Should the RAF be scrapped? (merged)

[tommee_hawk]

Today (Mon 9th Aug) Jeremy Vine (BBC Radio 2) speaks to someone who says that the RAF should be scrapped in order to save money from the public purse...

Anyone have an opinion? :confused:

[Andu]

On that logic, why not the Army and the Royal Navy as well?

And the Fire Service.

And the Police.


It'll save heaps.

[Grimweasel]

Well, why not? Whilst we are at it we could also scrap the NHS, the Dept for Work and Pensions, FCO etc - all to save money. Utter tripe and based on un-confounded leaks and hearsay. No decisions have been made yet; only options discussed and by that very process of discussing all the options then some hares will be set running. We still have the 4th largest spend of GDP on defence of any country so maybe we should trim back and stop trying to police the world for a few years

We should all just wait and see; what will be will be, but with Liam Fox saying last week that the amalgamation of the RAF and Navy would be too much for any Government to stomach I just see this as bored media types with airwaves and column inches to fill.

[bobward]

Dave and Nick seem to think the Canadians have answers for all questions. Since the Canucks went from their three services to Candian Armed Forces back in the 1960's, maybe we'll follow them, and the Belgians....

If we do then there are all sorts of other savings that could come about, on things like uniforms. If you mix Navy and RAF Blue, with Army green, don't you end up with a purplish hue?

Anyone out there fancy that?

If (big if) we do this, does this mean that, like our cousins, the jets have British armed forces on one side, and a bit in Welsh, Gallioc and many other languages on t'other?

Must go, those nice people in white coats just arrived with my afternoon tablets.....

[500days2do]

...ex-navy t$$t basically advertising his new venture with a load of bulls$$t about stuff he obviously hasn't a clue about.

Then JV is really a Dail Mail readers forum isn't he...

5d2d

[Chugalug2]

What goes around comes around. The RAF was formed before the end of WW1 in order that it be "an Independent Airforce", that is free to exploit airpower in the form of strategic bombing (with aircraft such as the HP 0/400). However, peace nearly put paid to it and it was only by undercutting the cost of Iraq ops as proposed by the Army that Trenchard kept his shrivelled baby alive. It was WW2 and the renewed use of strategic bombing, which this time extended post war in the guise of the V Force, that ensured its continued independence. Now that much strategic airpower has passed to the Royal Navy in the form of Trident and Tomahawk we are almost back to square one. With present incumbents weaned on a diet of "Fighter Command good, Bomber Command bad", the RAF's raison d'etre seems to be in doubt within its own ranks let alone those without. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"!

[FantomZorbin]

Isn't it about time we heard what the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has to say about its policy for the future of the UK, BEFORE any discussion on what is or is not needed?

Until such a policy is stated, not even Dr. Fox can formulate a decision on what goes or stays! (It'll not stop him though as he is a political animal and cares little for the effect of his actions!):*

[ProM]

Too true FZ. We have after all been operating way outside the bounds of the last SDR for a long time.

When our chiefs get the reduced budget this time, they should have a contract against a set of scenarios we could cope with (a single village armed with sharpened guava fruit) and a contract statement that anything above and beyond that has to be separately funded

[Vic777]

the RAF should be scrapped in order to save money from the public purse...
Probably a good idea ... especially since the USA won't be defending GB any more.

[Blacksheep]

Is this where it all ends? :(


http://7t5.co.uk/Halton%20Camp/Astra%20Cinema%2B.jpg...

[Avitor]

Someone attempting to be helpful no doubt, pity they were talking out of the methane valve outlet. :cool:

[obnoxio f*ckwit]

Per Ardua ad Astra: After work, we go to the cinema?

[Wyler]

Jeremy Vine provides Tabloid type current affairs programmes. What next.....scrap the RAF because a Transgender Gypsy on Jeremy Kyle said so......:rolleyes:

[vecvechookattack]

14 Posts so far and nobody has argued against scrapping the RAF.

What do we need the RAF for ? What do they provide that someone else couldn't provide? AT ? Could the Army do that? SH ?.... again...the Army could do that. SAR...thats going so no snags there... Typhoon... we need the RAF for Fast Jets...Army wouldn't be interested in that and its too difficult for the RN.

[barnstormer1968]

If we look at history, it tells us that to have a large and effective combat ready armed force on home soil, the easiest way is to radically cut defence spending...

That's a fact that simply cannot be argued with!
























It will of course be another countries force, after an invasion due to the home countries lack of credible defence.......But will be a large and effective force none the less!:E

[Pontius Navigator]

What do we need the RAF for ? What do they provide that someone else couldn't provide? AT ? Could the Army do that?

Rock on Tommy, if you think Gateway House is bad ..........:}

[ProM]

vecvechookattack (http://www.pprune.org/members/108038-vecvechookattack)
RN would obviously argue that they can do fast jets. Indeed the argument would probably run that if you had all jets carrier capable then they could flex between force project and homeland defence when needed.

[vecvechookattack]

The RN can do "Embarked Fast jets" very well but they are not very good at the Land thing.... Best leave that to the experts

[Rakshasa]

Best leave that to the experts

British Airways? :}

[Double Zero]

The RAF supports huge numbers of 'hangers on' and useless idiot top staff and is repeatedly ripped off by suppliers who must joke among themselves " how many zeroes shall we add on this invoice ?! "

However it seems to have saved this country, unlike the berks of all political flavours except Winston Churchill ( a rarity indeed ) what was it he said ?!

A dear friend once wrote to me in a book, " He who would wish to know what shall be, must first know what has gone before ".

Bin the politicians first, this lot in particular with their banker chums, bring on the Replublic !

( I wasn't a leftie until forced recently )

DZ

[Jumping_Jack]

The argument that 'the Army could do that' works both ways. The Air Force could do the army stuff with the bods and equipment, similarly the Navy could too. Gifting the Air Force folks and equipment to the Army, does't mean they can do it...:ugh:

[Double Zero]

Seek the 'Two Johns' on youtube for the discussion re. having how many Admirals related to how many major ships; I'm actually pro-Navy ( particularly FAA ) but it is a good point, with humour.

[fallmonk]

Not to state the obvious BUT, assuming they decided to give the navy the option of providing UK defence from there flat tops as was mentioned on the radio.
Only the harrier out off the airforce currant aircraft can used on carriers !
So are we to up the order for F-35's??
Buy F18's as mentioned on the other thread (or buy French !!!!)

What am saying is NONE off these options are cheap so they are not going to save any cash .
And is going to cost more !

