State of the Nation - an open letter
Guest
Posts: n/a
I say again. If we weren't pouring money down the drain, these commitments would be easily affordable.
And I think you're wrong about public support. The days when isolationism and pacifism had any appeal are long gone. Joe P now likes the idea of bashing Johnny Foreigner, especially in the context of UN approved 'peace enforcement ops'. Remember that the Falklands and Granby both resulted in election victories for the parties in power. Even Labour have realised this, and have ditched unilateralism, and were assiduous in presenting SDR as a re-structuring, not a package of cuts. TV pictures of dead Kosovan children and machete-scarred `Sierra Leonians made these interventions popular. The danger is that we won't intervene somewhere and the public will ask: "Where are our forces? Why aren't they there?"
But spend the defence dollar wisely, scale the Armed Forces to meet the potential requirement and there doesn't have to be a problem.
But if you decide that home defence is enough, then disband everything and just sit tight with Trident!
And I think you're wrong about public support. The days when isolationism and pacifism had any appeal are long gone. Joe P now likes the idea of bashing Johnny Foreigner, especially in the context of UN approved 'peace enforcement ops'. Remember that the Falklands and Granby both resulted in election victories for the parties in power. Even Labour have realised this, and have ditched unilateralism, and were assiduous in presenting SDR as a re-structuring, not a package of cuts. TV pictures of dead Kosovan children and machete-scarred `Sierra Leonians made these interventions popular. The danger is that we won't intervene somewhere and the public will ask: "Where are our forces? Why aren't they there?"
But spend the defence dollar wisely, scale the Armed Forces to meet the potential requirement and there doesn't have to be a problem.
But if you decide that home defence is enough, then disband everything and just sit tight with Trident!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having been beyond the radar horizon for several days, I have just returned to the FIR and re-read this thread.
I knew this was going to be an emotive subject, judging by the banter which flies around every crew-room in the country. I thought long and hard before writing my original submission, and having done it I quickly convinced myself that I had done the wrong thing, even in this anonymous forum. Thankfully I now believe my fears were ill-founded.
Two things strike me: firstly, the majority of responses reflect a real desire at grass-roots level to identify the problems we face, and suggest ways to overcome these problems. They go beyond the superficial crew-room banter, and present well-thought out responses that our masters, military and political, would do well to heed.
Secondly, what is abundantly clear to me is the loyalty of our personnel. Some may say I was disloyal to write in the first place, and indeed it was to protect myself from those people that I chose to speak anonymously. However, it was my loyalty to the Services, and the desire to see an end to the degenerative spiral we are in, that prompted me. It is clear that this feeling is widespread.
We all know that the “wheels” have access to this forum, and no doubt some are looking on closely as this forum develops. All I say is please come down from your ivory towers. Your people want to show you as much loyalty as they have ever done, but they need loyalty from you in return. It may not be appropriate for you to reply in this forum, but for everyone’s sake, we need you to reply somewhere, soon. Time is ticking away…..
I knew this was going to be an emotive subject, judging by the banter which flies around every crew-room in the country. I thought long and hard before writing my original submission, and having done it I quickly convinced myself that I had done the wrong thing, even in this anonymous forum. Thankfully I now believe my fears were ill-founded.
Two things strike me: firstly, the majority of responses reflect a real desire at grass-roots level to identify the problems we face, and suggest ways to overcome these problems. They go beyond the superficial crew-room banter, and present well-thought out responses that our masters, military and political, would do well to heed.
Secondly, what is abundantly clear to me is the loyalty of our personnel. Some may say I was disloyal to write in the first place, and indeed it was to protect myself from those people that I chose to speak anonymously. However, it was my loyalty to the Services, and the desire to see an end to the degenerative spiral we are in, that prompted me. It is clear that this feeling is widespread.
We all know that the “wheels” have access to this forum, and no doubt some are looking on closely as this forum develops. All I say is please come down from your ivory towers. Your people want to show you as much loyalty as they have ever done, but they need loyalty from you in return. It may not be appropriate for you to reply in this forum, but for everyone’s sake, we need you to reply somewhere, soon. Time is ticking away…..
Guest
Posts: n/a
Still a classic case of 'tail wags dog' syndrome. The sooner the our partially-armed services are administrated, once again, in a non-commercial fashion, the better. We are not a company, we are not out to see how much profit can be made, so stop fannying about with the purse-strings and let us get on with our jobs!
[This message has been edited by Big Yid (edited 15 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Big Yid (edited 15 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Big Yid (edited 15 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Big Yid (edited 15 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having just read this forum from top to toe I can say I'm flabbergasted. Some excellent pieces of clear and logical debate....wow! Having just been to one of the poorest nations in the world and 'supported' the UN there I can honestly say that there IS still a need for us to participate in Global crises. The UN troops in SL were apalling; poorly organised and shoddily led. The Troops involved from UK sorted a huge mess out (again) and hopefully put things in place to stop the wheels falling off the peace process (again). I wholeheartedly agree with Jackinoko when he says that our budgets need to be better spent; NMS did nothing but cloud the issues on how and where money could be properly used. 8 yrs ago at a Green and Lush RAF Station where it rained alot, some £3000 was left over in the IT budget....if they didn't spend it they stood to lose it the next FY, so they blew it on loads of extra 386's which stood around and gathered dust...no-one could use them coz they could't afford the software licences to put stuff on them. Great use of OUR money eh? I also agree with wholigan 2 in that if someone in authority stood up to the way our Armed forces are being constantly denuded, they would have the wholehearted support and admiration of those of us at the coal face. I am loyal to the service in which I serve, have been for 12 yrs now, but doing what we have been doing for so long can make one a touch cynical.
A Mate of mine told me a good analogy about how the hierarchy of any organisation could best be described.
Picture a tree...full of monkeys....the important monkeys at the top and the also rans at the bottom.....the monkeys at the top of the tree look down and all they see is faces looking back up at them....those at the bottom look up and all they see is a bunch of arseholes! Harsh...but....
A Mate of mine told me a good analogy about how the hierarchy of any organisation could best be described.
Picture a tree...full of monkeys....the important monkeys at the top and the also rans at the bottom.....the monkeys at the top of the tree look down and all they see is faces looking back up at them....those at the bottom look up and all they see is a bunch of arseholes! Harsh...but....
Guest
Posts: n/a
At the risk of getting very boring, being administrated in a commercial fashion is fine - what isn't fine is squandering scarce resources on non-priority line items, slavishly demanding rigid annual accounting, and making decisions without assessing the cost of those. Spend the money more sensibly (and that includes proper manning, good man-management (rather than trendy management speak) pay and conditions), and many of these problems would go away.
And on the commitments side. If we need armed forces we need them to defend our sovereignty, territorial integrity, interests and values. It's not trying to be a Superpower (if we were we'd do things alone, or insist on leadership), nor is it trying to be a World/Global/Colonial policeman. It's doing the right thing, standing up for our principles and values, and fulfilling the obligations which go with being on the Security Council, a G7 nation and what Mr Blair would like to see as a beacon of democracy, enlightenment, etc.
It's unfortunate that 'doing what's right' sounds so idealistic and naive, and while these are cynical times, in which such attitudes may be unfashionable, if you didn't agree, you would never have joined the armed forces, never have sworn anything to Queen and Country, and would now be working in the city, diddling old ladies out of their carefully hoarded savings. So please don't be too cynical - it's just too easy a cop out to say "Falklands - electioneering. Gulf - oil. Bosnia - sucking up to the EU/Clinton, whatever." What they all have in common (like 39-45, 14-18 and maybe even Suez) is doing the right thing.
We can laugh at talk about 'an ethical foreign policy' but actually it had huge resonance among the voters. This might all sound like high-flown b0ll0cks, but actually.....
And the alternative is to ignore the fact that massive threats can develop more quickly than we could restructure to meet them, and say (as we did in the 1920s and 1930s) there is no immediate direct threat to Britain, therefore we only need token armed forces.
In 1920 everyone thought that Germany was broken, that its people and politicians had fundamentally changed, and that the nation had learned the lessons of history and defeat, and was thoroughly bankrupt (and thus unable to be a threat). Sensible, well-informed strategic analysts believed that a second World War was impossible. We were at war within 20 years.
In 1990 everyone thought that Russia was broken, that its people and politicians had changed, and that the nation had learned the lessons of history and defeat, and was thoroughly bankrupt (and thus unable to be a threat). I'm not predicting a new Cold War, but history teaches us that the world is a dangerous, unstable and unpredictable place. If being a 'global policeman' (and I don't think that's what we are) helps pay for the armed forces which might deter a future enemy, then that's a price which we should be prepared to pay. And I think the bulk of the population are prepared!
What they are not prepared to support is to see their hard earned taxes used to prop up inefficient monopolistic suppliers, to be used wastefully or inefficiently, to buy crap, to further corruption, or to be spent with no obvious visible return.
Sorry to rant on!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 15 June 2000).]
And on the commitments side. If we need armed forces we need them to defend our sovereignty, territorial integrity, interests and values. It's not trying to be a Superpower (if we were we'd do things alone, or insist on leadership), nor is it trying to be a World/Global/Colonial policeman. It's doing the right thing, standing up for our principles and values, and fulfilling the obligations which go with being on the Security Council, a G7 nation and what Mr Blair would like to see as a beacon of democracy, enlightenment, etc.
