Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting thread.
Just a couple of points. The RAF, as stated, already lend the AAC and FAA techies because both of them have an 'issue' recruiting them. Because 'we' see the bigger picture we accept that our chaps will have to work harder to cover this lending program. Joint working in a one way direction. Now look at some of the tri-service establishments and see if every Army post is filled or do we find a large gap between incumbents?
Secondly, have you read the latest leaflet out of the AAC? The one where it states that cetain trades will not fly in their last year of service as a manning control measure?
Thirdly, the RAF DO appear to test out all of the latest good(?) ideas - LEAN etc - to see if we can continually improve and adapt rapidly. I would love to see the AAC look at the LEAN experience - it just simply wouldn't exist afterwards. Lets face it, the reason it has so many issues to sort out is BECAUSE it is part of the wider Army and not an independant Service. What do I mean? Its personnel have to compete with the wider Army and can not compete within their own specialisation so, you spend a massive amount training someone so that they can move on rapidly to go and be the adjt within a Regt. Yes, you do rely on a backbone of NCO's - which you state have to leave at 40 [just when they are really good at their job[. Yes, do realise you are keeping some in on continuance but I refer you to the latest dit circulating the streets mentioned above.
Just don't get me started on JPA. Why can't I have my pay slip sent home ---- becuase the Army don't at the moment! I rest my case over this entire thread. If it isn't done your way it will not happen in the joint arena. Just because your big doesn't make you right. How to deal with a bully, lesson one! Stop paying any attention to what he says so that he does not get a reaction. Following that advice I suggest we do not post again on this subject!
Just a couple of points. The RAF, as stated, already lend the AAC and FAA techies because both of them have an 'issue' recruiting them. Because 'we' see the bigger picture we accept that our chaps will have to work harder to cover this lending program. Joint working in a one way direction. Now look at some of the tri-service establishments and see if every Army post is filled or do we find a large gap between incumbents?
Secondly, have you read the latest leaflet out of the AAC? The one where it states that cetain trades will not fly in their last year of service as a manning control measure?
Thirdly, the RAF DO appear to test out all of the latest good(?) ideas - LEAN etc - to see if we can continually improve and adapt rapidly. I would love to see the AAC look at the LEAN experience - it just simply wouldn't exist afterwards. Lets face it, the reason it has so many issues to sort out is BECAUSE it is part of the wider Army and not an independant Service. What do I mean? Its personnel have to compete with the wider Army and can not compete within their own specialisation so, you spend a massive amount training someone so that they can move on rapidly to go and be the adjt within a Regt. Yes, you do rely on a backbone of NCO's - which you state have to leave at 40 [just when they are really good at their job[. Yes, do realise you are keeping some in on continuance but I refer you to the latest dit circulating the streets mentioned above.
Just don't get me started on JPA. Why can't I have my pay slip sent home ---- becuase the Army don't at the moment! I rest my case over this entire thread. If it isn't done your way it will not happen in the joint arena. Just because your big doesn't make you right. How to deal with a bully, lesson one! Stop paying any attention to what he says so that he does not get a reaction. Following that advice I suggest we do not post again on this subject!
Tightgit
Almost done
Do that then, I don't care. 
I was just after a bite, it was so obvious I didn't think anyone would go for it! 
However, you kindly obliged
(Note this smiley!)
Get rid of the AAC and the FAA then and amalgamate it in to the RAF, why do we have an Army/Navy flying club still then?
The RAF is the Flying branch of the Services why do we still allow the other 2 services to operate differently to us, imagine how much money, time and discussion would have been saved if we had taken over ALL military flying, no JPA 100A-01, no JHC, no JFH how much would that have saved the taxpayer?
The RAF is the Flying branch of the Services why do we still allow the other 2 services to operate differently to us, imagine how much money, time and discussion would have been saved if we had taken over ALL military flying, no JPA 100A-01, no JHC, no JFH how much would that have saved the taxpayer?
I was just after a bite, it was so obvious I didn't think anyone would go for it! However, you kindly obliged (Note this smiley!)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be slightly fair on him, he is not saying the RAF are rubbish and must go; simply that - thanks to government idiots - some radical thinking such as this could be the only way to retain the skills in defence as a whole.