[Wrathmonk]

If they canned the RAF and transferred all the equipment to the Army/RN how many personnel do you think would go with it? If individuals had wanted to 'dig in' they would have joined the Army and if they had wanted to 'give up' they would have joined the Navy.;)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.... and before anyone else says it, if they had wanted to wear RAC patrolmans uniform, nylon trousers, clothes from George at Asda and white socks then they would have joined the Air Force. Which they did!:p

[NutLoose]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4822044364_e1e697a2be_z.jpg

Ok, so that's sorted then, you Air Commodores will all transfer over to the Army in the rank of Colonel, you Sergeants will all become RSM's what ever they are and I am sorry, but there does not appear to be a position for a Royal on their manning strength, I would suggest you go along with the man in the funny hat Sir and see if the Navy can find an opening for you.....

Senior RAF and army officers (and King George VI?) planning the next mission? | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/whatsthatpicture/4822044364/in/set-72157624390146241/)

[Compressorstall]

I used to enjoy reading the debates on here, but instead it just descends into someone banging on about how great the Navy is. The debate here is that while some try to come up with an affordable, cost-effective solution to the provision of Defence capability, the narrow-minded brigade just see it as an opportunity to bash the RAF. People love to rush forward and tell their stories of how an organisation screwed up, or to highlight some nobs within it. I spent some of my time today trying to reach a solution with one of my Army bretheren who refused to see that his interpretation of a situation may be wrong and instead spent his time knocking my service. Great. Jointery is inhibited by the closed minds who can't move forward and instead spend their time calling names and making fun of things they don't understand.

Bernard Law Montgomery, also know as 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein once said:

"Air power is indivisible. If you split it up into compartments, you merely pull it to pieces and destroy its greatest asset, its flexibility. "

[minigundiplomat]

Bernard Law Montgomery, also know as 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein once said:

"Air power is indivisible. If you split it up into compartments, you merely pull it to pieces and destroy its greatest asset, its flexibility. "


What would he know? He never spent his life making comments and dispensing opinions on Pprune from the comfort of his armchair....

[changeitnot]

An island nation needs a Navy and an Airforce to defend the homeland. It needs an Army to occupy lands that belong to others. It's about time we stopped pretending we are a major player.

[gijoe]

'The Air Force could do the army stuff with the bods and equipment, similarly the Navy could too.'

Given the state of many an airman and officer that I have seen recently I very much doubt that. At the same time, the IQ of the average infantry soldier would exclude them from piloting a fast jet.

They are different jobs for different people.

The funniest point I heard on the JV show was from a lady that said her son was a RAF Chef...and soldier first.

I don't think so...:}

Anyway, roll on the end of Oct.

:ok:

[Dan Gerous]

was a RAF Chef...and solider first

Don't know what goes on in the RAF/Navy/Army nowadays, but back in the 70/80s, although we in the Airforce all had trades that were effectively our day jobs, we were also a source of manpower with a rifle. Try getting the civvy painters or the JPA terminal, to man a checkpoint or sanger.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

An RAF Chef would never have been live armed, you had to have successfully completed your trade training before that could happen.

As the RAF Catering course is obviously the hardest course ever invented, must be as no one has ever passed it, cant see how an RAF Chef would ever be trusted with a rifle.

[NutLoose]

An RAF Chef would never have been live armed, you had to have successfully completed your trade training before that could happen.

As the RAF Catering course is obviously the hardest course ever invented, must be as no one has ever passed it, cant see how an RAF Chef would ever be trusted with a rifle.


Actually Chef is a misnomer, if you look at their actual job title, they are

"Fitters and Turners"

They take perfectly good food, fit it into cooking containers and turn it into sh*t.. :p

[Pontius Navigator]

Actually Chef is a misnomer, if you look at their actual job title, they are

"Fitters and Turners"

They take perfectly good food, fit it into cooking containers and turn it into sh*t.. :p

And potentially able to kill more people without any ammunition :}

Garn, must be time for some PTI bashing, leave the food bashers alone :)

[TheWizard]

What would he know? He never spent his life making comments and dispensing opinions on Pprune from the comfort of his armchair....

Indeed. Perhaps such 'experts' could form a new unit with new badges something like these?

http://jamjamtees.com/design_images/chairborne-thumbnail.gif
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZQ0-8s9ijtSk7R9hUC6C6JUlXhdrEd-HUaPz28G4LxI_aOk8&t=1&usg=__3zP4h0iCy3qqhQMafnpB7JMVtIo=

[Pontius Navigator]

Where can I get one of those for my Desking Suit?

[gijoe]

Dan Gerous make a good point about being an armed guarding force during the 70/80s...but that is not being a soldier. They are very different things.

Being an infantry soldier today is a very complex game that involves some sophisticated bits of kit - it is not a case of pick up gun, run towards hill shooting and shouting - and this reinforces my point some posts ago about the RAF not being able to do the Army's job and vice versa. The average burden of 70kg is another issue.

You may ask how does the average Joe do this given his lack of schooling? By doing it again and again, and again, and relying on his mates, and this is his main job - not a part time activity inbetween engine changes, photography details, cooking lunch for the station or counting aircrew gloves in the stores. There are many parts of the Army that kid themselves that they could do the infantry job but this is far from the reality.

I look forward to Oct again

G:ok:

[TBM-Legend]

I've got a good idea. Cancel the RAF and create something called the Royal Flying Corps as part of the Army. Those who like fishing boats could re=form the RNAS!

[Al R]

I don't know about the RAF - but can we scrap the malodorous Jeremy please? A more pointless and incipid broadcaster you'd be hard pressed to find.

[minigundiplomat]

Good use of the word 'incipid'. I prefer le deguster d' coque [apologies to all french speaking forum members for murdering your language].

[Al R]

leave the food bashers alone

I had Beef Wellington in London recently, and it wasn't a patch on the 1996 MCSU dish that I still remember with salivating chops.

[XL319]

I think we should have a national RAF prevesation society to maintain the bases which were built in the expansion period. So much history going up in smoke!! or not (decay):}

[Buster Hyman]

But isn't the UK just a great big Carrier anchored off France anyway???:confused:


:E:E

[J52]

Tender the service performed by the MoD out to private enterprise with performance targets to be achieved to obtain bonus payments.

[Neptunus Rex]

That photograph in Post #26 is quite amazing. We can see King George VI and several officers of Air and Field rank standing, whilst three SNCOs are sitting down. A rare sight indeed.

[teeteringhead]

That photograph in Post #26 is quite amazing. ... and think of the money saved on heating bills by wearing greatcoats indoors!

[Dockers]

For Double Zero (post #21), and others: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" was first coined by George Santayana in 1905. It has been regularly plaguarised by others.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

If it can be proven that disbanding the RAF will save a worthwhile amount of money, then do it. But simply re-brigading RAF roles/personnel/equipment to RN/Army won't achieve this...and the process of re-brigading will cost money.

scrap the malodorous Jeremy

I hope you mean Vine. I'd miss Kyle with his sharp suits and incisive comments.


plaguarised


Sounds scary! In fact, just bin the RAF straight away, I don't care - but please don't plaguarise me...

