SAVE THE BoB MEMORIAL FLIGHT! PETITION TO No. 10...
 

Hi everyone,

This has been doing the rounds but I think it has not been posted on PPRuNe. (If so, Mods please remove or re-locate as required.)

It's got my vote but more needed....

Petition to: Ensure that the Battle of Birtain Memorial Flight is not axed in any defence cuts. | Number10.gov.uk


Cheers,

MB

Or we could ditch the whole thing and use that money to keep the normal people in work...

Perhaps...

I'm all for memorial, but how much does this cost the RAF directly each year? When it should be funded from outside the MoD.

[QUOTE]It's got my vote but more needed.../QUOTE]

+1

+1 more..........................

OK I'm going to get flamed here, but what's new? With Stations and Squadrons closing down like a bankrupt shopping chain going to the wall, with whole fleets heading for the great hangar in the skies, I would rather see whatever money is available to the Royal Air Force being used on its present commitments rather than its past ones. I am an enthusiastic supporter of both the London Bomber Command Memorial as well as the proposed saving of RAF Bicester as a Bomber Command Heritage Site in which could there could be a "Country" BC Memorial, paralleling the existing Fighter Command ones in London and Capel-le-Ferne, but neither will come out of the Defence Budget. If the BBF can be saved by alternative funding, be it on a Charitable or even Sponsored basis I'd be all for it, but it seems that the RAF can ill afford it for the foreseeable future. Other holy cows like the Reds, the UAS's, etc are bound to come under similar threats. Like this one they will be of orders of magnitude greater than any that have preceded them.

Have to agree with you there Chug.....with all that is happening there and as much as I love to see them flying the money that we have has to go to front line.

We do need to make a lot of cuts, and soon. However, I would like to see the Red Arrows and the BBMF at the bottom of the list. They should however cover some of their costs with sponsorship - the Virgin Red Arrows?

At the top of the list, I would get rid of the AEF tomorrow - an utter waste of money and simply jobs for the boys. And before anybody wades in with their size 10s, I have had almost daily interaction with an AEF for the last 3.5 years. It's not worth whatever we pay for it. Sell some Grobs and get rid of some of the smaller airfields in order that we can keep the likes of Cottesmore and Lyneham open.

Despite having been a UAS man myself, I would have the UAS next on the list.

Al

Supposedly it's about £3m a year; though I doubt whether this will include all of the hidden costs at CGY and in staffing it etc. However, let's give it the benefit of the doubt that £3m is the full cost.

And I'd cut it, too.

Not because I don't think that the Flight don't do a great job, they do. But because it is £3m we don't have for the front line - and after all, though they don't fly a Lancaster, RNHF is all voluntary funded IIRC.

Hard times, tough choices. Sorry, but that's the way it's going to be.

S41

Looking at other threads, it is which order we get rid of things, not when. These must be high on the 'not needed' list?

The cost of things (airframes) is on intranet - look for Aviation Capitation rates - v interesting!

No, the Defence Budget most certainly does NOT need to be pi$$ed down the sink fighting underfunded and unwinnable legacy-of-Blair wars in far-off lands against stone-age peasants resentful of being dragged into a modern world which they simply do not comprehend.

Blair and his 'come as you are and bring a bottle' Balkan wars started the rot, followed by his illegal attack on Iraq to please the idiot Bush and finally the lunacy of what is all too clearly Vietnam-istan. A corrupt puppet government with little domestic support, backed by western armed forces opposed by vicious terrorist extremists.....

'Defence of the Realm' seems a long-forgotten obligation in this day and age. But at least the BBMF still reminds us WHY we have an RAF at all. Rarely, if ever, do the genpub see anything of the RAF except pictures on the evening news of yet another sad repatriation; the nation's finest slaughtered in the meat-grinder which is the $hit-hole of Afghanistan; however, the BBMF do at least do a very fine job of honouring our past.

Real military prowess has been thrown away over the recent years - so-called 'capability holidays' becoming ever more commonplace. Enough is b£oody enough - and anyone who cannot see the worth of the BBMF simply does not deserve to wear a blue suit.

Utter rot - is everyone in the RAF nowadays blind to the fact that there is not a hope in hell of an honourable victory in the North West Frontier unless the locals are won over by the Kabul government? Which is doubtful at best.

If liars like Blair and Brown want to indulge in ill-considered military adventurism, thier aspirations should be funded from a totally different budget to the budget needed to maintain sufficient forces for the defence of the UK.

Afghanistan is not the UK's 'front line', just as Viet Nam wasn't the USA's 'front line'. It is simply a black hole of despair which is destroying our nation's military for absolutely no tangible benefit.

The few £M which might be freed from defence spending should RAFAT, BBMF, UAS or AEF flying stop wouldn't even be noticed at your so-called 'front line' - it'd vanish in an instant.

Why do people talk about binning the BBMF etc? The RNHF manages to survive and flies some very nice aircraft on a charitable basis... it's not a difficult concept, I'm sure there would be an oversubscription of willing sponsors for the BBMF.

So the question is not should the BBMF be binned, but why are we spending defence budget money to run it when it could easily be funded by other means?

To quote you Beagle - that argument is utter rot. Or are you saying that if a 'paltry' couple of £Mil can be saved from several different budgets we shouldn't bother because it's a piddling amount, not worth saving? :ugh:

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves... remember that saying?

Well of course, if the government didn't waste money on stupid global warming adds on tv ..................................

The BBMF is commanded by a full-time sqn ldr. He is supported by a D-grade CS and I think an E1 or E2. There is a small permanent cadre of engineering personnel.

The hangar is probably unsuitable for Typhoon and not required for anything else. In keeping with RAF tradition is is ripe for closure as it was recently refurbished IIRC.

The flight gets significant sponsorship AFAIK which includes part and labour from industry. Some spares are sourced on a swapsey basis. One set of wings for one of the Spitfire is stored at the RAF Muesum at Stafford while it flies on a different set :).

The cost, if it is £3m is peanuts.

This, unfortunately, is the attitude of those that live in the here and now with no regard for history, traditions, or future generations. Military Museums with largely WW2 collections are all re-orientating their displays to appeal to granddads and grandsons. This is a vital link to the past as many, when they were dads, did not talk to their sons.

While the whole BBMF could be displayed in a hangar, and indeed the Lancaster and Bomber artefacts at East Kirkby etc are remarkable, the best place to see an aircraft is in the air.

UK plc must must maintain its historical heritage as long as it can. Yes there may be a possibility of a civilian group taking over the flight but are there any other comparable displays that do as many displays over as large a range as BBMF? Teeny weeny and RNHF are both local organisations. Warbirds are local. BBMF reaches displays, venues and events that the others simply do not reach and really reach out to veterans and the public alike far away from air shows.

PS, to answer Tim's message below with one word - VULCAN

I don't see what the problem is. If there was any prospect of BBMF being dumped (daft newspaper stories aside) then surely some sort of arrangement could be made to continue operations under civilian ownership? It's not as if any of the aircraft are in any danger of being grounded if they were taken from RAF ownership.

anotherthing, if you really imagine that the alleged savings made by abandoning RAFAT, BBMF, UAS and AEF flying would actually be spent on our forces in 'The Stan', as people seem to like to call it, then you are sadly wrong. Those 'savings' would simply reduce the massive national debt accrued as a result of Blair's ill-considered military adventurism and no-one in the Armed Forces would see the slightest benefit.

As a member of the Fly Navy Heritage Trust, I contribute a meagre amount monthly to the Flight - and long may the Flight prosper! However, it would be wholly impossible for the Lancaster to be operated under similar funding constraints, let alone the BBMF's fighters, Dakota and Chipmunks.

An American here, feel free to skip the post:

While I disagree with BEagle's political commentary about illegal wars (different topic on necessary or not), I agree with his point about the need for your BBMF.

1. What an impressive and well-deserved tribute to the line of defense that kept you a free country (What you've done with that legacy is another thread and not really my place :p).

2. In an era where RAF stations, personnel, and interaction are fast diminishing from public view and thought, what a marvelous recruiting and public relations tool. I'd venture that many more potential RAF prospects see one of the BBMF assets up close as compared to your other hardware. How many thoughts of joining that heritage or even considering serving your country does the BBMF stir?

If you disband the Flight, how many of those airplanes (sorry, no "aero" from me) will wind up in the skies of Texas and not the UK? Personally, I'd love to see 'em over here. Professionally, don't p1ss away a national treasure.

Again.

BEagle, we've agreed and disagreed on much here over the years, but this

"and anyone who cannot see the worth of the BBMF simply does not deserve to wear a blue suit"

is offensive and unworthy; I think an edit or an apology is in order.

I am a big fan of the BBMF; and no, there is nothing like the noise of four Merlins in close formation. But that alone doesn't make the case for retaining it on the MoD budget when there's an under-funded war going on. And despite your views, Afghanistan is going to continue for sometime yet - I'd be surprised if we were out by 2020.

Again, look at the numbers in the likely budget settlement highlighted again by Max Hastings today. If there was a political party out there with plans to spend 5% of GDP - Cold War norms - on the military, then we'd be having different arguments, but from a much higher base. But no-one is proposing this, and cuts - deep, painful cuts - are coming, and the MoD needs to focus on the current wars, whilst being mindful of the past.

And the BBMF, Reds, HMS Victory et al are all capable of being funded by someone else - private enterprise, charity - or Reds, the Culture Media and Sport Dept (aka Dept of Fun). They're not producing material defence output at a time when we need to maximise this; sorry, but it's true.

Moreover, nothing is going to slam home the parlous state of defence to the general public who are largely ignorant of defence issues, than binning BBMF / Reds etc.

S41

One of the more interesting notions I heard recently, was speculation that the 'overseas aid' budget should be used on agendas such as the North-West frontier, on the grounds that supporting the Kabul government is most definitely 'overseas aid'.

Better that than wasting it funding some corrupt dictator....

As for anything Max Hastings wrote, I'd give it a good ignoring if I were you.

I'm with BEagle on this one

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.