RAF Stretched too far?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blogger
You miss the point - it is still a great job and it has been my life for longer than I care to remember, so I have a lot of evidence to compare the changes. The problem is that there are far fewer people who understand/support what we do and why we do it and too many of them are in charge of the country! I'm not in a hurry to leave because if I do, all the experience will continue to drain away. What we need is the investment and support to continue to do our job - the money will provide the kit, pay the people, give them decent living conditions and the support will show the country the people who provide the security conditions they take for granted truly are people to look up to.
You miss the point - it is still a great job and it has been my life for longer than I care to remember, so I have a lot of evidence to compare the changes. The problem is that there are far fewer people who understand/support what we do and why we do it and too many of them are in charge of the country! I'm not in a hurry to leave because if I do, all the experience will continue to drain away. What we need is the investment and support to continue to do our job - the money will provide the kit, pay the people, give them decent living conditions and the support will show the country the people who provide the security conditions they take for granted truly are people to look up to.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
99LUFT
Seems to me you've asked a straightforward question and found yourself in a minefield. For all sorts of reasons some people on this thread are angry, bitter and cynical. May I suggest you consider all that has been said and draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind that an armed force that is overstretched is usually at its best.
In this case the RAF is no execption
Seems to me you've asked a straightforward question and found yourself in a minefield. For all sorts of reasons some people on this thread are angry, bitter and cynical. May I suggest you consider all that has been said and draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind that an armed force that is overstretched is usually at its best.
In this case the RAF is no execption
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It is not disgraceful putting medals on sale on eBay (IMHO) but is actually following historical precedent.
Many who were awarded medals in WW2 did not bother to claim them. Others put them in a drawer and forgot them. Many more gave them to their children to play with.
Only in the 70s, as they approached retirement, did they recall their war service with pride and nostalgia. Many had to buy their medals on the open market or buy replicas.
Whilst selling medals on eBay has a precedent I would suggest better to 'sling them in a drawer' and bring them out in future years to remind future generations and to honour those who died both now and subsequently.
Many who were awarded medals in WW2 did not bother to claim them. Others put them in a drawer and forgot them. Many more gave them to their children to play with.
Only in the 70s, as they approached retirement, did they recall their war service with pride and nostalgia. Many had to buy their medals on the open market or buy replicas.
Whilst selling medals on eBay has a precedent I would suggest better to 'sling them in a drawer' and bring them out in future years to remind future generations and to honour those who died both now and subsequently.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha who told you that piece of rubbish?
'When the going gets tough............'
That doesn't mean I'm exonerating the present day situation.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
The trick is to maintain capability and the ability to expand and take a capability holiday where possible.
Taking the logistics parallel further, material supply teaches a useful lesson. Forgive me for using a Naval supply analogue here; the first casualty of a fund shortage is Safety Stock. That loses the ability to cope with demand fluctuations and it is a one off saving. Should activity then increase, that saving has to be recovered and reinvested in the hope that the provisioning lead time can be made short enough. The funds are hard won back and the original supply source may likely have reduced its capacity. My simple loggie brain draws similarities between that and trained bodies and available, capable machines.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Stretched" or "Overstretched"
Yes, it seems like a lot of people are really bitter, twisted and downright nasty on these pages!
To answer your original question global military technology is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, and the RAF is at a crippling financial disadvantage against the major players, USA, China and even Putin's New Russia. That is a painful posture to sell to voters, and so politicians keep on making commitments as if the UK had the resources of yesteryear.
For example, on the emotive Nimrod thread one could ask "Why was a old Maritime aircraft used to replace a satellite and drone, when the maritime threat is growing worldwide?" Instead we saw hundreds of posts that must make the Chinese, Russians and Al Qaeda think we have all gone soft!
The military force of the future will bear little resemblance to what we see today, and maybe the planners in MoD know that. Maybe they decided to use old, even unsafe technology, because they don't have the budget from their political masters to afford the latest technology better suited to the mission and the geography. Maybe they see the inevitable privatization of the military, and a quantum leap in technology in the near future.
Despite the sarcastic comments earlier on this thread I predict servicing will be sub contracted to someone like Branson, as will many other traditional support functions. The UK will become even more reliant on the US defence contractors thanks to Tony Blair, and in the future the UK Welfare State will not have to worry about spending money on developing new military hardware, and can give it to the retiring Baby Boomers from across Europe.
The phrase that comes to mind when defining the RAF's role in the modern world is "Unrealistic Expectations". The RAF is "overstretched" to play a role in the Superpower Sandpit, but is only "stretched' in a support role to the US military, which is itself "stretched" and that should put the global scenario into perspective. The real cost of invading Iraq has not been released in the mass media, and when the invoice is due then forget having anything but funding for essentials.
The US military is facing massive funding cutbacks over the next 10 years and the RAF will have the same painful lack of funding. That is political reality, if you don't like it run for Parliament. There just isn't the funds to do all the niceties demanded on these threads.
