Disband the Royal Air Force? [Archive]

Archimedes

15th Dec 2007, 18:28

Lt Cdr May (presumably retired, or someone will be having a word with him...) has a bit of a problem with the RAF, particularly after a retired AVM suggested that Alan Johnston ought to be invited to teach the RN conduct after being taken hostage. In response, he wrote (Times online comments, July this year)

This really is not the sort of letter one would expect any proper two star officer to write. Praise in public but criticism in private - but perhaps the air marshal and the RAF do things differently. To be honest, given that so few of the RAF actually fly or serve on, or even near, the front line, it beggars belief that a crab should so criticise any other armed service. The RAF has little to teach the Royal Navy though I admit that the incident to which AVM Macey refers was not its finest hour. The RAF's finest hour was 67 years ago ....

Colonel Tim Collins made a very good case for the RAF to be disbanded and its aircraft passed to the RN, RM and the Army, all of whom have real aviation and warfare experience. Think of the savings to be made and so little - just 89 years - tradition to be lost. Ane (sic) fewer silly letters, too!

Lester May, London, England

I have a feeling that he's written a similar letter before, since the name rings a bell for some reason. Whether he's written one or two letters, he's still talking rubbish for the reasons MM articulated in the post he's linked to.

The Helpful Stacker

15th Dec 2007, 18:51

Perhaps all three services could be combined into one and the resultant force could be called the Royal Armed Forces, which could be shortened to R.A.F. A design of cap badge that would be suitable is already in use.;)

A and C

15th Dec 2007, 19:15

If you look at RAF disbandment from a historical point of veiw the guy is right.

The RAF was formed as a result of the Smutts report of August 1917 that recomended an "air service" that could be used as an independant means of war. With the demise of the V bomber fleet the RAF is unable to conduct a truly independant strategic air offensive and so in historic terms the RAF is unable to do what it was formed to do.

However things have moved on 90 years, the RAF (and the other armed forces) roles have changed and addapted to the threats that they face, in my opinion war in the air has evolved so far that a dedicated service is needed and the RAF is best placed to forfill this role.

goudie

15th Dec 2007, 19:31

It's RAF not R dot A dot F,

Why dot., I mean why not?
Passed the sign on the A40 last week it read, R.A.F. Brize Norton 3 miles.
As usual AIDU you're wrong.

goudie

15th Dec 2007, 20:06

The R.N. and Army would love to get their hands on the
Red Arrows just to find out how to do things with stylish panache.

OHP 15M

15th Dec 2007, 20:24

Shouldn't that be A.r.m.y. ?

Wingswinger

15th Dec 2007, 20:35

Actually these days, I think the RN would make a jolly good inshore air/sea rescue service for downed avaitors.

Fg Off Max Stout

15th Dec 2007, 20:44

What a sad state of affairs that successive governments have neglected the forces to such an extent their only hope of survival in any recognisable form is by public infighting and attacking their sister services. Shame on certain elements of the RN and Army for adopting this shameful below the belt sniping.

This comes up so often now that I shall not do it the dignity of the routine full blown riposte however I will say that most servicemen with warfighting experience are normally very appreciative of what the RAF brings to the party. Those that publicly advocate the disbandment of the RAF are generally backroom REMFs or axegrinding retirees with a woeful lack of understanding of airpower.

given that so few of the RAF actually fly or serve on, or even near, the front line.... blah, blah, blah. Just how close has any battleship been to any frontline since 1982?

in historic terms the RAF is unable to do what it was formed to do Do I hear the same voices calling to disband the cavalry regiments? No, because obviously the cavalry, just like the RAF, has evolved over the years and has an important contemporary role.

The RAF has operated tanks, sea launches and has infantry. By Lester May's logic surely we should disband the Army and Navy.

Pontius Navigator

15th Dec 2007, 20:53

It is only RN and RAF because JSP101 did away with full stops in abbreviations many moons agi when AIDU was in nappies, assuming they had nappies.

I concede that the COED has it as RAF.

For older chaps like BEagle I am sure that both R.A.F. and RAF would be acceptable with Raf being a hanging offence.

Archimedes

15th Dec 2007, 21:29

The RAF was formed as a result of the Smutts report of August 1917 that recomended an "air service" that could be used as an independant means of war. With the demise of the V bomber fleet the RAF is unable to conduct a truly independant strategic air offensive and so in historic terms the RAF is unable to do what it was formed to do.

A common misconception - the main issue behind the Smuts Report was the state of the air services, which had proved unable to intercept the raids by Gothas. Smuts knew very little about air power and was aided by a chap called David Henderson - Henderson was the true 'father of the RAF' (Trenchard himself argued this), having been the GOC RFC and Director General Military Aeronautics since 1912.

Henderson recommended the formation of a third service to remove the gross inefficiences in procurement and the constant in-fighting between the Admiralty and the War Office over who got what aeroplanes, engines, equipment, and the way in which aircraft were to be employed. The RAF was not formed just to project air power independently, but to project air power more efficiently, and more effectively by removing from the chain of command an array of army and RN officers who thought they knew how aircraft should be used but who didn't have a clue.

The saving grace for the RFC was that Haig knew that air power was important, but understood that he didn't have sufficient expertise to use it properly - so he left it to Trenchard, with GHQ telling RFC HQ what effect it wanted air to achieve (yes, this is the same Douglas Haig as the famed bungling idiot only interested in horses Douglas Haig...) and leaving the RFC to get on with it.

As a number of posters here have experienced, when you give organic air to army and RN officers who think they fully understand air power and therefore don't need to listen to their SME, the problems start.

Lloyd George's administration liked the idea of an independent service being out of Haig's control, and which could be used for revenge bombing against Germany, and after the war, the RAF had to stress independent air power to survive against attacks from the RN and the Army to the point where this came to dominate thinking, with a legacy that remains today.

earswentpop

15th Dec 2007, 21:32

Lester's credibility has gone in the same direction as the Government Security Advisor's. West.

We must hang together, or we will hang separately, under this untrustworthy and disastrous government.

Oh, and just to mention, the RAF has been breathing for the Fleet Air Finger for some years, and must continue to do so TFN. Rather than writing non-sensical drivel to a newspaper, a word of appreciation or thanks would be more appropriate.

LFFC

15th Dec 2007, 22:25

What would absorbing the RAF into the Army and Royal Navy achieve?

We already have a single pay and personnel system that we all know and love - JPA - and we'll shortly have a unified IT system - DII. Medical and dental services are Joint, and we have a single headquarters that runs operations - PJHQ. Each Service is managed from a single Command; Fleet, Air and Land, and we already seem to be drifting towards wearing a single working dress - Combat 95. I understand that even flying training is about to become a fully Joint enterprise under MFTS!

If the RAF were absorbed, its role would have to be managed by someone and that would mean that the other 2 command headquarters would have to expand - so no real savings there I'm afraid. In fact, apart from losing the CAS post, I can't see what real savings could be made by such a move. Personally, I don't think it will be too long before we lose all 3 Service chiefs anyway; when we do, we'll have a ready-built single defence force.

Perhaps the only visible change that amalgamation of the RAF would bring, would be the loss of the light blue uniform. However, before we go down that route, perhaps we should see the Army lead the way and abolish their regimental system so that they can standardise on just one uniform - think of the savings! :rolleyes:

What all suggestions like this boil down to, is the desire to get their hands on the RAF's share of the defence budget - and that's very sad, and quite naive, when you consider how budget decisions are made in the Centre.

neilmac

15th Dec 2007, 23:13

I always remember being in a watering hole in Gib when 20 submariners walked in wearing t shirts with Kosovo stuff on it as "we did the business".or stuff to that effect Bearing in mind I was under siege in Sarajevo 4 years prior I did dare...."how brave under the Adriatic 150 miles away you launching missiles." I did beat a retreat before I got my lights punched out, didnt go down well! All you need from a future Navy couple of boats sorry ships for peace keeping!

NM

soddim

15th Dec 2007, 23:21

There is but one valid reason for merging the services and that is to get rid of the generals, admirals, air marshals and bands that are irrelevant to our task.

Unfortunately, the money saved would be witheld by the treasury and pumped into one or other of new labour's bottomless pits.

So why don't all the Services work together to stop Brown from destroying this Country's armed forces?

moggiee

16th Dec 2007, 00:57

Why do people insist that a full stop goes between the letters in RAF. It's RAF not R dot A dot F, RAF NOT R.A.F..:ugh:
You are, of course, completely wrong.

The letters R, A and F are the initials of the words Royal, Air and Force. It is therefore correct English to write them as R.A.F. because initials should be upper case and followed by a full stop (note: FULL STOP, not "dot").

Never mind that common usage has dropped the full stops, it's still wrong. Common usage has the brain dead spelling "mate" as "M8" and "you are" as "UR" - it still doesn't make it right!

Wiley

16th Dec 2007, 05:20

What all suggestions like this boil down to, is the desire to get their hands on the RAF's share of the defence budgetAfter that totally on-target comment, we might as well close the thread, as it says it all.

RETDPI

16th Dec 2007, 06:34

"The letters R, A and F are the initials of the words Royal, Air and Force. It is therefore correct English to write them as R.A.F. because initials should be upper case and followed by a full stop (note: FULL STOP, not "dot")."

Q.E.D.

Other offenders against common decency include:

1. Cerebrally challenged individuals using the pronunciation "Raff".

2. Pathetically ignorant ex-colonials who fail to see the tautology in
"British Royal Air Force".

BEagle

16th Dec 2007, 06:43

And what fun it was amending MAFL to 'delete' R.A.F and 'insert' RAF......

Ever tried deleting a full stop? It took me days to complete that AL action!

RETDPI

16th Dec 2007, 06:53

Shouldn't that have been M.A.F.L.?

Whoops sorry! I must have I missed an A.L. somewhere.

Oh B*gger , that should now be an AL .

Oh Sh*t! I said "B*gger"

B*gger , I said "Sh*t !"

I never wanted to be a priest anyway.

Somebody will have to be responsible for disbanding the band one day soon.

PLovett

16th Dec 2007, 07:17

n a letter to the Times today.....

What, are they printing these letters now to replace the usual first cuckoo sighting in spring? Would seem to be as relevant.:uhoh:

ajl146

16th Dec 2007, 12:13

It's amazing what a google search throws up. Lester likes to review naval books on amazon and states he served in the navy from 1967-1989. Perhaps he's angry about losing Phantoms and Bucaneers.

He's also listed on a certain chat/meeting new 'friends' website.

(I was hoping to find any other letter he has written in the past...honest)

LowObservable

16th Dec 2007, 12:40

MM's linked post is bang on. Independent air forces were needed first of all because the other services could not agree as to whether an aeroplane was a large horse or a small ship, and it never occured to them that it was neither.

There is also a completely delusional argument that, by getting rid of an independent service, the costs associated with developing air and space systems and training their operators will disappear. They will (at best) be transferred to other services. So who now sponsors research into radar or AAMs or military aircraft engines? The Navy? The Army? The DoD/MoD? Who advocates for it?

Another completely empty argument is that air missions "support" the Navy or the Army. First, there are air missions that are air missions, like air defense, long-range strike and strategic ISR that support the entire war, not any specific service. Second, the argument can be turned on its head in the case of a carrier Navy - a Navy battle group is essentually devoted to the protection of an air base. But above all, air, sea, land and space operations are interdependent - at times one or the other leads, that's all.

The most important argument for maintaining separate services is the need for a culture that fosters the development of people. As has been pointed out, a huge flaw in the US Army's desire to acquire a large UAV force is that their operators will be neither aircrew nor ground-pounders, but Intel pukes, REMFs in a dead-end job, since the Army clearly believes that a trained ape can fly a 1.5 ton armed UAV in a dense battle environment. Are you going to see operational skills develop? New and better CONOPS being devised?

This might also be interesting...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aea7ac73d-8d82-4dfb-a50a-20d79a2a80e4&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Two's in

16th Dec 2007, 13:22

I think the only real change to serious Military opinion in 89 years is that anyone would pay attention to a Lardass two and half ringer Matelot with a chip where his parrot should be.

Henry_Harris

16th Dec 2007, 15:34

I apologise in advance for any grammatical errors or if you disagree with my opinion but this is it:

The Royal Air Force at the moment controls forces on the ground and in the air.

The Royal Navy at the moment controls forces on the sea and in the air.

So far as I know. Basically the RN and RAF could compensate for the Army and successfully defend the United Kingdom against threats from the air, ground and sea. :hmm:

And right now, according to certain information, our air force and navy are some of the best in the world. If the govt focuse all of its manpower and money into an Armed Service consisting of the RAF and RN. Which would make everything a lot easier. I appreciate that the dispandmen of an armed force would constitute uproar and that this is a highly controversial subject. :ugh:

HH

P.S. I wrote this post primarily to state my opinion on the matter not as an english essay. Please don't reply to this post stating how many spelling mistakes or grammatical errors I have made.

Thank you

Melchett01

16th Dec 2007, 15:39

The Royal Air Force at the moment controls forces on the ground and in the air.

Has anybody told the Army that? Although I will concede that when it comes to the AT plot, the movers seem to control everything regardless of service, rank or military necessity.

