"Close down RAF' says Naval whippersnapper

[Surly Bondslipper]

I can't believe that nobody has yet responded to the suggestion set out in today's 'Daily Torygraph' letters page - it's just made for a pprune inter-service barney!

Basically a Lt Ernest Coleman RN suggests that the RAF should be disbanded forthwith.

"A massive, single-weapon organisation draining defence resources at the expense of the Army and,particularly, the Royal Navy is patently absurd." The existence of a separate service solely for aircraft is "a dangerous nonsense" continues young Coleman.

With a sweeping flourish he moves into his finale;

"Air capability should be returned to the Army and the Royal Navy before the defence of this country is finally rendered impossible by the current unbalanced arrangement."

I imagine that there may be some alternative views on this interesting suggestion?



::eek:

[bad livin']

Hahah...are we certain that the gent's name is not an anagram of "obvious and blatantly a windup"?

[Jointery Boy]

His name is an anagram of Crane Sneelto, which in any mans language is the type of Hyacinth Bucket name some of our AAC chums sport.

So Crane is this a cunning ploy to pit true aviators against the Senior Service at the expense of everyones favourite Amateur Air Corp. Are you really one of Mummys Flying "SoldiersFirst" ... unmask yourself....

[I.N. Balance]

Sounds like a great way to save HMGs cash being wasted on so many "professional aviators" as they like to see themselves. With their 21/7 + ALA policy, they can only actually work about 8 months in a year anyway?!

[flyboy007]

Obviously a monkey, getting paid peanuts.

[STANDTO]

I would have started a thread but I was in the middle of the Irish Sea at the time.

To be honest, even though he is a matelot, he might have a point. Too much spread too thin these days. Not saying that an amalgamation is the answer, but has anyone really ever scoped it?

[high spirits]

Lt Ernest Coleman

Otherwise revealed as :

LT N MENTEL ARSE - CO

Probably a future captain of HMS Ocean.....

[A Civilian]

Im sort of getting a rep as a flamer on this forum but you have to agree with a few things.

The RAF absorb's the largest amount of money from the 3 forces I belive. Yet we couldn't even invade Ireland with the equipment that we have. Its very depressing when you think about it.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Ever thought that the RAF is operating technologically advanced weapons platforms not totally, but largely, in advance of the other 2 Services? Ever wondered why the Army was trying to poach RAF techies to support Apache? Big leap, going to something like that.

PS - believe the RAF/Fleet Air Arm/Army Air Corps was 'de-scoped' around 1918??

I don't question your professional ability to sit in the sea in large grey metallic targets - let us do the same from the 5-star patio!

[Blacksheep]

Aeroplanes are the favourite weapon choice for Commanders-in-Chief reluctant to take casualties - the US answer to most military situations seems to be 'send in the B52s'. Meanwhile, the primary purpose of those floating grey targets is for launching aircraft when there isn't a friendly runway handy. UK doesn't have any carrier groups, presumably because there are plenty of friendly runways now we are no longer a "superpower"*

So whats the argument against the aeroplane as a single weapon? Its a damned effective weapon after all!

* superpower: a nation that checks the mesh size of other nations fishing nets while wearing its underpants on the outside.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[JNo]

I actually read this in the Telegraph yesterday, the sailor-boy does actually make some reference to the RAF almagamation was discussed in the 2001 Defence Review.

BS or True?

[Dan Winterland]

Letter to the editor in today's Torygraph from Air Marshall Sir John Sutton recounts aStaff college lecture being given by a senior Naval officer who said it was obvious that a majority of the defence budget should go to the Navy as two thirds of the globe was covered by sea. At which point, some wag then asked 'Could you please remind us how much of it is covered by air?' :eek:

[jockspice]

I believe the retort to the wag was " A lot more air than the Air Force seems capable or willing to use, especially at weekends." :D

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

JS,
Open you eyes laddie to the obvious! The demise of the SHAR to be replaced by proper machines piloted by a light blue/dark blue mix! The increased use of real heli's - rotary palm trees - on boats instead of the ailing underpowered SK, normally seen in pairs of course, with one carrying the press :D

The Navy and the Army are not capable of manning or maintaining the vast array of technical equipment currently in use at the RAF coalface - RAF techies req'd for Apache!! However us "Crabs" could swallow up the meagre assests you guys have in a single gulp. And I am sure we would have no trouble what so ever "poaching" a few of your support guys - we already have plenty of aircrew to go around - over to much nicer and greener pastures, so it's only a matter of time time before sense is seen, FJ crews for Apache maybe? and all aviation is given to it's rightful owner, her majesties finest....The Royal Air Force.



all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The Navy and the Army are not capable of manning or maintaining the vast array of technical equipment currently in use at the RAF coalface.

CRAP.

