**British Armed Forces Discussion Thread**

Terminal_Boy said:
Who guards RAF bases these days?

MoD plod or Rock Apes?

Whomever it was, their boss needs an interview without biscuits.
Click to expand...

Neither of the above.

I've been based at Brize before and recently visited for terminal runs.

It's a mix of an understaffed (though understaffed all over) MPGS, Civvy Serco pass checkers and perm members of staff on guard duty.

RAFP will do their token patrols to show they are working, if they are not too busy taking over the USA flights for "required aviation security"

But I know a minimum of 3 sections on base will have had CCTV access to the dispersal, 1 for security reasons and the other 2 for eng/work purposes.

It's a massive mess up, with lots of retraining and rechecking of orders to make sure people were actually doing their job right.
 
Mad_Jay said:
RAFP will do their token patrols to show they are working, if they are not too busy taking over the USA flights for "required aviation security"
Click to expand...

Ha! Ha! So true! Buuuuuuuut RAFP have been cut and cut. We used to have big shifts, 1 Sgt, 1 x Cpl, several acting Cpls and dog handlers per shift. Manning gates, container checks and patrols. Now, MPGS, civvy companies etc and youngsters are now on call during the silent hours - no mentoring or have to wake the duty grown up for advice.

It's crap, but don't blame the staff, blame the higher ups that have allowed us to get into this mess in the first place.

On the plus side, similar to 9/11, that prompted a global shift in attitudes to security, With Brize and the global tension as it is, maybe we will see more funding/people into base security.
 
Last edited:
Lucky their intent was only to use paint and a crowbar - could have been a lot worse.

The Russian's are figuring out how to stop truck-loads of drones, while we're still figuring out how to stop an angry person with a crow bar.
 
Last edited:
Yeh we are way behind the curve. I think our mindset as a whole, from the strategic to the person on the front gate needs a complete mindset restart.

The MoD/UK govt/UK population etc etc still thinks we have completed history in a way. Almost as if we completed needing to be switched on once Afghan finished.

Things are changing again..: or at least it appears like the mindset is starting to readjust. The buzz words all centre around “warfighting” but that is a big gear change from the last 10 years.
 
ivrytwr3 said:
Ha! Ha! So true! Buuuuuuuut RAFP have been cut and cut. We used to have big shifts, 1 Sgt, 1 x Cpl, several acting Cpls and dog handlers per shift. Manning gates, container checks and patrols. Now, MPGS, civvy companies etc and youngsters are now on call during the silent hours - no mentoring or have to wake the duty grown up for advice.

It's crap, but don't blame the staff, blame the higher ups that have allowed us to get into this mess in the first place.

On the plus side, similar to 9/11, that prompted a global shift in attitudes to security, With Brize and the global tension as it is, maybe we will see more funding/people into base security.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I never had the usual RAFP chip on my shoulder until they chinned off doing security on a middle eastern route and me and a mate were forced to do it :cry:

2 C17s leaving at the same time, one to Jordan and one to Las Vegas. Both had the full compliment of ATSY, but then the Vegas jet suddenly became an ATSY "Training route" and every man and his dog got on it. Leaving the Jordan jet with no security.

Rects controller comes into the Tea Bar and asks me and a mate to get our passports, we're off to Jordan. RAFP meet us at the steps of the gate, give us a security "Go Bag" and we have a 5 minute brief on what to do/not to do.

It turned out being a right laugh to be fair, Jordanian security were a good laugh and I got a nice tan camping under the wing for 30 hours.

I had to write a "Sqn Improvement" as part of my apprenticeship after Cosford, I wrote an essay on how RAFP should do their job and how techies are better employed fixing jets :p
 
Stu999 said:
UK to buy 12 F-35As to carry an alternative form of nuclear weapon.

www.bbc.co.uk

UK to purchase nuclear-carrying F-35A fighter jets

Downing Street says the move is "the biggest strengthening of the UK's nuclear posture in a generation".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Behold, the most ridiculous MOD decision since they removed CATOBAR from the QE design.

To be clear, I'm in favour of bolstering our nuclear deterrence. However, we already provide nuclear ICBM capability to NATO - one of only three countries to do so.

Quite why NATO (or let's be realistic, the USA) needs a 7th country capable of employing the same ancient "dumb" nuclear bomb is completely lost on me. Our "NATO first" approach recognises that Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey already fulfil this role. The UK's additional 12 airframes will contribute nil towards NATO's strategy, while providing the UK nil in terms of sovereign nuclear capability.

