chockhead819
War Hero

On the teletext that the Red Arrows could be scrapped to save money.
Karma said:Although not on the same scale cost-wise we could reasonably say what was the use of the Field Gun and Mast Manning at the Royal Tournament.
benjymo said:Exactly and where is the Royal tournament now!
Absolute crap KarmaKarma said:benjymo said:Exactly and where is the Royal tournament now!
Whoosh
*note to self, avoid subtlety*
The point there is that the whole Royal Tournament went, so there was no justification for an independent existence of the individual events within it to continue. However the value as a recruiting tool was immense.
Without getting into a long and tedious staff course diatribe, the services in general need to have a profile with the sponsors. Those sponsors who would much rather see government buying more and more hospitals that can stand empty because of staff shortages than more and more defense when we're involved in unpopular and poorly understood conflicts. The same sponsors that sign off consent forms for our recruits coming through the gate at Raleigh, a stream of people we couldn't survive without.
The Red Arrows may not have a military purpose as such, but they keep the RAF in the public eye in a reasonably benign way. A very expensive way of doing it, but it manages. I'm not sure what the return on investment might actually be, but the crabs in general seem to think it is worth it, and in a way I'd agree. the more we distance ourselves from the sponsors the less likely we are to actually get the money out of Treasury that we need to continue doing the job.
In comparison the RN has an annual Brickwoods competition at Collingwood and a presentation team who speak to WI meetings around the country. And Loose Page..........
Well there are another 6 tied up to the wall what are we waiting for lets book Earls Court for the last 3 weeks in Julyclanky said:IIRC the manpower bill for the FGT was equivalent to manning a T22/42 for a year.
copenhagencup said:Absolute crap Karma
1. With the reduction in manpower the loss of circa 180 good blokes is unsustainable. for 5 months a year.
It is indicative of service cuts today as with early 1990`s redudancies the RN made significant cuts the other 2 services paid lip service.
What do the RAF actually do that makes us proud, 1940 was 67 years ago lets move on and get some value for money out of them.
The point there is that the whole Royal Tournament went, so there was no justification for an independent existence of the individual events within it to continue. However the value as a recruiting tool was immense.Karma said:copenhagencup said:Absolute crap Karma
Which bit in particular? My thoughts about the FGT, which I do see as a great loss? Or the need to remain engaged with the taxpayer who actually pays the salary?
1. With the reduction in manpower the loss of circa 180 good blokes is unsustainable. for 5 months a year.
Fully agree with that, but there could have been ways round it. The snag is we'd have ended up with a cadre of FGs seeing at as a career path. Viable but probably not defensible.
It is indicative of service cuts today as with early 1990`s redudancies the RN made significant cuts the other 2 services paid lip service.
And that is exactly the point I'm making, the RN has a piss poor public profile. The FG runs etc made a huge difference to our profile and our presence in the publics mind. Since we now have an extremely low profile in the media then we're left on the back foot when the public do see a local presence from the Army or the RAF.
Personally I think our whole public profile needs a serious going over, the problem is now that we've got rid of such resource intensive programmes, like FG, we can't justify the money to get back into it.
What do the RAF actually do that makes us proud, 1940 was 67 years ago lets move on and get some value for money out of them.
Now that's a whole different debate and having been round that particular buoy many, many times I'm still not convinced of why we have them. But we do, and we need to get on with it.
copenhagencup said:The bit about individual existence while all the others remain.
benjymo said:What use are they to defence anyway?
copenhagencup said:Why are 22500 sqaddies still in Germany, no threat there.
dunkers said:benjymo said:What use are they to defence anyway?
Certainly didn't have a negative effect on recruiting or Service pride. That's what use they are.
copenhagencup said:Why are 22500 sqaddies still in Germany, no threat there.
Because we don't have enough barracks in the UK to house 22,500 squaddies, nor the money to build them.
higthepig said:Brickwoods? I`ve seen it once and cringed with shame, if thats supposed to be a field gun run, then its pathetic.