Can Wigston survive the onslaught?
I cannor bear to watch any more, but its a bit early for a drink.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Simple maths seem to evade them as well......umm,er about 20 ,oh 12...!
The following users liked this post:
For balance, Mark Francois was an argument looking for a victim, but it was an atrocious performance riddled with half truths, whataboutery and evasive responses.
The RAF has disintegrated on his watch, and whilst he’s p1ssed about with social experimentation. and pronouns, recruitment, selection and training has imploded, and the focus has been allowed to drift from operational effect and esprit de corp. I note many of the promises he made will be due after he has retired.
He should suffer the ignominy of being removed, rather than allowed to quietly see out his time.
The RAF has disintegrated on his watch, and whilst he’s p1ssed about with social experimentation. and pronouns, recruitment, selection and training has imploded, and the focus has been allowed to drift from operational effect and esprit de corp. I note many of the promises he made will be due after he has retired.
He should suffer the ignominy of being removed, rather than allowed to quietly see out his time.
The following 2 users liked this post by minigundiplomat:
warching it will spoil your day
Liked watching him squirm.
I thought that Knighton was more credible and while trying to keep the wolves away from Wiggy, still managed to retain his composure.
IG
I thought that Knighton was more credible and while trying to keep the wolves away from Wiggy, still managed to retain his composure.
IG
The following users liked this post:
Delighted to see that the committee went in hard on the highly dubious decision to phase out C130 and replace its tactical role with A400. However, as the committee were particularly focused on SF support, more play could have been made of the wisdom of using a high value asset in high threat environments such as demanded by supporting SF. It would seem you can buy up to 10 C130s for one A400!
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
It would seem you can buy up to 10 C130s for one A400!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...mits-d3kxwl8kk
Women can’t fly F-35 jets as helmets are too heavy, RAF chief admits
Women in the RAF cannot fly F-35 Lightning jets because the helmets provided are too heavy, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston has admitted.
Wigston told MPs that the RAF had not approved a lighter helmet because of safety fears. He said a more pressing concern was that women were not being trained as pilots, pointing to a “woeful gender diversity” problem in the RAF.
Wigston, who was appearing before the committee on Wednesday, replied: “The lighter helmet that would allow lighter aircrew, so not just women but lighter aircrew, to fly the F-35 . . . we would have challenges in clearing it in safety terms because it does not give the pilot the protection that the other helmet has.
“On a case-by-case basis if a woman came through or a light person came through the flying training scheme and there was an operational benefit for that person to be flying Lightning, then we could make the risk case for flying with a different helmet.”
Tobias Ellwood, who chairs the Commons defence committee , said: “There needs to be a second lighter helmet for females to use.”
Wigston said he would “dearly love to be in that position” and a more “fundamental problem” was a lack of women going through flying training.
However, Kevan Jones, the Labour MP for North Durham, said: “The problem there is you’re reducing your pool down straight away aren’t you? Because if women are lighter, which they generally are, they’re not going to be able to ever fly. The only alternative is you either stop them flying or ask them to go and put some weight on.”
Wigston said women could fly other aircraft, adding: “We would absolutely do a bespoke risk case analysis for that person flying with a different helmet.”
Ellwood said: “There is an American helmet designed for females which is lighter, but they cost a quarter of a million pounds each and we haven’t purchased any because I think there’s some health and safety regulations, UK regs, which prohibit us.”
The lack of women flying F-35s comes amid a backlog in training all pilots, who in some cases have waited up to ten years to fly.
Wigston said improvements had been made and there were fewer than ten people waiting for elementary flying training, down from 150 in 2019. He said the total training time for pilots had been cut from seven years to five.
Women can’t fly F-35 jets as helmets are too heavy, RAF chief admits
Women in the RAF cannot fly F-35 Lightning jets because the helmets provided are too heavy, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston has admitted.
Wigston told MPs that the RAF had not approved a lighter helmet because of safety fears. He said a more pressing concern was that women were not being trained as pilots, pointing to a “woeful gender diversity” problem in the RAF.
Wigston, who was appearing before the committee on Wednesday, replied: “The lighter helmet that would allow lighter aircrew, so not just women but lighter aircrew, to fly the F-35 . . . we would have challenges in clearing it in safety terms because it does not give the pilot the protection that the other helmet has.
“On a case-by-case basis if a woman came through or a light person came through the flying training scheme and there was an operational benefit for that person to be flying Lightning, then we could make the risk case for flying with a different helmet.”
Tobias Ellwood, who chairs the Commons defence committee , said: “There needs to be a second lighter helmet for females to use.”
Wigston said he would “dearly love to be in that position” and a more “fundamental problem” was a lack of women going through flying training.
However, Kevan Jones, the Labour MP for North Durham, said: “The problem there is you’re reducing your pool down straight away aren’t you? Because if women are lighter, which they generally are, they’re not going to be able to ever fly. The only alternative is you either stop them flying or ask them to go and put some weight on.”
Wigston said women could fly other aircraft, adding: “We would absolutely do a bespoke risk case analysis for that person flying with a different helmet.”
Ellwood said: “There is an American helmet designed for females which is lighter, but they cost a quarter of a million pounds each and we haven’t purchased any because I think there’s some health and safety regulations, UK regs, which prohibit us.”
The lack of women flying F-35s comes amid a backlog in training all pilots, who in some cases have waited up to ten years to fly.
Wigston said improvements had been made and there were fewer than ten people waiting for elementary flying training, down from 150 in 2019. He said the total training time for pilots had been cut from seven years to five.
Harry Truman had the sign on his desk saying `The Buck Stops here`. In my opinion I stress, is there not an honorable option the CAS could & likely should take? Just what must be the feeling amongst a RAF personnel right now. Very sad state of affairs & certainly not the RAF I remain proud to have served in.