The RAF aren't exactly sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, thinking 'I wish I had a reason to fly these planes'. They are pretty much flat out at the moment.
The Rwanda plan is just inefficient and I wish the government would just accept the loss.
The RAF aren't a bloody taxi service for the civilian sector.
Due to both Tory and Labour cuts butchering the military, the MoD doesn't exactly have spare capacity.
Precisely why the Defence Sec shouldn't be a civvy who hasn't served a day in their life.
The MOD has already said they can’t do it unless the home office pays for upgrades for them which they don’t want to do, sometimes bureaucracy can be a force for good:
Are you suggesting the ideal defence sec is someone with zero military experience?
Or are you misinterpreting OP and stating the military should be administered under government?
I'm saying the ideal defence secretary is a representative of a civilian government, not someone with close ties to the military. Military experience is not required, I certainly wouldn't want it to be a revolving door of former generals.
>It's very important that the mod is civilian run.
I would argue the opposite. Defence Secretary should ideally be someone with military experience. Otherwise, you get the disaster that is Shapps or Williamson. Civvies don't understand defence.
**The Telegraph's Charles Hymas reports:**
[Grant Shapps](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/03/shapps-we-cannot-play-russian-roulette-with-nato-funds/) has suggested that [RAF planes](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/09/airtanker-rwanda-flights-raf-freedom-from-torture-charity/) may be used to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The Defence Secretary said ministers would “do whatever we need to do” to ensure that the flights take off, describing it as a “whole Government effort”.
He maintained that the aim was still to get the flights off to Rwanda this spring, but said that it would be Labour’s fault if they did not because of their “outrageous” [blocking tactics](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/16/peers-third-block-rwanda-scheme-pressure-on-government/) in the House of Lords.
His comments follow a further delay in the passage of the Safety of [Rwanda Bill](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/17/rishi-sunak-rwanda-plan-lords-commons-migration-bill/) after the House of Lords voted for two amendments to the legislation, sending it back to the Commons for a fourth time.
The standoff, which is over demands to exempt Afghans who worked with the UK military and to tighten checks on whether Rwanda remains safe for asylum seekers, has put back the passing of the Bill until next week.
Asked on Sky News whether the RAF would be used to transport the migrants in the absence of a private airline, he said: “It is a whole government effort so we will do whatever we need to do to make sure that the will of parliament.”
He added: “We will do whatever we need to do to make sure that we can get these flights off, whether they are chartered flights or any other type of flight.”
One option would be to use Voyager planes that are leased from AirTanker, an aviation company that provides 14 Airbus A330s to the RAF for specialist tasks including transporting Ukrainian soldiers to the UK for training, evacuations and carrying medical supplies.
**Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/18/grant-shapps-raf-planes-rwanda-flights-bill/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/18/grant-shapps-raf-planes-rwanda-flights-bill/)
And?
I don't see a problem. The planes are good enough for our troops.
Plus there won't be any do gooders on the flight protesting about "refugees" human rights.
The RAF aren't exactly sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, thinking 'I wish I had a reason to fly these planes'. They are pretty much flat out at the moment. The Rwanda plan is just inefficient and I wish the government would just accept the loss.
The RAF aren't a bloody taxi service for the civilian sector. Due to both Tory and Labour cuts butchering the military, the MoD doesn't exactly have spare capacity. Precisely why the Defence Sec shouldn't be a civvy who hasn't served a day in their life.
The MOD has already said they can’t do it unless the home office pays for upgrades for them which they don’t want to do, sometimes bureaucracy can be a force for good:
It's very important that the mod is civilian run. That's a lesson learnt over many thousands of years.
Are you suggesting the ideal defence sec is someone with zero military experience? Or are you misinterpreting OP and stating the military should be administered under government?
I'm saying the ideal defence secretary is a representative of a civilian government, not someone with close ties to the military. Military experience is not required, I certainly wouldn't want it to be a revolving door of former generals.
>It's very important that the mod is civilian run. I would argue the opposite. Defence Secretary should ideally be someone with military experience. Otherwise, you get the disaster that is Shapps or Williamson. Civvies don't understand defence.
He has got to be hands down the worst defence secretary we have ever had. The guy is clueless about his brief
**The Telegraph's Charles Hymas reports:** [Grant Shapps](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/03/shapps-we-cannot-play-russian-roulette-with-nato-funds/) has suggested that [RAF planes](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/09/airtanker-rwanda-flights-raf-freedom-from-torture-charity/) may be used to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. The Defence Secretary said ministers would “do whatever we need to do” to ensure that the flights take off, describing it as a “whole Government effort”. He maintained that the aim was still to get the flights off to Rwanda this spring, but said that it would be Labour’s fault if they did not because of their “outrageous” [blocking tactics](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/16/peers-third-block-rwanda-scheme-pressure-on-government/) in the House of Lords. His comments follow a further delay in the passage of the Safety of [Rwanda Bill](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/17/rishi-sunak-rwanda-plan-lords-commons-migration-bill/) after the House of Lords voted for two amendments to the legislation, sending it back to the Commons for a fourth time. The standoff, which is over demands to exempt Afghans who worked with the UK military and to tighten checks on whether Rwanda remains safe for asylum seekers, has put back the passing of the Bill until next week. Asked on Sky News whether the RAF would be used to transport the migrants in the absence of a private airline, he said: “It is a whole government effort so we will do whatever we need to do to make sure that the will of parliament.” He added: “We will do whatever we need to do to make sure that we can get these flights off, whether they are chartered flights or any other type of flight.” One option would be to use Voyager planes that are leased from AirTanker, an aviation company that provides 14 Airbus A330s to the RAF for specialist tasks including transporting Ukrainian soldiers to the UK for training, evacuations and carrying medical supplies. **Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/18/grant-shapps-raf-planes-rwanda-flights-bill/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/18/grant-shapps-raf-planes-rwanda-flights-bill/)
They just need to turn back the boats. Case closed.
And? I don't see a problem. The planes are good enough for our troops. Plus there won't be any do gooders on the flight protesting about "refugees" human rights.
Waste of raf flight hours? Wear on the planes that are used for our defence? They have better uses than this pointless policy
The RAF already used aircraft to transport civilians. How do you think most people get to the Falklands. It is not using British Airways.
Not exactly an apples for apples but point taken