Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins

[Lazer-Hound]

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=482

Taking a leaf from 'Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs', no doubt.

[Untermensch]

Being a bit of a Tim Collins fan, since he was treated terribly by the Army High Command, I am astounded by his opinion of a future UK "Air Force-less" Defence Force.

:confused:

[mlc]

What a load of drivel. His argument seems to be transfer all the personnel and assets to the Navy/Army. And the cost saving woud be???

[Admin_Guru]

Excellent idea:

What redundancy terms are we talking about? For I joined the RAF not the MOD, not the governement, and if my "company" goes bust, I expect a fair and descent settlement. This may sound stupid, but no more so than the silly mans initial comments. Too much Irish Mist in his household methinks.

[rooftopartist]

"attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies just do not have the reach"

Tell that to the WTC workers.

"The Army would absorb all Special Forces and helicopter operations"
Yeah, give the army Pumas, Chinooks, Merlins & Seakings, I'm sure they'd get 4 different types operational in no time, just like they've done with the Apache???

Please remind us where and who instructs the RN & Army's pilots? RAF Shawbury & RAF Linton-on-Ouse is it not Mr Collins?

"The emphasis would be on the ability to launch from aircraft carriers and limited overseas bases as opposed to high-tech interceptors for a war - the Cold War - that is long over."

Try intercepting hijacked airliners over the UK with RN strike aircraft based on a carrier in the Gulf.

What planet is this guy living on?

[TheInquisitor]

We can't function without an army or navy, but we can manage without the RAF.

Really, Sir? I would suggest that recent history says otherwise.
I guess then that all the troops in theatres various, and all their equipment, got themselves there, did they? And that they magically disappear from one location in theatre and reappear in another, in a safe and timely fashion? Try getting a civilian contractor to do in-theatre airlift.

Typical that you think the RAF is all about fast jets. Air Transport is the key to EVERYTHING you do, and Tactical Air Transport is something the Army AND RN have absolutely NO experience of. Without it, you can do very little. We have decades and decades of unique experience in this vital field - not something that can be taught simply by transferring the AT fleet over to the other services for a few years.

Given that it's taken the Army several YEARS to figure out how to slot Apache into the modern way of using airpower, I don't hold out much hope that they'd have ANY chance of running the lot.

This man displays the typical Army level of understanding of what the RAF does (ie, none). It would take YEARS to teach the Army how to operate an air force on the modern 'battlefield' - perhaps less so for the RN, since they have SOME experience of air power - but still, this translates into SPENDING money, not SAVING it! Given that we already struggle, the manpower reductions would be minimal. It would just mean the Army & RN absorbing what we already have - which is pointless.

'EEJIT!', as the man himself might say.

[SASless]

Wow! Hero to Dog Doo in a flash!

Perhaps he is suggesting the RAF could do better for itself and the Nation's Interests if it (the RAF) changes it's focus from holding a single service view and change to a multi-service (Joint) view. Rather than refighting the Battle of Britain over and over....maybe it should consider itself a service organization dedicated to modern needs and demands.

[TheInquisitor]

Perhaps he is suggesting the RAF could do better for itself and the Nation's Interests if it (the RAF) changes it's focus from holding a single service view and change to a multi-service (Joint) view.

Maybe the Army could do the same, since in their view, 'Joint' means 'Army'. They still think that Cavalry charges and artillery can win the day.

Don't fight harder, fight smarter. Of the 3 services, the RAF is the most modern (in doctrine, not necessarily equipment!) the most flexible and the most willing to accept change and new practices (hence we were the ones shafted to beta-test JPA).

[Taildragger67]

"The Army would absorb all Special Forces and helicopter operations"
Yeah, give the army Pumas, Chinooks, Merlins & Seakings, I'm sure they'd get 4 different types operational in no time, just like they've done with the Apache???


I agree, the retired Colonel's proposition is rather nonsensical, however with respect to the above point, the RAAF gave its Chooks, Rockies and Blackhawks to the Army some years ago and it seems to have worked; most of what they did was Army stuff anyway, usually under Army tactical command, so it seemed logical (from an operational point of view) to just let them have it. It meant that the Army didn't have to 'request' tactical air assets from the RAAF and possibly end up competing for them against some other requirement and maint schedules, etc. could be worked to Army requirements more easily.

Fixed wing has stayed firmly with Ronnie.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I think perhaps he should stick to what he knows.

Naturally the servicemen and women who make up the RAF would need to be either re-assigned to the other services or given a reasonable redundancy package. There would be little scope to absorb the manpower except for the expensively trained pilots and other specialists.

Has he ever been to RAF Brize Norton? Has he seen how many people it takes to operate the AT fleet? Yeah I'm sure we could just lay them all off and leave the transfered against their will pilots and a few RLC storemen to run the show.

His ignorance is outstanding. I do hope he isn't an example of the best of Sandhurst.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Taildragger67 - But did the personnel go across with them?

I don't believe many members of the RAF would be willing to re-badge as Army and its not something you could force large numbers of people to do.

It wasn't so long ago the army were scouring the RAF for personnel willing to re-badge to help with their Apache problem. From what I understand they didn't get too many volunteers.

[ZH875]

There is only one service whose work can be undertaken by the other two:

Why not disband AAC as the RAF can fly Helicopters, Disnband ARMY,as it is not Royal, and replace it with an enlarged RAF Regiment, and as 1 Sqn have plent of Carrier experience, give the Carriers and FAA to the RAF and as for the rest of the little ships, well, a lot of people sail boats at weekends, I am sure the RAF can find a few who need little training, so there goes the Army and Navy.

Royal Marines would have to stay, as they would kick ***** out of the Rock Apes if they went anywhere near a them.

Better still, contract the all services out to the private sector, and see if they all go on strike when JPA doesn't pay the contract.


Time to vote out Blair and Co, and time to spend all our 3rd world debt cancellation charges and other 'useful' donations to far off corrupt countries on all defence forces of the UK.



Days to do are getting Few.

[soddim]

The previously well-respected Col is obviously used to running his show with the help of a competant NCO. I suggest he consults him before shooting his mouth off next time.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

I have a lot of respect for Collins' work relating to GW2 but this latest drivel is an absolute bunch of arse. If he really believes what he says, his ignorance of airpower is appalling and typical of most pongos. I would, however, expect more from a man of his seniority. I suspect though, that his comments are deliberately controversial and made purely to raise awareness that the Forces are on their knees with commitments increasing and funding decreasing. The cutbacks and contractorisation will keep coming until something breaks - badly. And I have a feeling we're now on the verge of that happening.

[Wizzard]

Reading the above a certain line from Hamlet springs to mind:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
:) Wiz

[allan907]

Being a colonel he is presumably a graduate of the Army Staff College. Anybody had a squiz at what they're teaching there nowadays??? Just a thought!

[Pureteenlard]

So . . . what is the role of the RAF?

Bet the army wants the transports and choppers - and why not? The RAF can only use them for ferrying the Army where it wants to go (if they beg hard enough - see http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_movements_game ).

[Chainkicker]

At present there are more General-rank officers than there are squadrons, in the case of the air force, and ships in the case of the navy.

And presumably more Melchetts than Regiments nowadays ???

[Wycombe]

Probably just getting his own back for having his bags smashed or lost at some point :ok:

[Fugazi1000]

Having just finished reading the book, Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs and the view that the three service arms are more concerned with maintaining the status quo than actually cooperating, the views expressed within this thread just reinforce it. It is amazing that people are so partisan.

Some joined up thinking wouldn't go amiss. I wouldn't advocating getting rid of any capability but having separate companies to deliver a service doesn't seem to work....

[LowObservable]

The guy has a huge future on Wall Street. Everyone knows mergers result in vast synergy and cost savings, because all the overhead connected with the merged activity goes away POOF! when I wave my magic fairy wand...

[[email protected]]

Please remind us where and who instructs the RN & Army's pilots? RAF Shawbury & RAF Linton-on-Ouse is it not Mr Collins?


I think you'll find that RN, Army and RAF rotary pilots are all trained together by the Defence Helicopter Flying School. Thus the Army trains RN and RAF pilots, the RN train Army and RAF pilots and the RAF train RN and Army pilots. It's joint and works very well. It might be based at an RAF station, but the RAF most certainly not train RN and Army pilots. :yuk:

[Tigs2]

Off the top of my head and i am sure someone can correct the following quote to word perfect, i think it was Churchill who said

"Airpower is the supreme expression of military might, and fleets and armour, no matter how important must adopt a subordinate role"

Mr Collins, you need Armour to hold land, but you need Airpower to take it. You hold the land, and you do it well, but we take it in the first place, and we do that very well. Each to their own eh! And there was me thinking what a good chap. By the way all you peeps out there, I have actually been told by a journo that the speech given by Mr Collins, as inspiring as it was, was written for him by a journo in the field(i know you cant believe everything they say, but the comment definitly deserves some investigation). I would never normally have mentioned that as i though he was a top chap, but after such a comment concerning a fellow arm of the military, then if its true, it should be investigated and published. I bet George Dubya would take the speech off his wall then. Credit where credit is due Mr Collins.

[tablet_eraser]

It's alarming that someone as respected as Col Collins has come out with this drivel. You might expect it of an embittered ex-RN lieutenant, but not someone who seems to have stood up for the Forces repeatedly.

Unfortunately, with the current Nu Labour culture of cutting everything that doesn't employ nurses or "community support wardens", the RAF's chiefs have actually felt the need to make a case for keeping a separate air force. Look at Sir Jock's comments in the forword to the first Spirit of the Air magazine - all about the importance of a separate air force. Similar comments have been made by Sir Jock and Sir Glenn, as well as ACM French.

Col Collins should think carefully about the impact his comments will have on the media. He should also consider the legal difficulties involved in "re-badging" servicemen who are under no contractual obligation to transfer to either the RN or the Army. This is one of those areas where employment law is on our side.

[maxburner]

Let's see, he's famous for making a speech. He's now gone and we seem to manage quite well without him. His opinion is as valid as the next man's, but I've often found the next man knows bugger all about anything.

It's been my experience that the Army thinks it can take on any task or any challenge and do it better than anyone else. Sadly, Deepcut is fresh in the news, the Apache debacle rolls on and Col Collins is never far from a TV camera.

[LFFC]

Perhaps Col Collins should consider the savings and efficiencies to be had by amalgamating his own Service before considering the amalgamation of the 3 Services. Just how many different uniforms are there in the British Army these days?

Do the different Regiments pool their equipment on exercises these days?

[SASless]

Tigs dear fellow....Air Forces have never taken an inch of ground ever. They never shall.

Air Forces just as Naval Forces work together in conjunction with Land Forces to facilitate the taking of enemy ground.

One can only take possession of that ground that is swept by an extended rifle with bayonet afixed. Air Forces provide the defense and armed support of the Troops on the ground. Artillery and Armor support the Infantry by means of their firepower and ability to maneuver. Without Sea Power, there is no possiblity of maintaining control of strategic assets that support the ground and air operations, and strategic industrial base....there is no hope of winning a full fledged war.

Hate to burst thine bubble but the RAF is but piece of the puzzle and does not reign supreme in the order of battle. The concept of Jointness has to be in more than words only. The current whinge of late at this forum has been about how the Navy does not need the proposed carriers and how the RAF can do it all. That is just plain silly.

Collins thinking the RAF should be abolished is just as silly.....but has some merit to the extent the RAF along with all of the other services should find a way to work together particularly during this time of shrinking budgets.

What you guys are going through is the same as the United States did following WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, and Gulf One. I would suggest you might take a page out of our book on the concepts of modern warfare. (certainly not all of them...but a few would help)

No single service is capable of winning the war....it takes a joint and coordinated effort. First thing you folks need to do is determine just what it is you are wanting to do and how you will accomplish that. The days of Empire are gone, no more Battle of Britains are coming, Trafalgar is done....the Russians have gone broke. Just what kind of wars and/or conflicts are you going to have....figure that out and then determine how to structure your forces to win that fight.

:=

[Tigs2]

Sasless
Dear chap nice to communicate with you again.
I never said that Airforces take land, the person who said it was way above my payscale, Churchill again.
By taking land what was meant that you need airpower to create a situation wherebye ground forces can move in and hold the land. This was exactly the purpose of the bombing during Gulf 1 and likewise in Gulf 2. As many assets as possible that could be considered a threat to our ground forces were taken out, for obvious reasons. What would have happened without the coilition airforces during Gulf 1?? We need the Navy and the Airforces to create these situations. I also think that you either are not aware of, or underestimate the amount of Jointery that actually exists within the British Military today. I have no gripes with the Army or the Navy, i think they do an awesome job, but for someone such as Collins to suggest that in modern warfare you can do without an airforce is total buffoonary.

[Climebear]

maneuver

My dear chap do you mean 'manoeuvre'? If you do, then one of the lthings that is least noticeable about 'the manoeuvrist approach' is large number so troops taking and holding ground. Manoeuvre means moving one's forces is such a way as to multiply their effectiveness and ability to inflict tradition. Thsi theory is not new. Sun-tzu wrote that the acme of skill in war was to subdue the enemy without fighting. this is the manoeuvrist approach in its purest form.

I agree with you general thesis though; however, air forces do more than provide the defense and armed support of the Troops on the ground.. They also provide, inter alia, mobility and ability for a commander to attack targets (kinetically and non-kinetically) far beyong the relative geographic limitations of land forces (I resist from using the term deep because of its applicability to the non-contiguous battlespace).

I wouldn't hold up the US as an example of fine Joint working though. The Invasion of Iraq (a superb piece of manoeuvre by the US Army and US Marines) highlighted significant problems in air/land coordination between the US Army and the USAF. The USMC managed in significantly better; but their organic air is only, really, for CAS so it is not the elixir that some believe it to be.

We all have a long way to go, they key is identifying that we have only just started on the journey.

[Big Bear]

Being a colonel he is presumably a graduate of the Army Staff College. Anybody had a squiz at what they're teaching there nowadays??? Just a thought!

There are currently 400 majors on the 9 month ICSC course at the Defence Academy. If the Army can do without them for that amount of time surely most or all of them could be made redundant!

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

Why do apparently sane Lt Cols think like Collins does?
What one has to understand is that a great deal of the middle ranks of the Army can't stand the RAF. They see the RAF hierarchy as obsessed with prolonging the fast jet pilot elite, to the detriment of common sense. There is an element of truth in this - sustainability of the warfighting GD branch is touted as a key issue by many near the top.
The Army don't understand why the RAF bought so many Typhoons when the AT and helicopter fleet are too small, old and overstretched. Not only that, the movers at Brize do not help our cause and the Army's perception of us as a bunch of jobsworths persists. One or two high profile incidents recently reinforce this perception. The usual whinges about crew duty time, hotel rooms etc are perceived as symptomatic of a lack of sympathy for the troops at the frontline. There are also still a lot of vastly overweight airmen and officers around that do nothing to add to the image problem that the Service has been trying to lose. The wheels are aware of this and that is why teh PEdOs and Rock Ape 1 stars have been unleashed on teh unsuspecting rest of us to invent new fitness tests etc. Additionally, a lot of the infantry etc don't understand the value of expensive ISTAR equipment and are only interested in 'boots on the ground'.
As a result, some of the staff officers in town are almost paranoid about Army plots to undermine the RAF. The truth of it is probably that the higher reaches of the Army have got enough problems such as recruiting without taking on issues such as QRA, AAR etc. But the chance to hive off the whole of the helo force (especially of SAR is privatised) may just be too tempting........

[ORAC]

Hey, relax, he was asked for a contentious piece to put a few hundred quid in his pocket. He's just finding that, after a while, you run out of bright new ideas and have to start regurgitating the stuff you heard in the bar 15 years ago.

I'll speak to him about when he comes around trying to sell me a life assurance policy...

[4Foxtrot]

"The Army would absorb all Special Forces and helicopter operations..."

Look what a great job the Army is doing with Apache. :suspect:

[nigegilb]

SASless, you might want to check your comments about Russia being broke. I think you will find that Russia is booming, running up a healthy surplus in the process. Try comparing their budget surplus with the US deficit. Not trying to be alarmist but it is worth keeping an eye on Mr Putin.

[Lafyar Cokov]

Could I possibly canvass the opinion of any brown-jobs who support Mr Collins' idea as to what there thoughts would be on the following.

Prior to amalgamating the RAF into the RN or Army - what would the arguments be against amalgamating all of the Army's regiments into the Royal Army?

Just asking..............it seems to make a little more sense!

[[email protected]]

Look what a great job the Army is doing with Apache. :suspect:


And now let's take a look at what a marvellous job the Air Farce is doing with a number of Chinook Mk3s which it is unable to fly.

Glasshouses and stones, my friend.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Has anyone else noticed how sensitive some people get as soon as you mention Apache:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Safety_Helmut]

Typical sh!te trotted out by ex-officers living off their past whilst trying to make a media career for themselves. Any thoughts on the capability of REME/AAC successfully maintaining the likes of Typhoon, Sentinel, MRA4, JSF etc ? How many of the RAF would join the Army, not far off the square root of f*ck all I would say.

S_H

[rooftopartist]

[email protected],
fully aware of the training at Shawbury, was merely pointing out that it's an 'air farce' stn with an RAF Wg Cdr as station commander. You're point completely reinforces the fact that what Collins has come out with is utter drivel. The UK's airpower is a comination of the three service's flying elements, something, as many have already pointed out, that Collins ignorantly comes across as having no iota about.
Granted the Mk3s are still on the ground, but the RAF can get around the issue with it's varied SH fleet, whereas the AAC has which other helicopter that could undertake the role of the Apache's, with the same standard of capabilty??? Anyway, no need to squabble about Mk3 issues here, as its ALWAYS at the top of the :mad: forum!

[Logistics Loader]

Safety Helmut Et Al,

Your right chap.

I was on on JHSU in early 80's when the pongo's wanted to take over 18 Sqdn..the powers that be underestimated the strength of feeling that the aircrew and the grouncrew would be happy to change from RAF blue/grey berets to AAC berets overnight...!!!

