Delingpole: Military Aircraft Need to Go ‘Net Zero’ 10 Years Sooner, Says RAF Chief

IN FLIGHT, SCOTLAND - OCTOBER 08: An F-35B combat aircraft from the Royal Air Force refuels from an RAF Voyager aircraft over the North Sea on October 08, 2020 in flight, above Scotland. The first air-to-air refuelling of F-35Bs from the newly-formed Carrier Strike Group took place as part of …
Getty Images

The head of the Royal Air Force says he thinks that Britain should go Net Zero ten years earlier than planned because ‘our public demands it of us.’

According to the Telegraph:

While Defence, which accounts for 50 per cent of the UK central government’s emissions, has pledged to work towards its legal commitment of net-zero by 2050,  Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston has called on the Royal Air Force to meet the target 10 years earlier.

During a recent visit to Washington, Sir Mike said: “I recognise that sounds crazy to some, that we’ve got an Air Force Chief talking about being net-zero, but I think the imperative is clear: our politicians will demand it of us, are demanding of us. Our public demands it of us. And the young people in the Royal Air Force today demand it of me and the leadership, that we should be taking a lead in this.”

Sir Mike said he had a “hunch” that as the climate crisis worsens, the target for net-zero will be brought forward.

Who is this pillock and why is he in charge of our air defences?

I see that he is Oxford-educated (so presumably not thick), that he served in Tornados (so he has actually flown fighter jets), that he has done a tour in Iraq (in 2007, so he has seen at least some action). But none of this explains why he is no spouting such woke bilge which has nothing whatsoever to do with his actual purpose.

Surely it’s obvious to anyone with even half a brain — let alone someone with an Oxford degree in engineering science — that in any coming shooting war it’s not going to give fighting forces an edge if their fighter jets run on sustainable organic hemp oil extract, or whether the missiles are made of unicorn-fur-impregnated vegetable extract.

In war the only point of having these stupid, money-wasting aircraft (though frankly I’d scrap the lot and replace them with drones run by the Army) is to win, the only things that matter are cost and efficacy. In war, saving the planet shouldn’t come third or even bottom of the list of priorities because it shouldn’t be on the list at all.

The Chinese and the Russians must be laughing their socks off.

Unfortunately, it’s the world we live in. It’s not the brave and forthright who get to the top echelons of the military. It’s woke brownnosers happy to lie through their teeth if it keeps them in their job.

Our public demands it of us.

That’s a lie right there. The public does not want this nonsense, especially if they are paying for it with their taxes.

Here’s what a slice of the public really think, as represented in the Telegraph‘s comment section (which, unusually wasn’t closed for comments on this occasion):

His job is not Captain Climate change, do your job creating the best combat ready airforce in the world or resign.

If Putin or some other despot decides to attack us then we would not care two hoots about the green credentials of our fighter jets and would rather them have the ability to come out on top in an air fight than be green and downed. Why do these virtue signalling idiots get promoted to prominant positions?

What is this utter drivel all about? Quite obviously the woke 5th columnists have infiltrated our military and they have become next to useless. What is the point of our military against people like the Chinese and Russians? Try a course in straight thinking about what your primary objective is. Write a mission statement. Hint: It ISN’T about being green.

Can you imagine what The Few who won the Battle of Britain would have made of this weapons-grade prat?


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.