Yebbut you didn't manage to fly the one in the photo (GR1) ;)

On a more serious note, I wonder how many 22 year olds did fly it. I would imagine that you would have to be an 18 year old entrant on O or A levels to manage that. I think that even back in the 80's, most fast jet starters were university graduates joining up as 22 year olds so by the time they had done basic and advanced training, they would be about 24/25 before they got near a Tornado cockpit. I wonder when the last "5 O level" pilot/nav was recruited from new?

Do you believe Mrs May?
 

........well no!

But then we are in an awfull situation with our politics at the moment.
An inbred culture of lying & deceit has taken over, probably brought about by all the hangers on, spin docters etc constantly trying to make everything look good and bury bad news.
Everything that is said or written is carefully crafted to look like one thing, but mean something else.

Shades of the Emperors New Clothes?

One of the last truthful statements was: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

Thank goodness for that! The RS version was so much better than the Popular Plus...:E

PS. On reflection it looks like Prototype (P08) :8

I'm surprised you didn't ditch the nav in the RS model and put a big subwoofer in his place :E

That would be the PA100, a single seater, that was eventually dropped for the 2 seat PA200...
http://www.afwing.com/upload/2016-07...ids/pa-100.jpg

Ref political parties: "Always keep a hold of nurse; for fear of finding something worse" (Belloc)

Indeed.

The days of service personnel being default Tory supporters are long gone, given that they have repeatedly proved (through their reckless attacks on the budget of the Armed Forces) that their claim of being the party of 'security' is nothing but talk.

Some may consider the prospect of Left-leaning government distasteful, due to their less war-mongering rhetoric, but at least the Left are likely to do as they say, not BS about being "strong on defence" whilst hacking the services to pieces.

I did my GCE O Levels in 1984/5, A-Levels in 1987. The Tornado must have only been in service a couple years when I did my O Levels, and from past papers we did at the time, I am sure they must have been the same from at least 1980 onwards - ie graded A-E and U.

Maybe the requirement for A Levels came in with the move to Cranwell-only training for offrs.

Nope. I joined in 1981 and the minimum requirement then was 5x O Levels at C Grade (or equivalent) including Maths, English, and a Physical based Science.

Still 5x O Levels by 1989 as per above. However, they were allegedly a bit harder than the GCSE - certainly fewer A/A*s floating about.

When I joined in 1975 it was min 5 O levels for officer aircrew and 3 O levels for NCO air eng, loadmaster etc. However at seventeen and a half, with 6 O Levels, I enquired about NCO air eng but was "persuaded" by the CIO to go for propulsion tech with a view to remustering to air eng later on. It was probably the right decision as I wasn't mature enough as a 17.5 year old and I'm sure I would have flunked the course.

I've always found the idea of voting out of self-interest quite distasteful, whether it's the rich voting Tory for lower taxes or public sector workers voting Labour for more money. There is so much more at stake in an election than that. Instead of focusing on special interest areas, voters should be looking at a party's entire offer and its core philosophy, because that is what will drive Government decision-making as unexpected events unfold during the subsequent Parliament. Rant over.

Doesnt matter which party is in office - they all talk big and then cut.......

Roadster, the clue in my post was Henlow. In 61 Cranwell was exclusively aircrew and mostly pilot at that. Cranwell was essential if you expected promotion to sqn ldr and beyond. It was possible to be promoted to sqn ldr whilst on the Supplementary List with the bonus that passing the C was not required. However for promotion to flt lt it was essential that one passed the B. It was noit unusual to find fg off with 12 years seniority in rank. They enjoyed the almost total lack of power or authority.

PN

And then it all changed around 8/9 years later. Sailed past many a Cranwellian!!

1969, with the introduction of the Military Salary, and the combining of the lists. I was 22 and married. No entitlement to married quarters, and a VERY reduced marriage allowance. Suddenly an increase in pay, and a quarter. Oh, and a third of a batwoman to help my wife out (that didn't last long, though).

Having tried, not too hard, to pass an exam the point of which, as, before joining, an engineer, I really didn't get, it was hilarious to become an instant Flt Lt which pissed off many, much to our amusement.

(Was that punctuation correct?) :}

There is one Mrs May I do believe, but the politician? No bloody way.

If there is a 'y' in the day, or their lips are moving, they're lying.

I prescribe to the talk is cheap theory for politicians and therefore tend not to believe any politician's protestations of support for whoever they claim to back. As a PC I see the Tories cutting police budgets whilst increasing the penalties for a range of offences and telling everyone how tough they are on x y and z. The trouble is an increase in penalties is cheap but the real cost comes with having enough people to enforce the laws no matter how tough the penalty. In the meantime the government gets lots of column inches about how tough they are at no cost. The same principle applies to May and her fine words about the armed forces. She talks about how much she values them but she isn't prepared to back up those fine words with an inflation matching or inflation plus pay rise for example. The veterans card is a fine gesture but it won't cost the government a penny as the people giving the discounts linked to it are all private organisations, but again HMG gets the good publicity but at no cost to them.

Basil, and the change to flt lt pay scales where the GL flt lt, whose pay had been frozen at 6 years of increments, were aligned with SL who had increments to 38, but suddenly limited to 6 years, so everyone on 6+ immediately jumped to the previous top rate :)

New Op-Ed in the Times today suggesting far too many SO's and not enough concentration on lower ranks

"Every new Policy or military challenge brings a new Two Star HQ and staff"

The problem is that the country is f**ked from decades of underfunding and selling off the family silver to keep things going.

The ONLY thing that will save us is an increase in tax across the board in order to replenish the coffers and allow us to properly fund the police, NHS, Armed Forces, roads, etc etc etc

But which party would ever commit to that as a policy since they all consider it to be taboo to raise taxes? And would any of us vote for them if they did?

Instead we are wasting what parliamentary time and effort there is available trying to cut ourselves off from the rest of Europe and commit slow-motion economic suicide just because we don't like Brussels telling us what to do FFS!

Things are just going to get worse so get used to it.

You'll have to do better than that.

"The Tory ‘strength and stability’ message has been undermined throughout the campaign. The manifesto launch was a disaster. The foxhunting thing [pledging a vote on bringing it back] has cut through a lot more than people think. That plays into people’s concerns about the Conservative party – the party of the establishment, country estates, and quite vicious and nasty. It was not necessary. An absolute own goal.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...neral-election

And what was that thing that finally scuttled the vile witches [opinion based on her "successes" as Home Sec] hopes again????

Ah yes, even more TAXATION. Which neatly brings us back to your earlier, lamentable, post 65 above...

And your solution to the parlous state of our country is...............?

Mods
 

Please close this thread and any other reference to Brexit!

A lot of us here have served together, flown together and attend reunions together. This subject is threatening to tear us apart; there are plenty of forums elsewhere including comments sections in the press where Brexit can be discussed.

Please, please everyone keep Brexit off these pages.

There is an unpleasantness running through this thread which is more suited to Jet Blast. And all brought about by references to Brexit. Even some old hands who are usually more tempered with their remarks are fuelling the unwelcome debate.

As per my Post No 74 earlier, I agree with the likes of Brian and Harry. Mods please close it down.

And well said Newt - HNY.

That said it is a totally accurate reflection on the sad, totally divided, state of our Nation today. A division apparent in our household and one that will take decades to heal:(

Back to trusting Mrs May then - she insisted that the immigration figures should include the 100,000 foreign students studying in UK because, in her words, 'few of them went home at the end'.

This has now been proven utterly false and the real figure for students overstaying their visas is actually 5,000.

With disingenuous remarks (or blatant lies if you prefer) like that, how can she be trusted with the Armed Forces welfare and future?

The question I have regularly wanted to ask our lords and masters is why, if we are one of the biggest economies in the world, does the country appear to be falling apart with constant cries of no money to do anything about it? Where is all the money going to?

I suspect I know the answer - large chunks being spent on pensions and social security. I'm not going to debate the rights and wrongs of how a civilised society funds its pensioners and vulnerable, but I think we seriously missed a trick when North Sea oil & gas came on stream not to do as the Norwegians did and set up a sovereign wealth fund. That might have at least mitigated some of the issues of unfunded spending commitments.

That ship has sailed, but with a degree of intelligent thinking surely there must be some other mechanism we as a nation can tap into to provide the government with an income stream beyond taxation that can help arrest the constant erosion of institutions and capability.

I think they tried that with the selling off of council houses and utilities - nothing left to sell so it is more borrowing or more taxation..........

Perhaps stop rewarding the housebuilders for banking land, not building truly affordable housing and doing a pretty poor job of the houses they do build.

Something else Mrs May isn't to be trusted on! (There, just kept on topic):ok:

Scandi expectations on health & Social security plus US levels of taxation = disappointment all round

[email protected]

Do you believe everything you read in the Grauniad?

You have fallen into that old left wing trap, tax more is the answer. As Melchett has already pointed out the budget is massive, most of it already goes on Social Security and the NHS (pensions, other welfare and Health i.e. 52% of total spend for fy 2017-2018). The tax rates rates are already fairly punitive in the UK. If you think that the likes of Philip Green will pay more, then dream on.

'Only the little people pay tax.' And, I feel I pay more than enough thanks. There are still many in our society taking the Social Security system for a ride.

And you have fallen for the standard Telegraph/Sun/Mail trap I am far from being a Grauniad reader and a very long way from being left wing but what is your answer?

The country is broke and in debt, there is nothing in the war chest and we are, shortly after 2019, going to have to stand on our own 2 feet in the world with a crumbling infrastructure and failing NHS.

Mrs May's magic money tree is compost and everything in the country has been cut and cut again (for good reason - to try and reduce the debt).

Our tax levels are not punitive by any stretch of the imagination but our debt levels, both personally and as a country, are ridiculous as we struggle to keep the economy 'growing' by getting people to spend more.

I don't have a utopian solution but unless something changes, the dystopian future will seem very bleak by comparison.

Unless Mrs May sorts her life out, there will be a general election this year and comrade Corbyn will get in and try to spend his way to the promised land - I'd rather pay a bit more tax thanks.

While that is undoubtedly true in some cases, it must be remembered that the largest part of the SS budget is paid out to people who are in work but not earning enough to survive so the taxpayer is compensating for the employer who is not paying a genuine living wage. The wealthiest employers are getting wealthier, often benefiting from a good supply of cheap overseas labour and "trickle down" simply does not work as those at the top are keeping hold of the money.

Very good point.

crab,

And that's the problem - flogging off utilities is a one time thing. Once they are gone, that's it - it's like selling the goose rather than the egg. Hence my comment about missing the boat on North Sea oil / gas; whilst not infinite, it was at the time offering a damn sight greater sustainability in terms of income generating potential. And is exactly what I would expect from politicians with no strategic vision and only an eye on the news & election cycles.

I'm certainly no bleeding heart liberal, but a living wage strikes me as a reasonable idea in this day and age; as noted by Vendee and Basil, too many of our illustrious private sector organisations like to pay more attention to share holders than they do employees, the result being very low pay and the state having to step in with social security measures and therefore reduced spending on other areas (like the RAF .. just to keep things relevant!)

I know the hard line capitalists would probably have a field day with such fluffy and compassionate thinking, but our expectations of social responsibility from all sectors of society are increasing. We aren't there yet, but in future I think those companies that are most successful will be the ones doing the right thing as well as the correct thing. In contrast, companies arguing for unrestrained growth at all costs will be seen to be arguing for, in economic terms, the same mechanisms by which cancer exists.

Melchett01 - agreed and it is those very hard line capitalists with no social conscience whose greed has got us to where we are now.

I know Victorian working conditions were outrageous but at least many of the big businesses built homes for their workers.

We might get somewhere in this country when we start doing things because they are the right things to do, not the cheapest/most profitable/most career advancing/best spun for the media.

Money Creation
 

One of the underlying problems with the economy is the creation of (new) money. A good introduction can be found at (I cannot post URLs), search for:

bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

It is shameful in the extreme (malfeasance in public office?) that successive governments have rescinded their sovereign duty to control the money supply - they now only issue 3% of the total supply, that is the coins and notes.

"sovereign duty to control the money supply"

deluded monetarist nonsense from 1980................