RAF NEWS - Rag or What?

[Old-Duffer]

I have just received the latest edition of RAF News and I wonder why I bother to subscribe to such a rag.

This issue contains a report on the funeral of an RAF officer and reports that a party fired a ’21 gun salute’ – I think not. Recently, I found three glaring errors by just glancing through, on first receipt: my email to the newspaper’s editor went unanswered. A few weeks after, a photograph showing a memorial to a member of aircrew, clearly showed the aircraft involved was a Wellington but the accompanying narrative stated the pilot was flying a Lancaster – en route to the Far East in 1943 via the Middle East, by the way.

Of the three service newspapers, the RAF News is definitely the worst, despite changes and ‘improvements’ over the years. However, the standard of journalism and the proofing of articles seems to be exceptionally poor and errors of fact frequent.

Why is this the case and why does, whichever of the great and good is responsible for it, not take action and give it a jolly good shake up? Frankly, to me, it appears a poor reflection on the RAF’s PR effort and does not do justice to the service.

Old Duffer

[P6 Driver]

I've always found that Soldier Magazine and Navy News are better reads and more informative than the poor RAF effort.

[Two's in]

They also failed to publish my letter regarding the first swallow of summer. Outrageous.

[CoffmanStarter]

OD ... The Flagship Publication the "RAF Annual Review" is no more than a glossy car showroom brochure these days IMO ... so I'm not surprised by your comments on RAF News.

But the PR People say "we're not the target audience" ... as if that's some justification for factual errors :mad:

Best ...

Coff.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Rag. Definitely a rag. The RAF News has become worse than The Sun for cheesy headlines. The recent "Diamond Geezers" headline referring to the Red Arrows recent return to a nine-ship display team just made me cringe. Even more so when my RN and Army opposite numbers started taking the p!ss. TBH the paper wasn't too bad (although it still had a few cringeworthy headlines) when produced out of Innsworth, but since the move to HW it has become very "lower deck" to use a term provided by my RN office mate.

[4everAD]

It's a joke of a rag. I still remember/fume about an article about a year ago which went along the lines of "good news for RAF as allowance budget is slashed". It is all PR for ex boys and girls, you don't even get the odd letter moaning about this and that any more.

[BEagle]

One of the earlier successes of PPRuNe was the fact that information, which the RAF News would certainly have suppressed, began to appear in the public domain. At the time, certain not-very-but-thought-they-were senior officers moved heaven and earth trying to establish who the posters were - even trying to get RAF Plod involved....:mad:

[Neptunus Rex]

I cancelled my subscription when, following swingeing Defence cuts, the RAF News carried the following banner headline:

"Leaner Force Packs Bigger Punch!"

That was in 1975.

Plus ça change....

[60024]

There was a centre spread from the Jubilee flypast where the main photo was of a BBMF Hurricane taken head on from the tailgunner's turret of the Lancaster. The caption said it was a Spitfire!:ugh:

There was a 'Top Trumps' style comparison between fast jets over Afghanistan a couple of years ago. Apart from the silhouette of an F3, the claim was that the Tornado GR3 (Yes, that too!) had a top speed of Mach 2.

Naturally, my letter to the editor didn't receive a response.

Does anybody use the 'leisure time' centre section for anything?

Calling it a 'rag' is too kind.

[MAD Boom]

Does anybody use the 'leisure time' centre section for anything?

Toilet paper. Why on earth should I give two hoots about what some random service person thinks the top ten tunes on their iPod are?

But the PR People say "we're not the target audience"

If we are not the target audience, why are there 20 copies of the damn thing delivered to our crew room every fortnight?

Waste of time, energy, and certainly in this day and age, money. (Especially considering there are no decent Pen Pal entries for us to laugh about these days!)

[tucumseh]

One of the earlier successes of PPRuNe was the fact that information, which the RAF News would certainly have suppressed, began to appear in the public domain. At the time, certain not-very-but-thought-they-were senior officers moved heaven and earth trying to establish who the posters were - even trying to get RAF Plod involved....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

Spot on Beagle. I've had a few visits and always found a strident "**** ***" worked. But things have changed for the better. Many in MoD now use Pprune as the source of policy ideas, and is the de facto corporate knowledge base for working out how to implement extant policies. :}

[Party Animal]

I can understand the propaganda message that they are trying to convey, i.e, everything is wonderful in the RAF, to those who have no idea or to those who have a modicum of interest.