Henry_Harris

16th Dec 2007, 16:06

Sorry, by that I was referring to the RAF regiment

minigundiplomat

16th Dec 2007, 17:45

So far as I know. Basically the RN and RAF could compensate for the Army and successfully defend the United Kingdom against threats from the air, ground and sea. :hmm:

Tell you what Henry, in five years when things have dropped and voices deepened, you come back and tell me the same thing. I'll hand you a rifle and ask you to single handedly clear Musa Qala or the contemporary eqivolent.

You are no doubt well meaning, but hopelessly naive. I'd stick to youtube or facebook if I was you.

Good luck for the future.

Henry_Harris

16th Dec 2007, 17:57

I am afraid good man that when you mentioned things "dropping" and voices deepening. If you were referring to puberty you are a little late. I wholeheartedly accept your comment but I think you should note:
1. During my post I said I apologise in advance because I knew it was a controversial subject.
2. I did not meaningfully doubt the Army in any way and did not mean to incite that any of its members were incompetent. I mearly stated my opinion on a website designed for that purpose. I'm sorry for offending you but I would like to note now:

I have no quarrels with any of the armed forces. My dad was in the navy, my granddad the army and my uncle the R.A.F.

ArthurR

16th Dec 2007, 18:49

Why not disband all 3 forces, pull all out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and send in the politicians,makes sense to me :E

Henry_Harris

16th Dec 2007, 18:54

Not a bad idea

Strangelove PhD

16th Dec 2007, 19:29

Come on chaps & chapettes,
Privatise the RAF.
With sponsorship and charging for airshows, fly pasts, humanitarian work, troop carrying etc the Mc Virgin Air Force may even become profitable.
The new owners would, no doubt want to outsource as much as possible to 3rd world...

EGQK : “The APU won’t start”

Delhi : “Try turning it off then on again ”
“Did that work?”

EGQK : “Splendid, thanks”

baffy boy

16th Dec 2007, 20:22

R.E.T.D.P.I. In the Royal Air Force, the abbreviation for Royal Air Force is RAF. Full Stop.

RETDPI

17th Dec 2007, 07:09

BB.
Well I never !,
And I expect you pronounce it "Raff" as well.

professor moriarty

17th Dec 2007, 07:32

I thought we were well on the way to acheiving that....Brown and his minions morceau...

goudie

17th Dec 2007, 09:46

the abbreviation for Royal Air Force is RAF.

Not according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary.

I suspect the R.A.F. can't afford full-stops anymore!

daftodil

17th Dec 2007, 11:13

Well there you go another gem from a RN Officer. :mad: I suggest he reads a bit of history before making such comments unless his intent really was to wind up the light blue. My view on this is that we are at the mercy of the MOD, the treasury and a Government that likes to grandstand with the 'troops' of all three services whilst not wanting to fund it! To conduct arguments such as these in the press only plays into the hands of politicians and civil servants and justifies their inappropriate actions and inactions. I for one feel that the all three services have more than proven themselves along with their capabilities in various theatres and that they are poorly supported by the Government and the civil service.
The fact is, the military is the first funding priority for a country to ensure its sovereignty and the protection of it's interests combined with its international commitments and as such should be considered an 'insurance policy'. Whereas, in the past we have had almost fully comprehensive insurance we now seem to be at 'third party only' stage and trying to find the cheapest deal from the dodgy broker Gordon Brown.
It seems evident to me that as in the title we will be starved and neglected until it all breaks and then we can look forward to joining the European military - Hurrah! :ugh:
It is sad to reflect that the lions are still led by donkeys whether they be the airships or the politicians!!!:{

As for that lapdog Darling, 'more coffee Darling?' Baldrick will see to it!

corsair

17th Dec 2007, 12:06

I seem to remember a claim lately that the RN actually won the Battle of Britain and the RAF were just a bunch of half trained kids swanning about having fun with the Luftwaffe.

Nothing new then that the senior service want rid of those upstarts in light blue.

Privatising might be more likely. BBAF anyone? Blackwater British Air Force, manned entirely by Americans of course. Besides everyone knows that the days of the manned combat aircraft are numbered:{ It will be all drones. All the rest of the flying can be done by civvies.:suspect:

Magnersdrinker

17th Dec 2007, 12:07

yeah why not get rid of the Navy, they have no use its been proven as there admirals would rather have the RAF lads on board than there own. Everyone knows the RAF is the best trained do the most important and that gain air superiority before any service can do there bit so less of this tosh. We are the most educated of the 3 services and Im sure pilots would rather have brainy people to fix there aircraft rather than some fishboy

Boldface

17th Dec 2007, 12:14

Judging from your grammar Magners, I take it that you are not a member of the RAF!:hmm:

Magnersdrinker

17th Dec 2007, 12:15

LOL Boldface good point :D I take that last bit back about being brainy

goudie

17th Dec 2007, 12:24

Have you been on the Magners again MAGNERS?

gijoe

17th Dec 2007, 13:21

Boldface, you beat me to it.

'We are the most educated of the 3 services and Im sure pilots would rather have brainy people to fix there aircraft rather than some fishboy'

Md -This is utter tosh. Spell and punctuationcheck.:=

The interesting thing from my point of view is that the green players are sitting on the sidelines observing the Dark vs Light Battle. All of this 'history shows..' matters for nothing if the Civil Servers decide and issue a 'make it so'.

If you think the 'history shows...' will then have any sway you are deluding yourself. :ugh:

Having just returned recently from our fun and games with a fallen comrade, whatever Service you are in, Stay Safe!

G :ok:

Zoom

17th Dec 2007, 13:45

The correct abbreviation for the Royal Air Force is RAF, the same way that the correct abbreviations for the Royal Navy and the Army are fishheads and pongoes respectively.

It's called Service Writing, see.

Boldface

17th Dec 2007, 13:49

Actually, I think it's called Defence Writing now.

Whatever, anyone who worries about whether Royal Air Force should be abbreviated RAF, R.A.F. or 'Raff' needs to get out more.:zzz:

Pontius Navigator

17th Dec 2007, 14:01

minigundiplomat, I suspect you may have been had. If that was a post by a 13 year old then there may be hope for the country yet.

goudie

17th Dec 2007, 14:05

Whatever, anyone who worries about whether Royal Air Force should be abbreviated RAF, R.A.F. or 'Raff' needs to get out more.:zzz:

You're absolutely right. I've stopped worrying, I'm off to the Pub come 5.00p.m. er sorry, I meant pm

RETDPI

17th Dec 2007, 14:48

I suspect that BF and his unfortunate ilk will still not be "worrying", when what little is left of the Service is finally disbanded around them.
By then they will probably have accepted dumbly , as the next stage in the process , that "RAF" - like "BAe ", is actually a meaningless term ( a mere brand name) and no longer even worth preserving for something that once existed.
Our predecessors fought for and created the first independent air force in the world and were well aware of the games of those who would seek to undermine it.
I would suggest that the deliberately, incrementally eroded, R.A.F. Officer "training" system has , of recent years, particularly since Cranwell went comprehensive , subliminally allowed compromise of this heritage and now leaves the floodgates open to those with other agendas.

Henry_Harris

17th Dec 2007, 15:27

Thank you very much pontius navigator there is some hope for the country yet. My sole ambition is to become a pilot in the RAF, R.A.F. or Raff depending on where you reside. I do not want to bring up the grammatical error war for the insane again.
HH

minigundiplomat

17th Dec 2007, 15:31

I would learn to spell 'country' before you pin your dreams of defending it in an aircraft.
Good luck anyway, Im sure you will fit right in on the F3 fleet.

(well edited Henry, learning has taken place)

Henry_Harris

17th Dec 2007, 15:50

My apologies, I thought I caught that mistake in the edit before anyone would see it. That was a good comeback though.

HH

Melchett01

17th Dec 2007, 17:36

I heard a little dit a few months back - can't remember where, may have been one of the numerous HQ propaganda rags doing the rounds - where a very high paid scrambled egg type recounted sitting in on a pre-mission brief at Bastion prior to a major op.

He too wondered how things would play out between the various services in theatre, but allegedly at the brief sat there quietly with his eyes closed trying to pick up the differences between the various services, all of whom were represented in one shape or form at the bird table. Apparently, he hadn't got a clue who was green, light blue or dark blue, aircrew or ground branch, but instead just heard a bunch of professionals doing their jobs to the best of their abilities with the singular aim of killing as many TB as possible whilst minimizing our own casualties.

If only we could show that same effectiveness and spirit of unity when dealing with the politicians and the Treasury instead of acting like children throwing a tantrum, we'd have them into a corner and whilst not necessarily beaten, almost certainly put in their place. Instead we do their job for them -by dividing and conquering ourselves. Inter-service rivalry and banter is great, it is what marks us and our individual services out and shows there is life in them yet despite the politicians and civil serpents. But do we have to constantly descend to bickering and sniping in public - lets leave the banter to the bar and get together and hammer the real enemy.

goudie

17th Dec 2007, 18:19

Are you sure that's not 1700 o'clock, pm, in the afternoon goudie????

Bu**er! You've confused me now.
I'll just rely on the dog sitting by the front door, she's much better at telling the time than I am.

daftodil

18th Dec 2007, 10:22

Well said melchett01, however, it is nice to see the press giving the 'civil serpents' (nice one) and the Government a hard time over the treatment and funding of the military. None of the armed forces should be disbanded, merged or reduced any further as the country still needs them. I feel we are all on the same team but the players should stop arguing amongst themselves as unity of purpose with diversity is the key to flexibility and effectiveness! :D (that's almost politician weasel speak)

As for the spelling and grammar why dont you lot do the Sun crossword or watch b****y countdown! Alternatively, go out and get a life? LOL :p

Oh by the way, despite that RN eejit (irish spelling of idiot, before someone brings it up) I wish all my colleagues light blue, green or dark blue a great Christmas and a good Hogmanay. Be lucky and safe!

Vortex what...ouch!

18th Dec 2007, 12:17

Well considering all the shiney toys the RAF has, other than support helicopers (which these days seem to be doing all the heavy lifting, no pun, for the RAF) you're only supplying 7 Harriers in Afghanistan. The transport fleet are doing a good job too, but theres a lot of you whining how clever and great you are but honestly, you bring nothing to the table for the rest of us so why do we even need you?:hmm:

Melchett01

18th Dec 2007, 12:28

you bring nothing to the table for the rest of us so why do we even need you

I assume that is a royal 'we' ? After all, I'm not entirely sure why an engineer in Australia would need the RAF at all.

Vortex what...ouch!

18th Dec 2007, 12:42

No need to be defensive Melchy

It was deliberately provocative, but a serious question about what the remainder of the RAF bring to the table? There’s a lot of shiny, expensive RAF kit not doing very much when that money could be well spent elsewhere. It's fine and well saying but what about future this that and the other, but Joe squaddie is fighting a war today.

No longer in Oz, guess I need to update that, but have plenty of time in the Army thank you very much even though I now work as an engineer, does that somehow make my thoughts invalid? Or are you saying something else?

Roland Pulfrew

18th Dec 2007, 13:18

OK I'll bite....

but a serious question about what the remainder of the RAF bring to the table? There’s a lot of shiny, expensive RAF kit not doing very much when that money could be well spent elsewhere.

That would be the Harriers that the government approve the deployment of... If we wanted to send more we couldn't without their approval. That would be the squadron's worth of aircrew and groundcrew which means that they rotate through 1 "tour" in every four (because we only have 4 sqns), so about the same as the army are doing.

That would be the GR4 unit based in ***** and the C130s, C17s, VC10s and Tristars that are doing their best, with ever aging jets, to keep all theatres supplied. And the Merlins, Pumas and Chinooks that are deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. And the VC10 tankers supporting both theatres. And the Nimrod MR2s and R1s that are operating out of ***** in support of both theatres. And the F3s, Herc & VC10 in the Falklands. And the Sea Kings and Nimrods on UK SAR. And the E3s, VC10 and F3s on UK QRA. And the RAF doctors, dentists, air traffickers, chefs, police, regiment etc that are in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands. And......

So obviously lots of shiny kit (and personnel) "not doing anything". Oh and by the way the money is already spent so it couldn't be spent elsewhere anyway!! Typical green thinking and understanding of air power - again!! :ugh::ugh:

Oh Damn. I was trying my best to keep out of this one as it was deliberately provocative and the usual tripe from the other 2 services.

Merry Christmas everyone, particularly to those stationed away from home this Christmas.

Vortex what...ouch!

18th Dec 2007, 13:33

Well if you'd bothered your outraged ar$e to read my original post I acknowledged the transport fleet and SH contribution, which is significant and welcome. Well except movers of course.

Air Power is not Air Power if you can't project it, is it?!?!?! 7 Harriers is not enough to justify the remainder of the RAF, with aforementioned exceptions, when we are in a war, or do you think thats enough support for the Army in theatre to justify the rest of you?

I may not understand Air Power but if its not there in support it may as well not exist!!

The money may have been spent but I'm sure we could buy a few needed mine proof vehicles against the trade in value.

I may be pi$$ing you off a bit but you can bet people who can make a difference are asking the same questions. If you aren't bringing anything to the battle you had better start with a good explanation as to why you're still needed instead of dripping that the Army are stupid.

Maple 01

18th Dec 2007, 13:41

I may not understand Air Power

Ain't that the truth? May I suggest sir peruses a copy of AP3000 before he makes an arse of himself again?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/ap3000.cfm

Vortex what...ouch!