I suppose you don't consider a Type 23 frigate to be "technical"??
What about a Trident Submarine? No technology there.....

[high spirits]

WE B-F,
Sounds like our wiltshire colleague has caught you hook line and sinker, safeguard 12 clips..... As an aside, I think the p**sing contest over who could do whose job is a very old arguement in these purple times and Lt Coleman is sadly out of date(if not out of his mind). If only the UK forces had the US budget instead....

[cheapseat]

WE Branch Fanatic

You get a Type 23 or a Trident airborne and you deserve the Royal Air Force. :D

[kbf1]

Abolish the RAF...now there is and idea http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/jump.gif

[snafu]

Army Air Corps gets ground attack, heavy lift helicopters and troop transport. Fleet Air Arm gets medium support helicopters, airborne early warning, air defence, maritime patrol, SAR and tankers. Sounds like a reasonable idea to me.

Change the names to the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service and we're back in business!

:D

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

High Spirits......got it in one:p

Cheap seats.....I nearly pis@@d myself...great retort:D

Snafu........infrastructure......infrastructure......attenti on to detail young man.


all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[STAN DEASY]

I do believe that whippersnapper is merely repeting the ideas of as former Minister of Defence, a certian Mr Hesaltine.

Having never been a lover of the Tories but then again , even less of a Blairite, Tarzan was on the ball.

For the money in and the service out, The Crabs are not really that cost effective. However, given the choice of a landaway destination I always preferred a crab station as there was transport on tap, someone to polish your helmet after a flight and
an Officers mess with a high standard of accomodation.

Of course, all these factors greatly contribute to the pubescent services ability to conduct offensive operations a consideraqble distance from home bases divorced from 5 star facilities....NOT.

[DuckDogers]

A little harsh one thinks altogether, but then i would say that. Here's an idea though, when we eventually get JSF to replace the Harrier how about we disband the now Harrier Squadrons re-establish the Fleet Air Arm to its former glory so to speak?

This eliminates the need for RAF personnel to deploy on to ships, although the new carriers may be a little more spacious (if we get them!) The RAF can then purchase another aircraft to replace the shortfall created by the loss of the harrier. Did i say say shortfall? Must have been joking!

Then again with this government in power i start to wonder if anyone will acquire ANY new kit.

[BEagle]

Well, this snotty-nosed cabin boy certainly seems to have put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Force projection, expeditionary forces, rapid reaction? All recent buzz words which no-one seems to be thinking about here. How long does it take to get HMS Improbable, Indecipherable or Inexcusable to relocate from A to B? Or to break HMS Iron Duck off from its, sorry, 'her' cocktail party cruise to do something useful?

Can see some useful convergence at top level though - what's the current admiral:ship ratio? Any better than the Air Marshal:cockpit ratio?

[barry007]

Disband the AAC and take squaddies out the cockpit!!
Combining the services did not work for the Canadians so I cant see
it working for us

(when were not moaning about money)

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Don't see what all the fuss is about really! A reasonable idea - but take it one step further:

Re-form the RAF Marine Branch and transfer all the fish-head assets to it. 1 Sqn Ldr, 2 Flt Lts and 20 or so SACs should be enough staff to run all that........

Transfer all the Brown assets (suitably scrubbed-up, of course!) to a marginally expanded RAF Regiment........

Then: sack all the Generals and Lordships. Massive savings and improved efficiency; (imagine the reduced stabling and kennelling - let alone the reduced Gold Leaf consumption!). What more could President Blair want?

Now, where's my 'K'?

;)

[high spirits]

SNAFU,

"Change the names to the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service and we're back in business."

I take it from the above statement, that your previous business was Railtrack PLC(or maybe Marconi?).


Fly Navy
Go Royal
Dig Army
Eat Crab
Blow Goats:cool:

[Big Green Arrow]

JockSpice........we work weekends....and we know how to enjoy them!:D

[jockspice]

BGA
Depends on your definition of work I suppose - I prefer the landaway or airshow working to the locked-in-pussers-war-canoe-groundhog-day type of working, but then again, who doesn't?:D

What day is it today? - 23! :D :D

High Spirits

If we did go back to the RNAS & RFC, at least you could get a better style of uniform than you have now. :p

[high spirits]

Jockspice,
I'm not worthy I'm afraid. I could never get used to the mandatory silk panties and fishnet stockings that you boys wear under that dark blue.......:p

[jockspice]

High Spirits

Correct on both counts......:D :p

[Flatus Veteranus]

SHAR could not and did not establish a "favourable air situation" over San Carlos in 1982. If the AAF had correctly fuzed six bombs that hit but did not detonate, the task force would have been off home with its tail between its legs.

