Do all RAF Aircraft fly in support of troops on the ground?

[FRAG7]

Just a thought, do all RAF aircraft fly in support of troops on the ground? We know that all helicopters do. Harriers do. The Typhoon wil be carrying out CAS. In fact directly or indirectly all of the RAF's aircraft support troops on the ground. Perhaps it is time to rename back to the Royal Flying Corps.
I stand corrected, the only aircraft that don't support are the'Red Arrows' and the'BBMF'.

[Nicholas Howard]

What about the gloriously yellow Sea Queens of the RAF SARF?

[Lurking123]

The Typhoons and F3s that defend the sky.
The ISTAR assets that do stuff the troops don't need to know about.
The chaps who guard the Queen when the Guards are on holiday.
The strategic stuff that occurs just a little bit forward of the FLOT.
Otherwise, they just look pretty and have better chefs.:eek:

[CirrusF]

Well we just spent billions buying an air defence fighter for the RAF, even though the RAF have never shot down another aircraft in A2A combat since WW2, and is never likely to ever again in any seriously probable conflict scenario. So you could say that most of the RAF is spent supporting the careers of the senior RAF officers who came to that decision.

[gashman]

If you are fighting a shooting war, you ultimately need troops to hold the ground you may have won with air power. At the moment, the higher profile work the Service does is in support of those troops. The RAF have done all sorts of other missions though (Nimrod for search and rescue, or Hercules for the famine relief efforts in Ethiopia as examples, and the 24/7 QRA watch manned by the F3 and Typhoon).

As we see more capable platforms coming into service, their multi-roll capabilities will probably mean that most aircrew will be familiar with, if not on, joint ops.

[Lurking123]

Oh, and what did they do for 10+ years over Iraq whilst Dubya found the balls for Iraq the Sequel.

I'm guessing someone has gone fishing. :ugh:

[Co-Captain]

When the troops on the ground secure an LZ are they doing it for themselves or for the RAF Chinnys to land on?? In which case who's working for who? When a Herc/C-17/Tri*/VC10 does a sweeper/trail/tanking for a Harrier/Typhoon/GR4 is it an RAF sortie or does that also come under 'Army Suport' as ultimately that is their role in the grand scheme of things...

Oooer, think this could run and run...:bored:

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

never shot down another aircraft in A2A combat since WW2


Tut tut! How about Palestine in 1948? Or the (admittedly unconfirmed) Indonesian C-130 and MiG-17 in the 1960s?


directly or indirectly all of the RAF's aircraft support troops on the ground


Not really true, as others have pointed out. But even if it were, those troops are simply supporting the Government's defence policy. So how about a new PC name for the whole lot? Army is sooo 19th Century.

United Kingdom Peace-seeking Overseas Defensive Expeditionary Team, anyone?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just a thought, do all RAF aircraft fly in support of troops on the ground?

NO.

Can we have a smilie of a troll with a fishing rod?

[bspatz]

Based on his experience in the RAF during WWII, my father always maintained that the RAF's role was to provide air cover whilst the Navy evacuated the Army

[The Helpful Stacker]

Well we just spent billions buying an air defence fighter for the RAF, even though the RAF have never shot down another aircraft in A2A combat since WW2, and is never likely to ever again in any seriously probable conflict scenario. So you could say that most of the RAF is spent supporting the careers of the senior RAF officers who came to that decision.

You're not even trying anymore (though you are very trying).

Anyone want to poke a few holes in that tripe?

[LateArmLive]

RAF pilots in the Falklands........
Can't believe I even bothered replying to the clown :mad:

[Co-Captain]

I remember chatting to an ex Staish at a secret Wiltshire AT base not so long ago who reckoned he'd put together a very compelling argument for binning the RAF in favour of some kind of 'Army Air Support Service'. In fact, the model already exists, he reckoned, with the USMC.

Thought it was a load of cr*p myslef. Wouldn't fancy marching to work every day and wearing a beret wherever I went. There's too much tradition enshrined in our fine service for that to ever happen.

No doubt its at the top of our wise leaders' agendas... :}

[CirrusF]

You're not even trying anymore (though you are very trying).


Are you still seriously worried about invasion by martians?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Are you still seriously worried about invasion by martians?

Are you still a complete waste of rations with blinkers set firmly to Republique Francais?

[Clockwork Mouse]

Nice one Frag! You've really got them burning and turning!

[brickhistory]

Are you still seriously worried about invasion by martians?

Any lessons on being so invaded?

Surrendering?

Are you considering making a run for the all-galactic record? Certainly, you've got the European championship nailed.

