Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are capable of escalating levels of weaponry
The policy of escalation that the harriers are using works extremely well.
Also saves the UK tax payer money as 1 CRV7 rocket costs a hell of a lot less than other weapons and does the trick nicely on personnel in caves, on donkeys etc.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Mawgan
Age: 48
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before you all take this seriously, please read post #199!
Tongue firmly in cheek...
Bang for the buck is the bottom line. Support personnel to operational personnel ratio, the number of people required to project how much force. Even with roughly 100,000 total personnel the Army is strained by squeezing out an understrength division 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 ratio has to improve, inefficiencies have to dealt with. 100,000 personnel of which perhaps 10,000 are in Iraq/Afghanistan/Eastern Europe - there are a lot of paper clip counters in the background. It has to slim down.
Take for example the Challenger II. The Challenger II is, and always was, a pig in a poke. A mastery of pre-Tony PR spin ( it's British; it's a tank; aren't we lucky to have them) 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 few Challengers we had tried to slow them down? 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 Challenger is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability. Although the tank itself is a non-flying joke it fails to amuse that this spam-can continues to drive on tax payer sponsorship. Jobs for the boys perhaps, but jobs which serve no purpose except to drain the public purse.
Scrap the whole useless lot now as they're a 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 tin can 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 RAF. Do you seriously think that only AAC pilots are capable of flying these aircraft? A similar argument of replacing Army personnel with others can be made for much of the logistics operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a reserve force to be established on a part time basis to drive the trucks. And there is no need for the trucky operation to stay under Army control, that personnel count of 100,000 has to be drastically reduced. Moving the vehicles to other command structures within the RN/RAF allows duplicated administration to be chopped. Does the Army really need its own medical branch? Battlefield medicine isn't that special.
Again, to reiterate. Much of the Army 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 100,000 personnel has to slim down.
Tongue firmly in cheek...
Bang for the buck is the bottom line. Support personnel to operational personnel ratio, the number of people required to project how much force. Even with roughly 100,000 total personnel the Army is strained by squeezing out an understrength division 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 ratio has to improve, inefficiencies have to dealt with. 100,000 personnel of which perhaps 10,000 are in Iraq/Afghanistan/Eastern Europe - there are a lot of paper clip counters in the background. It has to slim down.
Take for example the Challenger II. The Challenger II is, and always was, a pig in a poke. A mastery of pre-Tony PR spin ( it's British; it's a tank; aren't we lucky to have them) 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 few Challengers we had tried to slow them down? 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 Challenger is nothing more than an over-hyped spam-can of limited speed, limited range and limited weapon capability. Although the tank itself is a non-flying joke it fails to amuse that this spam-can continues to drive on tax payer sponsorship. Jobs for the boys perhaps, but jobs which serve no purpose except to drain the public purse.
Scrap the whole useless lot now as they're a 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 tin can 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 RAF. Do you seriously think that only AAC pilots are capable of flying these aircraft? A similar argument of replacing Army personnel with others can be made for much of the logistics operation. Establishing a viable reserve along the lines of that of the US reserves would allow a reserve force to be established on a part time basis to drive the trucks. And there is no need for the trucky operation to stay under Army control, that personnel count of 100,000 has to be drastically reduced. Moving the vehicles to other command structures within the RN/RAF allows duplicated administration to be chopped. Does the Army really need its own medical branch? Battlefield medicine isn't that special.
Again, to reiterate. Much of the Army 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 100,000 personnel has to slim down.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Days Like These
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.
And what makes these comments factual? A-10 can carry everything up to/including the kitchen sink, way more than the Harrier as far as load out. So, you can go from the gun, to rockets, to Mavericks, and so on.
And why will a Harrier fly lower than the 'Hog?
BTW, I am a fan of the Harrier, in whatever flavor - Brit, USMC, or others, but these two comments just don't jibe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm intrigued that the RAF assets the US allegedly considered 'essential' amounted to:
3 x Canberra (now retired)
3 x R1
About a dozen ancient tankers
Er, that's it. So can we assume the US considered the other 95% of the RAF a complete waste of space?