[kharmael]

It's alright. Just create a Facebook page saying:

"We luv d raf n it shldnt be clsd dwn innit."

That usually works to stir public support for unpopular things. :mad:

[SRENNAPS]

That photograph in Post #26 is quite amazing. We can see King George VI and several officers of Air and Field rank standing, whilst three SNCOs are sitting down.

The SNCOs were trying to have a quiet game of Ukers when that lot barged in and tried to tell them how to play the game:ugh::ugh:

[NutLoose]

Quote:
That photograph in Post #26 is quite amazing. We can see King George VI and several officers of Air and Field rank standing, whilst three SNCOs are sitting down.


I won't mention the 4th SNCO that you missed then ;)

[Blacksheep]

It strikes me that it was a combination of Fighter Command's prevention of Johnny Foreigner gaining air superiority over the English Channel and the brooding presence of the Royal Navy's Home Fleet at Scapa that kept Britain British when it mattered. Adolf certainly wasn't worried about the ability of the British Army, for the pongoes were busy nursing their wounds, having abandoned their unsuitable equipment and hitched a ride back to Blighty aboard anything that could get alongside at Dunkirk.

But that's all been forgotten.


Until the next time.


When we'll have to throw in the towel at the first push.

[Meldrew]

The politicians would be well advised to remember that the first responsibility of government is the defence of its people and their way of life. The Royal Air Force does a damn good job of supporting that requirement, and any structural change in the current form, involving amalgamation with other forces, risks diluting and damaging its effectiveness. It is also extremely doubtful that it would save money, in fact reprinting all the headed notepaper alone, would probably cost more.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Somebody needs to fly back to blighty and give JV's wife something to hang her towels on.

[TEEEJ]

Tue 17 Aug 09:00 BBC Radio 4

Tue 17 Aug 21:30 BBC Radio 4

BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - What's the Point of ..., Series 3, The RAF (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00td8zs)

'Historian Max Hastings, War correspondent Sam Kiley, former defence secretary Geoff Hoon and retired Colonel Tim Collins are among those who join Quentin to ask the question, What is the point of the RAF?'

With that line up it is going to be another RAF bashing broadcast!

TJ

[Chugalug2]

BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - What's the Point of .... Series 4, The BBC

[Archimedes]

Presumably, the second programme will be 'What's the point of the EU?' with balanced comment from Nigel Farage, Christopher Booker, Norman Tebbitt and Robert Kilroy Silk...

[Aeronut]

BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - What's the Point of ..., Series 3, The RAF (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00td8zs)

The show's information states:

"it's an opportune moment for the RAF to remind us of their historic contribution, and why we need them in the future."


and then lists zero contribution from the Royal Air Force. :rolleyes:

[Navy_Adversary]

With no RAF, how will Her Majesty The Queen be able to review a flypast on her birthday?
Maybe the biggies on approach to 27 at LHR can put on a bit of a show.:)

[Melchett01]

'Historian Max Hastings, War correspondent Sam Kiley, former defence secretary Geoff Hoon and retired Colonel Tim Collins are among those who join Quentin to ask the question, What is the point of the RAF?'

Well that should be good then. We can expect high quality reasoned debate from 2 journalists from the Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday school of tabloid trash and 2 passed over has-beens.

I for one will be listening with baited breath, eager for us to implement whatever recommendations they make :mad:

[tommee_hawk]

"It’s time to abolish the RAF

By Colonel Tim Collins (Retd.)

The Post Online, FIRST POSTED MAY 12, 2006

We’d have a more efficient, streamlined armed forces without the air corps, says Tim Collins

It was a Labour Government under Harold Wilson that perfected the ruse of taking pressure off the defence minister by setting the three Armed Services against one another. The art was encapsulated in a doctrine known as 'equal pain', in which defence cuts and savings would be imposed equally across the three services. The effect was to provoke bitter inter-service rivalry, which left the Ministry of Defence appearing as a detached and honest broker. It was also a clever and effective way to divide and rule.

One can have a certain sympathy for the Treasury however, as defence is the one public department that regularly comes in over budget - thanks largely to the disastrously inefficient way in which sub-standard equipment is procured. But salaries are also expensive and, in the face of pressure on manning the front line, we need to radically re-address how the cake is sliced.

With wars running out of control in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the pressure on forces elsewhere from Africa to the Balkans to who knows where next, we have to take drastic action. A conventional attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies just do not have the reach. The defence of the UK now centres on defending our interests overseas. There is no prospect of any significant increase in the share of public money for defence, so we have to come up with a radical way for the armed forces to do what we ask of them within the budget available. I believe this can mean only one thing: we have to lose one of the services.

There is only one service whose work can be undertaken by the other two: the RAF must go.

This would allow us to concentrate the existing Defence budget on just two services and use the vast savings, on infrastructure, senior officers and staff, on the front-line.

The measure would also present us with a terrific opportunity to make savings by rationalising procedures and how we buy our kit. Standardisation would mean economies of scale. The inefficient Defence Logistics Organisation would be much more sharply focused.

In the new expeditionary defence forces, the Navy would continue to shoulder the responsibility of our nuclear deterrent as well as taking over all strike operations - from land and sea. Existing strike aircraft would initially come under the Royal Navy, with interim command going to newly-transferred RAF officers. The procurement of future aircraft would demand an expeditionary capability. The emphasis would be on the ability to launch from aircraft carriers and limited overseas bases as opposed to high-tech interceptors for a war - the Cold War - that is long over.

The Royal Navy would also run all the transport aircraft that go into harm's way, again retaining RAF expertise initially and then evolving its own specialist branch. The remaining air transport tasks, such as carrying stores and passengers would be put out to private contract. (Many of them are already, and the policy brings huge savings.)

The Army would absorb all Special Forces and helicopter operations as well as performing their normal function of seizing and holding ground. This would be the least painful of the changes as helicopter operations have already been rationalised under the Joint Helicopter Command.

Naturally the servicemen and women who make up the RAF would need to be either re-assigned to the other services or given a reasonable redundancy package. There would be little scope to absorb the manpower except for the expensively trained pilots and other specialists. Such a rationalisation should achieve the sort of ground crew to aircraft ratios that are achieved in the Israeli forces for instance, more like ten per air craft than twenty, with a commensurate reduction of senior officers across the remaining services. At present there are more General-rank officers than there are squadrons, in the case of the air force, and ships in the case of the navy.

No doubt such a concept will cause a sharp intake of breath. But the Labour administration has left us no choice. We cannot back out of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan with honour. Who knows where they will involve our nation in a war next. Like a ship in a storm we have to consider chopping down a mast if we are not all to capsize. We can't function without an army or navy, but we can manage without the RAF."

