Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Royal Air Force Cuts Up To 100 Cadet Pilots  
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3470 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4767 times:

Australia is cutting 20 fighter pilots, 30 helo pilots and 50 transport pilots.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...rcise/story-e6frg6so-1226005805741

Seems a bit short sighted. They should let them finish and then put them on reserve status.


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4729 times:

Well, Auistralia is cutting some aircraft, aren't they? With fewer aircraft they need fewer pilots. The offers these student pilots are making still won't by them a pilots seat in aircraft that are no longer in service.

User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

Mistake in the thread title.
Not the RAAF, but the RAF (UK).

Now that they've prematurely kicked out the harriers and the nimrods, there's hardly anything left for those guys and girls to fly... Bad decision IMHO, they will pay for it later... and I really feel sorry for those cadets and officers-in-training who've done all the work to get selected and trained, only to be let down...

The french air force had the same issues the last few years, however instead of cutting the numbers like the RAF, they managed to spread and share the cadets with the army that was short of rotary wing guys...


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4444 times:

It's a tragedy for those who've worked their entire lives to get into that profession. They'll be lost forever. And it'll probably make people in the future think carefully before applying.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-...ources-Say/Article/201102215930035

I can imagine how awful the news must be for those trainees.   And to think, the news seemed to leak out to the world before it seems to have gone to them.  

Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It'll destroy morale too.

[Edited 2011-02-15 16:37:24]

User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10899 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4381 times:

How many years are these RAF cadets into their training? Can they be recooped at a later time or are they definitely out? There must be so much disappointment... Can they pick up somewhere else in the UK? Airlines? Civil aviation?  


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

They should at least be allowed to complete their training, so they can move to careers in civilian fields.

User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4208 times:

How many hours would they have on jets by the time they complete their training.

User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 3950 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 6):
How many hours would they have on jets by the time they complete their training.

Some sources were saying some of them had very little time left to go before their training would have been completed. I don't know how accurate those sources are, so don't shoot the messenger. But if that's true, then it is a crying shame for those who wanted to serve their country, a very honourable thing to do.

It's now being reported that Tornado might get the chop too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/20/cuts-raf-fleet-tornados


User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

No carriers, no harriers, no nimrods, no tornadoes?
wow, that doesn't leave a lot now, does it, aside from a dwindling number of Eurofighters?

Projection will be left to the Eurofighter/MRTT combination... somewhat lacking in flexibility really.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13213 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3837 times:

I don't mind if the Tornados get retired if they are replaced .
Though the report above hints at some replacement by not selling Typhoons (Tranche 1 or 2's?), I just don't trust this government to do that.
During the review last year (which seems to have been profoundly botched both operationally and financially - certainly rushed with 'last minute' decisions admitted by the Government), it was estimated that the proposed Tornado axing would save some £8 Billion. Half of that amount would allow further Typhoon Tranche 3 procurement for a couple of squadrons with enough left to replace a couple more with some extra UCAV's (BAE Mantis perhaps?)

If they axe the 12 remaining (of 22 ordered by the previous government) Chinooks, I'd love to see them explain that one away after all noise they made in opposition about 'not properly supporting our troops'.
Then again, Cameron made a speech last summer about sticking to the 'Military Covenant' in properly supporting the services in not only kit, but help and support for them and their families.
They are rowing back on that too, it should be noted however that the PM made that speech aboard HMS Ark Royal!

If the further cuts this report alludes to does happen, really Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, should resign.
He'll be reshuffled or out of the cabinet first chance Cameron gets anyway, he stood up to Chancellor George Osbourne during the review, it seems that Osbourne was just biding his time and fully intends to carry out the extent of cuts he always intended to.

Maybe this Cabinet full of millionaires can get some of their pals to use some of their own light aircraft and helicopters to 'take the place' of the Nimrods and the extra Chinooks as a 'Big Society' air force!


User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3808 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
I don't mind if the Tornados get retired if they are replaced .
Though the report above hints at some replacement by not selling Typhoons (Tranche 1 or 2's?), I just don't trust this government to do that.

