Sky Live Debate the Need For An Independent Air Force [Archive]

Never Alert

14th Jun 2007, 18:31

It obviously goes far deeper than who has ownership over the UK's aircraft. The army has no, or very few, airspace battle management SMEs & as a result, they have Fighter Controllers working with them in quite a few areas, helping army folk understand caps & lims of CAS etc etc.

Should the RAF merge with the army, the emphasis would move away from air power & those of us who were 'ex RAF' would certainly be looked upon as 2nd class personnel.

Not sure if I would go the other way and take the a/c away from the army mind, they seem to be doing a bloody good job with the Apache.

craigJ

14th Jun 2007, 18:38

I remember reading sometime ago that this was seriously considered shortly before WW2... what a mistake that would have been :}.

Although it sounds cheesy, history always repeats itself at some point :ugh:, to remove the air force as an independant body would be a huge mistake.

Door Slider

14th Jun 2007, 18:42

The army is doing a fantastic job with the Apache considering the lack of spares and manpower however; these are issues affecting every helicopter fleet. The only down side is the 'green' army still and will never understand airpower, airspace management because that is not there job. An independent airforce should not be governed by fiscal rulings, especially when fighting two wars!!!!!!

Melchett01

14th Jun 2007, 20:08

I have to take my hat off to Tim Collins. He's good - in fact he's almost as good as he thinks he is. But when it comes to actually understanding the RAF and what it does, then I suspect there is a big gap between what he thinks he knows and what he actually understands.

So we disband the RAF and give it over to the Army & Navy. And of course the AT situation will miraculously improve over night. 'Dave' won't be put back several years, the Kipper fleet won't have all the problems it's having and the SH fleet will actually get some proper well thought out and targeted investment. And all that just by changing cap badges ..... quick someone pass me a Gems form :ugh:

What passes for understanding of the RAF and airpower - more so in the Army than the RN - is quite frankly frightening. I remember sitting through an ISTAR lecture given by an Army WO1 ISTAR "expert" and I shall use that word in the loosest sense of its meaning. He went on for the best part of an hour on formation recce, troops being dug into OPs miles from anywhere for weeks at a time and the high tech Phoenix UAV which was going to solve all our problems. As we got towards the end, he went on to what the RAF bring to the ISTAR party - a single photo of an E3 and "oh yes and the RAF have a few of these things" and that was it. And that was from an "expert" - god only knows what the rest of the army know / understand about RAF ops. That has, unfortunately only been reinforced by recent experiences out in the sandpit.

The fact that having been already formed almost 30 years before the Americans took our lead in setting up their own independent air force should also surely make the point that in this case, he is completely wrong. God, even the Belgians have their own independent air force having split it off from the Army in 1946. First of all the Navy compare our Fleet to the Belgian Navy and now Collins thinks we should take a step backwards to something even the Belgians realised could be done better as an independent force.

Collins needs to climb down from his own arse and realise that the RAF isn't the enemy - the politicians, bean counters and yes-men are. Instead of spouting his ill informed drivel, based on what evidence I'm not sure, the better. Instead, the motion should be "In this current fiscal climate, the country can no longer afford this government".

Pontius Navigator

14th Jun 2007, 21:28

Actually while the Sky plan is to put Tim Collins up as proposer there is some doubt that he will actually do the job.

Mad_Mark

15th Jun 2007, 08:24

GengisKhant wrote...

That may be the case at present, but considering RAF history..., it was not that long ago that we had SNCO aircrew...

Spot on Gengis, it wasn't that long ago at all that we had "SNCO aircrew" - we have them NOW :D

MadMark!!! :mad:

NURSE

15th Jun 2007, 08:34

The answer is yes we still need 3 independent services but do they need duplicate things as much as we do? could alot of the Logistic tails be merged?

Do Veicles supporting an RAF station/squadron need to be maintained by RAF VM's or could REME do it just as effectivley? Do AAC helecptors need to be maintained by REME personell or cold that be done By RAF. Do we need 3 seperate service police forces? If RAF Regt is so keen to play soldiers would they not be better being a Land asset? Same with the Royal marines?

The Gorilla

15th Jun 2007, 12:50

Al Lockwood?? Pardon my memory loss but after four years back in civvy street my memory isn't what is was. Al Lockwood? Is that the guy who was OC RAF Thumrait circa 2002/2003???

TG
:confused:

Pontius Navigator

15th Jun 2007, 13:22

The Gorilla, yes indeed.

His CV has changed somewhat since then.

He was the face of the RAF and British Forces during GW2. Then he was the prospective conservative party candidate at the recent general election for Sedgefield (North?). Most recently he was third in the local council elections having been beaten by two independent candidates.

Seeing him pushing leaflets through letter boxes while wearing a check shirt and kharki shorts was quite up lifting :}

The Gorilla

15th Jun 2007, 14:06

Pontius

Thank you I will give it a miss, you forget the bad things and only remember the good. Which is why I couldn't remember, this is the same Group Capt who was formerly an Air Commode before ooops becoming a Group Captain again!!!
:mad:

Cumbrian Fell

15th Jun 2007, 14:12

Lt Col (Rtd) Collins worked/works for a PMC (funny, we used to call them mercenaries) who have frequently proposed to help NATO out in Afghanistan by providing civilian manned (but armed) helicopters. Civilian helos are used here in the log spt role, but the point is that Col Tim needs to declare his interest in this matter.
CF in the 'Stan

Gnd

15th Jun 2007, 14:30

Oh please No!!
Not another month of defencive - offencive forces bashing (by ourselves). Nah na na we are better than you crap, my RAF granny can spot a Vulcan from 52 meters!!! not 51 like your pongo one!!!
Let these fools get on with it, why do you think the idiot channels put this on - divide and rule?
I can't fly a fast jet (it makes me sick) and I bet not all of you are A2's so let me do my job, you do yours and all of us fight the one cause - the over all survival and improvement of a job that is slowly sapping our will to live (well serve at least)
Collins who?????:oh:

Pontius Navigator

15th Jun 2007, 15:18

Gnd, so do you support the idea of an 'open and fair debate' or think it should not be held?

Having had the debate, will there be a vote for a winner? 0906 ........

Hachet Harry

15th Jun 2007, 18:02

Why don't we just merge this thread with the UAV's and KA's for the Army thread. It's sure to turn into another pathetic willy waving contest so lets just starve prats like THS, SFFP and others of their oxygen?

For what it's worth, I think that this could be an interesting debate. I don't personally believe the RAF should be disbanded, but I am willing to listen to an intelligent debate that says otherwise.

I've read Tim Collins's book and although I think he's egotistical, he was undoubtedly a quality soldier. It would be odd for any of us in the RAF to agree with his point of view on this subject, but that doesn't in itself mean it's wrong. If we are so confident that our arguments stand up, we shouldn't be afraid to debate it.

Gnd

15th Jun 2007, 18:12

Pontius,

Not on this forum, it is getting so tedious, the constant 3 way pull.

Fair, yes, I thought we called that 'an election'?

The Helpful Stacker

15th Jun 2007, 18:36

Hachet Harry - As you are a probationer why don't you crank your neck in a couple of notches with the personal attacks until you've a little more experience on the forum.:ok:

But to reply to your post, I believe Tim Collins is an excellent soldier too, but Lt Col soldiers are not authorities on the use and control of airpower.

I wouldn't try to preach on the best way to remove an engine from an a/c and neither do I believe Gp Capt Lockwood would be as bold as to tell the press what he thought would be the best way for infantry to conduct operations so by the same measure Tim Collins should keep his nose out of a subject he obviously knows very little about, other than what he has picked up reading Janes or watching Sky News.

That said though I too am interested to listen to debate because as has already been mentioned, an argument against the retention of three separate air arms is also an argument against the retention of the two separate air arms some of our FAA and AAC so desire.

LOTA

15th Jun 2007, 18:49

I hope this programme is a little bit more interesting than the previous effort I saw featuring Lt Col Collins, when he presented his views on the state of the army today.

Utterly tedious and repetitive, and Lt Col Collins displayed all the charisma and television presenting ability of a cardboard box. (This is not intended as 'army bashing' coz I am sure he was a bloody fine officer and soldier!)

Hachet Harry

15th Jun 2007, 19:17

Hachet Harry - As you are a probationer why don't you crank your neck in a couple of notches with the personal attacks until you've a little more experience on the forum.

Assumptions can deceive! ;)

I think we underestimate our senior officers. They don't get to be senior officers by knowing nothing about other Arms and Services. You imply from your posts that you are a Groundie; I would bet that Collins knows more about Air Power and its potential and effectiveness than you and me just as Lockwood probably has a better understanding of holding ground than the average grunt.

I agree that a debate over the merger of air assets is long overdue. The JHC has made a half ar5ed attempt at it, why not go the whole hog? Or at least a re-alignment;

if it's got wings = RAF (it's what we know).
if it hovers = Army (they all work for them anyway).
if it's got wings or hovers, but flies from a ship = Navy (because that bit is obvious!).

D-IFF_ident

15th Jun 2007, 20:03

I wasn't aware that the UK had an independent Air Force....

If independent means 'free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others' then the RAF is not independent. It is governed vicariously by the Queen, via the Government and the MoD, as are the British Army and the Royal Navy. None of them are independent.

The statement 'In the current fiscal climate, there is no need for an Independent Air Force' is probably correct - only Bill Gates could probably afford one right now. If the statement was meant to say 'In the current fiscal climate, the Royal Air Force should be absorbed into the British Army and the Royal Navy' then the argument would be slightly more credible, albeit illfounded, since all 3 services are still governed by one Ministry. A rebranding of the Air Force as AAC or Fleet Air Arm would incur massive initial costs before returning to the exact same running costs as seen today. Absolute nonsense - And didn't I read somewhere that the correct title for Lt Col (retd) is Mister?

Pontius Navigator

15th Jun 2007, 20:16

D-IFF

No, if you trawl back in pprune and check the official rank protocol it is indeed Lt Col (Rtd) NNNN late of Royal Irish.

For the gp capt it is Gp Capt NNNNN but neither RAF (Rtd) or even (Rtd).
If the gp capt was serving then it would be Gp Capt NNNN RAF.

Sospan

16th Jun 2007, 16:23

Has it be aired yet ?

Melchett01

16th Jun 2007, 16:32

The JHC has made a half ar5ed attempt at it, why not go the whole hog? Or at least a re-alignment;

I think you might be right there. Now that Strike Command is no longer and we have moved across to Air Command, I give it 5 years tops before Air Command makes an attempt to reclaim the old RAF rotary fleet. After all, JHC has proven itself to be utterly utterly useless as a concept and is frequently bailed out by the dedication and professionalism of its front line sqns.

And with RW being the flavour of the month, just think of all the good PR and cash that Air Command could generate by commanding all those 'army helicopters'. I think we may be about to become popular with our light blue lords and masters once again.

Clockwork Mouse

16th Jun 2007, 16:44

Tim Collins retired as a full Colonel. And yes, he was a bloody good soldier and a charismatic and courageous leader, but also a strong personality and very outspoken. That is probably why the heirarchy in the MOD ganged up on him after G2 and eventually compelled him to resign, which they seem to be developing into a habit.
I would be surprised if he actually believes in the idea he is proposing and suspect that there is a tongue in cheek. He is, after all, an Irishman. However, it should produce a fascinating debate and I bet he has some fairly cogent arguments to make.
Hope there is some reasoned and intelligent discussion and it doesn't just develop into a pure p*ss*ng contest with cries of "if you're brown you can't possibly understand the use of airpower" a la Prune.
Can't wait.

Union Jack

16th Jun 2007, 17:20

In every respect, the best post yet in this thread!

Jack

SRENNAPS

17th Jun 2007, 07:31

So, was it on?????

Chris Griffin

17th Jun 2007, 09:11

There was a feature on Sky news questioning the RAFs ability to support another Op such as Op Corporate. Col Collins was indeed giving his tuppence worth. To summarise his points:

1. All helis go to Army.
2. All strike capability goes to Navy (!)
3. All heavy lift goes to Richard Branson.
4. Bearing in mind 1-3 the RAF now has to defend itself, its role and place within the MoD budget.

No doubt a very fine Army officer but his view of what the RAF does and can bring to any Op is naive at best. I think this was a bit of mischief making, as his view / arguments don't hold water whatsoever. Stick to cogent debates where you won't damage your credibility would be my advice.

wotsit

17th Jun 2007, 10:22

Standby for some heresy.

I am an officer in the RAF and I think that the independent air force is far from a safe premise. Dont get me wrong, we have a proud history and have done much to help the world but perhaps there are sound arguments for our absorption.

When I look around the air force I see an organisation where 40% work their tits off (AT, Rotary, Regiment and other supporting ground elements/ trades) in repeated and lengthy deploments to the gulf and elsewhere. They contribute to front line operations and represent the best the RAF has to offer the sister services and the country.

What does the other 60% do? Well sadly, often not a lot really. The reforming airships have, in my view correctly, done much to move us away from the cold war mentality - but the rest of our air force are often little more than uniformed civil servants who deploy to gain the proverbial career tick. People bemoan the shrinking RAF, but I ask myself what some personnel groups contribute now. Christ knows what it was like 20 years ago. And Im not suggesting individual laziness here, Im talking about institutionalised inefficiency.

People rattle on about how the army and RN could not cope with high tech air platforms. I say fiddlesticks - we have finest armed forces in the world and we would adapt. It is facile to suggest that the RAF is the only place where the brains exist to use assets effectively. The other services also have highly skilled and intelligent servicemen. The RAF should be able to hang its hat on more than a simplistic sense of technical arrogance. The fact it cant smacks sometimes of desperation. And think how much more defence budget would be freed up without a 3rd service to stick its oar in. Im proud of my uniform but think people need to look beyond the partisan views expressed here and take in the big picture.

We are heading in the right direction, but I for one am not surprised when commentators propose the very real possibility of absorption into the other services. I for one think it may not be so far fetched or unreasonable.

