Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climebear, whatever way you slice it, 6% of total sorties is a token contribution. Also, the RAF dropped only THREE percent of total coalition weapons dropped. There was no capability the RAF brought to the table that the US didn't already have in absolute spades. You're relying on spurious allegations of cowardice on the part of US pilots and supposedly 'secret' capabilities of one type of missile to refute this. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The RAF utterly lacks capabilities in a whole range of areas the US considers essential - long-range bombers, UAV/UCAVs and space-based assets are but a few.
Face facts, the RAF is indeed just a pimple on USAF's arrse. It's presence in the theatre of operations made not one jot, scintilla, or iota of difference to the final outcome. And that goes particularly for the FJ fleet (and double that for the F3's in theatre).
Face facts, the RAF is indeed just a pimple on USAF's arrse. It's presence in the theatre of operations made not one jot, scintilla, or iota of difference to the final outcome. And that goes particularly for the FJ fleet (and double that for the F3's in theatre).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
The RAF utterly lacks capabilities in a whole range of areas the US considers essential...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does indeed apply to the UK forces as a whole but even so the Army and RM/RN made proportionally far larger and more useful contributions to the 'coalition' (i.e. US) effort than the RAF did.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Can someone remind me of which country has kept the Canberra's of 39 Sqn busy for all these years with their repeated requests for its deployment to fill a capability gap?
I'm sure it start with a 'U' and is a superpower but the USSR don't seem to come out to play anymore....
I'm sure it start with a 'U' and is a superpower but the USSR don't seem to come out to play anymore....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
It does indeed apply to the UK forces as a whole but even so the Army and RM/RN made proportionally far larger and more useful contributions to the 'coalition' (i.e. US) effort than the RAF did.
Larger isn't always better - as I frequently remind Mrs Climebear; I don't want anyone telling her otherwise.
The Helpful Stacker - that was 'Swift and Bold' of you
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
It does indeed apply to the UK forces as a whole but even so the Army and RM/RN made proportionally far larger and more useful contributions to the 'coalition' (i.e. US) effort than the RAF did.
Which Air Force has had to extend the deployment of its Harriers in Afghanistan due to a capability gap within the forces sent to replace them?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Originally Posted by Climebear
The Helpful Stacker - that was 'Swift and Bold' of you
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SE490618
Age: 64
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of you seem to think that Col Collins is suggesting that we get rid of the Air Force's roles and commitments. No such thing. He is suggesting we retain the roles and commitments and share them (as well as the man power) between the Army and the Royal Navy. Makes perfect sense to me. That way it will put a stop to all the moaning and whinging that goes on in this forum about working too hard and having to spend time away from your loved ones. He is simply suggesting that we disband the RAF as they are merely civilians in a Uniform and replace them with a proffessional and competant group of servicemen who will do the job more efficiently and without moaning about it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: essex
Age: 76
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rafloo
That way it will put a stop to all the moaning and whinging that goes on in this forum about working too hard and having to spend time away from your loved ones.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a proffessional and competant group of servicemen who will do the job more efficiently
Otherwise you are just being a t**t, and reinforcing the light blue's case.
Oh, and I guess your 'proffessional' training didn't include basic English...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just like to point out that operational, tactical and even mechanical understanding is NOT related to who you work for. You do your job as you were trained to do. If you are a properly trained fast jet pilot then you should be just as effective flying as RAF, Fleet Air Arm or AAC. These posts where members of one or other of the services states that the other can't do what they can are bull**** pure and simple. Expertise in a field is not dictated by uniform.
Lazer Hound
You really need to a bit of air power study. The main assets requested by the US for operations Afghanistan were SF, tankers - which provided some 25% of all USN and USMC tanking during the op (just as a bit of Air Power education the USN and USMC use the same AAR system as the RAF so get over yourself), ISTAR and recce assets. The recce was mainly provided by the Canberra. Why? Because the USAF DID NOT HAVE an equivalent capability. E3 and R1, again because we have them and they were not commited elsewhere. We did not commit fast jets because we do not have long range bombers the equivalent of the B52, B1 and B2. All tac air was provided by the USN and USMC from carriers supported by the RAF tanker force.
Furthermore perhaps you should go and ask the USN and USMC crews who vastly prefer RAF tanker support than USAF, because the RAF crews are prepared to go anywhere at anytime to help out the important fighter/bomber crews. And if you still need more info ask the GAF Tornado crew who were tanked out of a probable ejection by an RAF Tristar that got shot at in the process. I believe the captain got a DFC for that one!!
Then you could ask why the US ask for our recce and ISTAR assets. But if you don't know then you probably aren't cleared to know.
