Page 1 of 3

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 07 Oct 2007, 19:18
by Garry Russell
Will they ever learn :brick:

Garry

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 07 Oct 2007, 19:28
by Hot_Charlie
Tonks wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 604027.ece

Will it ever end :dunno:

Tonks :@ HELP
Fingers crossed they've got it wrong about Linton. Hopefully the Tonkas loss will be part of the fashion for EAWs we have now, and not necessarily too much of a capability loss...

(Fat chance...)

Of course nowadays we should all be saying this a great decision and give full support to Government policy... :brick: :fart: :roll:

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 07 Oct 2007, 20:00
by Nigel H-J
Come back Guy Fawks, we need you now!! :prayer:

Nigel.

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 08 Oct 2007, 09:12
by forthbridge
I would say it beggars belief, but it doesn't. Typical lunacy from Whitehall.

:-(

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 08 Oct 2007, 09:30
by Filonian
"Swords into ploughshares" mentality of this party.

I had not heard about Linton, but a little bird has whispered in my shell like that Leeming is to go. Being turned over to the brown jobs for a helo base. Makes sense to get rid of an all weather base :o :'( :dunno:

Also heard of massive expansion at Catterick Garrison which is clever, put all your remaining troops in one area, make it easier for any enemy to get them all in one go.

This shower, so called government, is enought to drive you to :drinkers:

Graham

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 08 Oct 2007, 10:18
by DispatchDragon
The New PMs first name isnt Neville is it????

Well I guess this will continue untill all thats left are three Cessna 150s with bottle rockets :brick:


Well in the immortal words of Don Henley "you get the goverment you deserve" - Dont worry it will be happening this side of the Pond this time
next year , when the Clinton Clan get to turning the White House into Socialism Central :(


Leif

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 08 Oct 2007, 10:43
by Pringle
The two bases to be scrapped have not yet been named but it is believed that one of them is Odiham, Hampshire, home of the RAF’s Chinook fleet. It is seen as being the most vulnerable because its prime position within the extended London commuter belt would make its sale highly profitable.
Didn't see this line coming...where will the Chinooks go then? Think this is a little bit of lazy journalism.

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 08 Oct 2007, 12:44
by hobby
Sheer lunacy!!!

Senior politicians, civil servants and industrialists should have read, and learned by heart, Machiavelli's "The Prince" which draws on 20 years of real diplomatic experience and in only 30,000 words explains the rules for the proper governance of a nation. One of the most important principles being that a nation state should maintain a standing force sufficient to achieve the defence and the achievement of the required political goals of that state. Machiavelli was not evil, but he was an astute and acute observer of mankind.

He was also a 'gadabout' frequently drunk, a gambler and an habitual visitor to houses of ill-repute. Above all he was extremely good at statecraft and a master of persuasion.

"The Prince" was written over 400 years ago and is rumoured to be one of the most widely read books in the western world second only to the Bible.

Air support is essential today but you hold the ground with infantrymen.

Please see today's "The Times" for an article by ACM Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of Staff.

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 08 Oct 2007, 12:57
by Techy111
My last posting was at RAF Odiham and the land is on Prime Green belt land so why they are selling it doesn't make any sense.......They will proberly make it into a park.. :dunno:
Bring back Maggie (she loved the forces) not to open another can of worms though.... :think:

Tony

Re: More cuts in the RAF

Posted: 08 Oct 2007, 13:11
by Garry Russell
So what happpedns when the "quick fix" cash is long spent and the airfields are built over and we get into a national situation where we need more aircraft and more airfields. :lol: :lol:

They just don't think

Garry