true - stand by for fireworks!!! Or NOT!!!"

Why not do it!?!?!?!

[John Nichol]

Reluctant,

Do it! I have to say though, I'm pretty sure that the men at the top have been reading pprune for a good few weeks now since the Observer piece.

Still, it's worth a try. You might just get a result.

Good luck.

[JimNich]

The truth is out there.

Maybe the answer to some of the dilemmas facing our Services is right there in Strimmer's original post. He/she quite rightly surmised that the armed forces of today will, in a limited way, reflect the society that produces it. So let's think about that.
We live in a "throw-away", short attention span era. A time of instant gratification where the most newsworthy item appears to be Beckam's new tattoo or hair cut. We wallow in an orgy of orgasmic consumerism, "use once" cameras, "no bank" banks, unshackled "Still Only 10p" journalism, the Millenium Dome, 238 channels on TV and every kid over 10 with their own mobile phone. If anyone in society today stops long enough to even spare a thought for their Armed Forces then its only to see the snapshot footage of some military aircraft wreckage. As Chris Tarrant used to be quite fond of saying "THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT!". I'm sorry Jacko but I just don't buy the theory that there are so many enlightened Journos out there ready to carry the banner for our armed services, news ain't what it used to be (anyone remember ANY mention of Defence in the last election).
So, with this in mind its easy to see that no-one anywhere is even going to raise an eyebrow at the military's very real problems, especially when so many of them are mirrored in industry.
I'm not, however, as cynical as Mrs BinAroundabit. The deteriation of the services that she ascribes to Mr Blair was set in motion long before he came to power by the biggest bunch of Euro cynics on the face of the planet. I believe the truth is that we are lead by a bunch of peace loving idealists who find the need for an armed force a bit of an embarassment and are too confused by the world at large to have any grand plan for it. They are, after all, just a bunch of flawed human beings exactly like you and me.
I do agree quite strongly with Yak Yak's comment though, well observed. We're very much "out of sight, out of mind" and cheesy cinemagraphic adverts won't help our cause one iota.
Finally, one obsevation about our society today. You will find that the Services will very shortly be without a credible SNCO cadre (HURRAH! I hear you cry, get rid of the moaning proletariat g1ts. However, in a service driven by technology, experience is everything and you won't get that with the Officer corps swapping jobs every 2/3 years). As I se it, most kids these days, if they decide not to go to Uni and join the Forces as a ranker, has no intention of staying in after their initial engagement. This generation accepts that a person will have two or three different careers in their working lifespan. The ones that do opt for further education will not be content with the opportunities available to the non-commissioned so more and more it is becoming an Officers Airforce (what percentage of this comment you put down to sour grapes is your choice, its still true). Whilst ground trades are being disbanded/civilianised there are growing commissioned branches, all part of the upside-down pyramid, the "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" situation that we find ourselves in today.

[Paul Wesson]

JimNich

"Anyone remember ANY mention of defence in the last election"

Don't expect it in the next.

Labour/Lib Dem et al are highly unlikely to have a single ex-service candidate between them (any PPruners Blair Babes?). Gone are the days when Parliament was full of retired wartime or ex-national service military personnel. Even the Tory Party selection procedure is geared against anyone of a military background. Sixteen years commissioned service excludes active membership. The new candidates at the next election cannot have served full career as either officer or man because the age group being selected needs to have a good 10 years party service and ideally be under 45 (Lord Freeman, candidate selector in chief told me the age group when he interviewed me).

So far I have copies of the policy on housing, local government and the environment, but nothing on defence.

The truth is that the politicians of all parties don't see any votes in the sort of issues being discussed on PPrune. Hospitals and schools are big issues. Europe is phenomenal, but defence is a side show. Yet look at the industry jobs related to all of the big projects currently underway. At the end of the day the future of crafty old reynard will be more important at the ballot box than the whole lot of the military aircrew!

If ever anyone goes canvassing they will find that dog sh*t appears to be more important than the future of Brize Norton here in Carterton! Sadly chaps and chappesses, Joe Public isn't as interested in the defence of the realm as we would all like.

