BlackScorpion 0 Posted February 12, 2007 [b said: Quote[/b] ]Following admission by the MoD that funding for the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team - The Red Arrows - is to be reviewed under the latest Defence spending review, we, the British Public implore the Prime Minister to maintain funding to one of this country's most visible and recognisable symbols.The Team stands as an internationally recognised symbol of the high standards and fine traditions of the British Military and in a time when this country has fewer things to be proud of, should be permitted to publicise the Armed Forces of this nation. For UK Citizens only, but... http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SaveTheReds/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scary 0 Posted February 12, 2007 I wouldn't worry about Defence Spending Reviews, every year they look at scrapping something that cannot be scrapped only to decide that they could never scrap it. It's just paying lip service to the bean counters in the MoD. Next year it will be boots or rifles or something which they'll discover they can't do without, and end up finding a paperclip supplier that is 0.005% cheaper than the current one. The Red Arrows budget is only 5.6m pounds and considering how powerful a recruiting tool they are, how much of an advertisment for UK Plc they are and how high profile they are, that is exceptionally cheap. Just for recuitment alone the RAF would have to spend substantially more than that on an advertising campaign to compensate. They RAF moved Australia just to prove a point, they'll not lose the Crimson Crabs any time soon. Now if we could only bring the Field Gun run back... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted February 12, 2007 [b said: Quote[/b] ]Now if we could only bring the Field Gun run back... when did they scrap that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scary 0 Posted February 12, 2007 1999, at the last Royal Tournament. A team of ex Field Gunners have had a couple unofficial races. This is them, they've got some videos on there too. The Bottom three are of a full race, but you may need binoculars to see it properly. The Royal Navy have been doing a pull-it-and-make-it-go-bang race, which is nowhere near as good, but this year they are supposed to be bringing back the proper 'Cliff and Chasm' at Collingwood, I think from March to June. If they've got any sense, they need to make it a regular thing, they've just got to keep Health & Safety away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shashman 0 Posted February 13, 2007 (scary @ Feb. 12 2007,20:43) said: I wouldn't worry about Defence Spending Reviews, every year they look at scrapping something that cannot be scrapped only to decide that they could never scrap it. It's just paying lip service to the bean counters in the MoD.Next year it will be boots or rifles or something which they'll discover they can't do without, and end up finding a paperclip supplier that is 0.005% cheaper than the current one. The Red Arrows budget is only 5.6m pounds and considering how powerful a recruiting tool they are, how much of an advertisment for UK Plc they are and how high profile they are, that is exceptionally cheap. Just for recuitment alone the RAF would have to spend substantially more than that on an advertising campaign to compensate. They RAF moved Australia just to prove a point, they'll not lose the Crimson Crabs any time soon. Now if we could only bring the Field Gun run back... I would worry though... The last defence review I paid attention to (I think it was last year or the year before), the MoD decided to scrap flying training in the UAS (Universiy Air Squadrons) and basically turn them into glorified 'aviation-themed' scout troops I served in MASUAS (Manchester and Salford Universities Air Squadron)for a year and a half, and I can tell you that the UAS scheme is(was) extremely good for recruiting, I mean picture this; You've just started uni, you've toyed with the idea of joining the RAF for years, you get there, you're relying on loans and grants to survive, and here you are, getting paid to learn to fly, it really is every RAF hopeful's dream, and look what's happened... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted February 13, 2007 (scary @ Feb. 12 2007,20:43) said: The Red Arrows budget is only 5.6m pounds... Where did you get that figure from?  I can tell you its going to be far more than £5.6 million.  Servicing the the Hawk T1 aircraft costs about a million a year, add to that the fuel and logistics on training detachments etc.  Its all adds up. At a guess i'd estimate £15-20 million easily. Its interesting that the official Red Arrows site wont even answer the question (Shashman @ Feb. 13 2007,01:57) said: The last defence review I paid attention to (I think it was last year or the year before), the MoD decided to scrap flying training in the UAS (Universiy Air Squadrons) and basically turn them into glorified 'aviation-themed' scout troops  They didnt scrap the UAS flying training or the Glider training Schools just reorganised them and "rationalised" the flying training, reducing the number of hours available to each squadron sue to costs.  They even removed the limits on who get flying training.  Its no longer limited to 'flying trades' all trades are now given flight training.  