Clockwork Mouse

17th Jun 2007, 10:45

Dear Wotsit,
I can offer you asylum in brown land IF YOU'RE VERY QUICK!!!

The Helpful Stacker

17th Jun 2007, 11:06

And think how much more defence budget would be freed up without a 3rd service to stick its oar in

This is the most baffling and oft repeated bol:mad:cks mentioned when this subject is brought up.

Where will all these savings be made? All the aircraft that the RAF currently operate will still be needed, they will still need to be supported and as has often been shown PFI type arrangements aren't cheaper in the long run. The people that support the aircraft will themselves need to be supported. The aircraft will still need to be based at suitable locations and those suitable locations will still need to be supported. Would the RN be able to support the entire strike fleet from their existing bases and under their existing command structures or would it be more than likely that they would add HMS Brize Norton, HMS Marham and HMS High Wycombe to their empire?

What savings would actually be made? Lack of needing to buy RAF uniforms? If thats the case why not just simplify the bewildering array of uniforms the various regiments of the British Army has, or is tradition untouchable whilst the operational experience of the worlds oldest air force is in open season?

Also as a serving RAF officer can you really see the personnel serving under you happily rebadging to RN or AAC? 'Experts' are always quick to say where the kit could go to but don't often mention the most valuable asset the RAF has, its people. Can you really see thousands of RAF techies happy to be told they will be part of REME as of next week? How long do you think it would take for those PVRs to come flooding in and then where will the RN and AAC be left, with a pile of aircraft that they have no experience in at all and no one around to fix them? The premise that you can just hand aircraft over to a different branch of the armed forces cheapens the dedication to their service and knowledge of those RAF personnel who currently support those aircraft.

uncle peter

17th Jun 2007, 11:09

40% working their bits off!!! How do you work that out? As far as air assets are concerned note the following:

AT: currently working at between 105 - 120% (20% for Timmy:p)
Strike: Harriers and Tonkas - continuous Herrick and Telic
AD: F3s Falklands, Typhoon Q work up
Nimrods - continuous Herrick and Telic
New ISTAR assets also ramping up.
When not on ops there are work ups and exercises with all support that they entail.

40% - sounds like a typical blinkered wannabe senior officer - try closer to 60 - 70% the other way.

So, the whole premise of your argument is that the RAF aren't working hard and the Navy can cope with the technology...well, I'm sold, lets do it:ugh:

How will doing away with the RAF slice of the budget increase or at best maintain our capability? The frames still need buying and supporting; the drivers and maintainers still need paying, they still need a strip of concrete and support infrastructure. Support infrastructure of the other Services has been pared to the minimum so any absorption will necessitate more HR staff. In a nutshell the costs will still be there unless major cuts are proposed.

However, other problems exist such as how willing will the existing RAF personnel be to transfer to sister Services? There would be a massive experience drain in all aspects - FACT. In my opinion you would be lucky to transfer 40% of staff -if people wanted to be in the Navy or Army they would have joined them.

What is this "big picture" of which you speak wotsit? Could it be that there isn't one and it is a typical weaseling way of admitting there is no real case for it? Just state that your opponent doesn't see the big picture and the argument is won!!

The only big picture is that people are doing more with less, with everyone looking for more to do it with, hence arguments like this will be inevitable.

We are heading in the right direction if the intention is to reduce the RAF to a token third world defence force.

If you want others to listen to your Melchett ideas wotsit, then organise an Xmas draw and get yourself promoted. Failing that come up with some better arguments.

Gnd

17th Jun 2007, 11:52

HS,

If thats the case why not just simplify the bewildering array of uniforms the various regiments of the British Army has

I think you will find (almost 100%) that if the Army do want to 'bewilder' they pay for it them selves. Apparently adds to the feeling of belonging, not an amorphous mass - not a bad way to evoke loyalty (you want to belong - invoke personal choice and pay), maybe thats what is needed in war and stops constant schizophrenia and bickering?

covec

17th Jun 2007, 11:54

Perhaps the time has now come for an in-depth Defence Review?

Suggested scope?

1. Do we (the UK) want to remain members of the Security Council?

2. Do we want to continue to "punch above our weight"?

3. Should we concentrate on Homeland Defence only - perhaps retaining only the ability to deploy "token teeth arms" in support of UN/EU/NATO operations a la Belgium/Netherlands/Norway/Germany etc?

4. To what extent would/should each Service be affected?

5. If widescale redundancies of the Armed Forces is the way forward, how would HMG fund the resettlement training, redundancy packages and immediate pensions?

6. If we want to continue being a "mini-Uncle Sam" then how do we fund our Peacetime AND OOA committments properly?

wotsit

17th Jun 2007, 11:54

Uncle Peter,

No, you are wrong. The big picture is that defence spending is not relative to the armed forces output or expected role. Unfortunately I cant see this changing so we need to change and adapt accordingly. In recent years the RAF has spent billions on Eurofighter (a lame duck if ever there was one, though I admit it will look great at air shows) whilst we lack battlefield helos and UAVs. And amongst all this no-one is still sure as to whether we are going to procure two extremely useful aircraft carriers.

The big picture is that defence spending is a highly politicised issue. The less big players divvying up scant resources means that money cant be better allocated (well until the DLO get hold of it).

The big picture is that dinosaurs like you fail to realise that we are in all but name UK Defence Force Plc. Understanding that to be the case we need to work towards the best organisational models that serve our operations. Where the RAF fits into this is a fair question to ask given that the army and RN COULD operate our assets. Sorry to rain on your battle of britain cocktail parade but that is reality. UK armed forces is now a collective entity and it is down to our senior officers (of whatever persuasion) to see that it is run as such.

PS - You were never my favourite uncle :)

The Helpful Stacker

17th Jun 2007, 12:01

Where the RAF fits into this is a fair question to ask given that the army and RN COULD operate our assets.

And by the same measure the RAF could operate the air assets currently operated by the AAC and RN, thereby reducing the three current separate air arms of the Armed Forces not to two as some in the RN and AAC would like but to a much more cost-effective single air arm.

Gnd

17th Jun 2007, 12:12

I am not convinced, the RAF manning is possibly the worst of all 3. As above, the likelihood (apart from totally mercenary reasons) of pilots/techs/ground crew wishing to join the RAF would be far far to low for the one force option. According to the law of FRI, the AAC are best placed to take all - not an option they would want at all.

wotsit

17th Jun 2007, 12:14

except for the fact that CAS/ Helos assets are best left with the fighting army and maritime assets are best left with the RN. This is logical and sensible, but will never be effected becasue the only loser is the RAF.

So that leaves the RAF with.... an ageing AT fleet and a flight of VIP aircraft. Oh and that white elephant which looks great at RIAT. Given that we have to outsource most of our AT needs, I doubt this option would leave the RAF with any viable grounds to exist!

My overall point is that the armed forces is highly politicised within itself. This is a very bad thing. Inter-service rivalry for funds and influence is extremely counter-productive and if the RAF is going to continue to play this game, then it needs to understand that it is on shaky ground.

