Defence Cuts.........
Redundancies?
Attended a 4* brief yesterday (Chatham House Rules). Throughout he talked about smaller forces. When asked about redundancies, he replied that it would be naive to think that all 3 services would not be affected. Study groups are to report in April.
Rumours circulating at work of reducing the RAF down to a force of approx. 38,000-39,000. The impression given is that of a politician's/bean counter's number pulled out of a hat, that the RAF then has to decide how to achieve.
Has anyone heard any more on this subject?
Has anyone heard any more on this subject?
Anybody else remember hearing whispers in the mid-90's about a "secret" team within Innsworth named "Project 38"? Something to do with studying how to downsize the RAF to 38000?
Also seem to remember the AMPLT briefers hotly denying that one....no smoke without fire perhaps?
Also seem to remember the AMPLT briefers hotly denying that one....no smoke without fire perhaps?
Jobza you should know better
Every thing Innsworth does is a secret or is that a mystery
The only thing we know for sure is at the end of all this we will still be doing the same job with less for longer with even less appreciation from our lords and masters.
The current government is no friend of the Armed forces and will continue to "rationalise" as long as it is in power.
Before you all jump on and tell me to PVR/Leave "if you can't take a joke" etc etc I'm only hanging on for the money check previous posts to see just what it means to many other people!
Still I did stack early yesterday so it's not all bad news!
Anybody else remember hearing whispers in the mid-90's about a "secret" team within Innsworth named "Project 38"? Something to do with studying how to downsize the RAF to 38000?
The only thing we know for sure is at the end of all this we will still be doing the same job with less for longer with even less appreciation from our lords and masters.
The current government is no friend of the Armed forces and will continue to "rationalise" as long as it is in power.
Before you all jump on and tell me to PVR/Leave "if you can't take a joke" etc etc I'm only hanging on for the money check previous posts to see just what it means to many other people!
Still I did stack early yesterday so it's not all bad news!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the Defence White paper failed to address was the fact that every war we get into involves us leaving several hundred, if not thousands military personnel (grunts and airmen ,even occasionally the Navy) in theatre. How many people do we still have in? a) The Falklands. b) Sierra Leone c) Bosnia d) Kosovo e) Middle East after GW1 (Northern and Southern Watch) f) Afghanistan g) East Timor not to mention home issues such as NI or the current Middle East commitment.
Whilst I agree that numbers of aircraft is not the be-all and end-all of any particular battle, nor is the number of grunts who occupy the ground. The issue is, how many bodies / or aircraft have we got to cover all our commitments and how often they get rotated.
THE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL NEEDED TO SUSTAIN OPERATIONS IN THEATRE(S) AT ANY ONE TIME IS NOT EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE MILITARY'S CAPABILITIES.
Whilst I agree that numbers of aircraft is not the be-all and end-all of any particular battle, nor is the number of grunts who occupy the ground. The issue is, how many bodies / or aircraft have we got to cover all our commitments and how often they get rotated.
THE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL NEEDED TO SUSTAIN OPERATIONS IN THEATRE(S) AT ANY ONE TIME IS NOT EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE MILITARY'S CAPABILITIES.