I applaud Collins for pointing out what ill-considered government cuts have forced people to think - the inconceivable. Comments such as his will not ensure the RAF's demise, rather reconsideration of those top Civil Servants who are unable to manage reorganisation, as the outrage as shown on this thread will ultimately ensure that no such radical cuts occur to the RAF.
I believe it is supposed to provoke that thought rather than attack the RAF per se.
I applaud Collins for pointing out what ill-considered government cuts have forced people to think - the inconceivable. Comments such as his will not ensure the RAF's demise, rather reconsideration of those top Civil Servants who are unable to manage reorganisation, as the outrage as shown on this thread will ultimately ensure that no such radical cuts occur to the RAF.I believe it is supposed to provoke that thought rather than attack the RAF per se.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an excellent demonstration of inter-service rivalry this thread has turned into. Some of the Col's comments are quite astute, but his overall solution is flawed.
As argued in this thread; Is it the RAF fleet of AT taking all this equipment to the right place at the right time, or is it a fleet of chartered strategic AT and heavy lift air companies? Actually, it is the large sea bridge, once again, chartered, carrying the majority of the effort. Does that reinforce the requirement for a Navy? Offensive wise, they contribute only limited Naval Gunfire Support or a small pod of Harriers. To be effective with either, the surface fleet needs to be so close to shore that the 'enemy' could throw stones at them! The Navy contribution is sub-surface, both conventionally and non-conventionally, but we know how their future is being discussed in the House.
Whether land is taken, secured or defended by any particular service is academic. The example shown in this thread is that services wish to 'own' the glory, secure their place in MOD and thus the funding. The overall effect - that modern doctrine banded about in all services could be the nations' defence forces' saviour if, once again, the services free themselves from the idea of 'owning' the effect or being recognised as playing the most significant part in it.
At the moment, we are not in a 'strike' conflict. Deep interdiction is not being employed, neither are airborne or amphibious assaults both of which requiring Joint operations. We are in danger of fighting the last war.
There is a place for a more Joint environment and there examples of it working reasonably well. However, as the in-fighting continues the Government can sit and pick off resources as we ourselves point out each others' perceived excessive and ineffective capabilities.
As argued in this thread; Is it the RAF fleet of AT taking all this equipment to the right place at the right time, or is it a fleet of chartered strategic AT and heavy lift air companies? Actually, it is the large sea bridge, once again, chartered, carrying the majority of the effort. Does that reinforce the requirement for a Navy? Offensive wise, they contribute only limited Naval Gunfire Support or a small pod of Harriers. To be effective with either, the surface fleet needs to be so close to shore that the 'enemy' could throw stones at them! The Navy contribution is sub-surface, both conventionally and non-conventionally, but we know how their future is being discussed in the House.
Whether land is taken, secured or defended by any particular service is academic. The example shown in this thread is that services wish to 'own' the glory, secure their place in MOD and thus the funding. The overall effect - that modern doctrine banded about in all services could be the nations' defence forces' saviour if, once again, the services free themselves from the idea of 'owning' the effect or being recognised as playing the most significant part in it.
At the moment, we are not in a 'strike' conflict. Deep interdiction is not being employed, neither are airborne or amphibious assaults both of which requiring Joint operations. We are in danger of fighting the last war.
There is a place for a more Joint environment and there examples of it working reasonably well. However, as the in-fighting continues the Government can sit and pick off resources as we ourselves point out each others' perceived excessive and ineffective capabilities.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my tuppence worth:
1. I am very bored with the "wars are won by grunts standing on ground" mantra. Nothing demonstrates an outdated, cold war (actually pre-cold war really) state of mind than this statement. GET WITH THE NOW. We are no longer living in the colonial era where we are trying to expand the Empire. We are merely a tool of the ruling political party.
Sometimes their foreign policy can be achieved by sailing a boat up to a country, sometimes by bombing someone, sometimes by sending in troops. Sometimes by a combination of all 3. The army is not the be all and end all of military power. As has been pointed out the army is occupying land in Iraq. How's that going for you?
2. "Typhoon cold war weapon blah blah blah......". Typhoon was designed in the cold war, however it is (will be!) a massively flexible platform, able to apply force over a huge area, very rapidly. If the world changes and you need a weapon to go THUD rather than BANG then no probs - strap it on. Want to target seaborne or land targets, big and small? OK. Which brings me on to the mighty MBT. If we really want an example of an outdated cold war weapon then wheel in Challenger II (can you wheel in something on tracks?) It requires a massive logistics train, takes forever to deploy anywhere and once its there has an area of effect of a few kilometres with an extremely limited choice of weapons.