[Jensen]

In today's Sunday Times, written by: [email protected]

Defence company accused of cheating defence ministry of millions

Britain's biggest defence manufacturer, BAe Systems, is under investigation by the Ministry of Defence police after a whistleblower claimed that managers cheated the taxpayer of millions of pounds.
In detailed allegations to police and The Sunday Times, Bob McCartney, a former engineer with the company, said that some managers at its Marconi subsidiary charged the MoD hundreds of thousands of pounds for trivial "non-jobs" taking just hours to complete.

McCartney said that he had personally worked on one such contract - to make minor software modifications on the RAF's Tornado jet. "This job required two days of work for one man - myself," he said. "It was very simple and in-volved basically reading a manual and changing one line of software code. For this job, the company charged the Ministry of Defence several hundred thousand pounds."

The practice of overcharging - with clear echoes of the famous $600 (£400) coffee pots ordered by the American military - was widespread throughout the company, it is claimed. McCartney blamed a combination of "sloppily written" contracts by the MoD and opportunism by Marconi for the overcharging.

"The MoD did not know what they wanted. Marconi put the job specification to them and they approved it without realising," he said.

The proceeds from overcharging were, McCartney claimed, used to cover up overspends on other projects. Contracts which were supposed to be "fixed price" often went over budget. In theory, these overspends should have been paid for out of Marconi's profits. Instead, McCartney said, managers would "raid" other MoD projects for the cash.

"Nobody was stashing money in Swiss bank accounts," he said. "The fraud was used to protect their profits and make up for often mind-boggling incompetence."

McCartney also claimed that Marconi misappropriated MoD money to finance development of its own, separate products - not destined for the MoD, but for sale on the open market. Such development should have been paid for out of company funds, but was instead unwittingly financed by the taxpayer, he said.

McCartney claimed he had attended a meeting in 1998 where a named Marconi manager explicitly instructed staff to lie to the MoD about what their contract money was really paying for.

McCartney worked for Marconi, mainly at its site in Stanmore, west London, between 1995 and this year. Most of his claims relate to the time before Marconi was taken over by BAe Systems, formally known as British Aerospace, last year. McCartney left the firm for the civilian sector two months ago. In a reference, BAe Systems, described him as "competent and trustworthy".

A spokesman for BAe Systems said McCartney's allegations were regarded as "serious" and that an internal investigation had been launched. "We are working to get to the bottom of this matter," he said. No staff have yet been suspended or disciplined.

McCartney was interviewed for nine hours by officers from the MoD police fraud squad. A police spokesman confirmed that a fraud investigation had been launched.

Ministers, faced with a growing cash crisis in defence, are desperate to reduce the vast cost of procurement - which consumes almost 45% of the MoD's budget - £9 billion out of £22 billion. Treasury officials have made clear that perceived inefficiencies in defence procurement undermine the MoD's case for more funding to relieve severe problems in the frontline services.

There is, however, likely to be bad news on defence procurement for the government this week. The National Audit Office's big projects report, to be published on Thursday, will catalogue enormous delays and cost overruns in 25 of the largest defence projects.

It is expected to say that "smart procurement", the government's initiative to claw back costs, has yet to produce convincing results for the taxpayer.

--------

Why am I not surprised by any of this?

[YakYak]

Before we go destroying Hoon, did anyone see a (not suprisingly short and insignificant) article in the Sunday Mail? Herr Brown intends to make another £300k worth of cuts to the defence budget, so Hoon demonstrated what would happen if the cuts came out of Scotland (Brown's constituency). Result? No Leuchers, and no new ships for the Navy (all hypothetical).

Brown seems to be backing down again. Not for long I suspect.

Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but did anybody hear the story of the Russians in WWII going into battle without any boots because there were too many generals squandering all the funds? Not to insult the airships on holiday in Egypt, or be accused of scaremongering, but.......

YY

[This message has been edited by YakYak (edited 02 July 2000).]

[JimNich]

To be fair to Pa Broon though, he's just doing his job. His party have expensive policies which need funding. All he's saying is "look, there's a limited pot of money, you want it for schools, hospitals and refugee sanctuary. Okay but if you want all that you can't have 'this' because that's the only spare cash we have.".
Unfortunately for us the 'this' is a credible armed forces.

[Agaricus bisporus]

I fear this regime of death by a thousand cuts will continue until it all goes wrong one day and we get thoroughly trashed by some tinpot regime who spent out on a few F16s and a couple of silent electric subs.

