State of the Nation - an open letter
Guest
Posts: n/a
It makes me sad to read this. I nearly got in in “93. Glad now that I didn“t.
It seems a stark contrast between the picture you paint here and the one I see at work every day. New equipment, more resources, building work going on, new hires arriving, place expanding. Yes you go through pains but they at least they are growing pains. I“ve got a career path, decent progressions, no complaints pay, no non-flying duties unless you want them... And all this is just in the training world.
What a terrible waste of a service and a tradition. The day I heard the RAF had bought into IIP I knew things were terminal.
Glumly,
WWW
It seems a stark contrast between the picture you paint here and the one I see at work every day. New equipment, more resources, building work going on, new hires arriving, place expanding. Yes you go through pains but they at least they are growing pains. I“ve got a career path, decent progressions, no complaints pay, no non-flying duties unless you want them... And all this is just in the training world.
What a terrible waste of a service and a tradition. The day I heard the RAF had bought into IIP I knew things were terminal.
Glumly,
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whilst I fully concur the general tenor of Strim’s thread, and wholeheartedly admire the size of his ba££s (we’re allowed to do that nowadays), I do have a few points of my own to make. I’ll use Strim’s words to set points in context.
“Feedback through the chain of command is merely watered down before it reaches air rank”.
Yes, I agree that there is a tendency on the part of some people to do just that. Whether they are protecting their own ar$es with an ‘emperor’s clothes’ approach, or really believe that what they are doing is the ‘right thing', I don’t know. However, I do have my own opinion about their motivation and have to say that – in general – I don’t admire them for it!! For this very reason, the Intermediate Command and Staff Course introduced a session with a very senior RAF officer into each course. The ICSC aims for this session are to expose the RAF’s middle-ranking officers to the thought processes, aims and ideals of the hierarchy, and what state they think the RAF is in and where it is going, and – in my opinion more importantly – to expose the hierarchy to the thought processes and concerns of today’s sqn ldrs. This should – at a stroke – remove some of the possible filtration levels between our ‘middle-management’ (deliberate choice of phrase, like it or not) and the ‘boss men’. Of course, this only works well when the visiting ‘wheel’ is totally open and honest and doesn’t just give ‘party line’ answers. Those who have attended the ICSC in the past couple of years will recognise which of the ‘camps’ (can I say that?) the person who spoke to them fitted into. Nevertheless, what is always said to the course students is that whatever the ‘wheel’ is like, whether he is the open and honest type or the ‘I’ll just tell you what I think you should think’ type, you learn something about the people who are currently ‘leading’ us, making the decisions and representing our case to the politicians. Whether you like it or not, you learn what you need to know about them!!
Pay aspects.
I’m an old bu$$er, but I like to think not a dynosaur. Back when I started flying, and on through the 70s, we were very poorly paid, both relative to the airlines and also relative to the public in general. However, we had comparatively decent kit, great places around the world to serve (frequently accompanied), good leadership and good jobs. Furthermore, we were not over-tasked for our numbers and did not spend all of our time away from our families. We had pride in ourselves, our Service and our uniforms, which incidentally were always seen on the streets and on the trains etc. In fact, I can distinctly remember (well not all of it) going to restaurants (actually mostly transport cafes!) in mess kit at breakfast time after dining in nights. Whether or not that was a ‘good thing to do’ is neither here nor there; the fact is that we were in the public eye and much respected. The point I wish to make is that, despite not earning proper money, we were a happy bunch and morale was high. Airlines were recruiting, but people wanted to stay to do the ‘real fun stuff’ that drove them to join in the first place. Today, we are actually earning a pretty good ‘screw’. If the bu$$eration factors were reduced, the trivia s**t-canned, and tasks matched to resources (because we cannot possibly match resources to tasks without spending money which simply will not be provided) I am convinced that less people would be inclined to vote with their feet. However, what we need to achieve this is a hierarchy who will stand up to the politicians and say “enough is enough”. We are supposed to be operating a ‘foreign policy driven’ capability. Unfortunately, the ‘foreign policy’ targets keep changing. The UK must learn to accept that we are actually no longer wealthy enough to keep pretending that we are still in the Victorian era of world power. We can still remain influential throughout the world by improving and retaining our professionalism and the respect which we once had from everybody else, including the Super Powers. We do not need to try to be the one and only world policeman, going in where others fear to tread, because we perceive (perhaps erroneously) a need to do absolutely everything – regardless of whether or not we have the resources - to protect our influence and our seat on the UNSC. The fact that we have been involved in over 60 operations involving UK Service personnel since Mar 96 speaks for itself. Look back in history and find me a time – since the second World War – when we had so many commitments!?!?!? And what are we meeting these commitments with? Half as many people as we had in the 70s!! Enough said.
“Let the pilots do the piloting, the navigators do the navigating, and allow people to be promoted for being good at the job they were trained to do”
This is an OK sentiment as far as it goes. There is no doubt that people must be - first and foremost – expert at their prime task. To be able to operate effectively in today’s ‘joint’ world, they must also be totally expert and knowledgeable in the core business of their own Service first. Only when these 2 objectives have been achieved can personnel contribute - as well as is needed - to joint and combined operations and the planning and C2 of such operations. However, if we neglect to train our people in command, management and staff skills, we risk grooming a new generation of ‘leaders’ who do not have the capability or capacity to make the right decisions and fight for our cause against those who would like to emasculate us even further in order to save a few more pennies. So my question is – just how far do you want us to promote people who are just ‘good at flying’, but crap at admin and management? There is a half way house here!!
“Because there are so many chiefs, they all filter out the feedback from the indians in their efforts to look good in front of their superiors”.
There is some truth to this accusation, human nature being what it is. There are several areas in which this has become noticeable. One is that when change is postulated for whatever reason (sociological, technological, economic [most common today], or political [second most common and probably combined with the last]), it will inevitably need a study to determine: whether or not it is needed; the aims and objectives of the change; any constraints; and possible solutions to the problem. This process takes time and must be done thoroughly and carefully in order to ensure that the right outcome actually occurs. All too frequently, however, the time-scales allowed, resources applied and deadlines imposed are ludicrously unrealistic, inadequate or both; this leads to half a job being done and we end up with a ‘back of a fag packet’ solution which is frequently not ‘fit for purpose’. Things then inevitably get worse. One of the reasons for this is the human nature need for people (whether they be at wg cdr level or 3 / 4 star level [which is most common?]) to ensure that a project which is going to carry a measure of kudos is completed while the ‘person’ is still in ‘office’ so that he/she will get the credit and earn a few more ‘brownies’. We must – as a Service – drive out this ‘me first/system last’ attitude, or we will never achieve our full potential. Unfortunately, vested interest and human nature are going to produce a huge resistance to that particular change. What can we do about it? Sorry, wish I knew. However, the right people at the top insisting that you actually lose merit points by not pulling for the team might help. Hmmmm – how do they get to the top?????
“Maybe our new CAS, Pete Squire, will buck this trend”.
Maybe he will (and knowing him and of him in the past, I am sure he’ll try), but will it work. We need all the Chiefs to be of one mind; we need them all to work together for the common good and not protect their own corners. Maybe they are now, but I’m not in a position to know (and never will be). What we don’t have a place for is people who fight for their own particular corner, whether or not it is the right thing for the UK as a whole. We must fight together or not at all. If the politicians insist on our being tasked to well over the hilt just to ensure that their own position is safe, we – as a nation – will eventually reap the whirlwind. Why? Because the lights will go out and there will be nobody to respond to the call to arms. We need a hierarchy that is prepared to stand up and be morally accountable for their troops. CHIEFS, JUST SAY NO – YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!!
I’ll finish with a quote from one of my very best friends and hope he doesn’t mind. Although he is talking about the Canadian Forces, the same principles apply. This is an extract (dots are gaps to protect the innocent) from an outstanding letter that he wrote to a certain high ranking Canadian minister; God, I wish I had written it.
“You and your colleagues have systematically emasculated the Canadian Forces to the point that they are hanging on by a thread. The fact that elements of the Army, Navy and Air Force continue to perform in an exemplary manner is in spite of the lack of support that has been given them. We have always prided ourselves on our can-do attitude. It is also our second-worst enemy, because it is used by our worst enemy (you) to keep sucking the life blood from our veins. The Air Force in recent years pointed with pride to the fact that they were still doing 90% of their former taskings with 45% less assets. Pride was justified to the extent that the Air Force was operating more efficiently; but it should also have set off alarm bells. The Air Force has suffered further severe cuts since then and the tasks keep coming. The same can be said for the Army and the Navy.
As proud as we are of our peacekeeping efforts, you cannot keep asking the same people to respond time after time while, at the same time, you are cutting their numbers and resources. The inevitable result is a marked increase in social problems within the forces. These include marital difficulties, financial hardship, suicide and other inappropriate behaviour at home and abroad. When something happens to bring attention to an incident, the public and politicians stand around wringing their hands and asking the military leadership how they could have let this happen. The public should be looking over the generals’ and admirals’ heads at you; and you should be looking in the mirror.
The whole scenario creates an atmosphere of mistrust and despair where political correctness rules, and esprit de corps is crushed. We used to be a work hard/play hard outfit. Today, they are just a work hard/work harder outfit with morale in their boot-tops and one eye on where they can go to find an employer who appreciates them. …….. any commander who says that morale is high and everything is just fine is either asleep or fearful for his job. Commanders are being asked, nay ordered, to lie to their people. The ones with integrity refuse and, hopefully, more will follow their example. The people they are leading are bright and intelligent and should be given the support that would engender their dedication. ………………..
………………………I’m not so naļve as to believe that you will even personally read, much less care about, what I’ve said. I do know that you and your colleagues are killing the effectiveness - and the spirit upon which that depends - of an institution that has shed untold amounts of blood to make Canada a nation, and you a free man. The day is coming when there will be an ice storm, or a flood, or an East Timor and the Government will call. There will be no answer, because no one will be home, and you and the rest will stand around wringing your hands and trying to find a general to blame. Mr A*******, for God’s sake, wake up!”
SOUND FAMILIAR??? Mr Blair and Mr Hoon – does this apply to you???? Answers by e-mail if you wish or can be bothered.
Incidentally, you will note that I have made no attempt to hide who I am. My nickname is well known at all levels of the RAF, but I feel strongly enough about this matter that I am prepared to stand up and be counted. If the wheels want to e-mail me (or perhaps call me in for yet another one-sided interview without coffee) feel free.
In response to Jackonicko – fast-jet various over a long period and in most areas of the World at some time or another. I have used my Hotmail account, but only because I don’t want to snarl up my private e-mail with the thousands of responses I expect from the Cabinet and other areas of Whitehall!!! NOT!!
“Feedback through the chain of command is merely watered down before it reaches air rank”.
Yes, I agree that there is a tendency on the part of some people to do just that. Whether they are protecting their own ar$es with an ‘emperor’s clothes’ approach, or really believe that what they are doing is the ‘right thing', I don’t know. However, I do have my own opinion about their motivation and have to say that – in general – I don’t admire them for it!! For this very reason, the Intermediate Command and Staff Course introduced a session with a very senior RAF officer into each course. The ICSC aims for this session are to expose the RAF’s middle-ranking officers to the thought processes, aims and ideals of the hierarchy, and what state they think the RAF is in and where it is going, and – in my opinion more importantly – to expose the hierarchy to the thought processes and concerns of today’s sqn ldrs. This should – at a stroke – remove some of the possible filtration levels between our ‘middle-management’ (deliberate choice of phrase, like it or not) and the ‘boss men’. Of course, this only works well when the visiting ‘wheel’ is totally open and honest and doesn’t just give ‘party line’ answers. Those who have attended the ICSC in the past couple of years will recognise which of the ‘camps’ (can I say that?) the person who spoke to them fitted into. Nevertheless, what is always said to the course students is that whatever the ‘wheel’ is like, whether he is the open and honest type or the ‘I’ll just tell you what I think you should think’ type, you learn something about the people who are currently ‘leading’ us, making the decisions and representing our case to the politicians. Whether you like it or not, you learn what you need to know about them!!
Pay aspects.
I’m an old bu$$er, but I like to think not a dynosaur. Back when I started flying, and on through the 70s, we were very poorly paid, both relative to the airlines and also relative to the public in general. However, we had comparatively decent kit, great places around the world to serve (frequently accompanied), good leadership and good jobs. Furthermore, we were not over-tasked for our numbers and did not spend all of our time away from our families. We had pride in ourselves, our Service and our uniforms, which incidentally were always seen on the streets and on the trains etc. In fact, I can distinctly remember (well not all of it) going to restaurants (actually mostly transport cafes!) in mess kit at breakfast time after dining in nights. Whether or not that was a ‘good thing to do’ is neither here nor there; the fact is that we were in the public eye and much respected. The point I wish to make is that, despite not earning proper money, we were a happy bunch and morale was high. Airlines were recruiting, but people wanted to stay to do the ‘real fun stuff’ that drove them to join in the first place. Today, we are actually earning a pretty good ‘screw’. If the bu$$eration factors were reduced, the trivia s**t-canned, and tasks matched to resources (because we cannot possibly match resources to tasks without spending money which simply will not be provided) I am convinced that less people would be inclined to vote with their feet. However, what we need to achieve this is a hierarchy who will stand up to the politicians and say “enough is enough”. We are supposed to be operating a ‘foreign policy driven’ capability. Unfortunately, the ‘foreign policy’ targets keep changing. The UK must learn to accept that we are actually no longer wealthy enough to keep pretending that we are still in the Victorian era of world power. We can still remain influential throughout the world by improving and retaining our professionalism and the respect which we once had from everybody else, including the Super Powers. We do not need to try to be the one and only world policeman, going in where others fear to tread, because we perceive (perhaps erroneously) a need to do absolutely everything – regardless of whether or not we have the resources - to protect our influence and our seat on the UNSC. The fact that we have been involved in over 60 operations involving UK Service personnel since Mar 96 speaks for itself. Look back in history and find me a time – since the second World War – when we had so many commitments!?!?!? And what are we meeting these commitments with? Half as many people as we had in the 70s!! Enough said.
