CAS finally speaks out
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7128136.stm

It's about time too sir!!!

Far too little, way too late.

The twit is still saying that the RAF is merely stretched, and is still refusing to acknowledge over-stretch NOW.

Who is still being careful not to say anything that his political masters might not like.

This is a disappointingly gutless performance, and it is hard to see this as being as anything but a collection of platitudes from someone who looks as though he has forgotten that his responsibilities should be to those he commands, as well as to those above him.

A very weak statement from a CAS who has lost the respect of much of the RAF.
:ugh:

Jacko has it in a nutshell: too little too late indeed and from a little man, and no I am not being heightist! I say to the Chief of the Air Staff what Oliver Cromwell said to the Long Parliament, and what in turn Leo Amery told Neville Chamberlain in the Norway Debate in 1940:

The Royal Air Force is in desperate need of leadership, it must desperately find it without delay.

Chug

Should Sir Glenn go who do you suggest steps up to the plate?

Just curious - sometimes it is better the devil you know. Or perhaps we could advertise it and get an leading light from industry / other public sector / civil servant to take the helm. At least they would be neutral, not carrying baggage and not fast jet-ist / rotary wing-ist / single seat-ist etc.

Perhaps Sir Ian Blair could move across from the Met ....:p

Typical Torpy! Too little, WAY too late and long after others have made some semblance of putting their heads above the parapet. Only ever thinking about his own career.

A sad, gutless and weak performance from a sad, gutless and weak 'leader' of the RAF. Pathetic.

Last AOC 1 Gp?

Wader

What the one whose idea of leadership is to suicide dive into targets once out of ammo?

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Gents

Many on this site, myself included, have been questioning why the RAF VSOs haven't been speaking up when their Army and Navy counterparts have. Now one of them has we criticise him. He is in a no win-situation. Everyone criticises him when he doesn't speak out and now everyone seems to criticise him when he does say something.

I also would have hoped he would have been a bit more forthright with his words , but at least he has said that the RAF is at its minimum possible strength. Actually we all know, and I suspect so does CAS, that it's already below its minimum strength. If it wasn't, all units would be manned to strength. Now this might (fingers-crossed) be the first step from the (RAF) VSOs to start making a few more critical noises...............






but I won't hold my breath.

Roland,

The thing is, this was an absolutely ideal opportunity and time for the CAS to say it 'as it is' and tell this government that enough is enough.

He didn't, he thought of his pension and he fudged it, and thats not what a leader should do frankly!

Just what more could he/did you want him to say?

He thought of his pension?????? I think you will find that he will get that regardless, so it isn't about him protecting his pension. And, as has been mentioned on other threads, if he falls on his sword do think that this govt would give a t0ss? Do you think that it would get any more than a couple of column inches of news print before the great unwashed started worrying about some "celeb's" affair/divorce/marriage or broken metatarsal? Who would replace him at the top? ACM Graydon tried this with Portaloo in the 90s. Scored a DH but was forced to apologise or resign. He chose to apologise because he had scored the DH all the same.

Yes, I believe it is called leadership :}

Better than getting off an inter-city 125 to Glasgow. Why, you might finish up in the Pool.

Talking of inter-city 125,

I hear CAS had a lot to say to the fine members of Kinloss Sgts Mess about the degradations and sins of being overweight on a recent visit.

Looking forward to the "military man's slimming book" being the first one to be published when he leaves office.

I can vaguely understand MoD spokespeople contradicting former VSO's who have since left, but how can they contrdict a current VSO? Surely by the fact they are current, they are effectively MoD spokespeople as well?

Now it just looks like incompetance - left hand / right hand imbalance. Shocked. :}

Civvies versus military men... hmmm... who might have a better grasp of military requirements do you think...

Had lunch with Torpy on my last working day in the mob. Spent all his time telling use how good we were doing at getting new aircraft...small noisy types...at the time thought he was spineless...still do...useless waste of space i.m.h.o :mad:

5d2d

WHat should he do?
 

Roland Pulfrew - I agree with your sentiments.

I get the distinct feeling that quite a few posters on this (and other) threads have no idea how the MOD works. CAS does not have a budget; in any case, equipment programmes are outwith the RAF, as are gross manning levels. Additionally, CAS can only influence (not change) welfare issues such as, say, Family Quarters, medical care, TACOS ... and in due course, will have less direct control over the flying and ground training programmes, amongst other things.

CAS' role is to provide strategy to get from where we are to the political policy objectives set by SofS. The 'here and now' of current ops rests firmly with a grossly unresourced Air Command.

I've really no idea Wrathmonk, but hopefully there is someone in the wings (sorry), or is the Royal Air Force now totally devoid of leaders? It certainly should not be 'buggins' turn. If someone has to be bumped up from lower echelons, so be it. The last Chief of the Air Staff who had to save the RAF from seemingly certain extinction and ensure its independence was ex Army. Perhaps that is the way to go? They certainly seem to breed backbone rather than background where it seems our people prefer to inhabit. All the comments about what else could he do, or say, point up the defeatist low expectation attitudes that seem to have taken root in what was once a dynamic and forward looking service. If Trenchard had merely shrugged his shoulders and said, Homer wise, "Yeah? Well, what can you do?" you'd all be wearing Khaki or Dark Blue and probably talking German.

Tony B Liar was quoted as saying;

"the art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes"

maybe our glorious leaders in Main Building should take him up on his advice!!

He's said that more manpower is required. TCH's two [sarcasm]splendid [\sarcasm] White Papers, which are govt policy say that he doesn't. So CAS has, in fact, spoken out directly against government policy on defence, just in a sober manner.

If he were to do a spectacular, he'd have to resign. Great, you say, just what we need. Moral fibre, good for morale, etc, etc.

But the good it would do? None at all. It might do great harm.

First, look at the resingation of Sir David Luce over CVA01. Did absolutely rock-all good, and in fact created a scenario which nearly led to Varyl Begg creating a situation which would have left CVS without a SHAR wing (the admiral who did a post-CVA01 review of aviation requirements concluded some form of organic air power was needed, and was forced into retirement as a result). Had Luce stayed, this wouldn't have happened and the RN might have had SHAR earlier.

Second, how do we think the government would react? CGS got away with his 'tell it how it is' session with the press because the MoD had authorised it, so sacking him was a non-starter. However, it created considerable irritation in some political circles, as may be recalled. If CAS, or CGS, or FSL went down in a blaze of glory, the government, particularly this government I suspect, would ensure that the Chiefs would be nothing more than figureheads with minimal influence. They would also be chosen for complete political reliability - so more Scottish Air Marshals and definitely no Dannatts or Guthries.

If CAS did what many posters wanted him to do, there are grounds to believe that shouts of 'constitutional impropriety' would resound around Whitehall, and that rather than any good (bar a couple of days' coverage in the Broadsheets) coming from it, the potential for much harm would in fact arise.

As for Blair's "the art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes" one assumes he forgot about this in all dealings with Dubya over Iraq.

By the by - if we'd followed Trenchardian doctrine, we'd have lost the Battle of Britain, since we'd have had an awful lot of Fairey Battles, and Fighter Command would've been dramatically understrength - far smaller than the Army (irony of ironies...) wanted it to be...