RAF's now severed head speaks about cuts (to defence)..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF's now severed head speaks about cuts (to defence)..
Sort of. God, I should have been a leader writer for the Dandy or Beano, not slumming it writing garbage in Prune.
Anyway , this is a story in the Grauniad about Sir Michael Gradon, who is no longer head of the RAF but still speaks on defence related issues.
The PM should commit UK to a guaranteed amount on defence spending is the gist.
Interesting comment by one Grad reader says Sir Michael is on the payroll of French Defence Group Thales these days as a non executive director, so he may have a very in(vested) interest in making defence/war starting companies money. (Like my leader, that might be rubbish-who knows?).
PM must guarantee minimum defence spending, says former RAF head | Politics | The Guardian
Be good if Sir Michel got on here...maybe he does.
Anyway , this is a story in the Grauniad about Sir Michael Gradon, who is no longer head of the RAF but still speaks on defence related issues.
The PM should commit UK to a guaranteed amount on defence spending is the gist.
Interesting comment by one Grad reader says Sir Michael is on the payroll of French Defence Group Thales these days as a non executive director, so he may have a very in(vested) interest in making defence/war starting companies money. (Like my leader, that might be rubbish-who knows?).
PM must guarantee minimum defence spending, says former RAF head | Politics | The Guardian
Be good if Sir Michel got on here...maybe he does.
Unbelievable! Under his watch and other "Yes Men" the forces have been decimated! Short term so called money savings mean the Jaguars and Harriers were scrapped with years of life still left! Furthermore, don't even start me on the F35! It's lots of aeroplanes we need not a small number of high value assets which do not even do what it says on the tin!
A complete rethink about what we need would be a good! You could start with selling Main Building! Who needs offices in Whitehall when we have super fast communications? Then scrap Trident and its replacement! Give the Navy a task force of ships to protect the carrier properly! The list goes on!
Standing by for the flack and off to do some hard digging in the garden!
A complete rethink about what we need would be a good! You could start with selling Main Building! Who needs offices in Whitehall when we have super fast communications? Then scrap Trident and its replacement! Give the Navy a task force of ships to protect the carrier properly! The list goes on!
Standing by for the flack and off to do some hard digging in the garden!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
You will note PN that I was not specific on the dates! This has been a trend since way back! Our senior wheels have been more interested in their careers than maintaining a credible force! Far too much time and money has been wasted! The frontline has been decimated! In my day, it was always felt the forces did better under a Labour government than a Tory government!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Newt, equipment wise I agree. Remember that Maggie gave us a big pay rise.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Deciding whether I am retired or unemployed
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'military salary' was around 1969 if I remember correctly; 1/-d for a day's grub. I think PN is referring to 1979 when I got three pay rises in the single year totalling about 30%.
Surely the damage is more than 1/10th?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Around 1971 the CAS I think was 'horrified' that salaries absorbed more than 50% of the Air Force vote.
For the military salary, what they overlooked was that including accomplice and food into the MS made those elements personable - what a mistaka to maka. Or perhaps they did realise and slipped it passed the Treasury.
For the military salary, what they overlooked was that including accomplice and food into the MS made those elements personable - what a mistaka to maka. Or perhaps they did realise and slipped it passed the Treasury.
I'm not sure why the media (especially the BBC) give Graydon the time of day, given his disgusting performances during the Lord Philip Review and his letters to the press railing against the pilots. And, of course, he was proven wrong and completely discredited.
Newt / CM, I'm not sure if you're requests are aimed at me, but the Mull of Kintyre thread did this to death at the time. If I could just offer a quote from a post-Review analysis;
"First, one must understand the most unsavoury aspect of this case. The 17 year battle put up by senior staffs to scapegoat the pilots systematically sought to conceal the truth. The illegality of some of their actions is discussed elsewhere, but during the Mull of Kintyre Review the two retired senior officers with most to lose, if the truth emerged, were very vocal in the media. ACMs Michael Alcock and Michael Graydon, former Air Member Supply and Organisation (AMSO) / Chief Engineer and Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) respectively.