My friend's son still flys with the Bristol UAS. As for the Arrows... I doubt the RAF will let it happen but given how much kit they are having to buy to regain thier CAS capability (eg 140 Sniper pods) etc i would be surprised that that something is going to go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrevorOfCrete 0 Posted February 13, 2007 aslong as they dont scrap the rugby ill still be happy (great final last year, commmmon army). on topic though, i dont think they will scrap the red arrows, there too important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deanosbeano 0 Posted February 13, 2007 never mind air shows ,get them to afghanistan. last i saw/read the harrier pilots are doing a bad job and (ironiclly given last weeks furore), if it wasnt for the u.s a10s our boys would be slaughtered in there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodite 3 Posted February 13, 2007 (deanosbeano @ Feb. 13 2007,16:58) said: never mind air shows ,get them to afghanistan. last i saw/read the harrier pilots are doing a bad job and (ironiclly given last weeks furore), if it wasnt for the u.s a10s our boys would be slaughtered in there. Really? Without hijacking the thread I would like to know how you arrive at that.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrevorOfCrete 0 Posted February 13, 2007 (deanosbeano @ Feb. 13 2007,16:58) said: never mind air shows ,get them to afghanistan. last i saw/read the harrier pilots are doing a bad job and (ironiclly given last weeks furore), if it wasnt for the u.s a10s our boys would be slaughtered in there. i think you mean Tornados, and also that was a single incident, from what i hear the RAF are more than capable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted February 13, 2007 (deanosbeano @ Feb. 13 2007,15:58) said: never mind air shows ,get them to afghanistan. last i saw/read the harrier pilots are doing a bad job and (ironiclly given last weeks furore), if it wasnt for the u.s a10s our boys would be slaughtered in there. If you are refering to the incident where, and im quoting here, "a certain female Harrier pilot proved she didnt have the balls for the job" and refused to strafe a taliban assualt citing "safety distances" that was one incident. And if we are talking operational capability and performance. Â Since the British forces went in to Helmand Province the RAF/RN Joint Harrier Force (6 aircraft) have flown more sorties and dropped more ordinance than the USAF A-10 team. Â (12 Aircraft) Â WHICH is you consider that the Harrier operating over helmand is limited to 2x1000lb wepaons and 2x CRV7 rocket packs is quite impressive. Returning to the perfomance issues : DID Article on British Harrier Ops in the 'Stan Tornados arent deployed to Afgahistan. Â There was one with a RAPTOR pod sent late last year to fill in as a recon platform whenthe Canberras we're available though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deanosbeano 0 Posted February 13, 2007 [b said: Quote[/b] ]Really?Without hijacking the thread I would like to know how you arrive at that. I have seen few reports on afghanistan mostly itn via channel4 and a few bbc there were a couple on sky too. i base it on the fact that in the majority it was commented that the incoming rounds from raf where not as accurate and sometimes more dangerous than the taliban and it ws seen far more of success when a u.s a10 had come to put some fire down( from the squaddies not the narrator i hasten to add. without a doubt the raf are more than capable ,it was in the context of this discussion about airshows and red arrows ,i thought all this skill should be used for what it was meant , fighting some enemies not painting pretty patterns in the sky leave that kind of thing to the makers of the aircraft they have all the money. [b said: Quote[/b] ]Later, several British broadcasters quoted from an e-mail message written by Major James Loden. "The RAF have been utterly, utterly useless," Loden was quoted as having said, referring to two instances involving Harrier warplanes during close ground combat. [b said: Quote[/b] ]In contrast to the Royal Air Force, Loden said, the U.S. Air Force had been "fantastic." i would like to state i am not in anyway trying to slate the raf or any uk force ,i am immensly proud of them, but i hate to see one branch struggling for equipment and numbers and another trying to spend millions on something of little military value, despite the skill of the pilots , i really dont think it contributes to the raf as whole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted February 13, 2007 (deanosbeano @ Feb. 13 2007,19:34) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]Later, several British broadcasters quoted from an e-mail message written by Major James Loden. "The RAF have been utterly, utterly useless," Loden was quoted as having said, referring to two instances involving Harrier warplanes during close ground combat. [b said: Quote[/b] ]In contrast to the Royal Air Force, Loden said, the U.S. Air Force had been "fantastic." If you do a bit more digging you'll laso find that Loden later qualified what he said. Effectively retracting his coments and reframing them in amore constructive way. But Channel 4 etc didnt bother to report that did they. And one dubious source hardly makes a concrete case does it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deanosbeano 0 Posted February 13, 2007 [b said: Quote[/b] ]Effectively retracting his coments and reframing them in amore constructive way It was a wise move that saved his career. given the evidence i prefer to believe that many a true word is spoken in anger, you may differ. thats all on this for me DB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted February 13, 2007 (deanosbeano @ Feb. 13 2007,19:57) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]Effectively retracting his coments and reframing them in amore constructive way  It was a wise move that saved his career. given the evidence i prefer to believe that many a true word is spoken in anger, you may differ. thats all on this for me DB Personally I dont consider those emails to be significant evidence of anything.  As i understand it, with info coming from a friend serving in 'Stan at the time his career was almost anyway due to his poor performance and attitude.  it would seem he didnt have much of a career to save. Returning to the Red Arrows worthiness for funding.  they serve quite a few roles in the modern RAF aside from PR and recruiting they serve as an advanced instructor's school.  With each pilot returning to frontline squadrons after their 3 year tour usually as Senior Qualified Fight Instructors, which argueably helps to improve the flying standards of the RAF. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deanosbeano 0 Posted February 13, 2007 [b said: Quote[/b] ]Personally I dont consider those emails to be significant evidence of anything. As i understand it, with info coming from a friend serving in 'Stan at the time his career was almost anyway due to his poor performance and attitude. it would seem he didnt have much of a career to save. like i said this is probably where we differ. the argument can be countered that ,why was he there if not considered good in first place etc. thats all moot he was there ,he complained , he withdrew his complaint. people will read the reasons differently. [b said: Quote[/b] ]Returning to the Red Arrows worthiness for funding. they serve quite a few roles in the modern RAF aside from PR and recruiting they serve as an advanced instructor's school. With each pilot returning to frontline squadrons after their 3 year tour usually as Senior Qualified Fight Instructors, which argueably helps to improve the flying standards of the RAF. I wont go against your knowledge on this , as its clear you have close links to the RAF and have a vested interest.I am sure if this was about red mowers i would be as vigourous in there defence has you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted February 13, 2007 [b said: Quote[/b] ]as its clear you have close links to the RAF and have a vested interest well, the name 'rockape' shoudl give you enough of a clue why and very briefly on the harrier vs A10 thing... i have no idea as to air speeds and what the airframe is capable of, but wasnt the A10 designed specifically as a ground attack, slow speed highly armed beast? I.e. it can travel low and at low speeds with alot of armament, so in my eyes surely that would dictate a better accuracy... I'd be suprised if the harrier can fly as slowly as the A10 can without loss of lift and control... thus perhaps the accuracy difference etc... or im probably wrong, but this is from the eyes of joe blogs as i see it. back to the red arrows though, it would be a shame to see them go for all the reasons listed here - i think pretty much everything comes under scrutiny at some point at budget review time, although with the newly merged regiments etc and the new kit they just bought i guess they've trying to get the money back somehow... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deanosbeano 0 Posted February 13, 2007 edited due to edit of above post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted February 13, 2007 (deanosbeano @ Feb. 13 2007,20:31) said: like i said this is probably where we differ. the argument can be countered that ,why was he there if not considered good in first place etc. thats all moot he was there ,he complained , he withdrew his complaint. people will read the reasons differently. Well he was “good†before he went, but when he arrived he proved to be not very well liked apparently.  He was awarded a bronze star by the US for his actions, but was also disciplined for his attitude towards coalition forces as well other british troops. (deanosbeano @ Feb. 13 2007,20:31) said:  I wont go against your knowledge on this , as its clear you have close links to the RAF and have a vested interest.I am sure if this was about red mowers i would be as vigourous in there defence has you are. It’s no secret I’m ex-RAF Regiment.  So yes I do have some knowledge of how the RAF works.  I’ve even got a friend who was an engineer with the Red Arrows ‘96-99 whom supplied me with a fair amount of stories of their exploits.  But even if I wasn’t ex-RAF I’d still petition for the funding of the RAF.  They are a good symbol of Britain and are respected around their world for their skill.  