I agree with BEagle and Pontious.

If we are worrying about 3 million a year then we have got serious problems and really should not be trying to throw our weight anywhere on the global stage.

We need to realise that if we want to play with the big boys then it will cost us; it is ridiculous to want to fight wars but then to try and reduce the defence budget. That can only be considered as culpable negligence by our lords and masters.

If we decide we do want to play with the big boys then the budgets should be made available for the troops to do their job properly, equally the troops should be commanded by people who are prepared to say no if the troops are not given the tools to do the job rather than the current breed of self servers who agree to tasks because they it will look good on an annual report or result in a knighthood rather than being commanded by people who will say no if the forces are not given the equipment or mandate to fight effectively.

If we decide that we can't afford to play with the big boys then we retreat to home base and pull down the shutters, what we save in fighting wars we can spend on proper border control and concentrate on looking after the terrorists within.

The paltry sum contributed by the taxpayer to BBMF is nothing compared to the advantage the flight gains by being part of the Royal Air Force and operating under military release to service. If it was civilian operated the aircraft would operated under CAA rules - what expensive and non-authentic modifications would the aircraft need to comply with modern CAA standards? The word VULCAN comes to mind.

Moreover, what would happen if the flight needed industry support to overcome a show-stopping issue with one of these precious aircraft. Would the support currently enjoyed by the flight be offered to a civilian company? I doubt it.

The Royal Air Force has a glorious history and it is all to do with aircraft - comparisons with the RN historic flight are simply not relevant - the RN operates mostly ships I believe. The BBMF aircraft remind us of the sacrifices made in the air and on the ground, particularly in the Battle of Britain.

May I remind those who would readily commit the BBMF to the past that the motto of the flight is 'Lest we forget'. Best we do not.

For info from the BBMF a week or so ago:

and I am with Beagle on this as well................. 3M is lost in the shouting and if you really think it would be directed to Afghan if it was released - well you've obviously not worked in the MoD !!! (as I have)

and Soddim - I actually see the Bomber and remember the Bomber Command Aircrew most (no disrespect to the fighters or the BoB which was the Iconic battle) it's just about physical presence............and sheer losses which seem to be swept under the carpet by this generation.


Arc

Definitely with Beagle on this one.

And I think Brick has hit the nail on the head.

Anyway, we may need the Lanc to replace the tonkas and harriers out in the stan once they've gone to museums. And the Dak is far more reliable than the tens and tristars. We should buy more!

There opinions expressed here appear to be age related - -the wrinklies say yes and the kids say no. It's taken me a long time to accept that my views and opinions are worth very little, probably because I'm a wrinkly, and seem to have no relevance in todays "modern" armed forces. Be that as it may, I am surprised at the apparent lack of imagination and understanding shown by the younger generation with regard to fiscal management by the MOD.I agree wholeheartedly with the following comments .
Is the displayed sensitivity simply a manifestation of todays PC gone mad or are the youngsters too soft to take "hard" (if not accurate) comment?

I predict that we will be out of the costly Afghanistan nonsense within five years and maybe then we will realise where our real front line is.

Of couse the Bof B Flight should continue, as should the Sparrows, the Falcons (if they still exist) UAS's , AEF's and all the other established institutions which encourage fun, engender good will and make the RAF a career and not just another Government job.

Disclaimer, I am not suggesting that all wrinklies are good and youngsters bad, my comments are clearly a generalisation,

Signed with pleasure. Two things are certain to bring tears to my eyes:
the sound of Merlins, and The Last Post.

I added my vote some way back because the flight is too important to lose. How you lot fund it is another matter altogether. Funding is also a huge problem with the FAAHT.

Amen to that, signed satis.

To avoid repetition, I agree entirely with BEagle, ROG and Pontious; and Oscar Wilde ---

PPRuNe Pop, I see you waving and shouting, but perhaps the windows on the Outrage Bus are all steamed up. :}

Though it pains me to say it, I have to agree with BEagle's sentiments. Having now read this thread I can see why there was, for a short time last night, a vitriolic post directed at him. Come on....who was it?? Own up, it was one of you!!!!!!

I think the Spam said it best, don't p!$$ away a national treasure!

In the "if it wasn't so sad it would be funny" category...

While all of you clamoring for the disbandment of the BBMF on the grounds there's no cash left in the pot you are all missing the point that said "pot" is an arbitrary figure conjured up by the military hating Prime Minister and his gaggle of simpering, pantywaist followers.

It costs £3M/annum to keep the BBMF and, while I don't begrudge the money at all, Brown managed to match the entire UN contibution to Haiti of £6.1M in just a couple of days. There is plenty of money in the government's coffers. Your money!!! Start to insist it is spent appropriately.

Source

AA

Quite - not to mention the money going to India.................................:confused:

I agree with everthing you have said Beags! The cost of BBMF is a tiny fraction of the Defence Budget! If you want to make cost savings have a good look at the shambles of procurement! Billions could be saved buying off the shelf items or cutting metal under licence!

It does worry me that many of the younger generation have little respect for history and tradition. Many associations and reunions are poorly supported. Its easy to use the term 'overstretch' and say it can't be done anymore!

And for those who believe BBMF should be handed over to a civilian organisation then let them take a look at the Vulcan saga! They seem to have run out of money yet again so is it viable these days to keep antique aircraft in the air using public subscription? I think not!

Oh well, off to the bunker again, flack jacket on and whiskey in hand:*

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ei-2009-a.html

Still loved in the Netherlands, they appreciate what the BBMF stand for.

Just added my signature to the petition.

It's thanks to those that flew aircraft like the Lancaster & the fighters that we enjoy our freedoms today, to cut the flight to save the relative small change of £3m would dishonour those that it was set up to commemorate.

Steady on, chaps, it'll be tongues next:


Ignore the troll - I do!

By the way, airpolice, Strongbow is gnats'! "Natch oi up, sez I!"

I know I'm old, but WTF ----

does this mean?

Sorry, nothing to do with BBMF - it was banter for 'airpolice', jindabyne....

He lists his interests as including 'Strongbow' - a sort of alcopop made by Bulmers which some describe as 'cider', although it is considered to be gnats' wee by many. The superior alternative used to be 'Dry Blackthorn', which has now been ruined and is almost as ersatz as 'Strongbow'. Which leaves only that which was once 'Taunton Natural Dry', now made by Gaymer, locally known as 'Natch' down Somerset way. It is indeed dry and strong; the call "Natch I up Barman" being a West Country way of requesting another glass of said brew....

Anyway, back to BBMF and the news posted by PPRuNe Pop is indeed most heartening for it seems to confirm that the Flight is not under threat...at the moment.