Sunday Times Story - RAF cuts to bases & Planes (merged)
But Mick, none of the 121000 RAF servicemen in 1968 were on National Service engagements.
The RAF I joined in 1968 was 4 times the size of the dismal force strength reported in your excellent article - whereas to be on a par today it would need to be 121000 x (54/50) = 131000 strong, not 30000 weak.....
The RAF I joined in 1968 was 4 times the size of the dismal force strength reported in your excellent article - whereas to be on a par today it would need to be 121000 x (54/50) = 131000 strong, not 30000 weak.....
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's them gone then.
Ah, astute move by Red lead, get Kirsty aboard then any chopping is sexist.
Talking of Astute is BAE the only company that can make burning submarines?
Ah, astute move by Red lead, get Kirsty aboard then any chopping is sexist.
Talking of Astute is BAE the only company that can make burning submarines?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastbourne, UK
Age: 99
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF cuts
I agree with Dan. Remember what the situation was prior to WW2 ? I flew in BC then and we certainly wouldn't like to know that this good service is going down the drain. It is essential that the Chiefs of Staff start thinking straight. Keep the RAF in a strong position to deal with situations which can arise to the danger to this country !
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The groundwork surveys for the new Reds hangar at Waddo have just been completed. Building due to start April '10. Rumoured at 30 million total costs.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to throw my 2d in.
The pubic sector - especially the Military, Police & Health - are frequently deluded by the 'Snake Oil' Salesmen of technology.
By that I mean the propensity to be hypnotised when the newest shiny bit of kit is flashed around accompanied with the sales pitch of "This new shiny thing will make everything all right".
Of course every new shiny thing will be twice as good as the thing it is to replace; needs a fraction of the maintenance; has treble to killing power; can track five times the number of targets at six times the range; puts no aircrew over foreign soil (and therefore no MiA / KiA) & can be run from a caravan in Nevada et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
It's no wonder that the Poli's and Serpents who we have just twirled into paying for the new shiny things start to work out that one Airman can now fight a war over 5 Million square miles of battlespace from their iPod - and hence demand reductions.
I still get oddly nostalgic when remembering the Red Army and it's "Brutal & Basic" approach to warfighting. Sometimes technological advancement is not completely a Utopian dream in itself.
As a country we are financially sodomised.
The Realpolitik is that the Government cannot afford anything and is frightened to hell of the IMF foreclosing on us once again and needs to cut.
I know from my own optional appraisals that every option needs to be considered - if only to be able to rule it out in favour of an alternative, so the 'stalking horse' of these worst case scenarios can be placed into context like that.
I foresee however that the only credible way to save mega bucks whilst keeping an effective warfighting function is to go for a USMC / HM Defence Force management structure and save a heap of stars and support infrastructure.
General, Air & Flag ranks plus their senior middle management voting for reductions? Stuff that - let's screw the private soldiers / sailors & airmen.
The pubic sector - especially the Military, Police & Health - are frequently deluded by the 'Snake Oil' Salesmen of technology.
By that I mean the propensity to be hypnotised when the newest shiny bit of kit is flashed around accompanied with the sales pitch of "This new shiny thing will make everything all right".
Of course every new shiny thing will be twice as good as the thing it is to replace; needs a fraction of the maintenance; has treble to killing power; can track five times the number of targets at six times the range; puts no aircrew over foreign soil (and therefore no MiA / KiA) & can be run from a caravan in Nevada et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
It's no wonder that the Poli's and Serpents who we have just twirled into paying for the new shiny things start to work out that one Airman can now fight a war over 5 Million square miles of battlespace from their iPod - and hence demand reductions.
I still get oddly nostalgic when remembering the Red Army and it's "Brutal & Basic" approach to warfighting. Sometimes technological advancement is not completely a Utopian dream in itself.
As a country we are financially sodomised.
The Realpolitik is that the Government cannot afford anything and is frightened to hell of the IMF foreclosing on us once again and needs to cut.
I know from my own optional appraisals that every option needs to be considered - if only to be able to rule it out in favour of an alternative, so the 'stalking horse' of these worst case scenarios can be placed into context like that.
I foresee however that the only credible way to save mega bucks whilst keeping an effective warfighting function is to go for a USMC / HM Defence Force management structure and save a heap of stars and support infrastructure.
General, Air & Flag ranks plus their senior middle management voting for reductions? Stuff that - let's screw the private soldiers / sailors & airmen.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
30M for a shed? That must be one hell of a shed.
Call me old-fashioned, but...
Most of the "ordinary" hangarage in the RAF (as opposed to HASes etc) is of the 1930s C-Type design, which clearly has been fit for purpose for the last 70-80 years.
What is wrong with just pulling out the old drawings and knocking out another copy? It wouldn't even need the blast doors in this case. All it needs is two brick walls, the office/stores building on one side, a steel girder roof and steel panel doors and roof panelling. There are dozens of reference articles, even on the same station!
With a few thousand invested in an architect, the plans could be updated to reflect metric sized everything, modernity in terms of materials, window & door fixtures etc.
I see no reason why this would cost 30 million pounds. Less than 10, I should think.
If the MOD is content to spend money like this, then I can see why there are problems.
Call me old-fashioned, but...
Most of the "ordinary" hangarage in the RAF (as opposed to HASes etc) is of the 1930s C-Type design, which clearly has been fit for purpose for the last 70-80 years.
What is wrong with just pulling out the old drawings and knocking out another copy? It wouldn't even need the blast doors in this case. All it needs is two brick walls, the office/stores building on one side, a steel girder roof and steel panel doors and roof panelling. There are dozens of reference articles, even on the same station!
With a few thousand invested in an architect, the plans could be updated to reflect metric sized everything, modernity in terms of materials, window & door fixtures etc.
I see no reason why this would cost 30 million pounds. Less than 10, I should think.
If the MOD is content to spend money like this, then I can see why there are problems.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, I don't think there is such a thing as a metric brick, I think its some MedEval measurement, like the length of an Aroused Gloster Old Spot's willy or something.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most definitely concur with previous posts.
I would like to tender an official bid to build a new hangar for 9 red Hawks and I reckon I could do it for £29,000,000.
That makes my bid 1 Million quid cheaper than the other blokes so therefore do I get the job?
any body got a trowel and a spirit level...?
I would like to tender an official bid to build a new hangar for 9 red Hawks and I reckon I could do it for £29,000,000.
That makes my bid 1 Million quid cheaper than the other blokes so therefore do I get the job?
any body got a trowel and a spirit level...?
Yes, you can have mine for £500000 and I'll even throw in a Gloucester Old Spot (male) for use as a reference dimension. You can eat any bits you don't need for measurement.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: chippenham
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so.... Option 1
We hand Odiham plus chinook to the AAC along with puma, they support the army 99% of the time so seems sensible that they command them. They can then operate all the aircraft with NCO aircrew thus saving millions in overpaid crews. Merlin to the RN (RM), the SAR helos to the RN (most of the work is over the sea), future Nimrod to the RN (its a maritime a/c is it not). Hand the UAV's to the Royal Artillery (they operate other UAV's) as ours are in support of the Army anyway, all the Army Co-operation Sqns to the Army (as the name suggests) and we will have saved about 30000 jobs.
Or... Option 2
I believe we currently have about 100 star officers (on a pro rata basis) than we did during the war so why dont we chop them and save a mega bundle, we could also have a major review of who/rank commands what, for example why do we have Wg Cdr's in charge of Sqns (surley thats the job of a Sqn Ldr), then we could have Flt Lt in charge of Flts, then you could have Wg Cdr in charge of Wg's (for example the AT Wing (for thats what it will be when lye moves to brize)) which will mean Wg Cdr in charge of Stn's, a Gp Capt then in charge of a group of stations...etc couple this with NCO pilots/aircrew and the RAF can save a fortune and not have to cut any manpower.
Simples
Now lets have a debate!!!
We hand Odiham plus chinook to the AAC along with puma, they support the army 99% of the time so seems sensible that they command them. They can then operate all the aircraft with NCO aircrew thus saving millions in overpaid crews. Merlin to the RN (RM), the SAR helos to the RN (most of the work is over the sea), future Nimrod to the RN (its a maritime a/c is it not). Hand the UAV's to the Royal Artillery (they operate other UAV's) as ours are in support of the Army anyway, all the Army Co-operation Sqns to the Army (as the name suggests) and we will have saved about 30000 jobs.
Or... Option 2
I believe we currently have about 100 star officers (on a pro rata basis) than we did during the war so why dont we chop them and save a mega bundle, we could also have a major review of who/rank commands what, for example why do we have Wg Cdr's in charge of Sqns (surley thats the job of a Sqn Ldr), then we could have Flt Lt in charge of Flts, then you could have Wg Cdr in charge of Wg's (for example the AT Wing (for thats what it will be when lye moves to brize)) which will mean Wg Cdr in charge of Stn's, a Gp Capt then in charge of a group of stations...etc couple this with NCO pilots/aircrew and the RAF can save a fortune and not have to cut any manpower.
Simples
Now lets have a debate!!!
9 Tornadoes
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I say chop this Government instead!
We could cut it to say 12 MPs and 1 Prime Minister now or a Military coup perhaps..
Might save a few spongers having to get a job rather than rely on the welfare state.
We could cut it to say 12 MPs and 1 Prime Minister now or a Military coup perhaps..
Might save a few spongers having to get a job rather than rely on the welfare state.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touchpaper:
Go and do the sums, I think you will find that your statement is nonsense. As for the Reds, why can't it be an additional duty for the instructors at Valley, indeed if we painted all the Hawks red we could have a couple of display teams.
They can then operate all the aircraft with NCO aircrew thus saving millions in overpaid crews.
SAR helos to the RN (most of the work is over the sea)
The days of SAR being mostly maritime are long since gone, due largely to the decimation of the fishing industry; the quantity of overland tasking has also increased with better liaison with civ emergency services and dropping the "Downed aircrew is the primary role" mantra, allowing a wider range of tasking to be undertaken. BTW, it's not that the SAR Force doesn't care about downed aircrew any more, it's just that mil aircraft crashes are relatively few and far between these days; ergo there's no point having a large fleet of helicopters whose main stated prupose is dealing with an eventuality which, fortunately, is increasingly infrequent.
One of either RAF Marham in Norfolk or RAF Lossiemouth in Morayshire is under threat because of planned cuts to joint strike fighter numbers