Military Job cuts AGAIN
 

Geof hoon anounced more job losses for the armed forces.

Goto www.timesonline.co.uk to find out more

I wonder where the money has gone???

http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_h...wsItem_id=2946

Its very nice...have a look!

---- and long overdue

Silly question time................

Should I even attempt applyin again for when i'm elgible in Apr 2005?! I know there will always be a need for recruits ie to replace retirees etc.

I'm looking at Admin, Supply and maybe Medical Support Oficer but i've heard that Admin is pretty much shutting down and becomming civilianised, any word on Supply or Medical Support?

Cheers much and sorry for yet another wanabee post!

ppf :D

norven

many thanks for the link, bless them having to work in such awful conditions. At least the powers that be have got their priorities straight and got rid of those awful crowded corridors of power.

:ok:

Mmmmmmmm..........nice!

A bit like Abbey Wood, but without the ornate fountains and black swans swimming effortlessly around the water features in the well manicured grounds.

Another bottle of Château Neuf du Pap (sp) before we go back for the afternoon session?

After all it must be nearly three o'clock.

PPrune has been specifically mentioned in a certain unit's AFBLT report, with regard to cuts and uncertainties.

Also, today's Times could have been lifted from these very pages! The article mentions the possibility of a Fresco 2 decision next week...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...166502,00.html

Get typing, the 15 minutes of fame starts now!

What is they say? You can always tell how busy the top brass of an organisation are by how nice the headquarters are. When they're busy there's no time to worry about the building. As soon as there's time to spare they start lokking at things to spend the money on.
(Next time I'd like to suggest the front line)

If the average yearly wage of the 10'000 that are going to get the sack is £35'000. Then the amount that the government 'save' is £350'000'000. Spooky seeing as that is the cost of the refurbishment.

I'll bet those poor sods really enjoy knowing that their job was cut for such a worthy and worth while cause

Overstretch - what overstretch.

Under the cuts now agreed by ministers, the Navy is to lose six surface warships — three of the old Type 42 destroyers and three Type 23 anti-submarine warfare frigates. One or two of the nuclear-powered Swiftsure class submarines will also be axed.

It's not as if RN frigates and destroyers, and submarines, are heavily involved in operations in the Gulf or as part of the "war against terror", is it? Out of sight out of mind?

The following is part of one of my posts on the Sea Jet, which contains quite a few tangents and non aviation issues....

Rumours in the media are that there is to be a reduction in frigate and destroyer numbers. Inevitably this will exacerbate the problem caused by the loss of organic air defence. The loss of the Sea Harrier means that the fleet's first layer of defence against aircraft (not including third party assets) is the Type 42 Destroyer with Sea Dart.

The Type 23 Frigate is not primarily an anti air ship, but can provide extended point defence for herself and nearby vessels with vertical lauch Sea Wolf. Apart from being more suitable for anti missile use, the vertical launch version of Sea Wolf has 32 missiles ready to go as opposed to Sea Dart's two.

Because of the need to keep Type 42s due to the loss of Sea Harrier, Type 23s may be cut. This makes little sense, and is probably a consequence of the loss of organic air defence.

My guess is that losing Sea Dart would be less of a loss (considering all our frigates now have Sea Wolf, we have more sophisticated decoys and CIWS aboard high value units and some other vessels) than the SHAR/Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination. Doesn't Sea Dart contain lots of 60s/70s technology? And even if it is upgraded the basic limitations of range and only having two missiles on the launcher.

When I was at University one of my lecturers was a ex RN Instructor Officer who had done other things in the mob. According to him the T42 design was criticised as a ship that would have trouble defending herself, let alone anyone else. The events of 1982 may have vindicated that view....

1. AAW. Sea Dart limited, old, and obsolecent.
2. Anti Surface. Same as above, additionally was Sea Dart ever serious in the anti ship role?
3. ASW. Noisy, difficult to use own sonar 2016, vulnerable to homing torpedoes or acoustic mines due to noise, no STWS, can't operate Merlin, aviation facilities limited.
4. MIOPS - due to problems with operating boats T42s are not the preferred platform for boarding duties.