And this is the Col Tim Collins who's going to give us the benefit of his opinion in the Radio 4 discussion? No prizes (or surprises) for guessing where he'll be coming from.....

[Tourist]

He gets my vote........

[vecvechookattack]

and mine.....:ok:

[Tlam999]

Yep, me too...

[TheWizard]

Have a look here where someone might give a toss about your vote......

Chairborne Rangers :: Index (http://www.cbrangers.com/forum/)

[dead_pan]

Why stop with the RAF? Here's my idea:

- All overseas operations to be conducted by a single combined expeditionary force akin to the US Marines.
- All homeland defence/policing/SAR etc to be conducted by a single homeland defence force, to incorporate police, coastguards etc.
- Maintain a good number of reservists just in case.

Oh, and any equipment that hasn't been used in anger in the past decade should be binned. Anything which has should be added to and replacements planned.

[TEEEJ]

This was debated back in 2006. Tim Collins admitted that the article was a stunt.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/245345-radio-4-wants-bin-raf.html

Post number 14 by airsound

'Collins is OK after all
Well, for anyone who didn't hear the programme (stand in an orderly line now), that nice Colonel said something rather interesting.

He described his call for RAF abolition as an "unfortunate Irishism", and he said "I don't want to disband the RAF."

He went on to describe his words about abolition as a stunt - a stunt to provoke "dull-minded ministers" into waking up and making the necessary choices - choices to rescue the defence budget from its current crisis.

I for one was very happy to hear him say those words, because I find him an admirable man, and I had been sad to hear his original abolition call.

I notice that You n Yours elected to interview him separately, and not to have him in the phone-in bit.'

TJ

[collbar]

What utter tosh!!! Ok I will bite!!
This sort of article just reinforces the fact that each service has no idea how the others work !!
Yes Logies admin and much of the management could easily combine, but specialisations many taking years of training just wouldn’t fit into an army/navy organization. Ask any of the ex army officers flying in the RAF (and there are plenty!) for their opinion on a Army officer pilot career path, after considerable training they only get a single tour productive flying!! They have a massive flat out training system barely coping. Excellent news for NCO aircrew mind!
I heartily agree the RAF could lose more than a few officers who seem to increase in number annually, with little shop floor experience or managerial skills, adding hoop after hoop for each unit to jump through. Having said all that, the idea of having ex SNCO’s and WO’s moving into junior officer posts would be a brilliant idea in the Air Force.
The army have always struggled to keep aircraft serviceable in a reasonable timescale, as they are seen as just another truck. The RAF would need twice as many Techies, Helicopters, Herks and C-17s to achieve the tasking they miraculously achieve using the same methods. The Army tried poaching RAF techies in the mid nineties. Experienced corporals found themselves as petrol pump attendants, what a waste. The reason RAF techies are signed on as long as they are is to keep their priceless maintenance and rectification experience. Civil industry keeps its experience even longer with massive productivity benefits. Even a high flying RAF techie has 9-12 years hands on experience before reaching Sgt, only find himself alongside a 22-23 yr old army equivalent who after a couple of years might find himself fixing trucks !!Modern aircraft are not lynx type tractors! Yes AH is different.(Interesting DCI knocking about for an army avionic techies retention scheme!)
The Harrier experience seems to have been painful for the RAF with a perception that they had to cover for the dark blue types. The joint helicopter and Harrier force looking from the outside seem to work...what really happens!
Tehe back in me hole!!!;)

[rlsbutler]

I am sorry that no Ppruner has yet cared to put his mind to this proposition.

It is clear that the RAF as we know it has lost its strategic function, at present. We have lost the nuclear deterrence role to the RN. Without it we cannot claim to be indispensable in any nation-threatening war. When I was in the service (over thirty years ago, my lad ...) I remember the convention that Air Transport was a strategic function, so the problem has been with us for a long time.

We remain manned as if we were a strategic force and we win bidding wars on that basis for kit (Typhoon and A400) that would not have been bought by an authentic joint procurement procedure. That has been hideously wasteful - expensive boys get expensive toys. The naval carriers are more examples of this same costly service rivalry.

As Deliverance suggests at post #6, the Canadians did not need to abolish the Air Force in order to cut the size of the defence staff. We too must never forget the practical differences between fighting operations in the three environments. There will always need to be a store of doctrine and a class of thinkers for each of them.

There also needs to be a quorum in discussions, at every level of strategic and tactical planning, to ensure that spheres of influence are covered. Representation of the air interests will always be needed, counting equally with other representatives. The simple carve-up and dispersal of the RAF, as proposed by Col Collins and quoted at post #65, is politically unstable as a two-legged stool would be unstable. It would intensify rivalry and usually lead to winner-takes-all. If the RAF contribution is too light at the pinnacle of the current tri-partite organisation (never mind any personal factors), the better arrangement would instead be to widen the representation by co-opting the heads of joint-service interests (Intelligence, Logistics etc).

The natural rightness of the Land/Sea/Air approach to managing defence is a comfort to us old sentimentalists. The young bloods, who must make it work for them, ought to do some lateral thinking before Col Collin’s chums have their way. For a long time there has been a wistful attempt to talk of our working environment as Air-and-Space. Instead of bewailing the loss of the manned warplane and the hopeless cost of space operations, our air strategists should realise how increasingly powerful (increasingly Strategic) air- and space-platforms are becoming. The technology could become our monopoly, while our dominance in the environment of C3I (as I think it is now called !) could make our service once again indispensable to the defence of the nation.

Whether or not our truckies and our fighter jocks will continue to have blue uniforms in their wardrobes – well, that may indeed be in question.

[Trim Stab]

No vote from me.

You could equally argue that merging other public services could encourage savings - eg merge MI5, GCHQ, MI6 and HMRC. But it wouldn't work because the diversity of each service is partly what makes them successful. Equally RAF, Army, RN all attract a wider range of recruits than a single purple service would be able to recruit.

[Lima Juliet]

I wonder if Tim got his (now ex) girlfriend to write this speech; you know the same one who wrote the one he delivered to much aplomb in 2003.

Sorry mate but the cat is now out of the bag and you should take your unwanted rants elsewhere!

LJ

PS I wrote this myself!

[vernon99]

The Army tried poaching RAF techies in the mid nineties. Experienced corporals found themselves as petrol pump attendants, what a waste. The reason RAF techies are signed on as long as they are is to keep their priceless maintenance and rectification experience.

IIRC they had NO volunteers to remuster to the Army Air Corpse, they came back a second time and offered promotion to Sgt, still no volunteers, certainly not from TG2. It was at that point that they decided a joint helicopter thing would work, and posted a load of techs to Benson, obviously upsetting a lot of people who were promptly told to ditch the blue suit. PVR became a popular choice.

I would have thought any attempt to do the same this time would get the same response, PVR after PVR, it would be rather embarrassing, after announcing the end of the RAF, but the skills would transfer to the Army/Navy until they could get up to speed with it all. Only to find everyone scrambling to leave!

If I had wanted to join the Army or Navy I would have! But I didn't for several reasons, reasons I suspect that are fairly common amongst the RAF.

[A and C]

Given the current state of the RAF management if you had charge of the Army or Navy would you want to buy a 50% slice of it ?

[The Old Fat One]

Vernon99

Well spoken. I have nothing but respect for the Army and Navy, but as a career they would not have been for me. The Armed Forces of the UK are populated entirely by volunteers and the military competes with every other employer to recruit and retain people. Plan A for me was the RAF, Plan B was not a military one. I suspect (with good reason), that a great many people who may be planning to join the RAF would not join the other services if the RAF option was removed.

I tasted a little of army life (just a couple of weeks) when I was on a course and that confirmed my opinion; moreover, the creeping pongo-isation of the RAF was a mjaor factor in my decision to leave - again, I know of many who felt the same way.

By the way, this is nothing to do with a desire to stay in hotels and be home for tea every night - it's a little more cerebral than that. It's to do with the style and ethos of leadership and professionalism. The RAF is different from the Navy, and very different from the Army. Not better or worse, just different.

And for some people, that difference is very, very important.

[Rakshasa]

Interesting, if a bit I'll informed, opinion piece by Quentin Letts re:the Radio Four Documentary in this weeks Radio Times(14 -20 Aug).

Apparently Spitfires would be more useful than "too fast" Typhoons in Afghanistan.....

(Nice contempory colour photo of a 54 Sqn Spit, though.)

[Melchett01]

I very much find myself in violent agreement with Vernon99. I was determined from a young age that I wanted to be in the Forces, and whilst growing up I loved the idea of flying, that my family has an army background meant that I did briefly consider it too.

But based on numerous factors, most notably that the RAF was the most likely place I could do what I really wanted to do, coupled with the fact that I really didn't want to spend months on end locked in a tin can bobbing up and down in some desolate bit of ocean or that personally I really didn't believe that the Army's view of shouting at people coupled with blind obedience and a parochial bordering on arrogant view of the way things should be done really fitted in with a fairly independent minded, thoughtful / academic streak.

And I suspect there are many in the RAF who signed up for the Light Blue option based on similar criteria. So any forced transfers to either of the other Services would certainly result in me and many of my colleagues looking elsewhere. And that view was even with an un-solicited approach from the Army in my back pocket with the likely guarantee of promotion. So to say scrap the RAF and shuffle people around without any regard whatsoever for their own aspirations, ambitions, fears and concerns, would frankly be the height of arrogance and poor personnel management; but as we have come to expect that from the MOD and various Manning organisations over the years, we shouldn't be surprised if it happens.

But with the way things are going, I suspect that we are almost at the point in time that we have to seriously look at how we do things if we are to fend off the unwelcome advances of the politicians and senior officers from our sister Services. Maybe, just maybe, now is the time to decouple the concept of air power from relatively narrow confines of aircraft and aircrew, and broaden out into space and cyber warfare in very much the same way that the US has started to do. There is no way we can compete with them on that front, but the UK has a small but first rate satellite industry, we are one of the leading players -again in a niche way - in all things technical / sneaky-beaky, so lets start thinking about how we can use the aerial environment and space to better support Defence of the UK and our broader national objectives. And let's do it now before yet another bloody gunner comes along and tries to corner it for the Army with some bizarre reasoning about how only the Army can truly understand what is required.

That said, if the other Services object to the bill for Typhoon and JSF, I think we might have our work cut out trying to push through the bill for cyber / space warfare capabilities.

[Gnd]

It seems to me the only time the RAF are good at being defensive is when people talk about binning them, the rest of the time they are looking for union rights not to be military?:ok:

[minigundiplomat]

It seems to me the only time the RAF are good at being defensive is when people talk about binning them, the rest of the time they are looking for union rights not to be military?


The latter part of your sentence [my italics] makes very little sense. I am sure you meant to express a view that the RAF would join a union, if one was formed, in order to protect their rights. This may potentially include the right to opt out of the military.

You may wish to reconsider either the content or your use of grammar and repost.

That's why the Army has the light blue.

Your welcome.

[Tourist]

mini
I believe you meant
"you're welcome"

and thats why we have dark blue...

[Sand4Gold]

Tourist,

I believe you meant 'and that's why we have dark blue...'

This is fun.

S4G

[barnstormer1968]

After reading many posts on this thread, I am losing touch of why a lot of posters think the RAF should not be scrapped.

My own view is that it is essential, as there will never be enough RAF assets to do all the tasks asked of it by the army and RN, so its independence stops assets being sent to groups with the highest ranking officers from the other two services.

On the other hand, and coming from a green background, I am tending to think that in order to justify itself, some light blue posters seem to want to 'put down' the ability of the other services, which really is of no help.

I can understand why some posters joined the RAF, and what may have appealed about its lifestyle to them. A post above refers to not liking the idea of being shouted at and blind obedience. I have to say that bears no resemblance to the modern British army I know (after recruit training), and possibly shows no understanding of the army in reality.

Another favourite I often hear is the the army could not fly the Chinook as they would simply treat them as trucks!
Now, with my limited knowledge, a Chinook is a transport helicopter, and its job is to move material and personnel.
A truck does that too, that is true, but do most RAF types really think army lads/girls just jump into any old truck and just drive it anywhere, regardless of danger? Or, do you really know the truck will have been serviced, and checked before the journey. the route will have been planned and agreed. Any timings, speed and fuel needs will have been worked out. The safest route and time of route will have been chosen to avoid losses, or enemy contact.
I also get the feeling that many (but certainly not a majority) of light blue types will just say the army don't understand how to fly and operate helicopters........Does that apply to the various armies that operated types like the Chinook for many years in peace and combat, long before the RAF received them?

At the end of the day, all three services are very different in tradition and lifestyle. From the little I have seen, the RAF actually treat there members very poorly at times, and can have much less camaraderie than the other two services (due to your way of working and lack of ability to keep personnel together).

IMHO the RAF are very good at what they do, and that is what they should concentrate on. It serves no positive purpose to be boasting that the army would not be able to do the same job (as this already happens in other countries), and do not understand RAF ways.
Army folks on the ground in a hot spot already know the FJ pilot above them knows bugger all about ground tactics , and would most likely be more of as danger than a help if he were on the ground with them, BUT that does not matter! If they call for help, the FJ pilot will come to help them, and use HIS/HER skills in the way they request. He/she may well save their life on the day, even though he/she could not hep on the ground.........Some folks call this teamwork!

For a long time defence cuts have shifted mind-sets as to who the enemy actually are. They are the ones 'on the other side' not hard working folks in light or dark blue or green!



*If anyone chooses to add career politicians to the 'not always on our side' list, I may agree with you:)

[barnstormer1968]

Tourist.
Or, did you mean:
And tha'ts why we have dark blue...

I will now wait for someone to correct the sentence, as it started with 'and'.

:} I didn't start this!

[Blacksheep]

Lets say we scrap the RAF - and cutting it down to just 200 aircraft (types unspecified) amounts to pretty much that - what do we replace it with?

That is, what assets will be deployed by the Army and what by the Navy? The air wings aboard the new carriers will be what? Certainly not C130s. The Army will kit themselves out with what? Helicopters for sure, but something nice for close support if the Navy's carriers are too far away? Long range transport to get the stuff to the main base in the theatre of operations? Tactical transport to get that stuff to the sharp end? It seems to me that the aircraft requirements are dictated by the operation that they support and eliminating the RAF will do nothing to change that requirement. The Army aren't interested in Air Defence until enemy aircraft appear on the scene. So, cutting the RAF down to the bare bones means removing all flexibility and at the same time tying the Army's hands as regards its operational capability.

So, what's the difference? Eliminating the RAF doesn't alter the strategic requirement at all. If we're going to concentrate on firefighting operations against insurgents in far away places, we might just as well do away with the entire armed forces, contract the job out to the USA and be done with it.

[TheWizard]

From the little I have seen, the RAF actually treat there members very poorly at times, and can have much less camaraderie than the other two services (due to your way of working and lack of ability to keep personnel together).

Army folks on the ground in a hot spot already know the FJ pilot above them knows bugger all about ground tactics , and would most likely be more of as danger than a help if he were on the ground with them, BUT that does not matter! If they call for help, the FJ pilot will come to help them, and use HIS/HER skills in the way they request. He/she may well save their life on the day, even though he/she could not hep on the ground.........Some folks call this teamwork!



BS
Forgive my selective quotation but it was a rather long post.
The two points above deserve to be singled out IMHO.

First of all, I don't know what aspect of the RAF that you have had 'little' exposure to but in 20 odd years of HM Service, I have never noticed people being treated any more poorly in one branch over the other. Having been in a 'joint' environment (granted more Army exposure than Navy) for most of that time I have seen some appalling decisions and treatment on all sides but also some pretty outstanding ones too.

On the second point, what a bizarre analogy??! I think I understand what you are trying to say but first of all, to say the FJ pilot knows 'bugger all' about ground tactics is a bit of a sweeping statement. What would he be doing on the ground in the first place? Pretty much like the guy on the ground knowing bugger all about what the person above in their FJ is doing. If you are suggesting that the FJ could be manned by a fully trained infanteer but not the other way around I would seriously question that, given the specialisation of both jobs and the time involved in training? You may of course mean something completely different??

Why don't we just all work together for a common aim? It seems to have worked in the past. Yes, the cuts are coming but squabbling amongst ourselves (referring to those that are still serving) isn't going to help one bit.
Ah yes, teamwork! :ok:

[barnstormer1968]

The Wizard.

Hi, no problem on selective posts. I agree with you on ALL services treating their members badly sometimes, but on the whole I have found that to be a major reason for RAF folks to resist an army life/environment, and not the other way around. Army units tend to move en mass, whereas a lot of RAF folks can move in ones and twos, and so the same unit integrity is not always there IMHO. This thread is after all about if the RAF should be scrapped, not the other services, so I concentrated of RAF views.


As for the FJ pilot analogy, I wasn't trying to say that anyone on the ground could fly the aircraft, but felt that was so obvious it didn't need to be said. I have also never found anyone (army/RN wise, who thought they could simply switch places either). The fact that the pilot does not know ground tactics is very relevant, and that is why he is valued for what he/she does (and is well trained for), and not their tactical ability to simply place weapons for CAS without being asked (whereas a corporal or lance corporal will be making those decisions at the scene). Pilots with previous ground experience (think AAC and USMC tend to have a different evaluation of tactical situations).
As for the pilot being on the ground, that is a reflection on some posters who feel the army are a bit thick, as they would not know what to do with a Chinook, while folks on the ground don't worry if the pilot overhead is not a competent infantryman (different jobs for different folks all on the same side)

Maybe that clears things up a bit.

[vecvechookattack]

A good article from the Telegraph

We clip the wings of the RAF at our peril - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/7941701/We-clip-the-wings-of-the-RAF-at-our-peril.html?)

[engineer(retard)]

What would concern me about losing the RAF is the priority that would be given to aircraft procurement and support by the other 2 services. I have seen instances of air budgets being chopped or traded by both the Army and RN during programmes to protect their capital assets. Not a poke but the highest ranking AAC or FAA would have trouble garnering support from very senior ranking infantry/cavalry or fishhead bods unless there is an immediate need and there is no pain to their favoured assets, be it capital ships or main battle tanks. Of course, when there is an immediate need it would be too late.

I am not saying that the RAF has always got it right with a historic tendency towards myopia unless it has been fast jet orientated projects. However, in the current round they should still be fighting the air power corner. How much else would be traded away with no RAF?

regards

retard

[orgASMic]

Some fantastically ill-informed comment from the readership follows the Telegraph article. It is rather worrying that so little is know by the public about how much good work the RAF really does on ops.

[Gnd]

Mini,

What I meant is what I said and it was a hit on idiots who think English and grammar are more important than substance, I see you have been found lacking in many of those areas - oops!!!

I do think the RAF would rather run to the drum beat of the Union and not that of the military, that said, I am tarring the RAF with the same brush and wish I could easily extract the operational Rotary from my comments!!

If there are any mistakes in my typing, for your benefit, I DON’T CARE!!!

[fly_surfbeach]

Disband the AAC along with the FAA and reassign all the Air assets to the RAF.
Disband the RAF regiment and merge these people with a force protection equivalent of the Army. Finally the Royal Marines should become a specialist branch of the Army.
LAND, AIR & SEA

[SCAFITE]

I am really please I am well out of the RAF (left in 2002) and the current serving RAF folk of whatever Branch or Trade must be feeling lower than the snakes belly. Opinions from both within Army and the general population is that the RAF are doing or have done F**K all in both Iraq and more recent in Afghanistan. So moral of the RAF must be awful, having to go to work doing whatever you do and trying your best to complete your task while thinking most folk think we are nothing but Civilians in uniform and not worth the **** on their shoes.

We all know the front line infantryman doing what he does need applauding, but without the effective support from both service personnel and MoD Civilians they would wither on the vine. Also when you serving RAF folk get out into the big bad world you will be the first to get a job, so F**k them all and go with the flow, and let the Army do it themselves.

So to finish off with a horrible tale, during the 1980s I was coming back over the pond in a VC10 having left a snow covered Gander Airport when the Captain ordered food to be stopped being served and all Pax strap themselves in. After a good while normal service resumed, but unknown to us Pax a Contracted scruffy airliner full of US Paratroops coming back from a hard six month tour in the Middle East had crashed after taking off from Gander sometime after we had left. (No one survived) The inquiry that followed was the airliner was badly serviced and the contractor did not give 2 hoots. So if you are in the Army and think the RAF is just a bunch of overpaid fat layabouts who live the life of Riley, it is those layabouts who keep your aircraft fit for purpose bringing you home after a hard tour, as safe as possible. When you get rid of the RAF that’s what you have got to look forward to. If you dont think someting like the Gander incident will never happen again we are in the middle of a period of pinch and shortage of money and corners will be cut if they can be in the commercial world.

[airborne_artist]

The inquiry that followed was the airliner was badly serviced and the contractor did not give 2 hoots.The conspiracy theories surrounding that crash could fill a hangar or two. The official line pointed at icing up of the DC-8, in fact, but others have suggested there were IEDs on board the aircraft.

Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Air_Flight_1285)

[SCAFITE]

No one will ever know but it did happen and a lot of Troopers lost their lives. And after the incident there was a huge clamp down on using contracted aircraft to move troops in and out of operational areas by the US Military.

The point I am making is the RAF have a very good record concidering the amount of hours flown and the age of the aircraft and that as been sorted with dedicated RAF Personnel whom whatever the trade have flight safety first and formost.

[minigundiplomat]

Gnd,


If there are any mistakes in my typing, for your benefit, I DON’T CARE!!!


To be fair, neither do I. However, if everyone is arguing about grammar and spelling, they aren't writing cases to get rid of the RAF.

Anyway, talk to my union rep in future........................

[Kengineer-130]

From a secret Wilts airbase that won't be open for much longer, it seems the process of scrapping the RAF started a long time ago :suspect:.... Lets just say from what I have seen, morale is at an all time low, and a lot of dedicated servicemen are almost happy to be leaving at the end of thier engagement. With it goes years of experience and knowledge, which will be very hard to replace. As it stands the RAF is doing a pretty good job of scrapping itself by treating it's troops so badly :mad:

[vernon99]

Lets just say from what I have seen, morale is at an all time low, and a lot of dedicated servicemen are almost happy to be leaving at the end of thier engagement. With it goes years of experience and knowledge, which will be very hard to replace. As it stands the RAF is doing a pretty good job of scrapping itself by treating it's troops so badly

This is the problem, assuming they "get rid" of the RAF, there will be a lot of those blue suits almost at the end of their engagements, presumably they will leave, no point doing some conversion course for 6 months if you only have 12 months remaining. Also as I and others have already said many will not want to go Army or fly Navy, presumably they will take redundancy.

So just how much manpower will be left after that? and what percentage of that manpower will be at all interested in doing other things green/dark blue?

IMO there will be very few skilled people left, all those with skills will go elsewhere.

What skills and experience will the Army and Navy have to fill the gap left by the demise of the RAF? How big a gap will there be before the remaining services can do all the jobs currently done by the RAF? How many accidents will occur due to senior management having no idea or simple skills shortages. Would you be happy to fly in an aircraft where the engineer who signs it off was on gate guard last night, and has not had proper rest?

[chinook240]

This should be interesting: BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - What's the Point of ..., Series 3, The RAF (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00td8zs)

Quentin Letts returns with another series offering a witty and thought-provoking look at some of Britain's cherished insitutions. Over the next four weeks he casts a quizzical eye over Marylebone cricket club, the public library, the Kennel Club - and the RAF.

Historian Max Hastings, War correspondent Sam Kiley, former defence secretary Geoff Hoon and retired Colonel Tim Collins are among those who join Quentin to ask the question, What is the point of the RAF?

Nice and unbiased...no one from the RAF then!

[Torque Tonight]

Great to read the Col Tim 'nice but dim' Collins will crawling out from beneath his rock for this one, no doubt motivated by an appearance fee and an opportunity to put the boot into the RAF again. A chap with less understanding of air power than your average girl guide but a somewhat great reliance on it.:mad:

[tommee_hawk]

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/423563-should-raf-scrapped.html

[glad rag]

Yep F*** it go ahead disband the whole lot.

GO ON THEN. :}

[SirToppamHat]

All over the country, events are being held to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain...

But not at my Unit, where there is not enough money in the pot to celebrate the exploits of the few, or even cut the grass so that the rugby players share the soccer pitch (including the posts).

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

Who commissions these programmes?

STH

[timex]

This is the problem, assuming they "get rid" of the RAF, there will be a lot of those blue suits almost at the end of their engagements, presumably they will leave, no point doing some conversion course for 6 months if you only have 12 months remaining. Also as I and others have already said many will not want to go Army or fly Navy, presumably they will take redundancy.

Do you think the MOD will care, you will either go where they say in your usual suit, then work your time or PVR. Do you really think they will offer redundancy...


So just how much manpower will be left after that? and what percentage of that manpower will be at all interested in doing other things green/dark blue?

IMO there will be very few skilled people left, all those with skills will go elsewhere.

To do what? Civvy Flying is full, the unemployment levels are way through the roof, if you've got a family where do they live, and how do you support them?

What skills and experience will the Army and Navy have to fill the gap left by the demise of the RAF? How big a gap will there be before the remaining services can do all the jobs currently done by the RAF? How many accidents will occur due to senior management having no idea or simple skills shortages. Would you be happy to fly in an aircraft where the engineer who signs it off was on gate guard last night, and has not had proper rest?

How many of the RAF could honestly walk out the door into a job? I can't see it happening at the moment, but if they did disband the RAF I don't think the kid gloves would stay on. As to the various fleets, AT to the civvy market, C130 (anyone remember Heavilift during GW1)? Rotary is not that big so could come under JHC. FJ would be all that's left and I'm sure a suitable offer could be made. RAF Regt would go straight to the Army


I hope it doesn't happen, but seriously take off those Rose tinted glasses!

[Pontius Navigator]

This is the problem, assuming they "get rid" of the RAF, there will be a lot of those blue suits almost at the end of their engagements, presumably they will leave, no point doing some conversion course for 6 months if you only have 12 months remaining.

Conversion courseswould not normally be offered when there is no eturnof service of abut 2 years.

Also as I and others have already said many will not want to go Army or fly Navy, presumably they will take redundancy.

Traditionally redundacy is not offered to people with only a short time (in years) of their current engagment.

OTOH rumors are of a good redundancy package with more pull than push.

[Yozzer]

OTOH rumors are of a good redundancy package with more pull than push.
Time to get my resettlement done I think :ok:
What rumours of a 'good redundancy' package; most rumours I have heard are based upon making life so bloody unpleasant that I would want to go asap without a dime. ....and for sure you can shove a beret of any colour other than air force blue up yr hoop. 'king grunts are getting above themselves.

[Bandoleer]

Will any of the decision makers go back and look at why a separate RAF was brought forth? The wheel seems to have taken an inordinate amount of time to complete the revolution.

Why is the UK's military the place (again) to take the cuts? What about the entitlement programs that have no end?

Besides a capability, the things bought and used by a military certainly can contribute to an economy instead of monthly hand-outs for chips and beer (although the beer and chips industries no doubt benefit from that. As they would from a larger military as well!).

[glad rag]

Just imagine we had a Putin type character rather than a cameron as PM, I doubt defence would be getting the pasting....

[Pontius Navigator]

Or Yeltsin?

[Chicken Leg]

A chap with less understanding of air power than your average girl guide but a somewhat great reliance on it.

You're right. A full Colonel, who worked in MOD MB, Strategic Planner, led his Regiment into war etc etc. But he's not RAF, so can't possibly understand Air Power - a critical support element of fighting troops on the ground! I'd suggest that he and other Army commanders have a far better understanding of Air Power, it's strengths and limitations and how to best utilise it, to a far better degree than your average poster on here - RAF or other!

You chaps seem to confuse the argument. Making a case for disbanding the RAF does not mean no understanding of the importance for Air Power. It simply means that a bloated and fat organisation's roles could be completed by other slightly less bloated and fat organisations.

Will it happen? Of course not. Should it happen? Of course not.

[sitigeltfel]

John Nichol!...................Where's John Nichol?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Chicken Leg. I do believe that yer man Collins has a grasp of air power almost identical to Torque Tonight's assessment. In my experience, your average BJ's gasp extends to CAS and a comforting FEZ over their immediate battlespace. Their attendence at Staff College doesn't seem to change things much.

[Impiger]

Throughout my career I've met and worked closely with many army officers including some very senior generals. The vast majority not only had a minimal understanding of Air Power but no great desire to learn about it either being quite content for their 'experts' to deliver the capability without bothering themselves about how it was done. However, they all knew how vital it was and how scuppered they'd be without it. Its only down in the trenches below OF5 that you find these assinine debates.

Oh and if you want to find a bloated organisation look elsewhere than Air's hierarchy - it is generally held out as an example of best practise in any informed MOD debate - could it be better? Of course it could and will be once the next round of streamlining kicks in, but by wider government and business standards this is a pretty taut organisation.

[vernon99]

This is the problem, assuming they "get rid" of the RAF, there will be a lot of those blue suits almost at the end of their engagements, presumably they will leave, no point doing some conversion course for 6 months if you only have 12 months remaining. Also as I and others have already said many will not want to go Army or fly Navy, presumably they will take redundancy.

Do you think the MOD will care, you will either go where they say in your usual suit, then work your time or PVR. Do you really think they will offer redundancy...

Ok so assuming no redundancy is on offer, a lot of people will simply drag their heels and complete the year or so they have remaining with no interest in the job at all or as you have said PVR, if they get stuffy about release times, then the above applies again.

So just how much manpower will be left after that? and what percentage of that manpower will be at all interested in doing other things green/dark blue?
IMO there will be very few skilled people left, all those with skills will go elsewhere.

To do what? Civvy Flying is full, the unemployment levels are way through the roof, if you've got a family where do they live, and how do you support them?Not everyone is AIRCREW, there are jobs available, engineers particularly can specialise in other fields very easily.

What skills and experience will the Army and Navy have to fill the gap left by the demise of the RAF? How big a gap will there be before the remaining services can do all the jobs currently done by the RAF? How many accidents will occur due to senior management having no idea or simple skills shortages. Would you be happy to fly in an aircraft where the engineer who signs it off was on gate guard last night, and has not had proper rest?

How many of the RAF could honestly walk out the door into a job? Again not everyone is aircrewI can't see it happening at the moment, but if they did disband the RAF I don't think the kid gloves would stay on. As to the various fleets, AT to the civvy market, C130 (anyone remember Heavilift during GW1)?
So assuming they privatise AT, the civilian companies would have a need for crews and engineers
Rotary is not that big so could come under JHCHow long would it take to train engineers and aircrew on the new types if the existing engineers/aircrew have lost all interest.
FJ would be all that's left and I'm sure a suitable offer could be made.Who cares about FJ they don't care about anyone else, and the FJ centric senior management have brought us to where we are now:ok:
RAF Regt would go straight to the Army They would probably be ok with that.


I hope it doesn't happen, but seriously take off those Rose tinted glasses!
I hope it doesn't happen either, but it is foolish to think that they can just disband an organisation of 50,000 and expect everyone to be ok with the alternative. People are capable of thinking for themselves, and IMO there would be a large number of dissatisfied people, are you happy to fly in something if you know the manpower that put you in that position are NFI.

It would be interesting to know how many are within a couple of years of completion of their current engagements, especially aircrew and engineers. It used to be that engineers etc joined on a 9 or 12 year engagement but it is my understanding that changed to shorter engagements.

[Pontius Navigator]

An example of the visibility of air power to the joe on the ground is brought out in Harry Coyle's Team Yankee. Coyle was a Tank Major in the US Army in Europe when he wrote his first book. It covers a US Army tank group in the Foulda Gap at the opening ot WWIII. Airpower on either side gets a very brief mention IIRC in relation to a helicopter action on the near horizon.

He acknowledges that the majority of the air action takes place well beyond his immediate battle field and therefore out of sight and of little tactical importance to him. Equally, provided he gets what he needs, air power probably has no strategic significance either.

Raise this to HQ level where they are no doubt eyes down, the need to approeciate air power is limited. CAS is really only heavy artillery that he has or has not got. SH is only a mobility or logistics aid and that is that. Simplistic but having worked with some Green they do profess NO knowledge of Air. Now Blue OTOH . . .

[Wyler]

They are not going to 'get rid' of the RAF. They never were and an announcement to that effect was made by Fox just the other day. :rolleyes:

[Two's in]

What skills and experience will the Army and Navy have to fill the gap left by the demise of the RAF?...How many accidents will occur due to senior management having no idea or simple skills shortages.

And of course we all look to Nimrod Airworthiness and Mull Chinook for those shining examples of RAF senior management having the right skills and experience to avoid accidents. On that justification there is a Lance Corporal Army Cook already being groomed for the role of CAS, probably already has the "Aircrew Error" Form 5's already filled out ready for the next inspirational piece of "management".

[timex]

Vernon 99, I don't think that everyone is aircrew but I do know that their are not too many jobs going at the moment. Engineers are not in demand just now either.

[Gnd]

in or out!!!!!