Reds to Go?
To put that in perspective, we paid £86M in MP's expenses last year. Chop their expenses, and you could run a dozen aerobatic teams!
..... and bring back HM Yacht BRITANNIA ......
..... and bring back HM Yacht BRITANNIA ......
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason that RAFAT survives is because nobody wants to be tarred with the legacy of having been the person who killed-off the Red Arrows. It's become almost an annual media event now to run a scare story and it's enough to scare-off any politician, service chief or civil servant.
I'm quite sure than once RAFAT have moved to Waddington, they will continue to survive for a few more years until their Hawks run out of hours. When they do, it will be a relatively simple task to explain to the public that without any aircraft with which to equip the team, they will have to go.
I'm quite sure than once RAFAT have moved to Waddington, they will continue to survive for a few more years until their Hawks run out of hours. When they do, it will be a relatively simple task to explain to the public that without any aircraft with which to equip the team, they will have to go.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: EU Land
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil in the Detail
'The Reds' own website confirms that their annual cost is £6.3M.'
While I can't dispute that figure for the actual running costs of the aircraft, it seems a little short if you take into account the wages of aircrew and groundies who could be employed on operational rather than representational tasks, and the maintenance of the team's own air station at Scampton with its unique airspace that can't possibly be got rid of, and which requires a serviceable runway immediately below it.
The Reds do an outstanding job in promoting the RAF: indeed they seem to be the only recognisable element to many of the media and public, who think anyone in Afghanistan must be a soldier. But, as an organisation we are financially broke, the focus is on current ops, and with the way the economy is continuing to go down the plughole, I'd assume recruitment and retention won't be an issue for some time to come.
S.O.
While I can't dispute that figure for the actual running costs of the aircraft, it seems a little short if you take into account the wages of aircrew and groundies who could be employed on operational rather than representational tasks, and the maintenance of the team's own air station at Scampton with its unique airspace that can't possibly be got rid of, and which requires a serviceable runway immediately below it.
The Reds do an outstanding job in promoting the RAF: indeed they seem to be the only recognisable element to many of the media and public, who think anyone in Afghanistan must be a soldier. But, as an organisation we are financially broke, the focus is on current ops, and with the way the economy is continuing to go down the plughole, I'd assume recruitment and retention won't be an issue for some time to come.
S.O.
While I can't dispute that figure for the actual running costs of the aircraft, it seems a little short if you take into account the wages of aircrew and groundies who could be employed on operational rather than representational tasks, and the maintenance of the team's own air station at Scampton with its unique airspace that can't possibly be got rid of, and which requires a serviceable runway immediately below it.
No-one's going to persist with back to back operational tours for 15 years. You need to have other things to offer people, both aircrew and groundcrew. The Reds are just another option.
Regarding Scampton, we can disregard that as they're moving shortly.
I think Tim's quite accurate, but I don't believe the Reds are safe purely because of the potential fallout; I think they're safe because they offer no meaningful savings coupled with that potential fallout!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: EU Land
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5F6B,
I readily accept your point about the need for respite between operational tours, but am not convinced shiny red jets plays particularly well with the other services who, let's face it, we are in direct competition with for ever-shrinking resources.
As for Scampton, although I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong, I wouldn't be so sure...
Cheers,
S.O.
I readily accept your point about the need for respite between operational tours, but am not convinced shiny red jets plays particularly well with the other services who, let's face it, we are in direct competition with for ever-shrinking resources.
As for Scampton, although I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong, I wouldn't be so sure...
Cheers,
S.O.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So because £6.3M is a small figure 'in the grand scheme of things' it isn't worth saving that amount of money?
Where do you draw the line and start saying that it is worth binning something to save money? £10M, £20M, £200M?
Savings need to be made across the board, some projects will provide big savings, some small. They will all add up to the required amount, because no amount of sticking your head in the sand will change the fact that the Armed Forces are under a clear and present threat.
How much money do the Reds bring into the economy? That is always an argument used when people talk about chopping them. If there is a quantifiable figure, how about telling the ministers that the Reds are a military concern and have nothing to do with HMG coffers, therefore all quantifiable income from them goes straight into the defence purse.
