Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizzard made a comment earlier in the thread that seems to have passed most by about protesting too much.
I haven't read the link by Col C because I'm sure it has an element of all the passion filled comments from tosh to fact, wind up to pragmatism.
But why is it do you think that so many light blue (or advocates thereof) end up with multiple exclamation mark replies on this thread when it seems so clear that the RAF is fundamental in it's own right? Why doesn't the text itself have enough weight behind it without needing to be endnoted with !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?
Why would CAS and other Air Ranks feel the need to explain the cenral role of the RAF, or land grab (do you like what I did there?) 'Space' into the Future Air Operational Concept (FAOC) and make it FASOC? As though space, about as tri-service as it gets, was there to be bagged to grow your shrinking empire and shore up a future where the next CAS may just not be from the single seat master race. After all, how could a multi Nav or even a Rock possibly have any idea about running an air force?
I did chuckle in a previous thread when a multiple exclam mentioned that the RAF was the most progressive and open to change. SASless made some interesting comments that were aways going to threaten the paranoid; those from another service who work in the 'J' environment with our light blue brothers will see elements of inertia that would back up his comments. Not everywhere and certainly not exclusive to the RAF; but the most progressive? Not at this moment in time.
Trying to relaunch the new expeditionary Air Force by rolling out a bunch of camo trucks that the media either thought were Army or just ignored is not progression, it's branding ++
Most journos saw through the rather obvious hijack of the JFH day at Cottesmore to push Typhoon and the Expeditionary Air Wing (EAW) concept. Valid in it's own right, the EAW is a good way to focus those non formed units and make them feel involved in future deployments, but a tad cynical to JFH that has been 5 years in genesis and faces challenges still.
I do believe that the RAF is fundamental to the fabric of the UK armed services but don't think that it's so precious that you earn your place by right and a few exclamation marks. Maybe, if the RAF is so progressive, it should appoint a non-single seat or even (heaven forbid) non-aircrew to the Chief's job. People who have been at the base of the RAF pyramid looking up through a structure that they have to understand to support the blokes at the top who, being the supported, in some cases doesn't need to 'waste' time with details.
Maybe then we'll have an RAF that puts different priority on the AT fleet, RAF Regiment, helicopter fleet et al vice trying to protect, for another few decades at least, manned combat aircraft for the Annual Reception flypast.
I haven't read the link by Col C because I'm sure it has an element of all the passion filled comments from tosh to fact, wind up to pragmatism.
But why is it do you think that so many light blue (or advocates thereof) end up with multiple exclamation mark replies on this thread when it seems so clear that the RAF is fundamental in it's own right? Why doesn't the text itself have enough weight behind it without needing to be endnoted with !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?
Why would CAS and other Air Ranks feel the need to explain the cenral role of the RAF, or land grab (do you like what I did there?) 'Space' into the Future Air Operational Concept (FAOC) and make it FASOC? As though space, about as tri-service as it gets, was there to be bagged to grow your shrinking empire and shore up a future where the next CAS may just not be from the single seat master race. After all, how could a multi Nav or even a Rock possibly have any idea about running an air force?
I did chuckle in a previous thread when a multiple exclam mentioned that the RAF was the most progressive and open to change. SASless made some interesting comments that were aways going to threaten the paranoid; those from another service who work in the 'J' environment with our light blue brothers will see elements of inertia that would back up his comments. Not everywhere and certainly not exclusive to the RAF; but the most progressive? Not at this moment in time.
Trying to relaunch the new expeditionary Air Force by rolling out a bunch of camo trucks that the media either thought were Army or just ignored is not progression, it's branding ++
Most journos saw through the rather obvious hijack of the JFH day at Cottesmore to push Typhoon and the Expeditionary Air Wing (EAW) concept. Valid in it's own right, the EAW is a good way to focus those non formed units and make them feel involved in future deployments, but a tad cynical to JFH that has been 5 years in genesis and faces challenges still.
I do believe that the RAF is fundamental to the fabric of the UK armed services but don't think that it's so precious that you earn your place by right and a few exclamation marks. Maybe, if the RAF is so progressive, it should appoint a non-single seat or even (heaven forbid) non-aircrew to the Chief's job. People who have been at the base of the RAF pyramid looking up through a structure that they have to understand to support the blokes at the top who, being the supported, in some cases doesn't need to 'waste' time with details.
