PDA

View Full Version : Fox: RAF Will Not Merge With Other Services


ORAC
13th Jul 2011, 12:36
Defense News: Fox: RAF Will Not Merge With Other Services (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7084236&c=EUR&s=AIR)

British Defence Secretary Liam Fox has ended speculation that the Royal Air Force could be merged with the other armed services.

In a speech to military and industry leaders in London on July 13, Fox said he has rejected advice urging him to merge air operations fully into other services.

"I am clear that the RAF makes a definable and unique contribution to Britain's defense - a contribution that it would be wrong dispense with," Fox said at the Royal United Services Institute Air Power Conference.

The defense secretary said Britain could not afford to lose the doctrinal understanding of air power and its effects, which is burned deep into collective fiber of the force.

"The value of the RAF is not confined to history - far from it," he said.

The Ministry of Defence recently rolled out a series of proposed structural reforms that stopped short of merging the armed services but said that it intended to create a joint forces command led by a four-star general.

That command will likely pull together some joint assets such as intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR).

Fox said that joint operations are in the "very DNA" of the force.

Doug Barrie, senior air analyst at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, said Fox had taken the right decision. "The use of air power is both served through sustaining an independent organization geared to operating often in a joint environment. Merger would have ill-served the U.K.'s military capability," Barrie said.

Fox went on to praise the role of the Typhoon fighter in the air campaign against Moammar Gadhafi's regime in Libya and said the aircraft's performance was impressing potential export customers, including India, where the jet is in a head-to-head competition with France's Rafale for a multibillion-pound deal.

foldingwings
13th Jul 2011, 15:14
That's it then, death knell just sounded!:suspect:

airpolice
13th Jul 2011, 15:27
No doubt they have taken "Legal Advice" to come up with this denial.

Wander00
13th Jul 2011, 16:27
Is this similarly confidence-building to a Minister in the pooh being given the "complete confidence" of the PM!

Ivan Rogov
13th Jul 2011, 17:06
That ties in nicely with the rumour about AH going to the RAF and the FAA going in 2 years. Maybe all the AAC too?

Stuck On The Ground
13th Jul 2011, 17:13
Ivan,

God I hope not. The wailing and whining from the green and dark blue on this site would make the recent moaning about Harrier look like reasoned argument...;)

Trogger
13th Jul 2011, 17:57
Before long we'll only have a couple of helicopters and they'll be on loan from Bristow......

alfred_the_great
13th Jul 2011, 18:00
Knock yourself out with taking over the helo's; a HELQUEST will be winging your way to ensure you embark for my 7 month deployment, and associated work up period before hand. I don't care what colour uniform you wear, you're still coming to sea with me!

Pheasant
13th Jul 2011, 20:17
What else would Fox say at an Air power conference.....you can apply just the same logic to the FAA and the AAC - perhaps Fox needs to tell this to the RAF!

NutLoose
13th Jul 2011, 23:16
RAF Will Not Merge With Other Services

Ahh Government speak, does that mean the Other Services can still Merge with the RAF and then we will rename it???

Two's in
14th Jul 2011, 03:21
The Melchester Rovers Board of Directors can confirm that the Manager continues to enjoy our complete confidence...

diginagain
14th Jul 2011, 04:20
The way things are going, you won't have a great deal to offer in any merger. We'll wait for you to fold and then pick through any remaining worthwhile assets.

high spirits
14th Jul 2011, 05:55
I love it when the fisheads and pongos trot out this 'disband the RAF' guff. If the decision is taken and the assets are divided, there will be noone to operate them. I'd sooner draw the dole than get seen off like the other 2 services. Some of the posters on this forum are intent on a race to the bottom of the scrapheap....:ugh:

FATTER GATOR
14th Jul 2011, 06:28
I like the idea of beoming part of the Army. I would get a smashing new set of uniforms and would be able to go public on my fetish for dressing up like Rupert Bear.
I wouldn't have to think for myself anymore because you never question the boss and when I've feathered my nest for a few years I could join the other Army officers by leaving as soon as possible and get a job in the city!
Sounds good to me.:ok:

Maxibon
14th Jul 2011, 07:00
Sorry Fatter Gator, your view on Army officers is based on first hand experience or a pathetically naive view based on prejudices that may have been relevant many years ago.

Well done on achieving dick post of the week ward; you must be very proud...

timex
14th Jul 2011, 07:11
Wow, the RAF complaining.....what a surprise.