Now I'm not saying get rid of them all - because flexibility and core skills are important, but the army should be trading some in for high quality APCs. I think IEDs are more of a current threat than the soviet hordes coming over the horizon (which btw, the air force will take care of anyway!
)
Mobility, Flexibility, Firepower, Gentlemen!
3. As many have pointed out already, the RAF is very open to Jointery - its just a pity that the army isnt. I was amazed when I went to JSCSC and while the RAF and RN were talking about joint ops, the way ahead etc, the army seemed to spend most of their time drawing diagrams of how to take machine gun nests and similar! Modern army officers are, in my experience, generally very narrow-minded, outdated and inflexible.
1. I am very bored with the "wars are won by grunts standing on ground" mantra. Nothing demonstrates an outdated, cold war (actually pre-cold war really) state of mind than this statement. GET WITH THE NOW. We are no longer living in the colonial era where we are trying to expand the Empire. We are merely a tool of the ruling political party.
Sometimes their foreign policy can be achieved by sailing a boat up to a country, sometimes by bombing someone, sometimes by sending in troops. Sometimes by a combination of all 3. The army is not the be all and end all of military power. As has been pointed out the army is occupying land in Iraq. How's that going for you?
2. "Typhoon cold war weapon blah blah blah......". Typhoon was designed in the cold war, however it is (will be!) a massively flexible platform, able to apply force over a huge area, very rapidly. If the world changes and you need a weapon to go THUD rather than BANG then no probs - strap it on. Want to target seaborne or land targets, big and small? OK. Which brings me on to the mighty MBT. If we really want an example of an outdated cold war weapon then wheel in Challenger II (can you wheel in something on tracks?) It requires a massive logistics train, takes forever to deploy anywhere and once its there has an area of effect of a few kilometres with an extremely limited choice of weapons.
Now I'm not saying get rid of them all - because flexibility and core skills are important, but the army should be trading some in for high quality APCs. I think IEDs are more of a current threat than the soviet hordes coming over the horizon (which btw, the air force will take care of anyway!
)Mobility, Flexibility, Firepower, Gentlemen!
3. As many have pointed out already, the RAF is very open to Jointery - its just a pity that the army isnt. I was amazed when I went to JSCSC and while the RAF and RN were talking about joint ops, the way ahead etc, the army seemed to spend most of their time drawing diagrams of how to take machine gun nests and similar! Modern army officers are, in my experience, generally very narrow-minded, outdated and inflexible.
There is certainly a case for looking at their force structure, particularly for rotorheads and fast jet. There are some things that only the RAF can do - long range heavy transport and tanking and some of the high-end ISTAR bits. You could never do them any other way, so get them some more heavy airlift and FSTA and let them crack on.
On the r/w front, the situation is less clear. The CHF & TWA (as was) seem to be able to generate large numbers of aircraft / sorties from one base and three and a bit squadrons, flying very old a/c. Not quite the same from Benson & Odiham - they probably manage the sorties, but with a lot more manpower. At the end of the day, they support and are tasked by troops - why not put them there.
More controversially, do we need a land-based fast jet force that cannot (in the main) deploy aboard ship? The capability argument is largely due to our legacy CVS and STOVL fleets - the same did not apply in the 70s when Crab Air was potentially highly deployable (Phantoms & Buccs anyone?). It certainly wouldn't apply against a US CVW with F14/E2/F18 (preferably A6) - would you back a bunch of Tornados (F3 and GR4) against that? The argument that only the RAF can defend the UK is daft - we've just retired the best radar/missile combo from the RN. If the RN flew F14 or the like, no-one would raise the issue.
Their final argument tends to be that they can get to theatre quickest. Problem is, all their F34 (should be F44) and munitions come by sea, unless they are fortunate enough to get full HNS (it's not just runways required). With a carrier, it all comes with you (and the RFA).
Problem is that we've once again missed the boat as Typhoon is too late to cancel. There will be 2 RN squadrons (plus up to two RAF) with F-35 that can go to sea, from a total of ~20 squadrons. If we're still putting people in fast jets in twenty years, we should be looking to buy high-performance aircraft that can fly off ships and form ~12-15 squadrons of em total. If the RAF don't want to go to sea occasionally then tough, re-badge them. It would also give the WAFU fraternity some sort of sustained break between ops/deployments (ditto CHF who are even busier). Shut down some of the RAF stations and you might also save some money.
On the r/w front, the situation is less clear. The CHF & TWA (as was) seem to be able to generate large numbers of aircraft / sorties from one base and three and a bit squadrons, flying very old a/c. Not quite the same from Benson & Odiham - they probably manage the sorties, but with a lot more manpower. At the end of the day, they support and are tasked by troops - why not put them there.
More controversially, do we need a land-based fast jet force that cannot (in the main) deploy aboard ship? The capability argument is largely due to our legacy CVS and STOVL fleets - the same did not apply in the 70s when Crab Air was potentially highly deployable (Phantoms & Buccs anyone?). It certainly wouldn't apply against a US CVW with F14/E2/F18 (preferably A6) - would you back a bunch of Tornados (F3 and GR4) against that? The argument that only the RAF can defend the UK is daft - we've just retired the best radar/missile combo from the RN. If the RN flew F14 or the like, no-one would raise the issue.
Their final argument tends to be that they can get to theatre quickest. Problem is, all their F34 (should be F44) and munitions come by sea, unless they are fortunate enough to get full HNS (it's not just runways required). With a carrier, it all comes with you (and the RFA).
Problem is that we've once again missed the boat as Typhoon is too late to cancel. There will be 2 RN squadrons (plus up to two RAF) with F-35 that can go to sea, from a total of ~20 squadrons. If we're still putting people in fast jets in twenty years, we should be looking to buy high-performance aircraft that can fly off ships and form ~12-15 squadrons of em total. If the RAF don't want to go to sea occasionally then tough, re-badge them. It would also give the WAFU fraternity some sort of sustained break between ops/deployments (ditto CHF who are even busier). Shut down some of the RAF stations and you might also save some money.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collins seems to justify his argument with 4 fairly whacky statements:
1. 'A conventional attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies just do not have the reach.'
Nobody has yet noted that probably the prime role of the RAF is the defence of the UK mainland in the event of an airborne attack. Just because we no longer have a Cold War does not mean that we no longer have enemies who might one day decide to have a pop at us. And if those enemies don't have the reach right now, it probably won't take much for them to adopt the appropriate 'force multiplier' solution to gain it and the will to use it. So we have to be prepared. Collins has written off the whole Air Defence network with over 60 years of irreplaceable experience in a single, ill-thought-out sentence. Can you just imagine how long it would take to rebuild such a network if the political picture changed for the worse and we no longer had a national defence system? I don't wish to harp on about past glories but the lesson of the Battle of Britain is quite clear: you need more than an Army or a Navy to defend one's soil against air attack, no matter how much land a soldier can hold. AD of the UK from a boat - or a tank???
2. 'The defence of the UK now centres on defending our interests overseas.'
Not by attacking the wrong people it doesn't.
3. 'Naturally the servicemen and women who make up the RAF would need to be either re-assigned to the other services or given a reasonable redundancy package.'
This from a man whose Service is built on the perceived merits of regional recruiting. 'Recruit them from down the road and keep them in the same outfit for ever.'
4. 'We cannot back out of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan with honour.'
So back out with dishonour. There's no shame in admitting one's mistakes and attempting to do better next time. Or is the Army still stuck in the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' era? "Sorry, chaps, wrong valley, but what would they say at the club if we turned back."
Yes, Tim, there is definitely need for improvement and probably some change, but certainly not change on the scale that you propose. Come up with some sensible suggestions and I might listen (because you're not a bad bloke normally - and I liked your book, mostly). If you had done so in the first place this thread would barely have lasted one page.
(Just seen Nose Gunner - good - and NaB - cor blimey - so my arguments still stand.)
1. 'A conventional attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies just do not have the reach.'
Nobody has yet noted that probably the prime role of the RAF is the defence of the UK mainland in the event of an airborne attack. Just because we no longer have a Cold War does not mean that we no longer have enemies who might one day decide to have a pop at us. And if those enemies don't have the reach right now, it probably won't take much for them to adopt the appropriate 'force multiplier' solution to gain it and the will to use it. So we have to be prepared. Collins has written off the whole Air Defence network with over 60 years of irreplaceable experience in a single, ill-thought-out sentence. Can you just imagine how long it would take to rebuild such a network if the political picture changed for the worse and we no longer had a national defence system? I don't wish to harp on about past glories but the lesson of the Battle of Britain is quite clear: you need more than an Army or a Navy to defend one's soil against air attack, no matter how much land a soldier can hold. AD of the UK from a boat - or a tank???
2. 'The defence of the UK now centres on defending our interests overseas.'
Not by attacking the wrong people it doesn't.
3. 'Naturally the servicemen and women who make up the RAF would need to be either re-assigned to the other services or given a reasonable redundancy package.'
This from a man whose Service is built on the perceived merits of regional recruiting. 'Recruit them from down the road and keep them in the same outfit for ever.'
4. 'We cannot back out of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan with honour.'
So back out with dishonour. There's no shame in admitting one's mistakes and attempting to do better next time. Or is the Army still stuck in the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' era? "Sorry, chaps, wrong valley, but what would they say at the club if we turned back."
Yes, Tim, there is definitely need for improvement and probably some change, but certainly not change on the scale that you propose. Come up with some sensible suggestions and I might listen (because you're not a bad bloke normally - and I liked your book, mostly). If you had done so in the first place this thread would barely have lasted one page.
(Just seen Nose Gunner - good - and NaB - cor blimey - so my arguments still stand.)
Last edited by Zoom; 14th May 2006 at 12:31.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a boffin
Stop being so parochial.
We need carrier based power projection - but we also need land based. Carriers cant go everywhere, are vulnerable and take time to get places.
You are correct that for large scale ops you need to move munitions by sea - but for short term air-ground effects and even medium term air defence you can get sufficient by air.
I would also argue with - "The argument that only the RAF can defend the UK is daft - we've just retired the best radar/missile combo from the RN". The RAF DO defend the UK, every minute of every day. When the SHar was needed for that role post 9/11, what was the reply? It was "Sorry we cant do that"
Also I think you'll find that "crab air" is far more deployable than it ever was in the good old phantom/bucc days.
Stop being so parochial.
We need carrier based power projection - but we also need land based. Carriers cant go everywhere, are vulnerable and take time to get places.
You are correct that for large scale ops you need to move munitions by sea - but for short term air-ground effects and even medium term air defence you can get sufficient by air.
I would also argue with - "The argument that only the RAF can defend the UK is daft - we've just retired the best radar/missile combo from the RN". The RAF DO defend the UK, every minute of every day. When the SHar was needed for that role post 9/11, what was the reply? It was "Sorry we cant do that"
Also I think you'll find that "crab air" is far more deployable than it ever was in the good old phantom/bucc days.
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a Beaut of a State
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seen from the perspective of 13 years away from the RAF and now living in a different country it seems that, whilst keeping us expats extremely proud, UK Inc is punching above its weight. Australia has a grand total of 50 odd thousand armed services personnel. I left the RAF in the days of 100,000 people. Should the UK be supporting all these external threats? Are they really a threat to the UK? Should someone else be dealing with them? If the answer is that the UK should be in there then the government needs to put in the resources to match the commitments. Anything else leads to this kind of situation where the 3 services start feeding on each other to try and get a slice of the ever-dwindling cake.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recruitment and retention difficulties would worsen if the RAF disappeared. Let me think, join the Army or use that expensive training in a cushty job in civvy street? With a fat redundancy wedge to boot. To pinch a phrase, the result, a foregone conclusion. No amount of overseas recruiting would offset that problem for the Army.
Originally Posted by junglyAEO
Sorry, couldn't let that one go. The reason a number of RAF SACs are being employed by the RN and AAC is that the RAF over recruited them (for the overpriced, delayed Eurowhiteelephant) and now has no work for them and nowhere for them to live. Even worse, they're now going to make them redundant rather than offering them the chance to transfer across - how joined up is that?