Maybe then we'll have an RAF that puts different priority on the AT fleet, RAF Regiment, helicopter fleet et al vice trying to protect, for another few decades at least, manned combat aircraft for the Annual Reception flypast.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am slightly puzzled over the constant attacks on the FJ fleet and numbers of aircraft. Between GW1 and 2, there were continual deployments of FJ operating on Northern and Southern Watch for Iraq. During this time Serbia and Bosnia kicked off and the FI and UK commitments had still to be fulfilled. If memory serves me correct, we dropped more ordinance on Iraq than Kosovo during the same period of time.
My recollections of this time were that we struggled with the fleet size that we had then and training had to be curtailed to meet these tasks, particulalry while the GR MLU was going on.
There is a tendency to lock on to the flash points to justify a capaility. But over that decade the FJ fleet was flat out but it was everyday news and rarely made headlines in the papers. Carriers have their place but how many would we have needed to sustain these commitments for that duration. How effective would the RW been at these tasks. I am 100% in agreement that we need more helicopters but believe that across the board there are too few resources to meet our political ambitions. There needs to be readily available balanced force mix to meet the operational drivers. I recall the phrase of "punching above our weight", the boxing analogy is apt as we may be punching ourselves out.
regards
retard
My recollections of this time were that we struggled with the fleet size that we had then and training had to be curtailed to meet these tasks, particulalry while the GR MLU was going on.
There is a tendency to lock on to the flash points to justify a capaility. But over that decade the FJ fleet was flat out but it was everyday news and rarely made headlines in the papers. Carriers have their place but how many would we have needed to sustain these commitments for that duration. How effective would the RW been at these tasks. I am 100% in agreement that we need more helicopters but believe that across the board there are too few resources to meet our political ambitions. There needs to be readily available balanced force mix to meet the operational drivers. I recall the phrase of "punching above our weight", the boxing analogy is apt as we may be punching ourselves out.
regards
retard
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I am enjoying this. Tim Collins can 'needle' better than an Aussie and this latest dit has certainly got the rabble roused and filled his wallet.
ORAC has a point on how the RAF is perceived by self-loading luggage. As for Collins, he has been a fierce proponent of trained and motivated staff to achieve a mission. So I suggest he already knows that two of his quotes fail the test:
Why on earth would the RN need or want to take responsibility for either of those tasks? To follow Log Loader's view, why would RAF staff want to transfer? Very few light blue have seriously contemplated a life at sea.
Unless - of course - the RN stays clear of JPA.
Keep it coming - you are saving us from a Joint Exercise in the UK this weekend.
ORAC has a point on how the RAF is perceived by self-loading luggage. As for Collins, he has been a fierce proponent of trained and motivated staff to achieve a mission. So I suggest he already knows that two of his quotes fail the test:
Existing strike aircraft would initially come under the Royal Navy, with interim command going to newly-transferred RAF officers.
The Royal Navy would also run all the transport aircraft that go into harm's way, again retaining RAF expertise initially and then evolving its own specialist branch.
Unless - of course - the RN stays clear of JPA.
Keep it coming - you are saving us from a Joint Exercise in the UK this weekend.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The solution is obvious: the RAF Regiment subsumes the Army, the RAF Marine Branch rises again and absorbs the Navy, and the whole melange is renamed - let me see - the Royal Armed Forces. That will doubtless be abbreviated to - um - the RAF.
But I'm all for jointery, meaning that the Services that are best at any particular skills continue to carry them out for the common good.
But I'm all for jointery, meaning that the Services that are best at any particular skills continue to carry them out for the common good.
Last edited by Zoom; 13th May 2006 at 10:53.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring it on!
Loads of lovely redundancy money when we all chose to leave, rather than take a cut in status by joining the brown-jobs or fish-heads.
Sit back, watch them arse it up for six months, then reluctantly agree to rejoin the military for a large engagement fee, on the understanding that we can have our own service!
Seriously, though, surely it's the Navy that is running out of things to do. No fast-air, no proper carriers, no sea lanes to protect, no enemy surface or sub-surface threats. I accept that they should be allowed to keep th nuclear deterrent, but we can take on that job once Trident is replaced.
Loads of lovely redundancy money when we all chose to leave, rather than take a cut in status by joining the brown-jobs or fish-heads.
Sit back, watch them arse it up for six months, then reluctantly agree to rejoin the military for a large engagement fee, on the understanding that we can have our own service!
Seriously, though, surely it's the Navy that is running out of things to do. No fast-air, no proper carriers, no sea lanes to protect, no enemy surface or sub-surface threats. I accept that they should be allowed to keep th nuclear deterrent, but we can take on that job once Trident is replaced.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Originally Posted by passpartout
I accept that they should be allowed to keep th nuclear deterrent, but we can take on that job once Trident is replaced.
While we're at it poke the Russians with a sharp stick and see if they'll play Cold War again and if they say no theres always those sneaky French.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col collins has a point after all the RAF was set up as a result of the Smuts report (11 Aug 1917) that recomended the setting up of an air service to operate independantly of the army or navy.
Smuts was of the opinion that war could be waged from the air deep inside the enemys country and on a stratgic level, the culmination of this policy was the WW2 bomber offensive, but Since the RAf can no longer (since the withdrawal of the V bombers) wage this type of war it has out lived it's reason for being set up.
This is no doubt the point of veiw of the some at the top of the army and navy who have the eye to the shrinking defence budget and of course service interest, however times have moved on and no service can operate independantly of another and it is my opinion that they all have a valuble contribution to bring to the party. In fact the diversity of thought is a positive force as long as all services can keep an open mind to the ways of the others.
One has only to look towards Canada to see that one big defence force is not the best idea, three forces may cost a little more but the added value more than makes up for the (in defence terms) small extra cost.
Smuts was of the opinion that war could be waged from the air deep inside the enemys country and on a stratgic level, the culmination of this policy was the WW2 bomber offensive, but Since the RAf can no longer (since the withdrawal of the V bombers) wage this type of war it has out lived it's reason for being set up.
This is no doubt the point of veiw of the some at the top of the army and navy who have the eye to the shrinking defence budget and of course service interest, however times have moved on and no service can operate independantly of another and it is my opinion that they all have a valuble contribution to bring to the party. In fact the diversity of thought is a positive force as long as all services can keep an open mind to the ways of the others.
One has only to look towards Canada to see that one big defence force is not the best idea, three forces may cost a little more but the added value more than makes up for the (in defence terms) small extra cost.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Not the front line
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
One has only to look towards Canada to see that one big defence force is not the best idea, three forces may cost a little more but the added value more than makes up for the (in defence terms) small extra cost.
This is the same as the recurring "all aircrew should be NCOs" and "we should just have one service" comments. I don't believe we'll do anything as extreme as that until the French, Americans, Russians, Candadians, Germans, etc etc all decide to do similar.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up here, but not for long
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Always_broken_in_wilts
Has anyone else noticed how sensitive some people get as soon as you mention Apache
Wiz
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah bless. Our Tim's having a senior moment.
Give him 5 years and he'll be in a B&B on the south coast, sauntering around with a winchester cracked over one arm, heard to mutter, " Vermin, Fawlty!"
Another Bushmill's for the Colonel, dear!
Give him 5 years and he'll be in a B&B on the south coast, sauntering around with a winchester cracked over one arm, heard to mutter, " Vermin, Fawlty!"
Another Bushmill's for the Colonel, dear!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wherever
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one has been good for a Mess punch-up a long time - and it always produces the same amount of emotional twaddle on both sides. Anyone can see my background from my log-in but it seems to me, as one long retired but a substantial tax payer, that we're missing the point.
I don't suppose Col Collins is talking about losing capability - although a bit of refocus might not be a bad thing. What on earth is Eurofighter for? What he is principally talking about is command structure.
Aircraft don't win wars. They support people who win wars. Wars are won by a grunt standing on a piece of ground and saying "You can't have this, it's mine" - or even a ship occupying a stretch of strategic water. Nobody is downplaying the importance of aircraft in achieving that objective but why do we need yet another expensive cammand structure to achieve it? Let the people who require the support decide what it is and how it should be deployed. What bits of the RAF should go where is really detail.
I don't suppose Col Collins is talking about losing capability - although a bit of refocus might not be a bad thing. What on earth is Eurofighter for? What he is principally talking about is command structure.
Aircraft don't win wars. They support people who win wars. Wars are won by a grunt standing on a piece of ground and saying "You can't have this, it's mine" - or even a ship occupying a stretch of strategic water. Nobody is downplaying the importance of aircraft in achieving that objective but why do we need yet another expensive cammand structure to achieve it? Let the people who require the support decide what it is and how it should be deployed. What bits of the RAF should go where is really detail.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a shed
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe this gentleman has 'political ambitions'; he certainly shows potential to be a Defence Minister with this 'cost cutting' idea that's sure to win approval from treasury and No 10! Heaven preserve us all!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a great idea.
Nothing to do with capabilty or doctrine but just think how much dripping us more cultured types would no longer have to read on this forum.
Bring it on Tim
Nothing to do with capabilty or doctrine but just think how much dripping us more cultured types would no longer have to read on this forum.
Bring it on Tim
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just give us all redundancy as ridding a country of its political assylum causing regime does absolutely bugger all to entice those seeking safety to return.
Hmm, I suddenly feel much better after saying that.
M4 out
Hmm, I suddenly feel much better after saying that.
M4 out
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an ammused bystander
Chaps, a thought - if all people are interested in is redundancy then their commitment to 'serve Queen and Country' is looking a little dubious - might try the TGWU instead, the remainder would be welcomed into the Army I am sure. As for the Army taking on the minority of the remainder of UK forces rotary, it would probably please them that they get the larger vote considering that they hold a greater number of the craft than the other 2 put together, probably quite board of being dictated to by a minority. On a more factual note - the Army has more rotary instructors at the training establishments if that answers the question of who trains the pilots.
Not qualified to comment on the FJ world but the Ausie model seems to work??
Not qualified to comment on the FJ world but the Ausie model seems to work??
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My 2 cents:
All members of all forces have to do their jobs to win the war. From the lowliest barrier technician on the gate of the training school to the pilot of the super whizz-bang FGR-99.
Aircraft don't occupy land, boots do. Wearers of said boots get killed without air ops. If it's a long way away, we need the Navy to get there in sufficient numbers to do the job, see Falklands War.
Col Collins has had an opinion. Maybe - just maybe - an idea would be to put all the killers together (Army Teeth arms, RAF Strike, Navy Subs etc) in one Command, then all the support Arms in one Command. Why do we have RAF TCOs, Army Signals people, Navy Signals people all doing the same job, but different training and career paths?
I'm not saying phase out or merge any of the services, but why not command them in a joined up way? Why do the Army and RN have an air arms at all, when we have an entire service devoted to the air? Why not just post the relevant bits of an enlarged Air Force to the Army and Navy. Same with RAF Regt. What do they do the Army does not? Why does the RLC have any maritime trades/vessels? There's the whole f***ing Navy 20 miles away. Why do we need RAF and Navy PTIs when the Army has a whole Corps of them?
Them-n-us-itis helps noone.
All members of all forces have to do their jobs to win the war. From the lowliest barrier technician on the gate of the training school to the pilot of the super whizz-bang FGR-99.
Aircraft don't occupy land, boots do. Wearers of said boots get killed without air ops. If it's a long way away, we need the Navy to get there in sufficient numbers to do the job, see Falklands War.
Col Collins has had an opinion. Maybe - just maybe - an idea would be to put all the killers together (Army Teeth arms, RAF Strike, Navy Subs etc) in one Command, then all the support Arms in one Command. Why do we have RAF TCOs, Army Signals people, Navy Signals people all doing the same job, but different training and career paths?
I'm not saying phase out or merge any of the services, but why not command them in a joined up way? Why do the Army and RN have an air arms at all, when we have an entire service devoted to the air? Why not just post the relevant bits of an enlarged Air Force to the Army and Navy. Same with RAF Regt. What do they do the Army does not? Why does the RLC have any maritime trades/vessels? There's the whole f***ing Navy 20 miles away. Why do we need RAF and Navy PTIs when the Army has a whole Corps of them?
Them-n-us-itis helps noone.