I'm well aware USN/USMC use the same refueling system as the RAF. I'm also well aware that some 100 USAF tankers are permanently fitted with that system, and that any of several hundred KC135s can easily be converted to a P&D system by the simple expedient of removing the lower half of the boom and replacing it with a hose. Not ideal, but it works. The idea that the RAF's tanker fleet was 'essential' to the Afghan ops is absurd - USAF could easily have done it if it needed to.
As SASless pointed out, a single squadron of B1/B2/B52 has more striking power than the entire RAF.
3 x Canberra (now retired)
3 x R1
About a dozen ancient tankers
Er, that's it. So can we assume the US considered the other 95% of the RAF a complete waste of space?
I'm well aware USN/USMC use the same refueling system as the RAF. I'm also well aware that some 100 USAF tankers are permanently fitted with that system, and that any of several hundred KC135s can easily be converted to a P&D system by the simple expedient of removing the lower half of the boom and replacing it with a hose. Not ideal, but it works. The idea that the RAF's tanker fleet was 'essential' to the Afghan ops is absurd - USAF could easily have done it if it needed to.
As SASless pointed out, a single squadron of B1/B2/B52 has more striking power than the entire RAF.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what Tim Collins says in a round about kind of way is that UK PLC can't afford them. Wish they could personly but then we probably wouldn't be allowed to fix them over here anyway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
I'm intrigued that the RAF assets the US allegedly considered 'essential' amounted to:
3 x Canberra (now retired)
3 x R1
About a dozen ancient tankers
Er, that's it. So can we assume the US considered the other 95% of the RAF a complete waste of space?
I'm well aware USN/USMC use the same refueling system as the RAF. I'm also well aware that some 100 USAF tankers are permanently fitted with that system, and that any of several hundred KC135s can easily be converted to a P&D system by the simple expedient of removing the lower half of the boom and replacing it with a hose. Not ideal, but it works. The idea that the RAF's tanker fleet was 'essential' to the Afghan ops is absurd - USAF could easily have done it if it needed to.
As SASless pointed out, a single squadron of B1/B2/B52 has more striking power than the entire RAF.
3 x Canberra (now retired)
3 x R1
About a dozen ancient tankers
Er, that's it. So can we assume the US considered the other 95% of the RAF a complete waste of space?
I'm well aware USN/USMC use the same refueling system as the RAF. I'm also well aware that some 100 USAF tankers are permanently fitted with that system, and that any of several hundred KC135s can easily be converted to a P&D system by the simple expedient of removing the lower half of the boom and replacing it with a hose. Not ideal, but it works. The idea that the RAF's tanker fleet was 'essential' to the Afghan ops is absurd - USAF could easily have done it if it needed to.
As SASless pointed out, a single squadron of B1/B2/B52 has more striking power than the entire RAF.
Only the USAF's KC-10 fleet is permantly configured for both boom and drogue. That number is not close to 100. If you stick the drogue on the
-135s, it can be used only to refuel probe equipped aircraft. The USMC's KC-130s are drogue only capable.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puts tongue firmly in cheek.....
Keep the RAF, but take all of their helicopter capability from them. Give the helo's to the FAA (they are the only ones who know how to operate the damn things in rough weather). Take fast jets from FAA and leave the RAF to play with them and the troop transports.
Army and RM only get scouts and Apache so they can give CAS.
So RM/Army CAS for troops and tank busting.
RAF for fast jets/bombers, troop transport and cargo.
RN for Sub hunting/SAR/Troop deployment (note to crabs, this also means pickup)
Clear borders for all services and no doubling up on roles. RAF get aircraft and training to deploy on carriers regularly (so they can do some weekend work for once) RN and Army work close together on Joint ops SUPPORTING each other.
Everyones a big happy family.
Or we go the route of the USMC. Disband the RAF and Army, kick out everyone who is not good enough to wear the Green Beret 99.9% and let Royal play with all of the toys. If Royal can manage to do so well with crap kit, just imagine what it could achieve with a good budget and nice shiny whizz bangs.
Keep the RAF, but take all of their helicopter capability from them. Give the helo's to the FAA (they are the only ones who know how to operate the damn things in rough weather). Take fast jets from FAA and leave the RAF to play with them and the troop transports.