However, for those of us still serving who see the reality on a daily basis, there is a huge and growing divergence between spin and perception. If we scrapped the RAF and split our assets between Army and Navy, it would still be presented as a 'good news and success' story!

Sadly the many inaccuracies and downmarket, assumption of low readership IQ approach has compounded my view that the RAF News is no longer what it once was.

Still read it though, as they are given away free where I work. Just takes 5 minutes now from cover to cover, rather than 20 minutes, 10 years ago.

[Courtney Mil]

Soft, strong and thoroughly absorbant. I can't see what any good airman could have against it. Apart from his bottom.

[BEagle]

Whereas 60 years ago, there was a proper magazine published monthly. This was 'Royal Air Force Flying Review - The Journal of the Royal Air Force' which cost the princely sum of 1/- !!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/IMG_0284_zpsd1d0232f.jpg

When the RAF Brize Norton Education Section (which no doubt has some silly oo-rah rufty-tufty title such as 'Warfighter Enhancement Wing' these days...:rolleyes:) was having a clear out, they found a box of old 1940s-50s copies of various aviation magazines. Including the first ever Recce Journal (astonishingly no references to 'curved handrails', 'slack tracks', 'GT wheels' etc. back then...). I was asked if I'd like it, so jumped at the opportunity. Most were susbequently donated to the Yorkshire Air Museum and the Shuttleworth collection, but I kept the 2 copies of RAF Flying Review!

How CAS appeared on parade for the Coronation (from the July 1953 copy):

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/IMG_0285_zps0a6ca2a7.jpg

Perhaps the present CAS should also appear thus on State Occasions?

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle ...

That article "In the year 2004 ... an RAF Space Bomber takes off on a mission" sounds interesting ... any chance you could post a scan for us all to read :ok:

Coff.

[NutLoose]

These days they tend to promote the horse over the man to high office, take Westminster for example...

[BEagle]

Coff, I'll try:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/IMG_0287_zps41f6e6f5.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/IMG_0288_zps6e783cdc.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/IMG_0289_zps7aa6eb72.jpg

Note the panel on the final page - I wonder who won the 10/6 and how the letter read!

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks BEagle ... really appreciate you posting the article :ok: What a fascinating read ...

Yep ... The winning letter must have been a hoot :ok:

Sadly the reality was (more decline) ...

RAF 2004 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/01A22E2E_DBE9_8D3B_C7AC8A965544E238.pdf)

Best ...

Coff.

PS. Magnetic Flying Boots ... I want some ... I thought my dinghy stabber caused enough "swing" on a Chipmunk compass :eek:

[davejb]

Come come Beagle,
this is no time for modesty...

Note the panel on the final page - I wonder who won the 10/6 and how the letter read!

...what DID your letter say?

Dave

[Corrona]

Not that I'm any kind of homophobe, however it does appear as though the RAF news should have a rainbow across the top of the front page these days...just to give the casual observer some hint of what seems to fill the pages of most editions.

I keep reading in the RAF News (apparently quoting our most senior officers) about how well we're doing in our rise through the rankings of the stonewall best gay employer table. I can't help wondering how we'd figure in any 'best hetro-sexual' employer ratings table....maybe it could be the stone-henge rating!

[Pontius Navigator]

I remember Hodgkinson in his report recommended that the RAF News be distributed free as part of the corporate communications strategy (before someone had invented corporate communications). Not that long after there was a big push to get us to subscribe to the extent of stopping the Messes buying just a couple of copies.

Then more recently still, Coningsby with a Service population of over 2,000 took just 20 copies. The CRO got at least 2!

[Biggus]

I'm pretty sure that my section alone gets 20 copies these days....!!

Normally about 2 get looked at!

[Geezers of Nazareth]

They also failed to publish my letter regarding the first swallow of summer. Outrageous.

African Swallows or European Swallows?

[vascodegama]

It is not called Pravda for nothing. My letter about the use of the cattle truck C130 to transport passengers, while banning the use of the VC10 at the same time went unanswered.

[CoffmanStarter]

Says it all really ...

RAF News HomePage (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafnewsholdingpage.cfm)

[Pontius Navigator]

At least it does say Air Command.

[pzu]

Beagle, any chance of you posting the 'Bombing Mau Mau' article from the same issue?

