Defence Cuts latest
Guest
Posts: n/a
St Mawgan to Close
Well, the death bell tolls for the South West.
The Sea King OCU and the SAR Force HQ will be moving to Valley within 2 years. The idea, it seem will be to cut down on the number of aircraft used by the OCU by combining with the SAR Flt at Valley. I wonder if there is enough room for the OCU flying amongst the Hawks and Griffins there?
The other reason it seems is to give the stude pilots some different terrain to fly over (over water is the same no matter where you go!).
As the only flying unit in St M it can only be a matter of time before it closes.
The Sea King OCU and the SAR Force HQ will be moving to Valley within 2 years. The idea, it seem will be to cut down on the number of aircraft used by the OCU by combining with the SAR Flt at Valley. I wonder if there is enough room for the OCU flying amongst the Hawks and Griffins there?
The other reason it seems is to give the stude pilots some different terrain to fly over (over water is the same no matter where you go!).
As the only flying unit in St M it can only be a matter of time before it closes.
Sorry chaps, realize that we're going back a few pages but as far as 6 is concerned, yes I'd heard it was going to Cgy too. Don't think it'll be the Sqn's last year though. Can't imagine their airships getting rid of the Service's only sqn with continuous service since its inception. Could it not be that they'll close as a Jag sqn on day x and stand up as as a tiffy sqn on day y? Course, then they'll probably be found surplus to requirements on day z, so that'll be that idea shot!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely they can not be stupid enough to close Colt in 2006, pay another huge lump of cash to relocate 6 Sqn jags to Cgy and then get rid of 6 in 2007??
Watch for 6 Sqn Jags also being finished in 2006 along with Colt!!
Personally I cant wait to hear the "airfield review" results next year
Watch for 6 Sqn Jags also being finished in 2006 along with Colt!!
Personally I cant wait to hear the "airfield review" results next year
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn't only Michael Smith who was wide of the mark in the reporting of these cuts. Evidently, his dartboard is shared by most defence correspondents. Radio 4 news bulletins were predicting, amongst other things, the disbanding of the RAF Regt, right up to Hoon getting up on his hind legs to give us the authorised version.
Defence Cuts Latest
If the number of officers above the rank of Gp Capt is not reduced by the same proportion as all other ranks will we get to a position that service numbers are not reqd? We'll all know each other anyway!
Gentleman Aviator
Must say I am pleased that the RAF Regt was not lost in its force protection/ground defence role.
I was recently involved with an Army unit's search for a "local training area", in which they could do blank firing, schermuly firing and other roughy-toughy stuff. They found an "ideal" area, landowner was content to rent it to them etc etc......
....slight problem. It was under the approach path of an international airport...... and less than 2Km from the threshold! They'd been recceing it for a coupla weeks, oblivious to the stream of jets going overhead at about 500ft. Probably not the best unit to defend an airfield...
"Air Aware" or what!!
I was recently involved with an Army unit's search for a "local training area", in which they could do blank firing, schermuly firing and other roughy-toughy stuff. They found an "ideal" area, landowner was content to rent it to them etc etc......
....slight problem. It was under the approach path of an international airport...... and less than 2Km from the threshold! They'd been recceing it for a coupla weeks, oblivious to the stream of jets going overhead at about 500ft. Probably not the best unit to defend an airfield...
"Air Aware" or what!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say their GBAD is no better. In fact, it's a blue-on-blue waiting to happen. For example, during a recent deployment around Marham the Army Rapier battery was quite content to operate at Weapons Free (ie engage anything not positively ID'd as friendly) with no IFF loaded into their kit. Complete lack of air-mindedness is the nub of the problem. Still, before the Regt's GBAD sqns disband one of their tasks is to bring up the Army to the standards required. Figure out the logic behind that one!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driving home this evening listening - well it was on - to Radio 4 PM programme. There was an MP suggesting sending British Forces to Sudan to help with peace keeping / disaster relief there.
Good job we still have some forces not doing anything, ready to be sent at a moments notice on a politicians wim.
But then I could have been imagining it - surely they wouldn't think of finding another place to send the forces - not the day after.....
Good job we still have some forces not doing anything, ready to be sent at a moments notice on a politicians wim.
But then I could have been imagining it - surely they wouldn't think of finding another place to send the forces - not the day after.....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just read this link chaps. looks like a warning shot of things to come and i don't think its just the Army personnel that will be subject to this
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...lope+420+index
thoughts:
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...lope+420+index
thoughts:
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not actually managed to get through the posts so far so apologies if what I am saying has already been mentioned. Is there any word on VGS's etc........how much money do they use up? Would it be worth while binning them to save money or are they deemed too good to bin as they are good on the recruiting aspect etc etc etc??
