Times Report - Cut to the Bone?

OK Guys, direct from the journo's mouth. Things they are a changing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917297.ece

Looks like a whole new air force.

 

[grumpyoldb]

Yes, there are still a few kicking around.

Nice to find out via leaks the info regarding Cott. This afternoon sees an official brief for all Cott personnel.
Last time I went to one of those was St Mawgan.........DT_Xtremez_42:
Any chance I can settle down in my next posting?

I think we'll have to rename you Jonah.................! DT_Xtremez_42:

Saving money by closing Cottesmore, eh? What's the betting it becomes an army barracks? If they wanted to start saving money, they may be better thinning out the dead wood at the top of the tree.

 

[Douglas Bader's Right Leg]

This a very true and disturbing quote....



Shall we hand the Falklands over now rather than be unable to win them back if the Argies have another go?

Labours vision of the forces is only focused on Afghanistan, they're leaving us with no capability to have a scrap on our own doorstep.

We don't have the money to do anything else. Afghanistan is the single largest threat to national security and it has been defence policy since the early 90s that we are highly unlikely to be involved in conventional or nuclear warfare with another developed country. If we do, NATO Article 5 assures that other nations will come to our aid so we don't have to worry about being self supporting.

This is not a specifically Labour problem, but a recurring issue with the British Armed Forces outside of large scale conventional warfare - we aren't vote winners, we are incredibly expensive and will be reduced in size accordingly. The first reductions post-Cold War were conducted by the Tories and cuts will continue until there is a considerable threat to our homeland necessitating an increase.

Where this government has failed in spades is by completely failing to identify the scale of the current threat and respond to it and detracting from essential ops in Afg by sending us on a costly diversion to Mesopotamia.

 

[wolfy]

If they wanted to start saving money, they may be better thinning out the dead wood at the top of the tree.

Along with a lot of other officials like MP's for a start.

However this will probably get some of our lords and masters New year honours then in several years time the next bunch will get theirs for trying to put it all back.

As stated we are trying to create an armed forces just for our current mess not long term. Lets face it the Helicopters they are trying to buy will be coming into service about the time we are supposed to be pulling out!

 

[Shugster]

We don't have the money to do anything else. Afghanistan is the single largest threat to national security and it has been defence policy since the early 90s that we are highly unlikely to be involved in conventional or nuclear warfare with another developed country. If we do, NATO Article 5 assures that other nations will come to our aid so we don't have to worry about being self supporting.

This is not a specifically Labour problem, but a recurring issue with the British Armed Forces outside of large scale conventional warfare - we aren't vote winners, we are incredibly expensive and will be reduced in size accordingly. The first reductions post-Cold War were conducted by the Tories and cuts will continue until there is a considerable threat to our homeland necessitating an increase.

Where this government has failed in spades is by completely failing to identify the scale of the current threat and respond to it and detracting from essential ops in Afg by sending us on a costly diversion to Mesopotamia.

I agree that it was the Tories who first started swinging the axe after the wall came down.

I hope we never have to depend on NATO helping us in times of trouble... I think the French won't be first in the queue to help.

 

[Douglas Bader's Right Leg]

I agree that it was the Tories who first started swinging the axe after the wall came down.

I hope we never have to depend on NATO helping us in times of trouble... I think the French won't be first in the queue to help.

The problems we had garnering international popular support for the Falklands are indicative of what we can expect in the future. Long term defence strategy is alwyas a gamble - you are never prepared for the war you end up fighting. Unfortunately this government hasn't bothered to adapt to the war we are fighting a full 8 years after we were caught on the hop.

 

[ukhursty]

As stated, RAF Cottesmore will close.

What does this mean in real terms for RAF personnel?

Obviously the civilian jobs will go, but will the RAF personnel be moved elsewhere, or offered redundancy, or a mixture of both?

Its just I'm slightly confused when it states 'thousands of jobs will go', I'm just trying to decipher how many will actually be RAF personnel.

 

[shettie]

As stated, RAF Cottesmore will close.

What does this mean in real terms for RAF personnel?

Obviously the civilian jobs will go, but will the RAF personnel be moved elsewhere, or offered redundancy, or a mixture of both?

Its just I'm slightly confused when it states 'thousands of jobs will go', I'm just trying to decipher how many will actually be RAF personnel.

The RAF personnel will be moved to other jobs/stations, the thousands probably refers to things like - the MOD Civilains (civil servants) the staff in the messes, the local paper shop, milkman, the grounds staff, the teachers at local schools - bus drivers taxi firms, waiters in restraunts, council staff - the list just goes on!

Cottesmore is one of the largest employers in an area where there is no other employment (it may be idyllic...but it has it's drawbacks...) Unless the government pumps some other employment opportunities into the area - it's essentially just taking one up the ar5e!

The other thing to consider is what is Cottesmore going to be used for when the RAF leave - I've already heard from a reliable source that refugees/asylum seekers are being considered...

Damn - I wish I'd bought one of the nice new houses by the main gate!!! (NOT!)

 

[Combet Sheep]

Announcement is due at 15:30. Should be on BBC News 24 or if not then BBC Parliament will carry it.

 

[John Lloyd]

Announcement is due at 15:30. Should be on BBC News 24 or if not then BBC Parliament will carry it.

And Radio 5 live.

 

[alepie]

If Cottesmore closes it will be a disaster for Rutland. As far as I can tell Oakham relies on income from the base and should this disappear it is difficult to imagine what will happen to the town. That said I often wondered if selling Cottesmore makes sense. After all it has a really long runway and is right next door to the A1 and not that far from the south east. Does that make Cottesmore an attractive airfield for an air freight company looking to save money by not operating near London?
There simply has to be something in the pipeline, Rutland has the highest Council Tax outside London and losing its largest employer won't help matters. I understand politically closing Kinloss is a tougher option but poor old Rutland! Bet they wished they signed in with Leicestershire after all...

 

[John Lloyd]

Brown job's have got the right idea


"The new head of the army has ordered a cull of more than 300 senior officers, including two major-generals and up to 32 brigadiers.
The move by General Sir David Richards follows concern that the army has more than twice the number of generals than it has regiments, with many top brass frittering away their final years of service in pen-pushing roles."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6954598.ece

 

[duffman]

Apparently the navy are losing a minesweeper and the army are losing 300 officers. 370 civis at Defence Equipment and Support are going.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6954598.ece

Those at Cott will probably used to fill the slots at Odiham as 22 new Chinooks, plus a new C-17 will need manning. A tonka sqn will go as well not been confirmed yet which one. Read that the F3 fleet will be cut even more, although how true that is I don't know since I thought the F3 were down to 1 sqn.

 

[MrMasher]

I'm led to believe that the Tesco's in Oakham was built because of the large numbers of well paid servicemen and families.
And......the Co-Op was rebuilt with this in mind.

Mind you, we could build a lovely racetrack here!

 

[ElTenEleven]

Apparently the navy are losing a minesweeper and the army are losing 300 officers. 370 civis at Defence Equipment and Support are going.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6954598.ece

Those at Cott will probably used to fill the slots at Odiham as 22 new Chinooks, plus a new C-17 will need manning. A tonka sqn will go as well not been confirmed yet which one. Read that the F3 fleet will be cut even more, although how true that is I don't know since I thought the F3 were down to 1 sqn.

We already have the manning for the extra C-17 as it is based on Flying Rate and that will stay the same.

 

[Knackered Old Chief]

I wish I really had been wrong................

I wish I really had been wrong................

When I left two years ago I joked that I didn't expect to see the RAF make it's century. I wish I hadn't said that!
DBsRL points out that as part of NATO, we will get support from other NATO nations if we are picked on; unfortunately, there needs to be something there in the first place. The small European nations put their trust in the bigger ones in the past - us, France, Germany - to hold the ring until the US and Canadians etc came galloping to the rescue. They reasoned that as they were part of NATO, they didn't need to bankrupt themselves on defence, their big friends would pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them. Which meant that their big friends had to man up and shoulder the big burden - which we mostly did. And now we are expecting the rest of NATO to come to our aid if we need it, when they have 'slimmed' down because they are relying on us? The massed Norwegian/Danish Battle Fleet of submarines and troop transport ships, under the aerial armada of Belgium/Holland? The Icelanders Artillery and Battle Tanks? Hordes of highly trained Iberian SAS equivalents, all capable of decimating the enemy? Or do you mean we'll expect the US to bale us out? Come on, you can tell us - you'll feel better once you get it off your chest, though I must warn you, the US is beginning to look a bit dubious about sending it's servicemen to die in Europe's entanglements when the Europeans haven't got the men, muscle or will to sort out their own mess.
Cure unemployment and sort out the drug problem - send the junkies out as manual mine-clearance operatives - thick boots and ear defenders.
I despair of the incompetent, self-serving, greedy, grasping, lying, dishonest downright scum that we suffer in the 'Parliament' of this country, and the way they have let us all - service and civilian - down.

 

[Sammy]

A tonka sqn will go as well not been confirmed yet which one.

I dont think that will be a GR4 Tonka Sqn. I think it will just be crews that go for now, not a whole sqn.

 

[duffman]

We already have the manning for the extra C-17 as it is based on Flying Rate and that will stay the same.

So each c-17 will be flown a 1/7 less? Pity quite fancied c-17s if they were looking for extra bods.

 

[Stewie]

When I left two years ago I joked that I didn't expect to see the RAF make it's century. I wish I hadn't said that!
DBsRL points out that as part of NATO, we will get support from other NATO nations if we are picked on; unfortunately, there needs to be something there in the first place. The small European nations put their trust in the bigger ones in the past - us, France, Germany - to hold the ring until the US and Canadians etc came galloping to the rescue. They reasoned that as they were part of NATO, they didn't need to bankrupt themselves on defence, their big friends would pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them. Which meant that their big friends had to man up and shoulder the big burden - which we mostly did. And now we are expecting the rest of NATO to come to our aid if we need it, when they have 'slimmed' down because they are relying on us? The massed Norwegian/Danish Battle Fleet of submarines and troop transport ships, under the aerial armada of Belgium/Holland? The Icelanders Artillery and Battle Tanks? Hordes of highly trained Iberian SAS equivalents, all capable of decimating the enemy? Or do you mean we'll expect the US to bale us out? Come on, you can tell us - you'll feel better once you get it off your chest, though I must warn you, the US is beginning to look a bit dubious about sending it's servicemen to die in Europe's entanglements when the Europeans haven't got the men, muscle or will to sort out their own mess.
Cure unemployment and sort out the drug problem - send the junkies out as manual mine-clearance operatives - thick boots and ear defenders.
I despair of the incompetent, self-serving, greedy, grasping, lying, dishonest downright scum that we suffer in the 'Parliament' of this country, and the way they have let us all - service and civilian - down.

And yet someone keeps voting them back into power..................

 

[duffman]

I dont think that will be a GR4 Tonka Sqn. I think it will just be crews that go for now, not a whole sqn.

You mean aircrew? What would be the point of that ?

 

[4mastacker]

BBC News has reported that the RAF will lose "the equivalent of" a Tornado sqn. If that's the case, I see that as the each of the current sqns giving up a couple of a/c each but retaining the same number of sqns. The Vulcan force done that in 1980 when the government ordered a similar cut. It meant that the two-winged master race protected their empires.