But enough of these peripheral colonial wars. The primary RN role in WW2 was supposed to be to defend our shipping. Yet the RAF sank more submarines than the RN, plus the Tirpitz. if you follow the logic of Aarse and WEBF, perhaps we should disband the RN. All they seem to do these days is to faff about making a target of themselves and then claim a victory when no one bothers to attack them. "Deny Flight" - my aarse!

[The English Passenger]

Just my two-penneths worth......

Perhaps if we in the RAF had less people employed at MOD, STC, PTC, JHC, PJHQ, DLO etc. and more personnel actually carrying out the operations we are supposed to, then the other services and the rest of the general public may look apon us in a better light....

When we can't fill the frontline cockpits with aircrew can we really justify the 120+ aircrew Sqn Ldrs at Innsworth alone in desk jobs. Also when we can't get the kit for the frontline, why is MOD being gutted and refurbished at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds....

One has to wonder how far we as the military (and I include all the services in this) have progressed when HQ British Forces Cyprus has more staff Officers' now (to support 2 battalions of infantry, 8 helicopters and an admittedly busy airfield), than there were on the island when it was the HQ of the Near East Air Force and responsible for numerous front line jet Sqns and the whole of the Near East theatre (which numbered thousands of RAF personnel alone!).

The RAF is not alone in having this problem, but the solution is not in disbanding one of the services. Only in truthfully addressing the issue of what we want to be able to achieve as a nation with our armed forces, and then addressing what kit it will need to achieve it, manning them in an appropriate fashion and training properly for the task, along with making the structure front line oriented, not command oriented will we ever succeed. I despair of this ever happening under our present leadership (both political and military), as all are far too interested in feathering their own nest career wise.....

I'm afraid we have no statesmen or leaders in our nationany more, only people who crave power and are promoted above the level of their own incompetence.....

RANT OVER!:eek: :eek: :(

[Gimme300]

Couldnt possibly get rid of the RAF - who would we have to take the p1ss out of then?

[DANGLEBERRY]

Having been on exercise and operations with both crabs and matloes, never have i seen so much whinging and moaning from officer aircrew about how they need their sleep and their butlers to warm their slippers up for them when they return. granted the matloes are better than the crabs at the hard work thing, but rest assured that we in the army work hardest, whinge least and get the job done with the least amount of aircrew/groundcrew per aircraft. And dont forget, AAC have more rotary assets than the crabs and motloes together( I'm pretty certain)
The army must be doing something right!

[ORAC]

FAA & AAC (http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/uk/ukaf3.htm)

RAF (http://www.raf.mod.uk/stations/strength.html)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Oh dear, Flatus, you do seem to have an interesting view of history. And what exactly do you mean by "my" logic? As my postings on the (sunk without trace) SHAR thread should prove my logic is based on facts.

Now for your points....

In WWII the man threat to Britain was attacks on merchant shipping. The first method of dealing with this threat was the convoy system. There was a threat from enemy warhips, submarines and aircraft. The real menace of course was the U boat, being responsible for 68% of shipping losses.

Whether the RN or RAF sank the greater number of U boats is frankly neither here nor there. The Kreigsmarine plan (produced by Admiral Donitz) was that the Ubootwaffe would be divided into three. A third would be attacking the Allied convoys, another third would be traveling to/from the convoys and the remaining third would be in refit etc. The in theatre U boats were divided in Wolfpacks. In 1939, radar was still in its infancy and had not found any large scale naval use. Therefore an attacking U boat (on the surface) could be detected only by visual means, and on a dark night that was nearly impossible. Being on the surface, the boat would be able to attain a much greater speed than when submerged. So they were used a torpedo boats initially. A torpedo attack was much more difficult to achieve submarged. The Wolfpack tactic was that one boat would find a convoy, and shadow it. HF radio would be used to inform other boats and they would attack on mass.

Defending the convoys were the ships of the Royal Navy. Very early on it was found that the key to preventing a succesful U boat attack was to keep them at a distance. The introduction of radar aboard escort vessels made this feasible. HF/DF (again carried by escorts) made the wolfpack tactics very dangerous. ASDIC allowed the enemy to be located underwater, and attacked with new weapons such as Hedghog or Squid. These efforts denied the U boats an easy victory. Carrier based aircraft also played an important role in dealing with U boat threat. RAF and RCAF aircraft often acted with naval forces. Thus the credit for defeating the U boats must go, in the main, to the Royal Navy, and to its sailors. Let us hope that their succesors (and I'm including myself here) are made of the same stuff - guts, determination, bravery and a hundred other qualities that are sadly lacking in 2002.

So what about the Tirpitz? Well yes the RAF (617 sdn) sent her to the bottom. But she had already been attacked before, by the X Craft (midget submarines) and by RN aircraft from SIX carriers in Operation Tungsten. The net result of these attacks was that she was imobilised and was no longer a serious menace.

Now for more recent events. You claim that the Sea Harrier did not achieve a favourable air situation in San Carlos. Well it did achieve a degree of air superiority in the Falklands', enough for landing to be conducted. As for San Carlos, it should be remebered that whilst we called it bomb alley, the Argentine pilots (Navy as well was Air Force) called it Death Valley due to their losses, many of which were down to the Sea Harrier. Why did they fly so low (which caused many bombs to fail to arm)? It was to avoid shipborne radars (see below) and also the Sea Harriers. In a study of the conflict, the USAF concluded that over 450 Argentine sorties had been prevented due to the deterent affect that the Sea Harrier had. Those 450 extra sorties by Skyhawks/Daggers etc could have resulted in defeat for Britain.

There were a number of problems with the task group's air defence.

1. Not enough Sea Harriers.
2. No AEW.
3. Only two ships with Sea Wolf.
4. Inadeqaute radar on/in the Type 42 Destroyers.

Lets consider point 4. When the Type 42s were designed/built, the government of the day decided to give them Type 965 radar for long range air search. One problem: excessive beamwidth. Hence aded clutter, adding to the problem of picking out the target. In Engineering terms you would consider this as the Signal to Noise ratio being reduced. A good analogy is if you have your pupils dilated by eye drops (so they can look inside the eyeball) your pupilsdilate, letting large amouts of light in from all directions. And your vision is seriously reduced, so much so you can read. Back to radar, the excessive beamwidth problem was made more serious by operating close to shore, where the enemy hid behing the hills until he went feet wet, and there was more clutter anyway.

AEW would have been a massive help.

Finally lets consider Bosnia. Deny Flight was the codename for the NATO operation to prevent aircraft being used in Bosnian airspace. This was on behalf of the UN. Yugoslav aircraft still flew traing sorties. At times these got VERY close to NATO warships on duty just off the coast of Montenegro. The Sea Harriers were there for TWO purposes. Firstly to contribute to patrolling Bosnia's skies, and secondly to provide Close Air Support to UNPROFOR. When push came to shove and NATO gave the Bosnian Serbs a good lesson, the Sea Harriers flew air defence, recce and attack sorties.

The Royal Navy is overstretched. Considering its considerable problems, most of which are due to politics, it does a very good job. If we ae not attacked because the attacker is detered, then that IS a victory. God willing the politicians can be disuaded from the current ideas to get rid of he Sea Harrier before the JSF comes along.

One final point. I don't and have never advocated the idea of scrapping the RAF. What a stupid idea. My earlier post simply made the pont that all the services have a lot of high technology systems.

[Green Bottle]

DB,

If things are so great in the AAC then why are AAC pilots leaving to join the RAF? Idon't think there are many going RAF to AAC.

Would you really want to get aboard a VC10/Herc/Tristar flown by a crew who had not slept for 24 hours because of inadequate accomodation?

Just food for thought.

GB
:)

[Mach the Knife]

Wouldn't really want to get on a VC10/Tristar/Herc.......full stop.;)

[DANGLEBERRY]

GB
I didnt say that all the pilots and groundcrew loved what they were doing.The reason a lot of both aircrew and REME Technicians want to transfer is cause they've seen how much time off and perks you crabs get, and naturally want a peice of all that tax payers money you lot are overzealosely spending.but if you want to do some real flying may i suggest a few days down on the border with the mighty LYNX in NI!

[Mike RO'Channel]

Back off Guys please

I'm sure you are all aware that there have been many RAF aircrew (and groundcrew) living in tents in deserts various since last Sep. They are doing some very 'real' flying and putting their @rses on the line every day. They have not whinged once about food/hotels/allowances etc as has been intimated. The chaps' morale is not helped by some of you spouting such complete tosh.

It is my considered opinion that ALL the Services are 'up the creek' because of a lack of funding and we would be better off sticking together and not try to score points of each other.

If the PM wants us to be 'world policemen' then he could at least give us helmets, truncheons and panda cars!

That is all.

[DANGLEBERRY]

I'll suck back a tadge, your right i'm sure there are a lot of guys roughing it on ops from our crab friends!My opinion(for what its worth) is that the RAF should take on all fast jets, the NAVY should have all medium/heavy lift rotary and the ARMY all attack and light battlefield helis!
In these days of jointry the RAF and ARMY are on OCEAN and carriers as much as the MATLOES!
Christ, I think I should run for Prime minister!At least i'd give us bigger truncheons,harder helmets and better panda's!
Fnah Fnah!

[Mike RO'Channel]

Um......... and the Movers get the AT fleet? Owmigawd!

I have worked for Movers of both shades of blue and also a brown one and I safely say and with authority, that while they might be v good at Lines of Communication, logistics and so on but they know kok-all about aircraft but they insist on telling us they know better - Bless 'em! Arrrrgh!

