Time to bin the Red Arrows

[airpolice]

The point that Goudie makes is exactly why the Reds need to go.

We can all point at things that should go before our own pet area is chopped.

Mostly the Reds are what is being pointed at. While we still have them protected at the expense of the front line, nobody else will offer any meaningful sacrifices.

[4mastacker]

What about the horses?

If the Reds are binned, would it not also be time to bin all the Army's horses, and their associated paraphernalia, that prance around Horseguards and which, as far as I am aware, do not have a front-line role (apart from providing a source of food if times get really bad!). They may have historical/heritage value, but that's no saving grace - I do believe that Liam Fox did say something about "no place for sentiment or emotion" when the SDSR was announced.


ducks down really low for inevitable incoming from the khaki side!

[cazatou]

4mastacker

A cheap shot which merely shows your ignorance about the Armed Forces. Yes the Horse and Foot Guards have a ceremonial role - but they are also Front Line Fighting Units.

The Bands have a Ceremonial Role as well - but the Bandsmen and Women have a secondary role as Paramedics.

PS This "incoming" is from the Light Blue side.

[draken55]

What about the horses?

I guess the concern is not simply the fact the Army has horses but that it owns around 4000 of them. The annual cost to "maintain" these cannot be insignificant, so it's not unreasonable to ask if such a large number can continue to be funded within a shrinking Defence Budget.

With the Navy having to pay for the Trident replacement and it and the RAF and RN losing capabilities, can we afford if you will pardon the expression, any sacred cows

[4mastacker]

Cazatou, read my post again. I said the "horses"...not the blokes who ride 'em.! I'm fully aware that the troops have a role in the front-line using much more modern equipment. And I'm no more ignorant about the Armed Forces than yourself. I spent my time serving on a variety of front-line units, unlike some I could mention who seem to have spent their career ensconsed in their own little comfortable bubble in the leafy suburbs.


4ma ---out!

[airpolice]

Front Line Fighting Units WTF?

Front line horses? When did they last see some action?

Apart from ceremonial duty, when did a horse last get into action? I know that the QRA shooting down aircraft is not an everyday thing either, but they do get launched to go take a look.

When did the horses last earn their keep?

As for the Band, I think that to call them Paramedics is a stretch, if you'll pardon the pun.

[cazatou]

draken 55

It would be interesting to compare the overall cost of maintaining the horses to the cost of maintaining the RAFAT Fleet.

[cazatou]

goudie

Please enlighten me - how many times did you fly Mr Brown?

[airpolice]

From the Army recruitment site.

I don't see them filling a role as Paramedics; stretcher bearers and essential operational support in medical stations yes, but not Paramedics. A proper full time Paramedic is closer to a Casualty Surgeon than to a GP or a First Aider. The members of the band seem more like the old job of Ambulance Driver rather than Paramedics.

This bit below comes from the Horse's mouth, as it were.

Our primary role is to supply first class music for any military event, State event or for any event that requires musical support and raises the profile of the Army and associated charities throughout the world.

The Corps also has an operational capability, and at present this is in support of the Army Medical Services. This includes chemical decontamination of casualties for the field hospitals and general duties. This general duties could be guarding key installations to guarding prisoners of war. A number of CAMUS personnel have served or are about to serve on Op Herrick - Afghanistan - in general support roles.

What a career in Army music can offer:

• Bursary scheme for students enrolled on performance based courses in both further and higher education
• A structured career with employment potential to 55 years of age
• The opportunity to gain diplomas and degrees, subsidised by the Army
• To play alongside some of the world's best musicians, in 1 of 22 Regular Army bands, based throughout the United Kingdom
• Extensive travel opportunities with the chance to play in some of the worlds greatest concert venues and arenas
• The chance to perform in a variety of musical ensembles playing varied musical genres
• The opportunity to participate in a wide range of sporting and adventurous training activities
• Free medical and dental care
• A full time salaried and pensionable career, as a professional musician

How much a week does it cost to feed a horse? I'm asking because 1.2 Million quid a year for fuel to feed the 13 Jets compared to 4,000 horses is how much week per horse?

From the most recent figures I could find:

Red Arrows
13 Jets using £1,200,000 in fuel.
is £92,307.69 per jet per year
or £23,076.92 a week
at £1,775.15 per jet.

Horses, let's say the Army spend what the RAF spend on "fuel" for the horses.

4,000 Horses
£1,200,000 for food
£23,076.92 a week
£300 per horse per year
is £5.77 a week

Can you really feed a horse on less than £6 a week?

So how much more is the Army spending on horse food than the Red Arrows are spending on aviation fuel?

[goudie]

Please enlighten me - how many times did you fly Mr Brown?

