RAF Stretched too far?

[99luftballon]

This is my first post on PPRUNE, but would really appreciate comments from anyone currently serving in the RAF. I have been asked to give a presentation on the subject 'RAF Stretched too far?', and thought the best way to get opinions is to ask those in the know!

I'm definately not asking other people to research facts and figures for me, but any opinions or examples on the subject will be greatfully received.

[cheesedoff]

Short and simple.............Yes

[Boldface]

I have been asked to give a presentation on the subject 'RAF Stretched too far?'...


Give a presentation, or write an article? Journo warning!:hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

Simple answer, No.

According to Air Command we have the right resources in the right places in sufficient quantities.












hat, coat, duck

[SaddamsLoveChild]

the material you need will depend on your audience, the question is too broad. suggest you listen to Swiss Des this afternoon for some pointers.

[dallas]

This is my first post on PPRUNE, but would really appreciate comments from anyone currently serving in the RAF. I have been asked to give a presentation on the subject 'RAF Stretched too far?', and thought the best way to get opinions is to ask those in the know!

I'm definately not asking other people to research facts and figures for me, but any opinions or examples on the subject will be greatfully received.
Have you only just been born?

The news has been full of RAF overstretched stories for the past few years. I would suggest you narrow the subject, because apart from fast pointy things I think every other facet of the RAF is hurting...mmm, apart from maybe bosses too - we've got lots, enough to make bureaucracy and micromanagement as big a threat as more obvious enemies.

The news today about Nimrod should provide some background. Other areas of pressure are the air transport fleet and support helicopters - you know, the ones doing the bulk of the flying in the Gulf.

[round&round]

With the BOI from the Nimrod just about to report, I thought some members of the press would be looking for a slant. I have to say, and I rarely give advice, but if this is the best "cover story" you can come up with you are most definitley in the wrong trade. E- for effort mate.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Controversially, you could also ask "Defence Budget - Where Does it Go?"

To include pi$$-poor procurement and a military with its hands tied by contracts, and a contract-bidding process, that would make any business in the free market choke!

[99luftballon]

:*You've come to the wrong conclusion mate, I'm RAF and so is the audience. I have my own opinions on overstretch, I'm just after some other thoughts on the subject...

[airborne_artist]

The stretch varies though. SH, AT, Regt, MR2 etc, all stretched. Typhoon force - still knocking off early on Fridays, I expect.

[harrogate]

99 - I suggest you don't ask here.

There's an irony on here that isn't lost on me. It surrounds certain folks that squeal about a lack of understanding or how nobody outside the ranks feels their pain, but then squeal even louder when somebody asks a few questions about it.

From my experience, you should get a few PMs from the constructive element that frequent these forums. They'll also give you the lowdown on which members to ignore/avoid.

I suggest your further your research down those channels and ignore those who think you don't have a right to ask. The added irony is that said members are generally well off the mark with their own comments - like some of them already have been on this thread.

[Jackonicko]

Google RAF and overstretch.

The official line is that the RAF is 'stretched but not over-stretched'.

There was a recent article in one of the spotter mags saying that the RAF is certainly over-stretched, and may even be broken.

[Vage Rot]

Not according to C-inC Air Command at ISk the other week - apparently, we are not broken, simply stretched in a few areas!

:ugh:

[harrogate]

Oh yeah... and some of the folks in here don't credit you with any intelligence. They also love to state the obvious.

[monkey2]

what do you think!!!! nice try mate:ugh:

[harrogate]

"what so you think!!!! nice try mate"

?

[ORAC]

Robert Fox in the Grauniad: Nimrod disaster no enigma (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robert_fox/2007/12/nimrod_disaster_no_enigma_1.html)

......Running behind the report on the Nimrod crash is the story of an ancient aircraft of about 30 years of continuous service, which has been bodged and converted many times over and is now doing a job for which it was never designed.

Primarily designed to carry out anti-submarine patrols over the North Sea, this model of the Nimrod, the MR2, was due out of service years ago. The fuselage is basically that of the old De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner that took to the skies over half a century ago. The Nimrod fleet is supposed to undergo special Nimrod Safety Case reviews on an almost annual basis, plus a special Nimrod Ageing Aircraft Review. Neither identified the danger of the hot air pipe contacting high pressure fuel leaks in the 'dry bay' area in front of No 7 fuel tank.