To answer your original question global military technology is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, and the RAF is at a crippling financial disadvantage against the major players, USA, China and even Putin's New Russia. That is a painful posture to sell to voters, and so politicians keep on making commitments as if the UK had the resources of yesteryear.
For example, on the emotive Nimrod thread one could ask "Why was a old Maritime aircraft used to replace a satellite and drone, when the maritime threat is growing worldwide?" Instead we saw hundreds of posts that must make the Chinese, Russians and Al Qaeda think we have all gone soft!
The military force of the future will bear little resemblance to what we see today, and maybe the planners in MoD know that. Maybe they decided to use old, even unsafe technology, because they don't have the budget from their political masters to afford the latest technology better suited to the mission and the geography. Maybe they see the inevitable privatization of the military, and a quantum leap in technology in the near future.
Despite the sarcastic comments earlier on this thread I predict servicing will be sub contracted to someone like Branson, as will many other traditional support functions. The UK will become even more reliant on the US defence contractors thanks to Tony Blair, and in the future the UK Welfare State will not have to worry about spending money on developing new military hardware, and can give it to the retiring Baby Boomers from across Europe.
The phrase that comes to mind when defining the RAF's role in the modern world is "Unrealistic Expectations". The RAF is "overstretched" to play a role in the Superpower Sandpit, but is only "stretched' in a support role to the US military, which is itself "stretched" and that should put the global scenario into perspective. The real cost of invading Iraq has not been released in the mass media, and when the invoice is due then forget having anything but funding for essentials.
The US military is facing massive funding cutbacks over the next 10 years and the RAF will have the same painful lack of funding. That is political reality, if you don't like it run for Parliament. There just isn't the funds to do all the niceties demanded on these threads.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
AIDU
Probably not but they could've told you a thing or two about taking 'incoming' without adequate means of retaliation and they would not have taken too kindly to your rather patronising description of them either.
As for our Forces performing well when overstretched, you may recall the Falkands War as a good example of this fact! Including the 'Black Buck' operation.
I would reiterate that none of the foregoing condones the current sorry state our Armed Forces are experiencing.
Military history is, unfortunately, littered with examples of inadequate funding and procurement but in spite of this the Armed Forces still get on with the job.
Not really sure that you can compare the cockney geezers and pearly kings and queens from the London Blitz to the present day fighting in Afghanistan.
As for our Forces performing well when overstretched, you may recall the Falkands War as a good example of this fact! Including the 'Black Buck' operation.
I would reiterate that none of the foregoing condones the current sorry state our Armed Forces are experiencing.
Military history is, unfortunately, littered with examples of inadequate funding and procurement but in spite of this the Armed Forces still get on with the job.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GBZ, following you Stores argument, I saw an OU Maths programme many years ago, long hair, patterened shirts, pointed collars. It was an extremely powerful presentation and I have never forgotten the lesson.
It centred on a coal mine and just-in-time and cost-of-holding against not having what was needed.
He used two things as an example.
They used thousands of nails every week. New nails arrived weekly and replenished the stocks. Nails were cheap so there was no real saving in bulk buying, say monthly, but there would be additional costs of holding - infra structure, storemen, security etc. Buy just in time.
The other was a pit winding wheel. It cost £120k. It would be required infrequently, maybe once every 18 months on average. But it would take 3 months to make if it was ordered only when needed. In the mean time the pit would lose £5m in lost production. Hold stock.
We certainly try the first trick of only ordering clothing just-in-time. (I remember the thousands of size 5 boots that were surplus after national service ended). Try just-in-time with aircraft, tanks, rifles etc
It centred on a coal mine and just-in-time and cost-of-holding against not having what was needed.
He used two things as an example.
They used thousands of nails every week. New nails arrived weekly and replenished the stocks. Nails were cheap so there was no real saving in bulk buying, say monthly, but there would be additional costs of holding - infra structure, storemen, security etc. Buy just in time.
The other was a pit winding wheel. It cost £120k. It would be required infrequently, maybe once every 18 months on average. But it would take 3 months to make if it was ordered only when needed. In the mean time the pit would lose £5m in lost production. Hold stock.
We certainly try the first trick of only ordering clothing just-in-time. (I remember the thousands of size 5 boots that were surplus after national service ended). Try just-in-time with aircraft, tanks, rifles etc
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting how industry is falling away from Lean and JIT/JE, as it all to oftens ends up as JTFL.
Where I work we tried the LEAN and KANBAN, unfortunately our suppliers don't and when we run out and they can't supply us............
Overstretched?? I would bet my pension on it. When it keeps going and getting worse until we hit critical mass and all thats left is the many many bosses.........
Where I work we tried the LEAN and KANBAN, unfortunately our suppliers don't and when we run out and they can't supply us............
Overstretched?? I would bet my pension on it. When it keeps going and getting worse until we hit critical mass and all thats left is the many many bosses.........
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
goudie
You are far too polite about him, I can think of some rather more apt descriptions.
