Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins

[Archimedes]

Originally Posted by ratpackgreenslug

Inquisitor asked for specifics.

<snip>

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.

As Roland notes, you're missing out the chaps in Afghanistan to whom the GR7 provides CAS (and NB that thanks to the state of the runway, only the GR7 can use it at the moment)... The decision to extend the deployment wasn't one taken just to allow the GR7 to show off, either - you'll find that some senior army types were eager for the extension to be approved.

Originally Posted by ratpackgreenslug

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.

Building up that sort of reserve would be far too expensive - we'd have kept the RAuxAF if it had been more cost-effective than the regulars, but it wasn't. Furthermore, the reserve force would, presumably, need to be have some currency beyond week-end flying. In which case, the airlines that faced losing pilots would, no doubt, demand large sums of cash in compensation to be factored into the deal.

Originally Posted by ratpackgreenslug

<snip> In retrospect the beginning of the end will be seen to be the Falklands, a test that was badly failed.

If you ask Admirals Leach and Woodward (I haven't, but was there when someone did...), they will tell you that the RAF was really rather useful during CORPORATE.

I assume that you're making the usual error of thinking that the Vulcan raids were all the RAF did, otherwise (as per Sharkey Ward), they'd have done nothing.

This discounts several key things the RAF undertook - Maritime Radar Recce; Maritime Patrol; sustaining the air bridge and providing the AAR to fly more SHARs 'down South'. Harrier GR 3s undertook a notable number of sorties, destroying several Argentine aircraft on the ground, and playing an important part at Goose Green when a strike by GR3s helped to reinforce Chris Keeble's message that the Argentines were in a spot of bother and really ought to surrender. And don't forget that about 25% of the SHAR pilots were light blue, and they accounted for about 25% of the air-air victories.


By the by, Admirals Leach and Fieldhouse also spoke appreciatively of the effect that the Vulcan raid had on the Argentines and did not consider the single bomb to strike the runway as being a failure -

" My dark blue aviators said 'Oh, it's the air force just trying to get in on the act', but I said.... it wil have exactly that effect of causing them to think 'they could come at us on the mainland." It is showing reach and therefore it is deterrent, And I suspect it made them hold back some of their Mirages, which could have acted as top cover for their A-4 raids. So I signed up for it and told my aviators to shut up." (Admiral Woodward)


We can argue all year/decade as to whether all of this could have been done by FAA & AAC controlled assets, but that's not the point - they were RAF controlled and made a notable contribution. It's rather unfair to label the efforts 'a failure'.

[rafloo]

Originally Posted by SASless

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.

A good point..as well as the fact that the when you return from your sortie, the Airfield has gone....moved...

[Roland Pulfrew]

Sas-

For someone apparently so up to date you display a lack of knowledge. There is a replacement planned for the CVS, it's a programme called CVF. It is planned and it may come equipped with JSF, assuming JSF ever comes. As for fewer personnel equalling less capability, again you are wrong. The current GR4 and GR9 have more capability than the preceeding fleets of larger (more numbers) aircraft. If HMT ever invest in the full Tranche 3 Typhoon again bang for buck will be enhanced even further. With each generation of new aircraft you need fewer numbers to provide the same or better capability. Look at the number of F22s the USAF are getting. Furthermore precision is the way ahead, LH said that the RAF only dropped 6% of the bombs but they all hit their targets then you are saving the taxpayers hard earned cash.

Until CVF comes we have to work with what we have got - simple concept really. For that reason the Harrier is deployed to Afghanistan, as you said there is nothing else available and something is better than nothing. As for the AT fleet, you are right it is a small fleet, but it is big enough to support the small limited, army deployments that our President sends us on. We could obviously do with more C17s, but then who couldn't? Even the USAF want more and they have some 150 of the things!!! Our current op tempo may be using up the fatigue life so fast that they won't reach their planned OSDs, but then President-in-Waiting Broon won't have to worry about replacing them early! Will he?

[serf]

Engineering Wing - 1 Wing Commander and X amount of blokes.

RAF efficiency drive:

Engineering split into Depth & Forward - 2 Wing Commanders and the same X amount of blokes.

I think the thrust of most arguements is that the RAF is overmanned and inefficient.

This thread is a hoot !

[TheInquisitor]

Ok, slug.

Take for example the Harrier. The Harrier is, and always was, a pig in a poke.

So much so, that the Americans bought the design rights from us and built them for the USMC - name another military aircraft in modern times that the Americans have bought from anybody else?

