Sad day for the RAF

[CAP1]

Dang. I guess I will need to figure out how to delete this post when I get to the office. I don't mind getting band from the boards for a week but don't want to lead others astray. This is simply a link about the demise of the RAF. Without commenting on the who, what or why of it. Pretty boring if we can't even discuss this. Maybe we should do a work session in Robert Rules of Order and Decorum. There are some great minds in this community and I know I could learn much though its impossible with a gag order in place. Disappointing but there it is. My bad...

Boo

 well, here's the problem. it would be very easy to discuss why they're cutting something so important as the RAF......IF we didn't get locked down for politics. 'cause that is exactly why. suffice it to say, they've got plenty of programs they could cut that aren't nearly as necessary or important.....but people want their free stuff.
 that's all i got the nerve to say here, as i don't want that vacation.

[Serenity]

i think what you just said is what a lot are trying to say.....i generally don't say anything, because i don't want anyone to think i'm disrespecting the great men and women that are going there and doing their duty.....but i do not think our men and women should be ripped from their families and sent there though...........


sorry skuzzy.

I feel there are plenty of ways to disagree with the conflict while still supporting our troops, and honestly, I don't think it would ever cross anyone's mind here that you of all people would have anything but respect for the troops!

[CAP1]

I feel there are plenty of ways to disagree with the conflict while still supporting our troops, and honestly, I don't think it would ever cross anyone's mind here that you of all people would have anything but respect for the troops!

 thank you sir!! i appreciate that, and you are right. i know of one i lost respect for. her and her father went nuts trying to not let her get deployed during the first war. that pissed me off BIG time, as she's taking full advantage of having been in, but didn't do all of her duties that she'd signed up for.

[Penguin]

thank you sir!! i appreciate that, and you are right. i know of one i lost respect for. her and her father went nuts trying to not let her get deployed during the first war. that pissed me off BIG time, as she's taking full advantage of having been in, but didn't do all of her duties that she'd signed up for.

It also defeats the purpose of joining the military.

-Penguin

[Vudak]

I feel there are plenty of ways to disagree with the conflict while still supporting our troops, and honestly, I don't think it would ever cross anyone's mind here that you of all people would have anything but respect for the troops!

I don't know.  Once you say a conflict is pointless, it tends to set off a chain that inevitably leads to upsetting some families or widows of soldiers who died in it. 

[CAP1]

I don't know.  Once you say a conflict is pointless, it tends to set off a chain that inevitably leads to upsetting some families or widows of soldiers who died in it. 

 and that's what i try to avoid doing.

[Vudak]

and that's what i try to avoid doing.

OTOH, once you go with the flow and say there is a point to it, it only encourages politicians to make more widows.

[RTHolmes]

well, here's the problem. it would be very easy to discuss why they're cutting something so important as the RAF......IF we didn't get locked down for politics.

nothing to do with politics, its just basic housekeeping. if you dont have the cash, you got to cut your spending, simple as that. we have a massive budget deficit so we got to cut spending across the board, no argument on that. given the amount we need to cut, I'm happy that we are doing it in the right areas for the mostpart.

nimrods are a good example. I'm sad to see em go because its an interesting and unique aircraft (any other aircraft out there that cruise on 2 engines rather than 4?) however our biggest threat atm isnt russian subs so we dont need that capability. sentinels? I'm not so sure. harriers? again a unique and interesting aircraft, but the bang-for-buck just doesnt add up so theyre gone. multiple armoured divisions sitting in Germany doing nothing? cant see thousands of russian tanks rolling across europe anytime soon, cut em.


edit: hopefully the best thing to come out of this will be a complete shakeup of mil procurement. for way too long contracts have been awarded on the basis of completely made up costs, which always escalate to ridiculous levels and take 10yrs longer than expected. this is BS and no private sector company would tolerate it.

some day we might get to the stage where tenders come in for x capability at y cost, and within the agreed timescale x capability is actually provided at y cost.

[CAP1]

nothing to do with politics, its just basic housekeeping. if you dont have the cash, you got to cut your spending, simple as that. we have a massive budget deficit so we got to cut spending across the board, no argument on that. given the amount we need to cut, I'm happy that we are doing it in the right areas for the mostpart.

nimrods are a good example. I'm sad to see em go because its an interesting and unique aircraft (any other aircraft out there that cruise on 2 engines rather than 4?) however our biggest threat atm isnt russian subs so we dont need that capability. sentinels? I'm not so sure. harriers? again a unique and interesting aircraft, but the bang-for-buck just doesnt add up so theyre gone. multiple armoured divisions sitting in Germany doing nothing? cant see thousands of russian tanks rolling across europe anytime soon, cut em.

 it's not if you need that capability NOW.....if they're gone, and you need it in the near future, you're screwed.

 there are plenty of social programs that could be cut, rather than cutting your defenses.

[RTHolmes]

with unlimited funds you can prepare for most eventualities. with a limited budget you have to pick the capability you're most likely to need, and can afford.

like I said the cuts are across the board, literally eveything is being reviewed and slashed.

thing is, we could retain all of our current capability at 2/3 the cost if the procurement was sorted out. when the army pays £50 for a toilet seat that I can buy at my local store for £3, there is something seriously wrong.

[Nypsy]

Strikes me the UK would do better with a couple CVs and the navalized F-35.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20110702.aspx

Boo

I hope the UK and the US and any other country involved is smart enough not to get stuck with the F-35 albatross.

[CAP1]

I hope the UK and the US and any other country involved is smart enough not to get stuck with the F-35 albatross.

+ a WHOLE LLOT

[RTHolmes]

what would you suggest as an alternative?

[CAP1]

f-22

[RTHolmes]

 

but seriously what would you suggest?