Ah AIDU, selective quotations and blathering rants on the 'net. The mark of a brave 'keyboard warrior'!!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of good news, though, from Truth Central under the title;
"Rapid partnership paves way for superior air support in Afghanistan"
For those with access, there are pictures;
http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil....fghanistan.htm
"Rapid partnership paves way for superior air support in Afghanistan"
An unprecedented response to an Urgent Operational Requirement has seen front line troops in Afghanistan benefit from superior levels of close air support within four months of the contracts being signed.
Harrier GR9A aircraft in Afghanistan are now equipped with a GPS-enhanced version of the 1,000lb Paveway laser guided "smart" bombs.
In response to an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) for better ariel support in theatre, representatives from BAE Systems and the MOD met key suppliers in the United Kingdom and America and in just 10 days contracts were exchanged.
This new GPS precision guided weapon was developed by joining the body from a UK Paveway 2 and the Enhanced Computer Control Group from a Paveway 4. The hybrid weapon provides the GR9A with an integrated, through cloud, precision bombing capability.
The programme has been delivered through key partnerships between BAE Systems, the MOD, Raytheon Missile Systems, Portsmouth Aviation Limited and EDO-MBM, and involved integration of the new weapon, rig test, flight trials, weapon performance analysis and certification.
BAE Systems issued the Design Authority Operational Emergency Clearance Advice early, allowing evaluation and release-to-service within the UOR requirements. The strength of the partnerships has enabled this significant capability to be deployed in theatre four months from contract exchange.
Air Commodore Ian Thorne, Harrier, Jaguar and Survival Integrated Project Team leader, said:
"This represents a remarkable achievement in the delivery of this UOR given that the programme started in May 2007.
"Indeed, the project would have been unachievable without BAE Systems levering their considerable weapon integration and project management skills into this demanding endeavour.
"The IPT appreciates the efforts from BAE Systems that have made this programme a success, this co-operation has provided a significant increase in the military capability of our forces in operations."
BAE Systems' Andy Lavin, head of Harrier Aircraft Capability, said:
"Delivery of this capability has required all stakeholders to work together with a strong partnership being established.
"It is clear that, as the MOD and industry move towards a closer working relationship under the terms of the Defence Industrial Strategy, we can achieve more working together than we can individually – an important lesson as we move ever closer towards full availability contracting."
Raytheon's director of Precision Systems, Tobin Touchstone, added:
"The speed in bringing this capability to the front line is a testament to the excellent working relationship and edication of all stakeholders involved in the programme.
"The modular design of RSL's Paveway 4 and the early risk mitigation through common guidance algorithm development allowed the rapid integration of the Paveway IV Guidance Section with the UK 1,000lb Enhanced Paveway 2 and the Harrier GR9 platform."
This article first appeared in the December 2007 issue of Preview magazine - For Defence Equipment and Support, The Equipment Capability Customer and industry.
Harrier GR9A aircraft in Afghanistan are now equipped with a GPS-enhanced version of the 1,000lb Paveway laser guided "smart" bombs.
In response to an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) for better ariel support in theatre, representatives from BAE Systems and the MOD met key suppliers in the United Kingdom and America and in just 10 days contracts were exchanged.
This new GPS precision guided weapon was developed by joining the body from a UK Paveway 2 and the Enhanced Computer Control Group from a Paveway 4. The hybrid weapon provides the GR9A with an integrated, through cloud, precision bombing capability.
The programme has been delivered through key partnerships between BAE Systems, the MOD, Raytheon Missile Systems, Portsmouth Aviation Limited and EDO-MBM, and involved integration of the new weapon, rig test, flight trials, weapon performance analysis and certification.
BAE Systems issued the Design Authority Operational Emergency Clearance Advice early, allowing evaluation and release-to-service within the UOR requirements. The strength of the partnerships has enabled this significant capability to be deployed in theatre four months from contract exchange.
Air Commodore Ian Thorne, Harrier, Jaguar and Survival Integrated Project Team leader, said:
"This represents a remarkable achievement in the delivery of this UOR given that the programme started in May 2007.
"Indeed, the project would have been unachievable without BAE Systems levering their considerable weapon integration and project management skills into this demanding endeavour.
"The IPT appreciates the efforts from BAE Systems that have made this programme a success, this co-operation has provided a significant increase in the military capability of our forces in operations."
BAE Systems' Andy Lavin, head of Harrier Aircraft Capability, said:
"Delivery of this capability has required all stakeholders to work together with a strong partnership being established.
"It is clear that, as the MOD and industry move towards a closer working relationship under the terms of the Defence Industrial Strategy, we can achieve more working together than we can individually – an important lesson as we move ever closer towards full availability contracting."
Raytheon's director of Precision Systems, Tobin Touchstone, added:
"The speed in bringing this capability to the front line is a testament to the excellent working relationship and edication of all stakeholders involved in the programme.
"The modular design of RSL's Paveway 4 and the early risk mitigation through common guidance algorithm development allowed the rapid integration of the Paveway IV Guidance Section with the UK 1,000lb Enhanced Paveway 2 and the Harrier GR9 platform."
This article first appeared in the December 2007 issue of Preview magazine - For Defence Equipment and Support, The Equipment Capability Customer and industry.
http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil....fghanistan.htm