I arrived in Kenya during June 1954, and I seem to remember the 'raids' were still ongoing as was the Harvard interdictions

Thanks in advance

PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)

[Biggus]

Maybe a separate thread for more to appreciate/contribute to?


"Articles from the past" or some similar title?

[smujsmith]

OOOPs, I did the damned survey;) I suspect my responses reflect the general trend of this thread. I always remember buying the RAF News to see if anyone I knew had been promoted, or managed to get themselves into a story worth reading. My best mate, from Halton, appeared one day on top of a Puma in Norway. I managed to get back in contact with him as a result of that. I'm definitely not liking stories about how the service is doing in the woofter ratings. I suspect I would be sorely tried in being PC enough for the "modern" RAF:rolleyes:

[Wensleydale]

If anyone wants copies of said RAF Review Magazine then there are many examples for sale on a well known auction site starting at less than £1 each! (A bit less than Beagle is willing to charge).

I recently carried out some research into a mid-air collision of two Waddington Lincolns in 1949 - the best source came from an on-line copy of a review magazine from that year. They are out there somewhere!

[Old-Duffer]

When I started this Thread, I mentioned the great and good who were ultimately responsible for RAF News but I hadn't realised the depth of the antipathy towards the newspaper at that time.

If somebody can tell me the big cheese in charge - AMP perhaps - and give me an email address, I shall 'petition' him and refer him to this Thread with the request that he gets it sharpened up.

Old Duffer

[Blanket Stacker]

OD,

I'm glad you started this thread; I don't feel alone any longer! I stopped my subscription a couple of years ago as my blood pressure couldn't cope with the fortnightly scan for typos, spelling errors with Station names and misidents of aircraft. I reckon they recruited the worst of Fleet St as 'journalists' when they moved from Innsworth. Never knowingly miss the opportunity to wheel out a cliche; ATC cadets are always 'high flying'.

[BEagle]

pzu, just for you:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/IMG_0293_zpsbb9f2146.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/IMG_0294_zpsbf2f1ec3.jpg

Old-Duffer, it's quite probable that there is no such grand fromage in these poverty-stricken times....:hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

Petit Chablis then.

As for 2004, remember that mandatory radio programme of the '50s Journey in to Space.

[pzu]

Cheers BEagle

PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)

[CoffmanStarter]

OD ...

A possible starting point with a quick call followed by a letter/eMail perhaps.

HQ Air Command,
High Wycombe, Bucks
HP14 4UE.
T: 01494 495546
E: [email protected]

Coff.

[TheWizard]

Would it surprise you to know that there are no uniformed RAF personnel involved in it's production?

[Lyneham Lad]

Amazing the earth-shattering information that used to appear...

http://www.kmercerphotography.co.uk/ForumPics/Wedding022_2.jpg

Even more amazingly, we still are a 'happy couple'. :ok:

[sisemen]

My first job on promotion to corporal and posting to Brize was in the Post Room. I was responsible for ordering, distributing and selling RAF News.

As I read this thread I had to double check the date and make sure that it wasn't 1974 because the exact same comments were being made then and that's - gulp - almost 40 years ago!

My last act on retirement as a sqn ldr in 93 was to buy a copy of RAF News. Still got it somewhere.

[Pontius Navigator]

Would it surprise you to know that there are no uniformed RAF personnel involved in it's production?

Er no, it wouldn't.

Bit like Defence Estates or the MOD Civil Service really.

[TwoTunnels]

Slightly off thread, but I see that the Royal Air Force Yearbook has been discontinued this year. It's a shame because after my grandad gave me a 1976 copy, I have purchased it every year since.
It became more commercial in recent years, with apparent more adverts than articles, but nevertheless I always looked forward to reading it about this time of year.
Have still got a stack of the copies in my bookcase. Off course in OCD chronological order!

[CoffmanStarter]

TT ...

The RAF Year Book was stopped some 3 years ago and replaced by the RAF Annual Review.

This was the announcement at the time ...

The Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises, publisher of the official RAF Yearbook, has decided to cease publication of the annual magazine.
The Yearbook, which was printed for the 44th – and final - time last year, provided an insight into current RAF operations, deployments and new technology. It featured regular contributions from some of aviation’s most respected writers and photographers.

Chief Executive Tim Prince said the decision was taken partly in response to the growth of the internet which has made much more detailed information about RAF operations and equipment available online – and in real time.