Gnd

17th Jun 2007, 12:29

Covec has a good idea, but, lets not let the bean counters do it and Wotsit - duck - I bet all the defencive aide suits will be on full alert now!!!!!:uhoh:

wokkameister

17th Jun 2007, 12:32

Right,

Despite being a member of the light blue, Ill take an unbiased look at this issue. Here on the Rotary fleet (All 3 Services) we are working our proverbials off, and have been for about ten years.
The AT fleet are slowly dipping digits into the real world, with reduced capability coinciding with vastly increased need.
The FJ fraternity are hit and miss. The Harriers have done a good job, as I am sure the GR4's will do.
AD - Falklands and Eurofighter Q workup....don't make me laugh. Thats almost insulting when people are risking their lives day in day out.
The fact remains that a lot of the RAF are doing very little except screwdrivering those that are busy.

So, could the RN and British Army absorb the duties of the RAF? NO!

Why?

Transfer all the rotary to the AAC. Given a 5-10 year break from Ops, this could be a goer, but they would need to absorb 3 extra types and all the engineering/aircrew experience this entails, as 80% of the techies/aircrew would PVR overnight. When the RAAF handed the rotary to the Australian Army, it took a number of years and involved an initial loss of capability (Initial!!!!).

Transfer all the Strike Aircraft to the RN. At present, the RN is set up to support a handful of Harriers (Fast Air wise!). How are they going to absorb Air Command?. The RN are, and always will be maritime- centric. How long before they and the Army start to fall out?. Again, there will be a loss in capability. More aircrew may stay, but as the RN likes to bob about on boats, and treats anyone under the rank of Lt like a peice of crap, again the techies will be flooding to the JPA PVR button.

What about AT? Will the RN take control or the Army? I can already see the bunfight as the Army want to fly every soldier it has to BATUS for an exercise, and the RN want to fly wives out to the Bahamas at the same time.

What we have is not ideal, but it is better than the alternatives. This is divide and conquer by the bean counters and does us no good as people of all 3 services are heavily deployed in difficult situations.

WOTSIT - If it wasn't for the RAF Battle of Britain performance, you would not have the opportunity to be gobbing off. Bear that in mind!

WM

Gnd

17th Jun 2007, 12:43

Ah, big guns, big arguments - great.
can we now give this up and put down some real solutions?
Navy - long look and maritime in all elements e.g. sea, beach air (mainly vital force protection)
Army Fight the air-battle below 10, ensure SH is managed to suite the need (flying them - who cares?)
RAF -fast air above 10, AT (just give them the assets to do the job) ATC, SH with multi force/exchange/making up the numbers troop (who cares) responsibility for putting our feet on the ground.
Govt - well just stop putting money into leaking (and slightly more radical/wingeing (yes it is possible)) public services and fund at the required (not perceived) level.
If this happens we might all be happy and just do our job?:{

Chugalug2

17th Jun 2007, 13:01

The Romans, who knew rather more about these things than we seem to have forgotten, had a phrase for it (which our more erudite members will know doubt post in the original): "If you want peace then prepare for war". Our present incumbents disregard that with the same contempt that they do all lessons learned before their year zero. That is no excuse for us to do the same. The infant RAF itself clung to life by not only conducting expeditionary operations, as now, but by also replacing the land forces that had been doing the job. The kit it had between the wars was in retrospect laughable, but with no enemy air force to defeat it sufficed. The carnage of course happened when that situation changed. Thanks to enormous courage and sacrifice in those desperate days the RAF and the nation prevailed...just! We then had a national and service leadership with the moral stamina up to the task of turning the situation around from near defeat to ultimate victory. That was done in part with an Independent Air Force. If anyone doubt that, then search the posts on this forum, especially from those apologists for the other two services still trying to rubbish the contribution to victory made by the RAF, and in particular the Strategic Bombing Offensive. It is an important argument, for we may ourselves be very much between wars again (as it were). It is one thing to re-equip an existing force to meet a sudden and overwhelming threat once more. No doubt if past experience is anything to go by we will suffer many reverses before hopefully turning the tide. If we do not have an Independent Air Force to start with, then we will face the same fate as others who did not, like for instance the Third Reich. Their Luftwaffe was equipped and trained for one purpose, to support the army (and to a much lessor extent the navy). They had (to all intents and purposes) no Strategic Bomber Force. Other than Herr Hitlers own interventions, I would say that cost them the war. They were never going to win the war by bombing Coventry, they might have had they been able to reach Stalin's factories which he had moved far to the east. Which all brings us to the next tag: "Nations that do not learn from their own history are doomed to repeat it".

aw ditor

17th Jun 2007, 13:37

I believe Oliver Cromwell (whose statue is in a local Huntingdonshire Market Town) said it all with "Trust in God but keep your powder dry", or words to that effect?

AQAfive

17th Jun 2007, 14:14

Are there any Canadians out there who could add to the debate with practical experience?

I seem to remember a recent large study to reduce the number of RAF stations by only having a few big stations thus introducing economies of scale. (The DART study I believe, but this name may have changed to protect the authors. However, I left before I saw any results.) All was well until someone did the sums and it all went quiet. I would hazard a guess that any amalgamation would seem fine on paper until someone did the sums and then realised it wasn't that practical.

Unless, of course, we have a need for a new 6 star to run the whole show!

PPRuNeUser0211

17th Jun 2007, 15:04

Wotsit.....

The thinking that you demonstrate is the very reason why assets should NOT be given to the other two services! Example:

Maritime assets given to the Navy: Thus, Nimrod gets handed over. Fantastic idea on the face of it, as it's purely a maritime asset and will never be developed to do another role.... or at least it probably wouldn't have been if the RN had their mits on it as they have other things to spend their money on!

CAS assets: Last time I looked, we don't have a "dedicated" 100% full time CAS aircraft like the A-10. The Harrier mates do a lot of it at the moment for sure, but what happens come the day when they need to do something different: They'll all be tied to CAS by the army and not released.

These are the reasons why an "Independant" air force was created in the first place. So that flexible assets would remain flexible, and not just be screwed into one role that their parent service demands of them!

OK so the RAF at the present could do with dragging SH and AT into the 21st century, but bear in mind that the requirement for all of this stuff has only surged since Afg and Iraq kicked off (only the last 5-6 years! a miniscule amount of time in procurement terms) not helped by the fact the residents Downing St have their heads firmly stuck in the sand when it comes to the fiscal contribution required to fight 2 wars.

Food for thought...

Pontius Navigator

17th Jun 2007, 15:20

pba, indeed the parallel would be how the Army divides its own assets with organic, brigade, divisional etc. The Royal Air provides Force level assets.

However although the Army, in theory, can swap units from one theatre to another - Herrick to Telic - the decision is taken at a higher level. In other words at Ministry level.

The RAF is thus another level with Ministry level 'assets' or at least political command above full command and operational command.

Hachet Harry

17th Jun 2007, 15:53

At last, this thread has developed into an interesting and informed debate, rather than infantile partisan willy waving (Jesus, I sound like my dad!).

I don't believe that the RAF will ever be disbanded if for no other reason, it would be politically unacceptable; we carry a disproportionate amount of clout amongst the corridors of power and for that reason, I don't think it will ever be seriously considered.

Wotsit and Wokka make some interesting points. I believe their could be some econmies of scale. Yes, the same number of aircraft would have to be operated and maintained, but we currently have more personnel to aircraft than any other Air Force in the world. This is not because we don't work hard, it's because we don't work efficiently. Too many people in too many trades and in too many examples a union state of mind where we are more concerned in maintaining our out of date working practices. But as Wokka says, just giving it away will not resolve that; not straight away anyway.

The AAC has its own problems; lack of support from the top echelons being the obvious one. Where as I believe the disbanding of the RAF unrealistic, I do believe that real Jointery within something like the JHC is far more likely. I'm not saying that the JHC has been a complete success, I'm saying that it hasn't simply because it hasn't done the joint thing properly. If you're going to do it, do it properly; same regulations, same trades, same ethos, dare I say it, same cap badge/uniform even.

As for the Navy, I agree that the new carriers are absolutely essential as is the strike capability that they will bring to the RN.

For us, I think that we should concentrate on Strike and AT. I know that that will mean an even smaller Air Force and the SH chaps won't like it, but as wotsit says, the current status quo is unsustainable and this would allow us to do what the other two services are unable to do.

PPRuNeUser0211

17th Jun 2007, 16:11

PN, yes and no. At the "tactical" short term level that is effectively what we do. I'm suggesting more on a developmental, strategic long term level. In the example I gave, MR2 in the hands of the navy might never have been developed into the multi-role asset it is today. Not through lack of initiative on the part of any hypothetical dark blue operators, but just because at command level their budget wouldn't cover it, much like the development of MRA4 at the moment. (OK yes that whole thing shoots down my argument entirely! We're just as bad!)

As far as AAC assets go, I'm glad they've got ownership of Apache as it's one of those items that really doesn't need to be operated by us, and is best flown by guys with a greater understanding of troops on the ground. Same goes for the pinger fleets in the FAA etc.

wotsit

17th Jun 2007, 16:18

Wokka et al,

I appreciate that the RAF has a proud history and I am not trying to put a dampner on that!

I speak from my experiences as a ground branch officer who has deployed (excepting the falklands) to all our current operations. I agree that disbanding the RAF would never be politically realistic, but I do feel that we have a two-tier air force at the moment. We have the air force of the sit at main base playing golf on a wednesday afternoon and we have the air force of the always away soon to be divorced by wife. We need more assets and people in the war-fighting RAF, but I do think that a lot of our 'hangers on' can still be thinned out a bit. Dont get me wrong this has been happening (reduced admin and engineers - we had too many though i dont single these trades out as a waste of space necessarily) but the RAF is very good at needing lots of people to achieve a simple objective. This does not in my experience impress the other services.

We need better and more timely personnel management. The problem the RAF has it that it COULD be absorbed. The same cannot be said of the other services who fulfill rather more specialised and general functions. I do think that giving maritime and army orientated airframes away would be the best course of action because then they are where they are needed!

Gnd

17th Jun 2007, 16:34

I agree whole heartedly with the last few posts. Another thing that could be called the glue in the mix is partly causing the 'willy waving'. Ethos, kinship or core values by any name is so important. Once we are convinced we can do our own job then it is just a matter of supporting those that are working at the time.

I believe that there is a greater unionist element in the light blue but it is infecting all of us, LEAN - but not to far.

I believe that there was a meeting recently where some one actually said that people need to work harder, not true, they must be more efficient in the work they do so increasing the output or be culled.

More planes with efficient support - no one will be able to touch us! (And as long as the best person is flying it, I don’t care what colour they ware!!!)

Roland Pulfrew

17th Jun 2007, 16:43

but I do feel that we have a two-tier air force at the moment
And the salient point there wotsit is "a the moment". If we are to remain a viable force then we have to have a full set of capabilities. Just because not all of them are needed now does not mean they won't be needed tomorrow, or next year or in 10 years time. And given the time it takes to procure ever more complex kit then 10 years isn't that far away. wotsit you need to go and do some Air Warfare training.

I do think that giving maritime Those would be the "maritime assets" that are currently overstretched operating in an overland recce role then!! :ugh:

Those arguing that the army and RN could take over the RAF are missing 2 vital points. In neither of our sister services are there any real career aviatiors. With a few exceptions in the RN you have to go back to sea command if you want to progress and (with all due respect to the SNCO pilots) in the AAC there is no real officer career aviator stream. The AAC would have to change completely if they were to take over all fast air. Otherwise you get some cavalry officer coming up with the lastest barking mad idea just before he pops off back to his Regiment.

Secondly the FAA cannot recruit enough pilots to man its own element of the FJ force let alone manning all the other elements that they would need to take on. And the AAC are haemorrhaging aircrew to the RAF. Why? Better career prospects, better pay and better pensions.

And if Col Tim thinks Virgin are going to provide his AT he is living in cloud cuckoo land. At present we fly our personnel into theatre in, Oh yes Tac AT. Why? Because unlike a Virgin A340 or a BA 747 they have......defensive aids. They are flown by pilots who know the risks and are prepared to do the job in support of the Army, the RN and the RAF.

The solution to all of this stupidity is for the RAF to absorb the FAA and the AAC. Get rid of these "small independent wings" and then concentrate on delivering what is needed where it is needed. Be that fast air deep behind enemy lines, CAS from fast air or AH in support of TIC, or ASW from ships or land. Or everything else that goes to making up an Air Force.

Gnd

17th Jun 2007, 16:47

Oh dear, it was all getting so grown up and productive until Mr Pulfrew started the very old and boring takeover speech again.
Never mind, I'm off to wind people up and let this forum descend into sh1t again, well done big man!:ugh:

PS are you still keen on military stewards - is that a real asset to you?

Get your own tea.

(is that small minded and pathetic enough for you?)

Roland Pulfrew

17th Jun 2007, 16:51

Oh dear, it was all getting so grown up and productive until Mr Pulfrew started the very old and boaring takeover speech again.
Never mind, I'm off to wind people up and let this forum descend into sh1t again, well done big man!

That would be the same boring takever speech being espoused by you and Col Tim and wotsit then would it. Nice one big man -foot, shoot!!
I am just trying to point out that the AAC and FAA are not in a position to take anything over. They are both struggling to meet their own needs, let alone take on the roles that they do not understand.

PS: Yes small minded enough that I do not know what you are on about. Always have made my own tea.....thanks.

Gnd

17th Jun 2007, 16:55

Nor are you, you are broke, small minded and scared.

You have no idea what you want and will have even less of an ability to use any of the other assets.

I don't want the RAF gone, as I said, I get sick in FJ. I want idiots like you to look over your safe little desk, smell the coffee and get on sorting the problem - not making new ones.

Yes you do annoy me and yes I am annoyed that you have wound me up this much!

Roland Pulfrew

17th Jun 2007, 16:57

Gnd

Check your PMs.

wotsit

17th Jun 2007, 17:00

Pulfrew,

Not meaning to get-off thread here, but what you say only reflects the aircrew-mafia that is the RAF upper echelon. The people we promote to the top are operators of airframes. Nothing more, nothing less. Other branches are much better placed to provide experienced managers at a high command level. And dont give me all this crap about air power and understanding its utilisation. If people like you were less worried about preserving your flying club and more worried about how to better integrate with the other services, then perhaps we would get more done and look a bit less like outdated fools. You sir are like the cavalry officers of old - insisting upon preserving your traditional outlook at any cost. We need competent managers leading the RAF, not Harry Flashman and his supermarine spitfire. I hate to say it, but the RAF is not the future. The future is int-led ground operations against a competent foe. Warfare has always been, and will continue to be about boots on the deck. Think about the poor old infanteer on 12K a year risking roadside bombs the next time you ask your loady if the microwave is fired up yet :)

Roland Pulfrew

17th Jun 2007, 17:11

wotsit

Oh I give up. wotsit check your PMs.

MarkD

17th Jun 2007, 19:45

questions about amalgamation of the CF could be directed to the forums at army.ca - that said having come to live here I've never heard it described as anything other than a politicially motivated mistake.

Shadwell the old

17th Jun 2007, 20:29

With Gordon the broon taking over soon, IF we were to lose the RAF, as it was subsumed into the Army or RN, surely Gordon would see it as an opportunity to reduce the defence budget by a third.

The Helpful Stacker

17th Jun 2007, 20:30

but the RAF is very good at needing lots of people to achieve a simple objective.

What a load of cods.

I'll give you an example that I'm familar with but there are other similar examples throughout the Army.

To carry out the duties that a supplier can typically be required to do in a day the Army would use.

- A plant operator to drive MHE.
- A supply controller to carry out any transactions that require using IT based demands systems.
- A storeman for carrying out more menial supply tasks such as humping and dumping.
- A Pet Op for running a bulk fuel installation.
- An AAC bowser driver for performing rotors turning refuels.

Now thats the ones that spring immediately to mind and ones that specifically cover an average day for the lowest ranked personnel in my trade. Hardly a lack of 'jobs for the boys' for the Army.

TorqueOfTheDevil

17th Jun 2007, 21:33

the contribution to victory made by the RAF, and in particular the Strategic Bombing Offensive

The RAF made an enormous contribution towards victory in WWII, but the Strategic Bombing Offensive wasn't part of it. The RAF's bombing of Germany achieved virtually nothing apart from killing off a huge number of aircrew and an even greater number of civilians. Even the 8th Air Force's campaign, directed against German industry and war-fighting capability as it was, did nothing to hinder the Nazis' war machine until they decided to attack oil targets - which they did alone, without any help from the RAF.

Sorry for thread creep!

Chugalug2

17th Jun 2007, 22:21

The RAF's bombing of Germany achieved virtually nothing apart from killing off a huge number of aircrew and an even greater number of civilians.

There is no denying that it achieved both of those, but I would suggest it did a great deal more than that. Germany lost because it could not match the prodigious output of her enemies' armaments factories, principally the USA's and USSR's. This was despite switching to a 3 shift 24 hour output from a daily 10 hour shift, and drafting in mobilised female and slave labourers. Output barely increased, because of the Bomber Offensive. A lot of nonsense is talked about RAF Bomber Command's "area bombing" and 8th USAAF's "daylight precision bombing". The latter got better results because they bombed by day, ie their average error was only 2 1/2 miles off target compared to the RAF's 5 miles! This was an offensive against cities because targets the size of cities were the only ones you could reasonably be confident of hitting, and even then many didn't! Despite all that the sheer scale of the offensive laid waste to much of urban Germany, and with it much of its industrial output. So sure it was a blunt and bloody way to fight the war, but it meant that the Wehrmacht had insufficient Tanks, Guns, Aircraft and "wonder weapons" to prevail. What Luftwaffe there was had to stay defending the Reich or repelling the Red Army. That made D-Day possible, for without the total Allied air superiority it would surely have failed. I am sorry as well for this thread drift, but as we failed to get Harris's Old Lags their Battle of Germany gong, it's a bit of a sore point!

parabellum

18th Jun 2007, 01:11

Ex pongo here, long way back. I can't see the three services being amalgamated or the RAF being merged with the other two as sensible or viable.

I can see sense in all RAF rotary going to Army, (except SAR perhaps), but no need to change uniform or cap badge initially, however, it will all have to be under Army management. Service personnel have done exchange tours for ever without too much drama. Over a period of twenty years they could all become one colour if the Army took over all rotary recruiting, aircrew and ground crew, but aviation careers to fifty five would have to be on offer too.

The RAF should be left to operate fighters, bombers, transport, recce, UAV, ATC and The RAF Regiment. The Navy should operate anything that can operate off a carrier and rotary as per their particular requirements.

As for PVR, I think most of it would be in the upper echelons, on a point of principle, rather than the lower echelons. Too many mortgages to pay, not enough civvy jobs to cater for a mass efflux etc. etc.

Just my 2d.

JNo

18th Jun 2007, 01:34

Not meaning to get-off thread here, but what you say only reflects the aircrew-mafia that is the RAF upper echelon. The people we promote to the top are operators of airframes. Nothing more, nothing less. Other branches are much better placed to provide experienced managers at a high command level. And dont give me all this crap about air power and understanding its utilisation.

Rubbish. An anti-aircrew 'blunt' response here. As someone who's worked in Whitehall; "Other branches" ARE in managerial positions in 1-star levels who understand little to nothing about flying /air-power, so wind your neck in son.

The future is int-led ground operations against a competent foe. Warfare has always been, and will continue to be about boots on the deck. Think about the poor old infanteer on 12K a year risking roadside bombs the next time you ask your loady if the microwave is fired up yet

That's an interesting take on things because last time I worked with the "Ground Operations" guys the thing they were desperate for was CAS to support thier operations. Boots on the ground is very important and the work towards seemless intergration between the services equally. The NAiL concept (2020) expresses and details this very well. I suggest you read it, when you've got a few spare seconds at your desk.

rmac

18th Jun 2007, 07:33

If I could cut through all of the turf and reputation stuff here, I would hazard a guess that the real cost savings could be achieved by combining all the senior staffs above the rank of Gp Capt/Colonel/Capt(RN), as could combining all the support elements (engineering, supply, HR, police, admin etc), and getting what the private sector call, "synergy" from the effects.

It could be argued that while fighting the war is a skilled "trade", and should only be attempted by professional tradesmen in whatever guise, planning it is an intellectual exercise which should really be in the hands of those, regardless of former "trade" who have proven themselves to be intellectually sound.

There is no need in the modern information age, for endlessly duplicated command structures playing promotion and turf politics, that is where, IMHO, the real problem lies.

Before some of you jump to the defence of your favourite colour of senior officer, and their wonderful skills I would like to quote President Harry Truman, who in 1951, shortly after he fired the blatant self-publicist career General "dugout Doug" MacArthur, who after leaving his fellow Americans to die in the Phillipines, (in)famously "commanded" the Australian victory in Papua New Guinea from the presidential suite of a hotel in Brisbane, before going on to greater things.

" I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son-of-a-bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail". :D

Wader2

18th Jun 2007, 08:02

the real cost savings could be achieved by combining all the senior staffs above the rank of Gp Capt/Colonel/Capt(RN),

We already have central staffs. However, it is very difficult to reject the training and associations of youth and become a truely purple body.

as could combining all the support elements (engineering, supply, HR, police, admin etc), and getting what the private sector call, "synergy" from the effects.

Although this looks like an easy option even here it is fraught with turf wars. The military guard service is certainly one way to go but the ones on RAF units wear blue berets! Admin, well we have JPA, that is a very pale shade of purple as it is a civilian contractor, with little or no green or blue knowledge, operating the purple admin machine.

planning it is an intellectual exercise which should really be in the hands of those, regardless of former "trade" who have proven themselves to be intellectually sound.

Indeed operational planning is done in just that way. That is why there is a PJHQ.

Everything you suggest is in place. It has just not gone down the Canadian route.

rmac

18th Jun 2007, 08:07

If what you say is right Wader, then the wheel is already turning, but perhaps has not yet turned far enough.

Widger

18th Jun 2007, 08:33

I have got to say, that there has been SOME good debate on here. I do however, hate these divisive issues and do not agree with the good Colonel. There is a place for the RAF. If you almalgamate all assets in one force you will have jack of all trades and masters of none.

The trouble with inter-service rivalry is that no-one wins apart from the treasury. This rivalry is what gets projects like CVA01 and TSR cancelled. CVA01 was going to be the replacement for the old Ark. TSR would have been a Tornado years ahead of it's time and probably a better aircraft. CVA01 with Phantom and Buccaneer would have had no problem in ousting the argies from the Falklands and would probably still be in service now, supporting troops in Iraqistan with F18s or the like. We might actually get one (CVF + Dave) in 2015 40 years too late. I for one however, do not want to see the RAF disbanded.

Divide and conquer...now is the time to hold fast and show strength in depth against those who would destroy you. The COlonel's comments help no-one apart from his publisher.

Not_a_boffin

18th Jun 2007, 09:38

Wholeheartedly agree Widger. The message that should be being hammered home consistently to all the mainstream media is that defence is underfunded - criminally so given the current optempo and particularly in comparison to the ludicrous sums of national wealth expended on other areas - NHS, Edyukayshun, Palace of Righteous Justice (or whatever the HO is about to get rebranded).

The message ought to be that asking less than 200000 bodies (that's all three services plus the defence CS) to support two major ops, plus recapitalise an increasingly aging equipment stock, plus provide enough suitably paid people to ensure retention, plus do the MACP ops and all the other "normal stuff" cannot be done on the existing budget. Furthermore, all the guff from Bliar, Drayson, Browne and about huge capital equipment programmes is largely uncommitted and therefore unreal.

More money Fat Gordon, now and in usable quantities.

Gnd

18th Jun 2007, 10:31

Back on track, well done.

We can have a fairly large impact by removing the head. Not sure what would replace it, don't vote with your feet, just vote!!

SirPercyWare-Armitag

18th Jun 2007, 12:08

"We need competent managers leading the RAF, not Harry Flashman and his supermarine spitfire. I hate to say it, but the RAF is not the future"

Gosh, bother me, I dont know where to start:

1. Prefer leaders to managers, old fat wotsit bean
2. Harry Flashman was never qualified to fly Spitfires. In fact, reading his lengthy CV, I cant see a mention of aircraft at all.
3. The RAF isnt the future? Why would you suggest that the UK becomes the only nation in the entire world, nay universe, to consider removing an independent air arm? Discuss

Oh oh oh "The future is int-led ground operations against a competent foe"

Erm, where is your scope dear boy, scope? What about a resurgent Russia? Read the news recently? What about humanitarian ops? Peacekeeping? Incompetent foes like nations with air forces controlled by blunties? Step forward Mr S Hussein formerly of 12 Acacia Avenue, Baghdad.
What about the UK being able to deploy of range of capabilities to shape, influence and control the multispectrum battlespace?
Heh heh
He shoots He SCORES

TorqueOfTheDevil

18th Jun 2007, 13:46

Chugalug,

Germany lost because it (sic) could not match the prodigious output of her enemies' armaments factories, principally the USA's and USSR's

Partly (a large part of the problem was also the number of fighting men available to the Germans compared to their enemies), but Germany could never have matched American and/or Soviet output even without the bombing campaign.

Output barely increased

Sorry, not true - German industrial output rose massively, unchecked by the bombing campaign, until 1945 - and it only dropped then because ever-larger swathes of Germany were in Allied hands.

it (ie bombing) meant that the Wehrmacht had insufficient Tanks, Guns, Aircraft and "wonder weapons"

Sorry - Germany's armed forces were never short of materiel (apart from in some tactical situations, much the same as other countries from time to time). What they didn't have was the fuel to fly their aircraft etc - caused by the American bombing of the Nazis' oil industry, none of which was located in cities, or close enough to cities to be affected by Bomber Command's efforts.

Please don't get me wrong - I have no argument with the men of Bomber Command who carried out their orders in the face of horrendous losses and whose bravery and determination is remarkable and inspiring - well worthy of the medal which we all hoped they would receive. This doesn't mean though that Bomber Command actually made a valuable contribution to victory - had the C-in-C been less narrow-minded, that enormous and potent fleet of bombers could have achieved a great deal, but sadly he persisted in his attempts to beat the German populace into submission, long after it became clear that their spirit was actually strengthened by the bombing, in much the same way as the British population rose to the challenge of the Blitz.

Chugalug2

18th Jun 2007, 15:58

TOD we'll have to agree to disagree. A lot of the problem it seems to me is that no one can prove what would have been the effect of not having fought the "Battle of Germany" as Harris called it, or even of fighting it differently. Just as we are it seems not permitted to second guess the motives of those who chose not to commemorate it with a dedicated award at the time, we can none the less all fight it again from the comfort and security of peace some 65 years later. Speer knew the cost in production and of resources diverted to it. Rommel said stop it or we will lose, so they "stopped" him. As Dr Noble Frankland said, "The great immorality open to us in 1940 and 1941 was to the lose the war against Hitler's Germany. To have abandoned the only means of direct attack would have been a long step in that direction" We didn't and we won. Was it immoral, of course it was! War is immoral, but was in this case the lessor of two evils. As you say we should at least agree to honour those who fought and won it.
Thread retrieval, go!

Wader2

18th Jun 2007, 16:55

TOD

Sorry, not true - German industrial output rose massively, unchecked by the bombing campaign, until 1945 - and it only dropped then because ever-larger swathes of Germany were in Allied hands.

This is undoubtedly true as is the statement that they did not move to a war footing until 1943.

What you overlooked though is the massive diversion of resources to counter the bomber offensive. Effectively they were running to stand still. Had they been able to use their ramped up production to support their operations in the East then what would have happened?

We are now moving into counter-factual history. You might even say what would be have achieved is we had opted for a different route too? More tactical bombers instead?

Sorry, my money is on Bomber Command.

Gnd

18th Jun 2007, 17:41

A little fly in the ointment - if USA hadn't got cross would all this be in German?
They might need a bit of recognition, it wasn't all grunts and bomber command?

TorqueOfTheDevil

18th Jun 2007, 23:01

if USA hadn't got cross would all this be in German?

Quite wrong - Germany declared war on the USA. But anyway:

the massive diversion of resources to counter the bomber offensive

Surely noone really thinks that a few hundred twin-engine night-fighters and a couple of thousand AA guns were a major drain on the Third Reich's war machine? Had all these weapons been deployed on the Eastern Front, the Soviets would hardly have noticed.

Had there been no bomber offensive at all (whether or not opposed by the weapons mentioned above), the Soviets would still have won.

Had they been able to use their ramped up production to support their operations in the East then what would have happened?

The Soviets would still have won - look at a map! No European country could ever successfully invade a country the size of the USSR, even if they weren't involved in a secondary campaign in North Africa. Even after 15 months of stunning successes in the East, the Germans had reached barely 1/7th of the way across the USSR, and that was only in the far southern sector of the front. The Russians, unaided (let's face it - a few hundred Hurricanes, P-39s and P-40s hardly made much difference to their overall strength), had stopped the Germans at Stalingrad and begun pushing them back at Kursk before the Strategic Bombing Offensive got into its stride.

Even had Britain been beaten, and had Hitler not declared war on the USA (who wouldn't have joined the war in Europe had Hitler not done this), the Soviets would still have won.

If the morale and discipline/work ethic of the German populace had been crushed by the bombing, proving Harris right, Bomber Command would have achieved a massive and decisive contribution to the demise of Nazi Germany, and the moral aspects would have been justified by the early finishing of the war. Unfortunately the carpet-bombing campaign continued long after it was obvious that it was not having the desired effect (and long after the Germans had dispersed their factories to mines, tunnels and forests), with the net result being devastated cities, piles of dead civilians, and very little disruption to the German war effort apart from temporary damage to the transportation infrastructure - which the Germans were very adept at repairing.

So yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on the actual contribution of Bomber Command to the victory over Germany. At least we agree that the men of Bomber Command deserve recognition!

NURSE

19th Jun 2007, 09:10

Again I raise the qustion would a more logical approach not be to amalgamate alot of the logistic functions like transport, general stores, medical into proper triservice orginisations with 1 service chief instead of for example DG army medical services, DG Navy medical services DG Airforce medical services we have 1 DG military medical services. most nurses i know are on common terms of service and it caused a few rufled feathers but seams to have worked.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

19th Jun 2007, 09:41

would a more logical approach not be to amalgamate alot of the logistic functions like transport, general stores, medical into proper triservice orginisations Looking at the logistics, we could call it something snappy like Defence Equipment and Support. We could then rationalise by inflicting the Army supply chain on everyone else. Wait a minute; we've already done that.

The Helpful Stacker

19th Jun 2007, 10:37

Looking at the logistics, we could call it something snappy like Defence Equipment and Support. We could then rationalise by inflicting the Army supply chain on everyone else. Wait a minute; we've already done that.

Indeed.:{

If we in the RAF demand an item at an SPC (Supply Priority Code) of 09 because we require it within 5 days when the demand hits Donnington, Bicester or any other Army run depot it gets downgraded to a 13 (10 - 14 days) or 16 (up to 28 days). We have no say in this and the only way around it is to demand at a higher priority in the first place, which completely negates the purpose of the SPC system, that of prioritising what is required immedately and what is more routine.

Of course people outside of our trade don't understand this and it becomes our fault.

Still, 3 months to go before I can be officially NFI.:ok:

Wader2

19th Jun 2007, 11:09

Nurse,

Aside from your point, we are already creating purple systems. The Army, Air Force and Navy rural training estates have been stripped and put in a new Defence Estates organisation.

This is clearly a consolidation and money saving exercise as it means some duplicated defence estates may be released and sold. (Family jewels anyone?).

This new, slim line organisation can then be managed by half a dozen, or more, colonels in all the different Army regions and the Warminster HQ instead of the different different staffs at the 3 main HQ. In the RAF case a sqn ldr and a flt lt.

Oh, I forgot, the sqn ldr and flt lt are still in post and an additional sqn ldr post has been created as liasion.

Amalgamation into one organisation seems to create an extra layer of administration with the original single-service staffs remaining in place!

Gnd

19th Jun 2007, 18:10

And all, just before you get to nostalgic and defencive, have any of you tried to get anything form the 'wonderful' RAF stores recently? I bet you didn't succeed. Nothing on the shelf but still all those people to administer -umm - themselves I guess.

Get on track and stop blowing smoke from from the A*** of a broken argument.

The Helpful Stacker

20th Jun 2007, 06:38

Thats because nearly everything you might want to get from 'stores' for personal use (ie: clothing) is controlled by the Army.:ugh:

Of course 'GnD' your comments only reinforce what I said earlier.

Of course people outside of our trade don't understand this and it becomes our fault.

:ugh::ugh:

Gnd

20th Jun 2007, 07:29

Never be to sure what people have to do 'outside' their comfort zone. It is quite an eye opener sometimes!
Remember - bad workmen blame their tools.

It seems some of your bigger bases have been hit by the RAF LEAN team, didn't see to many army doing that? Or is it the Armys or Navys fault you needed LEANing?

The Helpful Stacker

20th Jun 2007, 09:55

The RAF were the first of the services to take up the LEAN process, the turn will come for the Army.

BTW, yes a poor tradesman may blame his tools, but when the most important tools he uses are not actually his then the blame surely rests with the owner of said tool.

About 90% of all clothing issues are made direct from Bicester. If you went into clothing stores to get something you needed in 5 days time we would place the demand at an SPC of 09. When that demand hits Bicester it automatically gets reduced to a SPC of 13 (10 - 14 days). We in the RAF have no control over this. The only way we have of circumventing this downgrade in pipeline time is by demanding at a 05 (non-operational priority item), thereby negating the purpose of the supply priority system.:ugh:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

20th Jun 2007, 10:16

Gnd. Something is clearly gripping your poo. We are already several dots off Thread C/L and G/S, so why not give us a clue to the precise problem so that your local friendly loggie(s) can provide advice on its cause and point to a solution?

Gnd

20th Jun 2007, 11:40

Not really, my only gripe is hijacking threads to have a pop at others (we can all do that - it is easy but childish and pointless). I have great guys at my place who just shrug and say sorry, they shouldn't have to!
I just want to dispel the myth that we could do each others jobs and try to get us to work TOGETHER to sort out the real problems, not the perceived ones or even worse, to babble on about implausible takeover bids.
What is the solution to our real problem, not, here is a new problem which is explained by bitching.
Just to confirm - the 'advice' seems to be don't order stuff that is just going to sit on shelves (not the locals problem) which is understandable with ICBMs, not to sure the same is true for t-shirts and gloves? I could be wrong but know it is annoying for the customer and store-men. I will look forward to the Army lean, they seem to be doing it without a 50 man team already, called PVR in their terms I think?
PS - HS, is your head sore yet? (:ugh:)