Think they should bin the Vikings at least due to the costs of the winches etc but then how could they be called VGS's as the Vigilant ain't exactly used as a glider!
ppf
Think they should bin the Vikings at least due to the costs of the winches etc but then how could they be called VGS's as the Vigilant ain't exactly used as a glider!
ppf
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the other side of Fleet Street, for those who object to the Daily Telegraph viewpoint.
Routed by the Eurofighter: the pride of Britain's army
A cold war folly is at the heart of the forces' worst cash crisis since the 70s
Max Hastings
Tuesday June 29, 2004
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...249569,00.html
On Sunday, the government rushed to deny a newspaper story that a major defence budget crisis was on hand. This is like denying that it rained last week. I suggested on this page some months ago that the armed forces were heading for a ghastly cash crunch. Now it has arrived.
Three months into the new financial year, no defence budget settlement has been reached with the Treasury. Ferocious argument continues, around a broad-brush issue of how the services can save £1bn on a £25bn annual spend - 4%. When Gordon Brown announces his decision, it is likely to concede Geoff Hoon's department a 1% real increase each year for the next three. The chancellor will say tersely that this is generous, seeing as what he will be doing elsewhere in Whitehall.
Yet the consequences for those at the sharp end will be grave. Here is the army, smaller than for centuries and yet stretched to the limits in Iraq and all the other crusades Tony fancied at the time. It now faces losing up to four infantry battalions - 10% of its strength (perhaps marginally less, so the government can claim that the soldiers have been granted a reprieve) - and a reduction in its overall establishment.
The RAF will lose some 8,000 personnel and the navy several ships - exact numbers are still the subject of bitter wrangling. This is less serious, since critics (including me) have argued the case for rebalancing the armed forces to strengthen the army and reduce the Royal Navy and RAF.
But as usual, it is all being done in the wrong way, and for the worst reasons. The defence overspend is caused by gross mismanagement in procurement and logistics. Cost overruns on big programmes are of a magnitude that should cause heads to roll. Yet because procurement commitments are made years ahead, there is little or no scope to achieve quick savings.
Instead, the soldiers and sailors and airmen of the "teeth arms" fall victim. They are miserably unhappy about what is going on, and so they should be. No prime minister in recent memory has been so eager to use the armed forces abroad. Yet Tony Blair seems unable to give them the support they need when facing the sort of trouble they are in today.
The disaster at the heart of the budgetary problem is, of course, the Eurofighter. This is the ultimate madness of European defence, manna for Eurosceptics, representing a shameful abdication by all the governments concerned. Designed and contracted for the days of the cold war, to shoot down attacking Russians, it is not even a good aircraft. Today it is no more relevant to European defence than Boudicca's chariot, and will cost an awful lot more.
Britain is committed to purchase 232 of them. Even the Royal Air Force does not want that many. Most people not wearing blue uniform do not want to see Britain buy any at all. But this country is locked into contracts so tight that, in the government's opinion, it would cost as much to scrap it as to fly it. Thus this country is to spend almost £20bn, a huge sum even in 2004, to buy this redundant triumph of strategic bungling.
Circumstances change, and have changed. Surely it should be possible to abandon a cold war arms procurement policy 14 years after the wall came down? In a rational world, Britain would be getting together with our partners - Italy, Germany and Spain - to agree that all of us would be well out of it. But there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, some in key marginals across Europe. A friend whom I regard as one of the most sensible MPs in the Commons agrees that the Eurofighter is a disaster, but adds apologetically: "I'm afraid I haven't said a lot about it, because it means jobs in my constituency."
By now, some Guardian readers will be muttering: "Why should any of this matter? Who needs soldiers these days anyway? When Gordon is prime minister, he won't go in for all these ridiculous adventures abroad."
Yes, well, maybe. Gordon Brown himself may be thinking in such terms, as he sits in 11 Downing Street. But if he moves next door, he will soon discover that he has much less choice than he imagines about military commitments.
Again and again, British governments of all complexions have been forced to fight overseas, strongly against their inclinations. Clement Attlee had no desire to join the war in Korea. John Major was determined not to commit British troops in the Balkans. Margaret Thatcher, contrary to later mythology, was scarcely eager to fight a colonial war in the south Atlantic until her survival required it.