He added: “The marketplace for aviation magazines such as the RAF Yearbook has also become crowded whilst advertising revenues – and sales - in the sector are shrinking. At a time when the aerospace industry and the military are facing unprecedented cost-cutting, we have decided that the best course of action is to focus on other areas of our core business.

“Nevertheless, we are very proud that in its time, the RAF Yearbook was the leading RAF publication and for this we’d like to thank all of those involved in the production process along with those who contributed articles and photographs over the years. We, and the Chief of the Air Staff Sir Stephen Dalton, hope opportunities arise in the future that will enable us to work together to revive the title for special one-off publications that mark key anniversaries or special occasions.”

see my Thread on the topic :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/509426-raf-annual-review-2013-a.html

Coff.

[dallas]

Ditto my unpublished letter about needlessly slapdash DWR dates being fired out to people that were almost consistently pulled forward by a week at short notice - despite the incumbents RTU date being known from the day they arrived.

I followed it up with the editor who told me he'd chased 'the necessary respondee' who'd just decided to ignore it. Editor wasn't political enough to publish it without an official reply, which I guess is indicative of being in the pocket of the organisation. Pity really as my underlying intent was to highlight people getting needlessly f***ed around so that someone could do something about it.

[Old-Duffer]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

I thought to send something along the following lines to the editor of RAF News. It seems only fair to allow him an opportunity to see/rebut/respond before seeking to involve the big guns of AMP or COS Personnel.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Dear Editor,

You may be aware of a website: pprune.org, which is an aviation related series of fora, within which individual subject Threads are posted and commented upon. It is a global site, although much of the content emanates from the UK.

On Good Friday and within the ‘Military Aviation’ forum, a Thread was started which enjoyed the title: ‘RAF News – Rag or What?’. Within less than twenty four hours, the Thread had attracted three dozen responses and whilst some had ‘drifted’ off the main thrust of the question posed, those which had not were universally critical of RAF News.

The main area of concerns seemed to be:

a. Inaccuracy of reporting with significant errors of fact. This complaint being indicative of an ignorance of the subject matter ie the RAF and its history .

b. A poor level of content quality, relative to the other service newspapers/magazines eg Navy news and Soldier.

c. A blithe acceptance of the ‘party line’ with no attempt to apply any cerebral rigour to the articles being printed.

d. A suggestion that comments by letter or email, critical of air force policy or of the newspaper itself were suppressed and certainly not responded to by the editor or a staff member.

The concerns above will suffice for the moment to indicate that the RAF News is not seen by some to be representative of the real world within which the RAF operates and it probably sacrifices an opportunity to attract and hold readership because of this.

May I suggest that you go to pprune – membership is free – and take the opportunity to absorb the comments in detail. It goes without saying that you can comment on or rebut what is posted. You might find the Thread useful in gauging some opinion about your newspaper and formulating some changes of direction and focus.

Yours sincerely

Old Duffer

[TwoTunnels]

Just looked- latest copy I've got is 2011.
Must have been too busy on det for the last 2 years. Or could I have been in a coma?
Thanks Coff.

[CoffmanStarter]

Spot on OD ... I support :ok:

[Torchy]

OD,

Good start - however, it my experience (and others) that the Ed RAF News or his staff will not reply. Much better to bite the bullet and fire something up to a level where there might be some interest - don't hold your breath! The RAF News, Imho, is heavily managed and censored from above - you only have to look at the drivel on the letters page. Overall, the RAF News is not for us, it is for outside consumption - and air cadets. IIRC the banner on the latest issue says something like " a newspaper for heroes"!!

T:ugh::ugh:

[dallas]

I agree with Torchy - keep pushing out drivel and keep job as editor; sail closer to controversy for no prizes and wobblier job prospects.

[Wander00]

OD - have you sent a copy of your excellent letter to DPR (RAF) or whoever fills such a slot these days. D of R and IT might be a good target too, as presumably potential applicants and recruits are encouraged to read it.

[Pontius Navigator]

Maybe they should employ what used to be an RO whose bonus was directly related to the balance of wrong aircraft ID and praise.

[Melchett01]

O-D,

Spot on :D. Unfortunately, it's not only the RAF News that has degenerated into little more than a local 'free newspaper' - the RAF website isn't much better when compared to our sister Services' offerings.

