Can Wigston survive the onslaught?
For those that choose to comment without watching CAS’s testimony, he said this:
The current UK F35 helmet is not suitable for people below a certain weight.
There is a helmet suitable for lighter people but it does not meet UK standards of head protection. The US use this helmet for lighter people.
Should a light person be streamed F35 the UK would consider buying the lighter ( I think he said £250,000) helmet and “assess the risk “ to that individual, but that problem had not yet arisen.
I’m rather proud of the way I did that without a single male/ female/he/she!
The current UK F35 helmet is not suitable for people below a certain weight.
There is a helmet suitable for lighter people but it does not meet UK standards of head protection. The US use this helmet for lighter people.
Should a light person be streamed F35 the UK would consider buying the lighter ( I think he said £250,000) helmet and “assess the risk “ to that individual, but that problem had not yet arisen.
I’m rather proud of the way I did that without a single male/ female/he/she!
According to Nice but Tobias, the weight limit is 5 stone 8lbs (15:15 in the Parliament TV prog).
If that is true - and given that it's Tobias quoting the number, it could be anything - that would probably limit Kylie Minogue from being an F35 Lightning pilot. Not sure most of the other women I know would be under that weight, 78lbs / 36kg or thereabouts.
If that is true - and given that it's Tobias quoting the number, it could be anything - that would probably limit Kylie Minogue from being an F35 Lightning pilot. Not sure most of the other women I know would be under that weight, 78lbs / 36kg or thereabouts.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
According to Nice but Tobias, the weight limit is 5 stone 8lbs (15:15 in the Parliament TV prog).
If that is true - and given that it's Tobias quoting the number, it could be anything - that would probably limit Kylie Minogue from being an F35 Lightning pilot. Not sure most of the other women I know would be under that weight, 78lbs / 36kg or thereabouts.
If that is true - and given that it's Tobias quoting the number, it could be anything - that would probably limit Kylie Minogue from being an F35 Lightning pilot. Not sure most of the other women I know would be under that weight, 78lbs / 36kg or thereabouts.
So prey tell, I can understand the limit of the bang seat or possibly the aircraft trim at an extreme, but why does the weight of the pilot affect their ability to wear a helmet?, one would assume neck muscles etc would be the main concern or upper body strength or Pilot height would play a more important role.
The following users liked this post:
Indeed, ATG. The elephant in the room that the Committee declined to comment upon, except in passing. It would be better if the 'Chief's' aspiration was to return UK military airfleets to airworthiness rather than to fret upon the diversity of the occupants. What use is that, if their own aircraft kill them without any enemy input? The dire performance before the Defence Committee was an alert to all who care about our defence as to the inadequacy of the RAF leadership. Failing abysmally to fight for the RAF's ability to prevail against future foes, it prefers to set itself a woke agenda instead. That it fails in that regard too is of little consequence to my mind. It's duty is to ensure the future of UK Air Power. The combination of Capability Gaps, permanently grounding entire fleets due to airworthiness failures, failing to train aircrew in an acceptable time frame, ridding us of tactical workhorses such as the Hercules in favour of fewer, bigger, and more expensive aircraft that tactical attrition will make fewer still, makes one wonder if the RAF's purpose, of going to war, has been seriously taken on board.
The RAF was designed as a bureaucracy. Yesterday's hearing showed, if nothing else, that in that aspiration at least it has succeeded. As others have said, a very depressing experience throughout.
The RAF was designed as a bureaucracy. Yesterday's hearing showed, if nothing else, that in that aspiration at least it has succeeded. As others have said, a very depressing experience throughout.
The following 11 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
CAS didn't seem to have a grip of anything being discussed. When asked how many Typhoons we had he said 137. He was then pressed on how many are available and of course no answer.
He received questions on why the RAF decided to only order 3 Wedgetails instead of 5. The answer was cost saving which turns out to be £200m. I believe £1.9 billion for 3 and £2.1 billion for 5. Crazy. He was then asked when the fleet would be operational, it took 5 attempts before a vague answer came out.
I won't go on - but absolutely depressing, especially the red face, blinking of eyes and stuttering when he didn't like the questions. Ellwood and Francois knew it too.
He received questions on why the RAF decided to only order 3 Wedgetails instead of 5. The answer was cost saving which turns out to be £200m. I believe £1.9 billion for 3 and £2.1 billion for 5. Crazy. He was then asked when the fleet would be operational, it took 5 attempts before a vague answer came out.
I won't go on - but absolutely depressing, especially the red face, blinking of eyes and stuttering when he didn't like the questions. Ellwood and Francois knew it too.
Please Defence Secretary get rid, and find someone a nice seat in the Lords.
Perhaps sitting with the Bishops ?
Perhaps sitting with the Bishops ?
The following 2 users liked this post by langleybaston:
Wow, this is one of the only boards I've read where everyone, everyone, is on the same side. If the turkey that is CAS has achieved one thing in his sorry career, it's that he united a whole board.