Army and RM only get scouts and Apache so they can give CAS.
So RM/Army CAS for troops and tank busting.
RAF for fast jets/bombers, troop transport and cargo.
RN for Sub hunting/SAR/Troop deployment (note to crabs, this also means pickup)
Clear borders for all services and no doubling up on roles. RAF get aircraft and training to deploy on carriers regularly (so they can do some weekend work for once) RN and Army work close together on Joint ops SUPPORTING each other.
Everyones a big happy family.
Or we go the route of the USMC. Disband the RAF and Army, kick out everyone who is not good enough to wear the Green Beret 99.9% and let Royal play with all of the toys. If Royal can manage to do so well with crap kit, just imagine what it could achieve with a good budget and nice shiny whizz bangs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take fast jets from FAA
Jetstreams, FRADU hawks and grobs are all the fixed wing we have these days.
Sounds like we all go booty!
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 18th May 2006 at 11:11. Reason: A good idea!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brickhistory
There are, IIRC, 59 KC10's. Also, weren't some 49 KC135R's fitted with drogues in addition to booms?
Your point about KC135s not being able to refuel USAF aircraft with the boom replaced by a drogue is correct - the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever
There are, IIRC, 59 KC10's. Also, weren't some 49 KC135R's fitted with drogues in addition to booms?
Your point about KC135s not being able to refuel USAF aircraft with the boom replaced by a drogue is correct - the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunkerama,
Ideally FSTA (if it ever comes) will have both flying boom and drogues, enabling it to refuel just about any fixed-wing aircraft. Currently the RAF can only refuel USN/USMC FJ, 'cos they use the drogue method like the RAF.
Ideally FSTA (if it ever comes) will have both flying boom and drogues, enabling it to refuel just about any fixed-wing aircraft. Currently the RAF can only refuel USN/USMC FJ, 'cos they use the drogue method like the RAF.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WhiteOvies
Already mostly happened with the formation of JFH. Firmly in the hands of STC command despite being RN Squadrons. And yes that's asuming you think of Harriers as fast
Jetstreams, FRADU hawks and grobs are all the fixed wing we have these days.
Sounds like we all go booty!
Jetstreams, FRADU hawks and grobs are all the fixed wing we have these days.
Sounds like we all go booty!
Gentleman Aviator
Having just laboured throught he whole thread (very few valid points and too much willy-waving) I'm surprised no-one mentioned what I would see as the biggest problem. (tongue only slightly in cheek).
Politicians are one group who know even less about air power than the average infantry officer. My biggest fear would be our cyclopian, non-driving Jockistani Chancellor ....
3 services = Defence Budget £ xM (where x=not enough).
Therefore 2 services = Defence Budget £ 0.67xM ....... (even more not enough!)
.... it's about as detailed as defence thinking gets in the Treasury ......
Politicians are one group who know even less about air power than the average infantry officer. My biggest fear would be our cyclopian, non-driving Jockistani Chancellor ....
3 services = Defence Budget £ xM (where x=not enough).
Therefore 2 services = Defence Budget £ 0.67xM ....... (even more not enough!)
.... it's about as detailed as defence thinking gets in the Treasury ......
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even HMT needs a little more evidence upon which to base major decisions!
Without mistaking the obviously prejudiced comments of a few as representative (there seems to be only half a dozen individuals, if we include Tim Collins, who are determined to put-down the RAF) it is, nevertheless, entertaining to see just how narrow these views are.
The RAF has put a great deal of effort into embracing Jointery - it is evident that some of our colleagues are less Joint in outlook. That is their mistake and such legacy thinking will ultimately only discredit their own organisations. We should not abandon the intellectual high-ground by adopting equally puerile counter-arguments. Interesting that so many hang around this forum and appear so bitter failed RAF perhaps?
rafloo, rat, SASless, Lazer (er, thats it I think) Im sure you know better but be good chaps and run along now let the professionals get on with delivering air and space power!
Without mistaking the obviously prejudiced comments of a few as representative (there seems to be only half a dozen individuals, if we include Tim Collins, who are determined to put-down the RAF) it is, nevertheless, entertaining to see just how narrow these views are.