In GWII Storm Shadow was used before it had completed all company tests and it worked, again the US asked for this because they did not have an equivalent capability. If you have to compare weapons dropped then of course the USAF is going to drop more than the RAF and by a significant margin - 1 B52 can drop as many bombs, in one go, than an entire Sqn of Tornados. But then in case you hadn't noticed we don't own any B52s!!!!
All your bo
cks about statistics are fine and good, but when you are talking about numbers of aircraft commited to an op you are talking about GOVERNMENT POLICY, not RAF policy. The beancounters in HMT and the MOD set the numbers, of all forces, that are to be contributed to any one op, not anyone else. You can always go and look in the SAG Scenarios book to find out what the contributions are - you do have access to that, don't you? When you compare the US contribution to these ops any UK contribution is going to be tiny. How many boats did the RN commit compared to the USN/USMC? How many troops as % of total forces did the UK commit when compared to the US? The percentages are equally small.
rafloo. It's professional, if that is an indication of the state of the RN at L-o-O then it's time to get out.
You really need to a bit of air power study. The main assets requested by the US for operations Afghanistan were SF, tankers - which provided some 25% of all USN and USMC tanking during the op (just as a bit of Air Power education the USN and USMC use the same AAR system as the RAF so get over yourself), ISTAR and recce assets. The recce was mainly provided by the Canberra. Why? Because the USAF DID NOT HAVE an equivalent capability. E3 and R1, again because we have them and they were not commited elsewhere. We did not commit fast jets because we do not have long range bombers the equivalent of the B52, B1 and B2. All tac air was provided by the USN and USMC from carriers supported by the RAF tanker force.
Furthermore perhaps you should go and ask the USN and USMC crews who vastly prefer RAF tanker support than USAF, because the RAF crews are prepared to go anywhere at anytime to help out the important fighter/bomber crews. And if you still need more info ask the GAF Tornado crew who were tanked out of a probable ejection by an RAF Tristar that got shot at in the process. I believe the captain got a DFC for that one!!
Then you could ask why the US ask for our recce and ISTAR assets. But if you don't know then you probably aren't cleared to know.
In GWII Storm Shadow was used before it had completed all company tests and it worked, again the US asked for this because they did not have an equivalent capability. If you have to compare weapons dropped then of course the USAF is going to drop more than the RAF and by a significant margin - 1 B52 can drop as many bombs, in one go, than an entire Sqn of Tornados. But then in case you hadn't noticed we don't own any B52s!!!!
All your bo
cks about statistics are fine and good, but when you are talking about numbers of aircraft commited to an op you are talking about GOVERNMENT POLICY, not RAF policy. The beancounters in HMT and the MOD set the numbers, of all forces, that are to be contributed to any one op, not anyone else. You can always go and look in the SAG Scenarios book to find out what the contributions are - you do have access to that, don't you? When you compare the US contribution to these ops any UK contribution is going to be tiny. How many boats did the RN commit compared to the USN/USMC? How many troops as % of total forces did the UK commit when compared to the US? The percentages are equally small.rafloo. It's professional, if that is an indication of the state of the RN at L-o-O then it's time to get out.
Ever land a FJ on a carrier at night in bad weather? Tell me one FJ jock is the same as another. Just don't expect me to believe it.
Squatting down on a 10,000 foot concrete runway in the dark is one thing but a pitching, rolling, heaving, weaving bit of steel is quite another.
Navy pilots can land on either....not so Air Force pilots.
Squatting down on a 10,000 foot concrete runway in the dark is one thing but a pitching, rolling, heaving, weaving bit of steel is quite another.
Navy pilots can land on either....not so Air Force pilots.
Originally Posted by SASless
not so Air Force pilots.
But them again I seem to remember a few RAF pilots on exhange on F14s and F18s!
Inquisitor asked for specifics.
I'll reiterate. Bang for the buck is the bottom line. Personnel to aircraft ratio, the number of people required to project how much force. Even with roughly 50,000 total personnel the RAF is strained by squeezing out a squadron or two to provide little more than a token presence in the theatre of operations. Good job the Americans are on-side to do the lion's share of any job. The personnel to aircraft ratio has to improve, inefficiencies have to dealt with. 50,000 personnel of which perhaps 1400 are aircrew - there are a lot of paper clip counters in the background. It has to slim down.
Take for example the Harrier. The Harrier is, and always was, a pig in a poke. A mastery of pre-Tony PR spin ( it's British; the whole world's queuing up for them; aren't we lucky to have them; shades of Concorde) in which reality was rendered subordinate to hubris. Did we really expect the massed hoards of Russian invaders to gasp in horror and drop their AK47s as the feared and mighty Harrier popped out of the well concealed wooded copse? Even if we initially did fall for this nonsense pertaining as it did to the situation of two decades ago, the sell by date has long since passed into history. The Harrier is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability. Although the aircraft itself is a flying joke it fails to amuse that this spam-can continues to fly on a tax payer sponsorship. Jobs for the boys perhaps, but jobs which serve no purpose except to drain the public purse.