In both cases, there is precious little of any interest other than what somebody in Air Command thinks we should be reading about because it's 'good news'. I could go on, but frankly, your note to the editor just about sums up everything that is wrong with both the RAF News and the Website. I am just waiting for the first article about a flower arranging contest on the married patch at RAF Little Snoring on the Wold - we've already done the cake baking to death over the years.

If you don't get any joy with the editor, you might want to try feeding comments into the RAF website. I made some enquiries before Christmas about a PERSEC breach on the RAF Website and was told they would also inform the RAF News to ensure that the offending items weren't re-published there. So if both publications aren't 'run' out of the same office, I suspect there are strong links between them and your message might just get some traction there. If you do it over the weekend, it should make Tuesday morning more interesting in the Ivory Towers! :ok:

[Roland Pulfrew]

O-D

It's a good start. The state of he RAF News is a sad situation. One only has to look at the letters page(s) in Soldier magazine to see that the Army don't seem to fear a bit of public (internal) criticism and the ability to provide reasoned responses.I do have to wonder what their agenda and direction says; did anyone see the article on gay marriage the week after the parliament vote? Not quite sure what the purpose of that was or what message it was trying to send.

I have to say that in a tri-service office where we get all three publications, Soldier magazine is the best and most professional, followed by Navy News and then the RAF News as the equivalent of The Sun

[bowly]

Seriously?

Dear Sir, you might want to know that 23 (backgrounds generally unknown) people made 36 posts (of which 20 were relevant to the topic) about how bad the RAF News is. Make changes.

More chance of my Mum winning the 100m in Rio..........

[CoffmanStarter]

Don't worry chaps ... the RAF Web Site may be a little cr@p ... but sales of "official tat" are on the up :mad:

I love the RAF Officer with an enormous weapon ... who modelled for it :E

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/E9075920_5056_A318_A85235EAE0E18AEE_zps1db2924b.jpg

RAF Official Merchandise (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/rafmerchandise.cfm)

Coff.

[Pontius Navigator]

Coff, as if you didn't know.

[nice castle]

Someone having a stroke?

[Pontius Navigator]

Unfortunately, it's not only the RAF News that has degenerated into little more than a local 'free newspaper' - the RAF website isn't much better when compared to our sister Services' offerings.

I can't remember the numbers, but at a media seminar we were told that the RAF website budget was in the low 5-figure mark (maybe it was lower) and run by a Chief at Strike. In comparison the Telegraph website had a budget in the high 6-figures and of course was run by professionals. This was about 7 years ago.

The RAF has continued to shrink and perhaps proportionally the per capita media budget of years gone by would be hard to justify today. The RAF News and the website probably have no journalistic staff and are limited to format offerings from on high.

It is probably like the Red Arrows, no one is prepared to say enough, we can't afford to do a proper job so lets kill it. Or perhaps how about contracting out to Qinetiq?

[Blunty]

As the person responsible for running the RAF Internet I read your comments with interest. If there are any problems with persec or opsec please feel free to contact me at Air Cmd, Media and Comms. For those in the RAF you will find me under SO2 Digital or, for those outside, you can contact me through the details on the website. I do my utmost to provide engaging content but, as I am sure you will appreciate, rely on other people to provide the content. If you wish to offer content please let me know, my latest project is the 70th anniversary of the Dambusters.

[CoffmanStarter]

Many thanks Blunty ...

For starters can we get the RAF Periodicals updated please ...

RAF Periodicals Downloads (http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/RAF%20Periodicals.cfm)

Coff.

[Biggus]

Blunty,

So am I correct in thinking that the pprune membership is now doing your job for you, by proof reading the website and pointing out the errors it contains?

While you may rely on others for new content, surely it is your responsibility to keep the site up to date overall. As just a couple of examples:

RAF - 120 Squadron (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/120squadron.cfm)

RAF - 201 Squadron (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/201squadron.cfm)

According to the website 2 Sqns which are currently based at RAF Kinloss, oh, and the aircraft in the picture on the 201 page is a Nimrod R1, not an MR2.... :ugh:

They've only been disbanded for nearly 2 years!!!

Then again:

RAF - Stations (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/stations.cfm?selectStation=9E120E8A-A2EC-35C0-F88CFB2575826663#cgi.script_name#)

Closed April 2006!! :ugh:

Totally symptomatic of a website which is, quite frankly, an embarrassment and a disaster....

