MOD cuts leave RAF unable to drop their bombs.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by vvaannmmaann, Apr 13, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. All they need to do is drill a big hole in the bottom of their aircraft and poke the bombs through it.

    Truly a sad state of affairs.
  2. What a sorry ****ing mess.
  3. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    As ever, though, it's the last comment which is the real kiss-off:

    "An MoD spokesman said: "We have sufficient Typhoon aircrew with appropriate training for all the systems and weapons to undertake the current tasks.""

    Deliberately ambiguous wording on 'current tasks', no admission of any culpability, no acknowledgement that something needs to be put right. No fcuk off, you nugget: there's a problem and it needs sorting.

    It's reminiscent of Gordon Brown and his assurances on support helicopters in Afghanistan and senior officers' 'assurances' that there was plenty enough capacity for the tasks at hand - the tasks at hand, of course, being very tightly defined but broadcast in a rather more wide-ranging sense.

    It's depressing, angering and unsurprising to see how little has changed with a change of government.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. There is perhaps another side to this argument though..

    Are we not guilty on occasions of "gold plating" our training by tying up everything in over stringent regulations and requirements for qualification and re-testing?

    By creating huge centralised training organisations, supposedly to make economies, have we not created monster empires, determined to justify their existence at the cost of everything else? I am not for one minute suggesting that service people should not be sufficiently trained, however to do this at the expense of operational capability seems to miss the point. I just feel sometimes that we are letting the tail wag the dog too much? When you need to be specially trained and tested to shoot blank ammunition, and attend two day landrover familiarisation courses have we not gone a bit too far? Also is the concept of "skill fade" not a gift to the training organisation that just keeps giving?

    I am sure in 1940, everyone knew that 20 odd hours on Spitfires were insufficient training for battle, but a judgement call had to be made. I do worry that so much power and authority has been taken out of the hands of the CoC that it is inevitable we end up in situations like this..

    IMHO this is yet another long term effect of the loss of Crown Immunity and the "civilianisation" of the military command structure..
    • Like Like x 5
  5. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    HE117: fair points all. But at the same time, within the strictures which we ourselves have put in place, we have a multi-role aircraft which isn't currently multi-role.

    Given all the discussion of the RAF reducing down to a fleet based on just two fast jets (Typhoon and F-35, if we ever get the latter) this is a huge 'fail'. And my sympathy for those at the top of the RAF who bellow over and over that Typhoon is more than just an air defence asset (and it is, don't get me wrong) just reduced dramatically.

    As it did for Dr Fox and others who in recent days have stated that the SDSR got it fundamentally right...
  6. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    There may have been a change of Government, but there has not been a change of civil servant; so the issues that were being dealt with 18 months ago are still here as they are considered as 'work in progress'. Change of government means little to the people actually running the MoD.
  7. Good post. That's my view on this matter as well.
  8. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Aye [sigh]. But it's something that needs gripping quickly.
  9. BrunoNoMedals

    BrunoNoMedals LE Reviewer

    So much of this is down to the RAF's own culture. An old colleague of mine who is ex-RAF once described the whole organisation as 20,000 people propping up a flying club for a few hundred, and their attitude to training is a massive factor in this particular debacle.

    As I understand it, SDSR planned to make a significant amount of its savings by reducing the number of live flying hours (actually having real planes in the air) for the Typhoon. The RAF, who obviously don't fancy having their jollies cut short, said no.

    We continue to spend inordinate amounts of cash keeping these few people up in the sky, so it's no wonder that with the cash running out such things are going to stop. As someone who not only delivers simulation products for training as (amongst other things) a cost saver, but as someone who also seeks to make simulation more cost-efficient in its own right, I am acutely aware of the options available to the RAF - options that would allow their pilots to be fully trained to a very high level in all aspects of their equipment, but at a fraction of the cost of buzzing around Wales, scaring sheep and burning fuel.

    The simple fact is that the RAF won't accept anything that stops them enjoying their playtime, and are more prepared to leave the service at reduced capability to prove a point than they are to contribute to the inevitable spending reductions. There are plenty of sensible efficiencies that can be made, and MOD (both Main Building and Procurement) is doing plenty in this domain. Unfortunately we keep seeing push-back from serving personnel who want to keep their expensive toys to themselves.
  10. I thought the whole idea of using "smart" weapons was that the pilots didn't need to be. That's why the Americans developed them after all.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Cuts this, and cuts that......this also sounds like a massive oversight on behalf of the RAF.
  12. BrunoNoMedals

    BrunoNoMedals LE Reviewer

    It's not an oversight, it's playing the game. They want to show the world that without funding to fly training missions, they can't operate effectively. The reality is that they could get all their training squared away with a fraction of the budget they demand, if they were prepared to accept an increase in simulated training at the expense of live flying. They don't want this, as obviously they have more fun in the sky than in a computer game.

    I'm not an advocate of flogging simulations solely to reduce costs, and only recommend them where there is a genuine efficiency to be made. So much of a pilot's training is quite readily migrated to a simulator, though, that they could potentially end up better trained solely by virtue of having far more opportunities to train in the computer than in the real thing.
  13. Daily Telegraph - Never Knowingly Accurate

    You may need to cut and paste the link (Flight International) since my first attempt to clink on the URL on PPrune aborted. In essence, though, two Typhoons bombed targets in Libya yesterday with PWII. Presumably with the Litening pods still in a packing case...
  14. *Sarcasm mode on*
    Just because it's in the apparent so-called intelligent paper called the Telegraph, doesn't actually make it more factual than the so-called non-intelligent papers.
    *Sarcasm mode off*

    Unless I have at least 2 other sources confirming that story I would not take it in its literal form. There MAY be a small element of truth in there somewhere, but the story has been 'built and shaped' to provide an agenda for the newspaper.

    I should add I'm biased against the Telegraph. :)