18th Dec 2007, 13:52

Why would I need to bother when I have the wisdom of you lot to draw on? :cool: Thats why I asked the question.

As an Army man, bombs on target in support of the battle is what counts to me. With the arforementioned exceptions, educate me on what the rest of you are doing when theres a war on, because 7 cabs doesn't seem like a best effort to me, or is that all the RAF has left?

Now if I'm asking the question then you can be sure someone that matters is too. Calling me thick doesn't answer the question, it just re-enforces my thoughts that you can't answer it. :hmm:

LFFC

18th Dec 2007, 13:58

Vortex ... "The money may have been spent but I'm sure we could buy a few needed mine proof vehicles against the trade in value."

As I said in post 36 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3775209&postcount=36) earlier in this thread:

What all suggestions like this boil down to, is the desire to get their hands on the RAF's share of the defence budget - and that's very sad, and quite naive, when you consider how budget decisions are made in the Centre.

I rest my case!

Roland Pulfrew

18th Dec 2007, 14:02

Vortex

And my point was that all elements, with perhaps the exception of the Typhoon force, are working. Your original quote, which I did read, states that the RAF are doing nothing with the exception of 7 GR9s and the SH and AT fleets!!!

I have much respect for the army, but yet again the army and the navy always seem to assume that because the RAF aircraft aren't in theatre then:

a. we are doing nothing - (I was just to point out to you who is doing what, where).

b. it is the RAF's fault that they are not there in bigger numbers.

IT IS NOT up to the RAF how many assets are deployed. It is up to PJHQ (last time I checked a TRI-SERVICE organization) to ask for more assets to be deployed. Then it is up to HMG (last time I checked NOT an RAF organization) to approve the deployment ..... and FUND IT!!!

If the theatre commanders want more fast air, they have to request it - though PJHQ. And as I pointed out the GR9 force are pretty stretched at the moment, so unless you want us to start doing the Empire thing and basing squadrons of fast air in Afghanistan for full 3 year tours then I cannot see a way round it!! I wouldn't be taking my family though.

And if you had bothered to read my post it isn't just about the numbers of RAF aircraft in a particular theatre, the "rest of us" are supporting the army in theatre doing our day jobs out there. That is the air traffickers, dentists, doctors, medics, blunties, regiment, police, chefs, MT drivers, firecrews etc etc. Just how many aircraft and aircraft do you think there are!!!!!

One could equally argue that as only 7500 army personnel are deployed we don't need the other 90 000 who must be sat around doing nothing when we are fighting 2 wars. So you had better start with a good explanation as to why you're still needed

Vortex what...ouch!

18th Dec 2007, 14:16

I don't deny for a second that there is a lot going on, Ive said it before very good work and much appreciated. 7 cabs during a war means someones priorities are wrong IMO, if thats all the jets available I would suggest the RAF is not fit for purpose (not a dig at people BTW). The very reason for the RAF is for jets to fly around dropping bombs on people, to coin a phrase, and not much of it is doing that.

If you've not enough crew to man the GR9's then perhaps you could retrain all those Typhoon boys to do something useful?

People say the Army don't understand Air Power, maybe because we hardly ever see it actually being used, unless its Americans filling in.
I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse but what are you there for if not to fight during a war?

Roland Pulfrew

18th Dec 2007, 14:40

Vortex

I will try and keep this as simple as possible for you:

1. The RAF does not choose to send assets on a whim - nor do the army or the RN.

2. If the theatre commanders feel they need more air support then they need to request that through PJHQ.

3. IF PJHQ decide that the request is valid they will decide what additional assets need to be deployed and they will seek approval from the government via the MOD.

4. IF if it is approved the task organisation will deploy the most suitable assets.

5. The RAF, just like the army and RN, do not simply deploy additional assets because they feel like it.

The army as I have tried to point out are doing tours of 4 months in 16 - not nice for them. The RAF (and RN) Harrier pilots are doing the same. If we deploy more Harriers then we cannot sustain the Harrier force. Simple really.

All I am trying to get across here is that the GR9 force is a small force - you are probably looking at no more than 80 pilots total - and it is not the RAF's decision to deploy more, or different types of aircraft. Trust me I know a few GR4 crews who would be more than willing to help the GR9 force in Afghanistan. If you are short of fast air, go through the theatre commanders to request more -if it gets stopped it will be at MOD or Government level over which the RAF has no control!!

Oh and by the way

If you've not enough crew to man the GR9's then perhaps you could retrain all those Typhoon boys to do something useful?

It takes 9 months to train a GR9 pilot, the OCU is running at maximum capacity at the moment. The only way to increase capacity is to withdraw frontline pilots to go to the conversion unit which reduces the number of pilots available to deploy. Chicken/Egg.

Hope that helps you to understand why it is not just a case of deploying more aircraft. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Roly Out

serf

18th Dec 2007, 14:50

How many personnel does it take to keep a couple of QRA jets available 24/7, and what else does the F3 fleet do - and if they are so hard pressed why have dets to UAE,India etc etc etc

Vortex what...ouch!

18th Dec 2007, 15:03

Thanks for keeping it simple mate all us Army blokes are thick don't you know. :hmm:

The army as I have tried to point out are doing tours of 4 months in 16 - not nice for them. The RAF (and RN) Harrier pilots are doing the same. If we deploy more Harriers then we cannot sustain the Harrier force. Simple really.

All I am trying to get across here is that the GR9 force is a small force - you are probably looking at no more than 80 pilots total - and it is not the RAF's decision to deploy more, or different types of aircraft. Trust me I know a few GR4 crews who would be more than willing to help the GR9 force in Afghanistan. If you are short of fast air, go through the theatre commanders to request more -if it gets stopped it will be at MOD or Government level over which the RAF has no control!!

Again I don't mean to be annoying but we've been in this war thingy for 6 years now, whats the RAF been planning for in that time? If you cannot deploy more than 7 cabs before the organisation comes unstuck then whoever organised it needs shooting. But more importantly things need to change to remedy the fault.

Oh and by the way

It takes 9 months to train a GR9 pilot, the OCU is running at maximum capacity at the moment. The only way to increase capacity is to withdraw frontline pilots to go to the conversion unit which reduces the number of pilots available to deploy. Chicken/Egg.

Fair enough but its not as if this has just snuck up on us, as I said we've been at it for 6 years now.

And finally the Army has asked for more fast Air, many many times. But your comments above say the RAF (as an organisation, I'm not bitching at people here) cannot supply it. I have to ask again, if you can't provide cabs, or more than 7 of them, to support British troops on operations then what are you there for?

Magic Mushroom

18th Dec 2007, 15:10

As an Army man, bombs on target in support of the battle is what counts to me.

Vortex,

If I may, I'll try and answer your question. However, with respect, your considerable ignorance is illustrated with the above statement. Last year I served in an Army HQ on ops and the Dunkirkian adage 'if we can't see it it can't be there' sadly is never truer with the Army.

You discuss the importance of bombs on target. However, let's consider the wider concept of Joint kinetic effect (itself a fairly narrow view). Inevitably the laws of averages dictate that you may rarely see an RAF aircraft because the US assets in theatre will inevitably outnumber our own. Using your principles, perhaps I should have written a similarly strongly worded email to arrse after Bosnia, Kosovo, the initial Afghanistan ops and TELIC 1. In said email I could have suggested that if the sole role of the British Army is to fix toilets and install electricity at deployed RAF bases then why not contract out the sappers and disband the Army?

Why would I say this? Because in my operational experience over said theatres I rarely worked with the green British Army. Would it be an accurate assessment? No, of course not. However, the laws of averages meant that we were more often than not supporting US forces not the British Army.

Now let's take a step back and look at what goes on in a Joint and combined op. I'm sure you've experienced CAS being provided by USN FA-18s and F-14s. The likelihood is that those assets tanked from an RAF tanker. How did the USN aircraft find their target? It is quite possible that they located their targets via an RAF ISTAR asset such as a Nimrod MR2 or Reaper and received their rear brief from an RAF E-3D who is also working to coordinate Joint fires to ensure that the Iraqi arty piece that is currently spoiling your day is being fixed by MLRS prior to a check fire enabling CAS to finish him off.

Was it one of your FACs who controlled the USN or USAF CAS aircraft? How did he qualify and remain current in the UK prior to deploying? Probably by working with Tornado F3s and/or Typhoons in dry CAS training. And incidentally his initial trg would have been with RAF Hawks from JFACTSU.

Involved in an assault on a village in Helmand? Mmm, that's a reeeaaally useful briefing packup the plt cdr got issued. Look it shows which doors we can use and what parts of a roof we can move across. We can even decide where to blow our mouseholes so we can advance more quickly through the village without getting ourselves into dead ends and kill zones. The pics you're looking at most likely came from an RAF recce pod and were developed by RAF image analysts to be flown up to you on RAF comms fleet aircraft or helos.

Luckily, it shouldn't be much of a drama for you because we know Terry is already retreating down these 2 waddis here. The fact the green slime is briefing you that is probably because he has been provided by int derived from RAF assets. Ever get rerouted or delayed on a convoy move? Maybe it's because a Canberra PR9 spotted a roadside bomb and ambush being laid?

Vortex, I could go on but won't. These are just the aspects which can be placed on open source. Inevitably, there are far more that can't be discussed here. It is particularly worthy of note however that even types apparently uncommitted to ops in Iraq or Afghanistan (such as the F3) often make a significant contribution in terms of providing FAC trg etc. That is in addition to the extant national ops which they are still involved in such as QRA, ASW/ASuW, counter drugs and terrorism.

In short Vortex, may I recommend you look beyond the end of your minimi and consider that even boots on the ground requires Joint effects from a coalition. Much of the RAF assets involved will never be seen or heard by yourself and, like the RN, are often rarely in the news, sometimes out of choice.

If you stop to think a little, you may be surprised to find how your ops are enabled and you and your mates remain alive.

Regards,
MM

Roland Pulfrew

18th Dec 2007, 15:20

Again I don't mean to be annoying but we've been in this war thingy for 6 years now, whats the RAF been planning for in that time? If you cannot deploy more than 7 cabs before the organisation comes unstuck then whoever organised it needs shooting. But more importantly things need to change to remedy the fault.

Deep breath...... and relax!! (Excellent fishing though)

Vortex I will say this v e r y s l o w l y as all us Army blokes are thick don't you know.

When "we" invaded Afghanistan the then Defence Minister said that he hoped all British troops would be home without having needed to fire a shot and at the time there was no need for fast air. Things change so that answers the 6 year question. I wasn't ever meant to be 6 years.

You still do not seem to be able to grasp the basics here - there are 4 Harrier Squadrons and an OCU. If you deploy 1 squadron of aircrew and groundcrew for 4 months and there are only 4 squadrons the rotation comes round 4 months in 16, just like it does for the Army. If you deploy 2 squadrons of aircraft it comes round 4 months in 8 - and you rapidly have no aircrew left to fly your GR9s, so no CAS!! We cannot just magic up additional GR9s or their pilots or their groundcrew. It actually takes 3 - 5 years to train a pilot to combat ready, so even if we had foreseen the major ramp up in ops then those pilots wouldn't be coming through the system until next year. And even then, as I have said you would have to withdraw frontline pilots to increase the size of the OCU.

And isn't just 7 Harriers, it's the GR4 crews and aircraft, the C130s, the MR2s and R1s, and the Pumas and Chinooks and Merlins. The VC10s and Tristars and C17s. Your statement about 7 aircraft is, well... simply naive.

Ifthe Army has asked for more fast Air, many many times. then your requests have not been strong enough or reasoned enough for PJHQ to support them or, more likely, the government to fund them. Not the RAF's fault.

Climebear

18th Dec 2007, 15:27

The very reason for the RAF is for jets to fly around dropping bombs on people
And thereby you show how little you know. You fail to ackowldge the other elements of air power even when you see them.

When conducting operations in a land-locked country many miles away from the UK how does the land component:

a. get there?

b. get resupplied?

c. get back?

Would that be by air by any chance?

How do they move around areas that are unsuitable (either because of terrain or sy environment) for land tpt? Would that be by those aircraft with funny twirly wings with 'Royal Air Force' painted on the side?

Who produces those nice overhead images and other intelligence material that are so useful for the conduct of land operations?

These are all elements of Air Power that are directly supporting Land Operations on HERRICK (not to mention others supporting TELIC and those sp the Maritime components in the region).

As for number of ac deployed by available fleet - I wonder what the similar percentages are for Challenger or AS90.

To expose your argument further, I note that none of the RA's Rapier system's are deployed on operations (BFSAI aren't on ops and you have chosen to omit them from your calculations) - this does not mean that the whole Army is not fit for purpose. We still need some assets for what we can be required to do as well as what we are actually doing.

As for fit for purpose for wider conflict. Since the Falkands (some 25 years ago) the Army has conducted 2 major conventional warfighting operations (both against Iraq). On neither occasion, have they had to fight a combat effective (ie above 50% combat effectiveness) land formation. How do you think that these forces were reduced before the Land Forces arrived? Their armour didn't mysteriously burst into flames by themselves, their C2 structures didn't accidently fall to bits, their LoCs didn't cease working by chance...