We have got too complacent over the last century or more by not losing any wars, our luck cant last, and as long as we continue to get involved in conflicts we had better be ready for the nasty shock which must, inevitably, come. Are our politicians ready for this, and are we, for that matter? It will shake this great nation to its core when it happens, and who knows what will result from the aftershocks.

Somethin better change!

[BEagle]

Isn't it actually £300M rather than £300K that El Gordo is trying to cut?? The NAO report should make interesting reading for those who believe in 'smart procurement'.

[YakYak]

BEagle lets look at it this way: however much it is, it's too much.

[HappyChappie]

YY,

It's LEUCHARS dear girl. It's at the top of the map on the right, right on the edge of the brown bit and the blue bit. But don't worry, we probably won't be able to afford to give Navs maps by the time you get there.

But we'll still have the "Arrows!!!"

HC

[This message has been edited by HappyChappie (edited 02 July 2000).]

[Strimmer Trimmer]

Reluctant Staff Officer

Please do pass on this thread - even if it has already been done, you may be in a better position to bypass the ****-filters, which has to be a good thing. It may even provoke a response from the quiet airships once they get back from their cruise on denile.

Any chance of letting us know just how high up a reluctant staff officer you are (obviously without compromising yourself)?

[smooth approach]

Yy, not to be too pessimistic but: did anyone hear of the RAF going to Kosovo last year without the proper equipment, infrastructure or weapons?

Deja Vous

[smooth approach]

YY, wake up

"Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but did anybody hear the story about the RAF going to Kosovo last year without the right ...... ?"

Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but did anybody hear the story about the RAF going to Sierra Leone last month without the right ......?"

[YakYak]

SA

I heard rumours yes. Remember those of us outside the razor wire only hear sanitized press coverage:

"Their may be a slight suggestion through dubious channels, that an unofficial source's great uncle twice removed, had a wee problem with his SA80 falling apart"

'Scuse bad spelling, 'they' can't afford to photocopy the english diagnostic test any more.

Yakkers

[smooth approach]

YY

Bless You

[Reluctant Staff Officer]

Strimmer

Unfortunately in this case, not high enough to individually make a big difference. But it all counts.

Thank you for your green light - it will go tomorrow.

RSO

[Gentleman Aviator]

I’ve had an idea that I think might sort out this mess we’ve got ourselves into.

I think that we should accept that we aren’t ever going to fill the number of seats that are currently available on our fixed-wing Squadrons. With in excess of 100 empty spaces and little hope of ever filling that void, we ought to concentrate on what we’ve got.

One of the snags relates to the number of flying hours that our guys get. FJ boys on 150 hours a year are under-utilised, Tristar boys on 700 hours are maxed and therefore the jets are under-utilised.

So, time to get the axe out. Close one of the GR1 Squadrons. Do the same with an F3 Squadron. Close down the entire Jaguar or Harrier Force. Probably has to be Jags I’m afraid. I know that they are cracking machines and that the guys who operate them are highly motivated. The snag is that they cannot be operated off a Boat and they cannot put as many bombs on target as a GR4. 1/3 of the Colt guys to Harrier. 1/3 to CFS. 1/3 to GR4. This ought to generate the equivalent of 100 FJ posts.

Refuse to take any more C-130J from Marshalls. Therefore end up with 24 Sqn as the only operator. Close 30 Sqn. Spread guys around the remaining fleet. Close 10 Sqn at Brize. Close a Nimrod Sqn. Double the Tristar crews. 2.5 crews per C-17.

Make Valley AFT only. All graduates go to Canada for Weapons. Leave JEFTS and Tucano alone. Close METS : send the guys to Prestwick or Oxford.

Pretty radical, but at least it would leave us with a representative number of guys on each Squadron.

How you would retain them is another matter.

[Jackonicko]

In defence of the Jaguar.

Plenty of flying hours and fatigue left, without needing major (costly) mods to the back end.

Cheapest of all RAF FJs to operate, per flying hour. (About 4 x cheaper than GR7, 2 x cheaper than GR1/4).

Best TIALD solution of any RAF FJ. 1553B already goes to all six pylons. May not carry many bombs, but may well put more on target, and that's the name of the game!

Deployable, rugged, and reliable.

The aircrew are well-motivated and probably have higher morale than anyone else. Great idea! Do something to really **** 'em off.