Question is irrelevant Cazatou, and my apologies if you thought my intention was meant to distract from your personal view of George Brown.
Affable he may have been, in your presence. I was merely quoting from a book by
A. N. Wilson, 'Our Times', in which he describes Brown, among other things, as a drunken buffoon. The anecdote I quoted was intended to illustrate this.
True or not, it's a humorous story IMHO.

On Look East News tonight, they said the Government has ditched a Centralised Fire Fighting Control Centre at Waterbeach Cambs, having spent £4.5 million on it!

[BEagle]

How much a week does it cost to feed a horse? I'm asking because 1.2 Million quid a year for fuel to feed the 13 Jets compared to 4,000 horses is how much week per horse?

Well, I'm sure that it costs more than £5.77 per week to keep a horse....

£1200000 / 52 = £23076.92
£23076.92 / 4000 = £5.77

(Not allowing for the recycled value of ex-pongo dobbins for dog food)

[If all else fails]

4000 Horses! Crikey! That does seem an awful lot of horses.

I have....sorry had.. a foot in both camps, as it were, spent many years in the Line Cavalry (but sadly we existed on our own horses) regardless, the ceremonial duties conducted by the HCMR significantly reflect the precedence - that the Nation was built from the back of the horse, the Soldiers boot and endless dollops of rum sodomy and the lash. That 'The Few' once saved us, is without doubt - but I'm afraid that 300 or more years of history and tradition set against a hundred years of some, quite frankly, dubious habits should not be the measure of the Nations pride in the Armed Forces.

It seems to me that 4000 horses is indeed far too many, when the number of tanks is (or about to be) 1/10th of that or even less...so how about ..say 400 horses (surely that should be sufficient for the ceremonial duties...it really does take a long time to get a horse to that standard and keep it there...that irony won't be lost on the pilots of course) and a commensurate reduction on the part of RAFAT .....so....er...0.9 Red Arrows then...but I think we could round that up?

This is of course the lunacy of such a thread, I wonder if all those on ARSE are doing the same? Some how I think not.

There are so very many measures that are availible to reduce the Nations real 'costs' and all it will take is for our leaders (and voters) to see that.

Sadly though, I think this thread should be discontinued - for fear of giving them too many 'good' ideas.

[4mastacker]

If all else fails wrote;

.............This is of course the lunacy of such a thread, I wonder if all those on ARSE are doing the same? Some how I think not.

Oh yes they are!! (Seeing it's the pantomime season.)

Scrap Red Arrows

[If all else fails]

No No No ......I mean about their bloody horses!

[airpolice]

626 Horses

Now that we have all had a laugh....back to business.

Draken55 wrote:

I guess the concern is not simply the fact the Army has horses but that it owns around 4000 of them.

However, I did a wee bit of digging and.......

This is from Hansard, 1st March 2007

Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many horses are stabled at the Army’s expense but not owned by them; and what the total annual cost of keeping them is; [121904]
(2) how many horses the Army owns; and what the total estimated cost is of keeping them. [121905]


Derek Twigg: The number of horses currently owned by the Army is 626.
The total estimated cost of keeping these horses is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Similarly, information on the number of horses stabled at the Army’s expense, but not owned by them, and the financial arrangements for keeping them are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

So, either they bought an average of three horses a day since that statement was produced.....or they do not in fact own 4,000 Horses.

Draken55, your source of the 4,000 horses figure, if you please?

Beagle will correct me if I am wrong but I think £36.86 a week might still be a bit short of the mark.

[cazatou]

airpolice

You should know better than to let facts get in the way of a sincerely held prejudice!!

[draken55]

Air Police

My sincere apologies The figure I quoted was from memory and I should have checked the source article first before posting. I was planning to do that this morning anyway. My source was an article in the Yorkshire Post of 21 October:-

"The Army still seems incapable of deploying more than 10 per cent of its
strength on a regular basis. We are told that it is losing 7,000 personnel from its inflated numbers, half the proportion of people that the far more efficient Royal Navy is losing. One wonders what fraction of the Army's 3,000 horses, each the cost of a lieutenant colonel, is being cut."

This article was written by Prof Eric Grove and the figures do disagree with those from Hansard in 2007. The reply in Hansard appears a little strange mentioning Horses "stabled" by the Army but not "owned" by them. It avoids giving a more detailed response by claiming it could only be done at "disproportionate cost"! So the Army "owns" 626 but could be paying for the upkeep of a greater but unknown figure.

Prof Grove can be contacted by e-mail. We may need to contact him for his source of information to try and resolve this issue!

[airpolice]

I'd be interested in hearing his story. Are we in on the ground floor of Horsegate where we uncover lies in the house?

I doubt it, but let's hear what he has to say anyway.

[Basil]

could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Here's my guess:
We keep our chaps horses for them and charge no livery fee and refuse to tell you how much it costs you.

[draken55]

Air Police

Do like the Horsegate quip

I have now sent an e-mail to Prof Grov requesting further details. Just have to wait and see if we can resolve this nagging doubt over the figures!