Pontius Navigator
14th Jul 2011, 07:16
Ivan I didn't think it would be as limited at that. Nutloose, exactly what I was thinking. An the RAF would adopt the beret as standard head dress and wear cabbage kit. Those in UK could wear blue cabbage kit.

spectre150
14th Jul 2011, 07:38
Maxibon

Just to confirm, you ARE agreeing with fatty gator then?

quote 'your view on Army officers is based on first hand experience' unquote

FATTY - looks like you got a bite :E

Pontius Navigator
14th Jul 2011, 09:03
Fatter, you seem to have the size of it although my colonel would have needed an outsize bear outfit.

You forgot to mention retiring at least as a major or more likely a lt col and then getting a job as a consultant for the MOD selling them a reprinted copy of an obscure JSP they had already got.

Two's in
14th Jul 2011, 14:18
Fatter,

Don't forget you get to bring your fat, wheezy, and flatulent dog to the office as well, as opposed to the other services where they only get taken to the Summer Ball!

teeteringhead
14th Jul 2011, 14:40
So ...... now we've had a clear promise ....

...... from a politician ......


...... that something won't happen ......


..... then obviously it won't!!! ;)

althenick
14th Jul 2011, 21:36
So to summarize the RAF post SDSR …
Ground Trades –

Pretty much all similar to the Army – Cook, Doc’c Nurses etc – yep ARMY have them in more abundance. Why bother have duplicated training and support systems for both?


Aircraft -

Typhoon – AD Fighter that will soon (or is) doing CAS – In support of the ARMY

Helicopters – Used to Transport ARMY personnel in the field

SAR Flights – Doesn’t count as soon to be privatized (maybe)

AT- Transports the ARMY

ISTAR – Operated by the RAF on behalf of the ARMY

That leaves AWACS (I am told that it’s Radar has a very good look down capability which may be useful to the ARMY) and AAR Tankers – which could refuel the above which in turn support the ARMY.

Personally, I think it will happen within the next ten years. It seems senseless to me that a service which is pretty much fully committed to supporting another service should be independent. Someone upstairs will realize that there would be much savings to be made in streamlining the management of the RAF and making it a Service within the Army. Hopefully the Brown Jobs will allow an RAF of the British Army to have a degree of Autonomy that will allow them do things like directly recruit and train etc.

Unchecked
14th Jul 2011, 22:58
To say that all the RAF does is support the army is extremely ignorant and shows a deep misunderstanding on your behalf.

Backwards PLT
14th Jul 2011, 23:25
Thanks althenick, I needed a good laugh, top comedy!!!

I think unchecked thought that you were serious!!!!!!

engineer(retard)
15th Jul 2011, 08:43
It appears that without the RAF, the ARMY cannot go anywhere or do anything, surely it would be far more efficient to merge the ARMY into the RAF to make best use of these resources.

Lonewolf_50
15th Jul 2011, 12:22
Do any of our Canadian friends wish to comment on the great merger theory? :8 As I recall from history, the Canadian forces merged into one big happy family a few decades ago.

Care to share a few thoughts for our friends across the pond regarding the pros and cons?

(Grabs bucket of popcorn, sits back ... )

Willard Whyte
15th Jul 2011, 12:44
If the RAF joins the Army it should surely be as a separate flying regiment.

That way we can have our own rules, regulations, uniforms, abbreviations, bases, ranks*, etc. Only problem is I don't think any shops near me sell red trousers.

*If the Cavalry can have Corporal of Horse we can stick with Flight Sergeants etc. I've no problem with the O's adopting Army ranks - it'll save explaining that Flight Lieutenant is the same as Captain - except PA Flt Lt, more like a Lt Col where it's important - at the bank..

Al Murdoch
15th Jul 2011, 12:50
High Spirits - I think what the Fishheads and Pongos actually say is "Disband the Crabs".

FODPlod
15th Jul 2011, 13:36
Knock yourself out with taking over the helo's; a HELQUEST will be winging your way to ensure you embark for my 7 month deployment, and associated work up period before hand. I don't care what colour uniform you wear, you're still coming to sea with me!

Shakedown, work-up and operational deployment? Nah, that's over nine months away at sea every 15-18 month cycle. Routine stuff for the FAA but I can't see many Crabs wearing it.

Best keep them separate (and intact).

engineer(retard)
15th Jul 2011, 13:38
Most of the FAA I worked with had less sea time than the chinny boys.

engineer(retard)
15th Jul 2011, 14:33
No t'was early 90s

FODPlod
15th Jul 2011, 14:33
Most of the FAA I worked with had less sea time than the chinny boys.

I'm not surprised if you mean the air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past few years but that's not where the Lynx HAS8 and Merlin HM1 ships' flights have been operating.

alfred_the_great
15th Jul 2011, 14:44
And it's not like the FA2/GR7/9 embarkation, where you only used the fixed wing elements for a couple of days (generally on an exercise) and then left them alone for a couple of weeks. I am expecting our flight to fly every day (standfast maintenance days, defect rectification and shi*ty wx) of our deployment. Our work-up will see a similar tempo, with tasking varying from their core role, to the more usual "secondary roles" to some weird and wacky stuff I'm going to ask if they can do.

In fact, I'd love to see a RAF RW pilot embark on a "small ships flight", I suspect you'd love it (but maybe not the OOD duties!) and you'd save a load of dosh....

Fire 'n' Forget
15th Jul 2011, 15:01
Mmmmm it's that great that just about every inter service transfer is towards the RAF, don't see very many going the other way !

Says it all :ok:

FODPlod
15th Jul 2011, 15:29
Mmmmm it's that great that just about every inter service transfer is towards the RAF, don't see very many going the other way !

Says it all http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifYou don't suppose it has something to do with the RN having lost FW a/c while the RAF still has them, do you? After all, the RAF's so attractive otherwise...Reasons why i want to PVR.... (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/457101-reasons-why-i-want-pvr.html)
PVRs started..... (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/455293-pvrs-started.html)
swapping from RAF to RAAF (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/457382-swapping-raf-raaf.html)
;)

Chicken Leg
15th Jul 2011, 15:52
*If the Cavalry can have Corporal of Horse we can stick with Flight Serbeants etc. I've no problem with the O's adopting Army ranks - it'll save explaining that Flight Lieutenant is the same as Sergeant - except PA Flt Lt, more like a Lt Col where it's important - at the bank..

There, fixed if for you!

Maxibon
15th Jul 2011, 15:55
Transferring into the RAF? You should see the number of applications here in Army recruitment from a large number of trainee pilots that the RAF recently sacked.

Chicken Leg
15th Jul 2011, 16:00
You should see the number of applications here in Army recruitment from a large number of trainee pilots that the RAF recently sacked.

Will they have to go to Sandhurst and be taught how to be Officers?

Maxibon
15th Jul 2011, 16:04
Little room at the mo and yes, RMAS will be required; something is required to unteach the HKLP ingrained at the RAFC. Soldier first, then a pilot...

Cyberhacker
15th Jul 2011, 16:56
It seems senseless to me that a service which is pretty much fully committed to supporting another service should be independent

By this flawed logic, I presume you are also endorsing the formation of a single Royal Regiment of Squaddies encompassing all of the existing Corps and Regiments, as it is senseless for one Corps/Regiment which is pretty much fully committeed to supporting another Corps/Regiment to be independent.

Chicken Leg
15th Jul 2011, 17:28
By this flawed logic, I presume you are also endorsing the formation of a single Royal Regiment of Squaddies encompassing all of the existing Corps and Regiments

I think that's exactly what is being endorsed. We could perhaps call it.................. the Army! :ugh:

high spirits
15th Jul 2011, 18:18
One of the advantages of a fully independent Air Force is that no one part of the Army can get too powerful and therefore enjoy a monopoly on funding. It provides balance. Most attendees of 'swindon tech' will agree, whatever their Service. If a merger is a player, why not suck in the RN at the same time; then we can all stop arguing over funding.....I dont agree with that view by the way!!

Dengue_Dude
15th Jul 2011, 18:33
He's a politician . . . now he's said this, you KNOW he's lying.

Willard Whyte
15th Jul 2011, 20:54
There, fixed if for you!

Thanks, but you missed the actual mistake! Meh meh meh meh...

Willard Whyte
15th Jul 2011, 20:59
Will they have to go to Sandhurst and be taught how to be Officers?

Who knows? Do they do chin removal surgery there?

althenick
15th Jul 2011, 23:54
To say that all the RAF does is support the army is extremely ignorant and shows a deep misunderstanding on your behalf.

I didn't - but its beginning to look that way - please enlighten me if you know of anything else.

Thanks althenick, I needed a good laugh, top comedy!!!