Of course that will never happen, so while people talk about bases and real projects being closed/stopped, then serious questions about things such as the Red Arrows have a relevance.
In an ideal World the Red Arrows would be safe, the Royal Yacht (or her British built successor) would be sailing the seas, Cott would not be earmarked for closure etc etc, but we are not in an ideal world, we have a failing industry base with a virtually non existent ship building capability etc, a failing economy that is not recovering whilst other European ones are.
We can whinge all we like about the fact that we should not be in this position and that decisions made when Brown was Chancellor are biting hard now, but the fact is we are in this position.
Trimming the nice-to-have but not essential things does need serious consideration.
Where do you draw the line and start saying that it is worth binning something to save money? £10M, £20M, £200M?
Savings need to be made across the board, some projects will provide big savings, some small. They will all add up to the required amount, because no amount of sticking your head in the sand will change the fact that the Armed Forces are under a clear and present threat.
How much money do the Reds bring into the economy? That is always an argument used when people talk about chopping them. If there is a quantifiable figure, how about telling the ministers that the Reds are a military concern and have nothing to do with HMG coffers, therefore all quantifiable income from them goes straight into the defence purse.
Of course that will never happen, so while people talk about bases and real projects being closed/stopped, then serious questions about things such as the Red Arrows have a relevance.
In an ideal World the Red Arrows would be safe, the Royal Yacht (or her British built successor) would be sailing the seas, Cott would not be earmarked for closure etc etc, but we are not in an ideal world, we have a failing industry base with a virtually non existent ship building capability etc, a failing economy that is not recovering whilst other European ones are.
We can whinge all we like about the fact that we should not be in this position and that decisions made when Brown was Chancellor are biting hard now, but the fact is we are in this position.
Trimming the nice-to-have but not essential things does need serious consideration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK OK its a wind-up.
THE REDS ARE SAFE!
Sorry, Gainsey, with Bungling Bob's announcement yesterday I just couldn't wait til March, although am quite prepared to start it up again to maintain the tradition!
My whole point with this crude Sun headline, was to highlight the inconsistencies in the Govt's argument for defence cuts ie that capabilities must be sacrificed to pay for Afghanistan and anything which is not relevant to that conflict is fair game for the axe. If that is the case then everything, including the Reds, would be under scrutiny. Afghanistan is today's story, but when we pull out of there in a few years time (short time scale according to Obama) what then? I refer you to CDS's speech to RUSI earlier this month:
The fact that the Reds are not under scrutiny, and never will be, tells me that they provide another, more valuable service to the Govt; an iconic symbol helping to perpetuate the myth that we are a first rate nation punching above its weight on the world stage.
The argument is not about the Red Arrows, I don't care how much they cost or who funds them; they are a superb display team, fantastic ambassadors for the country and the very public face of what used to be a force to be reckoned with. The fact that we no longer are a force to be reckoned with, is something that needs to be out in the publc domain ......... loud and clear. Until then, expect more headlines in a similar vein. Your turn next Gainsey.
BTW My complete support for the Reds is a given, Justanopinion, no dig has ever been made or intended, indeed I have a very special reason for taking a keen interest in them this year. I am very well aware of their operational backgrounds and the conditions under which they have served in theatre.
Oh and vecvecthingy I'm looking forward to your dissertation on Air Power and the Red Arrows - should be quite a laugh.
THE REDS ARE SAFE!
Sorry, Gainsey, with Bungling Bob's announcement yesterday I just couldn't wait til March, although am quite prepared to start it up again to maintain the tradition!
My whole point with this crude Sun headline, was to highlight the inconsistencies in the Govt's argument for defence cuts ie that capabilities must be sacrificed to pay for Afghanistan and anything which is not relevant to that conflict is fair game for the axe. If that is the case then everything, including the Reds, would be under scrutiny. Afghanistan is today's story, but when we pull out of there in a few years time (short time scale according to Obama) what then? I refer you to CDS's speech to RUSI earlier this month:
Meanwhile, the wider strategic environment is a matter of great concern to me, and should be to all of us. Risks to our security and to our interests abound; and in this increasingly interconnected world they have the capacity to affect us more deeply and more widely than ever before. We should perhaps reflect on how the chain reaction we've seen in the financial sector recently might foreshadow something similar in the security and defence field.
The fact that the Reds are not under scrutiny, and never will be, tells me that they provide another, more valuable service to the Govt; an iconic symbol helping to perpetuate the myth that we are a first rate nation punching above its weight on the world stage.
The argument is not about the Red Arrows, I don't care how much they cost or who funds them; they are a superb display team, fantastic ambassadors for the country and the very public face of what used to be a force to be reckoned with. The fact that we no longer are a force to be reckoned with, is something that needs to be out in the publc domain ......... loud and clear. Until then, expect more headlines in a similar vein. Your turn next Gainsey.
BTW My complete support for the Reds is a given, Justanopinion, no dig has ever been made or intended, indeed I have a very special reason for taking a keen interest in them this year. I am very well aware of their operational backgrounds and the conditions under which they have served in theatre.
Oh and vecvecthingy I'm looking forward to your dissertation on Air Power and the Red Arrows - should be quite a laugh.
Throughout my fast-jet career, I was never a huge fan of the Reds as I saw the diversion of excellent pilots, groundcrew and money as detrimental to the front-line and operations. As I grew older and perhaps more mellow, I changed my mind. For the relatively minor cost, the Reds are priceless for recruiting and positive PR.
What worries me most, is that the present "Government" do not understand that you must equip for the next war/operation/threat and finance accordingly. If it were possible to field 22 new Chinooks in the next few months, fine, but by 2012/13 or more who knows what we will need? This seems to be a knee-jerk. Meanwhile, they may be destroying priceless capabilities across the defence spectrum.
What worries me most, is that the present "Government" do not understand that you must equip for the next war/operation/threat and finance accordingly. If it were possible to field 22 new Chinooks in the next few months, fine, but by 2012/13 or more who knows what we will need? This seems to be a knee-jerk. Meanwhile, they may be destroying priceless capabilities across the defence spectrum.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Emptying the litter bin
Age: 65
Posts: 409
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Cant get rid of reds till after the 2012 Olympic flypast. Got to have something to brag about.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Swindon
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standby for 2018, once that year is over and done-with the Red Arrows will be retired. Enough spares for the T1/T1A Hawk are being set aside and the least fatigued airframes identified for that venerable aircraft to last another 9 years in it's red colour scheme.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW My complete support for the Reds is a given, Justanopinion, no dig has ever been made or intended, indeed I have a very special reason for taking a keen interest in them this year. I am very well aware of their operational backgrounds and the conditions under which they have served in theatre.
Open RAFAT up to all pilots in the RAF, let the rotary and multi boys get a go if they're up to it. Then your 'operationally' representative team might have some more credibility...
I'm not good enough, I know that, but have flown with some pretty special RW and multi-boys in formation and not just three-ships!
Inbound...'No, the F3 is an operational tour' '...and so is the Falklands' 'You're just jealous' 'The Jaguar did HERRICK...' etc etc...
Weren't the services of the RAF Police Dog Demonstration Team dispensed with as a cost saving measure some years ago?
What were their running costs?
Over the years music services have also taken a hit to save pennies.
What were their running costs?
Over the years music services have also taken a hit to save pennies.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its fair enough the Red only use £6.3 Million per year funding but the MRA4 is not being taken into service because there is no money for spares, surely an asset that is needed and the sooner it is the better for all even the AT fleet is more important than recruitment tools. (£6.3 Million could buy some spares)
It would seem shunting off 2500 personnel yet keeping a flying display team is more important. They have cut off all funding now for education support and the small things that made up the **** factor as you wish to call it.
People are growing increasingly angry why we have this luxury when many good squadrons are being chopped to the bone.
Personally I dont give a monkeys but increased pressure sure at the Defense review will see this subject brought again im sure.
It would seem shunting off 2500 personnel yet keeping a flying display team is more important. They have cut off all funding now for education support and the small things that made up the **** factor as you wish to call it.
People are growing increasingly angry why we have this luxury when many good squadrons are being chopped to the bone.
Personally I dont give a monkeys but increased pressure sure at the Defense review will see this subject brought again im sure.