“Let the pilots do the piloting, the navigators do the navigating, and allow people to be promoted for being good at the job they were trained to do”
This is an OK sentiment as far as it goes. There is no doubt that people must be - first and foremost – expert at their prime task. To be able to operate effectively in today’s ‘joint’ world, they must also be totally expert and knowledgeable in the core business of their own Service first. Only when these 2 objectives have been achieved can personnel contribute - as well as is needed - to joint and combined operations and the planning and C2 of such operations. However, if we neglect to train our people in command, management and staff skills, we risk grooming a new generation of ‘leaders’ who do not have the capability or capacity to make the right decisions and fight for our cause against those who would like to emasculate us even further in order to save a few more pennies. So my question is – just how far do you want us to promote people who are just ‘good at flying’, but crap at admin and management? There is a half way house here!!
“Because there are so many chiefs, they all filter out the feedback from the indians in their efforts to look good in front of their superiors”.
There is some truth to this accusation, human nature being what it is. There are several areas in which this has become noticeable. One is that when change is postulated for whatever reason (sociological, technological, economic [most common today], or political [second most common and probably combined with the last]), it will inevitably need a study to determine: whether or not it is needed; the aims and objectives of the change; any constraints; and possible solutions to the problem. This process takes time and must be done thoroughly and carefully in order to ensure that the right outcome actually occurs. All too frequently, however, the time-scales allowed, resources applied and deadlines imposed are ludicrously unrealistic, inadequate or both; this leads to half a job being done and we end up with a ‘back of a fag packet’ solution which is frequently not ‘fit for purpose’. Things then inevitably get worse. One of the reasons for this is the human nature need for people (whether they be at wg cdr level or 3 / 4 star level [which is most common?]) to ensure that a project which is going to carry a measure of kudos is completed while the ‘person’ is still in ‘office’ so that he/she will get the credit and earn a few more ‘brownies’. We must – as a Service – drive out this ‘me first/system last’ attitude, or we will never achieve our full potential. Unfortunately, vested interest and human nature are going to produce a huge resistance to that particular change. What can we do about it? Sorry, wish I knew. However, the right people at the top insisting that you actually lose merit points by not pulling for the team might help. Hmmmm – how do they get to the top?????
“Maybe our new CAS, Pete Squire, will buck this trend”.
Maybe he will (and knowing him and of him in the past, I am sure he’ll try), but will it work. We need all the Chiefs to be of one mind; we need them all to work together for the common good and not protect their own corners. Maybe they are now, but I’m not in a position to know (and never will be). What we don’t have a place for is people who fight for their own particular corner, whether or not it is the right thing for the UK as a whole. We must fight together or not at all. If the politicians insist on our being tasked to well over the hilt just to ensure that their own position is safe, we – as a nation – will eventually reap the whirlwind. Why? Because the lights will go out and there will be nobody to respond to the call to arms. We need a hierarchy that is prepared to stand up and be morally accountable for their troops. CHIEFS, JUST SAY NO – YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!!
I’ll finish with a quote from one of my very best friends and hope he doesn’t mind. Although he is talking about the Canadian Forces, the same principles apply. This is an extract (dots are gaps to protect the innocent) from an outstanding letter that he wrote to a certain high ranking Canadian minister; God, I wish I had written it.
“You and your colleagues have systematically emasculated the Canadian Forces to the point that they are hanging on by a thread. The fact that elements of the Army, Navy and Air Force continue to perform in an exemplary manner is in spite of the lack of support that has been given them. We have always prided ourselves on our can-do attitude. It is also our second-worst enemy, because it is used by our worst enemy (you) to keep sucking the life blood from our veins. The Air Force in recent years pointed with pride to the fact that they were still doing 90% of their former taskings with 45% less assets. Pride was justified to the extent that the Air Force was operating more efficiently; but it should also have set off alarm bells. The Air Force has suffered further severe cuts since then and the tasks keep coming. The same can be said for the Army and the Navy.
As proud as we are of our peacekeeping efforts, you cannot keep asking the same people to respond time after time while, at the same time, you are cutting their numbers and resources. The inevitable result is a marked increase in social problems within the forces. These include marital difficulties, financial hardship, suicide and other inappropriate behaviour at home and abroad. When something happens to bring attention to an incident, the public and politicians stand around wringing their hands and asking the military leadership how they could have let this happen. The public should be looking over the generals’ and admirals’ heads at you; and you should be looking in the mirror.
The whole scenario creates an atmosphere of mistrust and despair where political correctness rules, and esprit de corps is crushed. We used to be a work hard/play hard outfit. Today, they are just a work hard/work harder outfit with morale in their boot-tops and one eye on where they can go to find an employer who appreciates them. …….. any commander who says that morale is high and everything is just fine is either asleep or fearful for his job. Commanders are being asked, nay ordered, to lie to their people. The ones with integrity refuse and, hopefully, more will follow their example. The people they are leading are bright and intelligent and should be given the support that would engender their dedication. ………………..
………………………I’m not so naļve as to believe that you will even personally read, much less care about, what I’ve said. I do know that you and your colleagues are killing the effectiveness - and the spirit upon which that depends - of an institution that has shed untold amounts of blood to make Canada a nation, and you a free man. The day is coming when there will be an ice storm, or a flood, or an East Timor and the Government will call. There will be no answer, because no one will be home, and you and the rest will stand around wringing your hands and trying to find a general to blame. Mr A*******, for God’s sake, wake up!”
SOUND FAMILIAR??? Mr Blair and Mr Hoon – does this apply to you???? Answers by e-mail if you wish or can be bothered.
Incidentally, you will note that I have made no attempt to hide who I am. My nickname is well known at all levels of the RAF, but I feel strongly enough about this matter that I am prepared to stand up and be counted. If the wheels want to e-mail me (or perhaps call me in for yet another one-sided interview without coffee) feel free.
In response to Jackonicko – fast-jet various over a long period and in most areas of the World at some time or another. I have used my Hotmail account, but only because I don’t want to snarl up my private e-mail with the thousands of responses I expect from the Cabinet and other areas of Whitehall!!! NOT!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
James Gordon and Jag Jock.
I'd really rather not say this here, but:
What seven key points would you most like to see plastered across the DTel/R4/BBC TV News?
I wish you guys would get Hotmail addresses so that a journo isn't seen to be seen being what some would consider an Agent Provocateur!
I'd really rather not say this here, but:
What seven key points would you most like to see plastered across the DTel/R4/BBC TV News?
I wish you guys would get Hotmail addresses so that a journo isn't seen to be seen being what some would consider an Agent Provocateur!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Maybe the fact that we do a good job with no back up and duff kit is a double edged sword (that goes for all three services) - the headshed (be they military or politicians) don't realise there is a problem because the forces perform despite ourselves....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Everyone,
Sorry that I have been off line for a while. A superb piece of writing by Strims, and I know that it is through despair that it is written and pure professionalism that it has not ended up as a letter in the Times or Telegraph.
Howver, a word of warning. The Feds / Rozzers / Monkeys / Snow Drops etc, MOD computer geeks,and a number of the hierarchy are on to PPRUNE. It has definetly been fired down to our frontline to be careful what we say. Infact, to be honest, the exact words were..'use the chain of command to air grievances'!?!
Lets hang in there lads and lasses. The next Op is only just around the corner. Believe it or not, I do believe in Queen and country. What has made my Service career so much fun ( apart from some outrageous flying ) is the characters and personalities that have similiar hopes, fears and aspirations. Ignoring all the rest of the bollocks, if we lose sight of this ethos, friendship, cohesive bond, then those of us that are left behind are well and truly buggered. I have no hesitation with Op Certain Death 37 or in being one of the 20 minuters ( I am not to question why, I am here but to do and die ) and I knew that when I signed the dotted line. We need to be in it together though, with all the enthusiasm and committment that has been witnessed with the Falklands, Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and all the other low intensity Ops around the world. If we fly forward with doubt in our colleagues in the aircraft checking our six, we are already onto a hiding, forget any equipment shortages, crap pay, overstretch etc.
But I had hairs rising on the back of my neck whilst reading, and realising, the depth of feeling in these posts. It was obvious that this was not whinging or whining that has been the epitomy of so many PPRUNE threads.
I love my flying, hate ground tours, but we are going to have to do something about it. Once ISCS, JCSC, ISC, ASCS, HCSC all get completed, those destined for the top have to have the morale fibre, experience and honesty to know the difference between what is good for their career and what is good for the Service and ultimately their country.
How come all us minions at the bottom of the pile, from all walks of life, academic backgrounds, numerous aircraft types, have the same consistent line of reasoning to the posts?
I will stop now. It is Saturday, thoroughly depressed and genuinely worried ( I want to stay in, the thought of 33,000 feet for 7 hours at a time gives me a nose bleed!) I am off to the local to purchase a hangover.
Cheer up, but remember, be careful and as predicted Big Brother is watching us. Good post Strims. Well written and an ideal submission for your Service paper at Staff College!
[This message has been edited by JHC (edited 10 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JHC (edited 10 June 2000).]
Sorry that I have been off line for a while. A superb piece of writing by Strims, and I know that it is through despair that it is written and pure professionalism that it has not ended up as a letter in the Times or Telegraph.
Howver, a word of warning. The Feds / Rozzers / Monkeys / Snow Drops etc, MOD computer geeks,and a number of the hierarchy are on to PPRUNE. It has definetly been fired down to our frontline to be careful what we say. Infact, to be honest, the exact words were..'use the chain of command to air grievances'!?!
Lets hang in there lads and lasses. The next Op is only just around the corner. Believe it or not, I do believe in Queen and country. What has made my Service career so much fun ( apart from some outrageous flying ) is the characters and personalities that have similiar hopes, fears and aspirations. Ignoring all the rest of the bollocks, if we lose sight of this ethos, friendship, cohesive bond, then those of us that are left behind are well and truly buggered. I have no hesitation with Op Certain Death 37 or in being one of the 20 minuters ( I am not to question why, I am here but to do and die ) and I knew that when I signed the dotted line. We need to be in it together though, with all the enthusiasm and committment that has been witnessed with the Falklands, Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and all the other low intensity Ops around the world. If we fly forward with doubt in our colleagues in the aircraft checking our six, we are already onto a hiding, forget any equipment shortages, crap pay, overstretch etc.
But I had hairs rising on the back of my neck whilst reading, and realising, the depth of feeling in these posts. It was obvious that this was not whinging or whining that has been the epitomy of so many PPRUNE threads.
I love my flying, hate ground tours, but we are going to have to do something about it. Once ISCS, JCSC, ISC, ASCS, HCSC all get completed, those destined for the top have to have the morale fibre, experience and honesty to know the difference between what is good for their career and what is good for the Service and ultimately their country.
How come all us minions at the bottom of the pile, from all walks of life, academic backgrounds, numerous aircraft types, have the same consistent line of reasoning to the posts?
I will stop now. It is Saturday, thoroughly depressed and genuinely worried ( I want to stay in, the thought of 33,000 feet for 7 hours at a time gives me a nose bleed!) I am off to the local to purchase a hangover.
Cheer up, but remember, be careful and as predicted Big Brother is watching us. Good post Strims. Well written and an ideal submission for your Service paper at Staff College!
[This message has been edited by JHC (edited 10 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JHC (edited 10 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not entirely sure what the Feds or those on high are worried about really. There's no military secrets being released here just a few military facts. This is probably the only open forum where people in the military can air their grievances: I can't see Strim's post being Star Letter in The RAF News, can you? If our political etc masters don't like these views being aired they can either ban us from using this site (interesting - make a good story in the Telegraph) or they can face up to what is wrong with today's military. Don't get me wrong, as I've said before in previous posts, I enjoy my job and have no intention of leaving any time soon. That said, I agree with pretty much everything in Strim's post. The military is being torn apart by massive underspending and massive overtasking. What little money we do have is then frittered away on nonsense like IIP and ISO 9001 accreditation. What relevance is any of that garbage to a cash strapped military force? (If any body can actually provide a valid reason why we get involved in that sort of rubbish then I'm all ears)
Please, Mr Blair: we're not a Superpower and we're not equipped or manned to be a Global Policeman. The only analogy I can come up with is that we are, at the moment, a Waitrose Security Guard - with a hat that doesn't fit very well - trying to cope with the Poll Tax riots on his own.
Please, Mr Blair: we're not a Superpower and we're not equipped or manned to be a Global Policeman. The only analogy I can come up with is that we are, at the moment, a Waitrose Security Guard - with a hat that doesn't fit very well - trying to cope with the Poll Tax riots on his own.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I Guess the really sad thing is letters like Strimmers and the replies show that people still care about the "Firm" QED we will still achieve the 3 simultaneous tasks when we are 80% manned and one task should be enough. Therefore, I suspect nothing will happen until all 4 wheels are off the wagon.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The new roles and responsibilities of the new expeditionary air force are not, in themselves, the problem. The problem is overstretch. The RAF is simply too small, and too under-funded to do its job. But the answer (IMHO) isn't to scale back the commitments (you then run the risk of politicos asking "Why bother at all, what's the RAF for?"). The answer is to spend the available money much more wisely, and not to use the defence budget to prop up and subsidise excessive profits and share dividends for British Industry. If we were procuring 'smarter' most programmes would cost 1/7 of their present cost. Compare Tornado GR4 and Jaguar GR3A, as a quick 'for instance'.
And now is the time to point out that in the post Cold War world, we may no longer need WE177 (not convinced about that) and we may no longer need big Armoured Divisions in Germany. We certainly don't need Trident. But actually, we did need deployable fast jet squadrons, and to cut them back from 29 to 18 was short-sighted and stupid - especially when five of those units are next to bugger all use. (So why not give the F.MK 3 some useful capabilities, for starters - Vicon, an ELS and ALARM, etc.?) and why not up the number of OS squadrons, there are dozens of Jags sitting at Cosford with 1-2,000 hours on the clock, which could be converted to Jag 97 standards for under £0.5m a pop.
Oops! In dreamland again. Or am I?
And now is the time to point out that in the post Cold War world, we may no longer need WE177 (not convinced about that) and we may no longer need big Armoured Divisions in Germany. We certainly don't need Trident. But actually, we did need deployable fast jet squadrons, and to cut them back from 29 to 18 was short-sighted and stupid - especially when five of those units are next to bugger all use. (So why not give the F.MK 3 some useful capabilities, for starters - Vicon, an ELS and ALARM, etc.?) and why not up the number of OS squadrons, there are dozens of Jags sitting at Cosford with 1-2,000 hours on the clock, which could be converted to Jag 97 standards for under £0.5m a pop.
Oops! In dreamland again. Or am I?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko,
I agree with most of your comments above, especially about proper smart procurement (unfortunately I don't expect the politicos to give us any decent kit unless British Wasteofspace or Wastelands have a complete aberation and actually get it right for once) but there are a couple of areas that I'd query (it's OK that's allowed today and tomorrow this government will make it compulsory anyway).
The scale of the forces vice the commitments issue is the first. The idea of SDR was supposedly a foreign policy led attempt to match our capabilities and our commitments. However, it appears to me that despite all the good words it was take with one hand and slap around the ear with the other. If the Government were serious they would have to either increase the size of the forces or reduce the amount of time away for the frontline (and the supporting assets)in order to reduce the feeling of overstretch - which, in my experience, most guys feel is currently the worst factor of service life today.
Secondly, in this terribly uncertain world I still feel that we DO need a nuke deterrent like Trident to prevent some tin-pot dictator or terror group from doing a number on us. Before anyone condems this as a hysterical reaction read the reports of the various UN arms inspectors (particularly Richard Butler) and see how many scary nations are close to having their own nuke and (more frighteningly) viral weapons programmes. Add to this mix a few slack handfuls of religious or political extremism and I would suggest that having our own deterent now (and especially in about 5 - 10 years time) is a must.
As for the Jaguar idea - I agree that it would be better than nothing but a real starting point would be to get the GR1 / GR4 fleet sorted out in respect of servicability and numbers (it has the edge over the Jaguar in terms of range, weaponry and flexibility due to the 2 crew - anyone see the problems that the Harriers had flying single seat night designation in Kos?). This is not to decry either the Harrier or Jag forces, but in the current operating environment I believe that the Tornado's strengths are what is needed.
Like the idea about fitting out the F3 with a SEAD role - anyone out there got any hard gen on the chances/tech difficulties involved?
Sorry to bang on so long, really do agree with most of your posts!
I agree with most of your comments above, especially about proper smart procurement (unfortunately I don't expect the politicos to give us any decent kit unless British Wasteofspace or Wastelands have a complete aberation and actually get it right for once) but there are a couple of areas that I'd query (it's OK that's allowed today and tomorrow this government will make it compulsory anyway).
The scale of the forces vice the commitments issue is the first. The idea of SDR was supposedly a foreign policy led attempt to match our capabilities and our commitments. However, it appears to me that despite all the good words it was take with one hand and slap around the ear with the other. If the Government were serious they would have to either increase the size of the forces or reduce the amount of time away for the frontline (and the supporting assets)in order to reduce the feeling of overstretch - which, in my experience, most guys feel is currently the worst factor of service life today.
Secondly, in this terribly uncertain world I still feel that we DO need a nuke deterrent like Trident to prevent some tin-pot dictator or terror group from doing a number on us. Before anyone condems this as a hysterical reaction read the reports of the various UN arms inspectors (particularly Richard Butler) and see how many scary nations are close to having their own nuke and (more frighteningly) viral weapons programmes. Add to this mix a few slack handfuls of religious or political extremism and I would suggest that having our own deterent now (and especially in about 5 - 10 years time) is a must.
As for the Jaguar idea - I agree that it would be better than nothing but a real starting point would be to get the GR1 / GR4 fleet sorted out in respect of servicability and numbers (it has the edge over the Jaguar in terms of range, weaponry and flexibility due to the 2 crew - anyone see the problems that the Harriers had flying single seat night designation in Kos?). This is not to decry either the Harrier or Jag forces, but in the current operating environment I believe that the Tornado's strengths are what is needed.
Like the idea about fitting out the F3 with a SEAD role - anyone out there got any hard gen on the chances/tech difficulties involved?
Sorry to bang on so long, really do agree with most of your posts!
Guest
Posts: n/a
First-off, I'd personally agree about the need for nukes, but would suggest that without the need to penetrate Moscow's (largely mythical) ABM defences, Trident is unnecessary. What was needed was a stand-off replacement for WE177, which would have been cheaper and more versatile.
Jag idea is undeniably 'second-best' in payload/range, but it's achievable cheap capability, and the Cosford airframes have about 4,500 flying hours left 'on the clock' each, without requiring an expensive MLFP. (And a more cost effective way of deploying low-level - in both senses airpower). In an ideal world we'd just go and buy 60 F-15Es to cover the capability gap, but it ain't going to happen. And the beauty of Jag is that its now accepted that we don't need to involve BWoS in upgrading it, an existing infrastructure is in place, and each new one requires only one new aircrew chap or chappess. With regard to single-seat night designation and the Harrier, I'd venture to suggest that the Harrier's problems were more the result of attitude ("Using TIALD is just like using ARBS, we don't need to practise it that much") and a poor TIALD integration with latency problems. I draw my noble friend's attention to the success Jag had with night designation in Bosnia in 1995, achieving a 'high 90's' percentile accuracy still not rivalled by Tornado/TIALD or Harrier/TIALD.
FACT: The GR4 as it is now (without Raptor, smart weapons, the required mid-life fatigue programme, the new main computer, etc.) comes in at £6.7m per jet. The existing Jag upgrade works out at around £1m - with a better AMLCD, ETAPS and EFRCs, a Helmet Sight, wiring for digi-ASRAAM, TIALD that really works, a better nav solution, better weapons aiming (can't spell Runge Kuttar, can anyone please help), and (very soon) EO GP(1) recce pod. And it's cheap to keep and cheap to operate, with total hourly operating costs (including DLO and HQ overheads) estimated at one tenth those of the Harrier, and one fifth those of a Tornado.
In essence, you could have two extra Jag squadrons for about £20 m (£400,000 each - the non-recurring costs have already been paid, plus a Major for each aircraft). This kind of money would get you three GR4 upgrades, always assuming that you had the spare Tornado airframes to upgrade, and ignoring the fact that they'd soon need structural work.
My sources suggest that a UOR for ELS on F.Mk 3 was actually issued during the Kosovo thing, and was then cancelled when the war stopped. With regard to technical difficulty/cost it would be easy and cheap for DERA/DARO, and probably very costly if given to the 'w@nkers from W@rton'.
Jag idea is undeniably 'second-best' in payload/range, but it's achievable cheap capability, and the Cosford airframes have about 4,500 flying hours left 'on the clock' each, without requiring an expensive MLFP. (And a more cost effective way of deploying low-level - in both senses airpower). In an ideal world we'd just go and buy 60 F-15Es to cover the capability gap, but it ain't going to happen. And the beauty of Jag is that its now accepted that we don't need to involve BWoS in upgrading it, an existing infrastructure is in place, and each new one requires only one new aircrew chap or chappess. With regard to single-seat night designation and the Harrier, I'd venture to suggest that the Harrier's problems were more the result of attitude ("Using TIALD is just like using ARBS, we don't need to practise it that much") and a poor TIALD integration with latency problems. I draw my noble friend's attention to the success Jag had with night designation in Bosnia in 1995, achieving a 'high 90's' percentile accuracy still not rivalled by Tornado/TIALD or Harrier/TIALD.
FACT: The GR4 as it is now (without Raptor, smart weapons, the required mid-life fatigue programme, the new main computer, etc.) comes in at £6.7m per jet. The existing Jag upgrade works out at around £1m - with a better AMLCD, ETAPS and EFRCs, a Helmet Sight, wiring for digi-ASRAAM, TIALD that really works, a better nav solution, better weapons aiming (can't spell Runge Kuttar, can anyone please help), and (very soon) EO GP(1) recce pod. And it's cheap to keep and cheap to operate, with total hourly operating costs (including DLO and HQ overheads) estimated at one tenth those of the Harrier, and one fifth those of a Tornado.
In essence, you could have two extra Jag squadrons for about £20 m (£400,000 each - the non-recurring costs have already been paid, plus a Major for each aircraft). This kind of money would get you three GR4 upgrades, always assuming that you had the spare Tornado airframes to upgrade, and ignoring the fact that they'd soon need structural work.
My sources suggest that a UOR for ELS on F.Mk 3 was actually issued during the Kosovo thing, and was then cancelled when the war stopped. With regard to technical difficulty/cost it would be easy and cheap for DERA/DARO, and probably very costly if given to the 'w@nkers from W@rton'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko,
I’m sorry to disagree with you. I suspect that we’ll agree on more things than we disagree on, but on this occasion we don’t.
The fact is that UK plc has a limited “pot of gold”, and there are vast numbers of areas competing for their share. Hospitals and education are much more high profile in the minds of the public than is Defence; unless (God forbid) there is a major war, that will inevitably remain so.
Therefore, the Defence vote is never going to be big enough to provide overnight solutions to the problem of people voting with their feet. I’m afraid that buying our way out of trouble is not an option. So, if we can’t instantly buy lots of new shiny kit and pay airline wages to our crews, what’s left? The only way left is to stop pi$$ing them off and, unfortunately, that is NOT REPEAT NOT something that the military hierarchy has total control over, much as we might wish that it were so. Political imperatives are such that the Service hierarchy is also under pressure. I’m not sure quite how far the “chiefs” can go in saying NO (notwithstanding my earlier post) before it is construed as some sort of “mutiny”. However, they need to know that they would have the total backing of everybody in all 3(4) Services in doing whatever it takes to convince the Government that there is a genuine, deep-seated, underlying problem. We would also need to achieve public support and sympathy for our situation. I’m pretty confident that Joe Public would be happier that the UK did not get involved in absolutely every semi-crisis that occurred in the World, if they knew that the sad, inevitable result of doing so was a steadily reducing capability to do anything meaningful in the future.
We have (certainly in the RAF and I’m sure - from my experience -it is so in the other Services) a fantastic bunch of people who are all desperate to be loyal and do their utmost to sort out our current problems. I speak with some considerable authority on this, as I have spent a very long time training personnel at all levels. In particular, I have seen some 800 sqn ldrs at very close quarters over the past few years. Almost entirely without exception, they are exceptionally high quality officers who are NOT dissidents or rebels, but generally and genuinely just wish they were able to come up with instant solutions that would allow them to continue to pursue the career that they joined for. Life can be FUN. Unfortunately, they have pressures from home because they are away from their families for too long, and are tired and pi$$ed off even when they are home. They are under pressure at work and find it difficult to be the happy-go-lucky, cheerful souls (at all times) that their wives/husbands married. But – most of all - they are also genuinely worried about how the RAF is going to get itself straightened out again. I will say one thing to all of you. I am tremendously heartened by the quality of our people, and I therefore have to have confidence that “all will be right in the end”. The major problem we have, therefore, is how do we stop these high quality people leaving before we can fix the problem?
I remain convinced that the major part of the solution is to reduce some of these pressures. Of course, getting some new kit is important, not just the shiny new “wonder jet” but training aircraft that are not knackered. Some of this is in train. People need to see a light at the end of the tunnel and, although it does not yet comprise gigaquanta of photons, there is a glimmer. But they also need to know that, while they are in that dark and damp place waiting to reach the end of that tunnel, they are not going to be tasked with constantly achieving the impossible with few resources and no time to enjoy their lives. AGAIN I SAY THAT – SINCE THERE IS NO MORE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE RESOURCES TO MATCH THE TASKS – WE MUST MATCH THE TASKS TO THE RESOURCES WE HAVE! This will not be very palatable to the politicians, but they have to realise that failure to do so could lead to a distinct worsening of the situation, with our best and brightest seeking pastures new at an ever increasing rate, a situation which could become absolutely unsustainable, if it hasn’t already.
I know you’re not very well liked if you provide a problem without a proposed solution, but I’m not sure how it would be best to present the case to the Government. I can only plead that ALL Chiefs present a united case to the Government, explaining openly and honestly that there really is a problem and seeking an understanding of the situation, and an undertaking to genuinely try to provide some ameliorative measures, by reducing the unnecessary tasks that they are currently quite happy to throw at the Services with ever increasing regularity. It’s not broken, but it’s quite well bent – that might straighten it a bit and give time for other measures to take effect!
I’m sorry to disagree with you. I suspect that we’ll agree on more things than we disagree on, but on this occasion we don’t.
The fact is that UK plc has a limited “pot of gold”, and there are vast numbers of areas competing for their share. Hospitals and education are much more high profile in the minds of the public than is Defence; unless (God forbid) there is a major war, that will inevitably remain so.
Therefore, the Defence vote is never going to be big enough to provide overnight solutions to the problem of people voting with their feet. I’m afraid that buying our way out of trouble is not an option. So, if we can’t instantly buy lots of new shiny kit and pay airline wages to our crews, what’s left? The only way left is to stop pi$$ing them off and, unfortunately, that is NOT REPEAT NOT something that the military hierarchy has total control over, much as we might wish that it were so. Political imperatives are such that the Service hierarchy is also under pressure. I’m not sure quite how far the “chiefs” can go in saying NO (notwithstanding my earlier post) before it is construed as some sort of “mutiny”. However, they need to know that they would have the total backing of everybody in all 3(4) Services in doing whatever it takes to convince the Government that there is a genuine, deep-seated, underlying problem. We would also need to achieve public support and sympathy for our situation. I’m pretty confident that Joe Public would be happier that the UK did not get involved in absolutely every semi-crisis that occurred in the World, if they knew that the sad, inevitable result of doing so was a steadily reducing capability to do anything meaningful in the future.
We have (certainly in the RAF and I’m sure - from my experience -it is so in the other Services) a fantastic bunch of people who are all desperate to be loyal and do their utmost to sort out our current problems. I speak with some considerable authority on this, as I have spent a very long time training personnel at all levels. In particular, I have seen some 800 sqn ldrs at very close quarters over the past few years. Almost entirely without exception, they are exceptionally high quality officers who are NOT dissidents or rebels, but generally and genuinely just wish they were able to come up with instant solutions that would allow them to continue to pursue the career that they joined for. Life can be FUN. Unfortunately, they have pressures from home because they are away from their families for too long, and are tired and pi$$ed off even when they are home. They are under pressure at work and find it difficult to be the happy-go-lucky, cheerful souls (at all times) that their wives/husbands married. But – most of all - they are also genuinely worried about how the RAF is going to get itself straightened out again. I will say one thing to all of you. I am tremendously heartened by the quality of our people, and I therefore have to have confidence that “all will be right in the end”. The major problem we have, therefore, is how do we stop these high quality people leaving before we can fix the problem?
I remain convinced that the major part of the solution is to reduce some of these pressures. Of course, getting some new kit is important, not just the shiny new “wonder jet” but training aircraft that are not knackered. Some of this is in train. People need to see a light at the end of the tunnel and, although it does not yet comprise gigaquanta of photons, there is a glimmer. But they also need to know that, while they are in that dark and damp place waiting to reach the end of that tunnel, they are not going to be tasked with constantly achieving the impossible with few resources and no time to enjoy their lives. AGAIN I SAY THAT – SINCE THERE IS NO MORE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE RESOURCES TO MATCH THE TASKS – WE MUST MATCH THE TASKS TO THE RESOURCES WE HAVE! This will not be very palatable to the politicians, but they have to realise that failure to do so could lead to a distinct worsening of the situation, with our best and brightest seeking pastures new at an ever increasing rate, a situation which could become absolutely unsustainable, if it hasn’t already.
I know you’re not very well liked if you provide a problem without a proposed solution, but I’m not sure how it would be best to present the case to the Government. I can only plead that ALL Chiefs present a united case to the Government, explaining openly and honestly that there really is a problem and seeking an understanding of the situation, and an undertaking to genuinely try to provide some ameliorative measures, by reducing the unnecessary tasks that they are currently quite happy to throw at the Services with ever increasing regularity. It’s not broken, but it’s quite well bent – that might straighten it a bit and give time for other measures to take effect!
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I type, Lord Robertson is being interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby.
Although I remain sceptical of all politico's, he's actually made a rather excellent plea to 'all Nato members finance ministers and this includes Gordon Brown to increase defence spending', also saying that 'antique equipment is a complete waste of money and a useless comfort blanket'.
Maybe is Gen Sec of Nato, he knows much of a cluster Kosovo was. I dont expect more money or changes overnight, however, maybe (hopefully!) this is the start of a waking up and smeeling the coffee process by our goverment.
Although I remain sceptical of all politico's, he's actually made a rather excellent plea to 'all Nato members finance ministers and this includes Gordon Brown to increase defence spending', also saying that 'antique equipment is a complete waste of money and a useless comfort blanket'.
Maybe is Gen Sec of Nato, he knows much of a cluster Kosovo was. I dont expect more money or changes overnight, however, maybe (hopefully!) this is the start of a waking up and smeeling the coffee process by our goverment.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I personally think this Kosovo thing was all wrong, morally and militarily. Clinton was behind it, and I suspect it was a "Wag the Dog" attempt to take the heat off him.
The Serbs were our allies in WWII and did nothing to any of the NATO nations to bring this on themselves, as far as I can tell. They rescued 500 allied airmen shot down in their area, at considerable risk to themselves.
The Serbs were our allies in WWII and did nothing to any of the NATO nations to bring this on themselves, as far as I can tell. They rescued 500 allied airmen shot down in their area, at considerable risk to themselves.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Captain Ed
How can you say the Serbs did nothing to bring this Kosovo thing on themselves? Doesn't Ethnic cleansing etc count? I would not disagree that the whole thing was handled badly by NATO and there will be a million different opinions as to what we should have done but surely we had to do something?
How can you say the Serbs did nothing to bring this Kosovo thing on themselves? Doesn't Ethnic cleansing etc count? I would not disagree that the whole thing was handled badly by NATO and there will be a million different opinions as to what we should have done but surely we had to do something?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bangeron - I dissagree. It was not in NATO'S balliwick to interfere there. This should have been handled by the UN.
NATO didn't interfere with the ethnic cleansing in Uganda and other African ethnic cleansings, and they are doing nothing to protect the whites from being cleansed by the Zimbabweans at this moment. There is mayhem there, and the world does nothing.
Clinton saw an opportunity to take the heat off his miserable awrse, and used it. He is a despicable man. He made John Kennedy look moral, and Carter look competent. He will stoop to anything.
For a look at the Serbian point of view, I suggest:
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletin...6-4(June).html
[This message has been edited by Captain Ed (edited 11 June 2000).]
NATO didn't interfere with the ethnic cleansing in Uganda and other African ethnic cleansings, and they are doing nothing to protect the whites from being cleansed by the Zimbabweans at this moment. There is mayhem there, and the world does nothing.
Clinton saw an opportunity to take the heat off his miserable awrse, and used it. He is a despicable man. He made John Kennedy look moral, and Carter look competent. He will stoop to anything.
For a look at the Serbian point of view, I suggest:
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletin...6-4(June).html
[This message has been edited by Captain Ed (edited 11 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt Ed,
er obviously forgotten about how the UN coped with Bosnia a couple of years before! UN can't bring force down, thats NATO's job. So to save five years of p!ssing in the wind, NATO went in to help prevent the needless cleansing that the UN were powerless to stop previously. Serbs, innocent....are you quite mad or on Slobolots payrole! Suppose Adolf was a nice chap too! With respect, get real!
Capt Ed,
just had a brief look at the link you provided. Very nice. There is always two sides to a story, no doubt Hitler had his side too, but are you trying to say that his opinion was right?
Just depends on which side of the fence you are straddling at the time. I appear to be comparing the two, well from my experience (served as UN and NATO/IFOR/KFOR/UNAMEIT!), the damage created by the Serbs was no different from certain atrocities caused by Mein Fuhrer. I know, I was present at several of the discoveries of the mass graves, history tells us who is to blame. Appreciate your sentiment on their efforts during the war, fair one, but we are living in a very different world. The recent history, I think, is the one that will reflect a state of affairs. Not fifty years ago.
[This message has been edited by Bill O'Average (edited 11 June 2000).]
er obviously forgotten about how the UN coped with Bosnia a couple of years before! UN can't bring force down, thats NATO's job. So to save five years of p!ssing in the wind, NATO went in to help prevent the needless cleansing that the UN were powerless to stop previously. Serbs, innocent....are you quite mad or on Slobolots payrole! Suppose Adolf was a nice chap too! With respect, get real!
Capt Ed,
just had a brief look at the link you provided. Very nice. There is always two sides to a story, no doubt Hitler had his side too, but are you trying to say that his opinion was right?
Just depends on which side of the fence you are straddling at the time. I appear to be comparing the two, well from my experience (served as UN and NATO/IFOR/KFOR/UNAMEIT!), the damage created by the Serbs was no different from certain atrocities caused by Mein Fuhrer. I know, I was present at several of the discoveries of the mass graves, history tells us who is to blame. Appreciate your sentiment on their efforts during the war, fair one, but we are living in a very different world. The recent history, I think, is the one that will reflect a state of affairs. Not fifty years ago.
[This message has been edited by Bill O'Average (edited 11 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bill - I never said the Serbs were innocent. The Albanians and the Serbs, as well as the Croats have all been involved in this for centuries. What I am saying is that if the UN couldn't handle it, then it's a civil war, which neither the UN or NATO should get involved in.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Kosovo problem probably arose because of the proximity of NATO nations. We don't have as many hundreds of thousands of African refugees in Europe, but as I write, one tenth of the population Of Greece, NATO member, is of displaced Balkan origin. Italy likewise has a problem whilst Germany has hundreds of thousands of former Yugoslavs. There are more Bosnian Muslims, refugees of a century of conflict, living in Turkey than there are in Bosnia! The problem is very much a 'NATO backyard' thing and I suspect that had we been in the very private meetings we would have heard many NATO members asking Clinton to help.
Problem is that the Balkans are like Ireland - impossible to keep sorted for very long.
On the earlier point about disbanding frontline squadrons - I may be wrong, but I think that a lot were scrapped because of SALT 2. Tornado is strike capable and therefore falls within the remit of arms limitation treaties.
Problem is that the Balkans are like Ireland - impossible to keep sorted for very long.
On the earlier point about disbanding frontline squadrons - I may be wrong, but I think that a lot were scrapped because of SALT 2. Tornado is strike capable and therefore falls within the remit of arms limitation treaties.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt Ed, "The Serbs were our allies in WWII and did nothing to any of the NATO nations to bring this on themselves, as far as I can tell." Er, please translate!
So what your saying is in a european theatre (excuse you, lots of miles from all that), we should allow a 'Civil War' to rage, suck in all the other satellite countries (Bosnia effort was trying to prevent this) therefore causing all the other unstable former Eastern Block communities to break down 100% and have a 'Civil War' erupt in europe! Not trying to insult you or your bretheren, Capt Ed but this is on our doorstep if not in the front room. USA has had to 'deal' with the likes of Grenada, Panama, Cuba and any other small Carribean island it takes a dislike to, political or economic. A bit differant I think.
I'll agree, we have to rely on America when it comes to enforcing stability anywhere in the world, not a thought we all cherish! You just have to dig through what possible political intent there is and try and see if it is all worth while.
So what your saying is in a european theatre (excuse you, lots of miles from all that), we should allow a 'Civil War' to rage, suck in all the other satellite countries (Bosnia effort was trying to prevent this) therefore causing all the other unstable former Eastern Block communities to break down 100% and have a 'Civil War' erupt in europe! Not trying to insult you or your bretheren, Capt Ed but this is on our doorstep if not in the front room. USA has had to 'deal' with the likes of Grenada, Panama, Cuba and any other small Carribean island it takes a dislike to, political or economic. A bit differant I think.
I'll agree, we have to rely on America when it comes to enforcing stability anywhere in the world, not a thought we all cherish! You just have to dig through what possible political intent there is and try and see if it is all worth while.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A reply to Jag-Joc;
I was fortunate to assist in the humanitarian relief in Mozambique earlier this year. There were 115 approx deployed to Maputo, 4 ac, 20 aircrew,30 engineers, 30 logistics (TMW TSW etc) 34 PJHQ!
The last figure is indicative of the Blunt direction that this airforce is heading.
We could have coped addequately with half the numbers, and been twice as effective!
I was fortunate to assist in the humanitarian relief in Mozambique earlier this year. There were 115 approx deployed to Maputo, 4 ac, 20 aircrew,30 engineers, 30 logistics (TMW TSW etc) 34 PJHQ!
The last figure is indicative of the Blunt direction that this airforce is heading.
We could have coped addequately with half the numbers, and been twice as effective!