Serf
There are more than a couple of F3s on Q. The Southern QRA task is shared with Typhoon and BFSAI is still manned by the dwinderling F3 Force (down to 2 squadrons within the next 6 months).

Romeo Oscar Golf

18th Dec 2007, 15:30

Good reply MM, I hope it's not too complicated for the brave and well meaning, albeit naive Vortex.;)

goudie

18th Dec 2007, 15:32

Vortex stop digging now .................... the hole's deep enough!

Biggus

18th Dec 2007, 18:01

Vortex....

You seem to have three main issues:

1) The RAF has lots of 'shiney expensive toys' that are not doing anything, the money for which could be better spent elsewhere.

2) What is the point of the RAF if not to fight?

3) The RAF is not providing enough close air support (CAS) to the Army.

I hope that is about correct.

Starting with your first point, hopefully I will show that most of the RAF is actually doing something. Looking at the unclassified RAF web page, available to all, the number of RAF Sqns (excluding the training untis which maintain traditional Sqn numbers to preserve heritage and enable the politicians to quote figures more impressive than they really are) is currently:

C-17 1
Hercules 4
Tristar 1
VC-10 1
Nimrod R1 1
Nimrod MR2 2

All of which, as I think you fully acknowledge, are fully committed to the 'wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, did I mention that the RAF (just like the Army) is committed to 2 'wars' at the moment!

Then, helicopters:

Chinook 3
Puma 2
Merlin 2

Again all fully committed, as you agree.

Next, the Air Defence world:

E-3 Sentry 2 (7 aircraft I think?)
Tornado F3 3 (1 due to disband in a few weeks)
Typhoon 2 (more to come)

Yes, you are correct, these don't contribute much to the Gulf, although the Typhoons will in future. They are mainly air defence assets, and there is no air threat in the Gulf conflicts at the moment. However, the RAF is also charged with the Air Defence of the UK, Falklands, etc, and in the next war the Army fight the bad guys may have some air power, and fighters, AEW, etc will be needed to gain air superiority so the British Army isn't on the receiving end of CAS. As for the 'it isn't contributing to Afghanistan so lets get rid of it and use the money elsewhere arguement', then how about getting rid of the RNs new Astute submarines (£2-3 billion at least I think), Type 45 destroyers, the Armys tracked Rapier, most of the Tanks, etc, etc.

Finally CAS Sqns:

Harrier 2 (+1 RN)
Tornado GR4 6

The Harriers are in Afghanistan, on rotational deploymens the same way Army assets are, the Tornados cover Iraq. Whether there is any option for slighly more input from the Tornados (rotating from a body of 6 Sqns) I couldn't say.

So, so far you have some AD assets not committed as there is no air threat, and the possibility of some more input from Tornado GR4s, otherwise all the frontline RAF is committed in some way or other.

As to why rotate the assets, what is the point of the RAF if not to fight, and why only 7 Harriers.... Well, why do the Army rotate assets? Why are there not 40,000 troops in Afghanistan rather than the 7-8,000 we have? What is the point of the Army if not to fight? Why are all the AAC Apaches not in Afghanistan? The reason, the UK government is not committed to TOTAL WAR in Afghanistan in the way WWII etc were conducted. Troops are rotated for rest, training, to preserve morale, etc, and the minimum force is sent to try to achieve the plotical aim, partly to save costs. Returning injured soldiers are swept under the carpet as they are an embarassment to the UK government.

It seems to me if you want more CAS support in Afghanistan you are argueing for a LARGER RAF, and more money to be spent by the UK government on this conflict!!

Vortex what...ouch!

18th Dec 2007, 18:44

I'm not digging or even fishing and thanks for the replies, even the condescending bits, I never claimed to be an Air power expert after all.

I also never said various assets are not doing lots to support ops and do appreciate a great deal we don't see.

All the roulemont and limited assets are problems well understood these days by all services.

But thats not what I'm asking so lets get back to CAS. Not the sole purpose of the RAF I understand, never-the-less an important part of what you do. The OCU is for training but what are the 4 Sqns of GR9s for if only 7 can be deployed at any one time? Maybe one for ongoing training/currency, so why do you need the other 2?

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear and I get that I'm seeing things from a narrow viewpoint. I'll say again I appreciate a lot of what you do is valuable, welcome and we don't see it but if you have an asset that can't be deployed, for whatever reason, when we are at war surely you can see I would ask why have you got it then? I can say it slowly if that helps. ;)

Vortex what...ouch!

18th Dec 2007, 18:47

Thanks biggus, my previous was posted before I read your reply. Thats what I was asking exactly.

OKOC

18th Dec 2007, 19:01

Red VerveLaLala-whatever--in Falmouth--what's your balanced (2 chips) view on this?

minigundiplomat

18th Dec 2007, 19:09

Chinook 3
Puma 2
Merlin 2

Try 10 Chinooks. Im sure the Puma/Merlin figures are low too. I have some sympathy with Vortex's point. There is a large section of the RAF doing sweet FA and keeping 'Active' in articles whilst some are being ground into the floor by 2 consecutive wars.

For the record, the Harriers have done a great job, and Ill always be happy to see them in the skies above KAF

Archimedes

18th Dec 2007, 19:34

minigun, I think you've misread - If you re-read his post, you'll see that biggus' figures of 3, 2 and 2 are the number of squadrons of each type, not of airframes deployed.

knowitall

18th Dec 2007, 21:18

Vortex

"I would ask why have you got it then?"
The UK's apache's weren't doing anything during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, why wasn't the programme scrapped then?
on the basis of your argument we'd never buy any new kit and the army would still be using horses and Martini-Henry Rifles

minigundiplomat

18th Dec 2007, 21:24

Yes.

Very well spotted, I wondered when someone would spot that, er.....

Actually, apologies to all. Reading post sandwiched between leaving beers and dinner with Mrs MGD. Though sqn no's/aircraft no's, my sentiment remains the same.

Apologetic MGD

Seldomfitforpurpose

18th Dec 2007, 23:01

But if you believe the latest figures quoted that "only aprrox 30%" of the RAF ACTUALLY deploy does this not give some credence to Vortex's argument :eek:

Magnersdrinker

19th Dec 2007, 00:38

30% of the RAF Deploy to 2 areas Afghan and Iraq. Hot Zones as you call it .The Navy has the same % deployed where , roaming around the ocean beating up people in poor countries, and the army well they have probably 60% of there resources deployed overseas cause after the air war we are not needed as much,we have made ground safe for you army peeps to take control. Army think too much thats why they have to justify themselves by saying we should be gone , it only does one thing breaks morale , i think thats what has already happened and thats why we will never win any more wars , We supposed to be one, we are not anymore and i dont care a **** if army and navy want us gone then all i have given in all war zones is for nothing.sums up morale today:ugh:

Seldomfitforpurpose

19th Dec 2007, 00:41

Magners.........................less magners :ok:

Edited as I have just re read what this fuc@ing twerp has written and feel the need to point out a few home truths :}

"and the army well they have probably 60% of there resources deployed overseas cause after the air war we are not needed as much,we have made ground safe for you army peeps to take control"

So having made it so safe for our green and dark/light blue brothers in arms could you please explain why we in Wilts, and previously in Oxon have had the privelege......Beags et al help me with a better descriptor...of repatriating so many fallen comrades over the last few years............:}

You should be thoroughly ashamed of your drunken rant and once sober apologise forthwith........................ar@e:mad:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

19th Dec 2007, 01:31

Seldomfitforpurpose, I can see his point, to a point. Control is not actually held until boot's are actually upon the deck. Leave aside CVF, the Air Force will always be at the pointy end of any Operation against a Nation State. From then on, it's a balance of force.

Just because the current tribal intervention needs lots of cloggies (Bill Tidy) doesn't mean the rest of the Air spectrum is reduntant. If we don't train (and equip) for all eventualies, we are truly buggered. The balance is the quest from Hell but, personally, I'd rather pay too much insurance than not enough. Air Defence capability is soon lost and hard to regain. In the meantime, the HELOs and Hercs are flogged to death.

Seldomfitforpurpose

19th Dec 2007, 02:07

GBZ,

I have no argument with your rationale but IF, and I can only go on approx figures given to me, ONLY 30% of the light blue actually deploy please explain to Vortex what the other 70% are up to.........and I suspect a huge swathe of the SH, AT, Harrier, GR4, RAF Regt, UK MAMS please excuse those I missed would be very interested in why this exclusivity :confused:

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 08:04

Guys, I’m not trying to start a war here ;) I’m not in agreement with the original idea that the RAF should be disbanded. My own Army ignorance of Air Power makes it clear that we don’t understand all the issues.

Those of you getting all defensive about what you are doing are missing the point. It’s not a whine and I acknowledge lots of bods are working very hard and it is appreciated. No one is saying the RAF aren’t doing a good job, far from it. I think the 30% of the RAF deployed is a bit of a red herring, rotation means that most have probably been in theatre by now with aircrew and maintainers bearing the brunt of tours.

What I am asking is why only 7 cabs out of 4 operational squadrons are deployable? The gist of it seems to be not enough pilots. But there has been plenty of time to train more and the excuse that 6 years wasn’t foreseen is a cop out.

If it is just bad planning fair enough, but what is now being done to be able to provide more? OK you have other tasks to cover but remember we’re fighting a war today and no matter what might happen in the future, currently when it comes to CAS there’s not enough available.

Oh and I’m not entirely sure what Martin Henry rifles have got to do with things. :\

Climebear

19th Dec 2007, 09:06

Vortex

7 ac are in theatre to meet the requirements of the Jt Comd. If the Jt Comd needed more ac then they would be requested by PJHQ.

You must also understand that Coalition Air works in an entirely different way to coalition Land operations. On land, individual nation's formations generally operate within geographic AORs. Coalition air is totally intergrated and not restricted geographically (we frequently operate in mixed formations involving several air forces). This enable the Air component commander to provide the best effect anywhere in his AOR with the assets available. Having an air component where the UK air element only supports UK land forces, US air element only support US land forces, Dutch air... Is not effective - and runs counter to several principles of war - primarily economy of effort. So you shouldn't be surprised that UK land forces are being supported by US/NL/Can fast-air it is because the best wpn system is being employed effectively, as this is happening UK air will more-than-likely be supporting US/NL/Can TiCs elswhere in theatre.

As for saying that 4 sqns only sp 7 deployed aircraft, you miss the fact that these Sqns (like the rest of the RAF and RN) are also providing assets at readiness in support of UK JRRF/NRF/EU BG. With UK combat land elements heavily commited the UK (wishing to be seen to be pulling its weight within NATO/EU (unlike some)) has reduced the number of land elements assigned to NRF/EU BG but compensated this with an increase in the number of maritime/air elements commited. I know that the likelyhood of these assets being used are slim (almost super-model slim); however, that doesn't take away the requirement to keep these assets at readiness.

Boldface

19th Dec 2007, 09:10

Vortex,

We could deploy more than 7 cabs to Afghanistan!!!! The issue here is that for a variety of reasons (primarily cost and personnel footprint), PJHQ have capped the deployment at that number.

However, the GR9 fleet is also a small community and the numbers of available aircrew has actually reduced since the RN took over half of it. They are required to remain familiar (if not current) with carrier ops, as well as conducting trg in other activities which may be called for. When 20 Sqn are taken out of the equation (conversion and weapons instructor trg), the normal rotation plot leaves very little flex in the Harrier force.

Why don't we train more aircrew? For the same reason the Army don't have more CSS and CS assets: cost. Plain and simple. However, the trg system is maxed out trying to train the naval pilots required to bring the Naval Strike Wing up to strength.

The deployment of GR4s has been examined but again, the cost of deploying a more labour intensive asset into theatre was deemed prohibitative. Likewise, it would be difficult to fly fast air missions from elsewhere in the Gulf or Stans (or for that matter a carrier) but the RAF tanker fleet is pretty broken.

That's why Typhoon should be deployed next year to enable the GR9s home for some much needed operational rest of airframes.

TalkTorqueTorc

19th Dec 2007, 09:15

Vortex

I think you're missing the point that lots of people have already made.

You could put more than 7 GR9's in theater but you wouldn't get any more air support.

Why?

Because there aren't enough pilots to fly them or engineers to keep them flying, or at least not without increasing the length of individual detachments wich would soon mean you wouldn't have any pilots or engineers at all.

So why don't we get more pilots and engineers?

Because the Government have decreed the size of the air force (too small)
and they have to balance their manpower between all fleets.

If the government is willing to increase the size of the air force I'm sure we'd be willing to provide more air support, but until they do we do the best we can with the forces we have same as the Army and Navy are doing.

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 09:24

Thanks and that rather comes back then to my original point. If you're never going to deploy more aircraft because of cost, why do you need them if you can't afford to use them?

GPMG

19th Dec 2007, 09:33

So only 30% of the RAF actually deploy do they?

Good effort, thats not a bad ratio in these modern times, for any force.

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 09:37

I think the problem is its the same 30% rather than distributed evenly amongst the force.

Boldface

19th Dec 2007, 09:46

Thanks and that rather comes back then to my original point. If you're never going to deploy more aircraft because of cost, why do you need them if you can't afford to use them?

Oh give me strength. HMG specifies numerous Military Tasks for HMF. Those MTs do not all revolve around TELIC/HERRICK. If the Falklands/Kosovo/Iran* blew up tomorrow, we'd need more than 7 GR9s. For the same reason, the Army has far more CR2s/WRs/Rapier FSC/AS90 etc than are deployed on ops.

Supporting ops and maintaining a wider defence capability requires overheads. Period.

* delete as appropriate.

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 09:51

God might give you strength but listen carefully. We have a finite defence budget and you have assets which you are saying you can't afford to deploy to a current war where they are needed. If you can't afford them lets sell them off and use the money for something we can use.

I don't give a monkeys chuff about what might happen 5 years down the line when we are currently fighting a war with inadequate resources. :ugh:

spanners123

19th Dec 2007, 09:54

This thread is so funny!!:D
There is no telling some people!:ugh:

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 10:05

No you're just looking at things from one side.

The Army needs more CAS. You guys provide it. You're saying you have the means to provide it but can't afford to deploy it. From where I'm sitting something thats needed but can't be deployed due to cost is nothing more than a shiny toy wasting money for no return. You don't lose the capability as I'm not saying get rid of them all but you could probably bin half and use the money better elsewhere. Your justification is it might be needed in the Falklands in the future, nice but what about the war we're fighting today?

spanners123

19th Dec 2007, 10:13

GeeRam

19th Dec 2007, 10:24

spanners123

19th Dec 2007, 10:28

Forgot about those shiny toys!

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 10:36

Using your logic, can I assume that you would support the scrapping of all the Challenger tanks, Apache etc and any other kit that the army has left back in the UK? After all, this would free some cash for Ops!

It does show up your narrow minded thinking. Those things are not needed on ops at the moment so its not the same question. More CAS is needed and you are saying you have more capability but can't afford to deploy it. If it CAN'T be deployed whats it for?

Why all defensive when it is a valid question?

shawshank

19th Dec 2007, 10:38

Vortex, when we say we can't afford it, we are not talking about cost. If they were needed that bad then they would be deployed. People paid a lot more than you (and thankfully with a lot more foresight) make these decisions by balancing everything that has been covered in this post.

Just how much money do you think would be freed up by selling the aircraft not commited to current ops, and what happens to our future capability. You should be a politician or consider a move into MOD where your infactuation with costs will serve you well.

Spanners is right, there is no telling some people. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Keep posting tho, you are keeping us all entertained and fulfilling our stereo-typical view of the army.

Magic Mushroom

19th Dec 2007, 10:42

Vortex,

Thanks for pointing out we have a finite defence budget. However, if you don't like the MTs HMG assigns, then you need to take it up with them.

All 3 services (even the Army!:hmm:) have assets that are not commited to ops. That will be because that capability is not required in that specific op, and because a proportion of those assets are required at home to support the deployment. Likewise, specific capabilities are being developed that may not be needed right now (eg T45, loitering munitions, AWACS upgrades). This is because, thankfully, there are still people in all 3 services who have a longer term view than yourself.

Sadly however, there is a danger that individuals such as yourself erode capabilities that are not directly related to boots on the ground. I've heard so many Army guys asking why we have Nimrod R1 ('it's a strategic spy in the sky, no use for modern ops'), MR2/MRA4s ('where's the submarine threat?!'), Typhoon ('it has no cannon!'), T45 (see comment re MR2s) etc thereby displaying a quite astounding lack of awareness that these assets are making a very big contribution to what they do on the ground.

However, I'm interested in your assertion that the Army require more CAS. Having worked in a deployed Army HQ, I was frankly appalled at the lack of Joint awareness that exisited and I believe strongly that serious questions need to be asked about Army staff trg at the ICSC(L) level in particular. This manifested itself in very poor economy of use of air in particular and a failure to consult the other component specialists. In particular, I'd suggest that at least 30% of all land FMV requests were superflous. However, unless things have changed recently, there was NEVER a request for significantly more CAS made to the ACC.

So why do you suggest there is insufficient CAS? At what level has your experience been? JNCO? SNCO? Co command? BG? Bde? Div?

Regards,
MM

spanners123

19th Dec 2007, 10:43

I don't doubt that more CAS is needed, but as been pointed out, more than once, PJHQ, MoD, HMG make these decisions, not the RAF, Army, nor one individual!

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 10:53

Not half as much as some here re-enforcing the stereotypical view of the RAF as filled with arrogant smartarses who sit whining about how tough it is being in the military and they know best. Instead of trying to answer my question most just called me thick and tried to score points against the Army. Arrogance is not a good look.

But at least you had a go at answering my question, although still managed to slip in a childish dig.

Sorry to have sullied your lovely world view with something so common as a question about what you do.

Instead of the Professionals you lot claim to be, some reactions here leave me thinking petty amateurs.

Have a nice day.

Clockwork Mouse

19th Dec 2007, 11:03

Good question and reasonably put. I'm with you 100% Vortex! No satisfactory answer about CAS but there is certainly no capability gap in pomposity, obfuscation and stereotypical prejudices within the Junior Service!

Magic Mushroom

19th Dec 2007, 11:09

Vortex,

I think the point here is that many people have answered your question. Repeatedly.

You talk about arrogance perhaps because we are giving you answers you may not like/understand. It is sometimes difficult to argue with the written word in the same manner which a chat over a beer can accomplish. Sadly, this appears a common trait with the Army right now and something which I know my RN colleagues in the HQ in question felt. Whichever component we come from, you will (hopefully) be a specialist in that specific warfare discipline. Clearly that doesn't absolve you from asking searching questions. Indeed, it is to be encouraged and an 'outsiders' perspective will sometimes throw harsh light on realities.

However, what was and is frustrating is when you get the same answer from numerous individuals and you still fail to take a longer term perspective. Intersetingly, many in the AAC feel that there needs to be a change in how their services approaches Air Power and Avn.

I do genuinely believe that the Army needs to address some serious shortcomings in the Joint awareness and trg of its officers at SO2 level in particular. However, all 3 services will have similar shortcomings that need to be addressed. Why are the Army so defensive in this respect? Clearly, you don't like the 'harsh light' being thrown on that issue from this outsider. It's not childish. It doesn't make me arrogant though and maybe I'm wrong. If you think so, offer me a counter argument. If you as a land power specialist can do so, I'd accept it unless it was clearly flawed. I would not accuse you of being childish or arrogant.

Regards,
MM

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 11:17

I didn't call you anything, did you not see the word some?

I don't deny there are shortcomings in the Army, it would be incredibly arrogant to say we get it right all the time or could not improve. Not all the Army are unwilling to review how they do things but as in any organisation some people don't like change.

But then I was actually asking about the provision of CAS and I got answers ranging from no money, no crew to no interest. When I ask which one I get called thick, see my problem?

Magic Mushroom

19th Dec 2007, 11:38

Mate (I'll call you that because all us Crabs call people 'mate':}),

I think in reality is it's a combination of all of those excpet the no interest. One of the weaknesses of Air Power is that it requires quite hefty manpower overheads. Many of those will obviously not directly be involved in combat ops. However, the bean counters don't like extra people because it costs money and they need all the associated FP, life support aspects. Like you guys, we also try to manage the amount of people we deploy and, more importantly, how often they do so. Sometimes (eg TELIC 1), the host nation will also place strict limits on manpower in theatre. I'm not sure if this is a factor in this case.

Looking at the Harrier case specifically, it's a small community which has other commitments. Perhaps you don't feel those commitments are important enough. However, that's irrelevent because the MoD does and we're tasked to provide. However, take it from me that the fleet is busy.

The RAF offered to deploy Jags out to Afghanistan but that fleet was canned. That placed yet more workload on the GR9s to provide the HERRICK det, carrier assets (even though that happens very rarely now), and (of more direct significance to you), assets for trg (for aircrew, groundcrew, FACs, BATUS, UK Land trg etc). That is hurting them and it is hurting them at a time when the transition to joint RAF/RN manning has had some, err, how can I put it, problems. However, I don't want to get into a dark/light blue pi$$ing competetion.

How do we provide extra CAS then? The GR4 fleet has flex and is keen to deploy whilst still maintaining it's TELIC det. However, PJHQ have rejected that option in this instance, I suspect partly because the move to strategic overwatch of the southern Iraqi provinces will place additional emphasis upon the air component. Typhoon is therefore slated to take over the HERRICK CAS task from next year.

However, I reiterate. To my knowledge. Land have not requested more CAS
recently.

I shall now retire to wash my white socks and polish my plastic shoes for Xmas! (There we go, a few more Army preconceptions reinforced for Clockwork Mouse!!:ok:)

Regards,
MM

GPMG

19th Dec 2007, 11:46

Perhaps the army should purchase a few A-10's, train up some switched on blokes that have actually been at the sharp end, and who know what effective and non effective CAS feels like. Cross train with the RAF for their invaluable knowledge of air ops and do the job themselves.

Should only take about 15 year to get the program past the early planning stages.

Cutting out all the daft comments and repeated questions. You guys need to understand that as a ground hugger, all your Perce or Bootneck really cares about is effective CAS. Getting effective munitions onto a target that can be spitting distance away without getting stiffed yourself. Eurofighters,tankers, hercs, jags, up-diddley-up-up etc etc, the blokes don't really care. Yep, those hercs etc got them there safe and sound and will take them back ok soon (hopefully) and the fighters keep the nasty enemy airforce off of their backs (in other wars obviously), and all of the things that the RAF and Navy do for them are great but don't really matter a lot to the blokes in cam cream.

But Chinooks, Puma and Merlin, now thats different, they care about them an awfull lot, and on that front they recognise that the RAF are doing it right etc.
But from what I have heard from mates returning and from reading the other forums, the guys are getting threaders with having to make do with little or not enough effective CAS. To Private Smithy who is being pinned down by some bloke on his holidays from Burnley with a toy Dushka, it matters a lot.
The big question is why doesnt the RAF have an effective CAS airframe? Or enough Harriers to give round the clock support?

The big picture is not important to the guy on ground, he just wants to know why we don't have A-10's or even a few old SkyRaiders would do.

Boslandew

19th Dec 2007, 11:47

Serious questions, sorry to be so dull.
During my time, 60s/70's, N Ireland/Hong Kong/BAOR, almost the entire role for the RAF helicopters squadrons was carrying the Army.
Is that still so?
If not, what percentage (ish) of its effort is spent other than moving the Army?
What does that other role consist of?
Would operational efficiency of the Armed Force in Iraq/Afghanistan/anywhere be improved if the RAF helicopter squadrons were transferred to the AAC?

daftodil

19th Dec 2007, 11:57

Vortex, :)

I will do my best to explain to you the why's and wherefore's as to your perception that there is a lack of CAS. But to put it into context I have to tell you I was a pongo before joining the light blue and have some experience of the oft quoted 'where the **** is the Air Force, the bunch of poofs'. In addition I am on the Aircrew side but not a fast mover wallah.

You keep stating that '7 cabs' is not enough and that CAS is needed now, well yes, that is on the face of it possibly true, however the following applies, in no particular order.
Because we have tankers with AAR capability this equates to a force multiplier, allowing said cabs to remain in the air for longer to meet the tasks required of them. Why only 7 in theatre, well, as discussed some are needed for other tasks and some will be going through extensive mantenance/upgrades therefore precluding their constant presence. We are part of a coalition and other aircraft types from other Air Forces might be the better solution to problem on the ground. The priorities on the ground constantly change so if a higher priority tasking comes in you will not get the CAS from anyone. The intelligence gained may prevent a strike by CAS. The possible collateral damage may prevent CAS being used. Aaaand finally, from first hand experience both the light blue and green controllers on the ground did not communicate with each other causing confusion. The tasking priorities by some ground forces were inappropriate for the aircraft thereby wasting the assets available. So the upshot of those last comments is that 7 may be enough for the task, unless there is a 'surge op' but what there is may not be used most effectively.

Before I go I must also stress that it is not our only task to drop bombs on people as other solutions could serve the objective better and consideration has to be given to the wider defence picture.
I hope this helps and please remember we are the jointery now and this does not help any of us! :=

Archimedes

19th Dec 2007, 11:59

MM,

I do genuinely believe that the Army needs to address some serious shortcomings in the Joint awareness and trg of its officers at SO2 level in particular

CGS agrees with you...

Vortex - the answers about CAS are (a) not enough money (b) not enough aircrew/maintainers (c) the government. This isn't the fault of RAF, rather the government. In the early 1990s, the then CAS suggested that the RAF was rather stretched to meet its defence commitments with a force of over 50,000,despite the fact that the op tempo was rather lower than today. Having committed the RAF to support two wars simultaneously as well as fulfil AD of the UK and FI, and conduct normal training and deployments, Hoon reduced the size of the RAF yet further.

As I'm sure you appreciate, like infantry battalions, you have to rotate units out of the line at some point to refresh skills, train and just get a rest, otherwise the units will fall to bits, their best efforts notwithstanding. You may not like the answer with regard to CAS, but the RAF lacks the aircraft and the personnel to provide the level of support you'd like (although as MM says, there seems to be little evidence of increased demand for CAS from land to the ACC).

And, as has been noted by others, the government is unwilling to provide the money and personnel required to 'up' the levels of CAS in theatre. And you can almost guarantee that if the F3s (for instance) were sold off, the money wouldn't go on more CAS, but on consultants or on bailing out the bottomless pit that is Northern Rock.