The RAF has put a great deal of effort into embracing Jointery - it is evident that some of our colleagues are less Joint in outlook. That is their mistake and such legacy thinking will ultimately only discredit their own organisations. We should not abandon the intellectual high-ground by adopting equally puerile counter-arguments. Interesting that so many hang around this forum and appear so bitter failed RAF perhaps?
rafloo, rat, SASless, Lazer (er, thats it I think) Im sure you know better but be good chaps and run along now let the professionals get on with delivering air and space power!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
brickhistory
There are, IIRC, 59 KC10's. Also, weren't some 49 KC135R's fitted with drogues in addition to booms?
Your point about KC135s not being able to refuel USAF aircraft with the boom replaced by a drogue is correct - the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever
There are, IIRC, 59 KC10's. Also, weren't some 49 KC135R's fitted with drogues in addition to booms?
Your point about KC135s not being able to refuel USAF aircraft with the boom replaced by a drogue is correct - the RAF cannot refuel USAF aircraft at all, ever
Lazer,
To the best of my knowledge, no USAF -135s are permanently fitted with drogue kits. I do know other users have the pods fitted, but not the USAF's. I believe we still have to individually reconfigure for each drogue mission.
But, I am not a tanker expert, so if you've got better info, I'll defer.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Kirk
Interesting that so many hang around this forum and appear so bitter failed RAF perhaps?
let the professionals get on with delivering air and space power!
let the professionals get on with delivering air and space power!
Why are members of the Army and Navy coming on this board to attack the RAF when they should be attacking the govt? If Brown and Bliar ever managed to oust the RAF, guess where they will be looking next for their budget cuts to support illegal immigrants?
Just one note CK, I think your comment regarding failed RAF is a bit choice, I don't think RAF basic is really all that taxing is it?
Also since when has the RAF been involved with space?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good idea Mr Collins.
Presumably we'll need to close a few bases to save a bit of money. That means we can axe a few Admin staff and, with JPA, who's going to miss them?
Now, which bases to close so that we can bring the assets together?
Well, the RAF is the junior service; so last in, first out - baaaaa, sorry lads. Just pop those Nimrods, Typhoons and Tornado things down to barracks in London will you. What was that, no airfield? Can't the Harriers park on the cricket pitch? How about Warminster?
How about moving the cavalry then? Up to Coningsby - near any Army training ranges? Oh. That won't work then. Never mind - far too far from the city anyway.
Presumably we'll need to close a few bases to save a bit of money. That means we can axe a few Admin staff and, with JPA, who's going to miss them?
Now, which bases to close so that we can bring the assets together?
Well, the RAF is the junior service; so last in, first out - baaaaa, sorry lads. Just pop those Nimrods, Typhoons and Tornado things down to barracks in London will you. What was that, no airfield? Can't the Harriers park on the cricket pitch? How about Warminster?
How about moving the cavalry then? Up to Coningsby - near any Army training ranges? Oh. That won't work then. Never mind - far too far from the city anyway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brickhistory:
45 KC135 have wingtip drogue pods:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc135/
Now, my maths may be a bit off but methings 59 KC10 + 45 KC135 = 104 boom and drogue equipped USAF tankers.
45 KC135 have wingtip drogue pods:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc135/
Now, my maths may be a bit off but methings 59 KC10 + 45 KC135 = 104 boom and drogue equipped USAF tankers.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skunk,
I had given up on this but your refreshingly balanced post deserves a reply.
I would wholeheartedly agree that RAF basic training is not, in my opinion, nearly taxing enough (hopefully this is being addressed). Specialist training, however, is invariably more testing and is where aspirants generally wash-out especially for the flying cadres.
As for space tell me where the atmosphere stops!? As a forward thinking force, we must recognise that in the future there will be an increasingly blurred division between air and space capabilities.
I had given up on this but your refreshingly balanced post deserves a reply.
I would wholeheartedly agree that RAF basic training is not, in my opinion, nearly taxing enough (hopefully this is being addressed). Specialist training, however, is invariably more testing and is where aspirants generally wash-out especially for the flying cadres.
As for space tell me where the atmosphere stops!? As a forward thinking force, we must recognise that in the future there will be an increasingly blurred division between air and space capabilities.