I must admit to being impressed by Tim Collins' speech "be magnanimous" however this statement has left me unimpressed.
Although im now a civvy, i still like to keep abreast of whats going on and find his lack of understanding of the RAF somewhat akin to a 3yr old in playschool.

If the Army/Navy can do Strategic/Tactical AT Support, let them do it and see the egg on faces when it goes tits up....!!!!!!!!!!!!

The RAF maybe the Jnr Service but by no means should that enforce the fact that they should be disbanded....

Op Corporate showed the Army/Navy needed the RAF to evacuate casualties and resupply the frontline when needed......
There is only so much that private companies will do...Charter aircraft will only operate on a hub/spoke basis....ie they fly Brize to XXXX then the RAF AT fly will into theatre....

Tim Collins Hero to Zero in 1.3 secs,, some Guinness World Record !!!!!!!!!!

P Rick springs to mind !!!!!!!!!

Wake up and smell the coffee in the real world........!!!!!!!

[FB11]

Wizzard made a comment earlier in the thread that seems to have passed most by about protesting too much.

I haven't read the link by Col C because I'm sure it has an element of all the passion filled comments from tosh to fact, wind up to pragmatism.
But why is it do you think that so many light blue (or advocates thereof) end up with multiple exclamation mark replies on this thread when it seems so clear that the RAF is fundamental in it's own right? Why doesn't the text itself have enough weight behind it without needing to be endnoted with !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?

Why would CAS and other Air Ranks feel the need to explain the cenral role of the RAF, or land grab (do you like what I did there?) 'Space' into the Future Air Operational Concept (FAOC) and make it FASOC? As though space, about as tri-service as it gets, was there to be bagged to grow your shrinking empire and shore up a future where the next CAS may just not be from the single seat master race. After all, how could a multi Nav or even a Rock possibly have any idea about running an air force?

I did chuckle in a previous thread when a multiple exclam mentioned that the RAF was the most progressive and open to change. SASless made some interesting comments that were aways going to threaten the paranoid; those from another service who work in the 'J' environment with our light blue brothers will see elements of inertia that would back up his comments. Not everywhere and certainly not exclusive to the RAF; but the most progressive? Not at this moment in time.

Trying to relaunch the new expeditionary Air Force by rolling out a bunch of camo trucks that the media either thought were Army or just ignored is not progression, it's branding ++

Most journos saw through the rather obvious hijack of the JFH day at Cottesmore to push Typhoon and the Expeditionary Air Wing (EAW) concept. Valid in it's own right, the EAW is a good way to focus those non formed units and make them feel involved in future deployments, but a tad cynical to JFH that has been 5 years in genesis and faces challenges still.

I do believe that the RAF is fundamental to the fabric of the UK armed services but don't think that it's so precious that you earn your place by right and a few exclamation marks. Maybe, if the RAF is so progressive, it should appoint a non-single seat or even (heaven forbid) non-aircrew to the Chief's job. People who have been at the base of the RAF pyramid looking up through a structure that they have to understand to support the blokes at the top who, being the supported, in some cases doesn't need to 'waste' time with details.

Maybe then we'll have an RAF that puts different priority on the AT fleet, RAF Regiment, helicopter fleet et al vice trying to protect, for another few decades at least, manned combat aircraft for the Annual Reception flypast.

[engineer(retard)]

I am slightly puzzled over the constant attacks on the FJ fleet and numbers of aircraft. Between GW1 and 2, there were continual deployments of FJ operating on Northern and Southern Watch for Iraq. During this time Serbia and Bosnia kicked off and the FI and UK commitments had still to be fulfilled. If memory serves me correct, we dropped more ordinance on Iraq than Kosovo during the same period of time.

My recollections of this time were that we struggled with the fleet size that we had then and training had to be curtailed to meet these tasks, particulalry while the GR MLU was going on.

There is a tendency to lock on to the flash points to justify a capaility. But over that decade the FJ fleet was flat out but it was everyday news and rarely made headlines in the papers. Carriers have their place but how many would we have needed to sustain these commitments for that duration. How effective would the RW been at these tasks. I am 100% in agreement that we need more helicopters but believe that across the board there are too few resources to meet our political ambitions. There needs to be readily available balanced force mix to meet the operational drivers. I recall the phrase of "punching above our weight", the boxing analogy is apt as we may be punching ourselves out.

regards

retard

[Data-Lynx]

Oh I am enjoying this. Tim Collins can 'needle' better than an Aussie and this latest dit has certainly got the rabble roused and filled his wallet.
ORAC has a point on how the RAF is perceived by self-loading luggage. As for Collins, he has been a fierce proponent of trained and motivated staff to achieve a mission. So I suggest he already knows that two of his quotes fail the test:
Existing strike aircraft would initially come under the Royal Navy, with interim command going to newly-transferred RAF officers.
The Royal Navy would also run all the transport aircraft that go into harm's way, again retaining RAF expertise initially and then evolving its own specialist branch.
Why on earth would the RN need or want to take responsibility for either of those tasks? To follow Log Loader's view, why would RAF staff want to transfer? Very few light blue have seriously contemplated a life at sea.
Unless - of course - the RN stays clear of JPA.
Keep it coming - you are saving us from a Joint Exercise in the UK this weekend.

[Zoom]

The solution is obvious: the RAF Regiment subsumes the Army, the RAF Marine Branch rises again and absorbs the Navy, and the whole melange is renamed - let me see - the Royal Armed Forces. That will doubtless be abbreviated to - um - the RAF.

But I'm all for jointery, meaning that the Services that are best at any particular skills continue to carry them out for the common good.

[passpartout]

Bring it on!

Loads of lovely redundancy money when we all chose to leave, rather than take a cut in status by joining the brown-jobs or fish-heads.

Sit back, watch them arse it up for six months, then reluctantly agree to rejoin the military for a large engagement fee, on the understanding that we can have our own service!

Seriously, though, surely it's the Navy that is running out of things to do. No fast-air, no proper carriers, no sea lanes to protect, no enemy surface or sub-surface threats. I accept that they should be allowed to keep th nuclear deterrent, but we can take on that job once Trident is replaced.:D

[The Helpful Stacker]

I accept that they should be allowed to keep th nuclear deterrent, but we can take on that job once Trident is replaced.:D

Aye, whack some silos in at West Raynham and other east coast sites and form a couple of light blue squadrons of key turning, button pushers.

While we're at it poke the Russians with a sharp stick and see if they'll play Cold War again and if they say no theres always those sneaky French.

[A and C]

Col collins has a point after all the RAF was set up as a result of the Smuts report (11 Aug 1917) that recomended the setting up of an air service to operate independantly of the army or navy.

Smuts was of the opinion that war could be waged from the air deep inside the enemys country and on a stratgic level, the culmination of this policy was the WW2 bomber offensive, but Since the RAf can no longer (since the withdrawal of the V bombers) wage this type of war it has out lived it's reason for being set up.

This is no doubt the point of veiw of the some at the top of the army and navy who have the eye to the shrinking defence budget and of course service interest, however times have moved on and no service can operate independantly of another and it is my opinion that they all have a valuble contribution to bring to the party. In fact the diversity of thought is a positive force as long as all services can keep an open mind to the ways of the others.

One has only to look towards Canada to see that one big defence force is not the best idea, three forces may cost a little more but the added value more than makes up for the (in defence terms) small extra cost.

[Elmlea]

One has only to look towards Canada to see that one big defence force is not the best idea, three forces may cost a little more but the added value more than makes up for the (in defence terms) small extra cost.

This is mind, perhaps the best way to rubbish Collins' chat is to ask him which major nation currently gets by with only a navy and an army?

This is the same as the recurring "all aircrew should be NCOs" and "we should just have one service" comments. I don't believe we'll do anything as extreme as that until the French, Americans, Russians, Candadians, Germans, etc etc all decide to do similar.

[Wizzard]

Has anyone else noticed how sensitive some people get as soon as you mention Apache:E

Yeah, you should have seen the look on Custer's face!:)
Wiz

[dallas]

Wizzard

Actually it was the Lakota Northern Cheyenne who did for Custer which, unless it's one of those specialist artillery spotter aircraft, is not a type currently flown by the British Army. :}

[nice castle]

Ah bless. Our Tim's having a senior moment.

Give him 5 years and he'll be in a B&B on the south coast, sauntering around with a winchester cracked over one arm, heard to mutter, " Vermin, Fawlty!":}

Another Bushmill's for the Colonel, dear!

[deeps]

This one has been good for a Mess punch-up a long time - and it always produces the same amount of emotional twaddle on both sides. Anyone can see my background from my log-in but it seems to me, as one long retired but a substantial tax payer, that we're missing the point.

I don't suppose Col Collins is talking about losing capability - although a bit of refocus might not be a bad thing. What on earth is Eurofighter for? What he is principally talking about is command structure.

Aircraft don't win wars. They support people who win wars. Wars are won by a grunt standing on a piece of ground and saying "You can't have this, it's mine" - or even a ship occupying a stretch of strategic water. Nobody is downplaying the importance of aircraft in achieving that objective but why do we need yet another expensive cammand structure to achieve it? Let the people who require the support decide what it is and how it should be deployed. What bits of the RAF should go where is really detail.

[LOTA]

I believe this gentleman has 'political ambitions'; he certainly shows potential to be a Defence Minister with this 'cost cutting' idea that's sure to win approval from treasury and No 10! Heaven preserve us all!

[Chicken Leg]

What a great idea.

Nothing to do with capabilty or doctrine but just think how much dripping us more cultured types would no longer have to read on this forum.

Bring it on Tim:D

[ChristopherRobin]

just a point - how are people sure that this is the Tim Collins?

[mutleyfour]

Just give us all redundancy as ridding a country of its political assylum causing regime does absolutely bugger all to entice those seeking safety to return.

Hmm, I suddenly feel much better after saying that.

M4 out

[BEagle]

".....us more cultured types"

We more cultured types, you insufferable grammar school oik!

[Gnd]

Chaps, a thought - if all people are interested in is redundancy then their commitment to 'serve Queen and Country' is looking a little dubious - might try the TGWU instead, the remainder would be welcomed into the Army I am sure. As for the Army taking on the minority of the remainder of UK forces rotary, it would probably please them that they get the larger vote considering that they hold a greater number of the craft than the other 2 put together, probably quite board of being dictated to by a minority. On a more factual note - the Army has more rotary instructors at the training establishments if that answers the question of who trains the pilots.

Not qualified to comment on the FJ world but the Ausie model seems to work??

[Roadster280]

My 2 cents:

All members of all forces have to do their jobs to win the war. From the lowliest barrier technician on the gate of the training school to the pilot of the super whizz-bang FGR-99.

Aircraft don't occupy land, boots do. Wearers of said boots get killed without air ops. If it's a long way away, we need the Navy to get there in sufficient numbers to do the job, see Falklands War.

Col Collins has had an opinion. Maybe - just maybe - an idea would be to put all the killers together (Army Teeth arms, RAF Strike, Navy Subs etc) in one Command, then all the support Arms in one Command. Why do we have RAF TCOs, Army Signals people, Navy Signals people all doing the same job, but different training and career paths?

I'm not saying phase out or merge any of the services, but why not command them in a joined up way? Why do the Army and RN have an air arms at all, when we have an entire service devoted to the air? Why not just post the relevant bits of an enlarged Air Force to the Army and Navy. Same with RAF Regt. What do they do the Army does not? Why does the RLC have any maritime trades/vessels? There's the whole f***ing Navy 20 miles away. Why do we need RAF and Navy PTIs when the Army has a whole Corps of them?

Them-n-us-itis helps noone.

[Gnd]

Roadster, good idea. Commandis probably the issue, not us low lying bods.

[Almost_done]

Now let me think on of the largest losses of life of the Royal Navy due to the LACK of Air superiority was the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the HMS Repulse by the Japanese Naval Air Service. There we go gentlemen one positive show of Airpower dictating the events of a theatre of war, shall I go onto the second?

Oh lets;

D-Day, if the RAF had not secured air superiority over Normandy the landing would have been a dismal waste of Army life on all fronts not just the American Beaches. Therefore the landings would not have been achievable, however; we secured the airspace, and Europe was freed.

Do not dismiss the power of an Airforce, not a fragment effort of an Army Air Corp and Naval Air Corp. We were the only force to repulse Hitler and the Axis Air Force during 1939-1940, we were only let down by the politicians of the time and dare I say history is starting to repeat itself.

[Gnd]

Mr Done, some very good and worthy points - but - it does not really make a case for individuality, it could still have been achieved if the air power was combined into a more coherant force, belonging to any one, all for one etc....

[Flatus Veteranus]

Aircraft don't win wars. They support people who win wars. Wars are won by a grunt standing on a piece of ground and saying "You can't have this, it's mine" -

I wonder if this is true any more in the age of terrorists - particularly the suicidal variety. Winning wars means achieving your political aims. Did the Army win the war in NI? I think the IRA won hands down, and the same thing is happening in Iraq. As for our vaunted capabilities in "peace-keeping", winning the "battle for hearts and minds" and all that touchy-feely stuff, it all seems to be unravelling. I do not believe that the Americans have a very high opinion of the aggressiveness of the British Army - indeed, many of them think it is risk-averse. I believe it was was President Lyndon Johnson who coined the legendary principle: "Hearts and minds? f*** their hearts and minds! Grab them by the b***s and their hearts and minds will follow!"

As For Col Tim Collins's stirring speech "before Harfleur" (apologies to Willy Shakers), I'm afraid it left me fairly cold. Being a cynical old sod I thought it was more aimed at the attendant media than at "our brave lads" who probably thought their Boss was a bit OTT. I am sure that if he had delivered a similar speech in a RAF crew room just before a major Op, his audience would have writhed in embarassment which they might have expressed by falling about laughing.

There is an enormous gulf in culture between the RAF and the Army (and indeed the Executive (seaman) branch of the RN). It would be stupid to go back to a system where wingless "grunts" or "fisheads" were placed in command of flying units - and this would happen sooner or later under Collins's scheme. If I had my time over again I would not dream of joining such an organisation.

[Gnd]

Grunts and fishead is a bit out of date now, there is no actual proof that any 3 of the services has the jump on intellect over another. If need be any serviceman could command the correct decision with training and ability - the colour of the headdress is wholly irrelevant. There seems to be a knee jerk reaction trying to 'dis' or justify the probable; JHC a point in case.

If we are of the same level, our wage packets look very similar. Ethos is great but not if it impinges on efficiency.

[Almost_done]

Mr Done, some very good and worthy points - but - it does not really make a case for individuality, it could still have been achieved if the air power was combined into a more coherant force, belonging to any one, all for one etc....
Yes the whole is more worthy than the parts.

But to secure the whole we must have the parts to concentrate on what they do best, rather than worry about the whole.

Why else do we employ 4*s at Northwood now but to secure the fact that each service can supply the BEST of its capability at the perceived point of need at any time?

If as you wish to say the Air power belonged to the Navy, might the Army lose out? or a converse argument be applied?

Where the RAF stays dispassionate from both forces we are able to provide the best service to both where we can, with our limited resources.

Yes you may say well we can do this better, but can you?

The RAF of all the forces has needed major financial backing to project into the future, but has been left behind in trying to drag the Army into the technological age and we have the Senior Service crying over their Carriers (which is a debate I shall not go into here)

The Army god bless them, cannot operate a technologically advanced aircraft, they do not have the expertise. They are trying to strip the RAF of Techies to operate their A/C, leaving capability gaps in the RAF now, I know of 5 JT/SAC Q-OPS now working at Wattisham for the AAC, taken from 1 A/C operating base.

If we were to go to a single service JHC force the AAC would not be able to cope with the Merlin, let alone the Chinook Mk2/3.

The RAF have become specialists now as a fighting force, maybe not as a trench line unit (apart from SH) but man for man you get more expertise from the RAF compared to the Navy/Army. As painful as that may seem to MASU, we are more than happy to carry out our own work on Helicopters, with RSS being the centre for excellence on fixed wing, why do the Navy need to get involved in A/C repair and salvage when we in the RAF have a complete Squadron dedicated to it?. The only time they need get involved is in off shore recovery; if we are talking of repair, let the RAF carry it out. We have seen the results of Navy/REME Engineers working on our A/C and it has not looked good.

If you want a cohesive and determined Air Force do not decentralise it, enhance it and allow them to build confidence in it. Do not let the politicians strip it away as you will be left wanting in the future, as you in the FAA/AAC will be looking for asset sharing and I hate to say but jointery is spelled ARMY.

Such is my experience in the RAF (6 yrs on JHC) at this moment in time. If we do not fight for our service we will lose it

[Gnd]

Where the RAF stays dispassionate from both forces we are able to provide the best service to both where we can, with our limited resources.
Yes you may say well we can do this better, but can you?
The RAF of all the forces has needed major financial backing to project into the future, but has been left behind in trying to drag the Army into the technological age and we have the Senior Service crying over their Carriers (which is a debate I shall not go into here)
The Army god bless them, cannot operate a technologically advanced aircraft, they do not have the expertise. They are trying to strip the RAF of Techies to operate their A/C, leaving capability gaps in the RAF now, I know of 5 JT/SAC Q-OPS now working at Wattisham for the AAC, taken from 1 A/C operating base.

I am not sure if the Army needs dragging (a tad condescending to them, me thinks) as the have only taken your services advice and not put the Apache on the streets until it is ready - from industry. I believe that there are still major capability gaps in the Typhoon.

You could also argue that your forces over manning has resulted in the Army assisting by giving employment to your spare techs, or are you also saying that there is an intellect gap between the RAF and Army techs, I don’t believe you really mean that. The Apache is quite complicated so the CH47 and Merlin probably wouldn't be beyond a tech, regardless of force.

The correct point is that we are all puppets of our masters (4* and up) who have been accustomed to our way of life (Service Ethos) All I can say I got use to the changes imposed over the past 24 years so you, and all of us, may have to face the inevitable and embrace it to make it work - we are all the same really - we all smell after a long run either toward a foe, or away!!!