GPMG

19th Dec 2007, 12:02

Are there enough RAF FAC's to go out on most operations?

Mad_Mark

19th Dec 2007, 12:12

I think many are failing to see that Vortex does not appear to be currently in the Army, his profile lists him as an engineer with a PPL(H). As such he may not fully understand what is actually happening on the ground and in the air in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Gulf waters.

Vortex, your questions have all been answered, repeatedly. The other posters are not showing arrogance, they are simply frustrated that you are refusing to accept those answers.

As has been said, several times, before; every AT sqn (C130, C17, Tristar, VC10), every SH sqn (Merlin, Chinook, Puma), every recce sqn (MR2, R1, GR4), every offensive sqn (GR7/9, GR4), is committed in the above regions. The defensive sqns (E3, F3 and Typhoon) are not currently committed in the above regions although the E3's have been and the Typhoon will be once it has completed its operational work up as a CAS aircraft. Even the small transport sqns (BAe 125, BAe 146, Islander) are in the above regions, playing their own part.

You keep talking of the 4 RAF GR7/9 sqns. The RAF only has 2 GR7/9 sqns. You keep talking of only 7 aircraft. Those 7 aircraft use a whole sqn of air and ground crew in order to continue the intensity of flying that they conduct in theatre (each aircraft flies more than each pilot is allowed to, therefore you need more than one pilot per frame). The other sqns are at home training both themselves and others (Army FAC's, Army pre-deployment training exercises, etc).

The GR4's have 7 operational sqns of which one is always in theatre. Again the others are conducting training as above. Yes, maybe more GR4's could be deployed to the Afghan region, but that call is not one that is made by the RAF, it comes from PJHQ and the MOD (both tri-service) and ultimately the Government (civilians). If THEY decide that more GR4's should be sent to the region then they could be there within a matter of days. The RAF do have the capability but the politicians do not have the will or are prepared to spend the required money (required by all 3 services in general and in theatre). So, you should be taking this particular argument to the Government and not continuously airing your blinkered views here.

The F3's and Typhoons are currently purely air defence sqns, although the Typhoon will also become a CAS aircraft in the future. As has been said, there is currently no role for AD aircraft in theatre. OK, so the MOD sell all the RAF AD aircraft and spend the money on the Army. Just say, for pure arguments sake, that a potentially hostile nation in that same region with its own capable air force decided that it wanted to support Terry or Al. What would the Army say then when it found that it was now on the receiving end of hostile CAS? I have a pretty good idea that they will be blaming the RAF for not having any AD assets to take on the hostile aircraft and regain air supremacy!

There may be only 7 GR7/9's in theatre at any one time but that represents a utilisation of 25% of that particular fleet (including the 2 RN sqns). What % of the Army Challenger tank fleet is currently in theatre? What % of the Infantry are currently in theatre? What % of the Army Rapier units are currently in theatre? What % of the Cavalry units are currently in theatre?

You talk of the RAF not deploying aircraft due to the cost. This again falls to Government, not the RAF. If the Government were really committed to sending more aircraft then the RAF has the capability to do so. Likewise, if they had the willingness to pay for more troops in theatre (as I am sure that more troops would also be a great asset) then the Army probably has the capability to send them. After all, with 12,000 troops in both theatres out of a total of 102,000, the Army has only 12% of its personnel deployed ;)

I could discuss the actual employment of the RAF assets in theatre and show you that they do a hell of a lot more than you seem to realise or appreciate, but this is not the place and, judging by your profile, you are not entitled to know :oh:

MadMark!!! :mad:

Clockwork Mouse

19th Dec 2007, 12:23

At last some sensible (and moderate) answers.
MM (not Mad Mark, but the Mushroom). You tend to regard the serious shortcomings as lying exclusively with the Army. As far as the Army's priorities AT GROUND LEVEL are concerned, GPMG is correct. The RAF SH effort in support of ground forces is, and always has been, outstanding. CAS is, however, another matter. No point in entering a widdling contest about who's at fault. Weaknesses exist on both sides, and badly need sorting out. FAC equipment, procedures, integration and training need urgent attention.
And please, can we have a CAS aircraft with a canon?
The fantastic job done by the AT, tankers, airborne CCCI assets etc are recognised by the Army but are of no direct interest to the guy in the slit trench. He wants effective bangs on the ground 200m in front of him and in time to have an influence on his local battle.
And I have few erroneous preconceptions about the Crabs. I have served extensively with them, married one and sired one!

Clockwork Mouse

19th Dec 2007, 12:34

And for an example of condescention and arrogance in a post, look no further than Mad Mark's last. Pity, because the meat of what you say is both pertinent and helpful.

Magic Mushroom

19th Dec 2007, 12:35

CM,

You tend to regard the serious shortcomings as lying exclusively with the Army.

No I don't, honest!! As you suggest, there are faults on both sides and Air Land Integration (ALI) was allowed to whither on the vine during the 90s in particular. As a result, we're having to relearn old lessons that date back as far as the North African and Arakan campaigns of WWII. However, we must equally guard against allowing similar erosion of air-maritime integration otherwise the same argument will be happening with a different service in a few years.

As far as CAS aircraft with a cannon, both the GR4 an Typhoon do and the latter is gaining very positive feedback from FACs during the CAS and A-G weapons trials conducted so far.

Regards,
MM

Master of None

19th Dec 2007, 12:40

During my time in theatre it has struck me that the real problem is, not the shortage of CAS but, the shortage of troops. Whenever involved in the plannning of a Op the limiting factor was always the number of teeth arm soldiers. This was always frustrating when one considered the number of infantry batallions sitting in the UK providing no tangible benefit to the 'war' in either of the current areas of note. If this is the case what are they for, surely one of the most expensive assets is manpower, with health, housing, etc taken into account. If we disbanded all the regiments the Army cannot field on Ops at any one time then the money from that could be used far more beneficially. If they can be fielded then what are the Bn commanders thinking, get your troops onto transport and get into the mix. Holding the ground so hard won and then consolidating it and winning the hearts of the local populace will be much easier with a significant increase of manpower.:rolleyes:

Before you reply to this post please consider that it is 100% tongue in cheek, and my effort to explain the reality of the situation in the current British Military to Vortex.:O

Magic Mushroom

19th Dec 2007, 12:47

May I suggest we now move on from the previous 3 or 4 pages of this pi$$ing competition?:ugh:

Clockwork Mouse

19th Dec 2007, 12:50

MofN
Unfortunately, though it is a relatively easy task for troops to take ground, subsequently holding it in a country like Afghanistan is quite a different matter. It would require an Army of millions!
Mushroom
Has the Typhoon been able to fire its canon yet? Is ammo now being procured? Good news if so.

Magic Mushroom

19th Dec 2007, 12:53

CM,

Yep, RAF Tiffs have strafed with their cannon and dropped A-G weapons and as far as I understand (bearing in mind I'm not a fast jet mate), it'll deploy to HERRICK with both as well as Litening III pods.

Regards,
MM

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Dec 2007, 13:24

Thanks for the info Magic Mushroom.

Mad Mark, well done you know I'm no longer serving but my brother is. He has recently come back from Afghanistan and we had a detailed discussion at the weekend on this very subject, which is partly why I came and asked the question. :hmm:

I'm meeting him in about an hour and I'll be sure to tell him your dicks bigger than his. I'll see if I can coax him on here so you can tell him why all the shiny jets weren't available when his little pink body was in the sh1t. But thanks for the input. :rolleyes:

For those with sensible replies, thank you.

Climebear

19th Dec 2007, 13:54

Voretex

First, you need to find out why there is a belief that more CAS is needed. This is one potential solution to the issue. What could well be needed is some form of kinetic effect that could come from a variety of means - hence joint fires. CAS is but one element.

It is not that the RAF can't push any more ac out there, as far as I can tell none have been requested. So has the Land Chain of command got it so wrong? So, second, you will need to identify why the joint commander hasn't requested any more CAS assets. This could be for a variety of reasons.

One could be (and this is a big could) that there is a blance required for everything. We all know that our LoCs are extremely taut; therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any spare capacity to support extra assets (of whatever hue) in theatre. The 'So What?' is if the Jt Commander needs some more assets he has to lose something elsewhere to compensate. Ergo more CAS means less infantry/RE/Medical/Arty/Avn/Armour/ISTAR (delete as appropriate). It's a tough call; but, this is why CJO is a 3* (currently infantry). He is best place to decide the best force laydown - If he wants more CAS we'll be ready to supply it.

Wader2

19th Dec 2007, 14:32

It was announced a few months back that a contract had been let with a german company to provide a large quantity of 27mm Mauser ammunition. It was expected that delivery would be in 2008.

Given the price and quantity it worked out at about £18 per round.

I would guess that the ammunition used now is from Tornado stocks.

Clockwork Mouse

19th Dec 2007, 16:19

DISBAND THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?

The simple and honest answer to the question at the head of this thread is “no – of course we should not disband the RAF”. Sighs of relief from the light blues.

Good question though, because it makes us look more closely at what each of the three Armed Services does and ask the question, “are all the pegs we currently own or aspire to owning really necessary; can we afford them all; if not, what is higher priority; and is each peg in its correct shaped hole? Please forgive the simplistic imagery!

Those in the forces are in the business of using, or facilitating the use of, armed force in furtherance of our government’s political aims when peaceful means cannot achieve the required result. Control of the government and its restraint from illegal or unwise use of force is not our concern. That is the job of parliament, elected by the people. The Service chiefs must warn and advise, just like the Queen does, but ultimately what the government decides, they have to carry out to the best of their ability.

The use of armed force requires control, to a greater or lesser extent, of the air, the sea and land. How far that control has to extend will vary enormously according to the scope of the particular mission, the threat, geography and many other strategic and operational factors.

It is generally accepted by all major states with a defence capability that control of each element (air, sea, land) is best made the responsibility of a dedicated individual Service. Overall success of any mission, however, is greatly dependant of how each Service interacts, cooperates and communicates with each of the other Services in pursuit of the common aim. None is effective on its own. However, each Service operates in a three dimensional environment and division of responsibility cannot be made as clear-cut as those of the elements themselves. There is significant overlap in all interfaces and pragmatic compromises are required that will contribute to overall efficiency.

The responsibility for warfighting in each element is easily rationalised. However, in the support and logistical areas it is more problematic.

The R Navy needs to control the seas, above and below surface, in the area of operations but also needs the means to control limited airspace over its own tactical areas of operation which may often be out of range of land-based assistance. For this the FAA requires its own AD aircraft. It also currently possesses the limited means to fight and take control of land territory, for which it has the R Marines.

The RAF’s main tactical warfighting task is to control airspace within range of whatever land bases are available to it, to secure its own bases and to ensure the freedom to operate of ground and sea forces. It also provides fire support, operational and CAS, to the ground and sea based forces within range. When deployed, its bases are locally secured by its own ground forces, the RAF Regt. It also has major logistical responsibilities for the movement of materiel rapidly over long distances in support of operations.

The Army’s main warfighting task is to defeat enemy ground forces and to take and secure (not the same as hold) territory free from enemy. Unlike the R Navy, the Army will always operate within range of and under air cover provided by one of the other Services so does not require its own AD aircraft. However, the battlefield is three dimensional and the armed helicopter is complementing the tank in providing rapid, flexible and effective direct fire support to ground units in contact. These aircraft are provided through the AAC. It is not sensible to provide CAS fixed wing aircraft organic to the Army because of their infrastructure and basing requirements. However, the availability of VTOL CAS aircraft such as Harrier, which can be deployed well forward, brings that option closer.

Support helicopters are three dimensional, logistic vehicles. As such, their ownership should be based on whom they support. Each Service requires helicopters for its own domestic tasks. However, it makes little sense that logistic helicopters supporting the RN and R Marines should be owned and operated by the RAF just because they fly through the air. Similarly, it makes little sense that those SH that support the Army logistically are owned and operated by the RAF instead of by the Army, as in most other militarily advanced nations.

The effectiveness of our Armed Services is degraded significantly by narrow minded bigotry, inter-Service rivalry, competition, jealousy, envy and misunderstanding, at every level. Empire building and the needs of one’s own unit and Service come before the greater good and effectiveness of the Armed Services and country. I’m sure that most middle and senior ranks of each Service have knowledge and probably experience of this unnecessary and destructive internecine strife and its attendant waste and inefficiency. It is deep rooted and will be difficult to eradicate, but eradicated it must be.

Level 28

19th Dec 2007, 16:41

I have never read such three dimensional cr:mad:p in all my life..........

Listen, when I want a Lt Cdr's opinion on the 'Disbandment of the RAF', I'll give it to him.

Good question though, because it makes us look more closely at what each of the three Armed Services does Speechless!!!!

Clockwork Mouse

19th Dec 2007, 17:08

Ah! I see my reasoned and logical approach to the distribution of assets has struck a chord with an RAF SH crewman!

vecvechookattack

19th Dec 2007, 19:04

The RAF’s main tactical warfighting task is to control airspace within range of whatever land bases are available to it, to secure its own bases and to ensure the freedom to operate of ground and sea forces. It also provides fire support, operational and CAS, to the ground and sea based forces within range. When deployed, its bases are locally secured by its own ground forces, the RAF Regt. It also has major logistical responsibilities for the movement of materiel rapidly over long distances in support of operations.