However strongly global sentiment is running against military adventures abroad, and especially American-led adventures, it would be madness to run defence policy on the assumption that we can or should avoid further entanglements. For instance, if Saudi Arabia implodes, as it well might, it would be difficult for even the French and the Germans to argue that the west can simply sit on its hands.
We have to have armed forces equipped and funded to fight. Instead we have what a very senior friend of mine calls "the worst defence budget crisis since the 1970s". And in those days, the armed forces were vastly larger than they are today.
The Treasury axe is poised over an army already reduced to perilously low manpower levels. So great is the shortage of key specialists such as intelligence personnel, engineers and electronic information processors, that some men have to be taken from infantry to plug the gaps.
The fashionable alibi for cutting strengths is to say: "Oh, these days numbers don't matter - it's all about capabilities, and a modern company can do what a battalion once could." There is just enough truth in this to hold together a tacky Whitehall argument, but in truth numbers matter a great deal on the ground in Iraq or the Balkans or Sierra Leone. There have to be humans behind all the hi-tech kit, and the humans are in desperately short supply.
The Treasury is entitled to be angry about the defence procurement scandal, and a scandal it is. But the right remedies are to appoint a competent defence secretary; to reform drastically the procurement and logistics process; and to find some way out of the Eurofighter nightmare, whose consequences will be with us for a generation. What must not be done is what now is being done: carve into the "teeth" forces, to compensate for the follies of 81,000 civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence. How many of them will be axed in the great savings drive? But that is the sort of question servicemen are never allowed to ask ministers or permanent undersecretaries.
[email protected]
Routed by the Eurofighter: the pride of Britain's army
A cold war folly is at the heart of the forces' worst cash crisis since the 70s
Max Hastings
Tuesday June 29, 2004
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...249569,00.html
On Sunday, the government rushed to deny a newspaper story that a major defence budget crisis was on hand. This is like denying that it rained last week. I suggested on this page some months ago that the armed forces were heading for a ghastly cash crunch. Now it has arrived.
Three months into the new financial year, no defence budget settlement has been reached with the Treasury. Ferocious argument continues, around a broad-brush issue of how the services can save £1bn on a £25bn annual spend - 4%. When Gordon Brown announces his decision, it is likely to concede Geoff Hoon's department a 1% real increase each year for the next three. The chancellor will say tersely that this is generous, seeing as what he will be doing elsewhere in Whitehall.
Yet the consequences for those at the sharp end will be grave. Here is the army, smaller than for centuries and yet stretched to the limits in Iraq and all the other crusades Tony fancied at the time. It now faces losing up to four infantry battalions - 10% of its strength (perhaps marginally less, so the government can claim that the soldiers have been granted a reprieve) - and a reduction in its overall establishment.
The RAF will lose some 8,000 personnel and the navy several ships - exact numbers are still the subject of bitter wrangling. This is less serious, since critics (including me) have argued the case for rebalancing the armed forces to strengthen the army and reduce the Royal Navy and RAF.
But as usual, it is all being done in the wrong way, and for the worst reasons. The defence overspend is caused by gross mismanagement in procurement and logistics. Cost overruns on big programmes are of a magnitude that should cause heads to roll. Yet because procurement commitments are made years ahead, there is little or no scope to achieve quick savings.
Instead, the soldiers and sailors and airmen of the "teeth arms" fall victim. They are miserably unhappy about what is going on, and so they should be. No prime minister in recent memory has been so eager to use the armed forces abroad. Yet Tony Blair seems unable to give them the support they need when facing the sort of trouble they are in today.
The disaster at the heart of the budgetary problem is, of course, the Eurofighter. This is the ultimate madness of European defence, manna for Eurosceptics, representing a shameful abdication by all the governments concerned. Designed and contracted for the days of the cold war, to shoot down attacking Russians, it is not even a good aircraft. Today it is no more relevant to European defence than Boudicca's chariot, and will cost an awful lot more.
Britain is committed to purchase 232 of them. Even the Royal Air Force does not want that many. Most people not wearing blue uniform do not want to see Britain buy any at all. But this country is locked into contracts so tight that, in the government's opinion, it would cost as much to scrap it as to fly it. Thus this country is to spend almost £20bn, a huge sum even in 2004, to buy this redundant triumph of strategic bungling.
Circumstances change, and have changed. Surely it should be possible to abandon a cold war arms procurement policy 14 years after the wall came down? In a rational world, Britain would be getting together with our partners - Italy, Germany and Spain - to agree that all of us would be well out of it. But there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, some in key marginals across Europe. A friend whom I regard as one of the most sensible MPs in the Commons agrees that the Eurofighter is a disaster, but adds apologetically: "I'm afraid I haven't said a lot about it, because it means jobs in my constituency."
By now, some Guardian readers will be muttering: "Why should any of this matter? Who needs soldiers these days anyway? When Gordon is prime minister, he won't go in for all these ridiculous adventures abroad."
Yes, well, maybe. Gordon Brown himself may be thinking in such terms, as he sits in 11 Downing Street. But if he moves next door, he will soon discover that he has much less choice than he imagines about military commitments.
Again and again, British governments of all complexions have been forced to fight overseas, strongly against their inclinations. Clement Attlee had no desire to join the war in Korea. John Major was determined not to commit British troops in the Balkans. Margaret Thatcher, contrary to later mythology, was scarcely eager to fight a colonial war in the south Atlantic until her survival required it.
However strongly global sentiment is running against military adventures abroad, and especially American-led adventures, it would be madness to run defence policy on the assumption that we can or should avoid further entanglements. For instance, if Saudi Arabia implodes, as it well might, it would be difficult for even the French and the Germans to argue that the west can simply sit on its hands.
We have to have armed forces equipped and funded to fight. Instead we have what a very senior friend of mine calls "the worst defence budget crisis since the 1970s". And in those days, the armed forces were vastly larger than they are today.
The Treasury axe is poised over an army already reduced to perilously low manpower levels. So great is the shortage of key specialists such as intelligence personnel, engineers and electronic information processors, that some men have to be taken from infantry to plug the gaps.
The fashionable alibi for cutting strengths is to say: "Oh, these days numbers don't matter - it's all about capabilities, and a modern company can do what a battalion once could." There is just enough truth in this to hold together a tacky Whitehall argument, but in truth numbers matter a great deal on the ground in Iraq or the Balkans or Sierra Leone. There have to be humans behind all the hi-tech kit, and the humans are in desperately short supply.
The Treasury is entitled to be angry about the defence procurement scandal, and a scandal it is. But the right remedies are to appoint a competent defence secretary; to reform drastically the procurement and logistics process; and to find some way out of the Eurofighter nightmare, whose consequences will be with us for a generation. What must not be done is what now is being done: carve into the "teeth" forces, to compensate for the follies of 81,000 civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence. How many of them will be axed in the great savings drive? But that is the sort of question servicemen are never allowed to ask ministers or permanent undersecretaries.
[email protected]
Unfortunately, Lord Hastings of Port Stanley is as bad as the Torygraph (of which, of course, he was once editor).
He outlined his proposals for rebalaincing the forces in the Spectator a while ago. In essence, they involved equipping the RN with aircraft carriers and almost nothing else; disbanding all the RAF FJ units and leaving it with C-130s and spending lots and lots and lots of money on a very large army dominated by infantry. The tone of the piece suggested that he'd have liked to have advocated horsed cavalry as being relevant on the modern battlefield, but he resisted that temptation...
His problem is a very Torygraph-centred one, which is that because 'Eurofighter' has the word 'Euro' in it, it must be bad; from that stems the point of view that it was designed in the Cold War to shoot down Russians and nothing else and is therefore irrelevant - just like the F-22 and F-15C, then...
And
??
What is he on about? As soon as Admiral Leach told her that a) it could be done and b) it must be done, she was on board like a shot. Some of her ministers weren't, admittedly, but she was and took them with her. Of course she didn't want to fight one before the Argentines invaded, but then again I can't think of many PMs who would have said 'lets go and fight in the South Atlantic for no good reason.'
So as well as demonstrating that he's out of touch with some of the basic principles that apply at the strategic and operational levels of war, he's also losing touch with reality. Oh dear.
He outlined his proposals for rebalaincing the forces in the Spectator a while ago. In essence, they involved equipping the RN with aircraft carriers and almost nothing else; disbanding all the RAF FJ units and leaving it with C-130s and spending lots and lots and lots of money on a very large army dominated by infantry. The tone of the piece suggested that he'd have liked to have advocated horsed cavalry as being relevant on the modern battlefield, but he resisted that temptation...
His problem is a very Torygraph-centred one, which is that because 'Eurofighter' has the word 'Euro' in it, it must be bad; from that stems the point of view that it was designed in the Cold War to shoot down Russians and nothing else and is therefore irrelevant - just like the F-22 and F-15C, then...
And
Margaret Thatcher... was scarcely eager to fight a colonial war in the south Atlantic until her survival required it.
What is he on about? As soon as Admiral Leach told her that a) it could be done and b) it must be done, she was on board like a shot. Some of her ministers weren't, admittedly, but she was and took them with her. Of course she didn't want to fight one before the Argentines invaded, but then again I can't think of many PMs who would have said 'lets go and fight in the South Atlantic for no good reason.'
So as well as demonstrating that he's out of touch with some of the basic principles that apply at the strategic and operational levels of war, he's also losing touch with reality. Oh dear.
Last edited by Archimedes; 23rd Jul 2004 at 13:10.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Henley
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes and Jacks Down
Archimedes first
Re the 108 Jags. That was the figure given out by the RAF at the press briefing. I know that 62 are for attrition but if the RAF is saying that is how many they are going to lose I am not going to play down the scale of the cuts. The subs will go down from 11 to 8. As for RN personnel numbers it is explained in the paragraph of the piece you were referring to where it said: "All three services are below their established strengths and the Army and the Royal Navy will need to lose only about 1,500 personnel." It was also explained in a graphic that ran alongside that piece on the front of the paper and there was a detailed rundown of the RAF cuts inside, but this may not have been so immediately apparent if you were reading the Telegraph on the internet.
Jacks Down's post is not so easy to understand.
Michael Smith has never said that the RAF Regiment was to close. I have never mentioned it in relation to cuts, in fact the last time I mentioned it was in relation to the SA80 well over a year ago. My only mention of the Harriers was in the context that this was one of the f***-wit proposals made by the work strands. I first reported it on April 2nd, when I added: "Defence chiefs are certain to try to block some of the more controversial moves. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of Air Staff, in particular is likely to argue strongly against the loss of the GR7 Harriers. The aircraft are due to be upgraded and scrapping them would also mean a loss of experience in short take-off and landing that would hamper the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) that are due to replace them."
I also reported that, as regards the RAF, the work strand proposals also included a threat to close five RAF bases and to scrap the Jags and the Pumas. At the time, everyone thought it was mad, indeed only last week it was being described on this forum as hysterical nonsense. But the bulk of the headlined cuts proposed have been made. As for the Pumas and Cranwell. the helicopters and bases are part of the "detail" that won't be announced until later this year. It's a bit early to start saying they aren't going to happen. The guy who told me about the pressure to close Dartmouth and Cranwell was the same guy who told me about the work strands and a number of other stories that subsequently turned out to be true. He was right about them so I am not about to call him a liar now without a bit better evidence than you have managed to produce.
There is an unfortunate tendency among some of the contributors to this forum to have a go at journalists and the Torygraph in particular. We didn't implement the cuts, we just warned you they were coming, and how big they were going to be, before anyone else did. The Daily Telegraph is and always has been very firmly on your side. I thought it was the Yanks who specialised in blue-on-blues but perhaps I got that wrong too.
Archimedes first
Re the 108 Jags. That was the figure given out by the RAF at the press briefing. I know that 62 are for attrition but if the RAF is saying that is how many they are going to lose I am not going to play down the scale of the cuts. The subs will go down from 11 to 8. As for RN personnel numbers it is explained in the paragraph of the piece you were referring to where it said: "All three services are below their established strengths and the Army and the Royal Navy will need to lose only about 1,500 personnel." It was also explained in a graphic that ran alongside that piece on the front of the paper and there was a detailed rundown of the RAF cuts inside, but this may not have been so immediately apparent if you were reading the Telegraph on the internet.
Jacks Down's post is not so easy to understand.
Michael Smith has never said that the RAF Regiment was to close. I have never mentioned it in relation to cuts, in fact the last time I mentioned it was in relation to the SA80 well over a year ago. My only mention of the Harriers was in the context that this was one of the f***-wit proposals made by the work strands. I first reported it on April 2nd, when I added: "Defence chiefs are certain to try to block some of the more controversial moves. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of Air Staff, in particular is likely to argue strongly against the loss of the GR7 Harriers. The aircraft are due to be upgraded and scrapping them would also mean a loss of experience in short take-off and landing that would hamper the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) that are due to replace them."
I also reported that, as regards the RAF, the work strand proposals also included a threat to close five RAF bases and to scrap the Jags and the Pumas. At the time, everyone thought it was mad, indeed only last week it was being described on this forum as hysterical nonsense. But the bulk of the headlined cuts proposed have been made. As for the Pumas and Cranwell. the helicopters and bases are part of the "detail" that won't be announced until later this year. It's a bit early to start saying they aren't going to happen. The guy who told me about the pressure to close Dartmouth and Cranwell was the same guy who told me about the work strands and a number of other stories that subsequently turned out to be true. He was right about them so I am not about to call him a liar now without a bit better evidence than you have managed to produce.
There is an unfortunate tendency among some of the contributors to this forum to have a go at journalists and the Torygraph in particular. We didn't implement the cuts, we just warned you they were coming, and how big they were going to be, before anyone else did. The Daily Telegraph is and always has been very firmly on your side. I thought it was the Yanks who specialised in blue-on-blues but perhaps I got that wrong too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shoot the messenger
Don't worry michael - whatever subject is being discussed here - it will always be your fault!
Like you I'm sure, I have nothing but a very positive, informative and enjoyable two way relationship with members of the armed forces at all levels.
I suspect the regular anti-media views expressed here come from those people who have had the least contact with us.
IR
Like you I'm sure, I have nothing but a very positive, informative and enjoyable two way relationship with members of the armed forces at all levels.
I suspect the regular anti-media views expressed here come from those people who have had the least contact with us.
IR
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read some of the Q&A briefing material:
"... the airfield at RAF Coltishall will close...."
I seem to remember the same words being used when they "closed" Wattisham. And look who's there now.
"... the airfield at RAF Coltishall will close...."
I seem to remember the same words being used when they "closed" Wattisham. And look who's there now.
Well, IR, I have had just a bit of experience of being misquoted and misrepresented (although in the latter case, the journalist got my name just a little wrong, so I suppose he could say that it wasn't actually me that he was quoting...)
In any event, welcome to Mick. I can see your point now you've laid it out, but it did seem odd to this reader (internet as you suspected).
My concern/irritation/whatever, stemmed from the fact that it appeared as though the figure had been chosen to make it appear that the RAF was losing 108 Jags from the front line (to bring its holdings closer to those of the Deputy PM, and then below them), and thus overstating the cuts (if that's possible), giving the bunch of charlatans, fools and incompetents (plus John Reid) currently running the country the opportunity to discredit such claims by something along the lines of 'Hah! the RAF has only 3 front line units, each with... so far less than 108.'
However, it's clear now!
In any event, welcome to Mick. I can see your point now you've laid it out, but it did seem odd to this reader (internet as you suspected).
My concern/irritation/whatever, stemmed from the fact that it appeared as though the figure had been chosen to make it appear that the RAF was losing 108 Jags from the front line (to bring its holdings closer to those of the Deputy PM, and then below them), and thus overstating the cuts (if that's possible), giving the bunch of charlatans, fools and incompetents (plus John Reid) currently running the country the opportunity to discredit such claims by something along the lines of 'Hah! the RAF has only 3 front line units, each with... so far less than 108.'
However, it's clear now!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Smith,
Thanks for the reply, I wasn't expecting to be able to debate with the horse's mouth, but I appreciate you have a professional reputation to defend. Sorry everyone, this is going to be a long one.
Firstly, you are right, you have never mentioned the disbandment of the RAF Regt. Checking on the DT website, this was mentioned on 11 Jul in a story by Patrick Henessey and Sean Rayment, as "Under the shake-up, almost the entire RAF Regiment, which is responsible for security at bases, will be disbanded."
As a defence story in the DT my recollection was that it carried your byline, which it clearly didn't - my apologies. It is worth noting nevertheless that: a) subsequent events have shown that it was incorrect (the RAF Regt will loose around 10% of its strength as a result of the White Paper); b) the report was presented as fact with no 'health warnings', ie that it was a planning option, an unconfirmed report etc etc; and c) Henessey and Rayment also reported the loss of the Harrier fleet, 'the remaining' 2 sqns of Jaguars and the Puma fleet.
The other criticisms I levelled at you in my post break down as follows.
- On 19 Jul you reported the closure of Cranwell, without caveats.
- On 2 Apr you wrote on the "scrapping of all the RAF's 62 ground-attack Jaguars, all its 79 ground-attack GR7 Harriers and all its 39 Puma helicopters."
- On 14 May, an editorial piece again mentioned "...the RAF losing all its Harriers and Jaguars...". Fair enough, not your byeline.
- On 19 Jul: "...most of the 62 Jaguar ground attack aircraft, and [the RAF's] 39 Puma helicopters."
None of these stories are presented as anything other than fact. The DT's internet archive of your Apr 2nd story does not include any reference to opposition by the service chiefs. It may be an abridged version of your story, but if so this is not mentioned on the site.
I therefore believe that my statement in an earlier post that you had "spent the last few weeks confidently predicting the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets as well as the Jags, the entire Regt and Cranwell", with the clear inference that this was inaccurate, has a considerable amount going for it. OK, so the bit about the dartboard may have been unfair, but hey - it's called banter
Now, it may be the case that the Harriers, Pumas and Cranwell are part of a follow on package of cuts (damn, I meant 'restructuring') yet to be announced. However, it ain't happened yet. I received a personal brief from a very senior RAF officer on the ramifications of the White Paper, and he did not intimate a word of it. If there were further cuts coming on that scale I belive he would have done so, however opaquely. Of course that doesn't prove it won't happen (incidentally, no criticism meant of the officer in question, in case anyone knows who I am talking about - he deserves only credit for what he did/said, and gained the upmost respect of his audience). The sentiment expressed in my post, that you had repeatedly overstated the extent of the cuts, stands correct until proven otherwise.
I obviously have no idea about the nature of the relationship between you and your source. He could be passing on information he believes to be correct in good faith, he could be deliberately releasing 'worst case' information in order to make us think we've got off lightly when the actual cuts come, his information may have gone out of date... or it could be completely accurate, and although I don't think this is the case, enough of that for now. I certainly have no intention whatsoever of branding him/her/them a liar, I just think the information has limits. In your point about my 'evidence' remember: I am expressing my opinions on an internet 'rumour' forum for a target audience of fellow RAF professionals, you are writing in a respected broadsheet newspaper. My standard of 'proof' doesn't have to be the same!
I'm sorry that you feel the DT is treated badly on this forum. I honestly wouldn't take it to heart. You deserve much credit for the way you try to keep defence stories in the public eye. Your coverage is certainly sympathetic to us - for exmaple your editorial on the White Paper yesterday was excellent - and you are generally well respected. However, I believe it is because we expect high standards of the Telegraph we feel let down when you get things wrong. We couldn't really care less what the Sun writes about us, hence less 'having a go' in their direction. And as I said earlier, we aren't a bunch of particularly sensitive souls in this line of work, so you have to expect a bit of rough-and-tumble from time to time.
OK, so to round off a pretty long post for a Friday evening, I don't feel like starting some kind of long running argument over this so I suggest settling it like honourable men. IF, by let's say 31 Dec, there has been an announcement of the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets, and Cranwell, I'll either:
a) start a 'Grovelling Apology to the Daily Telegraph' thread, or
b) send you a bottle of bubbly (I guess 'Michael Smith, c/o Daily Telegraph, big pointy tower, London, would get through?)
Your choice. Of course, if the cuts haven't come, you'll return the favour a la Jacks Down!
Feel free to PM
, otherwise, good night!
JD
[edited for typos]
Thanks for the reply, I wasn't expecting to be able to debate with the horse's mouth, but I appreciate you have a professional reputation to defend. Sorry everyone, this is going to be a long one.
Firstly, you are right, you have never mentioned the disbandment of the RAF Regt. Checking on the DT website, this was mentioned on 11 Jul in a story by Patrick Henessey and Sean Rayment, as "Under the shake-up, almost the entire RAF Regiment, which is responsible for security at bases, will be disbanded."
As a defence story in the DT my recollection was that it carried your byline, which it clearly didn't - my apologies. It is worth noting nevertheless that: a) subsequent events have shown that it was incorrect (the RAF Regt will loose around 10% of its strength as a result of the White Paper); b) the report was presented as fact with no 'health warnings', ie that it was a planning option, an unconfirmed report etc etc; and c) Henessey and Rayment also reported the loss of the Harrier fleet, 'the remaining' 2 sqns of Jaguars and the Puma fleet.
The other criticisms I levelled at you in my post break down as follows.
- On 19 Jul you reported the closure of Cranwell, without caveats.
- On 2 Apr you wrote on the "scrapping of all the RAF's 62 ground-attack Jaguars, all its 79 ground-attack GR7 Harriers and all its 39 Puma helicopters."
- On 14 May, an editorial piece again mentioned "...the RAF losing all its Harriers and Jaguars...". Fair enough, not your byeline.
- On 19 Jul: "...most of the 62 Jaguar ground attack aircraft, and [the RAF's] 39 Puma helicopters."
None of these stories are presented as anything other than fact. The DT's internet archive of your Apr 2nd story does not include any reference to opposition by the service chiefs. It may be an abridged version of your story, but if so this is not mentioned on the site.
I therefore believe that my statement in an earlier post that you had "spent the last few weeks confidently predicting the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets as well as the Jags, the entire Regt and Cranwell", with the clear inference that this was inaccurate, has a considerable amount going for it. OK, so the bit about the dartboard may have been unfair, but hey - it's called banter
Now, it may be the case that the Harriers, Pumas and Cranwell are part of a follow on package of cuts (damn, I meant 'restructuring') yet to be announced. However, it ain't happened yet. I received a personal brief from a very senior RAF officer on the ramifications of the White Paper, and he did not intimate a word of it. If there were further cuts coming on that scale I belive he would have done so, however opaquely. Of course that doesn't prove it won't happen (incidentally, no criticism meant of the officer in question, in case anyone knows who I am talking about - he deserves only credit for what he did/said, and gained the upmost respect of his audience). The sentiment expressed in my post, that you had repeatedly overstated the extent of the cuts, stands correct until proven otherwise.
I obviously have no idea about the nature of the relationship between you and your source. He could be passing on information he believes to be correct in good faith, he could be deliberately releasing 'worst case' information in order to make us think we've got off lightly when the actual cuts come, his information may have gone out of date... or it could be completely accurate, and although I don't think this is the case, enough of that for now. I certainly have no intention whatsoever of branding him/her/them a liar, I just think the information has limits. In your point about my 'evidence' remember: I am expressing my opinions on an internet 'rumour' forum for a target audience of fellow RAF professionals, you are writing in a respected broadsheet newspaper. My standard of 'proof' doesn't have to be the same!
I'm sorry that you feel the DT is treated badly on this forum. I honestly wouldn't take it to heart. You deserve much credit for the way you try to keep defence stories in the public eye. Your coverage is certainly sympathetic to us - for exmaple your editorial on the White Paper yesterday was excellent - and you are generally well respected. However, I believe it is because we expect high standards of the Telegraph we feel let down when you get things wrong. We couldn't really care less what the Sun writes about us, hence less 'having a go' in their direction. And as I said earlier, we aren't a bunch of particularly sensitive souls in this line of work, so you have to expect a bit of rough-and-tumble from time to time.
OK, so to round off a pretty long post for a Friday evening, I don't feel like starting some kind of long running argument over this so I suggest settling it like honourable men. IF, by let's say 31 Dec, there has been an announcement of the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets, and Cranwell, I'll either:
a) start a 'Grovelling Apology to the Daily Telegraph' thread, or
b) send you a bottle of bubbly (I guess 'Michael Smith, c/o Daily Telegraph, big pointy tower, London, would get through?)
Your choice. Of course, if the cuts haven't come, you'll return the favour a la Jacks Down!
Feel free to PM
, otherwise, good night!JD
[edited for typos]
Last edited by Jacks Down; 23rd Jul 2004 at 23:23.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Thank you for having the honour to openly debate on this forum. Undoubtedly you have earned respect, even if some on the forum continue to disagree. However, I will add that the average Serviceman views the Daily Telegraph as an authoritive source and I agree that the Mail and Sun can print what they like. To that end my only plea is to ensure that there is no doubt in the reader's mind as to exactly how confident you are with your information.
We are use to crew room gossip and 'snippets' and also to 'well informed information that provides the 'heads up', so please if you personally believe that you do have a trustworthy and reliable source then tell us that, if it is Mr Smith (I've been in the game for a while) hunch to inform the debate or get your readers thinking, then again tell us. Both Mr Hastings and Mr Keegan appear to be able to merge hard fact with thought provoking ideas and still be able able to articulate their cases.
Your challenge now is to see exactly where 'the further work' not announced this week is going. The devil is always in the detail, and although the quake has been felt throughout all three Services, I believe that there are numerous 'after shocks' that will be appearing in the autumn, ranging from Estate rationalisation through to the equipment projects that do not attract so much attention as Typhoon.
Thank you for having the honour to openly debate on this forum. Undoubtedly you have earned respect, even if some on the forum continue to disagree. However, I will add that the average Serviceman views the Daily Telegraph as an authoritive source and I agree that the Mail and Sun can print what they like. To that end my only plea is to ensure that there is no doubt in the reader's mind as to exactly how confident you are with your information.
We are use to crew room gossip and 'snippets' and also to 'well informed information that provides the 'heads up', so please if you personally believe that you do have a trustworthy and reliable source then tell us that, if it is Mr Smith (I've been in the game for a while) hunch to inform the debate or get your readers thinking, then again tell us. Both Mr Hastings and Mr Keegan appear to be able to merge hard fact with thought provoking ideas and still be able able to articulate their cases.
Your challenge now is to see exactly where 'the further work' not announced this week is going. The devil is always in the detail, and although the quake has been felt throughout all three Services, I believe that there are numerous 'after shocks' that will be appearing in the autumn, ranging from Estate rationalisation through to the equipment projects that do not attract so much attention as Typhoon.