[TheWizard]

Biggus

You missed out 42 Sqn.

[Biggus]

TW,

I'm sure there are others as well, I was just trying to illustrate a point.....

For Blunty:

RAF - 42 Squadron (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/42squadron.cfm)

There is admittedly this page:

RAF - Recently Disbanded (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/recentlydisbanded.cfm)

But if Squadrons have been put on here why doesn't the main entry for them reflect this?


You would be better off totally scrapping the whole website, and starting again with one that you keep to a size which you have the manpower and resources to keep up to date on a (very) regular basis!! Alternatively, I'll retire and run it for you full time as a self employed consultant - and since it's my old employer, I'll only charge "mates rates" of £600 a day!!

In this day and age a poor, out of date, website reflects badly on any organization - in which case I suppose it is an accurate reflection of the current state of the RAF? :(

[Pontius Navigator]

Those sqns are listed under 'recently disbanded' though I agree the associated text needs amending:

These aircraft are pooled with those of the other Kinloss-based squadrons should now be were.

Searching for stations - RAF Wainfleet - this ceased to be an RAF unit in 2006 and closed permanently in 2010. At least it has been deleted from the Media Comms list.

How frequently is Air Clues published? Last link is Jan 2012.

[Blunty]

10,000 pages, 153 websites, 80 Airspace websites, Intranet, Social Media, Internal Comms, Pubs library, no funding, 4 staff. Probably embarrassing then! However, I will take all the comments on board and get them updated because I agree that an out of date content is not good.

[CoffmanStarter]

Blunty ...

A suggestion ... If you don't have a Web Content Management System ... then get one PDQ. Then devolve responsibility to key content stakeholders e.g. Squadrons, Stations etc. for keeping THEIR information up to date (making and holding them accountable). You can still control what get's published but you aren't dependent on an information funnel that requires someone on your staff to punch everything on to the web ... let alone chase people for regular updates.

PS. I made this statrategic change for a large global organisation where the quality of content and currency improved dramatically and almost immediately.

Coff.

[TheWizard]

CS,

CMS has been in use for quite a while now. Hence why the information is only as good as the units that update (or don't in many cases) them.

Trust me when I say Blunty knows what he is talking about. Just doesn't have the resources or funding.

[CoffmanStarter]

Ok mate ... :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

One of my men took on the job of creating our web page. When I saw his efforts they were puerile. Worse he had forgotten how to edit the page. (I had not given him the job).

[Willard Whyte]

a. Inaccuracy ... with significant errors of fact ... being indicative of an ignorance of the subject matter.

b. A poor level of content quality...

c. A blithe acceptance of the ‘party line’ with no attempt to apply any cerebral rigour...

d. A suggestion that comments ... critical of air force policy ... suppressed and certainly not responded to

Hmm, with some arbitrary editing I'd opine I've worked for plenty of people within the raf matching these criteria. It's certainly difficult to narrow them down though.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ah, so you are saying there is expert military input to the RAF News?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Blunty

If it helps here are a few that I spotted:

A new page for "Recently Closed Stations" to go with the Recently Disbanded Squadrons might be an idea (even if only to embarrass the politicians and show the continually shrinking size of the RAF).

On that list could go those mentioned above plus RAF Kinloss (closed June or July 2012) RAF Cottesmore (not sure when the station actually closed).
Is there anyone still at RAF Lyneham? Is there any RAF unit based at RAF Topcliffe?
And at the end of this year will need to include RAF Church Fenton (why no station badge for Fenton? One exists, even if the station isn't a "full" station. The badge remains part of the history and heritage) and RAF Wyton (?)

In the Training Squadrons page you are missing the 3 EFT squadrons (is it 16 (R), 57 (R) & 85 (R) (?) plus 115 (R) Sqn which is the CFS Tutor Sqn at RAF Cranwell) And of course 85 (R) Sqn now needs to move to the recently disbanded list.

Shouldn't all the Training Squadrons be listed as *** (Reserve) Squadron?

Hasn't 19 (R) Sqn disbanded at Valley to be replaced with IV (R) Sqn on the Hawk T2?

Does 55 (R) Sqn still exist at Cranwell? I thought they had gone with the Dominies?

76 (R) Sqn formed (2008) and disbanded (2011) at Linton-on-Ouse for the Tucano Nav Phase, so 76 should be in the recently disbanded list.