[Almost_done]

JHC a point in case.
JHC ah yes a great leap forward.

Now as an engineer/technician of 21 yrs service with an in-depth knowledge of either Puma or Chinook Airframes, I may be offered some degree of latitude of my men, disposition work patterns etc. but no not when we go purple my JT’s/SACQ-OPS do not rank alongside Lance Jacks, I have Corporals older than most of the WO2, in fact I am a Sgt who is older then the WO1 but, we must bend to the strict hierarchical orders of the Army on joint ops. God, Ploche was an Army run disaster, did they listen to the RAF no, we know better was basically the reply.

What the Army/Navy forgets to remember is that the RAF train their men/women to question and not obey blindly. That is why we make better techies and will work when pressed to make the slot as we see the bigger picture.

I have had very poor treatment from Cpl/Sgt AAC before I was promoted to the dizzy heights of Sgt in RAF, now I am waiting to go on joined ops as a Sgt.

One final quote, from a Sgt Army RLC returning from Jordan with a RAF det, ‘I’m surprised the RAF have Junior Ranks as they all seem to be older then my SNCO’s’. All I will say is do not judge a RAF Tradesman by their Rank, we have Sac’s in rank for 15 yrs not by their attitude but by the system they work in.

Therefore these guys have a greater and a more in depth experience than the 3 yr Lance Jack and when on Joint Ops the Lance Jack starts to scream as the RAF lads don’t act the way he’s used to they dig their heels in, I don’t blame them, I support them and tell him to wind his neck in.

Anyway looking forward to TLE and SS comments

[Gnd]

I now believe that we have moved well of the subject and easing toward a rant in a totaly different area; it will happen and no open eyed human would miss this. Money will be the driver so lets just get on and I am sure the disparities will be over come.

[Almost_done]

You could also argue that your forces over manning has resulted in the Army assisting by giving employment to your spare techs, or are you also saying that there is an intellect gap between the RAF and Army techs
1. Today I would like to see that over manning, god I would love it to be frank and we could get A/C out faster. However we have been LEANed have the AAC?
2. The employment was forced in 4 of the post I was in contact with.
3. Bring the REME in to operate the Merlin and let us see if there is a technological gap between the forces.

What seems to me is the RAF is bearing the brunt of the changes compared to the other 2 forces, we are the ones losing our capability compared to the Royal Tank Regiment (the RAF Regt lose Armoured Div), Royal Artillery (The RAF Regt lose Rapier), we are being the test bed for JPA, compared to the other Services we are suffering the biggest cuts under the redundancy programme.

Don't tell me to face the inevitable, the changes over the past 21 yrs for me have left me with a bad taste in my mouth, therefore I am not happy and now looking forward to the last 24 months until I leave. Anyone willing to embrace and say these moves are good, well go and see a good psychiatrist, or a medium, or prostitute they’ll remove your money even faster than the present system (read Gov), but at least they will say thank you!

[Almost_done]

I now believe that we have moved well of the subject and easing toward a rant in a totaly different area; it will happen and no open eyed human would miss this. Money will be the driver so lets just get on and I am sure the disparities will be over come.
Your not Tim Collins are you?

[Gnd]

If you had worked forme I would have thanked you and I agree REME SSgts can be scary (even if you are senior to them) Enjoy the retirement and I hope the taste goes away,

[Gnd]

No I am not, but I do have an open mind and the luxury of being able to look from outside.

[handysnaks]

ABIW wrote

Has anyone else noticed how sensitive some people get as soon as you mention Apache

So, after 4 pages that would be as or more sensitive than the airforce get when you mention abolishment then...........?
:p

[Almost_done]

No I am not, but I do have an open mind and the luxury of being able to look from outside.

Gnd

Ahh from the outside, so I take it you have now left HMF and are working in Civvy Street?

I do have an open mind and I am willing to openly embrace new ideas and operations, however if in discussion, my or other peers ideas are quashed as they don't meet the hierarchies idea of the plan I get annoyed as they show little judgement and appreciation of those with experience. Then we get labelled as whiners as we show the flaws in the plan.

[Two's in]

Disbanding the Air Force is barking as an idea, but the underlying thrust that the UK's military capability is diluted by excess (insert as appropriate):

duplication/triplication/redundancy/funding squabbles/top heavy management/inter-service rivalry (the negative kind)/disproportionate levels of senior officers/wastage/bureaucracy/lack of focus

...is largely a function of the existing multi-service structure. Not saying that a multi service structure can't be effective, just not the way the UK chooses to do it. When decisions are taken by individuals who depend on their "rice bowl" remaining the size it is, you get what you have today. Parochial, short sighted nonsense, masquerading as 'Jointery'.

Keep all the services, just get to grips with operating them effectively as a single cohesive force.

[Gnd]

Still in, working hard but detached for a while. You are right, it does sound like a rant but the Army did the same with JHC. I think it works now, on the whole, as do the majority of others I speak to.

[Almost_done]

ABIW wrote
So, after 4 pages that would be as or more sensitive than the airforce get when you mention abolishment then...........?
:p

Get rid of the AAC and the FAA then and amalgamate it in to the RAF, why do we have an Army/Navy flying club still then?

The RAF is the Flying branch of the Services why do we still allow the other 2 services to operate differently to us, imagine how much money, time and discussion would have been saved if we had taken over ALL military flying, no JPA 100A-01, no JHC, no JFH how much would that have saved the taxpayer?

[Gnd]

Two's.
That was what I was trying to say, thank you

[Gnd]

Get rid of the AAC and the FAA then and amalgamate it in to the RAF, why do we have an Army/Navy flying club still then?
The RAF is the Flying branch of the Services why do we still allow the other 2 services to operate differently to us, imagine how much money, time and discussion would have been saved if we had taken over ALL military flying, no JPA 100A-01, no JHC, no JFH how much would that have saved the taxpayer?

Not that much as the saving would go into the redundancy package of short sighted peope who dont know how to behave - stop being so rude. Contrary to your popular belief - there is more to the world than protecting your back.

[Almost_done]

Not that much as the saving would go into the redundancy package of short sighted peope who dont know how to behave - stop being so rude. Contrary to your popular belief - there is more to the world than protecting your back.
Is there now in todays world of BLair?

[SARREMF]

This is an interesting thread.
Just a couple of points. The RAF, as stated, already lend the AAC and FAA techies because both of them have an 'issue' recruiting them. Because 'we' see the bigger picture we accept that our chaps will have to work harder to cover this lending program. Joint working in a one way direction. Now look at some of the tri-service establishments and see if every Army post is filled or do we find a large gap between incumbents?
Secondly, have you read the latest leaflet out of the AAC? The one where it states that cetain trades will not fly in their last year of service as a manning control measure?
Thirdly, the RAF DO appear to test out all of the latest good(?) ideas - LEAN etc - to see if we can continually improve and adapt rapidly. I would love to see the AAC look at the LEAN experience - it just simply wouldn't exist afterwards. Lets face it, the reason it has so many issues to sort out is BECAUSE it is part of the wider Army and not an independant Service. What do I mean? Its personnel have to compete with the wider Army and can not compete within their own specialisation so, you spend a massive amount training someone so that they can move on rapidly to go and be the adjt within a Regt. Yes, you do rely on a backbone of NCO's - which you state have to leave at 40 [just when they are really good at their job[. Yes, do realise you are keeping some in on continuance but I refer you to the latest dit circulating the streets mentioned above.
Just don't get me started on JPA. Why can't I have my pay slip sent home ---- becuase the Army don't at the moment! I rest my case over this entire thread. If it isn't done your way it will not happen in the joint arena. Just because your big doesn't make you right. How to deal with a bully, lesson one! Stop paying any attention to what he says so that he does not get a reaction. Following that advice I suggest we do not post again on this subject!

[handysnaks]

Almost done
Get rid of the AAC and the FAA then and amalgamate it in to the RAF, why do we have an Army/Navy flying club still then?
The RAF is the Flying branch of the Services why do we still allow the other 2 services to operate differently to us, imagine how much money, time and discussion would have been saved if we had taken over ALL military flying, no JPA 100A-01, no JHC, no JFH how much would that have saved the taxpayer?
Do that then, I don't care. :D I was just after a bite, it was so obvious I didn't think anyone would go for it! :ugh: However, you kindly obliged
:p (Note this smiley!)

[Lucifer]

To be slightly fair on him, he is not saying the RAF are rubbish and must go; simply that - thanks to government idiots - some radical thinking such as this could be the only way to retain the skills in defence as a whole.

:D I applaud Collins for pointing out what ill-considered government cuts have forced people to think - the inconceivable. Comments such as his will not ensure the RAF's demise, rather reconsideration of those top Civil Servants who are unable to manage reorganisation, as the outrage as shown on this thread will ultimately ensure that no such radical cuts occur to the RAF.

I believe it is supposed to provoke that thought rather than attack the RAF per se.

[Snow Dog]

What an excellent demonstration of inter-service rivalry this thread has turned into. Some of the Col's comments are quite astute, but his overall solution is flawed.
As argued in this thread; Is it the RAF fleet of AT taking all this equipment to the right place at the right time, or is it a fleet of chartered strategic AT and heavy lift air companies? Actually, it is the large sea bridge, once again, chartered, carrying the majority of the effort. Does that reinforce the requirement for a Navy? Offensive wise, they contribute only limited Naval Gunfire Support or a small pod of Harriers. To be effective with either, the surface fleet needs to be so close to shore that the 'enemy' could throw stones at them! The Navy contribution is sub-surface, both conventionally and non-conventionally, but we know how their future is being discussed in the House.
Whether land is taken, secured or defended by any particular service is academic. The example shown in this thread is that services wish to 'own' the glory, secure their place in MOD and thus the funding. The overall effect - that modern doctrine banded about in all services could be the nations' defence forces' saviour if, once again, the services free themselves from the idea of 'owning' the effect or being recognised as playing the most significant part in it.
At the moment, we are not in a 'strike' conflict. Deep interdiction is not being employed, neither are airborne or amphibious assaults both of which requiring Joint operations. We are in danger of fighting the last war.
There is a place for a more Joint environment and there examples of it working reasonably well. However, as the in-fighting continues the Government can sit and pick off resources as we ourselves point out each others' perceived excessive and ineffective capabilities.

[NoseGunner]

Just my tuppence worth:

1. I am very bored with the "wars are won by grunts standing on ground" mantra. Nothing demonstrates an outdated, cold war (actually pre-cold war really) state of mind than this statement. GET WITH THE NOW. We are no longer living in the colonial era where we are trying to expand the Empire. We are merely a tool of the ruling political party.
Sometimes their foreign policy can be achieved by sailing a boat up to a country, sometimes by bombing someone, sometimes by sending in troops. Sometimes by a combination of all 3. The army is not the be all and end all of military power. As has been pointed out the army is occupying land in Iraq. How's that going for you?

2. "Typhoon cold war weapon blah blah blah......". Typhoon was designed in the cold war, however it is (will be!) a massively flexible platform, able to apply force over a huge area, very rapidly. If the world changes and you need a weapon to go THUD rather than BANG then no probs - strap it on. Want to target seaborne or land targets, big and small? OK. Which brings me on to the mighty MBT. If we really want an example of an outdated cold war weapon then wheel in Challenger II (can you wheel in something on tracks?) It requires a massive logistics train, takes forever to deploy anywhere and once its there has an area of effect of a few kilometres with an extremely limited choice of weapons.
Now I'm not saying get rid of them all - because flexibility and core skills are important, but the army should be trading some in for high quality APCs. I think IEDs are more of a current threat than the soviet hordes coming over the horizon (which btw, the air force will take care of anyway!:E )
Mobility, Flexibility, Firepower, Gentlemen!

3. As many have pointed out already, the RAF is very open to Jointery - its just a pity that the army isnt. I was amazed when I went to JSCSC and while the RAF and RN were talking about joint ops, the way ahead etc, the army seemed to spend most of their time drawing diagrams of how to take machine gun nests and similar! Modern army officers are, in my experience, generally very narrow-minded, outdated and inflexible.:ugh:

[Not_a_boffin]

There is certainly a case for looking at their force structure, particularly for rotorheads and fast jet. There are some things that only the RAF can do - long range heavy transport and tanking and some of the high-end ISTAR bits. You could never do them any other way, so get them some more heavy airlift and FSTA and let them crack on.

On the r/w front, the situation is less clear. The CHF & TWA (as was) seem to be able to generate large numbers of aircraft / sorties from one base and three and a bit squadrons, flying very old a/c. Not quite the same from Benson & Odiham - they probably manage the sorties, but with a lot more manpower. At the end of the day, they support and are tasked by troops - why not put them there.

More controversially, do we need a land-based fast jet force that cannot (in the main) deploy aboard ship? The capability argument is largely due to our legacy CVS and STOVL fleets - the same did not apply in the 70s when Crab Air was potentially highly deployable (Phantoms & Buccs anyone?). It certainly wouldn't apply against a US CVW with F14/E2/F18 (preferably A6) - would you back a bunch of Tornados (F3 and GR4) against that? The argument that only the RAF can defend the UK is daft - we've just retired the best radar/missile combo from the RN. If the RN flew F14 or the like, no-one would raise the issue.

Their final argument tends to be that they can get to theatre quickest. Problem is, all their F34 (should be F44) and munitions come by sea, unless they are fortunate enough to get full HNS (it's not just runways required). With a carrier, it all comes with you (and the RFA).

Problem is that we've once again missed the boat as Typhoon is too late to cancel. There will be 2 RN squadrons (plus up to two RAF) with F-35 that can go to sea, from a total of ~20 squadrons. If we're still putting people in fast jets in twenty years, we should be looking to buy high-performance aircraft that can fly off ships and form ~12-15 squadrons of em total. If the RAF don't want to go to sea occasionally then tough, re-badge them. It would also give the WAFU fraternity some sort of sustained break between ops/deployments (ditto CHF who are even busier). Shut down some of the RAF stations and you might also save some money.

[Zoom]

Collins seems to justify his argument with 4 fairly whacky statements:

1. 'A conventional attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies just do not have the reach.'

Nobody has yet noted that probably the prime role of the RAF is the defence of the UK mainland in the event of an airborne attack. Just because we no longer have a Cold War does not mean that we no longer have enemies who might one day decide to have a pop at us. And if those enemies don't have the reach right now, it probably won't take much for them to adopt the appropriate 'force multiplier' solution to gain it and the will to use it. So we have to be prepared. Collins has written off the whole Air Defence network with over 60 years of irreplaceable experience in a single, ill-thought-out sentence. Can you just imagine how long it would take to rebuild such a network if the political picture changed for the worse and we no longer had a national defence system? I don't wish to harp on about past glories but the lesson of the Battle of Britain is quite clear: you need more than an Army or a Navy to defend one's soil against air attack, no matter how much land a soldier can hold. AD of the UK from a boat - or a tank???

2. 'The defence of the UK now centres on defending our interests overseas.'

Not by attacking the wrong people it doesn't.

3. 'Naturally the servicemen and women who make up the RAF would need to be either re-assigned to the other services or given a reasonable redundancy package.'

This from a man whose Service is built on the perceived merits of regional recruiting. 'Recruit them from down the road and keep them in the same outfit for ever.'

4. 'We cannot back out of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan with honour.'

So back out with dishonour. There's no shame in admitting one's mistakes and attempting to do better next time. Or is the Army still stuck in the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' era? "Sorry, chaps, wrong valley, but what would they say at the club if we turned back."

Yes, Tim, there is definitely need for improvement and probably some change, but certainly not change on the scale that you propose. Come up with some sensible suggestions and I might listen (because you're not a bad bloke normally - and I liked your book, mostly). If you had done so in the first place this thread would barely have lasted one page.

(Just seen Nose Gunner - good - and NaB - cor blimey - so my arguments still stand.)

[NoseGunner]

Not a boffin

Stop being so parochial.

We need carrier based power projection - but we also need land based. Carriers cant go everywhere, are vulnerable and take time to get places.

You are correct that for large scale ops you need to move munitions by sea - but for short term air-ground effects and even medium term air defence you can get sufficient by air.

I would also argue with - "The argument that only the RAF can defend the UK is daft - we've just retired the best radar/missile combo from the RN". The RAF DO defend the UK, every minute of every day. When the SHar was needed for that role post 9/11, what was the reply? It was "Sorry we cant do that"

Also I think you'll find that "crab air" is far more deployable than it ever was in the good old phantom/bucc days.

[allan907]

Seen from the perspective of 13 years away from the RAF and now living in a different country it seems that, whilst keeping us expats extremely proud, UK Inc is punching above its weight. Australia has a grand total of 50 odd thousand armed services personnel. I left the RAF in the days of 100,000 people. Should the UK be supporting all these external threats? Are they really a threat to the UK? Should someone else be dealing with them? If the answer is that the UK should be in there then the government needs to put in the resources to match the commitments. Anything else leads to this kind of situation where the 3 services start feeding on each other to try and get a slice of the ever-dwindling cake.

[nigegilb]

Recruitment and retention difficulties would worsen if the RAF disappeared. Let me think, join the Army or use that expensive training in a cushty job in civvy street? With a fat redundancy wedge to boot. To pinch a phrase, the result, a foregone conclusion. No amount of overseas recruiting would offset that problem for the Army.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Sorry, couldn't let that one go. The reason a number of RAF SACs are being employed by the RN and AAC is that the RAF over recruited them (for the overpriced, delayed Eurowhiteelephant) and now has no work for them and nowhere for them to live. Even worse, they're now going to make them redundant rather than offering them the chance to transfer across - how joined up is that?
Recruiting for the FAA is as strong as ever, ta very much.
jungly

Sorry Jungly, couldn't let that go either. := The Typhoon is not an overpriced white elephant and only someone with no or limited headline led knowledge of the programme would be able to say that. I suggest you go and spend sometime with the guys that ARE flying the Typhoon and ask them of their views on the jet and its capability!! :ugh: And if you believe that the CVFs will come in on time and on budget you too are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Redundancies are forced on the RAF by the government. If an individual wishes to "transfer" then that is up to the individual, it is not a decision for the RAF. Anyone who wishes to tranfer from one service to another has to apply to that service - no service manages a transfer! As it happens I can't see many highly trained light blue techies wanting to transfer to the dark blue or green, they are smarter than that!! ;)

[Bismark]

Roland,

The point that Jungly was making is that the reason the SACs are available is that they were recruited for Typhoon, MRA4 etc but these a/c are years late and there is nowhere to place the people. This situation coincided with a shortage of AEs in the RN (due to a stop on recruiting in the 90's to save money - good idea that!!) and some clever soul put 2 and 2 together.