The Harrier is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability.

And you are basing this on WHAT, exactly? The Harrier is the most potent and capable CAS aircraft ever used in combat. Your knowledge of aircraft in general, and the Harrier in particular, is considerably lacking - a timely demostration, if one were needed, that the Army simply do not have the ability to operate modern air power.

Even with roughly 50,000 total personnel the RAF is strained by squeezing out a squadron or two to provide little more than a token presence in the theatre of operations.

No, just in YOUR theatre of operations. The RAF is currently operating in MANY theatres, doing all kinds of jobs. I suggest you educate yourself. Does the fact that we are strained to provide what we do not suggest that there is little fat to be trimmed from our current numbers? (which are closer to 41,000, by the way - or will be soon).

RW is a duplicated effort, no reason as to why those assets cannot be effectively transferred to the AAC/FAA.

This I partially agree with - the other two services already have experience of helo ops, so subsuming RW from the RAF may be possible - but it certainly will not save any money; I will explain my reasoning shortly.

A similar argument of replacing RAF aircrew with others can be made for much of the trucky operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a pilot force to be established on a part time basis to fly the transport assets.

No, it wouldn't. The productivity you get from a reservist is way below what you would get from a full-time service pilot working part-time, for many reasons. Understand that almost ALL reservist pilots (we have several) have airline jobs, limiting their availability and therefore their usefullness. Also, reservists cannot be sent into Operational theatres at the drop of a hat - they have to be called up by Parliament. Doing so would almost certainly cost an airline pilot his job - you cannot simply hop from one aircraft type to another, you have to maintain currency on a type to be able to fly it. Operational flying ALWAYS brings with it short or no-notice committments. In short, a non-starter.

And there is no need for the trucky operation (transport or Maritime or AWACS) to stay under RAF control

But there IS a need for the personnel and therefore the expertise that the RAF currently has - and 99% of them will tell the Army and the RN exactly where they can shove their 'offer' to transfer to them. (As volunteers, we cannot legally be forced to transfer). And I really wouldn't call a Nimrod mate a 'Trucky' to his face - you would be liable to having yours rearranged.

Does the RAF really need its own medical branch? Aviation medicine isn't that special.

Yes, it is. I suggest you speak to an AvMed Q'd doctor before you make such rash statements.

Moving the aircraft to other command structures within the Army/RN allows duplicated administration to be chopped.

And here we reach the crux of the matter, the so called 'savings' to be made by getting rid of RAF admin and support. Do you really believe that the current Army / RN admin setup can deal with an extra 35-40,000 personnel? The ratio of adminers to personnel is roughly the same in both services. The other services would need to gain every admin post that the RAF loses, so where are your cost savings?

Doubtless you will attempt to quote the magical 'groundcrew to aircraft' ratio myth - which IS a myth for two reasons. Firstly, the RAFs aircraft inventory is far more complex than either the Navy or Army's - ergo, you need more people to fix and maintain them. Also, we do all our own fixing - we don't rely on the REME to fix our aircraft the way the AAC do. Secondly, the RAF appears overborne in support personnel when compared to the AAC / FAA - but this is because both of these little flying clubs rely on the support infrastructure of their parent organisations in order to do business. We have everything in-house.

Explain how you could possibly cut down on the number of aircraft techies we currently have, given that we have now truly been cut to the bone in that department and can barely cope as it is.

And you cannot seriously expect Sqn execs to just find the time to write an extra 2,500 aircrew annual reports? Or manage twice or three times the number of personnel they currently do?

And how will you train all these new 'recruits'? Will you just magically conjure up 41,000 extra sets of uniform (at no cost, of course), put them on the newcomers and send them off to their new units? This assumes, of course, you could persuade ANYONE to transfer.

Much of the RAF is dangerously overrated, inefficient, duplicated and redundant

Explain how? Exactly what in the RAF is 'redundant'? Explain how the other two services can be more 'efficient', given that they would have to absorb almost all of our current posts?

In summary - a big post that was long on bluff and bluster, full of inaccurate facts and assumptions, or just plain ignorance, and short on actual, viable proposals.

You don't work for New Labour, do you?

[Almost_done]

ratpackgreenslug

Do us all a favour and read the AP 3000, it may broaden your horizons, not say there are much better tomes out there but at least it’s a start.

