Ok, slug.
Take for example the Harrier. The Harrier is, and always was, a pig in a poke.
So much so, that the Americans bought the design rights from us and built them for the USMC - name another military aircraft in modern times that the Americans have bought from anybody else?
The Harrier is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability.
And you are basing this on WHAT, exactly? The Harrier is the most potent and capable CAS aircraft ever used in combat. Your knowledge of aircraft in general, and the Harrier in particular, is considerably lacking - a timely demostration, if one were needed, that the Army simply do not have the ability to operate modern air power.
Even with roughly 50,000 total personnel the RAF is strained by squeezing out a squadron or two to provide little more than a token presence in the theatre of operations.
No, just in YOUR theatre of operations. The RAF is currently operating in MANY theatres, doing all kinds of jobs. I suggest you educate yourself. Does the fact that we are strained to provide what we do not suggest that there is little fat to be trimmed from our current numbers? (which are closer to 41,000, by the way - or will be soon).
RW is a duplicated effort, no reason as to why those assets cannot be effectively transferred to the AAC/FAA.
This I partially agree with - the other two services already have experience of helo ops, so subsuming RW from the RAF may be possible - but it certainly will not save any money; I will explain my reasoning shortly.
A similar argument of replacing RAF aircrew with others can be made for much of the trucky operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a pilot force to be established on a part time basis to fly the transport assets.
No, it wouldn't. The productivity you get from a reservist is way below what you would get from a full-time service pilot working part-time, for many reasons. Understand that almost ALL reservist pilots (we have several) have airline jobs, limiting their availability and therefore their usefullness. Also, reservists cannot be sent into Operational theatres at the drop of a hat - they have to be called up by Parliament. Doing so would almost certainly cost an airline pilot his job - you cannot simply hop from one aircraft type to another, you have to maintain currency on a type to be able to fly it. Operational flying ALWAYS brings with it short or no-notice committments. In short, a non-starter.
And there is no need for the trucky operation (transport or Maritime or AWACS) to stay under RAF control
But there IS a need for the personnel and therefore the expertise that the RAF currently has - and 99% of them will tell the Army and the RN exactly where they can shove their 'offer' to transfer to them. (As volunteers, we cannot legally be forced to transfer). And I really wouldn't call a Nimrod mate a 'Trucky' to his face - you would be liable to having yours rearranged.
Does the RAF really need its own medical branch? Aviation medicine isn't that special.
Yes, it is. I suggest you speak to an AvMed Q'd doctor before you make such rash statements.
Moving the aircraft to other command structures within the Army/RN allows duplicated administration to be chopped.
And here we reach the crux of the matter, the so called 'savings' to be made by getting rid of RAF admin and support. Do you really believe that the current Army / RN admin setup can deal with an extra 35-40,000 personnel? The ratio of adminers to personnel is roughly the same in both services. The other services would need to gain every admin post that the RAF loses, so where are your cost savings?
Doubtless you will attempt to quote the magical 'groundcrew to aircraft' ratio myth - which IS a myth for two reasons. Firstly, the RAFs aircraft inventory is far more complex than either the Navy or Army's - ergo, you need more people to fix and maintain them. Also, we do all our own fixing - we don't rely on the REME to fix our aircraft the way the AAC do. Secondly, the RAF appears overborne in support personnel when compared to the AAC / FAA - but this is because both of these little flying clubs rely on the support infrastructure of their parent organisations in order to do business. We have everything in-house.
Explain how you could possibly cut down on the number of aircraft techies we currently have, given that we have now truly been cut to the bone in that department and can barely cope as it is.
And you cannot seriously expect Sqn execs to just find the time to write an extra 2,500 aircrew annual reports? Or manage twice or three times the number of personnel they currently do?
And how will you train all these new 'recruits'? Will you just magically conjure up 41,000 extra sets of uniform (at no cost, of course), put them on the newcomers and send them off to their new units? This assumes, of course, you could persuade ANYONE to transfer.
Much of the RAF is dangerously overrated, inefficient, duplicated and redundant
Explain how? Exactly what in the RAF is 'redundant'? Explain how the other two services can be more 'efficient', given that they would have to absorb almost all of our current posts?
In summary - a big post that was long on bluff and bluster, full of inaccurate facts and assumptions, or just plain ignorance, and short on actual, viable proposals.
You don't work for New Labour, do you?