The Jaguar is the only example so far of Smart Procurement in action. Binning it would send exactly the wrong signal to those in politics and industry who are at the root of the current problems.

So it can't go on a boat. So what? When was the last time there wasn't an available airfield? What happens when the opposition have a submarine or any form of anti-ship capability.

Jags en route to Maple Flag were held at Lajes (Azores) ready to forward deploy to Dakar (Senegal) for ops over Sierra Leone as the crisis developed. The decision to send a carrier laden with Harriers was political - justifying the existence of the carrier despite costing far more money and resulting in the deployment of a less suitable aircraft for that particular operation, where strafe would have been the weapon of choice. (1,000 lb too big, Paveway too pricey, CBU too indiscriminate). Not sending the Jags in, incidentally, was just as political, as there are those who are embarrassed that this knackered old thing is, so often, the best choice available. Not least BWoS!

So whatever the answer may be, it ain't disbanding the Jag force. It might well be to reduce the number of GR1/GR4 squadrons in order to spread the FH over a larger pool of aircraft, so that they can meet their OSD without lots of expensive structural work, and that might apply to F3 and GR7 too.

But why not just fill the holes. Initially with lots of recent retirees as reservists (damn the cost) and really start training people and treating them properly. It really doesn't have to be that difficult.

PS: Not a Jag Mate. Not married to a Jag Mate. Never been a Jag Mate. Don't even know where Norfolk is, mate!



[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 03 July 2000).]

[HappyChappie]

There is a growing image in many of these threads that nobody wants to be in, or stay in the RAF. Well, that isn't true. I know there are many difficult problems, both within and outside service control but all is not lost. Similar problems occured in the shake-ups in the 70s and 80s. But the main point of my post is to say that even with all the problems, it's still a good job. Moreover, it's a unique job that you can't do anywhere else.

Many Airforces around the world are having similar difficulties, and there isn't an unlimited amount of money to spend on defence, so, we will have to accept compromise. I do however agree that many decisions taken in the past have either wasted good money, or had a detrimental effect on morale.

Perhaps the way forward, might be for those of us who really care, to be positive, and offer constructive ideas up through the command chain. I also believe that a good number of aircrew could be given a reason to stay, by an acceptable fiscal reward! Perhaps, being able to take your gratuity and stay in, some form of bonus...not less than the price of the average house, pension whilst still serving, some form of Tax break ie no income tax when serving on opperations. I don't have answers, but somewhere out there in pprune land, someone cleverer than me might have.

If we give up, we have lost. It's never over till it's over. (But I think I can hear a "Fat Lady" clearing her throat!!)

[Griz]

Gentleman Aviator

Closing the Jag force and a GR1/4 Sqn?

One of the biggest problems is retention. Reducing the number of Sqns available to do both Nortern and Southern watch would increase "overstretch". This would lead to more PVR's.....etc. An ever decreasing circle.

Another point to note is that the shortage in the FJ world is not only pilots but navs as well. You try telling a Jag mate that you're binning his aircraft and transferring him to GR1/4; oh and by the way you're sitting in the boot!

Nice to see someone offering a solution (more than I've done!) however IMHO it would cause even more strife further down the line.

[Gentleman Aviator]

Sorry guys.

I've got mates on the Jag Force and I know what a great job they do. However, I cannot see how the politicians are going to chop Harrier or GR4. As such I think that Jag has to be the loser. Emotionally this idea doesn't make sense, but politically it does.

Having closed 6 FJ Sqns and 3 ME in order to reflect our realistic pilot strength we will have given the politicains an adequate get-out-of-jail-free-card to pull out of Northern Watch (& possibly Southern, although I doubt it). As such our permanent detachments will be appropriate for the force structure and pilot numbers that we have.

[Jackonicko]

Gentleman Aviator,

I'll type this slowly, so that you can understand!

1) You are dangerous as well as barking mad!

2) Reducing over-stretch is a key issue, but reducing commitments is simply not an option.

3) Reducing commitments to meet the force structure is b0ll0cks! One day there will be commitments which aren't just 'nice to do' for the politicians and the current level of commitments is not unrealistic, even if the commitments themselves could be viewed as non-essential or optional.