Re Tim Collins article. What he was really saying is that Defence needs to lose a major capability or be funded more. There is no doubt that Typhoon, MRA4, Astute etc are leeching money from Defence. Astute is back on track, MRA4 is still years away and we are buying far too many Typhoon. The trick will be to scrap Tranch 1 and 2 asap and just keep the Tranch 3 a/c (ie the ones that will be permitted to enter a combat zone). In comparison to the above CVF is cheap, on track and price (just no order yet!) and meets the "expeditionary" part of SDR (unlike Typhoon - needs a long runway).

[NoseGunner]

Bismark - agree with your general gist but it will be tranche 3 that gets stopped (if anyone can work out how without throwing billions away). Tranches 1 and 2 are coming and will all be operating in a combat zone with plenty to offer - soon (!!??!!). And it doesnt need a long runway - have you seen it take off? Although longer than a carrier can provide!
Also, it is a little unfair to compare Typhoon with a programme that is still on the drawing board - not even started building yet.

[The Gorilla]

This is an old battle that always comes up whenever money is scarce. I first heard it mooted in 1976 when there was a serious push to change blue to brown.

Personally I didn't care for the idea then and I don't now. However for those of you itching to get out but can't, it would be a fantastic idea from the view that you can't be forced into the Army or Navy upon RAF disbandment. I seem to recall that was one of the main reasons why the 1976 study found against it!
:ugh:

[scottishbeefer]

No RAF? But what would the 5* hotel trade do without 'em???!!!

The Canadians seem to manage with a combined defence force. I think it could be done but when you streamline without reducing your committments then it's more time away, less serviceability etc etc. Hard to see the long-term working out with that plan.

Fun to see the light-blue squirm though. If the RAF were truly joint they'd be coming up with a better proposal for their own demise!

Massive amount of respect for Col C but not really a properly thought out plan. Hey! That sounds familiar.....

SB

[SASless]

What dedicated Close Air Support aircraft are in the RAF...how many squadrons dedicated to dropping heavy noise making things on the bad guys when summoned by the Infantry/Armor troopies on the ground staring the Baddies in the eye?

What size standing force stands ready for deployment to the furtherest reach of the Realm within three hours call? How many squadrons in the RAF can be dispatched to support that force. (And show up!)

Have the British Armed Forces been downsized to the point they are no longer a viable fighting force if confronted with a Conventional War?

If you don't have the manpower and equipment to match your committment then you are facing a daunting task to win. Or is it the Neddies have determined what the "real" tasking might be and are cutting costs to meet those much more limited taskings? Are you really becoming just a home defense force and are giving up force projection capability globally and taking up the home defence posture without admitting it?

[airborne_artist]

Of course there is another solution.

Merge the Army into the RM - Booties already acknowledged as a world-class fighting-force , so no dilution there. Huge savings by only procurring one colour of beret.

Merge RAF into FAA. FAA has had and capably handled fighter, attack, maritime and SH roles, so taking on AT/AAR should not be too much of a learning curve.

Problem solved, Sir. Permission to carry on, please. :E

[TheInquisitor]

taking on AT/AAR should not be too much of a learning curve.

This simply shows how much you know about AT/AAR (ie, nothing). It is not a role anyone can simply 'assume' - the RAF has decades of expertise built up, particulary with Tac AT, that simply cannot be 'transferred' (not without the personnel, and 99% will tell you to go poke).

The RAF is an entire service that is 'air-focussed' - the Army are incapable of operating an effective air force because of their 'Soldiers First' philosophy. This serves their role very well, but will not serve air power. The RN thinks that ships are the be-all and end-all, and that everything can be launched off carriers - an airfield that can sink! Ships are slow and vulnerable (in relative terms) so do not fit very well into the modern, rapid acting 'expeditionary' environment. They are, however, very useful when you need to grandstand and project power (Gunboat diplomacy) - assuming that the 'enemy' have no modern air assetts capable of sinking them in minutes.

Forgive the possible naivety here, but exactly what was / is the RNs contribution in the face of a land-locked conflict such as Afghanistan? Ships are only good if you have water to sail them on, after all!

Let's also not forget that the RAF and RN do not merely support the great British squaddie on the sidelines - the SH and AT forces are largely dedicated to the support of land (and sea) based operations, but the FJ fleet is a fighting force in its own right that can be decisive (think Kosovo) - and the Army cannot fight and win sea battles (although the RAF could, in alot of cicumstances - a single Nimrod can carry enough armament to sink an entire carrier group in minutes). And there are few who can rival the capabilities of the RM.

In terms of the Venerable Irishman's comments, I have a much better suggestion: Let's leave the Flying to the RAF (and fund it properly), the sailing to the RN (and fund it properly) and the Soldiering to the Army (and fund it properly). We all do what we do they way we do it because we have all learned, within our own theatres of expertise, over a long time, that that is the BEST way to do it (given the available resources).

[SASless]

a single Nimrod can carry enough armament to sink an entire carrier group in minutes).


You reckon that Comet with a different name might actually launch before living up to its precessor's name?:ugh:

[airborne_artist]

Gentlemen, I've hooked one!

Inquisitor - since you are new here, or certainly new to posting here, perhaps you should noted that my post was intended to be humourous.

It makes as much sense to roll the Army and the RAF into the RN as it does to break up the RAF, but maybe you didn't get my sense of irony. :ok: :E

[L1A2 discharged]

SB


The Canadians seem to manage with a combined defence force. I think it could be done but when you streamline without reducing your committments then it's more time away, less serviceability etc etc. Hard to see the long-term working out with that plan.


Had cause to visit the Canadians to look at their experiences, to see if there was scope to 'read across'. Found that they all wear similar uniforms, can't be promoted abover SO2 unless bi-lingual, and have all remained in their 'own' service. Specialist knowledge was quoted as a requirement.

In the same vein we are each specialist in a field, let us concentrate on that and work towards a constructive and workable system to get the best from all the assetts available.

[Tourist]

Inquisitor.

Pray tell. What is this wonder weapon one Nimrod can carry to sink the entire carrier fleet?

Are you going to drop fat crabs from a great height in attempt to confuse our defensive systems?

Christ, even sea dart will find a Nimrod.

The only way I see to get through to our ships is to swamp the defences, and with out giving too much away, you need a lot more than one Nimrod for that.

[Roadster280]

Don't know about a Nimrod, but a B52 at 50,000 ft could do the job, in the absence of Sea Harriers ;)

Or an SSN submarine.

[Mad_Mark]

You reckon that Comet with a different name might actually launch before living up to its precessor's name?:ugh:
Ahh, a spam having a go at the name of the aircraft again - shocker :rolleyes:

It isn't our fault that you chaps don't have any culture and have twisted the meaning behind the name. I know many of you are rampant God botherers so take a look at Genesis 10.8-9 where you will see the true meaning behind the name :eek:


MadMark!!! :mad:

[Mad_Mark]

Christ, even sea dart will find a Nimrod.


However, give the aircraft back its full capability and even Sea Dart won't find the aircraft due to MEZ limitations :ok:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[TheInquisitor]

Nimrod can climb to heights that put it out of your reach, or can fly very low over the sea and remain outside your RF horizon, and in any case carries comprehensive defensive aids should you be able to lock it up. It can carry enough armament in the shape of torps, depth charges and anti-ship missiles to see off several ships in one go. I know which side I'd like to be on in that fight!

[SASless]

You Nimrods (non-biblical sense) ever analyze the defense capability of a modern Carrier group ? One Nimrod airplane will just be a big flash in the sky and splash in the water.

[TheInquisitor]

Perhaps so against a US - size carrier group. But I'm having difficulty squaring the phrase
modern Carrier group
with the phrase
Royal Navy
But expand the argument, Sea vs Air, and Air will win. No carrier group could defend against a stand-off air threat from even a single aircraft loaded with ASROC-type weapons. Throw some W44 warheads in there too (defunct now, I know, but the concept exists) and it's a no-brainer. An aircraft can run away if threatened - a ship can't.

[allan907]

Tourist Those that fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed!

There used to be an almighty slanging match every time the Buccaneers operated against the fleet on exercises. Bucc crews would claim a ship; ship would deny the claim 'cos their point defence systems clawed the plane out of the sky etc etc.

1982 HMS Sheffield went down. The fleet started to take notice after that.

[DaveyBoy]

TheInquisitor: fancy stepping aside and letting Nimrod folk do the talking? Or at least you could explain what anti-ship missiles the fleet currently carries and how you would fly to safely use depth charges against a carrier! :ugh:

[Tourist]

Allan.
Exactly, the fleet took notice.
Sea Wolf. Not the best, but certainly adequate.
Phalanx. Very Good.
Goalkeeper. Spectacular.

Depth Charge!!!??? You would have to overfly and then drop to within 20ft of the Hull.

Torpedo's !!??? Have to drop from well within MEZ, and we have defensiv aids against them.

Being silly now.

[Pureteenlard]

Of course the USMC seems to operate rotary and fixed wing aircraft quite successfully. Don't know if their ships are navy crewed (i'd guess they were) but as an example of NOT needing a seperate airforce they're a good example. . . .

[Green Flash]

Hmm. Someone, somewhere, has got RAF fighting RN fighting Army. Instead of everyone facing the threat of overstretch/underfunding etc etc etc.. Divide and rule, anyone? Or has my cynical caption just come on and I havn't noticed?

[Captain Kirk]

When, after WWII, the US ARMY Air Force was struggling to become an independent air arm, one of the strongest proponents was General Eisenhower. Montgomery was also a fierce advocate of the need for an independent air arm, recognising that the unique attributes of air power need specialists if scarce air resources are to be employed effectively - and not hoarded by land commanders with limited geographical perspective and parochial concerns.

We liked TC because he stands up for the Services in a generally hostile political/media environment but he is not necessarily the most intellectual man. Personally, I rate Eisenhower and Monty more highly.

It would be fair to say that, generally, the RAF do not do enough to understand the gritty-end of the Land environment - but we are very good in our own field (sic). The Army are, I believe, the best army in the world but their officers, generally, are absolutely clueless when it comes to Airpower. I'm sure it seems simple to TC - because he doesn't understand it. Ask a 10-year old about rockets....

[Climebear]

Of course the USMC seems to operate rotary and fixed wing aircraft quite successfully. Don't know if their ships are navy crewed (i'd guess they were) but as an example of NOT needing a seperate airforce they're a good example. . . .

This is not a comparison, see my post on Page 2:

The USMC managed in significantly better; but their organic air is only, really, for CAS so it is not the elixir that some believe it to be

The USMC do not do the full range of an independant Air Force - no Rapid Global Mobility, no Counter Air (DCA or OCA), no Air Operations for Strategic Effect, no ASW/ASuW, no (real) ISTAR, no AirC2 (obviously they don't need this because they don't do items mentioned earlier)...

[TheInquisitor]

Davey Boy - fair hit, I must admit to being out of my depth (sic) with regard to actual Nimrod ops. I was talking more of hypothetical capabilities.

Back in box.

[Pureteenlard]

This is not a comparison, see my post on Page 2:
The USMC do not do the full range of an independant Air Force - no Rapid Global Mobility, no Counter Air (DCA or OCA), no Air Operations for Strategic Effect, no ASW/ASuW, no (real) ISTAR, no AirC2 (obviously they don't need this because they don't do items mentioned earlier)...
Quite true. The point is that they (the USMC, that is) are quite capable of operating and maintaining anything from an assault rifle to fast jet. this makes the "only the RAF can operate complex aircraft" argument sound rather silly.
From my non-services point of view the lack of organic air-transport for the army seems absurd and once you start thinking along those lines the inevitable end result is the question "what is the RAF for?". Strategic bombing doesn't exist anymore nor does the need for protection from waves of enemy bombers trying to carpet bomb your industrial cities. Does it matter which service supplies pilots and groundcrew for your tankers? Most air actions seem to be either close support these days since TLAM and Storm Shadow are there for taking out fixed enemy assets.
I don't have any beef against the RAF, far from it, but I believe that it could be disbanded and it's various tasks performed by either a reformed RNAS or a new, integrated Army Air Force if it came down to the need to cut costs that much.
Some of the posts (from both sides of the argument) on this thread have not been constructive and have resorted to insults, bluster and the sort of inter-service sniping that makes many sensible people puke.
If anyone can give me a valid, strategic reason for the Army not having control of it's own for strategic and tactical air transport assets then I'm quite willing to listen.
BTW, this thread has been duplicated on ARRSE and, last time I looked, the average poster there wasn't keen on losing the RAF either.

[Proman]

Much of this is a red herring. What Col. Collins is saying is that we don't have the resources to match the demands, role or aspirations of our political masters on the world stage. Do many diagree?

It's like this...we have a Jaguar, or even a Bentley styled armed force. It many ways the best in the world, but we all know there are limitations.
But because of the way the world is, we're being asked to enter a Grand Prix. The result is either a) a crash, b) breakdown or c) come last.

Col. Collins is simply (IMHO) pointing out that in such circumstances we may need to think the unthinkable to free resources to buld a Grand Prix car. Of course he's wrong, he may even think this himself, but it gets people thinking and the debate begins.

History shows though is that when the mil acquiesce and cut costs, the money is simply taken away rather than reinvested. This is another debate...

[TheInquisitor]

The bottom line is that it wouldn't save any money at all. In fact, it would COST money. You may save on the odd HQ and the odd Stn - god forbid, even the odd senior officer post - but in order to do the same job, you will need the same number of assetts, and the same number of personnel to operate them. Except you would have to move and re-house them, then re-badge / re-cap / re-uniform them, and re-train them to indoctrinate them into the philosophy of their new service. Then there is the question of millions upon millions being spent re-naming organisations, and re-writing, re-printing and re-issuing rules, regulations and standing orders. This assumes, of course, that RAF personnel would accept an offer to transfer to the Army or RN, when in fact 99.9% of us would tell them to ram it.

The Army could not operate a world-wide AT fleet (and share it equitably with other 'customers' as we do) because it's focus is simply far too local. Also the 'soldiers first' philosophy is the complete antithesis of flight safety - there is a need to protect air operators for their primary role as it is so complex and demanding. The Army's failure to understand the concept of Crew Duty Time is testament to this, and is something they could not get away with operating a strategic AT fleet as GAT in ICAO-regulated controlled airspace.

In short, it would require a fundamental culture change within the Army, and a wholly independent Division dedicated solely to air ops, protected from interference from other Army units, with a separate command structure answereable only at the very highest levels.

...a bit like...er,....the RAF?

[Wyler]

I have worked with numerous Army Officers over the years. To them the RAF is all about Fast Jets. Two things they have great difficulty understanding:

1. Why would anyone design a piece of equipmnent that is so fuel inefficient? :ugh:

2. Their very favourite, why do Officers 'drive' the MT? :rolleyes:

They really cannot grasp either of the above and have little understanding of Air Power in any form.

As for Mr Collins, great speech (written for the media) but he is a one trick pony. The only discussion he should stimulate is what will he be selling in 2 years time, Double Glazing or Insurance? In the meantime I daresay we will see him at celebrity football matches and quite possibly on Big Brother.

[Mead Pusher]

On which planet do people really think that disbanding the RAF would save money/resources?! The RAF was created to save money and resources!!!

If you split the various roles of Air Power between the Army and the RN then you will get all the inefficiencies that the RAF was designed to get rid of - duplicated areas of specialisation competing for resources without any 'joined up' procurement being directed by people without the vision or knowledge to fully exploit the potential of Air Power.

The whole point of _not_ having organic air transport with the Army is that you can make fewer resources go further rather than having them tied to particular Regiments/Divisions that end up too dispersed to be effective - unless you spend even more money!

Let's just hope that nobody takes this preposterous idea seriously.

[engineer(retard)]

The other unthinkable alternative could be to make the army all wear the same uniform, the savings are potentially huge :)

regards

retard

[The Helpful Stacker]

The other unthinkable alternative could be to make the army all wear the same uniform, the savings are potentially huge :)
regards
retard

I agree. Those silly red uniforms the MPGS chaps wear at Buck House can't be cheap.

And what about all those breast plates that the horsey folk wear eh? Not very practical for modern warfare.

[Gnd]

I gave this one up after an RAF rant, do I detect some worried people trying to justify them selves??:E

[Captain Kirk]

Gnd,

I think you have made the same point 3 times now - and been ignored each time. Take the hint. And learn to spell.

[Gnd]

Thonk you fort hat

[SlopJockey]

What size standing force stands ready for deployment to the furtherest reach of the Realm within three hours call? How many squadrons in the RAF can be dispatched to support that force. (And show up!)

SASless which REALM are you considering, does this include the deepest, darkest, never mind the furtherest (sic) parts of Cornwall and Scotland. If so, I think you will find that most modern aluminium pursuit ships can carry this out from their MOB and be back in time for tea, muffins and medals, well within your requisite three hours.

If you mean some wider world role, then I think you may find that projecting air power rapidly, is one of the things in which the Royal Air Force excel, and have done for many years. This skill is, as always, being refined and differs markedly from the Fortress Britain and RAFG TACEVAL scenarios of the 80's and early 90's.

