Serious cash saving ideas.
althenick,
You’re a bit out of touch aren’t you?
1. This happened years ago, DARA are now responsible for all third line activity at St.Athan, the reason the FAA and AAC managed without MU’s is that the old RAF MU’s did the job for them!
2. Isn’t this happening?
3. Work on Apache will it?
4. I don’t think he can you know!
5. The forces will love you for that!
"MU’s" as you put it are history, have been for a while. OEM’s are the way ahead working in partnership with the actual operators.
You’re a bit out of touch aren’t you?
1. This happened years ago, DARA are now responsible for all third line activity at St.Athan, the reason the FAA and AAC managed without MU’s is that the old RAF MU’s did the job for them!
2. Isn’t this happening?
3. Work on Apache will it?
4. I don’t think he can you know!
5. The forces will love you for that!
"MU’s" as you put it are history, have been for a while. OEM’s are the way ahead working in partnership with the actual operators.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
1. Get rid of MU's and have squadron personell do the job. why can the FAA/AAC do without them and the RAF can't?
4. Direct entry Aircrew - why can a Tanker Master from the Merchant Marine practically walk on to an RN warship and take command.
RN warships are fighting platforms, not transport vessels (that's the Royal Fleet Auxiliary), and a Master Mariner would have no knowledge of warfare whatsoever, despite being able to navigate, communicate (just) and manage his team.
On the other hand, RN commanding officers with a specified minimum amount of ocean-going command are able to apply for a Master Mariners ticket without further examination or sea time.
Last edited by airborne_artist; 11th Aug 2004 at 16:32.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Veering off-topic somewhat (ie completely); I wouldn't get rid of chaplains, as a cost-saving measure, but I do think they should be re-designated "welfare officers" and that their religious beliefs should be deemed incidental to their role. For the vast majority of service personnel, religion is, at best, a "flag of convenience" and, at worst, an irrelevance.
People approach a counsellor because they need objective and non-judgmental advice. "Good advice" and "good advice, according to religion" are often completely at odds. I appreciate there are some very down-to-earth chaplains out there. But is a minister of religion able to suspend his religious conscience, where good judgment dictates that he should? (And should a minister of religion who can put aside his religious beliefs in this way, be a man o' the cloth in the first place?)
People approach a counsellor because they need objective and non-judgmental advice. "Good advice" and "good advice, according to religion" are often completely at odds. I appreciate there are some very down-to-earth chaplains out there. But is a minister of religion able to suspend his religious conscience, where good judgment dictates that he should? (And should a minister of religion who can put aside his religious beliefs in this way, be a man o' the cloth in the first place?)
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 11th Aug 2004 at 22:53.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: here and there
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF:
Tomahawk was primarily designed as a tactical nuclear platform, we could buy them off the Yanks just like we did Polaris and Trident. It was only after the Wall came down that it's conventional role was realized.
In-fact, they'd be probably be happier with us having Tomahawk. It's more suited to second-strike / retaliation strikes than a surpirse attack as it is slower and vulnearable to air defences, unlike a SLBM like Trident.
See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm
Edited to include reference
Tomahawk was primarily designed as a tactical nuclear platform, we could buy them off the Yanks just like we did Polaris and Trident. It was only after the Wall came down that it's conventional role was realized.
In-fact, they'd be probably be happier with us having Tomahawk. It's more suited to second-strike / retaliation strikes than a surpirse attack as it is slower and vulnearable to air defences, unlike a SLBM like Trident.
See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm
Edited to include reference
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total cobblers - despite your Wavy Navy experience, you are talking again through your sphincter.
Goodness me! 7 years and I must have dreamt it! This isn't fairy story stuff I do recall between bouts of sea sickness having some very competent Merchant Marine Captains and Some pretty lousy Ex Regular RN ones.
Pr00ne
This happened years ago, DARA are now responsible for all third line activity at St.Athan, the reason the FAA and AAC managed without MU’s is that the old RAF MU’s did the job for them!
2. Isn’t this happening?
3. Work on Apache will it?
4. I don’t think he can you know!
5. The forces will love you for that!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Goodness me! 7 years and I must have dreamt it! This isn't fairy story stuff I do recall between bouts of sea sickness having some very competent Merchant Marine Captains and Some pretty lousy Ex Regular RN ones.
why can a Tanker Master from the Merchant Marine practically walk on to an RN warship and take command
I expect that a trawler master would make an excellent minesweeper captain, amply demonstrated by their WWII utilisation.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP's just gave themselves a 10% pay rise.
MPs earn £57,485 a year. Thats an increase of ~£5500 per MP.
There are 659 MPs in the House of Commons.
Thats an extra £3,624,500 going on MP's wages alone, ignoring the House of Lords, MEPs, extra duties etc. Maybe some of that should go on the worrying state of the UK's armed and public services.
MPs earn £57,485 a year. Thats an increase of ~£5500 per MP.
There are 659 MPs in the House of Commons.
Thats an extra £3,624,500 going on MP's wages alone, ignoring the House of Lords, MEPs, extra duties etc. Maybe some of that should go on the worrying state of the UK's armed and public services.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about moving UGSAS from Glasgow International Airport, (run by the BAA and no doubt skinning the MoD for as much money as it can in land rental and landing fees) to RNAS Prestwick and utilise some of the empty space at HMS Gannet left by 819 Sqn? There is still plenty of what appears to be unused accommodation and the hangars on site are a damn site better/bigger than the garden shed they built at GLA! As the land/hangarage is already leased by the MoD then there wouldnt be any additional cost to put another unit there.
As a fair amount of UAS studes end up in the FAA anyway and in todays "Purple" culture I dont think it would be too much of a hardship for them. Anyway, the rest of the RAF prefers Prestwick to Glasgow Airport as it saves money for PD's, fuel stops and land aways. The house prices are more favourable for the QFI's/engineers too!
But I guess it would be too sensible to make use of wasted space......
As a fair amount of UAS studes end up in the FAA anyway and in todays "Purple" culture I dont think it would be too much of a hardship for them. Anyway, the rest of the RAF prefers Prestwick to Glasgow Airport as it saves money for PD's, fuel stops and land aways. The house prices are more favourable for the QFI's/engineers too!
But I guess it would be too sensible to make use of wasted space......
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