Ground the whole useless lot now as they're a flying money pit which will not, from an operational point of view, be missed - except of course by those who've tied their and careers and sense of identity to the myth. The game is up, the tax payer can no longer afford to feed sacred cows. Over the past two decades how much has this flying bed-stand cost? And whatever that cost was, it's all been wasted money.
RW is a duplicated effort, no reason as to why those assets cannot be effectively transferred to the AAC/FAA. Do you seriously think that only RAF pilots are capable of flying these aircraft? A similar argument of replacing RAF aircrew with others can be made for much of the trucky operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a pilot force to be established on a part time basis to fly the transport assets. And there is no need for the trucky operation (transport or Maritime or AWACS) to stay under RAF control, that personnel count of 50,000 has to be drastically reduced. Moving the aircraft to other command structures within the Army/RN allows duplicated administration to be chopped. Does the RAF really need its own medical branch? Aviation medicine isn't that special.
Again, to reiterate. Much of the RAF is dangerously overrated, inefficient, duplicated and redundant. In retrospect the beginning of the end will be seen to be the Falklands, a test that was badly failed. The unpalatable truth is that Collins is right in pointing out flaws in the operational structure of UK armed forces. The situation is becoming untenable due to lack of money, a situation now so critical that it demands a rethink as to how business is to be conducted. We can no longer afford to ignore the elephant in the room by pretending that all is as well as can be expected.
Some low worth assets can be chopped and other assets can be moved to different operational control simply because that swollen mass of 50,000 personnel has to slim down.
I'll reiterate. Bang for the buck is the bottom line. Personnel to aircraft ratio, the number of people required to project how much force. Even with roughly 50,000 total personnel the RAF is strained by squeezing out a squadron or two to provide little more than a token presence in the theatre of operations. Good job the Americans are on-side to do the lion's share of any job. The personnel to aircraft ratio has to improve, inefficiencies have to dealt with. 50,000 personnel of which perhaps 1400 are aircrew - there are a lot of paper clip counters in the background. It has to slim down.
Take for example the Harrier. The Harrier is, and always was, a pig in a poke. A mastery of pre-Tony PR spin ( it's British; the whole world's queuing up for them; aren't we lucky to have them; shades of Concorde) in which reality was rendered subordinate to hubris. Did we really expect the massed hoards of Russian invaders to gasp in horror and drop their AK47s as the feared and mighty Harrier popped out of the well concealed wooded copse? Even if we initially did fall for this nonsense pertaining as it did to the situation of two decades ago, the sell by date has long since passed into history. The Harrier is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability. Although the aircraft itself is a flying joke it fails to amuse that this spam-can continues to fly on a tax payer sponsorship. Jobs for the boys perhaps, but jobs which serve no purpose except to drain the public purse.
Ground the whole useless lot now as they're a flying money pit which will not, from an operational point of view, be missed - except of course by those who've tied their and careers and sense of identity to the myth. The game is up, the tax payer can no longer afford to feed sacred cows. Over the past two decades how much has this flying bed-stand cost? And whatever that cost was, it's all been wasted money.
RW is a duplicated effort, no reason as to why those assets cannot be effectively transferred to the AAC/FAA. Do you seriously think that only RAF pilots are capable of flying these aircraft? A similar argument of replacing RAF aircrew with others can be made for much of the trucky operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a pilot force to be established on a part time basis to fly the transport assets. And there is no need for the trucky operation (transport or Maritime or AWACS) to stay under RAF control, that personnel count of 50,000 has to be drastically reduced. Moving the aircraft to other command structures within the Army/RN allows duplicated administration to be chopped. Does the RAF really need its own medical branch? Aviation medicine isn't that special.
Again, to reiterate. Much of the RAF is dangerously overrated, inefficient, duplicated and redundant. In retrospect the beginning of the end will be seen to be the Falklands, a test that was badly failed. The unpalatable truth is that Collins is right in pointing out flaws in the operational structure of UK armed forces. The situation is becoming untenable due to lack of money, a situation now so critical that it demands a rethink as to how business is to be conducted. We can no longer afford to ignore the elephant in the room by pretending that all is as well as can be expected.
Some low worth assets can be chopped and other assets can be moved to different operational control simply because that swollen mass of 50,000 personnel has to slim down.
Slug, just what illegal subtance are you using? Or is it just a regimental tradition?