This force projection capability to provide an almost immediate presence is also from flying units that are constantly practicing and not merely sat about in barracks doing a bit of Phys Ed to pass the time of day, till they paint the wagons again.

Yes, modern warplanes do require a massive support footprint that takes a vast amounting or regular planning and practice to deploy effectively. Red Flag is not for fun (honest).
Flexibility is the key to air power, let some of the myopia and tunnel vision that besets the regimental system of the British Army take over the reigns of the most effective Air Force, and yes I do appreciate there are much larger Air Forces, in the world and our credibility will quickly wane.

BTW
If we do combine, who will the reds and dark blues use as their whipping boys every year in the Inter-Service Rugby?

[Al Fresco]

L1A2

The 'Canadian Forces' almalgamation is widely regarded as a complete disaster! I have worked over there and just about every Canadian I met thought the combined service idea was a bad one.

I think the Col is making a provocative arguement to get people thinking and doesn't actually believe that the RAF should be disbanded. We are all biting like 'good uns' and I've no doubt that southside and a few pongos are having a good laugh at us! This said, anyone with half a brain would realise that if you want to maintain the same capability you need the same amount of people and equipment, regardless of uniform colour.
Maybe we could get 10% more productivity every week out of the Army if they didn't take every Wednesday afternoon off for sport!

[TheInquisitor]

I've just read the ARRSE thread (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=38107/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html) on the same subject.

Comments like this
Why not simply hand all strike craft over to the Army, they're basically long ranged flying "artillery", air to air being air defence, and C130/C17's being transport.

Nimrod being naval assets
and this
Stab Tiffy.......Strategic Airlift could go to the RLC. It's no mystery. You can shift loads of MFO in a Herc. Couple of Fijiian Drivers can do a conversion from DROPS to C 130 in about a fortnight.
and (believe it or not) this
70% {of the RAF}do not contribute to operational effect
(Italics in parenthesis mine)

serve to demonstrate, far better than I ever could, why the venerable (non-Royal) British Army could NEVER run anything approaching effective air power, save for a handful of helos used as battlefield taxis and flying golf carts for senior Melchetts.

Nuff said.

[TBSG]

This is the best thread in a long time. I have not come across so much bobbing and weaving by the Crabs since the last time "Harriers" and "Carriers" were mentioned in the same week. Some people are taking themselves a teensy-weensy bit too seriously.

The correlation between defensiveness of post and likelihood of not having read the article in the first place is quite high. Col Collins is clearly a great fan of airpower. He is just not being blinkered by traditional views on who delivers it.

Inquisitor - chill out, dude. The debate should be had rationally with reasoned argument, not the childish unsubstantiated truisms you keep spouting. Now back to Arrse I go where life is more fun.

[ralphmalph]

My Goodness!,
It is no wonder we have so many dramas in todays defence climate with discussions like this going on!. TC is a man who says what he thinks......I think anyone who read his article will agree... There are many many faults with the armed forces, why is it there is allways this c**k fight about who is the best every time?.

As for lean!: 1 regt of AAC aircraft (52 aircraft/320 personnel) compared to 1 Sqn of aircraft ( 24 aircraft/200 personnel) how does that workout???.
Let alone a station of RAF personnel supporting numbering 1200?? ( with 185 coppers???)

I know that when Islander was up for grabs the RAF offered establishment tables in the order of 120 personnel for 6 aircraft.........the army manning was 26 pers for 6 aircraft......do the sums!!

Everyone is hurting these days with manning...talk to an infantry battalion which has done 9 months in two years in Iraq.

Desperate times call for desperate measures

[ralphmalph]

Inquisitor,
Please tell me how many "Royal" Titles there are in the air force in comparison with the British army. Then please tell me how many battle honours are to be compared.......how many years of history are to be compared and how many awards for gallantry there are!!!

Please don't make throw away comments....you only serve to portray your service in a wholly undeserved light!!!

[iPodder]

Ralphmalph, and your argument is so well crafted and eloquent as to portray the British Army in what light? So, because something is older and has more traditions it is therefore better; I think not. Look at what that kind of thinking did to Rover.
This thread has descended into puerile tat, there is blood in the water and people are pointing the spotlight onto the junior service to cover their own shortcomings.

Having served in the British Army and now serving in the RAF I can say with experience that savings could be made in all 3 services. We are island dwellers with notions of Empire, the Army must deploy by sea or air; it no longer has the ability to self deploy(unless they make the Channel Tunnel significantly wider), how annoying!

The Royal Navy and RAF both have organic infantry assets. Maybe a better solution would be split the British Army asunder and have 2 truly deployable, flexible Arms.

I type with tongue in cheek, I am a proud member of the Armed Forces and can see the strengths and weaknesses of all 3 Services. Yes, Nimrod AEW/CH47 MK3 are examples of how the RAF get it wrong, are we saying that the Royal Navy never waste cash or crash ships, has the British Army got the best rifle and secure radio that money can buy?

Time to congratulate each other on our unique qualities and strengths and stop the "we could do it better than you' rubbish.

iPodder out.

[Mead Pusher]

iPodder: I couldn't agree more! :D

RalphMalph: I didn't think we were fighting about who was the best - we are all the best in our own specialisations, but we should never get so pretentious that we think we can do each other's job!

Keep all 3 Services, I say. But we should try to work a little more closely and understand each other's needs and capabilities.

[anotherthing]

As Ex-services I would just like to amplify the above post...

All 3 services contribute, what I think needs to happen is that things such as 'smart' procurement actually becomes smart and not remain the farce it is, with over budget, over deadline equipment.

The people on the ground should be given far better support by the civil servants that are polishing the a:mad: e of their trousers at a desk, going home every night and weekend to the family.

[greenfreddie]

When was the last time the fast jet heroes of the Airforce actually shot anything down?

1947. Spitfire v Spitfire.

It is good to see that the eons of experience of air transport has enabled the process of making air transport miserable to be honed to the levels now seen at South Cerney! No wonder Col Collins fancies a crack at making things better!

[Climebear]

[QUOTE=greenfreddie]When was the last time the fast jet heroes of the Airforce actually shot anything down?

1947. Spitfire v Spitfire.
QUOTE]


This doesn't help the debate - just as much as saying that the last UK Armoured Engagement was UK Challenger II on UK Challenger II.

Do be effectively joint means that individuals need to fully understand their own enviornments (Mar/Litt; Land; Air) and how they contribute to Joint Campaign in which the component commanders can be supporting or supported commanders depending on the phase of the campaign. By all means engage in inter-Service; inter-Regt; inter-Ship; inter-Sqn banter but don't play into the hands of the real enemy - the Treasury.

And RalphMalph the counting of people in an organisation is not a very good way of measuring its importance. It is only really played by organizations that rely on masses of people rather than technology. Taking you point further then the CO of a Inf Bn is far more effective that the CO of an Armd Regt, an RA/RHA Regt or an AAC Regt because he has more people.

[Lazer-Hound]

Flexibility is the key to air power, let some of the myopia and tunnel vision that besets the regimental system of the British Army take over the reigns of the most effective Air Force, and yes I do appreciate there are much larger Air Forces, in the world and our credibility will quickly wane.

Nobody is suggesting that the British Army take over the Heyl h'Avir, Slop-Jockey.

[Maple 01]

When was the last time the fast jet heroes of the Airforce actually shot anything down?

1947. Spitfire v Spitfire.

Try Falklands 1982 :rolleyes:

[Climebear]

Try Falklands 1982 :rolleyes:

I think you'll find that that was the FAA

[Lockstock]

Originally posted by Climebear

I think you'll find that that was the FAA

I think you'll find Flt Lt Dave Morgan shot down 2 Skyhawks

[Zoom]

Circa 1984 - Phantom downs Jaguar. Oh, b*gger, why did I mention that?

[FormerFlake]

Had cause to visit the Canadians to look at their experiences, to see if there was scope to 'read across'. Found that they all wear similar uniforms, can't be promoted abover SO2 unless bi-lingual, and have all remained in their 'own' service. Specialist knowledge was quoted as a requirement.

I think you will find that most SO2s and above are bi-lingual in the British Armed Forces. They all speak english and total and utter b:mad:ks!!!

I do not think the RAF should be disbanded, but it certainly needs a good kick up the arse. :ugh:

[Mead Pusher]

Why count aircraft shot down? If we can gain air superiority without doing so then all the better. If flying CAPs means that the enemy never takes off then it's job done!

Effects based operations and all that...

[Climebear]

I think you'll find Flt Lt Dave Morgan shot down 2 Skyhawks


Valid point he did say one ofr your fast jet jocks not one or your aircraft

[meag197]

Some might argue that the RAF is being disbanded on the sly with all the cuts and civilianisation being made. How many personnel are we down to now - about 12 and the Air Ranks... :E

[Climebear]

Some might argue that the RAF is being disbanded on the sly with all the cuts and civilianisation being made. How many personnel are we down to now - about 12 and the Air Ranks... :E

We are still bigger that the Naval Service and an awful lot of other air forces and nobody is calling for their demise.

[Heimdall]

When was the last time the fast jet heroes of the Airforce actually shot anything down?

1947. Spitfire v Spitfire. (Quote by Green Freddie)

To be completely accurate, the last time an RAF pilot flying an RAF aircraft had a confirmed air-to-air kill was 22 May 1948, when Fg Off Tim McElhaw of 208 Sqn flying a Spitfire FR18 shot down an Royal Egyptian Air Force Spitfire LF9 as it was attacking an RAF detachment at Ramat David in Israel.

The full story can be found at:

www.spyflight.co.uk/iafvraf.htm

[SASless]

Meady,

Are you saying all tremble in anticipation of the RAF tread?

Better change your brand of Tea there sport.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Oh FFS grow up, this is getting purile. Mine is bigger than yours and my mate is bigger than you, and my mate has shot down more ac than yours. The Air Force (two words not one for our green bretheren), any Air Force, on any continent, does more than shoot down aircraft! For the Dark Blue the SHAR may have shot down more aircraft than the RAF in the recent past, but then the RAF has dropped more bombs on more targets, at greater depth and over longer distances than the RN or Army! The RAF has done more ISTAR, more AT (helo, short range or long range) than either the RN or the Army. The RAF has done more tanking, more AEW, more maritime (airborne) patrol than either of the other 2. But then the RN has sailed more boats and subs and the army has driven more tanks and walked over more ground.

Stop pi:mad:ng around, the armed forces (UK) need all three elements. Anyone who has worked with the army KNOWS that they do not understand air or water, the RN do not understand LONG RANGE air, the the RAF do not do walking or boats! We all have our strengths and that is what we ALL need to bring to the party. Get over it and get on with it. Threads like this only help the naive and the stupid in government, the civil service and the Treasury to axe more from our overstretched budget and pour it into the black holes of the NHS and DSS!

Rant switch to Off:mad:

[ZH875]

When was the last time the fast jet heroes of the Airforce actually shot anything down?

1947. Spitfire v Spitfire. (Quote by Green Freddie)

To be completely accurate, the last time an RAF pilot flying an RAF aircraft had a confirmed air-to-air kill was 22 May 1948, when Fg Off Tim McElhaw of 208 Sqn flying a Spitfire FR18 shot down an Royal Egyptian Air Force Spitfire LF9 as it was attacking an RAF detachment at Ramat David in Israel.
Was it an RAF pilot flying the RAF Phantom which shot down a RAF Jaguar over Germany,:O is so that is much more recent than 1948!

[Maple 01]

To be fair, the Jag mate did make a tempting target.......and the AIM-9 worked as advertised :ok:

And it's not as if the tankies ever indulge in a bit of blue on blue action........


Abolish the RTR and let the Navy have their landships back!

[TheInquisitor]

When was the last time the fast jet heroes of the Airforce actually shot anything down?

Didn't a Bucc get an air-air kill on an Iraqi Mig during GW1 with a bomb?

Curious how the Matelots always come back to this subject. Exactly what HAVE the Navy done since the Falklands (24 years ago)?

[LunchMonitor]

It is good to see that the eons of experience of air transport has enabled the process of making air transport miserable to be honed to the levels now seen at South Cerney! No wonder Col Collins fancies a crack at making things better!

When I last checked, South Cerney was already run by the Army.....

[rafloo]

Exactly what HAVE the Navy done since the Falklands (24 years ago)?

We had a cocktail party during Traf200...

[ratpackgreenslug]

The question is: Exactly what HAVE the RAF done since the BoB (66 years ago)?

In all fairness credit should be given for the V bomber deterrent of the 60s and it's also true that several sheep were reportedly 'quite startled' by the RAF's contribution to operation Corporate. Indeed, if the runway hadn't cunningly (on more than one occasion) moved at the last minute who knows how many bombs would have actually hit the target?

It comes down to bang for the buck and Collins is correct to point out the woefully under performing return on our RAF investment. Time for changes. Big ones.

[Maple 01]

Get back to ARRSE, there's a good chap!

[Climebear]

The question is: Exactly what HAVE the RAF done since the BoB (66 years ago)?
In all fairness credit should be given for the V bomber deterrent of the 60s and it's also true that several sheep were reportedly 'quite startled' by the RAF's contribution to operation Corporate. Indeed, if the runway hadn't cunningly (on more than one occasion) moved at the last minute who knows how many bombs would have actually hit the target?
It comes down to bang for the buck and Collins is correct to point out the woefully under performing return on our RAF investment. Time for changes. Big ones.

Apart from effective inderdiction campaigns that prevented the Army from any serious fighting. When was the last time that the British Army fought a Combat Effective (ie more than 50% combat effectiveness) opponent (oh it was the Falklands and then a fair proportion of the Land forces were Royal Marines!).


Contributed signiificantly to the Battle of the Atlantic (losses of German submarines increased significantly when, inter alia RAF MPA were capable of patrolling post of the Atlantic.

Conducted a Bomber Campaign that caused significant attrition of Germany's ability to resupply its armed forces.

Read yourself into the Western Desert campaign - a key example of land/air intergration.

Prepared (with others) the battlespace for the D-Day landings contributing to the fixing of German reserves (which would have pushed the allied landing forces back into the sea).

Delivered the airborne forces to D-Day, Market Garden, the Rhine Crossing, and Suez (to be fair I suppose they could have walked/swam).

In GW1 the Iraqi forces had been devastated by air before the Land Forces arrived - notwithstanding, this there were pockets of resistance but nowhere near an equal fight.

An effective Coercive Campaign (not just Air) led to a situation when ground troops did not have opposition entering Kosovo.

Where were the Army when the RAF (alongside allied air arms, including USN) maintained the air occupation of Northern and Southern Iraq during the 1990s - effectively 10 years + of preparation of the battlespace for TELIC 1

One of the prime aims of air power during a campaign is to attrit the opponents forces before they are in contact with our own. Just because this doesn't happen within the relatively narrow geographic bounds of a land formation (ie CAS), doesn't mean that it isn't happening. When your wonderful Armoured Formations rock up to the predicted sight of an enemy formation and find that it no longer exists - its demise didn't happen by magic.

I am not saying that Air Forces win wars - they don't. What I am saying is that it is a combination of all elements of military power (indeed all elements of national power (military, diplomatic, and economic (and information for any US readers)) that win wars.

[NURSE]

everyone complains about the service at the air mounting centre. The attitude of the RAF staff who work there to the army and the delays and mismanagemanagement. Maybe and I'm being a heritic here it should be civilianised? just like turning up at an airport to check in for your holiday flight. Get the place run by a non service and therefore theoritically independant group (that we can all moan about). Get one of the companies who runservices like this at one of the Major airports to take it on. and for the overseas end use them as specialised reserves?

[ratpackgreenslug]

I've yet to visit your quoted site Mr Tac bloke matey Maple 01 but do feel free to go there yourself with my best wishes and blessings - old boy.

Battle of the Atlantic, U Boats? For that particular scrum down all services were needed and filled vital specialist roles. An undisputed eleven out of ten goes to all of them.

Gulf wars 1 and 2, primarily American air power fought with token RAF FJ contribution, the one type of aircraft needing to stay under RAF command. Ditto Kosovo.

Policing the Iraqi skies between wars shouldn't have placed too much strain on an organisation having a personnel count of 50,000+. The tin pot dictator had after all been soundly neutered by American air power.

Edited for ga99js.
Surely the RAF understands that it is nothing more than a pimple on the backside of the USAF?
The need for AWACS isn't the question, as to who flies them for cost efficiency is. Same for RW and all other tanker and trucky functions except FJ - after the totally worthless Harrier has been chopped.

[nutcracker43]

It comes down to bang for the buck and Collins is correct to point out the woefully under performing return on our RAF investment. Time for changes. Big ones.

You got a few rises out of that post...suspect that was your aim...certainly, soundness of argument wasn't one of them.

Many of my army chums still do not understand the need and function of air power, and as for cost analysis, their thinking is even more lamentable

A gardening mag I get had a fantastic offer of a slug trap...thought of your post when I read it...can't think why.

Thank you.

NC43

[ratpackgreenslug]

Nutcracker+ numbers.

Not a wind up, but the branding of such is the last refuge of those unable to supply a coherent counter argument. Yours is conspicuous by its absence. My opinions do, I freely admit, go against the grain of the head-up-your-own-backside attitude of most on this forum, but their attitude is hardly surprising is it? How can they possibly see a solution when their identity is tied to being part of the problem.

Bottom line: Britain can no longer afford the cost structure of the RAF when many of its functions are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to more efficient operators. And everything, with the exception of FJ minus the worthless money pit called Harrier, can be farmed out.

Your erstwhile horticultural endeavours are duly noted. Alas that your fellow officers lack your depth and lucidity for then they, like you, would see for miles and miles. Best of luck with the slugs. Stale beer in a shallow cup traps them too, see if you can place the cup without drinking the beer.

May your magazine bring you joy.

[Lazer-Hound]

The British Army and RM contributed some 25-30% of the ground forces during the main combat phase of OIF. The RAF's contribution to the 'coalition' air effort?

SIX per cent of total sorties.

Granted, somewhat more than the 4% the RAF managed in Kosovo, but not something to write home about.

[rafloo]

Thats because the RAF were in the Sheraton Hotel holding TV interviews.

[sense1]

At the end of the day, the reason we find ourselves discussing this foolish idea, and the only reason those in power would EVER think of disbanding the RAF is because of the (false) promise of SAVING MONEY.

That is the issue here - the defence budget with which HM Armed Forces must live with, its too small!! Whilst it is one of the largest defence budgets in the world (I believe only Japan, China and obviously the US spend more), it just isn't enough dosh as we have to do an awful lot with what is in our pot :(

However, this idea is so fundamentally flawed it amazes me that it has ever had a serious word said about it!! What a huge backward step it would be. Also, I can imagine that disbanding the RAF would result in a response not far short of national uproar. What with the loss of jobs on/near bases, national heritage taking a dent, RAF personnel refusing to transfer to the army/navy...... not worth the hassle really! Certainly not worth the loss of votes for the party in power at the time for such a meager saving.

In order to actually save a real amount of money, the govt would have to take the drastic step of getting rid of an expensive capability altogether, such as not renewing our nukes or chopping our FJs :sad: :{ altogether like the Kiwis have done. I hope neither of those scenarios ever happen as both are terribly important!

My point is; just 'abolishing' the RAF but then transferring most of its personnel and its equipment to the other services would save a little money on uniforms - but then the army could probably save half the defence budget if they narrowed their selection down a little bit! ;) Its a terribly daft idea being entertained here and, inter-service banter aside, we all know it.

[Climebear]

The British Army and RM contributed some 25-30% of the ground forces during the main combat phase of OIF. The RAF's contribution to the 'coalition' air effort?

SIX per cent of total sorties.

Granted, somewhat more than the 4% the RAF managed in Kosovo, but not something to write home about.

Statistics don't win wars.

Of course one could always say that the RAF (including aviators from other Services (that's for you FB11)) was employed on the Coalition's Main effort (ie the advance(s) to Bagdhad) as opposed to the 'securing the flanks' role of others.;)

[Lazer-Hound]

Statistics don't win wars.

Of course one could always say that the RAF (including aviators from other Services (that's for you FB11)) was employed on the Coalition's Main effort (ie the advance(s) to Bagdhad) as opposed to the 'securing the flanks' role of others.;)

Token gestures don't win wars either. In fact, when one considers the deconfliction, C2 and logistics problems the presence of the RAF must have caused CENTAF, as well as the ramp-space the RAF took up which could have been more effectively used by F15s, F117's, A10's, etc., one has to wonder whether it was worth the RAF turning up at all.

[TheInquisitor]

Bottom line: Britain can no longer afford the cost structure of the RAF when many of its functions are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to more efficient operators. And everything, with the exception of FJ minus the worthless money pit called Harrier, can be farmed out.

OK, RatPack - let's hear your proposals. Who would you farm what out to, and how would they, quickly and efficiently, regain the capability that would be lost by the disbandment of the RAF? Remember, the aim here is cost saving.

I'm not after banter or a slanging match - that will just go round in circles until everyone gets bored of this thread. I want to know how YOU would implement these changes and make it work.

[Siddeous]

One thing that keeps coming to my mind in this arguement is why, if the RAF is such a redundant force, did the army B***h and moan claiming they were being left with no adequate air support when the harriers were due to pull out of Afghanistan recently. Surely if it as toothless and ineffective as some of our army buddies on here would have us believe, maybe they should come home now? After all having them out there must surely be a big waste of money? No I didn't think so.

I bet the troops that suddenly come under sustained fire from taliban positions and can call in a friendly GR 7 to redress the balance are quite happy the RAF are out there.

[Mead Pusher]

Nutcracker+ numbers.

Bottom line: Britain can no longer afford the cost structure of the RAF when many of its functions are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to more efficient operators. And everything, with the exception of FJ minus the worthless money pit called Harrier, can be farmed out.



Could you please explain how the following are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to some existing force/operator other than the RAF, please?

ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) beyond the range of a Phoenix - as carried out by E3, Nimrod R1, Sentinel, RAPTOR, JRP, Canberra, satellites and others.

Space Operations - Space Support and Force Enhancement (ISTAR, Navigation, Comms and Environmental Monitoring).

Offensive Counter Air Ops - Airfield Attack, Suppression of Enemy Air Defences, Fighter Sweep, Escort and C2 Warfare.

Active Air Defence System - beyond the range of a Rapier (and not at Sea - the RN do it very well there).

Air Operations for Strategic Effect - Tomahawks and STORMSHADOW (which needs a Tornado to launch) are only good against fixed targets.

Air Refuelling

Strategic Air Transport - into theatres that civilian contractors refuse to enter!

I would be interested to hear how you propose to cover these roles or remove them. RAF chaps feel free to add any I've missed.

Alternatively, we could conduct an experiment and just let you do your own thing in Afghanistan and see just how effective you can be without us. That would be a laugh - except for the families of the hundreds of dead Army chaps that is.

[TheInquisitor]

How about the one that ALWAYS seems to get missed out - TACTICAL air transport - the one that forms the main thrust of the 'dirty' AT fleet's efforts nowadays.

And the one that NO civilian operator is (or ever will be) capable of performing.

[Almost_done]

After re-reading this post and the alternate ones on E-Goat and ARRSE, why don’t we just do it, take the redundancy package and leave if our Lords and Masters decide to do it. :mad:

Let the Army and Navy fight over what’s left, them get on see if they can run a cohesive and sustainable Air Flights, or what ever they want to call them.

I know this is a passionate subject for those of us in Light Blue, but I am sick to the back teeth of the ‘we can do it better’ attitude of the other two, if so let them get on and do then. They will not have the comfort zone of being able to draw expertise from us to get them out of a particularly bad situation, due to their short sightedness, strict manpower policies and blinkered options.

Let us start with JHC remove all RAF Aircrew, Engineering Tradesmen, Ops Bods, MT, Suppliers, Painters, ATC and Adminer’s (if any left after JPA), move out of Odiham, Benson, Aldergrove and Culdrose. Give them our resources and see how long they last at the job before the whingeing starts. I’ll give them 3 months if that.

But of course they’ll have to gut all the single accom to make it suitable for them to move into, wasting how many thousands of pounds? Just as they did at RAF Abingdon when they turned it into Dalton Barracks.

My final note is that the Army were always grateful to see the Helo’s in the field in NI. The RAFs problem has been in letting the Press say a ‘Army helicopter removes troops from the field’ etc for far too long, so they have had more publicity at our cost and Tim Collins and Army posters on this site believe it too.

Oh well my last tuppence worth on this sorry subject. :ugh:

[Climebear]

Token gestures don't win wars either. In fact, when one considers the deconfliction, C2 and logistics problems the presence of the RAF must have caused CENTAF, as well as the ramp-space the RAF took up which could have been more effectively used by F15s, F117's, A10's, etc., one has to wonder whether it was worth the RAF turning up at all.

Unlike our land breatheren that rarely work in combined formations (below division) the Air world has been working in the combined world for many years (multi-national COMAOs were a common occurance in Cold War days) so interoperability with allies isn't new.

The waisting of ramp space! As opposed the the ramp space took up by the RAF provision of TacRecce (something the USAF doesn't do a lot of), Air Refueling (crucial for USN), STORMSHADOW equipped aircraft...

Not to mention the RAF SH and RN CF that flew when their US counterparts refused.

The RAF is just as much of a supporting arm of the USAF (and USN air) as the British Army is to the US Army - discuss.

One could say the same for everything else the UK took to theatre - including an understrength UK division (2 x lt 1 x armd). National political stances aside, the kit that went was used and was needed by the Coalition.

Token efforts - my ARRSE.

[SASless]

Clime,

How far is it from Basrah to Baghdad by road?

[jamesmoggy]

The article on The First Post last week certainly kicked up a storm of controversy. we've posted some of our letters and responses here in our letters section (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=491)
Enjoy

[Captain Kirk]

The only winners in a ‘debate’ like this are the politicians and civil servants who are able to divide, conquer and take more savings.

Until we can recognise and genuinely respect that each Service are experts at delivering capability within their own environment – where each environment presents unique and complex challenges which are too easily dismissed if ignorance is allowed to prevail – we all lose. :hmm:

[doubledolphins]

Ever watched Star Trek? They all fly around in Star Ships and have Naval ranks. Atmosphere bound Airforces will be regarded as a quaint historical blip of the 20th and early 21st Centuries.

(Oh are those men in white coats for me Mother?)

[Climebear]

Clime,
How far is it from Basrah to Baghdad by road?


Very much a rought estimation - by the northern route - approx 580km.

[Lazer-Hound]

Unlike our land breatheren that rarely work in combined formations (below division) the Air world has been working in the combined world for many years (multi-national COMAOs were a common occurance in Cold War days) so interoperability with allies isn't new.

The waisting of ramp space! As opposed the the ramp space took up by the RAF provision of TacRecce (something the USAF doesn't do a lot of), Air Refueling (crucial for USN), STORMSHADOW equipped aircraft...

Not to mention the RAF SH and RN CF that flew when their US counterparts refused.

The RAF is just as much of a supporting arm of the USAF (and USN air) as the British Army is to the US Army - discuss.

One could say the same for everything else the UK took to theatre - including an understrength UK division (2 x lt 1 x armd). National political stances aside, the kit that went was used and was needed by the Coalition.

Token efforts - my ARRSE.

I'm willing to bet the USAF/USN/USMC provided a lot more manned and unmanned tacrecce than the RAF did. The RAF's AAR fleet was irrelevant as far as USAF was concerned, being unable to refuel USAF aircraft. As for Stormshadow -what did that do that any number of US systems couldn't?

Unaware of the US forces refusing to fly when the RAF/RN would - perhaps you'd elucitdate and provide a link? I

[Climebear]

I'm willing to bet the USAF/USN/USMC provided a lot more manned and unmanned tacrecce than the RAF did. The RAF's AAR fleet was irrelevant as far as USAF was concerned, being unable to refuel USAF aircraft. As for Stormshadow -what did that do that any number of US systems couldn't?

Unaware of the US forces refusing to fly when the RAF/RN would - perhaps you'd elucitdate and provide a link? I

I'm willing to bet the USAF/USN/USMC provided a lot more manned and unmanned tacrecce than the RAF did. Oh really!

The RAF's AAR fleet was irrelevant as far as USAF was concerned, being unable to refuel USAF aircraft. Read my post.

As for Stormshadow -what did that do that any number of US systems couldn't?
I'm not going to tell you - not on here anyway.

Unaware of the US forces refusing to fly when the RAF/RN would - perhaps you'd elucitdate and provide a link? As they say - go ask the Marines!


By the way, was anything the UK did in any environment that the US couldn't have done by themselves?

Re-read my posts I am not saying that any Service can win a conflict by itself that is why we need to understand joint... and combined... and comprehensive... and multi-agency.

[Lazer-Hound]

Climebear, whatever way you slice it, 6% of total sorties is a token contribution. Also, the RAF dropped only THREE percent of total coalition weapons dropped. There was no capability the RAF brought to the table that the US didn't already have in absolute spades. You're relying on spurious allegations of cowardice on the part of US pilots and supposedly 'secret' capabilities of one type of missile to refute this. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The RAF utterly lacks capabilities in a whole range of areas the US considers essential - long-range bombers, UAV/UCAVs and space-based assets are but a few.

Face facts, the RAF is indeed just a pimple on USAF's arrse. It's presence in the theatre of operations made not one jot, scintilla, or iota of difference to the final outcome. And that goes particularly for the FJ fleet (and double that for the F3's in theatre).

[Climebear]

The RAF utterly lacks capabilities in a whole range of areas the US considers essential...

And this doesn't apply to UK Defence as a whole because...?

[Lazer-Hound]

It does indeed apply to the UK forces as a whole but even so the Army and RM/RN made proportionally far larger and more useful contributions to the 'coalition' (i.e. US) effort than the RAF did.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Can someone remind me of which country has kept the Canberra's of 39 Sqn busy for all these years with their repeated requests for its deployment to fill a capability gap?

I'm sure it start with a 'U' and is a superpower but the USSR don't seem to come out to play anymore....:rolleyes:

[Climebear]

It does indeed apply to the UK forces as a whole but even so the Army and RM/RN made proportionally far larger and more useful contributions to the 'coalition' (i.e. US) effort than the RAF did.

Your supposition that proportionally larger = more useful is a non sequitur.

Larger isn't always better - as I frequently remind Mrs Climebear; I don't want anyone telling her otherwise.

The Helpful Stacker - that was 'Swift and Bold' of you ;)

[The Helpful Stacker]

It does indeed apply to the UK forces as a whole but even so the Army and RM/RN made proportionally far larger and more useful contributions to the 'coalition' (i.e. US) effort than the RAF did.

And how pray tell did these 'more useful' ground pounders travel all the way to the Middle East and more importantly, around it?

Which Air Force has had to extend the deployment of its Harriers in Afghanistan due to a capability gap within the forces sent to replace them?

[The Helpful Stacker]

The Helpful Stacker - that was 'Swift and Bold' of you ;)

Celer et Audax indeed.

[rafloo]

Many of you seem to think that Col Collins is suggesting that we get rid of the Air Force's roles and commitments. No such thing. He is suggesting we retain the roles and commitments and share them (as well as the man power) between the Army and the Royal Navy. Makes perfect sense to me. That way it will put a stop to all the moaning and whinging that goes on in this forum about working too hard and having to spend time away from your loved ones. He is simply suggesting that we disband the RAF as they are merely civilians in a Uniform and replace them with a proffessional and competant group of servicemen who will do the job more efficiently and without moaning about it.

[mikip]

That way it will put a stop to all the moaning and whinging that goes on in this forum about working too hard and having to spend time away from your loved ones.

Are you saying that dark blue or sludge green uniforms stop people being upset about being away from home?? (must be something in the dye)

[randomname]

I'm loving this thread. I am seriously beginning to think there are some army dudes who think that a) they understand air power and b) think they can do it better than us

Hilarious

[TheInquisitor]

a proffessional and competant group of servicemen who will do the job more efficiently

If you're gonna fire bullets like that, old chap, you'd better have a damn good explanation to back up your assertion - now lay out exactly HOW the Army / RN could do it more 'efficiently'.

Otherwise you are just being a t**t, and reinforcing the light blue's case.

Oh, and I guess your 'proffessional' training didn't include basic English...

[Captain Kirk]

Inquisitor - I think he demonstrated his 'incompetEnce' very effectively. :rolleyes:

There really isn't an intelligent debate to be had here anymore - beam me up!

[Pureteenlard]

I'd just like to point out that operational, tactical and even mechanical understanding is NOT related to who you work for. You do your job as you were trained to do. If you are a properly trained fast jet pilot then you should be just as effective flying as RAF, Fleet Air Arm or AAC. These posts where members of one or other of the services states that the other can't do what they can are bull**** pure and simple. Expertise in a field is not dictated by uniform.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Lazer Hound

You really need to a bit of air power study. The main assets requested by the US for operations Afghanistan were SF, tankers - which provided some 25% of all USN and USMC tanking during the op (just as a bit of Air Power education the USN and USMC use the same AAR system as the RAF so get over yourself), ISTAR and recce assets. The recce was mainly provided by the Canberra. Why? Because the USAF DID NOT HAVE an equivalent capability. E3 and R1, again because we have them and they were not commited elsewhere. We did not commit fast jets because we do not have long range bombers the equivalent of the B52, B1 and B2. All tac air was provided by the USN and USMC from carriers supported by the RAF tanker force.

Furthermore perhaps you should go and ask the USN and USMC crews who vastly prefer RAF tanker support than USAF, because the RAF crews are prepared to go anywhere at anytime to help out the important fighter/bomber crews. And if you still need more info ask the GAF Tornado crew who were tanked out of a probable ejection by an RAF Tristar that got shot at in the process. I believe the captain got a DFC for that one!!

Then you could ask why the US ask for our recce and ISTAR assets. But if you don't know then you probably aren't cleared to know.

In GWII Storm Shadow was used before it had completed all company tests and it worked, again the US asked for this because they did not have an equivalent capability. If you have to compare weapons dropped then of course the USAF is going to drop more than the RAF and by a significant margin - 1 B52 can drop as many bombs, in one go, than an entire Sqn of Tornados. But then in case you hadn't noticed we don't own any B52s!!!!

All your bo:mad:cks about statistics are fine and good, but when you are talking about numbers of aircraft commited to an op you are talking about GOVERNMENT POLICY, not RAF policy. The beancounters in HMT and the MOD set the numbers, of all forces, that are to be contributed to any one op, not anyone else. You can always go and look in the SAG Scenarios book to find out what the contributions are - you do have access to that, don't you? When you compare the US contribution to these ops any UK contribution is going to be tiny. How many boats did the RN commit compared to the USN/USMC? How many troops as % of total forces did the UK commit when compared to the US? The percentages are equally small.

rafloo. It's professional, if that is an indication of the state of the RN at L-o-O then it's time to get out.

[SASless]

Ever land a FJ on a carrier at night in bad weather? Tell me one FJ jock is the same as another. Just don't expect me to believe it.

Squatting down on a 10,000 foot concrete runway in the dark is one thing but a pitching, rolling, heaving, weaving bit of steel is quite another.

Navy pilots can land on either....not so Air Force pilots.

[Roland Pulfrew]

not so Air Force pilots.

Except of course RAF Harrier pilots who seem to get the idea. Unless of course you are talking real fast-jets ie not the Harrier or SHar!!;) But them again I seem to remember a few RAF pilots on exhange on F14s and F18s!:}

[ratpackgreenslug]

Inquisitor asked for specifics.

I'll reiterate. Bang for the buck is the bottom line. Personnel to aircraft ratio, the number of people required to project how much force. Even with roughly 50,000 total personnel the RAF is strained by squeezing out a squadron or two to provide little more than a token presence in the theatre of operations. Good job the Americans are on-side to do the lion's share of any job. The personnel to aircraft ratio has to improve, inefficiencies have to dealt with. 50,000 personnel of which perhaps 1400 are aircrew - there are a lot of paper clip counters in the background. It has to slim down.