So, therefore we can disband the RAF and those roles can be conducted by the RN and the Army.

GeeRam

19th Dec 2007, 19:55

So, therefore we can disband the RAF and those roles can be conducted by the RN and the Army.

So, what about all the other stuff....who's going to do that if you disband the RAF.......green or dark blue...:rolleyes::ugh:

Archimedes

19th Dec 2007, 19:56

So that after the RN and Army have fought each other to a standstill over ownership of multi-role assets we can have an inquiry (perhaps asking a South African general if he'd like to head it up) to solve the problem by creating a third service which apportions the air assets appropriately and removes duplication from the chain of command, eh, vecvec?

Maple 01

19th Dec 2007, 19:56

So, therefore we can disband the RAF and those roles can be conducted by the RN and the Army.

Only in the same way we can disband the Army and absorb its functions into the Navy and RAF.........

a South African general

Don't want to be a Boer about this but could my mate Jan do the job?

goudie

19th Dec 2007, 20:32

Everyone is discussing the future of, or justification for, having a RAF as if it were an inanimate object dealing only in effective hardware deployment.
The RAF is manned by people who specifically decided they wanted a military career in the RAF whether it be flying or otherwise. There is enough concern re. manning levels in the RAF as it is. Does any one really believe that the majority of these people would happily transfer to the RN or Army?

serf

19th Dec 2007, 20:58

But there is more than one RAF, go onto the RAF website, click on current ops then either Afghanistan or Iraq...............how far down do you have to scroll to find out that there are 'also' some SH in theatre.

Spotting Bad Guys

19th Dec 2007, 21:20

interesting that CM completely missed the ISTAR bit.....the one where you find the enemy before schwacking them...advance to contact, anyone?

Archimedes

19th Dec 2007, 21:25

Actually, you currently get the impression that the RAF is all about SH. I've gone to www.raf.mod.uk only to discover that the webmasters appear to have merged the service website with the Benson station site...

Edit - It's back working properly now.

minigundiplomat

19th Dec 2007, 21:56

Sorry, what was the question?

Chicken Leg

20th Dec 2007, 12:32

The RAF is manned by people who specifically decided they wanted a military career

Now, that's got to be the funniest quote that I've ever read on these forums! RAF and military in the same sentence. Next you'll be telling us about discipline and leadership.

PT anyone? (There, that should que another 200 entries onto this thread).

goudie

20th Dec 2007, 12:57

Ah Chickenleg! Sarcasm, the refuge of wits who are usually ony half right.

Out Of Trim

20th Dec 2007, 13:25

Why not disband all 3 forces, pull all out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and send in the politicians,makes sense to me :E

I thought the New Labour (so called) Government; were well on their way to achieving that aim.

We just need to concentrate on disbanding the politicians now.

How about a nice coup..! :E:suspect::E

Tourist

20th Dec 2007, 14:35

goudie
"Does any one really believe that the majority of these people would happily transfer to the RN or Army?"
I think people would stay in for their pensions. Just like they are now

goudie

20th Dec 2007, 15:40

I think people would stay in for their pensions. Just like they are now

Yes, you're probably right, just like numerous other jobs.
Depends how many years to pension though.
Anyway all hypothetical, never happen!

Magnersdrinker

21st Dec 2007, 02:04

I joined the RAF cause I done well at school and i was not gay

spanners123

21st Dec 2007, 02:16

Magners (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=202059)
I joined the RAF cause I done well at school and i was not gay
Does that mean you are now??;)

Magnersdrinker

21st Dec 2007, 02:31

lol spanners ya current lol. Means if i was a gay homogoblin then i would have joined the fishy fleet but i was not so i stayed in the crab force that was what i was meaning .

spanners123

21st Dec 2007, 02:43

Pmsl!!!:D

Good reply!!

BritAir

31st May 2010, 09:39

I have resisted for a few years to comment on this topic however I am now really wound up about it (after Today programme Radio 4 on Fri). A couple of questions to start:

Does anyone join the RAF to embark/operate onboard ship?

Why cannot the RA UAV Btys not fit ordnance to their ordnance capable UAVs because the RAF have imposed a limitation?

Are the RAF aviation SMEs?

I am pretty pissed off about the whole disband the RAF issue. However it is the RAF who appear to want to silently take over the other services air assets. I can't think of any RAF fellas who join to then go to sea. They would dodge any hardship/hardwork, therefore justifying having a Fleet Air Arm with its own fixed wing assets (fast jet pilots who join knowing that they will spend time at sea).

The whole FAA fast jet issue popped its head up again when recently chatted to a fella who served on JHF. Whilst deployed in theatre I was aware that Harrier was being replaced by Tornado. I am not a spotter so don't really know the capability difference in the aircraft. That we were aware of was the huge cost of expanding the dispersal/airfield facilities to accommodate the tornados. Fair enough JFH had been rotating though for years but I learnt that this move to relieve them in place was a political move by the RAF. Replacing the aircraft would rest the JFH manpower. However with tornado not doing anything at home they were 70% manned. The remaining 30% came from the resting JFH manpower? Removing the harrier from theatre also enabled the RAF to gradually remove it from service to scupper any chance for the FAA to retain any FJ pilots for the F35. Save money and save your own interests = Ah, cunning light blue crabs!

In theatre I visited the RA UAV Bty who had a fairly all singing and dancing UAV which could be fitted with some ordnance. They were unable to do this because of some sort of restrictions on which service can operate certain platforms/capabilities. Surely this is denying the fellas on the ground a more useful/flexible asset all because of willy waving!

Similarly the AAC for hanging on tooth and nail to Lynx (+ Wildcat) numbers to stay a viable organic force. If they are Wildcat cuts they will essentially only have Apache (which no RAF pilot should ever fly as they have no appreciation of the guys on the ground, let alone any other human being who does not wear a double wing brevet on their chest at all possible opportunities) therefore very susceptible to the RAF subsuming them.

The RAF aviation SMEs? Not from my experience. They are typically school boys with their hair on fire all wishing they were flying fast jets. In theatre they always insisted on flying back to their comforts wasting an hour each way flying time. Flying with them they were insular and all about themselves. They did not understand the concept of mutual support which was dangerous. Coupled with the fact that they only spend upto 10 weeks in theatre you only got a reasonably useful/competent crew for 5 weeks (1st two weeks learning the ropes again, changing in theatre and new TTPs; 5 weeks ok but needed reminding about TTPs, mutual support and why they were out there; last week they were thinking about going home). And typically they were fat, loafing twats who just swanned about thinking they were the mutts nuts. Similarly in Iraq they flew back to Kuwait every night. When finally being called upon for a deliberate op they arrived at Bashra late because they had got up late (after some drinks the previous night). They hadn’t even lifted from Kuwait by the time they should have been briefing in Iraq!

Along similar lines the RAF being aviation engineering SMEs is bull**it. Again, close friends had told me of their shoddy maintenance attitude. They once went a whole month not completing the electronic maintenance documentation (because they couldn’t be arsed – they are the RAF don’t you know, they can do that if they like) that they had to spend even more time catching up on servicing history. I understand the new Military Airworthiness Authority was formed with a lot of ‘best practice’ from the FAA rather than RAF.

Generally the RAF has a cowboy flying club attitude manned by fat, loafing, hardship dodging wasters. I briefly met a 7 Sqn SF CH pilot (an honour of me!?) in Norway. He had just completed the cold weather survival course and said how didn’t enjoy the course and wouldn’t have chosen to do it. Surely as an SH pilot (and the cream of the crop?) you should understand/embrace the role you have and those you are supporting (and sometimes living alongside) on the ground. His final comment was how ‘they’ typically deploy and stay in Gucci hotels/accomm, I switched off after that.

As for their numerous ground role personnel. RAF Regt what is the point nowadays (they are special in what way)? Air movement staff, always loads of them loafing and totally unmotivated/unhelpful at Brize/theatre?. RAF Police, loads of them for what purpose (maybe in theatre to set up speed cameras around the base – phew, big picture stuff). Strategic RAF Ops staff, read out about 5 secret codes twice a day, they didn’t know what they were reading out and did very little else other than print off sheets and put them in packs. Generally a lot of manpower who don’t not very much.

Magners, you may have done well at school and therefore joined the RAF but is that because you were clever enough to see that you would be very much a civvie in uniform?

I would not want to join the RAF nor have them merge with us! Though I would like the RAF to recognise the need for AAC to retain Apaches and some battlefield helicopters, the need for an organic FAA with fast jet (+ why are CHF getting RAF cast-off Merlin Mk3s when their attitude, ethos and performance far outweighs the RAF SH force)

Phew, finally release that pent up distain for the RAF. I await my post’s slating just before I deploy for 6 months (What, the RAF rarely deploy for more than 3? Must be because they are over worked, but the other services are fine).

Gnd

31st May 2010, 13:55

:D hope you feel better now, you forgot theft of the King Airs.

vecvechookattack

31st May 2010, 14:22

he RAF rarely deploy for more than 3?

If you are lucky. The RAF don't deploy at all. They partake in the odd detachment but they don't deploy.

wokkamate

31st May 2010, 14:24

Britair....

One word for you: t**t - fill in the blanks yourself if you are literate enough mate. :ugh:

Your 'rant' as that is what it is, is typical of a self indulgent, ill informed chopper who really has no understanding or conception of what the RAF is and what it does - truly you belong on ARRSE so why not do us all a favour and head off over there chap. But we all have the right to free speech, so you have exercised yours fully, it would seem.

I am an RAF SH Pilot who has spent the last 18 years flying helicopters in every conflict zone we have been involved in. For 11 of those 18 years I spent, on average, 6-7 months of every year away from my home and family doing what I love best, supporting the British Armed Forces (Army, Navy and Royal in equal measures). I have had no complaints and still love doing my job to the best of my ability as does every member of my crews and detachment personnel.

I have also spent a great deal of time working with the FAA and AAC and while I have the utmost respect for them, they are not professional aviators in the same way the RAF are. Full stop.

I hoped I wouldn't be able to bite in response to your post, but I have, so please make sure to identfy yourself to the crew of the next RAF Helicopter who bring you bang or scoff and mail, or pulls your ass out of a contact when you have become a casualty - I hope they kick you back off the ramp mate.

Response rant over. :ok:

Sorry, had to add that you are probably a classic 'walt' anyway who has never ventured out beyond the wire or put himself anywhere near danger. That would explain your post nicely. Most of those I speak to (and I speak to a lot of the people I support, unlike your claims of aloof RAF Aircrew) who have experienced real combat, genuinely appreciate the RAF both in the SH and CAS roles (as well as the AT fleet who get them home, albeit usually late!) which leads me to the 'you are a classic Walt' conclusion. Go on, prove me wrong........:rolleyes:

glad rag

31st May 2010, 14:33

Well you have succeeded in joining a VERY exclusive club, do take care when deployed and don't forget the factor 50.

Barely Restrained

31st May 2010, 14:55

Britair

What utter hoop. You are yet another embittered idiot who takes a stereotype, or the example of a few and tars us all with the same brush. The vast majority of the RAF complete full tours in theatre. As a result of that, most RAF and Navy pers come back with a far better understanding of what the Army is about as a result of what is laughingly known as 'jointery' than you will ever have of your sister Services - hence your ill-informed post. The flip side of that is that it gives us the insight to know that we can be thankful we turned left in the AFCO and not right.

In terms of your points - the reason why most movers are demotivated is because they have to deal with pillocks like you on a daily basis. You may wish to note that the pax handlers in theatre are actually in the Army.

Your point on Tornado couldn't be further from the truth. I can speak with authority on that and one of the reasons why the JHF were withdrawn was because the fleet would have been broken had it stayed in theatre. If we had been that intent on world domination, what better way than to kipper the Navy by denying them the only ac that they can fly off carriers (and that was a central discussion)?

Like most pongos, you seem to think that the sole purpose of the RAF is to provide over the shoulder support to the Army while in the field. It's actually a small part of what we do and you might be surprised to know that flying in circles over Afg waiting to bail you out of the clag for 6 months is not conducive to keeping current in all of those other roles, hence the requirement to complete shorter tours.

In terms of tour lengths - I have yet to hear anyone from the Army give any scientific answer as to why everyone should complete 6 monthers other than 'its what we do'.

Finally, I've spent a couple of years as a BALO and had an outstanding time and made some good friends. I have nothing but respect for the guys that I worked with and what they were able to accomplish with sparse resources. Similarly, they took the time to understand what I could do and bring to the party and I had a great tour. They were professional to the core - something that you are clearly not. Fortunately, people like you are in the minority (although it is incredible how you all seem to gravitate towards HQs).

You made your choice at the AFCO, I made mine. You need to accept that and live with it and stop moaning about 'civvies in uniform'. Chimp. :ugh:

Anyhoo, back to the grind stone - I'm only a couple of months into my 6 monther...

wokkamate

31st May 2010, 15:02

Barely Restrained: :D

I agree wholeheartedly old boy. :ok:

But then I would........

TheWizard

31st May 2010, 15:07

If you are lucky. The RAF don't deploy at all. They partake in the odd detachment but they don't deploy.

Oh dear. It was only a matter of time, which incidentally is what Mr 'I am a Naval helicopter aviator therefore am busier than anyone else' seems to have a lot of.

Hope you enjoyed your daily feed.:rolleyes:

Whenurhappy

31st May 2010, 15:12

Well, I suppose I have bitten.

Britair, I shudder to think what job you have done in theatre and whether your got and about at KAF (or Kandahar NATO Operating Base - KNOB to be correct). If you had, you'd realise what a vital role the RAF Regt plays there - or perhaps you didn't note their role just over a week ago to repel a determined ground attack by Terry Taliban?

Oh, and how did you happen to get to/from/about theatre (although I think we have determined that you didn't get out much)? Were you beamed in, or did the RAF convey you on the last leg into theatre?

Oh, I could go on, but it is murderously hot here and I need to go down to the hotel pool in time for Happy Hour.

ping-pong

31st May 2010, 15:38

Britair,

loved the rant; made me chuckle..

As a card-carrying, albeit ground based member, of said "cowboy flying club", I thought you'd enjoy a photo of wokkamate's colleagues out on a 'jolly'....

Photo taken from my deployed jacuzzi of course....

Ping-pong

http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx45/ping-pong001/DSC_00442.jpg

vecvechookattack

31st May 2010, 15:49

Oh dear. It was only a matter of time, which incidentally is what Mr 'I am a Naval helicopter aviator therefore am busier than anyone else' seems to have a lot of.

I'm not busier than anyone else - Far from it. But the Fleet Air Arm is not in danger of being disbanded. Rather than attack other forces maybe the RAF should be defending its reputation and trying to justify what it does. The RAF is in big trouble. The RAF is about to lose about 25% of its manpower and lose a significant amount of its aircraft / Air Stations. Don't bite the hand that feeds you but fight your corner.

TheWizard

31st May 2010, 16:12

Making sweeping statements such as
If you are lucky. The RAF don't deploy at all. They partake in the odd detachment but they don't deploy.
takes away any credibility you might try and establish with subsequent posts.

Royal Navy in largest deployment of recent years (http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Royal-Navy-largest-deployment-recent-years/article-646992-detail/article.html)

Just one example of a 'deployment' involving the RAF (plenty more if you look) or is this just a little Grey Funnel detachment? :rolleyes:

vecvechookattack

31st May 2010, 16:30

We don't deploy... My detachment is bigger than your detachment. our deployment is longer than your deployment.... Really? Who cares ? The RAF don't care. The Royal Navy don't care. but the Royal Navy isn't about to be disbanded so stop trying to measure your capabilities against the Royal Navies Capabilities and start defending your service. If you don't defend your service then you may lose it.

wokkamate

31st May 2010, 16:38

Just wait until that Carrier contract gets cancelled under the SDR and the Lib Dems insist on Trident being replaced by an airborne nuclear capability.........

Oops there goes the Royal Navy! ;)

vecvechookattack

31st May 2010, 16:43

Maybe that is the answer. Do we need an independent Royal Navy? Perhaps it would be cheaper to disband the Royal Navy and call it the "Sea Arm of the RAF"?
Is there really a requirement for an independent Air Force? Is there a requirement for an independent Royal Navy? I do know that the RAF enjoy embarking in the CVS but how about embarking in a Frigate or Destroyer? If we get rid of the Fleet Air Arm then would the RAF be content to go to see in DD/FF? I think it would work.

p.s. The Carriers may be fair game but Trident has been ring-fenced and is not part of the SDR

wokkamate

31st May 2010, 16:53

I think the issue might now be: do we go down the route of a British Defence Force (as a prelude to a European Defence Force)?

The Australians and Canadians tried it and it failed, they then reverted (after considerable cost and dis-organisation) back to a Tri Service Armed Forces. I sincerely hope we won't have to learn that lesson too. I see no reason why the Three Services (and Royal) cannot continue to operate with true jointery. I have spent many months, in total, onboard her Majesties finest flat tops, cruising some war zones and some nicer parts, and have no problems with that.

But, the FAA are the aviation experts at sea and in the littoral, the AAC are the experts in Attack and the RAF SH Force (and CHF) are the experts in SH and SF.

Why try to fix it if it aint broken? :suspect:

TheWizard

31st May 2010, 16:55

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/images/smilies/smilielol.gif

VVH etc
You really do have a strange take on things for a military person!
Not once here have I 'compared' the RAF to the Navy (unlike you) and should I feel the need, the last place I would 'defend' my Service is on an anonymous website (unlike you).

I would also give the stand-up routine some more work if I were you.

vecvechookattack

31st May 2010, 17:12

Totally agree with you wokka.... but we need to persuade the CS bean counters that we need to retain an independent Air Force. With an 11% defence budget cut looming the SDR is going to hurt.

Chicken Leg

31st May 2010, 17:31

I have also spent a great deal of time working with the FAA and AAC and while I have the utmost respect for them, they are not professional aviators in the same way the RAF are. Full stop.

Oh dear Wokka. A reasonable response to Brit's post..... right up until you made that statement. You now hold similar prat status to him!

In the same way that the point was made about dragging an injured Britair off the dirt, remember who is circling above you and escorting you, allowing your role to be completed that much more safely.

Silly boy!

minigundiplomat

31st May 2010, 17:45

I think (and hope) that Wokka's comment referred to the fact that the Army are soldiers first, aviators second, similarly the RN has traditionally put deep blue water stuff first.

The RAF of today has a differing stance, you are an adminer/opsy/guard/ firefighter/storeman first, and aviator second.

However, Chicken Leg, we know exactly watches our backs in theatre and you have our deepest respect.

wokkamate

31st May 2010, 18:13

Chicken leg

Right......and if you ask any AAC Pilot what he does, he is a soldier first and an aviator second.

I know because I work with them.

It was not meant in any way to be derogatory, and I am not saying that the FAA and AAC are not professional in what they do, merely a reflection of the fact that I am an aviator first and an officer on the RAF second - my job is to fly.

As usual though the insecurities come flooding out on here (anonymously) and it turns into a slagging match. I have the utmost respect for the boys and girls who provide me with MS, however where I go and what I do, we rarely have the luxury of MS from the AAC. But I will remember your comments CL.

:ouch:

BEagle

31st May 2010, 18:19

Look, you lot, these puerile internecine wranglings help no-one. So I would suggest you stop right now.

Personally I far preferred to check in rather than to dig in. Who wouldn't? Any idiot can be uncomfortable.

But it seems that there are those who joined the UK Armed Forces to eat dung and live in ditches and also those who joined to enjoy a twist of rough shag and whittling scrimshaw whilst bobbing up and down in little grey boats.

Just show them some pity and let them get on with it - they don't know what they're missing.

50+Ray

31st May 2010, 18:54

Agreed Beagle. Enough Fellas!:ugh:

The Gorilla

31st May 2010, 19:02

Hear Hear Beagle... This isn't doing any one any good! :bored:

wokkamate

31st May 2010, 19:08

Crikey Beags,

'puerile internecine wranglings'

please stop using big words it makes my head hurt! Chicken leg, do you know what he is on about? ;)

I guess I was just exercising my right to free speech, as Britair was, and therefore our entitlement to 'discuss' differing points of view. I am not slagging off Chicken leg, simply expanding on the comments of mine that made him take offence! As I said before I have the utmost respect and admiration for the AAC and FAA - so why suggest to us that we should stop?

To get back on topic though, Britair is conspicuous with his absence of response.........

Some people get so touchy on here sometimes :E

glad rag

31st May 2010, 20:48

Humbug BEeags it's ALMOST worth it for a looksie, but those saddoes can stay clicked.....:cool:

knowitall

31st May 2010, 21:16

"do we go down the route of a British Defence Force"

indeed what possible reason is there to stop at 2 separate branches of the armed forces, once you gone down that route the only eventual end point is one

be careful what you wish for

"why are CHF getting RAF cast-off Merlin Mk3s"

karma for 30 years of the RN forcing over-specified expensive maintenance hungry aircraft on everyone else?

LBP PC DC

31st May 2010, 21:16

My (coppers) helmet and body armour are already on as I type but...... Why don't we stop trying to punch so far above our weight, save a shed load of money and MUCH more importantly save a lot of lives further down the line? An air force configured for the defence of the UK, its assets and its dependencies, a Navy configured to defend our coastline, our maritime trade traffic and our oil installations and an Army configured to defend the land masses of the UK, its assets and dependencies. Altogether far smaller forces, more economically viable and more relevant to what the tax payer really needs (admittedly not necesarily what they want).
Just a thought and in no way meant to be derogatory to any of the UK's Armed Forces who all do a damned good job as far as I and most other UK citizens are concerned.

LBP PC DC

foldingwings

1st Jun 2010, 10:18

I thought current RAF docspeak was:

WARFIGHTER FIRST

Catch up, Wokka

Foldie:ok:

BEagle

1st Jun 2010, 10:48

'Warfighter' - what an appalling piece of Spam-speak. Please assure me that the RAF doesn't use such a ridiculous term. You'll be saying "oo-rah" or whatever that silly noise is next....:\

It sounds like the name of some kids' computer game...:bored:

Pontius Navigator

1st Jun 2010, 10:52

Why don't we stop trying to punch so far above our weight,LBP PC DC

Now now LBP, I told you elsewhere, DON'T mention the elephant in the room.

norfolkandchance

1st Jun 2010, 11:13

'Warfighter' - what an appalling piece of Spam-speak. Please assure me that the RAF doesn't use such a ridiculous term.

its on the main gate at RAF Cottesmore in big green and white letters!

Pontius Navigator

1st Jun 2010, 11:25

'Warfighter' - what an appalling piece of Spam-speak. Please assure me that the RAF doesn't use such a ridiculous term.

its on the main gate at RAF Cottesmore in big green and white letters!

I think this was one of Brian Burridge's concepts but I don't know who if it was actually from his pen or some sycophantic staffer.

Now that we have not got a War Office but a Defence Ministry we should have Defenders First, Aviators Second, or some such.

Or perhaps re-title the MOD as the Ministry of Peace(makers).

wokkamate

1st Jun 2010, 14:11

or the ministry of cheesemakers......

Blessed are the Cheesemakers!

wokkamate

1st Jun 2010, 14:14

Folding Wings:

As an aside, I am not in the RAF, I am in the Joint Helicopter Command! (although the RAF retain full command of the people via 1 Gp....)

Jointery at its best chap!

As for current RAF speak? Havn't got a clue, been in staff with Royal for the last couple of years :ok:

Finnpog

1st Jun 2010, 17:50

Blessed are the Cheesemakers!

Clearly he means the purveyors of all forms of dairy produce.

The B Word

1st Jun 2010, 19:09

As an aside, I am not in the RAF, I am in the Joint Helicopter Command! (although the RAF retain full command of the people via 1 Gp....)

Wokka - I hope that is a "waaa!"?

Otherwise, all those wearing light blue in PJHQ are not in the RAF (and those in dark blue not in the RN, and in the brown (sometimes questionable "uniform" not in the Army). Also, what about those at MoD? Or those in JFACHQ? Or AWC?

If you hold the rank from the RAF then you're in the RAF...ditto pongos or fish-heads. Unless, of course you're on exchange when things start to blur a little (but your cap-badge is where you belong).

Sorry mate, but, what a load of "Tosh" about JHC and who you belong to...

The B Word

wokkamate

1st Jun 2010, 21:53

The B word:

Bored now.....

Of course I realise I am in the RAF, I wear the badge with pride. My point is that I increasingly feel like those of us in JHC are in a very different RAF from the rest! That is how I feel and it is my opinion.

Seriously mate.......:zzz:

minigundiplomat

1st Jun 2010, 22:29

Wokka is not alone in his feelings. Most feel they finished their pint in 2000 and found a shilling in the bottom of the glass.

The B Word

1st Jun 2010, 23:58

MGD/WM

I believe that the RAF is different for all of us since 1999-2000...

If you're a Wokka mate then change Balkans for Middle-East and go to JHC...

If you're a mudmover then substitute daily drops of ordinance over Iraq to "shows of force" in Afg and halve your Sqn numberplates...

If you're an AD mate then substitute stooging about in a No Fly Zone to intercepting Bears and Blackjacks and halve your Sqn numberplates...

If you're an AWACS mate then substitute Balkans for a little bit of Afghanistan/UK QRA and a lot of trg and halve your Sqn numberplates...

If you're a photo recce mate then you're now in a box in Nevada flying missions over Afg as a UOR...

If you're a Kipper mate then stop flying for a while!

If you're a Truckie mate then fly to Afg and back, do not go West (unless you're one of the lucky ones) and halve your Sqn numberplates...

If you're a T@nker-w@nker then start to do lots of trash-hauling, forget about AAR and halve your Sqn numberplates...

If you were in 3Gp then go to 1Gp, 2Gp or JHC...

If you were in PTC then go to 22Gp and get less and less contact with the military as contractors take over...

You should both think yourseves lucky to be in a "growth industry" for now... especially with the predicted nightmare SDSR around the corner. Just imagine how different it would be if we were doing the "Cold War" type scenario just now? I rather suspect that you would not be in the afore mentioned "growth industry" that you find yourself in.

...for what it's worth I do think that you (Wokka mates) were ditched and then further let down in the 3Gp transition. But, I do think you may have some rather old, and maybe fond, memories of an Air Force than no longer exists.

The B Word sends...:ok: