RAF on Radio 4 Now

[Dysonsphere]

0905 17.08.10 whats the use of the RAF debate live now for 30 mins could be worth a listen. On Radio 4

[Rather be Gardening]

I don't think this was one of Quentin Lett's better efforts, because he's normally very good. Superficial approach and paying too much attention to Max Hastings and other 'defence' journos, who are known for their pro-army, anti-RAF stance. A better balance of views would have made more impact.

It's on again this evening at 21.30
BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - What's the Point of ..., Series 3, The RAF (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00td8zs)

[chinook240]

What's The Point Of.... The RAF? - Radio 4
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!


I mentioned it a few days ago but the mods merged my thread with an existing one so it kinda got buried................:sad:

Doesn't seem to be destined for BBC iPlayer

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Good point.

Mr Nichol, Sir; I know you read this stuff. Given some of the bone questions you were given, I think you presented the light blue case very well. I suspect some other salient points you may have made may have been edited out.

I think yer man Collins, T, was predictable but I was surprised that, at the tail of the programme, he was quite balanced an almost supportive of a new and developed Air Force defence role ("cyberwar")

PS

chinook240. You did and it was; and it was a pity.

[peter272]

Nice to know we have "Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles"

But if the next war is to be a cyber-war, doesn't that give problems if we are relying on software to carry out the missions.

Perhaps they'll have to have a pilot on board, just in case.

[Father Jack Hackett]

Well done John Nichol and Clive Loader who provided cogent rebuttal of the specious questioning of the point of having an independent air force. Shame about the highly biased and ill-informed spoutings of the likes of Max Hastings and Tim Collins.

As with many high-ranking members of the army, they seem wilfully ignorant of the true nature of air-power. One only needs to look at the current parlous state of AAC manning and the droves of AAC types now wearing light blue (virtually no one goes the other way) to see the nonsense inherent in the suggestion that the Army could take on any more responsibility for employing the nation's air assets.

[ProM]

Peter,

if the software on a modern a/c was screwed, a pilot would be of little help tbh
-------
I haven't heard the programme but they were bound to be biased towards the view of change, Everyone agreeing "Let's leave all 3 services as they are" would be a boring programme

[barnstormer1968]

Peter.
Bearing in mind this was radio 4 , I suppose the word 'unmanned' was not going
to be used, as it is not PC enough!

I love Radio 4, and listen all the time, but any word which would exclude women
would have to go.

Just let it drop, and see how radio 4 are all modern and PC. Oh, perhaps you
could listen to 'womens hour' while you think about it.:E

[vecvechookattack]

Colonel Tim Collins....

"The RAF mover system is hopeless"

Sam Kiley

"The existence of the RAF creates a muddle, They work for the Army , they might as well be in it"

"Harrier pilots, RAF mechanics, ...I haven't met a single one who wouldn't be happy to integrate into one single force"

"There is considerable love for Harrier pilots and there is nothing but Awe for Chinook pilots and they all should be part of one force"

[Jumping_Jack]

....and the Army Mover system isn't? :ugh:

[Clockwork Mouse]

As a retired Pongo I love it when members and former members of the light blue fraternity bluster on pompously about the rest of the Armed Forces being wilfully ignorant of the true nature of air-power as soon as anything negative is said about the RAF.

Having had much to do with all three Services and the central staffs during my checkered career, I tend to the view that knowledge of the doctrine and principles of the other Services is equally thin in every part of the estate. That is why jointery and centralised staff training at higher levels is important.

[Red Line Entry]

Clockwork,

Agree with you about the level of ignorance regarding doctrine of the other Services. The difference is that no-one in the RAF is being facile enough to call for the Army to be disbanded and its task given to the other 2 Services!

[Army Mover]

....and the Army Mover system isn't? erm - no :=

[Jumping_Jack]

errm...yes! ;)

[42psi]

I mentioned it a few days ago but the mods merged my thread with an existing one so it kinda got buried................http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

Doesn't seem to be destined for BBC iPlayer
You can get it via the Radio 4 section and then selecting the schedule option

BBC iPlayer - What's the Point of ...: Series 3: The RAF (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00td8zs/Whats_the_Point_of_..._Series_3_The_RAF/)

:ok:

[Tankertrashnav]

Oh, perhaps you
could listen to 'womens hour' while you think about it.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

You trying to get my blood pressure back up? How this programme has survived, given that its default setting is that men are either fools or knaves, if not potential rapists, is beyond me :mad:

Back to the thread - Nichol was right when he said we don't know what's in store, but the fact remains we cant afford to prepare for every eventuality, so some tough choices are going to have to be made.

[67Wing]

My God! Have just listened to the 'debate' and found it pitiful.