4) If the Forces can't do the job the politicians and tax-payers want them to do, the obvious question will be:
"What's the point of having them at all."

5) The only answer is to solve the real problem, and far from reducing frontline FJ strength, that probably needs the really radical strength of actually increasing it - maybe at the expense of massive armoured Divisions, nuclear submarines, the Household Division, the Red Arrows, the BoBMF, the Royal Tournament, a national ASW aircraft (let's go to a NATO force, like with the E-3). You know it makes sense!

[kbf1]

Here's something radical GA, instead of closing operational sqns (let's be honest, what would that achieve?) offer good pay and conditions to all, and have an active floating reserve of RAFVR who hold ATPLs on multis. Type rate the RAFVRs to fly C130/J/VC10/Tri-Star and give them an incentive to put in so many hours a month to relieve the pressure on the regs operating these cabs? There are probably quite a few airline pilots out there who would quite like to do a different type of flying than LGW-JFK or multiple short sectors each day. The only problem that I can see with this suggestion is that it is a bit sensible!

------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!

[This message has been edited by kbf1 (edited 04 July 2000).]

[Jackonicko]

Or how about recognising that the standards required for streaming someone FJ vary enormously according to the availability of slots. Why not look for those keen young chaps who found themselves streamed rotary or multi who could (perhaps with a longer, differently structured TWU and OCU) be developed into fast jet aircrew. There could even be an emphasis on getting people through the course, rather than chopping them at FHT, or whatever. They might never become even pairs leaders, but they'd fill cockpits, and get a crack at doing what many of them joined to do. And I'd venture to suggest that recruiting a generation of multi-engined co-pilots would not need to be that difficult, though they wouldn't be the same as today's arguably over-qualified and 'over-calibre' right-hand seaters.

[Gentleman Aviator]

Right then, one at a time.

Jackonicko,
1. Possibly on both points.

2. See 2.

3. You are not making a great deal of sense. We do not have the assets to meet the commitment. They have all been issued a Green Book by the CAA and have left, or are leaving. You cannot simply generate experienced pilots from nothing.

4. An analogy:
If you require 4 painters to do a job but only have 3 available what would you do?

Under your plan you would throw a tizzy and have none at all.

Under the MOD/RAF plan we would have 3 doing the work of 4 to simulate a ‘phantom’ painter. The 3 remaining would become disillusioned with the job due to the unrealistic demands placed upon them and leave.

Under my plan we would accept that we only had 3. We would therefore expect less work within the available timescale or the same work over a longer period.

5. There are insufficient serviceable aeroplanes for your expansionist plan. There is no more money in the pot. Our current ever-decreasing circle involves taking experienced front-line pilots away to train inexperienced students within a training system at max capacity. Those that graduate will arrive on the Sqn with little experience. Those that would have helped with the burden of convex have already been posted to CFS. Those that are left have an unrealistic training burden. They leave. IPS of 45 that is now at 60 goes to 75. More experienced guys posted away to CFS to achieve this new goal.

Meltdown!

kbf1

Cool plan.
It already works at Lyneham. However the Part Time Reservists are there for a surge capability. Most of the guys get a sim, a GH and a short route per month. That is the max that they can offer. As such, although they are a trained asset, they are not very cost effective. They get as much continuation training as a regular but only provide a fraction of the route hours.
They are an effective way to have lots of trained crews ‘just in case’.

Jackonicko

1. Excellent idea!
Remembering that the ME Sqns are 20-30% undermanned you want to take the boys through a quick Tucano refresher, a full Hawk course, a full OCU and a full Sqn work-up. Those that survive will have only lost 2 years in the retraining process.

:)

[kbf1]

GA, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these guys ex-C130 guys who stay on in a reserve capacity, just like the pilots in 7Regt AAC? What I am advocating is pilots who have not done OCU on the C130 et al be given the opportunity to take RAFVR commissions and fly alongside the reg's, just like as a TA officer I deploy alongside the regulars for a few days at a time, a few weeks, or even a few months.Anyone who had an ATPLA with a multi-engine ticket could apply to join.

On the issue of low return on investement at Lyneham, isn't it really more a case of the RAF under-utilising this asset rather than the system not working?

------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Sorry but this thread is just too many pages. I must close it.

Please please start a new one along the same lines.

For posterity I am copying it to the Wannabes Archive.

WWW