Get up to date mate, you are woefully behind the times. The RAF is reducing. In case you had missed it, which you obviously have, it is already down from 50000, and it hasn't been at 50000 for some time. The current figure is 46K and that is set to reduce to about 41K with the next round of redundancies. It is possible/probable, under MTWS that it will reduce to 35K in the future. Get over it. There may only be 1400 pilots in the RAF (actually there are quite a few more than that) but there are, of course, air traffic controllers, fighter controllers, police, regiment, PEd staff, engineers, MT drivers, ops personnel, int personnel, radar technicians, caterers (sorry if I forgot anybody) as well as the Admin Staff in the RAF. And a large percentage of the admin branch are going thanks to JPA!! A bit more knowledge might be useful before you start slinging incorrect statements around!
Not quite sure what you have aginst the Harrier, maybe one scared you when you were a child, but it is set to stay in service for another 10 years or so BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO REPLACE IT IN ITS ROLE!!
And if they are that useless why has the Det in Kandahar just been extended? And if it that much rubbish why are the USMC still flying them and planning to continue to do so? Perhaps you need a little bit more study into the role of Air Power and a bit less time defending the use of the war horse!!
As for RW you are right, hand the Apaches over to the RAF, along with the Sea Kings and Lynx and we will look after it all for you. At least we can get it into service a bit quicker and perhaps buy some missiles that you can fire from all of the pylons.
Just where are the AAC and FAA going to recruit all these pilots from? The "truckies" are all leaving for the civil airline world already. Neither the FAA or AAC can train enough pilots for their own meagre, limited fleets and as the planners in M OD have already found out to their cost you cannot charter long-range AT when you want to fly into hot areas and nobody in the civil world does Tac AT!!
Finally does the RN or the Army require its own medical branch? If the answer is yes then why doesn't the RAF?
Get up to date mate, you are woefully behind the times. The RAF is reducing. In case you had missed it, which you obviously have, it is already down from 50000, and it hasn't been at 50000 for some time. The current figure is 46K and that is set to reduce to about 41K with the next round of redundancies. It is possible/probable, under MTWS that it will reduce to 35K in the future. Get over it. There may only be 1400 pilots in the RAF (actually there are quite a few more than that) but there are, of course, air traffic controllers, fighter controllers, police, regiment, PEd staff, engineers, MT drivers, ops personnel, int personnel, radar technicians, caterers (sorry if I forgot anybody) as well as the Admin Staff in the RAF. And a large percentage of the admin branch are going thanks to JPA!! A bit more knowledge might be useful before you start slinging incorrect statements around!
Not quite sure what you have aginst the Harrier, maybe one scared you when you were a child, but it is set to stay in service for another 10 years or so BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO REPLACE IT IN ITS ROLE!!
And if they are that useless why has the Det in Kandahar just been extended? And if it that much rubbish why are the USMC still flying them and planning to continue to do so? Perhaps you need a little bit more study into the role of Air Power and a bit less time defending the use of the war horse!!As for RW you are right, hand the Apaches over to the RAF, along with the Sea Kings and Lynx and we will look after it all for you. At least we can get it into service a bit quicker and perhaps buy some missiles that you can fire from all of the pylons.
Just where are the AAC and FAA going to recruit all these pilots from? The "truckies" are all leaving for the civil airline world already. Neither the FAA or AAC can train enough pilots for their own meagre, limited fleets and as the planners in M OD have already found out to their cost you cannot charter long-range AT when you want to fly into hot areas and nobody in the civil world does Tac AT!!
Finally does the RN or the Army require its own medical branch? If the answer is yes then why doesn't the RAF?
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 17th May 2006 at 20:45.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by randomname
I'm loving this thread. I am seriously beginning to think there are some army dudes who think that a) they understand air power and b) think they can do it better than us
Hilarious
Hilarious
Far from being pissed off I am very much amused.
NC43
Yes Roland, and they did so only after the necessary training....which is much beyond that of a dirt based FJ Jock. Not every Air Force pilot can be a carrier pilot either, there is a wash out rate for that task.
Harrier.....nice concept on paper. It proved its worth in the Falklands. Why nothing to replace it? If you had proper carriers instead of carriers built to handle Harriers then you could cheaply replace the Harrier.
At what point does the RAF become so small (dictates lessen capability as a result) that it really does become a junior jet jockey flying club? You have no bombers....no stealth attack aircraft....your strategic air transport fleet is hopelessly unable to sustain distant operations of any size.
The only reason the Harrier was begged for was the total absence of any other CAS aircraft. Anything is better than nothing when the wolf is scratching on the door.
Harrier.....nice concept on paper. It proved its worth in the Falklands. Why nothing to replace it? If you had proper carriers instead of carriers built to handle Harriers then you could cheaply replace the Harrier.
At what point does the RAF become so small (dictates lessen capability as a result) that it really does become a junior jet jockey flying club? You have no bombers....no stealth attack aircraft....your strategic air transport fleet is hopelessly unable to sustain distant operations of any size.
The only reason the Harrier was begged for was the total absence of any other CAS aircraft. Anything is better than nothing when the wolf is scratching on the door.