The UK is definitely not getting more Typhoons, and that thing doesn't even have a gun on it... *sigh

The state of UK defence is even worse today than it was just prior to the Falklands, and back then the only thing that stopped any more downsizing was the Falklands war...

When the UK realises it is no longer able to protect it's overseas territories and interests, it'll be too late.
In a way it's probably a good job that Honk Kong was returned to China... and think of all the cost reductions if Gibraltar is handed over to Spain!

Surrender the Falklands to Argentina for a quick buck, leave Ascension Island and St Helens to sort themselves out (after all, everyone wants independance, right?) and that's it, no need for a bluewater navy...


User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 850 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3808 times:

Edit: Decided to remove my post. Just pissed off about the whole thing...

[Edited 2011-02-21 12:25:39]


Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13213 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 10):
The UK is definitely not getting more Typhoons, and that thing doesn't even have a gun on it... *sigh

The state of UK defence is even worse today than it was just prior to the Falklands, and back then the only thing that stopped any more downsizing was the Falklands war...

Old news on the Typhoon gun, the MoD rowed back on that one. (More expensive to actually delete it!)

I'm not concerned about the Falklands really, Hong Kong was always impossible to defend - China could just cut the water supply.
It's the unforeseeable that should concern, they are retiring/scrapping inherently flexible assets.
Retiring/scrapping important intel gathering assets. (Including - god knows why - the very new Sentinel aircraft).

The actual strategy, as much as one exists, seems to be do the minimum for supporting the Afghan operation until around 2014/15 and then.................who knows?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
They should at least be allowed to complete their training, so they can move to careers in civilian fields.

Why, if the UK cannot afford to train these guys for the RAF, why would they train them for BA?

I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg for the British Military Forces. My guess is they will revisit buying the A-400, or cut more airplanes from their current order of 22. They could also tear up the contract with Air Tanker and cancel some or all of the 14 A-330MRTTs. The Chinook may also be reduced or canceled, including the upgrade program. They already scrapped brand new Nimrods, and I have doubts the 3 RKC-135Rs will be delivered. What about the E-3Ds? What is the plan for them? Storage? Sale? Scrap?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13213 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3764 times:

I think KC-135, you might be indulging in mentioning projects you don't seem to like!
With reduced transport fleet numbers, having more capable aircraft makes more sense, as for the tankers, they are under construction and the VC-10's really need replacing.
With the air-bridge to Afghanistan being the strain it is, doing what you propose would mean a UK pullout from Afghanistan much sooner than planned.
The RAF's A330's took 5 years from order to flight because of the nonsense consultant and lawyer-fest called Private Finance Initiative.
While the Italian AF's KC-767's were 5 years late for technical reasons.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Why, if the UK cannot afford to train these guys for the RAF, why would they train them for BA?

As the article states, some pilots are very close to graduating, instead they are getting the boot? That is cold, and these students just wasted all that time on a career that just evaporated. Look at completing their training as a severance for wasting their time. Even for the good publicity... I know that if I was in training, and got the boot near completion, I would make the biggest stink I could. The training system is still there, the positions are being eliminated, finish these guys, and remove the slot afterwards.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3745 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
I think KC-135, you might be indulging in mentioning projects you don't seem to like!

Actually, I believe what the MoD is doing is criminal. I don't know what social programs the UK is cutting, but I always believed that the defense (of any nation) should always be a governments #1 priority.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Why, if the UK cannot afford to train these guys for the RAF, why would they train them for BA?

As the article states, some pilots are very close to graduating, instead they are getting the boot? That is cold, and these students just wasted all that time on a career that just evaporated.

How much money do you think the RAF has wasted on these students? The Military Forces (of any nation) should never become a social experiment. The MoD paying to complete these student's training is just wasting more money as the MoD will never get a return on their investment.

I don't know what it costs to train a pilot in the RAF, but the USAF spends close to $4M to train pilots for its service. My guess is it is about as expensive in the UK. While some students may be 75%, or more the way through their training, the RAF will still save 25% by not completing their training, more than that for students lower in the training pipeline.

Government budget cuts will always hurt someone, but life still goes on. In this case, it is no different than working for GM, or some other big company that finds itself in financial trouble, many people will loose their jobs.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13213 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3665 times:

Meanwhile......

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-tanker-trials-with-raf-vc10.html


KC-135, the social program vs Defence argument does not really apply in the UK, all areas of government spending are under massive pressure, thanks to that failed Anglo-American financial services implosion.
Traditionally, the UK (like France), has spend a higher proportion of GDP on defence than most other European nations (Greece being a stark exception), for a variety of historic and geopolitical reasons.

I understand the need for cuts, the MoD's budget was a huge mess, my beef is the lack of strategy behind it.
The review last year was done way too fast, dishonourable mention also going to the service chiefs tearing lumps out of each other while the Treasury looked on approvingly.

The current government, a rare Coalition, is dominated by the Conservative Party who have (or did) consider themselves the 'party of strong defence'.
In fact, both major parties had similar records in government, who allowed Argentina to walk unopposed into those islands down South (but her Labour predecessor with similar intel, dispatched some RN assets to deter in 1977).
Going back further, who was the party of Appeasement in the 1930's?
Aside from a few unpopular within their party mavericks, including a guy called Churchill!


User currently offlinecolumbia107 From Gibraltar, joined Aug 2004, 358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 3528 times:

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 10):
and think of all the cost reductions if Gibraltar is handed over to Spain!

I can only presume that such ignorant remarks arise from your love for all things Spanish. For example Sangria and bullfighting. The first I love but the second one I abhor!

For your guidance the cost to the MOD of maintaining its military presence in Gibraltar is circa GBP90 million per year.

Huge savings indeed!



In God we trust
User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

Quoting columbia107 (Reply 18):

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 10):
and think of all the cost reductions if Gibraltar is handed over to Spain!

I can only presume that such ignorant remarks arise from your love for all things Spanish. For example Sangria and bullfighting. The first I love but the second one I abhor!

For your guidance the cost to the MOD of maintaining its military presence in Gibraltar is circa GBP90 million per year.

Huge savings indeed!

Sorry if you missed the sarcasm in there.

Alas, I do not trust the current British government to protect anybody's interests these days, you only have to look at the PM having to grovel over (yet another) failure in his government - failing to react to a very clear crisis and launching the repatriation if UK citizens stuck in Libya.

The military presence in Gibraltar may only cost GBP 90 million, however the MoD is willing to take any decision these days, however crazy they may be. Sacrificing young pilots careers after they've gone through Cranwell and flight selection, dumping the Harriers, killing off the Nimrod... Are there actually going to be any assets to place in Gibraltar?

I am also attached to Gibraltar remaining a british territory, and I do hope that things will remain as they are.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7420 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3469 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Actually, I believe what the MoD is doing is criminal. I don't know what social programs the UK is cutting, but I always believed that the defense (of any nation) should always be a governments #1 priority.

I'd like to see you try and sell that to the great unwashed voting public.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Actually, I believe what the MoD is doing is criminal. I don't know what social programs the UK is cutting, but I always believed that the defense (of any nation) should always be a governments #1 priority.

I'd like to see you try and sell that to the great unwashed voting public.

It will be a challange. Many of those in the unwashed voting public are members of the "me first generation", with no strategic outlook on the future, their's or the country's.

But, we here in the US have many of those same types of voters. The UK does not hold a monoploy on that.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13213 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

There is a long history of the MoD having eyes bigger than the Treasuy's piggy bank.
Allied to a systemic failure of Economic, Foreign and Defence policy, all too often, not to be aligned.

At least in the late 60's, the reductions, changes in strategy, though forced by economic problems (devaluing Sterling was vital, but doing so would make the already onerous burden of having major commitments 'East Of Suez' completely unaffordable, unless major cuts were made to the main contribution to NATO, which in the Cold War, could not be done).
There was a stark choice, maintain East of Suez, with the bases, supply chain, troops, air arms, carrier battle groups, or massively scale down/withdraw the British Army Of The Rhine/RAF Germany and/or the Eastern Atlantic ASW centric role of the RN.

