RAF widow hits out at "cutbacks"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Malteser, Oct 16, 2006.

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. Source: BBC News

    BBC News 24 have started a series this week, interviewing parents who have lost family in Iraq/Afganistan. It started me wondering are the flood gates now been opened in the public and media interest in the supply and support of HM Forces. Considering the bias of the BBC, the article appeard very pro Forces, but Anti Government for not maintaining the Nimrod. Should be an interesting week to see the other interviews.
  2. It smacks of the sodier who had to hand over his Flakjacket and lost his life. My heart went out to his wife who has remained composed throughout and it still irks me when I think of that selfcentred parasitical sh-i-t called Hoon strutting around as if he couldnt care less.
  3. The press release following the article was typical spin saying how they have invreased by 50% the maintainence funds for the Nimrods. I can see far more interest is going to be shown into the management of defence funding.

    Having seen another thread on here about an ITV interview, it seems the media are out for scalps when the whole piece is titled " Betrayed? An Investigaton - We probe how Britain treats its frontline wounded"

    Source: ITV News
  4. When one "crashed" in Iraq an investigation found that because of the lack of fire retardent material the aircraft was in a bad way. I am no rocket scientist so forgive me if I miss somethimg out but the Yanks had the stuff in their aircraft as did other nations. When Crony Grayson was asked he siad it wasnt cost effective but funny how it takes the sacrifice of our people to make these tossers take notice and "forget" any previous statements as Grayson did when questioned after the Govt announced it would "look into" this fire retardent material.
  5. They need to be held to account and their forgetfulness plastered over the front pages of the papers, for all those journo's reading take note.
  6. To be fair though from what I've read the guy was a RAC bloke and since there was a shortage of enhanced body armour he had to hand it back over for someone in the infantry, with a Challenger 2 being pretty much top of the line in regards to bullet proof protection seems fairly logical the infantry got first dibs compared to tank crews. Of course then he got out of the tank which is when he got shot in the chest.

    Edit: Just to be clear I'm not trying to be disparaging to the guy and the sacrifice he made, just saying it wasn't as cut and dried as the press sometimes wrote it.
  7. still no excuse for having to hand over your body armour! The Cav don't fecking live in their panzers.

    As for Crab Air, I might not be the organisations biggest fan but a life is a life no matter what uniform its wearing. Crab Air do not have to conform to CAA standards and that might be their let down - I for one was very nervous when travelling by Chinook, but never by Lynx or Sea King!
  8. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator


    Just remember why we plan. We do so to look at all contingencies, to take them into account and to mitigate risk.

    To deploy to a war zone without body armour (when even the journos accept it as a must have) because some fool has dictated that we can always buy it "just enough, just in time", is idiotic whatever way you want to look at it.

    Tankies need to get out of their wagons. When they deploy, they will not operate in a benign area nor a partially secure area. They are therefore subject to being shot at. Therefore they needed body armour to wear.

    I don't see a problem with that logic - do you?

    Article says that MOD have raised the expenditure in maintainance from £2m to 3m an aircraft per year. Anyone know how much additional flying these aircraft have done in the same time period?

    If, as I suspect that the flight numbers and duration have gone up at least in proportion to the increased expenditure and there were crew worries that not enough money was being spent in the first place, the AVM's comment is invalid or to put it another way, simple spin.

    Any of our RAF brethern able to comment?
  9. The Maintenance Budget might very well have gone up by 50%........ but 50% of what, exactly? A fiver? So, £7.50 to spend on maintenance.... crikey! My legs have gone all shakey.

    The system is running on empty. When you have the Brass racking their brains to find ways of making money and asking their staff to think of ways to make money from their services and facilities, then we are seriously in the crap.
  10. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    A pity the BBC having done a good job then let themselves down by only name 11 of the 13 dead.

    Left out are:
    Cpl Oliver Dicketts Para:

    Marine Joe Windall RM:
  11. Or perhaps look at it from the other angle: the Nimrods are so knackered that they've required 50% more maintenance this year...
  12. There was not enough body armour for the infantry soldiers in the BG. The CO made the command decision that the dismounted infantry doing house assaults and attacks were more of a priority than the tank crews.

    It was a sensible decision that was made BUT shouldn't have had to be made if there was enough body armour in the first place.

  13. nimrods are rebuild of 50s comets of course there going to need rather a lot of maintenace there pushing 50 for go sakes :(
  14. Exactly - and on airframes that are already very old!

  15. It was a hercules which crashed in Iraq, not a Nimrod