[SRENNAPS]

Surf:
Quote:
"Engineering Wing - 1 Wing Commander and X amount of blokes.
RAF efficiency drive:
Engineering split into Depth & Forward - 2 Wing Commanders and the same X amount of blokes".
Surf:
Yes I agree now two Wing Commanders. But the same no of blokes?????? You are having a laugh.
Have you heard of lean, pulse lines, MRMS etc, etc.
See if you can find an ASF with "Blue Suiters" any more. All civies these days mate.
TheInquisitor.
Very well said.
PS: Could somebody tell me how to do "quotes" properly. Ta.

[TheInquisitor]

type [qoute] immediately before what you want to quote, folowed by [/qoute] immediately after it.

...except spell "quote" correctly (couldn't illustrate that or it would have put "immediately before what you want to quote, folowed by" as a quote!!!

[SASless]

The Harrier is the most potent and capable CAS aircraft ever used in combat.

Now that is utter and complete bollocks!

The productivity you get from a reservist is way below what you would get from a full-time service pilot working part-time, for many reasons. Understand that almost ALL reservist pilots (we have several) have airline jobs, limiting their availability and therefore their usefullness. Also, reservists cannot be sent into Operational theatres at the drop of a hat - they have to be called up by Parliament. Doing so would almost certainly cost an airline pilot his job - you cannot simply hop from one aircraft type to another, you have to maintain currency on a type to be able to fly it. Operational flying ALWAYS brings with it short or no-notice committments. In short, a non-starter.

Perhaps you have forgotten about the US Air National Guard for a starter. More bollocks!

[TheInquisitor]

How so? Give me another aircraft that even comes close to Harrier's capabilities.

I have worked with the US ANG briefly - and what works in the US will not necessarily work here. We HAVE reservists already, and they are of very limited use.

[SASless]

For a start....with the right seeker....three meter accuracy. Loiter time over target....most of a calendar day....bombed up with GP dumb bombs....Fantastic!


Why don't you adopt the National Guard system then....it works!



Either of these beats the Harrier I would suggest.

[Archimedes]

We can't afford to adopt a National Guard type system, SASless, and while I have seen research papers that tackle the idea, they've all concluded that the system simply wouldn't translate, even if the money was there.

Also, transplanting the chain of command extant for the Guard would mean Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley would end up with their own air force. And Ken Livingstone, for that matter. Think we'd rather avoid that if it's all the same to you, old chap...

[TheInquisitor]

BUFF and the A-10 require hardened runways - BUFF requires rather alot of runway - Harrier does not.

And I'd like to see anybody attempt to hover BUFF - now THAT would be a neat trick! Or an A-10 for that matter.

The A-10 is all about it's gun - only an advantage if you're facing tanks, which the current enemy do not have.

And BOTH would be eaten alive by the Harrier air-to-air.

AN apples and oranges comparison I'm afraid.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

Why don't you adopt the National Guard system

...because we don't have a problem with immigration from Mexico?

[TheInquisitor]

We do from everywhere else.....

[SASless]

Quiz,

Are the Harriers in Iraq or Afghanistan operating from a hover and carrying any kind of load? Have they ever done so in combat? How does the Harrier like dusty hover downs? Guns like that of the A-10 are quite useful on people, machinegun emplacements, and other targets as well.

Air to Air is not CAS thus not an issue. Thus far Al Qaeda only hijacks aircraft.

[saudipc-9]

Well as an Air Force Officer I think we should get rid of the Army because they smell of soup

[Days Like These]

Are the Harriers in Iraq or Afghanistan operating from a hover and carrying any kind of load? Have they ever done so in combat? How does the Harrier like dusty hover downs? Guns like that of the A-10 are quite useful on people, machinegun emplacements, and other targets as well.

I think you'll find that the GR7s carry quite a significant load and have an advantage over the A-10 in that they are capable of escalating levels of weaponry. Also, the GR7 will fly significantly lower than the A-10 thus making it more effective for shows of force. Also, the serviceability and turnaround of the GR7 is particularly impressive.

Air to Air is not CAS thus not an issue. Thus far Al Qaeda only hijacks aircraft.

Can't argue with that one!

[Maple 01]

I remember a 'thank you' note circulating a year of so back from some US Marines that were on the verge of being sent to Hell to regroup by the Taliban until a flight of the 'useless' GR7s pitched up......from the letter they were quite keen on the RAF in general and the CAS being flown by Harriers in particular.....another unsolicited testimonial......perhaps we should use it in the adds?

'I liked the Harrier so much I designated for it!'

[SRENNAPS]

TheInquisitor
Thanks for that. I thought I had tried that way but it did not seem to work. It must be finger trouble.
And I'd had a few after the football.