I have been told the only task which has to be a T42 is the Five Powers' deployment in the Far East. Also escorting CVS/LPH/LPD(?), although I would have thought they'd be better of with a T23 providing extended point defence with vertical Sea Wolf and the Sea Harrier providing air defence.......

As I see it, we should have kept the batch two T22s we've scrapped as targets/flogged (interesting that the Romanians want 76mm guns fitted) and considered losing more of the T42s instead of the Sea Jet. However, the need to have a certain number of frigates/destroyers may make this unrealistic. Although these numbers are under threat at the moment. Perhaps the RN should acquire less sophisticated vessels for MIOPS and the like. Unfortunately the Treasury etc would no doubt use this to justify more cutbacks.

However, the need for the fleet to have an ability to deal with enemy aircraft/missiles at a range of more than a few miles means that we may end of losing more useful, better armed, Type 22 or Type 23 Frigates.

A more cynical view might be that the Type 42s are old. Many of them are due to be decommisioned in the next few years. The oldest Type 23 is newer than the newest Type 42. So if only a certain number of T42s are paid off now, the other ones will reach their paying off time in a few years anyway, so the frigate/destroyer numbers are reduced even more, which the Government then use to justify only ordering a limited number of Type 45 Destroyers.....

The press report says 7000 RAF jobs to go. Does anyone know if this refers solely to uniformed posts? Last time I checked we had 52,000 (less than Marks and Spencer!) and by my maths that means that Mr Hoon will be getting rid of one in every seven and a half of the RAF. Quite a depressing thought really.:(

An article in today's Sunday Times, concerning the possibility of a fire brigade strike, now claims:

"All leave for the armed forces is likely to be cancelled as personnel are drawn in from the army, navy and air force."

The full story is at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...167716,00.html

Good luck to you all - I sincerely hope it doesn't happen!

ppf,

You ask :"Should even attempt applyin again for when i'm elgible in Apr 2005?!"

Well, if you're the type of person who would be put off by someone answering No to you on this site then you're probably not the sort of person we want serving.

Whatever happens to the size of the RAF, and whatever the Government does to try to turn us into a 9-5 business, we will still need (more than ever!) people to join who have a passion for the Service and a committment to the ethos of military service.

So to answer your question: "No"

Thanks for your reply Red Line Entry.

I think my post may have been misunderstood slightly, I was asking if I should re-apply as I believe the branches I am eligible for may be becoming civilianised and not due to no passion of joining.

I have wanted to join the RAF for the past 12 years, its the only life I know!

ppf ;)

Quite. Red Line - bit of a naff post that. Blatant hostility is hardly helpful....

But then again, I'd apply for the RAF I applied for 40 years ago like a shot. But apply for the run down shadow of its former self? I doubt it.

Wondered why Defence Forces were so stretched?

Army cannot afford to recruit
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 06/07/2004)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

The MoD is deliberately keeping the Army down to 102,000 soldiers, 5,000 below its proper strength, because of a cash crisis.
The Army has been short of soldiers for a decade and the rapid increase in overseas operations over the past few years has left it overstretched and unable to cope.
Army chiefs complain that the training cycle has been completely disrupted, with some regiments having served in both Afghanistan and Iraq while others are already returning for their second tour in Iraq.
They were pleased to find recruitment booming in the wake of the war in Iraq, offering potential respite from the problems of overstretch as well as a move towards a fully manned army of 107,000 men.
But, with recruitment booming and the Army's strength approaching 103,000, they were told by the MoD that there was not enough money in the defence budget to cope with more than 102,000 troops.
Furious Army chiefs realised they had only two options: take money from other areas of their budget to pay for the extra 1,000 soldiers or slow down recruitment and accelerate the discharge of soldiers.
The Army Board decided that, with cuts in other areas likely only to damage morale, they had no choice but to order Lt-Gen Sir Alistair Irwin, the Adjutant-General, to bring numbers down to the 102,000 figure they could afford.
Sir Alistair's response was to ban infantry recruitment from May to October to keep numbers down to the level they could afford.
The move has infuriated officers in battalions threatened by defence cuts expected next week because the argument for axing them was lack of recruits but they are currently banned from recruiting.
Battalions set to be axed include the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, both of which have severe shortages. The Black Watch is about a third short while the Royal Scots has kept its numbers higher only by recruiting troops from Fiji. Overstretch has put immense pressure on the Army's more experienced NCOs and officers, most of whom have wives and families and do not want to spend long periods separated from them.
Large numbers of those men, vital to the efficiency of regiments, have left but not enough to satisfy the civil servants. The ban on recruitment was accompanied by a series of measures to speed up the number leaving.
Army personnel chiefs had already instigated active measures to get rid of soldiers under a system known as "manning control".
That involved tearing up the contracts of soldiers due to serve 22 years, when they would receive an immediate pension, and forcing them out early. But, faced with hundreds of legal challenges, they have now resorted to other measures.
Any soldier putting in his notice is likely to be told he must leave immediately, whether or not he has had time to sort out a new job, to bring the number down to the 102,000 level that can be paid for, one defence source said.
"There is an undisclosed, conscious policy to reduce further the size of the Army; ostensibly by the very same people - the Army Board - who supposedly tell ministers how overstretched the Army is," the source said.

And we're surprised? At least it is being said.
The endangered species of the Scottish Division were within 62 recruits of full manning in financial year 2003-04, according to a written Commons reply by the MoD to an SNP question yesterday. Then came the "capping" of recruitment and uncertainty over the future and the numbers have plummeted again. Not rocket science. The Royal Scots are really struggling. The Highlanders are saying privately a number of units are being set up for the chop by manipulation of policy. The MoD's only going down this road because its misuse of manning control and S-type contracts was exposed by the media. Great credit to the 2 Para website campaign on this one.

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id118.html

Forces face biggest cuts since Cold War
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 09/07/2004)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../09/ndef09.xml

The armed forces are facing the biggest cuts since the end of the Cold War in next week's Government spending review.
There was growing alarm at Westminster last night that all the Services will be scaled back as a result of plans to create a more flexible and rapidly deployable force structure. The Navy will have fewer destroyers and frigates; the Army will lose tanks and regiments will be axed or merged; and the RAF will lose thousands of personnel and some of its jets will be grounded.
The MoD budget is already under strain because of the conflict in Iraq. It has lost out in the spending round to overseas aid and the domestic fight against terrorism.
Nicholas Soames, the Conservative defence spokesman, said yesterday it would be an "act of almost grotesque folly" for the Government to cut the number of infantry regiments at a time when the Armed Forces were severely overstretched.
He said there were now more troops on overseas operations than at any time since the 1950s. Mr Soames said there were likely to be "substantial cuts" in the RAF. "We are talking about losing fast jets and airfields."
The Navy was facing reductions in manpower and ships because of a £1.5 billion "black hole" in the defence budget. "Labour's failure will be taken out on the armed forces," Mr Soames said.

:mad:

Here is another good reason NOT to reduce the number of uniformed personnel:

http://www.fbu.org.uk/ffgtr/pdfarch/...ulletin30.html

The whole thing smacks of "complete inability to plan ahead!!"

None of the NEWS is a complete shock to anyone but it still p***es me off when they continue to waste money on completely unimportant things that have already been alluded to in this thread.

Beagle

You imply that you would not apply for the air force as it is a

"run down shadow of its former self"

In your eyes, that may be, but things change and I believe that the air force still offers a great oppotunity for many, even in the position that it is today!!

Still optimistic after 16 years:D