Graydon had opined to the media the only way the ruling could be reviewed was to reconvene the Board of Inquiry (BoI). That Dr Fox could not simply overturn the gross negligence verdict. The agenda was clear. That a reconvened BoI would still be under RAF jurisdiction, and the Reviewing Officers could still overrule it.
The current CAS, ACM Stephen Dalton, wrote to the press supporting these retired officers. Dalton’s actions were unbecoming his position, as he was pre-judging any inquiry. His judgement was seen to be sadly lacking.
Alcock spoke of other matters. It did not cross his mind that the entire Chinook Airworthiness Review Team (CHART) report of 1992 would ever be released. After all, only 52 pages had been lodged in the House of Commons library, excluding the terms of reference he had placed the team leader under in May 1992. (For example, he was not permitted to speak to MoD’s own airworthiness experts). Unaware the entire 373 page document had been obtained and provided to Lord Philip, Alcock spoke and wrote to the media many times, always repeating the same mantra - CHART did not refer to the Chinook HC Mk2. His ongoing influence over serving officers was demonstrated by MoD and Ministers adopting this line. In fact, the terms of reference he had issued specifically required the team leader to address the impact of the known airworthiness failings on the Mk2, and the report mentioned the Mk2 and its programme almost 400 times."
Graydon had opined to the media the only way the ruling could be reviewed was to reconvene the Board of Inquiry (BoI). That Dr Fox could not simply overturn the gross negligence verdict. The agenda was clear. That a reconvened BoI would still be under RAF jurisdiction, and the Reviewing Officers could still overrule it.
The current CAS, ACM Stephen Dalton, wrote to the press supporting these retired officers. Dalton’s actions were unbecoming his position, as he was pre-judging any inquiry. His judgement was seen to be sadly lacking.
Alcock spoke of other matters. It did not cross his mind that the entire Chinook Airworthiness Review Team (CHART) report of 1992 would ever be released. After all, only 52 pages had been lodged in the House of Commons library, excluding the terms of reference he had placed the team leader under in May 1992. (For example, he was not permitted to speak to MoD’s own airworthiness experts). Unaware the entire 373 page document had been obtained and provided to Lord Philip, Alcock spoke and wrote to the media many times, always repeating the same mantra - CHART did not refer to the Chinook HC Mk2. His ongoing influence over serving officers was demonstrated by MoD and Ministers adopting this line. In fact, the terms of reference he had issued specifically required the team leader to address the impact of the known airworthiness failings on the Mk2, and the report mentioned the Mk2 and its programme almost 400 times."
Thanks, Tuc. I'm guessing Newt and I were asking the same question.
Good quotes in response. I obviously can't speak for Newt, but just a few lines of simple précis would mean more to me. Your use of quotes assumes we all have the same intimate understanding of these cases as you evidently do.
I only ask because I am interested in what you have to say.
Sorry I'm so badly informed in this issue.
Good quotes in response. I obviously can't speak for Newt, but just a few lines of simple précis would mean more to me. Your use of quotes assumes we all have the same intimate understanding of these cases as you evidently do.
I only ask because I am interested in what you have to say.
Sorry I'm so badly informed in this issue.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the same Sir Mike that, as CAS, vented his spleen about defence cuts, then apologized the very next day because his political master told him to.
Talk about spineless!
Talk about spineless!
It is the same Graydon who was CAS from 1992-97. The first 2 years of his tenure were notable for consecutive 25-28% cuts in support funding. The CHART report, which his office withheld from all MoK inquiries, noted 25% cuts across the board. Maintaining Airworthiness was specifically targeted with 28%. Lord Philip accepted the principle that, as this was known to Bagnall (ACAS) and the CE (Alcock), then it was known to CAS. (If he claims otherwise, then he's accusing his mates of dereliction of duty as they were required to elevate such matters!)
Sorry CM, I didn't want the thread to become "another MoK" but it is difficult because that is what Graydon will be remembered for. I hope. I suspect he gave valuable service for most of his career, and he is certainly involved in worthy causes, but his behaviour toward the end means it counts for nothing.
Sorry CM, I didn't want the thread to become "another MoK" but it is difficult because that is what Graydon will be remembered for. I hope. I suspect he gave valuable service for most of his career, and he is certainly involved in worthy causes, but his behaviour toward the end means it counts for nothing.