Take for example the Harrier. The Harrier is, and always was, a pig in a poke. A mastery of pre-Tony PR spin ( it's British; the whole world's queuing up for them; aren't we lucky to have them; shades of Concorde) in which reality was rendered subordinate to hubris. Did we really expect the massed hoards of Russian invaders to gasp in horror and drop their AK47s as the feared and mighty Harrier popped out of the well concealed wooded copse? Even if we initially did fall for this nonsense pertaining as it did to the situation of two decades ago, the sell by date has long since passed into history. The Harrier is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability. Although the aircraft itself is a flying joke it fails to amuse that this spam-can continues to fly on a tax payer sponsorship. Jobs for the boys perhaps, but jobs which serve no purpose except to drain the public purse.

Ground the whole useless lot now as they're a flying money pit which will not, from an operational point of view, be missed - except of course by those who've tied their and careers and sense of identity to the myth. The game is up, the tax payer can no longer afford to feed sacred cows. Over the past two decades how much has this flying bed-stand cost? And whatever that cost was, it's all been wasted money.

RW is a duplicated effort, no reason as to why those assets cannot be effectively transferred to the AAC/FAA. Do you seriously think that only RAF pilots are capable of flying these aircraft? A similar argument of replacing RAF aircrew with others can be made for much of the trucky operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a pilot force to be established on a part time basis to fly the transport assets. And there is no need for the trucky operation (transport or Maritime or AWACS) to stay under RAF control, that personnel count of 50,000 has to be drastically reduced. Moving the aircraft to other command structures within the Army/RN allows duplicated administration to be chopped. Does the RAF really need its own medical branch? Aviation medicine isn't that special.

Again, to reiterate. Much of the RAF is dangerously overrated, inefficient, duplicated and redundant. In retrospect the beginning of the end will be seen to be the Falklands, a test that was badly failed. The unpalatable truth is that Collins is right in pointing out flaws in the operational structure of UK armed forces. The situation is becoming untenable due to lack of money, a situation now so critical that it demands a rethink as to how business is to be conducted. We can no longer afford to ignore the elephant in the room by pretending that all is as well as can be expected.

Some low worth assets can be chopped and other assets can be moved to different operational control simply because that swollen mass of 50,000 personnel has to slim down.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Slug, just what illegal subtance are you using? Or is it just a regimental tradition?

Get up to date mate, you are woefully behind the times. The RAF is reducing. In case you had missed it, which you obviously have, it is already down from 50000, and it hasn't been at 50000 for some time. The current figure is 46K and that is set to reduce to about 41K with the next round of redundancies. It is possible/probable, under MTWS that it will reduce to 35K in the future. Get over it. There may only be 1400 pilots in the RAF (actually there are quite a few more than that) but there are, of course, air traffic controllers, fighter controllers, police, regiment, PEd staff, engineers, MT drivers, ops personnel, int personnel, radar technicians, caterers (sorry if I forgot anybody) as well as the Admin Staff in the RAF. And a large percentage of the admin branch are going thanks to JPA!! A bit more knowledge might be useful before you start slinging incorrect statements around!

Not quite sure what you have aginst the Harrier, maybe one scared you when you were a child, but it is set to stay in service for another 10 years or so BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO REPLACE IT IN ITS ROLE!!:ugh: And if they are that useless why has the Det in Kandahar just been extended? And if it that much rubbish why are the USMC still flying them and planning to continue to do so? Perhaps you need a little bit more study into the role of Air Power and a bit less time defending the use of the war horse!!

As for RW you are right, hand the Apaches over to the RAF, along with the Sea Kings and Lynx and we will look after it all for you. At least we can get it into service a bit quicker and perhaps buy some missiles that you can fire from all of the pylons.;)

Just where are the AAC and FAA going to recruit all these pilots from? The "truckies" are all leaving for the civil airline world already. Neither the FAA or AAC can train enough pilots for their own meagre, limited fleets and as the planners in M OD have already found out to their cost you cannot charter long-range AT when you want to fly into hot areas and nobody in the civil world does Tac AT!!

Finally does the RN or the Army require its own medical branch? If the answer is yes then why doesn't the RAF?

[nutcracker43]

I'm loving this thread. I am seriously beginning to think there are some army dudes who think that a) they understand air power and b) think they can do it better than us
Hilarious
Absolutely right there old lad...have never met any army officer who fully understood air power or proper use of assets...cost analysis is foreign to them but they speak very well and tend to use ten words when one will do...

Far from being pissed off I am very much amused.

NC43

[SASless]

Yes Roland, and they did so only after the necessary training....which is much beyond that of a dirt based FJ Jock. Not every Air Force pilot can be a carrier pilot either, there is a wash out rate for that task.

Harrier.....nice concept on paper. It proved its worth in the Falklands. Why nothing to replace it? If you had proper carriers instead of carriers built to handle Harriers then you could cheaply replace the Harrier.

At what point does the RAF become so small (dictates lessen capability as a result) that it really does become a junior jet jockey flying club? You have no bombers....no stealth attack aircraft....your strategic air transport fleet is hopelessly unable to sustain distant operations of any size.

The only reason the Harrier was begged for was the total absence of any other CAS aircraft. Anything is better than nothing when the wolf is scratching on the door.

[Archimedes]

Inquisitor asked for specifics.

<snip>

Jobs for the boys perhaps, but jobs which serve no purpose except to drain the public purse.

Ground the whole useless lot now as they're a flying money pit which will not, from an operational point of view, be missed - except of course by those who've tied their and careers and sense of identity to the myth.

As Roland notes, you're missing out the chaps in Afghanistan to whom the GR7 provides CAS (and NB that thanks to the state of the runway, only the GR7 can use it at the moment)... The decision to extend the deployment wasn't one taken just to allow the GR7 to show off, either - you'll find that some senior army types were eager for the extension to be approved.


Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a pilot force to be established on a part time basis to fly the transport assets. And there is no need for the trucky operation (transport or Maritime or AWACS) to stay under RAF control, that personnel count of 50,000 has to be drastically reduced. Moving the aircraft to other command structures within the Army/RN allows duplicated administration to be chopped.

Building up that sort of reserve would be far too expensive - we'd have kept the RAuxAF if it had been more cost-effective than the regulars, but it wasn't. Furthermore, the reserve force would, presumably, need to be have some currency beyond week-end flying. In which case, the airlines that faced losing pilots would, no doubt, demand large sums of cash in compensation to be factored into the deal.


<snip> In retrospect the beginning of the end will be seen to be the Falklands, a test that was badly failed.

If you ask Admirals Leach and Woodward (I haven't, but was there when someone did...), they will tell you that the RAF was really rather useful during CORPORATE.

I assume that you're making the usual error of thinking that the Vulcan raids were all the RAF did, otherwise (as per Sharkey Ward), they'd have done nothing.

This discounts several key things the RAF undertook - Maritime Radar Recce; Maritime Patrol; sustaining the air bridge and providing the AAR to fly more SHARs 'down South'. Harrier GR 3s undertook a notable number of sorties, destroying several Argentine aircraft on the ground, and playing an important part at Goose Green when a strike by GR3s helped to reinforce Chris Keeble's message that the Argentines were in a spot of bother and really ought to surrender. And don't forget that about 25% of the SHAR pilots were light blue, and they accounted for about 25% of the air-air victories.


By the by, Admirals Leach and Fieldhouse also spoke appreciatively of the effect that the Vulcan raid had on the Argentines and did not consider the single bomb to strike the runway as being a failure -

" My dark blue aviators said 'Oh, it's the air force just trying to get in on the act', but I said.... it wil have exactly that effect of causing them to think 'they could come at us on the mainland." It is showing reach and therefore it is deterrent, And I suspect it made them hold back some of their Mirages, which could have acted as top cover for their A-4 raids. So I signed up for it and told my aviators to shut up." (Admiral Woodward)


We can argue all year/decade as to whether all of this could have been done by FAA & AAC controlled assets, but that's not the point - they were RAF controlled and made a notable contribution. It's rather unfair to label the efforts 'a failure'.

[rafloo]

Ever land a FJ on a carrier at night in bad weather? Tell me one FJ jock is the same as another. Just don't expect me to believe it.

Squatting down on a 10,000 foot concrete runway in the dark is one thing but a pitching, rolling, heaving, weaving bit of steel is quite another.

Navy pilots can land on either....not so Air Force pilots.


A good point..as well as the fact that the when you return from your sortie, the Airfield has gone....moved...

[Roland Pulfrew]

Sas-

For someone apparently so up to date you display a lack of knowledge. There is a replacement planned for the CVS, it's a programme called CVF. It is planned and it may come equipped with JSF, assuming JSF ever comes. As for fewer personnel equalling less capability, again you are wrong. The current GR4 and GR9 have more capability than the preceeding fleets of larger (more numbers) aircraft. If HMT ever invest in the full Tranche 3 Typhoon again bang for buck will be enhanced even further. With each generation of new aircraft you need fewer numbers to provide the same or better capability. Look at the number of F22s the USAF are getting. Furthermore precision is the way ahead, LH said that the RAF only dropped 6% of the bombs but they all hit their targets then you are saving the taxpayers hard earned cash.

Until CVF comes we have to work with what we have got - simple concept really. For that reason the Harrier is deployed to Afghanistan, as you said there is nothing else available and something is better than nothing. As for the AT fleet, you are right it is a small fleet, but it is big enough to support the small limited, army deployments that our President sends us on. We could obviously do with more C17s, but then who couldn't? Even the USAF want more and they have some 150 of the things!!! Our current op tempo may be using up the fatigue life so fast that they won't reach their planned OSDs, but then President-in-Waiting Broon won't have to worry about replacing them early! Will he?;)

[serf]

Engineering Wing - 1 Wing Commander and X amount of blokes.

RAF efficiency drive:

Engineering split into Depth & Forward - 2 Wing Commanders and the same X amount of blokes.

I think the thrust of most arguements is that the RAF is overmanned and inefficient.

:ok: This thread is a hoot !

[TheInquisitor]

Ok, slug.

Take for example the Harrier. The Harrier is, and always was, a pig in a poke.
So much so, that the Americans bought the design rights from us and built them for the USMC - name another military aircraft in modern times that the Americans have bought from anybody else?

The Harrier is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability.
And you are basing this on WHAT, exactly? The Harrier is the most potent and capable CAS aircraft ever used in combat. Your knowledge of aircraft in general, and the Harrier in particular, is considerably lacking - a timely demostration, if one were needed, that the Army simply do not have the ability to operate modern air power.

Even with roughly 50,000 total personnel the RAF is strained by squeezing out a squadron or two to provide little more than a token presence in the theatre of operations.
No, just in YOUR theatre of operations. The RAF is currently operating in MANY theatres, doing all kinds of jobs. I suggest you educate yourself. Does the fact that we are strained to provide what we do not suggest that there is little fat to be trimmed from our current numbers? (which are closer to 41,000, by the way - or will be soon).

RW is a duplicated effort, no reason as to why those assets cannot be effectively transferred to the AAC/FAA.
This I partially agree with - the other two services already have experience of helo ops, so subsuming RW from the RAF may be possible - but it certainly will not save any money; I will explain my reasoning shortly.

A similar argument of replacing RAF aircrew with others can be made for much of the trucky operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a pilot force to be established on a part time basis to fly the transport assets.
No, it wouldn't. The productivity you get from a reservist is way below what you would get from a full-time service pilot working part-time, for many reasons. Understand that almost ALL reservist pilots (we have several) have airline jobs, limiting their availability and therefore their usefullness. Also, reservists cannot be sent into Operational theatres at the drop of a hat - they have to be called up by Parliament. Doing so would almost certainly cost an airline pilot his job - you cannot simply hop from one aircraft type to another, you have to maintain currency on a type to be able to fly it. Operational flying ALWAYS brings with it short or no-notice committments. In short, a non-starter.

And there is no need for the trucky operation (transport or Maritime or AWACS) to stay under RAF control
But there IS a need for the personnel and therefore the expertise that the RAF currently has - and 99% of them will tell the Army and the RN exactly where they can shove their 'offer' to transfer to them. (As volunteers, we cannot legally be forced to transfer). And I really wouldn't call a Nimrod mate a 'Trucky' to his face - you would be liable to having yours rearranged.

Does the RAF really need its own medical branch? Aviation medicine isn't that special.
Yes, it is. I suggest you speak to an AvMed Q'd doctor before you make such rash statements.

Moving the aircraft to other command structures within the Army/RN allows duplicated administration to be chopped.
And here we reach the crux of the matter, the so called 'savings' to be made by getting rid of RAF admin and support. Do you really believe that the current Army / RN admin setup can deal with an extra 35-40,000 personnel? The ratio of adminers to personnel is roughly the same in both services. The other services would need to gain every admin post that the RAF loses, so where are your cost savings?

Doubtless you will attempt to quote the magical 'groundcrew to aircraft' ratio myth - which IS a myth for two reasons. Firstly, the RAFs aircraft inventory is far more complex than either the Navy or Army's - ergo, you need more people to fix and maintain them. Also, we do all our own fixing - we don't rely on the REME to fix our aircraft the way the AAC do. Secondly, the RAF appears overborne in support personnel when compared to the AAC / FAA - but this is because both of these little flying clubs rely on the support infrastructure of their parent organisations in order to do business. We have everything in-house.

Explain how you could possibly cut down on the number of aircraft techies we currently have, given that we have now truly been cut to the bone in that department and can barely cope as it is.

And you cannot seriously expect Sqn execs to just find the time to write an extra 2,500 aircrew annual reports? Or manage twice or three times the number of personnel they currently do?

And how will you train all these new 'recruits'? Will you just magically conjure up 41,000 extra sets of uniform (at no cost, of course), put them on the newcomers and send them off to their new units? This assumes, of course, you could persuade ANYONE to transfer.

Much of the RAF is dangerously overrated, inefficient, duplicated and redundant
Explain how? Exactly what in the RAF is 'redundant'? Explain how the other two services can be more 'efficient', given that they would have to absorb almost all of our current posts?

In summary - a big post that was long on bluff and bluster, full of inaccurate facts and assumptions, or just plain ignorance, and short on actual, viable proposals.

You don't work for New Labour, do you?

[Almost_done]

ratpackgreenslug

Do us all a favour and read the AP 3000, it may broaden your horizons, not say there are much better tomes out there but at least it’s a start.

[SRENNAPS]

Surf:
Quote:
"Engineering Wing - 1 Wing Commander and X amount of blokes.
RAF efficiency drive:
Engineering split into Depth & Forward - 2 Wing Commanders and the same X amount of blokes".
Surf:
Yes I agree now two Wing Commanders. But the same no of blokes?????? You are having a laugh.
Have you heard of lean, pulse lines, MRMS etc, etc.
See if you can find an ASF with "Blue Suiters" any more. All civies these days mate.
TheInquisitor.
Very well said.
PS: Could somebody tell me how to do "quotes" properly. Ta.

[TheInquisitor]

type immediately before what you want to quote, folowed by immediately after it.

...except spell "quote" correctly (couldn't illustrate that or it would have put "immediately before what you want to quote, folowed by" as a quote!!!

[SASless]

The Harrier is the most potent and capable CAS aircraft ever used in combat.

Now that is utter and complete bollocks!:=


The productivity you get from a reservist is way below what you would get from a full-time service pilot working part-time, for many reasons. Understand that almost ALL reservist pilots (we have several) have airline jobs, limiting their availability and therefore their usefullness. Also, reservists cannot be sent into Operational theatres at the drop of a hat - they have to be called up by Parliament. Doing so would almost certainly cost an airline pilot his job - you cannot simply hop from one aircraft type to another, you have to maintain currency on a type to be able to fly it. Operational flying ALWAYS brings with it short or no-notice committments. In short, a non-starter.

Perhaps you have forgotten about the US Air National Guard for a starter. More bollocks!

[TheInquisitor]

How so? Give me another aircraft that even comes close to Harrier's capabilities.

I have worked with the US ANG briefly - and what works in the US will not necessarily work here. We HAVE reservists already, and they are of very limited use.

[SASless]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam-plane-b52.jpg

For a start....with the right seeker....three meter accuracy. Loiter time over target....most of a calendar day....bombed up with GP dumb bombs....Fantastic!


Why don't you adopt the National Guard system then....it works!

http://www.hawgsmoke2004.com/images/parked/images/A-10_Warthogs_BD.jpg

Either of these beats the Harrier I would suggest.

[Archimedes]

We can't afford to adopt a National Guard type system, SASless, and while I have seen research papers that tackle the idea, they've all concluded that the system simply wouldn't translate, even if the money was there.

Also, transplanting the chain of command extant for the Guard would mean Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley would end up with their own air force. And Ken Livingstone, for that matter. Think we'd rather avoid that if it's all the same to you, old chap...

[TheInquisitor]

BUFF and the A-10 require hardened runways - BUFF requires rather alot of runway - Harrier does not.

And I'd like to see anybody attempt to hover BUFF - now THAT would be a neat trick! Or an A-10 for that matter.

The A-10 is all about it's gun - only an advantage if you're facing tanks, which the current enemy do not have.

And BOTH would be eaten alive by the Harrier air-to-air.

AN apples and oranges comparison I'm afraid.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

Why don't you adopt the National Guard system ...because we don't have a problem with immigration from Mexico?

[TheInquisitor]

We do from everywhere else.....:}

[SASless]

Quiz,

Are the Harriers in Iraq or Afghanistan operating from a hover and carrying any kind of load? Have they ever done so in combat? How does the Harrier like dusty hover downs? Guns like that of the A-10 are quite useful on people, machinegun emplacements, and other targets as well.

Air to Air is not CAS thus not an issue. Thus far Al Qaeda only hijacks aircraft.

[saudipc-9]

Well as an Air Force Officer I think we should get rid of the Army because they smell of soup:}

[Days Like These]

Are the Harriers in Iraq or Afghanistan operating from a hover and carrying any kind of load? Have they ever done so in combat? How does the Harrier like dusty hover downs? Guns like that of the A-10 are quite useful on people, machinegun emplacements, and other targets as well.

I think you'll find that the GR7s carry quite a significant load and have an advantage over the A-10 in that they are capable of escalating levels of weaponry. Also, the GR7 will fly significantly lower than the A-10 thus making it more effective for shows of force. Also, the serviceability and turnaround of the GR7 is particularly impressive.

Air to Air is not CAS thus not an issue. Thus far Al Qaeda only hijacks aircraft.

Can't argue with that one!

[Maple 01]

I remember a 'thank you' note circulating a year of so back from some US Marines that were on the verge of being sent to Hell to regroup by the Taliban until a flight of the 'useless' GR7s pitched up......from the letter they were quite keen on the RAF in general and the CAS being flown by Harriers in particular.....another unsolicited testimonial......perhaps we should use it in the adds?

'I liked the Harrier so much I designated for it!'

[SRENNAPS]

TheInquisitor
Thanks for that. I thought I had tried that way but it did not seem to work. It must be finger trouble.:O
And I'd had a few after the football.:*

[WhiteOvies]

they are capable of escalating levels of weaponry
Since when have the USA been interested in this concept? Why be able to kill them only once over?
The policy of escalation that the harriers are using works extremely well.
Also saves the UK tax payer money as 1 CRV7 rocket costs a hell of a lot less than other weapons and does the trick nicely on personnel in caves, on donkeys etc.

[Mead Pusher]

Before you all take this seriously, please read post #199!

Tongue firmly in cheek...

Bang for the buck is the bottom line. Support personnel to operational personnel ratio, the number of people required to project how much force. Even with roughly 100,000 total personnel the Army is strained by squeezing out an understrength division to provide little more than a token presence in the theatre of operations. Good job the Americans are on-side to do the lion's share of any job. The personnel ratio has to improve, inefficiencies have to dealt with. 100,000 personnel of which perhaps 10,000 are in Iraq/Afghanistan/Eastern Europe - there are a lot of paper clip counters in the background. It has to slim down.

Take for example the Challenger II. The Challenger II is, and always was, a pig in a poke. A mastery of pre-Tony PR spin ( it's British; it's a tank; aren't we lucky to have them) in which reality was rendered subordinate to hubris. Did we really expect the massed hoards of Russian invaders to gasp in horror and drop their AK47s as the few Challengers we had tried to slow them down? Even if we initially did fall for this nonsense pertaining as it did to the situation of two decades ago, the sell by date has long since passed into history. The Challenger is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability. Although the tank itself is a non-flying joke it fails to amuse that this spam-can continues to drive on tax payer sponsorship. Jobs for the boys perhaps, but jobs which serve no purpose except to drain the public purse.

Scrap the whole useless lot now as they're a money pit which will not, from an operational point of view, be missed - except of course by those who've tied their and careers and sense of identity to the myth. The game is up, the tax payer can no longer afford to feed sacred cows. Over the past two decades how much has this tin can cost? And whatever that cost was, it's all been wasted money.

RW is a duplicated effort, no reason as to why those assets cannot be effectively transferred to the RAF. Do you seriously think that only AAC pilots are capable of flying these aircraft? A similar argument of replacing Army personnel with others can be made for much of the logistics operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a reserve force to be established on a part time basis to drive the trucks. And there is no need for the trucky operation to stay under Army control, that personnel count of 100,000 has to be drastically reduced. Moving the vehicles to other command structures within the RN/RAF allows duplicated administration to be chopped. Does the Army really need its own medical branch? Battlefield medicine isn't that special.

Again, to reiterate. Much of the Army is dangerously overrated, inefficient, duplicated and redundant. In retrospect the beginning of the end will be seen to be the Falklands, a test that was badly failed. The unpalatable truth is that Collins is right in pointing out flaws in the operational structure of UK armed forces. The situation is becoming untenable due to lack of money, a situation now so critical that it demands a rethink as to how business is to be conducted. We can no longer afford to ignore the elephant in the room by pretending that all is as well as can be expected.

Some low worth assets can be chopped and other assets can be moved to different operational control simply because that swollen mass of 100,000 personnel has to slim down.

:p

[brickhistory]

I think you'll find that the GR7s carry quite a significant load and have an advantage over the A-10 in that they are capable of escalating levels of weaponry. Also, the GR7 will fly significantly lower than the A-10 thus making it more effective for shows of force.



And what makes these comments factual? A-10 can carry everything up to/including the kitchen sink, way more than the Harrier as far as load out. So, you can go from the gun, to rockets, to Mavericks, and so on.

And why will a Harrier fly lower than the 'Hog?


BTW, I am a fan of the Harrier, in whatever flavor - Brit, USMC, or others, but these two comments just don't jibe.

[Lazer-Hound]

I'm intrigued that the RAF assets the US allegedly considered 'essential' amounted to:

3 x Canberra (now retired)

3 x R1

About a dozen ancient tankers

Er, that's it. So can we assume the US considered the other 95% of the RAF a complete waste of space?

I'm well aware USN/USMC use the same refueling system as the RAF. I'm also well aware that some 100 USAF tankers are permanently fitted with that system, and that any of several hundred KC135s can easily be converted to a P&D system by the simple expedient of removing the lower half of the boom and replacing it with a hose. Not ideal, but it works. The idea that the RAF's tanker fleet was 'essential' to the Afghan ops is absurd - USAF could easily have done it if it needed to.

As SASless pointed out, a single squadron of B1/B2/B52 has more striking power than the entire RAF.

[WhiteOvies]

And what Tim Collins says in a round about kind of way is that UK PLC can't afford them. Wish they could personly but then we probably wouldn't be allowed to fix them over here anyway.:ugh:

[brickhistory]

I'm intrigued that the RAF assets the US allegedly considered 'essential' amounted to:

3 x Canberra (now retired)

3 x R1

About a dozen ancient tankers

Er, that's it. So can we assume the US considered the other 95% of the RAF a complete waste of space?

I'm well aware USN/USMC use the same refueling system as the RAF. I'm also well aware that some 100 USAF tankers are permanently fitted with that system, and that any of several hundred KC135s can easily be converted to a P&D system by the simple expedient of removing the lower half of the boom and replacing it with a hose. Not ideal, but it works. The idea that the RAF's tanker fleet was 'essential' to the Afghan ops is absurd - USAF could easily have done it if it needed to.

As SASless pointed out, a single squadron of B1/B2/B52 has more striking power than the entire RAF.

Don't think we consider the other 95% a waste. Anything you bring to the fight is useful and appreciated. A different mindset/tactics is/are also a good addition; we don't always (gasp!) have the right answer.

Only the USAF's KC-10 fleet is permantly configured for both boom and drogue. That number is not close to 100. If you stick the drogue on the
-135s, it can be used only to refuel probe equipped aircraft. The USMC's KC-130s are drogue only capable.

[Skunkerama]

Puts tongue firmly in cheek.....

Keep the RAF, but take all of their helicopter capability from them. Give the helo's to the FAA (they are the only ones who know how to operate the damn things in rough weather). Take fast jets from FAA and leave the RAF to play with them and the troop transports.

Army and RM only get scouts and Apache so they can give CAS.

So RM/Army CAS for troops and tank busting.

RAF for fast jets/bombers, troop transport and cargo.

RN for Sub hunting/SAR/Troop deployment (note to crabs, this also means pickup)

Clear borders for all services and no doubling up on roles. RAF get aircraft and training to deploy on carriers regularly (so they can do some weekend work for once) RN and Army work close together on Joint ops SUPPORTING each other.

Everyones a big happy family.


Or we go the route of the USMC. Disband the RAF and Army, kick out everyone who is not good enough to wear the Green Beret 99.9% and let Royal play with all of the toys. If Royal can manage to do so well with crap kit, just imagine what it could achieve with a good budget and nice shiny whizz bangs.

[WhiteOvies]

Take fast jets from FAA
Already mostly happened with the formation of JFH. Firmly in the hands of STC command despite being RN Squadrons. And yes that's asuming you think of Harriers as fast ;)
Jetstreams, FRADU hawks and grobs are all the fixed wing we have these days.:{

Sounds like we all go booty!:E

[Lazer-Hound]

brickhistory

There are, IIRC, 59 KC10's. Also, weren't some 49 KC135R's fitted with drogues in addition to booms?

Your point about KC135s not being able to refuel USAF aircraft with the boom replaced by a drogue is correct - the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever

[Skunkerama]

the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever

Sorry if I'm being Naive but isn't that a tad daft? Seeing as "thems our big ole buddies" etc.

[Lazer-Hound]

Sunkerama,

Ideally FSTA (if it ever comes) will have both flying boom and drogues, enabling it to refuel just about any fixed-wing aircraft. Currently the RAF can only refuel USN/USMC FJ, 'cos they use the drogue method like the RAF.

[Pureteenlard]

Already mostly happened with the formation of JFH. Firmly in the hands of STC command despite being RN Squadrons. And yes that's asuming you think of Harriers as fast ;)
Jetstreams, FRADU hawks and grobs are all the fixed wing we have these days.:{

Sounds like we all go booty!:E

Actually at low level a harrier is fast. And it doesn't really matter what you hang off it it stays fast. That's what a huge thrust / weight ratio does for you. OK it can't go supersonic but that is hardly necessary on a bomb truck is it?

[teeteringhead]

Having just laboured throught he whole thread (very few valid points and too much willy-waving) I'm surprised no-one mentioned what I would see as the biggest problem. (tongue only slightly in cheek).

Politicians are one group who know even less about air power than the average infantry officer. My biggest fear would be our cyclopian, non-driving Jockistani Chancellor ....

3 services = Defence Budget £ xM (where x=not enough).

Therefore 2 services = Defence Budget £ 0.67xM ....... (even more not enough!)

.... it's about as detailed as defence thinking gets in the Treasury ......

[Captain Kirk]

Even HMT needs a little more evidence upon which to base major decisions!

Without mistaking the obviously prejudiced comments of a few as representative (there seems to be only half a dozen individuals, if we include Tim Collins, who are determined to put-down the RAF) it is, nevertheless, entertaining to see just how narrow these views are.

The RAF has put a great deal of effort into embracing Jointery - it is evident that some of our colleagues are less Joint in outlook. That is their mistake and such legacy thinking will ultimately only discredit their own organisations. We should not abandon the intellectual high-ground by adopting equally puerile counter-arguments. Interesting that so many hang around this forum and appear so bitter – failed RAF perhaps? :O

rafloo, rat, SASless, Lazer (er, that’s it I think) – I’m sure you know better but be good chaps and run along now – let the professionals get on with delivering air – and space – power!

[ORAC]

the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever

Ever is a bit harsh. No reason for the RAF to fit booms to its tankers - unless someone else wants to pay. But if anyone with an F-16 or other similar type wants to plug on our tankers, all they have to do is buy the pod. The Sargent Fletcher (http://www.sargentfletcher.com/pdf_press_releases/20010607_lm_f16_arts.pdf) is available and, IIRC, there is a similar Israeli pod on the market.

[brickhistory]

brickhistory

There are, IIRC, 59 KC10's. Also, weren't some 49 KC135R's fitted with drogues in addition to booms?

Your point about KC135s not being able to refuel USAF aircraft with the boom replaced by a drogue is correct - the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever


Lazer,

To the best of my knowledge, no USAF -135s are permanently fitted with drogue kits. I do know other users have the pods fitted, but not the USAF's. I believe we still have to individually reconfigure for each drogue mission.
But, I am not a tanker expert, so if you've got better info, I'll defer.

[Skunkerama]

Interesting that so many hang around this forum and appear so bitter – failed RAF perhaps? :O

let the professionals get on with delivering air – and space – power!

I think it comes down to senior service snobbery to be honest. As an ex member of the honorable part of the most senior service I find it a bit laughable that the RAF has to justify itself in any way shape or form. None of us would be here in our current way of life if the RAF wasnt around all those years ago and they have formed a central part of a very effective deterrent ever since.

Why are members of the Army and Navy coming on this board to attack the RAF when they should be attacking the govt? If Brown and Bliar ever managed to oust the RAF, guess where they will be looking next for their budget cuts to support illegal immigrants?

Just one note CK, I think your comment regarding failed RAF is a bit choice, I don't think RAF basic is really all that taxing is it?

Also since when has the RAF been involved with space?

[Al Fresco]

Good idea Mr Collins.

Presumably we'll need to close a few bases to save a bit of money. That means we can axe a few Admin staff and, with JPA, who's going to miss them?

Now, which bases to close so that we can bring the assets together?

Well, the RAF is the junior service; so last in, first out - baaaaa, sorry lads. Just pop those Nimrods, Typhoons and Tornado things down to barracks in London will you. What was that, no airfield? Can't the Harriers park on the cricket pitch? How about Warminster?
How about moving the cavalry then? Up to Coningsby - near any Army training ranges? Oh. That won't work then. Never mind - far too far from the city anyway.

[Lazer-Hound]

Brickhistory:

45 KC135 have wingtip drogue pods:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc135/

Now, my maths may be a bit off but methings 59 KC10 + 45 KC135 = 104 boom and drogue equipped USAF tankers.

[Captain Kirk]

Skunk,

I had given up on this but your refreshingly balanced post deserves a reply.

I would wholeheartedly agree that RAF basic training is not, in my opinion, nearly taxing enough (hopefully this is being addressed). Specialist training, however, is invariably more testing and is where aspirants generally wash-out – especially for the flying cadres.

As for space – tell me where the atmosphere stops!? As a forward thinking force, we must recognise that in the future there will be an increasingly blurred division between air and space capabilities.

[brickhistory]

Lazer,
But, I am not a tanker expert, so if you've got better info, I'll defer.

And now I'm deferring. Bonus for me; a slice of humble pie AND some new knowledge. I had no idea that kits had been fitted to some of our operational -135 jets.

[Skunkerama]

CK, I would hope that specialist training in the RAF is the best in the world, after all don't other air forces send their people to learn at the knee of the RAF? Surely there is a fair bit of cash coming in from that?

I do like the idea of us being able to work in space but I doubt world leaders will ever be farsighted enough to give any more than a paltry budget to explore space. After all they learnt their lesson back in 63, "don't think big or it's the grassy knoll for you".

[Roland Pulfrew]

I'm intrigued that the RAF assets the US allegedly considered 'essential' amounted to:

3 x Canberra (now retired)

3 x R1

About a dozen ancient tankers

Er, that's it. So can we assume the US considered the other 95% of the RAF a complete waste of space?

I'm well aware USN/USMC use the same refueling system as the RAF. I'm also well aware that some 100 USAF tankers are permanently fitted with that system, and that any of several hundred KC135s can easily be converted to a P&D system by the simple expedient of removing the lower half of the boom and replacing it with a hose. Not ideal, but it works. The idea that the RAF's tanker fleet was 'essential' to the Afghan ops is absurd - USAF could easily have done it if it needed to.

Lazer. S'funny. I wonder who was flying the PR9 here yesterday! Not quite out of service and the important point is that we did have a capability that the US could not match when they requested. The same applies to the R1. And those 12 or so ancient tankers provided 25% of the AAR for the USN/USMC because even the USAF were running out of tankers to support the Marines and the Navy. Anyway I think you will find that the USAF inventory of tankers is even more ancient than our ancient 10s!!

Now, my maths may be a bit off but methings 59 KC10 + 45 KC135 = 104 boom and drogue equipped USAF tankers

But you miss the point that the USAF do not routinely fly with the pods fitted (except on the KC 10) and they do have a significant serviceability problem with theirs. They also view tanking USAF as higher priority than tanking USN, which is why the USN often contract peacetime exercise tanking from Omega Air. Becausethey cannot get it from the always busy USAF.

Ideally FSTA (if it ever comes) will have both flying boom and drogues, enabling it to refuel just about any fixed-wing aircraft. Currently the RAF can only refuel USN/USMC FJ, 'cos they use the drogue method like the RAF.

Sadly the scrutineers in London would NEVER allow that to happen. There is NO UK requirement for boom tanking therefore you cannot buy something with tax payers money that cannot be justified. Now logic and military judgement should dictate that interoperability would mean a boom as well as probe and drogue should come as standard on FSTA. But logic and military judgement do not hold any sway against the 'no UK requirement' and DCRS attitude of "No, what is the question?" FSTA does not have a boom.

Mead Pusher

The best riposte so far!!

[Mead Pusher]

The RAF do space already (RAF Oakhanger anyone?), and pages 2.4.8-11 in AP 3000 are all about Space Operations.

[Lazer-Hound]

Roland Purfew

As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.

What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?

[Skunkerama]

Should have bought the TSR2.

[Maple 01]

What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?

er, because the UK isn't the 51st state yet?

[WhiteOvies]

Ther's a discussion - to lighten things up - the 51st state: UK, Canada or Israel?

[brickhistory]

Ther's a discussion - to lighten things up - the 51st state: UK, Canada or Israel?


Umm, thanks for the offer, but we've enought problems with immigration at the moment. Adding to it by taking all the illegals in the countries listed will not help at all!:}

[Climebear]

Roland Purfew

As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.

What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?

That's not what I am saying at all - others dragged us down that particular rabbit whole.

In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary

Could be accurately rewritten as

In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the UK's military contribution completely if necessary.

Mead Pusher

We've civlianised Oakhanger - a contractor now runs the UK's mil sattelites. We still do BMEWS (OK the US could probably do it without us.. blah.. blah). That's not to say that the UK shouldn't have a concept of how it should use space based assets (wether military owned or military used). This concept was produced by the MOD alongside air in FASOC. I suppose that there is a certain degreee of logic here as no one can deny that Space is physically closer to Air than it is to the ground or the sea.

Remember, in space no one can hear you... :eek: