Raf - The End?
Thread Starter
Raf - The End?
The RAF is clearly soon going to reduce to below "critical mass" and therefore has little chance of surviving to its 100th birthday as a separate Armed Service. Discuss!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never reply to a thread in which the opening post ends with 'discuss'. Discuss!
Last edited by Fg Off Max Stout; 14th Oct 2007 at 16:30. Reason: This thread has a lot of negative energy and bad karma
Utter utter twaddle!
"Reduce to below critical mass"? So, therefore, the hundreds of the worlds air forces that are smaller than the RAF, including major European powers, are also under threat of iminent extinction?
You "discuss............................................
"Reduce to below critical mass"? So, therefore, the hundreds of the worlds air forces that are smaller than the RAF, including major European powers, are also under threat of iminent extinction?
You "discuss............................................
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: at home
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF is clearly soon going to reduce to below "critical mass" and therefore has little chance of surviving to its 100th birthday as a separate Armed Service. Discuss!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF is clearly soon going to reduce to below "critical mass" and therefore has little chance of surviving to its 100th birthday as a separate Armed Service. Discuss!
Bloody journos
dave perry,
Is that the stupid attitude that funds the defence budget to the tune of £33.4 Billion pounds a year with an added £6.6Billion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan out of the Treasury Reserves? The same stupid attitude that has delivered the longest period of sustained real above inflation increases in over three decades?
The same stupid attitude that is returning large scale 65,000 ton aircraft carriers to the RN, is to replace the nuclear deterrent, is operating a Defence Industrial strategy to keep the UK aerospace industry as the 2nd largest on the planet?
I suppose you’d rather have a Gov’t that sells off the MoD married quarter estate to a consortium of Japanese banks? Or who dismantles the Military medical services and closes all military hospitals? Or who introduces contractorisation, privatisation and civilianisation?
Or how about one that proposes to replace ALL manned military combat aircraft with missiles inside 5 years, and then cancels most of the missile projects?
Stupid………………………………………
Is that the stupid attitude that funds the defence budget to the tune of £33.4 Billion pounds a year with an added £6.6Billion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan out of the Treasury Reserves? The same stupid attitude that has delivered the longest period of sustained real above inflation increases in over three decades?
The same stupid attitude that is returning large scale 65,000 ton aircraft carriers to the RN, is to replace the nuclear deterrent, is operating a Defence Industrial strategy to keep the UK aerospace industry as the 2nd largest on the planet?
I suppose you’d rather have a Gov’t that sells off the MoD married quarter estate to a consortium of Japanese banks? Or who dismantles the Military medical services and closes all military hospitals? Or who introduces contractorisation, privatisation and civilianisation?
Or how about one that proposes to replace ALL manned military combat aircraft with missiles inside 5 years, and then cancels most of the missile projects?
Stupid………………………………………
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln
Age: 33
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Id like a govt that didnt cut the Armed forces back to such an extent that tasks can not be performed properly and effectively. Id also like a govt that doesnt just totally disregard veterans after their service. The guys in suits don't at all look after the guys in uniform.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose you’d rather have a Gov’t that sells off the MoD married quarter estate to a consortium of Japanese banks? Or who dismantles the Military medical services and closes all military hospitals? Or who introduces contractorisation, privatisation and civilianisation?
Mores to the point this Government's ego is writing cheques that the lack of bodies in it's armed forces can't cash. Great balls of fire!
Pr00ne was describing the last Conservative government, and that of 1957. If we are going to play the 'slight non-sequiteur party political card', I'm sure various silly judgements by Labour can be raised (and, if you go back to WW1, the Liberals, to ensure impartiality).
Proone,
I have some sympathy with the view that the Tories have been as damaging to defence as Labour have been, and only have to look back to Sandys, through to 'Options for Change' and 'Front Line First' to find evidence.
But unlike you, I'm not a card carrying member of New Labour, and so I have to say that your sycophantic and uncritical repetition of their nauseating spin makes me puke.
"The same stupid attitude that has delivered the longest period of sustained real above inflation increases in over three decades?"
Bollocks. Utter bollocks. Twisted statistics that ignore the fact that Defence Inflation is running much higher than the RPI.
And you only have to look at force structure to see who is doing damage to the forces - and if you do so, you'll see that the RAF has suffered grievously under both parties, and to absolve the current gang of incompetent fools from blame is as much of a disgrace as it is to pretend that everything was 'peachy' under blo.ody Thatcher.
I have some sympathy with the view that the Tories have been as damaging to defence as Labour have been, and only have to look back to Sandys, through to 'Options for Change' and 'Front Line First' to find evidence.
But unlike you, I'm not a card carrying member of New Labour, and so I have to say that your sycophantic and uncritical repetition of their nauseating spin makes me puke.
"The same stupid attitude that has delivered the longest period of sustained real above inflation increases in over three decades?"
Bollocks. Utter bollocks. Twisted statistics that ignore the fact that Defence Inflation is running much higher than the RPI.
And you only have to look at force structure to see who is doing damage to the forces - and if you do so, you'll see that the RAF has suffered grievously under both parties, and to absolve the current gang of incompetent fools from blame is as much of a disgrace as it is to pretend that everything was 'peachy' under blo.ody Thatcher.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
real growth, above inflation, RPI etc etc measures only make sense if they are comapred on an otherwise level playing field - in simple terms, if the UK was not involved overseas at all, and was merely running peacetime detachments to all those nice places (and some not so nice) that we traditionally pop across to, then a defence budget that keeps pace with inflation is fine and dandy.
On the other hand, if you take on extensive overseas commitments, it stands to reason that you need to inject a great deal more cash - it costs a great deal more to keep people in Afghanistan than it does to send them to the holiday inn, Jacksonville for 6 weeks a year.
The budget has to be related to the task, otherwise you spend all your money on the sharp end, the support branches are left to wither in the hope that the damage will not prove terminal by the time the sharp end business has been concluded. If the task runs into a multi year commitment then you need to budget for the higher level of expenditure - a few percent doesn't cut it. You simply can't go to war on the cheap. (Almost) unfortunately, since WWII our conflicts haven't been total war situations, which seems to have deluded some into assuming you can project power half a globe away for an extra fiver or two.
On the other hand, if you take on extensive overseas commitments, it stands to reason that you need to inject a great deal more cash - it costs a great deal more to keep people in Afghanistan than it does to send them to the holiday inn, Jacksonville for 6 weeks a year.
The budget has to be related to the task, otherwise you spend all your money on the sharp end, the support branches are left to wither in the hope that the damage will not prove terminal by the time the sharp end business has been concluded. If the task runs into a multi year commitment then you need to budget for the higher level of expenditure - a few percent doesn't cut it. You simply can't go to war on the cheap. (Almost) unfortunately, since WWII our conflicts haven't been total war situations, which seems to have deluded some into assuming you can project power half a globe away for an extra fiver or two.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF is clearly soon going to reduce to below "critical mass" and therefore has little chance of surviving to its 100th birthday as a separate Armed Service. Discuss!
Lies, damn lies and statistics
Utter rubbish. When you take out the RAB charges, depreciaton charges and cost of capital which is returned to HMT that claim is just NOT defensible. If it were true the RN would not be running options to scrap half their fleet. The RAF would not be running options to scrap sqns and close stations that are still required to meet output. Beware prOOne Spin Doctoring.
Edited to add:
And let's not forget that although the Tories shamefully sold off the MQ estate, for which (IIRC) some £150M raised from the sale was supposed to be returned to the MOD to upgrade all retained MQs to Grade 1, it was New Liarbour that reneged on this part of the deal and took the £150M to pour into their favourite black hole the NHS. So be careful of prOOne's spin
Is that the stupid attitude that funds the defence budget to the tune of £33.4 Billion..........The same stupid attitude that has delivered the longest period of sustained real above inflation increases in over three decades?
Edited to add:
And let's not forget that although the Tories shamefully sold off the MQ estate, for which (IIRC) some £150M raised from the sale was supposed to be returned to the MOD to upgrade all retained MQs to Grade 1, it was New Liarbour that reneged on this part of the deal and took the £150M to pour into their favourite black hole the NHS. So be careful of prOOne's spin
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 15th Oct 2007 at 08:03.