Recruiting for the FAA is as strong as ever, ta very much.
jungly
Recruiting for the FAA is as strong as ever, ta very much.
jungly
The Typhoon is not an overpriced white elephant and only someone with no or limited headline led knowledge of the programme would be able to say that. I suggest you go and spend sometime with the guys that ARE flying the Typhoon and ask them of their views on the jet and its capability!! And if you believe that the CVFs will come in on time and on budget you too are living in cloud cuckoo land.Redundancies are forced on the RAF by the government. If an individual wishes to "transfer" then that is up to the individual, it is not a decision for the RAF. Anyone who wishes to tranfer from one service to another has to apply to that service - no service manages a transfer! As it happens I can't see many highly trained light blue techies wanting to transfer to the dark blue or green, they are smarter than that!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
The point that Jungly was making is that the reason the SACs are available is that they were recruited for Typhoon, MRA4 etc but these a/c are years late and there is nowhere to place the people. This situation coincided with a shortage of AEs in the RN (due to a stop on recruiting in the 90's to save money - good idea that!!) and some clever soul put 2 and 2 together.
Re Tim Collins article. What he was really saying is that Defence needs to lose a major capability or be funded more. There is no doubt that Typhoon, MRA4, Astute etc are leeching money from Defence. Astute is back on track, MRA4 is still years away and we are buying far too many Typhoon. The trick will be to scrap Tranch 1 and 2 asap and just keep the Tranch 3 a/c (ie the ones that will be permitted to enter a combat zone). In comparison to the above CVF is cheap, on track and price (just no order yet!) and meets the "expeditionary" part of SDR (unlike Typhoon - needs a long runway).
The point that Jungly was making is that the reason the SACs are available is that they were recruited for Typhoon, MRA4 etc but these a/c are years late and there is nowhere to place the people. This situation coincided with a shortage of AEs in the RN (due to a stop on recruiting in the 90's to save money - good idea that!!) and some clever soul put 2 and 2 together.
Re Tim Collins article. What he was really saying is that Defence needs to lose a major capability or be funded more. There is no doubt that Typhoon, MRA4, Astute etc are leeching money from Defence. Astute is back on track, MRA4 is still years away and we are buying far too many Typhoon. The trick will be to scrap Tranch 1 and 2 asap and just keep the Tranch 3 a/c (ie the ones that will be permitted to enter a combat zone). In comparison to the above CVF is cheap, on track and price (just no order yet!) and meets the "expeditionary" part of SDR (unlike Typhoon - needs a long runway).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark - agree with your general gist but it will be tranche 3 that gets stopped (if anyone can work out how without throwing billions away). Tranches 1 and 2 are coming and will all be operating in a combat zone with plenty to offer - soon (!!??!!). And it doesnt need a long runway - have you seen it take off? Although longer than a carrier can provide!
Also, it is a little unfair to compare Typhoon with a programme that is still on the drawing board - not even started building yet.
Also, it is a little unfair to compare Typhoon with a programme that is still on the drawing board - not even started building yet.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not again!
This is an old battle that always comes up whenever money is scarce. I first heard it mooted in 1976 when there was a serious push to change blue to brown.
Personally I didn't care for the idea then and I don't now. However for those of you itching to get out but can't, it would be a fantastic idea from the view that you can't be forced into the Army or Navy upon RAF disbandment. I seem to recall that was one of the main reasons why the 1976 study found against it!
Personally I didn't care for the idea then and I don't now. However for those of you itching to get out but can't, it would be a fantastic idea from the view that you can't be forced into the Army or Navy upon RAF disbandment. I seem to recall that was one of the main reasons why the 1976 study found against it!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No RAF? But what would the 5* hotel trade do without 'em???!!!
The Canadians seem to manage with a combined defence force. I think it could be done but when you streamline without reducing your committments then it's more time away, less serviceability etc etc. Hard to see the long-term working out with that plan.
Fun to see the light-blue squirm though. If the RAF were truly joint they'd be coming up with a better proposal for their own demise!
Massive amount of respect for Col C but not really a properly thought out plan. Hey! That sounds familiar.....
SB
The Canadians seem to manage with a combined defence force. I think it could be done but when you streamline without reducing your committments then it's more time away, less serviceability etc etc. Hard to see the long-term working out with that plan.
Fun to see the light-blue squirm though. If the RAF were truly joint they'd be coming up with a better proposal for their own demise!
Massive amount of respect for Col C but not really a properly thought out plan. Hey! That sounds familiar.....