[CirrusF]

Last recorded RAF air to air victory was when an RAF Phantom downed an RAF Jaguar over Germany in 1982. Prior to that, unconfirmed reports of RAF Spits downing Egyptian Air Force Spits in 1948. Already debated here:
Last RAF air to air kill? - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=85147)

I'm not knocking RAF - just the judgement to place an emphasis with Typhoon procurement of priority of AD over GA/carrier role. AD role is only a deterrent, rather than a capability that we are ever likely to really need. On the other hand, GA/carrier versatile capability is exactly what we do and will need for the next twenty years or so.

No potential enemy is ever going to look at France and Britain and decide - ooh the Brits have got that awesome Typhoon for AD but the Frogs have only got measly Rafale - so let's attack the Frogs, as they'll be a pushover with Rafale. Rafale is, in fact, perfectly capable in AD role against any realistic potential aggressors, but more importantyly is also a much more versatile GA/carrier aircraft than Typhoon.

[Archimedes]

1948 is decidedly confirmed, Cirrus by a whole variety of sources, including the Egyptians.

Upon what evidence do you base your claim that the Rafale is a much more versatile GA aircraft than Typhoon?

[CirrusF]

There is a lot of public debate on the subject already:

Typhoon vs Rafale, the end all thread [Archive] - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-26114.html)

[Archimedes]

With respect Cirrus, I'd sooner rely on the views of my mother in law's cat regarding the air-ground capabilities of the two types than anything over on that forum.

There are a few knowledgeable contributors on there, granted, but the overwhelming majority are people who haven't the first clue beyond what they read in their favourite aviation magazine.

[Archimedes]

Far more over here do than over there, AIDU.

[soddim]

Not sure why by implication this thread questions the need for an independent air force. Thought when the Americans decided after Korea to follow our example everyone had learned the lesson from the experience of war.

Air power is necessarily a limited resource because it is expensive. If you have a limited resource and conflicting priorities the management and allocation of that resource had better be independent of the other forces clamouring for support – otherwise he who shouts loudest/wears the highest rank/has the biggest willy wins.

Air power is also complex and requires highly skilled technicians and aviators. If the air elements are competing for spending with the tank or the ship it is unlikely that they will get their appropriate share.

The management of air power is also highly specialised and to do the job successfully requires more than a career shared between maritime and soldiering.

Just a few thoughts.

[brickhistory]

Thought when the Americans decided after Korea to follow our example everyone had learned the lesson from the experience of war.

?Que?

USAF established, 1947.

However, please don't let it detract from the rest of the good post.

[Two's in]

A good troll attempt, but the 5-10 year strategy for the RAF lists 12 objectives, only one or two of which involve direct support of "troops on the ground", but Typhoon does get its own mention. How well publicized and relevant is this list outside of High Wycombe I wonder?


Support current operations
Maintain and further develop an agile, adaptable and capable expeditionary air power contribution to the UK's overall Defence capability, which takes full account of emerging threats, concepts and technologies
Improve the accuracy, speed and coherence of our ability to deliver effects across the battlespace by developing and exploiting the UK's network enabled capability
Introduce Typhoon into operational service and, as swiftly as possible, provide the aircraft with a robust all-weather multi-role capability
Harmonize our air power capability, concepts and doctrine with those of the US Forces
Ensure our structures, organization and processes deliver rapid and accurate decision making at the lowest appropriate level
Provide a World-class flying and ground training system and improve through-life education and training to produce well-motivated, highly trained, agile and adaptable warfighters
Develop a sustainable manning and personnel strategy that supports the RAF's expeditionary capability and takes account of the prevailing social environment
Improve the quality of the RAF’s operational, technical and domestic infrastructure
Optimize investment in the RAF by delivering the outcomes of the Defence Airfield Review, further exploiting the benefits of the Defence Logistic Transformation Process, building a strong relationship with Industry, and eliminating waste and bureaucracy across every strand of RAF activity
Further enhance the image and reputation of the RAF with the public as a means of maintaining their enduring support and meeting our recruiting requirements
Improve our people's ability to clearly articulate the contribution that air power - and the RAF - makes to UK Defence

[Vortex_Generator]

See Magic Mushrooms second post on the link below:
Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > Crab wants end to navy jets (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=111103/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=80.html)

[Gnd]

This is so much fun, can't wait for WG13 to truckup.

12 commandments look like justification to me, the Typhoon should have been scrapped and we take the cash to the aircraft storage in USofA. Then buy 100s of CH47 and A10s meaning we could have a truly useful RAF for current ops. Largeing it up in an air supremacy situation makes no sense to most.

The troops are served more and more by the RAF and the air-to-air is minimal, at the moment. What is the point of denying it - that’s what we are told to do. As for SAR - different fish and not even on this planet, by the way there are some SAR crews on detachment that have nothing to do with SAR and are definitely supporting the troops.

I don't think the fact that the RAF support troops mainly will change the fact that the Air staff (Upper) will continue to trump every meeting they go to and constantly whinge that every one is against them. Just get on with it and use your vote (pvr, election etc......) to oust the twits that put us in this madness.

[knowitall]

"we take the cash to the aircraft storage in USofA. Then buy 100s of CH47 and A10s"

they aren't for sale, but other than that a fantastic plan

[WeekendFlyer]

Erm, not to sure about CirrusF's comment - possibly a bit lacking in understanding of airpower theory...

It's all very well having lots of mud-movers if there is no air threat, and we have the luxury of that situation in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. But one day in the not too distant future we might have to go to war in a place where that is not the case. What do we do if we end up having to fight where the opposition has something useful like a bunch of SU-27s, SU-30s or similar? In this type of situation it would not take long for everyone to be saying "thank goodness we bought Typhoon."

Yes it's introduction to service has been long and protracted, and yes it is taking a while to get the A/G capability in place, but we will eventually end up with an aircraft that can perform both roles really quite well.

My thinking is don't ever relegate Air Defence to second place, because although it is not needed much at the moment, one day it might be. It's a bit like a reserve parachute; you hope you will never need it but if you do you will be absolutely stuffed without it....:(

[wg13_dummy]

Twos's in, that reads like some sort of random management speak mission statement from some random corporate organisation. It says a lot but doesn't actually mean anything.


Anyway, seeings how gnd graciously asked for my input, I shall willingly oblige.

Offensive:
Harrier - Direct support to the Army
Tornado GR4 - Direct support to the Army

Defensive:
E3D - indirect/direct support to the Army
Tornado F3 - Poorly defending Hull
Typhoon - Airshows/Poorly defending Hull

Recce/MRA:
Nimrod - Indirect/Direct support to the Army
Tornado GR4 - Direct support to the Army
Sentinel - Direct support to the Army
King Air - Direct support to the Army

Transport:
C17 - Direct support to the Army
Hercules - Direct support to the Army
Tristar - Direct support to the Army
VC10 - Direct support to the Army

Smaller Transport:
BAe 125 - Shiny aircraft
BAe 146 - Shiny aircraft
Agusta 109 - Shiny aircraft

Helicopters:
Puma -Direct support to the Army
Merlin - Direct support to the Army
Chinook - Direct support to the Army
Seaking - SAR soon to be privatised

UAV:
Reaper - Direct support to the Army

Training Aircraft:
Hawk - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Dominie - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Firefly - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Griffin - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
King Air - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Tucano - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Squirrel - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Vigilant - Summer camps ATC
Viking - Summer camps ATC

So the roles of the RAF can be summarised as follows; Giving direct support to the British Army, training aircrew to fly in direct support to the British Army, flying at airshows, poorly defending Hull and providing aircraft to support ATC summer Camps.


:D

[al446]

Has anybody noticed that Frag7 has gone quiet? Obvious troll.

[wg13_dummy]

Has anybody noticed that Frag7 has gone quiet? Obvious troll.

Are you saying that because you know he is right and you don't have a witty come-back?

[GashCrewman]

wg_13 well said.

The Tom is at the sharpest spearhead of the British armed forces. EVERYTHING we do is either directly or indirectly in support of him.

[Laarbruch72]

wg13 dummy: I could go into specifics, but I'd be wasting your time and mine.

I'll just state: You're a cock, and you have no idea of aircraft missions.

BAe146: "Shiny aircraft."

What on EARTH does that mean?

[wg13_dummy]

Laarbruch72;
wg13 dummy: I could go into specifics, but I'd be wasting your time and mine.

I'll just state: You're a cock.

I can see I'm dealing with the brains of the outfit here then. :hmm:

Would you care to disprove or disagree with my list?

[Point0Five]

You've got it all wrong.

The Army's job is keep the bad guys away from our airfields, so that the Air Force can perform maritime strike!

[wg13_dummy]

Laarbruch72, I see you've edited your post.

Would you care to disprove or disagree with my list? Is there anything on there that isn't true?


BAe146: "Shiny aircraft."

What on EARTH does that mean?

Err, it means that the BAe 146 is an aircraft that is rather shiny. Unless of course you think it has a role other than flying around being shiny?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Would you care to disprove or disagree with my list?

I would care to disagree. It's very amusing, but shows a complete lack of knowledge of air power and why we have different types. As for flying around looking shiny, yes they do! :rolleyes:

[FRAG7]

Still around but have been away from a keyboard.
As WG13 has said, the RAF do directly or indirectly support the Army.
Perhaps it is time for a re branding of the RAF. RFC comes to mind.

[Fintastic]

Please let this thread die, too many people have spouted such utter crap about modern warfare I feel like crying....Anyone who is currently 'in the Business' of defence knows how things are done and how the UK PLC goes about it. If you don't, go to the pub and have a pint! Far more fun!