Purely for that they should be funded, there are few enough things left flying that are solely a British Institution. And if it the Flying mowers were something to be proud of, a symbol of skill and professionalism of my country then believe me I’d still be defending them. (Messiah @ Feb. 13 2007,20:36) said: and very briefly on the harrier vs A10 thing... i have no idea as to air speeds and what the airframe is capable of, but wasnt the A10 designed specifically as a ground attack, slow speed highly armed beast? I.e. it can travel low and at low speeds with alot of armament, so in my eyes surely that would dictate a better accuracy... I'd be suprised if the harrier can fly as slowly as the A10 can without loss of lift and control... thus perhaps the accuracy difference etc... or im probably wrong, but this is from the eyes of joe blogs as i see it. You are right in that the A-10 was designed to fly low and slow.  But so was the Harrier.  They were meant to fly similar roles but they were also designed for significantly different tactics.  Harriers were meant to fly lots of short sorties from forward strips and roads in eastern Europe.  Whereas the A10 was meant to operate from secure airbases flying over the battlefield looking for targets.  The Harrier was sent out to provide CAS at very short notice. I should point out that a lot of the Harrier’s failing in ‘Stan has been due to the weapons carried and the TIALD pod and of course the absence of cannon.  The RAF doesn’t not have any bombs under 1000lb (454kg) class, meaning that if you were to drop one within 250m (safe distance is 1000m) of friendlies the chances of killing of injuring your own side are huge.  As for LGB use, the way they need to be dropped presents a problem for the Harrier with its crappy TIALD pod.  It has appalling resolution which means the pilots often can’t identify friend from foe so have to resort to low and slow observation passes before climbing out to release the weapons.  Give it 6 months and all the GR7A/9s that goto ‘Stan will have new shining high res Sniper pods. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrevorOfCrete 0 Posted February 14, 2007 theres an easy solution. Scrap tridents, invest in infantry/tanks/aircraft, but thats just my view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodite 3 Posted February 14, 2007 (TrevorOfCrete @ Feb. 14 2007,01:14) said: theres an easy solution. Scrap tridents, invest in infantry/tanks/aircraft, Â but thats just my view. Not sure I would go for that, but my reasons would be political, as imho the government are starving the MoD as a whole of money but expecting them to fight more? Seems a rather retarded approach to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supah 0 Posted February 14, 2007 (Rhodite @ Feb. 13 2007,15:37) said: (TrevorOfCrete @ Feb. 14 2007,01:14) said: theres an easy solution. Scrap tridents, invest in infantry/tanks/aircraft, Â but thats just my view. Not sure I would go for that, but my reasons would be political, as imho the government are starving the MoD as a whole of money but expecting them to fight more? Seems a rather retarded approach to me. I think that's what's happening world wide man Same with the dutch airforce. Budget cuts, stupid rules because the morons from the navy cant behave after 2 beers, less flying, more deployments to afghanistan, worse carreer prospects for non flying personell. And then they are amazed they are losing pilots to the airlines at a alarming rate and noone wants to join anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted February 14, 2007 True, the current Minister even said that continuing to airsupport to peacekeeping missions will become difficult from 2009 onwards, as we lack the means to do so. I've seen the pay the average grunts get (around €800), that's not worth risking your life for, and I can't imagine the pilots getting a top wage either. No wonder so many choose to fly for commercial airlines, the pay is simply alot better. Luckily we have these "great" opportunities to study for when you leave the army/navy/airforce. People spend more time on that than on doing their actual job. Budgets go down annually because the armed forces aren't doing very much, well except for fighting a bunch of untrained people with ancient guns.... Democracy...sometimes it's a bitch when everyone can think that he knows whats best.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrevorOfCrete 0 Posted February 14, 2007 (Rhodite @ Feb. 14 2007,14:37) said: (TrevorOfCrete @ Feb. 14 2007,01:14) said: theres an easy solution. Scrap tridents, invest in infantry/tanks/aircraft, Â but thats just my view. Not sure I would go for that, but my reasons would be political, as imho the government are starving the MoD as a whole of money but expecting them to fight more? Seems a rather retarded approach to me. yep, but Britain cant justify raising the forces budget, not when you look at investment needed elseware, particularly healthcare. And especially when most of the voting public no longer support the war in iraq Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted February 15, 2007 they may not support the war in iraq, but I'd be pretty certain that the majority of britains support their troops, I for one do... supporting your troops and supporting a war are two different things... if his tonyness insists on sending us to war, I want the guys out there to have the best kit possible so a few of my friends who were or who are serving over there come back alive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites