Time to bin the Red Arrows
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winco, you're right, it wouldn't. For me, its not about saving money though. Having a 10 ship display team in the current climate is like fiddling whilst Rome burns.
Why would it be a mistake to get rid of them though? What exactly would be lost by not having them? (beyond PR, where retaining the Red Arrows is arguably working against the RAFs best interests right now, but working very well for the government!)
You know what? I don't really want the Red Arrows to go. I don't think they will go. However until they are seriously threatened, then the general public will NOT pay any attention to these defence cuts, our dwindling capability, and the state of our forces.
Why would it be a mistake to get rid of them though? What exactly would be lost by not having them? (beyond PR, where retaining the Red Arrows is arguably working against the RAFs best interests right now, but working very well for the government!)
You know what? I don't really want the Red Arrows to go. I don't think they will go. However until they are seriously threatened, then the general public will NOT pay any attention to these defence cuts, our dwindling capability, and the state of our forces.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give us the sums then Winco.
I understand that sponsorship is used but I bet it barely covers the hotel bills.
A statement like that is hard to believe when you hold the cost of running a squadron up against body armour for your RAF regiment or medical treatment for the wounded
I understand that sponsorship is used but I bet it barely covers the hotel bills.
A statement like that is hard to believe when you hold the cost of running a squadron up against body armour for your RAF regiment or medical treatment for the wounded
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Winco,
If it makes money for UK plc then let them pay for it not the defence budget. I'd rather see my mates and I in a job than generate publicity for BAe
If it makes money for UK plc then let them pay for it not the defence budget. I'd rather see my mates and I in a job than generate publicity for BAe
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
PP I think you're onto something. The CAS is running the RAF and should bin the Red Arrows; explaining to the General Public that the Front Line is at stake!
The Government will of course be embarrassed and so they should be!
Seems like a good plan to me..
The Government will of course be embarrassed and so they should be!
Seems like a good plan to me..
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meh, its not a good plan. Its a risky plan! The good plan is to keep the Red Arrows, and properly fund defence, and get the banks who caused all this to cough up the money they've nicked from us!
Winco,
Are you really suggesting that the entire cost of keeping 10+ ageing airframes servicable, the fuel costs associated with a year round programme, the manning costs associated with the entire pilot and ground-crew contingent, hotel costs etc is covered by what BAe, Ping and a few others are paying in a harsh commercial environment?
Oh, and don't bother with the PR and recruiting costs arguement. That cannot be justified when redundency and re-roleing looms large and the training system is clogged with pilots who will never fly. Do you really believe joe public has looked at the last few years of public equipment defficiencies, cuts to man-power and front line equipment but still thinks, "you know what, all's well with the world cos we've still got the Reds?"
I personally think they are fantastic but are looking increasingly like a luxury.
Are you really suggesting that the entire cost of keeping 10+ ageing airframes servicable, the fuel costs associated with a year round programme, the manning costs associated with the entire pilot and ground-crew contingent, hotel costs etc is covered by what BAe, Ping and a few others are paying in a harsh commercial environment?
Oh, and don't bother with the PR and recruiting costs arguement. That cannot be justified when redundency and re-roleing looms large and the training system is clogged with pilots who will never fly. Do you really believe joe public has looked at the last few years of public equipment defficiencies, cuts to man-power and front line equipment but still thinks, "you know what, all's well with the world cos we've still got the Reds?"
I personally think they are fantastic but are looking increasingly like a luxury.
I'm pretty sure that for the average Joe and his family at an airday/openday, the things that make an impression are the big noisy aircraft (eg the Vulcan) or showstoppers like The Red Arrows. Four single piston whatevers from the Royal Ruritanian Air Force aerobatic display team may appeal to the cognoscenti, but most people will be looking at their watches and waiting for the aforementioned.
Assuming the Vulcan's future is on a shoogly peg (Magnus B will translate) that just leaves the Reds. Bin them and you may as well bin open days.
Now there's an idea!
Assuming the Vulcan's future is on a shoogly peg (Magnus B will translate) that just leaves the Reds. Bin them and you may as well bin open days.
Now there's an idea!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Might as well bin the whole Armed Forces now!
We haven't got enough left be credible anymore.. Sad but true!
We haven't got enough left be credible anymore.. Sad but true!
As Winco correctly says binning the Reds wont mean any more money goes to active front line squadrons, but will IMHO opinion be a big loss to the service and Great Britain Plc. far more money is wasted each year by the MOD than the Reds cost, lets bin a few overpaid civil serpants and cut out the waste there. A large part of the Reds cost is covered by industry and display appearance fees etc, and they are still a great ambassador for the RAF and the UK world wide. IF binning the Reds did mean more money actually did go to front line squadrons then it could be argued that in these austere times it had merit, but anyone that thinks it would is dreaming.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oldgrubber
I'm sorry, I can't give you the figures, but the costs of the Red Arrows to the Military budget is minimal, it's tiny. Hotel bills are paid for by the airshow/display organisers. Fuel is very heavily subsidised by Total and BAe and others very heavily sponsor other areas. But as for the exact figures, then you will have to do some digging around - I'm sure they are all out there somewhere.
But the point I am trying to make is that just cutting them will not affect what gets to the front line at all. Does anyone seriously think that the savings made from disbanding the Red Arrows (or anything else for that matter) goes into the MOD bank account? Does anyone seriously think that is the case? The hard fact is that the savings will go to the treasury, and they will be spent on asylum seekers, benefit scroungers and the likes. IT WILL NOT GO TO THE MILITARY, LET ALONE THE FRONT LINE.
Flap62
I don't think that the public think that all is good with the RAF simply because the Red Arrows have not been disbanded. I doubt if there are many people in the country who haven't heard of the Nimrod debacle and they will have seen today that we said goodbye to Harrier. I just can't see them sitting at home thinking 'ah, all must be well with the RAF - we still have the Red Arrows!'
If we want to make some serious savings, then lets stop the wastage at Main Building on fancy chairs, original oil paintings, high quality TVs everywhere and God knows what else. At least most of the UK populus get the opportunity to see the Red Arrows, unlike main Building!!
I'm sorry, I can't give you the figures, but the costs of the Red Arrows to the Military budget is minimal, it's tiny. Hotel bills are paid for by the airshow/display organisers. Fuel is very heavily subsidised by Total and BAe and others very heavily sponsor other areas. But as for the exact figures, then you will have to do some digging around - I'm sure they are all out there somewhere.
But the point I am trying to make is that just cutting them will not affect what gets to the front line at all. Does anyone seriously think that the savings made from disbanding the Red Arrows (or anything else for that matter) goes into the MOD bank account? Does anyone seriously think that is the case? The hard fact is that the savings will go to the treasury, and they will be spent on asylum seekers, benefit scroungers and the likes. IT WILL NOT GO TO THE MILITARY, LET ALONE THE FRONT LINE.
Flap62
I don't think that the public think that all is good with the RAF simply because the Red Arrows have not been disbanded. I doubt if there are many people in the country who haven't heard of the Nimrod debacle and they will have seen today that we said goodbye to Harrier. I just can't see them sitting at home thinking 'ah, all must be well with the RAF - we still have the Red Arrows!'
If we want to make some serious savings, then lets stop the wastage at Main Building on fancy chairs, original oil paintings, high quality TVs everywhere and God knows what else. At least most of the UK populus get the opportunity to see the Red Arrows, unlike main Building!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not about actual savings, it's about the RAF saying 'you've cut beyond the bone' and doing something the general public will finally notice, and if it embarrasses the government then it's about time somthing did! Also, perhaps, it's about raising awareness that the RAF is a fighting service and that 'good PR' comes second to retaining capability...why retain the ability to do PR when you find it increasingly hard to maintain a semblance of what is probably referred to as 'core capacities' these days?
As for recruiting - forgive me for that snorting noise, but considering the number of people about to be chopped I find 'boosts recruiting' to be beyond belief.
Like Oldgrubber I enjoy watching the team, and I don't want them to go, but I think maybe they ought to.
As for recruiting - forgive me for that snorting noise, but considering the number of people about to be chopped I find 'boosts recruiting' to be beyond belief.
Like Oldgrubber I enjoy watching the team, and I don't want them to go, but I think maybe they ought to.
but the costs of the Red Arrows to the Military budget is minimal
I just have a HUGE gut feeling that that is horse but as I can't prove otherwise I shall retire and leave it at that.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a 'team' of just over 100 personnel, and looking at an average capitation rate of £30,000 (although I suspect it would be far higher), the yearly manning costs alone are £3 Million.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel bills are paid for by the airshow/display organisers
Units supporting Tucano, Typhoon and Tutor display teams also have to cough up for most of the expenses accrued by their crews and support personnel.
Yes, some of the costs for RAFAT are met by industry, but not all.
Apart from the minimal cost of BBMF perhaps we should pull all our display aircraft and really let joe public and the airshow circuit know how bad it is.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To say that the public don't believe that all is well in the RAF is being naive.
They know what they've been told in the mainstream media. Many of them aren't like us - they don't go looking at the REAL story, they don't encounter the military on a daily basis, they're not even vaguely aware of what the forces really do. Its all about boots on the ground in Afghanistan. They maybe see shiny red jets once a year and go Ooo. If they had a clue about the capabilities we've cut and are going to cut, and understood the real implications of it, then perhaps they'd take notice!! However nobody would take notice of the public anyway.
The Media aren't interested. They want gossip and glamour and scandal and sales. They don't want dull boring reality! The media have their own agenda, which may or may not match the political agenda or belief of the day, but certainly doesn't work in the public interest, or try to understand the REAL story. However cutting the Red Arrows would give them gossip and a "public interest" story that would get them a few more readers one day.
However they'll both be fed some nice polished politician who actually knows nothing and has no knowledge of their department, or of real life chasing their next expense claim and vote on the telly telling them it'll all be fine. They have some nice polished CGS/CAS/1st Sea Lord doing what they're told because thats their job and telling them that the services will cope like they always have and that its the right decision. The dissenters (I dunno, perhaps recently retired Admirals, Generals, Air Marshals, Security Ministers, etc - those who CAN now speak up) are dismissed as being out of touch (my arse they're out of touch!) and people believe it. You might even get a Defence Minister accidentally making it clear he thinks the cuts are going to far and that he DOES get it, and DOES understand the implications, but he gets spun and threatened back into line in fear of his career.