We deserve much better than this from the BBC. This was barely tabloid press stuff. The BBC charter takes another battering.

The army and navy, especially the army, should hang their heads in shame if they even half belief the views expressed by the hacks on the radio broadcast. When I served, there was a strong mutual respect for each others capability and contribution to joint warfare. The BBC reduced a potentially useful debate to the level of jokes about marching and, sadly predictably, used John Nichol as an 'expert' on Air Power. I shall cancel my subscription to the BBC immediately! Oops, I can't.

I really hope we can be better informed by our media and have a grown-up debate on this important review of our armed forces rather than this low grade pap.

[Two's in]

We deserve much better than this from the BBC. This was barely tabloid press stuff. The BBC charter takes another battering.

Wow! What a concept. You mean it was almost like some progamme scheduler at the BBC had decided to take a sensationalst and thoroughly superficial view of a weighty topical matter in order to generate screaming chav headlines and outrage!

I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.

[Neptunus Rex]

Where's Fincastle 84 when we need him.
Just to illustrate the point about Senior Army Officers, the venerable Shackleton had a secondary role of trooping. You have all heard the story about the Nav making coffee for the troops huddled down the back....
Well, there was a Staff College visit to the Northernmost reaches of Coastal Command, during which Future Field Officers were being shown around a Mark III Shack, which just happened to have two panniers in the bomb bay.
"What are those?' enquires Colonel Rupert.
"Panniers Sir. We can use them when we are trooping" replies the Sqn Ldr tour guide.
"Oh, splendid. How many twoops can you get into one of those?"
There's no answer to that!

[Gnd]

At least he admitted that the RAF can't march so on that basis - cull them and let the Army march, such high ethereal thoughts from someone sensationalised unrealistically.

Unfortunately, seen more RAF co*ks than Army senior officers and down to a much lower level! Watch where you throw stones or which brush you put the tar on with.

[minigundiplomat]

If the Army and Navy really want the RAF, let them have it. It's FUBAR'ed anyway and the blame for that sad fact rests not with either the RN or Army.

For years we have promoted a culture of saying yes, without thinking about the consequences. We have put an individuals ability to act as treasurer for the local brownies on a par, if not above, their ability to lead, motivate or do their job.
We have promoted people beyond their ability, and out of awkward situations. Most of all, we have all sat back and gone with the flow.

Those that like wearing green will stay, those who don't will leave. Of those who leave, the vast majority (possessing most of the experience)will do very well. There will be naysayers and doomsters, but hey, looking at these threads there will be if they stay anyway.

I find it just a little sad that after years of busting a gut to help out the guys on the ground, their counterparts would turn on you for the promise of a few clapped out aircraft and some crumbling infrastructure.

The RN I can understand; this loomed as a one or the other fight and I don't blame them for weilding the knife. The Harrier debacle didn't cover anyone in glory either.

However, the Army have not come out of this smelling of roses. I have nothing but respect for the majority on the ground, and a certain QHI from Wattisham who pulled our nuts out the fire one night, but Tim Collins et al have done you no favours.

[Compressorstall]

This is all so infuriating. Instead of complaining how unfair it is, why not state the case that needs to be stated. The RAF is vested with expertise in airpower - if it flies, then the RAF should oversee and operate it.

The only service that has embraced Jointery is the RAF, followed by the Navy and slowly lumbering up to the start line is the Army. The RAF is being so meek and mild because of an on-going identity crisis after changing so many times to keep pace with an equipment programme still firmly based in the Cold War. I have spent so long trying to understand the customers we serve, whilst the Army officers I have worked with have exhibited the same level of knowledge as my sofa on the utility of airpower.

B***ocks to all this stuff about disbanding the RAF - give us the air assets and reap the economies of one force operating and coordinating the lot.

I need a drink.:ugh:

[Gnd]

if it flies, then the RAF should oversee and operate it. It's stupid comments like that that make the rest of HMF want to get rid of you!
With that logic 'if it can march the Army should oversee and operate it & if it swims - you get my point!!! You pompous tw*t

PS the Yanks provide the Air Power now days, get a grasp of reality and remember, the Ruskies are friendly now - you have no job!

[Melchett01]

So on the basis that RAF movements system is rubbish (by the way, I saw more Army movers this summer in theatre than I did RAF), our AT fleet is knackered (so would your Challengers be if they were bought second hand and then run into the ground) and we can't march (I didn't notice much requirement for me being able to march in theatre), let's just disband the RAF.

Obviously a well reasoned, logically thought out and presented argument there. Almost up there with the 'because I said so' line you resort to when you know you have lost an argument with a child. Just the sort of line I have come to expect from senior army officers and washed-up ex senior army officers.

As for that clown Kiley and his "The existence of the RAF creates a muddle, They work for the Army , they might as well be in it"

No, the RAF doesn't work for the Army. There are parts of the RAF currently engaged on operations as the supporting element, commanded by the CFACC. On a UK national level, the RAF 'works for' Defence as part of the MOD. It only creates a muddle if you are irretrievably stupid or have absolutely no understanding of Defence and its structures.

Harrier pilots, RAF mechanics, ...I haven't met a single one who wouldn't be happy to integrate into one single force"

"There is considerable love for Harrier pilots and there is nothing but awe for Chinook pilots and they all should be part of one force"

I'll give you a hint Mr Kiley - they are already part of one force, the Royal Air Force. And if you can't find a single one that doesn't want to move across to the Army, then you obviously haven't looked very hard.

It's so frustrating trying to have a reasoned argument with people that have absolutely no clue whatsoever :ugh:

[barnstormer1968]

Melchette01 said:

"It's so frustrating trying to have a reasoned argument with people that have absolutely no clue whatsoever"


Which made me instantly remember this gem!

"If were talking about bits of the military that are no longer needed lets start looking at the Parachute Regiment."

Odd that a statement about a military unit that has a short but honourable tradition, which allows its members to do their job very very well....No matter how they get there should come from a poster who feels that:

"Its the other services job to learn what the RAF does"

But remains clueless about premier infantry.

Please take your own advice, and you may learn why the paras (and their can do attitude) are actually quite essential to the British armies ORBAT!

I suppose under that same kind of clueless thinking, you would be calling for AWACS, Typhoon and any other current RAF stuff not being used to be scrapped too.

Of course if the paras were scrapped as you suggest, then their NATO means of delivery could be scrapped too I suppose...The Hercules!

[barnstormer1968]

Sorry to double post, but I don't want to be mis-understood here.

Just as I know the paras have been ultra busy for years in Afghanistan, and doing
some very fierce and bloody fighting (but do wonder where a poster who does
not realise this is based/stationed), I also know that a large part of the RAF
(and RN come to that) have been there too, being very busy, and doing some
very brave things! I am all for keeping all three services, and actually think all
three need more gear, not less.

The army lads on the ground (including the paras) love the support they get from
the RAF, be it kinetic help, or water. All are dangerous to deliver.

[tommee_hawk]

Gnd

.......remember, the Ruskies are friendly now - you have no job!

Tell that to the RAF crews who get to explore the northern North Sea and North Atlantic shadowing the (very heavily armed) Russian bombers that still frequently test the response of our AD forces and support tankers.

We definitely still have a job...... I hope I someday get to live in the world that you think you do.

[rotormonkey]

It's stupid comments like that that make the rest of HMF want to get rid of you!
With that logic 'if it can march the Army should oversee and operate it & if it swims - you get my point!!! You pompous tw*t

PS the Yanks provide the Air Power now days, get a grasp of reality and remember, the Ruskies are friendly now - you have no job

Gnd,

what planet are you from?! :ugh:

[Two's in]

This thread is a microcosm of exactly what's about to happen in Main Building - a few lofty pitches about delivering Air Power, countered by the current reality of how that works in the real world. Then instead of the RAF building the case of how Afghanistan and Iraq are no more representative of future operations than the Falkland were of past operations, it rapidly descends into sniping and penis measuring. The bean counters can't beat rational arguments or justify their actions, so instead they rely on inter-service attacks to do the job for them - if this 'reasoned" discussion is anything to go by, their work is done.

[Ken Scott]

No paras = no Hercules??

It's because the Hercules are all rather busy doing other stuff that there are only 120 paras currently qualified to jump out of them.

[Clockwork Mouse]

CP
You are showing in spades your own ignorance of the other Services while carping on about how little they understand the RAF. I suggest you stop demonstrating your hypocrisy before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Of course we need a separate RAF, just as we need an Army and a RN. There is no way the RAF will disappear. Stop being so blasted paranoid.

[kharmael]

No actually Lyneham has 24 Hercules sitting on the pan with crews waiting to collar the nearest para squad, just so they can go flying.

FFS some people need to get a life. :ugh:

All these Army tw@s would soon shut up about binning the RAF/ Albert when their supplies stop coming to their patrols and FOBs.

[Ray Dahvectac]

the Ruskies are friendly now

Really? I listened to the repeat of the programme the OP mentioned tonight - much of which was bolleaux.

It was preceded by a programme called 'Why Russia Spies'. Those who think the Russians have gone away would do well to listen to it on iPlayer. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tdm57)

[Clockwork Mouse]

CP
Probably for reasons not too dissimilar to those requiring Tornado x 2 varieties, Typhoon, Harrier etc "segments" in the RAF fast flying segment. Different horses for different courses.

[BEagle]

Do you fly? Do you support the Army on the ground on the front line? Or are you just some REMF sitting in an air conditioned cabin at KAF?

Pretty well sums up the sandaholic claptrap spouted by most in recent times. Although the focus of the current operational tempo is Afghanistan, the UK armed forces do NOT just exist for north west frontier operations. The RAF does NOT have the single role of 'supporting the army' - it has to be capable of meeting all defence obligations defined by the UK government.

[vecvechookattack]

I have to agree..The Ops branch really is a step too far. They surely have to go.

[BEagle]

You mean the 'Telephone Answering Branch'?

[Roland Pulfrew]

PS the Yanks provide the Air Power now days, get a grasp of reality and remember, the Ruskies are friendly now - you have no job! - Gnd

And that is typical of the understanding of (the broad spectrum of) air power one can expect from the green. Also an unrealistic and ill-informed understanding of the "Ruskies" in the current climate.:rolleyes:

you pompous t**t

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

vecvechookattack. Not wishing to make an Australian pun of your callsign, wouldn't your proposal lead to a headless chicken? How else do you work towards avoiding gaps , duplication and uneven tasking?

course_profile. When you get a moment, I would urge you to familiarise yourself with how the RM is organised and deployed. Despite the efforts in the 'Stan at the moment, it is not just another highly selected and trained Army Unit. They are not Army but an integral element of the RN. They function to go to sea in warships. They are more integral and important to the RN than the Regiment is to the Air Force.

We digress.

[Wyler]

Never, in the field of informed debate, has so much crap been spoken by so few.

[Army Mover]

Never, in the field of informed debate, has so much crap been spoken by so few.Surely uninformed; jeezus, we've even got 2 movers (I'm an ex-one by the way) commenting about how crap the other is. :eek:

I spoke to somebody very high up in the pecking order recently; while he wouldn't discuss specifics, what he did say that while their was no desire to amalgamate any of the services internally, that this was not being driven by any of the service chiefs and many things may be imposed on us from outside; that jointery within specific trades/groups was almost certainly going to be a feature of what is currently under discussion; when I asked if/whether that meant all wearing green, light-blue, or dark-blue, as you may expect, he wouldn't be drawn any further.

My perspective; all 3 services have an honourable place in this nations history; all that we have learnt previously leads me to think that we should not ignore that history and where it led us. I am however also forced to consider that maybe the world has changed sufficiently to permit us to ignore history, but I wonder if my grandad thought the same thing in the 1930's. It seems a very risky strategy we are pursuing. :ugh:

[Wrathmonk]

guidedweaons said ....

I mean in an arm of 40000, 1300 plus wing commanders is ludicrous. Have you ever heard the phrase about cooks and broth!


According to here (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2009/c2/table208.html)as a percentage of the officer corps the Royal Navy has the highest number of Lt Col/Cdr/Wg Cdr and above (20.44%), followed by the British Army (18.02%) and then the RAF (16.94%).

As a percentage of the total force size the Royal Navy still has the highest number (3.95%), followed by the RAF (3.80%) and then the British Army (2.46%).

But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good slagging!;)

[minigundiplomat]

wouldn't your proposal lead to a headless chicken? How else do you work towards avoiding gaps , duplication and uneven tasking?


How did we cope before the mid-nineties, when the wave of ops support arrived to save us?

Not often I agree with Vec!

[Ray Dahvectac]

How did we cope before the mid-nineties, when the wave of ops support arrived to save us?

Better than we do now?

Used aircrew on a ground tour and with relevant type experience as Ops Officers?

Used clerks and AATC as Ops Assistants?

Worked for 20-odd years in my own experience, but then of course we have to re-invent the wheel periodically - normally one with corners to replace the roundish one that had done a perfectly adequate job up to the point of re-invention.

Quite why the RAF did need a whole new branch to sit in Ops rooms sharpening chinagraphs, tidying up the charts in Flight Planning, and noting down requests for PDs from various other airfields was never very well explained.

[Wrathmonk]

Quite why the RAF did need a whole new branch to sit in Ops rooms sharpening chinagraphs, tidying up the charts in Flight Planning, and noting down requests for PDs from various other airfields was never very well explained

Suspect it came down to cost.

aircrew on a ground tour

Still get flying pay ....:E

It could also be argued that the AATC / Ops Clerk training requirements differ very little. However, I'm sure the majority of AATC joined to be in the 'cut and thrust' of air traffic-ing, with aspirations of being controllers themselves, and having them tidy maps and plot NOTAMs in a sqn / stn planning room was poor use of resources and training (and sometimes seen as an 'out of branch' tour and thus not good for an individuals career aspirations).

Of course, I'm sure the job could be done with fewer, but IMHO any permanent planning room left to aircrew to look after soon becomes a shambles (unless you are at a training unit where you have the duty stude to clear up the mess!).

[Pheasant]

Just listened to the programme and found it more balanced (except Hastings and Collins) than the conversations above would suggest. What I did find amusing was Loaders claim to the Network Enabled expertise and thus future. The RN have been "doing" NEC for many, many, more years that either the RAF or Army and have generally led in this field....look at any warship's operations room since the '60s.


And to claim that the RAF are more Joint than the others is laughable....rarely have I found this claim to be the case, particularly from the AF seniors (incl Loader...but he was better than most).

[Melchett01]

My perspective; all 3 services have an honourable place in this nations history; all that we have learnt previously leads me to think that we should not ignore that history and where it led us.

For once, I find myself agreeing with a Mover! All 3 Services need to be getting together and fighting the common enemy - HM Treasury - rather than each other. However, the politicization of the higher echelons of all 3 services have left us wide open to the usual Treasury tactics of divide and conquer.

I have to agree..The Ops branch really is a step too far. They surely have to go.

According to the latest Air Command monthly propaganda sheet, I believe that there is a restructuring of the various Branches ongoing. This will give each branch defined ownership at Air-rank level and will see the breaking up of the Ops Spt branch into its constituent parts. If that achieves nothing else, it should see some branches survive and flourish, others, maybe not.

[Fitter2]

Did nobody else notice the 'boots in the sand is the future' mantra of 'the wars we will be fighting in the foreseeable future'.

Can anybody point to a forecast in 1999 that the next ten years would be spent fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan?

Nobody has forecast the form of the next war for the last 200 years (at least).

The UK needs either to give up any pretentions of military capability, or have 3 flexible services capable of response to any conceivable threat - and then lay down to the politicians what can be done with the forces they decide to afford.

[Rev Charlie DH Smith]

...capable of meeting all defence obligations defined by the UK government.Which we have been waiting a long time for.

[Uncle Ginsters]

The disbandment argument is a pointless one - it's just not going to happen.

Couldn't agree more with comments above - the RAF has become it's own worst enemy - promotion based on being Dodgems Monitor at the Summer Ball rather than actually having a single wit about you in the field of leadership or management. In the past few years i've come across several who jumped the hoops then didn't/couldn't take the SO2 level job and found that there was no way back. Not one of them asked for help - all just make an arse of it, pi$$ing off all in their wake. It's time the RAF reporting system took a reality check.

The Ops Supt Branch has, IMHO, achieved nothing positive since its inception. It came about due to a shortage of able and willing aircrew to fill Ops-related posts. The issue is that there are still no surplus aircrew types to fill that gap. The lack of ability and trg at the base level in the branch is shocking (SAC Flt Plans recently "what's a quarter mil?"). We have cut the force, in the lower levels at least, to the bone and nothing short of more manning, time and training can fix that.

The issue that creates the emotive in-fighting is that now, for the first time, the MOD is forced to choose between capabilities - keeping some, scrapping others and adjusting all. There has to be some basis for those adjustments but it's an impossible call to make - as has been said already, future conflict has never been predicted before, how are we going to start now???

I wait with baited breath for SDSR....

[Biggus]

Reference the SDSR, I draw your attention to post 30 on this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/422838-sdsr-can-min-def-joint-chiefs-just-say-no-2.html

....which highlights (in my opinion) how it is being cost driven rather than based on capability decisions.

Uncle G,

When the Ops Support Branch was first set up, at least the Flt Ops part, I offered an alternative. In terms of Ops staff at active airfields I suggested re-employing aircrew from the airfield who had just retired at 55 on "reserve type" terms and conditions. Such people would normally have lots of experience of the airfield and the aircraft type operating from it. They would be looking for some employment (possibly on reduced hours) to 60 or 65 on the basis they were still active and didn't want to retire yet. I felt there would be enough takers to fill the posts, based on people retiring in the area they had worked and lived in for the past umpty-ump years. Needless to say the RAF preferred to employ young 20 somethings with no experience, who spend the next 10 years moving from base to base trying to acquire it... :ugh:

[BEagle]

Interesting!

When the Call Centre Branch first started it was often a case of "Hello, Plt Off Pointless speaking, how may I be of annoyance?" - followed by "One moment please....err, corporal, could you take this call?"

A few ex-aircrew doing shift work as reservists would be infinitely preferable to someone who doesn't know what a 'quarter mill' is - or who (when I once asked one to check some detail) where 'Tremblers' were based....:rolleyes:

[minigundiplomat]

Plt Off Pointless has long been replaced by Sqn Ldr Self-Important and Flt Lt Obstructive.

Progress.....................

[airborne_artist]

All led and managed by Wing Cdr Chip O'NMeShoulder :}

[Ron Manager]

Having seen both sides of this debate, I suspect the Flt Ops branch will survive; lower capitation rates make them more cost effective in ground posts than aircrew. Why pay someone flying pay to do a non-flying job, particularly when most (all?) aircrew want to be flying anyway? I have met plenty of aircrew employed in ground posts who had little interest in doing a ground tour at all and so put precious little into the job.

The branch was introduced in a somewhat haphazard manner, with some stations doing an excellent job of training their people while others just left people to flounder and then criticised the branch for failing to provide fully trained individuals. I never understood why some stations felt that it wasn't their job to train people for the specific role - no-one ever questioned the need for OCUs/Trg flts for aircrew.

The branch has also been characterised by some muddled management - individuals told to become specialists (ie multiple tours in the same area - eg Sqn Ops Brize then Stn Ops Brize then HQ 2 Gp etc etc) and then being told that to "progress" they needed to "broaden" and do a tour at a GR4 stn for example. Without a defined structure (IMHO the specialist route is better) the branch was bound to suffer from mixed standards and experience gaps.

As for an SAC in Flight Planning not knowing what a quarter mill is, I'd be speaking to the PFOM or SOpsO about trg standards!

[minigundiplomat]

I disagree. All the trg required rested with the experienced cadre of SNCO/JNCO within the branch who, for a large part, did an excellent job.
All the newly qualified Ops Officers had to do was listen.

As an aside, we now have plenty of downgraded aircrew looking for meaningful posts to cover whilst they regain a flying cat. Op Telic/Herrick have seen to that.

[Army Mover]

For once, I find myself agreeing with a Mover!
You know you always wanted to, but don't worry about it; I'm sure normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. :ok:

With regards to your comment re politicization; surely the reality of the situation is that this has always been the case? The only thing worthy of note from my perspective is how this has crept down the rank structure where Commanders at a much lower level are now more interested in adopting the party line, regardless of their obligations to those they command; often taking advantage of (or maybe abusing) the "can-do" attitude of many service personnel of all ranks.

[barnstormer1968]

Course profile, we don't agree, and I'm afraid you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Why don't you find out for yourself why the infantry are split, and to what effect that has on them for the positive.
You should find out for yourself, to stop you looking like a complete and total hypocrite, as you yourself believe it is for the other services to find out what the RAF do. As a starter for ten, I already know the paras don't jump for combat lately, and that the RAF also has no means to deliver them, if they wanted to! But, that is not what gives them their abilities (jumping from an aircraft is just the way they get to work....Not the work itself!).

At least you have not come across as badly as kharmael

Who seems intent of rebuffing suggestions that have not been made, and certainly not by me...I have already stated the RAF needs to stay, but have indeed answered your comment on scrapping the paras, with the fact that part of the reason to buy as many Hercs as we did, was so they could be used for para ops

If there were no paras to support (irrespective of what the hercs are doing in real life) Any government desperate to cut costs, would slash herc support/numbers, as there would be no case on paper to keep them in number! This has already happened to the Nimrod fleet, with the RAF now no longer having enough aircraft to actually fulfil their wartime role.

I do wonder what would happen if the army tw@ts kharmael refers to (in his/her narrow world) withdrew their funding for a lot of RAF aircraft (as command land foots the bill for quite a few airframes).
I'm not saying they should of course, but if enough short sighted whiners keep on slagging the other two services, to make themselves look good, it certainly won't make it less likely to happen.

As per usual, I still have utmost respect for a huge majority of the RAF who are not only working hard, but are seen to be doing so!
Are the whiners mostly those still in the UK, wearing nice clean uniforms to work?

[kharmael]

Hit a nerve much Barnstormer?


Of course if the paras were scrapped as you suggest, then their NATO means of delivery could be scrapped too I suppose...The Hercules!

^I presume you thought I was responding to that?^

If you were to take my outcry in the context of the post by Ken Scott two above my first one you would see that I wasn't riposting you directly, but using an extreme-hypothetical situation to illustrate the situation that the Tac AT fleet is in.

The second half of the post referred more to Collins on the Radio 4 show. :rolleyes:

[vecvechookattack]

Having seen both sides of this debate, I suspect the Flt Ops branch will survive; lower capitation rates make them more cost effective in ground posts than aircrew. Why pay someone flying pay to do a non-flying job, particularly when most (all?) aircrew want to be flying anyway? I have met plenty of aircrew employed in ground posts who had little interest in doing a ground tour at all and so put precious little into the job.

I think that you are missing the point. I'm not suggesting that we get rid of the Ops people...I'm suggesting that we get rid of the job itself. We don't have aircrew on a ground tour doing the job....we have nobody doing the job....get rid of it completely.....

[barnstormer1968]

kharmael

No, you didn't hit a nerve, and in referring to EX ARMY types, you may well be right. I was probably over the top, but then it does seem silly for other posters to say the army and navy should understand the RAF, but not the other way around (just think how odd it sounds for someone to suggest the paras and marines are similar...One is in the navy and arrives by sea, while the other is in the army and arrives by air (usually air mobile). They are just so different in attitude and ethos:}.

I just don't think it helps for anyone to start name calling, as the RAF need to be independent IMHO, and the constant 'we need to be understood, but we aren't going to tell you about us, so you can't understand anyway' (that is a long phrase isn't it) isn't going to promote the RAF!

You may well know the army have a love/hate relationship with the RAF, but when the chips are down, the average squaddie loves the RAF (as they bring them help/water/ love letters/ sweeties and parcels etc), and would not want them to be disbanded..........

So, why do a small minority have to attack the other services, yet admit to knowing nothing about them, in order to make themselves look good.

In real life, all three services should be able to see why the RAF need to exist as an independent service:

A stupidly simplistic example of why this should be is:
For RAF types, just think about your own MT. Who gets the best and newest vehicles to use on det, the folks at the sharp end inc QRA types, or the top desk clerk or office staff?

In a tight situation the army need the most appropriate use of air power, and not see assets just go to the commander who is most senior or shouts loudest!

All commanders would see their need as the most urgent, but it really does need someone at arms length to treat everyone as equals (and especially so when aircraft are in short supply).

If I misuse a quote of yours "No actually Lyneham has 24 Hercules sitting on the pan" now you are talking sense:E But maybe they are waiting for spares or to be scrapped and not paras (unless the Wiltshire insurgency kicks off again)!

[Ron Manager]

MGD - I actually agree that a lot of damage was done by the failure to explain the branch to the TG9 SNCO cadre, many of whom ended up resenting the new Ops Os, when the 2 elements should have been working together.

VVHA - You have nobody doing the job? Perhaps if the whole job was tidying up charts and so on, but that is just one small part of the Ops world. It might be possible to have the aircrew do it all - on a small scale, for aircraft with limited range and with a simple tasking chain; but for a complex organisation (like, say, RAF Air Transport) this simply couldn't work. Someone has to organise the tasking, make the arrangements for the loads, crews and dipclears; as the truckie crews are generally rather busy flying today's route and may not therefore be able to think about a task that might happen in 6-8 weeks time, that work is done by other people - getting rid of the job really isn't an option.

[xenolith]

Ron M

Do the airlines have an Ops Supt equivalent for their 'complicated routes' or is it done by computers?

[Ron Manager]

It looks like it: BA Recruitment (http://www.britishairwaysjobs.com/baweb1/?newms=info175)

[vecvechookattack]

...and back to the thread....

There was an interesting piece on Newsnight last night with Sir Clive Loader representing the RAF and Steve Jermy representing the RN. I have to say that although he was a strong advocate of the RAF, Steve Jermy won the debate with his argument that the role that the RAF conducts could be conducted by the other 2 forces.

What worries me is that although both Sir Clive and Steve both stated that " the RAF won't be disbanded", this is the second time in less than a week that this topic has been discussed on the BBC.

Is the RAF really safe? Maybe during the SDSR but what about the next Defence review in 5 years time? Worrying times


Fast forward to about 22:30 for the start of the pieceBBC iPlayer - Newsnight: 19/08/2010 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tj7z6/Newsnight_19_08_2010/)

[BEagle]

Do the airlines have an Ops Supt equivalent for their 'complicated routes' or is it done by computers?

In fact 'the airlines' put some of their brightest folk on route / fleet management - because efficiency means profit. The dull tedium of 'being locked in a broom cupboard with a stranger for 2 hours three or four times a day' flogging some people tube full of drunken chavs from the UK to the Costa Chlamydia and back is hardly very demanding - whereas the optimisation of routes/fleets is quite an exacting art.

[Wyler]

Politically, there is absolutely no appetite to disband the RAF despite what any so called 'experts' may say.

However, if the cuts are so deep that our aircraft numbers shrink markedly then there may come a point where it is just not practical to have a stand alone force dedicated to air.

That comes back to politics again. I am not sure there is the political will to go as far and as deep as is being suggested (not just the military). Judging by recent speeches and leaks I am of the opinion that the coalition may be looking to apply the brakes a little. We are still an easy target and our eyes will water but disbanding a complete Arm of the forces is not, IMHO, on any politicians list.

And we work for politicians, not uniforms.

[163627]

Jermy again made the point that since the end of WW2 every enemy aircraft shot down in air to air combat by UK forces (Korea, Suez, Falklands) has been shot down by a Royal Navy aircraft (though not necessarily flown by an RN pilot) launched from a carrier. A point Loader (nor anyone else I’ve yet heard) has had an answer to other than waffle! To me this indicates that 1) wars can creep up on us from the most unexpected places and 2) we cannot rely on nice folks near the combat zone lending us an airfield. Thus if we are to remain effective on the world stage we need to stay in the business of fixed wing carrier aviation. Who owns and flies the hardware is a secondary issue. However, hand on heart is the RAF now 100% behind the concept? For I think we must all agree their track record has usually been rather negative in this area and at times positively destructive. Of course we could always retreat to Fortress UK, but somehow I don’t think we will, after all who wants to be the PM of an island version of Belgium, not Cameron for sure!

[Wyler]

'If we wish to remain effective on the World stage'.

Whether we wish to or not, the question is 'can we'?. I think not. The British Bulldog is no more and we perhaps need to finally acknowledge that at the political level. We simply do not have the clout, or the financial capability, to offer ourselves up as a major world player.

We are a tiny, bankrupt, over-populated island nation off the northern coast of mainland Europe. The next few decades are going to be about basic survival, never mind flexing our muscles around the globe.

Very, very sad.

[NUFC1892]

Jermy again made the point that since the end of WW2 every enemy aircraft shot down in air to air combat by UK forces (Korea, Suez, Falklands) has been shot down by a Royal Navy aircraft (though not necessarily flown by an RN pilot) launched from a carrier.


Alternatively: Jermy again made the point that we need to be equipped to fight the last conflict and give little thought to future ones.

[Wrathmonk]

the role that the RAF conducts could be conducted by the other 2 forces.

No they couldn't, not without the transfer of the associated specialist and trained manpower (which is unlikely to happen in the numbers required).

However, lets assume all the required manpower was forced to transfer then all it becomes is a uniform swapping exercise. And everyone knows the RAF uniform is the cheapest about - you could therefore say, just as easily, that the roles that the RN and the Army conduct could be conducted by the RAF (just think - instead of the First Sea Lord you would have the First Air Lord!).

If the RAF were to be disbanded it would only be part of all three Services being merged into a UK Defence Force.

And from my experience the one who shouts loudest usually has the most to hide (or lose). Or even is trying to deflect attention from their own inefficiencies (and unnecessary 'luxuries') [perhaps by demanding the disbandment of the RAF.....];). Lets have a debate similar to the pre-election party leaders debate but use the current Service chiefs and not some cold war dinosaurs trying to protect their wegiment, old ship or out dated aircraft.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

We are a tiny, bankrupt, over-populated island nation off the northern coast of mainland Europe. The next few decades are going to be about basic survival, never mind flexing our muscles around the globe.



That sounds rather like the '60s when the IMF were trying to run our show. So we're supposed to give up and blend with the scenery?

There is a principle of "run or be run". Perhaps that appeals to some people; so long as their personal wealth and comfort are assured.

[Gnd]

"run or be run"

If we run, we will have to be run as we wont be here? I prefer 'stay and fight', as well as, 'reduce the management waste' and 'consultancies should be hung'.

All of which suggest a 'leaner, productive force' not a bloated under employed (with exceptions) farce (no mini it isn’t)

[Pheasant]

NUF,

Alternatively: Jermy again made the point that we need to be equipped to fight the last conflict and give little thought to future ones.

I don't think so. I am sure the point he was making was that all operations since WW2 that have involved air-air combat have been expeditionary in nature and have used the aircraft carrier. It happened that the offensive air came from those carriers and aircraft were shot down.

As a generalisation, for truly effective expeditionary operations that require political freedom for the longest period of time, carrier bourne offensive air is needed. The UK knew that until the RAF saw themselves threatened by it in the '60s, and the US, FR, USSR (now Russia), India, China, Spain, Italy etc know it now.

Who flies such capability is up to the MoD and politicians, but for it to be a capability I suspect the RN have to be involved somewhere (as it is not just about fighter pilots in the cockpit) - I personally think the RAF need to be involved too if it is to be a truly flexible capability.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Gnd. I'll rephrase that; run it (them) or it (they) will run you.