SB
What dedicated Close Air Support aircraft are in the RAF...how many squadrons dedicated to dropping heavy noise making things on the bad guys when summoned by the Infantry/Armor troopies on the ground staring the Baddies in the eye?
What size standing force stands ready for deployment to the furtherest reach of the Realm within three hours call? How many squadrons in the RAF can be dispatched to support that force. (And show up!)
Have the British Armed Forces been downsized to the point they are no longer a viable fighting force if confronted with a Conventional War?
If you don't have the manpower and equipment to match your committment then you are facing a daunting task to win. Or is it the Neddies have determined what the "real" tasking might be and are cutting costs to meet those much more limited taskings? Are you really becoming just a home defense force and are giving up force projection capability globally and taking up the home defence posture without admitting it?
What size standing force stands ready for deployment to the furtherest reach of the Realm within three hours call? How many squadrons in the RAF can be dispatched to support that force. (And show up!)
Have the British Armed Forces been downsized to the point they are no longer a viable fighting force if confronted with a Conventional War?
If you don't have the manpower and equipment to match your committment then you are facing a daunting task to win. Or is it the Neddies have determined what the "real" tasking might be and are cutting costs to meet those much more limited taskings? Are you really becoming just a home defense force and are giving up force projection capability globally and taking up the home defence posture without admitting it?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Of course there is another solution.
Merge the Army into the RM - Booties already acknowledged as a world-class fighting-force , so no dilution there. Huge savings by only procurring one colour of beret.
Merge RAF into FAA. FAA has had and capably handled fighter, attack, maritime and SH roles, so taking on AT/AAR should not be too much of a learning curve.
Problem solved, Sir. Permission to carry on, please.
Merge the Army into the RM - Booties already acknowledged as a world-class fighting-force , so no dilution there. Huge savings by only procurring one colour of beret.
Merge RAF into FAA. FAA has had and capably handled fighter, attack, maritime and SH roles, so taking on AT/AAR should not be too much of a learning curve.
Problem solved, Sir. Permission to carry on, please.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
taking on AT/AAR should not be too much of a learning curve.
The RAF is an entire service that is 'air-focussed' - the Army are incapable of operating an effective air force because of their 'Soldiers First' philosophy. This serves their role very well, but will not serve air power. The RN thinks that ships are the be-all and end-all, and that everything can be launched off carriers - an airfield that can sink! Ships are slow and vulnerable (in relative terms) so do not fit very well into the modern, rapid acting 'expeditionary' environment. They are, however, very useful when you need to grandstand and project power (Gunboat diplomacy) - assuming that the 'enemy' have no modern air assetts capable of sinking them in minutes.
Forgive the possible naivety here, but exactly what was / is the RNs contribution in the face of a land-locked conflict such as Afghanistan? Ships are only good if you have water to sail them on, after all!
Let's also not forget that the RAF and RN do not merely support the great British squaddie on the sidelines - the SH and AT forces are largely dedicated to the support of land (and sea) based operations, but the FJ fleet is a fighting force in its own right that can be decisive (think Kosovo) - and the Army cannot fight and win sea battles (although the RAF could, in alot of cicumstances - a single Nimrod can carry enough armament to sink an entire carrier group in minutes). And there are few who can rival the capabilities of the RM.
In terms of the Venerable Irishman's comments, I have a much better suggestion: Let's leave the Flying to the RAF (and fund it properly), the sailing to the RN (and fund it properly) and the Soldiering to the Army (and fund it properly). We all do what we do they way we do it because we have all learned, within our own theatres of expertise, over a long time, that that is the BEST way to do it (given the available resources).
Sorry Toto....this ain't Kansas!
a single Nimrod can carry enough armament to sink an entire carrier group in minutes).
You reckon that Comet with a different name might actually launch before living up to its precessor's name?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Gentlemen, I've hooked one!
Inquisitor - since you are new here, or certainly new to posting here, perhaps you should noted that my post was intended to be humourous.
It makes as much sense to roll the Army and the RAF into the RN as it does to break up the RAF, but maybe you didn't get my sense of irony.
Inquisitor - since you are new here, or certainly new to posting here, perhaps you should noted that my post was intended to be humourous.
It makes as much sense to roll the Army and the RAF into the RN as it does to break up the RAF, but maybe you didn't get my sense of irony.