It's unfortunate that 'doing what's right' sounds so idealistic and naive, and while these are cynical times, in which such attitudes may be unfashionable, if you didn't agree, you would never have joined the armed forces, never have sworn anything to Queen and Country, and would now be working in the city, diddling old ladies out of their carefully hoarded savings. So please don't be too cynical - it's just too easy a cop out to say "Falklands - electioneering. Gulf - oil. Bosnia - sucking up to the EU/Clinton, whatever." What they all have in common (like 39-45, 14-18 and maybe even Suez) is doing the right thing.
We can laugh at talk about 'an ethical foreign policy' but actually it had huge resonance among the voters. This might all sound like high-flown b0ll0cks, but actually.....
And the alternative is to ignore the fact that massive threats can develop more quickly than we could restructure to meet them, and say (as we did in the 1920s and 1930s) there is no immediate direct threat to Britain, therefore we only need token armed forces.
In 1920 everyone thought that Germany was broken, that its people and politicians had fundamentally changed, and that the nation had learned the lessons of history and defeat, and was thoroughly bankrupt (and thus unable to be a threat). Sensible, well-informed strategic analysts believed that a second World War was impossible. We were at war within 20 years.
In 1990 everyone thought that Russia was broken, that its people and politicians had changed, and that the nation had learned the lessons of history and defeat, and was thoroughly bankrupt (and thus unable to be a threat). I'm not predicting a new Cold War, but history teaches us that the world is a dangerous, unstable and unpredictable place. If being a 'global policeman' (and I don't think that's what we are) helps pay for the armed forces which might deter a future enemy, then that's a price which we should be prepared to pay. And I think the bulk of the population are prepared!
What they are not prepared to support is to see their hard earned taxes used to prop up inefficient monopolistic suppliers, to be used wastefully or inefficiently, to buy crap, to further corruption, or to be spent with no obvious visible return.
Sorry to rant on!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 15 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
What a grand surprise, on P2 of this, Captain Ed defends the Serbs (expect he'd let them in his chapter of the Klan) and rubbishes three Presidents - Kennedy (morality), Carter (competence) and Clinton (morality and competence).
Just to be helpful, perhaps we should add Ike (Nazi and senility), Nixon (truthfulness, morality and competence - Strike Three!), Ford (bungling second-rater), Reagan (neo-fascist views and senility) and Bush (competence, charisma and cynicism).
Just to be helpful, perhaps we should add Ike (Nazi and senility), Nixon (truthfulness, morality and competence - Strike Three!), Ford (bungling second-rater), Reagan (neo-fascist views and senility) and Bush (competence, charisma and cynicism).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Come out of denile? The airships are in Egypt? No wonder the whole thing is going to hell in a handbasket if the airships are spending the defence budget on holiday cruises instead of sorting out all our woes....perhaps some sort of ISS might be in order greenlight!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having read much and said little of late, I feel the I ought to put my bit in (as much to check the reaction as anything else...)
StrimmerTrimmer. Top job, lad. Never a truer word spoken on anonymous forum for like-minded people. However, although the Balkans has been the starting point of previous wars, the overall European picture was somewhat different then (Austro-Hungarian Empire?!)
JackoNicko - as a Journo, does anyone know/care/ask the REAL public's opinion, or is it just what the media present as their opinion that counts? - I have been very impressed by your knowledge and concern for the matter, but I really feel that the public haven't a clue and honestly don't really care too much, as long as it doesn't affect them (and so few of them read the Indie).
Can anyone see any realistic (a hard one to define, so I haven't) scenario when we would actually use a nuclear warhead? Hardly PC and green, is it? Can't see the Blair backbone holding up to that one.
This is not to say that I agree, or disagree with any of the points I mention, but...
I would like to say that I feel the decline may be irreversible and that BinAroundabit's wife may not be cynical, but might indeed show the astute nature shown by the ladies of this forum (what was her view on Wifeof's topic?).
Anyway, keep up the good posts, but please keep them short. Having not done (or intending ever to do) ISS, I can't read for too long.
StrimmerTrimmer. Top job, lad. Never a truer word spoken on anonymous forum for like-minded people. However, although the Balkans has been the starting point of previous wars, the overall European picture was somewhat different then (Austro-Hungarian Empire?!)
JackoNicko - as a Journo, does anyone know/care/ask the REAL public's opinion, or is it just what the media present as their opinion that counts? - I have been very impressed by your knowledge and concern for the matter, but I really feel that the public haven't a clue and honestly don't really care too much, as long as it doesn't affect them (and so few of them read the Indie).