One thing The War Against Terrorism clearly highlights is the lack of decent AT - strat ot Tac - more pandas please!:cool:

[Radioman99]

Hello One and all,

well you will all have to remember that the RAF is the junior service and that it was an off shot of the Army.

In todays battlefields the best weapon that anyone has is the Aircraft Carrier. Even though Amercia has an airforce the majoirty of overseas operations are carried out by carrier base aircraft.

As for someone saying that the Royal Navy do not have the technical ability, well thats garabage. I served at the Naval Airstation in Weymouth and it was at the time, the largest heli port in Europe (put me off flying in a helicopter), we also had other sites operating aircraft.

The Navy support a larger amount of technology than the RAF or the Army will every do, the simple reason is that when your at sea on a Submarine and something goes wrong, you have to be able to fix it in order to stay operational.

The Navy is just about to place an order for two very large aircraft carriers in order to replace the current three small carriers.

You also have to remember that the Royal Navy has already taken away the role of the Air Force as the UKs Nuclear Strike Foce, i.e. the four Trident submarines.

Anyway, it was talked about a lot in the forces and even today there are a lot of places where its a joint establisment for traning etc rather than seperate places. All the cooks in the army and navy get trained at the same place (dont know about the raf) thats why the food went down hill after that.

regards
John

http://gph.org.uk

[ORAC]

Dear Radioman.

"In todays battlefields the best weapon that anyone has is the Aircraft Carrier ".

A CVA is excellent for projecting power where no suitable land base exists and to defend a TF/BG at sea in blue water operations - which is it's raison d'etre. But it cannot complete with land bases for sustained long range operations when available. It is vulnerable, expensive to repair, carries limited assets with restricted size/performance and needs a continuous chain of supply ships performing a continuous chain of rearm/refuel evolutions in order to sustain operations.

If I might make the examples of:

Desert Storm, where the USN relied heavily on land based RAF AAR support as the CVAs where considered to vulnerable to operate with the shallow waters of the the Gulf.

Afghanistan, where, due to range, the USN relied heavily on RAF/USAF AAR assets to reach and operate over the target area.

In any area involving targets deep inside a continental mass, such as China, Russia etc, the CVA cannot carry assets capable of reaching the target - including Tomahawk.

"Even though Amercia has an airforce the majority of overseas operations are carried out by carrier base aircraft".

No, the CVA launches a lot of small offensive assets to achieve the same task as a single strategic bomber within the same operation.

e.g. Afghanistan; A total of 21,500 sorties were flown through February, some 13,000 of which entered Afghan air space. Of these, over 6,500 were strike sorties, of which Navy flew about 75%.

However, the total number of weapons deliverd was 17,472. Out of this number, the Air Force delivered 74% of the total munitions. The strategic bomber force, B-1, B-2, and B-52,between them delivering 11,500 weapons, representing 66 percent of the total.

If you look at special forces the total tilts even further. Special Operations Command AC-130U "Spooky" gunships alone delivered over 3,271 105mm projectiles, 6,939 40mm projectiles, and 15,626 25mm projectiles through the end of December.

These total does not even mention Recce, Elint, AT, C3 etc; which represent the remaining 8,500 sorties out of which the USAF provided over 95%.

What, then, was the contribution of the CVAs?

As I started by saying, a CVA is excellent for projecting power where no suitable land base exists.

In the case of Afghanistan, the USAF could operate long range strategic bomber and support aircraft out of Diego Garcia and other bases. It did not, however, initially possess any bases suitable for operating tactical aircraft suitable for CAS flexible targeting against mobile targets (at least until it was able to base A-10s to the north).

The CVAs, however, were able to fiulfill this task utilising the AAR/C3/Recce support mentioned above. According to a senior Navy officer, 80 percent of Navy strikes took off from aircraft carriers without having a specific fixed target, proceeding to one of 30 kill boxes where they were assigned emerging targets, designated by SF or USAF FAC personnel.

The CVA concept has been proven based on it's own merits. Putting up patently untrue Aunt Sally's, runs the risk of the whole carrier concept being abandoned for the UK based on it not being able to perform unrealistic tasks or achieve the efficiencies only available operating a large aircraft from a long runway.