Having successfully prosecuted counter insurgency operations in Borneo, with peaceful (as yet) agitation for UK forces to withdraw from the Gulf, there was only one choice, allied as it was with the move in NATO from massive nuclear retaliation to 'Flexible Response', the latter requiring strong conventional forces.
The Wilson Government who did this, did not intend it on coming to power, very serious economic problems forced the issue, an issue that had been building up since the end of WW2.

This time, it's hard to see such an alignment between defence policy and equipment strategy.
From 2006, the dual commitment to both Afghanistan and Iraq put burdens on budgets, personnel, equipment, that could not be sustained.
You had the previous government from 2007 keeping, for purely political reasons, (i.e. keep the US sweet and face saving at home), maintaining UK forces in Basra yet ordering them to not have a role other than defending themselves.
This pleased no-one, the forces hated it, it did nothing to ally the deep unpopularity of the UK presence in Iraq at home, it (somewhat understandably) exasperated the US, seriously pissed off the Iraqi government.
Worst of all, it undermined the accelerating UK commitment to Afghanistan, which could only be ramped up after the UK was out of Iraq.
The unpopularity of Iraq from the start, contaminated the public about the Afghanistan commitment.

With it seems, most UK nationals who want to leave, out of Libya, the PM appears to be moving towards agreeing to 'No Fly Zones' over that country.
The somewhat audacious rescues of UK and other nationals from desert camps, by the RAF and Special Forces, has potentially made that possible.
What the PM, whatever he decides on this, should do, is consider this, if we have to do an operation like this, or with greater potential danger/opposition, with perhaps 'No Fly Zones' included, in a few years time-or in the nearer term, in the wake of the Defence review, could we actually do it?


User currently offlineAnt72LBA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3123 times:

BBC reporting that RAF is to lose 2,700 posts and also 2 Tornado squadrons to be disbanded (one each at Marham and Lossiemouth).

Not sure if this is in addition to the cuts already mentioned.

(would a more general thread in non-av about defence cuts around the world be appropriate?)


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13213 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Quoting Ant72LBA (Reply 23):
Not sure if this is in addition to the cuts already mentioned.

It's putting the already mooted cuts into people/unit form.
Wonder if any of the RAF people to go, will be told by e-mail as they are serving in Afghanistan?
'Good enough' for some Army NCO's after all.


25 chuchoteur : Well the RAF cadets got to learn about it from the press and the internet, as the info was leaked at least 72h prior to an official visit to inform t
26 kaitak : It's a bitter disappointment to the cadets, but even for those who have only just started their training, the fact that they got through RAF aircrew s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Royal Air Force Cuts Up To 100 Cadet Pilots
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pakistan To Buy Up To 150 Chengdu J-10s posted Mon Nov 9 2009 20:32:26 by Zeke
Iraqi Air Force Wants Up To 90 F-16s posted Tue Mar 31 2009 17:46:45 by Lumberton
KC-45 To Be Built In Up To 13 Lots (years) posted Sun Mar 16 2008 07:03:17 by KC135TopBoom
France Orders Up To 68 NH90s posted Sun Dec 2 2007 07:54:44 by Lumberton
Mexican AF 757 Enroute To St.Petersburg Pulkovo posted Sun Jul 16 2006 05:29:38 by RobK
UK Orders Up To 44 Hawks posted Wed Jul 30 2003 23:33:11 by David_itl
Iraq AF Gets Air To Air Kill posted Mon Dec 23 2002 18:04:14 by Spacepope
Boeing Gets Military Contract Worth Up To $9.2 Bln posted Sat Jun 1 2002 05:33:21 by Flyingbronco05
AF To Pick Csars Winner In Fall - Bone To Shut Up? posted Tue Aug 19 2008 16:22:12 by Tugger
UK Defence Cuts - 2nd CV Offered To India posted Wed Sep 22 2010 22:33:02 by Shmertspionem

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format