RAF Cuts

[Aerdale]

Reports from England today (Feb 14):

A quarter of the RAF's trainee pilots are to be sacked in the latest stage of the Government's defence cuts, reports claim.

Up to 100 student pilots will be told the news tomorrow that they have no future in the service as part of the latest ramifications of the defence spending review.

They are said to include some who are just a few flying hours hours away from earning their wings as fully qualified pilots.

Job cuts: One-in-four new RAF pilots are to be sacked as part of new defence cuts, it has been claimed

According to the Daily Telegraph up to 20 fast jet pilots, 30 helicopter pilots and 50 transport aircraft pilots are to go.

Air Vice Marshal Mark Green, the head of RAF training, was said to be preparing to visit the three training schools to inform them of their fate.

The cuts will mean that the Ministry of Defence will effectively have to write off the £300 million spent on their training, which can cost up to £4 million a man, the paper said.

[PapaJu]

Well that sucks.

[nsplayr]

Wonder if good ole' Prince William will make the cut /sarcasm

[Clayton Bigsby]

The UK - defense-cutting themselves into irrelevancy...

Why bother to even have an air arm?

[StoleIt]

That sucks to hear.

Hope those guys can get picked up with BA or something and take advantage of all the free flight training.

[brickhistory]

Another lesson learned here.

We're 5 years from being them financially.

[PapaJu]

Another lesson learned here.

We're 5 years from being them financially.

Thought that was more due to the new RPA career field, but that's a different story.

[DeHavilland]

The UK - defense-cutting themselves into irrelevancy...

Why bother to even have an air arm?

Just ask the Kiwi's in New Zealand about budget cuts to their Air Force.

[Majestik Møøse]

"The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. All our hearts go out to the fighter pilots, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day…"

Winston Churchill

20 Aug 1940

Even platitudes as strong as this will eventually fade away as those who were actual witnesses to such heroism slowly die off. The hard lessons learned will eventually disappear in time, as they have for thousands of years. I know times are different now, and these are "only" trainees, but you can't screw people over that harshly and expect the best recruits to keep coming back. It seems like the RAF, as well as our own Air Force, only knows how to treat these pipelines like an on/off switch. Someone please tell me what other organization in the world would use that method to put the best people in the right places...

[Aerdale]

I was in Scotland a while back and up early watching the BBC morning news. There was a report about a joint naval exercise in the North Sea involving a U S carrier and a number of NATO ships, including some from the Royal Navy. While showing stock footage of the US carrier underway the newsreader casually mentioned that this one particular U S carrier had more fire power than the entire Royal Navy. That is a sad commentary on what was once the most powerful navy in the world.

News that the Marines are cutting back:

MILITARY: Changes loom for the Marine Corps

COMMANDANT TO OUTLINE VISION FOR REMODELED FORCE IN TUESDAY SPEECH

By MARK WALKER - mlwalker@nctimes.com | Posted: Friday, February 4, 2011 10:00 pm

Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, spoke to troops in Afghanistan on Christmas Eve. "We know that you’ve been in a hell of a fight," he told them. Amos is expected to detail the future of a smaller and lighter Marine Corps in a speech Tuesday in San Francisco.

The Marine Corps is on the cusp of its most significant restructuring in decades, a process one defense analyst says may forever alter its character.

It's expected to shrink by tens of thousands of troops, reduce its equipment inventory and alter its approach to shore invasions.

"The bottom line is pretty simple ---- the Marine Corps has defined itself as the ones who do forcible entry of shorelines, and now it appears that the Pentagon wants to water that down," said Loren Thompson of the Washington-based Lexington Institute, a libertarian think tank.

"Aspects of what the Pentagon is proposing could make the Marines less useful, less capable and less important," Thompson said.

At issue is Defense Secretary Robert Gates' order that the Marine Corps redefine its fundamental mission, or its "core competency."

Gates directed Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and the new commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos, to conduct a "thorough force structure review to determine what an expeditionary force in readiness should look like in the 21st century."

For the roughly 60,000 Marines at Camp Pendleton near Oceanside and Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in San Diego, that review, and what Amos says in a scheduled speech Tuesday in San Francisco, could dramatically alter the course of their military service.'Tamer' Amos, a four-star general and the first aviator to command the Marine Corps, is expected to answer Gates in his speech.

Nicknamed "Tamer," his aviator call sign, Amos already has talked about the Marine Corps as a "middleweight force" with fewer troops and much lighter equipment than it has used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Marine Corps' current 202,000 troop level could fall to about 182,000 by the middle of this decade under a recommendation from Gates.

Others have suggested the number of Marines could go down even further, provided the nation is not at war.

Navy strategists meeting in San Diego last month said that budget pressures in Washington are driving other changes for the Marine Corps.

The looming Pentagon spending cuts should prompt the Navy and Marine Corps to consider merging staffs and placing more Marines aboard ships throughout the world to respond more quickly to trouble spots, one strategist suggested.

"We need to have the 'mother of all roles' discussions," said Navy Capt. Victor Addison, who works in advance concepts. "We should use this opportunity to remake the Navy and Marine Corps team."

'Too heavy'

Gates talks about the impending makeover as a time of anxiety for the Marine Corps, which, since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, has functioned as a second land army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The perception being that they have become too heavy, too removed from their expeditionary, amphibious roots and the unique skill sets those missions require," Gates said in an August address to the Marines' Memorial Association in San Francisco, the same group that Amos is slated to address next week.

Gates went on to say the country doesn't need another land army or a "U.S. Navy police force."

What it does need, he said, is the "Marines' unique ability to project combat forces from the sea under uncertain circumstances ---- forces quickly able to protect and sustain themselves ---- a capability that America has needed in this past decade, and will require in the future."

At the same time, Gates and Marine Corps leaders say leathernecks need to remain ready to storm ashore.

But what that will look like this century has come into question and is being widely debated in defense circles.

Gates doesn't believe there's a need for World War II-style beach assaults.

"I do think it is proper to ask whether large-scale amphibious assault landings ... are feasible," he said in his August address. "New anti-ship missiles with long range and high accuracy may make it necessary to debark from ships 25, 40 or 60 or more miles at sea."

That foreshadowed Gates and Amos' announcement late last month that they jointly agreed Congress should scrap the overbudget and overdue Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

The behemoth was supposed to serve as the Marine Corps' new, heavily armored amphibious fighting vehicle, delivering troops from ships 25 miles offshore and able to maneuver once it reached land.

Analyst Thompson said that after spending $3.3 billion on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, calling on Congress to end the program has huge implications for the Marine Corps.

"Eliminating it appears to be the first step in watering down the mission," Thompson said.

If the Marine Corps also begins cutting its fleet of fighter jets and helicopters, the "question then becomes, 'What role does that leave?'" he said. "The Marine Corps is facing a difficult moment of uncertainty."

[Steve Davies]

It gets worse. The British Army has just sacked a small group of senior NCOs as a cost cutting measure. Incredibly, c.30 or so received the news via email... one of them while serving on the front line in AFG .

The reality is that the British public might well support the armed forces as patriots, but many don't believe that money should be spent on defence when the domestic situation continues to worsen and the economy remains very poor. Rightly or wrongly, this government has decided to maintain a nuclear deterrent at a cost of several £bn, and that means that cuts in defence spending must come from elsewhere.

Why maintain an RAF at all? To provide protection of UK sovereign airspace, and to provide support to UK overseas Ops.

The reality is that this country is broken - financially, militarily, morally, culturally, socially and politically. It is a far cry from that in which I grew up, and that which my Grandparents fought to protect. The future is looking quite bleak.

[AMN1]

i wonder how they choose who goes and who stays?

[pbar]

The reality is that this country is broken - financially, militarily, morally, culturally, socially and politically. It is a far cry from that in which I grew up, and that which my Grandparents fought to protect. The future is looking quite bleak.

This really scares me because it seems like the UK has been a preview for the last few decades for what will happen to the US...

[Stitch]

This really scares me because it seems like the UK has been a preview for the last few decades for what will happen to the US...

I agree. It's not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when". If the US Governemnt was a business, it would have gone belly up (Enron style impolsion) years ago.

[M2]

Why bother to even have an air arm?

I can think of one good reason...

[Steve Davies]

i wonder how they choose who goes and who stays?

Depends on where the stude is on the course.

Everyone in flying training is under threat:

If you're still at pre-IFT stage, or have not yet completed IFT, you'll have to go through the aptitude testing process again - top 70% in the re-testing stay.

If you have not completed the RAF equivalent of Phase 2 of UPT, the top 70% (assessed based on their sortie reports) stay.

For those guys already at the equivalent of UPT Phase 3 and Phase 4, only 65% will make it through (again, based on sortie reports).

For some, ground trades and retraining will be offered, but for many it will be involuntary redundancy.

This really scares me <snip>

Indeed. It's pretty worrying to be living through it, too.

I can think of one good reason...

That bloke looks a bit like a bird.

[Prosuper]

It gets worse. The British Army has just sacked a small group of senior NCOs as a cost cutting measure. Incredibly, c.30 or so received the news via email... one of them while serving on the front line in AFG .

The reality is that the British public might well support the armed forces as patriots, but many don't believe that money should be spent on defence when the domestic situation continues to worsen and the economy remains very poor. Rightly or wrongly, this government has decided to maintain a nuclear deterrent at a cost of several £bn, and that means that cuts in defence spending must come from elsewhere.

Why maintain an RAF at all? To provide protection of UK sovereign airspace, and to provide support to UK overseas Ops.

The reality is that this country is broken - financially, militarily, morally, culturally, socially and politically. It is a far cry from that in which I grew up, and that which my Grandparents fought to protect. The future is looking quite bleak.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/3411906/38-senior-Army-heroes-including-one-on-the-Afghan-front-line-are-sacked-by-email.html

The actual email is in the link.

[Anonystude]

As one of the 450 or so who are almost certainly in the bracket for redundancy, it's true that the RAF hasn't exactly handled this well...

And unfortunately, thanks to European regulations, we can't get a straightforward crossover to civilian flying. It's at least a £25k ($40k) bill for me to get my civil licences, and I'm halfway through the British equivalent of IFF!

P.s.: M2, that female Flight Lieutenant is now an instructor...

[Learjetter]

I can think of one good reason...

Read the linked article, not bad for a fluff piece (sts), but have an issue with this quote:

"'The noise of a low level swoop directly overhead is usually enough to get the enemy's heads down so the friendlies can withdraw and get back to a safe place."

How about: "The noise of a low level swoop directly overhead is usually enough to get the enemy's heads down so the friendlies can kill and capture them." Or words to that effect.

Just an observation--when we are forced to violate Rainman's rule and have to talk to the media, shouldn't we do it in direct, no nonsense, descriptive words that reflect what we're really trying to say?

[Stitch]

P.s.: M2, that female Flight Lieutenant is now an instructor...

I volunteer to stay after school for some one-on-one tutoring!