[DANGLEBERRY]

Right then,
The reason I think that the Raf should take on all Jets,planes and anything else fixed wing is that over the last blah years they have had the majority of experience with them.I'm not saying they don't do a good job with rotary just I think that all the afore mentioned should be enough for any service.
The Navy should have all medium/heavy lift rotary cause they've got plenty of experience with SeaKing,Merlin and Wessex(almost god bless its soul).Also being on board ship and delivering our ground forces to the bad areas is what they do good, Sierra Leonne for eg. I think they should also keep their Lynx for small ships flights.
The Army should keep Apache and LBH cause despite what some idiots have said about how we can't possibly service the technology its ar*e.Our REME techs can and do service/repair all kinds of electronic gadgetry(RAPIER for example)How we still keep that dustbin called a Lynx in the air is proof our techs can do the business.
The Navy can make anything at sea and MASU are fantastic,the RAF could utilise this away from home.The RAF already are onboard the carriers and can do the same job as the matloes with fixed wing.
So why spread the same kinda kit to different services, when all it does is cost more.Give each service their role in the orbat and they become exceptional and only have one job to worry about instead of many.
Everyone wants a finger in the same pie,why not give them they're own pies and get them to eat together.We all do a stirling job why try to take each others pies!

[ORAC]

So now you want the Dark Blue blokes wandering around the battlefield flying Wokkas/Merlins? Seem to me they might need a bit of training up and new support organisations to do that. I can see the case for transferring them to the army, they are after all going to be almost exclusively moving troops/ammo/artillery and supporting the Apache. But the RN, ................!!

As for the idea that you can support the complex electronics and composite structures on something like a GR7/9 by calling on the REME/MASU to whip together a spare for it..... Call out the blacksmith for a new set of shoes? :D

[DANGLEBERRY]

Why can't the navy support ground based aircraft?Unless my eyes decieved me a few hundred times,the matloes seem to do ok supporting seakings in support of the RM and now supporting Lynx 7's and Gazelles at 847 sqn in the field.As for whipping up a pair of shoes, ask your airframe techs if they make any parts that get fitted to your aircraft! I know for a fact they do cause i've been in the workshops when they've been making them as well as making them for us!
As for complex electronics and composites, the matloes have Merlin which has got as much high tech composites than anything the RAF have got and electronics wise,don't fool yourself I'm sure that the RAF aren't any more advanced than the rest of the services!

[robspottydog]

Oh Deeear

Ants in pants then? Remember Merlin EHI 01, oh sorry EH 101, what a machine! can maintain flight on 2 engines, good job a Wessex could maintain it on 1!

Of course in this day and age of HSW and CAA engineering, it will be easy to make bits for a plastic pig......won't it?

No one can can predict what will happen, didn't see any GR4/F3/Jag/SHAR pics from Kabul, have you?
:confused:

[ORAC]

The support of a rotary force ,when a carrier is nearby, can be aided by the RN. What, however, about the times when it is not? Such as in Desert Storm? What about in the central Germany?

This would require the RN to establish a support capability able to operate inland and independently of any deployed surface units. Including aircrew and ground crew used to working in the field with the army. Not saying the RAF SH force is perfect, but they have had a lot of practice.

Please justify this in light of your own comment: "Give each service their role in the orbat and they become exceptional and only have one job to worry about instead of many".

You implied that the REME/MASU could do something that the RAF could not when deployed. They cannot.The RAF is as proficient as the other services at BDR, as permitted and allowed under the release to service. Otherwise, like everyone else, they have to use approved spares or manufactures support.

The advantage held by the RAF is that it has the supply and movement organisation in place to support such deployments and to locate and dispatch spares world-wide as required, and the means to do so.

As I said, I can understand a case for transferring them to the army, as they operate almost solely in support of them. I can understand the advantages of the RN being able to support them on a ship, thereby reducing the number of personnel needing to be deployed. But to give them lock, stock and barrel to the RN seems bizarre; and something I have never heard anyone in the RN ever wish for!!

[DANGLEBERRY]

ORAC

If there were less ac types per service, then everyone in that service could concentrate on those fewer ac types thus becoming more proficient.
Less ac types=better understanding of support needed= more proficient work/support
As for saying that REME/MASU are better than the RAF, then i'm sorry that you took it that way.I know that the RAF guys are just as good as the rest.
In sheet metal work repair, if a stringer or similar needs replacing then with the correct materials and drawings they can be locally manufactured iaw ac manual( topic 6)
With regards to support in the field away from ships,maybe someone could shed light on how they supported themselves in the field (eg 3 BAS now 847nas in northern iraq 1991 or every year in Norway). I imagine with the team work of RAF and ARMY and NAVY!
I can see why you think the Army would have a case for taking the ac but trust me when i say we can just about cope with what ac we've got thanks to chronic undermanning(but thats a whole different topic)
Unless you're a policy maker in the MOD your opinion is worth as much as mine.I doubt whether we're gonna agree on this,so this could go on for ever.
As for the Navy wanting the change and relinquish FJ.I think theres more chance me becoming Prime Minister!

[Radioman99]

Well Guys (and girls),

It seems that this debate could/can go on for ever. The main thing is that during any joint UK forces operation it usually all works with no problems (apart from me walking around an army place with my cap off inside the building and not know who the hell I was talking too but they let me off).

I have worked with both Army and RAF chaps and each time I really enjoyed it. We took the mick out of each other but we did get on with the job.

I think that one thing that would be good for all the three services if at all possible is to spend time with the other service, even for a couple of weeks (or like I had 2 years...in Italy).

I have spent a few good nights propping up a bar......I even got stranded in Dortmund due to an ear infection for two weeks, oh the RAF looked after me...........even let me buy them beer.

regards
John

[GhostWhoWalks]

Don't suppose that the proximity of the rather significant date (1 Apr) is of any relevance?
Anniversary of the formation of the RAF - or just another fools opportunity?

[lucky_b*]

I could see this line making ome sense except for one slight problem! The bun fight every year for money.:eek:

The RAF will eentually sacrifice everything to make sure it gets EF2000+5. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that the top brass are all FJ types!

But imagine if the RN were in charge! How many Typhoons do you get to the Type 45 or god forbid a CVS. And if their in charge guess who'd lose!!:p

Luck_B*

I know how lucky I really am! No really I do!!!

[deeps]

Aren't we a bit amongst the weeds on this one. OK - ex RN so I'm partisan but long time civilian so I want to see best bang for bucks, especially as Prudence is about to stick his greedy hand in my pocket yet again. Less tail, more teeth.

The fact is, aircraft support. They create the conditions to win but the last gasp is always a grunt or a grey target (sorry, pedigree will out) standing there with a big gun and saying "this is my piece of turf/ocean, you can't have it".

The direction of the support should lie with the people who have to carry out the endgame. Aeroplanes support and they don't need a whole Air Force full of infrastructure to do it. Keep the aeroplanes, get rid of the infrastructure.

[lucky_b*]

Yes, but surely you realise that the Army and the Navy both miss the nuances of using aircraft over long ranges. After all the RNs about to lose its AD fighter!;)

[Blacksheep]

Back in the dark ages 32 Sqn was a joint RAF/RN operation out of Northolt; 'C' Flight being RAF only, flying Whirlwind HCC10s (plus the one and only HCC12) When we needed heavy maintenance on a Whirly, the Navy came in and did it. They're experts on corrosion for obvious reasons.

One day I did the customary squeaky "Hello Sailor" greeting to one of our matelot friends, who was with us for a "Minor **" on a Whirly. I was jumped on by a furious red faced Lt. Cmdr who thought I was extracting the urine from him. The Navy and the RAF can work together well enough as long as you keep the Gold Leaf away from RAF groundcrew. Why are Naval Officers such a Crabby bunch? Our own zobbs were perfect gentlemen in comparison. :p

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Flatus Veteranus]

Since when is an aircraft carrier a weapon? It is just a platform. Without its aircraft embarked it is just a big, fat target. :)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

CVS - Sea Harriers = Target.

Fleet - organic air defence = very dodgy.

Damned Treasury!!! It is them, not the Navy, who want to be rid of the Sea Harrier.

[high spirits]

I agree to an extent WEBF but the FAA always seem to get seen off by the fisheads in finance matters. If the navy wants more ships then something has to give. I can't believe HM Gov is abandoning fleet defence. It's a tragedy waiting to happen.

[WorkingHard]

It seems that a very raw nerve has been touched here. How many aircraft (useful ones) are available in the RAF and waht is the annual cost of the RAF? How many staff of air rank ar there? As far as a good professional service is concerned - what happened in the Falklands with the Vulcan bombings? What happened to the Tory Canyon? What happened to the low level stuff in the Gulf war? How many civilian pilots and passengers have you hit in low level antics ( sorry sorties) in the U.K? How many Controlled Airspace " busts" has there been in the last 12 months. Very professional I am sure!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

High Spirits

The Navy has been stitched up. Again. They're cutting ships too you know. The Navy is very short of missiles.

Without a decent fleet, the carriers are vulnerable. Without Sea Harriers aboard the CVS, the fleet is vulnerable. The fleet is SERVERELY overstretched too.

More on this later............

See Steamchicken's thread.

[A and C]

History is not on the side of the RAF as the reason for it,s formation was the Smuts report of 1917.
The main thrust of this was that the country required a "strategic independant force ".

As the RAF has long lost the ability to forfill this role ( with the end of the "V" force) the very reason for it,s inital set up has now vanished.

It would seem that the airforce needs to find an "independant " role or face the fact that they are a dog that has had it,s day.

[high spirits]

WEBF / A and C,
Well aware of Navy cutbacks too, but some of your barnacled colleagues are suggesting closing the RAF on the basis of saving on infrastructure. How can you save money by closing a service and simply dividing the assets up between Army and RN as this idiot who caused this thread has suggested? It would surely cost a great deal more to train up a load of new pilots to fly your now empty airframes......cos I'm not aware of many RAF frontline aircrew who would wish to crossover to another service - it seems to work the other way round though!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I don't know who came up with the idea of losing the RAF, but its a dumb idea.

[Flatus Veteranus]

A & C

I don't think the Smuts Report was solely concerned with strategic air operations. It was also influenced by overlapping responsibilties and scandalous waste during WW1. While the Zeppelins rumbled overhead the RFC and RNAS tended to sit around mumbling "not my part of ship, guv!" In 1916 the RN aircraft parks were crammed full of good aircraft doing sod-all while the RFC were getting their ar*es shot off in France. in the end the RNAS sent some squadrons to France under Army higher command. No 8 Sqn RNAS was one of them and formed at Dunkirk in Oct 1916. It performed brilliantly with sopwith Pups, Tripes, Camels and Snipes and was absorbed into the RAF as No 208 Sqn .:)

[I. M. Esperto]

I agree with this concept. The USA had no USAF during WWII, and we did nicely, you may recall.

We had great airpower. Army Air Corps, Navy Air, USMC Air.

Then after the war we made a seperate entity of an abomination called The U. S. Air Force. We haven't won a real war since.

[steamchicken]

"While the Zeppelins rumbled overhead the RNAS and RFC tended to look at each other and say "Not my part of ship""

A minor injustice to the RNAS; before the first war, the Army had demanded the responsibility for air defence and got it. However their planning was based on the whole RFC going with the army to France on mobilisation. When it happened, the army staff said in Winston Churchill's words, "that they had not got the men, the machines, or the money; they adhered nevertheless to the principle!" Typically, WSC immediately offered to take over the task - the RNAS already had armed aeroplanes, unlike the common belief that the first air fighting took place with hand weapons. Therefore, RNAS sqns were sent to Dunkirk to cover the shortest route from the Cologne zeppelin base. Further, in Churchill's famous "17 points to remember" memorandum of 28th July 1914, which listed matters for immediate action during the mobilisation of the fleet, there are references both to "aeroplane squadrons for Nore" i.e. Sheerness/Chatham and "anti-aircraft guns" at Plymouth! (References for all this are the first chapters of "The World Crisis", volume I, and the archive details are in it.)

As interception was unlikely, the Naval Staff (a Churchill innovation)'s Air Division decided to attack, launching the first-ever serious air attacks against the Zeppelin bases at Cuxhaven, down the Elbe from Hamburg, Cologne, and Friedrichshafen on Lake Constance. It was in 1916, after WSC had been sacked that the Army got the responsibility back.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Steam Chicken

I have no ready access to RN archives from WW1. But I do have the official history of Naval 8/208 Sqn.

"During the winter months of 1915 the then Wing Commander C L Lambe, RN Commaner of the Naval Air Forces at Dover and Dunkirk, had been reorganising and building up the RNAS in the Dover Patrol. By April the following year three wings were operating between Dunkirk and Bergues, and in the summer a loan by the Admiralty of a squadron to reinforce the RFC on the Somme was approved. Each of the three wings provided one flight towards this squadron, thus Squadron Commander Bromet (later A M Sir Geoffrey) received a rather mixed bag of aircraft consisting of six Pups, six Nieuport Scouts, and six Sopwith 1.5 Strutters" On 26 Oct the Squadron moved to le Vert Galant and were visited next day by Major-General Trenchard and some days later by Sir Douglas Haig. They began operations on 3 Nov, with No 22 wing, 5th Brigade, RFC.

I cannot find any reference to patrolling against zeppelins in the rest of the history, but they gave the Red Baron and the rest of his f*kkers brown pants !

I M Esperto

I thought your lads did well in Korea and, within the political limits imposed, in Vietnam. You would not have had any POWs back but for LINEBACKER 2 when SAC were at last allowed to give Hanoi and Haiphong the good'ole Buff treatment. And we know the Desert Storm was a breeze for the grunts because the spade-work had been done by the Buffs

I winder if anyone has done a realistic cost/benefit comparison between two strike carriers, for which (we are told) £2.7B is in the budget and a buy of some large, non-penetrating, ordnance-deliverers (bombers!) that could do for the UK what the Buffs are still doing for Uncle SAM. After all, we all know who really gave the Al Quaida the runs!

:)

[steamchicken]

The deployment of navy planes to Dunkirk in 1914 was also the reason why the navy ended up running armoured-car units (to keep the German flank guard away from their forward bases in Belgium). When the Germans turned from the Marne to the north in October, 1914, we lost most of this area, but finally stopped them at Ypres. The RNAS patrols were sent elsewhere, partly because the threat didn't materialise quite yet, and partly because their base was more or less under artillery fire (and would stay that way until 1918)