Or the long rumoured plans to do away with over18 cadets mean that they aren’t being considered as they will be staff?
It rather depends on how you use your “sim”. It doesn’t necessarily need to be a high fidelity reproduction of an aircraft to be flown to be of some training value; something that doesn’t fit the criteria of the RA (bearing in mind the RA is mainly written referring to the synthetic training environment of Phase 2 training up to Front Line, not the ACO) can still provide valuable training (Effects of Controls etc), even in a relatively informal manner. As it clearly mentions the use and fidelity of a simulator can vary hugely (bearing in mind some MOD simulators are 3 decades or more old).
Gliding response from Madeleine Moon MP.
Thank you for getting in touch about the Government’s decision to disband the VGS at St Athan and Swansea as part of a planned reduction in the number of VGS. This will leave Wales without a VGS; the nearest remaining facilities would be at Little Rissington, Gloucestershire and Ternhill, Shropshire. I share your concern that the disbandment of the St Athan and Swansea squadrons will deprive Welsh cadets of the experiences and opportunities available to their English and Scottish contemporaries. This could have an adverse impact on the number and quality of recruits to the RAF and the armed forces.
Last month, I raised these concerns with The Minister for Reserves and Cadets, Julian Brazier. In his reply, (attached), he insisted that the ‘Air Cadet Organisation remains a hugely valued part of the Ministry of Defence’ and that the RAF ‘is committed to its future’. He explained that the decision had made following a review of Air Cadet engineering in 2014 which found that ‘aircraft failed to meet the minimum airworthiness standards required’. He has since explained that it is not economically sustainable to sustain small fleets of Viking and Vigilant aircraft but has made a commitment to invest in accommodation facilities for the cadets and staff who will have to travel long distances to access their nearest squadron.
On the morning of Wednesday 13th April, Dame Angela Watkinson MP led a Westminster Hall debate on the closure of squadrons. Unfortunately, due to my participation in a NATO Parliamentary Assembly visit to Algeria, I was unable to attend the debate. Air Cadets in Northern Ireland and Wales were well represented. Lady Hermon, the MP for North Down, raised her concerns that Air Cadets in Northern Ireland, already deprived for a squadron of their own, will have to travel even further for gliding training and pushed the Minister on whether financial support will be put in place to pay for their travel and subsistence. Jim Shannon, the MP for Strangford, questioned whether the Government’s decision makes economic sense considering these additional costs. The point was also made that Air Cadets in Wales will have to travel many hundreds of miles to reach squadrons.
In his response, the Minister insisted that this ‘is not a cost-cutting exercise’; it is about the improving, updating and securing the safety of squadrons. He repeated his conclusion that fewer, but larger training facilities was preferable to may inadequate ones. He also emphasised the investment that has been made in ‘excellent synthetic training’ which will be offered in addition to the authentic flying experiences. Towards the end of the debate, the Minister confirmed in response to Lady Hermon’s question that all food and accommodation will be free of charge to cadets and their families.
Whilst I trust that the Minister has the best interests of the Air Cadet force at heart, there are serious questions about access to squadrons that remain un-answered. I will be seeking a meeting with the Minister and his officials to make the case for the retention of the squadron facilities in Wales.
Yours sincerely,
Madeleine
Interesting response concerning messing for cadets AND families, all messing and accommodation is to be free at VGS
It’s good that she recognises the access, which while a massive problem for Welsh squadrons is going to be a problem across the UK.
Having fewer and larger may suit the bean counters, more smaller ones benefits the general populous more.
He did not say anything about families in the debate his exact words from Hansard when asked about the cost of residential courses were that he batted it off until handed a note, he then said.
“The note says that cadets are assisted through Squadron and Wing HQ budgets. Similar to when they attend annual camps in mainland UK, food and accommodation are free to cadets.”
a small fleet??
was this fleet in the order of 60+ for each aircraft type??
That is equal size to The Chinook force and Tucano fleet
3 times the number of C-130s and Pumas
8 times the number of C-17s
10 times the number of E-3Ds
As a combined fleet (Vigilant and Viking combined) equal size to the Typhoon fleet and ~half that of Tornado fleet.
If 60 aircraft is considered a “small fleet” goodness knows how the RAF cope with an RAF transport role!
Whilst the glider fleet may be larger in the case of numbers, if complexity of the fleet is brought into consideration, they would be seen no where near as complex as the ones you mention.
Small fleet as in spread about in Individual penny packets (4-6 Airframes per VGS?). If you look at all of the other airframes you mention they are al based in a small number (1 in the case of the Chinhooks) of home locations.
although there is logic in your reply…consider the airframes not mentioned which are in equally small pockets
Atlas (6 - although accept this is still in “acceptance” rather than used in anger)
King Air (5)
C-17 (8)
E-3D (6)
146 (4)
Sentinel (4)
i’d argue that the VGS numbers are similar to BGA schools…it cannot be that hard?
Interesting that you use the E3D and the Sentinel as an example, they only own a small number of both and have collocated them to save money. Which I would assume is part of the ministers point, it’s expensive to run lots of sites, it’s expensive to recover all of the airframes so instead of running 3 airframes doing 2 jobs we are going to have 2 airframes doing 2 jobs in less places.
Nog what any of us wanted but the best they can do with the money they have.
Many have suggested that the gliding pause has come about through mismanagement and incompetence etc, but has anyone thought that it could be due to a much bigger and more sinister government agenda?
It seems logical to destroy Britain’s proud military heritage before dismantling the infrastructure and handing it over to foreign powers. None of the VGS reorganisation makes sense, even from a cost saving point of view. It strikes me that the ‘powers that be’ fully intend to drive the VGS (and the ACO) out of existence for whatever political reasons. Maybe the EU elite wants future military pilots to come from obedient Europhile regions, such as Germany and France.
Completely different premise - complex, operational aircraft, & for their tasking, a reasonable location - & bearing in mind that once deployed, original location is more or less immaterial (depending on length of logistical chain though!). Likewise, paid personal who go where they are ordered/posted.
Not so for VGS - tasking is very location specific to meet localised demand. Simple aircraft maintenance requirements in comparison. Same for availability of CFAVs - hey, you now have to drive 2 - 3 hrs to work, interested? Oh, maybe the duty claim distances are limited too? Still interested? And perhaps you will need to stay overnight. No chance.
Have you ever considered seeing a mental health professional? The first sign of being Wibble is reading the express!
2 Likes
I wouldn’t suggest anything to do with eu, but you do get a bit of a sense of our flying has / is becoming more of a problem for the MOD to deal with, given that it is wrt gliding only effectively manned at the weekends with limited access Mon-Fri.
TBH I think there is more of an agenda against ‘community’ based sqns and move to something that becomes an after school club, just to defer the budgetary stress elsewhere. This will dismantle the ACO in an instant as I doubt you would get the spread/diversity of youngsters joining. I know that I have and have had youngsters that join the sqn who are for want of a phrase the school misfits, who aren’t the best academically; in the popular groups or play in the sports teams, and are effectively shunned in school, but they thrive and develop in way that the schools wouldn’t by the way they operate. Being in a community group has given them the confidence, self esteem etc which leads to development and feeling able to do things, that the school would see as beyond them.
I wouldn’t hang about in an after school club, I’d be off to the scouts or the Women’s Auxillary Ballon Corps!
1 Like
Therein lies the problem with the CEP … buts not for this thread.
I claim my £5 - Nigel Farage, aka ‘Expired’, has joined ACC.
1 Like
I’m sorry but this is bonkers.
Yes those fleets you mentioned are small. But really comparing the size of the fleet vs output for a front line type vs an air cadet glider? We keep small fleets of C17 for example because it allows the UK to pretty much do 75% of our soft and hard foreign policy. The cost vs effect is incomparable. How many lives between the smaller fleet of chinook and c17 combined have been saved as a result of MERT and CCAST? Its comparing apples and oranges one provides a necessary capability for the UK one is very much a first world problem if you have to scale it back.
As I’ve said before it’s a bitter pill to swallow but if anything is going to get curtailed for cost then front line will always win.
If it is for cost saving then so be it. Why should the aco be immune from something that is hitting defence as a whole?
The point I was attempting to make is with reference to the term “small fleet”
The gliders are the second to the fast jets fleets in terms of size, and the largest none front line fleet.
I’m not disagreeing with the complexity of the aircraft, simply that a fleet with 100+ aircraft cannot be considered “small” and used the other RAF aircraft as examples to offer a comparison in proportion to the rest of the RAF.
Ignoring capability, ignoring cost and even benefit, 100+ aircraft is not a small fleet.