Forces face training cuts as fuel bill rockets - Times
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forces face training cuts as fuel bill rockets - Times
Times Online
Kind of saw this coming... Was hoping the increased revenue from public VAT on fuel would have covered at least part of it though... 
Surely they cant cut operational units deploying to the middle east training below STANAG limits though?
Time to cut the dead wood down at MOD perhaps to pay for this?
The cost of fuelling Britain’s Armed Forces will rise by more than £500 million next year as a result of soaring oil prices, forcing military chiefs to consider broad cuts to air force and combat training.
Ministry of Defence calculations of projected fuel bills, seen by The Times, show a dramatic increase in operating costs, with fuel for aircraft, naval and ground vehicles up by more than 20 per cent on last year.
With the Armed Forces’ budget set to rise by just 3 per cent – and the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, warning government departments last week of no additional increases – defence and industry analysts said that major cuts to training programmes such as fighter plane exercises would be inevitable.
The Times understands that Air Chief Marshal Sir Glen Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff, told senior members of the defence industry last week that RAF pilots would do more training in simulators this year because of the budget squeeze.
Ministry of Defence calculations of projected fuel bills, seen by The Times, show a dramatic increase in operating costs, with fuel for aircraft, naval and ground vehicles up by more than 20 per cent on last year.
With the Armed Forces’ budget set to rise by just 3 per cent – and the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, warning government departments last week of no additional increases – defence and industry analysts said that major cuts to training programmes such as fighter plane exercises would be inevitable.
The Times understands that Air Chief Marshal Sir Glen Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff, told senior members of the defence industry last week that RAF pilots would do more training in simulators this year because of the budget squeeze.
Surely they cant cut operational units deploying to the middle east training below STANAG limits though?
Time to cut the dead wood down at MOD perhaps to pay for this?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Who said the Household Cavalry was an anachronism?
Bring back the Balloon Corp.
Bring back the Balloon Corp.
I remember proposing that all operational training should be simulated (1992). I was, predictably, greeted with derision - one "senior" airman writing "aeroplanes are bought to be flown (sic) !" The sky is now black with cgf!
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
Big article I read in the weekend paper about trawlers using sails to reduce fuel costs. Some had saved 20% by flying a big spinnaker.
More time in the curriculum at Dartmouth for sail training? I co-sailed one of the divisional yachts back from Oslo - the engine expired soon after we left Norway. Sailed it through the Kiel canal; the only problem was in the Straits of Dover when in very light winds and with quite strong tides we got buzzed by the Coastguard's surveillance aircraft.
More time in the curriculum at Dartmouth for sail training? I co-sailed one of the divisional yachts back from Oslo - the engine expired soon after we left Norway. Sailed it through the Kiel canal; the only problem was in the Straits of Dover when in very light winds and with quite strong tides we got buzzed by the Coastguard's surveillance aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They took away the AT, foreign exchanges and pretty much anything else fun leaving us with just the flying. Now that's gone, how long before rocketing electricity prices means the simulator is too expensive?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: wilderness
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VinRouge... STANAG limits, as if we work to those. In reality they are a desirable in current commanders eyes. Not what one would hope for or indeed strive for considering the current commitment.
SIA
SIA
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The irony is that the Iraq war that is sucking up so much of the defence budget, though ostensibly intended to eliminate Iraq's non-existent WMD, was really all about securing their oil resources. 
VinRouge. Do you think that cutting dead wood in the MOD would make a change? Have you ever served in Main Building - because if you had, you would have heard of Streamlining et seq - jobs are being lost as I type - but there is no reduction in task.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Morayshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flexible? More like brittle!
I thought flexibility was the key to air power? Well the RAF is no longer flexible. More like "brittle". I know this forum is mainly for aircrew, but as a serving engineer, I have witnessed our flexibility lessen over the last few years, to the point where Sqn engineering is stretched to breaking point. Our "make do attitude" has come back to haunt us. We haven't got the manpower to be flexible anymore (Aircrew/Groundcrew and other trades included). We're already doing our own admin (don't get me started on JPA). What's next?