10 Sqn is missing from the AT & AAR section.

13 Sqn are missing from the RPAS page

14 Sqn are missing from the recce page

Do we still have 4 Herc sqns? I thought 70 had gone.

111 Sqn disbanded with the demise of the F3, but listed in both Air Defence and Recently Disbanded

Just as a thought, you have all of the OEUs listed under the section titled OCUs, should they be a separate section or does the title need changing?

I know you only have a very small team but I hope this helps in going some way to correcting a few of those 10000 pages.:}

[SRENNAPS]

Firstly, I assure you that this is not a dig at anybody who has identified errors on the RAF website. I agree that errors need to be identified and corrected. However:

Blunty,

You have my whole hearted sympathy. I read the RAF website quite often and have always enjoyed the content and format. There will always be minor mistakes and time taken to update pages when you are dealing with so much information. And let’s face it; there has been a lot of change in recent years.

IMHO the RAF Internet is streets ahead of many corporate websites including the rather large (Space, Planes & Defence) organisation I now work for (both internet and intranet).

To find out that you are only a Team of 4 with no funding is astounding, but not really surprising I suppose……..just part of the equation of why I left :ugh:

However, what it does reflect, is that the work that you and your Team do is a credit and a reflection of a can do attitude. I take my hat off to you and your Team. Keep up the good work and I will carry on reading :D:D:D

As for the RAF News, I can’t remember which I stopped reading first; The Sun or the RAF News……..but it was a long, long time ago :E

[Pontius Navigator]

Have you looked at search for stations by location?

East of England:

Creech AFB - RAF Benson

Now in my day, East of England was all the German based, Malta, Cyprus, Bahrein, Masira, Aden, Gan, Singapore

Now West of England had Goose and Offutt so I guess Creech should be West not East!

For a layman searching for his local RAF stations they should be within the nationally recognised areas. East of England embraces East Anglia etc. Lincolnshire might be in East Midlands but Fylingdales is very definitely in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Hiding stations doesn't look good.

[Finningley Boy]

Here's an interesting observation which I've yet to have anyone recognise, what is the point of Air Command? My understanding is that Air Command emcompasses all that is left of the R.A.F. Therefore, it carries no relation as a command. i.e. there aren't any other commands with which together the air force is formed.

It would also be interesting to know what the hell happened to all the money which has been saved through all the base closures, squadron disbandments loss of permanent overseas stations, personnel redundancies and so on, not to mention all the posts contracted out to civilian rule and so forth.

Can't imagine how George Osborne would react to the proposition of running H.M. Forces as they were circa 1989 just!:ok:

FB:)

[Pontius Navigator]

FB, oh dear.

Well we have LAND Command often referred to as LAND so AIR Command sits well with that modern PC like name.

Air Ministry was quite good but nowhere near as punchy as WAR Office. No doubt what they did and it wasn't peace keeping. Bomber changing to STRIKE was punchy too but didn't really fit with humanitarian missions.

Hard to convince an NGO that your STRIKE aircraft was delivering manna from heaven.

Now what about SEA Command or NAVY Command or whatever?

Who is going to suggest the Navy comes in to line?

Admiralty Board: The Admiralty Board is responsible for policy and decision making and the Service Executive Committee of the Admiralty Board, known as the Navy Board. With a First Sea Lord.

Now there is PC for you :)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Pontius

Not trying to score points or anything, but don't we now have:

Air Command @ HW
Army Command @ Andover
Joint Forces Command @ Northwood and
Navy Command @ Portsmouth

It's all part of the Civil Service master plan to get rid of the single services and have a British Armed Forces. Despite Canada's failed experiment to go "purple", there is an element within the Monastery of Defiance that still want a purple military. They've got rid of the majority of the military worker bees from the "Head Office", they've got rid of a number of 4*s, they want the single service chiefs out of London and they've reduced the military to 4 Commands. Watch this space, it will be a short step to 3* single service chiefs and a 4* CDS. Then it will be the BAF, not HM Armed Forces. :}

[WhiteOvies]

It's been Navy Command, at HMS Excellent (Whale Island) for at least 5 years, if not longer.

[langleybaston]

I take it that is a YES, then?

[Pontius Navigator]

RF etc TY. I did search and Admiralty came up, Navy command referred to that which you do if in charge of a ship.

