Military Job cuts AGAIN
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kindom
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 fleet
Just thinking about the squadrons going, Jags and one Torn F3 sqn.
If the commitment towards the Nimrods is reduced to 12 MRA4's does that not mean that a Kipper Fleet squadron will go as well? There seems to be an awful lot of hidden (read between the lines) stuff within the actual briefing letter as available on ModWeb.
A thread earlier said that the air defence of the UK in the fifties was covered by a few Lightning Sqn's each with two missiles each. Well, that maybe so but in 1952 the RAF was planning to recruit - yes recruit - 150,000 conscripts. Certainly makes you wonder how many people were regulars back then.
As a serving member, I can see in 10 years or so there not being an RAF, we'll be palmed off between the Army and Navy or worst still a part of the Euro-defence force. Urrrrgh!
My advice, learn to fly r/c aircraft!
If the commitment towards the Nimrods is reduced to 12 MRA4's does that not mean that a Kipper Fleet squadron will go as well? There seems to be an awful lot of hidden (read between the lines) stuff within the actual briefing letter as available on ModWeb.
A thread earlier said that the air defence of the UK in the fifties was covered by a few Lightning Sqn's each with two missiles each. Well, that maybe so but in 1952 the RAF was planning to recruit - yes recruit - 150,000 conscripts. Certainly makes you wonder how many people were regulars back then.
As a serving member, I can see in 10 years or so there not being an RAF, we'll be palmed off between the Army and Navy or worst still a part of the Euro-defence force. Urrrrgh!
My advice, learn to fly r/c aircraft!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, I think that if the politians/airships came clean about the defence cuts from day one instead of fannying around for us to read between the lines, it wouldn't be as bad to take as this betrayal is. Wherever your loyalty lies, the cuts may make more sense if it was given to the troops straight. This is unfortuneatly becoming more commonplace as the airships play at politics.
The endgame is still, however, going to mean that more commitments are going to be met by less troops using poor equipment. They'll never get it right.
The endgame is still, however, going to mean that more commitments are going to be met by less troops using poor equipment. They'll never get it right.
Ombit,
Twas me who quoted thus, but the point I made was about the RAF I joined in 1966, not the 1950's.
The RAF may well have needed 150k conscripts in 1952 but don't forget that they only served for two years so the same number was also going to leave in the identical time period. The RAF was about 300K strong then and deployed all over the world.
This was all prior to the HUGE 1957 Defence cuts that devastated the size of the RAF, abandoned national service and cut a huge percentage of RAF regular fighter squadrons as well as all 21 Auxiliary fighter squadrons.
As to Nimrods, the statement clearly says that a study is underway to see if 2 or 3 squadrons are to be retained when the fleet reduces to 16 MR2 and then "about 12" MRA4.
Twas me who quoted thus, but the point I made was about the RAF I joined in 1966, not the 1950's.
The RAF may well have needed 150k conscripts in 1952 but don't forget that they only served for two years so the same number was also going to leave in the identical time period. The RAF was about 300K strong then and deployed all over the world.
This was all prior to the HUGE 1957 Defence cuts that devastated the size of the RAF, abandoned national service and cut a huge percentage of RAF regular fighter squadrons as well as all 21 Auxiliary fighter squadrons.
As to Nimrods, the statement clearly says that a study is underway to see if 2 or 3 squadrons are to be retained when the fleet reduces to 16 MR2 and then "about 12" MRA4.
Last edited by pr00ne; 24th Jul 2004 at 12:38.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the responses would come faster than this, especially from the serving community. Are there any serving people who think this is a good idea or has there been an edict from on high that thou shalt not talk about this?
Ali Barber
Does this answer your question?
Although specifically related to the Army I'm sure that similar sentiments are present at the top of the RAF command structure.
From The Scotsman
Commanders warn all ranks to silence dissent in public
JAMES KIRKUP and GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
MEMBERS of the armed forces have been warned they face harsh punishment if they publicly speak of their anger at yesterday’s defence cuts.
The Scotsman understands that army chiefs have written to the commanding officers of all six Scottish regiments to warn them that public displays of discontent will not be tolerated.
And lower down the chain of command, officers and men have been left in no doubt that there will be severe consequences for anyone who communicates complaints about the cuts to the media, even anonymously. "Some of our more sensitive friends threatened all sorts of bad things," said one serviceman, referring to those responsible for military discipline.
Punishments could include "administrative action and a nasty letter or interview without coffee," a reference to a formal disciplinary meeting with superior officers.
Queen’s Regulations forbid serving personnel from speaking to the media without authorisation, and traditionally, members of the forces have relied on retired officers and regimental associations to communicate their thoughts to the wider world.
But some serving officers have expressed unhappiness at the way the "traditional" system has worked during the debate over yesterday’s cuts, and are considering more dramatic steps including a open letter-writing campaign to newspapers.
Another protest being discussed last night was to use so-called "redress" rules within Queen’s Regulations that allow service personnel to ask formally for commanding officers to express their concerns to the Defence Board, the highest body in the UK armed forces which is chaired by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary.
The prospect of serving officers speaking out against the cuts may put at least one Labour MP in an awkward position.
Eric Joyce, the MP for Falkirk West, left the army in 1999 after being disciplined for publicly criticising military management.
He has been one of the most outspoken advocates of yesterday’s modernisation plans on the Labour back-benches.
Some serving forces personnel regularly use internet message boards and other electronic forums to discuss military developments, and tip off reporters about them.
But there are indications that military police investigators have taken to monitoring the boards and are trying to trace the identities of those responsible for potentially controversial messages.
Such moves have left some members of the armed forces feeling even more disaffected.
"Unlike the rest of the human race which enjoys the protection of the law of the land, the military still has various internal kangaroo court processes to hang people out to dry," said one disgruntled serviceman yesterday.
General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, acknowledged that there would be discontent, particular among Scottish servicemen and women.
"I’m sure they will not all be happy," he told The Scotsman.
And in an remarkable display of how the language of modern management has even penetrated the upper echelons of the military, the former paratrooper pledged to work to soften the blow and "help them through the emotional change barrier."
The general refused to discuss the attempt to gag service personnel, but left no doubt that he would take a dim view of anyone found communicating with the media.
"There are rules about serving personnel talking to the press," he said. "Rules are rules. The army is not a democracy."
Does this answer your question?
Although specifically related to the Army I'm sure that similar sentiments are present at the top of the RAF command structure.
From The Scotsman
Commanders warn all ranks to silence dissent in public
JAMES KIRKUP and GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
MEMBERS of the armed forces have been warned they face harsh punishment if they publicly speak of their anger at yesterday’s defence cuts.
The Scotsman understands that army chiefs have written to the commanding officers of all six Scottish regiments to warn them that public displays of discontent will not be tolerated.
And lower down the chain of command, officers and men have been left in no doubt that there will be severe consequences for anyone who communicates complaints about the cuts to the media, even anonymously. "Some of our more sensitive friends threatened all sorts of bad things," said one serviceman, referring to those responsible for military discipline.
Punishments could include "administrative action and a nasty letter or interview without coffee," a reference to a formal disciplinary meeting with superior officers.
Queen’s Regulations forbid serving personnel from speaking to the media without authorisation, and traditionally, members of the forces have relied on retired officers and regimental associations to communicate their thoughts to the wider world.
But some serving officers have expressed unhappiness at the way the "traditional" system has worked during the debate over yesterday’s cuts, and are considering more dramatic steps including a open letter-writing campaign to newspapers.
Another protest being discussed last night was to use so-called "redress" rules within Queen’s Regulations that allow service personnel to ask formally for commanding officers to express their concerns to the Defence Board, the highest body in the UK armed forces which is chaired by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary.
The prospect of serving officers speaking out against the cuts may put at least one Labour MP in an awkward position.
Eric Joyce, the MP for Falkirk West, left the army in 1999 after being disciplined for publicly criticising military management.
He has been one of the most outspoken advocates of yesterday’s modernisation plans on the Labour back-benches.
Some serving forces personnel regularly use internet message boards and other electronic forums to discuss military developments, and tip off reporters about them.
But there are indications that military police investigators have taken to monitoring the boards and are trying to trace the identities of those responsible for potentially controversial messages.
Such moves have left some members of the armed forces feeling even more disaffected.
"Unlike the rest of the human race which enjoys the protection of the law of the land, the military still has various internal kangaroo court processes to hang people out to dry," said one disgruntled serviceman yesterday.
General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, acknowledged that there would be discontent, particular among Scottish servicemen and women.
"I’m sure they will not all be happy," he told The Scotsman.
And in an remarkable display of how the language of modern management has even penetrated the upper echelons of the military, the former paratrooper pledged to work to soften the blow and "help them through the emotional change barrier."
The general refused to discuss the attempt to gag service personnel, but left no doubt that he would take a dim view of anyone found communicating with the media.
"There are rules about serving personnel talking to the press," he said. "Rules are rules. The army is not a democracy."
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do top brass know what they are talking about by attempting to limit dissent with such threats?
Every one of them needs to go to management training and learn that personnel are human assets that speak up when they see problems or doubt over direction exists. Management buzzwords are no evidence of effective management.
Of course taking citicism and learning from it appears not to be the aim here, nor does effectively managing the cuts, if it amounts to resorting to threats to shut up the workforce.
Listening could result in them learning something - dangerous prospect.
Every one of them needs to go to management training and learn that personnel are human assets that speak up when they see problems or doubt over direction exists. Management buzzwords are no evidence of effective management.
Of course taking citicism and learning from it appears not to be the aim here, nor does effectively managing the cuts, if it amounts to resorting to threats to shut up the workforce.
Listening could result in them learning something - dangerous prospect.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will there be any post-cuts letters in the Times or Telegraph from among our ranks signed with our names in full glory? And, if so, what is the going rate for this "unauthorised contact with the media"? I reckon it would be administrative action and a nasty letter or interview without coffee.
One thing that did occur to me was that we cannot express displeasure except by two routes. One is to initiate a redress via QR 1000 and the other is to petition the Sovereign.
Jacko - I wouldn't suggest that, mate. 'Sources' indicate that the Firm's Plod is snuffling about trying to establish the identities of more controversial posters (I note that one VSO has recently stopped posting), so suggesting that 'unauthorised' contacts with the media could be conducted in such a way is not a good idea.
As to spooks checking this site out - if they can't get the posers on the porno sites, what chance is there of linking these posts to their owners - and more to the point, proving ownership?!?
Guest
Posts: n/a
prOOne and ORAC
I wouldn't pin your hopes on the USN coming to the rescue of St M - they are going home. Cheaper to data link over the pond than employ people over here.
The wording in the doc refers to SAR Force engineering so assume that it is force wide.
I wouldn't pin your hopes on the USN coming to the rescue of St M - they are going home. Cheaper to data link over the pond than employ people over here.
The wording in the doc refers to SAR Force engineering so assume that it is force wide.