I think unchecked thought that you were serious!!!!!!

Glad I could oblige Backwards, unfortunately I ain't kidding - I cannot now understand why the RAF is separate from it's prime customer. It takes nothing to do with maritime so why pretend to be anything else

If the RAF joins the Army it should surely be as a separate flying regiment.

That way we can have our own rules, regulations, uniforms, abbreviations, bases, ranks*, etc. Only problem is I don't think any shops near me sell red trousers.

*If the Cavalry can have Corporal of Horse we can stick with Flight Sergeants etc. I've no problem with the O's adopting Army ranks - it'll save explaining that Flight Lieutenant is the same as Captain - except PA Flt Lt, more like a Lt Col where it's important - at the bank..

Willard - well summed up

Fire 'n' Forget
16th Jul 2011, 03:19
Althenick.......are you an ex stoker.....you sound like one...put a log on and leave constructive airpower to the professionals !

TurbineTooHot
16th Jul 2011, 07:35
Sadly, this thread has shown up an issue which has affected the viewpoint of our Army colleagues most disturbingly. It is that of "The War."

For the best part of ten years we've been engaged in counter insurgency in a land locked country whose airspace we own. For an entire generation of Ruperts and Toms this is warfare. It's the only thing they know. Iraq, similar principle applies (bar early 2003).

The point is, this younger generation of Army simply see the RAF as another combat support arm in the same view as the RA or AAC, because HERRICK is not just the war it's Their War.

The obvious, as we've seen on this thread, follows. Note the higher levels of the army structure might stoke this view as, once we withdraw from Afghan, then Army face a similar slashing. Not right or good but sadly inevitable. Thus to preserve their patch they will get the junior to chunter on about the "hundred year experiment" etc.

They conveniently forget who's running the UK side of things in Libya, a campaign where certainly the Army is not the prime customer of the RAF or RN.

TTH

Ken Scott
16th Jul 2011, 10:16
Personally, I think it will happen within the next ten years. It seems senseless to me that a service which is pretty much fully committed to supporting another service should be independent. Someone upstairs will realize that there would be much savings to be made in streamlining the management of the RAF and making it a Service within the Army.

Would there really be much inthe way of savings? The RAF command structure would just change uniforms, you couldn't get rid of them & put some infantry general & his team in charge, because he wouldn't have a clue. It's a complete nonsense that suddenly you could make huge savings.

Father Jack Hackett
16th Jul 2011, 10:34
Well said TTH,

I suspect there is going to be something of a crisis of identity and purpose within the Army when they finally withdraw from Afg. They seem to have configured themselves almost exclusively for this op, to the detriment of what are perceived as old-fashioned roles such as armoured warfare, and they expect the rest of the forces to follow suit. If you're a Major / Lieutenant Colonel, you are going nowhere unless you've been written up for a command tour in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, wise heads in the RAF and Navy (and maybe some in the Army) realise that, in the words of Robert Duvall, " one day this war's gonna end" and if history tells us anything then the next major entanglement will probably look very different to the last one.

So please, please, please, enough " disband the RAF" horsesh!t already.

Seldomfitforpurpose
16th Jul 2011, 11:53
BBC News - Army may face cuts to fund TA reservists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14171545)

As it would appear that post Afg the Army will be more of a part time job than a full time occupation the notion of a green grocer/weekend warrior being in command of something as complex as the RAF is simply ludicrous :p

Unchecked
16th Jul 2011, 12:21
Althenick.

Well, others have explained it to you a lot clearer than I can be bothered to. This country will always require defending and in this day and age the way to to do that is from the air. That is the primary role of the RAF. Governments of the future will not always be so keen to send our forces around the world. Hence why the army should be the ones afraid of their future. They only have 4 years to decide best how to reconfigure themselves because after the war has ended and you all come home, there ain't gonna be a lot for you to do.

Best you all get your thinking caps on.

Watch with interest which branch of the armed forces are most likely to help out with a humanitarian crisis in east Africa over the next few months. I didnt see the army delivering aid to Ethiopia, Pakistan, Haiti etc over the years.

Yes, the RAF supports the army, but that isn't all it does. Please remove your head from your anus and have a read of something.

althenick
16th Jul 2011, 13:36
Althenick.......are you an ex stoker.....you sound like one...put a log on and leave constructive airpower to the professionals !

I'm an ex greenie, and I would happily leave airpower to the professionals only the RAF gave up Harrier :E

Well, others have explained it to you a lot clearer than I can be bothered to. This country will always require defending and in this day and age the way to to do that is from the air.

A very small part of the RAF's role is AD, that is my point, it has now got to the stage where the RAF may as well be part of the Army as that is its prime business.

Watch with interest which branch of the armed forces are most likely to help out with a humanitarian crisis in east Africa over the next few months. I didnt see the army delivering aid to Ethiopia, Pakistan, Haiti etc over the years.

That Argument does'nt really hold water does it? If the Army owned C130's et al then not doubt they would have dilivered aid as well

Pre-SDSR i'd have argued to the death for an independent Air Force, But now All the services are too small. The RAF aren't interested in Maritime - They proved that with giving up Harrier and rightly or wrongly Nimrod.

TurbineTooHot
16th Jul 2011, 13:51
Althenick.

Army? Primary business? Libya? Anything? No?

We are not in business to support the Army. We in business to defend the UK interests at home and abroad. In the case of HERRICK means primarily supporting land forces as that is the nature of the campaign. Is is not the case in the other big op currently in progress.

You are clearly no expert on airpower if you think that the Harrier was the ONLY aircraft like you bang on about. Your incessant clawing at the RAF is a massively compelling case for an independent RAF all by itself as it demonstrates the surface level of the lack of understanding of airpower in Army circles. I would dream of telling you how to run a land campaign, take a patrol out or restructure your force. Don't pretend you have anywhere near the understanding of air in that same fashion.

My guess is you fit neatly into the category of soldier I discussed in my previous post. And just for you I'll say it again. If you think all the RAF does is support the Army, see OP ELLAMY.

TTH

engineer(retard)
16th Jul 2011, 14:02
"I'm an ex greenie, and I would happily leave airpower to the professionals only the RAF gave up Harrier"

and the RN gave up their carrier, so should we give all the grey funnels to the Army to transport tanks?

foldingwings
18th Jul 2011, 12:11
only the RAF gave up Harrier

Nope! The RN gave up the Sea Harrier and then the carriers (aka Through Deck Cruisers) and so the writing was on the wall!

Foldie:rolleyes:

Not_a_boffin
18th Jul 2011, 13:44
No. The navy gave up SHAR but did not give up the CVS. ARk was withdrawn as a direct consequence of the removal of GR9/9A from service.

engineer(retard)
18th Jul 2011, 14:36
If they sent the money they saved to the Harriers fleet, perhaps they could have been saved.

Poltergeist
18th Jul 2011, 14:53
Ok, read this thread with interest now can someone please explain something to me. When I with Naval Air Sqdns in the early 80's I spent a lot of time on deployments in germany. There were a large number of US army bases there and each one had a PSP runway. These were provided for comms aircraft and for rapid deployment of units.
Why is it, that when the Army move into an airbase with a hard rwy they feel obiged to either
a) dig it up
b) blow it up
c) build on it
d) plant trees next to it

Thorney island is a great example. They built alongside the rwy and put obstructions on it. Surely, if the unit base there needs to deploy, would it not be easier to despatch transport aircraft to the unit rather than have the unit transport by road to Brize? The same has happened at several other basis. Why do they not keep one rwy clear to enable use? Lighting and other equipment is not required so upkeep would be minimal.
I am sure there is a damned good reason,i just don't see it :(

Ty

Widger
18th Jul 2011, 15:14
The RN still have a CVS. It is called HMS Illustrious and has just come out of refit. One worked up, it could easily deploy and operate USMC or Italian or Spanish AV8s!

Widger
18th Jul 2011, 15:16
Turbine too hot,

Whilst on Op Ellamy, the RAF may not be supporting the British Army, they are supporting Land Forces as are the Royal Navy and the Army Air Corps.

TurbineTooHot
18th Jul 2011, 18:13
Widger, some support maybe, but I'm fairly certain that the missions are in defence of the civilian population rather than in direct support of rebel troops, the result being largely similar being a welcome by-product.

Please dont forget strategic targeting and enforcing the NFZ by the RAF and RN. Bugger all to do with land unless you are looking so joint that you advocate a UKDF rather than three services. In which case everything military that ever happens is ultimately land support. Boots on the grounds blah.

Twist it how you want but be careful about pushing to hard for the end of one service in a resource/money/power grab, the Law of Unintended Consequences has a funny habit of raising it's strange head during such actions.

TTH