By the time F-35A becomes a reality for the UK, Tempest will be maturing, which is all but certain to be a more suitable air frame for this job with greater range and payload. It's also an obvious requirement that these weapons need to be delivered by way of stand-off cruise missile - not by way of a WW2 style bomb which requires F-35A to survive overhead, at high altitude, in a hotly contested environment - something that is questionable today, let alone when we finally receive them. Then there's the question of refuelling (our current tanker fleet can't do this for F-35A), and weapons integration (F-35B STILL can't employ our world-beating meteor missile, and won't now until "early 2030's", a minimum of 12 years after our first squadron became operational).

A new American airframe, to drop an ancient American bomb, on a new American friend, with explicit American permission. It's nothing short of Trump fluffing.

God forbid we support our own brand new 6th gen fighter program.

Leave it to the French to provide a nuclear deterrence that everyone, even an increasingly adversarial USA, is obliged to respect.
 
Last edited:
EdGey said:
Behold, the most ridiculous MOD decision since they removed cats and traps from the QE design.

To be clear, I'm in favour of bolstering our nuclear deterrence. However, we already provide nuclear ICBM capability to NATO - one of only three countries to do so.

Quite why NATO (or let's be realistic, the USA) needs a 7th country capable of employing the same ancient "dumb" nuclear bomb is completely lost on me. Our "NATO first" approach recognises that Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey already fulfil this role. The UK's additional 12 airframes will contribute nil towards NATO's strategy, while providing the UK nil in terms of sovereign nuclear capability.

By the time F-35A becomes a reality for the UK, Tempest will be maturing, which is all but certain to be a more suitable air frame for this job with greater range and payload. It's also an obvious requirement that these weapons need to be delivered by way of stand-off cruise missile - not a ww2 style dumb bomb which will require F-35A to survive overhead, at high altitude, in a hotly contested environment - something that is questionable today, let alone when we finally receive them. Then there's the question of refuelling them (our current tanker fleet can't do this for F-35A), and weapons integration (F-35B STILL can't employ our world-beating meteor missile, and won't now until "early 2030's").

A new American airframe, to drop an ancient American bomb, on a new American friend, with explicit American permission. It's nothing short of Trump fluffing.

God forbid we support our own brand new 6th gen fighter program.

Leave it to the French to provide a nuclear deterrence that everyone, even an increasingly adversarial USA, is obliged to respect.
Click to expand...

I think it’s worth mentioning that Tempest is currently still on the drawing boards, with a slated entry to service in 2035 meaning 2040 is much more likely, plus the wait for operational capability.

While there might be a small wait on the production line, at least the F-35 is a proven airframe with another variant already in service with us.

The Typhoon technology demonstrator first flew in 1986, the Typhoon itself in 1994 and entered RAF service in 2003 - these processes aren’t quick.

Edit: also, 12 aircraft is peanuts in the big scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
Penfold101 said:
I think it’s worth mentioning that Tempest is currently still on the drawing boards, with a slated entry to service in 2035 meaning 2040 is much more likely, plus the wait for operational capability.

While there might be a small wait on the production line, at least the F-35 is a proven airframe with another variant already in service with us.
Click to expand...
That's true. I fully expect it'll be ages before we see any, but there's a chance I'm wrong. The thing is though, even if we received all 12 of them tomorrow, I'd still hold the same position. Frankly, even if we doubled the number to 24, I'd still hold the same position.

The whole concept strikes me as inadequate. An ill thought out, off the shelf solution designed above all to appease the Whitehouse, with an astute absence of ambition and strategic/tactical consideration.

Yikes!
 
EdGey said:
That's true. I fully expect it'll be ages before we see any, but there's a chance I'm wrong. The thing is though, even if we received all 12 of them tomorrow, I'd still hold the same position. Frankly, even if we doubled the number to 24, I'd still hold the same position.

The whole concept strikes me as inadequate. An ill thought out, off the shelf solution designed above all to appease the Whitehouse, with an astute absence of ambition and strategic/tactical consideration.

Yikes!
Click to expand...

I suspect you’re right - Trump will only be around a few more years so I dont think it’s worth cutting ties with the US completely, and this may just show a continued partnership at the cheapest cost whilst also giving us another capability in the near future. At least it’s SOME investment!

It’s also depressing that off-the-shelf stuff is generally the only way we can get anything at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. Developing our own stuff is just slow and expensive as we’re rubbish at writing contracts and America has developed most things we can use already!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom