Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by brickhistory
Lazer,
But, I am not a tanker expert, so if you've got better info, I'll defer.
But, I am not a tanker expert, so if you've got better info, I'll defer.
Last edited by brickhistory; 18th May 2006 at 13:14.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CK, I would hope that specialist training in the RAF is the best in the world, after all don't other air forces send their people to learn at the knee of the RAF? Surely there is a fair bit of cash coming in from that?
I do like the idea of us being able to work in space but I doubt world leaders will ever be farsighted enough to give any more than a paltry budget to explore space. After all they learnt their lesson back in 63, "don't think big or it's the grassy knoll for you".
I do like the idea of us being able to work in space but I doubt world leaders will ever be farsighted enough to give any more than a paltry budget to explore space. After all they learnt their lesson back in 63, "don't think big or it's the grassy knoll for you".
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
Now, my maths may be a bit off but methings 59 KC10 + 45 KC135 = 104 boom and drogue equipped USAF tankers
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
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.
Mead Pusher
The best riposte so far!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland Purfew
As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.
What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?
As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.
What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by WhiteOvies
Ther's a discussion - to lighten things up - the 51st state: UK, Canada or Israel?
Umm, thanks for the offer, but we've enought problems with immigration at the moment. Adding to it by taking all the illegals in the countries listed will not help at all!
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
Roland Purfew
As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.
What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?
As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.
What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?
In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary
In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the UK's military contribution completely if necessary.
Mead Pusher
We've civlianised Oakhanger - a contractor now runs the UK's mil sattelites. We still do BMEWS (OK the US could probably do it without us.. blah.. blah). That's not to say that the UK shouldn't have a concept of how it should use space based assets (wether military owned or military used). This concept was produced by the MOD alongside air in FASOC. I suppose that there is a certain degreee of logic here as no one can deny that Space is physically closer to Air than it is to the ground or the sea.
Remember, in space no one can hear you...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Climebear
Could be accurately rewritten as
In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the UK's military contribution completely if necessary.
In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the UK's military contribution completely if necessary.
The Canadian/American relationship is just fine as is. The Israeli's are doing fine by themselves. The UK....we threw you out twice already....get the message?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by SASless
The Canadian/American relationship is just fine as is. The Israeli's are doing fine by themselves. The UK....we threw you out twice already....get the message?
?Que? Canada likes us? Hmmm, not by what I see in their press.
Isreal doing fine by themselves? So, we can disengage from the Iran threatening to nuke them and the rest of the Arab world hating problems?
Can't think of anything to refute your third statement, so
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheyenne? Really?
Originally Posted by dallas
Wizzard
Actually it was the Lakota Northern Cheyenne who did for Custer which, unless it's one of those specialist artillery spotter aircraft, is not a type currently flown by the British Army.
Actually it was the Lakota Northern Cheyenne who did for Custer which, unless it's one of those specialist artillery spotter aircraft, is not a type currently flown by the British Army.
Is this diverging from the subject? ok:
Tim Collins, top bloke, daft comments.
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
Roland Purfew
As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.
What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?
As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.
What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?
Old to ancient is just the airframes, it's what is on the inside that counts and lots of that isn't old to ancient, if you don't know then you aren't cleared to know. By your arguement the USAF should get rid of it B52 fleet, mostly 40+ years old and likely to serve until some frames are 80 years. The KC135 fleet is mostly 40+ and likely to serve for a few years yet (given the wrangles on the KC767/KC-X programmes). Old doesn't necessarily mean useless or lacking in capability!!
And NO, I do not support the niche capabilities arguement, just as the Israelis and the French and the Germans even the Swedes do not! I just wish President for Life Bliar would invest properly in HM's Armed Forces.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we threw you out twice already....get the message?
You know that bit about 'oh say can you see by the red rocket's glow?'
Them's our rockets!
Coming soon, Mel Gibson in “1812!” A Rewriting history production™, where Mel liberates the Canadians from the brutal repression of General Wolfe.
Share the jubilations of Canadians as they rush to become Americans!
Marvel at the skill of arms of the American militia!
Watch as Mel’s character, general Cheeseburger II, romances a young Queen Victoria (Lilly Savage)
......or perhaps not
The White House needs burning everynow and then....sometimes with the occupants still inside the thing.
Yeah....some victory that.....kinda like the one down near New Orleans. Care to remind us how that one turned out?
The Brits and Germans have a lot in common besides Kings and Queens....we beat you both twice each.
Yeah....some victory that.....kinda like the one down near New Orleans. Care to remind us how that one turned out?
The Brits and Germans have a lot in common besides Kings and Queens....we beat you both twice each.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
The Canadian/American relationship is just fine as is. The Israeli's are doing fine by themselves. The UK....we threw you out twice already....get the message?
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/USA
Enjoy.