Dear me. Having just seen that, I am appalled. The Air Chief Marshall was nervous, uncertain in his answers and clearly out of his depth in that position. As others have said, his whole demeanour suggested discomfort and uncertainty. Mid level management someone said - hardly even that. In my last company there'd have been a loud bark of 'stop waffling and answer the b**** questions' from the top boss after a few minutes of that.
Where was the emphasis on 'we need more, we need it now, or as soon as' ? Most of that seemed to be excuses for current inadequacies. We are where we are; accept that and move on. To be shown up by a bunch of politicians - for shame !
Having had the pleasure of meeting another VSO recently, I was impressed by the (pleasant) crispness and decsiveness he showed. No waffle. So we still have them, just not right at the top. Something wrong with the selection process. I don't think I'd like to serve in a unit led by that gentleman; too much dither showing. It was said many years ago by one warrior that he'd rather follow someone decisively wrong - at least you know where you are going and hence how to change course!
ACM Wigston - would your guys happily follow you I wonder?
Where was the emphasis on 'we need more, we need it now, or as soon as' ? Most of that seemed to be excuses for current inadequacies. We are where we are; accept that and move on. To be shown up by a bunch of politicians - for shame !
Having had the pleasure of meeting another VSO recently, I was impressed by the (pleasant) crispness and decsiveness he showed. No waffle. So we still have them, just not right at the top. Something wrong with the selection process. I don't think I'd like to serve in a unit led by that gentleman; too much dither showing. It was said many years ago by one warrior that he'd rather follow someone decisively wrong - at least you know where you are going and hence how to change course!
ACM Wigston - would your guys happily follow you I wonder?
Last edited by biscuit74; 4th Feb 2023 at 16:46.
The following users liked this post:
There are good people coming up: Rich K and Harv are both impressive people, then there are Al Marshall and Phil Robinson - also tremendously impressive. Let’s get through the next couple of months…..
The following users liked this post:
Nigerian In Law
As a former Pongo pilot may I say that was the most dismal, unprepared, dithering and embarrassing performance I've ever seen from anyone of Staff rank, let alone a service chief. He clearly hadn't read his briefing notes.
NEO
NEO
I couldn't help but notice the no nonesense old lad in the flasher mac sat over Wigston's right shoulder.......he looked like he wanted to slap his legs and send him to bed........particularly when he was being quizzed about the selection debacle. He didn't even put up a fight for more resources when he had the opportunity to do just that. Not an inspirational leader I'm afraid.
Last edited by mopardave; 2nd Feb 2023 at 20:28. Reason: addition
Dear me. Having just seen that, I am appalled. The Air Chief Marshall was nervous, uncertain in his answers and clearly out of his depth in that position. As others have said, his whole demeanour suggested discomfort and uncertainty.
IG
I must confess a degree of sympathy for CAS, and for any serving officer who has to appear before that committee of (for the most part) fools. Especially John Spellar, who as a Minister routinely lied to the same committee on the Mull of Kintyre case, prolonging the families’ agony for some years. (e.g. ‘FADEC software is not safety critical’).
And while evasive and unsure of his facts, I don’t think CAS lied outright or dropped his men in it, which was the routine response of a certain predecessor on the same Chinook case. Wigston took the hit, which is his job, when it is clear that most of the RAF’s problems have been building for decades. Had he chosen to, he could have pointed to the fact that at least 3 of the committee members, and many of their predecessors, had been advised of these problems some years ago and done SFA. Not least the Chairman, when a junior Defence Minister from 2017-19.
It was a sh*t show, but there’s far more to it than one man’s poor performance.
And while evasive and unsure of his facts, I don’t think CAS lied outright or dropped his men in it, which was the routine response of a certain predecessor on the same Chinook case. Wigston took the hit, which is his job, when it is clear that most of the RAF’s problems have been building for decades. Had he chosen to, he could have pointed to the fact that at least 3 of the committee members, and many of their predecessors, had been advised of these problems some years ago and done SFA. Not least the Chairman, when a junior Defence Minister from 2017-19.
It was a sh*t show, but there’s far more to it than one man’s poor performance.
The following users liked this post:
I must confess a degree of sympathy for CAS, and for any serving officer who has to appear before that committee of (for the most part) fools. Especially John Spellar, who as a Minister routinely lied to the same committee on the Mull of Kintyre case, prolonging the families’ agony for some years. (e.g. ‘FADEC software is not safety critical’).
It was a sh*t show, but there’s far more to it than one man’s poor performance.
It was a sh*t show, but there’s far more to it than one man’s poor performance.
ALL peacetime VSO in all civilian controlled militaries are politicians. They cannot be anything else: They are appointed by, and ultimately report to politicians: The wielders of ultimate power, deliverers of money and givers of orders. Political acceptability to left, right and centre is an essential quality for progress up the greasy pole.
N