So why would the general public REALLY think anything differently?
Besides, they'll have a lot more to worry about when they get made redundant themselves and find the only "job" they can get is a voluntarily one running the council services they were getting paid to run 6 months beforehand. So maybe they don't actually even care... and nobody would take any notice of them anyway. Its been a long time since the polticians and the press actually gave a monkeys about who they're supposed to be representing!
So maybe binning the Red Arrows would make people sit up and take notice. My worry is that it might not have the effect we'd hope for!
They know what they've been told in the mainstream media. Many of them aren't like us - they don't go looking at the REAL story, they don't encounter the military on a daily basis, they're not even vaguely aware of what the forces really do. Its all about boots on the ground in Afghanistan. They maybe see shiny red jets once a year and go Ooo. If they had a clue about the capabilities we've cut and are going to cut, and understood the real implications of it, then perhaps they'd take notice!! However nobody would take notice of the public anyway.
The Media aren't interested. They want gossip and glamour and scandal and sales. They don't want dull boring reality! The media have their own agenda, which may or may not match the political agenda or belief of the day, but certainly doesn't work in the public interest, or try to understand the REAL story. However cutting the Red Arrows would give them gossip and a "public interest" story that would get them a few more readers one day.
However they'll both be fed some nice polished politician who actually knows nothing and has no knowledge of their department, or of real life chasing their next expense claim and vote on the telly telling them it'll all be fine. They have some nice polished CGS/CAS/1st Sea Lord doing what they're told because thats their job and telling them that the services will cope like they always have and that its the right decision. The dissenters (I dunno, perhaps recently retired Admirals, Generals, Air Marshals, Security Ministers, etc - those who CAN now speak up) are dismissed as being out of touch (my arse they're out of touch!) and people believe it. You might even get a Defence Minister accidentally making it clear he thinks the cuts are going to far and that he DOES get it, and DOES understand the implications, but he gets spun and threatened back into line in fear of his career.
So why would the general public REALLY think anything differently?
Besides, they'll have a lot more to worry about when they get made redundant themselves and find the only "job" they can get is a voluntarily one running the council services they were getting paid to run 6 months beforehand. So maybe they don't actually even care... and nobody would take any notice of them anyway. Its been a long time since the polticians and the press actually gave a monkeys about who they're supposed to be representing!
So maybe binning the Red Arrows would make people sit up and take notice. My worry is that it might not have the effect we'd hope for!
far more money is wasted each year by the MOD than the Reds cost
Yes, the Blues aren't cheap ... which points to some serious issues at the Pentagon.
With a 'team' of just over 100 personnel, and looking at an average capitation rate of £30,000 (although I suspect it would be far higher), the yearly manning costs alone are £3 Million.
They can also be folded into diplomatic endeavors, depending on what a given Secretary of State (or UK's equivalent ... Foreign Minister?) wishes to do in that arena.
Tip of the cap to the Red Arrows, who I first enjoyed at an air show, Andrews AFB, in 1983. The mostly American crowd loved them.
They are an excellent flight demonstration team, and professionals who represent the colors, overseas or at home, with grace and style.
Binning them won't save money, but scrapping them may bring it to the attention of the public just how strapped we are (and cause huge embarrassment to the government.)
If morale in your section depends on the Red Arrows being in existence, then I wouldn't be too quick to criticize others.
If morale in your section depends on the Red Arrows being in existence, then I wouldn't be too quick to criticize others.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somewhere special
Age: 46
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just PR
Forgive me for stating the obvious but I genuinely believe the Reds are way more than a PR and recruiting tool. The message the Reds send out to those nations who might consider tampering with us is far more valuable than the 3-5M quid that it may/may not cost. demonstrating to those nations that we have incredibly well trained pilots who are very disciplined and capable of excellent formation work goes a long way to being an effective deterrent. it conveys a message that we have the same crews that can formation fly to bomb you very well! If you think i'm wrong consider why the USMC has a drill display team - to demonstrate to potential adversaries that they have well disciplined soldiers who are exceptional at what they do - fighting as well as rifle drill.
one could argue that the FCO should bear the cost of the Reds for that reason, but personally i think they are a pretty good deterrent that should be borne from the defence budget. we may be shrinking as an air force but we still need to publicly send a message that we have some of the best trained crews and equipment in the world. I still believe we are a bloody good air force (despite the cuts and capability gaps) and if we were to bin the reds for the sake of no more than 5M we might as well call it day.
H-u-L
one could argue that the FCO should bear the cost of the Reds for that reason, but personally i think they are a pretty good deterrent that should be borne from the defence budget. we may be shrinking as an air force but we still need to publicly send a message that we have some of the best trained crews and equipment in the world. I still believe we are a bloody good air force (despite the cuts and capability gaps) and if we were to bin the reds for the sake of no more than 5M we might as well call it day.
H-u-L