This fuel issue could be the proverbial straw. To quote from a film, "It's a huge s&*t sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite". Or just PVR. According tho the newspapers at least 50% of people currently serving in the military have considered leaving recently. Our people are our biggest asset. Let's not loose sight of that.
This fuel issue could be the proverbial straw. To quote from a film, "It's a huge s&*t sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite". Or just PVR. According tho the newspapers at least 50% of people currently serving in the military have considered leaving recently. Our people are our biggest asset. Let's not loose sight of that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When, not talking about the blue suiters, im talking about the idle cs types, the ones that have a job for what most of us cover as a secondary duty. You cant have them sue you for half a million for spaining a wrist if they dont work for you.
How about MOD not spending money on designer chairs and widescreen TVs in every room?
How about getting rid of tosh glossy magazines, "Equality in the armed forces" "U NEED 2 KNOW" (actually useful) "IPTs bumper book of quizzes" Etc, axe the jobs that are used to produce/publish said bumf then send out the required information via... Wait for this... something called a PDF file using this thing called... wait for it... Email!!! Or perhaps just a link on the intranet where you can research said above tosh if you ever wanted to waste 2 hours of your life looking at it! All of the above ends in the cylindrical "recycling bin" in the office anyway! Why waste cash that could be going on body armour/Fuel for training? I admit, I love Air Power review and Flight Safety articles, but why are they not available as a PDF as an alternative? N.E.C. has a long bloody way to go if we cant master the basics of Microsoft windows and Adobe Reader!!! It would make the docs a little more transportible too...
Get rid of PEd Flights. Pay fit young blonde things in small skirts to teach us "Fiz" contracted from fitness first. savings from: No pensions, no welfare requirements, no training costs for current ped staff... why is it the one section that should have been a perfectly civilianizable (yes, I made that word up) still exists? Part of said contract could be use of contracted gym by service personel in low demand hours, also, after hours "Fiz" so that some of us that are chained to our desks from 8 am till 6 pm may get said opportunities to do "fiz". Part of their contract is to maintain a certain %age of station at fitness test levels.
Here is a contentious one; how about axing actuals, issueing a flat rate and getting rid of the space capacity that would generate as a result of reduced audits? The flat rate could be lower than the cap (say 5 quid cheaper when combined with incidentals), thus allowing even more cost savings?
TLBs; review the way cash is divvied out with very small bonuses/vouchers for departments that underspend their budgets, however, they must meet TORs in doing so and not breach QA guidelines; spare cash at the end of ther FY can be divvied out then to more needy budgets like, say, paying FOR FUEL FOR OUR BLOODY TRAINING AIRCRAFT.
Zebra, I would recommend if you dont have the assets to meet the task, refuse to sign aircraft off. Shrug off any grief from Sqn Bosses/XOs Wing Cdr Enges. If they want to take the risk, let them sign the paperwork. Not a single aircrew mate will think badly of you just because a 4 ship or any other task for that matter got cancelled due to a flight safety risk. By the sounds of it, the treasury couldnt care less if we don't get our training, so why should you if you are stretched to the extent whereby an aircraft accident could kill someone due to overstretch/Dilution?
Until a lot of people get killed or until someone says No, nothing will change.
How about MOD not spending money on designer chairs and widescreen TVs in every room?
How about getting rid of tosh glossy magazines, "Equality in the armed forces" "U NEED 2 KNOW" (actually useful) "IPTs bumper book of quizzes" Etc, axe the jobs that are used to produce/publish said bumf then send out the required information via... Wait for this... something called a PDF file using this thing called... wait for it... Email!!! Or perhaps just a link on the intranet where you can research said above tosh if you ever wanted to waste 2 hours of your life looking at it! All of the above ends in the cylindrical "recycling bin" in the office anyway! Why waste cash that could be going on body armour/Fuel for training? I admit, I love Air Power review and Flight Safety articles, but why are they not available as a PDF as an alternative? N.E.C. has a long bloody way to go if we cant master the basics of Microsoft windows and Adobe Reader!!! It would make the docs a little more transportible too...
Get rid of PEd Flights. Pay fit young blonde things in small skirts to teach us "Fiz" contracted from fitness first. savings from: No pensions, no welfare requirements, no training costs for current ped staff... why is it the one section that should have been a perfectly civilianizable (yes, I made that word up) still exists? Part of said contract could be use of contracted gym by service personel in low demand hours, also, after hours "Fiz" so that some of us that are chained to our desks from 8 am till 6 pm may get said opportunities to do "fiz". Part of their contract is to maintain a certain %age of station at fitness test levels.
Here is a contentious one; how about axing actuals, issueing a flat rate and getting rid of the space capacity that would generate as a result of reduced audits? The flat rate could be lower than the cap (say 5 quid cheaper when combined with incidentals), thus allowing even more cost savings?
TLBs; review the way cash is divvied out with very small bonuses/vouchers for departments that underspend their budgets, however, they must meet TORs in doing so and not breach QA guidelines; spare cash at the end of ther FY can be divvied out then to more needy budgets like, say, paying FOR FUEL FOR OUR BLOODY TRAINING AIRCRAFT
.Zebra, I would recommend if you dont have the assets to meet the task, refuse to sign aircraft off. Shrug off any grief from Sqn Bosses/XOs Wing Cdr Enges. If they want to take the risk, let them sign the paperwork. Not a single aircrew mate will think badly of you just because a 4 ship or any other task for that matter got cancelled due to a flight safety risk. By the sounds of it, the treasury couldnt care less if we don't get our training, so why should you if you are stretched to the extent whereby an aircraft accident could kill someone due to overstretch/Dilution?
Until a lot of people get killed or until someone says No, nothing will change.
Last edited by VinRouge; 22nd Jul 2008 at 23:53.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Morayshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't get paid anywhere near enough to take risk of signing for something that is not serviceable just because a deadline needs to be met. However, the "can do attitude" still plays a big part within middle management. Too many people subscribe to this make do attitude, and that's where the problem lies. People who get the job done at any cost to meet deadlines are often hailed as assets to the Sqn. What they fail to realise is when the kit/aircraft fails, the **** umbrella goes up rapidly, and their the ones facing the charges. Until we can change this attitude, the problelm remains the same.
This is not just a problem with the engineers, it's spread accross the service as a whole. How often do you go into HR (PSF in old speak) and feel worthless because the front desk clerk doesen't seem to wan't to help you sort out the cock up with your wages? Gone are the days where people had pride in their work and would always try and help. Now people just don't have the time, and I put that down to being stretched to breaking point.
This is not just a problem with the engineers, it's spread accross the service as a whole. How often do you go into HR (PSF in old speak) and feel worthless because the front desk clerk doesen't seem to wan't to help you sort out the cock up with your wages? Gone are the days where people had pride in their work and would always try and help. Now people just don't have the time, and I put that down to being stretched to breaking point.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VinRouge,
Just a point, if you read the new Dii/F thread you'll know why those pubs aren't available in pdf format, because we probably didn't ask for it, or if we did, it would have been too expensive to re-buy the licences that we already owned in order to make them compatible with the over-expensive and under-useful system that nobody wanted in the first place!
As for the training/fuel, as a recent convert to civvydom I find myself in the odd situation of creating an aircrew training package (multi-national, including RAF) without ANY flying time.
The company originally wanted the students to do a complete OCU in less than 21 days, and emerge as CR!!
Although possible, myself and my colleagues have explained that this may be OK for airlines where everything is standard. Where should anything go wrong, everything stops until a suitably qualified person can be called in to fix it.
We further explained it is not OK in the military environment where when the preverbial hits the fan, it hits it big-time and generally speaking the only people anywhere near you are the ones who threw the preverbial at you in the first place!
It has taken about 6 months of constant repetition to get this message to be heard, and after all that time of prattling on all we have achieved is to make the students LCR instead. Still no flying on a 21 day military aircrew OCU!!!
The crux, the bean counters don't care!
Until somone is killed, or someone refuses to accept the crap, they never will.
But this forum is correct, our "can-do" attitude has eventually caught up with us and as always we are being required (not asked) to do more with less, and less, and less.
I know I haven't helped, because I know for a fact my post still hasn't been filled after over 6 months, so where there were 3 there now is only 1 and he's leaving too!!
Just a point, if you read the new Dii/F thread you'll know why those pubs aren't available in pdf format, because we probably didn't ask for it, or if we did, it would have been too expensive to re-buy the licences that we already owned in order to make them compatible with the over-expensive and under-useful system that nobody wanted in the first place!
As for the training/fuel, as a recent convert to civvydom I find myself in the odd situation of creating an aircrew training package (multi-national, including RAF) without ANY flying time.
The company originally wanted the students to do a complete OCU in less than 21 days, and emerge as CR!!
Although possible, myself and my colleagues have explained that this may be OK for airlines where everything is standard. Where should anything go wrong, everything stops until a suitably qualified person can be called in to fix it.
We further explained it is not OK in the military environment where when the preverbial hits the fan, it hits it big-time and generally speaking the only people anywhere near you are the ones who threw the preverbial at you in the first place!
It has taken about 6 months of constant repetition to get this message to be heard, and after all that time of prattling on all we have achieved is to make the students LCR instead. Still no flying on a 21 day military aircrew OCU!!!
The crux, the bean counters don't care!
Until somone is killed, or someone refuses to accept the crap, they never will.
But this forum is correct, our "can-do" attitude has eventually caught up with us and as always we are being required (not asked) to do more with less, and less, and less.
I know I haven't helped, because I know for a fact my post still hasn't been filled after over 6 months, so where there were 3 there now is only 1 and he's leaving too!!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ice Station Kinloss
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seem to remember in the past when an Int bulletin came about regarding the Soviet/Russian Air Force hours were getting cut to extremely low levels due to lack of funds!!
At the time everybody seemed to be of the opinion of - What kind of fighting force/threat can they be then?, with that amount of currency, nobody can be effective -and we all seemed to laugh it off.
Well as they say "what goes around comes around" and can we really say that we are still an effective fighting force?
At the time everybody seemed to be of the opinion of - What kind of fighting force/threat can they be then?, with that amount of currency, nobody can be effective -and we all seemed to laugh it off.
Well as they say "what goes around comes around" and can we really say that we are still an effective fighting force?
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of the old soviet air force and such, in the bad old days we had NATO forces facing down the Red Army and the Warsaw Pact. NATO had a massive Headquarters in Brussels to handle all the paperwork involved in such an enterprise. Now that the Red Army threat is downgraded and most of the old Warsaw Pact countries are either in, or soon to be in the EU, one would imagine that NATO could unwind a bit and downsize.
Not so! The immutable Parkinson's law governing the expansion of bureaucracyy holds sway. Each day as I ride the No. 12 to Zaventem we stop outside NATO HQ, where all the Civil Serpents and military officers unsuccessfully disguised as civilians are disgorged. Across the road from the familiar old buildings is a massive building project. The image on the developer's signboard shows a mighty single span roof rising seven stories high while covering a space of 200,000 sq metres. This monstrosity is to be the new NATO Headquarters - the old buildings will remain, of course.
One can't help but wonder how much of our own scarce defence budget is being used to pay our contribution to this project and how many of our overworked and underpaid officers will ship out discretely to work in disguise in Brussels, planning the further downfall of the Warsaw Pact?
Not so! The immutable Parkinson's law governing the expansion of bureaucracyy holds sway. Each day as I ride the No. 12 to Zaventem we stop outside NATO HQ, where all the Civil Serpents and military officers unsuccessfully disguised as civilians are disgorged. Across the road from the familiar old buildings is a massive building project. The image on the developer's signboard shows a mighty single span roof rising seven stories high while covering a space of 200,000 sq metres. This monstrosity is to be the new NATO Headquarters - the old buildings will remain, of course.
One can't help but wonder how much of our own scarce defence budget is being used to pay our contribution to this project and how many of our overworked and underpaid officers will ship out discretely to work in disguise in Brussels, planning the further downfall of the Warsaw Pact?