Nimrod MR2 is due to be replaced by the new MR4A version which won't be fully up and running until 2012. The accident report published today by the RAF Board of Inquiry says all MR2s should be out of service in 2010, but the RAF has said some will have to go on for two more years at least.

The story of the Kandahar crash raises some big questions for the services and the MoD, which the government seems reluctant to address - as ever. It is a story of an ageing piece of equipment stretched to its limit, and reading between the lines of the report stretching the patience of its air and ground crews. The report states coyly in a number of passages that there has been an abnormal level of resignations and retirements from the Nimrod air and ground crews in the year since XV230 broke up in mid-air, west of Kandahar.

All three services have to put up with a catalogue of aged, in some cases exhausted, equipment. They have to work on budgets barely adequate for the forces of a Britain entirely at peace - instead, they are engaged in two war-like operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and counter-terrorist and surveillance operations in nearly a dozen countries.

One of the best, or worst examples, was the aircraft that refuelled the ill-fated Nimrod XV230, a converted Lockheed Tristar. The RAF bought the Tristars secondhand at the time of the Falklands conflict 25 years ago - and they are due to run on to 2015 at least. They were supposed to be replaced by a freighter/tanker version of the A330 Airbus to be acquired on a complicated Public Finance Initiative for financing known as the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme, costed at around £13bn over just under 30 years - the biggest private finance initiative undertaken by the MoD.

Funny old thing, we haven't anything officially about this programme for a year or more now. Perhaps it won't happen, after all......................

[Compressorstall]

Perhaps you should start your study with the comments fromWilliam Rees-Mogg in Monday's Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article2943261.ece
Everyone knows we are overstretched, but people have banged on about it in here and elsewhere for ages. New Labour have conveniently ignored things for ages and despite the statements by retired senior officers, they feel no shame that our chaps live in accommodation that is unsuitable for asylum seekers, feign pride at the immense sacrifice by our people, allow charity to attempt to provide assets for the rehabilitation of wounded servicemen and women that the State should provide in recognition of their condition, constantly hack at our ever-changing budgets and force some incredibly motivated and selfless people to live in an environment where they and their families have to cope with the destabilising effects of change, the rumours of it and New Labour's love of playing world policeman on the cheap. Somebody once told me that this isn't a cheap business, but that doesn't stop GB and his cronies from trying to make it so. The UOR process is propping up an exhausted procurement system that relies on outdated planning assumptions. It's fortunate for the Government that they got caught taking cash from questionable sources so that they can quietly ignore the Armed Forces again.

[Faithless]

RAF...Now let me think:rolleyes: Was that the establishment that went the same way as Northern Rock?
ROYAL VIRGIN AIR FORCE PLC.
CinC Sir Richard Branson :oh:

[Pontius Navigator]

CAS is concerned to keep a balanced force for both now and in the future. In a 'limited' conflict situation some assets are hard pressed and some hardly at all.

The Iraq theatre is has a lower CAS requirement than Afg but both have a common AT need. The SH force is divided and hard pressed in both theatres. There are other assets that are not required in either theatre - E3, F3, Typhoon (at the moment), Hawk, Domine etc.

If the situation changed then the resource usage would change. The trick is to maintain a capability - F3 Air Defence - whilst not completely exhausting the JFH.

The Jaguar Force had no role in the near term and no future in the medium term; they were disbanded. Apparently 2 GR4 Sqns are to be offered up. This may be under the same consideration as the Jaguar Force but recognising that they may have a role in the medium to longer term.

The trick is to maintain capability and the ability to expand and take a capability holiday where possible.

[Compressorstall]

Blogger

You miss the point - it is still a great job and it has been my life for longer than I care to remember, so I have a lot of evidence to compare the changes. The problem is that there are far fewer people who understand/support what we do and why we do it and too many of them are in charge of the country! I'm not in a hurry to leave because if I do, all the experience will continue to drain away. What we need is the investment and support to continue to do our job - the money will provide the kit, pay the people, give them decent living conditions and the support will show the country the people who provide the security conditions they take for granted truly are people to look up to.

[goudie]

99LUFT
Seems to me you've asked a straightforward question and found yourself in a minefield. For all sorts of reasons some people on this thread are angry, bitter and cynical. May I suggest you consider all that has been said and draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind that an armed force that is overstretched is usually at its best.
In this case the RAF is no execption

[Pontius Navigator]

It is not disgraceful putting medals on sale on eBay (IMHO) but is actually following historical precedent.

Many who were awarded medals in WW2 did not bother to claim them. Others put them in a drawer and forgot them. Many more gave them to their children to play with.

Only in the 70s, as they approached retirement, did they recall their war service with pride and nostalgia. Many had to buy their medals on the open market or buy replicas.

Whilst selling medals on eBay has a precedent I would suggest better to 'sling them in a drawer' and bring them out in future years to remind future generations and to honour those who died both now and subsequently.

[goudie]

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha who told you that piece of rubbish?

No one, just my experience.
'When the going gets tough............'

That doesn't mean I'm exonerating the present day situation.

[spanners123]

PN ref #27,
Totally agree, act in haste, repent in leisure!:D

[goudie]

AIDU
O.K. try this,
BoB pilots, Omaha Beach, Londoners during Blitz, Atlantic convoys,. Get my drift?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The trick is to maintain capability and the ability to expand and take a capability holiday where possible.

That is, of course, very true. Rather like "just enough, just in time" logistics, though, it can be a fine line between it going right or horribly wrong. Also, do we really know how long it takes to re-acquire a gapped capability?

Taking the logistics parallel further, material supply teaches a useful lesson. Forgive me for using a Naval supply analogue here; the first casualty of a fund shortage is Safety Stock. That loses the ability to cope with demand fluctuations and it is a one off saving. Should activity then increase, that saving has to be recovered and reinvested in the hope that the provisioning lead time can be made short enough. The funds are hard won back and the original supply source may likely have reduced its capacity. My simple loggie brain draws similarities between that and trained bodies and available, capable machines.

[GeoIntel]

Yes, it seems like a lot of people are really bitter, twisted and downright nasty on these pages!

To answer your original question global military technology is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, and the RAF is at a crippling financial disadvantage against the major players, USA, China and even Putin's New Russia. That is a painful posture to sell to voters, and so politicians keep on making commitments as if the UK had the resources of yesteryear.

For example, on the emotive Nimrod thread one could ask "Why was a old Maritime aircraft used to replace a satellite and drone, when the maritime threat is growing worldwide?" Instead we saw hundreds of posts that must make the Chinese, Russians and Al Qaeda think we have all gone soft!

The military force of the future will bear little resemblance to what we see today, and maybe the planners in MoD know that. Maybe they decided to use old, even unsafe technology, because they don't have the budget from their political masters to afford the latest technology better suited to the mission and the geography. Maybe they see the inevitable privatization of the military, and a quantum leap in technology in the near future.

Despite the sarcastic comments earlier on this thread I predict servicing will be sub contracted to someone like Branson, as will many other traditional support functions. The UK will become even more reliant on the US defence contractors thanks to Tony Blair, and in the future the UK Welfare State will not have to worry about spending money on developing new military hardware, and can give it to the retiring Baby Boomers from across Europe.

The phrase that comes to mind when defining the RAF's role in the modern world is "Unrealistic Expectations". The RAF is "overstretched" to play a role in the Superpower Sandpit, but is only "stretched' in a support role to the US military, which is itself "stretched" and that should put the global scenario into perspective. The real cost of invading Iraq has not been released in the mass media, and when the invoice is due then forget having anything but funding for essentials.

The US military is facing massive funding cutbacks over the next 10 years and the RAF will have the same painful lack of funding. That is political reality, if you don't like it run for Parliament. There just isn't the funds to do all the niceties demanded on these threads.

[goudie]

AIDU

Not really sure that you can compare the cockney geezers and pearly kings and queens from the London Blitz to the present day fighting in Afghanistan.


Probably not but they could've told you a thing or two about taking 'incoming' without adequate means of retaliation and they would not have taken too kindly to your rather patronising description of them either.

As for our Forces performing well when overstretched, you may recall the Falkands War as a good example of this fact! Including the 'Black Buck' operation.
I would reiterate that none of the foregoing condones the current sorry state our Armed Forces are experiencing.
Military history is, unfortunately, littered with examples of inadequate funding and procurement but in spite of this the Armed Forces still get on with the job.

[Pontius Navigator]

GBZ, following you Stores argument, I saw an OU Maths programme many years ago, long hair, patterened shirts, pointed collars. It was an extremely powerful presentation and I have never forgotten the lesson.

It centred on a coal mine and just-in-time and cost-of-holding against not having what was needed.

He used two things as an example.

They used thousands of nails every week. New nails arrived weekly and replenished the stocks. Nails were cheap so there was no real saving in bulk buying, say monthly, but there would be additional costs of holding - infra structure, storemen, security etc. Buy just in time.

The other was a pit winding wheel. It cost £120k. It would be required infrequently, maybe once every 18 months on average. But it would take 3 months to make if it was ordered only when needed. In the mean time the pit would lose £5m in lost production. Hold stock.

We certainly try the first trick of only ordering clothing just-in-time. (I remember the thousands of size 5 boots that were surplus after national service ended). Try just-in-time with aircraft, tanks, rifles etc :\

[cornish-stormrider]

Interesting how industry is falling away from Lean and JIT/JE, as it all to oftens ends up as JTFL.

Where I work we tried the LEAN and KANBAN, unfortunately our suppliers don't and when we run out and they can't supply us............

Overstretched?? I would bet my pension on it. When it keeps going and getting worse until we hit critical mass and all thats left is the many many bosses.........

[goudie]

Ah AIDU, selective quotations and blathering rants on the 'net. The mark of a brave 'keyboard warrior'!!

[mutleyfour]

Tis a sad day when even the RAF are struggling for manpower. :ouch:

[Kitbag]

goudie
Ah AIDU, selective quotations and blathering rants on the 'net. The mark of a brave 'keyboard warrior'!!


You are far too polite about him, I can think of some rather more apt descriptions.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

A bit of good news, though, from Truth Central under the title;
"Rapid partnership paves way for superior air support in Afghanistan"

An unprecedented response to an Urgent Operational Requirement has seen front line troops in Afghanistan benefit from superior levels of close air support within four months of the contracts being signed.

Harrier GR9A aircraft in Afghanistan are now equipped with a GPS-enhanced version of the 1,000lb Paveway laser guided "smart" bombs.

In response to an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) for better ariel support in theatre, representatives from BAE Systems and the MOD met key suppliers in the United Kingdom and America and in just 10 days contracts were exchanged.

This new GPS precision guided weapon was developed by joining the body from a UK Paveway 2 and the Enhanced Computer Control Group from a Paveway 4. The hybrid weapon provides the GR9A with an integrated, through cloud, precision bombing capability.

The programme has been delivered through key partnerships between BAE Systems, the MOD, Raytheon Missile Systems, Portsmouth Aviation Limited and EDO-MBM, and involved integration of the new weapon, rig test, flight trials, weapon performance analysis and certification.

BAE Systems issued the Design Authority Operational Emergency Clearance Advice early, allowing evaluation and release-to-service within the UOR requirements. The strength of the partnerships has enabled this significant capability to be deployed in theatre four months from contract exchange.

Air Commodore Ian Thorne, Harrier, Jaguar and Survival Integrated Project Team leader, said:

"This represents a remarkable achievement in the delivery of this UOR given that the programme started in May 2007.

"Indeed, the project would have been unachievable without BAE Systems levering their considerable weapon integration and project management skills into this demanding endeavour.

"The IPT appreciates the efforts from BAE Systems that have made this programme a success, this co-operation has provided a significant increase in the military capability of our forces in operations."


BAE Systems' Andy Lavin, head of Harrier Aircraft Capability, said:

"Delivery of this capability has required all stakeholders to work together with a strong partnership being established.

"It is clear that, as the MOD and industry move towards a closer working relationship under the terms of the Defence Industrial Strategy, we can achieve more working together than we can individually – an important lesson as we move ever closer towards full availability contracting."


Raytheon's director of Precision Systems, Tobin Touchstone, added:

"The speed in bringing this capability to the front line is a testament to the excellent working relationship and edication of all stakeholders involved in the programme.

"The modular design of RSL's Paveway 4 and the early risk mitigation through common guidance algorithm development allowed the rapid integration of the Paveway IV Guidance Section with the UK 1,000lb Enhanced Paveway 2 and the Harrier GR9 platform."

This article first appeared in the December 2007 issue of Preview magazine - For Defence Equipment and Support, The Equipment Capability Customer and industry.
For those with access, there are pictures;
http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/DefenceIntranet/News/DefenceNews/DES/RapidPartnershipPavesWayForSuperiorAirSupportInAfghanistan.h tm