However the list you show still makes one of the Services the odd one out and it isn't the Army or the Royal Navy :)

I suppose the other could argue that if Navy Command is to Royal Navy as Army Command is to Army so Air Command would be Royal Air Force.

[caped crusader]

Posted by Blunty

"my latest project is the 70th anniversary of the Dambusters."

I was told that it is official RAF policy that 70th Anniversaries are not commemorated.

Can you confirm that this is still the case.

CC

[diginagain]

Humberside as a geo-political bastard-child of the Gerrymanderers ceased to exist on 1 April 1996. Although if you want to refer to it in the RAF News, this detail may well go un-noticed.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

BEagle. Those Flying Reviews would make a brilliant new Thread in Aviation History and Nostalgia.

Nice to see that both cover pictures were AVROs.

[Wander00]

Here's a tenuous link to the previous post - about 4 years ago we were waiting for the ferry from Royan across to the Gironde to Pte de Grave (of Cockleshell Heroes fame). Another UK registered car pulled up and after the usual British several minutes of ignoring each other, the other driver and I fell into conversation. They were on the way back to their house on the Haute-Medoc, and I explained that I was on the way to an RAF Association meeting near Bordeaux. "Did you ever fly Avros?" he asked. "Only once, my first flight aged 13 was in an Anson. Why do you ask?" "Only that A V Roe was my Grandfather" he replied - and was pleased that I knew it was the centenary year of A V Roe's first flight.

Have a nice Monday, all.

[Pontius Navigator]

Digin, that's true apart from the realites.

The airport still has that name and the Prescottshire police force still straddles the river.

Who ever thought of joining together areas of land with a ruddy great river down the middle?

[diginagain]

Fair points, well made, PN, and I can't see matters changing any time soon. The Plod are united in name alone, and while the Redcliffe-Maud report might have been a bright idea, that river has always been a bit of a problem.
I can offer no excuse for Prescott, other than that he is Welsh.

[8021123]

Oh for goodness sake, if you don't like it, don't buy it or read it. Move on guys.

[Pontius Navigator]

Oh for goodness sake, if you don't like it, don't buy it or read it. Move on guys.
Buy it? Never occurred to me to buy it. I used to get it as the CRO person and admit to having read it occasionally before that, but how many people actually buy it?

I know my father-in-law, hostilities only rating, used to buy the Navy News.

[Biggus]

Never bought it.....we have (too many) copies delivered to our section on a regular basis. They tend to sit in the crew room for a couple of weeks, then go in the recycling pile.

I occasionally flick through it out of sheer boredom! Then tend to wonder why I bothered!

[Always Up]

Oh for goodness sake, if you don't like it, don't buy it or read it. Move on guys.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Careful 80211 this is after all the Military Aircrew a forum for the professional misanthrope, the grumpy self-righteous twats, was better in my day, God Bless Maggie, hussar for Blighty, lets get out of Europe, and the world will end if Scotland leaves the union, society for those who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally tolerated (welcome) here.;)

[Biggus]

So why bother to read it, or be a registered member...?

[Always Up]

oh dear see your sarcasm filter is us:bored:
Or is it just in selective mode.

[Old-Duffer]

I started this Thread as a serious post but have been interested in the wide range of opinions generated.

Of particular interest are the comments about the apparently large number of free copies which are delivered to RAF units and sections within same.

My supplementary, therefore, is 'what are the financials associated with this newspaper'? Does RAF News remain viable from the subscription income, casual purchases and advertising revenue and are the staff costs included in that equation? Given the parlous state of the defence budget, should RAF News be subjected to the same costed appraisal as much else in Defence and if found to be not cost effective, should it be canned?

Old Duffer

[Pontius Navigator]

O-D. good question. With my CRO hat I got my free copy from the Media Ops people. With resource accounting one would imagine that X-copies costing £Y would have been billed to MO and deducted from their budget.

Not real money of course, just a way to spend money.

[sisemen]

was better in my day, God Bless Maggie, hussar for Blighty, lets get out of Europe, and the world will end if Scotland leaves the union, society for those who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally tolerated (welcome) here

At last!!! Someone with the right attitude and the correct view of the world. All is not lost.

[Always Up]

At last!!! Someone with the right attitude and the correct view of the world. All is not lost.

Singing to the back of the choir there brother - hands across the water and all that :rolleyes: