Telegraph - RAF bare bones article
Are we talking active reservists (FTRS, Auxiliaries, sponsored reserves) or are we talking about mobilising the General Reserve, ie, those who have left and still have a (theoretical) reserve commitment? One of the 2007 cost-savings on JPA was to remove the contacts data base for those who have left the service. Ooops.[/QUOTE]
So if we did need to activate even a few reservists to augment the Gr4 fleet we can't contact them and our 'proper' reserves don't have the skills (in this case) to help either?
Splendid
So if we did need to activate even a few reservists to augment the Gr4 fleet we can't contact them and our 'proper' reserves don't have the skills (in this case) to help either?
Splendid
All this comment by so-called experts on the bringing back of weapons makes me wonder why we ever needed gun clearing pits in MOBs / FOBs etc - clearly every soldier who ever went out on patrol in NI, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghan etc must always have come back with no live rounds remaining or they weren't doing the job! Same principle applies, just slightly different calibre / weapon effect!
And without wishing to rattle WEBFs cage too much but had we still had "Harrier on Carrier" as part of the golf bag we wouldn't have had images of aircraft returning without weapons - they would have had to jettison the weapons 'safe', into the sea, before being able to land back on
Cue outrage.....
Edited to add latest news... Not even back for tea and medals and the debrief has started without them!!
And without wishing to rattle WEBFs cage too much but had we still had "Harrier on Carrier" as part of the golf bag we wouldn't have had images of aircraft returning without weapons - they would have had to jettison the weapons 'safe', into the sea, before being able to land back on
Cue outrage.....
Edited to add latest news... Not even back for tea and medals and the debrief has started without them!!
it at least shows some appreciation of the issues facing the RAF. Who replaces II (AC) at Christmas being one....
Are we talking active reservists (FTRS, Auxiliaries, sponsored reserves) or are we talking about mobilising the General Reserve, ie, those who have left and still have a (theoretical) reserve commitment? One of the 2007 cost-savings on JPA was to remove the contacts data base for those who have left the service. Ooops.
So if we did need to activate even a few reservists to augment the Gr4 fleet we can't contact them and our 'proper' reserves don't have the skills (in this case) to help either?
Splendid
So if we did need to activate even a few reservists to augment the Gr4 fleet we can't contact them and our 'proper' reserves don't have the skills (in this case) to help either?
Splendid
'People outside do b****y care! '
Do you honestly think the average civvy even read this article?
Do you think people lay in bed at night worrying that the RAF has only got 7 FJ Sqns?
I don't think so.
PapaDolmio is offline Report Post
Do you honestly think the average civvy even read this article?
Do you think people lay in bed at night worrying that the RAF has only got 7 FJ Sqns?
I don't think so.
PapaDolmio is offline Report Post
We all know the score, no amount of military retrenchment will be tolerated by the mainstream left, let alone the fringe element. Because in truth, they have never understood the case for any kind of military posture under any circumstances, its not in their DNA, they maintain the status quo just, when in office, simply to avoid a major upheaval in the other direction, but any attempt to reverse the cuts to defence whatever the case would be presented, by them, as forcing the poor and the NHS to bear the brunt of reducing the deficit while wasting money on unnecessary and expensive military hardware. However, untrue that would be.
FB
Apart from the fact that every major cut has been done under a Conservative Government: Options for Change, Front Line First and SDSR 10 all spring to mind....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is one of the problems with modern Democracy imo. Politicians don't plan 'long term' anymore, especially if it costs big money. In todays days of instant gratification they are only prepared to 'live in the moment' and they don't look past the end of their current term in office. It's all about popularity, not what's best for the country. And it's the same in just about every western country.
Apart from the fact that every major cut has been done under a Conservative Government: Options for Change, Front Line First and SDSR 10 all spring to mind....
However, what is markedly different are the circumstance behind each set of cuts; Options for Change was unavoidable, it and Front Line First were intended to set the defence posture for the long term future following the end of the Cold War, but I'll admit, the latter was something of a cut for cuts sake exercise and little priority given to the front line.
All of the Labour cuts took place under entirely different circumstances, no economic woes yet a growing expeditionary nature, unprecedented indeed. For all that, cuts were imposed routinely. SDSR was driven by the worst economic crisis since the end of the Second World War. But I'll make no excuses for the Conservatives, they're in the race for votes as well, hence the recent promise to spend "Billions" more on the NHS.
FB
Apart from the fact that every major cut has been done under a Conservative Government: Options for Change, Front Line First and SDSR 10 all spring to mind....
Brimstone...look a bit 'draggy' the way they're mounted?
Appreciate they've got to get off the jet cleanly...but they look almost 'bent' on the mountings...why are they mounted that way? Must be drag indusive?
To be honest, both parties have had their moments in office, but indeed, the Conservatives have some noticeable set piece cuts in their history such as the Sandys white paper. But again, Labour abandoned TSR2 for the F-111, not such a massive crime against the nation's security as against the Great British Aircraft Industry. Then they abandoned the F-111 and ended the Carrier programme as a result of the nothing East of Suez policy. They had some good reasons for all this and in fact wanted to concentrate resources, quite realistically on confronting the Warsaw Pact. But Labour, as always, have pursued a grand plan to provide for all, which is most efficacious. Even more so, ambitious, it was trying to created a plan for public investment which resulted in the financial crisis of 1967 to 68, this brought the cancellation of the F-111. When the Conservatives returned in 1970, they promised to, and indeed did, reverse the carrier de-commissioning programme albeit only as far as a stay of execution to 1978, that's how the Audacious class Ark Royal was kept on. In the meantime, the cancellation of the two planned CV-01 carriers had precipitated a massive cut to the planned buy of 120 or more Phantoms, just for the Fleet Air Arm, to around 40 or so (sorry don't have exact figures in my head as I type), some of which (originally meant to be all) were off loaded on the R.A.F. which meant 43 would live again after the Aden withdrawal. But when Labour returned in 1974, they embarked instantly with a quite savage assault on the Armed Forces assets and personnel, during which 12 R.A.F. stations were up for closure, although they did apply the knife to Air Support Command and FEAF rather than Strike or RAFG. But again, there was no real driving cause for this, no real financial crisis, just a desire to spend a lot more money on public welfare, I'm not averse to that but then in opposition when Foot became the leader, they began to show their true socialist nature and a swell of unrestrained anti-establishment anti-military resentment spewed forth including demands for the removal of all nuclear weapons and heavy defence cuts on top, not to mention the withdrawal of American Nuclear facilities from Uk soil as well. Hence the longest suicide note in history! As the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman so described the Labour manifesto to fight the 1983 General Election.
You should all buy my book; Fading Eagle.
FB
You should all buy my book; Fading Eagle.
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 1st Oct 2014 at 12:58.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're putting this down to party politics, his TSR2/F111 cancellation double-whammy was arguably the least of Dennis Healey's crimes as Defence Secretary. He wasn't even slightly interested in the fact that RN torpedoes were slower than Soviet subs, leaving ours effectively unarmed.
But I don't believe it's about party politics. Nor does it help insulting the public. Many of us DO care very much. To be fair to politicians and their electorate, they have voted significant amounts to Defence. Perhaps not as much as we'd like but enormous sums none the less. To put the amounts in context, for the price of two of the GR4's sitting broken in a hangar somewhere, India has placed a probe in orbit around Mars! Let's say the money-fairy dropped in tomorrow and doubled the defence budget. (As if!) . Would we now be debating whether or not we could (just about) manage to send twelve Tornados to Cyprus?
But I don't believe it's about party politics. Nor does it help insulting the public. Many of us DO care very much. To be fair to politicians and their electorate, they have voted significant amounts to Defence. Perhaps not as much as we'd like but enormous sums none the less. To put the amounts in context, for the price of two of the GR4's sitting broken in a hangar somewhere, India has placed a probe in orbit around Mars! Let's say the money-fairy dropped in tomorrow and doubled the defence budget. (As if!) . Would we now be debating whether or not we could (just about) manage to send twelve Tornados to Cyprus?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it goes deeper and further back than that. Despite numerous regional engagements since, this country has not faced an existential threat since WW2 and politicians have seen plundering the armed forces' budgets as an easy way of plugging holes elsewhere. The problem with this mind-set is that the nature of the threat continues to evolve and other, less friendly, parties don't see the situation the way our politicians do. So these other parties continue to expand and modernise their military capabilities and, because we (the Western democracies generally) have forgotten - or ignored the fact - that a strong military is the ultimate guarantor of our own peace and democracy, we cavil and obfuscate as Russia, for example, occupies the Crimea and threatens Ukraine, or China flexes its muscles in the South China Sea. And such is the run-down of our military capabilities generally that we fool no-one with our embarrassingly pathetic contribution to combat threats such as ISIS which, if allowed to continue to grow, could become the next existential threat to us and our way of life. At least in 1936 we had just enough time to re-arm. This time none of our politicians show the slightest comprehension of the necessity of a strong defence let alone the appreciation that a democracy needs to make material sacrifices to maintain such a defence.
We're doomed, doomed I tell you. (Rant over)
We're doomed, doomed I tell you. (Rant over)
Hi Shotone,
My reaction is more in response to the way that the politicians get everyone's backs up, or indeed the press, over such matters. I don't think, however, that a doubling of the defence budget is as straight forward as you suggest. With the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, I'm not entirely sure it needs increasing in real terms but it would be interesting to know what it all goes on. I understand that while all these hefty cuts to the R.A.F's frontline aircraft have gone on, certainly over the last 15 years or so, the defence budget hasn't actually budged, not one way or the other. There was some argument made by George Osborne at one stage around the SDSR that the Nuclear deterrent should be paid for out of the peace time defence budget also other areas of agreed direct capital expenditure such as the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and wherever else, I suspect have been funded either directly from the defence budget... or the Defence Budget Peter has been plundered to pay the Treasury Paul in order to make good the cost of war going operations around the Globe. Well middle east anyway.
FB
My reaction is more in response to the way that the politicians get everyone's backs up, or indeed the press, over such matters. I don't think, however, that a doubling of the defence budget is as straight forward as you suggest. With the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, I'm not entirely sure it needs increasing in real terms but it would be interesting to know what it all goes on. I understand that while all these hefty cuts to the R.A.F's frontline aircraft have gone on, certainly over the last 15 years or so, the defence budget hasn't actually budged, not one way or the other. There was some argument made by George Osborne at one stage around the SDSR that the Nuclear deterrent should be paid for out of the peace time defence budget also other areas of agreed direct capital expenditure such as the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and wherever else, I suspect have been funded either directly from the defence budget... or the Defence Budget Peter has been plundered to pay the Treasury Paul in order to make good the cost of war going operations around the Globe. Well middle east anyway.
FB
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But again, there was no real driving cause for this, no real financial crisis, just a desire to spend a lot more money on public welfare, I'm not averse to that but then in opposition when Foot became the leader, they began to show their true socialist nature and a swell of unrestrained anti-establishment anti-military resentment spewed forth including demands for the removal of all nuclear weapons and heavy defence cuts on top, not to mention the withdrawal of American Nuclear facilities from Uk soil as well.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've gotta love these threads. The naive musings of a wannabe spotter mixed with those with of a B&T retired radar bod.
In the words of the great (well, well known) Ronan Keating: "you say it best when you say nothing at all"
Sometimes it's best to just observe unless you have something to add........whoops!
S-D
In the words of the great (well, well known) Ronan Keating: "you say it best when you say nothing at all"
Sometimes it's best to just observe unless you have something to add........whoops!
S-D
It is apparent that you have a problem with anybody posting on here who isn't currently serving in the RAF. I've seen a number of your previous posts as I wanted to get an idea what you were all about before I responded to this.
"The naive musings of a wannabe spotter" is just unnecessary and very elitist. With that kind of attitude I would expect you to have 4000+ FJ hrs under your belt with multiple tours of duty. Then I could understand. Or could I? Members like Courtney, BEagle, 5F6B and Bob Viking have thousands of hours behind the stick between them and they are in no way arrogant or obnoxious, in fact they've been helpful and encouraging, even inspiring. Another member who I discovered last night was a fighter pilot in WWII and served in the RAF for years after the war had ended, probably in other conflicts too. He came across as incredibly humble and respectful, despite having achieved so much.
From what I have seen, few members agree with your stance.
Please drop the arrogance - we are all here because we're interested in military hardware.
T93.
T93, in fairness this part of PPRuNe is:
There are other parts of the forum dedicated to those who are interested in military hardware but do not meet the criteria above. You are a guest in these parts so I would careful in calling the shots or trying to shape this sub-forum in your own image.
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.