Can anyone see any realistic (a hard one to define, so I haven't) scenario when we would actually use a nuclear warhead? Hardly PC and green, is it? Can't see the Blair backbone holding up to that one.
This is not to say that I agree, or disagree with any of the points I mention, but...
I would like to say that I feel the decline may be irreversible and that BinAroundabit's wife may not be cynical, but might indeed show the astute nature shown by the ladies of this forum (what was her view on Wifeof's topic?).
Anyway, keep up the good posts, but please keep them short. Having not done (or intending ever to do) ISS, I can't read for too long.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rad,
As a journo (RAF/UAS trained PPL) I like to think I can see a bit of both sides. I do most of my drinking in civilian pubs, and most of my colleagues and many of my friends are civilians. And it's been my experience that from the Sun-reading 'patriots' through the Telegraph-devouring Colonel Blimps right thru to the Guardian Readers and Indie consumers, there does seem to be more of a consensus on defence now than I've ever seen before. It's not total, and for most people it's by no means a priority, but many are half-heartedly on-side. And that's all I meant. It's certainly not a matter of imagining that my prejudices and opinions are in any way representative of what Joe P might think!
PS: Harriers, Radhaz? And do you have a hotmail? Feel free to use mine!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 22 June 2000).]
As a journo (RAF/UAS trained PPL) I like to think I can see a bit of both sides. I do most of my drinking in civilian pubs, and most of my colleagues and many of my friends are civilians. And it's been my experience that from the Sun-reading 'patriots' through the Telegraph-devouring Colonel Blimps right thru to the Guardian Readers and Indie consumers, there does seem to be more of a consensus on defence now than I've ever seen before. It's not total, and for most people it's by no means a priority, but many are half-heartedly on-side. And that's all I meant. It's certainly not a matter of imagining that my prejudices and opinions are in any way representative of what Joe P might think!
PS: Harriers, Radhaz? And do you have a hotmail? Feel free to use mine!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 22 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is a severe rumour going round that somebody with large spheroids has copied and printed all of the words on this thread and placed the subsequent lump of paperwork in the "in-tray" of a certain one-star in PMA. If true - stand by for fireworks!!! Or NOT!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko,
No need for bad language. Harriers indeed!
Nah, not good enough for them - I'd only do something stupid like crash and kill myself. Wisely chopped from single seat at the role disposal at Valley! - Too many friends, too little ego - usual stuff!
Two seat's my thing, and damned happy to have someone help my capacity, carry my bags, check the oil on turnrounds, buy me drinks in the pub and talk to me on trails.
Indeed I do hope that the public is wising up to the situation, but have always feared that things only happen when you boys get involved (ie no involvement in Algeria, despite rather nasty war....) and 'cause' (?!) public opinion to be swayed. But then 3 years of holding and barely enough flying to maintain currency when on the front line, have made me a tad cynical. Shame really, used to be such a nice chap.
No need for bad language. Harriers indeed!
Nah, not good enough for them - I'd only do something stupid like crash and kill myself. Wisely chopped from single seat at the role disposal at Valley! - Too many friends, too little ego - usual stuff!
Two seat's my thing, and damned happy to have someone help my capacity, carry my bags, check the oil on turnrounds, buy me drinks in the pub and talk to me on trails.
Indeed I do hope that the public is wising up to the situation, but have always feared that things only happen when you boys get involved (ie no involvement in Algeria, despite rather nasty war....) and 'cause' (?!) public opinion to be swayed. But then 3 years of holding and barely enough flying to maintain currency when on the front line, have made me a tad cynical. Shame really, used to be such a nice chap.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jack
To keep you happy it's now back on top. Obviously the threads were getting to you too. Tried to delete a boring topic, "but not authorised" I was advised!
Where has all the nice pics gone to?
------------------
Happiness is a 378 Ton airliner!
To keep you happy it's now back on top. Obviously the threads were getting to you too. Tried to delete a boring topic, "but not authorised" I was advised!
Where has all the nice pics gone to?
------------------
Happiness is a 378 Ton airliner!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's the feeling of helplessness that grips me. Being powerless to do anything whilst the Firm that I have signed 16 years of arguably the prime years of my life too, is ruined by dithering, fickle politicians and quiet Airships. The Airships surely realise that the coal facers would welcome strong leadership and logical decisions (no gun on a fighter indeed). This is our air force, as much as anybody elses. Sure, the higher up you go, the more you have to lose, but I suggest that it's all relative. You may lose favour with one politician but you'll still get that seat on the board.
Ditch the surveys and the spin doctors, get down to stn level. Do not talk to stn cdrs, talk to those who have the least to lose. Not only will you gain credibility as a leader (is that allowed in this era of maagement speak), but you may find that our Royal Air Force employs many honest, loyal crews, who only want a fair deal (Bliar should understand that).
I didn't join the Force to be misled like a civilian watching some Party Political broadcast, or to be unindated with management speak. I joined the to fly planes, see the world and have a great time enjoying Air Force life. Sure, if the planes I fly fall apart and are surpassed in quality by a Third-World nation, if the worldly travels consist of backing-up crass foreign policy, and I'm treated like a civilian, then, sure, the only time I can exercise any control over my future in the RAF is when I reluctantly hand in my 1250.
Ditch the surveys and the spin doctors, get down to stn level. Do not talk to stn cdrs, talk to those who have the least to lose. Not only will you gain credibility as a leader (is that allowed in this era of maagement speak), but you may find that our Royal Air Force employs many honest, loyal crews, who only want a fair deal (Bliar should understand that).
I didn't join the Force to be misled like a civilian watching some Party Political broadcast, or to be unindated with management speak. I joined the to fly planes, see the world and have a great time enjoying Air Force life. Sure, if the planes I fly fall apart and are surpassed in quality by a Third-World nation, if the worldly travels consist of backing-up crass foreign policy, and I'm treated like a civilian, then, sure, the only time I can exercise any control over my future in the RAF is when I reluctantly hand in my 1250.
Guest
Posts: n/a
EESDL,
Suspect that following poll was not taken from representative cross-section of PPRuNers:
Poll says Hoon is popular
"Geoff Hoon will be pleased to know that his "approval rating", according to a Mirror/ICM
poll, has risen by eight per cent since January. The poll put Mr Hoon as second only to Mo Mowlam as the most popular cabinet
minister with his approval rating of +17 per cent (and that was before Mo suggested the
Royals move out of Buckingham Palace.....)."
Well, what's everybody complaining about then?
[This message has been edited by Ham Phisted (edited 28 June 2000).]
Suspect that following poll was not taken from representative cross-section of PPRuNers:
Poll says Hoon is popular
"Geoff Hoon will be pleased to know that his "approval rating", according to a Mirror/ICM
poll, has risen by eight per cent since January. The poll put Mr Hoon as second only to Mo Mowlam as the most popular cabinet
minister with his approval rating of +17 per cent (and that was before Mo suggested the
Royals move out of Buckingham Palace.....)."
Well, what's everybody complaining about then?
[This message has been edited by Ham Phisted (edited 28 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hoon may well be popular, but I have oft been told that 'leadership is not a popularity contest'.
If the message coming out of Whitehall was that the armed forces were well led then perhaps there wouldn't be any manpower shortages. If Hoon's a good leader, why do so many people want to leave his employ?
Anyone taking a quick look at the many serious threads would believe that the most experienced and able servicemen are leaving the military in droves. Their places, apparently, are to be taken by a bunch of semi-literate 'wannabes' (see other threads). A cynic might suggest that Hoon would attain maximum popularity by closing down the armed forces altogether!
If the message coming out of Whitehall was that the armed forces were well led then perhaps there wouldn't be any manpower shortages. If Hoon's a good leader, why do so many people want to leave his employ?
Anyone taking a quick look at the many serious threads would believe that the most experienced and able servicemen are leaving the military in droves. Their places, apparently, are to be taken by a bunch of semi-literate 'wannabes' (see other threads). A cynic might suggest that Hoon would attain maximum popularity by closing down the armed forces altogether!
Guest
Posts: n/a
this thread is too contentious to let it die. Pause for thought - wouldnt it be better to increase the length of postings for airships, so someone actually becomes culpable for some of the shocking decisions we have seen? Rather than have higher echelons consisting of, say, 5000+ individuals intent on forging ahead with their own career, why cant we have a degree of culpability which may in some way contribute turning the higher echelons into cohesive units, which could then (possibly) recognise many of the problems highlighted in this thread. I wont be holding my breath. Credibility is the key. Lack of credibility creates yawning chasms between chiefs and indians, which is why the majority of people i know are PVR'ing. What makes matters even worse is the arrogant attitude that this is no major loss. Not for those chaps maybe, but for the sqn that experience loss is crucial. Consequently, although i (we) tire of the eager ramblings of the wannabes the airships need this influx of bare faced enthusiasm to counter and replace the growing numbers of super-cynical old g*ts like myself becoming alienated from the service. However, this experience drain will come back and bite whoever viciously on the @rse. Oh yes and we're over 300 pilots short - ooh bugger.